Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 610 posts

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#261

Post by michaelmrose »

al_mandi wrote: post #218
michaelmrose wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence otherwise it would by definition just be a type of science. It would be the study of God via experimentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical extrapolation. There are religious folks that are big on logical deduction and extrapolation but they all start with terribly unlikely axioms pulled straight out of their ass or equally made up fictions r…

> Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence There is evidence backed belief in the unseen, and there is blind faith. So your claim that by definition faith is without evidence is not correct. Secondly, even science needs to accept certain axioms as a given so that we can build upon them. Scientism is believing that the only way to arrive at truth is through experimentation, which is a false…

Science chooses minimal axioms and builds the flesh of the world based on the existing bones ready to revise when new bones are discovered.

Religion chooses a substantial set of axioms derived from a mixture of philosophy and fantasy dreamt up by our pre scientific ancestors who thought bad smells caused disease then makes many forms of revision sinful. A set of beliefs without ability to revise everything from the ground up will forever be limited.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#262

Post by ksidudwbw »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #33

What if it never began and has simply always existed? That is the likely scenario, as the moment you think about it beginning, you again face beginning from what? What was that called before the universe other than the universe?

A random tear in infinitely dense nothingness. Might be a lucky one-off

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#263

Post by craftsman »

tresqotheq wrote: post #227
eis wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

>Science is not a religion. What is the difference between a holy man who claims to have the word of god, and a scientist who claims to have followed the "scientifc method"? Modern human believes the latter. That is the difference.

The difference between the two claims is whether they are verifiable.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#265

Post by yibg »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #178

“We will never know” is such a contradictory statement. On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future. Add it to your list of things to never write.

I don’t know if the statement is correct in this case but in general saying “we will never know” about a subject which we have incomplete knowledge isn’t a contradiction.

I can say, we will never know what the first human that got to North America had for lunch on their 20th birthday, and I think that’s as true as it could reasonably be. Sure maybe we’ll invent a time machine or some other technology in the future that invalidates it, but if you apply that logic then nothing can ever be stated as a fact.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#266

Post by jondeval »

aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #110
gibsonf1 wrote: post #33

What if it never began and has simply always existed? That is the likely scenario, as the moment you think about it beginning, you again face beginning from what? What was that called before the universe other than the universe?

Just because everything within this universe has some preceding cause doesn’t mean that the universe itself can’t have a beginning without anything preceding it.

This is an interesting and important point. I'll attempt to rephrase your point slightly differently:

Everything we observe in the universe has a sequence of linear causes stretching backward in time. However we can't be sure from these observations that Universe (or multiverse or something similar) itself has been caused in a similar way. -- I hope I got that right.

But is the physical universe (or multiverse or something similar) that we experience a good candidate for the uncaused base reality that just exists?

A good reason to think not is that universe is composed of stuff and parts that change relative to each other. If something changes, ie goes from potential to actual, then there is something that is more actual, or more real, from which we should be able to explain the change.

Another way to say it is that we may not know what base reality is, but in order for it to be a good candidate for 'the' base reality, it should be completely simple. And the universe as whole, by all appearances, is quite complex.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#267

Post by TheBlight »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #254

I honestly never cared for Hossenfelder's science communication. She's far too dismissive and dishonest in representing theoretical views she disagrees with. And I don't necessarily have the physics understanding to pick these biases out too easily. I think Sean Carroll for instance does a much better job at this when he interviews people whose views he disagrees with in his podcasts, which happens quite frequently.

I have a similar difficulty in listening to her. I think she does it to provoke interest but it has the opposite effect on me.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#268

Post by Zigurd »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #245
IAmGraydon wrote: post #178

“We will never know” is such a contradictory statement. On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future. Add it to your list of things to never write.

Perhaps, if there is a God, he does not desire us to learn about him by knowledge or by science, but by love for him and seeking him out. For who is man to say, that man must only learn about God through objectively verifiable facts, because man said so? Perhaps this God wants seeking. If we were born without eyes, color would still exist, but we would never perceive it, and how would we believe it if someone said it…

Our knowledge of the cosmos, in just a few hundreds of years, expanded from the Earth, Moon, planets and stars of the firmament, a kind of cozy neighborhood, to that of unfathomable numbers of galaxies stretching out to unimaginable distances of space and time.

Strange that gods who were so occupied with matters on this planet, who live in a nearby heaven up by the firmament of stars, are also still credible candidates for "creator" of the universe.

The real universe is so much more vast and so much more strange than any scriptures had ever imagined. One could be forgiven for excusing that underestimation of the universe as a limitation of the imagination of man.

In other words, "the god of the gaps" has to keep finding new gaps to fill, and the gaps are ever less tenable.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#269

Post by craftsman »

tresqotheq wrote: post #227
eis wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

>Science is not a religion. What is the difference between a holy man who claims to have the word of god, and a scientist who claims to have followed the "scientifc method"? Modern human believes the latter. That is the difference.

You seem to have a view that the world consists only of (a) people who claim things, and (b) people who believe them, and that there’s no difference between types of claims.

The claim of someone who says they have the word of god is hearsay and there’s no way to figure out whether they do or not. The claims of someone who says they’ve followed the scientific method are verifiable by others. If they claim that their experiments show tiny blue tetrahedrons make up all matter, other people can check. Nobody can check if god talks to the first person.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#270

Post by tresqotheq »

craftsman wrote: post #263
tresqotheq wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Science is not a religion. What is the difference between a holy man who claims to have the word of god, and a scientist who claims to have followed the "scientifc method"? Modern human believes the latter. That is the difference.

The difference between the two claims is whether they are verifiable.

Tell me, how many scientific "claims" that you rely on a day to day basis, have you verified personally?

Or How many such claims can be verified with a single average person's limited resource?

Post reply on HN