Could We Be Wrong About Everything?

[Vanchatron]

First of all, I'm not sure if this is in the correct place or not, but I figured it included some space type stuff so I posted it here. Anyway...

I was reading through a few childhood encyclopedias of mine earlier and one thing I read was that just a few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was flat and was the centre of everything. There was some other stuff aswell, which has since been proved wrong, but it just goes to show how far we can go in a few hundred years. Most (if not all) stuff science/astronomy based has been proved differently to what people thought back then.

So what happens in a few hundred years from now? Could it be possible that people will look back and laugh at us for what we believe in today, or are we so technologically advanced that we just CAN'T be wrong? For example, in a few hundred years will people still believe that the Earth is round and that we're in a Solar System surrounded by many other planets, which are all orbiting the Sun, or could that change? Other things aswell such as the speed of light, time, the size of the Universe etc.

People a few hundred years ago most likely believed that they were 100% correct and would never be proved wrong, but look at them now, most people laugh at what they believed back then.

[Torchwood]

I was reading through a few childhood encyclopedias of mine earlier and one thing I read was that just a few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was flat and was the centre of everything.

Heres an interesting fact: there are more people now that believe that people in the past believed the world was flat, than there were people at any point in history that have ever believed that the world was flat.

and another fact: pretty much nobody in the last three thousand years thought the world was flat, apart from a few loonies that visit UM and try and deny the obvious.

Given that your premise that "people who thought the earth was flat were wrong" is wrong, its simple to conclude that your suggestion we will be proven wrong is also wrong.

There are things we dont yet "know"...most of the stuff we do "know" is pretty much beyond doubt, except maybe in the fine detail.

[Rosewin]

They will of course laugh at us and most of what we believe will be proven wrong, naturally, this is the way it always has been. Before we jump to conclusions this does not mean it is our modern scientific approach that will be proven wrong but other things such as our social policies and approach towards religion. The scientific method is pretty solid with the available technology we have now but there are plenty of other areas we could work on such as global pollution. These are the things they will laugh at us but as Torchwood stated they most likely would actually be laughing at commonly believed falsehoods (such as the 100 years ago flat world thing).

In reality though every generation does the best that it can with whatever knowledge that has thus far been gathered. We have to understand the modern age has an abundance of gathered knowledge, not only passed through time but gathered from different locations around the globe, so for example perhaps long ago whatever was passed down could only have been local or regional knowledge, now we can gather knowledge from distant continents so in time the whole world can share it....I hope I made sense...if not...oh well.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Rosewin

[Torchwood]

They will of course laugh at us and most of what we believe will be proven wrong, naturally, this is the way it always has been. Before we jump to conclusions this does not mean it is our modern scientific approach that will be proven wrong but other things such as our social policies and approach towards religion. The scientific method is pretty solid with the available technology we have now but there are plenty of other areas we could work on such as global pollution. These are the things they will laugh at us but as Torchwood stated they most likely would actually be laughing at commonly believed falsehoods (such as the 100 years ago flat world thing).

There was a running joke in our archaeology classes at uni that in thousands of years our societys treasures will be dug up and examined and put in museums : Futureman will marvel at the endless wars fought between tribes wearing different coloured shirts, and the rituals that surrounded such engagements (like changing ends at half time etc ) and will be astounded by the places we went to worship our various Gods: Ronald Macdonald, The Burger King etc...And as we have arguments over the origin of the celtic peoples (no such thing btw)so toowill they will argue over the origins of the Nike People.

Of course thats just becouse we know they will laugh at us, so we're getting our laughs at them in first

Edited June 1, 2010 by Torchwood

[Vanchatron]

They will of course laugh at us and most of what we believe will be proven wrong, naturally, this is the way it always has been. Before we jump to conclusions this does not mean it is our modern scientific approach that will be proven wrong but other things such as our social policies and approach towards religion. The scientific method is pretty solid with the available technology we have now but there are plenty of other areas we could work on such as global pollution. These are the things they will laugh at us but as Torchwood stated they most likely would actually be laughing at commonly believed falsehoods (such as the 100 years ago flat world thing).

In reality though every generation does the best that it can with whatever knowledge that has thus far been gathered. We have to understand the modern age has an abundance of gathered knowledge, not only passed through time but gathered from different locations around the globe, so for example perhaps long ago whatever was passed down could only have been local or regional knowledge, now we can gather knowledge from distant continents so in time the whole world can share it....I hope I made sense...if not...oh well.

