Living Physics

Empirical Health Science, Are We Ready for It?

This post is specifically about exploring the incredible functionality and power of empirical observation. It is acknowledging the current lack of this power in our mainstream health sciences. The natural conclusion is where we need to bring this power and predictive clarity into all our health sciences, giving us safety first.


How do you describe something without saying why it is so?

Well, simply you drop the sales pitch.  “Just the facts mam.”  But, there is an art to describing an observable natural phenomenon, just the way it is, and without a story.

As an easily recognizable example lets look at Newton’s 3rd law of motion.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Notice, there is nothing which states why this is.  It just is…

It is a clean expression of just what is observed.  It’s brilliant.  It is usable.  It is an empirical observation without an added hypothesis, theory, why, or story. It gives us great insight to the world around us in many different environments.  If we don’t see those equal and opposite reactions we sure will look for them because this law says they are there.  It makes sure we don’t miss it, especially in circumstances and endeavors which could have been dangerous to have it missed.  And, we know how much of a reaction which makes it wonderfully measurable.

Just to illuminate how important this is to physical science, I would like you to consider building a space rocket or car without understanding what Newton’s 3rd law contributes.

Would you build an engine out of a single layer of cardboard? I hope not. As far as I am aware, currently a single layer of cardboard is not strong enough to stop the first action of the explosions involved to power them. Would you run in front of a moving car? Again, I hope not, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that would obviously hurt, to say the least. You wouldn’t build the cone of the space ship out of that single layer of cardboard either because it couldn’t withstand the air friction and resulting heat. Imagine your car with a single layer of cardboard as the frame instead of steel surrounding and protecting you. What would happen to you in an accident?

Identifying physical laws gives us the ability to predict just what will and won’t happen even without a story of why. You can also see how these simple examples demonstrate just how vital it is to physical science in recognizing specific physical laws. Recognizing specific physical laws is what makes any item functional for our use. Basically, the recognition and utilization of these physical laws makes it predictable!

Predictability is key.

If it is predictable then we can count on the outcome… The outcome could be getting to work on time with the car. The outcome could be getting food, oxygen, water, science equipment and people safely to and from a space station. But, I want you to especially notice the inherent need for predictability for this safety. Would we even utilize the car if it wasn’t built for predictable safety first? Would you climb into a car made of cardboard that exploded 50% of the time? Would we even have a manned space station without some predictability of safety for people or the science equipment involved?

The answer is NO! Who would invest in any of it without some predictability of safety?

Without this predictability no one would be foolish enough to risk an investment of resources, money, or people’s lives in any of these physical endeavors.

This predictability is inherently about safety for it to be useful for us mortal beings and our breakable things!

Describing natural phenomenon without why brings us gifts that can be used in almost any environment that will directly affect us.  These descriptions are unique in that we can trust their expression giving us a lot more certainty and reliability to predictable observable responses. They keep us from making mistakes. They are the very core of what makes any endeavor useful to us.

Described empirical natural phenomenon, allows us to predict reliably something potentially not already observed for a reliable outcome which ultimately is a prediction of safety for some material(s) or person(s). 

(If we were able to do this in living science, I assert, that it would always predict how it affects our mortality… specifically.)

These, “laws,” are not meek little descriptions of just one particular area.  Entire sciences are formed around these empirical descriptions of natural physical phenomena.  All sciences can be affected by them to some degree.  They lift our intelligence and expand our consciousness in how we relate to our environment.  They have almost unlimited usable potential and discovery!


The big WHY?

How important is understanding why something is the way it is observed?

If you remember, we don’t know why for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do we? Do you?

I don’t. I imagine, the answer would have to encompass exactly how everything was made and how everything relates in our physical universe at this moment together. Currently we do not have a reference for that “Universal Theory!” Or, if we do have a reference such as “God created it that way,” then it is not universally agreed upon or fully understood as of yet.

But, notice… how without stating a why,… a Physical Law is completely reliable.

What happens when we add a “why” Newton’s 3rd Law works?

Add any why to Newton’s statement and see what happens. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction because butterflies come from caterpillars. Okay, that’s fine, but it doesn’t help it to be more or less predictable. We would just keep making sure butterflies come from caterpillars in order to use this prediction and possibly waste resources and time. How about a deeper one? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction because God wants it that way, or designed it that way. Does that make it any more useful?

Well maybe…

Adding the why it exists makes it no more useful or less useful in physical application, however it could bring more people to a specific religion where this useful information is revealed. Or, it could make it so people won’t utilize it by being attached to a specific religion that they resist. People could like or dislike caterpillars too. But, repeatedly observed natural phenomenon has nothing to do with, theory, story, or belief. It is just a description of how things are observed to respond. And, very importantly without that “WHY?!”

A Physical Law is an observable natural phenomenon which completely stands on its own 100% of the time without answering why it does.

In-fact adding a why to it accomplishes something in our human emotional responses, but does not change its ultimate application in a purely physical response. Adding a why only changes how we utilize it as people. In my opinion adding a why makes it a sales pitch for some other outcome unrelated to the direct application or truth of the circumstance.

Basically, if we add any other meaning to a natural observable phenomenon then it is (partially or completely) obscured for the purpose of prediction of safety and usefulness. The application of a why to a natural observable phenomenon has it become something other than a simple expression of the truth of circumstance. It becomes something with a belief attached to it.

I would say that in the high majority of instances (maybe all) that adding the why, story, theory, hypothesis actually creates an inherent lie when held as the truth.

Natural observable phenomenon are especially powerful predictions when stated without a why! I would go as far to suggest that unless a naturally observed phenomenon is stated without a why, then it is not real!

This discussion may seem philosophical and a bit over the top, however I would like to suggest:

If anyone gives you or directly answers a why to anything… it is time to be very suspicious!

“Why?” or answering “why”… has nothing to do with a straight forward observation. Answering why inherently makes it a belief instead of just what is.

Did you ever play the child’s game of asking why about everything?

Why did you go to sleep? … because I was tired. Why were you tired? because I worked hard the day before. Why did you work hard? To make money. Why did you want to make money? To feed you. Why did you want to feed me? Because I love you. Why do you love me? Because I do! At a certain point it just has to end. If left to continue it would have to include everything to answer why or it would only be a partial truth or a lie. If you look at the why game answers they are all partial answers to the original question. Why did you go to sleep? Because, I was tired, worked hard, needed to make money, want to feed you, I love you, etc…

In human relations we ask why all the time thinking we can understand something or someone better with the answer. But, when you get right down to it. I can’t answer why I love. I can answer that I do love. I can answer as an observation of just what is, but when I try to place why to it, then it limits the value to maybe a partial truth, but as we can see, it is really a false claim if it is held completely as the truth of why something happens or is. There are always deeper meanings and a new model can be made from those deeper meanings to include more of the why answers.

Wouldn’t it be confusing to my child to just say I love you because you are my child. It might be a partial truth, but is that all? Why do I love my child? You see it never ends. There is always a deeper cut and multiple answers to everything. To truly answer any why might be impossible because of needing to explain why everything is at once the way it is. It is all encompassing and never the full truth when an answer is given to why something exists or is related.

If we describe mechanisms of action in medicines within the body and say they are why a drug acts to change a situation, it is an outright lie. A person is not just a machine or a few simple chemical responses. The mechanism of action may be part of what happens, but there is a much deeper response on many levels.

Now “why” are we going through all this?

To understand what is possible with empirical science we first have to understand the cost without it!

It all comes back to creating predictable and safe health therapies, and distinguishing what we have now from what may be possible.

As an example lets look at how we relate to our medical drugs, now:

Consider how all our medications have side-effects which give us a potential to suffer or even cause our death. Predictability of safety would seem to be key in our utilization of these medications for ourselves. Do we have this predictability and safety?

