Scientific cognition encompasses all human endeavors aimed at generating novel, previously undiscovered, and verifiable information. It is ...
Scientific cognition encompasses all human endeavors aimed at generating novel, previously undiscovered, and verifiable information. It is through this scientific understanding that we gain all objective knowledge about the states of the universe and how it operates.
Scientific understanding is based on evidence. Knowledge is only accepted when it is supported by evidence, which is what makes science an evidence-based discipline. This raises the crucial question of what qualifies as evidence in scientific understanding. Evidence is a form of knowledge — a statement about an object that we accept as existing. However, identifying precisely what truly exists is not always straightforward.
Observation is the means by which we know what exists. However, because observation is a human endeavor, scientific knowledge is inherently subjective. Although scientific practice offers methods to minimize this subjectivity, no universally applicable criterion definitively determines whether discovered knowledge truly reflects reality. Since there is no obvious criterion for determining the truthfulness of recognized knowledge, scientific truth-seeking employs procedures, known as the scientific method, to enhance the probability that recognized information is real.
As part of the scientific method, it is necessary to link the knowledge resulting from observation to measurable quantities in order to reduce the subjectivity of recognizing knowledge. Scientific knowledge is based on the recognition of the measurable properties of observable things. Therefore, scientific knowledge derived by the scientific method can only come from observable and measurable sources of information.
While this feature of scientific method helps us recognize what really exists, it also fundamentally limits our ability to expand our knowledge of the world. Only what can be observed and measured can be accepted as scientific knowledge. If a scientific statement cannot be verified by an observable and measurable property, it is usually only accepted as a hypothesis—a supposition about reality.
There is a further limit to the scientific method and, consequently, to our knowledge of the world: verifiability through reproducibility. Reproducibility seems to be a necessary and obvious requirement for knowledge that corresponds to reality. If something is reproducible, then it is real and exists. However, the limitation here is that, while the more reproducible something is, the more likely it exists, not everything that exists is reproducible, either practically, realistically, or even theoretically.
Another characteristic of verifiability—a criterion typically expected of scientific knowledge—is at least the possibility of theoretical falsifiability. Any scientific statement with a method of refutation can be verified for truthfulness. However, falsifiability is not an inherent property of scientific knowledge. Rather, it is a method of verifying the validity of a scientific statement. Because scientific statements require verification, the possibility of falsification increases the veracity that a hypothesis is true. If a scientific statement is associated with a procedure that could disprove its validity, but application of the procedure does not lead to disapproval, the statement is considered more credible and valid.
However, falsifiability is merely a method of proving the credibility of a scientific statement; it is not an inherent feature of scientific veracity. Falsifiability cannot be a criterion of scientific knowledge. It is merely a condition of the scientific method that we voluntarily undertake in our search for reality. Making scientific truth conditional on the possibility of refutability will also impose a fundamental limitation on scientific understanding and may prevent us from recognizing reality.
The scientific method is the accepted practice for acquiring new information, and it is the means by which we gain knowledge of reality. The scientific method is instrumental in validating the veracity of knowledge; however, it also imposes fundamental limitations on the acquisition of scientific knowledge.
To enhance the effectiveness of expanding our knowledge of the world, we should link scientifically acceptable knowledge to conditions other than the limiting scientific method. These condition should be less restrictive yet still ensure the validity of our perception of reality. What criterion would be more appropriate for linking scientific knowledge, and what criterion would be less restrictive yet still provide validity?
At the most fundamental level, we expect the universe to be a cause-and-effect system. In the context of the functioning of the universe, everything is inherently interconnected through causal relationships. This fundamental principle serves as the foundation for all knowledge about our world. For instance, evidence that serves as a foundation for scientific knowledge is also a type of information that is causally related to the expectedly true knowledge.
Our world is a system built on the chain of cause and effect. Information about the world that is valid must possess the attribute of causality. Even the quantum world, which seems to be governed by randomness, is in fact driven by a set of causal probability rules that are always in effect. It can be stated that scientific knowledge can only be considered as causal knowledge. Scientific understanding is therefore a chain of cause-and-effect cognition that exists in reality.
If we accept this cause-and-effect property as the definition of scientific knowledge, this determination will fundamentally extend the possibilities of acquiring scientific knowledge. This is because recognizing a cause-and-effect relationship can also generate knowledge in ways that are not necessarily based on empirical evidence. The condition of the cause-and-effect chain related to knowledge can state an actually valid scientific statement even in cases where it is not tied to the result of empirical observation.
When a scientific claim lacks empirical evidence, it is generally accepted as a hypothesis that requires validation typically by the scientific method. Scientific method, however, is not without its limitations, which can act as a barrier to confirming the hypothesis. However, according to the suggested definition of scientific knowledge requiring a causal property of reality, something that can be recognized to be causally related, even on a purely theoretical basis, can be assumed to exist with a high degree of scientific probability.
The scientific method is an effective, albeit limited, approach to understanding our world. Our world may contain many realities that are not accessible to the scientific method. However, understanding our world in terms of the chain of cause and effect can provide a comprehensive understanding of our world.
The application of scientific knowledge derived from causal assumptions that are not necessarily constrained by the scientific method has already become a prevalent practice in our global exploration. The example of this approach is the method of deriving novel insights about our world through purely mathematical procedures.
