Post #2703528

I am reading "The universe in zero words" by Dana Mackenzie, something that I think is critical is emerging as a thought. Specific example is in Chapter 7, a brief blurb about Completing the Square and how it is taught without the geometric explanation... When we show people what to do without explaining why it works or the logical progression, we are preventing people from novel discovery. why I think this matters in the moment. We are scanning code with models and finding problems, or asking models to make functions that produce the right answer. The answer should not be the goal. The answer is a point in time that loses all meaning when the next step in time occurs. This relates to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise and the absurdity of the argument that Achilles can never catch the Tortoise. Zeno's dialectic arguments seem logical until you place Achilles and the Tortoise in a universe where time is materially present. In other words... the answer that Achilles can't catch the Tortoise is correct in context of a universe without the infinitesimal, but that universe is not where we reside and until we teach people to think about why the answer can be wrong, they will never see it... Even more succinctly and to the sociopolitical world we live in, falsifying someone's statement does not make your belief true.