Can critical thinking explain why we are here?

[Kuciwalker]

Jon, obviously the scientific method would have to be bent a little. But there's still a process by which we could derive the best answers we'd ever get, which we might as well call the truth.

[Dis]

I am willing to believe that the Universe we see is finite, but the Universe is actually infinite and no where is it empty. It is simply impossible to have nothing on the outside of something; likewise, it is impossible to have nothing inside of something.

What I'm saying is nothing exists outside the universe. Proving that there are things that don't exist. Although I suspect we are saying the same thing, but in different ways. I'm not sure I buy the universe is infinite, but it is expanding. I say there is no reality outside the universe, so it may seem infinite, but it is not.

[FrostyBoy]

Jon, obviously the scientific method would have to be bent a little. But there's still a process by which we could derive the best answers we'd ever get, which we might as well call the truth.

KH: No.

[KrazyHorse]

Jon: yes, but you were making a stronger statement. I just wanted to make it clear that there is still science to be done, even in the face of empirical limitations which would confound the classical scientific method.

And yes, things like "non-repeatibility" and a lack of parameter-twiddling type of control are unsatisfying...but it makes rigorous, sophisticated data analysis a much more important part of the job (rather than simply using a "take more data" approach)

[KrazyHorse]

KH: No.

Go away. The conversation is finally getting interesting, despite your best efforts to the contrary.

[Kuciwalker]

KH: No.

What?

[KrazyHorse]

Ignore him. He's trying to imitate me, but came up with the exact opposite answer of the one I was in the midst of writing.

[FrostyBoy]

What I'm saying is nothing exists outside the universe. Proving that there are things that don't exist. Although I suspect we are saying the same thing, but in different ways. I'm not sure I buy the universe is infinite, but it is expanding. I say there is no reality outside the universe, so it may seem infinite, but it is not.

Our observable universe is probably expanding. But I believe it is expanding inside of a larger... universe, but uh.. there is only one universe. Btw I don't buy the multiverse theory. The Universe encompasses everything, dimensions, alternate realities.. everything and it is infinite in size, not shrinking, not growing.

[Kuciwalker]

Why do you believe any of that? What convinced you of those things?

[Jon Miller]

Jon, obviously the scientific method would have to be bent a little. But there's still a process by which we could derive the best answers we'd ever get, which we might as well call the truth.

??

No.

If you a sentient (and not only sentient, but smarter than the researchers like an AI would be in the common SF singularity) and you control all means of communication (what gets sent/etc, even what communication means), it is entirely impossible to get any scientific measurements.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

??

No.

If you a sentient (and not only sentient, but smarter than the researchers like an AI would be in the common SF singularity) and you control all means of communication (what gets sent/etc, even what communication means), it is entirely impossible to get any scientific measurements.

JM

Even in the "smarter than the researchers" case it's completely legitimate to work from the assumption "this agent has a goal" and then from its actions (communications) attempt to infer that goal by eliminating those that are inconsistent with the actions.

[FrostyBoy]

Ignore him. He's trying to imitate me, but came up with the exact opposite answer of the one I was in the midst of writing.

Curious, how do you turn left or right without bumping into your mind?

[KrazyHorse]

If you a sentient (and not only sentient, but smarter than the researchers like an AI would be in the common SF singularity) and you control all means of communication (what gets sent/etc, even what communication means), it is entirely impossible to get any scientific measurements.

This is nonsense. There's no binary switch whereby if the communicator is above X smart then we get absolutely no usable information.

Psychologists study people who are smarter than them all the time. You can argue that as the intelligence of the subject increases the less accurate the psychologist's observations will be (assuming the subject is falsifying responses, either deliberately or subconsciously).

[loinburger]

I'll add some sophistry as soon as it hits 4:20

[KrazyHorse]

Curious, how do you turn left or right without bumping into your mind?

This makes almost as much sense as the rest of your posts in this thread, ****