What is really true?

Yuan Changwen rose into the air, used his spiritual power to shield himself, and slowly rose into the air.

Looking at the gradually smaller crowd at your feet, the gradually expanding field of vision, it seems that all this is so fake.

How do I know that I'm in the air? When I see myself in the air, am I actually in the air?

Since I don't know, since I can't be sure, why do I always look so sure! For example, I can fly over and land on a rockery.

Obviously, I don't know what will happen in the future, but what about this foresight?

Or can I foresee the future on a small scale?

If so, where is the equilibrium point for a small range? From which point does it start, with a small range on one side and a large range on the other?

Or is it an event that involves itself and is limited to itself, which can be predicted? For example, I will go to the toilet and I will eat noodles at noon.

It's a paradox because it's clear that I can't control the future, but these events prove that I seem to be in control of the future to a certain extent.

Why?

Or if I have enough information, I can control the future?

Wrong!

There is an assumption that everything follows the law. How do I know that everything is regular?

If things don't have a pattern, then I can't make inferences, and even if I have enough information, it won't help.

Ha!

It's all speculation, and the fact that "laws exist" is itself a kind of speculation. However, we do not seriously consider this hypothesis and directly admit that it is true.

"Well, let's assume that there is a pattern, and then we develop a series of studies. ”

That's my problem, and that's how it was destroyed.

Science is based on false speculation. But why can science really change the world? It does develop technology that allows humans to fly out of their home planet.

Why?

Scientists start with ignorance, put forward hypotheses, and then test them. Some reservations are overturned, and there is also the hard truth that science has changed the world. The age of the home planet and the interstellar age, this is the credit of science.

Wrong!

There's an assumption in this that time really exists. This hypothesis has not been tested and cannot be determined to be true. How do I know that time really exists?

All I know is all the memories I have in my head right now. So how do I know that these memories in my head are real?

I do not know.

it!

Once the time is removed, a lot of things that look real have to be put with a question mark. Because assuming that time exists, assuming that time is from the past to the future, this assumption has not been verified at all.

That is, "Well, let's assume that time is real and the flow from the past to the future, and then we'll talk about other issues." ”

How do I know that the era of my home planet is real?

How do I know that this is how science is slowly developing? Again, it's just my memory at the moment.

It's entirely possible that I was left behind at this moment by some unknown force and then implanted with associated memories. And with this memory, the world around it shows what it looks like to support this memory.

How do I know these are real?

I don't know, but why do I always pretend I know?

It looks like the last second is the last second, but how do I know what the interval is? I just remember at the moment, what happened in the last second. I just remember at the moment, and there seems to be no pause between the last second and the present.

And those views and insights given by society, and all kinds of inspiration to move towards the goal, have also become ethereal. How do I know that this was the case and that the so-called times will be like this?

All the new views are in conflict with the old ones.

For example, "I don't ask you to soar, I just want you to have a safe life", the new view is that this is a stifling of children.

"This kid is smart, but he doesn't need to work hard to learn", the new view sees this as a blasphemy of hard work and the creation of a kind of empty arrogance.

Once the time is removed, how do I know that these old ideas are really old ideas? They are just memories that appear in my mind at this moment.

In the same way, how do I know that these new ideas are indeed from a modern person or an institution? It is entirely possible that I only exist in this moment, and then these so-called new ideas are just to interact with the memories in my head.

No matter what memory I have in my head, I will see the opposite, and I can justify it by colliding with my memory in order to achieve a goal that makes the world seem very real.

It seems that the new ideas do solve the problem of the old ideas not being adapted to the present. As our society evolves, so do we need to change our mindsets.

But how do I know that those old days really exist? It's entirely possible that a so-called new view is nothing more than a seemingly practical idea in the current society. Well, I can create a different society, and then a different new perspective emerges.

In addition, the memory of the so-called "concept and situation" of the old time is implanted, and the so-called new view collides. Then, in the face of any form of society, it can be recognized as true.

For example, I create a society during the Republic of China, and implant you with memories of various dynasties before the Republic of China, and then arrange some new views that are in line with the Republic of China period, which forms an interaction.

It's impossible to tell if it's real or not.

In addition, the various dynasties before the Republic of China can be changed at will, as long as the corresponding evidence follows the changes. Like what kind of books, unearthed cultural relics, authoritative research......

Shit!

I live in a virtual world?

I don't know, I can't be sure. Again, since you can't be sure, don't live with a "I know" attitude.

Yuan Changwen suddenly thought of the perception of the previous grass game, adults are not interested in the game, because they know that it is a game, so they will not desperately obtain the victory or important elements in the game.

The problem is, they know that games are games, and it is entirely because they take life as real that it seems that games are games. It is precisely because life is treated as real and becomes a frame of reference that the winning or losing of the game is not so important.

Not true after all.

If life is a game, does that mean that somewhere will be real?

Life is a game only if somewhere is real. And when I get to that place, I naturally don't take life as real.

It's like I've been in the game and haven't seen life. I've been living for so many years and haven't seen that reality.

When I get to that place, that reality, I will inevitably not take life as real again. At that time, the so-called "detachment" can also be easily achieved.

Of course, that place didn't exist in my sight.

For what the eyes see is false.