From electrons to photons. From photons to electrons…

Advertisements

68a6ece72707c3f4fc96966d11243738

The quantum computer of the future will be able to carry out computations far beyond the capacity of today’s computers. Quantum superpositions and entanglement of quantum bits (qubits) make it possible to perform parallel computations.

Making useful computations requires large numbers of qubits and it is this upscaling to large numbers that is providing a challenge worldwide. “To use a lot of qubits at the same time, they need to be connected to each other; there needs to be good communication”, explains researcher Nodar Samkharadze. At present the electrons that are captured as qubits in silicon can only make direct contact with their immediate neighbors. That makes it tricky to scale up to large numbers of qubits.

Some quantum systems use photons for long-distance interactions. Delft scientists have shown that a single electron spin and a single photon can be coupled on a silicon chip. This coupling makes it possible in principle to transfer quantum information between a spin and a photon. This is important to connect distant quantum bits on a silicon chip, thereby paving the way to upscaling quantum bits on silicon chips. (1)

Once the cosmos just was. In the beginning there was darkness.

And then came light. Making things visible. Splitting the cosmos into multiple pieces. A cosmos seemingly full of antinomies. And yet still solid and consistent as that first dark night…

Now we transfer the cosmos back into the light. A light which will interfere with itself. Only to show that the zillions of possibilities exist at the same time.

Some time ago, the cosmos was born into light.

But the light will fade away.

One electron at a time…

The pieces are going to disappear.

One interaction at a time…

The universe is going to die.

And only then, will we see that it was never born…

DIVISION BY ZERO (1/0 = One)

Advertisements

A number cannot be divided by zero. This is what mathematics today claim. But think again. Some years ago, it was not possible to have a number whose square results in a negative number. But then… we thought… why not? And now we have imaginary numbers with tons of applications. Zero is a useful tool and a curse. It represents “nothing”, which philosophically does not exist. But yet, we see it every day in our calculations. Everything is a matter of definition and the sentence “division by zero does not have any meaning” is such a case. If we decide to give meaning to it, then it will instantly have. In a sense we have already allowed division by zero. Consider cases when we want to find the limit (lim) of a fraction whose denominator tends to zero. Mathematics have a great deal of weird theories – why not a theory where division by zero is allowed? The limit is only set by us. And even though many think that allowing division by zero we introduce many inconsistencies in mathematics, consider this: According to Gödel no theory based on specific set of axioms can prove its consistency. Could a theory full of antiphasis be actually the most consistent theory of them all? Thinking logically never served the progress of Science. Zero entails antinomies. And life is full of them. Perhaps the best way to describe the world would be to simply accept what our radical heart want but our cold stubborn logic rejects… Discover the world! Divide by zero!

Below you can find some articles (from other sites) and/or ideas regarding the question “Is division be zero possible?”

Collection of relates papers

Paper 1

To Continue with Continuity Metaphysica 6, pp. 91–109, a philosophy paper from 2005, reintroduced the (ancient Indian) idea of an applicable whole number equal to 1/0, in a more modern (Cantorian) style. [http://www.metaphysica.de/texte/mp2005_2-Cooke.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero%5D

Paper 2

[http://www.helium.com/items/582924-division-by-zero-is-it-really-impossible]

A beautiful question and the most sought after answer no doubt. Dividing by zero is mathematically impossible, for now. Not too long ago we thought we couldn’t land on the moon and we did that.

The simple question is: how is it possible for us to divide something by nothing. This would be the answer for time travel and from what I understand is what a black hole is supposed to represent. Having such a huge amount of gravity that it will break it down beyond a singularity into nothingness.

I find this question more of a philosophical one. If I were to put something into a black hole and create a zero value for something that used to exist where does it go? If we could divide by zero we could prove Einstein wrong. We could travel through time.

I had an awesome math professor in college who was all about dividing by zero and talking about the endless amounts of universes and dimensions within them. He would say that if we were to be able to travel in time it wouldn’t do us much good. Since on the return trip we would not be in the same dimension as the one we left. It comes down to the story of traveling back into time to prehistoric ages and stepping on a butterfly.

I guess until we solve the problem the answer really has to be nunreasonable or reasonable to belief in god or the big bang theory. Although the big bang theory does seems like it has makes more sense. Personally I would like to belief in a combination of the big bang and a spiritual connection. There could have been a singularity, call it god if you will, from which the universe was created. In either case you would have to accept that you are in fact godly since we were all created from this singularity. Maybe we’ll have this under another discussion in the philosophy section.

Paper 3

[http://www.helium.com/items/1242048-dividing-by-zero-bhaskari-dr-james-anderson]

In 2006, Dr James Anderson, a computer science professor at the University of Reading (UK) boldly announced that he had solved a very important problem. It was a problem that has perplexed academics and anyone of a vaguely scientific or mathematical ilk since about 800AD. The big announcement, carried by the BBC, was that Dr Anderson had devised a proof that it was possible to divide by zero.

His proof is not possible to write here because of the mathematical symbols involved, but it was based on the idea of using 0/0 and what he called a “transreal” number. Rather than being a proof, Anderson’s workings assume that it is possible from the start, so it is a logical fallacy. What it did do though was create an uproar in academic circles. Given that there hasn’t been a major discovery in the field of mathematics for a very long time, perhaps they felt a little aggrieved at all Dr Anderson’s attention. As a number of critics pointed out, you can use Dr Anderson’s logic to prove anything:

0 x 1 = 0 and 0 x 2 = 0; therefore

0 x 1 = 0 x 2; so dividing both sides by zero gives:

1 = 2 (which is clearly rubbish.  And you can substitute 1 and 2 with anything).

It assumes that the very thing to be proven is valid at the start and is clearly an abuse of logic. Monty Python employed a similar logic in the audio version of their classic ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’.  It goes something like this:

Statement 1 = I like to eat kippers for breakfast,

Statement 2 = Kippers live in water, and

Statement 3 = Water comes from rain.

And the brilliant conclusion:

If I don’t eat kippers for breakfast, it will not rain.

Anyway, to move away from Dr Anderson and to some discussion that supports the proposition that it is possible to divide by zero.

In the 12th century, an interesting Indian mathematician and astronomer by the name of Bhaskara came up with a brilliant treatise called the Lilavati.  This dealt with all manner of arithmetic concepts, one of which was the properties of zero and things that you could do with it. I say interesting because he is also known as Bhaskara II and Bhaskara Acharya (which means Bhaskara the Teacher) and he was one of a long line of mathematicians and astronomers. One can only imagine what their dinner table conversation would have been like.

Bhaskari was into astrology, fair enough given his interest in mathematics and astronomy, and one of the enduring legends concerning him has to do with his daughter, Lilavati (his work on arithemtic is named after her and said to be a gift to her). Bhaskari read her horoscope as she was planning to wed and somehow worked out that her husband to be would die soon after their marriage unless the wedding took place at a particular time. To help work out when that time would be, he took a cup and made a tiny hole in it before placing it in a water filled vessel. He aligned the volume of the cup and the hole in such a way that the cup would sink during the hour when she needed to be wed. Like Eve and the Forbidden Fruit, she was told to go nowhere near the thing and couldn’t help herself. Sure enough, her curiousity led to disaster. Her nose ring popped out and fell into the cup, disturbing it so that she ended up marrying at the wrong time. Her husband died shortly after the wedding.

Bhaskari’s big pronouncement was an important one – that any finite number divided by zero yielded infinity. He stated it in slightly more grandiose terms, namely “In this quantity which has zero as its divisor there is no change even when many [quantities] have entered into it or come out [of it], just as at the time of destruction or creation when throngs of creatures enter into and come out of the infinite and unchanging [Vishnu]”. Regardless of the flowery language, it was a brilliant deduction that prevails to the current day.

To think of this in more understandable terms, if you take any number, for argument’s sake we’ll use 148. If you deduct 2 from it, it becomes 146 and you can do this 74 times until it becomes zero. If you deduct 1, you can do twice as many times, ie 148 times. What this means is that as you reduce the number you are deducting (in this case going from 2 to 1), you can do the exercise more often (74 to 148). Now, subtract zero off your 148. It stays as 148. You can keep doing this forever and it will always be 148.

As Bhaskari suggested, you can do this an infinite number of times, and on this basis, you can clearly divide a number by zero. Anything divided by zero yields an answer of infinity.  Some critics may argue that this is not a real number but that is iirelevant for the purposes of this debate.  It is an answer.  Division by zero is possible.

Paper 4

[http://www.helium.com/items/1360161-division-by-zero-is-it-really-impossible]

Division by zero is done on the Riemann sphere in the complex plane and its result tends to infinity whereas zero divided by any other number tends to one. It is also important to note that in the real number system (and on better graphing calculators), division by zero is not impossible but remains undefined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere

Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, German mathematician, student of Carl Friedrich Gauss, and mathematical genius developed numerous theories in mathematics such as Riemann partitions, The Generalized Riemann Hypothesis, Non-Euclidean Geometry, and extensive work in the realm of imaginary (complex) numbers, and was the mathematician Einstein selected for use in the General Theory of Relativity. Riemann’s work in Non-Euclidean geometry just happens to fit exactly with what is actually experienced when taking measurements on the surface of the Earth.

