= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whpearson comments on Atheist or Agnostic? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
My problem is I am not sure at all what would count as evidence in this case.
The problem comes from assuming that there are different rules before the start of the universe. If the rules are different, then the all the evidence I have collected about the world at the moment may not apply. E.g. we could be simulated on hardware in an invisible universe with completely different rules.
Yes, you are confused, but don't expect the territory to be blank where the confusion lies in your mind. Work on understanding of the question, or of where that question came from, until you come up with a problem that actually gets resolved, even if with a negative answer.
I wouldn't say I was confused, simply unresolved.
Why should all questions be resoluble?
Generally, the policy of "presumed resolvable, though perhaps not with current methods" seems to have the best results in such cases.
Sorry didn't see this for a while.
For most factual questions this is true, I suspect we might come up against self-referential paradoxes in the discussions about how to gain knowledge about the first cause of our existence.