9 Answers

  1. Non-materialistic science is possible, but it will be called differently, and the method of cognition on which it is based will be different from scientific in its modern sense. Because in modern science there is a criterion of falsifiability, which is tied to the experiment. If we are talking about something intangible, then the experiment is impossible.

  2. Science was originally information-materialistic.

    The main role has always been played by the information component.

    So far, there is no reason to hope for the creation of a non-materialistic science.

  3. Why the future? There were plenty of non-materialistic science-like constructions in the past, and there are enough of them now. For example, theology of different directions. Astrology , etc.

  4. This science is more ancient than our actual humanity. The time will come when our “luminaries” will come to understand that the physical, phenomenal plane, on which only our science has learned to operate, is not the only one in the universe.

    Someday they will have to accept that life is not a way of living protein bodies accidentally conceived in primordial broth. They will certainly come to understand that space objects, like the whole cosmos, are a living organism. And that this organism has Intelligence.

    They will then realize that until today they have only examined bodies, only what can be felt, seen, and heard with truly sophisticated instruments. But no matter how much you improve the stick for knocking down fruit from trees, it can't be compared to a lift.

    It's still ahead of us. Humanity has not yet developed to such an extent that the “non-materialistic” worldview has become obvious and generally accepted.

    But that time is just around the corner. And so quantum physics takes its first tentative steps in this direction and sometimes surprises itself when it comes across ideological paradoxes. These paradoxes are paradoxes only for materialistic science.

    .. Do you think Einstein didn't understand this?

  5. Materialism / idealism is all metaphysics that has little to do with the scientific method of cognition. Science is pragmatic and limited by pragmatism. Anything that goes beyond pragmatism, even if it doesn't contradict science, is no longer science, but metaphysics.

  6. Absolutely, yes.

    This science is already taking shape in the minds of computer scientists.

    This is the idea that our world is a virtual reality program, a Matrix. Then this program is based on some codes that can(?) reconstruct it.

    Wolfram has already suggested a solution. I didn't understand anything about his theory, but I support his efforts.

  7. When answering such questions, first of all you need to agree on terms. What do you think is a science and what is not? Only those areas where the scientific method can be applied (theory-prediction-experiment-reproducibility) or more broadly? Is mathematics a science from your point of view? If so, then this is already a non-materialistic science. If not, it looks like you will reject all suggestions outside of the scientific method.

    To mathematics, you can also add such sciences as philosophy, sociology, history, and others. Their status and “scientific” nature is a constant subject of debate.

    If you are really interested in the history and philosophy of science, then there is the classic work of Thomas Kuhn “The Structure of scientific revolutions”. If you want to read more simply, then the wonderful “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rational Thinking” by Eliezer Yudkowski.

  8. Yes, there has already been such a science for at least 100 years. It is called quantum mechanics.
    The most obvious demonstration is the famous example of Schrodinger's cat, which is half dead, half alive. It seems impossible, but in the microcosm, that's exactly what it is. And it is experimentally confirmed.

  9. Depends on which one. The natural sciences are generally neutral in the sense of the philosophical concepts attached to them. But in the natural sciences there is a kind of” methodological agnosticism”, that is, within the framework of the process of cognition, a scientist is forbidden to introduce a deliberately unverifiable value into the process of cognition. For example, a scientist has no moral right to introduce God as a real Force into his research, because by the very definition, the God of monotheism is an absolutely omnipotent personified Being, whose actions are basically unknowable. If you introduce God as an active “variable” in any scientific model, this model will collapse, because the results of its action will become completely unpredictable. On the other hand, a scientist can easily introduce philosophical atheism into science. This will not harm the very process of knowledge in any way, because atheism is just a philosophical position that denies the possibility of the existence of God or gods. That is, simply put, if God exists, then a believing scientist cannot introduce God into the process of scientific knowledge, otherwise he himself will become a false scientist (and from the point of view of some religions, he will fall into blasphemy). The atheist scientist has no such problem; the” agnostic ” methodological position does not contradict the idea of the non-existence of God.

