Philosophy Now Forum

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 8:23 pm And then there's the Ancient Greeks. The story goes that Greek philosophy started with Thales of Miletus. He basically ran with the mythology of the time: that gods of water begat gods of soil, who begat gods of air, who begat gods of fire. The difference being that he did away with the gods and sought natural explanations for events.
The Greeks were a bit of an outlier in that earlier civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt in particular, had been founded on the flood plains of mighty rivers, their annual flooding leaving a deposit of fresh soil that made agriculture, and thus supportting urban populations viable. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians interpreted this as water turning into soil. Vegetation decaying at the bottom of pools gives off methane that bubbles to the surface, which was interpreted as the marriage of earth and water begatting air, and there are lots of different gods believed to be doing the begatting. Since methane is a flammable gas, it was inferred that air turned into fire, so the Greek elements, earth, water air and fire, are older that Greece. What made Greece different, at least before Thales, was that in the Theogeny, a story about the genealogy of Greek gods, the primordial substance was earth. The Theogeny was written by Hesiod up a mountain, where water springs from the hillside, hence according to Hesiod, the primordial substance was earth. At this point in time, about 600 BCE, there was a concensus that one thing could turn into another; transmutation was a thing. So you have this observable evidence and a broad agreement about what is going on, but there are lots of different gods that explain the same evidence equally well. So within the mythological paradigm, the various myths are underdetermined.
Things weren't much better in Thales new naturalistic paradigm. His immediate followers, Anaximander and Anaximemes had different views. Anaximander was particularly interesting, claiming that what defined the Greek elements was the properties of the underlying substance, which he called the apeiron. The mixture of hot and cold, wet and dry being unique to each with earth cold and dry, water cold and wet, air hot and wet and fire hot and dry. Anaximenes had a more conventional idea, but in his view the primordial substance was air. His evidence was that blowing air onto embers could turn them into flames, while condensation from breath is water. Other philosophers argued for earth or fire. So again, within the Greek naturalistic paradigm, the theories are underdetermined.
So now there are two paradigms, the theistis and naturalistic, both of which explain the same phenomena equally well, which makes them underdetermined. Despite 2 and a half millenia of thinking and experiments, we're still in the same boat.

The Greeks were often taught to me as being precursors to contemporary science. That seems plausible, however, science has also been practiced by some in religious societies (often rewarding some of those practitioners with a lot of grief). Where the Greeks began to lay foundations for contemporary theology was sort of given scant attention in my college education.

So my questions are a bit Nietzschean. If there is no God, then what is there to make us think that science is superior to illusion. That discovering truth is preferable to living in an under determined world? For example, if and only if, it's equally possible to live with the belief that the planets are kept in elliptical orbits by fairies, as opposed to gravity, AND believing so pleases our biological instincts more, then is it somehow "objectively" better to believe in gravity instead?

OR

What if science ends up destroying the human species that currently inhabits the Earth, through the invention of something catastrophic? Would it behoove us not to pursue scientific understanding of that technology? Do we know if truth is inherently a good thing? What if we suddenly discover some ominous truth that undermines us all? Would it possibly be better not to learn that truth? Or to put it yet another way, if and only if a truth ends up making us all profoundly unhappy in the agragate, then which would be more important under those circumstances, knowledge of that truth or happiness?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmThe Greeks were often taught to me as being precursors to contemporary science. That seems plausible, however, science has also been practiced by some in religious societies (often rewarding some of those practitioners with a lot of grief).

It is very difficult to mark the boundary between science and not science. For example, it is a fairly common practice among hunter gatherers for the strongest among them to sample a small portion of potential food they are not familiar with; so they're doing carefully regulated tests, one of the features most would agree is part of science. People in all societies have to test things, they have to count and measure and they usually only get into trouble when they challenge religious authority. There is nothing in science which is necessarily incompatible with the idea of some god, the problem is that all religious books make claims which are flatly refuted by evidence.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWhere the Greeks began to lay foundations for contemporary theology was sort of given scant attention in my college education.

