On the 125th anniversary of Science magazine, its editors decided to publish the list of 125 questions science has not yet solved: what is the universe made of, why do we dream, what is the origin of flowers and what is the connection between the body and the mind?
In a special collection of articles published in the July 1, 2005 issue of the journal Science and on its websites, the magazine celebrates 125 years of its existence by looking ahead - at the most challenging puzzles and questions facing the scientists of our time.
These 125 questions will be at the center of scientific investigation for the next quarter of a century on issues such as the transfer of genetic knowledge versus the environment will give an answer to some of the classic scientific articles that influenced the study of the field of cell signals. The Science of Aging is looking at improvements to some of the questions aging researchers have faced. The next wave of scientific questions awaits the generation of young scientists who are currently building their careers trying to answer the questions that the previous generations left behind.
Out of the 125 published mysteries, the editors pointed to 25 mysteries that "have a chance to be solved, or at least it is known how to approach their solution, in the next 25 years". As a service to the public, we bring the ten most important questions according to the rating of the editors of Science magazine:
What is the universe made of?
Separate measurements of a variety of phenomena indicate that matter makes up only 30% of the contents of the universe (about 5% of which is visible matter and the rest is dark matter). The other 70 percent is a mysterious force that opposes gravity that we call "dark energy". The nature of that dark energy is debated and is one of the most important open issues facing science.
What is the biological basis of cognition?
Scientific interest in this old and elusive question seems to be gaining momentum. So far, however, although many theories have been developed, there is still not enough hard data to answer this question.
Another mystery that scientists hope to make progress in solving in the coming years, according to the journal, is the division of roles between the body and the mind, between biology and consciousness. In the 17th century, the French thinker, Rene Descartes, declared that the body and the mind are completely separate from each other. Contemporary biologists have replaced the "soul" with concepts such as mind, thought or consciousness, and in their view, everything that happens in our consciousness stems from physiological, chemical and molecular processes that take place in the brain. Identifying these processes is at the center of research in the fields of neurology and psychology.
Why do humans have so few genes?
At the end of the 90s, with the decoding of the human genome, the biologists - who expected to discover a sequence of about 100 thousand genes - were surprised to discover that the human genome contains only about 25 thousand genes. The discovery that humans have fewer genes than was estimated before the completion of the Human Genome Project has led to a growing recognition that our genomes and those of other mammals are much more flexible and the relationships between genes are more complex than we imagined until now.
To what extent is genetic variation related to personal health?
The genetic diversity is linked to the increased risk of diseases such as Alzheimer's or breast cancer, and this creates hope that personalized medicine could be effective. However, finding the DNA responsible for this, if DNA is indeed responsible for this - and turning this knowledge into a genetic experiment that could give doctors a useful tool for diagnosis, this field remains a challenge for future scientists.
Will the laws of physics be unified?
No one has been able to find a convincing way to build a single theory that includes all the particles, the strong force and the electromagnetic force, as well as gravity into one big package. However, the physicists managed to obtain some clues, perhaps the most promising is the superstring theory.
How long can the lifespan of humans be extended?
The lifespan of creatures from yeast to mice and consequences of lifespan trends in humans have convinced many scientists that humans can routinely live to the age of 100-110. Others believe that we are still far from the limit.
What is the mechanism that controls the regeneration of organs?
Regenerative medicine - rebuilding organs and tissues can be the 21st century equivalent of the discovery of antibiotics in the 20th century. Before this can happen, researchers must understand the signals that control regeneration.
How can a skin cell become a nerve cell?
Scientists have only begun to understand how interactions and cues guide the cell toward its final destination. Understanding how the approximately 25 human genes work together to create tissues and "tweak" the readiness to direct the development of the undeveloped cell - will continue to occupy researchers for generations.
How can one somatic cell become a whole plant?
Some plants can form new seeds from a single somatic cell, although plant scientists understand very little about the factors that control the process. The search for the answer may shed light on the question of how a dead cell manages to regenerate itself during development and how plants manage to maintain this flexibility.
How does the Earth's interior work?
40 years of exploring the interior of the Earth with the help of controversial seismic devices, have resulted in a picture of the complexity of the internal engine of the Earth without solving the question of how it works. More of the same and a great deal of patience may help us take apart the complex planetary machine and find how it works.
Are we alone in the universe?
Alone, in all space? unlikely. The big question is, will we have the necessary resources and technology to go out and meet the intelligent beings. With a little luck, this may happen in the next 25 years.
