Hello, I hope someone can shine some light on the following questions: The std scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimental verification or falsification) assumes that the phenomenon being studied happens (is observable) within the time span of human experiment, let's say a human lifetime at most. But, how much justified are we to make this assumption? Could it be that there are completely deterministic laws governing processes which escape our grasp simply because they take too long for us to study them scientifically? What follows is not precisely what I have in mind but for the sake of example, let's consider biogenesis. We frequently read that life emerged "relatively quickly after the formation of a solid rock earth crust", meaning maybe 600 million years after. On the other hand since the Miller-Urey days in the 50's, scientists are trying to combine chemical compounds in test tubes and submit them to the supposed conditions of primeval earth hoping to eventually witness the formation of something at least close to life. Biogenesis very likely involved some chain of reactions which, while happening at normal "human known" rate, their statistical improbability of precisely getting the right combinations and sequence means that you have to wait for billions of reaction events in order to, by statistical chance, come up with the right one. But what if, besides this, biogenesis involved some as yet unknown reaction which not because of statistical improbability but by intrinsical speed, takes (let's say) 1,000 years to happen? In such case, human experiments trying to replicate biogenesis would be doomed from the start (I repeat, not because of improbability but by the sheer timespan of the phenomenon). Has this possibility been considered by any scientist or philosopher of science as a potential fundamental obstacle to achieving full scientific knowledge? And while we are here, further deep into the question: do different fundamental phenomena happen at different rates? or could we say that truly fundamental phenomena all happen at the same rate of passage of time, and if we see a phenomenon taking long (let's say, an apple going rotten) it's simply because although the individual fundamental molecular processes happen at the std rate, it's just that the macroscopic phenomenon appears slow due to the complexity and qty of atoms and molecules involved? And, if different fundamental phenomena happen at different rates, why is it so? and would this not force us to reckon that there might be completely deterministic laws which are as yet unknown simply because the rate at which they operate is still much slower than the slowest of the laws we know about?