A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"https://fe.disroot.org/schemas/litepub-0.1.jsonld",
{
"@language": "und"
}
],
"actor": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"cc": [
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar/followers"
],
"content": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br/><br/>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br/><br/>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br/><br/>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br/><br/>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br/><br/>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br><br>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br><br>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br><br>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br><br>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br><br>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄"
},
"context": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"conversation": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"formerRepresentations": {
"orderedItems": [
{
"actor": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"cc": [
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar/followers"
],
"content": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br/><br/>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br/><br/>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br/><br/>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br/><br/>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br/><br/>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br/><br/><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br><br>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br><br>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br><br>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br><br>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br><br>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br><br><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>"
},
"context": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"conversation": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"inReplyTo": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder/statuses/114375610905247388",
"published": "2025-04-21T14:53:33.614884Z",
"repliesCount": 4,
"sensitive": false,
"source": {
"content": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com @cbontenbal Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.\n\nScience keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.\n\nMultiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. \n\nWe are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?\n\nSuccess of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?\n\nSo I don't think it's just \"mental masturbation\" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄\n\n#science #philosophy #philosophyofscience #physics #metaphysics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
},
"summary": "",
"tag": [
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/metaphysics",
"name": "#metaphysics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophy",
"name": "#philosophy",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophyofscience",
"name": "#philosophyofscience",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/physics",
"name": "#physics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/science",
"name": "#science",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal",
"name": "@cbontenbal",
"type": "Mention"
},
{
"href": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"name": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com",
"type": "Mention"
}
],
"to": [
"https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public",
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal"
],
"type": "Note",
"updated": "2025-04-21T14:58:44.611167Z"
},
{
"actor": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"cc": [
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar/followers"
],
"content": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br/><br/>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br/><br/>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br/><br/>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br/><br/>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br/><br/>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br/><br/><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br><br>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br><br>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br><br>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br><br>Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br><br>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br><br><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>"
},
"context": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"conversation": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"inReplyTo": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder/statuses/114375610905247388",
"published": "2025-04-21T14:53:33.614884Z",
"sensitive": false,
"source": {
"content": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com @cbontenbal Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.\n\nScience keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.\n\nMultiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. \n\nWe are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?\n\nSuccess of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?\n\nSo I don't think it's just \"mental masturbation\" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄\n\n#science #philosophy #philosophyofscience #physics #metaphysics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
},
"summary": "",
"tag": [
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/metaphysics",
"name": "#metaphysics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophy",
"name": "#philosophy",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophyofscience",
"name": "#philosophyofscience",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/physics",
"name": "#physics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/science",
"name": "#science",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal",
"name": "@cbontenbal",
"type": "Mention"
},
{
"href": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"name": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com",
"type": "Mention"
}
],
"to": [
"https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public",
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal"
],
"type": "Note",
"updated": "2025-04-21T14:54:29.926677Z"
},
{
"actor": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar",
"cc": [
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/bshankar/followers"
],
"content": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br/><br/>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br/><br/>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br/><br/>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br/><br/>Scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br/><br/>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br/><br/><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"ASXh9WlyTKBzGkjOMK\" href=\"https://universeodon.com/@tomcapuder\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>tomcapuder</span></a></span> <span class=\"h-card\"><a class=\"u-url mention\" data-user=\"AqIjXWYZ2KqPeisTPk\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal\" rel=\"ugc\">@<span>cbontenbal</span></a></span> Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.<br><br>Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.<br><br>Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. <br><br>We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?<br><br>Scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?<br><br>So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄<br><br><a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"science\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/science\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#science</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophy\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophy\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophy</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"philosophyofscience\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/philosophyofscience\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#philosophyofscience</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"physics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/physics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#physics</a> <a class=\"hashtag\" data-tag=\"metaphysics\" href=\"https://fe.disroot.org/tag/metaphysics\" rel=\"tag ugc\">#metaphysics</a>"
},
"context": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"conversation": "tag:universeodon.com,2025-04-16:objectId=286342619:objectType=Conversation",
"inReplyTo": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder/statuses/114375610905247388",
"published": "2025-04-21T14:53:33.614884Z",
"sensitive": false,
"source": {
"content": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com @cbontenbal Science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.\n\nScience keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.\n\nMultiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. \n\nWe are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?\n\nScientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?\n\nSo I don't think it's just \"mental masturbation\" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄\n\n#science #philosophy #philosophyofscience #physics #metaphysics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
},
"summary": "",
"tag": [
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/metaphysics",
"name": "#metaphysics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophy",
"name": "#philosophy",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/philosophyofscience",
"name": "#philosophyofscience",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/physics",
"name": "#physics",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/tags/science",
"name": "#science",
"type": "Hashtag"
},
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal",
"name": "@cbontenbal",
"type": "Mention"
},
{
"href": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"name": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com",
"type": "Mention"
}
],
"to": [
"https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public",
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal"
],
"type": "Note"
}
],
"totalItems": 3,
"type": "OrderedCollection"
},
"id": "https://fe.disroot.org/objects/75eaaef6-b951-40dc-aa3b-dcb30e502871",
"inReplyTo": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder/statuses/114375610905247388",
"published": "2025-04-21T14:53:33.614884Z",
"repliesCount": 4,
"sensitive": false,
"source": {
"content": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com @cbontenbal Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.\n\nScience keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.\n\nMultiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions. \n\nWe are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?\n\nSuccess of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?\n\nSo I don't think it's just \"mental masturbation\" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
},
"summary": "",
"tag": [
{
"href": "https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal",
"name": "@cbontenbal",
"type": "Mention"
},
{
"href": "https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"name": "@tomcapuder@universeodon.com",
"type": "Mention"
}
],
"to": [
"https://universeodon.com/users/tomcapuder",
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public",
"https://fe.disroot.org/users/cbontenbal"
],
"type": "Note",
"updated": "2025-04-28T09:51:23.455111Z"
}