Not mysticism at all, backdoor, front door, or window. It's established fact that science progresses, often, based on better measurement, or random observation, that raises questions about existing understandings. That being the case, there's no reason to believe we'll hit a limit on these things, in which we have a perfect understanding of the universe.
A good analogy would be fractals. In many ways, we're just beginning to understand how they work, and also, how fundamentally the universe expresses itself fractally (rather than in simple dimensionality as in classic physics and math). Remember that with fractals, it's possible to continue exceedingly deeply (infinitely, in mathematical fractals; it may be less so in physical systems) and discover both self-similarity and differences. (This may well be the truth of the old belief "as above, so below.")
For that matter, there's no reason to believe that the universe itself isn't changing (the scientific word is "dynamic"), to the point where it's never going to be possible to fully understand it because it's different tomorrow from the way it is today.
If you want to argue that science doesn't address a "why", rather than a "how", in these areas, you certainly have a case. But calling it "backdoor mysticism" is assigning a motive that doesn't, in my understanding and experience, exist for many of the folks involved. Curiosity, sure. But there's nothing of the supernatural involved at all.
no subject
A good analogy would be fractals. In many ways, we're just beginning to understand how they work, and also, how fundamentally the universe expresses itself fractally (rather than in simple dimensionality as in classic physics and math). Remember that with fractals, it's possible to continue exceedingly deeply (infinitely, in mathematical fractals; it may be less so in physical systems) and discover both self-similarity and differences. (This may well be the truth of the old belief "as above, so below.")
For that matter, there's no reason to believe that the universe itself isn't changing (the scientific word is "dynamic"), to the point where it's never going to be possible to fully understand it because it's different tomorrow from the way it is today.
If you want to argue that science doesn't address a "why", rather than a "how", in these areas, you certainly have a case. But calling it "backdoor mysticism" is assigning a motive that doesn't, in my understanding and experience, exist for many of the folks involved. Curiosity, sure. But there's nothing of the supernatural involved at all.