Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Blacksheet of beyond

  1. Mar 18, 2003 #1
    blacksheet of "beyond"

    a way out of these vicious circles turning around the origin of everything, the essence of world, turning around the concepts of or the essence of or the relevance of notions like time, space, thought, conception, knowledge, the unknown, understanding, reliability of scientific concepts, cause and effect, finality, the sense of it all, casuality, origin, creation, being itself..
    ..somehow you always end by thinking about 'thinking'..
    a way out of this, i suggest:
    .... wonder why mankind is capable of achieving such extraordinary things as e.g. interfering to its own genetics (quasi ruling their own creation) - in biologies, as looking as deep into space as to the forming of first galaxies and clusters - in astronomies, as fancying out relativity theory and uncertainty principle - in theoretical physics, as making silicon chips think for them - in technologies, as fancying out sth. like the non-intervention principle of peoples right - in politics, as finding the abolition of death penalty a high grade index for civilization - in juridiction [discutable of course], as sending messages to probable extraterrestral intelligence with pioneer, as shooting malign cellclusters with laser-technology from outer body - in medecine, as fancying out wormholes and parallel universes, ..
    ..just one simple thing we may not see, ..why everything 'is', the wonder and riddle of creation, the essence of unknown world, the origin itself.
    ..at this point the preceding question seems not to be, how everything exists or started, but how and why we obviously remain to think in vicious circles when it comes to finding out how everything exists or started..
    ..why do we end thinking about 'thinking'?
    ..how can we doubt our capacity of thinking and finding truths or stateing reality without falling into dusty speculation, nihilism or uncertainty of terms?

    If we accept that man's capacity of conceiving, of thought, of speech, of a visionary space in our heads have come into existence along ongoing evolution from primate ancestors to modern human, can we not accept, that..
    Our notion of BEING itself has only come to existence during the process of evolution of man and his brain,
    so that this, our existentially felt notion of being (even before we speek of it) might be essentially mixed with "being alive", "living", "surviving"? Thus what we call being doesn't in this way we understand it take place in 'real world'.
    [i know that i AM, and i know that you know that you ARE, so i know that you ARE, but is it maybe not really wrong but at least not all right to say a stone, a plant, space, time, a star, the universe IS? ..on account of things not BEING in the way we think of them BEING? ..and the riddle of 'everything' being beyond speech or our thought or notion about it..]
    the fact that we can ask anything we owe to the mechanisms of evolution, of nature itself puttin' us here. How should what and how and why we ask our questions about e.g. the origin of everything not be subdued to the functioning of evolution btw. all the circumstances that led to our being here. [i.e. survival, advantage, conserving the own species, diversity, complexity, interaction, aso.]

    now if we take this as a fact it would mean that the riddle about world - even finding the 'right' question(s) - is beyond what we are capable of thinking and nameing (we cannot even ask what WAS before, what IS the origin, IS universe an entity), which again would mean that we need new ways of thinking, new words, new contents, new notions, overcoming maybe actual notions of what we expect the unknown to be..
    we can leave all manmade confusion behind and focus on the unknown..

    we might (in abstract terms) divide world into e.g. two parts, the known part and the unknown.
    all we can say about the unknown is that it doesn't exclude world like we witness it. Maybe that ours is 'part of' the latter.

    to this unknown world there is not only one frontier, the limit of man's knowledge with a vaste dark behind (not a lucid, clear bubble amidst a black infinity), but many different frontiers of varying aspects:
    - scientific limits - capacity of light (em-waves) submitting information from unknown regions of 'world'. science stops where its major informant, light (em-waves) quits its job. scientific universe is the 'viewable' universe. further science stops where it doesn't even claim itself to be a complete description of a whole (e.g. like Newton's mechanics) but rather an usable concept apt to explaining this or that but not any other ( how 'good' is a theory? chaos, strings, ..?). further where it loses itself to infinities or complexities unrelated to reality.
    - human or individual frontiers - ignorance *.*, unsaid (and therefor unrevealed) wrong presupposings, to high specialization of knowledge, or else to much generalized, death, too, is a frontier to this 'unknown' world (which, i admit doesn't get us any further *.*), personal frontier: would s.o. know the essence of world, would i even recognize it? or: how could one single human check if the entire knowledge of mankind can give all answers yet?, the 3 dimensions, lack of (seeing necessity for) new words
    - limits of speech and thought - evolutionary notions (human impetus of surviving, exploring world and going forward - and not necessarily understanding the 'essence' of it all), abstraction, abstract imagination, unreal perfections (why would we want a perfect surface, sphere in industry, a perfect geometric point or beam? - is there such in nature?), categories of thought, paradoxies, notions like up-/downside, before/after, in-/outside, alive/dead, moved/still (nature might not 'care')
    - systematic frontiers - axioms, methodics, definition of 'knowledge', 'truth', 'reality', conceptual presupposings (e.g. doing scientific experiments)
    - paradox limit - we can't look at it all from 'outside'..we're in and part of it.
    - real knowledge frontiers - gravitation, the functioning of brain, dark matter, cosmic background waves, bigbang or steady state, ..
    - concrete natural limits - 0°K, c, natures constants, the empty space, uncertainty-principle

    to study frontiers and limits of all kinds (where and why frontiers arise, what might relate them to each other, of what kind they are,..(maybe in a new scientific branch "frontierology" or "limeology" *.* )) might bring us further in supposing what might be behind.. maybe give us a blacksheet of "beyond"..

