The essence of the scientific method is that it is based on being able to repeat results. If you get the same results every time you do the same operation, and when anyone else who repeats it get the same result, you can safely conclude that you have a scientific explanation. But quantum mechanics says no, you have to assume everything happens with a probability but not with a 100% certainty. It's always statistical only. The two views are not compatible. Now that gives us a problem, because QM breaks science. Yet physicists tell us that QM is real. Basically they are implying we cannot trust science anymore. I realized this tonight when I realized that quantum connectivity might mean that sympathetic magic might have a real basis, but would be very hard to prove as it would be probabilistic in operation. Holy smoke. Might we want to rethink parts of old-time magic after all? Something to ponder.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
a) SCIENCE (Latin scio; to know) + METHOD (Latin methodus; Gr. with, and way)...aka able to perceive (scio) while alive within (meta) way of being moved from inception towards death (hodos).
b) base of being able (reaction) implies enabling (action).
c) different repetitions (life) within same result (inception towards death).
d) the trick...using the scientific method to suggest what "is" tempts one (meta) to ignore what (hodos) "was" perceivable (scio) before any suggestion could be shaped.
a) difference (life) within sameness (inception towards death) can only grow comprehension of sameness; not actually perceive it aka while being alive; one cannot perceive ones inception or death.
b) others suggest sameness (equality) to tempt one to ignore or even attack differences (diversity)...hence being domesticated to behave "alike".
c) only within ongoing -TION (action) can one temporary OPERA (reactionary effort)...
d) consider the following contradiction: RESULT; verb - "to spring forward" + RESULT; noun - "to leap back... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=result
What's the difference between being the reacting "verb" choosing to spring forwards or choosing to consent to a suggested "noun", while leaping backwards? Can one discern that?
Being implies unfolding (temporary growth of life) within conclusion (ongoing loss through process of dying)...others suggest SAFE (free from danger) as the inversion of being free within danger aka free will of choice within the balance (momentum) of motion.
Being implies variable (choice) within static (balance) of motion.
a) trust represents ones consent to the suggestions by others...scientism (science); nihilism (can not) and pluralism (we).
b) science (scio; knowledge; perceivable) isn't trust based; one (singular) cannot be plural (we) and everything perceivable implies that one can perceive.
a) try responding (re) by thinking as partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)...instead of reasoning over the suggestions by others, like "old-time"
b) MAGIC (art of influencing) from root MAGH (to be able)...is one able to discern between artificial (suggested information) and natural (perceivable inspiration)...if so; then utilizing former to tempt others to ignore latter represents magic.
Sleight of hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLXZuh5O6Q ("the moment I gazed into your eyes...you made me believe in magic")