Are there any questions that are beyond the realm of scientific enquiry?

Uh....There's like, uh, the mystery of morning wood, uh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh

Yeah hm-heh. mmBoioioioioing! Hm-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-hm-heh

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are we talking about theory or fact? Science can theorize about a lot of things that can never be proven.

We're talking about inquiry. What can science try to study?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We're talking about inquiry. What can science try to study?

We have theories about the multiverse, and there is no way in this universe that we could ever prove any of it. It might as well be a giant turtle. The things we cannot study are the things we cannot imagine.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing can ever be at absolute zero.

You're correct. Heat death is really misleading. Rather, it would be half lives upon half lives (half lives is actually a misnomer, but it's the best I can come up with.)

So, we would end up at .000000001K of a universal average mean temperature, then, some time later, we would be at .0000000005K ...then .00000000025 etc etc.

So, yes, you are correct. We will never reach aboslute zero...unless, there is some sort of negative thermal energy component that steals energy from our universe, similar to hawking radiation, but affecting the thermal aspect of shit.

It'd be really really hard to account for something like that if it only occurred once every very very very long period of time.

IF we reached absolute 0, I am just guessing, but I think the universe would collapse in on itself and start from scratch. I think this beacuse all matter would completely stop moving and very few things would happen at the quantum level...and...I'd think that the strongest force left would be gravity (at planck levels).

Questions of prescription or morality:
Should I get a nose ring?
Is a nose ring wrong?

Also: I'm sure it's unnecessary for minds of your caliber, but I'd like to remind everyone that science doesn't prove things. 😉

Originally posted by amity75
As the title says - are there any questions Science CANNOT explain??

What, and why? I can't really think of much... afterall, it pretty much poos all over god.

God and Heaven and the Bible.

Not having proof of such things shouldn't be the answer, right? Science can't explain those concepts and it seems since they can't it's fiction.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct. Heat death is really misleading. Rather, it would be half lives upon half lives (half lives is actually a misnomer, but it's the best I can come up with.)

So, we would end up at .000000001K of a universal average mean temperature, then, some time later, we would be at .0000000005K ...then .00000000025 etc etc.

So, yes, you are correct. We will never reach aboslute zero...unless, there is some sort of negative thermal energy component that steals energy from our universe, similar to hawking radiation, but affecting the thermal aspect of shit.

It'd be really really hard to account for something like that if it only occurred once every very very very long period of time.

IF we reached absolute 0, I am just guessing, but I think the universe would collapse in on itself and start from scratch. I think this beacuse all matter would completely stop moving and very few things would happen at the quantum level...and...I'd think that the strongest force left would be gravity (at planck levels).

We are in agreement. It would be like a big bang all over again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct. Heat death is really misleading. Rather, it would be half lives upon half lives (half lives is actually a misnomer, but it's the best I can come up with.)

So, we would end up at .000000001K of a universal average mean temperature, then, some time later, we would be at .0000000005K ...then .00000000025 etc etc.

So, yes, you are correct. We will never reach aboslute zero...unless, there is some sort of negative thermal energy component that steals energy from our universe, similar to hawking radiation, but affecting the thermal aspect of shit.

It'd be really really hard to account for something like that if it only occurred once every very very very long period of time.

IF we reached absolute 0, I am just guessing, but I think the universe would collapse in on itself and start from scratch. I think this beacuse all matter would completely stop moving and very few things would happen at the quantum level...and...I'd think that the strongest force left would be gravity (at planck levels).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Absolute zero is a misnomer. Even at absolute zero, there is still energy thanks to the miracle of zero-point energy.

Zero-Point energy is not thermodynamics, though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Absolute zero is a misnomer. Even at absolute zero, there is still energy thanks to the miracle of zero-point energy.

Zero point energy doesn't exist long enough to actually do anything.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
God and Heaven and the Bible.

Not having proof of such things shouldn't be the answer, right? Science can't explain those concepts and it seems since they can't it's fiction.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
science cannot define infinity, thus they cannot define an infinit being 👆

Mathematicians seem to have a pretty good grasp of infinity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mathematicians seem to have a pretty good grasp of infinity.

If an omnipotent being can make some one more powerful than himself then hes not omnipotent.

If an omnipotent being cannot make someone more powerful than himself then hes not omnipotent

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, then. Tell me with multiple studies that prove, inexorably, how Testosterone causes muscle hypertrophy.

No?

K, then this one should be easy:

Tell me how a neuron stores and retrieves memories.

No?

K.

Let's go with something more real then...

How about this one:

Why is light attracted by the weak force, despite having no mass?

No?

K.

In other words, there are some things we don't yet understand.

in the first statement "inexorably" is the faulty bit as science doesnt hold anything as absolute fact. ofcourse the lack of evidence{however much it may be} for that assertion is a result of difficulties in the testing process. it however has NO bearing on the actual question of things being OUTSIDE the scientific DOMAIN{i.e. being exempt or fundamentally inditerminable from the point of view of physical cause-effect}. this holds true for the rest of your statements too.

a neuron doesnt STORE a memory. through successive activation of neurons when a "memory" is being formulaed. dendrites grow to connect them with each other, and every time that a stimuli creates active potentiols in this matrix of interconnected neurons, more dendrites grow and connect them with each other, making the matrix more stable. and every time a stimuli fires active potentials in this matrix its refferred to as rememberING.

i cant say for sure other than the fact that all forces effect and distort space and the weak force does so too and light follows that weak force well in a similar way to how it follows gravity wells even though gravity in the layman's terms only effects things with mass. ofcourse reletivity tells us that the MASS of a photon is directly proportional to the ENERGY of a photon which is why photons have momentum etc. wave particle duality.

furthermore notice that these are not infact all assertions that can be STUDIED in a sceintific experiment directly, simply because {atleast the first two} are not EMPERICAL assertions. too often has it been the case on kmc that people say "give me the name of the study or source which proves this" or "really, you beleive that relegion is bad for the psyche, why dont you go ahead and prove it with a scientific study done on the subject" , as a form of copout unless every single semantic exertion has been tested. they forget that only emperical assertions can be directly tested, the wrest is justifiable extrapolations based on the results of such studies.

and again the question isnt whether science KNOWS EVERYTHING{which is disproven by things it hasnt gotten yet}, its whether there are things in this world which are UNKNOWABLE using the scientific method.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
science cannot define infinity, thus they cannot define an infinit being 👆

mathematicians can define several different forms of infinite. and it doesnt matter whether they can or they can not, there is no evidence for an infinite being so its kind of like saying, logic cant define a square circle, therefore a square circle exists but no1 knows about it. its absurd.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing can ever be at absolute zero.

empty space without particles{real or virtual} is at absolute zero. and absolute zero still has zero point energy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. For example: why does the universe have the laws of physics that it currently has? Also, What is inside of a black hole. And, what happens when the universe is old and cold enough to reach absolute zero.

because the the structure of the quantum fluctuations that brought our universe into existance caused a non uniform, random, irregularity in the zero energy systems of the two strings which caused nothingness to split into{resultantly predictable} non uniform structures{i.e. space/time/energy/forces} all having their constants which when combined woud give an overall energy of zero.

inside of a blackhole is...............space and time corved in on itself and all distances decreased to zero. it can be shown more lucidly in mathematics than in english.

itll never happen because space itself has the vast majority of the positive energy in the universe.

but ofcourse all this is based on our current understanding which is bound to grow and/or change with time.

Originally posted by amity75
- are there any questions Science CANNOT explain??

I don't think empirical science is the lens for addressing this.

Yes. It is ignorant to think that we know everything there is to know about everything or that weknow how or have the tools to measure it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
mathematicians can define several different forms of infinite. and it doesnt matter whether they can or they can not, there is no evidence for an infinite being so its kind of like saying, logic cant define a square circle, therefore a square circle exists but no1 knows about it. its absurd.

Have you ever tried deeply contemplating infinity?

I have and something always pops up to spoil it, very odd experience.