Science’s hallmark is its willingness to abandon outdated theories whenever a more effective explanation emerges. Science today does not practice this principle within the framework of materialism. This term refers to a model of universe that is based on the assumption that matter preceded mind. It also assumes that all living things and the universe are particles in motion. is independent of the mind and functions beyond its control.
This materialistic model leads to the Big Bang theory, dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Search for the “God particle” in Atom Smashers. It also allows us to search for the origin of all life in test tubes.
Because they believe that science is possible only if the model of materialism is used by modern scientists, In a classic article about quantum physics entitled “Can Quantum-Mechanical Descriptions of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote, “Any serious considerations of a physical theory should take into account the distinctionbetween objective reality, which can be independent of any theory and the physical concepts with whom it operates.”
Ernst Mayr, a leading biologist in history, said it this way:
“Despite science’s openness to new facts and hypotheses it must be noted that almost all scientists-somewhat like theologians -bring with them a set what we refer to as “first principles” to the study of nature. One of these axiomatic assumptions, is that there is a real world independent from human perceptions. It might also be known as common-sense reality or the principle of objectivity. However, this does not mean that scientists are always objective or that there is an absolute level of objectivity among humans. It does however mean that there is an objective world outside of subjective perception. This is an axiom that most scientists, though not all, believe in.
Although the objective-world model is popular because everyone wants a “real world that is independent from human perceptions”, it has one flaw. No one has ever proven it to be true or necessary. Science can be practiced in a variety of conceptual models, but no one has ever shown this. Modern scientists are often criticized for believing that science can only be practiced within a materialistic model. Any other approach, however, is unscientific and prone to new-age hocus pocus.
Another problem with the materialistic model of science is its inability to allow modern science to explore the cosmos without being bound by its own model. Here’s a list of the problems material science is now facing:
- The Big Bang was the Big Bang’s origin.
- Inflation mechanism
- Source of the laws of nature
- Dark matter and dark energy are both real and possible.
- It is difficult to reconcile the quantum physics wave/particle duality with objective reality.
- The incompatibility of quantum physics with gravity
- The DNA molecule and the origin of life
- The origin of consciousness
- Nature’s laws are so well-tuned that life can exist in them.
Modern theorists don’t think that their inept understanding of a mind-independent, material world is the root of the problem. They focus instead on the model of materialism.
If it was more accurate, would scientists still be open to trying a new model of universe? Are modern scientists so attached to materialism that they prefer to practice science in this familiar, but ultimately false model to something that could ultimately provide more explanations and a better theoretical framework for their research?
Let’s say that matter is created from our minds. If this is true, then should we continue to practice science in the materialist model? Or should we determine if science can be practiced within this mind-generated dream world and follow the results?
Science can be defined as any system of knowledge that deals with the physical world and its phenomena. It involves systematic experimentation and objective observations. A science is a pursuit of knowledge that covers general truths and the operation of fundamental laws. Empirical science
“Explores, describes, explains, and predicts the events that occur in the world in which we live. These statements must be verified against our experiences and supported by evidence. This evidence can be obtained in many ways, including through experimentation, systematic observations, interviews, surveys and psychological or clinical testing. It also involves careful examination of documents, inscriptions coins, archeological treasures and other documents.
Science is also known for its ability to provide natural explanations of physical phenomena. This is in contrast to supernatural, immeasurable, untestable or unverifiable explanations. This is why scientists prefer Darwin to Genesis when accounting for the diversity of life-forms on Earth. Darwin provided an explanation that could be verified by observation, while Genesis simply states that God did it. Genesis does not explain how. We won’t have to abandon any of these aspects of science if our focus shifts to a dream- or mind-created model of the cosmos.
Why the Independent World Assumption Is False
The assumption that materialism is a mind-independent universe has many problems. Modern scientists are not afraid to question theories and ideas that are based on the materialist model, such as string theory, multiuniverses or the many-worlds interpretations of quantum physics, but they do not question the assumptions behind their materialistic model. __S.47__
Three fundamental reasons make the materialistic model impossible:
First, philosophy’s history teaches us something that most people don’t know or are unaware of. The mind can only know about itself. Modern science holds that images of an (assumed), external world eventually form in the brain. Since we cannot know the mind, it is necessary to assume that there is an independent world that causes the mental images and ideas that are formed in the head. This question is viewed by some as insane. How can anyone question the existence of an outside world? This misstates the issue. The mind may not be able tell the difference if it projects the external world in a grand, 3-D movie projector, rather than passively receiving images.
This question, “Can the mind know anything but itself”, was the topic of one of the greatest philosophical debates ever. It started with John Locke, a British empiricist, and ended with David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Friedrich W.J. Schelling and others. Although the analytic inquiry concluded with almost all these thinkers concluding the mind can only understand itself, the project ended in either solipsism or some form mysticism. Idealism could not solve the problem for multiple dreamers. If the world is a dream then can we all live in our dream worlds?
Our entire scientific worldview rests on knowing about a mind-independent universe. However, scientists should be humbler when presenting their latest “theory for everything” versions. It is possible to create a science, a system of thought, that accepts the fact that the mind can only understand itself.