The fundamental premise of our world is its operation in accordance with the principles of mathematics. This does not imply that every theoretical mathematical structure exists in our physical world, but it does indicate that every physical principle in our material world adheres to the rules of mathematics.
It also follows that knowledge of the world that contradicts the laws of mathematics cannot actually be part of the way our world works. We present this law in such a way that nature is written in the language of mathematics. This statement in itself has profound implications for the nature of our world's existence, but it also means that, in the context of knowing our world, if we start from a mathematically valid statement about our world and transform this statement according to the objectively existing rules of mathematics, then since the transformation is mathematically causal in nature, which must also be valid for the operation of our world, we must arrive at a statement valid for our world defined in the mathematical transformation.
During mathematical transformation, we typically cannot match every step to the actual state of our world, but through mathematical transformation, we can reach a state of mathematical statement that is recognizable to us as it represents even a previously unknown, physically existing state of our world. A typical example is the recognition of matter existing in an anti-state. Paul Dirac arrived by pure mathematical deduction at a mathematical statement suggesting a physical state, which describes a previously unknown form of matter, the antimatter, that was later discovered as existing physical reality.
The rules of mathematics are a cause-and-effect system. We do not always recognize the physical meaning of the transformed mathematical state that conform to the rules of mathematical formalism in relation to the existence of our world, but sometimes we can establish a state of mathematical assertion that can be verified physically, even by the scientific method, which can lead to discovery previously unknown knowledge about our world.
It also follows that if, in the process of mathematical transformations of the knowledge represented in mathematical formalism that is considered valid for our world, we arrive at a statement that can be demonstrated to be invalid for our world, then we can deduct that the initial knowledge was in fact an invalid, or rather, an inaccurate formulation of the way our world works. A typical example of this cognitive process is the evolution of Newtonian gravitational mechanics into general relativity.
However, even the cognitive process based on strictly valid cause-and-effect relationships in mathematical formalism has limitations. This limitation is usually expressed as no matter how beautiful a statement formulated with mathematical formalism, if it does not correspond to or contradict the reality as we know it, usually demonstrated by the scientific method, the mathematical conclusion is incorrect.
How can we reach a conclusion that does not align with reality, starting from a valid physical statement and applying the strictly valid causal rules of mathematics to it? Mathematics is a set of rules based on abstraction, where, for example, a line is infinite, a right angle is exactly 90 degrees, and 1+1 is always exactly 2. These are valid statements in mathematical abstraction, but not necessarily true statements in our world. Our world cannot be infinite (even if we are unaware of its limits, we have no understanding of its finiteness, therefore, it is sometimes more convenient to regard the world as infinite from certain viewpoints, mathematical infinity cannot exist in our material world). Also our world cannot be infinitely precise, and in our world, there is no 1 or 2; only one something and two somethings exist, therefore the statement "1+1=2" is valid only in well-defined mathematical abstractions, and in other correspondence, this statement may be meaningless. Strictly valid causal laws of mathematics are abstractions of the reality of our world, and are only necessarily valid laws under well-defined conditions.
However, the fundamental claim still stands, that our world is a cause-and-effect universe and that our world can be understood through the recognition of the chain created by cause-and-effect states. The scientific method and mathematics, however, are useful but limited tools for recognizing the cause-and-effect reality of our causal world.
Learning and knowing about our world should not be limited strictly to tools with limits. Any tool or method that can identify a causal relationship can provide new knowledge and should be used to explore our world. Even if a new causal relationship between the states of our world can only be established by logical deduction, or if a previously unknown state of the world can be deduced by causal relationships based on logic alone, the obtained result can be real knowledge of the world.
While the reality of our world must justify the supposedly recognized causal relationship, the scientific method is not always the appropriate tool, and even mathematical abstraction can be an obstacle to justification. The method used for verification should not be an obstacle to scientific knowledge. Causal cognition, of any form, needs to be utilized and can satisfyingly demonstrate and provide the fullness of our knowledge of the world.
However, even the cause-and-effect approach to knowledge acquisition has theoretical limits in our world. The inherent limitation in our understanding of causality in our world is the inception problem. The beginning is characterized by its independence from causality. The initial stage cannot be approached on a casual basis. However, if the existence of our world is strictly causal, then the natural beginning relying on cause and effect cannot exist.
Our causal world can only exist if the beginning does not exist, meaning that the existence of our universe is circular. Our world can remain entirely causal if its operation of existence is circular.
However, the state and the origin of the system establishing and enabling the circular operation are also issues in this case. But this is no longer a question of the particular cause-and-effect world, of the world that can exist for us. In this case, the world of experience exists in the system that generates the experienced world, but the system that generates the experienced world is not part of the world of experience. Similar to the movie on the movie screen.
One possible reality of this kind of system is a universe based on the grid-model presented in the thoughts. The theoretical grid-model is a solid structure built on hypothetical particles, on which the vibrations of neighboring particles create interacting stable resonance patterns, whose interactions give rise to a new world, such as our world, which in this case can already operate in a circular flow-like manner. It might be.
If our cause-and-effect world is not a circular process, then the beginning cannot be a non-problem. In that case, even a creator, God, can cause the world, just as we ourselves are able to create new worlds without being linked by causal necessities. If God's existence is not causally linked to our experienced world, then the creator God can influence the existence of the world in such a way that his activity is not necessarily causally linked to the causal world. The origin of our causal world is possible in this way, just as God's existence is imagined by us. It might as well be.
No comments