"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
My mother started and ended all of her days with these words. She was catholic, from toes to head.
Still, at the end of her life, she confessed to me that she didn't quite understand what the trinity meant.
The trinity, a foundation of the catholic faith.
She had faith. She believed in God. She didn't know who or what God is. She had had many opportunities to ask questions about the trinity but, obviously, the answer which was given to her was not understandable by her so that, in the end, she died with a questionning.
Isn't this amazing when you know that Jesus spoke to people who couldn't read or write and that he spoke in a such a way that they could understand him? My mother was not an illiterate person.
When speaking about the trinity, why coudn't the Church speak to her the way Jesus spoke?
My mother died with a mystery in her mind. This didn't prevent her
from living an exemplary life, on many accounts. We will also die with
unanswered questions, some different from those of our ancestors, others
not.
In the end, what is important?
It seems to me that the
questioning is in itself important, even if we know in advance that we
will never have an answer to all our questions.
Which questions to ask?
Some questions are more relevant in certain times than in
others. The
answer to the question "which questions to ask?" depends on the timing, on the preoccupations of
the moment.
As we will see, the question of the trinity is in the air since the beginning of civilisation.
I
will try to show that it is today at the core of a scientific
challenge, i.e. a reconciliation between the theory of relativity and
the quantum theory, that the answer to this challenge may already have been found by
man but that the answer was expressed in ways across the ages which have become difficult to understand today.
This is a story of a journey, of a quest to find an answer to a question about the meaning of a sentence pronounced every day by millions of people who do not know its meaning.
Where is the concept of trinity coming from?
Why is the concept important?
How is it transposed in modern sciences?
Where is it leading to?
Once upon a time, ...
(Under construction)
copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
The first truth is not about truth but about desire: part 3
When it comes to man, true can never be 100% true.
Some say: "The only thing we know for sure is that we will die". Even that cannot be 100% true because who says that, one day, it will not be possible not to die, thanks to future medical, genetic breakthroughs?
When it comes to man, the first truth comes, in the first place, to "desire".
Let's consider the following case.
John has a pen in front of him. He is a fit person with no disabilities. There is nothing in the way that could prevent him from lifting the pen. There is no string attached to the situation of him lifting the pen or not. He is free to lift it or not.
Is the proposition "John is able to lift the pen" true or false?
Many people will say yes. They all have enough evidence or facts to say yes. They have a justified true belief. Still, they all could be wrong if something unexpected happens, anything you can think of, between the moment they say "yes" and the moment John tries to lift the pen to show the people that they are right.
Because John is free, he can decide to lift it up or not.
For the proposition to be true, people will have to wait until the moment he actually lifts the pen, in order for them to say that "John is able to lift the pen" is true.
This kind of knowledge is accessible to all living organisms.
So, the final answer depends on John: the "ability to lift the pen" depends on his will to show people that he can lift it. Truth depends on a desire to exercise a willingness.
Is there a logic behind desiress? If the answer is yes, which I believe, then the epistemological approach should also cover the principle of desire in addition to the principle of truth.
copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Some say: "The only thing we know for sure is that we will die". Even that cannot be 100% true because who says that, one day, it will not be possible not to die, thanks to future medical, genetic breakthroughs?
When it comes to man, the first truth comes, in the first place, to "desire".
Let's consider the following case.
John has a pen in front of him. He is a fit person with no disabilities. There is nothing in the way that could prevent him from lifting the pen. There is no string attached to the situation of him lifting the pen or not. He is free to lift it or not.
Is the proposition "John is able to lift the pen" true or false?
Many people will say yes. They all have enough evidence or facts to say yes. They have a justified true belief. Still, they all could be wrong if something unexpected happens, anything you can think of, between the moment they say "yes" and the moment John tries to lift the pen to show the people that they are right.
Because John is free, he can decide to lift it up or not.
For the proposition to be true, people will have to wait until the moment he actually lifts the pen, in order for them to say that "John is able to lift the pen" is true.
This kind of knowledge is accessible to all living organisms.
So, the final answer depends on John: the "ability to lift the pen" depends on his will to show people that he can lift it. Truth depends on a desire to exercise a willingness.
