태그 아카이브: 철학

하나님 망상

I am an atheist. So I agree completely with all the arguments of 하나님 망상. As a review of the book, that statement should be the end of it. But somehow the book gave me a strange feeling of dissatisfaction. 당신이 볼, you may believe in God. Or you may not. Or you may actively believe that there is no God. I fall in this the last category. But I still know that it is only my belief, and that thought fills me with a humility that I feel Dawkins lacks.

지금, it is one thing to say that the concept of God is inconsistent with the worldview you have developed, perhaps with the help of science. The concept is indeed very inconsistent with my own personal worldview, which is why I am an atheist. But it is quite a different matter to discount the concept as a delusion. I believe that our knowledge is incomplete. And that there is plenty of room for a possible God to hide beyond the realms of our current knowledge. Does it mean that we should call our ignorance God and kneel before it? 난 그렇게 생각하지 않아요, but if somebody does, that is their prerogative.

당신이 볼, it is all a question of what your worldview is. And how much rigor and consistency you demand of it. 그래서, what is a worldview? 제 생각에는, a worldview is the extension of your knowledge. We all have a certain amount of knowledge. We also have a lot of sensory data that comes in every moment that we have to process. We do most of this processing automatically, without conscious effort. But some of the higher level data and information that we encounter merit a closer analysis. How do we do it, given that we may not know much about it? We use our commonsense, our pre-conceived notions, the value systems our parents and teachers left in us and so on. One of these things that we use, or perhaps the totality of these things, is our worldview.

Let’s take an example. Douglas Adams tells us that dolphins are actually smarter than us and have regular inter-galactic communication. 음, we have no way of refuting this claim (하는, 물론, is only a joke). But our worldview tells us that it is unlikely to be true. And we don’t believe it — as though we know it is not true.

Another example, one that Bertram Russell once cited. Scripture tells us that faith can move mountains. Some people believe it. Science tells us that a nuclear blast can, 잘, move mountains. Some people believe that too. Note that most people haven’t directly witnessed either. But even for those who believe in the faith-mountain connection, nuclear energy moving mountains is far more plausible a belief. It is just a lot more consistent with our current worldview.

지금, just because God is a delusion according to Dawkins’s worldview (or mine, for that matter), should you buy it? Not unless it is inconsistent with yours as well. Worldviews are hard to change. So are our stances vis-a-vis God and science, when seen as belief-systems — as the movie Contact vividly illustrates. 당신이 그것을 놓친 경우, you should watch it. Repeatedly, 필요한 경우. It is a good movie anyway.

It is true what they say about a scientific worldview being inconsistent with any sensible notion of a god. But worldviews are a funny thing. Nothing prevents you from tolerating inconsistencies in your worldview. Although Dawkins goes to some length to absolve Einstein of this lack of consistency, the conventional wisdom is that he did believe in God. The truth of the matter is that our collective knowledge (even after adding Einstein’s massive contribution) is limited. There really is plenty of room beyond its limits for God (or eight million gods, if I were to believe my parents), as I will try to show in my next post.

즉,, 그러나, is only the tip of the iceberg. Once we admit that there are limits to our knowledge, 하고 알 수있는 것입니다 무엇을, we will soon find ourselves staring at other delusions. What is the point it discounting a God delusion, while embracing a space-delusion? In a universe that is unreal, everything is a delusion, not just God. 나는 알고있다, you think it is just my sanity that is unreal, but I may convince you otherwise. In another post.

헬렌 켈러

헬렌 켈러의 이야기는 당신의 감각의 부재에서 당신을 가두 어두운 현실의 이야기. 또한 어둠의 돌발에서 언어의 역할의 그림입니다. 6 월 건강한 아이를 출생 27, 1880 알라바마, 헬렌 켈러는 완벽하게 행복한 아기였다 — 의 어린 나이 때까지 19 개월, 그녀는 이상한 질병에 시달리는 한 때 “그들은 위장과 뇌의 심각한 혼잡을했다.” 끔찍한 질병은 그녀의 맹인과 청각 장애인을 왼쪽 — “내 눈과 귀를 닫고 새로운 태어난 아기의 무의식으로 나를 급락,” 그녀는 나중에 그녀의 자서전에 쓰기 것처럼.

물리적 세계에서 끊김, 헬렌은 그녀의 어둠 속에서 갇혀, 침묵 현실 (또는 그것의 부족). 그녀는 그녀의 마음의 생각이나 말을하지 않았다, 그녀가 얘기를 시작하기 전에 비극이 일어 때문에. 그녀는 보통의 아이들처럼 그녀의 부모로부터 배울 수, 그녀는 맹인과 청각 장애 때문에. 그녀와 같은 소외 계층 어린이를위한 그 시간에 특별한 학교가 없었다. 그녀는 7 살 때, 헬렌의 부모는 알렉산더 그레이엄 벨 (Alexander Graham Bell)에 연락, 전화기의 발명자, 사람은 청각 장애인의 교육자. 그의 도움을 통해, 그들은 헬렌을 가르치 앤 설리반 발견. 앤 설리반은 개체 철자를 손 표지판을 만드는 특별한 방법이 있었다. 슬프게도, 이러한 트릭 것도 몇 좌절 개월 헬렌과 함께 일하지. 그녀는 손 움직임과 물체 사이의 연결을 만들 수 없었다. 헬렌은 영원히 그녀의 어두운 현실 운명 될 것처럼 보였다. 여기에 그녀가 연결을 설정하고 어둠에서 무료로 파산하는 방법이다. (이 블록 시세는 헬렌 켈러의 자서전에서입니다 “내 삶의 이야기,” 어떤 ffirst 년에 출판되었다 1903 미국의 저작권 법에 따라 공개 도메인에 있습니다.)

어느 날, 내 새 인형을 가지고 노는 동안, 설리반은 내 무릎에 내 큰 헝겊 인형을 넣어, 철자 “O-L-L” 나 그 이해를 만들기 위해 노력 “O-L-L” 모두 적용. 이날 우리는 단어를 통해 싸움을했습니다 “m-U-g” 및 “w-A-t-E-R.” 설리반은 나에게 그것을 인상을 시도했다 “m-U-g” 찻잔 것입니다 “w-A-t-E-R” 물은, 그러나 나는이 두 가지를 혼동에 지속. 절망에 그녀는 시간에 대한 주제를 떨어졌다, 첫 번째 기회를 갱신. 나는 그녀의 반복 시도에서 참을성이되었고,, 새 인형을 압류, 나는 바닥에 그것을 점선. 나는 내 발에 깨진 인형 조각을 느낄 때 나는 치열하게 기뻐했다. 어느 쪽도 슬픔도 후회는 내 열정 폭발을 따라. 나는 인형을 사랑하지 않았다. 정지에서, 내가 거기에 살고있는 어두운 세계는 더 강한 감정이나 부드러움 없었다. 나는 나의 교사가 난로의 한면에 조각을 쓸어 느낌, 그리고 내 불편의 원인이 제거 된 만족감을했다. 그녀는 나에게 내 모자를 가져, 그리고 내가 따뜻한 햇살 속으로 줄 알았어. 이 생각, 말로 표현할 수없는 느낌은 생각 호출 할 수있는 경우, 만든 날 뛰어와 기쁨을 함께 이동.

