881
big facts (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
185 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 8 months ago* (30 children)

i don't believe in wifi, just like i don't believe in trees. i know they're there. that requires no belief.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (26 children)

    The belief would be that your senses aren't being actively deceived. Also, that you're not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.

    I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It's still fun to poke at them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (25 children)

    the atheist says "i will not believe". the agnostic says "i can not believe". one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.

    Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.

    That doesn't mean I don't try disproving the null hypothesis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    I don't think reasonable is even it for me, it's just a helpful assumption.

    If they are doing a perfect job at a Truman show type situation, there's nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they're not and play your role.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's more reasonable via Occam's razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Too many cut themselves on Occam's razor, incorrectly presuming all else equal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.

    E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    It's an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.

    We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.

    The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn't prove them however.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    we're comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it's sort of a "god of the gaps" situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can't show it. the same is not true of the other camp.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)

    I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    surely if the universe has an infinite lifespan there could be an infinite number of humans? for whatever passes as a human at any given time. the two concepts may even overlap.

    not that it matters for the day-to-day, anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    The logic is that the universe of big bang matter has a limited lifespan. This sets a hard limit on the number of humans via "normal" means.

    Boltzmann brains are due to a quirk of quantum mechanics. Matter can come into existence spontaneously. The rate is proportional to the amount (technically the energy content). Given enough time and space, something that would fit the definition of human could spontaneously appear. The odds of this are unbelievably long, but, so long as it's finitely large, in a true infinite universe it will happen an infinite number of times. It's a bit of infinity Vs very large number weirdness.

    End result is that there will be a large but finite number of "normal" humans, but an infinite number of Boltzmann brain humans. Therefore, the chances of being an actual "normal" human is effectively infinitesimal.

    Agreed about it not mattering, day to day. It's one of those things that is of interest to theoretical physicists, since it might tell us something interesting about the nature of our universe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    It seems more likely in a universe that is infinitely large that brains would come into existence through simpler deterministic processes like they did on earth than random fluctuations no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Our best ideas on the big bang put the universe as huge, but finite in space. (Way bigger than the observable universe) The question is time. If time is infinite then Boltzmann brains win.

    Matter has a finite life, energy differentials run out. Stars run out of fuel. Black holes evaporate. Even protons eventually fall apart to energy. Then there is endless emptiness.

    That emptiness would be finite in space, but infinite in time. Without that last boundary, weird things happen to maths.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If you appeal to heat death then you cannot say brains pop back into existence either because "matter has a finite life," and so it is self-defeating. If brains can pop back into existence due to random fluctuations then surely planets and stars could as well given enough time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    The energy to spontaneously create a planet is vastly more than a brain. Then again, with the weird maths of infinities, it might play out.

    Though to recreate the full illusion would require something closer to the big bang itself.

    It's well into the "here he dragons" realms of science however. Speculating well beyond reliable evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    it is very interesting, but it's also one of those topics that makes anything else in the conversation not matter.

    also do note that i said nothing about thinking sensory inputs are illusory, just that belief is not required for things to exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains

    Sounds like presuming some place further along in an infinite set. We may still be in an early iteration at the start, as plain as it seems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly? Without evidence, they're both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.

    It's just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    When the results are inseparable, then complexity is the only element, it doesn't prove anything, but it does bias.

    Also, most gods don't fall into this debate. Most gods would be quite happy interfering. This is (in principle) distinguishable from the null. It was aimed primarily at the simulation hypothesis. A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a base reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'm willing to accept Atheism, 'I do not believe in God', as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it's the null hypothesis and they have Occam's razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.

    I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with 'I can not believe', always been "I'm waiting for evidence one way or the other" to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren't really talking about god.

    if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that's the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there's proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require "belief", i.e. unfounded assumptions.

    as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Oh, you're a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don't really exist? I'm somewhat similar, I'm an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It's cool that you don't believe in trees, though!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I'm happier with non-belief, than squirming through the exercise of deciding what to believe and disbelieve under the unchecked presumption that we must believe something.

    Even more so for the distinct "believing in" something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent