[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 272 KB, 771x1080, god2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2556382 No.2556382 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ what is something you believe incredibly strongly to be true, to the point that it is a dead dogma. I personally can't think of anything, it'd be easier if I was a Christian.

>> No.2556394

That all of this is true and reality is not just an illusion

>> No.2556405

>>2556394

"True" is just what we call the assumptions we're willing to make.

>> No.2556423

Tautologies are not dogmatic, nor are definitional statements, which underpin logic and mathematics.

The closest thing I can come to is the idea that the universe's laws are the same everywhere.

>> No.2556428

Things really exist.

>> No.2556441

>>2556423
What would one's arguments be against universal laws that are the same everywhere?

>> No.2556449

>>2556423

All definitional statements are not equivalent, though. "The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is π" is a true statement in Euclidean geometry, but a false statement in non-Euclidean geometry. Accept a different set of axioms, and you'll be forced to accept a different set of truths.

>> No.2556471

>>2556449

But you're forced to include the type of geometry as a part of your definition, aren't you?

so, triangles have interior angles of 180 degrees, in euclidean geometry. Problem solved.

>> No.2556472

>>2556441
the physical constants of the universe are within the "Goldilocks Range" - if the constants were slightly different, galaxies wouldn't form, no diversity, no life. This means either we're extremely lucky, or tons of universes were made and we happen to find ourselves in a rare one capable of sustaining life. Since the latter seems much more likely it seems probable that there are universes out there with different physical constants, or maybe different laws.

There is of course a third argument, that we are in a simulation conceived by some higher-order intelligence (so the physical constants are no longer a coincidence, but designed for life). If that were the case then their laws would be different anyways since our universe doesn't contain enough information to simulate itself in perfect detail.

>> No.2556476

>>2556441
The incompleteness theorems.

>> No.2556477

That we're living in some sort of simulation.

>> No.2556484

>>2556472

First, you'll need to prove the existence of a universe with a different set of constants. All universes we've seen to date are exactly like this one.

>> No.2556491

>>2556472

I'd dispute this, for a few reasons.

First, the anthropic principle. We must by definition life in a universe that can support life. This is guaranteed no matter how small the odds are of it actually happening.

Secondly, life evolved to thrive in the environment in which it spawned. In a different universe (and on other planets) it is possible for alternate chemistries (alternate physics) to give rise to life.

Asking why we are so suited to the world is like asking why a fluid is so suited to its container.

>> No.2556493

>>2556428
seconded.
and as a corollary, I exist

>> No.2556500

>>2556484

I'm pretty sure we haven't observed other universes. Everything we can possibly see is part of our universe.

>> No.2556504

>>2556491
Weird, but I was just thinking about the Anthropic principle.

Did you know Fred Hoyle used it to make a prediction that was proved true? This makes the anthropic principle science.

>> No.2556510

>>2556504

its not science, its logic.

>> No.2556517

>>2556471

You're just agreeing with me. "True" and "false" are not universal, they're based on whatever system of axioms you choose. There are no "true" statements across all systems. There are no "false" statements across all systems. For every statement X, there exists a system Y where X is true in Y. It all comes down to which arbitrary axioms you choose.

>> No.2556521

>>2556517
this

>> No.2556538

Taxation is theft

>> No.2556539

>>2556491

Ya I know about the anthropic principle, but it's not exactly relevant to my argument. Of course we find ourselves inside a universe suited for life, we couldn't otherwise.

My point has to do with the fact that if the physical constants were different, there wouldn't by ANY diversity, think perfectly flat, constant, same EVERYWHERE. Life couldn't possibly form at all. I'm still looking for better sources but got this on wikipedia:
>Some physicists have explored the notion that if the dimensionless physical constants had sufficiently different values, our universe would be so radically different that intelligent life would probably not have emerged, and that our universe therefore seems to be fine-tuned for intelligent life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Either this universe is the ONLY universe, or this universe is part of a huge number of universes. Only one of these is true, they both can't be true. The latter seems more likely since it seems very unlikely that the only universe to have ever existed has one with constants that could sustain life.

