You touch on an important area, George - to which one might allude the principle of faith. Friedrich Hayek, one of the great liberal thinkers of the 20th. Century and also a self confessed agnostic wrote 'The Fatal Conceit' as his final book. In it he argued that the great failures of the modern world, i.e., socialism, communism and other attempts at social engineering, came about because of the idea we can plan human destiny in advance by the application of rationality i.e., science, technology, bureaucracy and utilitarianism etc..

An ancient expression of this comes through the Judaic concept of 'chukkim' - i.e., logic has limits and reason has boundaries. A failure to observe these limits results in tragedy. Contained here is the idea that 'laws' cannot be explained in terms of social engineering or immediate consequence. What seems unfathomable to one generation becomes lucidly self-evident to the next (as you suggest George). Here is a core aspect of life where we require faith in a wisdom greater than ours - some find meaning through an expression of the 'divine', but regardless of the term, the principle remains. A great motif is, we strive to understand what we can, but we must also have the humility to make space in our lives for that which we cannot.

Ironically, as the world appears in a rapid process of de-secularisation, in which religion, and arguments about religion have returned to centre stage, along with the underlying propensity for international conflict, an ancient paradigm returns. The basis of the Abrahamic idea is a singular faith expressing a moral concern that is universal. A man was able to plead the case for his neighbours whose destruction was all but imminent. His contemporaries at the time were able to say of him "You are a prince of God in our midst." I believe we now approach the point of a very similar but more universal recognition.

Good greetings, George,

"GR and QM are well understood (mathematically) and verified (through experiments), nevertheless there are many unresolved philosophical questions connected with how to interpret their findings." - George

Reply:

I am having a foggy-head day and may need to come back again later.

That said:

These theories are well undertood within themselves but what about their cross-intergration? Likewise, with manifolds:

The picture drawn of manifolds is as a simple metaphor like a carpet through a house with each room a universe. I don't think QM would allow this. Perhaps, more like moving from the [external] roof through a window into a room, but some transformation needs to occur to go through the window into the interior [which destroy the doomed traveller].

Kuhn (c. 1962) said that a carpenter (a researcher) would not throw his/her tool box [discipline] out because of the loss of a certain hammer for a certain nail [or words thr that effect].

With GR, QM and Manifolds, we appear to be separate displines, or, vastly different approaches, wherein some carpenters are using the imperial system and other the metric system [still metaphorically]. While the carpenter,above, might find his/her hammer: Having different systems will ensure many jobs cannot be even be started and the few that can be started will have worn screwheads and scratched surfaces.

Also, Kuhn recommended one should not have one isolated theory explaining the world, but two theories competing explaining the world.
Science requires the triology. Here, there is possibility of a [tentative] "winner", and, importantly, there is also a possibility of synthesis.
In the above frame, how can Manifold theory ignore QM? To repeat, I do understand these are separate constructions with different mathematic structures. However, this apporach raises significant ontological and epistemologic issues not just mathematics.

Hello Relda,

Have enjoyed your posts. George's too.

"A great motif is, we strive to understand what we can, but we must also have the humility to make space in our lives for that which we cannot." - Relda

Polanyi might add that the best we can do is have a conviction that we feel will be proven correct at some "indeterminant" time in the future. Owing to the tentative nature of research results that time is never reached.

"...he [Hayek] argued that the great failures of the modern world, i.e., socialism, communism and other attempts at social engineering, came about because of the idea we can plan human destiny in advance by the application of rationality i.e., science, technology, bureaucracy and utilitarianism etc.." - Relda

Is the above nineteenth cenury thought manifested in the twentieth century? Albeit, in Singapore, they still think this way.

Lee, Hilter, Engles or Marx, have tried social engineering. Stalin, I think was just a monsterous dictator. In the twentieth-first century, one hopes the benefits of science and technology manifest as a trickle-down effect, not as a governor of society.

relda,
I think I can agree with all that you wrote. In particular, when you say that

“an ancient paradigm returns. The basis of the Abrahamic idea is a singular faith expressing a moral concern that is universal“

this for me resonates with

“the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person... They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations.”

from the Pope‘s recent address to the UN.

Oliver,
I can only repeat that one should not mix apples with oranges: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two pillars of 20th century physics. The problem with their “cross-integration”, as you put it, is the concern of new theories, superstring or what, that claim to become the “theory of everything” in physics. On the other hand, manifolds are pure mathematical concepts that can carry additional structures, and the simplest way to visualise them is as surfaces (if the dimension is 2). I do not see the need of any carpenter for that.

Thomas Kuhn coined the phrase “paradigm shift”, among other things, trying to explain (away?) the general acceptance (among scientists) of new models of the physical reality. Many people (myself included) think that he underestimated the mediating role of mathematics when passing e.g. from the Newton‘s model (of gravitation and space-time) to Einstein’s. He was probably inspired by Michael Polanyi, and he himself inspired many “social constructivists of science“ as much as he tried to distance himself from their excesses. Thomas Kuhn left us with an important historian’s insight into the workings of scientific research but that is all, just an insight which on its own should not claim to provide an understanding of what the scientist‘s “quest for truth” is all about.

Manifold theory (whatever that means) does not, cannot, “ignore” Quantum Mechanics, it is just a mathematical concept that is not part of the mathematical model underlying QM.

I think we have deviated too much from the original concern of the article to be discussed.

George,

[1] I think I would not be aong in seeing Kuhn overemphasing ontology and underestimating epistemology.

"I think we have deviated too much from the original concern of the article to be discussed."

[2] I entered via your name or relda on the topic and picked un the discussion. I have now scrolled-up and see what you mean.

Hence,

I make the following statments:

[1] Theology should be the study of religions, plural, and, of churches in the first instance; before, one focuses on a particular belief, which is at risk of being reinforced by nurture, "indwelling" [that word again] and peer groups.

[2] Homo sapien sapien has existed for a quarter-of-million years*.

Why would a Judeo-Christian god in the OT and the NT be so different [tribal/urban] but the same [messianic]? I see a valid transition between Moses' tribe and the more cosmopolitan Greco-Roman life of Jesus. Just the same, YHVH [ a volcano and war god] and Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount are distinct. Does one look at this critically or follow a priest/minister, who has a vested bias?

[3] Why would the God of the OT and NT copy the traits of other gods? In doing being less differentiated;cultural-anthropologists will jump on?

[*The savanah was no Garden of Eden]

[4] Dogmatism [and doctrine and creed]is the product of humans, whether or not there is a god.

[5] Churches take a priori positions. A priori postions represent poor research methodology. In here, I respect Sells' right of opinion, but he frustrates me starting at step 10 [as a beginning], rather than step one

Oliver,
I have never heard of Kuhn “overemphasizing ontology and underestimating epistemology”.

Theology should not be confused with comparative study of religions.

You are entitled to interpret the OT and the NT your way, but so are people who accept the authority of this or that specialist rather than relying on their own speculations. This is true not only when interpreting the bible but also when interpreting (understanding) findings in branches of science where one is not a specialist.

Dogmas and doctrines are products of humans, the same as scientific theories, which does not necessarily imply that they do not refer to something that is not just a product of pure imagination.

We all take a priori positions. Whatever “research methodology” you want to use, you have to start somewhere. The problem arises only when somebody who does not want to take these a priori positions is forced to take them.