Author: Spiros Kakos
Harmonia Philosophica Facebook page
Religion-Science Philosophy articles series
Credo quia absurdum [5]
I believe because it is illogical
We all look at the same one reality with the same tools. However we almost never agree. Why is that?
The answer I give in this articleis that we just use different words to describe the same things, or see the same thing from different point of view. As Parmenidis said, the “IS” is one and that same “IS” is what we all try to approach and explain. A unification of all opinions looks as the best way to look at it…
For example, the world can be eternal (as Heracletus said), but at the same time have a First Cause (as Aristotle said) the Absolute Infinite that was first discovered by Georg Cantor and actually contains all “lower-level” infinites. We could be indeed constrained within the existence of the world that exists (as Sartre said), but given the fact that the world is infinite that constraint is not a constraint at all. Mathematics can indeed contain universal truths, but their expression may be imperfect due to the imperfections of humans. Evolution could happen due to natural selection, but maybe that selection has a purpose after all.And humans helping other people who are meant to die is simply the most direct hint that the theory of evolution is not the answer to everything. We may be lifeless sets of electrons and protons, but it is the life-giving force of Henri-Louis Bergson that gives us the strength to deny our own existence. Faith is based on logic analysiswhile logic is based on faith to someaxiomatic truths. And these a-priori thuths are nothing more than the inner wishes of logic.No big philosophical question has been answered by anyone. The continuous quest for answers is what has value. Science is one of the tools we have to reach the truth, and not a perfecto tool that is. Nor is logic. Let us not forget thatgreatest scientific breakthoughs have been based on illogical bursts of inspiration based on instinct and intuition. Delawere indians cannot refer to a “thing” as it exists on its own, but onlyin the context of a specific situation. In that way they do nothavea word for “snow”, but they do have words to say “yesterday it snowed” or “the ground is covered with snow”. [1] Who tells us that our language, with so many Platonic dogmas embedded in it, is more “correct” than that language”? Nuer indiansdo not have the notion of “time” in their language as we do. Maybe if we learnedfrom these different perspectives, we wouldn’t need thousands of years for Godel to come and tell us that time may be just an illusion. [2][3][4][5] Scientism, materialism, idealism, theism, atheism, not one of these philosophies has answered all questions. We must use all of them andnot be dogmatically stick to just one.The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution, as Paul K. Feyerabendonce said in”Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge” (1975). Logic is based on axioms, which some claim that they are based on data from our senses. But sometimes the results of logic go against what our senses tell us. Honey is sweet, but people with icterus taste it as bitter. What is the “reality” after all? Who’s reality is more “valid”?
All these antinomies show us what we cannot see because of our stuborness to use right-wrong disctinction: that the world is “ONE”. As Parmenides said, there is not “right” and “wrong” – something cannot “not be” right. The distinction between “real” and “not real” may after all be insufficient to explain the true reality of our world. And remember that one has to be “logical” to understand a logical argument, but what kind of credibility does an argument has if it can persuade only people who are already trained to accept it? Logic kills fantasy, and we must remember that it is the latter which has been the source of all great human progress during history. Human kind cannot stand the teachings madness and death can give and that is why the boundaries of madness where always defined by the state authorities and not by any objective criterion. Men give their lives for some higher ideas. Maybe their heart knows something that their logic cannot even glimpse at? Every day we try to drive ourselves higher than our material body, like madmen we strive to create in fields that modern materialistic science cannot even see – poetry which you cannot understand fascinates you, like your Sein (The ONE Sein) which you canot see pushes you to something more meaninglinfull and of higher essense than your Da-Sein. All of our cells change, but we remain the same. Our Sein seems to be independent of the matter which nevertheless constitutes our Da-Sein. Children listen at their teachers for years and only after they have learned to think as their teacher do, do we let them think “freely”. But how “free” can they be then? Western medicine tells us that its medicines are “better”, but what about the medicines Indians used for thousands of years? They were banned not after careful examination, but after the white people simply wished to state their superiority to other races. How “free” can modern Western medicine be, when it is dictated by pharmaceuticals that control governments, states and even the EU? Is health “better” that sickness? What about parents who wish their children to get sick so as to develop antibodies? What about people who were always isolated from microbes and then died on the first time they encountered one? Our bodies – because of “too much health” – have begun attacking their own selves thus increasing the autoimmune diseases greatly. Maybe health AND sickness is the better way to live… Nothing “right” or “wrong”. Just one world and one reality…
Those who believe in scientism want more “control” over nature and reality. But what is “control” for? What do they want to control? Would someone like to BE controlled? Would someone like to control his feeling, to be able to start and stop loving someone else by just pushing a “button” inside him? And if more “control” is the main goal, why not follow the path of people with faith in a God, who because of that faith are in a state where they feel and “live” a life of complete control overy everything? Which control is more “valid”? Those who believe in scientism think that the lack of “data” and “information” is the great problem science will solve and – thus – save humankind of its problems. But none of the most important issues humans face are related to lack of information, as the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew correctly points out: The important problems of humans today are related to lack of trust, love, patience, understanding…
Man has to awaken to wonder – and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
How can someone fly if all he has been taught is how to crawl? A genius is the most illogical creature – every single great breakthrough in science was based on great illogical leaps of faith. Logic is a great tool, but sometimes it becomes synonym to the “status quo” of the way people think during a time period if history. And in that case you cannot progress if you think “logically”…
If you believe something “because it is logical” then you are nothing more than a slave to the current axioms of your time.
