Re:Wittgenstein's Ladder
by phendrenad2 on Saturday April 01, 2023 @04:33AM
(#35398445)
Yeesh. Not a single good explanation here.
The only reason the "point" version of electrons is a valid "step" on the ladder to the "cloud" version of electrons, is it's plausible. You are capable of fully believing it before recognizing it as bullshit once you use it as a foundation to learn the next step.
Such intermediary steps aren't easy to create. The best ones come from history, from time periods where we had an outdated but plausible theory (point to cloud electrons, flat earth to round earth, etc.)
The "step" is a flat surface you can stand on. Ever try to learn some math concept from wikipedia? It's impossible, right? To understand X you must understand Y, and to understand Y you must understand X. You break this cycle by telling the learner "Don't look into Y, it's already a solved problem, just trust me". Then they can focus on X and fully learn it without being distracted.
The only reason the "point" version of electrons is a valid "step" on the ladder to the "cloud" version of electrons, is it's plausible. You are capable of fully believing it before recognizing it as bullshit once you use it as a foundation to learn the next step.
Such intermediary steps aren't easy to create. The best ones come from history, from time periods where we had an outdated but plausible theory (point to cloud electrons, flat earth to round earth, etc.)
The "step" is a flat surface you can stand on. Ever try to learn some math concept from wikipedia? It's impossible, right? To understand X you must understand Y, and to understand Y you must understand X. You break this cycle by telling the learner "Don't look into Y, it's already a solved problem, just trust me". Then they can focus on X and fully learn it without being distracted.