Sarkus said:
The photons hit the retina and lose momentum - action / reaction.
Ok, I can accept that.
We are talking in the scope where physical collision takes place. Up to photonic level, explanation will be logically accepted.
Quantum physics is one subject I hardly can comprehend; have never been able to consider they are true but I have to live with it. It’s a belief for me; for it is commonly used as acceptable knowledge among scientists who “agreed upon” them. There is no way I cannot accept it; by these preconditions : (1*) accepted as a complete set of logical explanation; (2*) one can not provide better alternative explanation.
But accepting it as a truth still reserves some skeptical thought.
At photonic level, effects can be explained, but not sensible, the real physical interactions never been presented sensiblically for us to sense them. They are sets of logically constituted explanation, which then constitutes our perception.
Belief is a prerequisite to comprehend the whole theory. Once passed the belief phase, then it is relatively smoother to comprehend the knowledge, because one then able to constitute a complete set of inclusive logic. Skeptically speaking, it could be explained in other way, once the prerequisites in which we now are believing, invented differently.
That explains the mythology, which human believed that Poseidon who waved tsunami in the ocean, etc. In search of explanation (knowledge), human constituted set of logic they could accept, then respectively responded to that knowledge in daily lives. It was reasonable then, when they constituted this logic at their time : lightning comes from Zeus; inspite of making Zeus angry, their action was to persuade Zeus so the lightning didn’t ruin their properties. Since two preconditions applied (see point (1*) and (2*) above), they had to live with it. It was obvious then, later inventions showed that the prerequisites of the logic sets were not valid. The logic should be abandoned. At our era of technological advance, we now call them deitiest, fairiest, etc.
Now let’s get back to the triggering point where this action reaction issue started. Spiritual experience. Evidence of existence.
I know, this doesn’t provide any evidence to the existence of spiritual experience. But then again, back to the old song, perception comes from certain set of logic, which besides all evidence provided, prerequisitedly constituted by certain beliefs (at which we have not yet able to provide sensible evidence), which then make the set of logic become completely inclusive, at our time.
My point, a complete set of inclusive logic, still requires certain beliefs for the lack of sensible evidence.
If we believe in the extrapolating universe, at some point maybe all the beliefs will be proven (or disproven) by evidence, and no one knows if evidence will be coming before or after doomsday, or judgement day. Ooopps.. what the hell are those days
Some live with the beliefs, some don’t, some just skeptical.
We never know God exists or not, only our belief/disbelief/skeptical thought tells us about It. In addition to belief, different sets of logic could be constituted for different persons for their own satisfied explanation, but of course, will always be lacking of sensible evidence. Then it could not be decided which ones are having logical fallacies. As for now, spiritual experience could not be presented as sensible evidence.
