How many different worlds exists in nature?

[GioeleAntonello]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, the answer to the OP is 1, wait, it could be 0, if we take the topic title literally; even if we include ghosts, it's still a 1 or a 0 naturally.

Invisible exists are the black empty between materia. No exist materia without the empty.

I think you like not to be funny

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Wow. Lots of red negs. Lol

That's again not an answer

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, GioeleAntonello said:

Invisible exists are the black empty between materia. No exist materia without the empty.

I think you like not to be funny

 

Of course, my bad... 🖖

[MigL]

It seems I was wrong about my previous observation.
The OP is not a youngster, eager to learn, but rather a very immature person who thinks anyone who disagrees with his ramblings  is deserving of a neg rep point.
I guess it is less effort than making a valid argument.

Tell me, Gioele, what new insights into nature does your classification system reveal ?
This is not science ( which is what we try to do here ), and, if an attempt at philosophy, this is the worst kind based on the belief that the workings of the universe can be realized simply by thought in your own mind, with total disregard for observational evidence.
If you learned some science you would know that the 'particles' that inhabit your atom environment, are a loosely defined concept until actually observed by an interaction. Prior to that, they are a mathematical construct of varying probability amplitudes, that could extend way outside what you consider their environment.
The bonds that you say inhabit the environment of molecules, are actually the property of an energy deficit of atoms that does not allow them the possibility to escape; they are not a 'thing'.

There are way too many misconceptions about science to list here.
Please heed my previous suggestion to learn some actual science, and stop neg repping people who are trying to help you learn some.

If, on the other hand, you'd rather continue in your blissful ignorance, keep neg repping people who try to correct your misunderstandings; I'm sure you won't be missed after you get banned.

Edited July 28 by MigL

[GioeleAntonello]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It seems I was wrong about my previous observation.
The OP is not a youngster, eager to learn, but rather a very immature person who thinks anyone who disagrees with his ramblings  is deserving of a neg rep point.
I guess it is less effort than making a valid argument.

Tell me, Gioele, what new insights into nature does your classification system reveal ?
This is not science ( which is what we try to do here ), and, if an attempt at philosophy, this is the worst kind based on the belief that the workings of the universe can be realized simply by thought in your own mind, with total disregard for observational evidence.
If you learned some science you would know that the 'particles' that inhabit your atom environment, are a loosely defined concept until actually observed by an interaction. Prior to that, they are a mathematical construct of varying probability amplitudes, that could extend way outside what you consider their environment.
The bonds that you say inhabit the environment of molecules, are actually the property of an energy deficit of atoms that does not allow them the possibility to escape; they are not a 'thing'.

There are way too many misconceptions about science to list here.
Please heed my previous suggestion to learn some actual science, and stop neg repping people who are trying to help you learn some.

If, on the other hand, you'd rather continue in your blissful ignorance, keep neg repping people who try to correct your misunderstandings; I'm sure you won't be missed after you get banned.

You didn't give an answer, you said to me to do by my own.
Classification defines environments of the inhabitants, which are useful in understanding their behavior.
My philosophical theory is that it is the species of the universe that provide me with the necessary information, and understanding a physical structure allows you to define a structure of abilities. Otherwise you wander in nothingness.

The particles are these you see below

 

Bonds determine chemical reactions as changeable are alive not just things.

I ask scientists for help but scientists do not help me with a simplistic question for the scientists of nature.

I repeat you did not give corrections, you made a completely useless comment.
you have no to comment to say you are not able.
so now the question are, why you comment?

[MigL]

This is a science forum, and as such, we are required to support speculative theories with evidence.

4 hours ago, GioeleAntonello said:

My philosophical theory is that it is the species of the universe that provide me with the necessary information, and understanding a physical structure allows you to define a structure of abilities.

What evidence do you have that supports this so called theory ?
You have a classification system based on a theory that is unsupported, and only valid in your imagination, why would I give you an answer, and to what ?
I offered direction to learn some science, such that you may base a classification system on established science.
I also asked to what purpose your system is applied, hoping for some clarification and evidence of usability.
You have provided none.

I'm going to stop wasting my time.

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, GioeleAntonello said:

I ask scientists for help but scientists do not help me with a simplistic question for the scientists of nature.

Scientists are responding with mainstream science answers to your questions. Humans have a vast repository of accumulated knowledge, things we've tested before so we can predict what they will do with great accuracy. Mainstream science is based on these best supported explanations for various phenomena.

Your ideas are NOT based on mainstream science. You have chosen to make up other explanations that make sense only to you. This isn't how science is done, so you don't feel as if you're being helped. You should study more mainstream science.

[GioeleAntonello]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Scientists are responding with mainstream science answers to your questions. Humans have a vast repository of accumulated knowledge, things we've tested before so we can predict what they will do with great accuracy. Mainstream science is based on these best supported explanations for various phenomena.

Your ideas are NOT based on mainstream science. You have chosen to make up other explanations that make sense only to you. This isn't how science is done, so you don't feel as if you're being helped. You should study more mainstream science.

That's clear and funny, thanks

22 hours ago, MigL said:

This is a science forum, and as such, we are required to support speculative theories with evidence.

What evidence do you have that supports this so called theory ?
You have a classification system based on a theory that is unsupported, and only valid in your imagination, why would I give you an answer, and to what ?
I offered direction to learn some science, such that you may base a classification system on established science.
I also asked to what purpose your system is applied, hoping for some clarification and evidence of usability.
You have provided none.

I'm going to stop wasting my time.

The evidence are that people help you in spiritual world are not "your smartness talking" but species that teach and help you. Try do science in this way.

The classification theory I make are just this:

Phisic

Chemistry

Genetic

Medicine

(scienza of species of you?)

