If the theories and instrumentation used to observe stars flow from our intellect how can we say that stars don’t

A discussion of the formation of the universe, it seems, requires a discussion of what we regard as reality. Without getting too philosophical and trying to maintain a somewhat practical approach, there is a distinction between reality and science. Science, it is submitted, develops theory based on ‘facts’. However, these facts are what can be referred to, and often are of course, as ‘experimental’ facts. In other words observables.

What I will refer to as primary observables are what we experience through our basic 5 senses. However, science has gone far beyond these primary observables. The vast majority of observations, or experimental facts, are through instrumentation and the resulting ‘facts’, or scientific facts, through inference by applying mathematical and existing scientific theory. Instrumentation is not an extension of our basic 5 senses but rather an extension of our intellect applying, at times, as a technique, simulation of our senses. The design of instruments i.e. to what we expect these observables to speak, is based on the application of existing scientific facts in accordance with accepted scientific and mathematical theory.

Someone once asked me what the relationship between language, generally, and mathematics. I explained that, in my opinion, mathematics was an extension of our perception in order to deal with the unknown in a rational fashion. The basic test for a scientific theory is very much one of "proof is in the pudding". In other words, does it work. The fundamental elements for any theory in considering this issue are internal consistency and usefulness. The test of usefulness is to what extent it satisfies our desire for an ‘explanation’ of the observables and predictability. Esthetics seems to play a role as well – thus, ‘the simplest answer is usually the right one’.


To follow this line of reasoning back, a scientific theory is very much a manifestation of our intellects and very much culturally oriented. It thus has the limitations of our intellects and is biased by our culture. Observables are an expression of what our instruments tell us. What our instruments tell us is very much a manifestation of our intellects as well as integrally connected to scientific and mathematical theory, with in turn are rooted in our intellects. Thus, scientific facts can be no more, since it is based on the application of scientific and mathematical theory to observables, than a manifestation of our intellects and culturally modified. For example, we can consider that the speed of light is constant as a scientific fact. This has been confirmed now by many experiments over many years. Einstein, of course based his special theory of relativity on this and this theory has enjoyed tremendous success. However, is the speed of light, in reality, constant? To what extent is this ‘conclusion’ merely a reflection of the limitations of our intellect. In other words is it really a result of our intellectual frame of reference. I do not think this is easily answered since the underlining issue is the limitations on our intellect which, obviously, limits what we can, at our present stage of development, comprehend or even be cognisant of. It is submitted that the same applies to our ‘known universe’ – stars, galaxies, etc. If the theories and instrumentation used to observe stars flow from our intellect how can we say that stars don’t.