The World of Deities - Chapter 1239
 I read the comments from the last testimonial and realized that I had made another serious mistake.
      I feel that I cannot write the “principles” perfectly, and even feel that the principles are too great. I am an ordinary person who has no confidence to write and is very unconfident, so I say that what I write is “reason”.
      Eventually, it caused misunderstandings and made readers think that “Eternal Fire believes that the story is incompatible with the truth.”
      In fact, I think that the principle and the story are difficult to be compatible, and the principle and the story are the perfect combination.
      Throwing the subject first, the core of this book has always been the principle, not the reason.
      Principles and principles are never the same thing.
      This is my mistake. I failed to clarify the boundary between these two words in the book and in the testimonials.
      Principles and principles are overlapping but completely different concepts.
      In principle, this term basically has three meanings.
      One, the affair, rules, and reason in life.
      Second, a deeper meaning is also “the law of things.”
      Third, in ancient classics, the deepest meaning of Dao is also the reason that Dao was born, which is the extra attribute of Dao. No one can understand this thing. There are countless interpretations of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, without any absolute authoritative interpretation, so don’t tell me which novel author can write this kind of truth.
      So, in fact, truth has only the first two meanings.
      The most commonly used context for truth is almost all of the existence of “fuzzy perception” in terms of perception, experience, instinct, common sense, and life.
      To give the simplest example, the Pythagorean theorem.
      1. Reason:
      Now, a 3 cm wooden slat and a 4 cm wooden slat are placed at a right angle, so an adult said to the child that the third wooden slat only needs 5 cm to form a right triangle.
      The child asked why, and the adult said that this is the Pythagorean theorem. If the two right-angle sides of a right-angle shape are 3 and 4, the hypotenuse is 5.
      This is the truth, you can perceive it vaguely, knowing that it is, in essence, “what is this”.
      There are some simple truths in daily life, such as rain on cloudy days, people have to study hard, and the soil can help the crops. These are all truths.
      Second, the theorem: the
      child further asked, what is the Pythagorean theorem?
      So, the adults use various methods to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
      So the question is, who can prove the Pythagorean theorem with stories?
      I think no one can do it, and no one has done it.
      Suppose I go back to ancient times and write a cool section for the protagonist to prove the Pythagorean theorem. Then, I would like to ask the readers. Is the Pythagorean theorem cool for the readers, or is it because the story makes the readers cool? The
      readers are cool because of the story. After that, will the Pythagorean theorem be proved? It
      seems that the Pythagorean theorem is not difficult to prove, so let’s replace the Pythagorean theorem with Fermat’s last theorem.
      What is the result? The result is that the reader does not understand Fermat’s Last Theorem, and even suspects that the author may not really understand it, but can understand the “truth” that “the protagonist can shock the academic world by proving Fermat’s Last Theorem”, so it is cool.
      The reader is refreshed because of the truth in the story, and in essence still cannot understand Fermat’s Last Theorem, and will not feel any refreshing emotions from this theorem.
      The theorem is “why a thing”.
      So, what is the principle?
      Third, the principle
      is why and why, it is the law of the law of things.
      The most rigorous way of proving the Pythagorean theorem needs to be axiomatic, which is like the content in “Geometric Elements”.
      All theorems should come from axioms.
      And the first principle that I repeatedly mentioned in the article is very clear, and it is the most core, indispensable, and indispensable fundamental proposition in each discipline.
      Fourth, what is the most important thing? The
      most important thing is that the truth can be perceived, can be vaguely realized in life, and can be completely integrated into the story, because the story and the truth are perceptual, instinctive, experienced and ” Experienceable”.
      Reading novels and watching videos is essentially the human body and brain experiencing or simulating experiences. They are all physical responses. Even if it is emotions, it is mainly the function of nerves and neurotransmitters.
      However, the principle is different.
      The principle is completely beyond the perception of the human body. This thing itself cannot be determined by humans. When Lao Tzu said “Tao”, when Heraclitus said “Logos” and other Greek philosophers talk about “the origin of everything” At that time, this thing began to brew.
      Only then did we know that in this world, there is something indescribable, and that thing is the “first driving force” of this world, which can be called the origin or the avenue.
      Then, this avenue, this origin, this first driving force is the “first principle” of our entire universe.
      But the problem is that this philosophical and perceptual “principle”, because it is too general, is closer to a kind of truth.
      Measured by the standard that we can do it if we understand it, do we really understand it? Obviously we don’t understand it.
      The true principle is the foundation of the field of knowledge.
      The three laws of Newton are the principles of classical mechanics.
      Who can tell me, a novel author, how to write Newton’s three laws into a story, and then let children who have never learned Newton’s three laws to understand classical mechanics by reading the stories?
      We can make up a story to say that the apple hit Newton’s head, making Newton want to understand Newton’s three laws, but the story itself cannot explain Newton’s three laws clearly. It must be “explained” or even rigorously proved. The way, in the eyes of many readers, is not a story, but a preaching.
      Principle, there must be a rigorous proof process!
      It doesn’t make sense.
      Formally, because the principle requires a rigorous proof process, I said that the story is incompatible with the principle.
      Principle and reason are two-dimensional things.
      You can perceive the truth vaguely, but the principle, you must give up instinct and touch it with human reason and thinking.
      I wrote 3.7 million words, but I couldn’t tell the readers to distinguish the truth from the principle. It’s because of my lack of writing ability. Sorry.
      simply put.
      The reason I say that the book of Gods is different is not because I am writing principles, but because I am writing principles.
      Although I feel that I have not been able to write the principle well and have always used the theory to cover it up, I am indeed not writing the theory, but writing the principle.
      Anyway, I don’t want to face anymore, and I’m cheeky to tell the truth. If some readers still can’t tell the truth from the principle, but still feel that the principle can be written in a story, then I can’t say anything.
      So, you can say that Eternal Fire is so thick-skinned that you can brag about writing principles.
      You can also say that Eternal Fire doesn’t understand the principles, but it is too arrogant to write the principles.
      You can also say that the story written by the eternal fire is not well integrated with reason.
      You can also say that truth and story can be well integrated.
      You can even say that someone can write the principle into the story. This is your freedom, but I personally do not recommend that.
      There may be in the future, but it is not now.
      Even the sci-fi masterpieces like “Three-Body” and “Me, Robot”, the dark forest theory or the three laws of robots, no matter how good they are, they are separated from the principle by countless dimensions.
      This article is just a rational discussion, and does not involve others.
      To make a metaphor: After the
      truth is said, you immediately feel that you understand.
      After the principle is finished, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
      Finally, with a long sigh, my writing skills really need to be improved. I wrote 3.7 million words, but I didn’t let the readers understand that what I really wrote was actually the principle.
      This is my biggest gain from writing this testimony, and it is also a signal that I will continue to work hard to lay a solid foundation for writing.
      Look, now I have the motivation to continue studying.
      The final testimony is over, no further discussion and explanation.
      I went to study hard! Manually wrap a red belt around your forehead and make a fist with a small expression!
      For the new book!