40
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Science
13871 readers
3 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If it had no basis in the physical, then what would it mean to say that it "exists?" How you define "existence" is a very big philosophical question. Excuse me while I nerd the fuck out about something.
Physics tells us that the observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. However, we can sometimes observe objects leaving the observable universe. This is because of complicated physics reasons:
Physical space is expanding with time. Everything is getting farther apart from everything else, and the more distance there is between two points, the faster the space in between them is expanding. At a sufficiently large distance, the rate at which the distance between the two points is increasing, is faster than the speed of light. Neither point is actually moving faster than the speed of light, it's only the space between them that is expanding. This might be hard to understand, but think of it as if you drew two dots on a balloon and then inflated it.
Once an object gets far enough away from us that the space between is expanding faster than the speed of light, it becomes impossible for us to make any further observations about that thing. This is actually what defines the bounds of "the observable universe."
So, what happens to objects that leave the observable universe? Strictly speaking, it's impossible to say. Intuitively, we would expect that they're still there doing their thing and obeying the same physical laws as when we could observe them. But, if you told me that the stars simply vanish, or that they magically transform into butterflies as soon as they leave, there's no evidence that anyone could ever produce that would falsify that belief, because, by definition, there is no way to observe what happens outside of the observable universe. If we are defining what exists based on what is physically observable, then it follows that things outside the observable universe do not exist, even if it really seems like they should.
My conclusion from this line of thought is that existence is a relational property. I am not prepared to reject the idea that a thing has to be in some way observable in order to exist, but in that case, nothing can exist in isolation. Because for a thing to be observable means that there must exist a being which could observe it. This could be said to contradict physicalism, because physicalism would say that the material world exists regardless of our senses. I would say that the physical world only exists so long as there are beings capable of sensing it, and, should all sentient beings ever become extinct, the physical world would no longer exist in any meaningful sense.
I think the main problem with this sort of logic is that it presumes that what we see is reality. This isn't necessarily true.
Evolution has shaped us to see that which is most important for our survival. If seeing things as they truly are would interfere with our evolutionary fitness, then our brains would filther that out. In fact, this seems very likely, evidence being the many illusions that can be used to fool our senses.
If this was the case, then physical objects may not exsist at all, they would just be an artifact of this filtering effect. Roland Hoffmann is a great resource for understanding this sort of theory.
https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY
What could possibly be considered more "real" than that which we can observe and experience?
We observe solid matter to not be composed mostly of empty space, that observation is verifiably incorrect. Our senses evolved to help us survive in our natural environment, being able to perceive empty space between/within atoms would do fuck all to help us survive seeing as how we can't meaningfully interact with that empty space on our own. We invented devices to compensate for the limits of our senses and discovered that reality often differs drastically from our experience. To answer your question, it's what we can prove.
Of course, our observations can show that other observations are incorrect. But that's still relying on senses and observation. That doesn't change the fact that reality consists of that which can be observed.
No, there are actually a lot of things we can measure and study that are unobservable with our senses, and a shitload of verifiable ways in which our senses either misinterpret reality or completely fail to perceive it
The way we measure things is by making them observable to our senses. I can't see radiation, but I can read a Geiger counter. Radiation is, therefore, capable of being observed.
Again, everyone seems to be reading this as, "Actually, senses are perfect and incapable of being fooled." Which I never said anything remotely similar to. No shit they can be fooled. This has zero relevance to the discussion.
Let me explain this again.
Stars that leave the observable universe, by definition, cannot be observed. There is no way to verify or falsify any claims that are made about them.
Physicalism states that matter continues to exist regardless of our ability to make observations about it.
Therefore, physicalism claims that stars that leave the universe continue to exist, even though there is no way to verify or falsify this claim.
Therefore, either physicalism is wrong, or verificationism, the idea that our claims need to be supported by evidence and be falsifiable, must be false.
I resolve this contradiction by sacrificing physicalism and saying that matter must be observable. That does not mean observable by the naked eye, or that our senses are somehow infallible, both of which are strawmen that have nothing whatsoever to anything I've said.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
A Geiger counter doesn't make radiation physically observable, it just gives you information about it, your senses are still 100% incapable of detecting it. You chose the exact words "What could possibly be considered more real than that which we can observe and experience?" and I responded by accurately pointing out that our senses are imperfect and our experiences frequently fail to accurately represent reality. You should leave the explaining to people who are better at it.
That's not what "observable" means, dumbass. You don't have to be able to physically detect radiation with your eyes like some comic book for radiation to be an observable phenomenon.
You are bad at this
I've given up the conversation with them, it's not worth the effort.
Reasonable
You're worse.
Two conversations with you, and both times you:
Misunderstood me
Refused to listen when I tried to explain
Blamed me for your inability to read, and became hostile for no reason, except a narcissistic urge to deflect.
The first time it pissed me off, but this time, I know it's just who you are, and I knew exactly what I was in for when I unblocked you.
Bye.
How did you know to unblock them if you couldn't read their answers?
When someone I've blocked replies to me, it gives me a notification and shows, "1 more reply" but if I click it it just keeps loading indefinitely. I logged out to check who it was and decided to give them a second chance that they definitely didn't deserve.
Here is my previous interaction with them which demonstrates that their toxic, narcissistic behavior is a trend, not a one-off.
I've never blocked anyone, I've only ever blocked communities, and I assumed it just silenced them completely from your perspective. Strange that it instead gives you an unusable notification instead!
In terms of toxicity, I've had unpleasant interactions with both them and you in the past.
I'm not surprised that you both blew it out of proportion, you both failed to listen to each other, you both refused to back down and you both prolonged the argument longer than necessary. Par for the course.
What did they say that I didn't listen to, exactly?
I'm not going to get embroiled in specifics or join in your argument or your previous argument with the other argumentative user today, I'm afraid.
I don't think you're seeking information, I think you're seeking argument.
And if you're seeking information, you're better of going on the introspective journey on your own, you don't want me as your guide.
I'll answer your question with a question: If you don't believe you're more argumentative than the average lemmy user, why would you pick OBJECTION! as your username?
It's funny how people told me I had said something misleading and couldn't point to what it was, and now you're claiming I refused to listen and can't point to anything I refused to listen to. Somehow, people keep assigning blame to me without being able to substantiate it in any way.
I presented a rather thoughtful line of philosophical reasoning, and expected people to either agree with it or critique it. As one does.
Instead, people started critiquing an idea utterly unrelated to anything I said. Which you are now blaming me for. And now you're saying that I just came here "seeking argument," really? Did you read my initial comment? Do you really, genuinely believe that I was trolling and not looking for an intellectual discussion?
Quite simply, because I find that people say things all the time without providing any sort of evidence, and I believe in calling that out and keeping things more evidence focused.
Whatever problems I might have with people being unable to substantiate or defend their beliefs with evidence, I have much more disdain for people throwing around accusations without evidence. Which people on here do, all the time, constantly.
If you want to say I'm "argumentative," that's fine with me. There's nothing wrong with arguments. What's more wrong is to talk shit about people without being able to substantiate it. Lots of people, not just on here, but on the internet in general, will make up bullshit about a person or group they don't like, and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too. "Crybullying" is the term I use for it.
I think everyone ought to have the chance to defend themselves and nobody should be going around talking shit if they can't back it up. I won't claim to be perfect, but if you don't go around saying things you can't back up, then you will find me much easier to get along with.
You appear to be attempting to prove to the world that I'm wrong to assert that you and the other user unnecessarily blow out of proportion and prolong arguments without truly listening, by strongly emotive argument and taking what I said as a series of unconnected assertions for to destroy, taking on board nothing of what I said and instead turning my reluctance to join in your preexisting arguments into some sort of proof that my conclusions are wrong.
You seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. The irony is strong.
Did it not occur to you that arguing so strongly that I'm wrong, accompanied by name-calling no less, might instead show that I'm right? It wasn't meant as a trap, but you twisted it around until you ensnared yourself.
Ask yourself if you really do demand as much evidence from people or points with which you instinctively agree, and you'll see that your self-perceived intellectual integrity of believing only what people can prove to you is merely double standards and a sham: I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!