Among other questions, how did life develop on Earth? (a question that, because science has no proven answer to it but only a few theories, becomes the counter tool of the opponents of evolution) Why do we sleep? And why do we dream? How is our personality shaped? Is our universe the only one or are there parallel universes?
In the editorial accompanying the project, editors Donald Kennedy and Colin Norman explain: "We decided to ask the members of the senior editorial board of Science, which includes all the editors who check the scientific articles before their publication, as well as all the writers and editors in the magazine, to suggest the points where there is still a gap in human knowledge . The basic rule was: the scientists should give a good guess and answer the questions that will be solved in the next 25 years, or at least should know how to try to solve them. We intended to take 25 of these propositions and turn them into a survey of the big questions facing science. However, when the group of editors and reporters sat down to choose these questions, we realized that 25 questions simply would not convey the wide variety of research in these fields that are at the forefront of science, so we finally ended up with 125 questions, so that this would be appropriate for the 125th birthday celebration. of the magazine.
The question in the 25th place is an important question in itself: will Malthus continue to be wrong. The most urgent question, the magazine's people answer, is whether we can maintain the current standard of living and also ensure food for all those in need. How can humans coexist on the planet in a way that preserves genetic diversity?
In the area of the earth's population, the English priest Thomas Malthus is quoted, who as early as the end of the 18th century claimed that disasters such as famine, wars and diseases would limit and regulate population growth. Two centuries after Malthus, the number of inhabitants of the earth is six times greater. And yet, according to the magazine, the questions remain: how will the ecosystem be preserved in view of the increased consumption of natural resources - water, trees and fuel? Will the air pollution created by consumer culture eventually lead to its extinction? And what will happen to the fate of humanity if the population growth forecast is realized - which is expected to reach ten billion people in the year 2100?
The journal's news editor, Dr. Colin Norman, explained: "We chose 25 of the 125 questions based on a number of criteria: how basic these questions are, how broad their range is, and whether their solution will also affect other scientific disciplines. Unity has practical consequences - the composition of the universe for example. We chose others because the answers will have social implications, such as finding an effective cure for AIDS, or how much the carbon we pump into the atmosphere will warm our planet."
"Some questions such as the question about the nature of dark energy have surfaced only recently. Others such as the mechanism behind limb regeneration in amphibians have intrigued scientists for over a century. The 25 main questions are not arranged in any particular order, and the other 100 are generally arranged according to the areas they cover."
According to Norman, sometimes it seems that science has "brought the end of the age of ignorance", but indirectly the project teaches that science does not provide complete answers, and that scientific investigation is full of arguments and uncertainty.
"We may never find a complete answer to some of the questions," admitted the journal's editor-in-chief, Prof. Donald Kennedy, in a statement accompanying the publication, "but along the way we will advance our knowledge and society." According to him, "examining the outstanding mysteries in science also reflects its enormous achievements". However, she also mentions that these are only the questions that scientists know how to ask.
In conclusion, the editors of the journal write: "These questions are not a survey of the social problems that science can help solve, nor a prediction of what scientists might achieve. Think of it as a survey of our scientific ignorance, a broad beam of questions that scientists themselves are asking. As Tom Siegfried commented in the introductory article "these are opportunities that should be taken advantage of".
Knowledgeable of science and society
To the home page of the list of questions on the Science website
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~203366507~~~127&SiteName=hayadan
46 תגובות
Know where you came from and where you are
Correspondence within an electro-magnetic device on the subject
And Einstein came up with this and the Torah wrote about it and scientists today write more about the subject and it is so...
Everything we have defined as biology is chemistry (sub-biology) chemistry is defined from statistics it's numbers it's mathematics it's defined from angles it's geometry (engineering structure) every engineering structure is equal to a mass of energy
What will be proven later is that we are an infinite engineering structure and that it constitutes an infinite number of possibilities from a geometric initial possibility
point triangle line from the Star of David Merkava
And everything electro magnetic and all existence will decide to present a place for development from infinity to infinity when the equation is
God < God
And by and large all science fiction in the form of pokemons, ninja turtles, cartoons, imagination paintings, etc...
When the possibilities are endless
Let's say that today the scientific conversation is about eternal life, cognitive development, existential unity and the love of creation
Learned here
In 2017, the mystery of the question was solved... is pie fixed or is it changing
https://youtu.be/u2vamaSj-mw
Ofer
I kind of agree with you. But - we do know a lot about the brain, and today there are cases where the brain is treated at the level of a single neuron! There is an Israeli doctor who connects electrodes to individual cells, as part of the surgeries he performs - and the results are amazing.
There are other cases - such as giving the possibility to control artificial limbs with the help of signals from the brain, and the possibility, currently very limited, to read thoughts and even dreams.
I don't think there is any reason today to think that there is something mysterious about the brain, something that is not physical.
No strings!
There is a "shepheron" it is a particle that, unlike all particles, there is none smaller than it and it is not round There are several types of the "shepheron" but their shape is similar, they are also the component of the "missing matter" in the universe, they can find what is commonly called an absolute void (there is no such thing they will always find "Shepherons") The shape of the shepheron is like the middle shape between three spheres and this is also the reason for the randomness in the world and the ability of one particle to pass through two slits (it doesn't really happen but the result is interpreted as such)
Miracles,
Even if we know exactly how a neuron works (and I don't know if that's really the case), we still don't have a clue how a hundred billion neurons work in strong coupling (up to the multitude of reciprocal connections that each one maintains). There is a concept in physics called "emergent phenomena". This concept first emerged in the context of solid state physics when they noticed all kinds of phenomena that are the result of a collective action of many, many coupled degrees of freedom. Usually it is impossible to make a reduction to it and sometimes it is very complicated to explain them. This happens, for example, in a block of metal whose atomic or molecular structure is extremely simple. The brain is infinitely made up of a block of metal and our ability to understand its physics is comparable (somehow) to prehistoric man's ability to build a smartphone. maybe even less. And really, this physical system ultimately produces consciousness - the pinnacle of creation that we know and a concept that, in my humble opinion, is extremely vague from the point of view of physics.
Shmulik, astrology is not a science. I don't know what it is and what method it is based on, but it is definitely not science. I have never heard of any achievement of astrology, I do not understand the logic behind it and therefore I have no interest in it either. If there is someone who shows interest in it then that is their business. If he asks me what I think, I tell him, and if my opinion doesn't interest him, then that's fine too. There is a human value known as intellectual integrity. Whoever adheres to this will sooner or later escape from any kind of self-deception. This is true for those involved in astrology and no less true in the world of science.
albentezo,
At about the ninth minute of the lecture Carroll says this:
In your physics studies you learned that things are waves or particles but you never heard the answer. The answer is waves. An electron is vibrations in an electron field, a neutrino is…
My question then is: the vibrations he is talking about are not the vibrations of a string, I suppose, so what is the role of the string in his description?
incidentally,
My disclaimer is that it sucks that we can't bend spoons or teleport. Anyone who has read the book Faces of the Stars in Hebrew knows what it is about. As a child I remember that after reading the book I sat down and tried to do what the book described but teleportation did not come out of it. Bummer.
albentezo,
The disclaimer is clear and you don't have to clarify all the time what you side with. I promise not to trendily quote your sentences in future discussions 🙂
An integral part of his claim is that the human body works exactly in the same completely known areas and therefore the claim about the lack of connection between the soul and the brain is quite strong.
In 2011 he wrote an article on the subject (which is probably the father of the lecture and what has changed since then is that the Higgs was discovered). As I wrote, he does not ignore the questions you raise but is required to address them (with a considerable degree of sarcasm. I do not ignore this):
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
I therefore accept the argument that it is impossible to claim that it has been scientifically proven that there is no soul, but I claim that it goes a little further than claiming that if materialism is true then materialism is true. He uses the phenomenal success of the standard model (and is proud of that success) to get claims about spoon bending ability out of the way. This success and its totality constitutes a qualitative change from a similar claim made 150 years ago. What I think he is doing is going on the attack by challenging those who make *spiritual* claims to try to explain how *spirituality* comes into contact with the material that we all know, love and are composed of (Alak understand. It's all fields!!!). If there is no interaction then what is the point? The problem with a soul, unlike Uri Geller's spoon, is that it is never really defined, so trying to disprove something like that is a logical minefield, but apparently if someone wants to look for one, it will have to be outside the standard model.
I think I addressed this in a previous comment. As part of everyday life, physics is more or less solved (I won't go into details - we'll agree that all the principles are clear to us). This is a good argument against astrology that is mediated by forces because we know exactly what forces are at work between Jupiter and a woman who is now giving birth in Ichilov. But I, at least, do not know at what energy scale I should look for some mystical particle that should link the world of the living and the dead. I see no reason to think that a "soul" or any other such fictitious idea must manifest itself in the part of physics that we know very well, and not be hidden in a vanishing sector like dark matter (whether by very weak coupling, very high energy, or super- quantum, like very complicated entanglement systems).
