How do you keep different versions of reality separate?
This is also especially important if you want to ask questions about this world, and form hypothesis that might answer those questions.
It seems like a simple question: How do you keep different versions (or ideas) of reality separate?
Often we are faced with this question every day, and yes sometimes our minds do get it confused—we confuse an idea about our world, or have an incorrect memory of the past, and make it a true reality (often tied to emotions when memory is involved). False images, and thoughts are just a part of our reality, but we can work to keep them separate.
Recognize that emotions blur our reality, when tied to memory.
We need to realize that our established theories and ideas, or our own hypotheses don’t take precedence over how our world actually works, and easy mistake to make.
It is also helpful to clearly label your hypotheses, to help your mind to differentiate established theories, and ideas vs your own hypotheses.
- Make Observation
- Think of Interesting Questions
- Formulate Hypotheses
- Develop Testable Predictions
- Test Hypotheses and Gather Data, test prove hypotheses wrong (go to step 6), or prove hypotheses right (go to step 7)
- Refine, Alter, Expand or Reject Hypotheses; got to step 4
- Develop General Theories
- End, for the moment… till proven wrong, or more Theories are added to yours.
“Opinions are very dangerous because they aren’t based on scientific studies. When you ask a scientist whether he has some information along a certain area, he usually refers to some physical referent. The average person, who is not involved in the scientific method, usually does not.
– Jacque Fresco” ~Source accessed 2017: https://www.thevenusproject.com/multimedia/the-scientific-method/
A hypotheses is something you can work on in time, to test it out. Established theories, and ideas go though a peer review, and acceptance process, that is not mentioned in the above diagram.
If you can’t do experiments, you can still search the internet on what other people that are doing experiments are saying in relation to your hypotheses, to gauge if your hypotheses might wrong, or on the right track.
Handling Different Versions of Complex Theories
This article is based on ⭐️ Do photons (light) have mass? if so, then what is the speed of light? [article]: http://wp.me/p10Tww-2w0
The speed of light is theoretical, but if all the sources for the theory is based on observations of a photon, then the true speed of a photon matters, otherwise it does not.
If we do a thought exercise (hypotheses, that has the possibility of becoming theory, or and idea that is accepted by mainstream scientific community) we are faced with a personal problem: how do we make sure that our thoughts are clear on what our thought exercise is, and what the accepted theories of photons, and the speed of light is?
Light and photons evoke particle physics, the theory of relativity, and often complex maths. Most of us will not be experts in all those fields, and will depend on existing documents to guide us at first, and searching for references when our ideas stray outside the information we have available to us.
Since ⭐️ Do photons (light) have mass? if so, then what is the speed of light? [article]: http://wp.me/p10Tww-2w0 goes into the topic of photons, and the speed of light, and any related subjects in detail, we are not going to cover that here.
It should be okay for us to ask questions, especially about complex things, but then creating what we think are answers (hypotheses) we face a difficult personal problem of keeping our two realities separate: a) what we think light does, and b) what mainstream accepted theory says light does.
Here it’s nice to use IMNH (☆ IMNH (I’m a New Hypothesis) or ImaH the abbreviation: http://bit.ly/b7EHAu) to keep the division between accepted theories, and ideas; and your own hypotheses clear. However that alone is not enough…
To keep the ideas separate (and yes theories are just ideas of what we think reality is, but usually accurate ones), we could also learn about the branches of science, and the different types of theories. Some theories or ideas about economics depend on priori and Using the Field of Scholarly Method to develop trust, and often the rich, and powerful, strongly influence what that science is, producing trust issues since economies are aimed at profits, and power, rather then for the common good of the planet and everyone on it—and that results in the question of will economics be capable of solving the problems we face today?
Fortunately light is situated in the science of physics which is under the branch of Natural Science, and often such theories are very robust and hard to disprove. So it should be easy to find information that strongly disproves or supports the hypothesis that light has mass.
A little more about theories, and the branches of science can be found here ☆ Branches of Science [article]: http://wp.me/p10Tww-4ee
Keeping Everything Separate
We could talk about the idea of light having mass, but that might not be the easiest example for most of us, as we probably have enough difficulty in figuring out how a solar sail can propel a spacecraft using light.