Is there a logic behind desiress? If the answer is yes, which I believe, then the epistemological approach should also cover the principle of desire in addition to the principle of truth.
copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Alphaphorism
Alphaphorism is a philosophical project which originated from the idea that concepts such as finalities, meanings, ..., i.e. informations which do not consume energy in the physics sense of the word energy, can be a source of imaginary energy.
The project claims to be a scientific project in the primary (Greek) sense of the word "science".
The objective of Alphaphorism is to try to build additional philosophical knowledge in order to discover new emergent properties in the process of thinking (logos).
The planned operative scheme will be based on interconnections with other fields such as natural and human sciences, arts, religions.
Origin of the word Alphaphorism:
From alphaphor which is a new word constructed from the word metaphor (meaning; ' carrying an image') in which the prefix 'meta' is replaced by 'alpha'.
Meta means image.
Alpha is meant to be more than an image.
In thermodynamics, for example, an image or 'information' does not consume energy:
Phor (from Greek phoreus) means 'carrier'.
Alphaphor means: which transports alpha. In other words, zero is more than zero:
copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
The project claims to be a scientific project in the primary (Greek) sense of the word "science".
The objective of Alphaphorism is to try to build additional philosophical knowledge in order to discover new emergent properties in the process of thinking (logos).
The planned operative scheme will be based on interconnections with other fields such as natural and human sciences, arts, religions.
Origin of the word Alphaphorism:
From alphaphor which is a new word constructed from the word metaphor (meaning; ' carrying an image') in which the prefix 'meta' is replaced by 'alpha'.
Meta means image.
Alpha is meant to be more than an image.
In thermodynamics, for example, an image or 'information' does not consume energy:
- meta = 0
- alpha = 0 + square root of -1
Phor (from Greek phoreus) means 'carrier'.
Alphaphor means: which transports alpha. In other words, zero is more than zero:
- zero = 0 + sqrt(-1)
copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
About existentialism
In existentialism, "free" needs a material support to exist. In existentialism, there is no such thing as "free information" because information, even if it doesn't need energy to be there, it still needs a support to contain it and the support needs energy.
Let's call:
information: A
support: B
It means, in existentialism terms, that:
A is free (of energy)
AND
B is not free (of energy)
AND
A needs B to exist
Let's call:
a B support in space: X
a B support in space: Z
According to existentialism, if A is in X and Z, it is because X supports A and Z supports A. A is therefore a sort of non-energy-consuming parasite, using X and Z as a free means of transport.
Let's take A out of X and Z.
Everybody agrees that X and Z wouldn't exist for the same reason that an empty cd needs A's to be manufactured: therefore X and Z need A.
But, according to existentialists, one cannot take A out of X and Z.
Come on, we do it all the time: when, in our head, we play with maths, with music, with philosophy, ... we play with tons of A's without spending more energy than if we were playing with only one single A. Often, the more A's we have in our mind, the more fun we have, the less energy we have to spend. There may even be occasions when playing with A's in our mind, can actually create additional energy, this while using the same support B. Where is this additional energy coming from? From the B? Whatever you do, B will decay. By being themselves a source of energy, A's can compensate decay. A's are fun because they are free. That's why we all love that kind of free stuff.
If he wants, man can be A's. He cannot be the whole of A's though. He will never be. He thought, once upon a time, that he could be the whole of A's when he saw that he could reproduce A's-containing-B's, therefrom his believe that he had found a solution to the problem of decay.
From then on, he learned how hard it is to get A's for free again.
But he was forgiven. He has another chance. Free to him to take it or not.
Man is, more than ever, free.
But, is it because it is access-free that the whole of A's doesn't deserve some kind of consideration, of respect for what it is?
Like Ikaros, existentialism is born to fall.
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Let's call:
information: A
support: B
It means, in existentialism terms, that:
A is free (of energy)
AND
B is not free (of energy)
AND
A needs B to exist
Let's call:
a B support in space: X
a B support in space: Z
According to existentialism, if A is in X and Z, it is because X supports A and Z supports A. A is therefore a sort of non-energy-consuming parasite, using X and Z as a free means of transport.
Let's take A out of X and Z.
Everybody agrees that X and Z wouldn't exist for the same reason that an empty cd needs A's to be manufactured: therefore X and Z need A.
But, according to existentialists, one cannot take A out of X and Z.