I think it is pretty obvious that we don’t have the predictability or safety when our third leading cause of death here in the US is iatrogenic (meaning medically induced). This is technically from all sources including surgeries and mistaken diagnosis etc., not just medications.

But, lets just look at medications for the moment for the sake of the length of this blog article. Most of us know medications have an inherent risk.

So, how do we relate to our medications which creates this?

Currently, in order to research, produce, or sell a drug and rationalize its use there has to be an understood mechanism of action. A strong description of why this drug works in our body and the research to back it up. Our FDA, governing body for drugs, needs to understand for safety sake how they work. Your doctor needs to understand a mechanism of action in order to use it effectively. A salesman needs to understand in order to sell it to all three, the government, your doctor, and you on the TV.

Now, lets get more specific by using the example of blood pressure medications. There are many different types of blood pressure medications with different mechanisms of action. When one doesn’t work then another is tried or added to the first according to what the doctor sees as the best choice. After all, why would a doctor use a medication with the same mechanism of action when that has already failed or been insufficient? Pretty important, right?

If a person has hypertension (high blood pressure) a doctor could prescribe an ACE inhibitor acting through an enzyme in the upper portion of the lungs, maybe a diuretic dropping the water pressure, or simply a calcium channel blocker acting through the gut. If one didn’t work then maybe a combination of two or more could do the trick.

It gives great confidence in knowing just how this drug works and if it doesn’t we can then go completely to another or add it in to help. If it causes a reaction then we can avoid that type of medication with that mechanism of action all together. This is quite a great accomplishment! Medical science has advanced gloriously from the days when we had no idea how these things worked.

Or, has it?

The fact is… that it is an impossibility to have any medication regulate blood pressure through a single mechanism of action alone.

The reason I say this is because we have an uncountable amount of feed-back loops regulating our blood pressure in each person’s body. There are recognized sensors on both carotid arteries, sensors on both renal arteries, renin is a hormone that regulates blood pressure produced by the kidneys, we naturally get thirsty and drink more water to counter a diuretic that makes us pee more, and on and on… Just because we shut off one regulator would never work because many others will push back to re-regulate.

In-fact, what happens to any cell if it doesn’t get a blood supply? It dies! So, logically all cells would have to contribute at some level to multiple feedback loops about blood pressure throughout an entire body. Any change from an outside source would get all these other regulators screaming in the opposite direction.

Yet, blood pressure medicines do work to regulate blood pressure.

So, what does this mean?

It means that something else is happening which cannot be described by a simple mechanism of action. The mechanisms of action which gives great confidence to our government to approve the safety of the drug, gives the information and knowledge to the doctor to prescribe it, and is used to give the salesmen a tool to sell it to the government, doctor, and you is simply not real. It may be a partial truth or a really good story, but it is not what is happening!

If it is not the mechanism of action that is sold to us by the salesman, then what is happening?

What is the cost of responding to something as if we know what is happening when we plainly, don’t?

What science is involved when we only have a partial reasoning and not an understanding that can predict it accurately and fully?

What is the cost?

Well, predictability is lost…

When predictability is lost then safety is lost…

I assert how there are observable natural responses at action here and not mechanisms of action, or a singular chemical response, sales pitch. Relying on sales pitches for science can not be advanced or good!

I believe, fully revealed observable natural responses can show the actions clearly and undeniably revealing exactly what is happening. But, the predictions these observable natural responses predict are potentially devastating to the reliability on our current medications, just like our statistics showing us the cost in lives mentioned previously.


Now here begins our real exploration about observable natural phenomenon:

Discovering and revealing observable natural responses is about gaining predictions which never fail and creating the safety where there was none before.

Can we find these empirical descriptions of  repeatable natural phenomena which deal with life responses and our health?

First, I just want you to consider that possibly in our current mainstream health practices we don’t have these profound truths available to us.  Please also consider how it is probable we have not brought actual science into our health without them. Instead we may have brought beliefs, dogma, and hypothesis as truth instead of a search to recognize observable natural responses.

