5 ms·

If there is somewhere the meaning of life, we did not discover it precisely yet. It means, it must be beyond our scientific knowledge. Therefore, anyone who hel

by fghtr 9y ago

If there is somewhere the meaning of life, we did not discover it precisely yet. It means, it must be beyond our scientific knowledge. Therefore, anyone who helps to expand the knowledge in any way, helps to find the meaning of life. The catch is to take part in this process hoping that the answer might appear already during the life.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
Meaning of life isn't going to be found by scientific knowledge. Sorry to burst your bubble.
- fghtr 9y ago
  You, of course, may be right. But if you cannot prove it, you shoudn't be too sure.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    This is such a silly way of thinking. Everything in the world cannot be proven. Everything that cannot be proven sufficiently to you right now shouldn't be assumed to be untrue.
    - fghtr 9y ago
      This reply is quite rude. I will ignore the insulting part. Scientific knowledge [0] is in principle the only true knowledge in the word. It is repeatable and testable, which means it is reliable and can be applied. (By the way, too many people do not know what science means. They think it is just one of the ways to discover the world...) If the meaning of life exists, it must be possible to find it with science. I see no contradictions here. If you see, you are welcome to reveal them if you will. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_knowledge
      - abusoufiyan 9y ago
        >It is repeatable and testable Except when it isn't and when it isn't. A vast majority of articles published right now will never even be reproduced and yet we take nearly all of them as if they are gospel. >If the meaning of life exists, it must be possible to find it with science. I see no contradictions here. If you see, you are welcome to reveal them if you will. Science is based on some kinds of assumptions taken on faith (like every thought system). Here are a few (there are more surely). 1) Everything is observable to us as human beings. 2) Everything scientific will be reproduced and confirmed by someone else despite there being very few financial incentives for anyone to undertake all this costly reproduction and confirmation. For (1), we know that there can be multiple dimensions, yes. A 2d figure can never really experience and observe the third dimension. He can only wonder about it, ponder about it, conjecture about it, but never know it because his physical senses will not let him understand that third dimension. Observations are powerful but they are limited by our observing senses. For (2) there have been countless hoax papers snuck into scientific journals, I don't need to cover this too much. Most scientific work is not reproduced, but posting it online will make most people think it is true. You also forget that the meaning of life may exist and yet operate in a way we cannot sense. Just as there are planets we cannot see and may never be able to confirm.
        fghtr 9y ago
        > A vast majority of articles published right now will never even be reproduced and yet we take nearly all of them as if they are gospel. First of all, who is "we"? I certainly do not take them for granted. Any other responsible scientist doesn't as well. Science is not always perfect, like everything in life. Testability and reliability are just its goals. When they are reached, this is the success of science. When not, we should push further and better. > Science is based on some kinds of assumptions taken on faith (like every thought system). Here are a few (there are more surely). >1) Everything is observable to us as human beings. Not true. Quantum wave function [0] is not observable. But it works reliably nevertheless. >2) Everything scientific will be reproduced and confirmed by someone else <...> There is no such assumption in science, too. One just does the research which _can_ be reproduced. Due to the lack of infinite resources, only selected things are in fact being reproduced. > his physical senses will not let him understand that third dimension. What is 'understand'? This is not even a declared goal of science. No one 'understands' quantum mechanics [2], but it is tremendously useful nevertheless. Upd: by the way, some scientists say understanding is just nonsense. Everything is just mathematics [3]. > Observations are powerful but they are limited by our observing senses. Not true. We created many devices which allow us to observe what our senses cannot. An obvious example is X-rays. > posting it online will make most people think it is true. This is not a problem of a restriction of science. This is the nature of humans, which goes against science in general. Upd2: >You also forget that the meaning of life may exist and yet operate in a way we cannot sense. Just as there are planets we cannot see and may never be able to confirm. Sooner or later we will reach those planets. There is nothing preventing us to fly there in principle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function [2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#%22If_you_think_you_understand_quantum_mechanics,_you_don't_understand_quantum_mechanics.%22 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#%22If_you... [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024 https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024 via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637074
mathieubordere 9y ago
I think it's a human flaw to try and attribute meaning to everything. As far is I can tell, there is no meaning of life, meaning only exists in our own social construct as humans.
stealthcat 9y ago
> It must be beyond our scientific knowledge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVCbsZtB4-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVCbsZtB4-4 The problem of accepting revealed knowledge. Whether to hunt down the best one or settle with assumptions. The common trap for many brilliant atheists scientists is trying to use intellect to understand everything. Humanity has rich history of prophets and messengers. Historians tried whatever they can to fill the missing pieces. Ultimately, the person decides whether to accept the revealed knowledge. Or not.
SirLJ 9y ago
42

by fghtr 9y ago

abusoufiyan 9y ago

Meaning of life isn't going to be found by scientific knowledge. Sorry to burst your bubble.

fghtr 9y ago
You, of course, may be right. But if you cannot prove it, you shoudn't be too sure.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  This is such a silly way of thinking. Everything in the world cannot be proven. Everything that cannot be proven sufficiently to you right now shouldn't be assumed to be untrue.
  - fghtr 9y ago
    This reply is quite rude. I will ignore the insulting part. Scientific knowledge [0] is in principle the only true knowledge in the word. It is repeatable and testable, which means it is reliable and can be applied. (By the way, too many people do not know what science means. They think it is just one of the ways to discover the world...) If the meaning of life exists, it must be possible to find it with science. I see no contradictions here. If you see, you are welcome to reveal them if you will. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_knowledge
    - abusoufiyan 9y ago
      >It is repeatable and testable Except when it isn't and when it isn't. A vast majority of articles published right now will never even be reproduced and yet we take nearly all of them as if they are gospel. >If the meaning of life exists, it must be possible to find it with science. I see no contradictions here. If you see, you are welcome to reveal them if you will. Science is based on some kinds of assumptions taken on faith (like every thought system). Here are a few (there are more surely). 1) Everything is observable to us as human beings. 2) Everything scientific will be reproduced and confirmed by someone else despite there being very few financial incentives for anyone to undertake all this costly reproduction and confirmation. For (1), we know that there can be multiple dimensions, yes. A 2d figure can never really experience and observe the third dimension. He can only wonder about it, ponder about it, conjecture about it, but never know it because his physical senses will not let him understand that third dimension. Observations are powerful but they are limited by our observing senses. For (2) there have been countless hoax papers snuck into scientific journals, I don't need to cover this too much. Most scientific work is not reproduced, but posting it online will make most people think it is true. You also forget that the meaning of life may exist and yet operate in a way we cannot sense. Just as there are planets we cannot see and may never be able to confirm.
      - fghtr 9y ago
        > A vast majority of articles published right now will never even be reproduced and yet we take nearly all of them as if they are gospel. First of all, who is "we"? I certainly do not take them for granted. Any other responsible scientist doesn't as well. Science is not always perfect, like everything in life. Testability and reliability are just its goals. When they are reached, this is the success of science. When not, we should push further and better. > Science is based on some kinds of assumptions taken on faith (like every thought system). Here are a few (there are more surely). >1) Everything is observable to us as human beings. Not true. Quantum wave function [0] is not observable. But it works reliably nevertheless. >2) Everything scientific will be reproduced and confirmed by someone else <...> There is no such assumption in science, too. One just does the research which _can_ be reproduced. Due to the lack of infinite resources, only selected things are in fact being reproduced. > his physical senses will not let him understand that third dimension. What is 'understand'? This is not even a declared goal of science. No one 'understands' quantum mechanics [2], but it is tremendously useful nevertheless. Upd: by the way, some scientists say understanding is just nonsense. Everything is just mathematics [3]. > Observations are powerful but they are limited by our observing senses. Not true. We created many devices which allow us to observe what our senses cannot. An obvious example is X-rays. > posting it online will make most people think it is true. This is not a problem of a restriction of science. This is the nature of humans, which goes against science in general. Upd2: >You also forget that the meaning of life may exist and yet operate in a way we cannot sense. Just as there are planets we cannot see and may never be able to confirm. Sooner or later we will reach those planets. There is nothing preventing us to fly there in principle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function [2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#%22If_you_think_you_understand_quantum_mechanics,_you_don't_understand_quantum_mechanics.%22 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#%22If_you... [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024 https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024 via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637074

mathieubordere 9y ago

I think it's a human flaw to try and attribute meaning to everything. As far is I can tell, there is no meaning of life, meaning only exists in our own social construct as humans.

stealthcat 9y ago

> It must be beyond our scientific knowledge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVCbsZtB4-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVCbsZtB4-4 The problem of accepting revealed knowledge. Whether to hunt down the best one or settle with assumptions. The common trap for many brilliant atheists scientists is trying to use intellect to understand everything. Humanity has rich history of prophets and messengers. Historians tried whatever they can to fill the missing pieces. Ultimately, the person decides whether to accept the revealed knowledge. Or not.

SirLJ 9y ago