In the lecture he delivered yesterday at the Google conference in London, the most famous British scientist expressed that we must create and build and make our world here and now better. And that of course includes creating better science
Yesterday, on 17.5, Stephen Hawking gave a lecture at the Google Zeitgeist conference in London, he claimed that tiny quantum fluctuations (oscillations) in the very early universe become seeds. And from these seeds appeared the galaxies, the stars, and finally human life.
Hawking suggests that with the help of advanced instruments launched into space, such as the European Space Agency's Planck mission, it will be possible to discover ancient traces in light, such as remain from the earliest moments of the universe. In this way we can understand how our corner of space was created.
Hawking's lecture deals with the M-theory, the mother of all theories, which he talks about in his latest book, "The Grand Design", the hope for a theory of everything.
On the occasion of the lecture, Hawking gave an exclusive interview to the Guardian in which he expressed views that could infuriate him from the religious establishments.
Hawking asked the question of questions, "Why are we here?" (A question to which he, by the way, dedicated his lecture in Jerusalem in 2006) Hawking replied to the Guardian reporter, "The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we cannot solve the equations, directly in the abstract."
For this reason Hawking claims that we "need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those populations that are most likely to survive. We attach a higher value to them."
Richard Dawkins obviously agrees with Hawking.
The Guardian's reporter asked Hawking about his previous statements that had already caused a lot of trouble in the past: "You said there was no reason to mention God to ignite the beginning. Does our entire existence depend on chance?"
Hawking answered the reporter: "Science predicts that different types of universes will be created spontaneously from nothing. It's a matter of chance which one we are in."
Physicists suggest that the empty vacuum is not empty at all, but is subject to quantum fluctuations that cause strange bubbles to appear at random times. These bubbles of space-time have strange properties. For example, they create a repulsive gravitational force in the contents, which causes the space-time of the bubble to swell. The size of the bubble does not change for an outside observer. Growth only occurs inside a bubble for an observer inside the bubble. Because the pressure inside the bubble is always lower than the pressure outside, bubbles that begin to grow below a certain size collapse under the tension of the bubble walls before the space they contain is large enough to expand. That is, if the bubble is too small, its sides will always tend to collapse inward. As for larger bubbles, theoretically they can indeed grow to cosmological dimensions, but they need an initial push before they spread. In our early universe this push was provided by the Big Bang - a point of infinite energy density. A very general and vague explanation of a spontaneous creation...
The Guardian reporter asked Hawking: "So here we are. What should we do?”
Hawking answered him: "We must look for the best value of our actions." That is, we must create and build and make our world here and now better. And of course this includes creating better science.”
When asked if he feared death, Hawking said, "I have lived under the prediction of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm not in a hurry to die. I have so many things I want to do. I consider the brain to be a computer that will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken computers; It's a fabric story for people who are afraid of death."
This said that you will probably set up the religious establishment on Hawking.
And to finish, the reporter asked Hawking: "What are the most beautiful things in science?" And he answered: "Science is beautiful when it finds simple explanations for phenomena or creates connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations in physics." And there is no question about that.
91 תגובות
Nassim Harmain disagrees with many things Stephen Hawking said.
And if they were facing each other, Steven might have changed his mind a bit.
According to my world view today, he discovers some matters in which he was wrong in his findings.
For example
The existence of the Creator
Or heaven and hell.
But... well
Schmitz the slanderer:
No one is forcing you to read debates on topics that don't interest you.
Whoever does this anyway is probably doing anything (and not just arguing) like a jerk.
simply incredible.
I visit here once a month and you still argue like idiots (A.S. Ofer Eini [A.S.]) about this issue?
What happened?
So did anyone say anything? Well? Saying something doesn't exist is proof?
plagued by errors (87)
If the litter box is full of food, be sure that all the cats will run there to eat.
A cat that found a trash can full of food - and in a place where there are no other cats - should "consider itself lucky" (as you say), right? So how do you say that the cat that pounces in the bin is unlucky?
"Astral Projection" (86)
Do you notice that you are not trying to listen? Check the issue, I'm sure you have some cat or dog near the house.
Oh...actually what you will listen to is full of ego trip that prevents you from listening to people and therefore you also address them in a condescending and condescending manner.
Aw... look here is an unlucky cat nobbering in a garbage can and eating leftovers, it's a shame he didn't have the courage to approach you at the castle and eat a royal meal, but he's probably afraid of ghosts.
the one who is wrong in arguments (85)
Do you notice that you repeat the same (wrong) arguments?
Oh... actually why would you notice...
Aww, look, here's a star…
"Patrick Swayze" (84)
How do you think some of the wild cats became domestic cats that are not afraid to approach food? Where did his tactics and strategy go? They were supposed to stay, weren't they? It is about a few cats who took an excessive risk, a dangerous bet, tested their luck to see if they would be able to get close to the threatening person and steal the food from him in order to survive, thanks to this bet they also became domesticated and now they are very lucky thanks to the same bet they took, are they lucky or No ? I don't see that all the cats enter the houses elegantly to eat? Because there are cats who are afraid to take a risk, are afraid to bet their lives and prefer to eat a small mouse after an exhausting chase than encounter a human.
Regarding computer software, there is no way I will write because the software will reject me...
The squint for directions (83)
Does the cat really rely on luck?
Think again.
He is testing his tactics. That is, building a strategy to get the food.
The person can calculate the chance that the cat has to get the food. not the cat
The cat itself - note - 'does not calculate the chances'.
He simply examines the environment and when he feels he can take the food - he acts.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about.
If you were to write a computer program, all you would get as feedback is ERROR
"Casper" (82)
Have you ever seen a cat trying to steal food? He knows that there is a chance that someone will catch him, so he does so with great trepidation, walking fearfully towards the food and looking to all sides in order not to be caught. Is he not trying his luck?
If luck did not play a part in the matter of survival, then the cat would take the food without any fear in the most instinctive way.
It seems to me that you asked the wrong question, try another question to refute the luck and maybe you will get lucky and succeed.
The hallucination in hallucinations (81)
And which hand exactly directs the fortunes of all the other animals in nature?
Go ahead, ask yourself: Do the other animals rely on luck at all?
You are a bit wrong, they did a survey with the richest people in the world and asked them how they became rich and they all said one thing "luck", to work hard almost everyone works but that things you touch almost always succeed is already luck or an intentional hand.
the contract
'Luck' plays a role in statistics, game theory, games of chance... But not in human life (as is commonly thought).
The people you describe - who are lucky - are generally people who mostly (or not at all) will not rely on luck,
Rather, they will work hard, study, and do things in order to succeed.
And of course part of this also involves the genes of those people. (Luck in this case can participate as part of the statistics - that is, those who have the most successful genes will be lucky).
The rest of the people - the unlucky ones (as you say) - are either not endowed with 'successful' genes, and/or neither work, nor study, and probably as a result their efforts are not successful either.
Do you know the story about five balloons? If the universe spread from a small spark, it inflates all the time, so the end is probably an explosion, "this is the end of every balloon", and according to Judaism, God created everything including everything, so what choice does a person have to worship God? After all, God also created man's thought, didn't he? The only thing that still doesn't have an explanation in evolution is the people with the huge luck that no matter what they touch or do they always succeed, and on the other hand the completely unlucky no matter what they touch or do they always fail, in both situations you can say that there is probably a deliberate hand that does it Because I don't see evolution here...people will be healthier, but unlucky or unlucky is incomprehensible.
For a contract in the stars.
When you talk about evolution as software that necessarily aims at any end, you have to admit that this is a narrow-minded statement:
A. Evolution embodies within itself development and expansion, and therefore does not necessarily drain into some particular ending.
B. Don't worry, the danger of physical and other destruction of humanity is much more likely when it comes from our hands, or from a factor of nature (and there are many of them).
third. Your comparison that man in his final state will be compared to the state of the divine being is nice, but nothing more. According to Jewish belief, man must worship God out of choice, while your analogy describes the opposite situation.
76
Thanks.
75
No.
Evolution is like a computer program that is supposed to reach a certain result in the end, today they are already starting to talk about how it will be possible to transfer consciousness to a large supercomputer, that is, as soon as this happens, only a supercomputer and consciousness will exist and then the physiological bodies will no longer exist, which means that the future human is not a body at all but A being without a body and without the image of the body (does it remind you of something?), the question arises, is our reality just the consciousness of a being without a body that created us with its thought alone? What are we a collection of actions of a large software called evolution? Does the future situation we are approaching actually point to the situation that existed from the beginning and we are only now discovering this situation because the software is about to end its operation?
Eddie:
Repeating a claim over and over does not make it true.
Your words about the imaginary number only reveal a lack of mathematical education.
The number i is no less real than any other number. Just as negative numbers were "invented" to allow a solution to equations like X + 5 = 0 and just as fractions were invented to allow a solution to equations like X * 5 = 1, so they invented the complex to allow a solution to equations like X ^ 2 = -1
These are just definitions that have been set consistently with the rest and are based on logic.
As a principle, it is customary to call a certain area of mathematics by the name "logic", but there is nothing in mathematics that does not obey the laws of logic just as there is nothing in logic that does not obey the laws of mathematics.
The complex numbers have exactly the same reality as the other numbers.
It is really funny to say that they have no reals in the world of reals. It's kind of like saying that reals don't have any reals in the world of wholes.
Knows what?
Even in the world of Disney they have no reality.
Again and again you are offered to bring up the hidden things you are basing yourself on and again and again you evade and blame others.
Write as long a text as you wish and incorporate illustrations and photos to your heart's content, upload it to your own website or Google Docs and give us a link to it.
By the way, if instead of blaming others for not picking up an unspecified glove, you would send my father an article and suggest that he publish it - it is possible (I am not a guarantor of this) that he would have done so. It already depends on the nature of the article.
For some reason you prefer not to do any of these because it is much easier to blame others.
I saw in your comments below that the issue requires processing by a professional logician.
Am I to conclude that you are trying to sell us as "logic" something that has not been processed by a professional logician?
If so - and since you do not define yourself as a professional logician - it is not at all clear to me what you are complaining about. Is it because no one has ever written on a science website logical claims that match your goals?
Ladi - what you are presenting is not deity but idols. In Judaism, God is "there is no" - "Song of praises I will lift up my eyes to the mountains from whence will my help come" (Psalms XNUMX), they are the letters "I" in which it is said "I am the Lord", and the matter of creation is from nothing. The attribution of materiality to divinity in the style of who is bigger than who is idolatrous and childish, and if there was any shred of logic in your words, then it would be impossible to move anywhere due to a large majority that fills every free cm... By the way, maybe you could refer to the source in Rambam where you claim they are found " Signs" of an ontological argument? Not that Rambam needs me as an advocate, it's just that someone else here might think you understand what you're talking about.
to R.H. - sixty nine:
It is difficult to summarize the ontological argument in Adams' version in the framework of a response, and of course this is impossible without the symbols typical of the modal language (I do not have the skill and technical tools required to type them, and there is not enough space for the material).
General regarding the ontological arguments:
Most of the arguments for the existence of an 'absolute' or a 'greater than which nothing greater' can be imagined rely on at least one empirical assumption. In contrast, the ontological argument is a purely conceptual logical argument. He tries to show that it is possible to infer the actual existence of this being by its very definition. It is an analytical and a priori argument that proceeds from conceptual premises and reaches a conclusion directly, without the mediation of any empiricism.
The first to present a complete ontological argument (actually - three versions of an ontological argument) was Anselmus, although signs of the argument are still found in Maimonides.
In a very simplified way, and in rather rough language, it is possible to present a schematic feature of an ontological argument of the type of Anselmus, as follows:
1. Let us think of the concept of something greater than which it is impossible to imagine.
2. Something that necessarily exists - greater than something that does not necessarily exist in reality.
3. Therefore, by virtue of the definition, the same thing 'that does not exist...' if it exists only in thought as an idea, and does not necessarily exist in reality, and in fact in any reality - it is possible for us in our thoughts to imagine something greater than it - something whose existence is necessary in reality, (and in fact in any reality).
4. But, according to 1, we cannot imagine anything that is greater than the same thing 'that there is no...' and therefore the possibility at the beginning of sentence 3 is ruled out.
5. Therefore, if the same thing 'which is not...' exists in thought as an idea, then it necessarily exists in reality, (actually in any reality).
6. The thing 'that there is no...' exists in thought as an idea.
7. Therefore, the thing 'that there is no...' necessarily exists in reality, (and in fact in every reality).
In a very general way, Adams' version is based on one of the versions of Anselmus's argument, which, by the way, is much more sophisticated than the popular version usually quoted in the normal literature and on the web, and far surpasses your argument, Descartes. One of its advantages is that it is also formulated in precise modal language, so that it can sharply repel the various criticisms that have been leveled in the tradition of the argument for generations, including by Kant and even Russell.
Apropos Russell: As Russell once pointed out, it is much easier to feel that something in such an argument is flawed than to say precisely what it is flawed. In fact, for many philosophers it was easy and tempting to dismiss ontological arguments - based on claims that were not always profound, since the validity of the argument, properly constructed, seems completely decisive, and is a problem for both philosophers who believe in divinity (- the concern here is for freedom of choice, or there is a fear of ambiguity or the relevance of the argument in relation to the concept of 'God') and to philosophers who deny the deity.
Besides the argument in the Anselmian configuration, there are arguments that pretend to be ontological (eg Plantinga's, Malcolm, recently). To me these arguments are flawed. There are also unique ontological arguments, such as that of the logician Gadel - a particularly complex argument that requires a large investment in order to study it.
There is no doubt in my mind that this issue is worth an article by a professional logician, who will present the argument and also Joseph's explanations and comments.
As for myself, I am ready to send material to those who would like to be interested, raw material as well as processed material that I have put together in the past for self-study needs and giving lectures as part of a certain conceptual group that I participated in years ago.
To Eddie - there cannot be a logical definition for something that is outside of logic, as I wrote to Zvika in answer 19. This does not negate the existence of an absolute being, it only negates the ability to prove it with logical tools, and nowhere have I denied the existence of an absolute being (perhaps unlike other commenters Here).
The concept of a root of a negative number makes a lot of sense when you look at a multidimensional system. It means that the root of a negative number in one plane is in another plane, and the product of the number in the other plane itself will return you the value in the original plane. I am amazed at the example you chose because it can actually be very useful for proofs of metaphysical concepts. By the way, I thought you claimed that religion unites because I thought you were a witness from response 63, sorry if I was wrong...
Lavner – 68:
As for beliefs - I didn't talk about 'beliefs'.
Each of us has beliefs, and there is no doubt that there is a connection between personal experiences, conditioning, etc., and the shaping of beliefs for religious people as well as for secular people and everyone in between.
But we are not dealing with beliefs here. The question under discussion is simple, intellectual and examined completely objectively - is there a logical argument that proves the existence of 'absolute existence'? This is the question we need to strive for a solution, without bias and without evasions and manipulations. I am amazed that people - including people who are famous for seeking the truth - often avoid it, and find ways not to encounter 'forbidden materials' of this kind related to the argument I am referring to. It reminds me of the behavior of fanatics, of the Bolshevik type or of the Naturi Karta type, it is wasteful and it is predatory.
I don't know where you get that I supposedly claimed that 'religion unites'. You are probably confusing another commenter.
The same goes for the claim about the fear of 'looking into the truth with the eyes'.
I think that those who do not even want to meet - let alone deal - with materials that do not agree with their faith - should be directed to him. As for myself, my entire presence on this website, mainly as a reader but also as a commenter at times - shows that I am not one of those who are afraid of the truth. And who said that your truth is necessarily better than mine?
