In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view Time has symmetry and geometry. Could this explain the measurement problem and entanglement within Einsteins curvature of spacetime?
I would want to object and say that there realy is no truth, only rationalisation and perception, as no human (as far as we know of) can with a hundred per cent certainty say that his/her truth is another ones exact replicated though. (I cant realy stand behind this notion though as I only spawned it from hearing one of the sentences in this video ;D).
you are incredibly correct,,,Richard Feynman had the same conclusion, came up with the math and built the atom bomb..so yeah it works..can you visualise or talk about the concepts..no you can't but they end up as reality..hence Hiroshima and Nagasaki..and potentially more if we are not careful.
(continued) Isn't it really just the most wonderfulamazing fun to explore what's really going on with words, whether they get close or not, there's beauty and fun in the activity! Gorgeousness in thinking Éureka!' only to discover the following week that you were really silly to believe that old philosophy and boy this new one is really REALLY true! Oh, its just too delicious. Yay for inadequate words.
This is such a good point! But at the same time I think the types of humans that are truly interested in trying to describe and present reality in words do quite an amazing job considering the GI-NORMous limitations of words. There's beauty in most of the genuine attempts I've read. I, personally, like the Copenhagen interpretation of observer-created reality. I like the idea that as each foot falls, the universe rises to meet it. Each new thought, each decision, expands space/time. Aah - words.
to speak in truth is to speak within all probability's there can be no absolute of what the mind perceives, reality its an illusion of a limited perception, the human condition, free your selfs of this conditioning see the world with new eyes
existed on some level there are localized realities that is perceivable stimulus to us anything else is dependant on reality that is stimulus that works with stimulus so called perceivable to that stimulus any thing else is a nonlacalized reality dependant upon that "stimulus". a kind of wittgenstein infinity.
understanding is interdependant on the stimulus which is everything we can understand understanding is the stimulus working with the stimuli which really doesnt exist we are both the stimulus and stimuli working together such as wind blowing over paper it understands its role on a mathematical level such as we understand on our language based mathematics we are qualiesque in the way that we are dependant upon our own stimulus to understand another nothingness contradicts reality we had to have
the sapir-whorf hypothesis stated that language influences one's thinking(and then Chomsky's UG kicked in of course) (one's context of time)
so of course you have conscious thought dictating language(influences of cultural b/g).so ideally we should all be telepaths, one day only through the subconscious can the barriers of me and you be broken...one has to break the barriers of the perceived mechanical reality.you looked into the observer's paradox, one must experience so that observer=observed
I think the doomsday song about time unwinding is really cool I still remember it from months ago. Making music is so spiritual. You really have a talent for that too, and you could be a very popular musician if you wanted.
I mean in the context of objectivity we must achieve a level whereby that wich we percieve is no longer different from that wich is percieving. The singlarity of consciousness that is reality in its totality and the awearness of it in a purely objective state.
This will require a radical restructuring of what we now consider our physical selves and it the direction in wich we seem eneviatably to be headed.
The elevation to a state of objective cosmic consciousness.
well my point is that is not practical to put the cart ahead of the horse when the more efeicent means to the end is by attaching it behind.
That is a crude analogy for the concepts you are attempting to comunicate but I believe it is valid in the sense that we will not as a whole achieve the next level in conceptualization until we acomplish the task free our selves of the practical limitaions of physical reality. Most are not inclined to consider alternitives because of these limiting factors
Free ourselves of the practical limitations of physical reality? What do you mean by that? I am not suggesting anything like that at all. There are limitations, of course! We cannot free ourselves from our bodies, from the environment they need to survive, etc. I am saying we need to understand knowledge in a new way. The correspondence theory of truth is incorrect when applied to reality. We need a more participatory epistemology, one that listens to reality as much as it tries to describe it.
solution, that is what I believe takes priority at this point to reach the next revolution of paradigms we must first reach and overcome the limits of our current prevailent themes.
Most of it amounts to common sense as far as the problem solving goes.
It is admirable to attempt to instill a sense of wonder in people but the truth be told most only like it in small convienent doses.
It is not so much that I think our understanding or abilities to know reality are limited, I am really trying to say that reality is not at all what we think. We do not discover reality as though it existed out there independently of us. Instead, I see reality as something we must learn to participate in, something that only exists as it does because of our engagement with it.
we will continue to embrace it for no other reason than it produces the results that we desire, as of yet we seem incapable of escaping our material desires and more to the point we seem depentant upon them until these limitations are overcome then we will not move forward and evolve in our desires.
The limits of our desires must use the current western paradigm as a solution in order to reach the next stage of consciousness development.
If the problem is practical a practical one then so is
also I would like to add that the western paradigm is what has enabled the validity of the more classical interpations of reality have stated by providing the evidence that was necessary to support the claims, and to state that the western paradigm is no longer valid is some what misguided, we are able to achieve a great deal in terms of potential realization when functioning in this paradigm and that is what makes it valid.
results are the what we respect most and so until this system fails.
I think you are underestemating human potential if you believe that is a certianity, that we are aware of our current limitations in understanding does not assert that we are incapable only that we have not yet realized the solution to overcome the obsticals that currently bar our understanding, I am willing to bet that this is only a new stumbling block that will disolve as we evolve to the next level of awareness as far as concsiousness is concerned.
If you are interested in having more people read your writing you could go to sprword and post a forum. Sprword stands for Spread the Word and is a new alternative media site aimed toward providing a solid platform for the Truth.
Also, check out the videos in the consciousness section... they may interest you.
This is a great example of the evolution of consciousness occurring in everyone... which is causing the pull to clarify reality and express the Truth.
Keep speaking about this redlite! - the ones that aren't attracted by your words aren't supposed to be; there's probably a different plan for the embracers of the unknowing/ignorance (I don't mean this in an offending way, yet the truly ignorant WILL feel offended.)
We all are ignorant in many ways; limited by our bodies, but there is a difference between embracing this ignorance and observing it as a part of yourself, like your arms and legs, Truth and Untruth both have it's uses.
I still do not speak the best english but I sure do understand it perfectly when reading, and I've done some other translations... Maybe i'll take some time to do it, the paper is certainly worth it.
Reading your things really amaze me. I had never found such a correspondance to my own thinking at so many levels at once. Of course I still have loads of things to find out, I'm just begining my trip. But I'm definitely sure that this encounter is one to last, whatever may come out of it.
it's not like you *need* extra feedback to keep up with the great work, but I just think that positive feedback is always a nice and warming thing. so... =)
I'm here to let you know that I've printed this paper of yours and read it like three times 'till now. Making marks and taking notes. I'm anxious to show it some other people here, but then I would have to translate it to portuguese.
If the nature of a lie, the apparent inverse of truth, is to hide and deceive what then must be the nature of truth than to be obvious, open, and forthright.
You are complicating and refusing to acknowledge what is obvious. It was a good read though
You should read "Trapped in a world view" in New Scientist 5 January 08,It is about the english language not formed in the right way to explain physics the right way,
But there are languages out there that do and one mentioned was Blackfoot, Micmac and Ojibwa american indian tribes.
They speak in verbs or processes rater than nouns or matter.
What's wrong with studying the ways of the Universe, and Universal Physical Principles? That's a more interesting hobby for those lucky enough to be able to understand it, than playing destructive video games or watching Big Brother or American Idle, yes?
The point is making words identifies things, rather than explains them. That is what physists are struggling with. Its all process based and there is little importance on 'what' is doing it.
exactly, theres no point of what there doing, they could be doing more productive work with their lives (when i say them i mean physists) like helping invent great stuff for the world.
Good work! You are on to something here. The ultimate truth is in another dimension of reality and since all dimensions are interconnected through quantum entanglement, our essence (soul) is conntected to truth. However, as you explain even though we are in the truth we cannot speak the truth (conpletly) as a fish cannot understand the water in which it swims. If you want testimonies from outside the water (body) try near death experiences.
there is no ultimate truth. what do you want...we never will speak in " ulitmate truth" and we will always have to derive our own opinion from what someone says or rights..you all spend so much time thinking about pointless stuff..theres problems much closer to home that need solving...you can study this your whole life and you will die and nothing will have come of it.
its common sense that our language isnt perfect..a good example is the amount of miscommunication that happens in internet chats...there is no ulimate truth to be spoken...what the fuck does your little brain have to say soo bad in ultimate truth anyways..
Yeah, and you can solve problems on short terms and have them right back the next generation of kids, for your kids to solve it AGAIN. way to go daddy/mommy!
so why not just make a better form of communication..enhance the english language..add a sign at the begining of sentence that indicates in what light it is to be taken..i use to consider myself somewhat of a philosopher..still do..i guess...what purpose has it ever served? i'm it has served some purpose..but more for pleasher..if your philosophizing , all of your needs must be met already..
Because we can never really communicate the truth though logical and language...it is too rigid, art conveys a message that is interpreted more ambiguously. It is though this that truth can only be identified & it is different for each of us.
Thinking leads to good good things .. keep up the good work ..philosophers give the brain a good excercise. Besides who else but the greatest of all MEN philosophers actually gave the human mind the operating system we all use today... these things didnt grow on trees. Stay true to negativity without it.. positive would never work see ya PHILOSOPHER MEAT!
are u a girl?? since u said cunt (which is not offending to guys) and why would u kill yourself??? think of alll the great wonders of the world you could see and hear (possibley taste), i think suicide is the worst way to go, at least show yr brave enough to finish your life, and have fun. (BTW im only 12, so i dont really get quantum physics, explanation plz?
ok fine, im being 13 in january, and thanks for the comploment, u dont think im 12 just cuz i want to larn about quantum physics, so thanks, yr basically calling me smart
no i dont think youre smart..i just think youre way too sarcastic and i just know youre not 12 , i have lots of brothers..quantum physics is nothing special..just the physics of extremely small
I think Socrates was on to something. I mean, I don't know HOW many hours I wasted discussing religion with those who wanted to convert me to their way of thinking, and I'd respond with words on paper letting them know the reasons why I couldn't. I might as well have been writing words written in a lost language with them.
brave pioneer philosophers. Those hardy gents of great intellect that built that wondrous, soaring edifice of nonsense that is modern philosophy. Science was built on efficiency not philosophy. There is something so daft about the idea of a philosopher trying to tackle a problem.what problems have you solved exactly ? Philosophers are humans too and even worse off than us poor physicists with our good ol internally objective maths and proton smashers.you dont even have that
you sound like some post modern feminist type who berated us for study of "masculine" relativity and not more "feminine" fluid dynamics and was convinced this was why we hadnt formulated a unified field theory. she couldnt understand why we laughed her off the stage
and of course it is quite easy for us to make the distinction between subject and object today. But the philosophers trying to tackle this problem 500 ago had to struggle against everything their cultural context told them about the world. Without these brave pioneers, what we know as modern science would not have been possible.
subjective and objective ? hard work of philosophers - are you joking. thats took about as much linguistic effort as ordinal and cardinal numbers. if every philosopher vanished tomorrow, i dare say we scientists would somehow struggle along without you :) Try interpreting their actual writings - ie their published papers and formulae. Trying to put physics in a human context ? can you not understand the basic idiocy of that ?
All physicists are human beings before they are physicists, and so the subjective limits of their humanness has a lot to do with the scientific findings they produce (no matter how internally objective the math they use is).
interpretation without comprehension is a fools game. You understand physics like creationists understand biology. Science unlike the arts is not subjective which the denizens of many a humanities department would do well to remember.And should there be something to interpret i doubt philosophers - some of the least productive people in history would be equipped to do it.
I still don't understand what you disagree with in the paper other than the fact that a philosopher has tried to put the experimental findings into a more human context... I guess that in and of itself is too much for you?
Could you give me some reasons why my interpretation is incorrect, or... ?
Most of my comprehension of physics comes from reading the writings of the early quantum physicists themselves. Do you think they were postmodern fools, too?
I wonder what meaning the words "subjective" and "objective" could have possibly meant without the philosophers who have worked so hard to help us define them... Without philosophy, science would be useless (not that it doesn't go both ways).
typical post modern nonsense. Idiot arts students trying to interpret complex science they don't understand. Read the article on quantum heuristics for an excellent piss take of this lunacy.
Doctorsmurf, Why do you criticize what this guy is saying as "post-modern nonsense", and then tell us to read an article(lol) on quantum heuristics? Is quantum heuristics modern? Do you really think you understand that any better and to the point that you think others should read it? Don't be so dismissive.
quantum heuristics was an inspired paper submitted to a post modern type philosophical journal by a well known quantum physicist. The whole paper was randomly generated quantumy sounding words and phrases with no meaning. The idiots (very like this one) who ran the journal published it,completely unaware...
"We often know that [concepts] can be applied to a wide range of inner or outer experience, but we practically never know precisely the limits of their applicability. This is true even of the simplest and most general concepts like 'existence' and 'space and time'. Therefore, it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth." - Werner Heisenberg
That pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make with this paper. Is there something specific you disagreed with, or do you just take offense to philosophy giving much needed interpretation to science?
Yo. I printed out the article on this page (on right) and read it when I found the time. Wow. Its actually a good read. If you wrote this then, I'd have to say you are alot better at writing and revising your work than you are at speaking off-the-cuff into the camera. Maybe post-it notes or something so you hit the highlights. Anyway, the "Nouns do Verbs" part was very interesting and shows the bias the scientific community has. Again good article.
addendum, as if they arent really describinh observed phenomenon but the WAY they are observing phenomena. Im mostly ignorant about physics except what ive learned (not muhc) from what theyve said about their discoveries, but doesnt it seem from this, said above, that physicists will need to complete the loop, as if theyve stopped at the point of human limitation and somehow bring it back..i dunno.
i don't know either, but what you've said "physicists are now learning the only thing they are describing is their way of describing what they study" is the central point of this paper
Brilliant read. I think. Seems like a big contradiction to me, but the good kind. You seem to disagree with words and language yet you use them to explain you thoughts. You should just make a video of your fluid consciousness.
Thats not really true what you say 'they are not looking for matter'. If that were the case, we would not be awaiting the Large hadron collider to complete construction at CERN. Physicists hope it will answer some questions and give physical proof of the Higgs Boson.
There is a lot to be said philosophically about the nature of the experiments being done at CERN and elsewhere. To what extent does the experimental condition and the design of the detectors alter the scientist's ability to see nature in itself? This may not be a question that physicists are concerned with, as if their mathematical models line up with the data returned from the detectors, case closed.
But philosophically, we can ask: what is being studied, the nature of nature, or the nature of man's symbols and technology (ie, mathematics and sophisticated devices like particle accelerators)?
An interesting quote that I used to have written down but have since lost. Steven Weinberg said in "Dreams of a Final Theory" that he knew of no important postwar physicst who's work was influenced by philosophy.
Ah, hmm. I suppose it just seems to me that in most cases, it takes an outside perspective to provide a more objective description. Just like we wouldn't ask the President how well he does his job (if we wanted a valid answer), we wouldn't ask a physicist how well he does his. But really it has nothing to do with how accurate the physics are.
This paper has to do with the philosophical implications of the physics. Physicists don't ask questions about the essence of anything anymore, so you're right that we couldn't ask a physicist to tell us what physics is. We have to ask a philosopher or cultural critic.
Physicists shouldn't ask questions about the 'essence of things'. Or if they do, why would that be related to physics. Science makes not claim with regard philosophy, this is why physicists don't. Philosophy is not science.
Who is the author of this paper? I mean no offense to whoever wrote it, but that's some fine work of postmodern sophistry there. Yes, language has limits, but not at all for the "reasons" claimed in this paper.
Also, it is not at all true that theoretical physicists are not looking for new particles. I get the feeling someone read "Transgressing the Boundaries" by physicist Alan Sokal and took it too far.
Theres nothing quite like a student philosphocal discussion to mix convoluted nonsense arguments with the blindingly obvious and try and present it as the inside view of reality.
I stopoped reading as soon as I read this. "This is so simply because all philosophy must be done using language, and no thoughts can be written down (or spoken) without unconscious metaphysical assumptions about reality built into them." 1st ¶
i find english very limited, croatian is much better, so if we could have much more people(we are only 4 million), we could have more scientists and philosophers, so i think we would make much more results than any country.
we have few nobelists, Nikola Tesla, uor newest discovery is taht we found way to make some special bactera live again( not joke) (check Miroslav Radman), so i want to say that every nation is limited by its language and the way it affects on humans mind.
This is the same moment-to-moment experience that Sam Harris spoke about in his book, "The end of faith[...]". The productive methods of meditation are which cause you to be able to control your cognitive activity, cause you to "feel" TRUELY what the consciousness feels like. Indeed, it has been my experience that consciousness DOES NOT FEEL LIKE AN "I", but it feels like the present moment, and that everything is connected because all is in THIS VERY SAME UNIVERSE (duh).
The fact is that the "I" is quite a convenient cognitive illusion. It seems that I have come to this realisation through a Chinese meditation technique in which I experienced the present moment and I was not thinking, there Were no thoughts. This is the state, which is considered a suggestive state. This is the reason why it is important not to think while in meditation.
Don't listen to the limited comments which urge you to get a girlfriend and stop thinking about these things. These ideas are truly interesting...Most of us get out of university and stop giving time to the intellect because we must involve ourselves in more "practical" things. The true secret is that there is nothing more interesting OR more pragmatic than trying to understand reality and the world...Keep it up!
Oh, one other thing: Not proven does not equal unprovable. The unprovable stance, I think, can be reduced to nihilis, which is itself unproven. A lot of people get completely messed up by not taking account of this distinction.
I came across this video, but let me add my two cents: Philosophers don't know if conscience is existence. That is the philosophical stance called solipsism, and although it can be argued against with arguments about an inherent duality to existence, I don't think it has ever been proven wrong. I don't think anything has ever been definitively proven wrong, but then again, I don't think anything has ever been proven right either.
I personally believe that conscience is truth. Even science proves that if we live our lives by listening to our conscience and opening up to our conscience we live much happier and complete lives.
Anyway, I agree with Socrates or whoever said it. Simplicity (truth/reality) creates complexity (language/thought/falsity/fabrication). It doesn't go the other way around too easily, if at all.
With all due respect, I'm not reading the entire essay because I hate walls of text xD.
I used to ponder about reality and be really into philosophy too. All I realized at the end is that the human is an entity of fabrication and complexity, and the "truth", or the simplicity which builds us, is just an existence far too yang for our ying existence to perceive.
After that, I got more into art, beauty, and technology, rather than science and philosophy.
Perhaps with evolution, we will perceive with more and more clarity. Art, beauty, and technology are all rich with truth and can help us understand a little more every day.
Oh paleeeeeeeeeeeease! Get a girl friend son. If you want to study maths, physics, chemistry and/or engineering, do it first....do it long...then make a video that isn't a mish-mash of your yet-to-be-formed brain.
I don't think the last 2400 years of discourse can be attributed to Socrates. Perhaps Aristotle - at least since his reintroduction to Europe via Aquinas. And the philospher who can take the most "credit" for the Quantum confusion is perhaps Plato.
dude, how much tree did you have to blaze to write this shit? you're wasting your life trying to figure out something that can't be solved, just live your fucking life and stop trying to question it.
but as a student of science, I can only say that we work with what we have :P
Its also really hard to concern yourself with things like that when money is involved in research. People want, at least, an idea of what the universe is like at its core, and all we can do is use language and math. It may be a bit primitive and incomplete, but I think its sufficient enough to sustain us. But I digress :P
it is very very useful. it helps us understand nature in the sense that we gain a better knowledge of how it works when we interfere with it. So we can devise all kinds of technological advancements out of the measurements. but what I don't think we will ever "find" is a true state of objective affairs that exists "out there." we create the instruments to measure the world, and through these lenses, the world appears. no lense, no world. they arise together.
One of the things about quantum physics is that it evolves very very quickly. Its not a stretch to say that a book you read this year may be outdated by next year.
Many of these things CAN be expressed, but I suppose you'd have to do it in the language of mathematics. For example, a particle coming out of superposition can probably not be imagined, but can be expressed by the collapse of the wave function. Its weird, but if if we could not express it, we would not know it exists.
even mathematics is a form of expression. it is just an extremely internally coherent form of expression. but it doesn't point to anything in the "real outside world." the meaning of math is still contextual, right? 45 means what it does because 14 and 2,872 mean what they do... i don't think this means there is no outide world; I just think it means the inside and outside are closer than we think.
Quantum physicists have, for the most part, been making their predictions on paper then looking for signs that its correct up in space or in particle accelerators and what not.But very recently scientists have grown tired of only working on paper and have been building machines that are more and more sophisticated to gain actual physical evidence for all this. I think your idea would have rang more true just a few years ago, but in light of recent developments it may be a little outdated.
the physical evidence still has to be measured though, right? I think that is the essential point, that we can say for sure that we are not dealing with any "objective world out there." We are dealing with the measuring devices we contruct and the languages we create to interpret their results.
Read this three times now, most of it is way beyond my understanding, the rest confusing.
In my opinion we have to accept the artificial seperateness produced by language when we decide to talk or write (if not, we should communicate by looking at and touching each other) so we can start defining truth as a pattern made by mind to match (parts of) reality which itself is inconceivable.
As now such patterns do not exsist but only actions in progress and as we do not exist as entities but parts of the progress (of reality) where is the truth left ?
What is left is a correspondence - not of patterns but of those parts of the proceeding that appear as harmony.
If there occurs an error instead of truth that harmony would be broken and the vibes get dissonant.
I think language should be seen as a means of communication, rather than as a measuring device for the objective world. We speak and write in order to be understood, not in order to be "right" or "wrong" about the world. There are no final answers, so why can't we just speak in order to agree (instead of in order to prove someone else is an idiot)?
In this sense, an "error" would be when we fail to communicate or pass along meaning efficiently. And I'm glad that you agree truth should be an experience and not a proposition or sentence or dogma.
Debating with others is still okay, but the whole point of the debate would shift from proving the other person wrong to coming to some kind of common agreement and understanding.
what if there is a case whre one person IS clearly 'more' correct than the other? A simple example would be: there are 4 apples. Tom says there are 3, Jill says there are 4, who is right?
well mathematics is a whole different ball game. Pythagoras and Plato were on to something... it is somehow objective and is also the best measuring device of the world that we've yet found. did you read that limits of lang. paper I posted? I talked about this. the posts above are more talking about words, not numbers.
I'm with Aristotle where Socrates is concerned. I can't believe Socrates would think that writing knowledge down is worse than memorizing it. That's the WORST advice you could give anyone! It's useless to memorize things if they are written down somewhere. I think it's more important that you know how to use information effectively, not how much information you can recall. Socrates schmocrates.
I think all Socrates was trying to emphasize was that real knowledge is knowledge we can use. That means we can think on our feet and that we aren't attached to specific ways of wording or defining things, because ultimately he came to realize that nobody knew anything they said they knew. That said, though, I love to write as much as anyone!
Your paper is great! Absolutely wonderful, I think everyone should read it. Woah, it expanded my mind and I hope to not forget about the world in this manner. Once the tech can catch up to this idea I don't imagine there will be a paradigm shift. But it shifted MY paradigm. lmao. moving on!
It is nicely written but way to much poetry for my taste... the promise that any person would attempt to comprehend, or write down, some kind of absolutely complete (including all context) truth is silly. Defining truth is substantially just an effort to describe an aspect of reality. I would argue that the important aspects of reality can be accurately described/defined without bending logic or the universe into a 15 dimensional pretzel.
You two should get together, go bowling or play some Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 or something because... simply said:
You can easily jot down this guy's script.
Your formula:
Truth, Lie, Truth, where the truth is self-explanatory, and the lie is covered in a warming blanket of that same truth... a lie that isn't too big for the bed.
If you didn't get what I just said, then you are little more than a punk!
This has been flagged as spam show
blah, blah, blah...
eatmorchikin123 10 months ago
C'mon get real. You need to stop summarizing others works. Nothing more than an entanglement of language that amounts to....
eatmorchikin123 1 year ago
nice one. very interesting. thank you.
benlowreyhimself 1 year ago
You are very close.
highawareness 1 year ago
nice hairdo your getting younger:)
danbit5 1 year ago
i think you're sexy as hell
pooba007 1 year ago
In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view Time has symmetry and geometry. Could this explain the measurement problem and entanglement within Einsteins curvature of spacetime?
nickharvey7 2 years ago
I would want to object and say that there realy is no truth, only rationalisation and perception, as no human (as far as we know of) can with a hundred per cent certainty say that his/her truth is another ones exact replicated though. (I cant realy stand behind this notion though as I only spawned it from hearing one of the sentences in this video ;D).
lordkelvin1 2 years ago
you are incredibly correct,,,Richard Feynman had the same conclusion, came up with the math and built the atom bomb..so yeah it works..can you visualise or talk about the concepts..no you can't but they end up as reality..hence Hiroshima and Nagasaki..and potentially more if we are not careful.
nicksynnz 2 years ago
that dude is high as shit
nggrhntr 2 years ago 3
(continued) Isn't it really just the most wonderfulamazing fun to explore what's really going on with words, whether they get close or not, there's beauty and fun in the activity! Gorgeousness in thinking Éureka!' only to discover the following week that you were really silly to believe that old philosophy and boy this new one is really REALLY true! Oh, its just too delicious. Yay for inadequate words.
kekekekatie 3 years ago
This is such a good point! But at the same time I think the types of humans that are truly interested in trying to describe and present reality in words do quite an amazing job considering the GI-NORMous limitations of words. There's beauty in most of the genuine attempts I've read. I, personally, like the Copenhagen interpretation of observer-created reality. I like the idea that as each foot falls, the universe rises to meet it. Each new thought, each decision, expands space/time. Aah - words.
kekekekatie 3 years ago
to speak in truth is to speak within all probability's there can be no absolute of what the mind perceives, reality its an illusion of a limited perception, the human condition, free your selfs of this conditioning see the world with new eyes
kimxxxyyy 3 years ago
If you realize perception then you know reality and that's the truth.
Monsterhogger1 3 years ago
that makes sense to me maybe im wrong or have contradicted myself. any input would be great on that idea.
ndargatis 3 years ago
existed on some level there are localized realities that is perceivable stimulus to us anything else is dependant on reality that is stimulus that works with stimulus so called perceivable to that stimulus any thing else is a nonlacalized reality dependant upon that "stimulus". a kind of wittgenstein infinity.
ndargatis 3 years ago
understanding is interdependant on the stimulus which is everything we can understand understanding is the stimulus working with the stimuli which really doesnt exist we are both the stimulus and stimuli working together such as wind blowing over paper it understands its role on a mathematical level such as we understand on our language based mathematics we are qualiesque in the way that we are dependant upon our own stimulus to understand another nothingness contradicts reality we had to have
ndargatis 3 years ago
the sapir-whorf hypothesis stated that language influences one's thinking(and then Chomsky's UG kicked in of course) (one's context of time)
so of course you have conscious thought dictating language(influences of cultural b/g).so ideally we should all be telepaths, one day only through the subconscious can the barriers of me and you be broken...one has to break the barriers of the perceived mechanical reality.you looked into the observer's paradox, one must experience so that observer=observed
Domsta333 3 years ago
trying to put the text in a bibliography but cant find author or publish date?
opaque100 3 years ago
The paper was written by Matthew Segall in 2006, wasn't published.
redliterocket4 3 years ago
Like language, the math is a crutch.
I think soon physics will be back on track. Trying to understand the stuff it's made of again. ;-)
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
you'll like the poem i wrote tonight about math, I think. I'll record it tomorrow.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I think the doomsday song about time unwinding is really cool I still remember it from months ago. Making music is so spiritual. You really have a talent for that too, and you could be a very popular musician if you wanted.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I mean in the context of objectivity we must achieve a level whereby that wich we percieve is no longer different from that wich is percieving. The singlarity of consciousness that is reality in its totality and the awearness of it in a purely objective state.
This will require a radical restructuring of what we now consider our physical selves and it the direction in wich we seem eneviatably to be headed.
The elevation to a state of objective cosmic consciousness.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
well my point is that is not practical to put the cart ahead of the horse when the more efeicent means to the end is by attaching it behind.
That is a crude analogy for the concepts you are attempting to comunicate but I believe it is valid in the sense that we will not as a whole achieve the next level in conceptualization until we acomplish the task free our selves of the practical limitaions of physical reality. Most are not inclined to consider alternitives because of these limiting factors
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Free ourselves of the practical limitations of physical reality? What do you mean by that? I am not suggesting anything like that at all. There are limitations, of course! We cannot free ourselves from our bodies, from the environment they need to survive, etc. I am saying we need to understand knowledge in a new way. The correspondence theory of truth is incorrect when applied to reality. We need a more participatory epistemology, one that listens to reality as much as it tries to describe it.
redliterocket4 3 years ago
solution, that is what I believe takes priority at this point to reach the next revolution of paradigms we must first reach and overcome the limits of our current prevailent themes.
Most of it amounts to common sense as far as the problem solving goes.
It is admirable to attempt to instill a sense of wonder in people but the truth be told most only like it in small convienent doses.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
It is not so much that I think our understanding or abilities to know reality are limited, I am really trying to say that reality is not at all what we think. We do not discover reality as though it existed out there independently of us. Instead, I see reality as something we must learn to participate in, something that only exists as it does because of our engagement with it.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
we will continue to embrace it for no other reason than it produces the results that we desire, as of yet we seem incapable of escaping our material desires and more to the point we seem depentant upon them until these limitations are overcome then we will not move forward and evolve in our desires.
The limits of our desires must use the current western paradigm as a solution in order to reach the next stage of consciousness development.
If the problem is practical a practical one then so is
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
also I would like to add that the western paradigm is what has enabled the validity of the more classical interpations of reality have stated by providing the evidence that was necessary to support the claims, and to state that the western paradigm is no longer valid is some what misguided, we are able to achieve a great deal in terms of potential realization when functioning in this paradigm and that is what makes it valid.
results are the what we respect most and so until this system fails.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
I think you are underestemating human potential if you believe that is a certianity, that we are aware of our current limitations in understanding does not assert that we are incapable only that we have not yet realized the solution to overcome the obsticals that currently bar our understanding, I am willing to bet that this is only a new stumbling block that will disolve as we evolve to the next level of awareness as far as concsiousness is concerned.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
It is elementry to state that reality and our models of reality do not always align with one another completely.
Good job captian obvious.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
It's not just that they do not align completely, it's that we have no way of knowing what the reality is that we are trying to model.
redliterocket4 3 years ago
"We can't speak the truth in a sentence." It is a contradiction to say that it is true that we can't speak the truth in a sentence.
premoderne 3 years ago
what a wonderful paradox! I wouldn't recommend believing a word of what's written in this paper.
redliterocket4 3 years ago
lotta writing!!!
Jacksnumber3 3 years ago
If you are interested in having more people read your writing you could go to sprword and post a forum. Sprword stands for Spread the Word and is a new alternative media site aimed toward providing a solid platform for the Truth.
Also, check out the videos in the consciousness section... they may interest you.
trizz173 3 years ago
This is a great example of the evolution of consciousness occurring in everyone... which is causing the pull to clarify reality and express the Truth.
trizz173 3 years ago
Keep speaking about this redlite! - the ones that aren't attracted by your words aren't supposed to be; there's probably a different plan for the embracers of the unknowing/ignorance (I don't mean this in an offending way, yet the truly ignorant WILL feel offended.)
We all are ignorant in many ways; limited by our bodies, but there is a difference between embracing this ignorance and observing it as a part of yourself, like your arms and legs, Truth and Untruth both have it's uses.
Schizman 4 years ago
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH
YEAH.
CHAOSDEATHCULT 3 years ago
at least I'm able to speak more than 2 words ;) @ chaosD
Schizman 3 years ago
This is the 1st time i have seen such a young person embrace the Age of Mastery.Congratulations young man, i hope u go far.
miramishta 4 years ago
Keep it up, Matt.
I hope to keep learning with you and that soon I may be participating more actively in this game!
Best wishes,
Julie
carrottangerine 4 years ago
I still do not speak the best english but I sure do understand it perfectly when reading, and I've done some other translations... Maybe i'll take some time to do it, the paper is certainly worth it.
Reading your things really amaze me. I had never found such a correspondance to my own thinking at so many levels at once. Of course I still have loads of things to find out, I'm just begining my trip. But I'm definitely sure that this encounter is one to last, whatever may come out of it.
carrottangerine 4 years ago
it's not like you *need* extra feedback to keep up with the great work, but I just think that positive feedback is always a nice and warming thing. so... =)
I'm here to let you know that I've printed this paper of yours and read it like three times 'till now. Making marks and taking notes. I'm anxious to show it some other people here, but then I would have to translate it to portuguese.
carrottangerine 4 years ago
Seems interesting...
depolarized 4 years ago
If the nature of a lie, the apparent inverse of truth, is to hide and deceive what then must be the nature of truth than to be obvious, open, and forthright.
You are complicating and refusing to acknowledge what is obvious. It was a good read though
oathniel 4 years ago
Attn: Zepplinjetta
your a fucking idiot
Rejoyces 4 years ago
mhm, i knew it
shefito88 4 years ago
I can't undestand this shit!
Oh well, back to PORNS!
uni000ver000sal 4 years ago
redliterocket4
You should read "Trapped in a world view" in New Scientist 5 January 08,It is about the english language not formed in the right way to explain physics the right way,
But there are languages out there that do and one mentioned was Blackfoot, Micmac and Ojibwa american indian tribes.
They speak in verbs or processes rater than nouns or matter.
kvj4 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you guys are all pathetic nerds man get a hobby
mjgekas 4 years ago
He should get a hobby translating high-level concepts for retards. Guess who his first customer should be ;')
cybervigilante 4 years ago
What's wrong with studying the ways of the Universe, and Universal Physical Principles? That's a more interesting hobby for those lucky enough to be able to understand it, than playing destructive video games or watching Big Brother or American Idle, yes?
rainscratch 4 years ago
I prefer porns!
uni000ver000sal 4 years ago 3
This is one
seanconcepts 4 years ago
"Man can know embody the truth,
but he can not know it." - W.B. Yeats
YOUARETHATYOUARE 4 years ago
If nobody can speak the truth, then how do I know whether or not he's lying? lol
xfugio1 4 years ago
schrodinger would be proud
kadamczy 4 years ago
there is no limit to language. you can make up words that mean various things until the end of time
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
The point is making words identifies things, rather than explains them. That is what physists are struggling with. Its all process based and there is little importance on 'what' is doing it.
kvj4 4 years ago
exactly, theres no point of what there doing, they could be doing more productive work with their lives (when i say them i mean physists) like helping invent great stuff for the world.
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
Good work! You are on to something here. The ultimate truth is in another dimension of reality and since all dimensions are interconnected through quantum entanglement, our essence (soul) is conntected to truth. However, as you explain even though we are in the truth we cannot speak the truth (conpletly) as a fish cannot understand the water in which it swims. If you want testimonies from outside the water (body) try near death experiences.
AwakeningAfterLife 4 years ago
there is no ultimate truth. what do you want...we never will speak in " ulitmate truth" and we will always have to derive our own opinion from what someone says or rights..you all spend so much time thinking about pointless stuff..theres problems much closer to home that need solving...you can study this your whole life and you will die and nothing will have come of it.
tminard20 4 years ago
its common sense that our language isnt perfect..a good example is the amount of miscommunication that happens in internet chats...there is no ulimate truth to be spoken...what the fuck does your little brain have to say soo bad in ultimate truth anyways..
tminard20 4 years ago
Tell that to Einstein and he would have laughed in your face you pessimistic sissy.
bigboyburnsy 4 years ago
Yeah, and you can solve problems on short terms and have them right back the next generation of kids, for your kids to solve it AGAIN. way to go daddy/mommy!
Schizman 4 years ago
so why not just make a better form of communication..enhance the english language..add a sign at the begining of sentence that indicates in what light it is to be taken..i use to consider myself somewhat of a philosopher..still do..i guess...what purpose has it ever served? i'm it has served some purpose..but more for pleasher..if your philosophizing , all of your needs must be met already..
tminard20 4 years ago
wow.........
grabyoursmile 4 years ago
omg! you look like jimi zitka
flip9388 4 years ago
You're going to jail, you didn't cite your sources.
Good video.
davidjakewillis 4 years ago
Because we can never really communicate the truth though logical and language...it is too rigid, art conveys a message that is interpreted more ambiguously. It is though this that truth can only be identified & it is different for each of us.
smrtgrl1 4 years ago
Thinking leads to good good things .. keep up the good work ..philosophers give the brain a good excercise. Besides who else but the greatest of all MEN philosophers actually gave the human mind the operating system we all use today... these things didnt grow on trees. Stay true to negativity without it.. positive would never work see ya PHILOSOPHER MEAT!
meatcannon 4 years ago
yr hair is poofy, u just wake up?? or are u just on crack?
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
This video made
me decide to get
an account!
Fuck you redliterocket4
for making such a good video.
You also made me delete my Myspace account,
YOU did it!
Not me.
Xxxlut 4 years ago
First time I saw this video was
two months ago.
I have an account, have favorite videos, have made the best comments ever. Almost committed suicide last week (I'm such a cunt I failed).
Still, this is the greatest Youtube video ever.
This beats David Icke's videos on stupid Earth-ruling reptiles who have low I.Q. scores and STILL control the masses.
Xxxlut 4 years ago
are u a girl?? since u said cunt (which is not offending to guys) and why would u kill yourself??? think of alll the great wonders of the world you could see and hear (possibley taste), i think suicide is the worst way to go, at least show yr brave enough to finish your life, and have fun. (BTW im only 12, so i dont really get quantum physics, explanation plz?
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
youre not 12
tminard20 4 years ago
yes, i indeed am, turning 13 in janurrary but w/e so i guess im 13. wanna see my birth certificate? lol jk, but u get my point
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
whatever ..youre obviously not 12..shut up..youre not fooling me bro..
tminard20 4 years ago
ok fine, im being 13 in january, and thanks for the comploment, u dont think im 12 just cuz i want to larn about quantum physics, so thanks, yr basically calling me smart
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
no i dont think youre smart..i just think youre way too sarcastic and i just know youre not 12 , i have lots of brothers..quantum physics is nothing special..just the physics of extremely small
tminard20 4 years ago
im nt fucking being sarcastic, jesus fucking christ, i dont give a shit if u dont believe that im 12/13
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
sweet..thanks little guy
tminard20 4 years ago
no problem. im actually the tallest in my class but w/e, =]
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
if you wrote that on paper, would it be the truth?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
possibley... =/
zepplinjetta 4 years ago
To use the most perfect philosophy all you have to do is tell your self the truth (as you know it, and you do). It's a simple as that!
allentazwell 4 years ago
I think Socrates was on to something. I mean, I don't know HOW many hours I wasted discussing religion with those who wanted to convert me to their way of thinking, and I'd respond with words on paper letting them know the reasons why I couldn't. I might as well have been writing words written in a lost language with them.
Nallanyesmar 4 years ago
brave pioneer philosophers. Those hardy gents of great intellect that built that wondrous, soaring edifice of nonsense that is modern philosophy. Science was built on efficiency not philosophy. There is something so daft about the idea of a philosopher trying to tackle a problem.what problems have you solved exactly ? Philosophers are humans too and even worse off than us poor physicists with our good ol internally objective maths and proton smashers.you dont even have that
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
you sound like some post modern feminist type who berated us for study of "masculine" relativity and not more "feminine" fluid dynamics and was convinced this was why we hadnt formulated a unified field theory. she couldnt understand why we laughed her off the stage
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
and of course it is quite easy for us to make the distinction between subject and object today. But the philosophers trying to tackle this problem 500 ago had to struggle against everything their cultural context told them about the world. Without these brave pioneers, what we know as modern science would not have been possible.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
subjective and objective ? hard work of philosophers - are you joking. thats took about as much linguistic effort as ordinal and cardinal numbers. if every philosopher vanished tomorrow, i dare say we scientists would somehow struggle along without you :) Try interpreting their actual writings - ie their published papers and formulae. Trying to put physics in a human context ? can you not understand the basic idiocy of that ?
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
All physicists are human beings before they are physicists, and so the subjective limits of their humanness has a lot to do with the scientific findings they produce (no matter how internally objective the math they use is).
redliterocket4 4 years ago
interpretation without comprehension is a fools game. You understand physics like creationists understand biology. Science unlike the arts is not subjective which the denizens of many a humanities department would do well to remember.And should there be something to interpret i doubt philosophers - some of the least productive people in history would be equipped to do it.
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
I still don't understand what you disagree with in the paper other than the fact that a philosopher has tried to put the experimental findings into a more human context... I guess that in and of itself is too much for you?
Could you give me some reasons why my interpretation is incorrect, or... ?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Most of my comprehension of physics comes from reading the writings of the early quantum physicists themselves. Do you think they were postmodern fools, too?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I wonder what meaning the words "subjective" and "objective" could have possibly meant without the philosophers who have worked so hard to help us define them... Without philosophy, science would be useless (not that it doesn't go both ways).
redliterocket4 4 years ago
i think deluge of shite is more apt
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
Veil of maya.
fireplug111 4 years ago
typical post modern nonsense. Idiot arts students trying to interpret complex science they don't understand. Read the article on quantum heuristics for an excellent piss take of this lunacy.
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
Doctorsmurf, Why do you criticize what this guy is saying as "post-modern nonsense", and then tell us to read an article(lol) on quantum heuristics? Is quantum heuristics modern? Do you really think you understand that any better and to the point that you think others should read it? Don't be so dismissive.
fireplug111 4 years ago
quantum heuristics was an inspired paper submitted to a post modern type philosophical journal by a well known quantum physicist. The whole paper was randomly generated quantumy sounding words and phrases with no meaning. The idiots (very like this one) who ran the journal published it,completely unaware...
doctorsmurf 4 years ago
"We often know that [concepts] can be applied to a wide range of inner or outer experience, but we practically never know precisely the limits of their applicability. This is true even of the simplest and most general concepts like 'existence' and 'space and time'. Therefore, it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth." - Werner Heisenberg
redliterocket4 4 years ago
That pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make with this paper. Is there something specific you disagreed with, or do you just take offense to philosophy giving much needed interpretation to science?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Yo. I printed out the article on this page (on right) and read it when I found the time. Wow. Its actually a good read. If you wrote this then, I'd have to say you are alot better at writing and revising your work than you are at speaking off-the-cuff into the camera. Maybe post-it notes or something so you hit the highlights. Anyway, the "Nouns do Verbs" part was very interesting and shows the bias the scientific community has. Again good article.
trombone7 4 years ago
addendum, as if they arent really describinh observed phenomenon but the WAY they are observing phenomena. Im mostly ignorant about physics except what ive learned (not muhc) from what theyve said about their discoveries, but doesnt it seem from this, said above, that physicists will need to complete the loop, as if theyve stopped at the point of human limitation and somehow bring it back..i dunno.
cosmanthony21 4 years ago
i don't know either, but what you've said "physicists are now learning the only thing they are describing is their way of describing what they study" is the central point of this paper
redliterocket4 4 years ago
ive heard that physicists are now learning the only thing they are describing is their way of describing what they study
cosmanthony21 4 years ago
Brilliant read. I think. Seems like a big contradiction to me, but the good kind. You seem to disagree with words and language yet you use them to explain you thoughts. You should just make a video of your fluid consciousness.
dillon29999 4 years ago
Thats not really true what you say 'they are not looking for matter'. If that were the case, we would not be awaiting the Large hadron collider to complete construction at CERN. Physicists hope it will answer some questions and give physical proof of the Higgs Boson.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
There is a lot to be said philosophically about the nature of the experiments being done at CERN and elsewhere. To what extent does the experimental condition and the design of the detectors alter the scientist's ability to see nature in itself? This may not be a question that physicists are concerned with, as if their mathematical models line up with the data returned from the detectors, case closed.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But philosophically, we can ask: what is being studied, the nature of nature, or the nature of man's symbols and technology (ie, mathematics and sophisticated devices like particle accelerators)?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
An interesting quote that I used to have written down but have since lost. Steven Weinberg said in "Dreams of a Final Theory" that he knew of no important postwar physicst who's work was influenced by philosophy.
bphysicsguy 4 years ago
I don't know if I agree with him, but if he is right what does that say about modern physics?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
It says that people who specialise in physics disagree with people who don't specialise in physics on what physics is.
bphysicsguy 4 years ago
Ah, hmm. I suppose it just seems to me that in most cases, it takes an outside perspective to provide a more objective description. Just like we wouldn't ask the President how well he does his job (if we wanted a valid answer), we wouldn't ask a physicist how well he does his. But really it has nothing to do with how accurate the physics are.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
This paper has to do with the philosophical implications of the physics. Physicists don't ask questions about the essence of anything anymore, so you're right that we couldn't ask a physicist to tell us what physics is. We have to ask a philosopher or cultural critic.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Physicists shouldn't ask questions about the 'essence of things'. Or if they do, why would that be related to physics. Science makes not claim with regard philosophy, this is why physicists don't. Philosophy is not science.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
wat ever ur smoking i want some
sniper1918 4 years ago
LOLOLOL!!! just what i thot - good one dude 5* :)
LivingDog94 4 years ago
Who is the author of this paper? I mean no offense to whoever wrote it, but that's some fine work of postmodern sophistry there. Yes, language has limits, but not at all for the "reasons" claimed in this paper.
Also, it is not at all true that theoretical physicists are not looking for new particles. I get the feeling someone read "Transgressing the Boundaries" by physicist Alan Sokal and took it too far.
AdHocRationalizing 4 years ago
Theres nothing quite like a student philosphocal discussion to mix convoluted nonsense arguments with the blindingly obvious and try and present it as the inside view of reality.
boltar2003 4 years ago
I stopoped reading as soon as I read this. "This is so simply because all philosophy must be done using language, and no thoughts can be written down (or spoken) without unconscious metaphysical assumptions about reality built into them." 1st ¶
milestonedd 4 years ago
"THE FORCE THAT THROUGH THE GREEN FUSE DRIVES THE FLOWER" -
Dylan Thomas
OM !
AllenGinsbergOM 4 years ago
Il come back to you
mcnernd2 4 years ago
i m not allone... that gives me hope!
tell me more, i like u!
mialysis 4 years ago
I really like your essay. It may even be the truth :)
universalwhat 4 years ago
i find english very limited, croatian is much better, so if we could have much more people(we are only 4 million), we could have more scientists and philosophers, so i think we would make much more results than any country.
we have few nobelists, Nikola Tesla, uor newest discovery is taht we found way to make some special bactera live again( not joke) (check Miroslav Radman), so i want to say that every nation is limited by its language and the way it affects on humans mind.
PekaSnake 4 years ago
This is the same moment-to-moment experience that Sam Harris spoke about in his book, "The end of faith[...]". The productive methods of meditation are which cause you to be able to control your cognitive activity, cause you to "feel" TRUELY what the consciousness feels like. Indeed, it has been my experience that consciousness DOES NOT FEEL LIKE AN "I", but it feels like the present moment, and that everything is connected because all is in THIS VERY SAME UNIVERSE (duh).
MaBu888 4 years ago
The fact is that the "I" is quite a convenient cognitive illusion. It seems that I have come to this realisation through a Chinese meditation technique in which I experienced the present moment and I was not thinking, there Were no thoughts. This is the state, which is considered a suggestive state. This is the reason why it is important not to think while in meditation.
MaBu888 4 years ago
Don't listen to the limited comments which urge you to get a girlfriend and stop thinking about these things. These ideas are truly interesting...Most of us get out of university and stop giving time to the intellect because we must involve ourselves in more "practical" things. The true secret is that there is nothing more interesting OR more pragmatic than trying to understand reality and the world...Keep it up!
chimerakarma 4 years ago
Oh, one other thing: Not proven does not equal unprovable. The unprovable stance, I think, can be reduced to nihilis, which is itself unproven. A lot of people get completely messed up by not taking account of this distinction.
hill0118 4 years ago
I came across this video, but let me add my two cents: Philosophers don't know if conscience is existence. That is the philosophical stance called solipsism, and although it can be argued against with arguments about an inherent duality to existence, I don't think it has ever been proven wrong. I don't think anything has ever been definitively proven wrong, but then again, I don't think anything has ever been proven right either.
hill0118 4 years ago
Perhaps the universe, & you & me (we) are just an idea. Perhaps life is the process of figuring the idea out.
If so, I think it is a good idea.
Thanks for the vid
kingoftheelves 4 years ago
I personally believe that conscience is truth. Even science proves that if we live our lives by listening to our conscience and opening up to our conscience we live much happier and complete lives.
NSO82 4 years ago
TR-TR-TR-TRIPLE POST!!
Didn't somebody say that the world gets more complicated the simpler we try to make it (as into, technology and science advances)?
Complexity begets complexity xD!
okay, i'm bored as hell in the morning, i'll just subscribe and leave now.
o00o0o0o0o0o 4 years ago
Anyway, I agree with Socrates or whoever said it. Simplicity (truth/reality) creates complexity (language/thought/falsity/fabrication). It doesn't go the other way around too easily, if at all.
o00o0o0o0o0o 4 years ago
With all due respect, I'm not reading the entire essay because I hate walls of text xD.
I used to ponder about reality and be really into philosophy too. All I realized at the end is that the human is an entity of fabrication and complexity, and the "truth", or the simplicity which builds us, is just an existence far too yang for our ying existence to perceive.
After that, I got more into art, beauty, and technology, rather than science and philosophy.
o00o0o0o0o0o 4 years ago
Perhaps with evolution, we will perceive with more and more clarity. Art, beauty, and technology are all rich with truth and can help us understand a little more every day.
kingoftheelves 4 years ago
Oh paleeeeeeeeeeeease! Get a girl friend son. If you want to study maths, physics, chemistry and/or engineering, do it first....do it long...then make a video that isn't a mish-mash of your yet-to-be-formed brain.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
I don't think the last 2400 years of discourse can be attributed to Socrates. Perhaps Aristotle - at least since his reintroduction to Europe via Aquinas. And the philospher who can take the most "credit" for the Quantum confusion is perhaps Plato.
Io42 4 years ago
dude, how much tree did you have to blaze to write this shit? you're wasting your life trying to figure out something that can't be solved, just live your fucking life and stop trying to question it.
riguy724 4 years ago
Maybe questioning life keeps some moving on, a purpose that people will spend there lives trying to find answers.
BluMancini 4 years ago
U GIT
georgesquire 4 years ago
Yeah...I sort of see what you're trying to say...
but as a student of science, I can only say that we work with what we have :P
Its also really hard to concern yourself with things like that when money is involved in research. People want, at least, an idea of what the universe is like at its core, and all we can do is use language and math. It may be a bit primitive and incomplete, but I think its sufficient enough to sustain us. But I digress :P
kaisergeist22 4 years ago
it is very very useful. it helps us understand nature in the sense that we gain a better knowledge of how it works when we interfere with it. So we can devise all kinds of technological advancements out of the measurements. but what I don't think we will ever "find" is a true state of objective affairs that exists "out there." we create the instruments to measure the world, and through these lenses, the world appears. no lense, no world. they arise together.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
"it" = science or physics, etc.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
One of the things about quantum physics is that it evolves very very quickly. Its not a stretch to say that a book you read this year may be outdated by next year.
Many of these things CAN be expressed, but I suppose you'd have to do it in the language of mathematics. For example, a particle coming out of superposition can probably not be imagined, but can be expressed by the collapse of the wave function. Its weird, but if if we could not express it, we would not know it exists.
kaisergeist22 4 years ago
even mathematics is a form of expression. it is just an extremely internally coherent form of expression. but it doesn't point to anything in the "real outside world." the meaning of math is still contextual, right? 45 means what it does because 14 and 2,872 mean what they do... i don't think this means there is no outide world; I just think it means the inside and outside are closer than we think.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Quantum physicists have, for the most part, been making their predictions on paper then looking for signs that its correct up in space or in particle accelerators and what not.But very recently scientists have grown tired of only working on paper and have been building machines that are more and more sophisticated to gain actual physical evidence for all this. I think your idea would have rang more true just a few years ago, but in light of recent developments it may be a little outdated.
kaisergeist22 4 years ago
the physical evidence still has to be measured though, right? I think that is the essential point, that we can say for sure that we are not dealing with any "objective world out there." We are dealing with the measuring devices we contruct and the languages we create to interpret their results.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
The purpose of this video in particular
SOCRATES012 4 years ago
Oh, just to get some feedback on the paper. No greater purpose in mind.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
What is the purpose of all of this bro? I think i know but i would like you to enlighten me if youd care to do so. Peace and Love
SOCRATES012 4 years ago
the purpose of what?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Great use of language indeed.
Read this three times now, most of it is way beyond my understanding, the rest confusing.
In my opinion we have to accept the artificial seperateness produced by language when we decide to talk or write (if not, we should communicate by looking at and touching each other) so we can start defining truth as a pattern made by mind to match (parts of) reality which itself is inconceivable.
Mork5 4 years ago
As now such patterns do not exsist but only actions in progress and as we do not exist as entities but parts of the progress (of reality) where is the truth left ?
What is left is a correspondence - not of patterns but of those parts of the proceeding that appear as harmony.
If there occurs an error instead of truth that harmony would be broken and the vibes get dissonant.
Mork5 4 years ago
This would be the way to integrate a conception like 'truth' as an experience in the immediate perceiving that we (not do, but) are.
Mork5 4 years ago
I think language should be seen as a means of communication, rather than as a measuring device for the objective world. We speak and write in order to be understood, not in order to be "right" or "wrong" about the world. There are no final answers, so why can't we just speak in order to agree (instead of in order to prove someone else is an idiot)?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
In this sense, an "error" would be when we fail to communicate or pass along meaning efficiently. And I'm glad that you agree truth should be an experience and not a proposition or sentence or dogma.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Debating with others is still okay, but the whole point of the debate would shift from proving the other person wrong to coming to some kind of common agreement and understanding.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
what if there is a case whre one person IS clearly 'more' correct than the other? A simple example would be: there are 4 apples. Tom says there are 3, Jill says there are 4, who is right?
normonics 4 years ago
well mathematics is a whole different ball game. Pythagoras and Plato were on to something... it is somehow objective and is also the best measuring device of the world that we've yet found. did you read that limits of lang. paper I posted? I talked about this. the posts above are more talking about words, not numbers.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
it's 2007, who reads?;) thats the point of yotbe!
normonics 4 years ago
*****
chrysalidechrysalide 4 years ago
I'm with Aristotle where Socrates is concerned. I can't believe Socrates would think that writing knowledge down is worse than memorizing it. That's the WORST advice you could give anyone! It's useless to memorize things if they are written down somewhere. I think it's more important that you know how to use information effectively, not how much information you can recall. Socrates schmocrates.
boylebongo 4 years ago
I think all Socrates was trying to emphasize was that real knowledge is knowledge we can use. That means we can think on our feet and that we aren't attached to specific ways of wording or defining things, because ultimately he came to realize that nobody knew anything they said they knew. That said, though, I love to write as much as anyone!
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Your paper is great! Absolutely wonderful, I think everyone should read it. Woah, it expanded my mind and I hope to not forget about the world in this manner. Once the tech can catch up to this idea I don't imagine there will be a paradigm shift. But it shifted MY paradigm. lmao. moving on!
boylebongo 4 years ago
It is nicely written but way to much poetry for my taste... the promise that any person would attempt to comprehend, or write down, some kind of absolutely complete (including all context) truth is silly. Defining truth is substantially just an effort to describe an aspect of reality. I would argue that the important aspects of reality can be accurately described/defined without bending logic or the universe into a 15 dimensional pretzel.
inmendham 4 years ago
You write no different than how HE speaks!
You two should get together, go bowling or play some Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 or something because... simply said:
You can easily jot down this guy's script.
Your formula:
Truth, Lie, Truth, where the truth is self-explanatory, and the lie is covered in a warming blanket of that same truth... a lie that isn't too big for the bed.
If you didn't get what I just said, then you are little more than a punk!
Xxxlut 4 years ago
I believe whatever you said is absolutely true- in a
metaphorical way- just nod if y'know what I mean.
docrufus 4 years ago
nod
redliterocket4 4 years ago
*~*
docrufus 4 years ago