4 ms·
>>> "Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" > Yep, it's literally false. As
by tivert 3y ago
>>> "Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing"
> Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know.
No. At worst it's only technically false, but broadly on the right track. If you're a materialist/physicalist; and Science requires you to take that position, at least methodologically; so "it's all just [particles, fields,] and the void."
- 1970-01-01 3y agoI don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically
- interhater 3y ago[flagged]
- tivert 3y ago> I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? There are. You're going to have to look at it from the perspective of colloquial shades of meaning. I thought the meaning was pretty obvious, so I'm not going to spend much effort to explain it, but "technically" carries connotations of "insignificant."
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIt's funny that a materialist would say it's all 'particles and void' when our current understanding only accounts for a few percent of the universe...
- tivert 3y ago> It's funny that a materialist would say it's all 'particles and void' when our current understanding only accounts for a few percent of the universe... It's not really funny to repeat the same point as GGP, and totally miss the point of the intervening comment you were replying to.