TSQM--A 'Michelson-Morley Experiment' for the Scientific Method?

I would liken scientists and “scientists of consciousness” to people who, at one time, observed from a distance a 2 ft. X 2 ft. painting of reality or consciousness; but who, then, were afflicted with tunnel vision.

They immediately reduced their focus to an area approximately 2 in. X 2 in.; and are now examining the painting from only a few inches away from the canvas. They can explain in exquisite detail the gradual change in the color of the paints in the painting, as well as the number and the direction of the brush strokes…

But they have no idea what the picture is of.

They need to stand back a number of feet from the canvas in order to get a clearer understanding and a much wider perspective of all of the things involved in a more complete description of both the physical-conscious reality and consciousness itself.

Just like the Michelson-Morley experiment was an experiment of classical physics which, ultimately, threatened classical physics itself as a complete physical theory—later requiring the addition of both relativity theory and quantum mechanics for a more complete physical theory—so, too, I suggest that Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics, by asserting retro-causality, information coming back from the future, or the bi-directionality of time, constitutes a ‘Michelson-Morley experiment’ for the entire paradigm of the scientific method itself.

That is, it directly and lethally challenges the uni-directionality of time only in a forward direction; which is both a fundamental assumption of the scientific method as well as crucial to the very existence of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ itself upon which the scientific method is based.

Michael Cecil

And I suppose you know exactly what the picture is of? Most philosophers who blabber about relativity don't seem to understand why relativity is so unintuitive.

Double post.

Originally posted by 547000And I suppose you know exactly what the picture is of? Most philosophers who blabber about relativity don't seem to understand why relativity is so unintuitive.

Why so accusatory?

I have not insulted you in any way.

Probably no one can know "exactly what the picture is of".

What I do know is that it is not 2 in. X 2 in.

And I know that the whole picture cannot be observed from a perspective only a few inches away from the canvas.

In other words, it is the perspective itself as much as it is the scarcity of data that is the issue.

Michael Cecil

I'm just assuming you claim to know the whole picture because of your other threads. Everything else you've posted seems to point to that direction.

Of course scientists don't know everything. What method would you recommend in studying the universe?