10-04-2024, 09:24 PM
Please forgive me if I seem obtusely confused...
[confession]
I accept that any theorizing about a 'non-tangible' can always become extremely evidentiary in those well-immersed into the ideas like aether (thanks for not calling me out on the word.) Never mind the multiple complexities of higher dimensional considerations. I have always been interested, but not equipped, to delve into these matter which require mathematics ranging into the esoteric. I plead ignorance as a shield as I proceed.
[/end confession]
I am impressed that so many ancient philosophical text describe or allude to principle which mirror the cutting edge thinking about physical reality. I can never understand why we didn't have more of a 'head start' in theoretical sciences in the west, and why even in their local setting, these thousand years old ideas just languished from the context of science.
It had coalesced in my understanding, that the entire 'gut feeling' that 'something is missing here' has never been abolished when it comes to the current "modern physics."
In particular, it seems there has been a change in the 'scientific method.'
Not the "by-the-book" definition of scientific method... just a propensity of those who employ it's discipline to 'alter the rules.'
Whether we talk about 'quarks' and 'strangelets' or 'strings' and 'chirality' we always seem to see competition. As if the matter of research were to resolve a contest, as opposed to serving the body of human knowledge... you know, "science." In our discussions, we take certain precepts inherited from physics... some of which seem very 'dogmatic' or 'suppositional.' Since I am not a scientist I must accept that as esoteric those precepts are, "someone must have vetted it." Only sometimes finding later, that such vetting that took place was by another 'someone' excited to accept the idea, or determined to reject it. That is uncomfortable to learn, and it became a crack in the foundation to my faith in our "popular priests of science."
I suppose this is all just to say "I still don't get it."
We can imagine something that conforms to the structure of the universe, but in the end we are limited to the observable. We even invented a 'matter and energy' to formally express that 'we don't know what this is.' And the single dimensional effect (gravity) from which we infer it's existence may not be enough to ever actually 'see it.' But it is among the foundational future thought nevertheless... science fiction for scientists... the seeds of something not quite right.
Also it is further conflated with a precept that relates to 'observation.' Variations in perception can happen en masse, it seems. While many varied offer up the idea of materialistic science, those venturing into extradimensional space offer many "potentialities." None of those potentialities are measurable outside of an incidental context, which I would assume should raise some hackles, for those interested in the scientific method.
Modelling is an essential tool in science... but it is a 'tool'... and tools are not "proof."
"It works in the model" actually means "It works in our model;" yet what it yields stands like a foundation stone that God put there - in every reference, every citation... That's a shitload of trust, in a world where any scientist of note KNOWS how much you can 'rely' on distantly published work today.
What we seem to have done is create - via mathematical modelling - a new set of 'virtually-observable' perceivable behaviors - which by definition are happening where we can't "see" them... and willing and eager to accept that model was 'godly' perfect so 'this must be reality'... I find myself resisting the foundational explanations, and without an 'education' or 'experience' to inform me otherwise... I want to resist simply believing the offered explanations.
I think we may have other 'fish to fry' in physics and they are either not being pursued, or remain unshared. I admit, this is a 'me' thing.
I do have massive respect for those thinkers (mathematicians and scientists) in general... and somehow it still irks me that others latch onto their ideas and market them as products. But I have to accept that... the problem is, listening to those who market science (for show OR tell) often are not really doing their subject faithful justice... rather than telling, they are selling. That kind of crap never belonged in, or over, the discipline of science.
But listen, I love this subject and want to discuss with anyone who is patient enough to endure my bullshit.
Whew! I went back and read this... but... yeah, I gave my self-expression a "C-", apologies.
[confession]
I accept that any theorizing about a 'non-tangible' can always become extremely evidentiary in those well-immersed into the ideas like aether (thanks for not calling me out on the word.) Never mind the multiple complexities of higher dimensional considerations. I have always been interested, but not equipped, to delve into these matter which require mathematics ranging into the esoteric. I plead ignorance as a shield as I proceed.
[/end confession]
I am impressed that so many ancient philosophical text describe or allude to principle which mirror the cutting edge thinking about physical reality. I can never understand why we didn't have more of a 'head start' in theoretical sciences in the west, and why even in their local setting, these thousand years old ideas just languished from the context of science.
It had coalesced in my understanding, that the entire 'gut feeling' that 'something is missing here' has never been abolished when it comes to the current "modern physics."
In particular, it seems there has been a change in the 'scientific method.'
Not the "by-the-book" definition of scientific method... just a propensity of those who employ it's discipline to 'alter the rules.'
Whether we talk about 'quarks' and 'strangelets' or 'strings' and 'chirality' we always seem to see competition. As if the matter of research were to resolve a contest, as opposed to serving the body of human knowledge... you know, "science." In our discussions, we take certain precepts inherited from physics... some of which seem very 'dogmatic' or 'suppositional.' Since I am not a scientist I must accept that as esoteric those precepts are, "someone must have vetted it." Only sometimes finding later, that such vetting that took place was by another 'someone' excited to accept the idea, or determined to reject it. That is uncomfortable to learn, and it became a crack in the foundation to my faith in our "popular priests of science."
I suppose this is all just to say "I still don't get it."
We can imagine something that conforms to the structure of the universe, but in the end we are limited to the observable. We even invented a 'matter and energy' to formally express that 'we don't know what this is.' And the single dimensional effect (gravity) from which we infer it's existence may not be enough to ever actually 'see it.' But it is among the foundational future thought nevertheless... science fiction for scientists... the seeds of something not quite right.
Also it is further conflated with a precept that relates to 'observation.' Variations in perception can happen en masse, it seems. While many varied offer up the idea of materialistic science, those venturing into extradimensional space offer many "potentialities." None of those potentialities are measurable outside of an incidental context, which I would assume should raise some hackles, for those interested in the scientific method.
Modelling is an essential tool in science... but it is a 'tool'... and tools are not "proof."
"It works in the model" actually means "It works in our model;" yet what it yields stands like a foundation stone that God put there - in every reference, every citation... That's a shitload of trust, in a world where any scientist of note KNOWS how much you can 'rely' on distantly published work today.
What we seem to have done is create - via mathematical modelling - a new set of 'virtually-observable' perceivable behaviors - which by definition are happening where we can't "see" them... and willing and eager to accept that model was 'godly' perfect so 'this must be reality'... I find myself resisting the foundational explanations, and without an 'education' or 'experience' to inform me otherwise... I want to resist simply believing the offered explanations.
I think we may have other 'fish to fry' in physics and they are either not being pursued, or remain unshared. I admit, this is a 'me' thing.
I do have massive respect for those thinkers (mathematicians and scientists) in general... and somehow it still irks me that others latch onto their ideas and market them as products. But I have to accept that... the problem is, listening to those who market science (for show OR tell) often are not really doing their subject faithful justice... rather than telling, they are selling. That kind of crap never belonged in, or over, the discipline of science.
But listen, I love this subject and want to discuss with anyone who is patient enough to endure my bullshit.
Whew! I went back and read this... but... yeah, I gave my self-expression a "C-", apologies.