For thousands of years we thought as “right” the axioms stating that “negative number times a negative number provides a positive number as a result” or that “there is only one parallel line we can draw from a point outside a line”. But when we thought to question these “truths” we suddenly “discovered” the imaginary numbers of the non-Eucledian geometries. And we were startled to see that these new “weird” theories had practical implications.
We should be startled though: the truth is as “true” as we think it is.
Logic dictates that in order to “prove” something you must complete your syllogism. But can a syllogism be completed? No. The infinite number of causes that leads to the First Cause is what makes certain that a logical syllogism can never be completed. What generates our “certainty” that a syllogism can be completed? Faith? Antinomies and paradoxes seem to be embedded in everything, even the most pure mathematical logic. We should accept their existence, embrace their nature and trust what we believe if we want to “understand” the cosmos as it “is”… After all who verifies that our faith in the axioms of logic are correct? Why not be illogical as Zenon and Democritus? Why not be illogical as Einstein and Newton? Newton found his idea of gravity as “so absurd that I do not think anyone will believe it”. [6] But we did believe it… Maybe we should start believing things we consider as non-logical? Maybe as G.K. Chesterton once said, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason“.
All science is based on the axiom that a proposition can be either true or false.
de omnibus dubitandum est
However there are substantial evidence indicating that a logical proposition can be true and false at the same time [dialethism]! [7] Consider for example the logical proposition “this proposition is false”. Is it false? If yes, then it is true. Is it true? If yes, then it is false. Logic is so illogical that can drive someone into the conclusion that his logic is wrong… If I say “you are right” and what you have said is that “I am wrong”, then who is right after all? Know that the antinomies exist and do not try to “understand” them.
As Shestov geniously states, to “understand” is not the same as to “know”. [8] If you try to understand something you actually try to fit it into your current way of thinking, thus altering it in a way that you loose the “truth” in it. And let us remember that in the ancient times of Homer the notion of “illogical” did not even exist. Everything that was said was part of “Logos”. [9] Only after 2,500 years of civilization have made some “truths” embedded in our brain as “correct” have we started to believe in fictious contradictions like “logical” – “illogical”…
If a crazy person tells you he is crazy, would you believe him? If you dream of something illogical, will you question your logic or your dream? When you talk to yourself, who is doing the talking?
God may be dead as Nietzsche said, but only if Man is dead too, as Adorno postulated… We may be free to decide as Sartre said, and this freedom could have its basis on the natural laws… The world may be eternal, but that may have given the probability of the existence of a God the chance to manifest itself. And God may see us arguing for this and that while He drinks his decaf coffee… Because even He cannot escape the antinomies… A priori truths may be embedded into our brain, but only experience can help us know them. A posteriori truths may be the result of logic, but that logic has to be based on some non-“a posteriori” truths. Logic cannot look at itself without the danger of antinomies popping out, but the things which refer only to themselves are the only “real” things, as Kant said.
We may be the only beings in nature conscious of the mortality of our DaSein, but all-wise nature may have given us this tragic knowledge only because we can bear with such knowledge due to the immortality of our spirit (Sein).
Man may be meant to rule the Earth, but only in harmony with the other species. And harmony in theory and in praxis can be obtained only with “primitive” thinking, beyond any dogmatism. This primitive thinking – if and when conquered be humans – will be the more advanced conquest we have ever made. As Oedipus represents the hyperbole in questioning (Levi Strauss), we may have to behave like Persival and be silent for things we cannot “see” (Wittgenstein). We have gained much with “logic”, but even more with “illogical” thinking.
People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Albert Einstein
We all discuss with each other. However Schrödinger said that we all perceive only ONE consciousness: our “own”. We can never be aware of the consciousness of others. Could that mean that there is actually only ONE consciousness in the world? [10] And that single consciousness could be the real source of the Carl Jung’s collective unconscious…
Primitive people of the caves had a more pure thought, which was not influenced by theories for the artificial definition of “true” of “false”. Primitive people thought and believed that life does not end with physical death. Primitive people thought more freely – they did not have thousands of years of civilization behind them to talk on their behalf. Primitive people thought that life does not end with death, since they were not taught the (artificial?) idea of “time” on which all pseudo-philosophy of “existence/non-existence” is based. Maybe things we cannot easily define, do not actually exist. I exist now in Kythera on the year 2010. No matter how much “time” passes, I will still exist in Kythera on the year 2010…
Primitive people lived much healthier lives than we do.
But they died younger.
What does that tell us about death and life?
Could death be something “good” in the context of Nature?
Is that opinion illogical enough so that we can believe it?
How can you feel relaxed, if you don’t get tired first? How can you live if you don’t die some day?
