Cross Conceptualization of First Physics 

Yes, this method is only for clarifying concepts once you have many, many observations. Without a wealth of data to conceptualize, this is useless. Part of my point here is that often, even when scientists are steeped in data they still don't conceptualize it properly. This system helps you conceptualize.

I take determinism to mean that every entity acts in one and only one way, based on its own identity and its relationship with other entities. We know that it is more complicated than that for some entities, because we can directly perceive our own free will, so all entities act in accordance with their nature, but not all entities act in one specific way (deterministically.) Now I'm wondering, why do you think determinism would require that space be an entity?

@@Inductica there is a idea of Laplace’s demon, which is a calculator that could iterate existence forward time increment by time increment. However this demon supposedly exists outside of the universe, otherwise it would have to have information about all particles in the universe packed into a volume that is only a subset of the universe. Clearly this cannot be, but I don’t see this argument as having anything to do with the base concept of determinism. If there is no boundary to the universe and it extends on infinitely then that could be another way to mathematically disprove determinism (in some forms). Yet your definition does not care about the size of universe, rather on how an entity acts. This in some way moves the goal line, since then a major question is how entities act. Is it possible to consider all forces and relationships of an entity and therefore know with mathematical precision the spatial location of state of that entity in a future time increment? If yes, can this be extended to all entities? If yes, that sounds deterministic to me. If a single atom is deterministic, would a collection of atoms (say a molecule) be anything other than deterministic? Build up from there to macro-collections like a human body.

Yes, that's obviously true, but it seems to me that there is some thought behind this statement that isn't obvious, what else are you thinking here?

@@Inductica it’s a musing that recognizes how broadly people use the term space. A person might gesture around a room and say there is space. Such a room is filled with air molecules that have low friction to a human. Others look to the stars and talk about the space between planets. There the term is talking about volume that is very low friction (perhaps almost a vacuum). In general it is a term that refers to a volume, and often it does not describe a perfect vacuum but instead is relatively lower friction. I do wonder how to refer to a volume that is properly a vacuum, yet there is still some fabric of reality through which photos can pass. This is the aether that you are thinking about, yes?

@@folechno Yes, that's right. In addition, before we know that light is a wave, we are able to see that a vacuum (a space with a lack of air) can't be nothing, since nothing is not a thing that exists.

I don't think this method NEEDS to be applied, but it can be, and I think if someone does this, they will have extremely clear concepts in their field and will probably end up discovering a number of new things simply as a result of the the greater clarity. The only way to know for sure though is to try, which I will do in the future on the science of psychology. I encourage other people who have an up-to-date understanding of a field to apply this method and see what shakes out. And no, this is not the kind of thinking I did to conclude that there is a physical ether. I have only used this method deliberately twice, and this video is the second time I did it.

@@Inductica Do you plan on doing this with high level physics?

@@ryantellez2871 Yes! But that will be possible only once the inductions of those high level physics concepts are complete.