우리는 잘 집에 길을 걸어, 이 덮여있는 허니의 향기에 매료. 어떤 사람은 물을 그리기하고, 선생님은 주둥이에서 내 손을 배치. 멋진 스트림은 한 손으로 분출로 그녀는 다른 단어 물에 철자, 첫번째 천천히, 다음 빠르게. 나는 아직도 서, 내 모든 관심은 그녀의 손가락의 움직임에 따라 고정. 갑자기 뭔가의 같은 안개가 자욱한 의식이 잊어 버린 느낌 — 생각 반환 스릴; 어떻게 든 언어의 비밀은 나에게 계시되었다. I는 알고 그 “w-A-t-E-R” 내 손 위로 흐르는 된 멋진 멋진 무언가를 의미. 즉, 살아있는 말씀이 내 영혼을 일깨워, 이 빛을했다, 희망, 기쁨, 그것은 자유! 장벽은 여전히​​ 있었다, 그것은 사실이다, 그러나 장벽은 시간에 휩쓸 수있는.

언어의 신비 현실의 기원에있다; 그것은 우리 현실의 우리의 의식에 대한 인식 사이에 서 어두운 장벽을 멀리 쓸어 것입니다. 그것은 현실의 세계로 무에서 헬렌 켈러했다, 그리고 단어에 없으면 “이 말씀은 곧 하나님 이시니라,” 나는 무엇을 알고하지 않습니다.

사진 : 의회 도서관

말씀 무엇입니까?

I know very little about religion. Although my smart-ass comments may appear, once in a while, as profound, I’m really ignorant in matters of theology and religion. 결국, I have no formal background in these fields that scholars spend their whole life exploring. 그래서, forgive me if this post comes across as pontificating on something I’d better leave to the scholars; but I cannot help wondering what the Word is. 내 말은, when they say, “태초에, there was the Word,” what exactly is the word?

The verse, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, is again something people have spent much time researching and pondering over. My cursory search unearthed a couple of lines of thought. These lines were mostly concerned with the accuracy of the translation of the verse from Greek, which was complicated by the lack of “the” 또는 “a” articles in the original language. So the verse could be translated as, 예를 들어, “The Word was the God,” consistent with the monotheist notion of Christianity. Or it could be “The Word was a god,” giving quite a different, perhaps pagan, coloration to the issue.

For obvious (atheistic) reasons, I am not interested in this aspect of the verse, nor in these lines of thought. I found another translation, allegedly more literal, that went like, “When the beginning began, the Word was already there.” This suited my purpose better. 여전히, what exactly was this Word?

My understanding of this statement is as follows. In the philosophy of language, it can be argued that life, universe and everything exists in language, in thoughts, in your brain. 용어 “언어” as defined here doesn’t just mean the communication tool, it also encompasses your thoughts and ideas. It is the vehicle of your thought process. In the absence of language, you have no thoughts, only animal instincts. You have no conscious awareness, only unthinking reactions to your surroundings. You don’t know that you exist, you don’t know that the world exists. The nothingness that engulfs you in the absence of a language is most poignantly depicted in the inspiring story of Helen Keller, coming up in a few days.

내 관점에서, the “워드” that was there in the beginning is language, the ensemble of your thoughts and ideas, and the thought-processing mechanism. It creates our reality. Before we had language, we had no reality; we had nothing. And John 1:1 is a statement of intention to attribute this world of reality, or the opposite of nothingness, created by language to God. 그리고, 나에게, this statement is the clearest proof that the saint knew how god was born. Obviously, I am rushing in where angels fear to tread. This view of mine will not be embraced (or even tolerated) by anybody who believes in the theological meaning attached to this text of scripture. And to them, I humbly point out that it is just a view, a mere mortal’s view at that! It probably only goes to show that “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!”

Change the Facts

There is beauty in truth, and truth in beauty. Where does this link between truth and beauty come from? 물론, beauty is subjective, and truth is objective — or so we are told. It may be that we have evolved in accordance with the beautiful Darwinian principles to see perfection in absolute truth.

The beauty and perfection I’m thinking about are of a different kind — those of ideas and concepts. 때때로, you may get an idea so perfect and beautiful that you know it has to be true. This conviction of truth arising from beauty may be what made Einstein declare:

But this conviction about the veracity of a theory based on its perfection is hardly enough. Einstein’s genius really is in his philosophical tenacity, his willingness to push the idea beyond what is considered logical.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say you are in a cruising airplane. If you close the windows and somehow block out the engine noise, it will be impossible for you to tell whether you are moving or not. This inability, when translated to physics jargon, becomes a principle stating, “Physical laws are independent of the state of motion of the experimental system.”

The physical laws Einstein chose to look at were Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, which had the speed of light appearing in them. For them to be independent of (or covariant with, 더 정확하게는) motion, Einstein postulated that the speed of light had to be a constant regardless of whether you were going toward it or away from it.

지금, I don’t know if you find that postulate particularly beautiful. But Einstein did, and decided to push it through all its illogical consequences. For it to be true, space has to contract and time had to dilate, and nothing could go faster than light. Einstein said, 잘, so be it. That is the philosophical conviction and tenacity that I wanted to talk about — the kind that gave us Special Relativity about a one hundred years ago.

Want to get to General Relativity from here? Simple, just find another beautiful truth. Here is one… If you have gone to Magic Mountain, you would know that you are weightless during a free fall (best tried on an empty stomach). Free fall is acceleration at 9.8 m/s/s (또는 32 ft/s/s), and it nullifies gravity. So gravity is the same as acceleration — voila, another beautiful principle.

World line of airplanesIn order to make use of this principle, Einstein perhaps thought of it in pictures. What does acceleration mean? It is how fast the speed of something is changing. And what is speed? Think of something moving in a straight line — our cruising airplane, 예를 들어, and call the line of flight the X-axis. We can visualize its speed by thinking of a time T-axis at right angles with the X-axis so that at time = 0, the airplane is at x = 0. At time t, it is at a point x = v.t, if it is moving with a speed v. So a line in the X-T plane (called the world line) represents the motion of the airplane. A faster airplane would have a shallower world line. An accelerating airplane, 따라서, will have a curved world line, running from the slow world line to the fast one.

