Can Science relay our origin faithfully?

Is it possible for science to relay us a faithful representation of our origin?

.

When looking for the reason to life one finds an unexpected journey that leads to many different facets of life.

.

Scientific evidence does not include mathematic equations

In today's world, everything is classified and broken into segments and compartmentalized for deeper exploration into specific and defined areas. To do so requires we attempt to isolate each potential environmental and behavioral variable to then study the subject's interactions with controlled stimuli until repeatable and eventually expected results occur. This is both an acceptable and a logical approach to understanding what "makes things tick".

.

Over time, however, I have come to question the usefulness of the above method: To focus on any one particular area or subject is not only to block out the possibilities of interactions with the rest of the universe but potentially breaks any relationships the subject of study may have had with any external objects that we do not yet understand and/or have yet to discover.

.

As with any problem, if you eliminate, or lower, the number of variables it is easier to wrap your head around the issue and begin trying different solutions until one works.

.

Do we then continue to add the variables we removed or consider our problem solved while blaming any possible introduction of variables for any future failures?

.

How many variables remained that we did not or could not isolate, measure, or even know were there?

.

While it is nice to be precise when measuring we can never be 100% accurate.

.

How can we propose the accuracy of an experiments control is within an acceptable margin of error if the very acceptance of a margin of error allows for unexpected variables?

.

How concise can any conclusion be if we understand our control was imperfect and/or our knowledge of the subject's relationship(s), reaction(s), and/or entanglement with any other items the remainder of the universe was unknown?

.

If these issues exist for items within our natural world as we conduct experiments on Earth, here and now, how can we expect anything regarding the past, future or extra-terrestrial nature be even remotely accurate?

.

Our natural world is comprised of 99.99% space between atoms

Not only are we using knowledge born of Earthly experimentation at this time in the present to explain the past, future, and/or extra-terrestrial objects, behaviors, and reactions but we are then using mathematical extrapolations of those to expand upon theories born of prior mathematical calculations based upon prior theories. This is done in place of proper experimentation and/or physical measurement of objects and the isolation of the subject from variables is simply not adding variables into the equation.

.

All that we've been told of the universe may or may not exist in the way it has been taught and might not even exist at all. It is entirely possible that the universe we perceive as reality only exists within the realm of the virtual envisionment the mathematical equations created. It is impossible to know without the expansion of our "natural world" through physical exploration and experimentation of objects, behaviors, and reactions as discovered.

.

So regarding biology, chemistry, engineering, and other areas that deal with the natural world, those that deal with things we can physically measure, manipulate, and experiment on, we will only ever be close to understanding how certain aspects of certain mechanisms work because they can only be in a control and/or separated from as many another stimuli as we can fathom knowing there is a margin of error.

.

Everything else is best guess sci-fi extravaganza as they use the most minute bits from imperfect data and balloon it exponentially through scale or a mathematical prediction of a state in the past or the future to explain things not yet discovered using math that has a finite number of variables plugged in by someone that imagined how something might work.

.

If it doesn't equate do they simply continue to tweak and add variables until their mathematical equation matches their expectation or do they change their expectation after the math gives them something they can imagine?

.

Is that a rule for information gathered in the present to dig into the past or for use in predicting the future as well?

.

The square root of any negative results in an imaginary number

Many are using these extrapolations and vague understandings to flesh out an idea of a part of a universe that might or might not exist as contemplated only to then extrapolate from there into the past and then extrapolate the temperature and density of the universe one second after what they call the big bang.

.

How can someone that says they adhere to the methods of science draw a conclusion without physical experimentation and/or examination?

.

If one concedes even in the slightest to merely one of the above assertions yet holds firm their disbelief in God, that the Big Bang is our origin, and/or evolution turned slime into human beings they are being disingenuous.

.

Math, logic, and philosophy have proofs but science does not.

.

Science is agnostic.

.

The best science can give in regards to our origin is a hypothesis based on a string of interwoven theories. Our understanding of the universe is a tapestry of theories stitched together by mathematical equations - equations that include imaginary numbers and other expressions that can not exist in our natural world.

.

So what's this all boil down to?

.

My thoughts of the day:

One who looks for proof of his existential beliefs is likely to find confirmation of his beliefs.

.