Quantum Physics and the Limits of Language

The Limits of Language

link to my blog: http://matthewsegall.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/the-limits-of-language/

beginning of essay:
It seems ironic, at least in light of the premise of this paper, that the thoughts of a man such as Socrates could have given birth to the last twenty-four hundred years of Western philosophical discourse. Was it not he who said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"? Was it not also he who wandered the streets of Athens constantly reminding his fellow countrymen that they did not know exactly what they meant by the words they were using? And was it not he who suggested that our merely human means of expression is an insufficient tool for the task we have employed it with, namely the pursuit of Truth? Maybe it isn't ironic at all, for what else could humanity, after having conquered nature to the extent that leisure time became the norm rather than the exception, busy its rational intelligence with but the insoluble game of philosophy? That philosophy is a game that cannot be won, and that is therefore necessarily unconcerned with Truth, is the central premise of this paper. This premise will be elucidated in a detailed look at the medium of language and the impossibility of its describing the fundamental nature of reality itself.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• quantum
• physics
• limits
• language
• alan
• watts
• eddington
• mysticism
• socrates
• wittgenstein

[opaque100]

trying to put the text in a bibliography but cant find author or publish date?

[redliterocket4]

The paper was written by Matthew Segall in 2006, wasn't published.

[mtheoryrules]

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

[redliterocket4]

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.

[mtheoryrules]

It is elementry to state that reality and our models of reality do not always align with one another completely.

Good job captian obvious.

[redliterocket4]

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.

[nggrhntr]

that dude is high as shit

[uni000ver000sal]

I prefer porns!

[eatmorchikin123]

C'mon get real. You need to stop summarizing others works. Nothing more than an entanglement of language that amounts to....

[benlowreyhimself]

nice one. very interesting. thank you.

[highawareness]

You are very close.

[danbit5]

nice hairdo your getting younger:)

[pooba007]

i think you're sexy as hell

[nickharvey7]

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?

[lordkelvin1]

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).

[nicksynnz]

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.