Is Our Universe a Fake?

Sliver said:
You have the burden of proof to justify your outrageous claim. I'm simply calling it tripe till I see sufficient evidence. Give me the evidence and I'll happily agree with you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Outrageous? I think you'll find that nobody (Dawkins, Harris, Hawking, et al) would say the idea of not knowing is outrageous. We can obviously provide evidence for things in our own universe, but outside that there are no answers. That's why if you go back to pre Big Bank scientists just shrug and say "well, there was no science then, so whatever". You have to think outside this reality you think is the be-all and end-all. I know scientifically minded people HATE that idea with a passion, but the undeniable truth is that we can't possibly know (at this point in time) what it all means. Now, you can either brush it off and trot out the burden of proof request, or you can treat it as a thought exercise and accept it's OK not really know.

That's all I'm saying on the matter as the thread was rather fun before we went and got all serious and stuff :)
 
Xordium said:
He stated a personal opinion on a forum - not a scientific paper for peer review. ;)
Click to expand...


He made a claim. He has the burden of proof to justify it. I'm quite right to reject it till sufficient evidence is offered to justify belief. How come you're not aware of this ?
 
He didn't claim it was a truth he claimed it was his personal opinion.

So again why did you feel the need to reject it? What is that telling us about you? Why do you feel the need to link youtube videos and not express your views using your own words?
 
Xordium said:
He didn't claim it was a truth he claimed it was his personal opinion.

So again why did you feel the need to reject it? What is that telling us about you? Why do you feel the need to link youtube videos and not express your views using your own words?
Click to expand...

He made a claim about reality as if it were true and got snotty when I challenged him to justify it. You haven't watched the video I posted so how can you criticise it ? I posted it to help pad out my point, but you can't even be bothered to watch it, you just want to troll me. I posted it hoping you would educate yourself. But as you've repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, you're not really interested in what I have to say to you in an epistemological sense, you just want to troll me because I wind you up. You're very transparent and I pity you.
 
Sliver said:
He made a claim about reality as if it were true and got snotty when I challenged him to justify it. You haven't watched the video I posted so how can you criticise it ? I posted it to help pad out my point, but you can't even be bothered to watch it, you just want to troll me. I posted it hoping you would educate yourself. But as you've repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, you're not really interested in what I have to say to you in an epistemological sense, you just want to troll me because I wind you up. You're very transparent and I pity you.
Click to expand...

No, he stated a personal opinion. You jumped on him saying it was 'tripe'. When he then said posted about the enormity of the unknown and known universe implying your (or any) tiny mind could not comprehend it. You took that as a personal attack rather than the obvious context it was placed in. So he didn't get snotty - you read things out of the context they were obviously applied in.

I am not remotely interested in your point because your point wasn't connected to the question I asked. I am also not remotely interested in your video because unlike you I've studied this sufficiently already without having to rely on such material. I am also (you're going to guess this one I think) not remotely interested what you've got to say from an epistemological sense because I can get your arguments from whatever 'popular science' books are 'en vogue' for a certain demographic. So pity me all you want but you're the one who is asking someone to prove something that is unprovable in any meaningful way. And you wonder why I am not interested in your view ... it's because you don't really understand. You are the scientific equivalent of a born-again Christian who has just found the little baby Jesus and wants to shout out to the world about this wonderful thing he has just discovered.
 
Are opinions on reality not truth claims ? Of course they are. :D

If I say I think the world is only six thousand years old, that is both an opinion and a truth claim. Simples. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sliver said:
:Are opinions on reality not truth claims ? Of course they are. :D

If I say I think the world is only six thousand years old, that is both an opinion and a truth claim. Simples. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You need to ask yourself something quite simple:

Is what he posted in any way provable with any sort of reliable and meaningful evidence? (you asked for this)

If it is not (which it is not) then why did I ask for something other than to be disingenuous?
 
People who make claims that can't be investigated are not to be taken seriously. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
The most... shall I say, worrying... argument I've heard about the universe being a simulation, goes thus.

Suppose it's possible to simulate a universe. Then in any given universe, one would expect there to be many such simulations running. And in each of those simulations, more simulations will be running. And in each of the simulated universes within each simulated universe, there will be even more simulated universes. And so on and so forth. So, there will be far more simulated universes than real ones. All we can see is this universe - what are the chances that ours just happens to be the top-level original universe?
 
Sliver said:
People who make claims that can't be investigated are not to be taken seriously. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...

Nice soundbite - still using other peoples' words though ...

He stated a personal belief in answer to someone else.
You strongly denounced his belief.
Can you back up your claim to say it was tripe? You haven't yet.

All knowledge and patterns of belief and truth are based upon a priori assumptions that can't be proven at all. There is no evidence to support them we take them at face value with belief (rightly so imho) and in good faith that they hold to be true. So if we are to take Hitch's words at face value then we have to dismiss all of our so called truths - mavity, evolution, quantum mechanics, etc because all our based upon unprovable claims.
 
Xordium said:
Nice soundbite - still using other peoples' words though ...
Click to expand...

If it's true it's true, why does it matter who said it first ? Stupid line of reasoning you have there. If we follow your logic all forms of education are useless because we are learning other peoples ideas.

I think this might be a good place to stop as I'm sure we're of topic and have been for a while and your arguments are becoming ever more desperate. Oh, one more thing, next time bring a proper dog to the fight cause that puppy you brought today, ermm......... wasn't really a challenge. ;)
 
It can be true but if it is taken to be then it excludes itself and the paradigms of those that employ it.

It matters who said it because you don't generally put things into your own words. My personal opinion on this matter is that is because you don't know the subject as well as you profess. Only a fool would have given a quote that would directly rule out their view whilst supporting the view they initially dismissed as tripe.

So yes it's a great place to stop because you've had ample opportunity to explain why he was wrong to state what he did and why it was 'tripe' and you've ducked every opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom