3 ms·

That's besides the point though. In fact, you can treat science ~as~ a religion if you want - this is just semantics. That doesn't diminish that in science, we

That's besides the point though. In fact, you can treat science ~as~ a religion if you want - this is just semantics. That doesn't diminish that in science, we utilize the simplest models that most accurately represent reality. We don't needlessly suggest an alternative wherein we are left with more complications. This is the case when we suppose for instance, that the Big Bang is not the beginning. Be it god or a computer simulation, we then wonder how those things came to be. Ergo, more complexity that does not resolve our understanding of the world. Geocentric for instance works, but heliocentric is simpler because then you don't have wild erratic orbits of other planets around Earth. General relativity over newtonian because while more complex, it affords a more accurate depiction of reality.

eloff 5y ago
> Be it god or a computer simulation, we then wonder how those things came to be. Ergo, more complexity that does not resolve our understanding of the world. Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine. But be it a god or a computer simulation, it needs to make testable, falsifiable predictions to better or understanding of the natural world. Otherwise, true or false, it's useless to us.
- TheRealNGenius 5y ago
  > But be it a god or a computer simulation, it needs to make testable, falsifiable predictions to better or understanding of the natural world. Otherwise, true or false, it's useless to us. true > Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine. You're right. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. As does science. An oracle might solve the halting problem, but it has nothing to say about itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Oracles_and_halting_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Oracles_and_hal.... It's turtles all the way down ;)

eloff 5y ago

> Be it god or a computer simulation, we then wonder how those things came to be. Ergo, more complexity that does not resolve our understanding of the world. Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine. But be it a god or a computer simulation, it needs to make testable, falsifiable predictions to better or understanding of the natural world. Otherwise, true or false, it's useless to us.

TheRealNGenius 5y ago
> But be it a god or a computer simulation, it needs to make testable, falsifiable predictions to better or understanding of the natural world. Otherwise, true or false, it's useless to us. true > Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine. You're right. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. As does science. An oracle might solve the halting problem, but it has nothing to say about itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Oracles_and_halting_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Oracles_and_hal.... It's turtles all the way down ;)