Perfect sense

[Rosewin]

There was a running joke in our archaeology classes at uni that in thousands of years our societys treasures will be dug up and examined and put in museums : Futureman will marvel at the endless wars fought between tribes wearing different coloured shirts, and the rituals that surrounded such engagements (like changing ends at half time etc ) and will be astounded by the places we went to worship our various Gods: Ronald Macdonald, The Burger King etc...And as we have arguments over the origin of the celtic peoples (no such thing btw)so toowill they will argue over the origins of the Nike People.

Of course thats just becouse we know they will laugh at us, so we're getting our laughs at them in first

I had this same exact discussion last week where I pointed that in three thousand years they will believe Tupperware was a deity.

Of course I am not novel enough to think of this on my own but was reminded when I read how anthropologist from a totally foreign culture in some bizzaro world would describe brushing our teeth as some strange ritual.

Perfect sense

(:

[Agent X]

Actually I believe that was a book. I can't remember the title of it, but it essentially was a criticism of archeology. One of the major flaws of archeology is that if there is a feature or artifact found it will be given a religious significance of some sort and is an object of worship.

For example, it showed a toilet and it was called the kings throne.

[indsloan]

Actually I believe that was a book. I can't remember the title of it, but it essentially was a criticism of archeology. One of the major flaws of archeology is that if there is a feature or artifact found it will be given a religious significance of some sort and is an object of worship.

For example, it showed a toilet and it was called the kings throne.

we need to flush the kings down the toilet.

[ninjadude]

I was reading through a few childhood encyclopedias of mine earlier and one thing I read was that just a few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was flat

that's a myth. propounded by bad sources. And was discussed here on UM previously.

People a few hundred years ago most likely believed that they were 100% correct and would never be proved wrong, but look at them now, most people laugh at what they believed back then.

The nature of science is not to *prove* anything but provides the best explanation (theory) to existing facts and evidence. As such, future discoveries will always change those theories. Only non-scientists and laymen would claim that anything is 100% correct and could not be proven wrong. That is the very nature of science. Keep in mind that these changes are usually minor and don't change the entire theory.

[indsloan]

First of all, I'm not sure if this is in the correct place or not, but I figured it included some space type stuff so I posted it here. Anyway...

I was reading through a few childhood encyclopedias of mine earlier and one thing I read was that just a few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was flat and was the centre of everything. There was some other stuff aswell, which has since been proved wrong, but it just goes to show how far we can go in a few hundred years. Most (if not all) stuff science/astronomy based has been proved differently to what people thought back then.

So what happens in a few hundred years from now? Could it be possible that people will look back and laugh at us for what we believe in today, or are we so technologically advanced that we just CAN'T be wrong? For example, in a few hundred years will people still believe that the Earth is round and that we're in a Solar System surrounded by many other planets, which are all orbiting the Sun, or could that change? Other things aswell such as the speed of light, time, the size of the Universe etc.

People a few hundred years ago most likely believed that they were 100% correct and would never be proved wrong, but look at them now, most people laugh at what they believed back then.

it is called ignorance. some of us will never learn to keep a open mind. perpetual motion is the proof. had to build 2 different types prototypes to prove it can be done 1 with water & 1 with fishing weights. the more we learn the faster we learn the more we learn the faster we learn. this is a form of perpetual motion its self. look a todays kids & computers. Physics is right we are just adding to it. My cellphone is better than Star Trek communicator.

[Vanchatron]

that's a myth. propounded by bad sources. And was discussed here on UM previously.

Wow, all my life I've believed (from what I've read) that people in the past thought the Earth was flat, but never once did I think it was a myth. I just Googled it aswell, and it seems it IS definitely a myth.

That's weird.

[Rosewin]

I thought this would be fitting here. Keep in mind it was published in 1764 regarding those living a hundred years earlier.

It is a great pity that there are no longer and persons possessed by the Devil, or magicians, or astrologers, or genii. One cannot conceive how useful all these mysteries were a hundred years ago. In those days the nobility lived in castles. The winter evenings were long and everyone would have died of boredom if these noble entertainments had not been available. There was hardly a castle which was not visited by some spirit from time to time, as the spirit of Merlusine visited the Chateau de Lusignan. The great hunter, a wasted black figure, hunted with a pack of black dogs in the woods of Fontainebleau. The Devil twisted Marshal Fabert’s neck. Every village had its sorcerer and witch; every prince his astrologer; all the ladies had their fortunes told; those possessed by the devil wandered all over the place; everyone wanted to know who had seen the Devil or was going to see him; and all this provided an endless topic of conversation which kept everyone in suspense. Nowadays we play insipid card-games and have lost a lot by losing our illusions.

As translated from Dictionary of Philosophy by Voltaire on page 212 of The World of the Witches by Julio Carlos Baroja

Edited June 1, 2010 by Rosewin

[Alien Being]

First of all, I'm not sure if this is in the correct place or not, but I figured it included some space type stuff so I posted it here. Anyway...