If we haven’t brought descriptions of these empirically observed natural repeatable phenomenon to predict our outcomes consistently and reliably in life and health, then what are we doing?

Sure, we have descriptions of incredible amounts of  information, but no clear descriptions of empirical repeatable natural phenomenon which we can count on to hold true in every environment which will affect our health directly, and discern whether something is safe for us or not.

It is important that we consider Life at the very least as a complex system with multiple feedback-loops.  (This gets into complex systems theory which I fear will loose any chance of an audience.  So, I’ll let it go) Basically, we are far more complicated than a machine and we have no laws which consider our mortality first.  (Laws such as Starling’s, are still based on mechanics in treating our living heart as a simple pump, even though our hearts can beat autonomously and they are not made out of plastic, and will not respond with absolute predictability in a mechanical model.)

There are no profound guiding-post, “laws,” of how life responds to guide us safely.  Nothing is available to explicitly represent our safety or effectiveness, in (dare I say)… mechanically oriented, sales pitch dominated, western medicine!  Mechanical science is not reliably safe, or accurate when used without respect for what is living.

For information on how unsafe it is to rely on mechanical science you may read either or both of these previous articles:

“Are You Confused by Scientific Studies and Their Contradictions?”

“Empirical Science VS Rationalization, Are We Able to Survive This Health Crisis?”

Where in our life sciences do we see the patterns of empirical repeatable natural physical phenomenon that is as predictable as Newton’s third law of motion?

We say medicine is advancing with new discoveries every year.  Yes, new discoveries of why are created daily.  New discoveries of treating life as a simple mechanical systems which is completely inaccurate.  But, why and answering why is not science.  It is a story. And, mechanical science is definitely not living science. Read the two articles linked above for more on this.

Where are the new advances in describing empirical repeatable natural living phenomena (laws for life/health)?  Even genetics is a mechanical, and/or chemical description.  I would say through observation that medicine is not advancing, but going the opposite direction with profoundly ignoring basic established principles such as the Hippocratic Oath.  I might consider the Hippocratic Oath of, “first do no harm,” as a principal which may be/lead us to the discovery of empirical repeatable natural living phenomenon. The reason I make this statement is because “first do no harm” addresses our mortality and vulnerability which is the exact essence of what distinguishes the difference between a living being and a thing.

I would also say that medicine is treading water when it continues to advance in a simple mechanical dynamic.  There is no advancement in continuing practices which have the same predictably harmful responses. An advancement would be a complete paradigm shift. Do I dare mention that medicine could be about “safety first” in it’s therapy? Now that would be a complete paradigm shift from chemo-therapy, anti-biotic (anti-life) treatments.

I don’t want anyone to just swallow this as another sales pitch.  Empiricism just describes what is so.  It is not a sales pitch to reveal what is and is not happening.  It is straight observation without the story attached.  It is where science begins.

Can you describe any empirical repeatable natural phenomena related to  life and our health discovered by western medicine and utilized as such?

I say, there should be many of these in an actual science.  I may not have been introduced to them, even though I have looked for them for more than 25 years.  As a hint, I would suggest to you they are only found with a prediction of safety/survival.  I invite you to list some here if you know of any and participate with me.  Just please avoid suggesting a mechanical law treating our bodies as a simple machine with no prediction for safety.

Mechanical descriptions are valuable when treating ourselves as plumbing.  Mechanical descriptions are highly unlikely to be useful in discovering what therapy has a truly safe outcome for us.  A machine can be completely pulled apart and put back together and run fine, try that with a bird or any other living creature.

This is an area where we can begin together to create real science for our health instead of sales pitches and non-science (nonsense) which shock us each year with a new medical drug needing to be removed because of the previously unrealized loss of life or function.


What would an observable natural phenomenon look like in a health science?

We do need an example of what a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon would look like in relating to life and health.  But, just one more exploration before we give that example.