That is, triangles laid upon the surface of the Earth add to 182 degrees instead of the Euclidean 180 degrees. This is due to the failure of the Euclidean fifth axiom, the Parallel Postulate. Its failure is immediately evident to anyone looking at a spherical model of planet Earth where longitude lines at the equator cross at the North Pole proving failure of the parallel postulate (parallel at the equator and crossing at the North Pole). Carl Friedrich Gauss suspected this as well as the existence of non-Euclidean geometry, and the number of primes less than a given magnitude yet did not disclose choosing to let his students discover and receive credit for the items. His most significantly accomplished student was Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann.

It is fascinating to note that real numbers generally tend to give imaginary results and imaginary numbers tend to give real results. Meaning that Euclidean results tend to give ideal answers verses real answers and non-Euclidean geometry gives answers consistent with what is really observed in our natural world. This is not to detract from Euclidean mathematics merely that a perfect triangle is merely an idealization and not typically encountered in the real world. Certainly, man can create one but trying to find one in the real world would be as challenging as trying to find a straight line. A straight line laid out on the surface of the Earth would tend to describe a geodesic. Nevertheless, this remains for another topic.

Since the consequences of Riemann’s interpretation of non-Euclidean geometry tend to reflect what is actually observed here on Earth, it is tantalizingly imminent that Einstein would indeed use this mathematical model for the description of gravitation. How else could one conceivably proceed? This also provides compelling evidence of Riemann’s stature as a founding father of modern physics, a circumstance that will inevitably become more prevalent upon a conclusive solution to the Riemann hypothesis.

In order to provide some degree of logical reasoning for the necessity of division by zero in some (but not all) circumstances, examine the incompleteness theorem presented by Kurt Godel.

“Godel showed that truth cannot be contained within the limits of strict logic. Only if we allow paradox can truth completely reveal itself in form. These two sides of Godel’s proof represent the apophatic (via negativa) and cataphatic (via positiva) approaches to truth, respectively. In the apophatic approach, one adheres to strict logic to show that any attempt to represent or speak truth necessarily failsthe truth is beyond all rational comprehension. In the cataphatic approach, on the other hand, one embraces paradox and the coincidence of opposites to demonstrate the tangible presence of truth in all its limitless expressions. Like the ancient mathematics of Pythagoras, Godel’s mathematical proof can be seen as a symbol of profound truths about the relationship between the limited and the unlimited, form and formlessness, transcendence and immanence, Godel’s postmodern mathematics undermines any attempt to fixate on any totalizing axiomatic system for mathematical discourse, and reveals the essential ambiguity, openness, and emptiness of mathematical activity.” Thomas J. McFarlane Spring 2000 Revised and Edited for the Web March 2004.

Inherent to Godel’s proof is the conclusion that if a system is consistent, then it is incomplete. Conversely, if a system is complete, then it must be inconsistent. Considering this fact when examining such a precept as the impossibility of division by zero, we would be relegated to an inconsistent mathematics. Alternatively, entertaining the possibility of division by zero generates consistency, yet leaves us with an incomplete understanding of mathematics, which is precisely the circumstance with which we are dealing. Therefore, in some circumstances, one can in fact divide by zero.

Related sources

Paper 5

[http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt8.html]

At school we were taught that mathematics is about the properties of numbers and that numbers are abstract objects. How we were to verify this (how to read off from the object its properties), we were not taught. Perhaps we thought that if only we knew more mathematics…. What we were taught at school were grammatical myths — fanciful inventions about the meanings of mathematical signs that have no relation whatever to how those signs are used. And knowing more mathematics will not enlighten us here, because this is a philosophical not a mathematical problem.

The sign ‘2/x’ is an instruction telling us to divide 2 by whatever number ‘x’ is replaced with. But replace ‘x’ with ‘0’ and we do not know how to go on. We ask our teacher who answers that “division by zero is impossible”. But what kind of impossibility is this? The impossibility is grammatical — i.e. the sign ‘2/0’ is an undefined combination of signs (in just the way that ‘2/+’ is). In a word, division by zero is only impossible because ‘division by zero’ is undefined (language); that is the only meaning ‘impossible’ has here. [Note 1]

But how do I know? Because I only talk about what I know — about the use of mathematical signs that I learned at school. And what I do not know does not concern me here, because: what a sign is used to do in a particular context is the sign’s meaning in that context. (Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics p. 13-4). What I can describe are some ways that mathematical signs are used, namely, the ways I and many other people were taught in our early school years. I won’t try to talk about anything beyond addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and elementary algebra — because that is the mathematical language I still remember and these are still the techniques that I use in my daily life.

