No, but anyone who forks it, along with other people who have contributed to it in the past but haven't misplaced their womens, will want to be protecting their own code anyway... after all, that's the bit they have invested in. Hans being in prison for carelessness isn't going to affect that.
It's actually easier to remember where you've buried bodies if you bury them underneith a binary tree. What else are you gonna use? LogFS?! You're having a laugh! With it's wandering tree algorithms? Will just leave bodies scattered anywhere.
Technically, the 'found' and 'not' should be switched places, it's just that legally it means the same. Outside the criminal system (and religious circles), people will often go with what there is more evidence for believing, and so seeing more reasons to believe he did do it than reasons to believe he didn't, is going to leave that belief. In a criminal court you don't have to prove you didn't do something to get off, just show that the evidence doesn't prove that you did. As proving you didn't can never come up, clearing your name in the eyes of people, often won't come up either.
It loads the operating system, and provides some essential hardware support, but shouldn't take too much credit, they work as a team, there's no I in BIOS. Crap, unfortunate example... well some newer architectures have left the old BIOS behind anyway and the OS loads from EFI, and there's definitely no I in tha... nevermind.
Obviously your argument falls flat on its face due to the fact that not all fish are fishey, as demonstrated by the fact that not every brick in my house is made of spaghetti.
Reminds me of those tests you do as a kid or bored: "Computes" is to "Computer", as "swims" is to: A) Cattle B) Swimmer C) Fish
I think it's IQ tests they tend to appear on... so err... you might wanna stay away from those.
"If you insist on thinking about light as lots of photons..."
Not generally, I don't even really like the word 'particle' being used (think 'packet' closer conveys the required meaning so doesn't create as much confusion), but yes here I think I was probably complicating things by looking too closely at the leading edge and being distracted by quantum artifacts of discrete packets, so cheers for the nudge:-)
Cool cheers, that does make a lot more sense:-) while i've got ya if you can and don't mind my asking, does the light actually travel at a reduced speed, or just appearing that way over more easily measured distances because it's not travelling in a straight line (or both? Or it's just not that simple:-) hehe)
"If the Matrix was working perfectly there would never be a pattern"
How can it be working perfectly and have a malfunction at the same time? Pick one to argue the effects of.
"You can't do ANY science on something if you have no way to observe it"
I don't know why you're so stuck on this idea. You can easily recreate that condition to test it. Lets imagine after coming up with a theory that says that a ball, when released, will roll down a slope. The theory can include details like the minimum angle the slope must be for different materials and other physical properties of the slope and ball. As it's a scientific theory, we can look for flaws, things that, if they happened, would prove the theory was not true, such as if the ball didn't roll at an angle of decline greater than that which the theory says it will do, or if the ball does roll then the slope is flat, when the theory says it won't.
Now, the theory also states that the ball rolling is unaffected by humans observing it happening. First if we want to test that, we need to rule out things that could make it appear like observation was affecting it... put it in a vaccuum and fix the temperate, to counter for any stray sneezing or radiation from sweaty nervous scientists, and release the ball. Now repeat the experiment with two people watching... and four... a hundred, a thousand, whatever. If you notice any difference, in the way the ball rolls, when you add more people, even very slight, you know the theory is flawed, it would be reasonable to assume that changing the number of observers even further will cause it to deviate from the theory even more. Otherwise, by now, the many many tests done, none of which have produced results other than what the theory predicts, has added quite a bit of weight, credit, to the theory's accuracy. You can rule out that you personally observing it has an affect by having other scientists repeat the experiment with you not present, and report back if removing you causes any deviation from the theory. Finally, you could have say a button which darkens the LCD glass case that's got the vacuum, slope etc inside. This would allow you to recreate, at your whim, the condition of being unable to observe the ball roll. The ball is released by a timer in the same way it's been done in all previous experiments, and the glass blocking anyone from seeing ball roll as the theory predicts stays darkened for as long as the experiment takes to complete. Now, here are some of the conditions the theory doesn't allow for, which if they occur, would prove the theory incorrect (remember, these are required for said theory to be said to be scientific, there has to be ways it can be disproven): * When you lighten the glass after the experiment should've completed, you see the ball start to roll. * When the glass is lightened, the ball is in a different position to where it ended up after all the previous, observed experiments. * When the glass is lightened, the ball is gone! * Before you even get to lighten the glass, you hear it smash and the ball comes flying out (sure, you observe this happen, but the change happened during the unobserved part of the experiment) * The ball suddenly appears hovering above the case. * The ball afterwards appears in the same place as previous experiments, despite objects, a bump or dent, that were in it's path.