    :)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2003 #2
    I'd suggest instead that there are two rudamentary approaches to this issue:

    1) Pragmatism. Instead of going round and round in mental circles pragmatically use our ignorance to our advantage just as Quantum Mechanics uses ignorance of just what Quanta are to great advantage. In the process we can rule out a number of possibilities just as Quantum Mechanics has done.

    2) Stop thinking in circles. Take up meditation, blow up yer tv and move to the country, whatever it takes.

    Quiet

    Great perfection can seem incomplete,
    But does not decay;
    Great abundance can seem empty,
    But does not fail.
    Great truth can seem contradictory;
    Great cleverness can seem stupid;
    Great eloquence can seem awkward;
    Great questions can seem foolish.
    As spring overcomes the cold,
    And autumn overcomes the heat,
    So calm and quiet overcome the world.
     
  4. Mar 19, 2003 #3
    To roeighty:

    1. You're GREAT! All your post a really magnificent piece in all this riddle!

    2. The study of frontiers has already begun. Have you read Stanislaw Lem's books? His books are great sources of inspiration for those concerned with frontiers.

    3. I've come to one point trying, just trying, to study the limits of my, perhaps our, knowledge: everything is dwelling in a fog of uncertainty. The same rule of uncertainty, too. Whenever I try to imagine the answer to a question like "how much can I ever know?" everything goes vague. No good words to explain it. No tools to analyze. No definition to compare. No ethics to prefer. No rules to obey. It's all in all a void of knowledge where there should have been the most critical piece of knowledge.

    4. Different approaches can be taken to that void. Wuliheron takes the way of pragmatists yet doesn't lose humanity. His way keeps its follower sane yet wise. It is the caressing blend of wisdom and common sanity. No wonder how sanity and wisdom make a contradictory pair: sanity is the biggest obstacle in the way of wisdom. The unique thing that keeps individuals sane is oblivion which is the opposite of knowledge. Oblivion shields us against all the great Unknown we're exposed to. Carlos Castaneda describes this brilliantly with his very own "daily shields" metaphor.

    5. You surely know Kierkegaard's and later Sartre's word for our situation: "the human situation". That's the most human word for it; "the human situation" is the void of certainty, knowledge, significance, meaning and emphasis which contradicts itself by its sole being.

    6. Have you read Suzuki's "Zen And Japanese Culture"? The concept of the Taia sword really fascinates me. Taia sword is the sword which pierces without moving. The void we live in is the void out of which all being emerges. How could this ever be solved?

    7. Wasn't it Socrates and then Kierkegaard who asked: "What is nature of the transition from not knowing to knowing?" Isn't that the most elementary question? How knowledge, knowledge of being, qualia, the other, the interior, the exterior and the riddle has come to us out of the Unknown?

    8. And couldn't whatever I said be wrong? Surely it could, so how does it happen that I prefer it over all other things I could say? Where do our preferences come from? What makes us choose? Is that nature or nurture? But then in our state of not-knowing what could nature or nurture mean?

    9. All our life is based on our knowledge of the self and the Universe. All our life is hanging desperately to our "right" choices. What is the "right" choice? How could we ever be risking all our wealth, the life, on the all in all vague concept of a "choice"?

    10. Each of us, if there exist "each" and "of" and "us", is left alone to her/his own. Are we then able to share our endless loneliness? What are we really sharing in this never-ending dialogue? What could "sharing knowledge" mean? Isn't it another frontier to our knowledge?

    11. If we are uncertain of everything including "if we are uncertain of everything", how could we ever be discussing on the PF? Is there a reality subject to our consensus? Where does this consensus come from? Is it an indication of that there is "really" something out there?

    12. Have you read "The Never-ending Story" (Die endlose Geschichte) by Michael Ende? Great great book under a great great title. I think you have; you're from Germany after all. Then why are you asking all these? All your answers lie silently in that book. They only need to be revealed and perhaps shared.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Blacksheet of beyond
  1. Beyond determinism? (Replies: 79)

  2. Beyond cute! (Replies: 23)

  3. To Infinity and Beyond (Replies: 21)

Loading...