You could also say reality is composed of Mechanisms and the boundary between the Mechanisms which is Choice. To be observed by science something must reliably repeat. Mechanisms reliably repeat. So through the lens of science, everything is a mechanism. But there is always ambiguity at the edges of the mechanism at the boundary and it is upon this ambiguous uncertain boundary that choice enters.
Another fascinating post!
I'd been wondering about what we're taught regarding what science is, that it has to have controlled, repeating phenomena observed
But isn't this a huge limitation on knowledge?
It was especially the shape-shifting ET subject that got me thinking about this. The phenomena is notoriously elusive. It seems it's the entities' CHOICE to be elusive. Take skinwalker ranch, for example, with the entities reportedly messing with recording equipment etc.
Considering at least some of these entities can walk through walls, what are the odds that it's going to be exceedingly difficult to keep one in a lab...
So using 'science' (according to the standard definition), isn't it going to be extremely difficult to provide evidence for these entities' existence?
But what if many people have reported such entities, throughout time and across the world... Is it therefore 'unscientific' to say this is a real phenomenon?