>> No.2556540

I believe more or less that materialism and atheism is true, though I dislike it's implications.

But even that I wouldn't say I believe in dogmatically, but only because I can't convince myself otherwise.

Truth is a very murky thing.

>> No.2556555

>>2556517

>There are no "true" statements across all systems. There are no "false" statements across all systems

is that true across all systems?

>> No.2556560

>>2556539
purely speculative.
Besides, if a universe has physical constants that makes it inhospitable to any form of intelligent life, then such a universe is unobservable. If a tree falls and nobody is around to watch it fall, does it make a sound? Thanks for visiting Science!
Welcome to Philosophy!

>> No.2556570

>>2556555
There's no such thing as all systems.

>> No.2556583

>>2556560


sci is just a branch of philosophy anyway

>> No.2556588

>>2556555

No.

>> No.2556613

You still believe in the ting-in-itself and truth.

>> No.2556615

>>2556583
Yes, but has fundamental parameters
the need for empirical observation
and testable properties.

>> No.2556626

>>2556517
This is so wrong it's not even funny.

>> No.2556667

>>2556626

no, its not wrong. The system is just assumed to be this universe usually but if you're talking about something esoteric you'd need to specify the system

Ex: gravity is always attractive

might be repulsive in another universe

>> No.2556703

>>2556667
exactly. herp could very well be derp in the parallel universe that is sitting right next to us now.

>> No.2556727

It's impossible to completely eliminate all "dogmatism" from the philosophy of science, but the remaining kernel of what must be believed rather than demonstrated is small indeed.

From a purely logical perspective, there is no way to argue that just because you have tried an experiment 1,000,000 times under the same conditions, it will turn out the same way on the 1,000,001st trial. To have a scientific perspective, one must believe that the world is at least somewhat "tractable" or "consistent" in its behaviour. This is, however, a *belief,* not something that can be adduced through pure logic.

>> No.2557278

o

>> No.2557287 [DELETED] 

F = d(ma)

>> No.2557310

>>2556727
you have no logical rationale to believe that the 1,000,001th time will be any different, which is why i have faith (or should i say, lack of) that i will not wake up hanging from my bed due to gravity changing its rules at the last second

cant prove a negative so why try

>> No.2557346

I believe that nothing is a fantastic assumption. To believe that nothing exists is to believe that anything fantastic can exist. Reality abides by law and fantasy does not, therefore I find it hard to believe that reality is the superior belief. I would rather believe in nothing because it is limitless and abides by no law which allows it to anything. Nothing is outside and inside of everything which leads me to believe that nothing manipulates everything and that reality is fantasy which abides by laws which were created by fantasy.

Nothing is something you have to think about for awhile to understand because you can't find it in reality, you can only believe in it.

>> No.2557357

>>2557310
>you have no logical rationale to believe that the 1,000,001th time will be any different,
Indeed, pure logic provides no reason to believe anything one way or the other about the outcome of the 1,000,001 trial on the basis of the previous million. That was my point: that science demands something which logic does not.

>which is why i have faith (or should i say, lack of) that i will not wake up hanging from my bed due to gravity changing its rules at the last second
Again, it was my entire point that this requires a (de minimis) form of faith. Logic provides no reason to believe that the universe will be in any way predictable.

>cant prove a negative so why try
That's a *scientific* principle, not a logical one. Logic assigns no special status to "negative" propositions, and in fact, outside the scientific context, refusing to address them is fallacious.

>> No.2557360

I have faith that mankind will eventually unlock the secrets of life and death, and preserve life for as long as the universe lasts.

>> No.2557398

bump

>> No.2557418
File: 15 KB, 400x392, chanmail.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2557418

This had me afraid.

>> No.2557442
File: 15 KB, 679x435, immunity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2557442

>>2557418
You're cured, go now and be free.

>> No.2557497

That certain sci-fi tier things are physically possible, even if they take for fucking ever to achieve.
-singularity(biological immortality;becoming durable like machines)
-interstellar space travel in workable timeframes
-(maybe kinda sorta pretty please) intergalactic travel
By one iota less than dogmatism I want the discovery of extraterrestrial life.