The second reason to doubt materialism is common sense. Many people believe in a supernatural power. The Big Bang theory, materialism’s version of the creation story, is the best way to answer this fundamental question. According to this theory, the universe of stars, which we now see, was created in a fiery explosion of matter, time, and space 14 billion years ago. Scientists believe that all the matter in the sky was once condensed into one primordial seed, also called a “singularity”, to account for the billions upon trillions of stars. It is easy to ask the origin of all the matter in the universe.
This critical weakness has been avoided by material scientists, who have made a remarkable job of protecting the foundation of science. Some scientists refer to “quantum fluctuations” or “vacuum energie” when pressed. However, these theories also assume an energy field and most likely an observer mind. Leon Lederman (a Nobel-winning physicist) is more open about the subject.
“A story begins logically at the beginning. This story is about the universe and there is no data to support it. None, zero. The universe will not reach the mature age of a billionthof a trillionthof a second until then. This is a very short time since the Big Bang. If you hear or read anything about the birth of the universe’s existence, it is likely that someone is fabricating it. Philosophy is our domain. Only God knows the details of what took place at the Very Beginning [.]”
It is not easy to come up with a plausible explanation of how enough matter was created from the dark void. This should make material scientists feel more humble than they already do.
The laws of nature are the third reason to seriously question the independent-world assumption in material science. As we all know, the material world follows predictable and precise laws. These laws include gravity, the laws that govern motion, electricity, gas, and chemistry. They can be described in mathematics as constant and regular. Science can’t separate mind and matter once it has disconnected science from mind . This mind is the only intelligent force in all of the universe. It cannot help matter in its arrangement to the laws. One of the greatest scientific challenges is still to find the source of the laws of nature, or the source for mathematical constancy.
Scientists Lead by the Independent World Assumption
You can see that science adheres to a materialistic view of reality, which is why many of its most bizarre theories are so. It’s as if any modification or twist to a theory can be allowed as long as it fits within the framework of material science. This is a fundamental error that perpetuates.
Material scientists assume that there is enough matter and energy to complete some theories like the Big Bang theory. Other theories reveal how scientists come across multi-layered puzzles after making an independent-world assumption. One example of this is the fact that the standard Big Bang model leaves scientists with no plausible explanation, other than coincidence, for why the chaotic Big Bang created a universe that is nearly flat. This is a universe where the repulsive force of the Big Bang cancels out the attraction of the exploding star debris (the “flatness issue”). The standard Big Bang model does not explain why two vastly different regions of outer space have the exact same temperature. There is no physical way for them to share information. (The “horizon problem.”) Material scientists view these two critical issues in their theories not as being rooted in an unnecessary independent-world assumption. Instead, they use them to create more complex theories that require more ad-hoc assumptions.
The inflationary Big Bang theory is their solution to the problems inherent in the Big Bang model. This simple modification allowed the universe to expand by a factor 10E51 (the number with 51 zeros after) in just 10E-36 seconds. The universe then paused to follow the normal expansion predicted by the Big Bang. The wild expansion took place in a very short time, one-billionth the time it takes for light to travel the distance between an atomic nucleus and the earth. Scientists can maintain the materialist model of inflation by using an ad-hoc, wildly speculative concept to solve the flatness/horizon problems.
Scientists would not have to resort to unrestrained speculation to prove that they did not create the independent universe assumption.
One remarkable characteristic of nature is its ability to make laws that allow for life to exist. This observation is known as the anthropic principle. It strongly suggests that something is happening: The more scientists dig into the fundamental constants in the physical world, it becomes clearer that some force has adjusted the dials so that life can exist.
Some scientists, including Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking, have developed theories that predict that inflation is responsible for the creation of 10E500 universes from the void. This theory helps to escape the mysterious undertones of the anthropic principle. We have only found evidence that one of these universes exists, but this seems sufficient. The authors explain that the laws of nature would be just as valid in one of these multiple universes. We would not need to assume that the universe we see is mind-created if we don’t have to speculate on 10E500 others to explain the strange relationship between humans and the universe.
The origin of life is another example of how the independent world assumption can cause untold problems for material science theories. This comes from biology. Material scientists have been left wondering how the mindless residue of the Big Bang organized itself into the intricate workings and codes of the DNA molecule.
Occam’s Razor states that the theory is more effective if there are fewer assumptions. A theory that explained the world but does not make an independent world assumption would be better than one that does.
Science is supposed be an emotionally detached search for truth. This theory deserves to be looked at if a better theory could explain the physical phenomena in the world. It would mean that if the metaphysical assumption behind material science is false, it would be necessary for many theories to be reworked, but this would not end the science field. It would instead reorient science on a stronger foundation, and also join the field with philosophy or religion.
Material science is like a slow and meticulous portrait artist insisting that his model stay still for the entire session. To capture the moment, the artist must assume that the model is independent from the artist’s creative powers. He is painting a picture of the natural world, a fixed, self-sustaining figure. Scientists also aim to examine the physical world in the same way.
Summary: Material scientists assume that the natural world is independent and objective (e.g. stars, planets, living beings) in order to study its history, composition, and movements. Their test results show that the world is unchanging.