I recently came up with another article on how the universe could possibly have more dimensions. (1)
This is not the first and certainly not the last time scientists make similar claims. The scientific community has been filled with theories claiming that there are more dimensions we cannot feel, multiple universes we cannot touch or new types of matter we cannot see…
You now, modern civilization has a deep hatred against anything relation to religion and especially Christianity (see French Revolution, “enlightenment” et cetera).
We are willing to believe into things we cannot and will never see (like the multiple universes) than accept the existence of a creator even as a possibility. We are willing to accept things we cannot and will never feel (like the multiple dimensions) than accept life as it is. We are willing to accept that we are nothing (e.g. just a set of lifeless matter with no free will) than accept anything remotely related to Christianity.
Most people might not realize it, but religion is much more scientific than science today. Because religion accepts what we feel (I have consciousness, I am not just a lifeless set of matter, I have free will) and it adheres to what we see (the cosmos is what we see – even miracles are accepted based on empirical evidence, in contradiction with theories like the above which are accepted based on anything but the existence of evidence).
Within our (supposedly) enlightened era, we have forgotten that light casts the longest shadows.
And even though we see the stars at the edges of the cosmos…
We fail to look at our self and deduce any meaning.
And even though we think too much about everything.
We fail to see that our thinking only generates questions.
And so we think of multiple universes. And so we look for multiple dimensions. In a world were we exist not. In a universe which just happened to be. Only because we hate the possibility of us being important. Only because we fear the possibility of us Being.
Look in the mirror.
Listen to you.
Look for the simple answers.
Sure, they look stupid.
But only because your questions are not stupid enough…
A friend recently asked: how can we seriously read philosophers from before the 18th century, now that we know of their lack of knowledge regarding the cosmos and the universe? How can we read them and draw any serious conclusions now that we know that they knew almost nothing that we currently do, based on our supreme technology and modern science?
And my answer was: Actually it is only those philosophers whom we need to read! Because their thought was pure and not yet poisoned by the knowledge we think we have.
My friend was stunned. But what about all this knowledge we have amassed?! All the things stubbiness know for the universe? All the things physics knows about the workings of the cosmos? My friend was not the exception. It is really unfortunate that so many people believe that science today has proved things regarding the truth of our cosmos instead of what it is really doing: formulating theories to model the cosmos based on specific unproven assumptions.
But what do I mean by that?
Let’s take for example the field of astronomy and the infamous cosmological principle. This is a principle which governs astronomy today and which in two words holds the belief that the universe is homogenous and isotropic. This principle is based on observations and on this principle many theories are built by modern astronomers.
So far so good, one might say. Except the fact that nothing of the above is true.
So why do we hold that principle? one might ask. The answer to that would be more shocking to someone not acquainted with epistemology: Science continuously used unproven theses as a starting point of theories! This is not bad nor good. It is just the way science works. What is wrong is to take these starting point as “true” even though they never meant to have any relation to what philosophy calls “truth” or “reality”.
Scientific models are just… scientific models!
Think of a glass dropping to the floor for example. This is something we all observe. Let’s now try to formulate a theory to explain this observation. The modern atheist will hold the belief that the explanation of why the glass is dropping to the floor is something “objective” and based on “facts” and data. But he would be wrong. For the observational data is just… observational data. The theory to interpret that data is something else. And for the glass dropping to the floor we have many!
Ancient Greeks thought perhaps that Zeus made the glass drop. Then came Newtown. And we explained the observation with the help of an invisible all existing field called gravitational field. And then Einstein changed everything and now we have not a field but curved spacetime!
Same observation, three different theories!
But are those theories equally valid? And do they all adhere to the data equally successfully?
The answer is yes, if we wish so! Even the theory which wants Zeus to bring the glass down to earth can be formulated in such a way that there is full compliance with the observational data in hand. (E.g. by starting that Zeus makes the glass fall with an acceleration equal to g) In the same way the theory of Newton can be also as accurate as the latest theory of Einstein if we make it so. The problem is that scientists rarely tend to update the details of old theories, so people tend to believe that these theories were abandoned because they were less accurate. A grave misunderstanding which is based on the arrogant ideas that we know more than the people before us. And yet the ancient Greeks could easily predict celestial phenomena centuries in the future even while believing that the gods were moving the planets in the celestial sphere…
To the modern atheist all this is crazy of course.
People who believe in scientism today can hear nothing which could refute their perfect idea of science as a method to reach the “truth”. Not even Godel could change their mind.
Going back to the cosmological principle, today’s believers (in science and scientism) truly believe that this is a fact we hold true on the basis of observations. My friend and his friends could not even consider an alternative. So here we are. Men who do not know if Mars had water, but who do know with certainty that the whole universe is isotropic and homogenous! It would be comical if not so terribly arrogant…
At the end it is not a matter of data or knowledge. It is a matter of the ability to think freely without just following what others say.
Today’s atheists and proponents of scientism would be the greatest followers of the institutional church during the middle ages. Because what makes them blind today is not a lack of knowledge for something specific, but the arrogance of a man who does not want to admit that others might be able to see things clearer than him. These people would follow the Pope in whatever he said, in the same way they now follow the opinion of the majority regarding the truth of science.
The same people would swear that you can only draw one parallel from a straight line.
They would argue fiercely in favor of the fifth axiom of Euclid and would mock anyone trying to attempt to utter a different opinion.
At the end, we will discover if Mars has water…
At the end, we will “know” that no parallel lines can be drawn…
At the end we will draw multiple parallel lines…
Do you see?
There is nothing there.
Except for the things you see…
In a paper published in the Journal of Optics, Mr. O’Neill lays out a theory that Rembrandt set up flat and concave mirrors to project his subjects – including himself – onto surfaces before painting or etching them.
He is not the first to suggest that old master painters used optics for their famous portraits. The theory, known as the Hockney-Falco thesis, generated controversy among scientists and art historians, some of whom took the findings as an implication that old master painters had “cheated” to produce their works.
The new research also drawn criticism. However, its writer says that the goal of the research was to show how the use of optics “makes us look at artists as scientists” and not to discredit Rembrandt.
“People have accused me of being jealous, or trying to discredit Rembrandt, but that’s not at all what I’m trying to do”, he said. “If you gave a projection to someone on the street and told them to make a masterpiece, they would never give you a Rembrandt”. At the same time scientists had just started using lenses to look at things invisibly small through microscopes and at the stars through telescopes, artists were using lenses to study the world around them, he said. (1)
Rembrandt drew masterpieces. Because of some inner need he had. Because this filled his soul with pleasure. People saw those masterpieces. And they liked it. Because they filled some inner need they had. Because these paintings filled their soul with pleasure. Or perhaps (and more… mysteriously) for no reason at all.
Did he use mirrors?
Did he use oil?
Did he use lenses?
Always wondering for the how.
Leaving the important questions (why) for the big boys (Philosophy)…
Imagine a world where all “scientific questions” are answered. Imagine a world where we know and understand all the “how did that happen”. Look at the mirror. Now go and drop dead. Out of pure boredom.