# Is There Anything Known To Be Real That Science Cannot Explain...At All? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 30, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315 "2012-03-30T20:14:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/222 "2012-04-19T01:26:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > We literally understand electromagnetism better than we understand anything else in the Universe. To say that we don’t really understand magnetism is just to say that we don’t actually understand _anything_. It’s like the typical conversation with a three-year-old, who asks “Why?” to everything you say. Eventually, you just have to give up, no matter what the topic is. I’ve got a three year old like that. (Science can’t explain her either.) ---
**Author:** ![benbo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@benbo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/benbo1)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/223 "2012-04-19T01:32:50Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > The thing is, ICP gets a lot of stick for that, and I’m not saying they’re geniuses with an actual point in their ugly painted heads, but it’s actually a good question that I asked on this board recently: [what is an electric field made of? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=624300) > > The answer is that we don’t actually know how magnets work. From what I gathered, there is something in the nature of the universe that creates a potential field between charged particles so that they naturally move toward each other and release energy as they do it. > > Nobody claims to actually describe it well, only to predict its actions. > [@Chronos](#): > > We literally understand electromagnetism better than we understand anything else in the Universe. To say that we don’t really understand magnetism is just to say that we don’t actually understand _anything_. It’s like the typical conversation with a three-year-old, who asks “Why?” to everything you say. Eventually, you just have to give up, no matter what the topic is. > [@j\_sum1](#): > > I’ve got a three year old like that. (Science can’t explain her either.) Welcome to the party, Cardinal. Ain’t u glad u tried to contribute?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/224 "2012-04-19T01:50:34Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I’m curious to see what comes up in answer to this question. I’m not talking about ghosts or UFO’s or anything like that. I’m talking about objects (earthly or celestial) or phenomena that we have a name for, can observe, but simply cannot understand nor explain how it works, why it’s here or why it does what it does. > > So is there something obvious that I’m overlooking? Or is there not anything? Metaphysical Things. Things that are not testable with empirical evidence. This is different from pseudoscientific things, because pseudoscience _claims_ to be science but really lacks the foundations of a science. Furthermore, pseudoscientists are susceptible to belief preserverance and confirmation bias, rendering them untrustworthy. Believing in ESP or the power of “psychics” would probably be considered pseudoscientific, because proponents are saying that they are scientific even though they are not. Believing in God or the afterlife is not pseudoscience. They are not provable, but the most important thing is that believers in God or a god or the afterlife do not claim that they are science in the first place. Rather, such things are part of the metaphysical. I doubt metaphysical things would ever be “tested” by science. To put in another perspective, metaphysical things would also include concepts such as belief in equality or tolerance. How much is tolerant? How much is equal? Are all men created equal? How would you answer this question? What does it mean to be tolerant? What does it mean to be equal or treated equally? ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/225 "2012-04-19T02:11:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > We literally understand electromagnetism better than we understand anything else in the Universe. To say that we don’t really understand magnetism is just to say that we don’t actually understand _anything_. It’s like the typical conversation with a three-year-old, who asks “Why?” to everything you say. Eventually, you just have to give up, no matter what the topic is. I recognize your pain, as I’ve had it when students won’t quit with “Why?”, too. But I think that in a thread like this, it’s relevant to point out exactly what you’re saying there: that at fundamental levels there’s still a lot that’s “just that way”. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/226 "2012-04-19T02:52:26Z")
Yo, why a buncha four fundamental forces, dog? Coulda been five or six or four or three and a half, yo! Strong attraction, weak attraction, weak as shit attraction, g-force, electromagnity, fire, rhymes, sex attraction, s’like eight right there! Giraffes! _Peace!_ \ ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/227 "2012-04-19T03:52:05Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Metaphysical Things. Things that are not testable with empirical evidence. This is different from pseudoscientific things, because pseudoscience _claims_ to be science but really lacks the foundations of a science. Furthermore, pseudoscientists are susceptible to belief preserverance and confirmation bias, rendering them untrustworthy. Believing in ESP or the power of “psychics” would probably be considered pseudoscientific, because proponents are saying that they are scientific even though they are not. Believing in God or the afterlife is not pseudoscience. They are not provable, but the most important thing is that believers in God or a god or the afterlife do not claim that they are science in the first place. Rather, such things are part of the metaphysical. I doubt metaphysical things would ever be “tested” by science. To put in another perspective, metaphysical things would also include concepts such as belief in equality or tolerance. How much is tolerant? How much is equal? Are all men created equal? How would you answer this question? What does it mean to be tolerant? What does it mean to be equal or treated equally? WTF? Really? I thought my OP kinda discarded such notions. These things are not observable. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/228 "2012-04-19T04:02:15Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Believing in God or the afterlife is not pseudoscience. It is to the extent it posits an afterlife, for example, which is utterly contrary to everything we know about consciousness, the brain, the body, and the physical universe as a whole. > [@](#): > > They are not provable, but the most important thing is that believers in God or a god or the afterlife do not claim that they are science in the first place. This is because they don’t know what science actually is. > [@](#): > > To put in another perspective, metaphysical things would also include concepts such as belief in equality or tolerance. How much is tolerant? How much is equal? Are all men created equal? How would you answer this question? What does it mean to be tolerant? What does it mean to be equal or treated equally? These aren’t phenomena, they’re linguistic tricks, mostly reliant on people trying to argue from fuzzy and generally insufficient definitions. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/229 "2012-04-19T07:59:01Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > I recognize your pain, as I’ve had it when students won’t quit with “Why?”, too. But I think that in a thread like this, it’s relevant to point out exactly what you’re saying there: that at fundamental levels there’s still a lot that’s “just that way”. Here is Feynman’s incredibly perfect [response](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8) to this question. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/230 "2012-04-19T08:45:31Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > It is to the extent it posits an afterlife, for example, which is utterly contrary to everything we know about consciousness, the brain, the body, and the physical universe as a whole. Not really. For one thing, consciousness was rightly listed as one of the first phenomena in this thread. And what the transporter problem and others like it illustrate, is that the common sense conception of consciousness and the self fails as soon as you allow things like duplicating brains, stopping and restarting brain activity etc. But more than that, there are possibilities for an afterlife that are consistent with _any_ view of consciousness. e.g. this universe is simply a simulation, or a game. When you die, you see a game over screen, then you live on in the real (or: one level up) reality. I’m not saying it’s a likely possibility, but it doesn’t need to be. The point is that contrary to popular belief science has not ruled out an afterlife, and hasn’t claimed to. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/231 "2012-04-19T09:37:56Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > When you die, you see a game over screen, then you live on in the real (or: one level up) reality If you yourself are a simulation or part of simulation of a universe, the possibility of you “waking up” after the simulation ends (ala Matrix) doesn’t seem well-motivated to me. Of course it’s possible, but it seems it would be far more likely for your consciousness to simply end, since your consciousness would be part of that which was being simulated. I suspect you are getting at the possibility that in the future you would set up simulations of your own consciousness in order to vie for immortality. I suppose you could set it up in a way such that when you die in the simulation, your brain state is somehow the same as that of the simulator, so that you experience a continuity of consciousness into the “afterlife.” But that seems contrived to me, and possibly self-contradictory, and in any case the afterlife itself would be finite. It seems that if you found yourself in a simulation it would be far more likely for you to find yourself in a situation rather no different than from being in this current universe; if you die you die. A simulation is, after all, just some set of rules, no different than our current universe. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/232 "2012-04-19T10:05:43Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > If you yourself are a simulation or part of simulation of a universe, the possibility of you “waking up” after the simulation ends (ala Matrix) doesn’t seem well-motivated to me. Of course it’s possible, but it seems it would be far more likely for your consciousness to simply end, since your consciousness would be part of that which was being simulated. I suspect you are getting at the possibility that in the future you would set up simulations of your own consciousness in order to vie for immortality. I suppose you could set it up in a way such that when you die in the simulation, your brain state is somehow the same as that of the simulator, so that you experience a continuity of consciousness into the “afterlife.” But that seems contrived to me, and possibly self-contradictory, and in any case the afterlife itself would be finite. It seems that if you found yourself in a simulation it would be far more likely for you to find yourself in a situation rather no different than from being in this current universe; if you die you die. A simulation is, after all, just some set of rules, no different than our current universe. Well clearly it depends upon what kind of simulation we’re hypothesizing. I would dispute that the kind of simulation I’ve described is more contrived or less likely than one where consciousness is inherent or embedded in the simulation, but all that matters is that it is a possibility, no matter how remote. The point was simply that science does not actually rule out an afterlife, so if someone happened to believe in an afterlife they are not necessarily contradicting science as suggested in **Derleth** ’s post. For your latter point, it would be wrong to assume that our situation would be “no different”, or even similar, in the outside reality. I’d like to elaborate on this (and indeed I did in the first draft of this post), but it would take us even further from the OP. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/233 "2012-04-19T10:17:18Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well clearly it depends upon what kind of simulation we’re hypothesizing. I would dispute that the kind of simulation I’ve described is more contrived or less likely than one where consciousness is inherent or embedded in the simulation, It is no less and no more contrived than positing the existence of a soul. Which I think is pretty contrived. > [@Mijin](#): > > but all that matters is that it is a possibility, no matter how remote. The point was simply that science does not actually rule out an afterlife, so if someone happened to believe in an afterlife they are not necessarily contradicting science as suggested in **Derleth** ’s post. We can similarly not rule out my coffee cup from tunneling through the coffee table, but we can make statements about its likelihood. > [@Mijin](#): > > For your latter point, it would be wrong to assume that our situation would be “no different”, or even similar, in the outside reality. I’d like to elaborate on this (and indeed I did in the first draft of this post), but it would take us even further from the OP. It would be extraordinarily contrived if the consciousness in the simulation followed different rules from the meta-simulation/universe, and yet exhibited continuity upon death with the consciousness in the meta-simulation/universe following different rules. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/234 "2012-04-19T10:32:18Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > It is no less and no more contrived than positing the existence of a soul. Which I think is pretty contrived. We weren’t talking about souls, we were talking in the abstract about an afterlife. > [@](#): > > We can similarly not rule out my coffee cup from tunneling through the coffee table, but we can make statements about its likelihood. Irrelevant. If it makes you feel better, let’s say the odds of the kind of simulation I’ve described existing is 1 / [Graham’s number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number). My point stands just fine. > [@](#): > > It would be extraordinarily contrived if the consciousness in the simulation followed different rules from the meta-simulation/universe, and yet exhibited continuity upon death with the consciousness in the meta-simulation/universe following different rules. Not at all. Last night I played Skyrim. There are deliberate differences between the physics of that reality and this one; for one thing there is magic in that reality. And yet I am the same consciousness playing the game as outside of the game. And note, I didn’t say _the consciousness_ could follow different rules. I was talking about the realities themselves. I was saying it would be flawed reasoning to conclude that anything about the nature of our reality outside from the nature of this reality. Other than outside there must be something running a simulation. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/235 "2012-04-19T11:00:56Z")
You aren’t remotely following my points. > [@Mijin](#): > > We weren’t talking about souls, we were talking in the abstract about an afterlife. I understand the conversation. I was pointing to the fact that a “soul” is exactly as contrived as the case you are putting forward. Both are “possible,” certainly. > [@Mijin](#): > > Irrelevant. If it makes you feel better, let’s say the odds of the kind of simulation I’ve described existing is 1 / [Graham’s number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number). My point stands just fine. I understand your point. But mine is not irrelevant. There are no absolutes in science, only likelihoods and error bars. Yes, I agree that there is a _possibility_, but it is not at all irrelevant to point out the likelihood of that possibility. If the likelihood is large you take it seriously. If the likelihood is small you do not. In this case the likelihood is a bit up in the air, but I am presenting some points in favor of the supposition that the likelihood is extraordinarily small. > [@Mijin](#): > > Not at all. > Last night I played Skyrim. There are deliberate differences between the physics of that reality and this one; for one thing there is magic in that reality. > And yet I am the same consciousness playing the game as outside of the game. You are saying that in some meta-reality we are plugging into the Matrix, which somehow suspends disbelief and our previous memories and experiences and yet allows our consciousness to otherwise reign. I get it. And yet, in order to have a continuity of consciousness, you want it so that when you “wake up” you have both your prior memories, but also the new once from the simulation (as though the simulation was a dream). It is arguable whether this truly represents a valid continuity of consciousness, but putting that aside: Because this requires a one-to-one relationship between “player” and “avatar”, this is enormously less probable (as well as enormously contrived) compared, say, to the possibly infinite number of universes with consciousness due to less contrived simulations made in the meta-reality (possibly trillions upon trillions for each “game” you propose), which in turn create simulations, and so on. The point is that if we ever have the technology to do what you say, the likelihood of finding yourself as one of these avatars as opposed to a “independent” simulation is infinitesimal. And further my point is that for these independent consciousnesses, a continuation of consciousness is only possible if the initial conditions of the simulated universe were contrived in such a way that the brain state of a dying consciousness exactly coincides with a consciousness in the meta-simulation. This again is not impossible, but highly contrived and unlikely. > [@Mijin](#): > > And note, I didn’t say _the consciousness_ could follow different rules. I was talking about the realities themselves. I was saying it would be flawed reasoning to conclude that anything about the nature of our reality outside from the nature of this reality. Other than outside there must be something running a simulation. I understood that. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/236 "2012-04-19T11:59:11Z")