I was reading through a few childhood encyclopedias of mine earlier and one thing I read was that just a few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was flat and was the centre of everything. There was some other stuff aswell, which has since been proved wrong, but it just goes to show how far we can go in a few hundred years. Most (if not all) stuff science/astronomy based has been proved differently to what people thought back then.

So what happens in a few hundred years from now? Could it be possible that people will look back and laugh at us for what we believe in today, or are we so technologically advanced that we just CAN'T be wrong? For example, in a few hundred years will people still believe that the Earth is round and that we're in a Solar System surrounded by many other planets, which are all orbiting the Sun, or could that change? Other things aswell such as the speed of light, time, the size of the Universe etc.

People a few hundred years ago most likely believed that they were 100% correct and would never be proved wrong, but look at them now, most people laugh at what they believed back then.

Can a box be filled with nothingness?

The answer is no because nothingness has no volume.

Can you imagine an object existing inside an area of nothingness?

The answer is no because with no area there is no place to do your imagining.

Right there I have given you the tools to realise that huge areas of the universe transcend our reality. If you dont believe me then I ask you to picture a Heavenly castle existing side by side with our reality. Once you've done this ask yourself how it was possible to imagine the Heavenly Castle unless there is a volume there for things to exist in.

I believe our planet is not flat, not round, but a multi-dimensional shape which we cant even perceive.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Alien Being

[Rosewin]

Can a box be filled with nothingness?

The answer is no because nothingness has no volume.

Can you imagine an object existing inside an area of nothingness?

The answer is no because with no area there is no place to do your imagining.

Right there I have given you the tools to realise that huge areas of the universe transcend our reality. If you dont believe me then I ask you to picture a Heavenly castle existing side by side with our reality. Once you've done this ask yourself how it was possible to imagine the Heavenly Castle unless there is a volume there for things to exist in.

I believe our planet is no flat, no round, but a multi-dimensional shape which we cant even concieve off.

Is this like when people actually did believe the world was flat and made fun of the of the people who believed it was round or multi-dimensional or whatever?

[Alien Being]

Is this like when people actually did believe the world was flat and made fun of the of the people who believed it was round or multi-dimensional or whatever?

Kind off except I am mocking both flat worlders and round worlders.

[Vanchatron]

Kind off except I am mocking both flat worlders and round worlders.

Touché. Hey, if you're on to something and you become a billionaire, remember who it was that got you thinking

[Rosewin]

Kind off except I am mocking both flat worlders and round worlders.

I see what you did there.

[Alien Being]

Touché. Hey, if you're on to something and you become a billionaire, remember who it was that got you thinking

It wasnt you, I thought of that years ago.

If you like I can run you through my proof of God too. It is based on similar crafty logic but the last time I posted it on an internet forum the Athiests went a bit loopy on me.

Some of them were calling me dangerous, saying I should be locked up and all sorts of rubbish all because I put together a flawless logical argument for the existance of God based on gaps in our experience of reality. Not one of them could pick my argument appart and thats what scared them.

[sepulchrave]

Can a box be filled with nothingness?

The answer is no because nothingness has no volume.

Yes, I can. You are trying to apply a semantic argument to a statement that has colloquial understanding.

If you are trying to make a philosophical statement here (akin to ``does the set of all sets include itself?'') then I apologize for misunderstanding. If you are trying to make a statement about physical reality then:

``filled with nothingness'' is understood as implying ``a volume unoccupied by any thing''.

Nothingness is not a thing, but it is a ``meta-thing'', namely the ``absence of things'' (which is a conceptual thing, not a tangible thing). In this regard, ``nothing'' is equivalent to ``zero''.

How do we test to see if a box is filled with ``nothing''? By exhaustively checking its contents against our list of ``things'':

Are there any apples inside the box? Is there any air? ... Are there any zebras? Etc.

If the answer is ``no'' to all of these, then the box contains ``no-things'', or nothing.

I recognize that this argument might seem silly. I also recognize that it is probably impossible to have a box that genuinely has ''nothing'' in it (unless you define ``nothing'' as the quantum vacuum state).

Can you imagine an object existing inside an area of nothingness?

The answer is no because with no area there is no place to do your imagining.

An area of nothing? Or an object surrounded by nothing? The first is nonsensical, the second is quite within imagination, as described above.

I believe our planet is not flat, not round, but a multi-dimensional shape which we cant even perceive.

Ok, the planet is clearly round, because it has at least 2 directions which are cyclical (is a cylinder round? yes - in one direction).

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated, you can't add extra dimensions to the world without:

1. Giving some argument why all forces are constrained to our regular 3,
   
2. Giving some argument why every massive/charged object occupies the entirety of the dimensions above 3, or
   
3. Giving some argument why all additional dimensions above the first 3 are very small and cyclical, or
   
4. Giving some argument why everything we have observed is wrong, or
   
5. Giving some argument why math and logic are not correct and not physically applicable.
   

[protostar]

Nothing exists, but, nothingness doesn't exist

[J.B.]

The common myth is that Columbus sailed to prove the world round, but I never believed that was the reason for it. Didn't realize no one acyually thought the world flat, but I did know Columbus was driven to find a straight route to India for trade. I think the Flat Earth idea was just to show how much control the Catholic church had on science of the middle ages.

[brantcoyle]

that's a myth. propounded by bad sources. And was discussed here on UM previously.

The nature of science is not to *prove* anything but provides the best explanation (theory) to existing facts and evidence. As such, future discoveries will always change those theories. Only non-scientists and laymen would claim that anything is 100% correct and could not be proven wrong. That is the very nature of science. Keep in mind that these changes are usually minor and don't change the entire theory.

Wow one of the best pocket definitions of science I have ever heard. Here's a question for you. I am psychotic and I heard a voice in my head that said only two days til christmas. Problem is I forgot it was sunday and thought it was monday so I thought there was only 1 day til christmas. Science says that pychosis is random signals the brain is giving out. What does it mean when the random signal is right and the brain is wrong? Coincidence?

Additionally for laughs I will add that my 5th grade teacher did not believe in plate tectonics so then taught the temerate zone theory instead. This would have been in the mid 70's. Not quite flat earth but maybe 100 years off.

Edited June 1, 2010 by brantcoyle

[Rosewin]

Additionally for laughs I will add that my 5th grade teacher did not believe in plate tectonics so then taught the temerate zone theory instead. This would have been in the mid 70's. Not quite flat earth but maybe 100 years off.

Just like those who say global warming cause by mankind is not real...elle oh elle.

[Alien Being]

Yes, I can. You are trying to apply a semantic argument to a statement that has colloquial understanding.

If you are trying to make a philosophical statement here (akin to ``does the set of all sets include itself?'') then I apologize for misunderstanding. If you are trying to make a statement about physical reality then:

``filled with nothingness'' is understood as implying ``a volume unoccupied by any thing''.

Nothingness is not a thing, but it is a ``meta-thing'', namely the ``absence of things'' (which is a conceptual thing, not a tangible thing). In this regard, ``nothing'' is equivalent to ``zero''.

How do we test to see if a box is filled with ``nothing''? By exhaustively checking its contents against our list of ``things'':

Are there any apples inside the box? Is there any air? ... Are there any zebras? Etc.

If the answer is ``no'' to all of these, then the box contains ``no-things'', or nothing.

I recognize that this argument might seem silly. I also recognize that it is probably impossible to have a box that genuinely has ''nothing'' in it (unless you define ``nothing'' as the quantum vacuum state).

An area of nothing? Or an object surrounded by nothing? The first is nonsensical, the second is quite within imagination, as described above.

Ok, the planet is clearly round, because it has at least 2 directions which are cyclical (is a cylinder round? yes - in one direction).

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated, you can't add extra dimensions to the world without:

1. Giving some argument why all forces are constrained to our regular 3,
   
2. Giving some argument why every massive/charged object occupies the entirety of the dimensions above 3, or
   
3. Giving some argument why all additional dimensions above the first 3 are very small and cyclical, or
   
4. Giving some argument why everything we have observed is wrong, or
   
5. Giving some argument why math and logic are not correct and not physically applicable.
   

True nothingness means the absence of volume along with everything else and this measn there are no examples of it because it doesnt exist.

Many physicists think extra dimensions are real so if you want to throw my logic for them out the window I expect you to overturn mainstream physics too.

We dont know how small the extra dimensions are and we arent certain how many exist either. Gravity is a lot weaker than it should be and many scientists believe our universe leaks gravity so that means its not confined to Einstein Space-Time.

My logic and thinking if right would mean the extra dimensions are macroscopic.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Alien Being

[Vanchatron]

It wasnt you, I thought of that years ago.

If you like I can run you through my proof of God too. It is based on similar crafty logic but the last time I posted it on an internet forum the Athiests went a bit loopy on me.

Some of them were calling me dangerous, saying I should be locked up and all sorts of rubbish all because I put together a flawless logical argument for the existance of God based on gaps in our experience of reality. Not one of them could pick my argument appart and thats what scared them.

I was only kidding

Anyway, yeah I'd be interested in hearing about your proof of God. I'm not gonna jump on your back with an OMG YOU'RE WRONG comment, so just let me know, either here or in PM please.