What is the source of the phenomena in our lives?

Have you ever seen the documentary, The Happening? It answers all the universe's questions.

No, that's not true. But this is the same chain of situations on a previous path and drawn to understand that everything is connected to us.

I think, what you are talking about is mythology.

Mythology is important, it gives us as sense of the "deeper" relationships, our connections and our place in the Universe.

Mythology doesn't have any real connection to science. Science tells us what we can measure... science has nothing to say about meaning. Once you try to find meaning from science, it is no longer science.

Not my friend, this is not a mythology. definitely not.
Where did you come to this conclusion?
So what is it?
It is the understanding that the discovery of new phenomena, including renewal in general, can only result from the connection of two or more components.
What's more, like the clip I sent, we're about to change our research tools.
If until today what was important was the manipulation of the variable, what will be important is how I perceive what is in that variable. And which lab is it?
The lab will be the same internal tools of yours with which you perceive reality. Not the five senses you were born with. But what are those schemas, the same new pattern that evolution will introduce us to.

This is the definition of mythology. What do you think is the difference between this and mythology?

You are talking about "connection" in the context of meaning... this is something that is outside of the scope of science.

really? Is this a mythology? If this is not science let's try to demonstrate to me a renewal in nature that does not result from a connection between two or more components.
I can however give you an example: for example from a connection between hydrogen and oxygen each of which has different quality, water is created which is a completely new thing with different quality than those that were before.
This is what you call mythology?
Okay, but I call it science.

For it to be science it needs to be testable. This means that there needs to be some experimental result that would disprove your principle.

If you are going to show a "connection" between hydrogen and oxygen... then you need to tell me how this connection can be disproven (i.e. tested).

Any scientific theory has an experiment that could disprove it, and anyone who understands the theory can describe exactly that experiment. If something can't be objectively tested, it isn't science.

I agree with every word you wrote, only I do not understand how it contradicts what I wrote before.

I did say anything about contradiction. The only thing I am commenting on is your use of the word "science".

When you are talking about connections and deeper understandings, you are no longer talking about science. Science is very bad at addressing the meaning of things... that isn't what science is for.

I believe that human life is sacred, and I am confident in saying this is a truth. However, there is nothing scientific about this... there is no scientific experiment I can use to test the idea that human life (or any life) is sacred. Science can't address this question.

I do not know what I wrote that implies that there is a connection between science and sacred human life.
What I wanted to emphasize is that renewal in nature results from a connection between two or more components. And I gave an example of this with the oxygen and hydrogen molecule that give a new result with new properties (water).
And what we have not yet discovered is that what we see outwardly, plants, trees, cats, dogs. These are just coverings of inner essence. A molecular accumulation of will that is seen by us in different figures. And from this also derives the differences between human beings. From the same essence of will that was created with what is called the "Big Bang."

Can you propose an experiment to test this principle? What experimental result would disprove this principle?

How do you design an experiment to test for the existence of an "inner essence".

Things that are not testable are not "science".

Your questions are correct and are the result of the same building blocks of scientific research.
Yet the inability to achieve the same inner essence of every creature( In the same conventional research tools) does not make the theory incorrect.
More than that, as we progress in science we will reach the same limit where our perceptual capacity will be limited.
As we progress we will recognize that the same conditions and criteria of the research experiment will be breached but Still loyal to the research.
how?
By upgrading the research tools that to date have been considered absolute.
Those atoms of an inner essence whose change will also change the boundaries of their current perception.
You wrote that things that cannot be tested are not science.
You're right, but that will be the new science. On the one hand empirical and testable but on the other hand the same test will be done by new and upgraded tools.

The term "scientifically correct" means testable by experiment. It is nothing more and nothing less than that.

This inner essence may at some point be testable by experiment. This willean that you can elaborate a set of experimental results that would disprove the existance of inner essence.

Until that point it isnt scientifically correct. That doesnt mean it isnt correct in some other sense.

It sounds like maybe we are in agreement. My only point is the definition of science. Maybe we can develop new tools to test new ideas and theories. Until they can be tested and possibly disproven, they aren't science.

I am curious...

Do you have any idea on how you would design an experiment that could disprove the existance of an "inner essence"?

This exercise is interesting in that it provides a concise definition of the tea involved.

Did anyone really achieve what happened in the universe a billion years ago?
And if not, why do we not treat astronomy as a philosophy?
Has anyone obtained and what is electricity?
We know it works on any device according to the "nature" of the device. We know that this is a group of physical phenomena related to the presence and movement of an electric charge. The presence of an electric charge, which can be positive or negative, produces an electric field. Any electrically charged particle can cause electrical phenomena, but in nature most electrical phenomena result from the electrical charge of electrons and protons only.
But do we get the essence of electricity or the way it works on us?
In other words, we deal, research and draw conclusions about different substances and phenomena even though we do not achieve their essence.
So when you ask how I can design an experiment so that it disprove the existence of essence, I am unable to do so.
I agree with you that there is a problem here. A question that the experimental laboratory of the 21st century will have to deal with. And I suppose the same conventional tools with which we have advanced in scientific development will have to change.

I am not sure I understand your questions

Astronomy is a science. Therefore Astronomy only deals with things that are testable by experiment. In philosophy you can deal with things that aren't testable, but Astronomy is not philosophy.

The very term "essence of electricity" is not scientific unless you can propose an experiment with possible results that would disprove it.

There is no problem. Science is a base of knowledge that consists only of things that can be tested by experiment. Science is very good at answering the questions that can be answered by experiment.

There are lots of questions that can't be answered by science. That isn't a problem. Science is certainly useful for what it does. I think you might be confusing science and philosophy.

I know exactly what the difference is between science and philosophy. Only I add one more thing.
That the same science we have known so far will receive a fundamental change.
how?
By that the same part of education which is considered philosophical, shall be built on the basis of the critique of practical reason, that is, according to experimental measures.
How?
By the same results we get, will be as a result of changing the internal tools of us.
And that new place or tool built within us, will be the place where you will wear the same education that you call philosophical.
And so an iron rule is that: "Whatever we do not achieve, it is not defined by name and word."
Therefore this attainment will be the final stage in the investigation of any subject.