As usual, clarification - I don't believe these things for a moment. But for other reasons, which seem to me to be better than what Carroll says (such as your arguments regarding experimental evidence that there is no spiritual layer in the human brain).
Albanzo
What Carroll said, as I understand it, is that in the context of "everyday life" the physics is solved. We know how to build electronic components that approach the size of molecules and so on.
There is no unexplained phenomenon that prevents us from understanding how the neurons work. We know how to identify neurons, read signals from them and even stimulate them. All there is in the brain are neurons and their signals (roughly...) and we do not see any phenomenon that cannot be explained within the framework of existing knowledge. That's why I say - there is no room for the soul.
Once upon a time - it was believed that earthquakes, tornadoes, day and night, seasons, diseases, wars,..., are actions of the gods. Today we know how to explain all of these, so the range of action of these gods is getting smaller and smaller. It's like that in the brain too - we didn't know how to explain behavior or character, memories or dreams. Today that is not the case.
I know I don't need to convince you... But yes, I would love to understand if there are holes in my way of thinking 🙂
Miracles,
I don't see at all why you think that "we should have already discovered this interaction". There are so many more things we haven't discovered. So many interactions are too weak (like dark matter, for example). Regarding what you said next (separation of the lobes, electronic manipulations) - this is exactly what I was talking about when I said that I believe there are arguments in favor of materialism. But one has to distinguish between arguments in favor of materialism like you give, and arguments that are true only on the assumption that the materialist view is correct, like what Sean Carroll is talking about.
And as usual, I will emphasize that I am not trying to say that there are souls or a spiritual dimension or anything like that. I definitely think not. But to say that the formalism of field theory contradicts this is simply not true. What is correct to say is that within the framework of what we have seen from observations (the so-called Standard Model) there is no evidence of the existence of something that can be used as a basic mechanism for life after death and other supernatural nonsense. There is a big difference between the two.
Ofer
No one here is attacking people who believe per se.
We do attack those who bring "scientific" proof of the existence of an intelligent designer, those who call scientists charlatans, fools and liars, those who claim that people of faith are more moral (and at the same time avoid military service), and those who try to take over our lives.
Albanzo
You gave exactly the explanation why (in my understanding) there is no soul 🙂
You wrote "(say, in my Torah there will be two sectors of particles that do not interact with each other - a "physical" and a "spiritual" electron, a "physical" and "spiritual" photon, etc. The new particle will be the only one that interacts with both sectors) ".
What I'm saying is, we should have already discovered this interaction, and I think it also stems from Sean Carroll's words. There are other reasons for my understanding.
The first is simple and familiar - we know that people who have undergone surgery to separate the two sides of the brain get a "dual" personality. You ask one question - and each side can give a different answer. So, there are now two souls? Or does God plant another soul during the operation?
A second reason is that we know how to read thoughts, and also influence thoughts in an electrical way (a long time ago we knew how to influence with chemicals, but it is one-way).
There is a method called ECOG in which electrodes are planted under the dura (that is, on the lobe itself). We know how to learn to link signals from the electrodes to thoughts, and there are already experiments where people move a cursor on the screen with the help of thoughts. And the other direction - during certain brain surgeries, the patient is woken up and asked to count, for example. With the help of electrical stimulation - you can make the patient stop counting, and even remember all kinds of things from his past...
What I am saying is that there are observations that do not correspond to the existence of something like a "soul". This is the other side of what Sean Carroll is saying.
Well, as I said - I haven't seen the whole video, so my intention was not to criticize Sean Carroll, but only to make it clear that the isolated section between the tenth minute and the twenty-first minute cannot be treated as if it were scientific proof of the non-existence of a spiritual dimension.
Regarding credit - in our field, the authors of the articles are always arranged in order of last names (this is really not the standard in all fields of science or even in all fields of physics). So Maldesana appears before Saskind simply because of the names. To know who is really responsible for what at work, you need to know the writers. And from my acquaintance (and again, without disparaging Seskind even a little)...
albentezo,
And you're right about slow. to.
I attached their article from Marviks (reply pending) and in fact Maldesna appears before Susskind (so Sat. Al. was wrong regardless of Maldesna's level of talent)
To close the topic of the video, I just want to point out that Sean Carroll has repeatedly stated that he relies on the standard(+) model for its fantastic success but says himself that if the model or field theory is not correct, there is something to talk about. He does not ignore it.
When I wrote in the last comment that there is not much support for the idea, I meant that there is not much theoretical evidence to support it. I did not mean that he was not accepted among the community.
Shmulik,
Yes. There is no debate (at least not that I am aware of) that if everything that can be understood in reality is materialistic (which is debated, but for now we will accept it as an assumption) and if we limit ourselves to the standard model, which within the framework of the phenomena known to us is a phenomenal approximation of reality, then there is no mechanism to life after death. But what I was trying to say is exactly this - that this claim jumps over two huge points that have no scientific basis (materialism and the correctness of the standard model).
Regarding the addition of new particles, it is true that they must be on other scales or have a *very* weak interaction, but I do not pretend to say what effect a new particle can or cannot have, even if it is very weakly coupled. I don't understand what a soul is (for obvious reasons) and don't pretend to say how strong an interaction must be to explain it.
Like you said, I'm not trying to justify astrology. I just said that in the lecture (or the part of it I watched) Sean Carroll only refers to the possibility of correlation through interaction, which is not binding. I'm not sure that your "so why not..." argument is a rebuttal, but I agree without any hesitation that the idea itself is nonsense. I just used it as an example of how Sean Carroll doesn't really cover all the bases and therefore his words do not have the validity of a "refutation", but perhaps only insights into some of the arguments against astrology. To me it is irrelevant because astrology is simply not observationally supported (and this can be easily verified) and therefore any discussion of its theoretical background is pointless. At the end of the day, we are doing physics and we are committed to reality, nothing will help.
The man whose name you don't remember is called Juan Maldesana and he is one of the most talented physicists of the last twenty years, and probably the most respected in his field (which is also my field, by the way). Without God forbid disrespecting Lenny Susskind, it is impossible under any circumstances to put Maldesna in the "et al" suffix. The idea talks about the connection between entanglement and wormholes and is called ER=EPR for short (because it claims to identify wormholes, called Einstein-Rosen bridges, and entanglement first presented in the paper by Einstein, Podalsky and Rosen). The topic is very interesting, although in my opinion it is not true. It is clear that there is a point in continuing to explore the idea (and it is receiving a lot of attention in the physicist community recently) but the examples they brought are very much aimed at a specific problem that can be solved in other ways as well, and in general there is not that much support for the idea. Although there is no doubt that the very thought that two such strange and interesting things are actually the same phenomenon is quite fascinating.
Regarding the validity of my words
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholes-quantum-entanglement-link/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533
albentezo,
OK, so I think I got it right: under the standard model + gravity the soul has nowhere to hide (summary of the first half of my post).
He says, already at the beginning of the lecture, that it is clear that the standard model + gravity is not correct in general because it does not talk about dark matter, does not describe the beginning of the universe or the center of black holes. His discussion is under the standard model (+) and not only under the field theory and under this disclaimer (which he repeats several times) he claims that in the Holy Land there was never a single experiment that disproved this model and all those things that the model does not explain are not relevant except to physicists Professionals dealing in the relevant fields. The brain, operating in areas of energy that we completely understand, is completely covered by the standard model (even though we do not understand what exactly consciousness is), so it can be argued that in these energies, the soul has no place to hide. Again, under the standard model. He added that if we want to describe a soul, etc., we will have to leave the realm of the standard model, which is very, very successful and may not be the truth, but very close to it, so this is what we have to do if we want to describe a soul, life after death, and the rest of the evidence.
He described that if you want to invent a new particle, under field theory, you should know exactly where to look for it and what interaction must be performed to locate it and this, according to him, is the qualitative difference between our situation now and the knowledge that existed 150 years ago. that according to the standard model we know how to predict what should be found and basically we have finished finding everything that is relevant to everyday life. I am aware of the problematic nature of this argument, since no one needs the Higgs to build buildings, the mass is there whether we like it or not, thank you. So why is the Higgs yes and dark matter is not? And his answer is the very weak interaction of everything we are going to find, with the atoms, with the matter, with the brain, etc. and hence, even if we discover more particles, because of the weakness in which they interact with us, they will not help to hide the soul.
From his words and from what I read from your response, under the standard model, this is not a false claim and it is scientific. I'm right?
By the way, why not lean on the model when talking about materialism? This model is our greatest intellectual achievement and in my opinion materialism rests on it.
In relation to astrology and interweaving, if we assume there is something to it, then why exactly Jupiter? Why when it appears in a certain part of the sky? What about the rest of the celestial bodies that once exploded and we carry their atoms? And who said that the polarization of a single photon or electron can affect personality? It's clear to me that you don't teach defense about astrology (!) but I think that such claims immediately arise that can invalidate the interweaving claim.