“The complete freedom and independence of vision of primeval art has never since been attained… In our sense there was no up and no down, no above and no below … Nor was there a clear distinction and separation of one object from another – witness the continuous use of superimposition – nor rules of related size and scale. Gigantic bulls of the Magdalenian era could stand alongside tiny deer from Aurignacian times, as around the dome of Lascaux… All was displayed within an eternal present, the perpetual flow of today, yesterday, and tomorrow ” [Source: ARAS free sample – http://search.aras.org/record.aspx?ARASNUM=1Cb.501%5D
At the time before Socrates in Greece, the idea that things “change” was a topic of discussion between philosophers and not a matter solved. And it is very important to remember that when one opinion prevails, it has a tremendous effect on the future – thus making it profoundly vital for everyone to question everything over and over again… When we understand that the more recent information ir not necessarily more “valid” than the older ones [Levi Strauss], we will learn many things we have “forgotten”… How can a thing be changed without losing its identity? Perhaps things do not change eventually, said Parmenides. The cells which constitute our body as humans are changed several times during our lives. How do we know that we are who we think we are? Is there a “reality” beyond what we see? Finally the theory of Democritus and Leukippos (according to which things are changing) prevailed over the theory of Parmenides, and that has defined profoundly our scientific thinking ever since. Is that what is actually happening though? 22
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) has created a genetically modified apple that does not brown after being cut. [11][12] Is an apple that does not turn brown after being cut an apple?
What are the characterisitcs an apple has? How many characteristics of an apple can we change before we stop talking about “apples”? Are things really different or is the world ONE as Parmenides said? What actually is “is” ? What makes something what it “is” ? If we change one characteristic of something, is that something the “same” ? Yes? What if we change two characteristics? Do we still have the “same” thing? If we change all characteristics of normal “apples” as we know them now, in 2010, will they still be “apples”? Imagine the same questions for humans and your mind can blow up… If all of our body cells change continuously – even the cells of our brain [13][14][15][16] – are we still the “same” person? If yes, what about the change called “death”? Is that also a small “characteristics change” in our body and existence? Do we still remain humans, as apples that do not brown are still “apples” ? [17]
How can something “change”, if change means that it is not the same “thing” anymore?
Moreover, many physicists have begun formulating theories in which the concept of time does not exist. [18][11] Godel had even found a solution to the equations of general theory of relativity in which time t is deleted. Ultimately is it not true that time is an entirely artificial construct? Is it not true that what we make as the passge of time is merely the movement of the colck figures?
If things like the concept of “change” and “time” do not exist then what could be the meaning of “Death”, since death is based on those concepts? [20]
And as the ” What does it take to believe in Death ” series of articles in the Harmonia Philosophica portal suggests, the things which you have to believe in order to uphold “mortality” as true are much more than the things you have to believe in order to hold “immortality” as the norm…
If something is an apple and then turns into an organge, then maybe it was never an apple and it was never an orange – the most probable is that it is something else which can simply turn into an apple or an orange…
Believing in the uttermost power of one or the other philosophical theory or scientific theory could be well “founded” some years ago. But in the face of recent discoveries of Godel, Russel and others it is really hard to “believe” in the *truth* of anything else than the world itself. We must understand that philosophy is not fast food (another great antinomy of our time). We cannot simply choose the theory of our liking and deny the fact that every theory is based and tries to describe the SAME reality. We must cook all ingredients carefully in order to have a good result…
You know you have consciousness, but how can you know others also have?
If you dream in a shared dream, you will always think you are the only one dreaming…
In the long going materialists-dualists debate, people tend to refer to a material brain. However we should all get used to the fact that modern science agrees that matter is mainly empty space that only appears to be solid when two structures that are of similar wavelength interact. We have lived for such a long time with the conviction that matter or at least particles exist, that we have a very hard time to even consider that all might be energy in various states of polarization and swirling at incredible speeds. Matter is energy in a very intense and specific condition of aggregation. Particles are just packets of energy. This world is immaterial anyway.
Everything is Energy. All is One.
Do lobsters feel pain? (source) Do you feel pain? I do not know. How could I know? Small simple questions indicating the answers to all major philosophical questions… Only 1 (Leibniz, monads) exists. Everything else is a tautology. (Wittgenstein, mathematics) You can understand only you. Only you can feel your self. You can only talk about your self because only you exist. See the whole cosmos through self-reference…
Every kind of knowledge is tautological in nature. [see “Knowledge. Tautology.” @ Blogger]
We can only know what we already know.
And although we like to believe that we can get over the past,
our future is always stagnant in that original first thought ever made…
The only thing we can control is our mind.
The only thing that exists is our mind.
Our life is not our own. And yet we feel and act like it “belongs” to us. Sorrow and grief concentrate more energy. Could they be the meaning of life? Should every man seek actively his own thorns (σκόλοπες) ? (see here)
The leaf which falls down in the Fall is not consolated by the fact that new green leafs will come into existence. It cries out “I am not one of these new leafs!”. Oh you poor leaf! Where would you like to go? And where do the other leafs come from? Where is the Nothingness or the abyss which frightens you? [The World as Will and Representation]
Maybe with death we all return to the “matrix” from which we came into being in the first place, as Schopenhauer said. Maybe we are all entangled into the phenomenon of personalization – which is only an illusion (Gr. Φαινόμενον). Maybe death just destroys this kaleidoscope which makes us see “many” consciousnesses where only the One exists…
Logos is the child of our civilization, not the other way around (Durkheim, Mauss). And as Levi Strauss found out, the “σημαίνον” can easily switch places with the “σημαινόμενον”: the child becomes a parent after only one generation. How many times has our child – Logic – been a parent to things that we try to test if they are “true” based on their own parent? Aristotle defined Logos as something which can revel or conceal (απο-καλύπτει or επι-καλύπτει) things. And Heidegger geniously pointed out that the latter (the concealing function of Logos) is something we must look at carefully…
If every philosopher has logical arguments to what he says, then maybe the extreme – no matter how unlikely – is the solution: that everyone is right.
The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it. (Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, aph. 332) The irrational is a proposition with no convictions. What a better way to approach truth, than without any belief (axiom)?
Maybe we should go back in time to find answers to the great questions. Because when it comes to The question of “reality”, the more old the answer is the more valid it seems, as Heidegger says. To question is good, but only if the right question is asked.
And as Impresionists once upon a time tried to forget how to paint in order to paint, we must try to forget how to think in order to really think …
Note from the author
The Greek text (can be found here) presents more examples in its effort to unify all philosophical theories under the same umbrella and more analysis on why being illogical could be the most logical thing to do… In any case, you can contact me directly (via email or comments in this page) to ask anything you want.
Bibliography
1. Στους αντίποδες του ορθολογισμού, Λεβ Σεστώφ, εκδόσεις Printa.
2. 10 επίκαιροι διάλογοι με τους Προσωκρατικούς, Κωνσταντίνος Βαμβακάς, εκδόσεις Σαββάλας.
3. Άκου ανθρωπάκο, Wilhelm Reich, εκδόσεις Ιαμβλιχός.
4. Heidegger, George Steiner, Fontana Press, 1978.
5. Farewell to Reason, Paul K. Feyerabend, 1987, ISBN 0-86091-184-5, ISBN 0-86091-896-3.
6. The meaning and limits of exact science (Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft), Max Planck.
7. Nature and the Greeks, Erwin Schroedinger, εκδόσεις Τραυλός.
8. Η ανθρώπινη κατάσταση, Χάννα Αρέντ, εκδόσεις Γνώση.
9. Η εικόνα της φύσης στη σύγχρονη φυσική, Werner Heisenberg, εκδόσεις Σάκκουλα.
10. Περί της αθανασίας του ανθρώπου, Williams James, εκδόσεις Printa.
11. Η Μοναδολογία [La Monadologie], Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, εκδόσεις Εκκρεμές.
12. Η ιστορία της τρέλας, Μισέλ Φουκώ, εκδόσεις Ηριδανός.
13. Λογικομίξ (Logicomix), Απόστολος Δοξιάδης ( http://www.logicomix.com ).
14. Το Παράδοξο, Doris Olin, εκδόσεις Οκτώ, Αθήνα, 2007.
15. Φρήντριχ Σίλλερ, Περί της Αισθητικής Παιδείας του Ανθρώπου σε μια σειρά επιστολών.
16. Kierkegaard – Shestov – Feyerabend…
[…] Harmonia Philosophica: Why illogical is more logical! […]
[…] For advanced Harmonia Philosophica readers: Life is inherently irrational. So why all this love of rationality? Read the Main Thesis. […]
[…] Thesis: Harmonia Philosophica (english) (why illogical is […]
[…] For advanced Harmonia Philosophica readers: Life is inherently irrational. So why all this love of rationality? Read the Main Thesis. […]
[…] Everyone is right! Harmonia is the key: Harmonia Philosophica. […]
[…] I will always be here in 2014 writing this… No matter how many millions of years pass. (Harmonia Philosophica) […]
[…] knowing what death is. Actually without even knowing what life is! (11) We need more philosophy! (Harmonia Philosophica Main Thesis) Most people prefer health from illness, life from death. But when was the last time the majority […]
[…] [Harmonia Philosophica] […]
[…] Harmonia Philosophica (english) […]
[…] Thesis: Harmonia Philosophica (english) (why illogical is […]
[…] What are the characterisitcs an apple has? How many characteristics of an apple can we change before we stop talking about “apples”? Are things really different or is the world ONE as Parmenides said? [Harmonia Philosophica] […]
[…] Read Harmonia Philosophica for more on […]
this program works — loop :goto loopif our instrument is a computer, we can perhaps learn more about science and philosophy .
Untitled — I was impressed of JG’s and yours will to discuss things to an end .this is a thing I had not found yet on knol .again inspired by JG (well-defined concepts) I tried to well-form some ideas .so I’m surely not the source . perhaps we three are, but only by standing on the shoulders of others .I would be happy if such discussions could be part of the future of knol .
Untitled — Interesting way of looking at things. We can indeed refer to ourselfs. And indeed “logic” has problems when refering to itself. Is that something you have read somewhere or have you thought of that on your self? Maybe I think on that and embed it in a future version of the Knol. Would you mind that? I will refer you as source of course.
