We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know • Hacker News Board

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

#531

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #498

craftsman wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that things seem to work does not mean that they actually do work. We all are subject to cognitive biases which can trip us up. Most people aren’t very good at recognizing when that happens. That’s why these things survive so long.

>The fact that things seem to work does not mean that they actually do work. Well, the same can be applied to your "western science" as well..

Correct. And over time we--both as individuals and collectively as a civilization--gradually cull those things which seemed to work at one time but have become clear that they do not, and gradually adopt those things which seem to work better than those. In the end, over long periods of time, what matters is what does work, not what seems to. A society which believes than matter is made of small blue regular polyhedra will fail to develop as well as a society which continually culls and refines its beliefs based on experimental evidence.

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

#532

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #499

craftsman wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And no, that’s not moving goalposts.

It is, because you can verify the claims of a holy man if you go meditate in a cave for a couple of decades. Since no one is willing to do that, people used to accept their word for a fact. The same is the case with science claim that cannot be verified by common men who depend on them. That they are also "believing", might be hard to get through the thick skull of these modern "science" gushers. They fail to see tha…

The missing ingredient is that if the common men--who you think have no better option than to depend blindly on someone they choose to believe--build a civilization based exclusively on the meditations of these holy men who they have accepted as the repositories of truth, they will find that their society will fall to those societies which have a, shall we say, more empirical basis for their view of the world.

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

#533

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #500

0134340 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man is imperfect. The scientific method is a process that verifies, humans implement and observe the output. With religion, humans "observe" more than they can verify. Religion admits as much that it lacks verification, that's why it has faith. Religion wants the best of both worlds, saying it is endowed with logic and verification yet when pushed you get the same tired argument about faith and 'gods exist outside lo…

>Man is imperfect. Yes >The scientific method is a process that verifies... And this process is done by imperfect men...who you end up trusting ...

And yet, this mythical common man--who you say has to just choose who to trust--will find that if he chooses to build civilization by trusting the imperfect holy men, it will pale in significance to the civilization built by other common men who choose to trust the imperfect scientists.

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

#534

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #502

craftsman wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you can find another group of holy men who disagree with that group. And a third group that disagrees with those two groups. The number of groups ends up quite large, and nobody can quite seem to figure out a way to test whether one group has it a bit more right than the others.

> Except you can find another group of holy men who disagree with that group. This happens in your "western science" also (despite all the ability to "test" things), he he he...excuse me. Couldn't help it.

With the difference being that the former do not self correct when it happens, while the latter ultimately do self correct.

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

#535

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #501

craftsman wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be focused on the so-called common man and his inability to do anything more than just believe things. I think you do this common man an injustice. Let’s say this common man is religious (pick one) and is going about his day and is injured in some accident. He is taken to a hospital, and one which he knows is aligned with his religious beliefs. Upon arriving the doctors triage him and tell him he’s bleedi…

Sure, the common man can belive one thing more than other. Does not mean that their actions are not based on belief in both cases... Aren't you guys truly not getting this simple thing? I should probably get out of this thread..

The difference being what those beliefs are based upon.

I'd recommend a read through Plato's Socratic dialog Theaetetus. Then think through whether the progression of sensation, true belief, and justified true belief does or does not form a sequence of increasingly better ways to think about the world.

As for your last sentence, although I could say the same, I think you will agree that it would serve no purpose.

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

#536

Post by mensetmanusman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

c1ccccc1 wrote: post #321

mensetmanusman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof requires axioms, and the universe hints towards what they are but isn’t explicit. Per thermododynamic axioms, incompleteness is implied by the arrow of time and information atrophy. This would imply an unknowable beginning.

You got the direction backwards. Increase in entropy means that the farther back you go in time, the less information the universe has in it in some sense. The initial state of the universe would therefore be very simple, having low entropy. If the state were simple enough, then in principle, we could figure it out in exact detail. The thing that thermodynamics says is unknowable is the distant future of the universe…

Maybe we are thinking of S=k ln(0 or 1) then? Undefined or zero is not a great place to start:)

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

#537

Post by craftsman » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

tresqotheq wrote: post #496

craftsman wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, well in that case, the parent poster can just say that asking about the cause of the creator is a valid thing to talk about, because they mean a subtly different kind of ‘cause’ than the kind of cause you told them wasn’t valid to talk about outside of the universe.

They can, but that wouldn't be too interesting to anyone in this universe. Or that it how I read it. Just like a being in a game wondering what caused the game company/programmer to write the game.. The reason will have no consequence to the beings in the game, and thus they will only be interested in the causuality mechanism within the game..

