Yes, the minimum energy state of space is often referred to as the 'vacuum state'.So the same applies for 'a vacuum', too.
Yes, but I think it's useful to map colloquial talk of 'physical reality' onto the epistemology that it derives from.Of interest here also, is the conspicuous absence of any need to use the even more nebulous term 'physical reality', (which never forms the basis of objective inferences in mainstream, reputable, (formal) scientific discourse).
I found the semantics interesting, so it kept me entertained for a whileIndirect clue to a technicality? I guess so, though it would
have taken me a while to put it that way.
0f course it's a meaningless technicality for daily life
purposes.
I'm regretting that I mentioned it.
The problem here seems to be the idea that not being a particle (i.e. not being matter) means not being physical. This is not the case. 'Physical' encompasses particles, fields, forces - basically anything that has energy; that is, in principle, measurable, observable, i.e. that interacts with other particles, fields, forces.And permeated fields if you can call it that are not particles but potential particles. So at the very bottom is nothing physical.
What isn't clear about it?Then there's the whole issue of what creates or collapses particles from fields which isn't clear. So certainly the line between what is classed as particle matter and what is not is very blurry.
Define 'direct observation' - is seeing light reflected from something a 'direct observation'? what about using thermal goggles? what about using other measuring instruments? We can tell that something is blocking the sun's light if it casts a shadow - do we need to 'directly observe' what casts the shadow?I am speaking as far as what empirical science regards as verifiable. Its done through observation, experimentation. That usually involves direct observation with phenomena. We can make inferences as to what something is but its not until its directly observed and confirmed that its regarded as objective.
Define 'direct observation'. How do you know some phenomenon has occurred unless you can observe it in some way?But if there is some phenomena that cannot be directly observed then how can it be regarded as verified scientifically. Does that make it irrelevant as far as what reality is. I know that the science method will infer a particular cause (physical/material) as opposed to any other cause. But that only shows that the method is biased towards a particular metaphysical view.
Except when its a philosophy of science which is consistent with science, and demonstrably so by using the scientific method.
If you want to be "consistent with science", you'll have to be ready to change your mindset after the next discovery.Hm. What utility is there in it being consistent with science?
You might need to change your approach and not get into verbals with them.what should I say to them?
I wouldn't go down this road.Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?
If you give the person love and kindness and attribute it (quite rightly) to coming from God, then when the person starts searching for God, they might start going through these loving experiences you've given them, and find God in there.I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.
So where does that prediction come from then?
So something is not suspected, yet its still a prediction? When last I looked, a prediction isn't too far removed from something suspected(?)
But then predicted entirely new stuff that was truly bizarre and never imagined and weird, and even might seem so impossible that some would think the theory false even before trying to observe that prediction.Ok so; Einstein's thought experiments (for eg) were conceived by him as a way of convincing others to conceive already known problems in a different way:
Science changes as new information is found and discoveries are made.If you want to be "consistent with science", you'll have to be ready to change your mindset after the next discovery.
And remember, Scientific American and Popular Science come out every month with something new.
So you'll have to keep up with the fad.
Sure beats being wrong for hundreds ofScience changes as new information is found and discoveries are made.
It’s not a fad.
Should we get rid of germ theory and go back to humors?
Should we get rid of devices that are based on science like cars, planes, and the computer you’re using?
Should we get rid of the Ten Commandments from public places? prayer? the Bible?Should we get rid of germ theory and go back to humors?
Should we get rid of devices that are based on science like cars, planes, and the computer you’re using?
Speaking of which, one scientist stunted the growth of science for 2000 years.Sure beats being wrong for hundreds of years and being afraid to face facts.
It may be a paradigm that suits certain factions in controlling narratives that bolster the "strong delusion" as referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2.Sure beats being wrong for hundreds of
years and being afraid to face facts.
Which is therefore justifiably, still, merely your belief which demonstrably, has no bearing whatsoever on what the scientific method produces.Halbhh said:Instead, to my delight and wonder, I've found out we are gradually discovering pieces of the real genuine external reality (!) -- the real physics, the actual and real structure of Nature -- the absolute thing that has a definite final form, and so we have some pieces of the actual structural design we now have pinned down, pieces that won't be modified, being perfect (!), but instead can only be incorporated into the more full picture, if we manage to find more of that real picture -- we are finding the real thing out there, slowly, in pieces, often with only partial bits that are incomplete.
Not so.Philosophy is terrif for endless argument about nothing.
That may not be practical?
More like there's an inadequacy in the models of electrons/protons .. (one well worthy of further investigation).Take the existence and or location of single electrons/photons in the classic two slit experiments prior to detection.
And what happens if you try to observe them?
That is an experiment about something, that proves the “ somethings“ in the model defy explanation in an existential sense.
Don't you just mean science must confine what it can confine?Mountainmike said:Science must confine to what it can test.
One can test the notion's predictions in theory, where the theory has already been tested extensively, and then draw conclusions about the predictions using that theory as it basis.Mountainmike said:Since in that case the only test that can be performed is to introduce mass into the space
.. as is your introduced 'mass'. (Ie: mass is also a concept).Mountainmike said:the only test that can be performed is to introduce mass into the space .. (which like the field is only a concept ),
You're trying to use logic and the scientific method to conclude a justifiable meaning (within the scientific context) for whatever your preconceived meaning of 'physical' is there. (Truthseeking .. yet again).Mountainmike said:the only logical answer can be is that a field is a hypothetical entity conditional only on mass entering the space, therefore the field is not physical in empty space without the matter that realises it.
Your 'underlying reality' there, has since been long exposed by science as being a belief, as there is no objective evidence that the 'actual thing' ever gets tested 'directly' .. (ie: all of science's models are already operationally defined .. not believed-in).Mountainmike said:The conformance of the Model with reality is blurring the fact it is only a model, not the underlying reality. The modelwill be superseded in time.
It may be a paradigm that suits certain factions in controlling narratives that bolster the "strong delusion" as referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Science has a proven history of being wrong. God doesn't.
Keep them.Science changes as new information is found and discoveries are made.
It’s not a fad.
Should we get rid of germ theory and go back to humors?
Should we get rid of devices that are based on science like cars, planes, and the computer you’re using?
God doesn't have a history at all.Science has a proven history of being wrong. God doesn't.