If Carroll is claiming that nothing we learn in the future can possibly feedback into everyday experience, the kindest and most polite response is that it&#x27;s a very strong claim, and almost certainly wrong.<p>And if he&#x27;s not making that strong claim, the post is pointlessly tautological. (&quot;So - like - the things we already know about everyday reality and technology are the things we, er, already totally know. Wow! Go science!&quot;)<p>Clearly that&#x27;s always true historically, until it isn&#x27;t any more, because new science [tm].<p>What was the point of that post? I honestly don&#x27;t even.<p>So you&#x27;re right, and not just about kangaroos, radio waves, and god.<p>We&#x27;re an inventive animal, and we&#x27;ve been discovering new science [tm] for a million years or so.<p>If it&#x27;s even remotely practical, it invariably turns into technology <i>which completely transform our everyday experience.</i><p>Did that process stop in 2011? I suppose it&#x27;s possible. But the only rational response to anyone suggesting that is extreme skepticism.