So-Called Science-and-Engineering Thinking Is Merely a Variant of Theological Thinking

Since the forum won't allow posts about poetry, this young lady will switch to chatting about so-called science-and-engineering thinking. According to some people, the defining characteristic of science-and-engineering thinking is "how things are" and "how to do things." Due to space constraints, let us first discuss only "how things are." "How things are" has its prerequisites: 1. How is the "how" in "how things are"? 2. Can this "how" be grasped? 3. What "is" the "how"? 4. How does the "how" "be"? 5. What exactly is the nature of that which grasps "how things are"? And so on. Do these questions have ready-made answers? In a certain sense, no -- they remain matters of endless debate. For example, question 2 alone consumed Kant's entire life's effort and he merely touched the edge; question 3 is the problem Heidegger agonized over.

This young lady does not intend to delve deeper into this issue, as it would exceed the scope of this forum. Godel's theorem tells us that perfection and completeness cannot be had simultaneously -- no closed so-called complete system can contain perfection. And an ant's thinking, however expansive, is still an ant's thinking. From this, what can everyone grasp?

Today, let us pursue question 5 above further: what exactly is the nature of that which grasps "how things are"? Why is this question important? Because even if question 1 -- "how is the 'how' in 'how things are'?" -- had a linear, singular answer, meaning: the "how" of "how things are" is completely and strictly independent of the "being" that grasps "how things are," even in this scenario, different "beings" that grasp "how things are" would still derive different "hows" from the same "how things are." When these differences form different equivalence classes according to some relation, what emerges ranges from differing opinions to differing classes and other variations of wildly different intensity.

Now, let us look at what "how things are" actually is from a simpler angle. First, all instances of "how things are" belong to different levels and are seen through different refractive indices. This means issues similar to "an ant's thinking, however expansive, is still an ant's thinking" exist. Second, even at the same level and same refractive index, one must assume that from the moment of seeing "how things are" to the moment of acting on "how things are," the relationship with respect to time is linear, with no singularities in between -- but does this assumption necessarily hold? Furthermore, as the uncertainty principle implies, the premise that the "how" of "how things are" is completely and strictly independent of the "being" that grasps "how things are" may not exist at all. Similar problems are too numerous to continue here.

So-called science-and-engineering thinking is merely a variant of theological thinking. Laughably, some people think these two are different -- it is merely that in some cases the divine is humanized, and in others it is hidden. Without sufficient understanding of this point, one merely continues to spin one's own cocoon. How could one possibly glimpse that different blue sky?