"Why does anything exist?" becomes a silly question if you're capable of abandoning your rational mind for a minute and humbly accepting that perhaps the universe is an absolute system with no dualistic nature.
So saying "abandon our rational mind" is just a rhetorical mechanism to establish that perhaps this is the wrong question, and we should reframe what we understand as absolute or relative.
You're incorrectly interpreting my words as a call for irrationality. I'm just saying that our interpretation of the universe and the debates about its origins are often based on ideas that can't be challenged because they are scientific truisms.
The problem is that anything that doesn't comply with our standard interpretation of the universe will be deemed esoteric and unscientific. Therefore, it neuters debates that could yield a valid interpretation of the universe.
How about this: state explicitly what strategies beyond empiricism, model building, ontology refinement, and epistemological reasoning you think can provide genuine verifiable insight about the world?
I'm saying that when those strategies are applied axiomatically, there's no room to reinterpret what we know about the world because there's a general feeling that doing so will undo all scientific progress.
Take, for instance, the relativity vs. quantum mechanics debate. I'm not a physicist, but it's pretty evident that the biggest struggle of that debate is that most people want to reconcile both theories by unifying them through some other rational interpretation of the world. Whether or not that's possible remains to be proven, but a theory of everything may emerge from a completely different interpretation of the world. One that is rationally contrarian to what relativity and quantum mechanics tell us.
And this brings me back to my original argument, which is that perhaps we have the proper methods to understand the world, but we are just asking the wrong questions.
My choice of words shouldn’t be the basis for attacking my points, especially since there’s more context in this very same thread that expands on my ideas.
Maybe instead of coming against me with an incendiary comment, make an effort to gain more insight into my views and add some value to the discussion. Again, my choice of words might be the wrong articulation of my ideas, but you just need to ask politely, and I will gladly expand and try to find better words.
Also, if you’re embarrassed to respond, then why did you? Please read the Hacker News guidelines if you forgot about them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What I meant is that us humans have this tendency to describe the world through dualistic models: good and bad, light and dark, mind and body, reason and emotion, nurture and nature, etc.
Inarguably this model has helped us to rationalize a lot of insights about the universe. However there are probabably a lot of ideas about our universe that can only be described through a dialectic model.
In fact, it was this type of thinking what allowed Einstein to image the paradox that gave birth to the general theory of relativity.