Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

thats a long winded way of describing cognitive schematic organization and categorical biases, if indirectly. I can't imagine there are too many scientists that would disagree with you either...

Colour perception is a much better and more poignant example, though. For instance, we classify colours into discrete categories, "blue", "red", "green", "yellow", etc, but those categories don't reflect the nature of colour, as it has no discrete categories but rather exists on a continuum including parts we are unable to perceive. The biases we have in terms of these categories are related directly to the type and spectral range of our photoreceptors in the eye itself, meaning that we are dividing the colour continuum into discrete parts the instant light hits our retina.

This is very basic science, in fact, so I'm entirely unsure why you point to scientists specifically as opposing your ideas?

All theories in of themselves are composed mainly of hypothesis, and not hard facts. My initial point here is the concept that "beginning & ending " are illusions. My analogies used to visualize this may have been poor. Still, I think most physicists suspect this, yet don't actually claim it because it's so difficult to prove, as I mentioned in my first post.

This is why I single out scientists as facing a stumbling block, because hard evidence is needed to ascertain certainty - which seems impossible at this time in our cultural and technical evolution. In short, they're often stuck trying to prove what can not be proved, leastwise not in credible scientific methods/standards. This is why I posted it on a philosophy thread.

There is also a lack of technology needed to prove such claims - which is why I do NOT claim my "Eternal-Particles" theory a fact. I'm an artist and writer and it would be silly for me or anyone else to make that kind of claim without evidence. --And I certainly don't have the credentials to do so. However, I am entitled to my observations and theories, even if they don't mean squat to credible scientists. Yet I still think that the scientific community might benefit, even from people like me, who point out certain "ideas" that may have gone unnoticed.

Slightly related, there are many theories by some of my favorite physicists that claim there are other dimensions, though not as facts, but "possible" reality - or should I say "Realities." LOL.

Originally posted by darkriddle
All theories in of themselves are composed mainly of hypothesis, and not hard facts.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have no idea what you're talking about.

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/
Noun:

1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".



With all due respect, you have no understanding of it. It's just an idea. ...Please don't start "trolling" here.

"Theory" is used wildly different in scientific circles than it is in colloquial lay-language. In common language it's used much more closely to the word "guess." Whereas in scientific terms it's used much more closely to the term "fact." The theory of evolution is no more a "theory" in the sense you're using it than, say, the idea that the earth is round.

Trolling is very much the wrong accusation here. He's taking issue with something he disagrees with.

in essence, theories are an idea that binds together a series of empirical observations. Often these observations will be the outcome of an experiment or study that is designed to test specific hypotheses.

further, as a prerequisite, a theory must be able to predict the outcome of future experiments, thus, it is what generates hypotheses.

so, yes, theories and hypotheses are very closely related and do rely on eachother, a theory is comprised of observations, or "facts".

Originally posted by Mindship

I disagree. I prefer the holistic-transcendent model of reality, which sees physical existence (and its constituents) as an illusion (our greatest) created by the Something That Always Was (outside of which exists Nothing).



Good point. --I like that line of thinking and hadn't really thought about that before.

It kind of reminds me of some of the "Simulation" talks that some physicists are throwing around. Kind of like The Matrix theme.

Originally posted by Digi
"Theory" is used wildly different in scientific circles than it is in colloquial lay-language. In common language it's used much more closely to the word "guess." Whereas in scientific terms it's used much more closely to the term "fact." The theory of evolution is no more a "theory" in the sense you're using it than, say, the idea that the earth is round. this.

that's why hypothesizing is a more favorable method