34
Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe?
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
34 points (85.4% liked)
Ask Science
13871 readers
9 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I personally don't bother worrying too much about things we can't prove or disprove like that, but it's important to remember that just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My philosophy is that if there is some sort of beyond that whatever is out there is similar enough to ours that they'd be able to empathize with the decisions I make and judge me accordingly, assuming there even would be some sort of judgement process. I'm at peace with it. I was raised evangelical, and lots of my friends were. One of my atheist friends used to have nightmares about an eternity in hell. I don't think anyone who loves us could do that. And if whatever is there is different enough that our decisions don't matter then it's arbitrary anyways and there's no sense worrying. It's not about "being okay with an amoral god." It's just an acknowledgement that the idea of a reality we can't prove further than our own could exist.
But anyone making definitive statements about something like that shouldn't be trusted. Which rules out pretty much all religions because many make claims like that.
I'm guessing you knew what I meant there, right? Why would a moral god make a planet where most people die in agony, usually as kids, for most of history? That's direct evidence against.
If we're talking about unprovable things literally anything is possible. Because it's unprovable.
Unprovable things can still be disprovable.
We can't disprove the the soul, god (ethical or not), or the afterlife if we're talking about unprovable things. Because we can't know that there isn't some incomprehensible reason why the best decision would be the current state of things and also somehow be ethical. But, like I've said, I don't really think it's worth debating the unprovable/undisprovable and anyone making definitive statements about what a reality beyond our own would look like while also claiming it can't be proved should be ignored as untrustworthy.
I guess, but if when you're getting to that point you have to ask what knowledge even is and if it's possible about anything.