Here's something I find intriguing. Let's use the higgs boson as an example. Here we have something that in the past mankind wasn't even aware of. Then mankind theorizes it exists. Later mankind discovers it does actually exist. So did the higgs boson particle not exist before we theorized it or discovered it? Use whatever example you want. Higgs boson is just one of many examples that could be used. This kind of summarizes my belief system. I'm a firm believer that things exist outside of our ability to perceive or even conceive it. In that vein I try to keep as open of a mind as I possibly can.
Take for example the idea of a creator. True or not I have no idea but humans by and large look at things in terms of a creator and created. Things we perceive are created. Then the question arises who/what created it? I don't even know if that's the correct line of thinking. If it isn't what is the correct line of inquiry? I've no idea. Interesting food for thought.
Oh goody, I thought experiment. OK I’m game.
Your point that scientific discovery is often preceded by unproven hypothesis, which may even be preceded by a philosophical idea, is well taken. Atomic theory, for example, has its roots in ancient Greek and Indian philosophy. But ideas and hypotheses have been shown to be incorrect as well. The existence of the luminiferous aether and the substance known as phlogiston are but two well known examples.
In that vein, the existence of a creator, or first cause, is perhaps the oldest human idea or hypothesis unsupported by evidence, apart from our own existence. With or without our observations, the universe, or nature, creates (or reforms) and destroys, and so far as we can tell is, as Anaximander of Maletis described it, boundless, apeiron.
The term “creator” implies an actor or intention. But to do this is to anthropomorphize nature itself! And if we have learned anything by now it should be that the height of human hubris is the anthropomorphization of all things unhuman.
Ten out of ten for your recent topics.
In the time line of the early universe it's posited that the higgs boson had yet to form.
Your contemplation of energy is perhaps best discussed in the context of the unfolding universe.
If the law of conservation of energy is correct then the idea of cause and effect may imply energy/particle energy always existing.
Particle and quantum physicists share your astonishment and wonderment.
@FvckY0u yeah, good topics worthy of discussion.
Sometimes instead of "creator" and "created" it's simply creation, or natural consequences of various opposing forces producing something between them.
There are definitely things that currently exist or will exist, or previously existed that we know nothing about yet, but perhaps will be discovered and described, measured, and humans will see how these new discoveries fit into this big puzzle. We can only guess at the big picture until we have all the pieces, and the puzzle just keeps growing it seems.
The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. It's fascinating for sure! Fun to wonder about as well.
"If a tree falls in an uninhabited forest does it make a sound?"
Instead of writing all that above, a bit of reading would show you the basic thought has been around Forever.
@FvckY0u Clearly you Do enjoy typing big words for no reason......
@FvckY0u you can't read either? Because i have Never used those words.....
@FvckY0u you said above "Furthermore if that belief is something you consider to be truth ..?"
You don't seem to understand what believe or belief means.
Belief means hold information as true.
A person does not have a belief AND hold it true, that like a double statement:
Example:
I hold it true(belief) the Earth is spherical and I hold it true.
If you hold belief or believe then that is the indication that the information is being held as truth.
Disbelief is opposite, hold information as false.
@FvckY0u that would be "pale"...a pail is what you are attempting to fill with more BS
@FvckY0u glad you care for discussion rather than debate. I don't particularly care for debate. Just simply working out the logic of semantics with is important for mutual understanding.
se·man·tics
/səˈmaniks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
You have managed to wander through the anthropic principle, determinism and the uncertainty principle then top it off with Paley's watch in the course one post.
Congratulations
You find a diamond, would you wonder who created it until you found out that it is carbon that has been under pressure that created the diamond. Nothing magical just cause and effect.
The idea of a creator is a human construct. It should be enough that we are here and someday we won't be. Enjoy life, be kind, and don't worry about the imaginings of others.
Please check your assumptions about the nature of existence and the nature of creation.
@FvckY0u I said "assumptions", not "assumption". I was not created, nor were you. I will not end, I will die. I suggest you learn to think analytically.
@FvckY0u Your "So did the higgs boson particle not exist before we theorized it or discovered it?" assumes that the question of existence of things in the natural world makes sense, and it serves as a case in point. All that we have when it comes to the natural world are models of greater or lesser usefulness.
@FvckY0u "If we can't conceive of something then it doesn't exist for us." conflates imagination with existence. I see your statement as a failure of analytical thinking.
@FvckY0u Sigh. Failure of analytical thinking coupled with failure of critical thinking. It might help your case if you also made your statements more explicit.
@FvckY0u Thank you. I have learned from you that for some people being clear and explicit in what they write is more important than for some other people.
@FU so if i think Covid isn't real i cannot get it?
Welcome to @BDair's world......
Science means knowledge and is all about our physical world: What we can sense. As technology improves we are developing sensors that "see" what we cannot, expanding our knowledge.
Science assumes everything is physical which I do disagree with. Science will never explain love/ empathy and why humans create; talking art here.
The arts eg fashion, paintings, visually appealing architecture, music etc etc are all non essential for human physical existence and yet we are surrounded by it. Example is fashion which has no real practical purpose in our lives. Logically there would be one way to create efficient dwellings, clothing etc.
Science seeks answers to our physical world, but there is something else I agree.
A favourite quote of mine is from Nicola Tesla with which I agree 100%. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
We just have to develop sensors and start looking.
Re deity if we were "created", there has been zero interest in the creation by the creator so I call BS aka atheist. I tend to go Buddhist on this question, and accept "just is" instead eg forget the "why" and just get on with it. God's would not exist without humans as all other species don't care about gods. This strongly suggests to me that humanity created gods, not the other way around.