Should we know the same thing as one, namely how this reality stage as physics works?

Who here is trying to make that possible?

Is not physics blessed though with proofs rife with uncertainties? What if a theory can explain reality in accepting future's uncertainties, in time? A nice stepping-stone?

Dear Stephen,

I am basically a measurement technician and can only speak from 70 years of mainly experimental polymathic experience. The academic method proves nothing more than that a practitioner follows the rules/laws that apply to his own discipline. On the other hand, long-term experience through personal “intuition” builds up feelings which guide the serious scientist (non-philosopher) in favorable way and which tacitly direct him in his activities. In 1965 I experienced – not by revelation but through hard work - that theoretical and practical simulation led me past the weaknesses and inaccuracies of physics, mathematics and most other disciplines. However, it requires that you learn to program computers – and do it an advanced way to capture this idea. Since these days, I've done probably far more than 10,000 simulations - and mankind probably many billions. The simulation methodology has never failed me or my students - to the extent that if the results turned out to be wrong, we could always - albeit with difficulty - derive the errors to ourselves and easily correct them. Many of the problems we have solved has been of such complexity that all other methods have been completely excluded.

The main problem usually lies in the fact that the processes we are trying to control or simulate are poorly explored – and so even today because of the loss of practice in the academies. Even the cherished DNA method is largely misunderstood - even though it solves many dating problems. On your question about “innuendo” or "pointers", I can only refer to Arthur Eddington which was an early physicist and philosopher to launch the “analogical pointer method” - which was later “digitalized” in the computer sciences by Harold "Bud" Lawson in the 1970s.

In my opinion, “physics” or physiology is a mistranslation of psychology - and for this reason physics is confused and cannot be considered complete. Any theoretical domain is a “dream domain” that allows a thinker to play with all possibilities – and then realize the outcome of his ideas/thin/kin/gs in the form of a real product - which he must then subject to experimental tests to meet the requirements for usability. To me relativity is a question about how people and their thin/kin/gs relate to each other in any discourse – type Einstein’s relation to his God and Niels Bohr’s to Nature.

We can't keep on just talking, since you cannot prove anything by talking – no matter if you write I down – because the fault lies in the way we think. Accordingly, we must develop a general method and reasonably safe method to communicate results and experiences that pertain to all “scientific” disciplines - including the social sciences before we have destroyed the living conditions on the planet Gaia. Publishers, philosophers and mass media with their exclusive copyright – as well the inventers and industry's opportunity to earmark “news” by "patents" have ended in disaster. I noticed last year that EU issued a patent on the simulation process – a process that is as old as life! Copyrights make us to “copy-cats” and from copies no new thin/kin/g emerges. And new ideas emerge when time is ripe – as “a bolt from the blue” – and thus belongs to Nature and all living beings as such.

The very day we learn to open up start willing to cooperate we will leave the reptilian hole we once was stuck in – when homo sapiens in his envy like Icaros fell down in his attempt to fly - free like a bird - completely unable to understand that the eagle, condor and all other living creatures have their limitations to consider and be responsible for.

To me “0 – 1” is a time interval that so applied creates “From Here to Eternity” - a winner-take-all roulette business in a stochastic world - stoa-caustic if you prefer. “0 – 1” also means that we neglect the past (hi)story, the legend, the myth, a mankind’s collected experience when doing judgments. As John von Neumann did when he defined 0 as a number. In the absence of history (memories), you cannot make effective predictions ... you are simply forced to guess. Certainly our history is recorded - but violently falsified - something that archaeologists today painstakingly dig up tangible evidence of. This falsified story is beyond useless - it makes completely crazy predictions - which you don't need to be a scientist to discover. The animals flee in wild terror from such behavior guided by their effective intuition - but that doesn't help against target-seeking bullets with explosive effects.

Simulation was discovered by massmedia, when the Club of Rome launched "The Limits of Growth" but they were politicians and influencers – and not scientists who understood the useful simulation methodology. Above all, they had no ability at all to account for faulty in-data, confused models and the rampant development.

To be - or not to be creates a static world – to be and become a dynamic one ... where also the common man can behave evil – especially if he/she is scarred from early childhood. I guess this is what Hannah Arendt claimed and was very evident from the Nuremberg trials ... as well as the Stanford experiment ... and the Dunedin study. Today so sadly forgotten? Or maybe the deed of Ockham’s hidden razor.

There is no need of painful animal experiments or political world wars because simulation covers both the theoretical and practical aspects of making all forms of inclusions skillful - we must learn to interpret the word "facia" correctly and then we have come a little way towards making science something other than "science fiction". A valid science requires an unambiguous tool that also I well understood by all users! The spoken languages ​​are for family conversations and mingling parties - that was the message Norbert Wiener was about to deliver when he was stressed to death and died of a heart attack on the stairs to KTH in Stockholm.