Fravia+,
Here's a short essay-stub I found myself writing about a year after I noticed the phenomena in myself. Its a matter that I think deserves a place in the reality-cracker's stream of thought - a kind of "meta-reality" cracking...
-Pantheon
Metaphysics, Meta-reality-cracking.
Disjoint application of beliefs.
(The bane of educators)
1. Introductory Ramblings
Do you believe in the hard sciences? Physics? Have you ever looked up
into the night sky and tried to picture that each star is so incredibly far
away, and that each is incredibly so much larger than this tiny planet we
call home? I would encourage everyone to actually go outside and do so.
When you are done, come back in and think about how small of a speck on the
surface of the planet you must appear from that distance.
Look at your hand. Do you believe that it's really just a cloud of atoms?
Smack it against a wall. Explain to me why it doesn't disperse into a
flesh-tone fog.
Think of E = mc^2, which, solved for m, is: m = E / c^2; meaning that mass
(and therefore matter) is proportional to the amount of energy travelling at
a given speed. Coarse example: Shoot a bullet fast enough and it will turn
into light. This has just said that a bullet can pass through glass without
breaking it, so long as it is travels at a high enough velocity.
All of these things are well received in theory and theoretical
application, yet when one applies them to actual situations they seem almost
ridiculously absurd.
2. Theory of Disjoint Beliefs
The above examples illustrate a few examples of common things that people
believe, but never apply in "real" life. Of these, my particular favorite
topic is the second: atomic theory. Look around you; do you _really_
believe that everything you see is just a cloud of independent tiny little
spheres which are bonded together by an unexplainable force which is
invisible, occupies no space, and consumes no energy to maintain its
strength? Can this theory of atoms explain and predict many things about
the real world? Yes. Does that mean that it's necessarily true? No.
Here's an example: (sorry, I love absurd examples)
Take your average public library (if people still even remember that they
exist). To one who knows nothing of the processes within the library, based
only on observation, the process of books returning to their proper places
could be explained as follows: Each book has a bond to its shelf. This bond
is invisible, intangible, and requires no energy to maintain. When a book
is left in the library, the force of the bond causes the book to draw nearer
to its proper place. Left for enough time, the book will settle into its
final place. Using our theory, it is possible to predict the behaviors of
books within the library. Let’s do an experiment to verify: Remove a book.
I have chosen Aristotle's Categories, translated into English. We will
refer to this book as "the subject". I removed the subject from its proper
place, noting the energy required removing it from its position between two
other books. I exerted a force on the subject to transfer it to a table
across the library. I left the library determined to return in two days.
On my return the book had transferred itself back to its proper position,
exactly as our theory had predicted. This did not require any addition of
energy on our part, so it must be a natural process of the library. Okay,
enough of this...
This is merely my way of causing one to admit that there is at least
reasonable doubt that "scientific method" ensures accurate analysis. I feel
that people have begun to reason on two distinct levels. One level is for
common sense, and day to day living; the other for complex reasoning and
evaluation. To risk beating atomic theory to death as an example: on the
"real life level" (RLL) atomic theory is false, objects are real, solid
things. Cut a tomato with a sharp knife and there is no chance of a fission
reaction. But on the "theoretical analysis level" (TAL) atomic theory makes
sense as a way to logically explain a wAhole plethora of occurrences. I
believe that people naturally function in only one of the levels at any
given time.
3. Metaphysics
An interesting problem in metaphysics involves spatial position. How do
you define what it is for two distinct objects to touch? Everyone believes
that things can touch. A good portion of Kinetics involves objects
transferring energy by colliding. The most common first attempt is to say
that there is zero distance between the surfaces of the two objects. For
this we need a definition of Distance. Distance is the number of
repetitions of a standard rule that fit between the surfaces. How do we
measure the distance? By placing our rule in contact with one object and
measuring until we contact the other? Do you see how the argument has just
become circular? To define contact, we need distance. To measure distance
we need contact. Another attempt is to say that contact occurs when the two
surfaces merge, joining the object into a single unit. I can find no
explanation of this that can satisfy the following two questions:
1.) If merging is possible on the surface, why not through the entire
objects? Why don't they smash together into a homogenous lump?
2.) If they so readily merge, why do they so readily split along the same
boundaries?
Note that on the RLL, you believed that objects can touch, and still do;
while on the TAL you cannot explain how it is possible. I would hope one
would not discredit the theory if they are able to solve the contact
problem, as it is but one quick explanation to give a general idea of the
type of situation generated by seperate RLL and TAL. Look and you'll
discover more.
4. Applications
What is the meaning of this? (And what is the point of this discussion?)
The discussion is to raise awareness of the tendency to process different
types of information in different ways. Read the essays on the psychology
behind advertising. Don't think of them as "wow, I bet they could do that"
in TAL mode, realize them as "holy crap!, they're actually doing this stuff
to people" (RLL mode). When you go to the grocery store, consciously recall
what you've read in +ORC's "Supermarket Enslaving Tricks" and verify that it
is true in RLL mode. Take analytically challenging things and apply them to
real life situations, and take the obvious and standard things and subject
them to analysis. Evaluate things in both modes, that way when you read
that only 30% of consumers ever fill out rebates, you understand why rebate
forms are never anywhere near the products to which they apply, why they
have so many steps on how to return them, and require so many other
materials (UPCs, Register Receipts, no staples, circle the date, underline
the item, etc.) The latter of which you know by RLL, the statistics
perceived by TAL. I've limited my discussion to commercial examples,
because they really are easy targets; but you can see how the process
affects everything you believe. For most any question, there are two
different ways it can be asked to receive two different answers from you.
Do you believe there are solid objects? Do you believe that objects are
clouds of atoms? Did you save a dollar by using a coupon to buy the name
brand, or did you waste a dollar because the off-brand identical product was
two dollars cheaper? In the last case, TAL says the products are
identical...but does RLL concur?
5. Closing Quibble
It is this situation which has frustrated all teachers for all times. The
old +HCU site is gone because (IMO) people read "Don't be a leech:
contribute"(TAL), but heard "He wasn't talking to me, just the people who
_really_ leech stuff - I don't take enough to require a contribution" (RLL).
People will read about HC printer cartridges (TAL) but will think "Ooooh,
half price!" (RLL). Historians and political figures will read about the
Holocaust (TAL), but deny that it happened (RLL). Working class families
know (or maybe don't know... see Statistical cracking basics) the odds of winning the lottery (TAL - 1:400,000,000,000) but will
still spend scarce money because "somebody's gotta win" (RLL). If the two
parts would be used together, people could be free of many of the
enslavement tricks used against them. I have done this topic not even half
of the justice it deserves, but my schedule does not permit the luxury of
time for philosophy. I hope someone will flesh it out with a Phase 2, or at
least some better examples than I could muster on the fly.
Anyway...
-Pantheon
[-Pantheon(ALT+94)operamail(ALT+46)com]
--
There are no things which do not exist.
What, then, exists? Everything does.
