Humans are ingenious; we make use of every physical phenomenon that we discover. Most discoveries are accidental, then scientists figure out how they can use whatever phenomenon they have discovered. It is inherent in our nature to recognize usefulness and exploit every utility of its potential. We learn about the usefulness of things by trial and error.
Electricity was discovered when humanity noticed lightening from the sky hitting the ground, or a static shock from stroking animal hair. Since that time, millions of humans have wondered about and experimented with electricity in every way they could imagine. In the last 300 years, experimenters discovered and utilized many interesting effects such as, static charge, electromagnetic induction, electric current, magnetism, motors, and electrons stimulating atoms to generate photons, etc... They did not know what electricity was made of, or why it did what it did; they only knew what it did, and made use of that. Trial and error was their only guide. From trial and error, we achieved radios, TVs, and computers.
These amazing things give us the impression that science has a firm understanding of the fundamental elements of nature. However, they are misleading; these things are superficial impressions of technological knowledge. Science has no idea what electrons/photons are made of, or why they do what they do. Scientific knowledge is limited to describing and measuring what things do; and building devices through trial and error that utilize their specific behavior.
Humanities accomplishments in these areas are not because we understand what is actually going on, but because we are very ingenious. Humanity exploits what things do, it is not necessary to know why something works to make use of it. Most people cannot tell you how a computer actually works, but they can tell you what computers do, how to use them, and produce incredible, illustrations, animations, and data processing, etc... without knowing how they work. We learn about the usefulness of things by trial and error. Wheels under loads, water-turning wheels, wheels turning other wheels; we integrate multiple useful things to potentially create and exploit even more constructive effects. It is inherent in our nature to recognize usefulness and exploit it in every way we can imagine.
In chemistry, scientists experiment by putting atoms and molecules together to see what they do; when something interesting happens, science exploit's every possible utility of its characteristics. The world believes that chemists intentionally engineer new compounds, but the truth is that most new and old compounds are accidental discoveries that are expounded upon. Plastics, nylon, synthetics of all types, were accidental discoveries that occurred when two or more chemicals were mixed together.
Chemistry is trial and error, looking for useful reactions, then mapping and cataloging, "what does what." Pharmaceutical chemistry is a prime example of trial and error looking for drugs that have a useful biological effect. Scientists search the world looking for new exotic chemicals/compounds in animals and plants, to test and see what they do in our biology responses. Chemistry has become an invaluable productive science, but fundamentally, its achievements are based solely on trial and error.
Biology is another science where trial and error was built upon until we were able to replace, hearts, kidneys, and pharmaceutically control some biological processes. However, biologists cannot tell you what initiates biological functions. They can tell you what cells and organs do, and some things about metabolic chemistry, but they cannot tell you how DNA self-replicates or directs atoms and molecules into the formations that compose life. Most medical techniques, drugs, and prosthetics, came directly from experiments conducted on deceased and live animals and people.
With all the technology that exists around us, it seems impossible that modern science could be built upon trial and error. We take for granted that science has a more profound understanding of the elemental constructs underlying our technology than it actually does. Our technology is based on, heat, electrons, chemistry, electromagnetic energy, and mechanical devices, which does not require an underlying understanding of what something is (its causation,) only what it does, and making use of its utilities. Like a caveman using fire, but, not knowing what fire is, or how and why it does what it does. They only knew that fire cooked their meat, warmed their caves, lighted the night, and kept animals at a distance. Our TVs and computers are a modern version of the fire. We use what we see, but we do not know what the matter/energy composing them is ultimately made of, or why it is able to perform as it does. Trial and error is a protracted process of inadvertent discovery, often augmented or redirected by invested interests.
Mathematics is a good example of pretension. Scientists offer mathematical theorems as a simulation of facts to support elaborate theories of universal architecture. However, mathematics is only a symbolic representation of values in an event. Math is not a physical fact in-of-itself. Math can be applied to any concept whether they are real or not. When math is applied to physical measurements, it is an invaluable tool. When math is applied to simulated concepts, it becomes speculative theorizing, inherently superphysical. Anytime mathematics exceeds physical measurements, it morphs into superphysical equations of simulated facts. Alice-in-Wonderland equations do not make Alice real.
Mathematics can be just as subjective as words, for all the same reasons. The validity of mathematics is solely dependent on the structure of the equation (what components are included or omitted, and how they are intergraded or quantified,) and the integrity of the data; if any of these are wrong, the sum is also wrong. Mathematics used as physical measurements has infinite utility; mathematics used as simulated proof is deceptive across the board. Mathematics is an ingenious tool for measuring and quantifying multiple values, size, density, motion, force, and energy, but when math is used to speculate outside of physical measurements, it becomes superphysical mechanics. (Superphysical means a simulation of fact without factual data, based on suppositional criterion.)
In the fields of physics and cosmology, mathematics has severely misled scientists into conceptual constructs of superphysicalness. Ideas such as multiple/parallel/multi-dimensional universes/space, curved space-time, the big bang/inflation, strings (quantum filaments,) dark matter/energy, and wormholes/time travel; are solely constructed from superphysical equations. They have absolutely no foundational facts (i.e. no tangible substance that can be seen or measured,) just superphysical equations. This is an example of trial and error in the worst extreme. Mathematics used as facts has confounded physics and cosmology.
Below is a list of five specific issues that you can talk to scientists about; do not take this paper's word for it, ask direct questions on these issues; do research for yourself to understand the validity of the answers. What scientists will offer is suppositions of possibility as a simulation of facts, supported by fragments of theorems with superphysical constructs. Scrutinize and take apart scientific answers and you will find that they have no physical foundation, only superphysical suppositions.
*1 When you ask science; what electrons and photons are made of, ultimately, they will say energy. When you ask, what is energy made of, they can only answer with abstract suppositions such as; energy is temperature, heat, vibration, motion, or the ability to do work. These are not definitions of what electrons and photons are made of or why they do what they do; they are only measurements and definitions of what they do.
*2 When you ask science; what is matter made of, they will say atoms, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. When you ask what a proton is made of, they say quantum constituents (quarks.) When you ask what those quantum constituents are made of, ultimately, they say energy.
*3 When you ask science; what is gravity made of, or why gravity has the effects that it does; scientists say that matter curves space-time, and that curved space-time bends the trajectory of objects towards a mass, and that objects fall into curved space. However, curved space-time has no physical definition other than what it does. Newton called gravity 'an invisible force/action at a distance'; he quantified the effects of gravity, but not the physical nature (cause) of gravity. Ultimately, if you press scientists for a physical definition, they can only offer what gravity does as both cause and effect, but they cannot factually tell you what gravity is made of, or factually, why it does what it does.
*4 When you ask science; what is the volume of space made of, they postulate, that it is a curved space-time continuum (a void/vacuum of volume without physical definition); or hyperphysical (dark energy/matter;) or strings (vibrating filaments of quantum energy) that collapse into a three dimensional volume. Asking what the hypothetical big bang and subsequent expansion of matter is expanding out into, science states that the expanding universe is creating space as it pushes out. When insisting on a physical definition of, expanding or pushing out into what, scientists state that it is irrational to ask the question because it is not a part of the material universe. However, the question is not going away and science is beginning to deal with it; for the moment, in superphysical terms. It is the most important question in physics, because space/volume makes up the vast majority of the universe, and had to exist before matter or energy could exist within it.
*5 Finally, if you ask science; what is magnetism made of, what constitutes its force or polarities, or why it behaves the way that it does; they speculate that electric forces within atoms and molecules polarize into electric currents, causing an electrostatic field in and around magnetic materials. They answer the question with the question. To further exasperate them, ask, in a vacuum, where does the electric current produced by electromagnetic induction come from, i.e. a wire coil spinning in a magnetic field. Again, when pressed for physical answers, science explains what electromagnetic induction does, not why it does what it does. The simple truth is that science does not know what fundamentally composes magnetism, its polarities, magnetic field lines, the aligning of iron fillings in magnetic fields, or why magnetism does what it does. Most scientists admit they are at a total loss to explain magnetism.
It seems impossible that the underlying science of technology could be so unsubstantiated, but if you scrutinize scientists with specific elemental questions, such as, what is it made of, or why does it do what it does, they have no factual answers. When pressed, scientists ultimately break everything down to some form of energy; answering the question with the question.
Why is it important to state that science does not understand the elemental constructs of matter, energy, etc...? Because if we can generate all this technology without understanding the elemental physics underlying everything, imagine what we can do if we knew exactly what, matter, energy, etc, is made of, and why they do what they do. We have leaned to manipulate electrons and generate photons (creating things like radios and TVs,) but we have no idea why they do what they do, or what they are fundamentally composed of on any level.
The nature of technological discovery is ambiguous. The truth is that we are ingenious at, recognizing, measuring, and utilizing phenomenon, but very dysfunctional towards factually explaining it at its most fundamental level. How we think, and what we use as facts, are the blocks in which we build our bridge to the future. If those blocks are faulty, the bridge is also faulty and ultimately collapses. The mass of humanity is becoming critically dependent on science to supply our needs for energy and advance technology to support our weight, but our bridge is precariously built upon super-physical suppositions.
Today, scientists claim to understand the architectural mechanics and origin of the universe. They postulate multiple/parallel/multi-dimensional universes/space, curved space-time, the big bang/inflation, strings, dark matter/energy, and wormholes/time travel. Yet, things that we can actually hold in our hand, such as a bar magnet, we cannot mechanically explain what its magnetic field is composed of or how it works. We seem to know more about the beginning of the universe, the internal structure of stars and atoms, and the fate of the universe, than we do about the "hands on" access to things we can touch, such as magnetism. Scientists suggest that we are better at comprehending things that we cannot see or touch, than things we can. A perilous paradigm of ideas and concepts, generated by heavily invested institutional inbreeding. In spite of the modern wonders of technology, superphysical constructs are precarious, and serve "more" the invested interests of institutionalism, than sub-structural reality.
Technological discovery (science) in the past has always been 'hands on experience' in which to derive an application. In the last hundred years or so, since the introduction of Relativity, theoretical superphysical constructs and equations have replaced hands on experience with conceptualism. Conceptualism is a powerful tool in piecing together the mosaic of material and experimental data that scientists have accumulated. When used in materialist terms, such as developing products, we get Iphones, blackberries, and spacecraft landing on the moon, mars, and asteroids.
However, conceptualism has a severe downside; it readily morphs into superphysical mathematical conceptualizations, based solely on equations. We get fantastic ideas such as multidimensional/parallel universes (two or more spaces in one space,) and a host of other superphysical conceptualizations, all without physical or material foundation other than elusive equations. Imagination/conceptualization is not fact; what is missing in modern physics and cosmology are the elemental or foundational physical facts.
The entertainment industry, using "scientific advisers," has promoted time-travel as a real futuristic science. So strong is this induced compulsion that DARPA, NASA, DOD, and other governmental agencies, along with privet institutions, are investing vast resources - trying to explore and develop time-travel. Time is a conceptualism, it has no tangible construct to access or alter; it is a superphysical equation, a vector that has been morphed into an elusive physical construct. The new CERN accelerator is hoping to find a particle called the "Timeon," and if not a Timeon, then another spatial dimension called time. Scientists are expecting to find "physical time" one-way-or-another in the splashes of particle collisions; they will not accept any other answer. A particle path that has a .005 deviation, and then disappears or dissolves, will be interpreted as crossing into another dimension of time or space. Scientists are heavily invested into predictions becoming reality, or they have wasted a lot of time and money.
((All scientists are really going to discover in the CERN collisions is bigger splashes. No mini Big-bangs or black holes, no multi-dimensionalism or bubble universes, and no timeons, gravitons, or godons; just larger splashes of particle art. Scientists will claim to have made such discoveries, but it will be totally subjective, excluding any other explanations outside of their own expectations. Investment has the debt of obligation.))
In the end, technological discovery is a journey of accidental discovery, and making the most out of its utility as humanly possible. The reason accidental discovery drives invention, and thus the direction of innovation, is that we do not know enough about the actual nature of matter and energy to intentionally create new things. The scientific pendulum of rationality swings between factual data and conceptualism. Presently, physics and cosmology is lost in the abyss of mathematical imagination... ...somewhere along the way, theorists forgot about physical facts.
Religion is a vivid example of suppositional institutional propensity. There is no evidence on any level to support the notions of gods, yet vast institutionalism has been built upon such conceptualizations. Religion uses a simulation of facts, such as the Bible/Quran/Torah, Churches/Mosques/Synagogues, and mass-belief, as proclaimed proof in describing the elusive nature of their god/s. The institutions of physics and cosmology also have ambiguous simulated constructs supporting their beliefs, such as, the Big Bang, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Religion does not want you to question the presumptions of their belief anymore than theoretical physicists or cosmologists want you questioning their postulations. After all, both have massive investments based upon suppositional conceptualizations as a simulation of proof. They cannot afford having their conceptualizations questioned for fear of exposing their elusive suppositional foundation. Put in other words, they do not want their boat rocked... for fear of being knocked overboard. Science becomes institutionalism/religion when it uses suppositions as a simulation of facts.
We know when we have taken the wrong path in our journey... when we end up back where we started. Rationality is often subjective institutionalism. We learn what we know from institutionalism; if what institutionalism teaches is wrong, then what we know/believe is also wrong. We can circumvent suppositional institutional propensity by scrutinizing data and thinking for ourselves. An individual mind can sometimes see more clearly than the clutter of institutional minds; as Galileo experience.
In conclusion: Humanity is building a bridge to the future, what should the physics building that bridge be based upon, superphysical, or absolutely physical. Where do you want your children standing...?
Additional data on 'Technology' can be found in the topics, The nature of "Light and Colors," The nature of "Time," and The nature of "Human Behavior." As well, there is an enormous amount of data on the Internet with different perspectives. Research and learn how different technologies came about. All you have to lose is ignorance.
A question never asked is worth nothing,
An answer never given is worth even less...
What are your opinions, comments, or questions?
Home page | About the Author | Contact info | Posting instructions | Posting Board
The origin of the "Universe" | The nature of "Light and Colors" | The nature of "Time"
The nature of "Dreams" | The nature of "Technological Discovery" | The nature of "Human Behavior"
The nature of "Morals" | The nature of "Religion"