>> 'the ability to predict a physical phenomena accurately'
>> that sounds nice, good work Erik, or whoever
>> and then...?
>>And then what? You seem to think that scientific theories are supposed
>to serve some higher purpose. They're not.
let's skip the higher purpose, it's a bit tricky.
..and then sooner or later we go on predicting, building
or whatever, based on this science and if this
is successfull, the science has manifested itself
in a little more observable reality, thus being a bit
more valid to less advanced humans.
>> All sciences so far have boiled down to something
>> useful or deadly, it's not _a_ science if it does not
>> , just another fantasy of mind...
>>Nice meaningless definition. What's the color of the sky in your world?
all colors, including the color of questioning & having fun.
>> psst, sarfatti recently told me that there is no such thing
>> as _a_ speed greater of light ... so much for the signal
>> non-locality jive.
>>... like Sarfatti is really where you want to be learning physics from.
like 'his' science might never manifest itself or 'work'...
inventing new particles and phenomenon to explain all the
other phenomenon, endlessly .. might raise a thought or two.