Does Ethics Have A Place In Physics?
Ethical dilemmas
For four hundred years, the answer was a resounding no, however the idea has never gone away entirely. Over half a century ago, Arthur Koestler, the brilliant Hungarian polymath, speculated that possibly an ethical concept, purpose, may really be a house of time. There's first of all ethics as a code of appropriate social behaviour, like an agreement by many individuals in the world that eating your enemies it is not any longer regarded the right thing to do. There may be small debate that this type of ethics doesn't have place in science.
Individual opinions
If physics doesn't recognize this, then physics it is wrong and should look for a place for God in the program of things. Over there's Jane Doe who think the Bible is suspect since it was written by a lot of cantankerous, opinionated old men. She doesn't believe any of it and thinks that subjects about purpose are typical male arguments that lead nowhere. Perhaps John originated from an extremely conventional Christian family, while Jane originated from a background of rebels and iconoclasts. There's one thing they both have in common: their beliefs are strictly personal and therefore subjective. It's true that John thinks his beliefs are based on a revealed truth that exists quite aside from him and is hence objective, but that's Merely his own personal belief, which it is contradicted by Jane's own individual belief.
Religions role
Regardless of the topic of their individual beliefs, neither John nor Jane may show any separate evidence that their beliefs reflect some other truth which is axiomatically self evident. Modern physics today agrees that what it offers with in the world of natural phenomenon it is based on our sense perceptions, and that feeling perceptions are ultimately subjective in nature. That being the case, physics is very right in eliminating any subjective ethical concepts from science, since such ethics aren't governed by scientific principles of evidence.
Religion, and on the other hand, offers with the world of values. Science is the foundation of technology, faith the foundation of ethics. Ethics may only be looked at in a scientific context when physics has already reached the stage where the subjective reality of physical phenomena has stopped being enough to explain the origin of those phenomena. Physics tried very difficult to reach the source of matter within this world. For several years, this source of issue was believed to be the ultimate, irreducible particle, particularly the atom.
Physics and ethics are unavoidably inseparable. If an attempt is made to separate them, physics quickly becomes something else, a sophistry. Religion is neither morality, nor ethics. Religion plays no part in either ethics or physics, except as an easily corruptible method for controlling the masses, which, because of the decency of the majority, sometimes, accidentally, produces positive results. There are examples of this throughout history.
Physics is based on correctness of understanding, or 'rightness''. Physics was originally natural philosophy. This was the attempt to understand, correctly, the function of the natural world.
Ethics or morals have been corrupted by the superstition of religion. I, personally, think that god is not some spooky spirit that watches you, but is more accurately expressed as 'consequence' or 'result'. This makes ethics and physics one and the same, or different aspects of the same thing. Physics being the search for understanding, and ethics being the knowledge of the result, informed by the understanding of the dynamic.
Ethics have been corrupted by many churches like you say. Perhaps spooky action at a distance at a quantum level is a God of some kind going "Hey! Stop poking at my quantum field!" Excellent comment analysis as standard @lifeworship ;)
I read up to 2 times, article short and solid, nice and I have resteem this article
I need to revive the #nuggetized tag again. Thanks for the RS @harferri :))
Unfortunately, this leads to the disproof of science.
The observer is an integral part of the experiment.
And thus, the scientific method, as currently stated, breaks down.
Physics will have to learn to understand emotions if it is ever to learn anything real about the universe.
Thanks for passing by @builderofcastles! Excellent comment!!
Why? The scientific method, at least in the Popperian sense, works perfectly well when the observation itself is part of the experiment. This has nothing to do with the subjective ethical concepts of the observer.
In some cases, like quantum physics, the influence of an observation (not: the observer) on the measurement at hand was predicted by the very theory itself.
The second we start watching the quantum world it already knows that we are watching it ;)
An observer cannot be separated from the observed.
In ways that the scientific community hasn't even broached yet.
Imagine if you will, that out computers do not work because of "the laws of physics" but because of training our subconscious to display information to us in this manner.
From inside the earth, no one can prove which case is true. Does computers follow physics, or does computers follow consciousness? Or, are all three interlinked in a way that can never actually be separated?
There are people on this planet who can't use computers.
Expectations, feelings, have a great degree of influence on the physical.
The physical is a subset of consciousness.
And so, to state we want a verifiable test is really an oxymoron.
What is reality is that we affect the very space around us, and the space around us affects us.
And thus, the scientific method breaks down.
(You can also look at the placebo affect)
Fascinating.
But. There's an unequivocal but at the end of your conclusion, because clearly the quarks and the sub-atomic particles may very well hold entire universes in an ever complex holographic and fractal way. So then, physics having neither proof of matter or viable means to explore further levels of these vastly empty and ever so present and not things called sub atomic particles they have reached a very stifled conclusion.
The 10-dimensional universe - universes within universes!
http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/12/16/heres-visual-guide-10-dimensions-reality/
This is more akin to dimensions https://theory-of-thought.com/blog/the-universe-has-12-dimensions/
Buy 10 Dimensions Get 2 Free! ;)
I cannot understand why anyone would want to take their ethics from regligion. Let us take the Christian god for example. Genocide, rape, murder, incest, infantcide and plain old jealousy are some traits indulged in by this god. To use this horrible being as a role model? Just wrong.
Thanks for your comment @maninayton - one of my best today :))
nice i like :)
@particlehunter ;)
Hello @mindhunter! Interesting, knowledge - providing post.
Nice to engage the brain for a change :)) Steem on!
P.S. More info on Arthur Koestler see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler