To understand what scientific evidence means, let’s briefly discuss the basic approaches to creating theories. There are two methods: the inductive and the deductive method. The inductive method is the derivation of general rules from individual cases. Here we make general conclusions from individual cases. With the inductive method we try e.g. derive the speed formula from individual cases so that it can be used in general. We let several cyclists ride a straight route of a certain distance, each with a different speed, but which is maintained throughout the route. We measure the time it takes the cyclist to cover this route. We find that those who have a higher speed need less time. The slower takes longer. We also find that at twice the speed, the time can be halved. At half speed, the time doubles. Now that we can use some math, it is easy for us to find the speed formula as follows:
Time = distance divided by speed
and shape to:
Speed = distance divided by time.
This speed formula can now be used not only for the cyclist, but also for the car, for the train and much more. We have taken individual cases so that we can draw general cases from them. This method is the inductive approach.
The deductive method is the reverse approach; it is the derivation of the particular from the general. This would be e.g. the case when we find that all the swans we have ever seen are white. If we conclude from this observation that all swans are white and therefore every swan that we will see in the future must also be white, we have chosen a deductive method. Whether this method is correct must be checked on a case-by-case basis. In any case, only one exception is needed to nullify the supposed legality. Then we are not dealing with a law, but with a rule that has exceptions. For example, just come along and say that you saw a black swan, and the supposed law that all swans are white has exceptions. Then this rule says that we are usually dealing with white swans, but in exceptional cases there are also black swans.
What about the inductive method? Is this better or safer than the deductive method? To answer this, we come back to the speed formula. Can this actually be generalized? The answer is ‘no’. Because it is certain that the above speed formula can no longer be used for objects or particles that move at approximately the speed of light. It has to be replaced by a somewhat more complicated formula. So the simple formula has no general validity.
We call the more general speed formula the relativistic formula. The relativistic speed formula is part of the general theory of relativity.
We see that the inductive method is also not the really better method. Results obtained using this method can also be rules with exceptions. Both methods have one basic principle in common. And this is that every exception makes a supposed (hoped for) law at most a rule.
A theory that describes laws that does not integrate all phenomena is incomplete. And if only one phenomenon overrides a certain law, the law is not a real law, at most a rule that has exceptions. If there are exceptions, the corresponding theory must be changed until it no longer allows exceptions. Only then can we speak of real laws. This is the correct course of action.
Current knowledge. We know that the established natural sciences cannot explain everything by far. Examples include dark energy and dark matter, whereby these can only be determined indirectly. Furthermore, natural science, with its models, cannot make a decision as to whether this world we perceive is real or an imaginary world. Many other questions are still unresolved. So let us calmly quote a few headlines from the magazine ‘Bild der Wissenschaft’:
- the 5 greatest puzzles of astronomy (edition 6/2006)
- mysterious universe – how can the puzzling natural constants be explained? (Edition 8/2006)
- The 7 puzzles of brain research (Edition 1/2007).
- Time is only an illusion – why physicists no longer calculate with it (Edition 1/2008).
Furthermore, there are phenomena that do not fit into the previous theories of established natural science. Examples include Phenomena that can be achieved in a hypnotic state or in a corresponding mental state. For example, to be able to walk over hot coals without damage (e.g. the world record in this discipline was improved to 250 meters in St. Lorenzen (Austria) on March 22, 2003). May cause burns on the body without the influence of heat or fire. Not to forget the so-called placebo effect. Here tablets are administered to patients who have no active ingredient. Patients are led to believe that these tablets contain active ingredients. Because they believe that there is something in them, they heal themselves without being aware of it.
Then there are or were people who can or could live without earthly food and in some cases also without liquid intake, which is not new, by the way. For example, Brother Klaus (Nikolaus Löwenburger) in the 15th century lived only by consecrated wafers for 19 years. Or Therese Neumann, born in Northern Bavaria in 1898 and died in 1962, who bore the stigmata of Christ, did not drink anything for decades and lived on just one consecrated wafer per day during this time. A 76-year-old Indian fakir said that he had not eaten or drunk anything for 65 years and astonished an initially incredulous team of doctors: http://www.stern.de/wissen/mensch/unerklaerlich-seit-65-jahren-auf-nulldiaet -516291.html.
The radio station SWR3 also reported on this fakir on November 26, 2003 shortly after 12 noon. There are now said to be more than 200 people on earth who can get by without food and sometimes without liquid. These are examples that are in line with the knowledge and results of the spiritual sciences and even with modern physics.
The mentioned phenomena are often labeled as not scientifically proven because they simply do not fit into the theories of the established natural sciences. If we continued to investigate, we would encounter many more cases to say that there must be more than science has been able to explain. These phenomena are still the exceptions, but they go beyond the material laws and therefore make them a rule. It is conceivable that these exceptions can even become the rule themselves or even the law.
Yes, there are even physicists who already speak of so-called ‘flexilaws’ (flexible laws), i.e. changing laws, which rather shows that the physical laws are no real laws at all. For the reasons mentioned, it looks more like that there are overriding laws above the physical laws (= rules?), which we can only count as real laws. We speak of spiritual laws.
At this point it should be noted that Eastern religions have always spoken of emerging, passing and changing world laws (Dharmas). With this statement, I go into more detail in ‘Closing the circle‘. This means that physics is increasingly coming to the realization that we are dealing with changing laws in this world (Flexilaws). This undermines the undecidability on the part of physics, whether the material world is a real or imaginary world. The other pages show that it must be an imaginary world.