Pages

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Something, we may not know about the world?

See: Music of the Quantum You combine theoretical positions with concrete ideas?

If one has never encountered an anomaly in nature and thought okay this happened but with no scientific qualification what so ever then indeed it is not a measurable quality about dealing with reality. So only you know it happened. Of course, then, you ask yourself, what weight do you apply to that unless you can reproduce it, or, have the witnesses to back it up? Many years have gone by now.

So it spurs one to investigate some things about nature that as yet you know it happened are only thoughts which may belong to an area that is highly theoretical. A way to make sense of it or grasp the significance of what is not normal. Defines laws of?

So, I am trying to say what may be possible and at the same time ask why nature did not take that course, or, why we are not aware of the anomaly as being "a possible" now?

I know at some point I will have to say that because this is not a measurable process I have to ignore it until I can explain it or reproduce it? Just go on with my life as an unexplainable event. But in the mean time, one can learn many the things because of it?

Is this what you mean? This response, was only possible by you asking the right question?

*** 
 
Edward Witten Edward Witten's Homepage

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

Now I write this link and quote above because it set my own mind in motion, from that point. I began looking at the experiments and trying to derive something that was consistent in that process that would lead into that same logical conclusion that we are "seeing" and "not seeing" what happens.

What I have learn by association is that sometimes the spring board to move forward can be raised by others who question and point out things about nature.  How in being a scientist how one might look at things. How to be responsible about dealing with the world of observable things as well as interject about how theoretical explanations may provide for some foundation of how to explain "the possibilities" in nature? But without phenomenology this is really only an abstract thing. Some would just call it "a math" without  a reality foundation.So would you say then they are lost in  an abstract world?

Even here as a layman I am assuming that concepts them self are really covers for abstract things. One assumes there is math at it's basis and that all life without this approach is the foundation toward the phenomenological approach? You look for signs of the anomaly in nature and experiment.

No comments: