Information for… ever. Against knowledge.

Advertisements
Photo by Alex Powell from Pexels

As the data boom continues to boom, more and more information gets filed in less and less space. Even the cloud will eventually run out of space, can’t thwart all hackers, and gobbles up energy. Now, a new way to store information could stably house data for millions of years, lives outside the hackable internet, and, once written, uses no energy. All you need is a chemist, some cheap molecules, and your precious information. (1)

We want to store information for ever.

But can that be information?

Every piece of data becomes information within a specific context.

Get that context out and even the most elaborate set of data will be rendered meaningless.

Information can never be stored for ever.

For even after some time the context will be completely unknown or irrelevant to whoever reads it.

Leave the context out.

And you will see the only thing which can ever have meaning as knowledge.

It is simple. It cannot be written or spoken.

Irrational and illogical.

Raw and deep like the ocean.

Raging and dark like the abyss.

There is no way of knowing it. Unless you discard everything you know…

PS. Read the relevant post on harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.com today.

Theories. Beliefs. Theories…

Advertisements
Photo by Siddharth Gondaliya from Pexels

A black hole is conventionally thought of as an astronomical object that irrevocably consumes all matter and radiation which comes within its sphere of influence. Physically, a black hole is defined by the presence of a singularity, i.e., a region of space, bounded by an ‘event horizon’, within which the mass/energy density becomes infinite, and the normally well-behaved laws of physics no longer apply. However, as an article in the journal Nature Astronomy demonstrates, a precise and agreed definition of this ‘singular’ state proves to be frustratingly elusive.

Its author, Dr. Erik Curiel of the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet, summarizes the problem as follows: “The properties of black holes are the subject of investigations in a range of subdisciplines of physics — in optical physics, in quantum physics and of course in astrophysics. But each of these specialties approaches the problem with its own specific set of theoretical concepts”. (1)

Beliefs shaping theories.

Theories shaping beliefs.

We are caught in a vicious circle of subjectivenes, which can only distort the picture we have for the cosmos. And the only way out is to break the circle. By believing nothing. By having no theories. And it is only then, in the midst of the black hole of no-knowledge, that all wisdom will emerge…

Steadfast. Resolute. Firm.

Not based on anything.

Because it will BE everything.

Preserving knowledge…

Advertisements
Photo by Alex Kozlov from Pexels

Some years ago, Elon Musk’s personal Tesla might have gotten all the headlines during SpaceX’s historic rocket launch, but the Falcon Heavy also carried a second, secret payload almost nobody knew about.

Stashed inside the midnight-cherry Roadster was a mysterious, small object designed to last for millions (perhaps billions) of years – even in extreme environments like space, or on the distant surfaces of far-flung planetary bodies.

Called an Arch (pronounced ‘Ark’), this tiny storage device is built for long-term data archiving, holding libraries of information encoded on a small disc of quartz crystal, not much larger than a coin. The technology, developed by physicist Peter Kazansky from the University of Southampton in the UK, can theoretically hold up to 360 terabytes of data, while it can stay stable for up to 14 billion years, thanks to ‘5D data storage’ inscribed by laser nanostructuring in quartz silica glass.

The disc currently making its way through space on Musk’s Tesla Roadster has been loaded up with Issac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy – a seminal sci-fi classic, similarly concerned with the concept of preserving human knowledge and culture in a vast, unforgiving Universe. (1)

We like to preserve knowledge. So arrogant are we, that we think that what we think matters. And yet, everything we think or do are just a cacophony in the cosmic symphony of existence. Unable to see the cosmos in its unity, we try to break it into pieces and then we try to preserve those pieces as if anyone cared. Unable to grasp the tragedy of being, we try to reduce everything into pieces of inanimate matter and then we give those back to the cosmos as if the cosmos knows how to read…

Wake up!

And learn the only thing you need to learn…

Knowledge is not to be preserved.

Knowledge will be reduced to ashes!

There is nothing to learn.

Only things to forget…

And one step at a time.

