The progress of science: How far have we really come?

[Canute]

Hi Canute,

What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?

In what sense?

 

[Canute]

Thanks for the additional comments. Do you not think truth has a role to play in science, particularly as an aim of inquiry (i.e. trying to find true or truthlike theories), even if truth is hard to come by?

To be honest I'm not sure. I suppose the general idea is to seek the truth, but what is a 'true' theory? Scientific truths are relative, reached by studying things in relation to one another. If they work well they are deemed true, but this is not truth in any absolute sense. (Do you know the 'Quine-Duhem thesis?). In the end I'd agree with Aristotle and Popper (true knowledge is achievable only by the knower becoming one with the known).

 

[Hugo Holbling]

I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?

If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)

 

[deda]

The science has gone prety far.
Far enough to begin from the very start.

 

[Canute]

I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?

Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.

If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)

I know very little about this. However as I understand him Feyerabend was an 'epistemilogical anarchist', a pragmatist about truth. He seems to argue that all truths are relative so we must use whatever system of discovery and proof that seems appropriate to the task. From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.

I don't know about the motivations of scientists. It is now a wholly professionalised career activity so I suppose earning a living and gaining some degree of status accounts for a lot of what goes on. I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.

I'm not sure whether instrumentalism being 'axiologically insufficient' is of any interest to (most) scientists, whether or not they agree. For most science is a good thing to do ex hypothesis, by any method available, whatever philosophers might argue, so these problems can all be ignored. My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.

Do you have a position on these questions?

 

[Nereid]

progress, perception of progress, "science"

Kerrie's original question was:
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?[/color]

Kerrie later added:
my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?

i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...[/color]

and:
i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.[/color]

Several excellent posts discussed the limits (or otherwise) of science (including what it IS), the unknowability (?) of the future, the meaning of 'unexplainable', etc.

However, there are other aspects which I feel are relevant ...

1) "Science" itself progresses. What we, today, consider to be science (crudely, the application of the scientific method) is relatively new, so in one narrow sense, 'the progress of science' is only meaningful over the period of time in which 'science' has the meaning it has today. I submit that we cannot even guess what (say) the 10th generation decendant of today's 'science' will look like, in ~3,000 to 5,000 years' time.

2) "Progress" has a significant 'perception' or 'expectation' aspect. Several have discussed how 'progress' may be measured. However, the buyers/stockholders/consumers/players' own expectations re 'progress' really do matter. For example, several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

 

[Hugo Holbling]

Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.

I'm reluctant to say so, but if you look at my homepage you can find an introduction to the different theories of truth. Let me know if you have any feedback or find it isn't enough.

From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.

*shrug* Maybe we can come back to him if and when you read him?

I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.

Perhaps partly, but not entirely. I doubt you meant to imply that, though.

My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.

How did you come by that impression?

Do you have a position on these questions?

Sure: I'm skeptical of this instrumentalism default.

 

[Canute]

1) "Science" itself progresses.

But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?

several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.

 

[Andre]

How far have we really come?

I've seem to have read an anecdote about http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/biog-rutherford.html to have been discouraged from studying physics by his teachers. Why? because everything was already discovered. Perhaps a few left over refinements but nothing substantial was to be discovered anymore. Luckily, Ernest did not listen and then he opened a totally new dimension in Physics.

Today there are few scholars that would discourage students studying physics I guess, indicating that we are nowhere near the end.

Moreover, there is also the trend about knowing more about less and less, until we know everything about nothing. I think that's wrong, especially in my field of interest (Earth sciences). There is only one way to make progress, attempting to know everything about everything and keep looking at the big picture, the total system.

 

[Nereid]

1) "Science" itself progresses.

But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?

If we take 'science' to be the formal application of the scientific method, itself well described and understood, to the nature and origin of the universe, then I think a good case can be made that science has, indeed, progressed. While it's surely much exaggerated, the story of the Greek philosophers and the horse's teeth is a simple example of how far science has progressed - there wasn't much science done in those days, and it wasn't done very effectively (by today's standards).

(I've started a new thread here on how much 'science' there was, historically, in non-Western societies).

several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.