By the way of entanglement, I read that Susskind and his research colleague whose name escapes me claim that a mechanism that can explain entanglement is a wormhole. Do you know such a claim? If I am not mistaken it was in the article that Susskind et. to. published
Miracles,
As I wrote to Shmulik, I don't see anything wrong in giving reasons why the materialist view is correct. On the contrary - I personally believe that the arguments are valid and that she is indeed correct. What I was trying to say is that there is not much point in trying to prove that, assuming it is true, there is no soul (I used the words "the desired assumption" which are not accurate here, but you will agree with me that this is a trivial matter at best).
Shmulik,
It is true that field theory should be approximately correct. That is to say, either it is precisely correct (among us - a low chance, like everything in science) or it is a very, very good limit of a more general Torah. Just as Newtonian mechanics becomes exact within certain limits (weak field in general relativity, small uncertainty in quantum mechanics, etc.). But we need to make a distinction here that Sean Carroll doesn't seem to make (and I emphasize again that I didn't see the whole lecture, so maybe I'm talking nonsense), and that is between field theory and the standard model.
Field theory is a formalism. By analogy, it is the equivalent of Newton's laws in classical physics. It does not detail the contents of the universe, just as Newton's second law does not tell you which force or which mass is true. It provides a functional relationship, as does field theory. The standard model is a specific content that can be poured (cast?) into the formalism - a specific set of particles and symmetries with a specific vacuum, that when you apply the rules of field theory to it, you get something with a phenomenal ability to predict nature as we know it. By analogy - it's like applying Newton's laws to a specific set of masses and seeing that good results are obtained that predict the ups and downs in DHA.
In field theory there is no limit on the particle content (and the forces, for that matter are the same) that we can give it. I can now write a field theory that will contain a new particle that you do not know, and claim that this particle bridges this life and the next (say, in my theory there will be two sectors of particles that do not interact with each other - a "physical" and a "spiritual" electron, a "physical" photon ” and “spiritual”, etc. The new particle will be the only one that interacts with both sectors). I'm not claiming that there is any real model of life after death - what I'm writing now is pure nonsense - I'm just saying that Sean Carroll's arguments are not valid for the formalism of field theory, but for its content as we know it. He claims that within the framework of the standard model there are no "spiritual" particles, there is nothing that links life and death. In this he is right, but what I was trying to say is that in the standard model there is no gravity either, for example. or supersymmetry. This does not mean that it cannot be, but that if it exists, it is necessarily at energy scales that we are not currently exposed to.
Regarding astrology, he is right - sort of. It is true that no force known to us can produce an effect of Mars on humans at birth, and it is true that here we are actually convinced that there are no other forces - because on these scales of energy and size we would surely discover the additional forces if they existed (as opposed to life after death, which I do not have No idea at what energy scale I should look for such new forces and particles). But - even here his argument is incomplete because interaction is not the only way to produce a correlation. For example, there can be a match between the state of the stars and the birth of a certain person, if they were once part of the same system (an example of this is entanglement - two particles that once interacted and shared a quantum state, can move as far apart as you want and still be correlated even without any mediator passing through among them like a photon or a graviton).
In conclusion, I don't think his arguments are really "science does not allow for life after death". I do think that the scientific method has always proven itself amazingly (to paraphrase the words of someone wise: every mystery we've ever solved has turned out to be - not magic!) and so it certainly makes sense to assume that a claim that has no observational or theoretical evidence is wrong (just in case the worst) or irrelevant to our existence (at best). And as I said - the type of arguments I believe in are reasons why materialism is true, and not proofs within the materialist view that there is no spiritual dimension.
And finally - I will point out again that everything I wrote about physical models of life after death or astrology is really nonsense. There is no such model, and there is no evidence (experimental or theoretical) for these ideas. Everything I wrote was written to explain that when listening to Sean Carroll's arguments, it is important to distinguish between things that formalism does not allow and things that formalism does not rule out but we have no physical evidence of their correctness and are in the nature of night stories and not science.
Ofer,
Yuval Naman achieved rare achievements, but this does not change the fact that if someone comes to a conclusion based on physics that astrology is incorrect, for example, he should say so and be exposed to the criticism of other scientists.
Personally I say it's a shame you don't add. After all, I asked Albantazo a question in an open forum and you are also welcome to contribute your knowledge. I have not decided that Carol is right and that's it, but am happy to hear any appeal to his claim.