As for the negative number - I was talking about the logic, not the realism and the use of the number in mathematics and physics. Logically, this is a concept that contains an internal contradiction. But this does not negate the value of the relative truth of the number in the various contexts and applications in mathematics and physics - after all, this is exactly my claim: there is no identity between mathematics and logic, certainly not between physical theories, sometimes quite speculative - and logic.
Eddie,
Perhaps you could summarize Adams' argument or point to an online source for the benefit of those who don't have access to the book?
To Eddie, a believer bases his knowledge on an inner experience, and everything else is a cover designed to justify this experience. It's a waste of your energy - and I say this without trying to disprove the basis of your feeling, I just recommend that you think about whether religion is indeed unifying as you claim, because if you really are a person of faith then you should not be afraid to look the truth in the eyes. Besides, the root of a negative number is not an invention, it describes a very natural and natural property of the physical and mathematical space, as every first year physics student knows.
L - 66:
As for 'submitting' material - we did not get to that. I threw down the gauntlet in the posts - but there was no one to pick it up in the website system. Honestly, I didn't expect more.
As for Adams' modal argument - for your convenience, you can find it, and in Hebrew, in the book 'A Selection of Philosophical Texts, from Parmenides to Contemporary Thinkers'/Volume 158/Magnes Publishing, in the article 'The Logical Structure of Anselm's Arguments' pp. 178-XNUMX. Read, enjoy and if If you want - we can discuss this material.
Regarding the relationship between logic and mathematics:
I want to return to my basic argument again. There is no equivalence between logic and mathematics: either the inclusion is one-sided (a circle within a circle), or partial (overlap of the type of two concentric circles that overlap in a certain section). These are two different fields, and different fields of opinion. And it is a fact that each of them develops its own language and 'ontologies' which are not necessarily the same (from the point of view of logic it is actually one ontology). Mathematics uses logical rules, but it also creates/invents its own independent concepts, and defines ontological worlds and unique connections, unrelated to logic, in certain sections, although it builds a structure on them that is logical. Mathematics is not the same as logic.
Mathematics can resort to fictions, even ontological ones, which do not fit with pure logic; And she is allowed - she is math, not logic.
A simple example: 1 – =i2. The square root of minus one is an 'invention' - a concept that, in terms of real numbers, contradicts itself; Since the square of any real number is positive, minus one (which is a negative number) has no root in the real number field. In practice, it is true that the non-real number, i, when combined with the real numbers, its connections with other members - are logical. Of course, there are also logical connections between him and other composite members in the composite world. But to begin with, in terms of the algebra of the real numbers this number is a logical 'jump'. It is indeed 'realistic' but only in the composite world, not in the real world. It serves as a very useful tool in many problems in mathematics and physics that are more convenient to describe and solve with the help of complex numbers, but it does not have a presence, and cannot have a presence - in the final result of the actual physical or mathematical problem. Although in his world - he is logically the legitimate son, in relation to the real world he is a kind of useful 'hint', and from the point of view of the real world he contains an internal logical contradiction. Mathematics will give this number maximum recognition, but logic will recognize it only as context-dependent recognition.
Eddie:
Mathematics never uses tools that contradict logic and logic and mathematics are the same - whether you admit it or not.
I don't remember that you submitted any material that the site did not want to publish.
I don't think it happened.
Not even for the article and certainly not for the comment.
I think you are evasive.
There is (but there really isn't!) any material that cannot be uploaded to the Internet.
Some sites even tolerate swearing and blasphemy.
There are sites whose entire business is lies.
There are websites encouraging a third intifada.
There are websites that teach how to carry out attacks.
There isn't - and it's impossible to set up - a website that deals with Adams' specific ontological proof? What is so terrible about it compared to that of Anselm which is found in every hole?
L - 40:
Is there any equivalence here since the inclusion is one-sided, or at most (and this is in cases where mathematics uses tools that contradict logic - ) an overlap of the type of two (unequal) concentric circles that overlap in a certain section - this is the situation with logic (in the large circle) and mathematics (in the small circle) ).
I didn't understand why you were accusing me of a 'conspiracy'. The claim regarding the internet is simple: whoever wants to testify - he must not be satisfied with only internet materials.
As for publishing the material - I guess you remember that I previously offered to publish relevant material on this website, and I was met with thunderous silence that had only one meaning: not with us!
It turns out that this website is not the only one that prefers to ignore materials that may challenge him intellectually (and in this case - also in terms of intellectual integrity, in general) and undermine his fortified confidence in his sacred beliefs.
jewel:
You seem to me to be a person capable of introspection and therefore I would like you to try to share with us what makes you believe in the existence of that entity.
This cannot be an explanation for something because it is possible to explain something - only through simpler things and the formation of a being that is capable of creating a world (and why it would do so) is a much less simple thing than the formation of the world.
So if this explanation is not - what is it?
Just curious and you really don't have to answer, but I'd appreciate it if you did.
I don't know if there is a God or if there isn't one and science has never disproved or is able to disprove his existence because there will always be the claim that he was before everything we discovered.
Let's say the Big Bang, then the question arises, what was before? Same as before.
I'm really not a big believer in religions, I love religion only because of the tradition that unites us into one family.
Personally, I believe in some entity that created everything that always existed and is there, but I doubt that it cares that much about us...humans are a kind of failed experiment :).