So acceleration is curvature in space-time. And so is gravity, being nothing but acceleration. (I can see my physicist friends cringe a bit, but it is essentially true — just that you straighten the world-line calling it a geodesic and attribute the curvature to space-time instead.)

The exact nature of the curvature and how to compute it, though beautiful in their own right, are mere details, as Einstein himself would have put it. 결국, he wanted to know God’s thoughts, not the details.

꿈과 추억의

I recently watched The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Le scaphandre et le papillon), which describes the tragic plight of the French journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby, who suffered a severe stroke and became “locked-in.” During my research days, I had worked a bit on rehabilitation systems for such locked-in patients, who have normal or near-normal cognitive activities but no motor control. 환언, their fully functional minds are locked in a useless body that affords them no means of communication with the external world. It is the solitary confinement of the highest order.

Locked-in condition is one of my secret fears; not so much for myself, but that someone close to me might have to go through it. My father suffered a stroke and was comatose for a month before he passed away, and I will always wonder whether he was locked-in. Did he feel pain and fear? So I Googled a bit to find out if stroke patients were conscious inside. I couldn’t find anything definitive. Then it occurred to me that perhaps these stroke patients were conscious, but didn’t remember it later on.

That thought brought me to one of my philosophical musings. What does it mean to say that something happened if you cannot remember it? Let’s say you had to go through a lot of pain for whatever reason. But you don’t remember it later. Did you really suffer? It is like a dream that you cannot remember. Did you really dream it?

Memory is an essential ingredient of reality, and of existence — which is probably why they can sell so many digital cameras and camcorders. When memories of good times fade in our busy minds, perhaps we feel bits of our existence melting away. So we take thousands of pictures and videos that we are too busy to look at later on.

하지만 난 궁금해. When I die, my memories will die with me. 물론 이죠, those who are close to me will remember me for a while, but the memories that I hold on to right now, the things I have seen and experienced, will all disappear — like an uncertain dream that someone (perhaps a butterfly) dreamt and forgot. So what does it mean to say that I exist? Isn’t it all a dream?

The Razor’s Edge by W Somerset Maugham

May be it is only my tendency to see philosophy everywhere, but I honestly believe Maugham’s works are the classics they are because of their deep philosophical underpinnings. Their strong plots and Maugham’s masterful storytelling help, but what makes them timeless is the fact that Maugham gives voice to the restlessness of our hearts, and puts in words the stirring uncertainties of our souls. Our questions have always been the same. Where do we come from? What are we doing here? And where are we headed? Quo vadis?

Of all the books of this kind that I have read, and I have read many, 면도기의 가장자리 takes on the last question most directly. When Larry says, out of the blue, “The dead look so awfully dead.” we get an idea of what his quest, and indeed the inquiry of the book, is going to be.

Larry Darrell is as close to human flawlessness as Maugham ever gets. His cynical disposition always produced vivid characters that were flawed human beings. We are used to snobbishness in Elliott Templeton, fear and hypocrisy in the vicar of Blackstable, self-loathing even in the self-image of Philip Carey, frivolity in Kitty Garstin, undue sternness in Walter Fane, the ludicrous buffoonery of Dirk Stroeve, abysmal cruelty in Charles Strickland, ultimate betrayal in Blanche Stroeve, fatal alcoholism in Sophie, incurable promiscuity in Mildred — an endless parade of gripping characters, everyone of them as far from human perfection as you and me.

But human perfection is what is sought and found in Larry Darrell. He is gentle, compassionate, single-mindedly hardworking, spiritually enlightened, simple and true, and even handsome (although Maugham couldn’t help but bring in some reservations about it). In one word, 완전한. So it is only with an infinite amount of vanity that anybody can identify himself with Larry (as I secretly do). And it is a testament to Maugham’s mastery and skill that he could still make such an idealistic character human enough for some people to see themselves in him.

As I plod on with these review posts, I’m beginning to find them a bit useless. I feel that whatever needed to be said was already well said in the books to begin with. 그리고, the books being classics, others have also said much about them. So why bother?

Let me wind up this post, and possibly this review series, with a couple of personal observations. I found it gratifying that Larry finally found enlightenment in my native land of Kerala. Written decades before the hippie exodus for spiritual fulfillment in India, this book is remarkably prescient. 그리고, as a book on what life is all about, and how to live it to its spiritual fullness in our hectic age, 면도기의 가장자리 is a must read for everybody.

캐치 -22 조셉 헬러에 의해

나는 그것을 인정 당황, 그러나 나는하지 않았다 “도착” 캐치 - (22) 처음 나는 그것을 읽고. 즉, 일부 20 년 전이었다, 그때 나는 너무 어렸을 될 수있다. 중도를 통해 세 번째는 몇 주 전에 읽기, 갑자기 실현 – 그것은 풍자 만화이었다!

캐리커처는 시각이다; 또는 그렇게 나는 생각했다. 캐치 - (22), 그러나, 문학 풍자 만화입니다, 나는 읽고 유일. 잔인하게 미친 세상의 눈부신 발광을 조롱 그것의 스토리 라인 찾고 게르니카에 고통을 찾고 같다. 그것은 사방 어디에도. 어디에서 시작된다? 내 여러 읽기를 통해 나는 내가 가진 임의의 인상을 적어 것 같아요.

캐치 - (22) 자유 방임에 한 욕하고 기소를 포함, 기업 사랑, 자유 시장, 자본주의 철학. 그것은 호감의 형태 인, 하지만 궁극적으로 무정한, 마일로 마인더 바인더. 상상도 할 수없는 가격 전술을, 마일로의 기업 모두가 점유율을 가지고있는 자신의 신디케이트를 위해 돈을 번다. 무엇 신디케이트 좋다, 따라서, 모두를위한 좋은 수 있습니다, 우리는 이집트면을 먹고 같은 작은 불편을 기꺼이 고통을 감수해야한다. 자신의 구매 여행 중, Yossarian 및 던바는 끔찍한 노동 조건 참아해야, 마일로 동안, 수많은 마을과이란에 대한 대리 쇼에 시장, 모든 의식주와 삶의 미세한 것들을 즐깁니다. 하지만, 초조, 모두가 공유가!

