The context of this discourse is not new; it is a context that has been discussed in different forms in this blog, and this is especially when I am discussing the differences between physical science and metaphysical science.
So, the exposition of predictive science and explanative science is an exposition of physical science and metaphysical science respectively. But this discourse comes from an angle that is different and that can attract the attention of a physicist that is so biased and intolerant to the idea of metaphysical science.
I want to set my position for this article by informing you that physical science which man has practiced for the past 400 years is predictive science whereas metaphysical science which has just newly arrived into the world is explanative science.
It thus goes without saying that I intend to inform you that predictive science does not necessarily mean explanative science. Or in other words, the fact that we can predict natural phenomena with “profound accuracy” does not actually mean that we understand them.
This position may be what some physicists, especially those working on the foundation of physics, have realized. Thus, this discourse is all the more important because it is at the heart of the crisis in physics.
The crisis in physics, which best refers to the stalemate in our understanding of the unity of the universe, is an affront on predictive science which we have practiced so far. We now need a new kind of science, that is not exactly predictive, to get away from this stalemate. This new kind of science is explanative in nature.
The next big leap to understand the profound unity of the universe is not going to come without some upheavals in how we understand the universe, even the underlying philosophy of physics would have to be revisited.
A whole lot of change is bound to follow if we ever hope to escape the crisis in physics. And what exactly these changes are is what this blog brings to our understanding and to official science.
We are confronted with a lot of “mysterious phenomena” that we should by now know that they cannot be resolved not just by this our current scientific theories but also by the way we do science. The present mysteries of physics challenge official science and everything it holds sacred and it is not a surprise that this is so.
After 400 years of doing predictive science, we have now gotten to the threshold of truth, to the point in time when what is to be known is the truth about the universe and not any further conjecture or approximation. Now, we only have to know the exact laws in which the universe was designed.
This is an ambitious project, but it is where we are now in physics, and despite the skepticism, there are those like me who still believe that the true understanding of the universe is within our reach.
Now, we cannot achieve this with predictive science which we currently practice. It may be quite a surprise to you that I tag the science that we do as a kind of science whether it is physical science, relative science or predictive science as I now do in this article.
It is a surprise because after 400 years of predictive science, we have come to think of it as the only kind of science in the universe, and as in fact, the only actual nature of science. But the incontrovertible truth is that at the heart of reality is a different kind of science. This kind of science is explanative science and it is the actual science of reality and not predictive science which is the one we practice today.
And if this is the case, then it implies that official science has been out of harmony with the universe and her many processes. This implies that there is so much about the universe and certain absolutely fundamental truths that we are doomed to never know if we continue to follow predictive science as the case is.
To begin to bring your attention to why we require explanative science, we have to first of all look at the concept or observation of superluminal phenomenon. The proof abounds everywhere that there are some events in the universe that transcends the speed of light or the motion limit of light.
Quantum entanglement, gravitational interactions, galactic stability, etc. are among the things that prove the existence of superluminal phenomenon in the universe. But how can predictive science assist us in understanding superluminal phenomenon? None. There is no way this kind of science can, no possible way, and it is due to the inherent nature of predictive science.
Predictive science which currently organizes how we understand the universe cannot in any way bring us to the understanding of superluminal phenomenon which is the first step towards our understanding of the unity of the universe.
Our whole observations and scientific experimentations are based on our ability to interact with light. We cannot observe anything beyond the speed of light and yet we have to find a way around this in order to understand the universe. This need for how to transcend the speed of light is one of what brings us to explanative science.
First of all, we must understand that predictive science is our own creation which is based on the organization and behaviour of relative space and time, both of which are our creations also. But explanative science is the creation of the universe and it is based on the organization and behavior of absolute space and time.
We need absolute space and time in order to understand superluminal phenomenon. This becomes easily clear when one realizes how connected to light our relative space and time are, whereas we need a new kind of space and time that can be associated both with light and with that beyond.
What can we make of time beyond the speed of light? Nothing and this is only because we refer to relative time, that’s the problem. This is the real philosophical question: why does a superluminal phenomenon seem to make nothing of space and more especially of time? Or preferably, why does a superluminal phenomenon seem to deny causality?
When we observe quantum entanglement or the more easily observable speed of gravitational interaction, we see that they occur at no time at all despite the humongous space in-between! That superluminal phenomenon seems to undermine space and time is only because we are stuck with predictive science.
And I agree that we cannot accept any assessment or explanation of superluminal phenomenon that disregards or undermine space and time: for all phenomenon must occur within space and with time. This position is for an obvious reason that I will further discuss in the coming paragraphs.
Thus, in explanative science, we come to understand that superluminal phenomena are not phenomena that occur in no time, but that they actually take time, and that the time they take is not relative time but absolute time.
As a result, superluminal phenomenon is now understood within the framework of a causative science unlike it couldn’t be in predictive science. This is one of the greatest proofs of explanative science.
There is no way predictive science can explain superluminal phenomenon and still preserve causality but explanative science can and has done just that in the Great Treatise.
For centuries and since the beginning of the study of gravity, physicists have long suspected that gravitational interaction is superluminal, but the biggest challenge has been how to explain superluminal phenomenon and still preserve causality.
Even in special and general relativity, causality breaks once we go beyond the speed of light. This has been the problem and it is why the only resolution is the discovery of another space and time in the universe and base causality on them.
