Scientists in a race to discover why our Universe exists

I posted this here rather than in another section as it is just about mainstream science. And I admit I only read the article because of the use of the word 'why' in the headline (rather than 'how'). The idea of a race had me thinking that perhaps if they can't answer the question of why we are here, perhaps the Earth might cease to exist. But that's just me and the topic itself is rather less philosophical.

Scientists in a race to discover why our Universe exists

Inside a laboratory nestled above the mist of the forests of South Dakota, scientists are searching for the answer to one of science's biggest questions: why does our Universe exist?

They are in a race for the answer with a separate team of Japanese scientists – who are several years ahead.

The current theory of how the Universe came into being can't explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. Both teams are building detectors that study a sub-atomic particle called a neutrino in the hope of finding answers.

The US-led international collaboration is hoping the answer lies deep underground, in the aptly named Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (Dune).

It's laughable that they think any of this can explain why the universe exists.

Science cannot answer why or how questions about something metaphysical ~ because the underlying nature of the universe cannot be fundamentally physical, as the quantum is not "physical" nor is the quantum the raw stuff of the universe either.

They're poking around in the dark, thinking that they'll suddenly be enlightened when they don't even know the basics.

They're just looking in all the incorrect places. What a waste of money...

In fairness, I was mentioning the use of the word 'why' in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way. I don't discourage research which might appear to have no usefulness; even Michael Faraday was unable to explain why his research into electricity and magnetism could possibly be of any use, but he understood that knowledge was valuable. I'd encourage the research, obviously whatever they do or don't find can't answer all of the questions we might ever have but still for me it has merit, research "for it's own sake" is fine by me.

The current theory of how the Universe came into being can't explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. Both teams are building detectors that study a sub-atomic particle called a neutrino in the hope of finding answers.

It's amusing to me that Scientism, and its related religion of Materialism, has so many gaps.

I do think this research is interesting, though I do wonder about the costs and what projects that are of greater relevance to current problems would be funded in its place.

Regarding that "Why" bit -> If the goal here to bolster the Materialist-Atheist religion, akin to the desperation of turning toward belief in the Multiverse to get away from Design, then this does strike me as a disservice to the public as there are a lot of immediate problems that could be worked on instead...

It's amusing to me that Scientism, and its related religion of Materialism, has so many gaps.

I do think this research is interesting, though I do wonder about the costs and what projects that are of greater relevance to current problems would be funded in its place.

Regarding that "Why" bit -> If the goal here to bolster the Materialist-Atheist religion, akin to the desperation of turning toward belief in the Multiverse to get away from Design, then this does strike me as a disservice to the public as there are a lot of immediate problems that could be worked on instead...

Just to be o contrair, I think the scientific method does a great job of exploring personal Experience, by focusing on personal Experience that we share, and coming up with useful predictive stories to join these Experiences together.

Just to be o contrair, I think the scientific method does a great job of exploring personal Experience, by focusing on personal Experience that we share, and coming up with useful predictive stories to join these Experiences together.

But... science doesn't do any of that...? Making up "predictive stories" is not what science is about. It's not about focusing on personal Experience. Science today, consumed by Physicalism, has a unpleasant fascination with wanting to exclude the subject from the experiment entirely, to exclude experience and the experiencer.

Just look at anything quantum-related ~ Physicalists are extremely keen to redefine "observer" to be anything other than a conscious, living entity, to exclude the conscious observer from having any quantum influences, to exclude consciousness and mind from having any effect or causal power over the quantum and physical world.

But... science doesn't do any of that...? Making up "predictive stories" is not what science is about. It's not about focusing on personal Experience. Science today, consumed by Physicalism, has a unpleasant fascination with wanting to exclude the subject from the experiment entirely, to exclude experience and the experiencer.

Just look at anything quantum-related ~ Physicalists are extremely keen to redefine "observer" to be anything other than a conscious, living entity, to exclude the conscious observer from having any quantum influences, to exclude consciousness and mind from having any effect or causal power over the quantum and physical world.

It's only about personal Experience, and specifically focusing of what experiences are shared. The science method sidesteps the issues you raise (correctly in my view) and gets on with investigating what is shared, via the rigor of replication. Then inventing predictive stories to join these shared experiences together. I don't suggest the individual people who practice it are unbiased, that's the whole point of the method, get rid of the bias.

It's only about personal Experience, and specifically focusing of what experiences are shared. The science method sidesteps the issues you raise (correctly in my view) and gets on with investigating what is shared, via the rigor of replication. Then inventing predictive stories to join these shared experiences together. I don't suggest the individual people who practice it are unbiased, that's the whole point of the method, get rid of the bias.

Science does not explore personal experience ~ it focuses on doing experiments where the subject is excluded, where the experiment is then preferably reproduced by another scientist, who is also excluded. Scientific experiments being independently reproduced doesn't even really qualify as "shared experience" ~ it's just scientists trying to reproduce an experiment to see if they get similar data.

That is, you're conflating subjective experience with a methodology that deliberately seeks to exclude the subjective experience from the results. The subject and their experiences cannot be reduced to experiment conclusions or statistics, anyways.

The scientific method doesn't get rid of bias, either, because the scientists doing the experiments can be biased to hell, and they're in a system that rewards bowing down to those who give them funding, along with chasing careerism, money, fame, and keeping access to being able to publish in big journals.

Science has just become another corrupted institution. The scientific method is innocent, but science as institution is not.

Science does not explore personal experience ~ it focuses on doing experiments where the subject is excluded, where the experiment is then preferably reproduced by another scientist, who is also excluded. Scientific experiments being independently reproduced doesn't even really qualify as "shared experience" ~ it's just scientists trying to reproduce an experiment to see if they get similar data.

That is, you're conflating subjective experience with a methodology that deliberately seeks to exclude the subjective experience from the results. The subject and their experiences cannot be reduced to experiment conclusions or statistics, anyways.

The scientific method doesn't get rid of bias, either, because the scientists doing the experiments can be biased to hell, and they're in a system that rewards bowing down to those who give them funding, along with chasing careerism, money, fame, and keeping access to being able to publish in big journals.

Science has just become another corrupted institution. The scientific method is innocent, but science as institution is not.

Scientists can only explore their own Experience. The method of Replication forces science to only validate Experiences which are shared. So it's limited in it's remit. It makes up useful predictive stories to join these Experiences together.

Science is reduced to using the results of past experiments to probabilistically predict the results of future experiments.

Just to be o contrair, I think the scientific method does a great job of exploring personal Experience, by focusing on personal Experience that we share, and coming up with useful predictive stories to join these Experiences together.

Oh I think science can help find predictive patterns that are useful, in the same way people can find useful tricks that can be exploited to survive longer in a video game.

And of course without science there is no Design argument either.

I was just critiquing the idea that science can answer the "Why" of the universe.