3 ms·

Yes, but I am speaking on the highest level. The true scientist seeks to understand the deep truth. The fundamental pattern. The deep function and meaning. At

Yes, but I am speaking on the highest level. The true scientist seeks to understand the deep truth. The fundamental pattern. The deep function and meaning. At some point, this deep desire to understand is in itself a religious thing. Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Why seek meaning and order in a universe if it's all just happenstance? The very assumption of meaning and truth and order and the scientific pursuit of it, subtly implies that the scientist believes they are present, which (whether he sees it that way or not) implies something of intent.

dylan604 4y ago
i understand your thought process on science becoming one's religion, but that also does not hold true for everyone. it is totally possible to admit one doesn't have all the answers and seeks those unknown answers without it becoming a religious crusade. one can accept that the answer is unknown, and just live with that. one can accept that the answer is unknown but through scientific rigor find an answer, and then be okay with accepting that answer. not everything has to be a religious experience. my religious belief is that the need for religion is keeping humans from evolving further. it may not be very sound, but that's the beauty of religious beliefs. everybody is entitled to their own (at least in some countries).
ookdatnog 4y ago
> Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Sheer curiosity? Why do you feel like your feelings (for example the desire to understand) need cosmic validation?
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Imagine I show you a string of numbers and letters. Will you spend time trying to decipher the code? Does the answer depend on whether I told you there was a meaning encoded in there, vs it was produced by a random number generator? In the most logical view if the universe was randomly created, there's nothing to be curious about, it's all noise.
  - ookdatnog 4y ago
    The question of whether I'd attempt to decipher the code depends on whether I believe it would be intellectually engaging to do so. In the case of a code, yes, that probably requires that the code encodes something meaningful. But it's not hard to think of structures where interesting patterns emerge without the structure having externally imbued meaning (or at least, it would be terribly difficult to prove that it does). Game of Life would be such an example: it's a structure that arises from some simple logical rules, there is seemingly no meaning behind it, but it produces interesting patterns that many people have studied extensively.

dylan604 4y ago

i understand your thought process on science becoming one's religion, but that also does not hold true for everyone. it is totally possible to admit one doesn't have all the answers and seeks those unknown answers without it becoming a religious crusade. one can accept that the answer is unknown, and just live with that. one can accept that the answer is unknown but through scientific rigor find an answer, and then be okay with accepting that answer. not everything has to be a religious experience. my religious belief is that the need for religion is keeping humans from evolving further. it may not be very sound, but that's the beauty of religious beliefs. everybody is entitled to their own (at least in some countries).

ookdatnog 4y ago

> Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Sheer curiosity? Why do you feel like your feelings (for example the desire to understand) need cosmic validation?

xyzelement 4y ago
Imagine I show you a string of numbers and letters. Will you spend time trying to decipher the code? Does the answer depend on whether I told you there was a meaning encoded in there, vs it was produced by a random number generator? In the most logical view if the universe was randomly created, there's nothing to be curious about, it's all noise.
- ookdatnog 4y ago
  The question of whether I'd attempt to decipher the code depends on whether I believe it would be intellectually engaging to do so. In the case of a code, yes, that probably requires that the code encodes something meaningful. But it's not hard to think of structures where interesting patterns emerge without the structure having externally imbued meaning (or at least, it would be terribly difficult to prove that it does). Game of Life would be such an example: it's a structure that arises from some simple logical rules, there is seemingly no meaning behind it, but it produces interesting patterns that many people have studied extensively.