And fortunately, this is actually the case in the universe. The universe does not follow relative space and time that we are familiar with, but it follows absolute space and time, and under these entities, causality is preserved both for luminal and superluminal phenomena.
The crisis in physics was the call to explanative science and as the science makes its first appearance the crisis in physics is now over! This is definitely something to rejoice about! We are now behind the universe to understand causes and not just appearances or effects.
And due to our introduction to causative science, we shall begin to interact and to harness the universe in a more profound way than we do today. We will be able to produce events and changes in a more natural way than we do today, and as we move into the future, we will even understand and harness the Mind.
So much of what we didn’t understand about the universe and which became reduced as fallacies or mere speculations are because we did not have the right kind of science to approach our study of the universe with. But now we do and there are bound to be changes.
We now understand the objects of scientific investigation such as light, gravity, energy, force, etc. from their causes and not from our predictions. This is the new move in the right direction as predictive science can be considered superficial since causative science can easily produce it.
This is interesting as the explanation of superluminal phenomenon in association with causality is one of the first proofs of explanative science that we have today. There is no way we can attach superluminal phenomenon to relative space and time and still preserve causality, no way.
So, predictive science is quantitative and correlatory whereas explanative science is experiential and causative. This understanding of the differences in the nature of these two kinds of sciences is essential as it is now imperative that we transit from correlatory science to causative science.
Also, this discourse has a lot to do with our understanding of numbers which are at the heart of predictive science. It is in predictive science that we tout about the power of numbers, but are numbers as we understand them actually what they are?
This is the central question to ask because in explanative science we come across a whole new meaning of numbers. And this new meaning is as a result of the fact that we now attach quality to numbers and are no longer seen as quantities.
In predictive science, numbers are numerical and quantitative, but in explanative science, numbers are symbolic and experiential. Thus, while we also apply mathematics in explanative science, it is applied to experiential entities and not to numerical quantities like we do in predictive science.
This changes everything and brings us to the understanding of the universe which operates in a different kind of way than what predictive science can explain.
So, in the mathematical formalism of explanative science, scientific objects such as light, gravity, energy, etc are represented as experiential entities and not as numerical quantities like we do in predictive science.
Explanative science or causative science is also mathematical but in a different kind of way that brings to our perception the living and dynamic universe. In fact, the universe comes alive in explanative science.
We now have a whole new meaning of numbers as a result of the balanced quantitative and qualitative understanding we now have of them. Also, the opinion of numbers as pure mathematical essences is no longer tenable.
Numbers are no longer what just purely exist in the universe, no matter how predictive or coincidental it may seem. Now, numbers are real scientific objects and they refer to light, gravity, energy, force, etc. There is no longer anything as pure, natural numbers, we only have scientific numbers.
This is because we have gone beyond our understanding of numbers as numerical quantities to begin to see them as experiential entities and as a result, they can only be attached to scientific objects that play a major role in the universe.
This understanding is why I like to see the mathematical representation of these scientific entities as being symbolic. And these experiential entities then take up a deeper symbolic meaning in explanative science.
An actual case in explanative science is where the letter c is used to represent light but in a different way than we do in predictive science where c represents the numerical speed of light of 299792458 m/s.
In explanative science, c represents the inertia of light, thus, it represents the causative nature of light and not the predictive nature of light, and as a result, the letter c is used to represent other aspects of light more than just its speed which is its only representation in predictive science.
In explanative science, we use mathematics to relate experiential entities. And a deeper understanding of this new situation shows that pure numbers or quantitative numbers do not exist in the universe.
Numbers are now experiential entities and not numerical quantities, and as experiential entities, they can only exist as scientific objects and not pure mathematical objects.
Causative science takes us to a deeper level of understanding reality where nothing is superficial anymore. It takes us beyond predictive science where we play around with numerical quantities and confuse their coincidences for understanding.
One must take note to know that numbers are considered as experiential entities only because of the new balance between quantity and quality. When we focus only on quantity, we fall back to seeing numbers as numerical quantities and we thus fall back to predictive science.
But when you take quantity and quality as a whole, what comes through is an experiential view of the universe, where neither quality nor quantity matters above the other.
Nevertheless, this is where explanative science gives us an edge, in that we can reduce to predictive science that is however based on explanative science. There are just quite a number of twist to it and they are all fine as they improve our way of doing science.
Now, I know that one is still pushed to associate the quantitative sense of numbers with counting numbers. While this may seem all right, it is not the deepest sense in which to understand the quantitative aspect of numbers.
The deepest sense that matters in our understanding of the universe is that quantity is attached to the aspect of dimension just as quality is attached to the aspect of form. Both of these aspects of reality make up the mathematical foundation of explanative science.
So, we don’t see quantitative existence of numbers to be a result of counting numbers in the universe or as what they represent, but we see the quantitative existence of numbers to be due to dimension as a unique aspect of reality.
Thus, we fully see all things with the mind of a physicist and not that of a mathematician. Pure mathematics and our sole notion of quantities are not found in explanative science.
It is only natural that all these things follow a science that is not predictive. Such a science must come with its own philosopy and bedrock for mathematically representing and understanding reality. This is the situation that sets explanative science apart and as the science that takes us away from the crisis in physics.
Until next time,
I will be here.
– M. V. Echa