Science Vs Philosophy

You have a person. An event occurs. The event enters into the sensory perceptions the person. The person's experience, logic, and beliefs (in other words the brain) will interpret this in a fashion parallel to the person's brain. This is the interpretation of the astronaut.

You may or may not have a person. If the person exists, the event enters into his sensory perceptions. If it could be proven that his sensory perceptions are completely accurate (that is, if it could be proven that what we experience with our senses represents the largest, most complete picture of everything) then the person will interpret this in a fashion parallel to this person's brain. If it cannot be proven that our "sensory experience" is perfect, or, an "evil genius" is not deluding it, then the person cannot be sure that his reaction to this event is consistent with the reality of the event. If there is no person (if the ontological argument is wrong, and the only existent things are contingent in a possible world it is possible for there not to be any contingent beings) there is nothing to study. This paper does not exist. The reader does not exist. For convenience, we must grant the proposition that something exists. This is the interpretation of the astronomer.

What is right? Possibly, nothing. There are so many questions we have not answered, and so many questions that need to be asked that we have not yet asked. Both the astronomer and the astronaut, however, could agree to the following. The astronaut would agree that if

Bc = Cp then 2Bc =2Cp and 2Cp > Cp (Bc = Brain Cells, Cp = Computational Power).

Or rather, that two heads are better than one. The astronomer in the pursuit of truth would agree that if he had created ...

... middle of paper ...

... which hammer is right for the job. When one combines the scrutiny of metaphysics and the direction of science, one builds a house, efficiently. To add one more element to our analogy of the building of the house, we must envision it is a continuous process whereby the builder attempts to build a progressively larger house. The builder will continue this process until the house is large enough to occupy the full magnitude of the universe. To apply this notion to the "Many Worlds Theory," the metaphysician would have to then ask, "if there are many worlds, who created those worlds, and why were they created?" he would then have to either find or make a hammer big enough to tackle this next job. Whether this process will lead us anywhere is up for debate, but one thing can be said with some certainty, the bigger the house, the bigger the picture it holds.