    The problems start elsewhere. When a religious scientist, having already completed his scientific research, draws philosophical conclusions from it and states: “Science has proved that God exists.” When an atheist scientist, after completing his scientific research, draws philosophical conclusions from it and claims ” Science has proved that there is no God.” Both of these positions will be highly vulnerable, because first, they are not falsifiable and cannot be verified by scientific means, secondly, within the material world it is impossible to prove or refute even the possibility of the existence of an extra-material force, and thirdly, even if a scientist takes the position “yes, it is impossible to prove or refute the idea of God, but the idea of a monotheistic God is possible, because It interacts with matter, i.e. works miracles, etc.” – and here the atheist scientist will be wrong (matter is inexhaustible in the microcosm and infinite in the mega-world, therefore, even if it is affected by a supernatural influence somewhere, then all that people can see is the consequences of such an impact, but it is unthinkable to reach the causes of the impact and somehow prove or refute it at all, because it is not clear at what level of matter these manipulations are made). As a result, modern scientists, for the majority, are characterized by either the position of deistic agnostics or atheistic agnostics in general. Since the modern school teaches children not to believe in unverifiable phenomena that do not repeat themselves in life, to consider them the result of a mental illness or an illusion, then growing up, children deny faith in a personal God. It seems too “magical” to them (and the belief in absolute or relative determinism of all phenomena does not seem magical to them for some reason, they are just used to it). Then, when these children become scientists and face real scientific problems and the real complexity of the world, their “naive” atheism disappears and they choose two positions, respectively: 1) “God probably does not exist, but people cannot or will never be able to prove it by scientific or other means” (atheistic agnosticism); or 2) “God most likely exists, but if He exists, then He does not interfere in our world in any way and people will most likely never be able to prove His existence/non – existence” (deistic agnosticism).

    Now there are “inaccurate” or socio-humanitarian sciences (history, sociology, etc.). Within the framework of these scientific disciplines, the process of cognition itself, in principle, does not exclude the possibility of external influence of the supernatural (there it does not destroy the process of cognition so much). But even there, this influence must be somehow “limited” in order for science to become possible. Relatively speaking, the process of scientific knowledge in these sciences is forced to take into account a complex combination of” objective “(independent of the will and consciousness of people) and” subjective “(dependent on the will and consciousness) factors, and subjective factors quite strongly interfere with the forecasting process and distort the result, in particular, the so-called” self-fulfilling prophecy “or”self-refuting prophecy” effect. Well, let's say a scientist wrote a certain forecast about how society N can (potentially) come to a state of rather gloomy dystopia (he scientifically described how this is possible to warn people). But this forecast was taken advantage of by the power elites of this society, and after a while the very “dark dystopia” that the scientist described appeared in country N (the negative forecast came true by itself). A self-defeating prophecy is the opposite, the scientist drew the most likely path of events, but the forecast did not come true precisely because a lot of people in society gathered and made such a development impossible.

    Science itself cannot be materialistic or idealistic. Materialism and idealism are philosophical positions in relation to what is primary – the idea or matter that arose from what. At the same time, it is customary to “enter” the third position in idealism, which is primarily consciousness, reason, and spirit. In fact, this is precisely the third position, since there was a philosophical idealism (the same Hegelianism), which put the Absolute Idea at the forefront. But it doesn't matter. Materialism, idealism, and “fideism” (or theologism) – all these three positions have nothing to do with science. They relate to worldview, culture, and philosophy as a special institution of human culture and a special type of knowledge (other than scientific knowledge). As soon as we introduce any of the positions into the process of natural science cognition, we will make cognition impossible, as soon as we introduce any of the positions into the process of socio-humanitarian cognition, we will partially distort the result or be forced to limit our initial assumptions.

Leave a Reply