I infer then that you think the concept of a creator outside of our universe who caused it is a concept of no consequence. If so, then on that we agree.

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

#538

Post by xabotage » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

barrysteve wrote: post #491

xabotage wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 concedi…

One would hope your religion has more impact on it's followers than a box of hair dye. The heirarchal ordering of some faiths, the commitment to truth, the belief in the veracity of the written word, the ability to support monastic orders are all functions of a society that believes. The belief that the individual speaks the truth and should be listened to, are the mechanisms that allow science to flourish. Some scie…

Faith is not commitment to "truth," but rather commitment to a belief regardless of its veracity. Science has nothing to do with "believing" something - its a process for determining what actually is true based on evidence. Historically, science has only been allowed to flourish as long as it tiptoed around the religious powers-that-be.

If you really think science boils down to a "minor variation on what has come before," I'm curious to know what millenia-dead philosophers managed to launch a JWST equivalent.

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

#539

Post by xabotage » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

uavals wrote: post #511

xabotage wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disclaimer: not a scientist. Part1: For the sake of the argument: Have you seen evidence of scientific fact-x? (For example x=“water is made of H2 + O”) Since set of “x” is so wast, no matter who you are, for most of “x” the answer will be “NO”. Time, accessible equipment and brain-capability constraints force us to outsource the evidence check to others. (even smartest scientists read papers instead of reproducing a…

I trust scientific facts proportional to the evidence I have that these facts are true. This is not the case for faith, wherein disproportionately large amounts of trust are demanded without any evidence.

Our model of the atom allows us to accurately predict chemical reactions. Religion has no predictive power whatsoever, and none of its unique "truth" claims are provable or falsifiable.

People who uncritically trust "science" as regurgitated by pop-culture media are more akin to theists.

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

#540

Post by al_mandi » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #480

al_mandi wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary. Which is why you evalua…

> Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com Please bring a single proof of god here in your own words. I have already wasted one hour on that video which didn't lead anywhere. > Correlation vs causation. You might want to try apply that to your original claim that the western civilizations are de…

> Please bring a single proof of god here in your own words. I have already wasted one hour on that video which didn't lead anywhere.

That video was a good start, the fine tuning argument, the fact that something cannot come out of nothing, etc.

The next step is that when someone claims to have been sent by God, we look at the evidence he brings forth. Prophet Muhammad Prayers of God be upon brought with him signs and performed miracles. The Quran itself is a living miracle, no one had been able to bring anything like it, and the Arabs at the time tried. Some even admitted but would not believe due to pride, this is quite well documented. Furthermore, the Quran and Hadiths talk about events that happen tens or even thousands of years later. The website I linked mentions over 100 of them. Some like the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers or the fact that the deserts of Arabia were not only green, but would return to be rivers and meadows have only been discovered very recently.

> You might want to try apply that to your original claim that the western civilizations are declining because they are so secular.

The behavior of secular people is quite obvious as to what is causing these issues. Many of them get rich, have everything at their disposal and think, this is it? This has happened time and time again. I'd be interested to hear your explanation. The Quran already alluded to this over 1400 years ago, even when atheism was not common (another miracle):

> But whoever turns away from My Reminder will certainly have a miserable life

-- https://quran.com/20/124

> Any many go back to christians, jews or even predate our mainstream religions

The difference is that with Islam, those scholars admit that it was Islam is what played a role in pushing them to pursue knowledge. It's in our religion.

> Pretty sure it also persecuted people who seeked knowledge that Islam didn't like.

Bold and false claim. Show me your proof. Islam is not Europe in the dark ages that you are talking about.

> Or maybe that happened already before all the western influence?

The Islamic world had the Caliphate established until WWI. Not saying that we did not make mistakes (one of the biggest was getting involved in WWI to begin with), but since then, it's been quite clear what's going on.

> I'd argue rape being just a phenomenon is wrong

But it's not wrong according to those atheist figures, who are heavily pushing atheism. You cannot force your view on him. Once such practices get adopted and popular, you have no retort.

> Rape leaves the victim traumatized and less productive in society

Maybe, maybe not. Rape used to be common back in the day, and people were not as traumatized. Secondly, who cares about society, we're all "chemical scum" anyway. Why does it matter?

> anyone with a bit of knowledge how reproduction and genetics work can see that inbreeding increases the chance of genetic defects.

So? Also, there's birth control and abortion to solve that problem.