Shmulik and Nisim,
It seems to me that what Albenzo wrote about the validity of Shawn's claims also reflects my opinion, so I will not add.
My PhD supervisor was Yuval Naman. Yuval was an atheist in his soul but he lived in complete harmony with religious people who surrounded him from all sides (also in academia, but mainly in politics). He had no need to prove their faith, and despite his magnanimity and intellectual and analytical abilities, he also did not think he was in a position to judge. He never saw his views on life and existence as 'correct' or 'more worthy'. He just took a different view, and that was the end of it.
albentezo,
Let's see if I understood his claim:
If the field theory is correct it tells us where it is correct. If it is true, all the particles that affect our daily life have been discovered. If it is correct, it predicts where more particles or forces can still be discovered and then either the forces are very weak or operate for a very, very short term and then for example there is no bending of spoons with the brain or astrology is deliberately incorrect I leave the soul out for now.
If the Torah of the Fields is incorrect, it must be wrong in such a way that it leads us into denial, otherwise a deeper Torah is certainly possible, but it will converge on the Torah of the Fields in the areas to which the Torah is entrusted.
Did I understand correctly and are there any objections to his statement regarding spells or astrology?
Albanzo
Both soul and afterlife go against everything we know. In particular - if there is no soul, then, in my understanding, there is no concept of life after death at all - and therefore it is enough to show that there is no soul.
If there was a soul - we would have to identify something in the brain that cannot be explained physically. Meanwhile, in MRI devices, you don't see anything non-physical - and these devices have a stronger magnet than in the LHC 🙂
albentezo,
I realised. You saw up to minute 21 and not up to 10.
I will ponder your answer and ask more questions 🙂
Shmulik,
I will try to see as soon as possible and update my opinions accordingly.
Miracles,
right. For the Raphaels of the world, spirituality is a get-out-of-jail-free ticket (of science, etherealism, and logic)
albentezo,
Watch until minute 24. In my opinion, he refers to what you wrote and explains his claim. It probably won't renew anything for you, and yet I would appreciate your reference after the additional viewing
Ofer,
Something else. Carroll did not actually define anything in this lecture. Not electrons, not photons, not fields, etc. so it seems unnecessary to me to address the fact that he did not define soul and astrology. He uses them according to the "accepted definition". I would say that if anything, the onus of definition, let alone proof, rests on the shoulders of those who claim it exists.
In addition, I don't know if he is a bad philosopher but Oxford and Cambridge decided he was good enough. A bit of an appeal to authority, but I'm allowed too
Shmulik,
Due to lack of time I did not see the whole lecture. I started at about minute 10 and stopped when Sean concluded by saying that there is no life after death. I must say that his words are not really based on our scientific knowledge, and are not scientific claims per se. First, as Ofer pointed out, we don't know what "life after death" is, so it's a bit difficult to say that we don't know a mechanism that transfers information from here to there. Second, the argument of "there are no forces or particles that..." is problematic, because we don't know what exists and what doesn't. After all, according to our knowledge, there is no particle that carries the force of gravity, no supersymmetric particles, no dark matter, etc. The fact that we have not found this or that particle does not rule out the possibility that it exists but is elusive. A great deal of theoretical physics is done in this way, and it is not correct to dismiss the existence of something because "it does not appear in the Lagrangian of the standard model". Thirdly and lastly, it is flawed by assuming the requested. Even if we knew that there is indeed no force that can carry information to the afterlife, it would only mean that within the framework of the materialistic concept there can be no life after death, but the debate here is - as far as I understand - whether this concept is correct or not. When Nissim talks about the connection between the physical mind and the "soul", he tries to show that the materialistic view is correct. Sean Carroll is just talking about the fact that, given it is true, there is no life after death.
I think my information on the subject is pretty clear, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that we all have souls and that the future is written in the stars. But one should be careful not to give a scientific touch to non-scientific claims, whether it is done by a convert or by a materialist and atheist physicist.
Shmulik
Steven J. Gold spoke at the time about the fact that there is no overlap between the fields of investigation of religion and science - "facts versus values". The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) also bowed to religion (this is my opinion).
Shawn Carroll actually says that there is a place for the concept of "free will" - it exists at the level of psychology, but not at the lower levels - just like temperature exists at the level of thermodynamics but not at the level of particles.
I'm interested in what the religious people say about people who have undergone an operation called a corpus callosotomy - an operation designed to treat ellipsis. These people sometimes suffer from a situation of two "free wills" - you ask a question, and sometimes get two different answers :).
