How do you simply explain how we know the things we know about the observable universe.
In: 0
We can observe nature and we can make measurements of what we observe, then we can form hypothesis about why we observed what we did in a way that allows us to check the hypothesis against further observation, the result of that check then further informs our hypothesis and the cycle repeats. We can build deep and extremely accurate understandings of the natural world in this way and the most important part is that it is self correcting. The hypothesis are always advancing as each test is performed and the results examined, new questions asked and new observations made. In this way our understanding marches ever closer to the truth of nature.
All we have is observation. This is limited by our brains’ ability to comprehend things. There is a concept worth discussing called the phaneron. The phaneron is what is taking place in your mind. It doesn’t necessarily correlate to reality but it is your reality. So, we can make many assumptions about reality but ultimately we are limited by our lonely, unshared perspective. Here’s an example Vsauce taught me: imagine you and your cat are both hanging out near a computer. You are using the keyboard and mouse to play a game on the computer. In your mind, you are using two input devices to interact with a computer. In the cat’s mind, he’s witnessing you play with some objects that give off light and warmth. You are both looking at the same object but your interpretations are different. When we look to the cosmos, we are the cat and the mysteries are the keyboard and mouse in this analogy. There are things beyond our comprehension. So all we know is our version of reality.
We can observe nature and we can make measurements of what we observe, then we can form hypothesis about why we observed what we did in a way that allows us to check the hypothesis against further observation, the result of that check then further informs our hypothesis and the cycle repeats. We can build deep and extremely accurate understandings of the natural world in this way and the most important part is that it is self correcting. The hypothesis are always advancing as each test is performed and the results examined, new questions asked and new observations made. In this way our understanding marches ever closer to the truth of nature.
All we have is observation. This is limited by our brains’ ability to comprehend things. There is a concept worth discussing called the phaneron. The phaneron is what is taking place in your mind. It doesn’t necessarily correlate to reality but it is your reality. So, we can make many assumptions about reality but ultimately we are limited by our lonely, unshared perspective. Here’s an example Vsauce taught me: imagine you and your cat are both hanging out near a computer. You are using the keyboard and mouse to play a game on the computer. In your mind, you are using two input devices to interact with a computer. In the cat’s mind, he’s witnessing you play with some objects that give off light and warmth. You are both looking at the same object but your interpretations are different. When we look to the cosmos, we are the cat and the mysteries are the keyboard and mouse in this analogy. There are things beyond our comprehension. So all we know is our version of reality.
That depends on your philosophical outlook.
If you are an empiricist, we interact with the universe through our senses. We make observations, gather data, perform experiments, construct hypotheses, etc. With many people doing this over and over, we can discover a great deal about how the universe works. Perhaps not everything, but a lot.
If you are a solipsist, you recognize that our senses don’t necessarily reflect external reality. We know to a certainty that at least at some times they lie. Taken to an extreme, you can infer that it is possible that there is no external reality (or that it is very different from what we believe) and the only thing you can be sure of is that you exist. Everything else could be a delusion, artificial inputs, a simulation, etc.
Interestingly, you can’t really use either of these philosophical outlooks to disprove the other. Solipsism is inherently impossible to disprove empirically, and if it were correct then empiricism is wrong (or at least somewhat wrong).
That depends on your philosophical outlook.
If you are an empiricist, we interact with the universe through our senses. We make observations, gather data, perform experiments, construct hypotheses, etc. With many people doing this over and over, we can discover a great deal about how the universe works. Perhaps not everything, but a lot.
If you are a solipsist, you recognize that our senses don’t necessarily reflect external reality. We know to a certainty that at least at some times they lie. Taken to an extreme, you can infer that it is possible that there is no external reality (or that it is very different from what we believe) and the only thing you can be sure of is that you exist. Everything else could be a delusion, artificial inputs, a simulation, etc.
Interestingly, you can’t really use either of these philosophical outlooks to disprove the other. Solipsism is inherently impossible to disprove empirically, and if it were correct then empiricism is wrong (or at least somewhat wrong).
Latest Answers