[timinman]

The OP made a side-comment about 'idea of naturalness' being a philosophical tenet. That's a problem because science claims to be philosophically neutral, which is impossible.

Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of time/space/matter doesn't fit within those constraints.

Admittedly that is a philosophical or even theological take, but at least it's honest.

[oliwaw]

>Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of time/space/matter doesn't fit within those constraints.

So our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation?

That's an extraordinary claim, what is your evidence? We currently have insufficient data and incomplete theories to fully describe the origins of the universe, sure. But how is this different from someone 500 years ago saying:

"Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of the Earth and humanity doesn't fit within those constraints."

[timinman]

>So our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation?

In my comment I wasn't making the argument that our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation. I was trying to show that presupposing it is a natural creation is not philosophically neutral, especially when what we have observed naturally seems to oppose the idea of energy or matter coming out of nowhere.

>What is your evidence? From my perspective, accepting the probability of a transcendent creator is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the existence of the universe. I realize that will be judged to be a 'faith position', but from my perspective so is supposing it could exist on it's own.

[rch]

I think you're misreading the article. Science is about theory and observation, with no presumption that the latter must fit the former.

As much as a physicist might hope to uncover a universal law that is simple enough for children to memorize yet subtle enough to warrant a lifetime of learning to fully understand, nature is perfectly content with fundamental parameters that settle into working values completely at random.

[timinman]

Fair enough. He was specifically speaking to 'naturalness' as technical designation in physics. I am getting a little more general.

The scientific method seeks to be entirely empirical - which makes sense for understanding what we can observe.

But what happens when what you are trying to understand is not observable? You fool yourself if you think you are being empirical when you are not. (His comment about moving the yardsticks applies here).

Any endeavor to understand the universe, especially origins, ends up involving philosophical presuppositions. Science aspires to avoid that, but can it?