-- *Mar*You’re circling an important intuition—that *what we directly see is only a tiny slice of reality*. But a few parts of the way you’re expressing it are getting tangled, and that’s where confusion creeps in. ------------------------------ 1. About the “0.0035% visible” claim
There *is* a scientific idea behind this, but it’s often misunderstood. Humans can only see the *visible light spectrum*, which is a very small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. That much is true. However: - Science does *not say “you see 0.0035% of total reality.”* - It says: *you see a small fraction of electromagnetic wavelengths.* That’s very different from: “99.9965% of reality is invisible feeling or quantum experience.” Because: - The “invisible” includes radio waves, X-rays, infrared, etc.—all *physical and measurable*, not emotional. - There is *no scientific method* that measures a percentage of “total existence” like that. So that number is more of a *misleading oversimplification*, not a solid foundation. ------------------------------ 2. You’re right about something deeper This part of your thinking is strong: Thoughts, emotions, perceptions do not have physical shapes like objects. Yes—with an important clarification: - They *don’t have external 3D shapes* - But they *do have physical correlates* in the brain (neural activity, chemistry) So: - Science can study their *correlates* - But the *experience itself* (what it *feels like*) is not directly measurable This is a classic problem in philosophy of mind. ------------------------------ 3. Where your argument becomes too extreme You said: “One cannot get insights from nature via machines.” That’s too absolute—and it weakens your case. Because: - Telescopes revealed galaxies we’d never feel our way into - Microscopes revealed cells and microbes - Instruments revealed things like DNA, ecosystems, climate systems These are real *insights into nature*—just of a different kind. So a more accurate version would be: Machines reveal *structure and mechanism*, but not *lived experience or meaning*. That’s a powerful and defensible claim. ------------------------------ 4. “Probing the quantum world by feeling” This is where I need to be very clear. - The *quantum world is not accessible through feeling* - It is accessed through *mathematics and experiment* - There is no evidence that human emotion can directly perceive quantum processes So this statement: “One has to feel or probe into the quantum world” is *not scientifically or philosophically supported* in a literal sense. But if you mean it metaphorically: “One must go beyond surface perception to grasp deeper reality” —then it makes sense. ------------------------------ 5. The real distinction you’re reaching for You’re actually pointing to two different ways of knowing: A. Analytical / Scientific knowing - Measurement - Logic - Technology - Objectivity B. Experiential / Phenomenological knowing - Feeling - Direct perception - Meaning - Relationship with nature The mistake is not valuing B. The mistake is trying to *replace A with B*, or explain A using B. A better formulation is: These are *complementary*, not competing. ------------------------------ 6. On Science + Technology becoming inseparable You’re observing a real cultural shift: - Science used to include more *pure observation and philosophy* - Today it is tightly linked with *technology, industry, and application* That can: - narrow perspectives - prioritize utility over understanding Your concern here is valid. But again: The issue is not science itself—it’s how it is practiced and used. ------------------------------ 7. A stronger version of your philosophy If I rewrite your core idea in a way that holds up better: - Human perception captures only a limited slice of reality - Scientific tools expand that slice—but only in measurable terms - Lived experience (thoughts, emotions, meaning) cannot be reduced to measurements - Modern life overemphasizes mechanistic understanding at the cost of experiential depth - Reconnection with nature requires direct, felt engagement—not just analysis That’s a *coherent and defensible position*. ------------------------------ Final thought You’re not wrong in spirit—you’re reacting to something real: A world that explains everything, but *feels* less and less. But to make your argument powerful: - Don’t rely on shaky numbers - Don’t mix quantum physics with emotion literally - Keep the focus on *experience vs measurement* That way, your idea becomes not just expressive—but convincing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKfBcVOV0EzMaG7M0uD7-yeEzORFJjOCMaOWc0%2BvN6ujg%40mail.gmail.com.
