My Epiphany (sort of)

(Feb 28, 2018 12:43 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [...] I wonder how Einstein would feel today? He comes up with the cosmological constant, then retracts it and now that he's gone, the damn thought is making news again, as in some scientists think he was right. To summarize...He believed he was right, they believed he was wrong, they believed they were right, he believed them, and now they believe him*. A belief is like a quantum particle...just never know where it's going to be.

* going on 8 years old, don't care if it's true or not but....

Yah, that humankind's "what's going on?" efforts can be interpreted in multiple ways or variably realized in theoretical physics as much as in old metaphysics, with constructs potentially taking turns going in and out of vogue like conclusions about nutrients in biomedical studies...Is why I eventually lost the interest in it I once had. (Hermeneutical background presuppositions slash biases probably contribute to a degree.) There's a vague resemblance to a tradition of rational thought generating paradoxes for itself, though rival constructs in physics don't neatly match-up as opposites or antinomies.

Once intellect goes beyond empirical commonsense and begins to be progressive about its representations of the world, that abstract activity becomes as if some iterating formula that's transpiring. An internal process of nested concepts that continually recycle themselves... Old ideas potentially returning over and over again with new wrinkles or in different contexts which superficially disguise them.

Immanual Kant: In mathematics and in natural philosophy [science, physics] human reason admits of limits but not of bounds, viz., that something indeed lies without it, at which it can never arrive, but not that it will at any point find completion in its internal progress. The enlarging of our views in mathematics, and the possibility of new discoveries, are infinite; and the same is the case with the discovery of new properties of nature, of new powers and laws, by continued experience and its rational combination. Natural science will never reveal to us the internal constitution of things [intrinsic properties], which though not appearance, yet can serve as the ultimate ground of explaining appearance. Nor does that science require this for its physical explanations [abstract casual structure]. Nay even if such grounds should be offered from other sources (for instance, the influence of immaterial beings), they must be rejected and not used in the progress of its explanations. For these explanations must only be grounded upon that which as an object of sense can belong to experience, and be brought into connection with our actual perceptions and empirical laws. [experimental testing, inference or conclusions derived from the data achieving warranted associations with observed affairs]

- - -
Like beliefs, desires are considered ok a lot of times if they are seen to be harmless.  Now that they mention that stuff, beliefs are often pretty much a type of desire.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)