lunes, 29 de agosto de 2011
jueves, 25 de agosto de 2011
martes, 23 de agosto de 2011
viernes, 19 de agosto de 2011
jueves, 18 de agosto de 2011
I want my life to be described as the new york time described LIla: An inquiry into morals
''Daring, highly original and provocative... a marvelous improvisation on a most improbable quartet: sailing, philosophy, sex and madness...''
miércoles, 17 de agosto de 2011
His opinion on... Learning
Honoured... I am honoured that this post is not called ''the opinion on... but more, ''his opinion on...'' because this is what this blog is all about, make other people think. So this is what my friend had to say about ''the opinion on...learning
The Bird Theorem
The relation I was wondering about for the last day and night is the relation between truth and reality.
Obviously, it’s not about definitions.. If you want to know about definitions go and check Wikipedia. The big question that caught my thougts was: It reality that influences the truth, or is it truth that influences the reality?
So before you keep on reading, you might want to have a look at the blog of my dear friend and fellow Mexico veteran Jean-Françoisois Allard. His very last entry actually got me thinking about all this, thanks Jeff.
Here is the important section of his blog:
„The first step to discovering something is observing it. So we observe something simple, example when Sr. Isaac Newton saw the apple falling from the tree, then we invent a name for it, then laws to go around it. Makes sense.
However think about it this way, if the gravity would actually make apples fly away from the earth, don't you think we would have invented a law to prove that? I don't think we would have studied it and the said, ''no, that doesn't make sense, according to our studies, two physical bodies attract each others with a force proportional to their mass.'' So now the question comes, if we can pretty much prove everything, by inventing laws and making sense out of it, why don't we only prove what we can observe? Is the truth only made out of reality? And if we would start proving '' non reality'', wouldn't it become part of our world, or wouldn't it atleast explain something we didn't expect?“
-Jean-François Allard
Have a look at the underlined sections. Smart thinking isn’t it? Now as said, this got me thinking. The reasoning is smart, but I felt like something is missing. I felt like this is a great theory, but it’s just a theory. The proof is missing. I think I found one.
Now what comes is a little thinking experiment:
If I go on the street and ask strangers if it is possible for humans to move objects without touching them, they’ll all tell me no, right? Obviously.
So let me take you somewhere else:How mankind learned to fly. I know, boring history class. The greeks (Ikaros) started trying a couple thousand years ago, da Vinci designed a flying machine in 1505 and after others, the brothers Wright built the first airplane in 1903.
Now let me ask you, how did we learn to fly? Why did we have the idea of flying?
Birds.
Since the first time some old greek saw a bird, the idea of flying was born.. They didn’t know how by then, but somewhen we built laws around it. We invented lift as a force, learned how to use air flow. We found out. We invented.
Now imagine birds never existed. No one would be flying. Because the idea of flying never existed. We just never had the idea of flying because we never saw anything fly. It would be completely impossible to us.
But(and this is the important point): That doesn’t mean flying would be less possible in the world we are living.
It would be perfectly possible. But how would you build laws around something you don’t have the capacity to imagine because you never saw an example?
Now think of telepathy for example...ravishing right?
I think (and this is where I get back to Jeff) the possibilities on earth are not given by what we see. We can define the possibilities ourselves.
The human doesn’t use 80% of his brain. Now you know why.
- Tim Rohner
The Bird Theorem
The relation I was wondering about for the last day and night is the relation between truth and reality.
Obviously, it’s not about definitions.. If you want to know about definitions go and check Wikipedia. The big question that caught my thougts was: It reality that influences the truth, or is it truth that influences the reality?
So before you keep on reading, you might want to have a look at the blog of my dear friend and fellow Mexico veteran Jean-Françoisois Allard. His very last entry actually got me thinking about all this, thanks Jeff.
Here is the important section of his blog:
„The first step to discovering something is observing it. So we observe something simple, example when Sr. Isaac Newton saw the apple falling from the tree, then we invent a name for it, then laws to go around it. Makes sense.
However think about it this way, if the gravity would actually make apples fly away from the earth, don't you think we would have invented a law to prove that? I don't think we would have studied it and the said, ''no, that doesn't make sense, according to our studies, two physical bodies attract each others with a force proportional to their mass.'' So now the question comes, if we can pretty much prove everything, by inventing laws and making sense out of it, why don't we only prove what we can observe? Is the truth only made out of reality? And if we would start proving '' non reality'', wouldn't it become part of our world, or wouldn't it atleast explain something we didn't expect?“
-Jean-François Allard
Have a look at the underlined sections. Smart thinking isn’t it? Now as said, this got me thinking. The reasoning is smart, but I felt like something is missing. I felt like this is a great theory, but it’s just a theory. The proof is missing. I think I found one.
Now what comes is a little thinking experiment:
If I go on the street and ask strangers if it is possible for humans to move objects without touching them, they’ll all tell me no, right? Obviously.
So let me take you somewhere else:How mankind learned to fly. I know, boring history class. The greeks (Ikaros) started trying a couple thousand years ago, da Vinci designed a flying machine in 1505 and after others, the brothers Wright built the first airplane in 1903.
Now let me ask you, how did we learn to fly? Why did we have the idea of flying?
Birds.
Since the first time some old greek saw a bird, the idea of flying was born.. They didn’t know how by then, but somewhen we built laws around it. We invented lift as a force, learned how to use air flow. We found out. We invented.
Now imagine birds never existed. No one would be flying. Because the idea of flying never existed. We just never had the idea of flying because we never saw anything fly. It would be completely impossible to us.
But(and this is the important point): That doesn’t mean flying would be less possible in the world we are living.
It would be perfectly possible. But how would you build laws around something you don’t have the capacity to imagine because you never saw an example?
Now think of telepathy for example...ravishing right?
I think (and this is where I get back to Jeff) the possibilities on earth are not given by what we see. We can define the possibilities ourselves.
The human doesn’t use 80% of his brain. Now you know why.
- Tim Rohner
martes, 9 de agosto de 2011
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)