If there is a threshold for pain, it can hardly be truly imagined before it is truly, fully realized. The evidence of the presence of the pain is not that which is truly observable or truly felt but rather what is. It is what must be present for any form of observation or realization to be possible.
The observation or as you may, evidence, may be present in the strife for or against it.
An attempt at strife denotes there is an endeavor to be accomplished, an ultimate spatial event oriented within the ultimate relevant time required to achieve it, except in that situation where there is a sharp differentiation between what is and what is observed within all perspectives available within a necessitating relative coordinate system. That is rather not an attempt at strife at all but a grave error as there is no opposition to the strife first presumed.
In what state of relative coordination will it be possible to know strife in the sense that it should be but never being able to realize it in the sense that is not merely imaginable in a scientific sense but realistic within scientific preconditions and post conditions all the same?
Here I start with what is of absolute scientific necessity as it was stated by Einstein and Infield in The Evolution of Physics: the earth is our coordinate system. The earth is our CS.
Also here I will refer to Einstein and Infield’s observation of their observations in process in the book in reference to discussions prior to the discussion of CS systems: “All our physical statements thus far have lacked something. We took no notice of the fact that all observations must be made in a certain C.S. Instead of describing the structure of this CS, we just ignored its existence.”
There is a state which knows intellectual sanctity beyond all reasonable refutable measures—that which must be present in all observers of our CS, earth, so the law of mechanics may hold within all verifiable space and time conditions, pre-conditions and post-conditions. And there is a necessity to call this state in the observations of our CS as we explore it.
There is, with good reason, a need for proof in science. And the process and procedure for these proofs is as important as coming up with the proofs. Observational evidence may be simple, depending on the observational principles guiding the subject of the effect expected. It is with observational principles that perspectives may defer. The differences in perspectives have error-prone effects on perception. It is perception that affects observations especially in a situation where observations truly matter within scientific limits which may be or may not be breach-able.
edewlogics.com 