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

411–420 of 610 posts

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

#411

Post by lisper »

everybodyknows wrote: post #353
moomin wrote: post #287

I don’t think people are understanding the subtlety of what she’s saying here. She’s saying that since there are no predictions to be made, there’s nothing falsifiable in any of the many theories. Worse, if the theories _do_ make falsifiable predictions that still will only reduce the imaginative space, not reduce it down to one theory, and that instead we choose between theories on the basis of how many “constants”…

A concise shorthand for "non-falsifiable theory" is "faith".

Only if you choose to believe that a non-falsifiable theory is actually true. Otherwise it's not faith, merely a hypothesis.

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

#412

Post by xabotage »

necovek wrote: post #385
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Her argument could be applied to the idea of the Big Bang itself What's wrong with that? The thing about science is that it cannot pretend that it knows. It needs to prove. To which end, I don't think we should be supposing that we're going to know. Otherwise we're doing religion.

Science is, effectively, religion/faith in a particular set of base presumptions (axioms of set theory or logic theory guide all "logical" reasoning). Basically, limits of human mind understanding things come with just having to trust some things are simply so. The biggest difference from things more commonly referred to as "religions" is that science invites you to challenge all these assumptions and look for a bett…

No. Faith is belief without evidence or belief in the presence of contrary evidence. If we were to suppose the "base presumptions" of science were on the same level as religious claims, then they could be arbitrarily ignored without real-world consequences.

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

#413

Post by 0134340 »

al_mandi wrote: post #358
eis wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I finished it now. It did not get any better. Most of his arguments can be boiled down to "science can't explain that so it must be god". No. Towards the end he shows a lack of understanding of statistics. He claims if any infinitesmally small change to the laws of nature would have caused an uninhabitable universe then it must have been specifically designed the way it is. He brings several examples that actually ar…

> There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. Exactly what he mentions in his talk, on what are you basing this belief? It's a metaphysical claim that is outside the realm of science. You just proved his point.

It seems like he's wanting to borrow science or at least some logic when it supports his argument but when it comes to the gods, he wants to say they exist outside of science and logic. This is a common argument and it's not ultimately falsifiable, ie, 'I say it's true because you can't prove otherwise'. And so too do invisible flying fairies exist who render themselves outside the realms of science due to magic pixie dust.

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

#414

Post by [deleted] »

Fezzik wrote: post #291
ratsmack wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>religious babble Why is religion held in such contempt when there is so much science that is just as much "babble", but held in high regard?

Because the whole premise and foundation of religion is that you ought to believe things absent evidence and without good reasons (that’s what faith is). If you have good reasons to believe something you give the reason; religion does not and should not, especially with its centuries-long history of malice and suppression towards free and scientific thought, deserve any credibility when it comes to matters of facts.

[deleted]

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

#415

Post by SiempreViernes »

Kerrick wrote: post #395
SiempreViernes wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason expansion yesterday is plausible if we see expansion is simply that's it's far more plausible nothing so special happened yesterday as to change the motion of the entire universe . The universe is not a little trickle of water down the wall in the bathroom you can easily redirect with your little finger, the universe it really big, so you need something equally big to make it change behaviour.

The oceans used to seem really big to us too, but each rising tide wasn’t destined to continue rising—the tides turned out to be cyclical, even though we couldn’t imagine anything but gods or magic to be powerful enough to cause the change. Perhaps we’re in a similar trough of understanding here?

I'm not sure I get your point, are you saying the moon and the sun, the things we now know cause the tides, are small things?

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

#416

Post by xabotage »

tsimionescu wrote: post #371
e3bc54b2 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really weird to watch science and science-like ideas grow out of faith and religion While there are certain events that can be filed under this category, more often than not its the other way around. That is, the ideas come outside the religion, run contradictory until proven unquestionably, and then the religious texts are found to be retroactively always been proving the science that was found later.

That's not really fair. For example, Galileo is often given as an example of someone who was persecuted by the Church for his ideas - without often mentioning that his ideas were championed by the Pope and the Jesuit order before some misunderstandings. Also, a lot of the basis of science comes from members of the Church, occultists, or others living in deeply fundamentalist environments (Newton being a famous father…

Where and when, throughout all human history, have there been significant populations not subject to a religion? It seems strange to suggest that demonstrably unscientific belief systems with incompatible differences tied mainly to geographic location somehow have a unifying impact on scientific progress.

It's kind of like saying a person contributed to science because of their hair color while simultaneously conceding that people of all hair colors contribute to science.

