*

THE COMPLETE COSMOS & THE MATTER  /  THE SELF-REGULATING UNIVERSE & THE LIFE

Thoughts from a new start and about a beginning... Earth

***                                                                              comet

* HOME |     | ABOUT |     | FIND THE EXIT! |     | COSMOS & LIFE |     | COSMOLOGY

*

KNOWLEDGE &THINKING     |      MAN & SOCIETY     |     THE BOOKS     |      PHILOSOPHERS

?

DECEPTION

 

 

For creatively thinking!


 

Attention! Exist translational errors

 
A SAMPLE WITH AMBIGUITY FROM THE PHYSICS

(When the mathematicians imagine the things…and interpreting the mathematic relations)

 

 Some vague, obscure and allegoric expressions, that don't fall short of imagination from a philosophical terminology, from an area of research, which should be more explicit than the philosophy, if it should is called " scientific ". The successful formulation and the simplification of meanings strengthen the reliability in the knowledge and we understand more easily.

Dark meanings in the Physics

thermodynamic arrow of time

dark energy

quantum opening up of tunnel

anthropic principle

expansion of space

dark energy density

universe-baby

gradient field

folded or wrapped dimensions

symmetrical forces

quantum foam

vacuum energy density

quantum field

Theory of Everything (with the Life ?)

relative probability

quantum gravity

parallel worlds

hyperspace

shrinkage of strings in the infinity

(mem)brane

fluctuation of void space

freezed or dilation of time

supersymmetric theory

arrow of time, entropy

final theory

closed system

rupture of symmetry

Higgs field

weak nuclear force

soup of particles

curvature of space (or space-time)

absolute zero

quantum space

virtual particles

particle

dematerialize

 

 
 

Maybe the above expressions, they concern real phenomena, they emanate from mature theories and they are formulated with mathematics. I have learned to think and to be inspired with the vaguest expressions, and I can understand with the help of imagination, more than what an other person attempts to say. I am not the unamiable person, who search one word, in order to discredit entire an effort and the faculty of somebody. On the contrary, I respect and appreciate each effort for research and creative thought, with the all errors that possibly have become. However, for this same reason, I cannot accept the bad faith and the scorn to my own philosophical effort. In this case, I wish to become also provocative and find an occasion to dispute, also.

When we make research also in our effort to understand certain things, it is not something eliminable to we think more loosely, with imagination and with words that help us to we describe an unknown phenomenon with another known phenomenon. When however, we are presented itself with the severity of science and we demand to they hear us seriously, then it shows silliness we expressed itself philosophically and we use the known words in order to we describe new unknown and different phenomena or on the contrary, we devise new words in order to we describe a known phenomenon in a particular field, without we had understood it. Apart from silliness, moreover it becomes also provocative the phenomenon for each creatively thinking person, we meet the same thoughts, facsimiled in many books and in the all media of briefing, with the cultivated impression that we will put knowledge in to our head. While what genuinely it happens is some they put money in their pockets and are advertized persons, magazines and electronic media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The divergence of a number at 1/10 of the unit can cancel the theory, that resulted from the interpretation about numbers. Still, it has been proved, that we can cut and sew refuted theories with the consequence of mathematics and with any observations they facilitate us. Over-estimate of experiment: We can observe experiments abundantly in the nature and they are not every necessary or the shortest street we realize the experiments in the laboratory. A big number of scientific discoveries they became accidentally. This does not mean, that they could not results after a theoretical search or from a different priority and that scientific discoveries connected from each other accidentally or that each discovery would not lead theoretically to the other. 

In a lot of cases, we do not use numbers and we did not need them. We distinguish and we seek the truth in police and judicial affairs with the apposition, juxtaposition and the correlation with the more elements we can. In the abundance of elements, often only one element is enough in order to betrays the truth. For example a theft, a deceit, a crime. Ask the judges and the police officers. Daily, we all - uneducated people and scientists - are certain and achieve in big number of acts and cases, with thoughts that they do not need mathematic calculations and without the snobbish objective for proofs. Even the most flippant thoughts, crises and our forecasts often are confirmed and we did not make them accidentally. The facility we can know in a multitude of cases, with our frivolity, something would be supposed teaches: 1) those who they believe that have a privilege to knows more rightly than other people, 2) they are tarry at search and 3) those who express easily opinion about the human logic and what it can achieve

 

 

 

 

WHEN THE MATHEMATICIANS INTERPRET THE TERMS OF PHYSICS ...

