Pizzabeak
Banned
- Local time
- Yesterday 10:10 PM
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,667
Correct anything that appears to be wrong, I beg, because I know there are people here smarter than I am, plus who have the necessary training/education & discipline in this stuff.
So we're operating under the assumptions that, while theories offer a close enough explanation of the phenomena they examine, they can never be proven 100% true due to our limited perspective (if we met sentient life from elsewhere could we compare & contrast notes?)...
So while there are models & theories such as Darwin's Natural Selection, which is largely a consequence of our environment & limited resources and perhaps the type of life that arose here (I'd imagine there may be a type of life out there that doesn't need to participate in these games, but this is rather speculative, maybe groundless, and probably irrelevant) and other phenomena that science is able to explain & back up, justify. An example would be lasers, and how, say, Planck introduced his constant followed by Einstein laying the groundwork for stimulated emission of radiation while stimulated absorption was already a well known thing I believe. The scientists that proposed and eventually developed a working laser must have had a decent enough idea of how certain theories or laws worked, and the practical implications that came along with such an understanding. Especially after working with and developing 'masers' for a while, they must have figured visible light amplification was possible based off their understanding of the currently available & widely accepted theories, laws, physics and what not at the time.
So the point is that all (unless there are some I am not aware of that don't happen to fall under the category of philosophy or some psychological behaviour) these scientific theories that explain phenomena are material based. I understand this makes experimenting with repeatable results easy, objective, and... Empirical? However, is it possible for there to be a theory, perhaps widely accepted, that is not based off physical material, but rather action or something? Something more or less cause & effect that can probably be quantified for testing and experimentation to see if results can be repeated upon will. If not, could there be some "formula" that would explain why said phenomena can't necessarily be repeated by will? Such a model will concern physical perception, but the materials would be affected as a consequence of... Something, unless it's all one in the same. This may or may not be concerned with holonomic brain theory, in which thought & consciousness are apparently particles of some sort. Even the string in string theory would be classified as a physical material, for example.
So we're operating under the assumptions that, while theories offer a close enough explanation of the phenomena they examine, they can never be proven 100% true due to our limited perspective (if we met sentient life from elsewhere could we compare & contrast notes?)...
So while there are models & theories such as Darwin's Natural Selection, which is largely a consequence of our environment & limited resources and perhaps the type of life that arose here (I'd imagine there may be a type of life out there that doesn't need to participate in these games, but this is rather speculative, maybe groundless, and probably irrelevant) and other phenomena that science is able to explain & back up, justify. An example would be lasers, and how, say, Planck introduced his constant followed by Einstein laying the groundwork for stimulated emission of radiation while stimulated absorption was already a well known thing I believe. The scientists that proposed and eventually developed a working laser must have had a decent enough idea of how certain theories or laws worked, and the practical implications that came along with such an understanding. Especially after working with and developing 'masers' for a while, they must have figured visible light amplification was possible based off their understanding of the currently available & widely accepted theories, laws, physics and what not at the time.
So the point is that all (unless there are some I am not aware of that don't happen to fall under the category of philosophy or some psychological behaviour) these scientific theories that explain phenomena are material based. I understand this makes experimenting with repeatable results easy, objective, and... Empirical? However, is it possible for there to be a theory, perhaps widely accepted, that is not based off physical material, but rather action or something? Something more or less cause & effect that can probably be quantified for testing and experimentation to see if results can be repeated upon will. If not, could there be some "formula" that would explain why said phenomena can't necessarily be repeated by will? Such a model will concern physical perception, but the materials would be affected as a consequence of... Something, unless it's all one in the same. This may or may not be concerned with holonomic brain theory, in which thought & consciousness are apparently particles of some sort. Even the string in string theory would be classified as a physical material, for example.