Physicists find evidence universe is a giant brain

Aug 2019
852
784
Albuquerque, NM
It could have developed toward rationalism (based on the mind) instead of empiricism (based on the body).

But this is a complicated topic that requires a bit of reading to discuss.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

The mind registers sense-experience.

Rationalism: a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response

Going with your point, how would science be different if it had developed toward rationalism? What do you mean?

I have no idea, but science uses both rationalism and empiricism. Plus, these days, its not simply not someone just using their senses, machines record teh data, you take pictures or videos so others can see. It's not like an eye witness where you are just supposed to believe what they said. That's why science requires.

And this poster is the ultimate hypocrite, because religion doesn't use rationalism or empiricism. It seems like its 100% projection, everything he criticizes science for actually applies to religion
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Rationalism: a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response
That's a false dichtomy.

It's based on a solipsistic definition of "religion" or "emotional response".

And this poster is the ultimate hypocrite, because religion doesn't use rationalism or empiricism.
That would be untrue, no - religious systems were invented via the use of reason, knowledge, and sense experience, just as any system or theory presumably is.

For that matter, there is evidence that reason "alone" or in a vacuum is inferior to other informational mediums in certain contexts - such as intuition or emotional responses.

Most arguments in favor of science as an institution are not rational or emperical, just circular reasoning based on blind faith or "common sense" arguments. You didn't invent the theories yourself via empiricism or reason, you're merely placing faith in them or their inventors, such as Newton or Einstein - not the same thing.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
Most arguments in favor of science as an institution are not rational or emperical, just circular reasoning based on blind faith or "common sense" arguments. You didn't invent the theories yourself via empiricism or reason, you're merely placing faith in them or their inventors, such as Newton or Einstein - not the same thing.
Nope, nobody is blindly trusting these theories. They are being constantly tested for correctness by experiments. Per example:


Einstein's theory of realtivity is tested every day by the geo-location satellites, who have to adjust their clocks according to that theory in order to continue to function properly.


No religious statement can be verified since "no - religious systems were invented via the use of reason, knowledge, and sense experience"
It's all blind faith, futhermore people cannot even agree on what exactly to believe. The details and statements differ between the different interpretations of one book.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Nope, nobody is blindly trusting these theories. They are being constantly tested for correctness by experiments. Per example:


Einstein's theory of realtivity is tested every day by the geo-location satellites, who have to adjust their clocks according to that theory in order to continue to function properly.

Your trust is in the specific testing metholody, or that it's in people's interest to "do the testing or experiements at all".

So yes, you're placing faith in it due it being used in institutions in day to day life, and having stood the test of time - the faith you place in it is disproportionate to that of other systems and institutions which are at work in daily life, but do not receive the same type of attention.

No religious statement can be verified since "no - religious systems were invented via the use of reason, knowledge, and sense experience"
Yes, that's what the systems were developed from - they didn't just "appear" out of thin air.

It's all blind faith, futhermore people cannot even agree on what exactly to believe. The details and statements differ between the different interpretations of one book.
And? That happens within science as well, or within any institution no matter its formal system - since there's a subjective or human touch to it.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
Your trust is in the specific testing metholody, or that it's in people's interest to "do the testing or experiements at all".

So yes, you're placing faith in it due it being used in institutions in day to day life, and having stood the test of time - the faith you place in it is disproportionate to that of other systems and institutions which are at work in daily life, but do not receive the same type of attention.


Yes, that's what the systems were developed from - they didn't just "appear" out of thin air.


And? That happens within science as well, or within any institution no matter its formal system - since there's a subjective or human touch to it.
Alright here a really simple example:
Science says: Take a coin, flip it, it has 50% chance to land heads.
The methodology takes a coin, flips it 1000 times, checks. There is no faith involved there, friend, reality check.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Alright here a really simple example:
Science says: Take a coin, flip it, it has 50% chance to land heads.
The methodology takes a coin, flips it 1000 times, checks. There is no faith involved there, friend, reality check.
You have faith in others having done that methodology, not having seen it with your own eyes, or having done that test yourself.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
You have faith in others having done that methodology, not having seen it with your own eyes, or having done that test yourself.
That's where peer review comes in. When someone publishes a theory or experiment methodology, that theory and methodology is being verified and tested by many different scientific teams around the world. What you are suggesting is ridiculous. Nobody has a cern collider in his backyard to verify particle physics

:)
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,824
27,629
La La Land North
You have faith in others having done that methodology, not having seen it with your own eyes, or having done that test yourself.
I haven't done 1000, but I've taken part and witnesses 500 with classmates. And it worked that time too. That's science, it's reproducible. You can check it out yourself. And if you do get a different result you will be rich and famous.

There is no analogy in religion. Read the book of myths again and tell us it still says the same thing?
 
Sep 2014
1,522
195
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
The brain may not be organic.

Simulation hypothesis
Mind-Candy Binge on the Fringe

That's the creed of escapist geek freaks. Justifiably rejected misfits, they have a desperate desire to fantasize that their own particular self-indulgence in playing with code will be someday recognized as the most valuable tool in figuring everything out. All mankind will humbly trek to them in sackcloth and ashes in order to imbibe their glorious omniscience.