Wat is Waar ?: Shift of paradigms in physics

De afbeelding “http://srikant.org/core/img1530.png” kan niet worden weergegeven, omdat hij fouten bevat.

Laws of Physics: A primer. 'Belal E. Baaquie' Department
of Physics National University of Singapore.

Requiem for Herman Note

Herman van de trein, opmerkzaam in de herkenning van de filosoof. Als leven slechts begonnen, als wijze slechts op dreef. Veel te vroeg verdrongen, zonder afscheid van die jongen, voor wie je altijd bleef! Woorden omschrijven amper wat betekenis voor ons inhoudt. Dus enkel woorden schieten tekort in hoe ik van je houd. Het groeten van je lichaam kwam plots onverwachts, zonder spijt betuigen wat ik niet had verwacht. Mocht je mij zien, wanneer ik dit schrijf, wees dan vast verdrongen van het feit dat ik je mis.

Moge goden je respecteren.

Invloed

Willem Van Ockham
Westerse filosofie
Werner Heisenberg
Visions of the future
Stef De Pooter/ Maarten Vergauwen/ Jelle De Saegher/ Anouchka Springael/ Kobe Verheyen/ Nico Raps/ Baltorius BAL/ Wang Fong Li
Sophocles
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
Mezelf
Marcus Tulius Cicero
Koenraad Verycken
Klassieke en Moderne fysica
Isaac Newton
Immanuel Kant
Gottfried Leibniz
Friedrich Nietzsche
Francis Muskala/ Bart Muskala/ Koen Muskala/ Gerda Schelkens
Family Guy
Euripides
Erik Myin
Emile Cioran
Diogenes Van Sinope
De Presocraten
Brian Greene
Blaise Pascal
Bertrand Russell
Baruch de Spinoza
Aristoteles
Albert Camus
Aischylos
..........................................

Mensheid volgens de filosofische Antropologie

Het kromme hout van waaruit mensen zijn gemaakt, lijkt in niets op wat de goden beteken(d)en voor deze aarde. Met uitzondering van de berg van Olympus en de geschriften van Homerus en Hesiodus krijgen we telkens hetzelfde beeld te zien: een sche(r)ts van de voortreffelijkheid en de puurheid van het morele en het voorzienende karakter van de godheden (met uitzondering van Zeus en de zijnen (Moirae, ...)) Mensen daarentegen, man of vrouw, doen niet in het minste onder voor deze goden, althans niet naar menselijke maatstaven gemeten. Algehele puurheid van eender welke kwaliteit of eigenschap is onzin: niemand is de eminentie ten top, niet zoals Aquino ze beschreef, noch volgens de Ouden. De dispositie van waaruit de mensheid vertrekt, omvat een gelaagdheid ver voorbij die van de godheden. Hierin weerspiegelt zich het glorieuze, en tevens merkwaardige aspect van het kromme hout. De imperfectie der mensheid, die althans verheerlijkt en verheven wordt door Sartre en de generatie van de existentie, deinst immers nimmer terug voor onvolkomenheden. Integendeel; waar de goden heersen, ginds overheerst de mens en zijn weinig kwalitatieve levensstijl (in vergelijking met de zogenaamd goddelijke-). Omgekeerd heeft de mensheid de godendimensie evenzeer van doen, niet historisch of reëel maar eerder antropisch en levensbeschouwelijk. Ook nu nog? Opnieuw nu? Eerder nu?

Mensheid volgens de filosofische interpretatie van religieuze Godsdiensten

De evenbeelden, de kinderen, de geschapenen... des Gods: mensen. Niet elke godsdienst staat gelijkmatig tegenover de mensheid. Boete-, schuld- en strafconcepten vervolledigen slechts de Christelijke interpretatie van ons, bewoners van de aarde. Volgens de Islam is de mens het hoogst ontwikkelde wezen binnen de aardse natuurlijkheden en dient hij eervol gevolg te brengen aan deze wonderbaarlijke schepping. De Hindoes onderscheiden danweer 4 doelgerichte strevingen in de mens: plezier, succes, plicht en zelfrealisatie. Maar... wat doet dit ertoe? Samenleven (in harmonie als mensheid) is het bindingsproces dat elke godsdienst, en verder, elke vorm van religie omvat; en slechts/voldoende als noodzakelijk element en essentiëel bestanddeel kan worden beschouwd. Indien buitenaardse wezens deze aarde bezoeken, wordt dit alles duidelijk. Hiermee zetten we, al was het maar tijdelijk, de culturele, sociale, etnische en dergelijke verschillen even terzijde en richten we ons op een nieuwe, nog reeds ongekende soort: zelf religieus? Althans (in de strikte zin van het woord)! Weze DIT niet goddelijk? Boven elke vorm van aardse religie of godsdienst (dit is niet hetzelfde). Niet door ras of geloof gecategoriseerd maar door het menszijn-als-zodanig gebonden! Kennis of openbaring van dit abominabele (want we zijn niet alleen (wat met onze moraal?)), verbijsterend gelukkige (want we zijn alleen (hier met de enige en menselijke moraal!)) feit stelt ons in een nieuw euforisch daglicht, waarbij de euforie afhangt van de potentiëel fundamentele houding (die mede het gevolg van verstand en religie en cultuur en ... is)!!!

Philosophical loneliness

‘‘If I could solely be contained
in a canvas which beyond human interest and above all,
prosperity, raises the question of a life in perfect solitude,
as it not should be but in essence is the only remaining perspective,
then, would it not be an abdominal question whether or not to choose this state of mind?’’

Perhaps so,

but consider with what intention, and even more so, with what regard are you doing so?

Should it not best be foregone by the following task: from which point of view are you glancing at the so called ‘state of mind’; and moreover, should you not try to apprehense the whole situation, which is not just you but the entire history of mankind and your neighbour?

One does try to flee from the outerworld for a whole lot of reasons. But I’m not directing to the loneliness out of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, illness or inability. Examples of such types are numerous and, but not always, easily understood.

Now consider the above mentioned question of willingly embracing the solitude: the removing of every other standard out of your own with the consolation that you don’t have any sort of need pointed towards this too human-alike desire to consolidation in general. That is why at first leaving the unity of consol(id)ation, that is, humanity.

In a less misanthropic way you can still recognize the peculiar fact of the long, the ache for solitude and let it be emphasized that it does not need to be against the human condition ‘per se’ because even without this nuance it shows very clear our directing point:

the breaking from all moral, sensitive and simple madness all together created by human effort, the so called ‘human endouver’.

Why would any kind of being support this sort of atypical and, when considered in relation amongst anthropic situations, asocial behaviour; moreover, how can it be philosophically understood?

Why philosophically? Because the aim is not the degenerative symptom of loneliness: not in a biological or psychological way, nor sociological or criminological. It also does not make much sense (however) to describe this peculiarity in mathematical or chemical way.

There is however another, less trivial, matter why the connection with philosophy is valuable within this context. A glance at the history of philosophy in general, or in a very concrete way, the life of most philosophers ever known, gives us a sample of what is the matter.

‘‘What is our main objective, that is, what do I understand under the concept of ‘solitude’ perceived from the philosophical point of view?’’

Could it be solitude out of ressentiment towards humankind... morals... ‘condition humain’?

Nothing of this seems to be coherent with the attitude; this does not mean that it cannot be a mixture of these things with some other things, but it is never as easy as saying that one or two of the above mentioned reasons are the whole explanation for the ‘syndrome’; we’re dealing with a philosopher here, things are not that easy. And if they are, than he would surely not approve the simpleness, as if his own mind seeks the heavy side of life. And who else will share the same destiny, the same course of events (which is the same as ‘destiny’ but then quoted for the non-believers), raised and brewed out of discontent with the irrationality of everything, tremendously shocked by the way things evolve, as described by every social science within the academic world as well as in concrete, individual life? A refugee, deeply sad and unhappily satisfied by alcohol and tranquillizers… behold, the beginning of solitude.

Let us get into detail, within the marvellous thoughts, feelings and experiences of the so called being and his condemned essence:

the philosopher’s solitude

______________________________________

The philosopher

As I walk through the forest, alone and wandering in my mind about the very nature of trees, a breathtaking thought runs through my veins and mind: ‘why do so little people understand me and how come I always end up tired?’ I’ve last occupied this thought several years ago but I hoped I would be freed of this feeling again. Did I not better my existence back than? ‘Could it be that I loose myself in depressing, mind-disturbing habits for the seventieth time or so…?’

Most likely.

But when I walk down the path between a lake and a house, someone calls a sound addressed to my direction, I guess: ‘haaaii stranger, how commin’ to you, e’rithing a’right?’. At first I was afraid of the tone he used. Loud and profound he stated his entrance, but catching and overwhelming he pointed out his existence, his neighbouring around me. Not disturbing, as I experienced. ‘You from aroun’?’ he shouted. I felt no obligation answering him. We were in the wilderness of nature, several kilometres away from civilisation. ‘No mister, just wandering around. Got no job and no place… just wandering around, no obligations, just rental places. No wife, no children… just me and the world. Left home when I was 22, studied philosophies and never came above it. What an ambiguous choice of being, not?’ You know you totally wreck things and still you persist in doing so. You love it, cannot leave this thing called deepness, interpretation, manic sincereness: all together, love towards sincere truth and sacrifice for…

behold, the philosophers solitude.