And so on. Any one of these things happening would prove the theory was incorrect/incomplete, as removing the observation of the experiment taking place produced results that the theory and all previous measurements say shouldn't happen. Yes, there are still things that could've happened outside of what the theory says should... it could've sped up and slowed down... it could've not gone to move at all, but by coincidence some freak very rare cosmic rays collided with it that resulted in the same effect as observation would've done... BUT the fact that none of these things did happen, and no changes happened when increasing the
"The very reason that we can even do science, is because there are certain laws and ratios in the Universe, that are outside of human control"
I totally support this and believe it to be true.
"Is that a human definition or is it true outside of any human frame of reference?" [...] "The VALUE of the sum of 2+2=4 is always the same"
2+2=4 is an expression, and can be true or false depending on how 2 and 4 are defined (eg, on a logarithmic scale, the expression I believe would be false) if they are defined elsewhere. If you are using the expression to define 2+2 as being that which 4 is defined as, then it's simply a statement. You are asserting a fact, that within the context, is almost taken for granted as being true, as it is known that you are only talking about that which is within the logical context. For example, If 2+2=4 is true, then 4-2=2 is also true. If we say 2+2+2=4 is also true, then 2=0 must be true, as must 4=0, as that is the only way that 2+2=2+2+2 could be true. We're not saying that any of it is true, we're just saying that if we assume 2+2=4 to be true, then we can say with 100% certainty that 4-2=2 is also true. This is the beauty of mathmatics, the language itself is pure and absolute; all terms are defined relative to each other. We leave testing the translation-to/from-nature methods to science. Meanwhile we can still work out what must be true assuming that the science is (which can then be used to confirm/refute the scientific theory, eg, if we find that e!=mc^2 (if not familar with programmer vocabulary, != and ^ here means 'is not equal' and 'to the power') for a certain value of 'm', we have proved relativity incorrect or at least incomplete).
"As with any language, it is created not bestowed. After all, if 1/4 = 0.25 = (2 * 1)/8 then aren't these three ways of describing the same information"
Sure... but that's number, part of the vocabulary of maths, which yes, I'd say was invented to represent quantity. But maths doesn't necessitate using number, just that number makes it easier/possible to translate in/out of the real world. Examples without number could include geometry (where things have to add up otherwise you can't make ends meet), or an enclosed algebraic system (where everything is defined relative to other variables (aka dimensions) within the context). Translating geometry into number can of course improve accuracy easier than than the alternative (performing the geometry on a larger scale and improving accuracy of drawing aides) when you're good at arithmatic (or have a computer), otherwise, working things out geometrically could prove easier.
My conclusion: the vocabulary (eg, numbers, symbols, units) has been invented. The language, I'd probably prefer to say was/is 'developed'. That which we use maths to describe, we discover.
"Perhaps one could argue that pi is just humans only way to describe the relationship"
Pi I think (top of head, I could spend longer thinking about it!) is just a value that can appear as an artifact for example when translating to number when the concept of 'infinite' is introduced to the geometry (eg, shape with a perfect curve = 'infinite number of sides' etc). Where (or if) quantization exists in the universe, pi wouldn't actually be required in the descriptions (although may not be possible, at least for us, to measure/observe something in greater detail than we can calculate pi as being). (--this is what my mind tells me intuitively, I'd be interested in an example of this not being true).
"c changes with the medium through which light is travelling"
Does it? Doesn't the mass bend space - ever so slightly - giving the light slightly further to travel? (or is this effect, even multiplied by the number of atoms in the medium, not great enough to account for the difference? Somebody properly knowledgeable might want to answer)
I thought it was meant to be 7 (+/-2) for most people. I can certainly recognise 5 without a count, as I suspect most people can, as to why the grouping into fives, and due to natural grouping of fives (fingers, toes etc) leaves our brains good at recognising that number. Above that we tend to split into groups of recognisable patters, think dominos or scratch counts (IIII then / through it) on prison walls.
But then I wasn't alive "way back in prehistory" so won't make any claims as to what brains then could do. I suspect there was a time when even the most advanced brains on the planet couldn't, and likewise even for my own brain:-)
No, I suggest you taking off your philosophy hat and putting your scientific hat on, you might find you can start rethinking your questions in a way that yields towards answers instead of an amazed dumbfoundedness.
"if there's a minor malfunction in a creche and the human inside it has problems with his spine, that may manifest inside the matrix as degenerative disc disease. No experiment from inside the matrix would ever determine the true cause"
We spot patterns. If there is no underlying pattern to all these people who have this apparent spinal disease, we'd, scientifically, be able to tell, that the cause was outside of what we can observe. If it presented with another symptom, then the two can be linked, eg, if all people born with a certain left-leg-length to right-leg-length ratio develop this spinal disease, then we'd have the beginning of a model that holds true within the context of the matrix. A scientist would know that all you'd have to do to prove this model inaccurate/incomplete would be to find someone with either the left to right leg length ratio but no spinal disease, or the other way round. It has become testable, therefore it has become scientific. You're now able to tell, when somebody is born with that l/r leg ratio, that they will develop that spinal disease, prepare for it, or even kill them off (slightly absurd, but hey, you started it).
And there you have it. Scientifically, we've spotted a link between two observable phenomina, devised testable ways of proving the link to be a false one, and even devised ways which we can use the learnt information (and hey, who knows, if you kill them all off early enough, the "robots" might then notice that children born in those certain tubes aren't as efficient, look into it, and fix the tubes, and we'll see it as an effect of natural selection).
Yes, we don't know what's going on outside of the context we're testing and observing in, but science doesn't claim to, only what happens within the context/universe. As to whether we perceive something or not... well that's something that happens within the context, so it is something we can look for patterns in. Your ant example... if the ants lay out tiny recording switches in the ground and then scarper, they could then come back and see how long the switches stayed depressed for (in a "i've been pressed!" way, not a "oh I'm only a switch, what's the point of living" type of depressed). If the switch showed that it was pressed for longer period of time than they've ever seen the magic food blankets stick around for, they'd know their presence was affecting it somehow. Your own presence/can/ be tested in a scientific experiment setting, it doesn't require a huge amount of imagination to think of ways how.
"If the Matrix were functioning perfectly, what experiment would Neo do to discover it?"
What difference does that make? All experiments would lead to a model of how the inner-matrix works, just as all our experiments describe how things in our universe work. Do you think we can develop experiments to describe what's outside the universe we can interact with? No... how is that the same thing as determining what effects human perceiving something has on it?
We could logically tell that pluto existed before we could see it... we could perceive the effects of the planets mass on Neptune's orbit long before we could perceive the planet itself (no I don't care for the reclassifying of pluto as not-a-planet by a bunch of people who used MS-Word default dictionary to see if their new name for it existed or not... not even google?)... which shows that being able to perceive an object itself has no effect on the gravitational force that interacts with surrounding objects.
I can set off an experiment, predicting its outcome, not watch it, and compare the results. I can get a machine to pick one of a bunch of experiments to run, then look at the result, decide what the experiment or starting conditions must have been, and then check with the machine that the experiment/starting conditions it chose match up with mine. By removing myself from the experiment, at different degrees, I can show what effects me being present is having on it.
Yes, the surrounding universe could be some "matrix" that is showing me certain things occording to some rules, but if I've no way of changing those rules, only interacting with them, then these are the rules that I am going to want to study, describe, understand, and know how to work with. If I can interact with and change those rules, then I'm going to want to find out all the things that can affect what it's showing me, then find out how each one of them is affecting it, by controlling the ones you can, and observing the changing states of those which you can't. This is the scientific method.
"Is 2+2=4 true even if the majority of mathematicians would believe it to be false?"
I think you are misunderstand what 2+2=4 means. It's not an observation, it's a definition. It is defining 4 as being the same as what 2+2 is defined as being (or more accurately, saying that 4 is defined as the same as 2+2 is). If you wish to disregard this definition of what '4' means and redefine the symbol as having another meaning, feel free, but you must then also disregard anything else that uses the common definition of what '4' means, because they will no longer apply in your language, in the same way as reading the letter 'b' as having an english 'b' sound when you're reading russian would be errornous.
YOU can't, because you're unable to conveive of a method of ruling out human perception as an affecting variable in an experiment. Common mistake: "generalising from self". It is extremely narrow minded and short sighted, but granted, very human, to believe the limits of your own understanding and your own imagination are also the limits of possiblity.
"our science is more about how we perceive the world to be, than how we know the world to be"
Not really. Science is more about ruling out variables that could be affecting something, leaving you with the variables that are or could be affecting it (as not all variables may be discovered). If you can show a different result using the same variable values, you can show the model to be incorrect or incomplete. It's very easy, when using deductive logic, to design tests that determine and map the effects of perception (see work under the fields of relativity and uncertainty). The more we know about the effects one thing has on another, the better an idea we can have on its state before it was affected.
"The problem with most tools is that no one thinks ahead"
You can't really think ahead to thinks that haven't been created yet, technology that hasn't been invented yet, if you could... well then you would've invented the technology. Plus, things do change, the best way of mapping and storing files on 1GB of storage isn't going to be the best way of mapping and storing files if you have 500GB storage. As the airwaves open up, we can create new wireless protocols that make better use of higher frequences that aren't going to be compatable with lower frequency wireless devices... but you can't make those lower frequency devices future proof because you don't know yet what frequences etc are going to be available in the future.
You can't predict the future just to make your present day devices compatable with it. If you try, you'll most likely be spending money developing tech that will never be used, because the future goes off in a different way.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you should stick to stable filesystems rather than the bleeding edge
"A user could craft a file with data that would appear to the fsck process to be metadata"
Ah, like how the contents of a car could appear to the investigation process oh nevermind...
You... can actually get quite a lot of blood out of a woman and keep her alive. Trust me.
No, but anyone who forks it, along with other people who have contributed to it in the past but haven't misplaced their womens, will want to be protecting their own code anyway... after all, that's the bit they have invested in. Hans being in prison for carelessness isn't going to affect that.
It's actually easier to remember where you've buried bodies if you bury them underneith a binary tree. What else are you gonna use? LogFS?! You're having a laugh! With it's wandering tree algorithms? Will just leave bodies scattered anywhere.
"Discovery almost always trumps invention"
Did you find that out or are you making it up? Ya know... just so I know how much attention to pay...
"But.. OJ was found not guilty"
Technically, the 'found' and 'not' should be switched places, it's just that legally it means the same. Outside the criminal system (and religious circles), people will often go with what there is more evidence for believing, and so seeing more reasons to believe he did do it than reasons to believe he didn't, is going to leave that belief. In a criminal court you don't have to prove you didn't do something to get off, just show that the evidence doesn't prove that you did. As proving you didn't can never come up, clearing your name in the eyes of people, often won't come up either.
Nah, when you can't find your wife, you'll kick yourself for not using a binary tree filesystem.
It loads the operating system, and provides some essential hardware support, but shouldn't take too much credit, they work as a team, there's no I in BIOS. Crap, unfortunate example... well some newer architectures have left the old BIOS behind anyway and the OS loads from EFI, and there's definitely no I in tha... nevermind.
Obviously your argument falls flat on its face due to the fact that not all fish are fishey, as demonstrated by the fact that not every brick in my house is made of spaghetti.
Reminds me of those tests you do as a kid or bored:
"Computes" is to "Computer", as "swims" is to:
A) Cattle
B) Swimmer
C) Fish
I think it's IQ tests they tend to appear on... so err... you might wanna stay away from those.
"If you insist on thinking about light as lots of photons..."
:-)
Not generally, I don't even really like the word 'particle' being used (think 'packet' closer conveys the required meaning so doesn't create as much confusion), but yes here I think I was probably complicating things by looking too closely at the leading edge and being distracted by quantum artifacts of discrete packets, so cheers for the nudge
Cool cheers, that does make a lot more sense :-) while i've got ya if you can and don't mind my asking, does the light actually travel at a reduced speed, or just appearing that way over more easily measured distances because it's not travelling in a straight line (or both? Or it's just not that simple :-) hehe)
"If the Matrix was working perfectly there would never be a pattern"
:
How can it be working perfectly and have a malfunction at the same time? Pick one to argue the effects of.