Ofer,
Regardless, I'm very glad to have another physics expert commenting here. It's always good to hear another opinion.
Ofer,
Of course, Sean Carroll is not God, but his claim that - "if the field theory is correct, then astrology is incorrect and the soul cannot exist", is well reasoned. Do you dispute his claim?
After all, he claimed that if a soul had to exist we would have to discover a particle or a field and he explained exactly what was required of the particle or the field. This is a completely physical claim, exactly in his field of work, and if you dispute it, I would love to hear on what basis. Sean is an incompetent philosopher is not a good claim.
Ofer
Are you now starting the ad verecundiam method? 🙂
So - I don't understand why you attack him. He explained that there is no possibility that there is a physical force, which we do not know, that has an effect on us or our world. Do you think he is wrong?
I like your concept "man's purpose". One of the signs to identify planning is purpose. If I find an artifact in an interesting way that I think someone created - I will try to understand why it was created. An example of this is the "Baghdad battery" - Von Daniken quipped that this tool is a battery that indicates that there were aliens here. An investigation revealed that the container was used for document use and cannot be a battery at all.
If man was designed - then he has a purpose. That is, the "planner" planned the person for a certain purpose. The purpose is not the person's, it is the planner's. Isn't that a shocking idea in your eyes? Reminds me of the horror movie "The Man Who Wanted to Live Forever".
I don't understand why we should be afraid to say what we know. We know there is no soul, we know there is no life after death, we know evolution is true. We know what "free choice" is. We know quite well what "consciousness" is.
We even begin to learn how to read minds, and how to plant memories in the brain. Why do you think that science (or scientist) has nothing to say in this field?
Miracles, click on the link under my name and you might get a token.
Ofer
You also have an accepted method - an ad hominem attack.
He defined exactly what he meant. He explained that there are 4 forces in nature, and it is impossible for there to be more (unless all physics is fundamentally wrong). Only these forces can affect us.
But, Sean Carroll is not the issue (even though all you care about is attacking him to invalidate what he said).
I will ask you a simple question - what is the effect of the soul on man? How can you see that there is a soul?
But that's bullshit. Every physicist knows that in order to be able to talk about something, he must first define it in an ambivalent way. We will see him define "soul" in a way that would not have been ridiculous in Erwin Schradinger or in Kurt Gedel or in Spinoza (just as an example). Carroll might want to build himself an image of a thinker, but from my personal acquaintance with him, he is as far from that as east is from west.
Ofer
Really, really not. He says exactly what he means. He says that the existence of a soul, or life after death, contradicts science.
What are you arguing about?
Miracles, Sean Carroll describes science and God *from his point of view*. His scientific point of view on reality is interesting and worthy of reference, but his philosophical point of view on the world and the purpose of man is just as interesting as the point of view of the spherical Kabbalist - that is, it is not interesting. Carroll's tongue has no say in subjects in which he does not understand anything. The fact that he is a very capable physicist does not make him a talented thinker (with the exception, as mentioned, of opinions on the subjects of his specialization).
Shmulik
Great lecture 🙂
Ofer
Sean Carroll doesn't decide anything - he simply describes the science and what follows from what we know. If we are wrong - it means that all science is completely wrong. There is no reason to think so.
Shmulik,
So you replaced Elahim with Sean Carroll? Since when did this special man become decisive in an issue that greater and wiser people than him have been grappling with for ages?
candle,
I'm sorry, no soul in the sense you mean.
You also don't use your brain but you are your brain.
Watch this lecture and understand why there is no room for the soul
http://youtu.be/xv0mKsO2goA
human candle
What are you talking about??? The molecules in the brain are in continuous motion, and are also changing all the time. Without this movement we die….
Why invent things?
Biologists try to study consciousness. The chance that they will succeed is zero because it depends on the probability that the molecules will line up exactly in the shape of the soul. And if Descartes was right, then only after the molecules are completely separated will they know the soul...
How and how are the 125 questions distributed? The first ten questions are divided into 70% biology, 20% physics, 10% geology, if this distribution is maintained then there are about 87 questions for biologists, about 25 for physicists, about 12 for geologists, but what about the chemists? They assimilated and assimilated into the biologists, didn't they?
As for life on other planets, it is likely that there is - and there are many.
Regarding life on other planets capable of asking the above (or similar) questions, in my opinion - there is none.
And it is true that space is infinite, and as such it is likely that there is infinite intelligence in space and yet, I believe that the probability of this is zero.
The fact that we exist (for now) does not change that fact.