>"We’d be surrounded by this stuff that our minds weren’t built to understand."
It is interesting to compare this to what was believed during the dawn of the scientific revolution, eg Isaac Newton's attitude (that the universe was built for humans to understand it). Both positions are speculative, but asserted as facts in their time with far reaching effects.
Interesting that you state Isaac Newton's attitude as fact. When I Google "isaac newton universe built for humans to understand" unquoted, I don't find any support for this statement. In fact, this thread ends up as one of the top hits.
That was more a paraphrase of the impression you get reading him. It was surprisingly difficult to find some kind of quote from him on the intelligibility of nature (it looks like it is one of those topics that has generated a lot of low quality commentary). Here is the closest I could find for now:
>"Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles.[55] These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed man to pursue his own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect himself with his own rational powers.[56]"
You can also read his principles of philosophy and general scholium to get an idea of his views. You will see he believed in a creator that made the universe as simple as possible:
This is perfect -- you yourself seem to think that in order to understand what the post you replied to is saying, all you need to do is google a bunch of words from it. Hypotheses non fingo, indeed.
It is interesting to compare this to what was believed during the dawn of the scientific revolution, eg Isaac Newton's attitude (that the universe was built for humans to understand it). Both positions are speculative, but asserted as facts in their time with far reaching effects.