Untitled — perhaps you have already seen that my other comment is onhttp://knol.google.com/k/the-limits-of-science#comment-2jszrulazj6wq.ixx7n8 .here is a refactored part of it :if you can reproduce yourself you are living .if you can feel yourself you are a soul .if you can think yourself, you are a spirit computers are better instruments because they work on a symbolic level . other instruments do not .if “logic cannot look at itself without the danger of antinomies popping out, but the things which refer only to themselfs are the only “real” things”, then we have a problem .perhaps we can say :if logic refers to itself, it is nonsense .if a computer program refers to itself, it works, but it doesn’t come to an end .if we refer to ourself, then we are the only real thing :-)I refer to myself therefore I am !
Untitled — Why do you say that?By the way, what happened with your other comment? I regret to have not answered to it yet, but your metaphor was quite iunteresting… Do you care to repost? I agree that a dog is more close to reality than a scientist, if that scientist really thinks that his models of the world are “reality”.
Your knowledge on the philosopy of the great philosophers is incredible. — You have beautifully woven the different angles into a great knol.
Untitled — Mr. Khan, Spiros Kakos’s knowledge of Philosophy is about as credible as your claim of being a cured schizophrenic.Now that you have acquired some character Mr. Khan, I suggest you start developing your ability to reason and think critically.John Gabriel
Untitled — Thanks SK!
Death, Time and the notion of Change — At the time before Socrates in Greece, the idea that things “change” was a topic of discussion between philosophers and not a matter solved. How can a thing be changed without losing its identity? Perhaps things do not change eventually, said Parmenides. The cells which constitute our body as humans are changed several times during our lives. How do we know that we are who we think we are? Is there a “reality” beyond what we see? Finally the theory of Democritus and Leukippos (according to which things are changing) prevailed over the theory of Parmenides, and that has defined profoundly our scientific thinking ever since. Is that what is actually happening though?Moreover, many physicists have begun formulating theories in which the concept of time does not exist. Godel had even found a solution to the equations of general theory of relativity in which time t is deleted. Ultimately is it not true that time is an entirely artificial construct? Is it not true that what we make as the passge of time is merely the movement of the colck figures?If things like the concept of “change” and “time” do not existthen what could be the meaning of “Death”, since death is based on those concepts?
Untitled — both ;-)but you surely mean : which one is the original ship ?neither of these .but together they are your original ship, existing in two forms .
Untitled — Let’s say that you have a wooden ship. And that you start replacing each wooden board of the ship with the new one in order to renovate it. Each old board you take out, you assemble it together with the other old wooden boards in exactly the same way they were together in your initial ship. Finally, you end up with a new ship made up completely of new wooden boards and another ship made all from the old wooden boards in exactly the same way. Which one is your ship?
Untitled — if we define things by their function or as a whole, they are only dead if they loose their function or their wholeness . a car does not loose its identity by a change of tyres, but it looses its identity if one gives up hope to use it as a car .science cannot mesure real time . real time is now . science can mesure an abstraction of time (the shadow of time) . it can mesure duration or length . but length is a dimension of the room .so you have the explanation, why physicists are speaking about a 4-dimensional universe where you can go back and forth in time . you cannot . even god cannot .
Time does not exist? — We think time passes. But there are more and more scientific views (see Godel and Rovelli, to start with) are in favour of the theory that time is just an illusion. If this is correct, the implications to philosophy could be icredible. Please take a look at the following references: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric#Closed_timelike_curves2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%294. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326101/The-new-theories-that-are-killing-time.html
Untitled — If only those with “no arguments” offered 5 references/bibliography every time they said “nothing”…I have arguments but your comment had nothing to do with the comment I did on time.I have arguments but you choose to “name” as “invalid” the arguments of others and as “valid” the “arguments” you (do not) have.Let me be nice with you then and start with the basic once more: What is time?PS. Next offensive comment will be deleted.
Untitled — Another cheap and meaningless shot Spiros. You ought to try thinking for yourself for a change.What I have noticed with the likes of your kind is that you have nothing to say. You have no arguments, no valid statements or anything to offer. All you can do is respond the way you have. You try to make it seem as if I called my insults “arguments” and then use a cliched strawman argument.The words that come to my mind are: asshole, idiot and fool. I can only imagine your response.You know, Kyriakos was “nice” to you. I will be frank with you – you are a blundering moron with nothing of value to contribute. And this is where I end any further attempts at logical discourse with you. You are not on my level. Farewell.
Untitled — Godel was a moron?OK!Hawking is an idiot?OK!I am a joke?OK!Nothing to say to those “arguments”…PS. Thanks for the comment by the way. It is my honor to have comments for a teacher of logic like you. Really. In your comments you say much about gravity and idiots but not much about time. Maybe you meant this comment for another knol?
