Scientific anomalies?

[Dexx]

This forum seems to be the closest here to one that would accomodaite scientific discussion. Please excuse this thread for not being strictly about creation or evolution.

My question; is there anything on Earth that has been observed by science that has no explanation? ie not even plausible theories? Some phenomena which is obviously real and observable, but not explainable?

 

[Randall McNally]

Quite a bit of quantum mechanics appears inconsistent with an axiomatically logical universe.

Whether or not that is the same as 'inexplicable' is a different question.

Wave-particle duality is certainly counterintuitive, and arguably illogical, but a solidly-evidenced phenomenon nonetheless. But if it's just a manifestation of a fundamental property of reality, then it is unclear what is left to "explain."

For example, photons behave like waves until observed, whereupon they behave like particles, and that is just the way it is. Further attempts at reductionism are simply nonsensical.

 

[Dragar]

For example, photons behave like waves until observed, whereupon they behave like particles, and that is just the way it is.

Randall, there are interpretations which remove this observer-centric notion. If you're using Copenhagen here (which it sounds like you are), you're not allowed to talk about the photons prior to observation.

And wave-particle duality is most certainly not a contradiction (though it is counter-intuitive).

 

[Jet Black]

Quite a bit of quantum mechanics appears inconsistent with an axiomatically logical universe.

actually none of it is inconsistent with an axiomatically logical universe, it is just that your axioms are not very good; they are based on primarily classical assumptions, which turn out to be wrong, and only an approximation of the true nature of reality. same goes for relativity.

The relativity example is more interesting I feel since the additional axiom (the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers) is quite easily testable and understandable (unlike some QM stuff), but has profound effects relating to spacetime, which seem highly illogical for those used to normal (non relativistic) assumptions.

 

[Dragar]

Jet, what's your opinion on Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM?

 

[Jet Black]

it seems rather riddled with problems.

 

[Sitting Duck]

Hmmm... I can think of three things that haven't been explained by science yet:

1) Human consciousness. Just defining it is a huge challenge...
2) Human memory. We haven't understood yet how our brains store new information.
3) That fact that bald men are now starting to be considered sexy again. (Hey, nothing wrong about that. )

 

[Jet Black]

Hmmm... I can think of three things that haven't been explained by science yet:

1) Human consciousness. Just defining it is a huge challenge...

exactly, it hasn't even been defined, so it is not exactly scientifically observed. unfortunately consciousness remains just as subjective an experience as love or God.

2) Human memory. We haven't understood yet how our brains store new information.

closer to the mark.

3) That fact that bald men are now starting to be considered sexy again. (Hey, nothing wrong about that. )

no philosophy will ever answer that

 

[grmorton]

This forum seems to be the closest here to one that would accomodaite scientific discussion. Please excuse this thread for not being strictly about creation or evolution.

My question; is there anything on Earth that has been observed by science that has no explanation? ie not even plausible theories? Some phenomena which is obviously real and observable, but not explainable?

Try consciousness. People say it is an epiphenomenon but isn't much of an explanation. No one to my knowledge has a scientific theory of consciousness and self-awareness. Why would inanimate matter (carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, etc) join together and become self-aware?

 

[Hydra009]

Try consciousness. People say it is an epiphenomenon but isn't much of an explanation. No one to my knowledge has a scientific theory of consciousness and self-awareness. Why would inanimate matter (carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, etc) join together and become self-aware?

Why couldn't conciousness be considered part and parcel of complex brains, derived from less complex organs through evolution?

Also, I think we should presisely define conciousness.

 

[f U z ! o N]

because consioucness and the mind are entirely different then the brain. they didn't evolve.

 

[Tomk80]

because consioucness and the mind are entirely different then the brain. they didn't evolve.

Please support your assertions.

 

[Dragar]

it seems rather riddled with problems.

Got any interpretations which aren't?

 

[MartinM]

Got any interpretations which aren't?

Personally, I steer clear of ontological interpretations altogether. The wavefunction represents our state of information about a system, and the rules of QM give us the optimal method of making predictions about that system. That's all we need to know.

 

[Dragar]

Personally, I steer clear of ontological interpretations altogether. The wavefunction represents our state of information about a system, and the rules of QM give us the optimal method of making predictions about that system. That's all we need to know.

Very positivist of you.

I take it questions that don't refer to observations are 'Not Allowed'?

 

[MartinM]

That's about it, yes. Ontology is meaningless. My philosophy is a purely epistemic one; it makes no assumptions about ontology at all.

 

[Edx]

3) That fact that bald men are now starting to be considered sexy again. (Hey, nothing wrong about that. )

Are you sure its actaully "bald" men? Shaved heads are different

Ed

 

[CristianoBR]

because consioucness and the mind are entirely different then the brain. they didn't evolve.

Sure, brain is the hardware and the mind is the software.
About "evolving", everything shows that yes, the brain has evolved.

 

[Dragar]

That's about it, yes. Ontology is meaningless. My philosophy is a purely epistemic one; it makes no assumptions about ontology at all.

I suppose there's nothing inconsistent about that. I flirt with that stance, from time to time, simply because you don't have to worry about any of the problems. As long as you get the predictions which match experiments, you're sorted.

 

[Deamiter]

Interesting discussion, but to free up a little space in Creation and Evolution, I'll move it to physical sciences. It'll last longer there if nothing else.