What we might need is a concept that we can all understand.
Imagine a clockwork-world where the weather is exactly what the weather department predicts.
We often say in our real world that it should have rained today, the weather department said it would. But their models are not totally accurate.
So we seem to overlay a clockwork-world on our real world and say it’s the world that has misbehaved, not the clock-work model of our world.
We see a prediction of the future (the clockwork-world) as real, and sometimes it is not. If it is that easy to confuse reality with a thought about the future, it is also easy to confuse a hypotheses you are working on with actual theories, or existing ideas.
Theories in physics are quite robust, so testing the idea of light having mass, gives you a chance to do more then just read about a theory, but to actually find out the reasons, and ideas/hypotheses that were successful at forming the theory in the first place.
While you might clearly label your idea with tags like ☆ IMNH or ☆ ImaH, but you must also be on doubly alert about the clockwork-world concept of your theory predicting what the world does, or what the established theory should do; on the other hand assuming that established theory (another sort of clockwork-world) is a perfect predictor of the world, and thus your hypotheses might also be a wrong assumption.
The testing of your hypotheses, or established ideas or theories is something that is continuous until such a time you feel your hypotheses is true or false (and you can always alter your hypotheses if you wish to try a new idea, or variation of your old idea), and if your hypotheses is true, will it alter your understanding of the established theory or even alter the established theory itself.
You can think of established theories, as being the most accurate models of what the real world is like right now, but we all know the weather department has clear limits of how well it’s clockwork-world matches the real world, and yet it is also part of the natural sciences branch.
Yet we can send rockets to Pluto, so some theories, and ideas seem very accurate to us, or that some clockwork-worlds seems to be very closely able to predict how real things in our world will act.
We may think that theories and ideas might always predict the future, but that is not always true, they can also deal with future possibilities such the weather department actually says 35% chance of rain, and thus taking in the possibility that it will not rain. If you design a rocket, you might design the rocket to handle several possible future events.
With the idea that light has a very, very small mass, the question is if we can’t tell the difference between the clockwork-world we create using our hypotheses, or existing theories and ideas clockwork-world, then perhaps the absolute statement that light has no mass is not totally true; there is no way we can tell what the true is right now… possibly.
So it may be possible that your hypotheses is close to be correct, and that means you can’t tell if your hypotheses is correct or incorrect within the scope of your tests at present.
Like a collection of marbles:
- You need to refrain from saying the world failed to work the way that the clockwork-world predicted, as this is just as wrong as saying it was suppose to rain today because the weather department said it would.
- You may also need to label your hypotheses in some way, here ☆ IMNH or ☆ ImaH works well.
- You may need to know how hard it is to disprove a theory, and theories from the Natural Sciences are often accurate, and extremely hard to disprove. On the other hand you may feel entitled to have a degree of mistrust about economic theories.
With these three methods you and the readers of your article should have a good chance of not confusing your hypotheses with established theories and ideas.
- False memory accessssed 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
- “A false memory is the psychological phenomenon wherein a person recalls something that did not occur.”
- What Is A Priori Science, and Why Does Economics Qualify As One? https://mises.org/library/what-priori-science-and-why-does-economics-qualify-one
- “Economics is not unique in requiring the adoption of certain assumptions as a pre-condition [Priori] for using the mode of understanding it offers.”
Last edited in April 2017
Gharr is currently in hiatus: “I miss writing all those articles, and sharing all those great things, and ideas on the internet.” Sept 2016
Shortened link to article: ✒ Alternative Ideas, Thoughts, Versions [article]: http://wp.me/p10Tww-4c3
—End of Article—
The Material below this point may, or may not be supported by the article, author, or any of those people or organizations that may be mentioned in the above article.
Any material below this point could be: adverts; endorsements; paid to click sites (some may try to trick you into clicking on them by using misleading graphics and/or words); misleading material; material that is for, or against the above article; or other types of material that is not part of the above article.
In single article view: this article does have an associated “Leave a Reply” and “Enter your comment here…” comment box below this point. You should get used to where this comment box is located before you try to leave a comment for this article.
Thank you for taking an interest in this WordPress page.