yet another one of those instances where not knowing enough about a subject allows someone to make a comment that THEY think is intelligent but is in reality rather ignorant of the topic.

I think there is a whole field of observation that we don't know enough about to truly discuss and measure. yet. But that doesn't mean we can't speculate.

Yup I know

so no filters.. or no obvious filters?

so you think we know everything there is to know about science and physics?

@JeffMesser No, but I will always favour discovery by scientific method over the millennia old ramblings of dead bronze age preachers who thought it was the most profound thing in the world to declare that we can identify god (brahman) because he is not this and not this, without ever being able to explain what it is, because that would make it "this" and thus not god.
Wow I and I thought christians were dumb.

@LenHazell53 where do you think that scientific method came from? make sure to tell the entire western world of psychology that the vedic methodology of self-examination is bunk since it's what they are trying to do now - catch up with hindustan ideas of 4,000+ years ago. you have a lot to learn.

@JeffMesser I know the scientific method evolved from natural philosophy and was formalised in the renaissance specifically in the 17th century, are you insinuating otherwise?

@LenHazell53 yep. long before that. the various jnana manga of hindu beliefs formulated the scientific centuries before that. Millenia before even. as I said you've got a lot to learn.

@JeffMesser You specifically asked about the scientific method, and I answered that question, you sir are intellectually dishonest.

@LenHazell53 intellectually dishonest? read the Vivekachudamani by Shankara. hypothesis, reasoning, direct experience, predictable results. that was from the 8th century discussing jnana manga methodology from the upanishads. you are light on knowledge. it's a good read. learn some sanskrit.

@JeffMesser I did actually mention the earlier natural philosophers who contributed over time to what actually was formalised by Francis Bacon as the scientific method, including the arabic physicians, the indian vedas and as I said you chose to dispute my correct answer by "moving the goalposts" which as you well know is a primary defining characteristic of the intellectually dishonest rhetorician and the sort petty fogging and wheedling practice of the mountebank.

@JeffMesser by the way I believe you meant to type jnana-marga not jnana-manga, manga is a Japanese comic book art style and so far as I know has nothing to do with Sankhya, Vedanta or Yoga, please correct me if I am wrong. The wise man always knows he has a lot to learn.

@LenHazell53 yeah my typing sucks. it's marga for path

@LenHazell53 confirming a theory by practical experience is not some magical method for producing truth. it's just a systematic method of approaching problem solving. I'd say Mr. Bacon was 2,000+ years behind. Sanatana dharma did it first.

and that is the buddhist view. I just happen to disagree about the self.

thanks! yes I have. that was a while back. working on biophotons now.