univeral theory

what about integrating conscious with consciousness. where; Conscious is not confused with consciousness which refers to the influence of energy regulation and Conscious in this case is the framework of energy coordination up on which consciousness depends. Though it is academically popular to refer to consciousness as the state of awareness, but I say that awareness is just one form of energy regulation and coordination. Other examples of energy regulation and coordination are motion, shape, growth, decay, deform, etc.

thank you markus. but then what is space-time?

from here:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precise, precise means "exactly or sharply defined" which requires testability and falsefiability of a defined phenomena. this does not only mean that metaphysics leads to intution, but it means that metaphysics lead to correct definitions and catigories of different phenomena or things based on testable predictions that can be falsified through res- cogitan (which is the mind in which the process of intution take part), res- extensa , and the regulation and cordinating thing(which is the speed of consciousness). for more specificity about the predictions of metaphysical theories like;dualism - which defines existence as the correctly logical sequence of contradicting or opposite events or phenomena is testable and falsefiable. so then ask how.

i have been reading about scientific theory possibly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and i have failed to conceptualise well the requirements of a scientific theory. can some one out there help to throw more explanation on this for me?

well. so then; why do you "still" think that the predictions of such metaphysical theories like; Platonism, Aristotelianism, Thomism, Cartesianism (see also dualism), idealism, realism, and materialism are un testatable? and why do you say that; the "so called" metaphysical predictions like; the mind make sense(recognises) the feasible existence as the res-cogitan, energy processes this sensing (recognition) as the res-extensa, and the speed of consciousness regulates and coordinates how,when,what,where to make this recognition- are not metaphysical, if metaphysical then are not predictions, if predictions they are not precise, if precise are not testable?

what is gravitation according to GR?

some where somehow, you are right. that is why i recomended some possible solution that can help me out. 1- by telling me what do you understand by metaphysics( or what is metaphysics?) 2- by telling me the requirements of answering your question which is "can any one name a single testable prediction which has ever been made using metaphysics?" so, adress please

prove to us that you are making a question that you understand the requirements of its answer if not making jokes with it! you have been given various metapysical predictions that are testable in different academic disciplines which non of them have you tempered to disprove or falesify. but instead you keep on saying "so no again then?" this implies that it is perhaps those who give you answers or you who dont know metaphysics. or it is you or those who answer you who dont know the answering requirements of your question. this does not directly imply that you are wrong or those who answer you are wrong untill we agree on the following: what is metaphysics? (from which you question needs an answer) what are the requirements of answering your question? I HOPE THIS CAN SAVE US ALOT OF OUR TIME.

and what does this GR model predicts or explains physically?

the mind make sense(recognises) the feasible existence as the res-cogitan, energy processes this sensing (recognition) as the res-extensa, and the speed of consciousness regulates and coordinates how,when,what,where to make this recognition.

with out even restating the example you metioned, the difference is just in the time of responding to the execution of the complementary difinition of goods. NOTE WELL ON THE FOLLOWING, Existence = feasible being. prediction = logical claims testability = sensible (empirical) proof

in any case iNOw; existence has a predictable sequence of testable events that MUST tally correctly with its categorical definitions or interpretational claims - and this is one of the main concerns of metaphysics. so as long as the predictions of the sequence of events is testable,their category predictions and definition predictions in form of interpretation claims must also be testable. for-example;predicting that the increase in the demand of cars will lead to a corresponding increase in the demand of fuel is as the same as saying that cars and fuel "ARE" complementary goods.these two scenarios have the same results that are predictable in different ways that is testable and falsifiable. one is definitional prediction and another is process prediction.

let me hope that; this does not rule out other POSSIBLE interpretations and calculations that are not on the same grounds with GR or QM interpretations and calculations, so as long as their possibilities do not violate the results of the phenomena predicted.

iam sorry if i miss understood the context from which you used the word sense. however; i was saying that scientific predictions are not testable through observation processes alone. where you replied me by what i assumed to be an emphasis on it when you said that we also have machines that sense.any any way in what context did you use the word sense? as for the link; iam also sorry but here it is http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=metaphysics&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMetaphysics&ei=PkzFUZu9L7GO7QbetIHwBA&usg=AFQjCNFUbpVFtgwOJqp6znYl-5QINxsGOw&bvm=bv.48293060,d.ZWU as for examples i gave one for the difiniton of force and pressure as a start. if iam wrong please explain

how do the predictions of GR or QM account for: 1-dark energy 2-dark matter 3-black holes

"SENSE"; so sounding with in the testability discussion of scientific predictions (meaning that the tests of scientific predictions do not rely solely on observational mechanisms alone). as for metaphysical predictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics; any scientific identification or categorizing prediction is metaphysical and scientifically falsifiable (start from those examples i raised in post #52 ). how ever; any scientifically processing prediction "can" be physics.

i didn't suggest pressure alone! though we can proceed with you comments on pressure if that is where we can reach an agreement. if the way i understand empirically valid as "based solely on observation" is true, then in the context of science; it is physically flawed to assume that our true physical sense can only be tested through observations alone. generically, there are other like; detection,smells, sounds and so on.

what if(as examples) we say that;Pressure "IS" the ratio of force to the area over which that force is distributed. or a force "IS" any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. can such prediction be tested and shown to be empirically valid?

at this point you are making me loose track of what ever you have been discussing before. i prefer not to make philosophy the main concern of this thread. so please answer the questions i raised in post #24

This is because the universe is energy at action - reaction system.

what do you mean?

Answers in what sence? in the sence of physical recognition? in the sense of physical observation? or in the sence of any other bra,bra,bra?

what do you definitively imply by testable predictions?

considering the possibility for TOT to extend its implication to phylosophy. should we assume that such possibilities "can" have relevant answers to metaphysics - or ontology and cosmology in particular "for those that worry about such things"?

for the interpretations of a given theory to predict a phenomena that is not already observed and make claims on it, basing on the proof of an already observed phenomena it has never been scientifically wrong. only that the application of such claims differ from subject to subject. in some subjects like physics; any claim of a given theory necessitates mathmatical proof. while in others like phylosophy, the claims of a given theory may not necessarily require mathmatical proof so as long as they can be reasoned well to their rational concluson. that is why scientific claims can either be observed or believed.so if the interpretations of TOT can extend beyond physics,this implies that some where some how its relevance in the conserned scientific subject may not necessarily depend on mathmatical proof so as long as the claims are rational. and this is the reason why TOT woul make statement about GOD.