**iamnotbatman** , your three points here have all centered around probabilities. I maintain that that is irrelevant here. We’re quite far from the subject of this thread, so let’s recap how we got here: **SDMBKL** gave the example of “metaphysical things” as a response to the OP. It was a OK point to make, but including things like the possibility of an afterlife was a mistake IMO, because it’s not like the afterlife is some phenomenon we know exists and can’t explain. **Derleth** responded that belief in an afterlife is pseudoscientific and implied that our knowledge of the brain, body and physical universe ruled out the possibility. It was this that I took exception to. I gave an example of a hypothetical afterlife completely consistent with our understanding of (this) physical universe. Now you’re saying you think this hypothetical is very unlikely. So what if it is? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/237 "2012-04-19T12:20:28Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > **iamnotbatman** , your three points here have all centered around probabilities. I maintain that that is irrelevant here. > > We’re quite far from the subject of this thread, so let’s recap how we got here: > > **SDMBKL** gave the example of “metaphysical things” as a response to the OP. It was a OK point to make, but including things like the possibility of an afterlife was a mistake IMO, because it’s not like the afterlife is some phenomenon we know exists and can’t explain. > > **Derleth** responded that belief in an afterlife is pseudoscientific and implied that our knowledge of the brain, body and physical universe ruled out the possibility. > It was this that I took exception to. I gave an example of a hypothetical afterlife completely consistent with our understanding of (this) physical universe. > > Now you’re saying you think this hypothetical is very unlikely. So what if it is? Because believing in things that are very unlikely while attempting to maintain a scientific worldview is pseudoscientific. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/238 "2012-04-19T12:57:55Z")
You can believe whatever you want about things that are untestable and have no predictive power at this time. It’s not pseudoscience, it’s completely separate to science. Someone might believe that mankind will visit other star systems, or instead believe we’ll be extinct in a century. What difference does it make what probability you or I would ascribe to these events? It doesn’t make it pseudoscience. Also, I take it you are implicitly agreeing that there are hypothetical afterlives that are not ruled out by our current knowledge of physics. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/239 "2012-04-19T13:39:52Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But more than that, there are possibilities for an afterlife that are consistent with _any_ view of consciousness. e.g. this universe is simply a simulation, or a game. When you die, you see a game over screen, then you live on in the real (or: one level up) reality. But that’s testable in other ways; for example, the most fundamental parts of particle physics would very likely be able to detect if the Universe was a simulation. Also, in a deeper sense, science is about ruling out the highly unlikely, the stuff that isn’t supported (or isn’t well-supported) by the evidence. Understanding science means understanding statistical reasoning, which means understanding that, yes, you can rule out something just because something else has much better evidence behind it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/240 "2012-04-19T13:40:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You can believe whatever you want about things that are untestable and have no predictive power at this time. It’s not pseudoscience, it’s completely separate to science. > Someone might believe that mankind will visit other star systems, or instead believe we’ll be extinct in a century. What difference does it make what probability you or I would ascribe to these events? It doesn’t make it pseudoscience. It depends very much on what is being discussed. If you believe that the sun is going to explode tomorrow, that is pseudoscience. Why? After all, science cannot rule it out completely. It is entirely _possible_ the sun will undergo a quantum fluctuation into a state that is about to go nova. It is just highly unlikely. To persist in believing something that science says is highly unlikely is pseudoscientific. You may say, “but it is my _feeling_ and my religion, which is outside science, that directs me in this belief. Who are you to tell me I am wrong?” OK, here we run into an issue of semantics. We don’t have to call that “pseudoscience” if you don’t wish, but it is at the very least illogical and unscientific. The same goes for just about any other intersection of science and faith. Did God create the earth 5000 years ago? It’s _possible_, isn’t it? Highly unlikely given our scientific worldview? Yes. But possible. > [@Mijin](#): > > Also, I take it you are implicitly agreeing that there are hypothetical afterlives that are not ruled out by our current knowledge of physics. Of course. But it is pseudoscientific (although ‘unscientific’ might be the preferred word, depending on the arguments put forward) to take unlikely scenarios seriously. See [Russel’s Teapot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/241 "2012-04-19T14:12:28Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > But that’s testable in other ways; for example, the most fundamental parts of particle physics would very likely be able to detect if the Universe was a simulation. The simulation hypothesis specifies that not all phenomena are necessarily simulated at all scales. IOW, it’s only necessary for experiments like that to give consistent results, not for the simulation to actually simulate all phenomena to the quantum level. Just like how video games don’t simulate molecules, yet objects are designed to behave as though they are made of molecules. > [@](#): > > Also, in a deeper sense, science is about ruling out the highly unlikely, the stuff that isn’t supported (or isn’t well-supported) by the evidence. Understanding science means understanding statistical reasoning, which means understanding that, yes, you can rule out something just because something else has much better evidence behind it. No, this is a common misconception. In science you form hypotheses / models and use those to make predictions or inferences. If the prediction is shown to be wrong, the hypothesis is falsified and should be rejected\*. If the prediction is correct, we gain confidence, but a theory is never technically proven. That’s it. There’s nothing in science to say “If we reckon something is unlikely enough it’s proven wrong”. I think possibly you may be mixing up the scientific method with occam’s razor. As a practical matter, it makes sense to ignore the possibly of this reality being a simulation IMO, until we have some reason to suppose otherwise. That’s not the same thing as ruling it out. - That’s the principle anyway. In practice, if a model makes valid predictions in many situations, and there’s no better model at the moment, then the model is useful. Even if we know it makes incorrect predictions in some situations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315.md?page=13)