>>18
>So 7 would stop being a prime number, circles would no longer have a fixed ratio of circumference to diameter, atoms would no longer form molecular bonds,
All of these things are human constructs, and would die out with us, yet nothing in the Universe that throw up the sensory input that generate them would change.
>cause wouldn't precede effect
Ho ho, kindly prove this is so. Protip: you can't, it's an assumption that can't be proved, it's kept philosophers up worrying for centuries.
> the speed of light would change
The speed of light does change in a singularity. Besides, if all humans are dead, how does that affect the speed of light? Poor example in the first instance, and proving my point in the second.
>and planets would fall out of orbit?
What is the connection between humans dying out and the planets maintaining their orbits? Again proving my point, not yours.
>I know a lot of you people that think that way, even if you personally think that example is a little extreme.
No, you don't know us at all. You simply are given social permission to sound off that science is best without thinking about how absurd this position really is.
Science is best at determining acceptable conclusions to discussions where using science gives that acceptable conclusion, no more or less.