[graderjs]

No, but the idea of a totality of physics is: that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand. That's very anthropocentric. And heard in the dismissals people give of possibilities or observations that "violate a law of physics".

There are some pretty weird stuff out there outside the average UAP cannon — of metallic orbs, cigars and clamshells — that may qualify as your intrusions; good word!

Science lives at the edge of the unknown. In this era I think we need to engage in far-out speculation if we're going to understand what comes — especially if we hope to understand it from a non-anthropocentric point of view! Ha ha ha! :)

[rbanffy]

> that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand.

That we don't understand and that we never observed. This is why I mentioned we wandering into speculation territory - I really can't prove there is no invisible pink unicorn sitting in my living room right now. All I can say is that I am not observing it.

[graderjs]

How can you think about something if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview? Well there's definitely ways that you can view it from a more open viewpoint! Ha ha ha! :) And lots to view: plenty of things we've observed and don't understand! Ha ha ha! :)

[rbanffy]

> if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview?

You'll see something that doesn't make sense. Then you'll examine it and start formulating plausible explanations for it, and then you may start testing those against what you know and see if they can predict what is observed in other circumstances you haven't seen before.

The important part is that the explanation needs to be testable. If we just say "something outside our comprehension", it's not usable, because you can't really test that.

[paymycodes]

Hey, ha ha! I retired my graderjs account so I'll reply you with this one: yeah, definitely it's got to be testable! But you got to be open to it, you know?