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.

Language. Thought. Time. Dasein.

Advertisements
Photo by Maria Orlova from Pexels

The relationship between language and thought is controversial. One hypothesis is that language fosters habits of processing information that are retained even in non-linguistic domains.

Languages, for instance, vary in their branching direction. In typical right-branching (RB) languages, like Italian, the head of the sentence usually comes first, followed by a sequence of modifiers that provide additional information about the head (e.g. “the man who was sitting at the bus stop”). In contrast, in left-branching (LB) languages, like Japanese, modifiers generally precede heads (e.g. “who was sitting at the bus stop, the man”). In RB languages, speakers could process information incrementally, given that heads are presented first and modifiers rarely affect previous parsing decisions. In contrast, LB structures can be highly ambiguous until the end, because initial modifiers often acquire a clear meaning only after the head has been parsed. Therefore, LB speakers may need to retain initial modifiers in working memory until the head is encountered to comprehend the sentence.

Studies show that the link between language and thought might not be just confined to conceptual representations and semantic biases, but rather extend to syntax and its role in our way of processing sequential information or in the way the working memory of speakers of languages with mixed branching or free word order works. “[…] left-branching speakers were better at remembering initial stimuli across verbal and non-verbal working memory tasks, probably because real-time sentence comprehension heavily relies on retaining initial information in LB languages, but not in RB languages”, says Alejandro Sanchéz Amaro, from the Department of Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego. (1)

Thinking in a sequence based on your language.

Languages based on the way you think.

A cosmos structured in the way you see.

People seeing based on how their brain is structured.

In a universe where things can go either right or left, there is only one correct way to go… (Nowhere!) In a cosmos where thinking can be done in various ways, there is only one way to think… (Don’t think!)

Listen to the forest whispering in your ear…

Watch the dim light of existence cast shadows under the light…

Listen to the silence between the words…

There is a structure in the cosmos. And there is chaos in this structure. There is logos governing the universe. And inside logos, the deep darkness of stillness. Any structure imposes structures. Any way of thinking destroys other ways, equally possible and correct.

There is a unity in the clatter of phenomena.

You cannot see this unity from left and go right. Neither if you observe from right to left. You cannot know everything if you already know things. You cannot understand it all if you start by claiming that you understand something.

This unity you can only watch by watching everything.

And the only way to do that, is by watching nothing…

Is the man sitting at the bus?

Search inside…

What is a man?

And you will be astonished by the lack of any plausible answer…

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…

I learn. You learn. We learn. (nothing)

Advertisements

“I learn,” “you learn,” “she learns,” “they learn,” yet, according to a surprising new linguistic study, in countries where the dominant language allows personal pronouns such as ‘I’ to be omitted, learning suffers. (1)

A more or less logical conclusion. Learning is about you increasing your knowledge. While being, on the other hand, is about increasing your ignorance to the point that you become one with the cosmos.

Question everything.

Even your ability to question anything.

Do you feel wise? Are you ready to accept that you are not? It is only when you are ready to accept that you are nothing, that you become everything. A cup of tea is not useful when it is full…

Only the wisest of men admitted that they learnt nothing…

Only the most arrogant of men advertised that they know something…

I am. Therefore, I learn.

I am no one.

Therefore, I already know everything…

Not because I know them.

But because I accept that I am already part of nothing…