 

Suppose that we explain the Universe with the combinations of a few fundamental substances and, that we have finished our explanation about the creation of matter and structure of the Universe. Would these explanations contain something inexplicable? What would be, which we would name " substances " and " forces " and which we would know well their possibilities ?

 

The simple thought that is summarized above, similarly has become from the philosophers, thinkers even primeval humans from the ancient years. We make the same thought and suppose that we achieve to interpret and describe the Universe, with the mathematics and the paranoid vocabulary, that used in the most modern cosmological theories. Beyond the usefulness of knowledge for technological aims, what we will have comprehended better, than the theory of philosopher Spinoza said with few words, that the things are ways on the existence of the substance? The intelligent researcher, which thinks about the nature as a total, he perceives that a satisfactory interpretation, which will not need moreover an interpretation, it should describe how the multitude from different things are created and converted always maintaining a total (with constant relations and laws) and explains the particularities of the things from simple and first phenomena. Not upside-down, he explains the simple and known phenomena with unknown, seldom and incohesively from each other phenomena or with fantastic numerical relations, as many modern researchers so try.

 

The expected impasse of modern cosmology has become perceptible from the physicists and very easily, they devised the called " anthropic principle ". It is an interpretation comprehensible, realistic but by no means intelligent and persuasive. The philosophers observed the same expected impasse from the ancient years and they dared to give much more intelligent interpretation, which they could not formulate with scientific consequence, proven, well comprehensible and without imagination, in their season and with their knowledge. From ancient years until our century a lot of philosophers thought a similar opinion and they claimed, how the substance somehow " incorporates " attributes and characteristics of the soul and not only mechanic and chemical attributes.

So, many philosophers formulated dark theories and they thought difficult arguments and crafty, about the opinion that the substance which constitutes the objective world is, includes or outmatch the characteristic of the soul. A few philosophers determined as substance the thought, the spirit, the god, the " blind " will, the conscience and the bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) he claimed how does not exist exterior substance beyond the data of our senses.

We can easily ridicule these philosophical efforts, find innumerable inconsistencies and errors, observe the big voids of knowledge and characterize the philosophers as " mad ". However, they did not make the childish thought and they did not dare claim, that entire the world - in their season was perceptible by far smaller, than the world reveals to us the astrophysics - was created in order to is presented at the physicists and in order to they research. It is an incredible stupid thought !

 

 

 

 

 

I intensely repeat the opinion that, the bigger contribution of Philosophy in the human culture and in the intellectual culture of a person has been achieved with the observation, that the particular things are not so much good known, precisely determined and as they appear in our eyes and with the role of the thought for the surpassing of biases. The particular things, that are considered good known, we know these less than as long as we believe also with a lot of fallacies. In the (changeable and under conditions) existence of each thing “ are met ” all sciences and after a new knowledge, new questions are results. And the experience is not always the one that we consider that “ we collected ” and we fall victims in fallacy and bad crisis… and it would be better if we ignore. In the big contribution of philosophy, apart from the wider intellectual culture that we achieve, we must evaluate particularly the role of the philosophical thoughts in order to we exceed fast our most flippant and foolish opinions. We can gain time, if we take cognizance of the thoughts that have been recorded skilful, carefully and with the all arguments in the philosophy. We would not insist about foolish opinions or on the contrary, we could to say more in order to we strengthen our opinions, if we better knew their consequences, the lacks, the errors, their impasses and the complexity of the questions.

Note this extract of Henri Bergson: “Could we never doubt for the absolute value of our knowledge, if the philosophy did not show us in what contradictions does trip our logic, in what impasses it leads? ”

 

 

You look at more :

"THE BIG ERRORS IN THE SCIENCE"  |  "THE SCIENCE AND LIFE"  |  "KNOWLEDGE AND THOUGHT"  

"WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY ?"  |  "THE CONCRETE AND THE GENERAL"  |  "THE LOGICAL QUESTIONS"

 

 

e-mail

© 2004-2013 Konstantinos G. Nikoloudakis - All rights reserved

 

THE THEOLOGY        http://www.kosmologia.gr             SCIENCE            

OF

 HOME PAGE

 

ABOUT

clock

Best view at 1024x768px | screen 17"minimum | IE v.6.0 +