On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 1:33 AM Giulio Prisco <[email protected]> wrote:
><And perhaps a simpler explanation is that ET does not exist because >> we are the first...> > > > * > "I can't disagree because you said the magic word: perhaps."* > But the scientific method and Occam's Razor insists that if the existing laws of physics can adequately explain an observation (or in this case a lack of one) then you shouldn't conjure up radical new fundamental laws of physics to explain it because doing so is unnecessary. I like Carl Sagan a lot but I think sometimes a lack of evidence* IS* evidence of absence. For example: If the LHC had not found evidence for the Higgs particle then physicists would've had no choice but to reject the entire idea and try to find some other reason to explain the fact that quarks have mass. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> orr > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3BCenhTWEF70GG%3DsCef2U2Pu1sGMEQk26XNVy-7NeSyA%40mail.gmail.com.