Can this be one of the reasons for our main question? I think it is, partly.

He began to speak about the search for truth and consolidation and how these two concepts are intertwined. He explained me how people do not want truth rather than certainty, opportunity above honesty; live your own life with regard to, that means, with respect to, every natural being without lowering your nature. Cows are eaten, dogs are fed but human kind will never cease to give up life as long as survival is possible. This is a natural fact: survival of the species runs evolution, in every bio-system known today: the utmost conditions, best and most pleasurable situations are preferred.

In the quest for truth only one thing remains solid and profound, the careless truth and rightful attitude towards it. Without, it cannot be equal to the concept of truth. Why would anyone try to risk his own life instead of treason to a simple fact which no one recalls? This is THE criterion that subdivides the true from the untrue, the pure from the soiled; the utmost condition for truth, ladies and gentlemen. If one seeks and desires safety and warmth, good. But only when sincereness and vivid motivation can create effort and appropriate to the rightfulness of truth, the concept of truth and its carriers, there and only there lies the nature of truth and with it, the source of wisdom. Wisdom is like the water, carried out trough a fountain, steered by the initial boost that is provided by the shape of the fountain and the strength with which it boils out the substance, the incarnation of the truth, namely the water, our wisdom; but the truth itself is the fountain, the source of wisdom and, when led into the right composition, it tunes out, as if the water is in some sort of balance, the most beautiful harmonies ever heard. Wisdom as truth and truth within wisdom, the cosmic (as seen from anthropic perspective) symphony on which the whole search of the old Greek philosophers was based. The fountain is the way within many forms of truth can resemble, but without the water and the definite shape within which it is forced, truth holds nothing. That’s why truth needs carriers, relyable and convinced. Not fanatic but rightful and inspired by goodwill.

‘Never forget that you are only human, and so entitled to only a fraction of what you seek. Perhaps one day, when science reaches what is beyond limit today, we can get a lot of answers to this mind boggling conundrums, but the fact of the matter is that in reality we are only placing more question marks into this picture we call life (so why bother with human interest and not live free, as nature intended to?)’.

Is it then not worthy searching for it? I began to ask myself. But this leaves us with only two options: either you leave this struggle or you don’t. ‘So you tell me that I have only two choices in this all, whereas the choosing of one disperses the other. Could it be that one is actually doing both at the same time: living with the knowledge that there is something we call truth or God or… and that it is fascinating in all ways, but at the same time not always recognizing the existence of it and sort of like treat it as opportunity, but not as a valuable thing in itself. That’s an intellectual perversity, I think’. Were these the only possible attitudes towards a living in truth? He astounds me with his reply: ‘Are there any options at all? Why do you state the possibility of a choice here; because u feel trapped and overwhelmed by the responsibility of truth, does it weighs too much (upon your all too humanly shoulders) or feeds the need to get out of this situation? Frightened by it. Maybe mankind around you doesn’t respond to this and that could also be interpreted as a flee, but not necessarily. Still you keep in mind that you are human and so gifted with the capacity of adaptation and therefore able to plan and foresee things, not only towards the future but even so with the past; this is what enables within us the learning-out-of-experience capacity and creates the picture of choice, on which we hold on with strong belief. (this is called a non-deterministic point of view) But how can one be sure that ‘potentiality’, ‘possibility’ and even ‘choice’ forms the playground for the human theatre, the satire within which whole mankind is rooted, written? Does it not feels like biological determinism, as if you do not even have the opportunity to overweigh the procedure, to balance the accessible from the inaccessible, the normal from the atypical? Many times it does feel like that. ‘Get near and I will explain further’, he proposed, knowing that I would regret the sincere honesty of the person in front of me, the stranger who settled me with more wisdom in 2 hours than a schoolteacher could reach in 2 years (,of course I was younger back then). “One, two, three”… how good is your math? “Exuberant”…spell it, how good is your grammar? “Explain Kant” how good is your philosophies? I, myself, do not care about what you know because what you know is only practicable within the realm of, and always related to, human traffic but I would like to transcendent this ‘gratuit’ state and enter the foggy forest of meta-physics (for the philosophers amongst, I do not mean ‘metaphysics’ in a denigrating sense).

Wat is Waar ?

donderdag 24 april 2008

Shift of paradigms in physics

Geen opmerkingen:

Requiem for Herman Note

Invloed

Blogarchief

Over mij

Plato en Aristoteles

Favoriete Auteurs

Mensheid volgens de filosofische Antropologie

Mensheid volgens de filosofische interpretatie van religieuze Godsdiensten

Philosophical loneliness

De verschillende wetenschappelijke domeinen en de onderzoeksobjecten

School van Athene

Vijfde Solvay conferentie