그것은 마일로 사이의 유사점과 현대 기업의 최고 경영자를 그리워하기 어렵다, 자신의 개인 제트기에 잡고 공공 구제 금융을 구걸. 마일로는 모든 사람의 이익을 위해 국제 정치와 전쟁의 사유 그러나 헬러의 초자연적 인 통찰력 정말 비율을 놀리는 가정. 당신은 읽었다면 경제 청부 살인업자의 고백, 당신은 헬러의 뒤틀린 과장 현실의 영역 내에서 잘 여전히 걱정 것. 사람이 실제로 자신의 몫을 요구하면 금상첨화가 온다 — 마일로는 그에게 종이의 쓸모없는 조각을 제공합니다, 모든 화려 함과 의식과! 당신의 리먼 minibonds 당신을 생각 나게? 인생은 참으로 소설보다 낯선.

그러나 마일로의 공격은하지만 사소한 측면 이야기 캐치 - (22). 그것의 주요 부분은 미친 Yossarian의 정신에 관한 것입니다, which is about the only thing that makes sense in a world gone mad with war and greed and delusions of futile glory.

Yossarian의 코믹, 아직 신랄한 딜레마는 우리에게 참을 날카로운 초점 삶의 부조화를 넣어. 왜이 미친 살아 남기 위해 시도? 죽음은 모든 것의 끝 때 어디에 어떤 원인에 대한 사망의 영광입니다, 원인과 영광 등?

Yossarian와 함께, 헬러는 즉시 친구와 가족들 사이에서 그들을 볼 수 있다는 문자의 진정한 군대가 이렇게 살아있는 퍼레이드, 심지어 자신에 대한. 받아, 예를 들어, 채플린의 형이상학 적 사색, 애플비의 완벽한 운동, 오어의 손재주, 대령 캐스 카트의 깃털과 검은 눈, 일반 Peckam의 말의 산문, 닥 Daneeka의 이기심, Aarfy 거부 듣고, 하게도의 창녀, 루치아의 사랑, 간호사 Duckett의 몸, the 107 지혜의 세 이탈리아어의 불쾌한 단어, 주요 주요의 수줍음, 주요한 — 드 Caverley의 armyness — 그 자체로 각각의 걸작!

두 번째 생각에, 나는이 책이 나 검토를 시도하기에 너무 큰 요리사 디부 oervre이 느낌. 내가 할 수있는 당신이 읽을 것을 권장하는 것입니다 — 적어도 두 번. 그리고이 아래 등급의 서사시에서 내 테이크 아웃 당신을 떠날.

삶 자체가 궁극적 인 캐치입니다 22, 상상할 수있는 모든 가능한 방법으로 피할 수없는 및 방수. 삶의 의미가 할 수있는 유일한 방법은 죽음을 이해하는 것입니다. 그리고 죽음을 이해하는 유일한 방법은 생활을 중지하는 것입니다. 당신은 삶의이 캐치의이 간단한 아름다움에 Yossarian 같은 존중 호각을시키는 것 같은 느낌하지 마십시오? 내가 할!

언리얼 우주 – 검토

스트레이츠 타임즈 (Straits Times)

pback-cover (17K)싱가포르의 국가 신문, 스트레이츠 타임즈 (Straits Times), 에 사용 된 읽고 대화 스타일을 찬미 언리얼 우주 삶에 대해 배우고 싶은 사람에게 추천, 우주와 모든.

웬디 Lochner

호출 언리얼 우주 좋은 읽기, 웬디는 말한다, “그것은 좋은 책, 비전문가에 따라 매우 분명.”

바비 크리스마스

설명 언리얼 우주 으로 “이러한 통찰력 및 지능형 책,” 바비는 말한다, “평신도를 생각하는 책, 이 읽을 수, 생각을 자극하는 작품은 현실의 우리의 정의에 대한 새로운 관점을 제공합니다.”

M. 에스. Chandramouli

M. 에스. Chandramouli는 인도 공과 대학을 졸업, 마드라스 1966 그 후 관리의 인도 연구소에서 자신의 MBA를했다, 아메 다 바드. 인도와 유럽 일부를 덮고있는 임원 경력 후 28 년 그는 통해 그가 지금 사업 개발 및 산업 마케팅 서비스를 제공 벨기에 수리야 국제 설립.

여기에서 그는 대해 말하는 것입니다 언리얼 우주:

“이 책은 매우 만족스러운 레이아웃이, 오른쪽 글꼴의 크기와 줄 간격 및 올바른 콘텐츠 밀도. 자체 출판 도서에 대한 많은 노력!”

“이 책의 영향은 만화경입니다. 한 독자의 마음에 패턴 (광산, 즉) 이동 및 '부스럭 노이즈와 함께 스스로를 재 배열 된’ 두 번 이상.””저자의 문체는 철학이나 종교에 쓰기 인디언의 과장된 산문 및 과학 철학에 서양 저자의 우리 - 알고 - 그것 - 모든 스타일에서 현저하게 등거리이다.”

“우주의 종류가있다, 배경 '유레카!’ 그 책 전체를 뒤덮는 것 같다. 인식 현실과 절대 현실의 차이에 대한 중심적인 논문 만 마음에 꽃을 기다리고 생각이다.”

“믿음의 '감격의 시험,’ 페이지 171, 매우 선견지명이 있었다; 그것은 나를 위해 일한!”

“나는 첫 번째 부분이 확실하지 않다, 이는 본질적으로 설명하고 철학적이다, 그 밀접하게 주장 물리학 두 번째 부분은 편안하게 앉아; 경우 때 저자가 인수를 승리로가는 길에, 그는 독자의 세 가지 범주를보고 할 수 있습니다 – '번역의 정도를 필요로하는 평신도하지만 지능형들,’ 비 물리학 전문가, 그리고 물리학의 철학자. 시장 분할은 성공의 열쇠입니다.”

“나는이 책이 널리 읽을 수 있도록 필요하다고 생각. 나는 나의 가까운 친구들이 복사하여 연결에 작은 시도를하고 있죠.”

스티븐 브라 이언트

스티븐 컨설팅 서비스의 부통령입니다 원시 논리, 샌프란시스코에있는 최고의 지역 시스템 통합, 캘리포니아. 그는의 저자이다 상대성 도전.

“마노 삶의 그림에서 하나의 요소로 과학을 본다. 과학은 생명을 정의하지 않습니다. 그러나 삶의 색상은 어떻게 우리가 과학을 이해. 그는 자신의 생각 시스템을 다시 생각하는 모든 독자 도전, 진짜 그들이 생각 질문하기, 물어 “이유”? 그는 이륙 우리를 묻는 우리의 “색깔 안경 장미” 그리고 경험과 삶을 이해하는 새로운 방식의 잠금을 해제. 이 생각을 자극하는 작업은 새로운 과학 여행에 착수 누군가에게 책을 읽어해야합니다.”

“시간의 마노의 치료는 매우 생각하게된다. 우리의 다른 감각의 각 동안 – 시각, 소리, 냄새, 맛과 터치 – 다차원 아르, 시간 차원 단일 것으로 보인다. 우리의 다른 감각과 시간의 상호 작용을 이해하는 것은 매우 흥미로운 퍼즐. 그것은 또한 우리의 노하우 감각 범위를 넘어 다른 현상의 존재 가능성에 문을 엽니 다.”

“마노의 우리 물리학의 상호 작용에 대한 깊은 이해를 전달, 인간의 신념 체계, 인식, 경험담, 심지어 우리의 언어, 에 우리가 어떻게 과학적 발견에 접근. 당신은 당신이 알고있는 생각을 다시 생각하도록 도전한다 그의 작품은 사실이다.”

“마노는 과학에 대한 독특한 관점을 제공합니다, 인식, 현실. 과학이 인식으로 이어질하지 않습니다 실현, 하지만 인식은 과학에 이르게, 이해의 열쇠입니다 과학 모든 “사실” 다시 탐험을 드실 수 있습니다. 이 책은 매우 생각 도발과 각각의 독자 질문 자신의 신념에 도전한다.”

“마노는 전체적인 관점에서 물리학에 접근. 물리학은 분리가 발생하지 않습니다, 그러나 우리의 경험의 관점에서 정의되고 – 과학 및 영적. 당신은 그의 책을 탐구로서 당신은 당신의 자신의 신념을 도전하고 당신의 지평을 확장합니다.”

블로그 및 온라인 발견

블로그에서 유리를 통해 보면

“이 책은 철학과 물리학에 대한 접근 방식에서 다른 책에서 상당히 다르다. 그것은 물리학에 우리의 철학적 관점의 심오한 의미에 많은 실용적인 예제가 들어 있습니다, 특히 천체 물리학 및 입자 물리학. 각 데모는 수학 부록으로 제공, 이는보다 엄격한 유도 및 추가 설명을 포함. 철학의 다양한 지점에서이 책은 심지어 고삐 (예컨대. 동서양 모두에서 생각, 와 고전 시대와 현대 모두 현대 철학). 그리고이 책에 사용 된 모든 수학과 물리학은 매우 이해할 수 있음을 알고 만족입니다, 감사하게도 레벨을 졸업하지. 즉,보다 쉽게​​ 책을 감사 할 수 있도록하는 데 도움이됩니다.”

에서 허브 페이지

자신을 호출 “의 정직한 검토 언리얼 우주,” 이 리뷰에 사용 된 것 같습니다 스트레이츠 타임즈 (Straits Times).

나는 이메일과 온라인 포럼을 통해 나의 독자의 몇 리뷰를 얻었다. 이 게시물의 다음 페이지에 그들에게 익명으로 리뷰를 컴파일.

두 번째 페이지를 방문하려면 아래 링크를 클릭.

헤르만 헤세 싯다르타

I don’t get symbolism. Rather, I do get it, but I’m always skeptical that I may be getting something the author never intended. I think and analyze too much instead of just lightening up and enjoying what’s right in front of me. When it comes to reading, I’m a bit like those tourists (Japanese ones, if I may allow myself to stereotype) who keep clicking away at their digital cameras often missing the beauty and serenity of whatever it is that they are recording for posterity.

하지만, unlike the tourist, I can read the book again and again. Although I click as much the second time around and ponder as hard, some things do get through.

When I read Siddhartha, I asked myself if the names like Kamala and Kamaswami were random choices or signified something. 결국, the first part “Kama” means something akin to worldliness or desire (greed or lust really, but not with so much negative connotation) in Sanskrit. Are Vasudeva and Givinda really gods as the name suggests?

하지만, I’m getting ahead of myself. Siddhartha is the life-story of a contemporary of Buddha — 에 대한 2500 years ago in India. Even as a young child, Siddhartha has urges to pursue a path that would eventually take him to salvation. As a Brahmin, he had already mastered the prayers and rituals. Leaving this path of piety (Bhaktiyoga), he joins a bunch of ascetics who see the way to salvation in austerity and penances (probably Hatayoga Rajayoga). But Siddhartha soon tires of this path. He learns almost everything the ascetics had to teach him and realizes that even the oldest and wisest of them is no closer to salvation than he himself is. He then meets with the Buddha, but doesn’t think that he could “learn” the wisdom of the illustrious one. His path then undergoes a metamorphosis and takes a worldly turn (which is perhaps a rendition of Grahasthashrama 또는 Karmayoga). He seeks to experience life through Kamala, the beautiful courtesan, and Kamaswamy the merchant. When at last he is fully immersed in the toxic excesses of the world, his drowning spirit calls out for liberation from it. He finally finds enlightenment and wisdom from the river that he had to cross back and forth in his journeys between the worlds of riches and wisdom.

For one who seeks symbolism, Siddhartha provides it aplenty.

  • Why is there a Vaishnava temple when Siddhartha decides to forgo the spiritual path for a world one? Is it a coincidence or is it an indication of the philosophical change from an Advaita line to a patently Dwaita line?
  • Is the name Siddhartha (same as that of the Buddha) a coincidence?
  • Does the bird in the cage represent a soul imprisoned in Samsara? 그렇다면, is its death a sad ending or a happy liberation?
  • The River of life that has to be crossed — 그것은이다 Samsara itself? 그렇다면, is the ferryman a god who will help you cross it and reach the ultimate salvation? Why is it that Siddhartha has to cross it to reach the world of Kamala and Kamaswamy, and cross it back to his eventual enlightenment? Kamala also crosses the river to his side before passing on.
  • The affection for and the disillusionment in the little Siddhartha is the last chain of bondage (Mohamaya) that follows Siddhartha across the river. It is only after breaking that chain that Siddhartha is finally able to experience Nirvana — enlightenment and liberation. Is there a small moral hiding there?

One thing I noticed while reading many of these great works is that I can readily identify myself with the protagonist. I fancy that I have the simple greatness of Larry Darrell, and fear that I secretly possess the abominable baseness of Charles Strickland. I feel the indignant torture of Philip Carey or Jay Gatsby. 그리고, 확인, I experience the divine urges of Siddhartha. No matter how much of a stretch each of these comparisons may be. Admittedly, this self-identification may have its roots more in my vanity than any verisimilitude. Or is it the genius of these great writers who create characters so vivid and real that they talk directly to the naked primordial soul within us, stripped of our many layers of ego? In them, we see the distorted visions of our troubled souls, and in their words, we hear the echoes of our own unspoken impulses. Perhaps we are all the same deep within, part of the same shared consciousness.

