Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Past time travel
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="samzeman" data-source="post: 181326" data-attributes="member: 11182"><p>Some theories can't be tested easily until we make a discovery of a new phenomenon. For example, theoretically in our current widely accepted model of particle stuff, a monopolar magnetic particle is possible, but we haven't found one or a way to make one yet. That doesn't mean scientists discount that theory, it just means they are waiting on proof or disproof, and as with many theories, they'll take it as a given that nothing is 100% proved for now, in some areas at least.</p><p></p><p>The metaphysics behind a model is important because it can be used to predict how things will interact; if the prediction is right, that means the model is more likely to be correct, and so more conclusions can be drawn about what might be hypothetically possible. For example, gravitational waves were supported by the theory / model of relativity (and originally hypothesised in 1905 even) before the invention of lasers in 1960. Einstein didn't discount the gravitational waves just because there was no way to test for them at the time, nor because he couldn't even imagine how to test for them. He just tested all the parts of the model he could, and predicted what other interactions were untestable. Since then, we've found that it holds up elsewhere too, with gravitational waves specifically, using technology Einstein didn't know would exist.</p><p></p><p>The effects around perception and the collapse of a waveform are due to one of a few possible situations, with the many-worlds theory being the one most people like, for obvious reasons, but with the other ones being listed on this page: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse" target="_blank">Wave function collapse - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p>It's equally likely that there are multiple splitting worlds at each point in which a decision is made, as any other of the quantum theories, at the moment as far as science in general can see. We are just waiting on someone to devise an experiment which can prove or disprove any of the theories. The claims are falsifiable, almost all claims are, but we just don't have the method yet, just as Einstein didn't have ways to falsify his predictions of gravitational waves, nor could he have ever predicted what form that experiment would take. And yet, it was still science. </p><p></p><p>The many-worlds theories did come from an experiment. They can, eventually, probably be falsified or verified. It's a theory, and if we /could/ falsify or prove it entirely, it would be a knowable fact. A theory is an educated guess. The degree to which the guess is educated differs. It's okay to have a theory that you think you might be able to falsify or verify eventually, but you can't yet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="samzeman, post: 181326, member: 11182"] Some theories can't be tested easily until we make a discovery of a new phenomenon. For example, theoretically in our current widely accepted model of particle stuff, a monopolar magnetic particle is possible, but we haven't found one or a way to make one yet. That doesn't mean scientists discount that theory, it just means they are waiting on proof or disproof, and as with many theories, they'll take it as a given that nothing is 100% proved for now, in some areas at least. The metaphysics behind a model is important because it can be used to predict how things will interact; if the prediction is right, that means the model is more likely to be correct, and so more conclusions can be drawn about what might be hypothetically possible. For example, gravitational waves were supported by the theory / model of relativity (and originally hypothesised in 1905 even) before the invention of lasers in 1960. Einstein didn't discount the gravitational waves just because there was no way to test for them at the time, nor because he couldn't even imagine how to test for them. He just tested all the parts of the model he could, and predicted what other interactions were untestable. Since then, we've found that it holds up elsewhere too, with gravitational waves specifically, using technology Einstein didn't know would exist. The effects around perception and the collapse of a waveform are due to one of a few possible situations, with the many-worlds theory being the one most people like, for obvious reasons, but with the other ones being listed on this page: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse"]Wave function collapse - Wikipedia[/URL] It's equally likely that there are multiple splitting worlds at each point in which a decision is made, as any other of the quantum theories, at the moment as far as science in general can see. We are just waiting on someone to devise an experiment which can prove or disprove any of the theories. The claims are falsifiable, almost all claims are, but we just don't have the method yet, just as Einstein didn't have ways to falsify his predictions of gravitational waves, nor could he have ever predicted what form that experiment would take. And yet, it was still science. The many-worlds theories did come from an experiment. They can, eventually, probably be falsified or verified. It's a theory, and if we /could/ falsify or prove it entirely, it would be a knowable fact. A theory is an educated guess. The degree to which the guess is educated differs. It's okay to have a theory that you think you might be able to falsify or verify eventually, but you can't yet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Past time travel
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top