Just my point.

For example, I wonder how much heat there is in debates about abiogenesis in societies avowedly atheistic, or with a religious heritage quite different from christianity.

 

[hitssquad]

Males have more teeth than females

While it's surely much exaggerated, the story of the Greek philosophers and the horse's teeth is a simple example of how far science has progressed

"Males have more teeth than females in the case of men, sheep, goats, and swine; in the case of other animals observations have not yet been made: but the more teeth they have the more long-lived are they, as a rule, while those are short-lived in proportion that have teeth fewer in number and thinly set."

 

[laserblue]

How far have we really come?
What is the destination? How accurate are our predictions?
The original question regarding the progress of science is interesting but I wonder if that progress can truly be measured. The destination appears to be omniscience but how does one determine when such a destination has been reached? What is 70% of infinity? Some of the posters mention the problem of choosing the scale on which to measure progress such as quality of life or control of the physical environment.
Certainly, people have a greater understanding of the physical universe and that understanding is reflected in working technology and fairly accurate predictions of phenomena in several different disciplines. Still, I would like more than just a few hours advance warning of a tornado and how to prevent maize from Mexico growing 20 ft. tall with a cob 8ft. off the ground under long day conditions north of the 49th parallel.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were physicists who were pretty confident they knew it all and just had to add a few decimal points. That view unraveled pretty quickly in physics and yet as Asimov pointed out, while the Earth isn't strictly a perfect sphere, it certainly won't ever be a cube.
If one's goal was to take a shape given to one and create a rectangle by adding it to a preexisting shape, there may come a time when one can't just add the new shape onto the preexisting shape but has to rethink the positioning of all the shapes available. How would a person measure the progress of a researcher working on this puzzle? For the first few moves one seems to be making great progress towards the known goal and then one gets stuck spending a lot of time trying to figure out how the new piece of the puzzle is to be fit in. Let's see, Newton gets it let's say 80% right and GTR and the Standard Model are both maybe 90% right in their respective little corners of the world (wait a second, spheres have no corners) but it's been almost 100 years and fitting GTR and the Standard Model together just hasn't happenned yet. Phillippe LeCorbeiller wrote a little piece for Sci. Am. (The Future of Physics) back in the 50's predicting that physicists would have it all worked out by 2000. Brian Greene seems to think he's got the answer in his Branes. Maybe so.

 

[Canute]

Good point about having 80% of the wrong answer. Time for paradigm shift IMHO.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

One problem may be that you equate inner experiences with mysticism. There is nothing mystical about Buddhism or Taoism etc. Neither is there anything spiritual about them. In fact Buddhist practice involves far more rigour than scienctific practice, since NO assumptions are allowed.

That maybe the problem. The fact that no assumptions are allowed means the narrower field of science can't accommodate it into its perspective. It's science's problem though. It is also more rigorous since somone convinced of Buddhism's truth may well find it hard to progress - he must stop running around in circles of assumptions and break through. Jus a thought occurred to me - this pretty much explains why missionary work isn't top proirity in Buddhism - or is it? I could be wrong on this so I'll leave it up to Canute
(and everyone else) to judge the truth of my statements.

 

[Canute]

That maybe the problem. The fact that no assumptions are allowed means the narrower field of science can't accommodate it into its perspective. It's science's problem though. It is also more rigorous since somone convinced of Buddhism's truth may well find it hard to progress - he must stop running around in circles of assumptions and break through. Jus a thought occurred to me - this pretty much explains why missionary work isn't top proirity in Buddhism - or is it? I could be wrong on this so I'll leave it up to Canute
(and everyone else) to judge the truth of my statements.

I can only give an opinion, but I think what you say is sort of true, but sort of false also. I agree about 'breaking through' ones assumptions, and it seems like a good way of putting it. But the issue of 'missionary work' is a lot more complicated, tied up with the nature of what it is that Buddhists know (or purport to know), which does not lend itself to evangelising. I think it depends what you call missionary work.

The Dalai Lama has expressed some gratitude to the Chinese for destroying his country, on the basis that it scattered skilled teachers across the western world. This is looking on bright side of things big time, given what the Chinese have done in Tibet. But it does show that propagating and sustaining the teachings is an important aim within Buddhism, which I think would be regarded as missionary work (esp. to the developed West ). However beyond just making the teachings available and helping people to grasp them I think Buddhists don't like to interfere too much.

Also there is a slight element of selfishness in Buddhist practice, just as there is in serious instrumental practice for a musician. The idea is to rescue oneself, cast the mote out of ones own eye, before deluding oneself that one can help other people very much. Also if this practice is done conscientiously it takes a lot of time and effort.

But maybe this one is better left for a different thread.

 

[notal33t]

USI vs RSI

Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.

It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills facists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."

'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!

Care to debate the premise?

1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!

Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"

Rant over!

 

[selfAdjoint]

'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!

Care to debate the premise?

1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!

Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"

Rant over!

Try to rant about unfair science on PF and see what THAT gets you! It gets you this:
1. Creationists pretend to be science but they have yet to come up with evidence that isn't hokum, and their discussion techniques are despicable.
2. Cold fusion got a lot of play in scientific labs around the world until it gradually came out that it didn't do what they said it did. All the work since has been to show that it does something else, something not very interesting.
3. For example?
4. Over on Skepticism & Debunking, in spite of the title, UFOlogy gets a fair hearing.

 

[Nereid]

'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!

Care to debate the premise?

1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!

Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"

Rant over!

Perhaps you could clarify please?

"Unrestricted" means you, as an individual, are free to pursue scientific enquiries without hindrance from the state. Of course there are limitations to your pursuit! For example, it is very likely that you will need to build or buy equipment; however I doubt that even you would feel that 'unrestricted' means every citizen and resident can ask the state to provide her with an SSC, LIGO, Keck, etc ... for free!

Too, states have laws regarding health and safety, and there are pesky things like zoning and local government planning regulations to deal with. But in what way do these restrict your freedom to conduct scientific enquiries?

Specifically, on your list, I don't understand:
1) how are you prevented from publishing your scientific inquiries into creationism and evolution? For a small fee, and a home computer with an internet connection, you can set up a website and publish your inquiries - does the state restrict you from doing that?

2) ditto.

3) the restrictions that you may face with getting a book out on your discovery are the same as those of any author ... convincing a publisher that the book will sell enough copies to be a viable commercial proposition. If you're wealthy enough, you can pay to have your book published ... does the state prevent you from doing that?

4) AFAIK, there are hundreds of folk who investigate UFOs, and publish their findings in a wide variety of ways. How does the state restrict these folk (other than refusing demands for access to military bases or classified documents)?

 

[Andre]

There is more to that. I guess. Creative people who invent all kind of gadgets and ideas, may also dream about recognition. It's no use if you have concluding proof that the world is flat and 2004 years old if nobody is listening.

Of course the number of highly hilareous hypotheses has increased dramatically with the sheers numbers of intelligentia. This is preventing finding the odd gem somewhere in there.

Now, So many ideas, if I only could figure out how the coronaes and domes on Venus were really formed.

 

[Nereid]

There is more to that. I guess. Creative people who invent all kind of gadgets and ideas, may also dream about recognition. It's no use if you have concluding proof that the world is flat and 2004 years old if nobody is listening.

Of course the number of highly hilareous hypotheses has increased dramatically with the sheers numbers of intelligentia. This is preventing finding the odd gem somewhere in there.

Now, So many ideas, if I only could figure out how the coronaes and domes on Venus were really formed.

This looks more at one's ability to present one's ideas and findings cogently, in a manner which invites attention; one's ability as a salesman ('salesperson', for US audiences ).

As I understood notal33t's post, she was stating that the state is restricting her freedom to conduct scientific inquiries, not complaining about her inability to market her ideas well!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.

 

[Nereid]

SelfAdjoint, you may very well be right (let's see how/if notal33t responds).

If so, however, then her post has me even more confused; this community in their "ivy covered halls" surely has no power to stop notal33t from doing whatever she wants - scientific enquiry or anything else! - except maybe within those halls. And that includes calling herself a 'scientist, engaged in scientific enquiry'.

Perhaps though she wants creationism, UFOlogy, etc to be included as worthy objects of 'scientific inquiry' within the ivy covered halls (if so, why didn't she say so)? Then her question would have been better phrased as something like 'why is creationism not regarded as a valid area of study by those within ivy covered halls?', or perhaps 'how should science change - as an area of research - in order to incorporate creationism within its scope?'

Or maybe, just maybe, she simply doesn't understand what 'scientific inquiry' is?

 

[notal33t]

Heavens to Betsy!

This looks more at one's ability to present one's ideas and findings cogently, in a manner which invites attention; one's ability as a salesman ('salesperson', for US audiences ).

As I understood notal33t's post, she was stating that the state is restricting her freedom to conduct scientific inquiries, not complaining about her inability to market her ideas well!

=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

 

[russ_watters]

After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

Touche', Nereid! [/inside joke]

 

[Nereid]

=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

Isn't English a wonderful language?! 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.

And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html "

What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'?

 

[notal33t]

This old dog bites!

Isn't English a wonderful language?! 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.

And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html "

What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'?

After many many years in irc chat rooms with a plethora of pseudonyms not all of the easily identifiable masculine variety aka 'Duquesne' I've become inured to gender bending and treat it in a light hearted manner. As to 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog' ARF ARF
Even old dogs can bite!

As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!

 

[Nereid]

As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!

Good, I'm looking forward to it

 

[notal33t]

Cogent rant explanation

Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.

========
The concept that unrestricted scientific investigation is accessible to all is IMHO fallacious, be it from inability to obtain a sufficiently recognized level of education to lack of funding, or peer disapproval, or even outright hostility to a hypothesis not generally accepted as main stream, in other words. ECONOMIC PRESSURE, STATE PRESSURE, PEER PRESSURE and, ad hominem RIDICULE!

Now to the the "final pressure"!

As a recipient of sticks and stones at the school fence in my early childhood for being "different", I can attest to that particular method of dissuasion personally, it's a most effective method of inhibiting "weird people", from attending school. I might add, that the trauma surrounding such events tends to dissuade a person from acquiring a unbiased view of "normal" folks. Follow that up with the not so obvious censure that occurs when a professor takes a dislike (for whatever reason) to a student, and the rather low level of marks that accompanies that, and the possibility for stellar achievement grows rather dim.
I guess the point of what I'm trying to get across is that no true unrestricted inquiry exists, we are all the product of a society that regards the "gifted" (and what they offer) as strange and threatening.

If what came across from me previously is a true rant then blame it on the large defensive shield forced on me by past circumstances.

 

[Nereid]

Intolerance, impatience, arrogance, mind-games ... it's sad but these negative human attitudes and qualities are to be found among scientists and educators, just as they among other folk. Too, the 'tall poppy syndrome' is unfortunately far from rare; yes, the actual day-to-day 'doing' of science is, in many ways, not so different from the life of 'corporation man', or 'salaryman', and so on.

When $$ becomes involved - as it must, few individuals are wealthy enough in their own right to fund the own scientific projects (there are, of course, notable exceptions, both individuals and good science projects that are very cheap) - especially taxpayer $$, then all the ugliness of politics and greed can enter too.

However, are these problems uniquely limitations of institutional science?

 

[yesicanread]

Is there a scale of the perspective of reality
that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on?

If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

On my thread in theory development. I show how the perspective mankind has of asking ?'s, and not knowing the answers to every ?

Here's the theory.

1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

Here is Quantum mechanics in a few simple lines. Uncertainty principle intact.

I will explain QM Uncertainty.

1.) Three planar(on a plane), non-colinear(on a line) points, form a "Plane".

2.) The triangle has the triangle inequality theorem.

3.) This theorem is
Action < Reaction + Reaction

4.) My previous theory explained the use of two reactions to one action.

So for your first question. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality. There has to be. The triangle inequality theorem.

For your second question. how far to the end of this scale are we?
We are at the part of asking questions, and realizing that all the questions we ask ever will not ever be fully answered.