Possibility and fact

According to general understanding, science has to be based on facts, while everything that opposes them is equaled to fantasies, an imitation of science. Few would have confidence to reject this statement, neither have I, however I offer another option: to show broader context, an expanded notion of fact. In the quest of understanding reality broader thinking is always more effective than narrower and shallower. I will start with the general picture and then delve deeper into details. Again, I will be using the style of synopsis, which has to be complemented with your own information.

In addition to facts, there are possibilities, to understand which is equally important. This idea can be explained by an example of the relation between a route and a map. The map shows all the territory, all possible routes, therefore it is the sum of all possibilities. The concrete travelled route, all points or segments, are facts. We can see that the scope of possibilities is always broader than the facts, which are certain choices or realizations, however facts always embody something from the list of the possibilities. Understanding the use of maps, scientists draw topographical plans of territories, as then it is much easier to model certain choices. This idea is suitable for all areas, although not always easily implemented.

We have to explore all the structure of matter – find its map, looking not into facts but rather into the list of abstract possibilities. All possibilities should be analyzed. Space, movement in space and time may seem simple, however in reality they are very complex systems. Thus, we should start from the entirety of possibilities, from the map of reality, and only then we can find the factual realization of a "route". Space, movement and time may seem to pose no problems, however the map of matter is a very difficult task, to accomplish which we would have to know all the layers, all the depth, which are assessed according to abstract notion of continuum, its possible mathematical and parameter spaces.

Solving this problem, the choice is made to jump right to facts, but it is the same as to look for a route without a map. It is very complicated. The real model of a powerful mind is composed of the entirety of possibilities and a factual realization, a map and a concrete route.

There are two main levels to explore facts: one begins with events, then from events laws, regularities, repetition and Laws of Nature are drawn. Since the world moves from the future, through the present, to the past, firstly a possible reality is expected, it then becomes an event in the present, and lastly this event, going to the past, becomes a fact. It thus becomes clear that a possibility is a future, whereas facts are the past. The mentioned elements ought to have a proper place in this system. One begins with possibilities, then one looks what realizes itself and becomes a fact. One should ascertain if they are coincidental or one can calculate the whole spectrum of factual values, depending on what is inserted into variables, having data called parameters.

Such systems are tied parameters, which allow transfering the world from the sphere of events to the abstract space where it is explained how something always happens, regularly, because certain elements are irrevocably tied. Therefore, a formula is a map, the entirety of possibilities, concrete realizations are facts. The only problem is that we do not know the whole map of reality and we do not have the matrix of its all structures.

The question is the following: Is it possible to draw the map theoretically? Or should one travel all the routes, to gather all the facts? The distinction between theoretical and experimental physics is made. It may not seem suitable, because it is presumed that theorists ought to analyze data gathered by experimentalists. This may be true, but this is not the only approach theorists may choose. There is another method, which is called the continuum method where the identity fractal notion is used, disassembled and combined in various ways. The idea is that all parts of reality obey a certain structure of continuum. Thus, with the model of all structures of continuum we will have the map, and then we will be able to explore which possibilities are practically realized. It is always easier to travel with a map. Also, the main thesis is that drawing maps has the status of science too.

However, reality is complex and its map, holoplastic picture, is unknown; very often, false interpretations are held for facts, which by convention are made "science". Let us imagine a situation. The sea depth is 1 km, but the measuring device can measure 500 m. A measurement is made and it is determined that the depth of the sea is 500 m. This is held an "unquestionable" fact, although it is not the Truth, it is a false interpretation of the defective measurement. Now let us imagine, that the sea is reality and we, with our imperfect measuring device, want to measure the "depth" of reality. The result of measurement is false, since it cannot reach the full depth because of imperfection, despite that "the fact" is announced. It is agreed to be "science". Then a better measuring device is made, however imperfect too, and a new "fact" and new "science" are created. The old goes to the dustbin.

Is there anything useful we can see and understand in this situation? Science, having no map and route, does not know the entire fact. It is a partial fact and an interpretation. This is the reason why such facts are floating facts. Therefore, the situation is that we do not have perfect means neither to draw maps, nor gather facts when traveling, that is why nothing is satisfactory. We cannot see everything as a possibility because of limitation of our reason, we cannot travel the entire reality, for many places are simply inaccessible. That is why science and "science" are not equal. The theories taught at universities are not always science with the capital S. It is a convention of groupings in science community, which fight for influence and money.

The trajectories of theories change similarly to the trajectories of other kinds of information: they begin with a future possibility, hypothesis, projection of the map. By doing research and experiment this projection is made the conventional "truth", which holds firm in the present. However, the future offers new, better possibilities and this "truth" is pushed to the past into an archive or the dustbin of history. This is the trajectory of "science" as it usually happens. To have the status of "science", it should work, but this does not always equal truth, as understanding how it happens in reality may be based on false, despite of that effective, notions.

We have a lot of effective technologies; however, we have huge problems understanding the map of the whole depth of reality.

Thus, science is a lot of things, not only primitive factology, since this factology has a broader context of intellectual manipulations. Those groups who think that their "facts" are the best are an unbelievable laughing stock, or to be more precise they are businessmen milking the cows of ideas, wishing that all the cows were in their own grazing lands.

Creating the worlds, God looks into the maps of possibilities and chooses one realization, whereas the map itself as a whole is all possible worlds. That is why we should be interested not only in a fact, one route, but in the entire map of God. Only stubborn dogmatists do not understand this.