(February 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(February 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: What did I miss? You mean axiom?
No, I mean this:
(February 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So saying science is an unprovable assumption is absurd.
I didn't suggest any such thing.
(February 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, there is a huge difference between the starting points scientific method uses and the "axioms" laypersons use as definitions.
I'm not going to fall for or allow a si fi woo Matrix garbage be equated to lagit science. QM is lagit science. The Matrix is si fi woo.
It is the same crap that allows the word "create" that a scientist may use when describing an observation, and the theist who twists that word to mean a magic cognition as a cause.
It is true when a scientists starts something they are starting somewhere, but they are not starting with nothing. They are still using data, and observation and testing. That is still not the same as pulling something out of your ass.
I didn't suggest any of the above, either. You read far too much between the lines.
So if you don't disagree with me then what do you think I am missing? Science, especially QM suggests weird things? Yea, but it will never make fiction or si fi real or invisible beings real. It also will not make the universe itself a thinking being.
Still failing to understand why people are trying to turn "you don't know" into "therefore" propositions.
We can rule out allot of crap without worrying about the future. That is all I am saying.