Come on, we do it all the time: when, in our head, we play with maths, with music, with philosophy, ... we play with tons of A's without spending more energy than if we were playing with only one single A. Often, the more A's we have in our mind, the more fun we have, the less energy we have to spend. There may even be occasions when playing with A's in our mind, can actually create additional energy, this while using the same support B. Where is this additional energy coming from? From the B? Whatever you do, B will decay. By being themselves a source of energy, A's can compensate decay. A's are fun because they are free. That's why we all love that kind of free stuff.
If he wants, man can be A's. He cannot be the whole of A's though. He will never be. He thought, once upon a time, that he could be the whole of A's when he saw that he could reproduce A's-containing-B's, therefrom his believe that he had found a solution to the problem of decay.
From then on, he learned how hard it is to get A's for free again.
But he was forgiven. He has another chance. Free to him to take it or not.
Man is, more than ever, free.
But, is it because it is access-free that the whole of A's doesn't deserve some kind of consideration, of respect for what it is?
Like Ikaros, existentialism is born to fall.
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
About the theory of Knowledge
"truth is" is not the same as "truth = is".
In "truth is" there is zero between the subject "thruth" and "is". In "truth = is" there is the sign = between the 2 words.
= is not the same as zero.
When we say "John is" we imply that "John is is truth" in the sense "John is = truth"; we imply that "truth is John is".
Let's call:
In "truth is John is": B is A
In switching A and B, we also switched = in is.
Furthermore: the same proposition can be expressed in 4 ways:
By introducing the word truth, we could transform "A=B" in "B is A" and have "A = B AND B is A".
What is truth? Truth is AND truth = is.
"=" brings a new dimension to "zero".
Which? A dimension which is linked to zero.
This dimension is brought about by the imaginary unit i (i.e. the square root of -1) which also "is" even if we do not know what it is.
Knowledge is about thruth: thruth is the primary unit of knowledge while Truth is the all encompassing Knowledge.
1) knowledge:
In "truth is" there is zero between the subject "thruth" and "is". In "truth = is" there is the sign = between the 2 words.
= is not the same as zero.
When we say "John is" we imply that "John is is truth" in the sense "John is = truth"; we imply that "truth is John is".
Let's call:
- John is: A
- truth: B
In "truth is John is": B is A
In switching A and B, we also switched = in is.
Furthermore: the same proposition can be expressed in 4 ways:
- John is (1)
- John is is truth (2)
- John is = truth (3)
- truth is John is (4)
By introducing the word truth, we could transform "A=B" in "B is A" and have "A = B AND B is A".
What is truth? Truth is AND truth = is.
"=" brings a new dimension to "zero".
Which? A dimension which is linked to zero.
This dimension is brought about by the imaginary unit i (i.e. the square root of -1) which also "is" even if we do not know what it is.
Knowledge is about thruth: thruth is the primary unit of knowledge while Truth is the all encompassing Knowledge.
1) knowledge:
- The primary unit is zero. It links "true" to "is": true is. This unit (some would say "information") is free: it doesn't require energy.
- The primary unit of knowledge is "true is". But, to bring this primary unit to the human brain, man needs to make a link between "true" and "is": he does that by using a primary imaginary unit "true = is". The link beween "true" and "is" is not free anymore: it requires energy.
- The primary unit of workable knowledge ("I know") transforms "true is" in "that is": "that" means "true equals".
2) Knowledge: encompasses all what is free of energy between zero and the infinite.
3) Workable Knowledge: encompasses all what is not free of energy between zero and the infinite. It requires Knowledge (Workable Knowledge feeds itself for free).
Does Knowledge require Workable Knowledge? Can Knowledge "be" without Workable Knowledge?
Does Knowledge NEED Workable Knowledge?
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Quand je meurt, suis reste.
When I dies, am stays
Als ik sterft, ben blijft
Cuando yo muere, soy se-queda
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Als ik sterft, ben blijft
Cuando yo muere, soy se-queda
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Is my believe that "the first truth is not about thruth" true? part 2
THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE A SNOWFLAKE
It looks like a fractal geometry ... as in snowflakes:
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg)
and in biological systems, and in ...
Is it a pure coïncidence or is there something more into this view?
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
and in biological systems, and in ...
Is it a pure coïncidence or is there something more into this view?
Copyright © 2012 . All rights reserved
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)