One thing I re-learned from this book is that you cannot learn wisdom from someone else. (How is that for an oxymoron?) You can learn knowledge, information, 데이터 — 예. But wisdom — 하지. Wisdom is the assimilation of knowledge; it is the end product of your mind and soul working on whatever you find around you, be it the sensory data, cognitive constructs, knowledge and commonsense handed down from previous generations, or the concepts you create for yourself. It is so much a part of you that it is you yourself, which is why the word Buddha means Wisdom. The person Buddha and his wisdom are not two. How can you then communicate your wisdom? No wonder Siddhartha did not seek it from the Buddha.

Wisdom, according to Hermann Hesse, can come only from your own experiences, both sublime and prosaic.

The Philosophy of Special Relativity — A Comparison between Indian and Western Interpretations

추상: The Western philosophical phenomenalism could be treated as a kind of philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity. The perceptual limitations of our senses hold the key to the understanding of relativistic postulates. The specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is more a matter of our perceptual apparatus, than an input postulate to the special theory of relativity. The author believes that the parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Eastern Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to some extent.

– Editor

Key Words: Relativity, Speed of Light, Phenomenalism, Advaita.

소개

The philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity can be interpreted in terms of Western phenomenalism, which views space and time are considered perceptual and cognitive constructs created out our sensory inputs. From this perspective, the special status of light and its speed can be understood through a phenomenological study of our senses and the perceptual limitations to our phenomenal notions of space and time. A similar view is echoed in the 브라만마야 의 구별 Advaita. If we think of space and time as part of 마야, we can partly understand the importance that the speed of light in our reality, as enshrined in special relativity. The central role of light in our reality is highlighted in the Bible as well. These remarkable parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to a certain degree.

Special Relativity

Einstein unveiled his special theory of relativity2 a little over a century ago. In his theory, he showed that space and time were not absolute entities. They are entities relative to an observer. An observer’s space and time are related to those of another through the speed of light. 예를 들면, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In a moving system, time flows slower and space contracts in accordance with equations involving the speed of light. 빛, 따라서, enjoys a special status in our space and time. This specialness of light in our reality is indelibly enshrined in the special theory of relativity.

Where does this specialness come from? What is so special about light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time and our reality? This question has remained unanswered for over 100 년. It also brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time, which form the basis of what we perceive as reality.

Noumenal-Phenomenal and 브라만마야 Distinctions

에서 Advaita3 view of reality, what we perceive is merely an illusion-마야. Advaita explicitly renounces the notion that the perceived reality is external or indeed real. It teaches us that the phenomenal universe, our conscious awareness of it, and our bodily being are all an illusion or 마야. They are not the true, absolute reality. The absolute reality existing in itself, independent of us and our experiences, 이다 브라만.

A similar view of reality is echoed in phenomenalism,4 which holds that space and time are not objective realities. 그들은 단지 우리의 인식의 중간. 이보기에서, all the phenomena that happen in space and time are merely bundles of our perception. Space and time are also cognitive constructs arising from perception. 따라서, the reasons behind all the physical properties that we ascribe to space and time have to be sought in the sensory processes that create our perception, whether we approach the issue from the Advaita or phenomenalism perspective.

This analysis of the importance of light in our reality naturally brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time. In Kant’s view,5 space and time are pure forms of intuition. They do not arise from our experience because our experiences presuppose the existence of space and time. 따라서, we can represent space and time in the absence of objects, but we cannot represent objects in the absence of space and time.

Kant’s middle-ground has the advantage of reconciling the views of Newton and Leibniz. It can agree with Newton’s view6 that space is absolute and real for phenomenal objects open to scientific investigation. It can also sit well with Leibniz’s view7 that space is not absolute and has an existence only in relation to objects, by highlighting their relational nature, not among objects in themselves (noumenal objects), but between observers and objects.

We can roughly equate the noumenal objects to forms in 브라만 and our perception of them to 마야. 이 글에서, we will use the terms “noumenal reality,” “absolute reality,” 또는 “실제 현실” interchangeably to describe the collection of noumenal objects, their properties and interactions, which are thought to be the underlying causes of our perception. 마찬가지로, we will “phenomenal reality,” “perceived or sensed reality,” 및 “perceptual reality” to signify our reality as we perceive it.

As with 브라만 causing 마야, we assume that the phenomenal notions of space and time arise from noumenal causes8 through our sensory and cognitive processes. Note that this causality assumption is ad-hoc; there is no a priori reason for phenomenal reality to have a cause, nor is causation a necessary feature of the noumenal reality. Despite this difficulty, we proceed from a naive model for the noumenal reality and show that, through the process of perception, 우리는 할 수 “유도” a phenomenal reality that obeys the special theory of relativity.

This attempt to go from the phenomena (시공간) to the essence of what we experience (a model for noumenal reality) is roughly in line with Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology.9 The deviation is that we are more interested in the manifestations of the model in the phenomenal reality itself rather than the validity of the model for the essence. Through this study, we show that the specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is a consequence of our perceptual apparatus. It doesn’t have to be an input postulate to the special theory of relativity.

Perception and Phenomenal Reality

The properties we ascribe to space and time (such as the specialness of the speed of light) can only be a part of our perceived reality or 마야, 에서 Advaita, not of the underlying absolute reality, 브라만. If we think of space and time as aspects of our perceived reality arising from an unknowable 브라만 through our sensory and cognitive processes, we can find an explanation for the special distinction of the speed of light in the process and mechanism of our sensing. Our thesis is that the reason for the specialness of light in our phenomenal notions of space and time is hidden in the process of our perception.

우리, 따라서, study how the noumenal objects around us generate our sensory signals, and how we construct our phenomenal reality out of these signals in our brains. The first part is already troublesome because noumenal objects, 정의에 의해, have no properties or interactions that we can study or understand.

These features of the noumenal reality are identical to the notion of 브라만 에서 Advaita, which highlights that the ultimate truth is 브라만, the one beyond time, space and causation. 브라만 is the material cause of the universe, but it transcends the cosmos. It transcends time; it exists in the past, present and future. It transcends space; it has no beginning, middle and end. It even transcends causality. 그 때문에, 브라만 is incomprehensible to the human mind. The way it manifests to us is through our sensory and cognitive processes. This manifestation is 마야, the illusion, 하는, in the phenomenalistic parlance, corresponds to the phenomenal reality.

For our purpose in this article, we describe our sensory and cognitive process and the creation of the phenomenal reality or 마야10 as follows. It starts with the noumenal objects (or forms in 브라만), which generate the inputs to our senses. Our senses then process the signals and relay the processed electric data corresponding to them to our brain. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality, which is our phenomenal world or 마야.

This description of how the phenomenal reality created ushers in a tricky philosophical question. Who or what creates the phenomenal reality and where? It is not created by our senses, brain and mind because these are all objects or forms in the phenomenal reality. The phenomenal reality cannot create itself. It cannot be that the noumenal reality creates the phenomenal reality because, in that case, it would be inaccurate to assert the cognitive inaccessibility to the noumenal world.

This philosophical trouble is identical in Advaita 뿐만 아니라. Our senses, brain and mind cannot create 마야, because they are all part of 마야. 면 브라만 created 마야, it would have to be just as real. This philosophical quandary can be circumvented in the following way. We assume that all events and objects in 마야 have a cause or form in 브라만 or in the noumenal world. 따라서, we postulate that our senses, mind and body all have some (unknown) forms in 브라만 (or in the noumenal world), and these forms create 마야 in our conscious awareness, ignoring the fact that our consciousness itself is an illusory manifestation in the phenomenal world. This inconsistency is not material to our exploration into the nature of space and time because we are seeking the reason for the specialness of light in the sensory process rather than at the level of consciousness.

Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Space makes up our visual reality precisely as sounds make up our auditory world. Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of physical reality, space also is an experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of 브라만 or the noumenal reality. The phenomenal reality thus created is 마야. The 마야 events are an imperfect or distorted representation of the corresponding 브라만 events. 이후 브라만 is a superset of 마야 (또는, equivalently, our senses are potentially incapable of sensing all aspects of the noumenal reality), not all objects and events in 브라만 create a projection in 마야. Our perception (또는 마야) is thus limited because of the sense modality and its speed, which form the focus of our investigation in this article.

In summary, it can be argued that the noumenal-phenomenal distinction in phenomenalism is an exact parallel to the 브라만마야 의 구별 Advaita if we think of our perceived reality (또는 마야) as arising from sensory and cognitive processes.

Sensing Space and Time, and the Role of Light

The phenomenal notions of space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Since we take the position that space and time are the end results of our sensory perception, we can understand some of the limitations in our 마야 by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.

At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) is the intermediary of EM interactions.11

The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our long-range sense of sight; all the short-range senses (touch, taste, smell and hearing) are also EM in nature. 물리학에서, the fundamental interactions are modeled as fields with gauge bosons.12 In quantum electrodynamics13 (the quantum field theory of EM interactions), photon (or light) is the gauge boson mediating EM interactions. Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for all our sensory inputs. To understand the limitations of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all our senses. Space is, 전반적으로, the result of our sight sense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed no reality, in the absence of EM interactions.

Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, red shift measurements and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure our universe. 따라서, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, 그러나 그것은 보는 것은 여전히​​ 우리의 눈이 볼보다 억년 나이가. Our phenomenal reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically enhanced, is made up of a subset of EM particles and interactions only. What we perceive as reality is a subset of forms and events in the noumenal world corresponding to EM interactions, filtered through our sensory and cognitive processes. 에서 Advaita parlance, 마야 can be thought of as a projection of 브라만 through EM interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, quite probably an imperfect projection.

The exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is not always appreciated, mainly because of a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” 및 “being able to sense” gravitational force. The gravity sensing in our ears measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. In the absence of EM interaction, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter.

This assertion that there is no sensing in the absence of EM interactions brings us to the next philosophical hurdle. One can always argue that, in the absence of EM interaction, there is no matter to sense. This argument is tantamount to insisting that the noumenal world consists of only those forms and events that give rise to EM interaction in our phenomenal perception. 환언, it is the same as insisting that 브라만 is made up of only EM interactions. What is lacking in the absence of EM interaction is only our phenomenal reality. 에서 Advaita notion, in the absence of sensing, 마야 does not exist. The absolute reality or 브라만, 그러나, is independent of our sensing it. 다시, we see that the Eastern and Western views on reality we explored in this article are remarkably similar.

The Speed of Light

Knowing that our space-time is a representation of the light waves our eyes receive, we can immediately see that light is indeed special in our reality. In our view, sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality, 또는 마야. Any limitation in this chain of sensing leads to a corresponding limitation in our phenomenal reality.

One limitation in the chain from senses to perception is the finite speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of motion, 시공간. Because these distortions are perceived as a part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space-time.

The importance of the speed of light, 그러나, is respected only in our phenomenal 마야. Other modes of perception have other speeds the figure as the fundamental constant in their space-like perception. The reality sensed through echolocation, 예를 들어, has the speed of sound as a fundamental property. 사실, it is fairly simple to establish14 that echolocation results in a perception of motion that obeys something very similar to special relativity with the speed of light replaced with that of sound.

Theories beyond Sensory Limits

The basis of physics is the world view called scientific realism, which is not only at the core of sciences but is our natural way of looking at the world as well. Scientific realism, and hence physics, assume an independently existing external world, whose structures are knowable through scientific investigations. To the extent observations are based on perception, the philosophical stance of scientific realism, as it is practiced today, can be thought of as a trust in our perceived reality, and as an assumption that it is this reality that needs to be explored in science.

Physics extends its reach beyond perception or 마야 through the rational element of pure theory. Most of physics works in this “extended” intellectual reality, with concepts such as fields, forces, light rays, 원자, 입자, 등, the existence of which is insisted upon through the metaphysical commitment implied in scientific realism. 그러나, it does not claim that the rational extensions are the noumenal causes or 브라만 giving raise to our phenomenal perception.

Scientific realism has helped physics tremendously, with all its classical theories. 그러나, scientific realism and the trust in our perception of reality should apply only within the useful ranges of our senses. Within the ranges of our sensory perceptions, we have fairly intuitive physics. An example of an intuitive picture is Newtonian mechanics that describe “표준” objects moving around at “표준” speeds.

When we get closer to the edges of our sensory modalities, we have to modify our sciences to describe the reality as we sense it. These modifications lead to different, and possibly incompatible, theories. When we ascribe the natural limitations of our senses and the consequent limitations of our perception (and therefore observations) to the fundamental nature of reality itself, we end up introducing complications in our physical laws. Depending on which limitations we are incorporating into the theory (e.g., small size, large speeds etc.), we may end up with theories that are incompatible with each other.

Our argument is that some of these complications (및, 희망, incompatibilities) can be avoided if we address the sensory limitations directly. 예를 들면, we can study the consequence of the fact that our senses operate at the speed of light as follows. We can model 브라만 (the noumenal reality) as obeying classical mechanics, and work out what kind of 마야 (phenomenal reality) we will experience through the chain of sensing.

The modeling of the noumenal world (as obeying classical mechanics), 물론, has shaky philosophical foundations. But the phenomenal reality predicted from this model is remarkably close to the reality we do perceive. Starting from this simple model, it can be easily shown our perception of motion at high speeds obeys special relativity.