That may be because the core doctrine of Christianity, the resurrection, was a common myth around the Mediterranean at the time. Plato's most famous book, The Republic, is to a large degree a handbook for would be rulers on how to control the population. In it, Plato explicitly says you have to make up myths, lies if you please, to that end. It's a fat old book and not everyone makes it to the end. Those who do are treated to the myth of Er in which Er is slain in battle, goes of to the afterlife where he sees what is clearly the template for Christian descriptions of heaven and hell. His body was retrieved from the battlefield, and just as his funeral pyre was about to be set alight, he pops back to life and tells us all about what awaits us depending on how we behave between now and our last breath. A lot of medieval philosophy was dedicated to reconciling Plato and Christianity.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmSo my questions are a bit Nietzschean. If there is no God, then what is there to make us think that science is superior to illusion. That discovering truth is preferable to living in an under determined world? For example, if and only if, it's equally possible to live with the belief that the planets are kept in elliptical orbits by fairies, as opposed to gravity, AND believing so pleases our biological instincts more, then is it somehow "objectively" better to believe in gravity instead?

Well gravity is just the name given to whatever it is that attracts massive objects to each other. Believing in fairies won't make any difference to what happens, so when scientists say that philosophy is useless, they're not wrong; you can attribute gravity to anything you like, if you drop a brick, it is going to accelerate at 9.8ms² whatever.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWhat if science ends up destroying the human species that currently inhabits the Earth, through the invention of something catastrophic? Would it behoove us not to pursue scientific understanding of that technology? Do we know if truth is inherently a good thing? What if we suddenly discover some ominous truth that undermines us all?

We already have. The Cold War was kept that way because both the USA and USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear attack, 10 minutes later they would be dead and their entire country would a radioactive desert.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWould it possibly be better not to learn that truth?

The danger is that if you don't pursue scientific understanding of something catastrophic, your enemies will.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmOr to put it yet another way, if and only if a truth ends up making us all profoundly unhappy in the agragate, then which would be more important under those circumstances, knowledge of that truth or happiness?

That's the red pill/blue pill dilemma. Take your pick.

"We already have. The Cold War was kept that way because both the USA and USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear attack, 10 minutes later they would be dead and their entire country would a radioactive desert."

unfortunately, some people believe that Allah will never allow the counter strike to be launched

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 8:23 pm And then there's the Ancient Greeks. The story goes that Greek philosophy started with Thales of Miletus. He basically ran with the mythology of the time: that gods of water begat gods of soil, who begat gods of air, who begat gods of fire. The difference being that he did away with the gods and sought natural explanations for events.
The Greeks were a bit of an outlier in that earlier civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt in particular, had been founded on the flood plains of mighty rivers, their annual flooding leaving a deposit of fresh soil that made agriculture, and thus supportting urban populations viable. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians interpreted this as water turning into soil. Vegetation decaying at the bottom of pools gives off methane that bubbles to the surface, which was interpreted as the marriage of earth and water begatting air, and there are lots of different gods believed to be doing the begatting. Since methane is a flammable gas, it was inferred that air turned into fire, so the Greek elements, earth, water air and fire, are older that Greece. What made Greece different, at least before Thales, was that in the Theogeny, a story about the genealogy of Greek gods, the primordial substance was earth. The Theogeny was written by Hesiod up a mountain, where water springs from the hillside, hence according to Hesiod, the primordial substance was earth. At this point in time, about 600 BCE, there was a concensus that one thing could turn into another; transmutation was a thing. So you have this observable evidence and a broad agreement about what is going on, but there are lots of different gods that explain the same evidence equally well. So within the mythological paradigm, the various myths are underdetermined.
Things weren't much better in Thales new naturalistic paradigm. His immediate followers, Anaximander and Anaximemes had different views. Anaximander was particularly interesting, claiming that what defined the Greek elements was the properties of the underlying substance, which he called the apeiron. The mixture of hot and cold, wet and dry being unique to each with earth cold and dry, water cold and wet, air hot and wet and fire hot and dry. Anaximenes had a more conventional idea, but in his view the primordial substance was air. His evidence was that blowing air onto embers could turn them into flames, while condensation from breath is water. Other philosophers argued for earth or fire. So again, within the Greek naturalistic paradigm, the theories are underdetermined.
So now there are two paradigms, the theistis and naturalistic, both of which explain the same phenomena equally well, which makes them underdetermined. Despite 2 and a half millenia of thinking and experiments, we're still in the same boat.

The Greeks were often taught to me as being precursors to contemporary science. That seems plausible, however, science has also been practiced by some in religious societies (often rewarding some of those practitioners with a lot of grief). Where the Greeks began to lay foundations for contemporary theology was sort of given scant attention in my college education.

So my questions are a bit Nietzschean. If there is no God, then what is there to make us think that science is superior to illusion.

But, there is a God.

Why do you keep questioning whether there is a God or not? Why not instead just start 'looking at', 'focusing on', and 'discussing' the Facts alone?

Also, if you do the latter from the Truly open perspective, only, then you will uncover the actual Truth, here.

Furthermore, what there is that makes 'you' human beings think that 'science' is superior to illusion is 'knowing', itself. See, 'science' is done, supposedly, on the proviso that all previous knowledge is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct. Whereas, 'illusion' is always 'in or with doubt'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm That discovering truth is preferable to living in an under determined world?

If some thing is 'preferred', or not, then that is a totally individual personal thing.

Is discovering 'truth' to 'you' more preferable to living in a so-called 'under determined world'?

There are countless human beings who prefer the very opposite of discovering the actual Truth of things.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm For example, if and only if, it's equally possible to live with the belief that the planets are kept in elliptical orbits by fairies, as opposed to gravity, AND believing so pleases our biological instincts more, then is it somehow "objectively" better to believe in gravity instead?

But, 'believing' things like in your example, here, do not please your biological instincts at all, let alone more.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm OR

What if science ends up destroying the human species that currently inhabits the Earth, through the invention of something catastrophic?

Inventing and/or creating things, which ultimately are destructive, some do not call 'science', at all.

But, as ALWAYS 'it' always depends on 'the definition' of 'the word/s' being used.

See, some define the 'science' word in 'a way' that relates to 'studying', only, and not in relation to 'inventing' and/or 'creating'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm Would it behoove us not to pursue scientific understanding of that technology?

Only 'a fool' would stop 'studying things'. Exactly like, only 'a fool' would intentionally create or invent some thing, which would be used for destroying and/or catastrophic purposes.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm Do we know if truth is inherently a good thing?

Yes.

Do you know if lying is inherently a bad or wrong thing?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm What if we suddenly discover some ominous truth that undermines us all?

Will you please provide some examples of things that could undermine you human beings, (that is, if that is what the 'us' word, here, is referring to)?

I am not sure how obtaining 'Truthful knowledge' could ever undermine any or all of you human beings. For example, let say that the 'ominous truth' is a meteorite is going to hit earth, within the next two years, and wipe out all animals to extinction. So, the 'ominous truth' is all of you human beings are going to be killed, within the next two years. Now, although 'the meteorite', itself, is going to, so-call, 'undermine' you all, (in that all of you will 'die), it was not the 'ominous truth' that 'undermined' you all, it was 'the meteorite', itself, that did.

Absolutely all Truths, themselves, do not so-call 'undermine' any, nor all, of you human beings. Well not as far as I am yet aware. So, as always, I await any examples you will provide.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm Would it possibly be better not to learn that truth?

If one wants 'to know' 'the Truth', then how could it be better not to learn 'that truth', (whatever 'that truth' is, exactly)?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pm Or to put it yet another way, if and only if a truth ends up making us all profoundly unhappy in the agragate, then which would be more important under those circumstances, knowledge of that truth or happiness?

That would all depend on 'each person' individually, would it not?

What makes 'you' 'happy', in 'this current moment', may not have before, nor will after, and, what 'truth' you want 'to know', 'now', may well be different from what 'knowledge of truth' you wanted to be made aware of 'previously', or 'in the future', may not be 'the same' as well.

So, 'finding' what makes 'you', as 'an individual', so-called 'profoundly unhappy' at any given moment, could be quite 'the task', let alone 'finding' 'what truth' could or would make you all, in the aggregate, 'profoundly unhappy', at any given moment, could be near impossible, correct?

