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

591–600 of 610 posts

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

#591

Post by al_mandi »

xabotage wrote: post #418
al_mandi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

You can throw around words like "apolegetics", but that doesn't make it less correct.

Islam has proof and evidence (e.g. http://provingislam.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsEZXx8kRg, https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some..., and much more). Don't present a false dichotomy between science and faith where there isn't any for us in Islam.

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

#592

Post by barrysteve »

eis wrote: post #581
barrysteve wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith is commitment to truth in Christianity and science has a lot to do with believing. People choose which of their hunches and theories at the edge of their individual knowledge with a leap of faith. I said the Scientist operates on a minor variation on old ideas, not all of science. Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. These co…

Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true. Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to try to experimentaly verify the idea or to for example mathematicaly prove it. It's not about believing something is true and then stopping there. > Quite frequently even the top echel…

You constantly talk in the terms of faithful ideas and yet reject they exist.

There is a reason you 'think this curious idea might be true' and the chain of ideas that got you to this point goes back a long way. And your thinking is usually influenced by unspoken ideas you take as prima facie true and acceptable, even though you never admit it.

These ideas come from faith and if you understand their starting point, you can understand their likely ending point and become a better scientist for it.

You don't see the connection because I haven't summarized centuries of ideas in three sentences of logical chains so you don't have to think about the history of ideas, and can just accept the answer prima facie like you do every other idea science runs on.

You don't know, what you don't know.

This really feels like pearls before swine. Have a nice day.

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

#593

Post by ranguna »

renox wrote: post #515
ranguna wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the history is cyclic? Then there is no origin. But what started the cycle? I guess we as humans are the ones at fault here, because we can't accept something infinite as an answer in the real physical world.

> > What if the history is cyclic? Then there is no origin. > But what started the cycle? It's a bit like asking where is the beginning of a circle, it doesn't make sense..

If you look at the circle on a piece of paper, yeah, it doesn't make sense _after_ it's been drawn.

But it does have a beginning, you had to pickup a pencil, placed the carbon tip on the surface of the paper and then finally you were able to draw a circle.

So yes, it makes sense _before_ the circle even existed. Something created the circle, it didn't materializa itself out of nothing.

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

#594

Post by ranguna »

nazka wrote: post #513
ranguna wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only set of atoms in the universe Being a passerby on the street after hearing someone say that while they grind their next dose, I stop and comment that that was an incredible narcissistic observation for someone from a species who hasn't even colonised another solar system yet.

While wondering around the market, I come and hear and will notice that ironically the fact that this universe have “narcissism” in itself in it just proves, also maybe not that happily, that we exist regardless of being able to colonise systems or not. Because we are and we think. We exists.

After hearing your comment, I humbly say that I was merely referring to the fact that, even if we exist, we might not be the only entity that does.

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

#595

Post by synu »

tux1968 wrote: post #281
synu wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, yeah maybe I could see that. But it’s kind of a confusing message - don’t read or take this research on this topic seriously, except in case some research on this topic comes that you should read and take seriously.

A more charitable reading would be "appreciate that all such theories are necessarily humble and limited; unless the entire context of science and human understanding becomes fundamentally and dramatically transformed"

That’s a nice way to put it. I guess there aren’t a lot of views in making a video that says that, though.

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

#596

Post by eis »

al_mandi wrote: post #586
eis wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We apply logic where it applies, and we use other sources of evidence for where it doesn't apply If you leave the realm of logic then really anything can be claimed. I claim there is a pink machine outside our universe which is printing universes. How do you know this not to be the case?

> If you leave the realm of logic then really anything can be claimed God is outside the realm of logic. Think about it, if you create a game or simulation, are you bound by its laws? You can make a simulation where 1 + 1 = 5

That was my point. Outside logic anything goes. It is pointless to argue about it.

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

#597

Post by eis »

al_mandi wrote: post #587
eis wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you didn't. The specific thread here of the conversation is not about scientism anymore. But if you want to go back, the original discussion was about science vs religion and not scientism. Nobody in here claimed they adhere to blind faith in science and that science can explain everything. The opposite was stated.

Obviously people have blind faith in what is claimed to be science. The last few years demonstrated it quite well.

Some people have blind faith in scientific claims. That's not science though and it does not invalidate science. A big principle of science is to do exactly the opposite and not blindly trust in something. Every system gets corrupted by some people but it does not mean the system is bad. We're talking about the same thing over and over.

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

#598

Post by eis »

al_mandi wrote: post #589
eis wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's just complete bullshit. Zero reasoning, just wild claims. Your argument with me started out not that bad and I tried to use sound logic to see who might be right. But as the argument went on you drifted more into babble, left the realm of logic and gave up addressing my arguments. Now we're in full tilt nonsense territory it seems.

Again, just because you deny honest news doesn't make it the way you want.

Just because you claim honest news as truth does not make it that.

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

#599

Post by eis »

al_mandi wrote: post #590
eis wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another video with wrong conclusions. It boils down to claiming "there is something written in the book which could not have been known at that time and place" which is just a claim with zero proof. We have no way of telling that. The rest of the video he goes on a tangent about how the bible and egyptian beliefs were wrong. That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct nor does it show it came from god…

> which is just a claim with zero proof We have proof. We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more. Even English author and historian Tom Holland had to admit that the Quran had too much nuanced knowledge about Jewish and Christian texts that, instead of submitting, he had to come up with a completely illogical and provably wrong story tha…

  > We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more.
You don't know everything about that time. Do you have a recording of everything that was communicated between any party? Historical texts and archeology give us snippets from that time. We can get some general idea but we can't make absolute claims about every detail with 100% certainty.

  > Even the non Muslims admit and are in awe of what happened.
Some.

  > He proved that what's written in the Quran correct, discoveries made just a couple of hundred years ago.
You can claim that a million more times. I saw no proof.

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

#600

Post by eis »

barrysteve wrote: post #592
eis wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true. Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to try to experimentaly verify the idea or to for example mathematicaly prove it. It's not about believing something is true and then stopping there. > Quite frequently even the top echel…

You constantly talk in the terms of faithful ideas and yet reject they exist. There is a reason you 'think this curious idea might be true' and the chain of ideas that got you to this point goes back a long way. And your thinking is usually influenced by unspoken ideas you take as prima facie true and acceptable, even though you never admit it. These ideas come from faith and if you understand their starting point, y…

  >  You constantly talk in the terms of faithful ideas and yet reject they exist.
I'm perplexed why you say that I reject faithful ideas exist. I don't.

  > You don't know, what you don't know.
Agreed.

  > This really feels like pearls before swine. Have a nice day.
Wow what a rude and ignorant way to have a discussion. But ok, let's end it here.
Post reply on HN