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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not 3 points, but 4.
Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic
There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Too many cut themselves on Occam’s razor, incorrectly presuming all else equal.
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.
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No.