Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

Axiom: the intangible cannot impact the tangible.   

Why is everyone acting like this is unrealistic? Suppose I want to hit a golf but not too far. Turns out I have a machine that can soften my club, to soften the blow.

So I try this out, but the ball went too far. I soften the club some more. Still a little too far - still a little too much IMPACT. 

Eventually I achieve the limits of the machine - it softs the club to the absolute, making it as intangible as Casper the Ghost. How much impact NOW? Zero.  None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

If you think I need to disabuse myself of this conclusion, fine, but  I don't see how to do it.

I didn't say it was unreasonable, I asked if the contrary was equally as reasonable.  It seems you have answered with yet another worthless analogy.   Are you even capable of abstract thought, or must everything in your world be imagined in terms of concrete things?

Let's put some tread on the rubber.  A mathematician says that if a particular mathematical theorem is true, he will celebrate with a steak dinner.  This intangible theory leads to him having steak dinner.  How is this not the intangible influencing the tangible?  And try to resist the urge to make more stupid and pointless analogies.

It was not a bad analogy, you just don't like the implications.

Whereas YOUR analogy is a bad one. You've made a category mistake. You're comparing apples and oranges.  A theorem is NEITHER a tangible substance NOR an intangible substance. It's a subjective experience, it is the EVENT of feeling/ sensing/ cogitating something, subjectively.  That has nothing to do with what I am arguing here.