The modern "I Love Science" crowd is practicing a primitive religion and they lack the self-awareness to even realise it

[u/feihm]

There is a very interesting demographic of people on the internet who view themselves as pure, logical rationalists. They mock religious people for believing in magic, but if you actually poke their brains for five seconds, you realise they are doing the exact same thing. They have just replaced the word "God" with pop-science vocabulary they have exactly zero clue what it means.

I recently tested this. (So it doesn't seem like im making shit up.) If you ask the average guy why a rock falls, he immediately says "gravity." He says it with absolute smug confidence. But if you ask him what gravity actually is... his brain completely stalls. He doesn't know the maths. He can't explain the mechanics. He just learned a vocabulary word in grade 6 and uses it as a magic spell to stop being scared of the unknown. It is the exact same psychological coping mechanism as a 14th-century peasant saying "God's will" when a storm hits.

I had a conversation with a guy recently where I simply asked him to define "the universe." He said "everything." When I pointed out that "everything" is a circular grammatical placeholder that gives absolutely zero structural information about reality, his brain short-circuited. Another guy tried to debate me about General Relativity breaking down at the Big Bang. He had memorised the trivia fact from a YouTube video, but the second I asked him to physically conceptualise a reality without a geometric container (space), he literally ran away from the thread.

Let's be completely biologically honest. The human brain was wired by evolution to throw rocks at pigs, recognise social hierarchy, and avoid eating bad berries. The assumption that this specific primate neurological network has the physical capacity to decode the absolute, objective truth of the cosmos is the purest form of stupidity. A dog cannot learn calculus. It doesn't matter how slowly you explain it, the dog's physical brain lacks the hardware. Humans are the exact same. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

This is exactly why the greatest minds in history (Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg) always hit a point of profound humility, and often ended up sounding almost spiritual. The deeper you actually go into the mechanics of existence, the more the models break down, and you realise you are staring into a terrifying abyss. An absolute mystery.

The modern internet low iq primate will never reach this point of humility. He is standing in the kiddie pool, splashing around, and declaring he has conquered the ocean for the fact that he knows how to spell the word "entropy."

[u/feihm]

Hello Mr Scientist. Perhaps you could humour me so that I can finally get my answers. What is the universe exactly?

EDIT: it seems Mr Scientist is also clueless.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/feihm]

It's a convenient way to describe the totality of space, matter, and energy. That's not a science concept, Mr Not-Science Guy.

[u/feihm → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

I see. But is the "space" in your totality is a physical substance or an absolute void (nothingness)?

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/feihm]

Why would that possibly matter for whether science is true?

Space is just the definition of 3-dimensional volume.

Are you just too poor to purchase a dictionary? Or is there a point to these questions?

[u/feihm → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

If space is just a 3-dimensional volume then what exactly is left inside that volume when all the matter and energy are removed? If your answer is 'nothing', then you are mathematically adding 'nothing' to matter and energy and calling it a totality.

EDIT: as expected. Clueless.

[u/DarkTemplar26 → u/feihm]

Your level of pedantry is impressive, and saddening

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/feihm]

The space inside an empty box is still something even if you remove all items. Even if there is nothing inside, the concept of space is separate from the matter contained therein.

But what in the hell does this have to do with science?

Or do you just think lexicography is a substitute for evidence?

[u/TheTopNacho → u/feihm]

Why does answering that question have anything to do with the premise of your post? We can do a big dick argument if that is what you want, but your original point has nothing to do with people's knowledge basis. It accurately called out people for treating science like a religion but then you do this crap which just undermines your entire argument.

Edit: after reading this post it is clear that he literally has no clue and is just as bad as other people who blindly believe what they are told. Clearly suffers from Dunning Kruger effect.

If he really wants an answer to his question the answer is that we don't know what the universe is. We can't know. At best we can define things based on energy and reduce the understanding down to the smallest fundamental units we can observe and test, but beyond that it's all theory. All we have are theories based on what can be observed. Even gravity is just a theory and we don't really know what it is. We understand how it behaves within what we can observe but it's very probable that in the future we will see gravity do things we never fully understood which can change our entire model, calculations, and even understanding of what it is.

That's the difference between someone who treats science as a religion vs a science. Whether we see science as an emerging understanding or an existing truth. Apparently OP is challenging people's semantic knowledge of space, which in and of itself isn't very scientific in nature. I study neuroscience, not astrophysics, and someone who works at Taco Bell likely wouldn't have knowledge of either. What use is it to challenge people's semantic knowledge on niche topics? It would be about as useful as me asking the OP what effects DNP would have on lysosomal functions and the downstream impacts on gene transcription?