The effects due to the finite speed of light are well known in physics. 우리는 알고있다, 예를 들어, that what we see happening in distant stars and galaxies now actually took place quite awhile ago. A more “advanced” effect due to the light travel time15 is the way we perceive motion at high speeds, which is the basis of special relativity. 사실, many astrophysical phenomena can be understood16 in terms of light travel time effects. Because our sense modality is based on light, our sensed picture of motion has the speed of light appearing naturally in the equations describing it. So the importance of the speed of light in our space-time (as described in special relativity) is due to the fact that our reality is 마야 created based on light inputs.

Conclusion

Almost all branches of philosophy grapple with this distinction between the phenomenal and the absolute realities to some extent. Advaita Vedanta holds the unrealness of the phenomenal reality as the basis of their world view. 이 글에서, we showed that the views in phenomenalism can be thought of as a restatement of the Advaita postulates.

When such a spiritual or philosophical insight makes its way into science, great advances in our understanding can be expected. This convergence of philosophy (or even spirituality) and science is beginning to take place, most notably in neuroscience, which views reality as a creation of our brain, echoing the notion of 마야.

Science gives a false impression that we can get arbitrarily close to the underlying physical causes through the process of scientific investigation and rational theorization. An example of such theorization can be found in our sensation of hearing. The experience or the sensation of sound is an incredibly distant representation of the physical cause–namely air pressure waves. We are aware of the physical cause because we have a more powerful sight sense. So it would seem that we can indeed go from 마야 (소리) to the underlying causes (air pressure waves).

그러나, it is a fallacy to assume that the physical cause (the air pressure waves) 이다 브라만. Air pressure waves are still a part of our perception; they are part of the intellectual picture we have come to accept. This intellectual picture is an extension of our visual reality, based on our trust in the visual reality. It is still a part of 마야.

The new extension of reality proposed in this article, again an intellectual extension, is an educated guess. We guess a model for the absolute reality, 또는 브라만, and predict what the consequent perceived reality should be, working forward through the chain of sensing and creating 마야. If the predicted perception is a good match with the 마야 we do experience, then the guesswork for 브라만 is taken to be a fairly accurate working model. The consistency between the predicted perception and what we do perceive is the only validation of the model for the nature of the absolute reality. 게다가, the guess is only one plausible model for the absolute reality; there may be different such “solutions” to the absolute reality all of which end up giving us our perceived reality.

It is a mistake to think of the qualities of our subjective experience of sound as the properties of the underlying physical process. In an exact parallel, it is a fallacy to assume that the subjective experience of space and time is the fundamental property of the world we live in. The space-time continuum, as we see it or feel it, is only a partial and incomplete representation of the unknowable 브라만. If we are willing to model the unknowable 브라만 as obeying classical mechanics, we can indeed derive the properties of our perceived reality (such as time dilation, length contraction, light speed ceiling and so on in special relativity). By proposing this model for the noumenal world, we are not suggesting that all the effects of special relativity are mere perceptual artifacts. We are merely reiterating a known fact that space and time themselves cannot be anything but perceptual constructs. Thus their properties are manifestations of the process of perception.

When we consider processes close to or beyond our sensor limits, the manifestations of our perceptual and cognitive constraints become significant. 따라서, when it comes to the physics that describes such processes, we really have to take into account the role that our perception and cognition play in sensing them. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photosensors of the Hubble telescope. 때문에 정보 매체의 한정된 속도 (namely light), our perception is distorted in such a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special relativity. 그들은 할, but space and time are only a part of our perception of an unknowable reality—a perception limited by the speed of light.

The central role of light in creating our reality or universe is at the heart of western spiritual philosophy as well. 빛의없는 우주는 당신이 불을 전환 한 단순히 세계 아니다. 그것은 참 자체가없는 우주이다, 존재하지 않는 우주. It is in this context that we have to understand the wisdom behind the notion that “지구는 양식 선수, and void'” 하나님이 발생 될 때까지 빛이 될, 말에 의해 “빛이 있으라.” Quran also says, “Allah is the light of the heavens.” The role of light in taking us from the void (무) to a reality was understood for a long, 오랜 시간. Is it possible that the ancient saints and prophets knew things that we are only now beginning to uncover with all our advances in knowledge? Whether we use old Eastern Advaita views or their Western counterparts, we can interpret the philosophical stance behind special relativity as hidden in the distinction between our phenomenal reality and its unknowable physical causes.

참조

  1. 박사. Manoj Thulasidas graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), 마드라스, 에서 1987. He studied fundamental particles and interactions at the CLEO collaboration at Cornell University during 1990-1992. After receiving his PhD in 1993, he moved to Marseilles, France and continued his research with the ALEPH collaboration at CERN, 제네바. During his ten-year career as a research scientist in the field of High energy physics, 그는 이상 공저 200 출판물.
  2. 아인슈타인, A. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. (On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies). 물리학 연보, 17, 891-921.
  3. Radhakrishnan, 에스. & Moore, C. A. (1957). Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.
  4. Chisolm, R. (1948). The Problem of Empiricism. The Journal of Philosophy, 45, 512-517.
  5. Allison, H. (2004). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Yale University Press.
  6. Rynasiewicz, R. (1995). By Their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, 공간, Place and Motion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 133-153, 295-321.
  7. Calkins, M. W. (1897). Kant’s Conception of the Leibniz Space and Time Doctrine. The Philosophical Review, 6 (4), 356-369.
  8. Janaway, C., ed. (1999). The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Schmitt, R. (1959). Husserl’s Transcendental-Phenomenological Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 20 (2), 238-245.
  10. Thulasidas, M. (2007). 언리얼 우주. Asian Books, 싱가포르.
  11. Electromagnetic (EM) interaction is one of the four kinds of interactions in the Standard Model (Griffths, 1987) of particle physics. It is the interaction between charged bodies. Despite the EM repulsion between them, 그러나, the protons stay confined within the nucleus because of the strong interaction, whose magnitude is much bigger than that of EM interactions. The other two interactions are termed the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction.
  12. In quantum field theory, every fundamental interaction consists of emitting a particle and absorbing it in an instant. These so-called virtual particles emitted and absorbed are known as the gauge bosons that mediate the interactions.
  13. 파인만, R. (1985). Quantum Electrodynamics. Addison Wesley.
  14. Thulasidas, M. (2007). 언리얼 우주. Asian Books, 싱가포르.
  15. 리스, M. (1966). Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio Sources. 자연, 211, 468-470.
  16. Thulasidas, M. (2007a). 라디오 소스 및 감마선 버스트 내강 붐인가? International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16 (6), 983-1000.