Strange

A bit like this, maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

The microbes were evolving before and will continue to evolve in the new environment.

Zero. We can only detect neutrinos with high enough energy to interact with atoms.

I was concentrating on the relevant points. I have restored the full text. Although I don't see it makes any difference. Differential reproductive success is natural selection. (Or vice versa, if you prefer.)

What makes you think that is a misunderstanding? The theory isn't about the causes of natural selection but the effects. You do a very good impression of one.

It is not just an observation. It is also based on the idea that the "laws of physics" are the same regardless of your state of motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance Yes, the speed of light at the speed of light is not defined because moving at the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference. But there is nothing in space to measure your position or velocity against. How would you define that? How do you know it is fixed? Can you come up with a way, even in principle, to measure a fixed point or an absolute velocity?

Again, if you assume that the photon travelled in a straight lines from the source to one of the slits and then to the destination then you cannot explain how an interference pattern is formed. Why is a particular photon more likely to arrive at some places than others? Watch the Feynman QED lectures (or read the book). He gives a simpler example that is even more difficult to explain treating photons as particles that travel in straight lines: light being reflected off a glass surface. In the classical view, we can consider half (say) the light travels through the glass and half is reflected. In the photon view, we simply say that the probability of any photon being reflected is 50:50 and it all works out the same. But the amount of light reflected depends on the thickness of the glass. In the classical view, this is again easy to explain: part of the light is reflected from the front surface and part of the light is reflected from the rear surface. Depending on the thickness, these will interfere either constructively or destructively changing the amount of light reflected. But how does a single photon, reflected from the front surface, know what its probability of being reflected should be? You can't explain this by a classical view of photons as little balls travelling in straight lines. (Watch the Feynman videos, he explains it better than me. Obviously. Or ask questions in the relevant part of the forum. You might get some expert answers.)

I wonder if it is also because the "easy" things have been done. In the past, a single scientist or small team could discover something totally new, and frequently did. Now, perhaps there are just fewer new things that can be discovered in that way. Maybe that is supported by his suggestion that most areas of science are not in "crisis"; there are no really fundamental unknowns (not known unknowns, anyway).

Not sure I quite get your point but ... Although, the latter implies that you might settle for something that isn't a flashlight if you can be persuaded (or persuade yourself) that it is, or is as good as, a flashlight. Replace flashlight with love, and perhaps this explains why some people settle for something which is a substitute for love (friendship, control, being controlled, money ...)

Your own argument contradicts this: You say that pleasure defines what is good. But pleasure is purely a mechanistic result of chemical interactions. Therefore, materialism creates pleasure, which defines good, which gives meaning to life. If you want to be a nihilist, then be a nihilist. Don't try and find false justifications in science.

Not automatically, no. For example, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mordehai Milgrom, Jakob Bekenstein, John Moffat, and many others others have done exactly this. But they have done it in a scientific way: developing theories, testing the results, etc. So far, only a couple of those ideas have been generally accepted.

No. Photons travel at the speed of light from every frame of reference. Which is why the photon's perspective is not a valid frame of reference; otherwise you would have to say that they travel at the speed of light relative to the speed of light. Which makes no sense. Because people have tried. Directly and indirectly. These are some of the most accurate experiments ever performed. So now you want to invent so new (also undetectable) physics to try and make your erroneous idea work? If they determine what we see then they should be detectable. If you can't detect them or their effects, then it is indistinguishable from not existing. Relative to nothing? How would you measure that?

Of course not. You have given no reason to agree with that.

Sometimes we can (with absolute certainty), sometimes we are not sure and sometimes we don't know. You seem the be obsessing on the last.

As noted, that perspective does not exist; it requires division by zero. The photon travels at the speed of light for every observer, whatever their relative speed (or direction). Therefore their speed relative to a photon is undefined (division by zero, remember). Nope. You can't. But not at any absolute speed. If you are heading east at half the speed of light (relative to Earth) and I am heading west at half the speed of light (relative to Earth) then we will both observe the same photon travelling at the speed of light. Therefore no absolute reference. If it is unmeasurable then it might as well not be there. Which is all that science cares about.

No "scientific belief" (whatever that means) says that. You may be thinking of nihilism (which obviously has nothing to do with science).

But that isn't what materialism says. You are inventing that to suit your won purposes.

Nonsense. Even if materialism is true we can create meaning. That is the same silly argument that says computers or brains cannot be intelligent because they are machines.

It doesn't really make sense to talk about speed relative to a photon but if you do then, because the speed of light is the same for all observers, everything is travelling at the speed of light relative to a photon. So not very useful, either. I still don't understand what the connection between a possible "system/mechanism for motion" and absolute motion is.

Some people think that depression is a more realistic viewpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

It is because the speed of the wavefront in a medium depends on the refractive index. The light is slowed down and this causes it to change direction. (Just the first image I found.)

You can also do: =AND(IF(A1 >= (1/2)*B1);Yes;No), IF(A1 = "";"";"")) Please stop posting irrelevant nonsense.

But you said you experience no pleasure. So why not give up on that as the most important thing and identify something else that you might be able to find a purpose in?

The question was not whether one has mental experiences, but about the emotional effect of them. If someone said they like blue but dislike red, there is no reason to assume they are lying. If someone says they get pleasure from pain, it may be surprising but it is not "obvious" that they must be lying. I am very sorry to hear that. I hope you are receiving professional help. However, given that situation, wouldn't it be more constructive to try and find some other purpose in life, rather than the thing that is unattainable?

But you said: So have you changed your mind? Or moved the goalposts? Now you are saying that these thoughts can create positive or negative emotional responses, but these don't count because it would disagree with your argument. I have no such knowledge (and it appears you don't either). Something is only established as a "fact" in science by the use of evidence. Well, that is a shame. Because the scientific process (and philosophy) is explicitly intended to eliminate "the obvious" because it is so often wrong. So we are back to it just being your opinion.