I don't come on here too often, to be honest, but something has really been getting at me lately. "How did the universe become?" I can't necessarily consider myself an atheist, and if I did it would be a "soft" atheist, but overall, I'm more of an agnostic. Basically, do any of you have any theories or have heard of any theories or ideas concerning the topic of our origins? Did the universe just pop up out of nowhere? Is there a higher power?
Origin of the Universe to me trumps nature of sin, I don't even think about the nature of sin. That's a human construct.
Nobody knows that their false belief is false. The best one can do, even if one believes something (as I believe that The Big Bang), is to believe it based on either the preponderance of the evidence or if it is the preponderant view of the majority of experts. When they change their mind, I'll ask why and possibly change my mind.
What I'm NOT going to do is read a book on a subject that's way over my head and and adopt a nonstandard view simply because I (who am unqualified) find it interesting and persuasive. To persuade me (or any other non-expert) would be meaningless.
There are alot of things that I suspect, sadly 'knowing' seems to be something a little different.
Like one think suspect is, due to the effects of recursion, I think fractal geometry is mostly the effect of rounding errs. Sadly I think I would need to write software that could keep track of a very long computation involving very large numbers or numbers with a large non-interger fraction. Then test to see if the geometries still show up. I think I have othe things to do...
I quess many things are based upon 'practical limits' issues, or the determination labor and resource investments. Is the solution worth the cost?
First, Feynman wasn't addressing whether or not the belief was true or false so much as one's reasons for being steadfast in declaring something to be true and then clinging to that 'truth'. I'm now sorry I paraphrased what was only a 4 minute clip.
Second, I believe there are ways to know that you hold a false belief - I've been through it, and I've actually hopped on other silly bandwagons. As a matter of fact, I'm writing a blog right now about identifying crackpot schools of thought.
Now, there is a difference between what is objectively true/false and justifying one's belief either way. You've chosen one way of justifying your beliefs - and it represents the most significant way that I justify mine.
I'm interested. How does one believe something that one knows is objectively false? It seems to be an impossible thing to do, like seeing a round square in one's mind.
If experts, like Feynman, see problems with The Big Bang, what else is new? There are problems with the theory of evolution. To disbelieve The Big Bang because it's not fully laid out yet is exactly like disbelieving in evolution because it's not completely laid out, which is what religious people do.
What sort of problems are there for evolution? You've seen those diagrams showing the evolution of the horse? Try to find one for cows. Did a breeding pair of cows just suddenly arrive on the planet on, oh, say, a meteor? Cows are just one example of creatures for which we can't reconstruct their evolution.
Wow, sadly, till now, I never thought about 'cow evolution'. It might be that for much of their domesticated history they were fully disassembled for human consumption, but what happened before humans came onto their range? Were 'cows', as a group domesticated from bison/buffalo, or some species of deer? Might be an interesting read on history.
Of course, an 'alien cow', does bring up funny SF. Oh yes, I do remember one short story....;p)
You''d need to trace the evolution cow much further back than bison or buffalo or oxen to creatures that didn't even have hooves. And what preceded them?
(Just joshin', ya know.)
Yikes, Unseen . . . where'd you get that info?
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about objections to evolution:
The observation of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that evidence, have been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists for nearly a century.
And here's info on the evolutionary lineage of cows.
Pairing a new approach to prepare ancient DNA with a new scientific technique developed specifically to genotype a cow, an MU animal scientist, along with a team of international researchers, created a very accurate and widespread "family tree" for cows and other ruminants, going back as far as 29 million years.
That research builds a family tree of the modern cow. It addresses how the modern Holstein, for example, evolve from something that didn't look much like a modern cow at all but still looked like a cow and what were the steps along the way so that we can see how the modern cow evolved in the same way we can describe the evolutionary stages of the modern horse, which evolved from a creature that had paws not hooves:
Unseen-It is not so hard to believe something you know to be false. This is due to the fact that false beliefs can have real beneficial effects.On the other hand you also have cases where belief can make something true or false.
One example is with a placebo. And how some people can even be told and accept that they are on a placebo, and yet they still find it helps.
You can think of it like an optical illusion of the mind, where you can know objectively that your brain is lying through its teeth to you and yet it still seems just as real as before you knew.
A placebo, to actually BE a placebo, must not be known to the subject. What you are describing isn't how placebos are administered, and if they administered otherwise, they aren't truly placebos.
Were someone administered a sugar pill which seemed effective and then they were told later on "It was only a sugar pill," wouldn't the appropriate response be "Oh, then sugar pills can help"?
As for believing something one knows to be false, it would be hard to think of something much more self-contradictory. One must be fiddling with the meaning of belief or falsehood, or relying on a lesser-used meaning.