But, what I have found is that uncovering, or being informed of, 'the knowledge of the actual Truth', only leads to continued happiness. Although, and obviously, at the very first instance of comprehending 'the actual Truth', there may well be some sort of 'unhappy' emotions involved, for a very few fleeting moments, only.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmThe Greeks were often taught to me as being precursors to contemporary science. That seems plausible, however, science has also been practiced by some in religious societies (often rewarding some of those practitioners with a lot of grief).

It is very difficult to mark the boundary between science and not science. For example, it is a fairly common practice among hunter gatherers for the strongest among them to sample a small portion of potential food they are not familiar with; so they're doing carefully regulated tests, one of the features most would agree is part of science. People in all societies have to test things, they have to count and measure and they usually only get into trouble when they challenge religious authority. There is nothing in science which is necessarily incompatible with the idea of some god, the problem is that all religious books make claims which are flatly refuted by evidence.

That is; only if one was such 'a fool' to take what has been written as literal, and/or take 'their own interpretation' as what was intended and meant in the 'original text'.

And, you, still, have a personal interpretation of, and use a definition for, the 'evidence' word, which does not 'fit in', perfectly, here.

Again, it is these sorts of 'mistakes' why the people, in the days when this was being written, were, still, so lost, confused, and so far behind in 'Factual knowledge'.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWhere the Greeks began to lay foundations for contemporary theology was sort of given scant attention in my college education.

That may be because the core doctrine of Christianity, the resurrection, was a common myth around the Mediterranean at the time.

Are you absolutely sure that the 'core doctrine' of "christianity" is 'the resurrection'?

And, just out of curiosity, is there absolutely any possibility that your own personal interpretation of 'the resurrection' could, in any way, not be aligned with what was actually intended and meant, in 'that story'?

Could, for example, 'the stories' spoken or written in any or even all 'theological scriptures' have just been written in 'a way' so that for 'a while' human beings would just keep passing, and/or believing, 'misinterpretations' in order to finally 'teach' you human beings that your own personal interpretations are never necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, and that 'your own personal interpretations' may never even be close to what 'the other' is actually saying, intending, and meaning?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am Plato's most famous book, The Republic, is to a large degree a handbook for would be rulers on how to control the population. In it, Plato explicitly says you have to make up myths, lies if you please, to that end.

And, 'this' is just because when you human beings, also, come to know 'the way' to find, and uncover, the actual Truth of things, by and for "yourselves", then what is also uncovered is that you do not need "rulers" nor "leaders" other than 'the One' within all of 'you'. From which a Truly Self-governing society begins. From whence 'a peaceful and harmonious world' also Truly begins, once more.

you human beings do not need to be 'controlled', and you never have. you all just have had to wait to learn how to find answers and solve problems all by "yourselves".

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am It's a fat old book and not everyone makes it to the end. Those who do are treated to the myth of Er in which Er is slain in battle, goes of to the afterlife where he sees what is clearly the template for Christian descriptions of heaven and hell. His body was retrieved from the battlefield, and just as his funeral pyre was about to be set alight, he pops back to life and tells us all about what awaits us depending on how we behave between now and our last breath. A lot of medieval philosophy was dedicated to reconciling Plato and Christianity.

And, still to 'this day' when this is being written most adult human beings consider 'heaven' and 'hell' in relation to 'them', individually.

Never once was 'heaven' nor 'hell' ever about you human beings, individually. But, here, there are many people believing 'that story' is about 'them', personally. Which just goes to show how far greed and selfish had infiltrated 'the world', in the days when this was being written. Although one only has to 'look at' the 'outside world' to very clearly see just how greedy and selfish adult human beings had become.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmSo my questions are a bit Nietzschean. If there is no God, then what is there to make us think that science is superior to illusion. That discovering truth is preferable to living in an under determined world? For example, if and only if, it's equally possible to live with the belief that the planets are kept in elliptical orbits by fairies, as opposed to gravity, AND believing so pleases our biological instincts more, then is it somehow "objectively" better to believe in gravity instead?

Well gravity is just the name given to whatever it is that attracts massive objects to each other.

