A lengthy discourse on the topic reveals that intention is external and the ownership belongs to every mature, awake, and sane adult (see for instance the chapter: Role of Intention in Zatzman and Islam (2007), Islam et al. (2013) and Islam et al. (2014)).

Table 6.2 lists the fundamental features of the external entity. The existence of an external entity is necessary condition to eliminating the notion of void that had been inherited from atomism philosophy and was carried forward first by Thomas Aquinas and then by subsequent scientists, without exception.

This external entity was first recognized as God (ancient Greek philosophers all the way to Avicenna and Averroes of Islamic golden era), then conflated as plenum and aether (Islam et al., 2013, 2014). While the existence of such entities has been denied and sometime “proven” to be nonexistent, the traits of these external entities have been included in all forms of “fundamental” particles, ranging from photon to Higgs boson. In addition, such features have also been invoked in galactic models in the form of various entities, ranging from “dark matter,” “black hole” to “absolute void.” Newton introduced this as “external” force and defined it as the originator of differential motion. The original Averroes concept, as supported by the Qur'an was that such originator of motion is the creator, whose traits are all different from the traits of creation.

Table 6.3 shows many currently used “laws” and theories, all of which emerged from the New Science after renaissance. Note how the first premises of practically all of these theories violate fundamental features of nature. Only conservation of mass that in fact has root in ancient times does not have an aphenomenal first premise. New Science has given us only theories and “laws” that have spurious first premise, as can be evident by using Averroes criterion for phenomenality (Zatzman and Islam, 2007a).

If all theories of New Science are based on premises that violate fundamental traits of nature, such laws and theories should weaken considerably or worse, implode, if applied as universal laws and theories. They can be applied only to certain fixed conditions that pertain to “idealized” situations not extant in nature. For example, it can be said that the laws of motion developed by Newton cannot explain the chaotic motion of nature due to its assumptions that contradict the reality of nature.

The experimental validity of Newton's laws of motion is limited to describing instantaneous macroscopic and tangible phenomena. However, microscopic and intangible phenomena are ignored. Classical dynamics as represented by Newton's laws of motion, emphasize fixed and unique initial conditions, stability, and equilibrium of a body in motion (Islam et al., 2010). With the “laws” and theories of Table 6.3, it is not possible to make distinction between the natural products and their corresponding 

The above transition is the hallmark of modern technological developments that have been characterized by Nobel laureate chemist, Robert Curl as “technological disaster.” Table 6.3 shows how every promise made in technology development has been reversed in the most spectacular way.