Idealism vs materialism, touchy and feely
Okay, “travel back in time”, Galileo and his balls PRESENCE.
Two balls, one heavy while another light, open the hands:
The activity of man’s mind might generate a few ideas:
1. The heavy ball falls faster than the light ball;
2. The light ball falls faster than the heavy ball;
3. Two balls move upward into sky;
4. Two balls stop there;
5. Two balls became one;
6. Two balls falls onto the ground at the same time;
What science accepted in history was Galileo’s Pizza Tower experiment. From then on, science had broken through the limitation of idealism, I think. Thereafter, science entered into a new era of materialism. Observation and experiment were emphasized.
Of course, some guys might say “other possibility”, just “it has not been observed to this moment”. Then, science really does have no idea how to lobby / persuade them. What science can do is to ignore them or considers them as “fringe theory”.
A No SAVE fool might even insist his “new idea” of “4”. His view must represent science, “sure enough”. Then, science really does have no idea how to lobby / persuade him. What science can do is to suggest him directly go to the church and replace G* / Lord of creature. Unfortunately, there might be another “ambitious" guy with a different mind, who might insist his “new idea” of “3”. Also, his view must represent science, “sure enough”. Then, again, science really does have no idea how to lobby / persuade him. What science can do again is to suggest him directly go to the church and replace G* / Lord of creature…Oh Lord, then, which G* science has to follow?
Actually, there are many “ambitious” guys in this cosmos. Once upon a time, piggy encountered a guy who directly employed such a picture as his avatar, many “new ideas”…
But neither the “authentic” guys nor this “eccentric” seemed like him. haha
The section of “Prisoner of logic, touchy and feely” in a previous post was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate the subtle difference between the activity of man’s mind and the actual activity of nature. Piggy repeated it here:
Assume the distance between point A and point B is 10 miles. Now a guy tries to walk from point A to point B. That guy seems very “brilliant”. He thinks: “if I walk 1 mile, there would be 9 miles left ahead; if I walk 1.1 miles, there would be 8. 9 miles left ahead; if I walk 1.11 miles, there would be 8. 89 miles left ahead; if I walk 1.111 miles, there would be 8. 889 miles left ahead; and so on…” Then he is “sure enough” he never can reach point B.
But actually that guy can reach point B if he is willing to do it. This is something can be verified by experiment.
That guy “sure enough” his view is the “truth” of this world. Unfortunately the world is going in another way…What happens?
That guy set up a “mechanism of logic” for himself and then the 10 miles became a cage for his thought. Then, a dog wags its tail in the cage. Toggle toggle all day all night…
Actually, “walk from point A to point B” is just an “independent event” in nature, which doesn’t need that guy’s so called what “logic” (based on his own psychology) at all. The scientific description for this event is “S = vt”.
That guy climbed into his cage and view the world in his own way is not wrong. All are trying to touch the elephant. What’s wrong is he considers his cage is the whole world. From the view of those guys outside the cage, isn’t that guy a “fool”?
In the above case, that fool abuses + / - logic in scientific research and mistakes it as a generally applicable method of description in any situation.
(Note: Piggy is not trying to “instruct” that NO SAVE fool, but to reiterate my stance: Oh Lord, SCIENCE SHOULD NOT BE MISGUIDED BY THAT FOOL’S PSYCHOLOGY INTO HIS CAGE OF LOGIC.)
Have a lovely day.