Untitled — Godel was an absolute moron. And I will not bother providing facts because I have learned that in your mind, facts are not facts because “everyone is right”. Ha, ha.Spiros, Get off Wikipedia – it is the most unreliable source you can get your information from.”We think time passes.” – Nonsense. This is what you think! Time is dependent on motion which is dependent on existence. Let’s see if I can qualify an earlier statement: “Time sequences the order of events according to the position of moving bodies in some frame of reference.”1. Can time be logical without prior existence? Quick answer: NO2. Is time possible without distance and motion? Quick answer: NO3. How do we arrive at the concept of time? Imagine a void universe (forget about the idiot Stephen Hawking! He is a fool who knows absolutely nothing. I had to laugh at the dimwit’s recent change of views. He is such a despicable, arrogant fool!). Time is not dependent on gravity. Gravity in my opinion is due to momentum. So why is there always a small gravitational force even when motionless bodies exert gravity? This is due to the fact that not every celestial body is motionless. If the entire universe came to a complete grind, then I speculate that there would be ZERO gravity. So am I saying that celestial bodies billions of light years away from each other influence each other’s gravity? YES.If just one celestial body moved, there would still be a very small amount of gravity. This is of course my theory which is far more reliable than the idiot Hawking or his predecessor Albert Einstein.So, it is easy to establish prior existence. Proof? You reading this.Does time pass? Ha, ha. Spiros. I can tell you never thought about this carefully also. Think about your question and how irrational it is for a while. When you have thought about it enough, perhaps I will enlighten you some more. Spiros, you are a joke. Sorry I have to say this….
Dear SKS: This very interesting knol where your beautiful quotations needs a book to explain! — “We all look at the same one reality with the same tools. However we almost never agree. Why is that?”The tool that we humans have to perceive reality with is our brain. Each brain is physically built differently; anchored in its own personal reality by which it understands reality. The outside in reality may be the same but each brain is physically and emotionally built differently and has its own ‘reality filter’ where each outside in information gets distorted. However there are fundamental similarities in consciousness and there is much that is common in terms of pleasure and pain and evrything else in between!
Untitled — You gave me an idea, actually you helped in expanding my idea of the importance of the number one in psychology and philosophy. I think that we must wake up to the significance of one in terms of consciousness. This has applications in how we perceive our own self as well as how we perceive the out side in reality. I have earlier discussed this significance of one in my knol, ‘Gd said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.” – Exodus 3:14’ The human brain perceives in images. We do not perceive reality, including the reality of our own self just as it is; we perceive an image of our self just as we perceive an image of all out side in reality. How close to reality we perceive depends on our brain level. A -2 brain will understand reality differently and most away from the truth. A +2 brain will understand reality as close to the truth as it is humanly possible. Even amongst all the +2 individuals there will be shades of differences in consciousness; depending on numerous factors, from upbringing differences to group belief differences etc.; Just as there are no two snow flakes alike but the basic building material is the same so too for projecting consciousness in all healthy brains the basic material is the same.It is like it is the same chicken meat but each person cooks his own chicken dish which has a different flavor. Similarly reality tastes different to each person. Consciousness is a result of a process that takes place in the brain and it is the brain quality that determines the consciousness quality.But what is interesting is that no one has thought of the multiple correlation of consciousness and the number one. I will write a knol on this soon. ‘The relationship of consciousness and the number one.’ I have now written this knol.Thanks once again for being a catalyst for original knols.
Untitled — However Schrödinger said that we all perceive only ONE consciousness: our “own”. We can never be aware of the consciousness of others. Could that mean that there is actually only ONE consciousness in the world? (that is Schrödinger talking, not me). Just food for thought… 🙂 Maybe you can emded this in some of your mind-related knols. Hope you find it interesting.Source: What is Life? & Mind and Matter Cambridge University Press (1974) ISBN 0-521-09397-X.
Dreams and Reality… — How can we tell the difference? When we are kids we “learn” from our parents that the dreams are the “unreal” part of our lives, even though we see, taste, feel ans speak in this “unreal” world… What is the answer to the question that has troubles philosophers since the beginning of time: what is “reality”?
Untitled — Seeger Carbajal wrote :”Our spirit lives eternally in the “Spirit World”, and we are born with a physical body into the “Physical World”. When our spirit leaves our body in the “Physical World”, we are still alive in the “Spirit World”. We never die. When we are physically alive, we are living in both worlds simultaneously. Our spirit inhabits and controls our physical body, which is what makes our physical body “alive”. When we are awake, the physical world of physical senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) totally engage our spirit, but when we sleep we return to the spirit world. That is why we need sleep, and why it refreshes our body. When we are asleep and dream, our dreams take place in the spirit world. If when we are asleep and dreaming, and we are aware that we are dreaming, we can take control of our dream and use it to explore the spirit world, and see and speak to spiritual beings, and explore the varied landscapes and buildings in the Spirit World. This is what is called “Lucid Dreaming”. This is the “Dream-time” of ancient cultures, and of the native American tribes, that knew the spirit world as a normal conscious part of their everyday lives. “http://knol.google.com/k/spirit-world-physical-world#
JG & SK : What is Philosophy — great discussion .my personal view is that god is a super intellect and the world is his brain .there is a logic in this brain : 1,2,31 means : the world is one .2 means : 1 can have two parts . this or that (one or the other)3 means : things are not only this or that . there is a third way .
Untitled — The only comment deleted was an offensive one (and not to me). Everything else is here, isn’t it?
Untitled — my logic says : it was a big error to delete comments of John ;-(
Untitled — I know each one has his/her own logic. Do you accept that?Or do you accept as “true” only your own (or someone else’s) logic?