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

#417

Post by 0134340 »

al_mandi wrote: post #357
eis wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to post the video numerous times. I have commented on it on one of your other replies. > Proper religion and science do not disagree. What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? > I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Well for me personally, curiousity pushed m…

> What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? One that is backed by proofs and evidence. Islam does not disagree with science. Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot cary it? The answer is simple, it's a logical absurdity to even go there. God told us about his Attributes, and we are not to hold Him or His Attributes to our worldly logi…

>worldly logic

So your argument stems from illogic? Surely you don't admit such do you? When I was religious, religion captured me by thinking 'that makes sense'. It used a minor amount of logic to convert me but ultimately it failed because it didn't stand up against my rigors in the end. Religion wants to ultimately refrain from the rigors of logic but when confronted, how does it defend itself? That's right, it tries to use "logical" arguments just like in the video you linked.

If you want to deny logic then the guy you're arguing with is just as right as you think you are because he has justification to be illogical. That is the problem with making unfalsifiable claims like the gods exist outside of logic, you basically admit to a tie, at the very least.

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

#418

Post by xabotage »

al_mandi wrote: post #160
egello wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about time loop is that, how and when did it began? I just can't wrap my head around something being here, there and everywhere at all times.

It's a metaphysical assumption, meaning beyond the realm of experimental science. Science has inherent limitations, and cannot be used to explain everything. This is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3cNUixEBM

How did I know before I clicked that link that it was going to be apologetics.

Faith is not a shortcut to knowledge. "Hey, we can't yet find the answer to big questions through rational means, so let's try irrational means!"

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

#419

Post by skissane »

tsimionescu wrote: post #391
jondeval wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I'll try. There are two senses to understand the word creator. I'll illustrate both by analogies to the way 'we' create as people: (1) A violinist is creating the music that you are currently hearing. Here and now in the present. (2) A painter created a painting in the 19th century, and you can see the artifact on the wall in a museum. In the case of (1) the creator brings the song into being out of nothing. Mo…

> So, it's important to remember that, for example, knowledgeable Christians refer to God as the creator in the sense of (1) I am very curious why you think that - given that the Bible and all common teachings of it that I've ever seen very explicitly define God as the creator in the second sense (Genesis very clearly describes past events - not just Let there be light and so on, which could be taken as metaphors for…

What the GP is talking about, is the traditional distinction made in philosophy between in fieri and in esse causation. A causes B in fieri if A was necessary for B to begin to exist–but once B exists, it can continue to exist even if A ceases to exist. A causes B in esse if B can only exist as long as A continues to exist (and do whatever is needful to sustain B in existence.)

You will not find this idea directly stated in the Bible anywhere – these terms were developed in mediaeval scholastic philosophy (although the concept arguably goes back further). Among Roman Catholics, it is certainly the standard view–indeed, I think it is actually an official dogma that God continuously sustains the universe in existence (creates it in esse), as opposed to the deist view that God created it in fieri but its continued existence no longer depends on him.

Many Protestant philosophers invoke the same distinction. Philosophy of this kind is less popular in Eastern Orthodoxy (especially in recent times) – but when Orthodox thinkers have taken an interest in these kinds of philosophical topics, their views on them tend to be broadly similar to Catholic views, so I'd expect them to endorse the distinction as well.

> I don't think the Pope believes what you are saying.

This stuff is standard in seminary training for Catholic priests – so I'm pretty sure Pope Francis knows it – and although we can't know what's going on in his head, why would he disagree with it?

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

#420

Post by superposeur »

moomin wrote: post #287

I don’t think people are understanding the subtlety of what she’s saying here. She’s saying that since there are no predictions to be made, there’s nothing falsifiable in any of the many theories. Worse, if the theories _do_ make falsifiable predictions that still will only reduce the imaginative space, not reduce it down to one theory, and that instead we choose between theories on the basis of how many “constants”…

Yes, but this is a generic rubric to apply to all frontiers of science: falsifiable theories are good; unfalsifiable theories are bad; even when you falsify a theory, there will always be room to fudge and rescue it by making it more baroque; the principle of parsimony should be applied to give less credence to baroque theories.

I see no reason to place the frontier of "what happened right at / before the Big Bang where vanilla GR breaks down" in a different epistemic category than all other frontiers of science, as the blog post seems to do. i.e., I see no reason that we should not build models and collect data in order to expand into this frontier, as we profitably do in other areas of science.

Post reply on HN