Reviewing this carefully, at first glance we may consider a good diet and exercise as a description of empirical natural phenomenon which lead to predictions of good health.  We know a good diet helps and exercise helps, but in what expression?  No-one agrees in exactly how we all should exercise, or what is the universally healthy diet for everyone.  Even in these simple areas we can observe there is good value for our health, but we have no, “law,” or overall description of repeatable natural observable phenomenon to guide us here.

Studies haven’t helped.  One says one thing then another says the opposite.

If any theories about diet were an actual law then it would not become outdated. We are sold by theories diets after diets which change every year.

We have no reality when it comes to our health. We currently have sales…

I’m urging how we desperately need these profound guiding-posts (descriptions of empirical natural phenomena) to bring us out of the dangerous methodology of relying on commercialism to make our health choices.

We need these profound guiding-posts to bring us out of the dangerous methodology of “sales pitching ourselves to death medicine” which we currently surrender ourselves to.

Personally, I want real advances not sales of why we should continue to be good little boys and girls and take our medicine.

In a future post, I will discuss what the current medical model does use as a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon, but to this point unconsciously.  The predictions are extremely reliable which make them utterly shocking.


Before I describe what I consider a naturally observed phenomenon relating to life, I would like to give an example of what it looks like in a living science.

Yes, there is one.

Why I love the natural healing therapy of homeopathy, in particular, is because it does give us a description of empirical repeatable natural phenomenon which shows up in life, health, and our environments.  This gives us clarity and a methodology to rule out sales pitches which go against the creed of “first do no harm.”

The description of the natural phenomenon for homeopathy is simple:

Like cures like. 

Technically, it is formally recognized in Latin, but less understandable for most of us.  In Latin it is:

Similia Similibus Currantur

“Like cures like,” was discovered empirically by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann a German physician and chemist (1755- 1843).  This empirical natural phenomenon was developed also empirically as the healing science of homeopathy.

As an example of empiricism homeopathy will test remedies without any intent of outcome.  What the remedy causes is simply what it heals, so it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it will always be useful.  Homeopathy and it’s practitioners and pharmacies have no need for any prediction of desired intent. No money is invested in finding a heart medicine or cancer therapy directly. Each remedy does just what it does without a prior investment of resources to discover a potential cancer, heart, or anything specific.

Homeopathy as a science doesn’t have to sell what the drug might do in order to gain huge sums of money to actually test if it is true.  Natural substances are not patentable and because of this will not make anyone rich by holding a monopoly.  Anyone can source and utilize the natural substance once any benefit is discovered. The research for homeopathic remedies is nothing but research to find it’s usefulness.  Simple science.  Empirical Science.

Current western drug methodology is extremely flawed from the get-go, by predicting a potential medical substances value and financially backing that prediction.  There is no science when the observer is heavily influenced by the outcome, especially monetarily.  Who can resist the temptation to force the results when expectations are high financially, where the result can make or break an entire company not to mention each individual involved?

Quick simple examples of, “Like Cures Like,” and a natural empirical phenomenon:  Symptoms resembling a bee sting (redness, swelling, stinging pain, worse heat) would be helped by a remedy made from a honey bee in extreme dilution.  Or, when you cut a red onion open without previously rinsing the knife, it hurts and stings the eyes causing lots of tears and mucous out the nose.  We use the red onion for allergies or colds with this similar expression of symptoms very effectively. Very simple, safe, and effective.  These are just two examples of the remedies in our homeopathic pharmacopeia which has been established as an act of congress here in the U.S. since 1938.


Even more brilliant and useful is the way the homeopathic remedies have been developed.  It has been empirically shown for over 200 years that very dilute amounts can be used with great effectiveness.  So, no toxic side-effects from the substance is required to be effective, ever. If adopted by mainstream medicine that would be an incredible paradigm shift.

Mechanical “Theorists” who are fanatical can’t allow their minds to understand how this could be a reality. They insist the remedies are just placebo. The most fanatical resists and even attack homeopathy without ever trying it!