Astronomy

Astrophisic

 

[CharonY]

My equally valid counter points are:

- Pisces

- Helical

- Star-aligned

- Mind-driven

- Geolocality

- Dave

 

A broader discussion on this topic would be how we arrive at certain classifications of natural phenomena. Ultimately, they are based on arrangement of properties we are looking at. Mainstream science has arrived at a range of categorizations in various disciplines that are based on overarching theories. Depending on the disciplines, the categories can be more or less stringent and also more aligning with theoretical or with empirical assumptions, depending on how much we understand the respective system.

That all being said, the most important factor is how useful these categories are for a given research direction. Again, in mainstream sciences certain categories survive because they have proven to be useful, others (e.g. the elemental categorization originated from Empedocles) eventually vanish as they are not really helpful, even if popular for a given time.

In other words, this question has to be answered before anything else:

  

On 7/27/2024 at 1:41 PM, MigL said:

What is the purpose, or benefit, of this classification scheme you are trying to devise ?
How exactly does it enable us to better understand the world around us; or does it just add another layer of confusion/misdefinitions ??

 

 

[GioeleAntonello]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

My equally valid counter points are:

- Pisces

- Helical

- Star-aligned

- Mind-driven

- Geolocality

- Dave

 

A broader discussion on this topic would be how we arrive at certain classifications of natural phenomena. Ultimately, they are based on arrangement of properties we are looking at. Mainstream science has arrived at a range of categorizations in various disciplines that are based on overarching theories. Depending on the disciplines, the categories can be more or less stringent and also more aligning with theoretical or with empirical assumptions, depending on how much we understand the respective system.

That all being said, the most important factor is how useful these categories are for a given research direction. Again, in mainstream sciences certain categories survive because they have proven to be useful, others (e.g. the elemental categorization originated from Empedocles) eventually vanish as they are not really helpful, even if popular for a given time.

In other words, this question has to be answered before anything else:

  

 

 

I explained already 2 times why I need this classification. I don’t need your help, I did by my own.

As I reported already I think you want to steal an argument for publish articles to make your curriculum better.

division of natural science are needed since exist different sciences 

 

Edited July 30 by GioeleAntonello

[iNow]

1 hour ago, GioeleAntonello said:

I think you want to steal an argument for publish articles to make your curriculum better.

You should consider seeking counseling for these schizoid tendencies 

[GioeleAntonello]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

You should consider seeking counseling for these schizoid tendencies 

Are a lot the people hide in exterior spiritual world and a few people say exterior spiritual world exist. I don’t feel angry about what I writed so I no need help. How you feel about this?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, GioeleAntonello said:

Are a lot the people hide in exterior spiritual world and a few people say exterior spiritual world exist. I don’t feel angry about what I writed so I no need help. How you feel about this?

The thing about a ghost is, it can't touch the real world; so what difference does it make?

I just punched you in the face with my ghostly power; how did that feel?

[GioeleAntonello]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The thing about a ghost is, it can't touch the real world; so what difference does it make?

I just punched you in the face with my ghostly power; how did that feel?

Say in spiritual world hurt you as say inthe physical world. And are also possible to make bad to your inside body in the spiritual world with make people inside body of you to make work phisically wrong your body. There also a spice that always fix that “bad illness”. Anyway I explained to you already what are the empty

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, GioeleAntonello said:

Say in spiritual world hurt you as say inthe physical world. And are also possible to make bad to your inside body in the spiritual world with make people inside body of you to make work phisically wrong your body. There also a spice that always fix that “bad illness”. Anyway I explained to you already what are the empty

What is empty is your cup of understanding; for instance the spiritual benefits of revenge is not about making others suffer in the physical world...

[iNow]

2 hours ago, GioeleAntonello said:

How you feel about this?

Shrug. You assume I care enough to feel anything about this meaningless nonsense

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, GioeleAntonello said:

division of natural science are needed since exist different sciences 

How much have you studied the divisions between the sciences that we already have? What is lacking about the way we classify them now? Why is science so incredibly accurate if we're missing these divisions? 

[exchemist]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Shrug. You assume I care enough to feel anything about this meaningless nonsense

Erm, I think his hovercraft may be full of eels. 

[GioeleAntonello]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What is empty is your cup of understanding; for instance the spiritual benefits of revenge is not about making others suffer in the physical world...

I explain already. An easy example of illness for your species are the pollution, are possibile to make species of you to make "money for fun" to make a illness

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Shrug. You assume I care enough to feel anything about this meaningless nonsense

Yes I think that you stoled already from this forum with the cheat of make me think I'm stupid and I think you feel sad about this.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How much have you studied the divisions between the sciences that we already have? What is lacking about the way we classify them now? Why is science so incredibly accurate if we're missing these divisions? 

I've searched information on the web, I hoped someone could help me to finish this classification.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Erm, I think his hovercraft may be full of eels. 

yes you'd better abandon ship

Edited July 30 by GioeleAntonello

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, GioeleAntonello said:

I've searched information on the web, I hoped someone could help me to finish this classification.

Is this close to what you're looking for? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

[GioeleAntonello]

42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is this close to what you're looking for? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

I've checked that already. Thanks anyway

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, GioeleAntonello said:

I've checked that already. Thanks anyway

It might help to read it all through. Part of the problem here is that you think "everything is alive and full of different species", but that doesn't apply to some of the things you list in your OP, like black holes, nucleus, particles, atoms, globes, energies, and materials (matter?). Lots of matter is inorganic, not living, and energy is a property of a thing instead of a thing itself. Some things aren't things at all, they're events, like lightning and black holes and fire. 

The various branches of science help give us our best supported explanations of phenomena specific to those branches. If you're looking for "how many different worlds exist in nature", the branches each deal with scale in different ways.