Untitled — Kallie: refactoring again and again is the way every child is learning . and we must learn this on knol too . doing this we will also have no problems with my logic, your logic and the logic of others .we just have to find o u r logic JG: Try telling this to Spiros. The reason I have ended my discussion with Spiros is due to the fact that he does not answer my questions. He is also unable to understand that although Aristotle was the first to formulate his ideas regarding logic, Aristotle assumed that the concepts in his logic were well-defined. The fact of the matter is that Aristotelian logic fails if the same concepts are ill-defined. It becomes worthless. I updated my knol on What is Philosophy to explain these facts.Spiros thinks his knol contains logic but it contains nothing but blunt ramblings and contradictions galore. As for conclusions, there are none. Kyriakos was correct in telling Spiros he knows nothing about philosophy. Let me add that he appears to know even less about logic.
Untitled — just for information :I archive some of my comments. because of the context I archive also other comments.e.g. http://knol.google.com/k/kalle-schwarz/discussion-solves-everything-3/1m7f8ad2dgh39/345?collectionId=1m7f8ad2dgh39.155
Untitled — JG :Correct reasoning … is only possible if concepts are well-defined.I agree .but as a programmer you know that programmes (which are concepts) must be refactored again and again until they are well-defined .refactoring again and again is the way every child is learning . and we must learn this on knol too .doing this we will also have no problems with my logic, your logic and the logic of others .we just have to find o u r logic .the only rule I’m obsessed with is the golden rule .
Untitled — John,you wrote : “I do not agree that 1/3 is represented in the tree. All the numbers in my tree are rational numbers.”does that mean, your tree does not represent all rational numbers ?(a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient a/b of two integers, with the denominator b not equal to zero.)personally I agree that 1.333… is not 1/3 .if you write a programme : { for (i = 1 to n) a = 1/3 }and another programme : {a = 0; for (i = 1 to n) a = a + 3/10^i }you get a line and a curve . the curve more and more approaches the line but will never touch it .so we have always two lines, that is two different a .but for many cases that is sufficient .if I only want to know which number is bigger : 125/34 or 100/33, I better write : 3.6.. or 3.0.. see http://knol.google.com/k/kalle-schwarz/contest-a/1m7f8ad2dgh39/330logic and rules : perhaps we can say : logic is the rule that things must be well defined .philosophy : as you said, philosophy has evolved .today philosophy means that the historical appearance of religion, philosophy and science is altogether only one side of the coin . it’s the way how MEN looked at the world and it’s called patriarchy . this is very one-sided and not the universal view we need today .
Untitled — If you start understanding that the logic of Aristotle or your logic or my logic are not more valid than any other logic, then you are in a very good position to start understanding this knol… Nice…
Untitled — Kalle: “does that mean, your tree does not represent all rational numbers ?”JG: Yes, because it is impossible to represent 1/3 finitely (infinite “representation” using … is a fallacy) in base 10. However, 1/3 can be represented finitely in many other bases:Base 3: 0.1Base 6: 0.2Base 9: 0.3 etc.Note that in my arguments with other academics, I assume that my tree does represent all rational numbers because this does not affect the line of reasoning which proves their conclusions false. I even assume a stronger statement that they require, that is, the tree contains all real numbers in (0,1).If one accepts an academic definition of number, that is, the limit (whatever a limit means because no one knows what kind of number it is unless it is rational) of a Cauchy sequence, then 0.333… = 1/3 and 0.999… = 1. However, these same academics compare “numbers” differently. For example, they are readily able to compare pi (3.14….) by its partial sums but this is not acceptable in the case of 0.999… and 1 where they know the limits are rational. This, in spite of the fact that 0.999… is always less than 1 if the partial sums of 0.999… are compared with 1.My Knols explain more: How we got radix systems.Exactly what is an irrational number? Is 0.999 equal to 1?Although the ancient Greeks (who invented rational numbers – see knol called Construction of rational numbers (c) 2010) understood radix systems, the Greeks never assumed or claimed that all rational numbers could be represented in a given radix system.Kalle: logic and rules : perhaps we can say : logic is the rule that things must be well defined .JG: No. Logic has a definition – it is the science (you can use the word discipline if you prefer) of correct reasoning. Nothing about rules here (*). Correct reasoning as I explained in my knol called What is Philosophy, is possible if and only if the objects it deals with are well-defined.Philosophy: It is the beginning of all knowledge. Philosophy describes the process of generating new knowledge through use of logic which is the most primitive of all sciences.(*) You seem to be obsessed with rules. There may be several methods that can be used in logic to arrive at the same sound conclusion. Why do you insist on calling these methods “rules”? And what makes you think they must be the same? A rule is a prescribed guide or principle for some action to follow. In logic it is impossible to have a prescribed set of rules for everything. Logic is not about rules, it is about reasoning. Reasoning “correctly” – which is only possible if concepts are well-defined.If you must have a rule, then the only rule is that your concepts or objects must be WELL-DEFINED.See my old comment to Spiros:JG: Nonsense. Although logic was introduced formally by Aristotle, its meaning has just about changed completely as I explained earlier – it is not based on a fixed set of rules. It is “the science of correct reasoning”. In other words my friend, the rules may be different depending on who exercises the logic. To quote you: “Is your way (or Aristotle’s way) the only way?”
