The math teacher talks about the probability questions in his class. “A” looks out the window, the game of poker unfolding on the grass collapsed by the wind. “A” is not sure whether this is a metaphor of something, but in the case without evidence, it’s unable to judge. The essay assignment for this math class is to write an instance that truly exists, to analyze it using probability and to get a logical conclusion verified by science.
Here is the instance “A” writes down:
This is about a romance that lasted for 700 years. Mina and Ginbo first see each other in an aquarium. This event has a probability of 0.000001% or 100 %, using probability questions to calculate. Mina and Ginbo spend a wonderful night together. Mina only spends that night with Ginbo, then leaves the next morning. There are two reasons that people won’t believe they are true love. 1—Ginbo’s weight is 25.4 times Mina's. 2—Ginbo and Mina have no way to recognize each other. Just by appearances, for the species that have huge differences, most of them may have face blindness on others. So it’s not Ginbo and Mina’s fault. Therefore, for the 100,000,000 humans Ginbo has met, he may recognize all of these humans to be Mina. Also, for the 100,000,000 white whales Mina has met, she may recognize all of these white whales to be Ginbo. This proves that their probability to meet each other is 0.000001% or 100%. They love each other deeply just the same, and while this romance started from the last century, it doesn’t need to wait until the day they meet each other to start. Even after they had met, they may not have recognized each other. They only need to perceive the existence of each other, and keep the whole romance inside their brains. No matter how people question everything, people cannot deny the truth of this 700 year romance on Mina and Ginbo. They are true love. Because of this, scientists can not prove that, without five senses, love can still exist.
The math teacher questions the authenticity of this essay, while he thinks there isn’t enough evidence to prove that love actually exists. “A” has to revise this essay. “A” does not revise it, but continues to write.
“A” believes that the best way to prove the authenticity is to provide more evidence. If the math teacher thinks this instance has 30% authenticity to believe, and his authenticity of his essay should be more than 90%, 30%+30%+30% equals 90%, which means that “A” has to use another 2 stories which have 30% authenticity as evidence, to make the math teacher believe.
“A” writes down the next instance:
The protagonist of this instance is a 30-year-old radish. This radish is still alive. He was uprooted from the soil 30 years before, and keeps living in a jar. With the growth of age, he becomes darker, now he is already black. No one can recognize him as that white radish. At the age of 30, the black radish can suddenly talk! You may not know, but the probability of a miracle happening a species can be very high if that species is a miracle species. As a miracle species, you cannot predict the species by yourself, so the probability of a miracle happening is about 100% minus the probability it exists as a miracle. For example, if a miracle species has a probability of 3% to happen, then the probability of a miracle happening it can be 100%-3%. You cannot refuse to believe humans’ judgements are limited, it is only restricted in a certain percentage. After the day that Radish can talk, he keeps talking. He wants to talk about everything he thinks in these 30 years. But there’s only one sentence scientists can understand: “I don’t want to live anymore, please kill me.” It actually proves the probability question when a miracle happens. In order to publicize this conclusion, scientists decide to put this radish which is able to talk into the science museum, then the radish can keep talking in front of the people who come to visit, and continue to live.
Then “A” writes the last instance.
Instance 3
Toward the common definition of “fly”—to move in or pass through the air with wings. there are a lot of bugs. Fly represents an action itself, but it cannot be restricted by the observers’ identities. We can tell that the wideness of acceptance of the vocabulary “fly” is less than 0.1%, and this number can be smaller unlimitedly. Take coral as an example, for corals living under the deep sea, in their perspective, the fish swimming above them are flying. But for humans, it can be very absurd to say fish can fly, because we cannot stop using ourselves as the observers to define all the behaviors, just like we do not stand in the perspectives of corals. Also for hamsters, humans can fly. For the hamsters we see in a pet shop, they always stay in an opaque box without a lid. When we try to watch those hamsters, we usually bend down or squat down. But in the perspective of hamsters, our bodies are the parts above that box, because hamsters cannot see the lowerparts of our bodies. So from their perspectives, humans can fly, the same as the humans see the birds in the sky. If the same thing happened to birds, there may be some parts under the ground, and if their visible parts are connected to the parts under the ground by some invisible substances, how can we know? To the problem that humans still believe firmly that they themselves cannot fly, it should be re-answered. Scientists are wrong to this point, they ignore the remaining 99.9% evidence gained when widening one’s perspective.
“A” hands in the essay with perfect satisfaction, the sun shines brightly outside. The open trial of this essay will be in the math class next Wednesday. “A” won’t know at that moment, but this essay will be imprisoned, in a steel cage, compelled to proceed with its the photosynthesis.