"You can't do ANY science on something if you have no way to observe it"
I don't know why you're so stuck on this idea. You can easily recreate that condition to test it. Lets imagine after coming up with a theory that says that a ball, when released, will roll down a slope. The theory can include details like the minimum angle the slope must be for different materials and other physical properties of the slope and ball. As it's a scientific theory, we can look for flaws, things that, if they happened, would prove the theory was not true, such as if the ball didn't roll at an angle of decline greater than that which the theory says it will do, or if the ball does roll then the slope is flat, when the theory says it won't.
Now, the theory also states that the ball rolling is unaffected by humans observing it happening. First if we want to test that, we need to rule out things that could make it appear like observation was affecting it... put it in a vaccuum and fix the temperate, to counter for any stray sneezing or radiation from sweaty nervous scientists, and release the ball. Now repeat the experiment with two people watching... and four... a hundred, a thousand, whatever. If you notice any difference, in the way the ball rolls, when you add more people, even very slight, you know the theory is flawed, it would be reasonable to assume that changing the number of observers even further will cause it to deviate from the theory even more. Otherwise, by now, the many many tests done, none of which have produced results other than what the theory predicts, has added quite a bit of weight, credit, to the theory's accuracy. You can rule out that you personally observing it has an affect by having other scientists repeat the experiment with you not present, and report back if removing you causes any deviation from the theory.
Finally, you could have say a button which darkens the LCD glass case that's got the vacuum, slope etc inside. This would allow you to recreate, at your whim, the condition of being unable to observe the ball roll. The ball is released by a timer in the same way it's been done in all previous experiments, and the glass blocking anyone from seeing ball roll as the theory predicts stays darkened for as long as the experiment takes to complete. Now, here are some of the conditions the theory doesn't allow for, which if they occur, would prove the theory incorrect (remember, these are required for said theory to be said to be scientific, there has to be ways it can be disproven)
* When you lighten the glass after the experiment should've completed, you see the ball start to roll.
* When the glass is lightened, the ball is in a different position to where it ended up after all the previous, observed experiments.
* When the glass is lightened, the ball is gone!
* Before you even get to lighten the glass, you hear it smash and the ball comes flying out (sure, you observe this happen, but the change happened during the unobserved part of the experiment)
* The ball suddenly appears hovering above the case.
* The ball afterwards appears in the same place as previous experiments, despite objects, a bump or dent, that were in it's path.
And so on. Any one of these things happening would prove the theory was incorrect/incomplete, as removing the observation of the experiment taking place produced results that the theory and all previous measurements say shouldn't happen. Yes, there are still things that could've happened outside of what the theory says should... it could've sped up and slowed down... it could've not gone to move at all, but by coincidence some freak very rare cosmic rays collided with it that resulted in the same effect as observation would've done... BUT the fact that none of these things did happen, and no changes happened when increasing the
"The very reason that we can even do science, is because there are certain laws and ratios in the Universe, that are outside of human control"
I totally support this and believe it to be true.
"Is that a human definition or is it true outside of any human frame of reference?" [...] "The VALUE of the sum of 2+2=4 is always the same"
2+2=4 is an expression, and can be true or false depending on how 2 and 4 are defined (eg, on a logarithmic scale, the expression I believe would be false) if they are defined elsewhere. If you are using the expression to define 2+2 as being that which 4 is defined as, then it's simply a statement. You are asserting a fact, that within the context, is almost taken for granted as being true, as it is known that you are only talking about that which is within the logical context. For example,
If 2+2=4 is true,
then 4-2=2 is also true.
If we say 2+2+2=4 is also true,
then 2=0 must be true, as must 4=0,
as that is the only way that 2+2=2+2+2 could be true.
We're not saying that any of it is true, we're just saying that if we assume 2+2=4 to be true, then we can say with 100% certainty that 4-2=2 is also true. This is the beauty of mathmatics, the language itself is pure and absolute; all terms are defined relative to each other. We leave testing the translation-to/from-nature methods to science. Meanwhile we can still work out what must be true assuming that the science is (which can then be used to confirm/refute the scientific theory, eg, if we find that e!=mc^2 (if not familar with programmer vocabulary, != and ^ here means 'is not equal' and 'to the power') for a certain value of 'm', we have proved relativity incorrect or at least incomplete).
"As with any language, it is created not bestowed. After all, if 1/4 = 0.25 = (2 * 1)/8 then aren't these three ways of describing the same information"
Sure... but that's number, part of the vocabulary of maths, which yes, I'd say was invented to represent quantity. But maths doesn't necessitate using number, just that number makes it easier/possible to translate in/out of the real world. Examples without number could include geometry (where things have to add up otherwise you can't make ends meet), or an enclosed algebraic system (where everything is defined relative to other variables (aka dimensions) within the context). Translating geometry into number can of course improve accuracy easier than than the alternative (performing the geometry on a larger scale and improving accuracy of drawing aides) when you're good at arithmatic (or have a computer), otherwise, working things out geometrically could prove easier.
My conclusion: the vocabulary (eg, numbers, symbols, units) has been invented. The language, I'd probably prefer to say was/is 'developed'. That which we use maths to describe, we discover.
"Perhaps one could argue that pi is just humans only way to describe the relationship"
Pi I think (top of head, I could spend longer thinking about it!) is just a value that can appear as an artifact for example when translating to number when the concept of 'infinite' is introduced to the geometry (eg, shape with a perfect curve = 'infinite number of sides' etc). Where (or if) quantization exists in the universe, pi wouldn't actually be required in the descriptions (although may not be possible, at least for us, to measure/observe something in greater detail than we can calculate pi as being). (--this is what my mind tells me intuitively, I'd be interested in an example of this not being true).
"c changes with the medium through which light is travelling"
Does it? Doesn't the mass bend space - ever so slightly - giving the light slightly further to travel? (or is this effect, even multiplied by the number of atoms in the medium, not great enough to account for the difference? Somebody properly knowledgeable might want to answer)
I thought it was meant to be 7 (+/-2) for most people. I can certainly recognise 5 without a count, as I suspect most people can, as to why the grouping into fives, and due to natural grouping of fives (fingers, toes etc) leaves our brains good at recognising that number. Above that we tend to split into groups of recognisable patters, think dominos or scratch counts (IIII then / through it) on prison walls.
:-)
But then I wasn't alive "way back in prehistory" so won't make any claims as to what brains then could do. I suspect there was a time when even the most advanced brains on the planet couldn't, and likewise even for my own brain
No, I suggest you taking off your philosophy hat and putting your scientific hat on, you might find you can start rethinking your questions in a way that yields towards answers instead of an amazed dumbfoundedness.
/can/ be tested in a scientific experiment setting, it doesn't require a huge amount of imagination to think of ways how.
"if there's a minor malfunction in a creche and the human inside it has problems with his spine, that may manifest inside the matrix as degenerative disc disease. No experiment from inside the matrix would ever determine the true cause"
We spot patterns. If there is no underlying pattern to all these people who have this apparent spinal disease, we'd, scientifically, be able to tell, that the cause was outside of what we can observe. If it presented with another symptom, then the two can be linked, eg, if all people born with a certain left-leg-length to right-leg-length ratio develop this spinal disease, then we'd have the beginning of a model that holds true within the context of the matrix. A scientist would know that all you'd have to do to prove this model inaccurate/incomplete would be to find someone with either the left to right leg length ratio but no spinal disease, or the other way round. It has become testable, therefore it has become scientific. You're now able to tell, when somebody is born with that l/r leg ratio, that they will develop that spinal disease, prepare for it, or even kill them off (slightly absurd, but hey, you started it).
And there you have it. Scientifically, we've spotted a link between two observable phenomina, devised testable ways of proving the link to be a false one, and even devised ways which we can use the learnt information (and hey, who knows, if you kill them all off early enough, the "robots" might then notice that children born in those certain tubes aren't as efficient, look into it, and fix the tubes, and we'll see it as an effect of natural selection).
Yes, we don't know what's going on outside of the context we're testing and observing in, but science doesn't claim to, only what happens within the context/universe. As to whether we perceive something or not... well that's something that happens within the context, so it is something we can look for patterns in. Your ant example... if the ants lay out tiny recording switches in the ground and then scarper, they could then come back and see how long the switches stayed depressed for (in a "i've been pressed!" way, not a "oh I'm only a switch, what's the point of living" type of depressed). If the switch showed that it was pressed for longer period of time than they've ever seen the magic food blankets stick around for, they'd know their presence was affecting it somehow. Your own presence
(see my reply to your sibling post)
"If the Matrix were functioning perfectly, what experiment would Neo do to discover it?"
What difference does that make? All experiments would lead to a model of how the inner-matrix works, just as all our experiments describe how things in our universe work. Do you think we can develop experiments to describe what's outside the universe we can interact with? No... how is that the same thing as determining what effects human perceiving something has on it?
We could logically tell that pluto existed before we could see it... we could perceive the effects of the planets mass on Neptune's orbit long before we could perceive the planet itself (no I don't care for the reclassifying of pluto as not-a-planet by a bunch of people who used MS-Word default dictionary to see if their new name for it existed or not... not even google?)... which shows that being able to perceive an object itself has no effect on the gravitational force that interacts with surrounding objects.
I can set off an experiment, predicting its outcome, not watch it, and compare the results. I can get a machine to pick one of a bunch of experiments to run, then look at the result, decide what the experiment or starting conditions must have been, and then check with the machine that the experiment/starting conditions it chose match up with mine. By removing myself from the experiment, at different degrees, I can show what effects me being present is having on it.
Yes, the surrounding universe could be some "matrix" that is showing me certain things occording to some rules, but if I've no way of changing those rules, only interacting with them, then these are the rules that I am going to want to study, describe, understand, and know how to work with. If I can interact with and change those rules, then I'm going to want to find out all the things that can affect what it's showing me, then find out how each one of them is affecting it, by controlling the ones you can, and observing the changing states of those which you can't. This is the scientific method.
"Is 2+2=4 true even if the majority of mathematicians would believe it to be false?"
I think you are misunderstand what 2+2=4 means. It's not an observation, it's a definition. It is defining 4 as being the same as what 2+2 is defined as being (or more accurately, saying that 4 is defined as the same as 2+2 is). If you wish to disregard this definition of what '4' means and redefine the symbol as having another meaning, feel free, but you must then also disregard anything else that uses the common definition of what '4' means, because they will no longer apply in your language, in the same way as reading the letter 'b' as having an english 'b' sound when you're reading russian would be errornous.
"you can't do the experiment to check"
YOU can't, because you're unable to conveive of a method of ruling out human perception as an affecting variable in an experiment. Common mistake: "generalising from self". It is extremely narrow minded and short sighted, but granted, very human, to believe the limits of your own understanding and your own imagination are also the limits of possiblity.
"our science is more about how we perceive the world to be, than how we know the world to be"
Not really. Science is more about ruling out variables that could be affecting something, leaving you with the variables that are or could be affecting it (as not all variables may be discovered). If you can show a different result using the same variable values, you can show the model to be incorrect or incomplete. It's very easy, when using deductive logic, to design tests that determine and map the effects of perception (see work under the fields of relativity and uncertainty). The more we know about the effects one thing has on another, the better an idea we can have on its state before it was affected.
What are you talking about? I reckon some MJ would be just the ticket for that math geek party!
"The problem with most tools is that no one thinks ahead"
You can't really think ahead to thinks that haven't been created yet, technology that hasn't been invented yet, if you could... well then you would've invented the technology. Plus, things do change, the best way of mapping and storing files on 1GB of storage isn't going to be the best way of mapping and storing files if you have 500GB storage. As the airwaves open up, we can create new wireless protocols that make better use of higher frequences that aren't going to be compatable with lower frequency wireless devices... but you can't make those lower frequency devices future proof because you don't know yet what frequences etc are going to be available in the future.
You can't predict the future just to make your present day devices compatable with it. If you try, you'll most likely be spending money developing tech that will never be used, because the future goes off in a different way.