81
New Theories / Do we know how important science is?
« on: 01/02/2018 12:49:53 »
We hear a lot about fake news, and so on. They do their best to be as accurate as possible, the media. Heck, they depend on technology, and thus science to give more pixelation, more life-like appeal.
The question is, "if we haven't got science completely right yet, can we expect perfect technology, let alone perfect people to stand on that imperfect platform?"
Don't worry, I'm not trying to suggest that a perfect science can improve us, but.....can science help make us more accurate socially, has it?
The theory here, the idea, is that in the event of us reaching the ability to understand how space-time operates, is this question, "is everything going to be clearer, and if so how?"
In that event, I propose everything is going to be very "how do I conform to this ultimate science" sort of thing. I'm not proposing science has that answer, yet I am proposing that is how people will react.
I think this is more science than philosophy, because it uses the theory of science to anticipate a proposed effect. There's no evidence to suggest this is a philosophy, or is there? Perhaps anciently, yet today?
If that could sound too much for science, and if so, what faculty then would be more capable to handle that debate?
I think the logical choice is for science in reaching a complete theory needs to consider the implications on who we are why we are where we are. If we're just going for a pure number formula we're missing the point. And so in considering such, science should include more than numbers and mathematical symbols of function, derivatives nonetheless of fundamentals for time and space.
The point here is, "this should form a basis for a complete theory of time and space"......"a realistic practical aim".....but, no matter how inclusive a science can be, the problem is being impartial. It's almost impossible to consider the variety that exists even amongst us, hence the aim for the most simplistic of functions for time and space. Still, broadly, a great theory of time and space needs to explain issues relevant to a conscious reference.
That, with the issue of "quantum entanglement" defying "c" almost borders on hope.
So why do we do it? That's the topic, "do we know how important science is". The proposed theory is that we can do it by considering a lot of factors, and if we can't, it's a thing we're struggling ourselves with.
That's the most practical theory I can offer today. There are algorithms, solutions, we've all tried them, but ultimately a good theory needs to consider the bigger picture. Here, a complete theory should at least warn of the dangers that exist with any new associated technological developments, otherwise seem like a trap, as surely as any new theory promotes its range of knowledge there can only be limits to what is possible. This last point is the most difficult one, because a full theory of the atom and cosmos as one is more than likely to lay waste a substantial portion of current theories of what is considered "possible", not a challenge of accurately observed observations, but how those observations are strung together as a complete theory.
The question is, "if we haven't got science completely right yet, can we expect perfect technology, let alone perfect people to stand on that imperfect platform?"
Don't worry, I'm not trying to suggest that a perfect science can improve us, but.....can science help make us more accurate socially, has it?
The theory here, the idea, is that in the event of us reaching the ability to understand how space-time operates, is this question, "is everything going to be clearer, and if so how?"
In that event, I propose everything is going to be very "how do I conform to this ultimate science" sort of thing. I'm not proposing science has that answer, yet I am proposing that is how people will react.
I think this is more science than philosophy, because it uses the theory of science to anticipate a proposed effect. There's no evidence to suggest this is a philosophy, or is there? Perhaps anciently, yet today?
If that could sound too much for science, and if so, what faculty then would be more capable to handle that debate?
I think the logical choice is for science in reaching a complete theory needs to consider the implications on who we are why we are where we are. If we're just going for a pure number formula we're missing the point. And so in considering such, science should include more than numbers and mathematical symbols of function, derivatives nonetheless of fundamentals for time and space.
The point here is, "this should form a basis for a complete theory of time and space"......"a realistic practical aim".....but, no matter how inclusive a science can be, the problem is being impartial. It's almost impossible to consider the variety that exists even amongst us, hence the aim for the most simplistic of functions for time and space. Still, broadly, a great theory of time and space needs to explain issues relevant to a conscious reference.
That, with the issue of "quantum entanglement" defying "c" almost borders on hope.
So why do we do it? That's the topic, "do we know how important science is". The proposed theory is that we can do it by considering a lot of factors, and if we can't, it's a thing we're struggling ourselves with.
That's the most practical theory I can offer today. There are algorithms, solutions, we've all tried them, but ultimately a good theory needs to consider the bigger picture. Here, a complete theory should at least warn of the dangers that exist with any new associated technological developments, otherwise seem like a trap, as surely as any new theory promotes its range of knowledge there can only be limits to what is possible. This last point is the most difficult one, because a full theory of the atom and cosmos as one is more than likely to lay waste a substantial portion of current theories of what is considered "possible", not a challenge of accurately observed observations, but how those observations are strung together as a complete theory.