Through fire and chaos.

We will reach our self.

There is nothing at the end, do you see?

Now go to sleep.

And dream…

Of the beginning…

Reading more… Becoming blind…

Advertisements

From concerns over blue light to digital strain and dryness, headlines today often worry how smartphones and computer screens might be affecting the health of our eyes. But while the technology may be new, this concern certainly isn’t. Since Victorian times people have been concerned about how new innovations might damage eyesight.

In the 1800s, the rise of mass print was both blamed for an increase in eye problems and was responsible for dramatizing the fallibility of vision too. As the number of known eye problems increased, the Victorians predicted that without appropriate care and attention Britain’s population would become blind. In 1884, an article in The Morning Post newspaper proposed that: “The culture of the eyes and efforts to improve the faculty of seeing must become matters of attentive consideration and practice, unless the deterioration is to continue and future generations are to grope about the world purblind”. (1)

At the end, we didn’t become blind with the books.

And we will probably not become blind with iPads as well.

But could it be that we are looking into the wrong direction for problems?

The issue with more and more information is not that is causes blindness. But that it opens the eyes. And the more your eyes are open to see things, the more you lose touch with the things which cannot be seen at all. And the latter are the ones which are important. And you need to close your eyes to see them.

At the end, we will keep on reading.

At the end, we will know everything.

And with new technologies we will see anything.

We will be so excited about our knowledge!

So happy for our newly found wisdom!

That we will miss our unhappy (self) children next to us.

Trying to catch our attention to their new play.

Daddy!

Daddy!

Look!

Not now kid. I am discovering the universe!

Daddy…

Daddy…

Look…

The universe is passing right by you…

Daddy!

WHAT?!!?

(I love you…)

Floating into the abyss.

A teardrop…

We believe we can come up to the surface.

Without knowing that we are already home…

Is Christianity against knowledge? (Yes and No!)

Advertisements

Many have wandered whether religion and Christianity in particular is against knowledge. Not because of it being related to the “dark” Middle Ages (a story which has been discredited a long time ago by Harmonia Philosophica; read the relevant article “Middle Ages – An enlightened era“) but because of the famous story of God forbidding Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This story, along with the hostility of the church against enlightenment (something which is completely justified; read the relevant article “Enlightenment was darkness” in Harmonia Philosophica), has made many people wander whether the church has any dogmatic stance against knowledge per se.

The short answer: Yes. But only because it values knowledge!

Let me explain my self. Knowledge is something which for millennia was held in very high esteem. And for that reason it was kept away from the majority of the people who were not worthy of it. This was not only a church thing. Think of Pythagoras for example. His students had vows not to reveal anything they learnt to the non-worthy on the penalty of death. Think of the alchemists, who encoded everything they wrote so that they don’t fall into the wrong (not worthy) hands of the people outside their closed cast.

Harmonia Philosophica in general is a testament to that belief. Its articles are written in such a way that they draw people away and which seem to convey nothing more than a vague hint to what they were meant to convey.

The Fathers of the Church have explained that eloquently: God doesn’t forbid Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for no reason. He does so because Man is not yet mature enough to handle this knowledge. If we had the patience we would be allowed to eat from the tree; we are part of God Himself anyway aren’t we?

So the church doesn’t want to forbid knowledge in general. But it wants to impose respect to knowledge as such. Knowledge is not something you read in Wikipedia (Read the articles in Harmonia Philosophica by the way against Wikipedia). Knowledge is something which you should earn with sweat and huge effort. As Buddhism says, “When the student is ready, the teacher appears”.

And we are certainly not ready.

Education and knowledge without ethics generate monsters. Remember, Mengele the “Angel of Death” had two PhDs. (Read the relevant articles “The source of ethics” and “Against the fallacy of education as a source of ethics“).

Don’t worry.

You will soon eat from the tree of knowledge.

For now you just have to compromise.

Come on.

Eat a banana.

And some day, if you are a good boy, Pythagoras will speak to you…

Only to tell you not to speak.