12 ms·
> So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate
by golemotron 10y ago
> So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the answer is almost always nothing. At that point, what is the use of discussion?
That doesn't stop HN from endlessly discussing string theory, simulation-ism, and singularity. None of them are falsifiable.
- cortesoft 10y agoAll of those things are falsifiable, we just don't yet have the capability to conduct the experiments that could possibly falsify them.
- woofyman 10y agoYou're going to use simulated experiments to prove or disprove we're in a simulation? Based on our simulated understanding of the physical laws of our simulated universe?
- cortesoft 10y agoThere are people working on ways we could prove or disprove we are in a simulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_...
- roywiggins 10y agoThere are tests that would be evidence for simulation, but not really any that are evidence against. Just because we can't see evidence of the simulation where we look doesn't mean it's not a better simulation than we can probe, or our gods are mucking with our perceptions to make every test come out negative. There aren't any experiments that would actually falsify the hypothesis that our entire world is a fabrication because those experiments could also be fabricated. This is true for finding proof of God: A spectacular miracle is pretty good evidence, but lack of a miracle can't ever disprove the theory.