Home » In English, Авторски страници

The Hypothetical Nature of the Scientific Theories

2018.04.06 Няма коментари
Spread the love

by Nikolay Gousev

Science does not detect – it finds.

The facts exist – in anticipation of being discovered by scientists-“explorers.”

To find out is to establish the existence of a certain fact, a phenomenon, an event that existed independently of your will in time and space, to understand what Someone has created long before you were born, studied and engaged in exploring this problem.

Take any of the so-called natural sciences – physics, chemistry, biology – and trace its history. It turns out that every successive scientific theory is a denial of the previous one. This is because both the previous and the next, as well as any new scientific theory, contain within itself the germ of the denial – the impossibility for the concrete historical moment to answer one or another of the fundamental questions set in its essence.

This inability of the consumer (man, human society) to respond definitively to questions asked by nature and society was, is and will be realized by the great minds of the same humanity, and constantly overlooked by mediocre and medium-sized scientists – not to mention the crowds of laymen.

Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert Millican are deeply believing Christians. They have touched the limit that The Creator has set, they understand that anthropomorphic intelligence can not cross it. The laymen, mediocre  and middle hand scholars, however, prefer to be blind and deaf to The Truth, and remain blissfully unaware of the inability to even touch that border. From there – their unbelief in the obviousness of the existence of Intelligent Mind beyond every human knowledge, Creator of everything that exists and is about to emerge – visible and invisible.

The illusory confidence of the layman, the mediocre and the middle hand scientist in the scientific attainability of Absolute Truth is based on the a priori the misconception of the infallibility of science. The reality constantly demonstrates the opposite – science always turns out to be not a truth of last resort, but simply a stair, a link, a footmark, or (too rarely) a step to another temporary, “last”, fit to be proclaimed sooner or later as a mediocre scientific truth.

When they talk about science, they actually mean so-called scientific theories and somewhat scientific hypotheses. However, the honest approach requires recognizing that the so-called  scientific theories are in fact fictions that permanently give way to new fictions (new scientific theories) in the process of acquiring new knowledge.

Integrity and accuracy imply that science is, at best, hypothetical, that is, deals with hypotheses (not theories) that are constantly being updated by new hypotheses (in some cases – relatively fast, in others – after a long period of time). Therefore, the terms theoretical science, scientific theory are initially inaccurate – in fact, science is assumptive, hypothetical (hypothetical science), and the title theory is appropriated by the hypothesis – not proven in 100% scientific assertion (scientific hypothesis).

The so called scientific laws are objectively existing facts that scientists have noticed in the process of exploring objective and subjective realities. Progress in knowledge leads to the identification of more and more facts correcting the relevant scientific law. For example, in macrocosm, the cause precedes the effect, while in the microcosm the reverse sequence is observed. The twin photon paradox disproves the theory of the ultimate (i.e. the highest possible in nature) speed, or even eliminates the concept itself (in fact, whether in this case even such a fundamental science concept – distance – does not lose its meaning, respectively value, importance?).

The paradox is that either the speed of light is not the ultimate magnitude (i.e. it is infinite, or it was once infinite), or the distance is a kind of fiction (i.e., something imaginary, non-existent from a certain point of view; in turn, leads to relevant, paradoxical conclusions from the human position and the essence of time).

A similar example, when a proven hypothesis (scientific theory) leads to paradoxical inferences, casting a shadow of doubt on fundamental scientific categories and generally accepted views of being, raises reasonable doubts about the omnipotence of science.

Can it be an omnipotent thing, the foundations of which are based on perhaps fake scientific truths?

Let me not be misunderstood: I do not deny science, but only the degree of its theoretical nature.

Science emerges as a constant string of (changing) a previous scientific truth with another (new) scientific truth, in turn refuted by another (self-defining as the last) scientific truth – and thus – to the end of times on the path to Absolute Truth .

What is the etymology of the notion (the term) Theorem, respectively Theory?

According to the Old Greek-Bulgarian Dictionary of the New Testament …, published in Sofia by the “Source of Life” Foundation in 2010:

Θεόξ  [theos] means God (pp. 144-145, 2316), a
Ῥᾖμα  [rema, rhyma] is 1. a. something that has been said; speech, word, word; statement, statement, sentence; b. message, notification; order, regulation; 2. something, subject, question, work (p.249, 4487)
Ῥέω [reo] makes sense of the flow, I run; I pour, spill, overflow (page 249, 4482).

It is possible to infer the initial meaning of the term Theo-rem:

1. Theorem = Something said by God; or
2. Theorem = God’s oration; or
3. Theorem = God’s word; or
4. Theorem = God’s speech; or
5. Theorem = God’s statement; or
6. Theorem = God’s declaration; or
7. Theorem = God’s sentence;
8. Theorem = God’s message;
9. Theorem = God’s notice; or
10. Theorem = God’s command; or
11. Theorem = God’s order; or
12. Theorem = God’s thing, Something in God, God in something; or
13. Theorem = God’s object, Subject of God, Object in God; or
14. Theorem = God’s Question; or
15. Theorem = God’s work,
as well as the meaning of the term Theory:

Theory = something that flows, flows, spills, overflows with God
or synthesized uniquely –
Theory = something that derives from God.
In this aspect, should we not look for the reason for the hypothetical nature of science?

The core of any real science is the ability to formulate the right question; the answer – sooner or later – will be found.

Here is a fact that shakes the lines of the so-called scientific theory of the Big Bang.
According to Big Bang theorists, the universe has arisen and has evolved to its present state of singularity when it was centered on an invisible point that exploded and continued to expand, to develop and to improve, to move from chaos to order.

But the existence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics speaks of a completely different scenario. In his view, the universe, as well as everything, moves from order to chaos. I.e. the reverse movement – from chaos to order – is impossible in this universe.

What really turns out to be? Something that was spoken and written thousands of years ago:
And God saw all that He had created, and it was too good” (Genesis 1:31).
The universe of The Bible fully fits reality – God creates a perfect world. But … the interference of a mighty being-second after God – is triggering a second law (of thermodynamics).

They attribute the “firstborn sin” to our forefathers Eve and Adam. But the parents of man are not the originators of sin. Another is the source.
The closest, the most gifted in all respects, the second after God, is arrogant and wants to observe the throne of The Creator. Sin, the original, was pride, combined with jealousy. It drew a foot for the whole set of thoughtful and unthinkable distortions of the Perfect Plan of The Creator.

The tip of God’s creation, Homo Sapiens, is presumably the gift of thinking and thinking logically, of learning and learning from its successes and failures in the study of God’s work, our known universe.

The great, true scientists who have attained the tops of their modern science, are aware of man’s anthropocentric limited ability for knowledge, and reverently acknowledge the existence of The One without Whom nothing would be called into reality.

Middle hand and mediocrity go hand-in-hand, no matter how great they have been to their contemporaries. They place science – and beyond it and on its own – on the pedestal, to which no man and no human should be able to save. Sooner or later, their idols are thrown into the dump of history, forgotten or, at best, disgraced (Sic transit Gloria mundi …). Their fate resembles that of the tyrants, whose mummies are thrown out of their magnificent mausoleums, their monuments – broken down, their works – ridiculed …

Science ultimately turns out to be the circumnavigating, eloquent path to the attainment of Absolute Truth,
while the Christian faith and its proper practice are in direct contact with The Absolute Truth – The Lord God Jesus Christ.
(18.01.2011-06.05.2012)

P.S. Another hypothesis, claiming to be called theory, offers a new reading of the origin of the visible universe, denying the previous contender of theoretical – the singularity and the Big Bang.

Professor of Theoretical Physics at Indiana University, Dr. Nicodemus Poplavski, proposes a new hypothesis that the universe in which we exist is probably the inside of a black hole. The processes of expanding the universe we observe are analogous to those emerging in the black hole tunnel.

Poplavski’s assumption eliminates the singularity problem – the weak link in Big Bang ‘Theory” – and once again demonstrates the hypothetical essence of human science, embodying the privilege of being true of last resort.

———————————–

Editor ‘s note: This article has been initially published on 08.19.2015 at EuroChicago.com in Bulgarian. We publish its translation in English in order to reach the American Christian audience.

Leave your response! Вашето мнение е важно, напишете го!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Моля не ползвайте нецензурни изрази! Всеки коментар, в който има линк, ще изчака редактор да го провери за спам - забавя публикуването.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.