Quote: "I don't know what you mean. I looked up priory, and posteriori and they had no connection to anything in the thread. Not only that but they are based on philosophy, and my theory is based on physics. You find physics as a proof, but philosophy is based on conversation."
Yes, the terms are based from philosophy, for example, Immanuel Kant used them a lot, he was also keen on supporting the idea that knowledge is gained through experience (as opposed to the 'Pure Reason' philosophers tended to believe). He was somewhat an empiricist (though not completely), but science is an empirical affair. I use the terms because their definitions apply.
But science is all about vigorous testing
before claims are made. Hypotheses are made before, they're not judgements, they're statements to test or predictions.
a priori = judgment prior to knowledge/evidence
a posteriori = judgment post knowledge/evidence
All of the theories you've presented on this forum have lacked the evidence. Just as you've claimed in this thread your proof is in the future. This means you are making judgments prior to having the evidence or knowledge. Hence a priori.
The scientific method works differently, it makes judgments after evidence/knowledge/testing, hence a posteriori and they may find further testing is needed.
For instance in medical science, they don't assume the properties of a drug will work before, even if it seems logical and seems like it would work or seems like good science. It would go through numerous trials and they'd test the effects before even releasing it to the public. Hence certain alzheimers reversing drugs aren't on the market yet. Clinical trials are necessary.
A person could come in and say their medicine is based on chemisty, as some pharmaceutical companies will do (particularly those developing diet pills or miracle cures), but lack the pure scientific testing to say whether or not they work, are safe and so on. The scrutiny of the scientific method helps make medical science effective and not only that, but safe - granted it doesn't mean there aren't risks in certain areas.
However, when looking at a scientific approach you're more lax, you're more like a pharmaceutical company selling diet pills or miracle cures. Yes, you
could well be right. But we don't yet know. The
current support is inconclusive.
Quote: "There is nothing beyond physics.. everything is physics. So already.. philosophy has become useless.
"
Depends entirely on the philosophy. Philosophy hasn't become useless. For instance ethical philosophy can determine a person's behaviour (like Utilitarianism, Situation Ethics, Philosophical Buddhism, the Categorical Imperative, Humanism, Virtue Ethics and so on). Other philosophy can influence a much more scientific approach. Given science came from philosophy, but was born out of a more empirical approach, using what can be observed as opposed to what can be imagined. Given you looked up 'a priori' I suspect there's a lot of philosophy you'd unfamiliar with. It's not all Descartes, Plato, Aristotle and the likes.
