Cosmologic philosophy: multiverse/string theory (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, January 03, 2015, 15:47 (3391 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: The question is whether they denote a reality, and on an absolute level, we have no way of knowing if they do. Even direct observation cannot offer objectivity (people used to see for themselves that the sun moved in the sky). And so you are right that we take explanations on faith, but the next step down from the absolute is the relative, and this is where I would draw a distinction between God, evolution, gravity, the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the theory that if I run full pelt into a lamppost I will hurt myself.
> 
> The latter is testable, falsifiable, and definitely observable, and so subjectively I'd say this is not a theory but can be classed as knowledge. There is almost universal consensus on the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, and again subjectively I would class this as knowledge. It appears that there is no universal consensus nowadays on the theory of gravity, in which case what I assumed was knowledge is not knowledge after all. I'm not that interested, so I'll leave it open. Evolution is a combination of different theories, none of which can be classed as knowledge, because there is nothing like a universal consensus on any of its aspects, but I am sufficiently impressed by certain arguments to believe in common descent and (my interpretation of) natural selection. This constitutes belief, not knowledge.
> -I'm well aware that you are not interested in gravity, and that lack of interest is of little relevance to the conversation at hand. What is relevant, is that you choose to believe in something which, contrary to your argument, is not testable, falsifiable, or observable, and your willingness to argue its case despite those failings. That my friend, is a small foray into the realm of faith. Faith is the assured expectation of things not beheld. Universal Consensus based on indirect observation is literally no different than universal faith in something. This is the arrogance of science, to think that, as an institution, it is somehow above faith.-
> DHW: Once again, we are confined to the subjectivity of belief. So I agree with you 100% that we choose to believe or not believe, but in certain instances our beliefs may be upgraded to a relative form of “knowledge” (one step below the absolute, in terms of an almost universal consensus), though this may change with new discoveries. BBella's new discoveries still left her with the conclusion that in such cases, “The Truth for us will always be personal.”-For all that I have said about it, I am not trying to criticize belief. But let me offer a counter to your phrasing here. Belief is think something is true, regardless of evidence (direct or indirect), while faith is based on an abundance of indirect observations for which we find an argument to be an overwhelmingly valid explanation. Knowledge, does not really belong to humanity. As you say, we have consensus, but all that consensus is, really, is faith. Faith that any and all of the assumptions that our knowledge is built upon is also correct, so that the conclusions that we reach are also correct. There is nothing that is not built upon assumptions somewhere.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.