

On the Fundamental Nature of the  Universe - markpneyer
http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2010/02/18/on-the-fundamental-nature-of-the-universe/

======
andywood
No. As poetry, this is fine. From a rationalist point of view, this is
muddled. As science, this is not much less naive than, say, What the Bleep Do
We Know. You seem to be motivated, ahead of time, to arrive at a conception of
the universe that is inspiring, and makes you think life worth living. This is
a sure path to rationalization. You shouldn't expect, ahead of time, that
whatever the truth of reality is will turn out to be steeped in redemptive
qualities. This will cheat you out of the chance to be ok with whatever is
true, because it is true, and not because you find it conforms to your wishes
after all.

~~~
lotharbot
Recognizing that everything has a wavelength is science. Interpreting the
interactions of those various wavelengths as "music" (rather than merely
"noise") is poetry.

That interpretation is neither muddled nor naive. It's just not science.

------
andreyf
But axioms are by definition unsupported :)

Also, the universe does not follow mathematical rules. Mathematics, like
Plato's Forms, only exist in our minds, and are simply attempts at
categorizing our perceptions.

------
samd
We have to create meaning for our lives because there is no inherent meaning
or purpose in it. We have a biological imperative to make up these kinds of
stories to keep ourselves sane, whether it be that our goal in life is to make
a difference, get rich, or gain knowledge. The problem is that people try to
impose their story onto the world when in reality there is no story. That is
what this guy is doing, keeping himself happy by deluding himself, he's just
more advanced than most people.

~~~
kaib
> in reality there is no story

Please provide an experiment that lets us verify the truth of this statement.

Seriously, while the scientific method is extremely useful there are still
large areas of human existence that it does not cover. The author seems to
have made a personal realization that using poetry to face these facets of
existence is more satisfying. He also observes that while his view is not
provable it also does not contradict with the current accepted body of
scientific knowledge.

Your argument tries to use logic to rain on his parade. However, I see no
arguments that are any more provable than what the original author postulated.

~~~
samd
You're never going to scientifically prove a philosophical stance, it would be
circular. Philosophy is the foundation of science, not the other way around.
My view is unprovable just like his, people have to pick the one that seems
right to them.

------
jey
This excellent piece by Sagan, Feynman, et al. also addresses these questions:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk>