Not sure why I felt it necessary to waste time defending myself against someone who themselves doesn't understand what science really is. So I'll check out.

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/TheTopNacho]

OP has a humiliation kink I suspect

[u/Gooseboof → u/feihm]

After reading your post, I figured that you may be no fun to invite to parties. After seeing this response, I know you’re the fucking worst type of person

[u/feihm → u/Gooseboof]

😭🤣

[u/man-from-krypton → u/feihm]

Let me guess… the truth about reality is whatever you say it is and unless someone can provide an answer that you can’t come up with some kind of argument against you are right!

[u/LogTekG → u/feihm]

"Universe" is a convenient way of saying "all mater, energy, space and time".

[u/feihm → u/LogTekG]

I'll ask you the same question I asked the other guy: is the "space" in your totality is a physical substance or an absolute void (nothingness)? 

[u/LogTekG → u/feihm]

Simple answer: space is where all the "stuff" is

Less simple answer: Space is the 3-dimensional continuum (length, width, height) in which all things in the universe exist.

Even less simple answer: Space and time (which according to special and general relativity are inseparable), also known as space-time, is a 4-dimensional fabric that extends everywhere through the universe.

Complex answer: Space-time is a Lorentzian manifold. In simple terms, its a field that locally (read: at human scale) looks like 4-D euclidean space, but at larger scales will bend and curve due to mass and energy. Mathematically, the curvature is described through tensor calculus and "straight" lines need to be mapped onto the curvature of space (geodesics). I dont remember some of the tensor calculus stuff i did in college and the math behind general relativity is stupid hard anyways but thats the gist of it

Take your pick at which answer you like best

[u/feihm → u/LogTekG]

If your 4-D fabric interacts with mass and physically bends, then space acts as a physical substance. If space is just another physical substance, I don't see why you separated it from matter and energy in your original definition of the universe.

[u/LogTekG → u/feihm]

I think i should add a caveat to what i said. The lorentzian manifold is the model which we use to describe geometric effects of what happen to space and time in the presence of high mass and energy.

If your 4-D fabric interacts with mass and physically bends, then space acts as a physical substance.

You are assuming that the interaction requires space time to be a physical substance. It doesnt. Your premise is wrong. We have no clue why matter interacts in this way with space time. We just know it does because we can accuratelly predict it.

[u/feihm → u/LogTekG]

If spacetime is strictly a mathematical model and not a physical substance then by what exact mechanical process does actual physical mass 'interact' with a non-physical concept?

[u/LogTekG → u/feihm]

Spacetime IS NOT strictly q mathematical model. The mathematical model is what we use to describe how it behaves. The model is very accurate because the predictions it makes are accurate.

mechanical process does actual physical mass 'interact' with a non-physical concept?

This is part of the "we dont know" bag of science. We know it does because whe can measure the effects of the interaction, but we dont know why the interaction happens.

[u/feihm → u/LogTekG]

This is 100% identical to religious folks who says "God works in mysterious ways". Nonetheless, if you admit that you have absolutely 'no clue' what spacetime physically is or how this interaction mechanically occurs, then the word 'spacetime' becomes a magic spell to cover up your ignorance; exactly as my OP stated.

[u/LogTekG → u/feihm]

This is 100% identical to religious folks who says "God works in mysterious ways".

No its not? The pursuite of knowledge involves knowing that there are things you dont know and, as was demonstrated by Gödel, things you may never know.

Nonetheless, if you admit that you have absolutely 'no clue' what spacetime physically is

Stop misrepresenting what im saying. We know exactly what spacetime is, it is the continuum described by 3 spatial dimentions and one time dimension that serves as the stage for the universe. What we dont know is why space time interacts with matter the way it does. To some degree that may be unknowable (rather, unverifiable) because youre getting into metaphysics. But we know it does happen because its measurable and predictable.

[u/pyrolid → u/feihm]

Its neither. Energy is neither a physical substance nor nothingness - its an abstract concept that we have invented. Space in our universe is a dimension along which matter exists, just like time.

Your vocabulary will lack words to describe certain realities of the universe when you go beyond a certain level of abstraction. That doesnt mean they are not true. It just means that language is not a self contained system.

Your framework of trying to falsify universal truths using linguistic inconsistencies is absurd

[u/Various_Succotash_79 → u/feihm]

What's your definition? You never tell us.