The Philosophy of Mathematics is not concerned with this or that particular mathematical calculus (metaphorically: “game governed by strict rules”), but with the nature of mathematical calculi as such. But to investigate these calculi, it must look at particular calculi, and it may discover that all the things we call ‘mathematical calculi’ do not have a common nature. But I know nothing about that; I myself am acquainted with very few calculi and not at all with what is called “higher mathematics”. All that concerns me here is trying to understand the nature of the mathematical language I learned at school — e.g. the ways it is like or unlike natural language. School left me and many other people with a lot of confused ideas about the nature of mathematics, and one task of philosophy is to clear up that confusion.

When we don’t know how to go on, what we need is a rule.

If A x C = B x C then A = B. But then if C = 0, any number can be proved to be equal to any other number. But we do not want our mathematics to be that way. So we make the rule ‘but C may not equal zero’. (WLFM p. 221-2) But why? Is it because something is inherently wrong with a contradiction, e.g. 4 = 5? Or is it because we want our mathematics to have applications outside itself? We do not want, for example, any amount of money to be equal to any and all other amounts. But if we allowed C = 0, would that be the end of mathematics? Or would it just be a different mathematics? ‘C = 0 is a rule mathematicians resort to when they get tired.’ Why not? Because can’t we imagine a people who only ever used mathematics the way we use chess — i.e. as a game with no subject matter outside itself?

Confronted with a contradiction, or any other undefined sign, the student does not know how to go on. But what do we do when we are confronted with a contradiction? We proscribe it, and move on. We make a rule: ‘but C may not equal zero’, or ‘but 2/0 is undefined’.

When we teach a child chess, we give it the rule: the bishop only moves along diagonals. Suppose we play a game and the child moves its bishop along a diagonal and clear off the board (the child says it wants to protect the bishop from attack). We now state the rule: but the bishop must remain on the board. But would it be the end of chess if we allowed the child’s move?

Science, Beliefs, Antinomies…

Advertisements

You ask for others to “prove” what they say, but yet the only thing which is certain in your science is that nothing can be proven (call me Gödel)…

You cannot accept the possibility of a First Cause for the cosmos, but you can accept the possibility of multiple paraller universes which cannot interact with each other…

You cannot accept the possibility of a theory which has the notion of “design” as integral part and you believe in the role of “luck” (call me statistics) in the laws of physics, but on the other hand you continually design new things and you continually search for laws which deterministically (not randomly) govern Nature…

You cannot accept the possibility of consciousness being something immaterial, but yet you accept the existence of immaterial notions like “fields”…

You try to beat death, but you cannot yet define what “life” is…

You cannot accept the possibility of a purpose, but yet everything you do have one…

You are full of antinomies…

And you are too blind to see it…

Harmonia Philosophica (Antithesis Synthesis)

Advertisements

Harmonia Philosophica

Basic Harmonia Philosophica articles are distributed as a book from Amazon or from Lulu.

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?

Hall of the Bulls at Lascaux

“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 (Harmonia Philosophica – Αντιφάσεων Αρμονία, which can be found in Google Knol or 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.

References

  1. Farewell to Reason, Paul K. Feyerabend, 1987, ISBN 0-86091-184-5, ISBN 0-86091-896-3.
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_law_of_universal_gravitation
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
  4. Στους αντίποδες του ορθολογισμού, Λεβ Σεστώφ, εκδόσεις Printa.
  5. 10 επίκαιροι διάλογοι με τους Προσωκρατικούς, Κωνσταντίνος Βαμβακάς, εκδόσεις Σαββάλας.

Harmonia Philosophica (english)

The world is “ONE” as Parmenides postulated. If so, why do all philosophers disagree in many things? The answer proposed here is simple: that everyone is right! A new philosophical synthesis in which all philosophical ideas come together harmonically in one great reality. Based on the Greek article of Harmonia Philosophica, this is the English version of the article.

Advertisements

Author: Spiros Kakos

Harmonia Philosophica Facebook page

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?

Hall of the Bulls at Lascaux

“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…