What is 'the name' given to 'whatever it is', which attracts 'less than massive' objects to each other?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am Believing in fairies won't make any difference to what happens, so when scientists say that philosophy is useless, they're not wrong; you can attribute gravity to anything you like, if you drop a brick, it is going to accelerate at 9.8ms² whatever.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWhat if science ends up destroying the human species that currently inhabits the Earth, through the invention of something catastrophic? Would it behoove us not to pursue scientific understanding of that technology? Do we know if truth is inherently a good thing? What if we suddenly discover some ominous truth that undermines us all?

We already have. The Cold War was kept that way because both the USA and USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear attack, 10 minutes later they would be dead and their entire country would a radioactive desert.

Not if the 'launch buttons' were all destroyed, or passage to them was delayed by at least ten minutes. The so-called "other side" could never retaliate, which is, exactly, what would be wanted by "one side", correct?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmWould it possibly be better not to learn that truth?

The danger is that if you don't pursue scientific understanding of something catastrophic, your enemies will.

'This' really was how narrowed, selfish, greedy, and irrational adult human beings had become, back when this was being written. They, literally, believed that there were "sides", and/or that there were, real, "enemies" amongst them.

The adult human being would continually forget that 'they' were ALL human beings, and thus, literally, of the 'one family'.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:22 pmOr to put it yet another way, if and only if a truth ends up making us all profoundly unhappy in the agragate, then which would be more important under those circumstances, knowledge of that truth or happiness?

That's the red pill/blue pill dilemma. Take your pick.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:17 pm "We already have. The Cold War was kept that way because both the USA and USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear attack, 10 minutes later they would be dead and their entire country would a radioactive desert."

unfortunately, some people believe that Allah will never allow the counter strike to be launched

-Imp

Well, obviously, 'they' could not if 'they' were 'attacked' properly, or sufficiently enough.

But, and just as obvious, is 'this one's' use of the 'Allah' word only causes 'more friction', creating 'more conflict', which in turn makes "more enemies" when there is, literally, none.

Inside of a black hole, objects move towards the singularity at the center. That is the opposite of what we observe in our universe. It would make more sense to ask if our universe exists inside of a white hole. Interestingly, Loop Quantum Gravity predicts black holes will turn into white holes so far in the distant future that they would be isolated from everything else in the universe effectively occupying their own observable universe. Does this mean anything? Probably not.

when you burn something you get smoke...

where does the smoke from stars go?

-Imp

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:45 am Inside of a black hole, objects move towards the singularity at the center. That is the opposite of what we observe in our universe.

I don't know much about black holes and I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I understand, 'singularity' as in infinite density/spacetime curvature depending on yer underdetermined preference is contentious in itself. What evidence do we have about movement inside black holes?

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:45 amIt would make more sense to ask if our universe exists inside of a white hole.

Okie dokie. Does our universe exist inside a white hole?

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:45 amInterestingly, Loop Quantum Gravity predicts black holes will turn into white holes so far in the distant future that they would be isolated from everything else in the universe effectively occupying their own observable universe. Does this mean anything? Probably not.

Not an expert on loop quantum gravity either. How does it predict black holes turning white?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 12:48 pm when you burn something you get smoke...

where does the smoke from stars go?

-Imp

Impenitent me old China, stars ain't burning, they're fusing. You can read about it in my comic book:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

and when the fuse burns into the center they go supernova?

(we've seen that link before- excellent work)

-Imp

I don't know much about black holes and I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I understand, 'singularity' as in infinite density/spacetime curvature depending on yer underdetermined preference is contentious in itself. What evidence do we have about movement inside black holes?

That is just what our current theories tell us if you extrapolate them. Bringing up "evidence" on a topic regarding wild speculation ("we live in a black hole") is also a bit strange. By its very nature a discussion that engages in speculation is not a discussion of something demonstrated by the evidence.

Okie dokie. Does our universe exist inside a white hole?

Probably not. The fact the time-reverse of a black whole looks kinda like the Big Bang is probably just a coincidence and doesn't mean anything... probably. I am just saying that if we are wildly speculating about possibilities like this, it would make more sense to look at the similarities between our universe and a white hole than a black hole, because it's closer to the former.

Not an expert on loop quantum gravity either. How does it predict black holes turning white?