However, a brilliant humanitarian, such as Mother Theresa would use the remedies in her hospital in Calcutta because of her personal observation of how they worked for people. Ghandi another great humanitarian interested in helping his people promoted homeopathy. The Royal Family of England has used homeopathic remedies for generations and support its availability for their country. It would be difficult to find better recommendations from people who empirically observed their effectiveness. A humanitarian is a person who is interested solely in what works for people and can’t waste limited resources. A company on the other hand is interested in what?


The power of observation vs belief!

So, get this. Talk about inspirational and leaving mystery in the world and our science.  Homeopathically we can use substances diluted beyond Avogadro’s number.  Avogadro’s number is used in chemistry to define how many dilutions it takes to reduce the original diluted substance to nothing.  Homeopathic remedies diluted beyond 23X or 12C have not a single molecule left of the original substance according to Avogadro’s number.  Yet, homeopathic remedies are extremely effective when this dilute, sometimes more effective.  That gives anyone who has experienced it themselves a great mystery yet unknown in the world to actually feel and participate with.  Try it.  Magnesium Phosphoricum is much more effective for some pains in 200C in my experience than in less diluted 30C.  However, both dilutions are beyond Avogadro’s number and considered to have not a single molecule of original substance. The higher potency usually kicks in faster at around 10-15 minutes and the lower a few minutes later around 20 minutes.

Over 25 years I have observed this phenomenon in hundreds (maybe thousands)of situations and felt it myself dramatically.  After all these years the possibility and potential of this still leaves me in awe.  We do not know how this works exactly, or why.  We just know it does and it has been consistent for over 250 years.  It has been tested and found effective on T-cells, wheat seed germination, animals, babies, herd animals, and epidemics, all the conditions which would not allow for the placebo effect.  Yet, we have not developed for ourselves an empirical natural description of this phenomenon, or a sales pitch of why it works.

(I’m glad we have no sales pitch, because eventually it would be disproved and used to invalidate the real value of homeopathy.) It works!

Talk about safe! Talk about economical!  Talk about the opportunity to honor the Hippocratic Oath with a healing practice.  But, how do we explain this natural phenomenon so it becomes widely accepted for all these obvious benefits without creating a sales pitch (a non-science, why)?

How do we explain that a substance can be very effective for healing without there being one molecule of the original substance present at administration?  Do we need to explain why?  Do we need to show a mechanical model to explain a living empirical response? 

Does Newton need to explain why for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

These intensely diluted substances are currently the greatest criticism of homeopathy from competing industries (basically medical non-science).  Although homeopathy uses crude substance as well, homeopathy is criticized as if it used only the high dilutions. The very thing which makes homeopathy the safest medicine on the planet may be what keeps people from utilizing it.

Our medical society finds it extremely difficult to let go of the idea that for a medicine to be effective it has to be able to cause harm.  It is also obviously difficult for a medical mainstream to let go of the financial gain from such a model which keeps people reliant on their expensive substances.

Why does medicine have to be strong and have toxicity and side-effects in order to be considered effective?  What empirical natural response has ever been offered up to justify the conclusion where we need to poison ourselves to heal?

The health of our society and individuals can’t ultimately win with the continued use of mainstream therapies currently as evidenced by our choice to ignore the Hippocratic Oath with our current practices.  Current mainstream therapies have shown to predictably become a leading cause of our death even in our basic statistics of our healthcare.

So, I offer a potential alternative?

Find empirical natural phenomenon which are as consistent in life science as Newton’s Third Law is in mechanical science. It is time…

I have coined the phrase of consistently observable natural phenomenon that accurately and always predicts the outcome in living beings as Living Physics!

We need to start with the basics first. Observing and making conscious just what does and does not work… Such as; “For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction.” We need to hone down these kinds of extremely accurate predictions for our health sciences considering mortality first…

I am proposing one here:

“I am a living community. As a living community, I respond to what I feel is most immediately life threatening, first.”

I will describe why I propose this in a future blog…

Thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *