the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved fishbowls ...because the bowls curved sides give the fish a distorted view of reality
this fun phrase is from a wider article here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-elusive-thoery-of-everything
danbaron
17-10-2010, 23:32
[font=courier new][size=8pt]Is Monza, Italy, named after the Chevrolet Monza automobile?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Monza
I tried to read the article at scientificamerican.com, and it wanted me to pay! Can you believe it?!
Philosophers write books about whether we are capable of perceiving truth. I have one (which I haven't read), "A Realist Perception of Truth", by, William P. Alston. I don't have the patience for most philosophy books. It seems to me that they go into excruciating detail attempting to prove what cannot be proven, i.e., their proofs always begin with assumptions (axioms). (No proof can begin from nothing, yes?)
We found out that Newtonian mechanics was only an approximation, but Newton never knew it. Relativity theory is more exact, and contains Newtonian mechanics. Maybe something else will replace Relativity theory. And maybe, there will be a continuing chain of replacement theories, forever. Or, maybe there will be competing theories which give almost the exact same results. In that case, who can say which one is, "correct"?
In physics, every theory comes from observations, data points. As the data becomes more and more precise, discrepancies are found in the current theories, and new ones arise. Nowhere is it guaranteed that any theory will be exactly correct. It could be that there will always be an unknown equation which more precisely fits the data, if only the data can be measured with a smaller error.
But, practically, it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether a particular theory is accurate enough for our needs. When we are riding in a car, Newtonian mechanics is effectively perfect. Relativity theory is then absolutely unnecessary.
To me, there is also the question of whether humans are intelligent enough to understand everything there is. A rock can't understand what a tree understands. A tree can't understand what an ant understands. An ant can't understand what a dog understands. A dog can't understand what a human understands. A human can't understand what a ???? understands.. And, if we are not intelligent enough to understand everything, then, I think we have no way of determining it.
One thing I have noticed in my observation of people is that, while there are many stupid people, almost no one believes he is stupid. Intelligence, is relative, it cannot be measured except relative to another intelligence.
If no infinite intelligence started all of existence from nothing, then, we can wonder about why we exist, all day, every day, but, it doesn't matter. We exist temporarily, and then, we stop existing. In that case, developing more and more precise theories, is a game, a vanity, a distraction from the impending reality of the cessation of our own existences ("The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison). No matter what anyone says, I think the strongest human desire is to continue existing, in a future state which is as good as we are capable of imagining. I think there are very few people who, given the hypothetical choice of eternal perfect happiness or non-existence, would choose non-existence. And to me, the ones who would, are slaves to pride.
:twisted: