Recent comments in /f/philosophy

el_miguel42 t1_j5edij5 wrote

Reply to comment by AGuyOnYT in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 16, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

I dont...

Whatever I could think up would be wrong, hence its an exercise in futility. if I postulate that there is a fluffy land with unicorns running around in it, thats just as likely to be correct as some old father-like dude watching us from his seat in some mythical kingdom, nothingness, some weird 9-dimensional spacetime etc etc. Its all just arbitrary guesswork with no frame of reference. So you can make up whatever story you like and be content that its just as likely as whatever other story you've heard.

Maybe the Christian God did it, but then again, maybe I made it all. And seeing as how you're actually talking to me right now, then im probably more likely to have made the universe than the Christian God, because at least you have evidence that I exist.

1

lizzolz t1_j5e9sh1 wrote

Reply to comment by WrongAspects in Physicist Max Planck on Idealism and the Role of Faith in Science by owlthatissuperb

I don't think this kind of religious persecution existed in the times when these scientists were rising to prominence, and I don't think they were motivated to profess a belief in God out of fear but instead were drawn to things in their studies that, to them, seemed like evidence of intelligent design.

1

WrongAspects t1_j5e90h2 wrote

Reply to comment by lizzolz in Physicist Max Planck on Idealism and the Role of Faith in Science by owlthatissuperb

In those days not believing in God could result in severe punishment including but not limited to being stripped of your position and being ostracised by society.

Today there is no punishment so people don’t feel the profess belief if they don’t have it and what’s more are not afraid to profess they don’t believe.

1

Perrr333 t1_j5e62x5 wrote

Reply to comment by el_miguel42 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 16, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

Yeah. But it's also important not to stray too far into instrumentalism, the idea that none of the mathematics of physics needs to correspond to anything in physical reality, it's just an accurate prediction apparatus. Because the only reason a prediction apparatus can be consistently successful is if it is latching on to some elements of reality which follow constant, or at least very slowly changing, laws. There was a course I didn't have the time to attend covering the span of the history of physics from start to now, expounding the idea that while it has never been an entirely correct reflection of reality, it is an ever-evolving dialogue with reality. As we make new discoveries we refine our understanding of the world. Maybe at some point we will understand its true nature - maybe we already do, in the sense that there won't be any serious rewriting of the current mathematics, only the addition of new elements for e.g. new particles. There is a reality to the quantum realm as with everything else, and maybe one of the current interpretations will prove true, or maybe our dance with reality will give rise to new mathematics and new "interpretations". Because while physicists might call them interpretations due to the often sole dependence on the current mathematics, they are in fact hypotheses about the world, which ultimately have to prove true or false. We often forget that the theory of atoms used to just be an "interpretation" stemming from the mathematics of chemistry.

1