Originally Posted by underdog1425
By your own logic your argument is invalid. You don't necessarily believe or credit the discovery, so you develop an argument to inject enough doubt to keep it from being believable.
If you mathematically predict that there is a gravitonzomgbbq gate in your backyard, how are you going to find it? With a screwdriver? A jeep liberty? You are going to look into what you need to invent a gravitonzomgbbq-finder, and your going to build it.
Your argument doesn't make sense, because your assuming (in this frame of reference) that a "true" and "unbiased" universe even exists. Go back to quantum physics and come back after a year. We alter things just by observing them. Our models we apply to the universe are going to give us exactly what we design them to do, and so are the tools we use to do it with.
Of course they develop technology just for doing this, how else are they going to do it?
By my own logic my argument has done exactly what it was intended to do.
Stimulate conversion and debate.
It's just something to ponder. Now I'm going to get back to pushing on the wall next to me. I'm told if I push long enough, eventually I'll pass right through it