Untitled — Kalle: Every real number in the interval (0,1) is represented according to most mathematicians. I do not agree that 1/3 is represented in the tree. All the numbers in my tree are rational numbers. I don’t know of any other kind of number, do you? Real numbers are approximated by rational numbers. In the case of incommensurable numbers, all we know is that these can be approximated but they are not numbers that can be measured. Only rational numbers can be measured in a well-defined method.Countable/programmable: It all depends on what you mean when you say “countable.” I would agree that the real numbers are not countable because they are not well-defined. However, mathematicians claim that real numbers are well-defined. They also claim that my tree contains every real number. If this is the case, then the real numbers are countable. See my knol called: Mark Chu Carroll who is a crank calls me a crank and my original knol on this topic called Are the real numbers uncountable?Another interesting knol would be Are the real numbers well-defined?Logic: Logic is not about rules. Logic is the science of correct reasoning.Philosophy: The beginning of all knowledge. It’s primary tool is logic. Science: A child of philosophy. Through science (hypothesis, experimentation and observation) it is possible to sometimes confirm or reject conclusions reached using pure logic, especially those conclusions regarding the physical universe.
Untitled — Spiros: Not correct. See my knol called What does well-defined mean?
Untitled — I just spend a night to read JG’s knols .best sentence : “knol should provide a feature that links his ideas to the original idea-knol (in this way, the ideas are related)” .most impressive : the bio (you don’t consume pork nor blood ? hmm)and last and least : [0.9] [0.9.] (krank-knol (last diagramm)) . is this a typo ?Spiros, I think you cannot compare John with Kyriakos .he never would insult you . he really means your knol and not your person .John, thanks for your definition of philosophy: “all learning. the king of sciences.””all learning” is ok . the king of sciences in my mind is mathematics .philosophy is the middle kingdom 🙂 between science and religion .god’s brain : what do you think about “god’s computer” ?
Untitled — @ JG1. this becomes a little fuzzy to me .do you mean that 1/3 is not represented in your tree ?that coudn’t be .but the only representation I can see is 0.333… .so, if 0.333… is the represantation of 1/3 then 0.999… is the represantation of 1 .I am not a trained mathematician . if you don’t want to discuss it, it’s ok for me .2. I meant to write: if it is countable then it is programmable (right ?) .”to touch” means “to visit” . in the sense of “exactly one node from each level of the tree is visited exactly once.”dein deutsch ist zu gut, um eine übersetzung zu sein . where did you learn it ?@ SKa quote of JG : rules are for people, not people for rules.perhaps we can say : “logic” are special rules .then we only need to unify about the rules .
Untitled — John, in mathematical logic you can define whatever you want and produce mathematics.Correct or not correct?
Untitled — Spiros: So the field in which you can create and define whatever you want is the queen of sciences?JG: Are you reading my comments or someone else’s?Kalle:1. That’s right. The big little word “IF”. IF you say 0.333…=1/3, then you can say 0.999…=1. The thing is you must first be able to “say” that 0.333…=1/3. Read my knol called “How we got radix systems.” I don’t care to get into any further discussion about the 0.999…/1 argument.2. Nein. Zählbare bedeutet nicht dasselbe wie programmierbar. Ich habe keine Ahnung was du meinst, wenn du sagst “touch numbers more than one time …”
Untitled — john,reading your knols I had 2 questions so far :1. is 0.999…= 1 ? your tree says no, but if we say, 0.333…= 1/3 then why we can’t say 0.999…= 1?2. means “countable” the same as “programmable” ? then you can surely touch numbers more than one time by counting them .
Untitled — So the field in which you can create and define whatever you want is the queen of sciences? Interesting… I wander what opinion you have of Godel’s ontological proof…
Untitled — Spiros: Yes, I believe this is what Kyriakos was trying to tell you and he is correct: “You don’t know what philosophy is”. But not only philosophy, you also bash logic which is the science of reasoning.Kalle: I meant to write: “Philosophy is all learning. The King of Knowledge.”.Of course mathematics is the queen of sciences – GaussSee my most recent knol called “What is Philosophy?”. I think it is short and sweet.
Untitled — Gabriel you sound like a Kyriakos clone more and more each day. It is like I hear him now. Good to have you around, but if your only comment is at the “Spiros does not know philosophy”-level then I think I am just fine and in the right direction… Thanks again for the comments! :)PS. See my answer to you in my comment in the thread below.
Untitled — I hope you are wrong about the world being God’s brain, because if not, we are in trouble! :-)Kalle, what I am trying to communicate to Spiros is that his knol is not about Philosophy. It is about his feelings and opinions. This is not what philosophy is about.While feelings and opinions are okay, these are not considered knowledge and in my opinion not suitable in a knol unless the same can be backed up by facts.If I had read Spiros’s knol when I was 8 or 9 years old I would have been quite entertained. However, it is illogical, has no definitions and is free of any facts.So once again, while it is fine to have these thoughts and opinions, these are NOT philosophy. This is not what philosophy is about. Granted the original meaning of the word Philosophy has also evolved. But when intelligent individuals talk about philosophy, this knol is not what they are thinking!