Similar reason as to why the electron doesn't fall into the center of the atom. The uncertainty principle disallows the electron from being confined to such a small space. The more you confine it to the narrow location at the center of the atom, the more momentum it gains that causes it be able to escape. The uncertainty principle thus creates a kind of "quantum pressure" that prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus.

Similarly, LQG quantizes spacetime, so you can't compress things down to an infinite singularity. The center of a black hole wouldn't contain a genuine singularity. As things approached it, they would begin to experience a similar kind of "quantum pressure" that would cause them to bounce back out. Relative to something falling into the black hole, this would be a very quick process, but due to time dilation, relative to someone outside the black hole, it could take trillions of years.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pm

I don't know much about black holes and I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I understand, 'singularity' as in infinite density/spacetime curvature depending on yer underdetermined preference is contentious in itself. What evidence do we have about movement inside black holes?

That is just what our current theories tell us if you extrapolate them. Bringing up "evidence" on a topic regarding wild speculation ("we live in a black hole") is also a bit strange. By its very nature a discussion that engages in speculation is not a discussion of something demonstrated by the evidence.

Okie dokie. Does our universe exist inside a white hole?

Probably not. The fact the time-reverse of a black whole looks kinda like the Big Bang is probably just a coincidence and doesn't mean anything... probably. I am just saying that if we are wildly speculating about possibilities like this, it would make more sense to look at the similarities between our universe and a white hole than a black hole, because it's closer to the former.

Not an expert on loop quantum gravity either. How does it predict black holes turning white?

Similar reason as to why the electron doesn't fall into the center of the atom. The uncertainty principle disallows the electron from being confined to such a small space. The more you confine it to the narrow location at the center of the atom, the more momentum it gains that causes it be able to escape. The uncertainty principle thus creates a kind of "quantum pressure" that prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus.

Similarly, LQG quantizes spacetime, so you can't compress things down to an infinite singularity.

A so-called 'infinite singularity' is an oxymoron.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pm The center of a black hole wouldn't contain a genuine singularity.

What even in a so-called 'genuine singularity', exactly?

And, at what you might call, 'the center of a black hole', 'singularity' does exist. Well for a period of what some call, 'time', anyway.

See, when the word, 'singularity', is defined as 'an infinite compression of matter', what a 'black hole' contains is 'singularity'.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pm As things approached it, they would begin to experience a similar kind of "quantum pressure" that would cause them to bounce back out. Relative to something falling into the black hole, this would be a very quick process, but due to time dilation,

So-called, 'time dilation', was an ill-conceived up idea, which was based upon not yet understanding what 'time', itself, is, exactly.

Unless, of course, you want to believe and/or argue otherwise, which, if you did, then you would, obviously, have to first tell all of 'us', here, what 'time', itself, actually is, exactly.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pm relative to someone outside the black hole, it could take trillions of years.

And, just as you were pointing out at the outset of 'this post' of yours, 'by its very nature a discussion that engages in 'speculation' is not a discussion of something demonstrated by the evidence'. Which I will now add, 'evidence' plays no real part in uncovering what is actually True, and Real, in Life. What does, however, is 'proof', itself.

And, for proof of this Fact, let 'us' have a discussion, without speculation, but in which only irrefutable Facts are presented, only.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pmBringing up "evidence" on a topic regarding wild speculation ("we live in a black hole") is also a bit strange.

I was a bit thrown by this:

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:45 am Inside of a black hole, objects move towards the singularity at the center. That is the opposite of what we observe in our universe.

What do we observe? On the one hand the universe is expanding, but not from any central point, as far as we can tell. On the other, gravity is still an attractive force and matter moves toward the strongest source.

amihart wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:07 pmSimilar reason as to why the electron doesn't fall into the center of the atom. The uncertainty principle disallows the electron from being confined to such a small space. The more you confine it to the narrow location at the center of the atom, the more momentum it gains that causes it be able to escape. The uncertainty principle thus creates a kind of "quantum pressure" that prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus.

That's not how I understand the uncertainty principle. Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases. It's not as if an electron is literally orbiting the nucleus, according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such. You can read my take on it in my comic book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:00 pm and when the fuse burns into the center they go supernova?

Kinda.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:00 pm (we've seen that link before- excellent work)

-Imp

Thank you, squire.