In a world of something called perceptions or thought, something beyond the hard action/reaction of pure physics, those terms become relevant to one's views.<quoted text>
If you do away with objective evidence, falsifiability, and testability, how do you determine which perspectives are true and which false?
We all know a hammer falling on a toe can hurt, or that applied physics is pretty real because it satisfies those things you mentioned on the physical level. The difference comes from interpreting what happens on the macro and micro scales, and just what it is we are. For instance, your physics is what you accept written in a book, which is particle physics, the reducing of "reality" to solid objects. This comes from dissecting up to a point and then pure theoretical assumptions from there to describe partciles that can't be seen. Just the effects. From my view I see an energy caused by something we can't detect physically, but was knit into apparent particles. Some of both are incorporated in the stuff Polymath preaches. Both what I perceive and Poly perceives points to another dimension. Which negates the strictly physical view of particle believers. They aren't looking past the mirrors caused by particles. This atheistic view portrayed on here is based upon those particles always pre-existing. A very limited view.
You can't believe in other dimensions if you don't reserve judgment on the existence of the supernatural and metaphysical, and thus possibility of a higher level that constructed this limited universe we occupy for now.