Another great video Rob. Well stated and accurately put that assumptions are made when testing a theory or hypothesis. As you stated this is often unavoidable and that the results are only as good as the accuracy of the assumptions. Well put. Also well stated about how questions are worded that unfairly steer the results, such as the question "who made the universe".
Although I rarely hear this argument when people are speaking about scientific discovery.
In the pursuit of knowledge the fact that something cannot be tangibly observed and unequivocally substantiated does not mean the effort should not be made and that the results should be discarded. It may imply that more research is warranted or that questions still remain.
Thought experiments such as we could be brains in vats or part of the Matrix may be fun at making a parody out of something but they are not intellectually honest with what we observe in our surroundings.
Because our observable universe started at a singularity, and is expanding outward from that point, it appears to have a beginning.
The physical interactions of the constant laws of physics and how this observable universe works appears complex and not simple.
For this reason alone it seems there can be only one of two possibilities; either the observable universe was created, or it was not.
If it was not created I have not seen evidence that shows how anything tangible can come from nothingness. Postulating multiverses and mixing in large random numbers and claiming it merely happened seems like an extremely weak argument parallel with many religious statements often seen here.
If it was created what sort of entity could possess such an ability?
For me, it would be a more reasonable explanation, theory, or hypothesis that an entity created the observable universe rather than in simply materialized out of nothingness.
Although I rarely hear this argument when people are speaking about scientific discovery.
In the pursuit of knowledge the fact that something cannot be tangibly observed and unequivocally substantiated does not mean the effort should not be made and that the results should be discarded. It may imply that more research is warranted or that questions still remain.
Thought experiments such as we could be brains in vats or part of the Matrix may be fun at making a parody out of something but they are not intellectually honest with what we observe in our surroundings.
Because our observable universe started at a singularity, and is expanding outward from that point, it appears to have a beginning.
The physical interactions of the constant laws of physics and how this observable universe works appears complex and not simple.
For this reason alone it seems there can be only one of two possibilities; either the observable universe was created, or it was not.
If it was not created I have not seen evidence that shows how anything tangible can come from nothingness. Postulating multiverses and mixing in large random numbers and claiming it merely happened seems like an extremely weak argument parallel with many religious statements often seen here.
If it was created what sort of entity could possess such an ability?
For me, it would be a more reasonable explanation, theory, or hypothesis that an entity created the observable universe rather than in simply materialized out of nothingness.
