If you wish to express your views on religion, ethics, civil rights, political systems, et cetera, please start another thread. I will gladly post my opinion on those subjects, but not here.

Analogous to the faith of a religious fanatic, I have an unshakable belief in the existence of a real universe external to myself. Furthermore, I believe that I and other intelligent entities can develop a clear (but probably incomplete) understanding of that universe by using our minds, perception, and scientific methods.

Note the bias of my language: I could have said religious person instead of fanatic. I used faith for his point of view and belief for mine, suggesting a subtle difference in my favor. While I often accuse others of using fallacious arguments and loaded language, I cannot claim to have hands that are squeaky clean.

I believe that my mind and consciousness are permanently housed in my brain. I also believe that other people and various animals have intelligence and consciousness, with animals having less of each than people.

Mathematics and logic seem to be overlapping disciplines which can be viewed as entirely abstract, and in some sense true or valid. Physics, chemistry, and biology similarly seem to be overlapping disciplines, but I do not believe that these can be considered entirely abstract, and it does not seem reasonable to consider these disciplines as pure, true, or valid.

I do not believe in ESP, the Bermuda Triangle, astrology, channeling, astral projection, nor any other occult phenomena. I mention disbelief in UFO’s, ET visitations, and alien abductions separately because I do believe in the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. I consider the existence of intelligent life elsewhere to be extremely rare.

I expect AI to be developed in the future, but do not believe that there is any current development worthy of the name.

The Pythagorean Theorem will never be replaced by a better or more accurate theorem. Such a statement cannot be said of any law of physics. This is what I mean by saying that mathematic is pure, valid, true, while physics is not pure, true, valid.

What can be said is that no current law of physics is going to be totally refuted as not applicable to the experimental evidence currently used to verify it. For example: General Relativity theory showed that the classical laws of gravity cannot be used to deal with black holes and other situations unknown 200 years ago. However, classical laws are still used by NASA for gravitational computations, because they are easier to calculate, and you cannot measure the difference between their results and relativist calculations. Future developments will similarly be improvements on current science, not refutations of it.

Something many people fail to realize is that our knowledge of the laws of physics get closer and closer to modeling the way the universe seems to work. It has been several hundred years since mainstream science believed something really silly. The future is not going to make current scientific beliefs seem silly. Future developments are only going to show that current science is incomplete in its description of the universe. Future science is likely to show that current science cannot be used for situations not known at present.

We still have a long way to go in developing new technology and/or improving current technology, but diminishing returns might be setting in on basic science. For example, consider chemistry. There are still a myriad of chemical compounds to be investigated and synthesized, especially organic compounds. There are still a lot of new techniques to be discovered. However, there are hardly any (perhaps no) new discoveries to be made in the theories underlying the science of chemistry.