Basically, what we have here is yet another case of Modern Physics Abuse Syndrome.

Let's say that all of the assumptions made above are correct enough for the approximation being made (that we have not observed enough of the universe to make any assumptions about its nature.) I have no problems with the facts quoted, but the reasoning is a bit off. I feel obligated to point out that there is a huge assumption being made by Quenton Cassidy, and furthermore, it is the same one that the physicist are making.

David Hume posits that causation is clearly an artifact of our perception, and the existence of causation is an assumption. We assume that since the last time we put food ove a flame, it got cooked, it will happen again at our barbecue tonight. We think that because gravity exists today, it will exist tomorrow, and we also assume that physics will stay the same from today to tomorrow. Science is based on this. It is admittedly an assumption, but it seems pretty strong to me.

Is it really such a large leap of faith, then, to assume that the rules will stay the same not just in 5 minutes, (for instance, the weak nuclear force could quadruple right now, killing all life and destroying the universe as we know it,) but also in 5 days, years, decades, centuries, millenium, ad. infinitum. If you are really worried that causation will break down, or has operated differently some time in the past, it seems kind of silly to be talking about the universe, instead of worrying that you might start floating away or bursting into flames at any moment.

The professionals aren't always right, but they tend to be disproven by other professionals.

And if you think I'm wrong, or that this writeup sucks, or that you dislike life, feel free to /msg me