He said to me,"You should have something to say.”I nodded." If we want to understand what matter, motion, and space-time are, we must first understand how people understand the world. If we don't understand this, we may never understand the relationship between matter, motion, and space-time.
(1) We don't know what the world is
We have no way of knowing what the world is. In fact, this question ultimately asks what matter itself is, and this is precisely what we can't answer. This was mainly because of the following reasons:
1. Things themselves cannot explain what they are
The existence of an object did not only depend on its own existence, but also on whether it could let other things " know " of its existence, or whether it could be " perceived " by other things. " Existence is perceived " should be correct. But here, we can't narrow our perception as human beings 'perception like what we did at Clay. It should be a perception that includes people and everything else. If people and all other things could not " perceive " the existence of an object, then that object was equivalent to not existing.
Things themselves could not explain whether they existed or not, nor could they explain what they were. They could only prove their existence through interaction. Only by exerting an effect on other things could they "tell" other things about their existence and show what they were.
2. Things can only "recognize" other things by "perceiving" their own changes.
Nothing could know what other things looked like, nor could it 'perceive' other things out of thin air. They could only "perceive" other things by "perceiving" their own changes (reactions). The change (reaction) of the object itself came from the effect of other things. Other things exerted an effect on it, thus causing some changes in itself. It was through sensing the changes in oneself that things could recognize other things. The cotton "knew" the temperature of fire while burning, and the stone "knew" the hardness of iron when it was broken.
3. People can only understand the world through their feelings
Things themselves could not explain what they were, and people could not know what they were innately. Humans knew things through their senses, and their senses were the source of all their knowledge about the world. The external stimulus acted on the human sensory organs, and the sensors in the sensory organs converted this stimulus into nerve impulses. The nerves transmitted the nerve impulses to the nerve center, and the nerve center recognized the world by sensing this change.
The mechanism of cognition makes it impossible for us to know what the thing itself is. Because, in essence, feeling is just something in our brain. It is a change in the human brain after the external things act on the human sensory organs. It is an effect of the external things and the human body. It was obvious that the understanding of the effect of the feeling was not the same as the understanding of the thing itself.
A feeling can only tell us what it feels, but it cannot tell us what the object of the feeling is. With a finger, he knocked off an apple on the table. The apple fell and hit a power switch. The switch connected the circuit and detonated a nuclear bomb 10,000 kilometers away. The nuclear bomb exploded! In the process of human perception, there were hundreds of millions of cells involved in the process. The transformation of external things into human perception was as complicated as the detonation of a nuclear bomb by a finger. If the nuclear explosion was compared to our perception, then the external thing was the finger that touched the apple. Obviously, we could not equate the understanding of nuclear explosion with that finger.
For a long time, science had made persistent efforts to explore the origin of the world, but it had never been able to answer the question of what the world was. We see an object and call it a dog. So, what exactly was this dog? Science tells us that it is made up of fur, muscles, and bones. Then what are these fur, muscles, and bones? Science tells us that they are made of molecules, but what are molecules? Molecules were made up of atoms, and atoms were made up of nuclei and electrons…Every time he asked, science had to break things down. " However, every time we decompose it, we only get some parts that are smaller than the original thing. We only give them a name. We still can't answer the question of what it is. In the end, science finally found out that what was decomposed was exactly what they were looking for.
Just like how blind people can't understand what color looks like, we can never know what the world is.
(2) We can't see the true face of the world
Putting aside the question of what the world is, can we know the true face of the world? For example, the shape of the object, the process of movement, and so on. Are they what we observe? Is the phenomenon we observe consistent with its true appearance?
The answer to this question was also very disappointing.
Color is not something that belongs to the object itself, neither is sound, nor is taste…What we perceive through our senses is not something that belongs to the object itself. This is the reason why we will never be able to see the true face of this world. For example, our understanding of the shape of an object is like this: The sensory organs receive some light, and these lights produce colors, shades, and shades in our minds. By judging the colors, shades, and shades, we produce an understanding of the shape of the object. In this process, our eyes only receive a small part of the light reflected by the object, and a large amount of reflected light does not enter our eyes. Therefore, our understanding of the shape of the object is not only subjective, but also incomplete and incomplete.
Those who knew the structure of movies and television understood that movies were originally just non-continuous still images, and television was just something scanned by an electron gun. However, it was such a boring thing that made everyone fascinated, because what we saw and what actually happened were completely different.
Feelings can't help us understand the true face of the world, so can science help us achieve this goal? At present, it seemed that this was very difficult to achieve because science had its own limitations:
1. Like our sensory system, all scientific observation instruments are also a kind of receiving and transforming device. The results they obtain are not the things themselves.
2. The observation results of scientific instruments must finally be transformed into our sensory signals before they can be recognized by us.
3. The capabilities of scientific instruments were limited. So far, no instrument has been able to help us see how air molecules move in the air.
4. We have no way of knowing what is the true form of the world. The same object looked different from a distance and up close. It looked different with the naked eye and with a magnifying glass. It looked different with different magnifying times. So which one was the true appearance of the world? Who could guarantee that our eyes were not a set of magnifying or shrinking devices?”
This book comes from：m.funovel.com。