Scientific theories of the big bang are now based on known particle physics from particle accelerators and relativity (after a very short time after the BB) so they fit very, very well.
I had a chat with a neuroscientist recently (I've talked to him before) who commented on physicist Edward Witten's view on consciousness (look on youtube). Now Witten said consciousness will probably remain a mystery and not become part of physics. He said it will remain undefined. My friend said many colleagues think in general this way which I thought was very revealing, though TBH he didn't mention deep specifics. I just thought I'd share this.
Now he also said though the focus is on brain science, the so called "easy problem", the massive work brain scientists do is independent of a "consciousness theory". In short, neuroscientists worry as much as you do about "mind" but don't, cannot, and will not ditch known physics/chemistry about the brain's function.
My point is you can't ditch known science, even though you can still be right about mind remaining mysterious, the observer being real, larger observers and so on ... eventually leading up to some ultimate Being even. Hence religion? Maybe we can only use metaphor in these regions.
(As to Arp, no disrespect, that was from 1988, a lot has changed since then)
Arp didn't die until 2013, by which time he had accumulated more evidence. I only chose that video rather than a more recent one because it was short and aimed at a popular audience on Patrick Moore's
Sky at night. Search on YouTube and you'll find more recent/technical videos into the present century.
OK, by example, can you replace quantum physics which needs special relativity to be joined with for physical appls. and is used to build your PC you use?
Also if you think the Schrodinger equation is just a representation, you can actually see wave-like interference patterns.
As regards QM and General Relativity, it is widely recognised that the two theories are incompatible, and Special Relativity is a subset of GR.
I never said that science isn't useful and that it doesn't work, albeit over restricted ranges. It has
some useful explanatory power, which is why computers and GPS's work. All that says is that mathematics is a useful way of trying to describe reality, but when it comes to a theory of everything, we're still struggling. It's my contention that where important theories are mutually exclusive, that's pointing to serious defects in our understanding; classic examples are found in cosmology and the study of consciousness.
I have little doubt that over time, theories will change, but we'll still be left with inconsistencies as long as we stick with
materialistic science. However, if we expand the definition of science to include consciousness as an axiom, maybe we'll make progress on that front.
You and I are having the same difference of opinion that Bernardo and I had, but I was more surprised in Bernardo's case because he's an idealist. At bottom, I think it boils down to one's understanding of what science, as currently understood, is. For me, it's a sterling attempt to
describe phenomena e.g. in mathematical terms, leading to many demonstrably useful results. However, I don't think that it truly reflects what really
is; science is a second-order descriptive tool, and we tend to
reify the entities it postulates.
Yes, we can see what appears to be interference patterns that can be explained by
inferred "wave-like" phenomena: but can we see
actual waves, or are waves just a useful way of thinking about what's going on? One that originates in waves that we
can see, e.g. in water? And why in double-slit experiments do waves apparently disappear and "become" particles when we can determine which slit they went through? Evidently, "particleness" and "waveness" are different aspects of the same thing, and which we see seems to depend on consciousness in some weird way.
If anything, QM seems in my book to support the Idealist case that what is most fundamental in the universe is consciousness. "Waveness" represents
potential, whereas "particleness" represents
actualised potential, which comes about when consciousness comes into play.
Which has precedence? potential, or actualised potential? Cosmology focuses in large degree on the latter and tends to downplay QM because it doesn't credit the idea of Mind-At-Large, an ever-present and ubiquitous consciousness that can affect everything. However, if that's the way things actually are--if there truly is a MAL-- then our present understanding of science will never be able to fully elucidate what's going on.
If, OTOH, there is no MAL, it's that much harder to explain consciousness at any level. We're left trying to explain it in terms of the actualised potentials we call elementary particles: IOW, materialistic science.