This is one of your favourite forms of disagreement, I suspect because it makes you feel you have logic on your side, but the asymmetry in the demand for proof is bias, and concluding that people who you disagree with are wrong because they failed in your one-person prosecution, judge & jury court is naive.
Your court was not constituted to discover truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You should be surprised every time it finds it.
Oh hey, look, I called it.
What I actually said, by the way, was that I don't mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don't have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.
This is such typical crybully behavior. Talks mad shit, can't back up anything, and then whines about it. What do you imagine you're accomplishing here?
You came in here just to talk shit. Literally, you saw two people you didn't like in an argument and you loved it, because it gave you the opportunity to gloat and act all self-righteous.
You don't even recognize your own behavior when I specifically call it out. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Are you even aware of what you're doing, or is it just second-nature?
Literally what would I have to say to make you happy? You want me to just take all the blame and prostrate myself before your superiority, and anything short of that, any attempt to stand up for myself, or to explain my actions, is just further proof of my wrongdoing to you. This is exactly why I picked the name I did, because I completely reject your whole way of doing things and of approaching conflict.
Put quite simply, ranting at me all the time whilst believing that you've done nothing wrong it absolutely typical of you, and I don't understand why you think calling me names shows that it's not. The irony of it seems to have completely passed you by.
You have a funny way of showing it.
I can't quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.
Never claimed that it wasn't. I spend lots of time ranting at crybullies who accuse me of shit and then claim I'm attacking them when I don't immediately roll over and accept it.
What can't you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.
What I do mind is coming in here and accusing me of shit and then not being able to back it up, at all.
It's really funny to me the way you libs operate, how "backing up a claim you made" is the absolute last thing you are ever willing to do. And how do you justify it? It's always the same. "Oh, I don't want to get into with you." Of course, then you'll happily continue the conversation! Just so long as it never involves having to substantiate your claims! It's such a consistent pattern of behavior, literally every one of you thinks and acts that way!
Remember, the whole reason you weren't willing to back up your claim in the first place was that "you didn't want to get into it with me." Well, what do you call this, exactly? You wouldn't have commented in the first place if you weren't looking to "get into it."
What this behavior stems from is arrogance, a belief that you are inherently superior and therefore people should just believe whatever you say. It's absurd. The sheer number of times I have asked people to back up their claims on here, only for them to get all weasely like you, while trying to continue the discussion, is far more than I could count.
You're literally just here to trade snipes. You won't back anything up because then we might actually end up with a meaningful and intelligent discussion. Can't have that, can we? No, because that would imply a basic level of respect of treating others as equals. And you get all pissy when I actually defend myself and say that I will only accept criticism if it's substantiated, because I'm not treating you as my superior.
Get bent. Evidence or GTFO.
Then why are you arguing with me at all? Why not just say "oh yeah, that's me to the core"?
This whole thing started because I saw the two of you doing what you both often do and you were "crybullying" (your term, not mine) the other person for toxicity, when I "called you out" (your term, not mine) on it, you switched to "crybullying" me (your term not mine). This was as predictable as it was ironic, and I find it amusing that somewhere in there you really think that of you just argue a little but more angrily or a little bit longer you'll prove me wrong to have criticised your style of argument!
Evidence or GTFO.
Where did I act as a crybully? Do you know what that word even means? Where did I accuse the other person of shit, and then when they asked me to substantiate it, I took it as an attack? Where did I do the same to you?
I did not "crybully" them over toxicity, I criticized them for it, and I did not crybully you either, I've only criticized you. Correctly and accurately, in both cases.
Let me guess, "you don't want to get into it," and I'm just further proving my guilt by not immediately accepting your criticism. Ironic, I don't even know how many levels of crybullying you're on at this point.
Evidence or GTFO.
Lol. When you criticise other people's behaviour, you call it "calling them out" or "calling you out", but when people criticise your behaviour, you call it "crybullying". It's extreme double standards.
I'm describing a very specific behavior with the term "crybully," it is not just a general term for criticism. There is no double standard.
Evidence or GTFO.
Yes, the very specific behaviour of criticising you as opposed to criticising other people. It's an irregular verb: I make valid criticism, you crybully, he/she spews hate and gets emotional.
You need me to provide screenshots of your swearing and name calling pms to me, or can we take them on trust? Lol.
You think you're quite the clever scientist because you tell other people to provide evidence, but the evidence is right here in this conversation and across your post history! Lol.
I have already defined what crybullying is and explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn't. You only think it's a double standard because you don't understand what the word means.
I can confidently predict that you 100% believe that this is true of everyone who argues with you online and absolutely never true of you!
You truly believe that it's everyone else that's being unreasonable and toxic, making wild, random accusations with no basis whatsoever in factual reality, whereas you're a virtuous truth teller whose opinions are based on firm scientific evidence all day every day! It's so one-sided that I find it amusing.
I'm not sure you did, or at least if you did, you didn't phrase it as a definition. Reading back over our conversion, I think "crybullying" is your made-up word for people criticising you and then not obeying your made-up rules for how they should answer your talking points. It paints you as a victim when someone calls you out and completely glosses over your original behaviour. You paint yourself as boldly calling out poor behaviour in others, whilst calling similar behaviours in them crying and bullying. Trump does that kind of projection too, but like me, he never heard of your made up term for it.
You can give it out, but you can't take it. And I was right in the first place that like that other user you're argumentative and bad at backing down.
You admitted that you're argumentative and yet here you are, utterly failing to back down on that point. Do you fancy admitting that you're bad at backing down too?!
Cool story
How about the spheres in this image? Which colors do you observe? And which colors are they really?
I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just an example of how our senses do not necessarily display reality.
I think people are completely misunderstanding me. I am fully aware that optical illusions exist, I don't see how that has any relevance to what I'm actually saying.
How do you know what colors they really are? You know by making more detailed observations than you might at first glance, for example, by zooming in. What exactly is that meant to demonstrate?
If a whole bunch of different people are all misunderstanding you in the same way at the same time then the obvious explanation is that you're failing to communicate clearly
I encourage you to go to a honky tonk and try to explain Marxism to people and see if you still feel that way afterwards.
Refer to anything that I actually said and show how you could logically draw the conclusions you made about my positions from that.
I could absolutely explain Marxism to people at a honky tonk, wouldn't be any harder than explaining Marxism to people in any other location. Already did that once, keep up
I don't think either of us is getting anything out of this conversation. Let's just leave it, ok?
Not sure what the point of this was then.
Finally, something we agree on.
I haven't seen anything we disagree on.
To be clear, the observable universe is centered on Earth (technically, on you). For a being that is closer to the object that leaves your observable universe before it leaves theirs. It can still be observed by them. There is no objective point at which something becomes unobservable by the expansion of space.
Excepting maybe the big rip.
Yes, but this is assuming an objective, universal frame of reference, and that's not really a thing. For example, things like time dilution mean that there is no universal "clock." There is an objective point at which things become unobservable to my (Earth's) frame of reference.
It's true that there could be some alien halfway across the observable universe that could observe the stars that have exited our observable universe. But, we could not observe the alien observing them, because information still can't travel faster than the speed of light.
Not really. Nothing I said has any dependence on a universal clock.
Right and this is my point. Any philosophical theory that has anything to do with the observable universe is inherently self-centered. Not even Earth centered. Not even conscious-being centered. Literally self-centered. The observable universe is subjective. And so that puts it in the class of philosophies that insist that the universe arises from your own consciousness.
Which is not to invalidate it, but it's not objective, and it has nothing to do with science.
The way I see it, this places quite a lot of physics into the category of "nothing to do with science." The Copenhagen interpretation of QM, for example, is based on what we can observe and detect, and asserts that particles do not have an exact position because there are limits on how closely it is possible to measure it. To me, it's the same principle.
There is a subtle distinction in my position. I'm defining existence as a relational property, meaning that what I am claiming is that things outside the observable universe do not exist relative to me. They may exist relative to someone else, although I have no way of knowing if they do. Therefore, I don't consider it self-centered.
In opinion, the thing that has nothing to do with science is making claims about things that we can't observe, because they are outside of the observable universe. How can we say, from a scientific perspective, that the universe continues beyond that if we can't test that theory? By definition, such claims cannot be considered empirical or testable.