played hockey again yesterday for the first time in ages, and i've gotten extremely rusty. im really really trying to find time to go for trainings again once in a while, but right now my only "free" days are wednesday and friday, and even then they're usually swallowed by Mt. Homework. still, like zhihao said, it's important to keep physically fit from now till NS, so hopefully a hockey session here and there plus some self-training will dampen the shock of transition.
i was reminded today of a quote from a book i read once, "The Universe - An Autobiography". well, actually i cant really remember the quote (i suck at memorising quotes, which is one of the reasons why i didnt take lit in jc), but it was something like "The theory doesn't have to exactly describe reality. As long as reality acts as if it were described by the theory, then the theory is still valid." i'll try to put it more simply:
let's say you have a magical machine. you dont know what's in the machine, but you notice that every time you put a white ball into the machine, a red ball comes out. so you conclude that the machine must contain a red spraypaint can to paint the ball red. since this theory holds true for all the results you've seen so far (white ball becomes red ball), it is valid.the problem is that there are other possibilities (maybe it simply replaces the white ball with a new red ball?), and unless you can peer into the machine directly (but you cant, cos it's magical :D ) you will never know for sure. this is the same situation for many fundamental theories of science today. of course you can conduct more experiments (relating back to the magical machine analogy, this would mean putting other objects besides white balls into the machine) which would narrow down the possibilities, but ultimately it's just a matter of choosing a convention from a few equally plausible theories. one could say that the moon orbits the earth because it is held by gravity, but one also argue that it is being pushed by invisible, untouchable angels who grow weaker as they get further from the earth. both can explain the phenomenon, but by convention everyone speaks of "forces" and not "angels".
what difference does it make, really? because of the limited observation and comprehension abilities of us mere mortals, we will never know if our "science" truly reflects reality or if it's just a coincidental approximation of it. why get so worked up over controversial theories like evolution? if you believe in a god, then just believe that your god acts upon the development of animals in a way that is perfectly described by evolution theory. go on, try it; it really wouldnt make much of a difference on the theory itself. As far as us imperfect beings are concerned, reality is not absolute, but arbitrary and pragmatic.
and i've absolutely gotten hooked onto this song by System of a Down. it has one of the most progressive rhythms i've ever heard for a non-progressive or mathcore band. and the lyrics are absolutely poetic. my favourite lines in the song come from the chorus:
Do we, do we know
When we fly?
When we, when we go
Do we die?
The song is Question!, by SOAD:
