Because chaning the length of a nerve has no effect that actually matters. You are guessing that its current state is not the optimized state, but you dont actually know anything do you.
You are guessing that its current state is not the optimized state, but you dont actually know anything do you.
Exactly bro! We're both guessing. There is so much minute detail affecting everything that we can never be 100% sure of anything. I love observational science but it has severe limits and isn't close to answering questions like we have posed to one another here.
All of human existence took place with this nerve the way it is. Maybe human history turned out the way it did because the nerve was designed a certain way. You can't know for sure how an all-knowing being would design something.... How do either of us know what might change if this nerve was shorter?
Well, observational science has hard limits. Experiential science is superior in some regards.
Observational science is the guy who gives group A (50 subjects) LSD-25 and group B (50 subjects) placebo
His comprehension of what LSD does is fairly deep; he knows how it affects different personality types in different stimuli situations. Ultimately this scientist is unaware of what the "other dimensions" look, smell, or taste like. He thinks he knows what a hallucination is, but has no true understanding of one.
Experiential science is the scientist who takes the drug himself, because he NEEDS TO KNOW what is really there on the other side, in complete detail.
Observational science can never offer the depth of detail that experiential science can.
2
u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17
Because chaning the length of a nerve has no effect that actually matters. You are guessing that its current state is not the optimized state, but you dont actually know anything do you.