I don't think Hawking's sentence is true, not because I think he's less smart than me (which he clearly isn't) simply because of the simple fact that we don't really know anything. Most of modern physics is based on theories, some of which have been substantiated and some of which have been dismissed as false.
To come with such arrogance and say it doesn't exist, as far as I'm concerned, is like the kind neighborhood rabbi who says it's like that because it's written in the Torah.
(Obviously it's not exactly equivalent to each other although Hawking's substantiation will also be based on theories again).
Well, it seems to us that we got it.
point:
You're just tiring.
I have no doubt that if you want to understand what I wrote - you will succeed.
The fact that you didn't understand is because you don't want to understand.
R.H
Before you jump and rant, you should find out if you understood what I wrote.
Everything you wrote (58) is basically a repetition of the last line I wrote in response 57 (which was actually a reinforcement of Machal's words from the previous response).
Besides I'm not surprised you agree with the absurdity of a point.
And yes, what to do, I can't and don't want to understand stupid things. It's probably easier for you.
point
"Other thinking that is not logical (habit, intuition, understanding, insight, etc., etc.) is fundamentally illogical."
- 'Understanding' is not logical thinking? If we ignore the parentheses you wrote - then the sentence you wrote is tautological.
"There is nothing preventing a person from thinking one thing and its opposite at the same time."
- prove it!
"Suffice it to say that in evidence we see one thing and its opposite, for example we see both blue and yellow in the same picture."
– You don't see both blue and yellow (at the same time). Except that blue is not the opposite of yellow. Red, green and blue are the three basic colors that make up all the shades of colors that exist in the spectrum of human vision.
What your brain emits is the combination of the color blue and the color yellow.
"And more, at the same time we both see and hear (hearing is included in the group of everything that is "not evidence" Hoi means a logical contradiction)"
– You don't see and hear at the same time. The brain processes the signals of sound and color at the same time but in two different places in the brain, and then produces the output that your conscious mind interprets in all kinds of ways.
"In general, our whole mind does not obey the laws of logic."
– It's probably just the poor soul of people like you.
In general, your entire response is unfounded.
Mathematical thinking does derive from logical thinking, but this is irrelevant, because just as there are Newton's equations, the rest of the equations are not Newton's equations, therefore it is not relevant.
Other thinking that is illogical (habit, intuition, understanding, insight, etc., etc.) is fundamentally illogical. There is nothing preventing a person from thinking one thing and its opposite at the same time. Suffice it to say that in evidence we see one thing and its opposite, for example we see both blue and yellow in the same picture. Furthermore, at the same time we both see and hear (hearing is included in the group of everything that is "not evidence" which means a logical contradiction) in general our whole mind does not obey the laws of logic.
healers,
Before you jump and get mad, find out if you correctly understood the writer's intention because I have a slight suspicion that you didn't exactly understand the intention of a point.
point,
Indeed, a cat that jumps or a chameleon that sticks out its tongue and catches an insect in the air know and use Newton's laws, albeit intuitively. Of course, they do not know that Newton formulated them or the mathematics involved in them, but their brain performs a calculation in a way that is not at all clear that the results correspond to what Newton formulated as his laws. Both forms of calculation, the mathematical (Newton) and the intuitive thoughts are ultimately based on observation and logical understanding of the same nature.
point
You are so stupid, I don't even know where to begin to explain to you..
Are you paying attention to what you write? I think you don't notice. This is evident by the fact that you write nonsensical things.
For example (and you don't have to go far - the last words you wrote still make no sense):
"Logic does not impose anything on the law, it is the law that dictates the logic of the law. For example, there may be a situation where we would also find that "stone->waves", "not waves"->"2 stones that cancel each other's waves". Everything is determined by what happens (from the law) and not from logic."
You are delusional.
If Schrödinger's cat saw you he would probably jump on you and scratch you because you are so stupid.
And yes, cats are not aware of Newton's laws, but they do follow them when they jump.
Regarding the fact that logic is common to humans, several things can be said
1) Humans do not have the same "logic", we call "logic" what is shared in the way of thinking between people, other things that are not shared are not called logic, but we call them creativity, intuition, etc. There is no shortage of names.
2) It can be assumed that the child must learn the same logic because this is how the brain is built, that he will have to learn it from the environment, how? Perhaps by conservation laws that the brain separates from all the noise it receives from the environment.
What I am saying is that if, for example, the child's learning was based on dreams only, he would not have reached a logical thinking concept.
3) Regarding the even waves, we formulate the laws in such a way that we have examined them from all directions, that is, after we have seen that when there is X there is Y and when there is no X there is no Y, not from logical considerations, but from considerations of defining a law that should include all situations. Logic does not impose anything on the law, it is the law that dictates the logic of the law. For example, there may be a situation where we would also find that "stone->waves", "not waves"->"2 stones that cancel each other's waves". Everything is determined by what happens (from the law) and not from logic.
As for the cat knowing logic, it's kind of like saying the cat knows Newton's laws and the law of gravitation because it knows how to move and jump.
point:
You did not understand.
First of all - regarding the cat - he does know the rules of logic.
He is not aware of them or aware of them, but he knows them - up to a certain limit.
For example - animals even know how to do simple math (in the area of numbers from 0 to 3 or 4 - just like babies).
They know how to do these calculations even with objects they have never seen - whether they are dolls or dolls - that is - there is an abstract calculation here - this is logic.
How is it, by the way, that among humans there is agreement on the laws of logic? Why do you think they evolved in such a way that everyone would have the same logic?
You did learn the matter of the law stone => waves from experience, but you make the decision "there are no waves" => "there is no stone" using the laws of logic.
It was not for nothing that I used the expression "Let's place" these and other laws in place A and place B.
Logic does not provide us with the laws we have set but a way to draw conclusions from them.
It seems to me that this should have been completely clear from my previous comments.
In the world there is such a thing that there is no such thing.
If someone were to tell you that they just saw a rock fall into the pool and you see that the surface of the water is calm - conclude that there is no such thing as a rock just fell into the pool and instead there is such a thing that someone is lying or hallucinating.
Michael, don't worry, I won't perish. I know the laws of logic. And if not, I would survive. Even a cat does not know the laws of logic. Even ask Schrödinger's cat, he doesn't understand what they want from him and why they are trying to poison him, what has he done wrong to someone, just because he is a cat?
And for the matter itself, the physical law that causes "stone -> waves" we didn't learn it just like that, rather, we learned it precisely by seeing that when there are no waves we don't throw a stone, and that's why we formulated this law. That is, this law does not derive from the laws of logic, but rather from the observation we made.
That's why they also use a different language, in logic we talk about A causing B. In physics we talk about A being the cause of B. In logic it is possible to arbitrarily decide that A does not cause B. There is no such thing in the universe either, the universe has laws.
I will give a more suitable example for what you are trying to do here, one of the basic laws of logic is the law of identity, that a thing is identical only to itself. In classical physics we thought it was true and that it pertains to our universe, but a priori there is no reason to assume that our universe behaves this way, it's just a habit and the way we perceive the world. And here came the quantum mechanics and showed that it really is not so, a particle is not identical only to itself.
And another important point, in logic you can define A and you can define "not A", in physics on the other hand
There is no such thing. There is no such thing. What is there is, and what is not is gone. That is, if A exists, then there is no non-A, and therefore logic cannot apply to reality.
point:
Let me elaborate a little on Rafaim's answer.
The logic says, for example, that if A leads to B, then from "not B" it follows that "not A".
Now, let's place in A and B claims about the world.
Let's say A is "a stone just fell into a blessing" and let's say B is "concentric waves are welcome".
It is a well-known law in our world that with A and B, A leads to B.
You can disprove the laws of logic if you see a situation where there are no welcome waves and yet at the moment a stone has fallen into it.
After all - the existence of the laws of logic in our world - and in such a distinct way - is exactly the reason why these laws were already enacted in our minds by evolution and we did not have to wait for institutionalized science to discover them.
Any creature that did not accept the laws of logic at least intuitively simply became extinct!
You should be careful!
First of all, define what your spirit laws are.
But take a simple logical OR law formulated by 0 and 1 when in three cases the result will be 1 and only zero or zero will give 0. What's the problem? Check if the universe behaves like this:
Do the following experiment -
Nothing or nothing = nothing
Nothing or some kind of object (HK) = HK
Any object or nothing = MK
MK or MK = MK
Is there a problem performing the above experiment? Take an object, put it on the table and it will be there. Take two objects, you will never have an object. If you have nothing then an object will not be created out of nothing. If you manage to show a creation out of nothing of any object, you will contradict the rules and have to change them. Sounds trivial and silly but forms the basis of all our thinking.
That is, the visible universe works according to the laws of our logic, and not by chance, because according to the universe we defined the above laws. In quantum mechanics, things change a bit and therefore paradoxes are created and it is so interesting.
The root of the problem..
You are just funny. point.
In the same way, the universe behaves beautifully according to the laws of ghosts. It is simply not possible to do an experiment that would contradict the laws of ghosts because there is no object in the universe to which the laws of ghosts apply.
point,
You are right, there are no laws of logic in the universe, but the universe behaves very nicely according to the laws of logic. Is that okay with you?
There are no laws of logic in the universe, therefore it is not possible to formulate an experiment that would contradict them.
There is no particle that is an object on which the laws of logic operate.
And in relation to the electrical circuit - instead of explaining to us how an engineer would design it - just show us its design (but please - do not use logic to arrive at the design or to explain why it works).
point:
The laws of logic apply in our world and even more than the laws of physics.
They stood all the physical tests far more convincingly than any physical theory.
Can you present any experiment that disproves them?
It is not a coincidence that the laws of physics are described by us through mathematics (which is the same as logic) and this would not be possible if logic was not correct in our world.
Michael The laws of logic do not apply in our world.
The only laws are the laws of physics.
And the proof of this is exactly from the riddle you brought. An engineer knows that components of "logic gates" are physical objects that only obey the laws of physics, but engineers have built them in such a way that certain aspects of them (input voltage, output voltage) will behave in the same limited logical ways. Then he will use De Morgan's rules...
point:
I didn't comment on your talking about (what you claim to be) a hallucination but on substantiating your claim on it. I hope you understand the difference.
There is no problem with the attitude of the logicians towards reality and the only problem is with your attitude towards logic.
All the laws of logic apply in our world and what you throw at them as an argument is precisely the great power of logic that allows it to deal with - both imaginary worlds and the existing world (this is important because sometimes - our thinking about what is in the existing world is nothing but a mistake that stems from our imagination).
But we'll see you build the electrical circuit I suggested.
Michael, I can also talk about God even though it is a religious delusion. There is no contradiction in that. All humans are ultimately delusional. There are shared hallucinations and there are more private hallucinations. I can imagine that a person who has hallucinated that God was incarnated in the form of Jesus, will go and seek out others with a similar delusion so that he will feel in good company. That's how the business works. That's why there are faculties in universities, it's just that humans feel comfortable when they hallucinate together.
It is important to emphasize, there is nothing wrong with hallucination, the great rationalist, Einstein, also spoke about the importance of imagination (not far from the concept of hallucination, although I mean something else).
My problem with logicians specifically is that they think that when they say "possible world" they mean something. As if their "world" is somehow related to the ordinary world (the ordinary use of the word world in language is what we mean by shared reality). Or for example, when they say "Socrates was Greek" they are imagining that they are saying something logical, but they are actually mixing something from the real world (Socrates, Greece). Hence the remaining confusion and delusion they create for themselves and us.
point:
tell me please:
How do you allow yourself to base your words on Godel's incompleteness theorem when it is nothing more than a logician's hallucination?
And now a riddle for engineers - especially for those who have no idea about logic:
Given two NOT gates and an unlimited number of OR gates and AND gates.
We designed a circuit that functions as three NOT gates - that is - receives three binary inputs that we will call A, B, C and returns respectively Not A, Not B, Not C
Please note: what is given is all there is. There is, for example, no preset input of 1 or anything else. Just the gates I described, electrical wires and solder.
Michael, I'm not a provocateur, I just like to say things contrary to what you say, and I emphasize the contrast. It's like a provocateur but not exactly, because I say the right things. Even if in other places I say things that seem the opposite, in that context it was true.
Eddie, first of all stop referring to numbers. Pay attention to the names. Then add the number. Do you think anyone remembers what his message number was? Be realistic.
As for what you claim I am claiming, a delusion is a delusion, no matter how much that person has contributed to humanity. It is well known and famous that every idea of calculating machines came from logicians. But engineers built them (a logician can also be an engineer, but it is his engineering side that can create something real, not the logical side).
In short, just as the philosophy of science tries to describe how science progresses, so logic tries to describe how thinking works. And these and those are wrong. Although they sound very nice and logical, they are simply not true.
Human thinking is not based on logic, it is also related to imperfection, and also related to the fact that thinking is a mental process that is extremely complex, and certainly cannot be described by a number of boring laws.
Eddie:
When X contains Y and Y contains X then X and Y are identical.
This is the case with logic and mathematics.
In other words - the whole can be presented as a part and therefore a part can contain the whole.
Instead of sending me material about something - publish it here on the site.
The Internet tolerates everything and the biggest nonsense has already received publication on it. It is not clear to me why you think there is a worldwide conspiracy against the things you believe in.
interested:
There are no basic assumptions in science other than these:
1. The logic works
2. The input of our senses is related to the reality external to us.
These are completely logical assumptions that every sane person accepts (the truth is that even the religious accept them, only that they deliberately ignore the contradictions that arise when they adopt, in addition to these, other fundamental assumptions plucked from the fingers of people who lived thousands of years ago).
If these are the assumptions that you "blame" Amnon Carmel for accepting, then I praise him for accepting them.
I did not find faith without Egypt in these or other scientific theories.
Besides - as I said - there are indeed people who believe in all kinds of things because of their psychological structure.
These people would rather believe the scientific theories than the others.
In short - I don't know what's bothering you.
L - 35:
The part cannot contain the whole.
For 36:
I am not surprised that Adams' argument is not found online. The internet still suffers from the flattening of knowledge, and in a reality where the network and what is found in it are so dominant in the construction of knowledge - the results are clearly visible in the level of students in the Education Department, knowledge in general and the ability to deepen understanding. Anyway, if you want - I can send material about Adams and Anselmus. The umbrella is not mathematical, but ontological and logical. Therefore, the fact that this or that mathematician does not accept any argument is no more decisive than if it were any other skill that is not a skill in the relevant field, no matter how respectable it may be.
Michael
The article I'm quoting from was actually written over a decade ago.
Regarding philosophers, I quite agree, I remember a speech by Richard Dawkins in which he praised Daniel Dent for being a philosopher who not only sat and wrote things but also got involved and was interested in scientific fields.
I don't know Amnon Carmel, but from reading his blog I can conclude that he is an exemplary person who turned the basic assumptions of science into an unquestionable absolute truth (like religious belief). He is of course just one example, there are many more people like him.
By the way - I have not heard of Adams' ontological argument, nor have I found any information about it on Wikipedia.
There is an argument by Anselm that lacks any logic and is not accepted by any mathematician, but I don't know if you mean it.
Eddie:
Logic - including the logic - is part of mathematics.
There is no other logic.
L - 32:
1. I didn't talk about mathematical proofs. I was talking about logical arguments. Logical arguments may be presented in abstraction (in precise, "modal" symbol language) or rather in mathematical language. The applicability of the modal language covers a much wider range of meanings than the mathematical language, infinite in fact.
2. Gadel presented his argument to various people, acted as if he trusted it to be true, and we never heard that he retracted it. You can find Gedel's argument (and even in more than one version) on the Internet (in English, also on university philosophical websites) easily. I have personal material on this argument.
3. Adams' modal argument is in my view the best, and I have not heard anyone succeed in debunking it since it was created over forty years ago.
L - 31:
Logic is the basis for all mathematical or scientific thinking, and in fact for all systematic thinking and meaningful rational language. Whoever disbelieves in the validity of logic is a nihilistic postmodernist, and it is difficult to argue with him, and in fact - there is nothing to argue about and there is no need to argue. I do not believe that your stated denial of logic actually exists in you, and I assume that what you are attacking is only certain logical materials. If this is the case, I highly recommend studying the topic in depth first. Only then will it be possible to discuss it.
L - 33:
You must have noticed that I did not want to refer to the above book as any kind of authority.
However, I believe that the language you used is inappropriate and disrespectful. And take into account that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to present an ontological argument (and even in a simple and simplistic way like Descartes') in a popular essay. By the way, Descartes was also a mathematician, and his achievements in the field fell far short of that of Anselmus. And in general, high mathematical knowledge or ability is not a necessary condition for high-level logical thinking and creativity, although it may certainly help. Mathematics is a wonderful and useful thing, but it is still 'just' mathematics.
incidentally:
"Scientific logical missile" is a clear example of the pure garbage that comes out from under the hand of "logicians" who do not come from the field of science and mathematics.
Eddie:
There is no proof of God's existence that is accepted by mathematicians as true.
Indeed - all these proofs are hallucinations.
By the way, to the best of my knowledge, although Gadel tried to prove the existence of God - he never claimed that he succeeded (perhaps I'm wrong and I'd be happy if conflicting evidence was presented to me).
point:
You are just a provocateur.
The logicians are engaged in one of the most difficult areas of mathematics and there is not even an iota of hallucination in their occupation.
By the way - Shahron Shelah - one of the best logicians in the world - was a programmer in the IDF in his youth.
In this framework, he developed, among other things, the first ever report generator that allowed non-programmers to use a computer. The first job I got when I joined that unit was the maintenance of that report generator and believe me - a significant part of my professional education was acquired by reading the code that Aaron sent.
Eddie, yes, my perception is that logicians are generally delusional. Logicians have no reference to reality, but only to inner thoughts. Delusional = one who thinks that the things he thinks about also exist in reality. And therefore logicians are delusional.
There is really no sobriety in this sense. Maybe sobriety is realizing that we don't know. But it is easy to agree that the thing that is most common to everyone and that imposes on us a sense of right and wrong is reality, and hence, scientific thinking. The same thinking that managed to lead to predictions of particles and results of measurements long before discoveries.
L - 14:
Regardless of Yuval Steinitz's book (intended for laymen and beginners) - why do you think these are 'hallucinations'?
Is Frega 'delusional'?
Is Gadel (who also wrote a logical proof in the field) delusional?
Is Adams' ontological proof (in the modal format) a delusion?
Is logic an illusion?
If this is a hallucination - what is sobriety?
"...a very general and vague explanation of a spontaneous creation..."
Indeed, this can be believed. This is 'science'...
And by the way, one point, logicians is not a derogatory word and logicians are not bored.
Logic is an important branch of mathematics - a branch that also gave rise to far-reaching philosophical conclusions (such as Gadel's incompleteness theorem) and even led to solutions in "normal" mathematics to problems that no one knew how to solve before.
A very interesting theory, I've read a lot about it, it can be said that if we stopped believing in a God that doesn't exist and in stupid fights over lands and holy places that are still in abundance and focus mainly on science and technology, we would probably already be in the middle of the settlement of Mars, on the way to more stars and other systems, but unfortunately humans are so despicable that instead of using the brain to speed up science and raise the standard and life expectancy and enjoy life all the time, they engage in meaningless philosophical questions about the Bible. As we learned there is no God and the holocaust was proof of that if we were a chosen people a million Jewish children of the virtuous people would not be led like sheep to the slaughter. Remember that these zealots for God here are not so far from our brothers in Iran, Gaza and other Islamic countries, even there all the bloodshed revolves around that one God who does not exist.
Food for thought and personal information only, the believers among us please do not attack and only read
point:
I don't mix.
The scientists also deal with the philosophy of science and the fact that there are others who deal with it and some of them don't understand right and left doesn't change that.
Michael, you are confusing.
I also argue that the scientists are the true natural philosophers, the ones who investigate the truth.
And all the bored philosophers and logicians who no longer have anything left to do in the faculties of mood sciences are starting to invent a philosophy of science because they like to feel superior.
interested:
In over a decade I haven't heard a single person say philosophy in the Fa Dagosha.
Modern science will not bury itself because of disdain for philosophy because scientists do not disdain philosophy.
Point likes to say provocative things and I have already read his comments in various discussions that claim the opposite of what he claimed in other discussions - all for the sake of noise.
So now he even claimed that physicists do not use mathematics. so he said Will it change reality? Even the fact that he himself knows it's not true won't change it.
Where did you get the claim that Amnon Carmel disdains the philosophy of science?
Don't get me wrong - there are types of philosophy that I also despise.
In my opinion, the real serious philosophers are actually the scientists and most of the others just carry the title and blaspheme the name of the word.
This is the source of the claim that to be a mathematician you need a pen, paper and a trash can while to be a philosopher a pen and paper will suffice.
Besides, you/your quoted use a lot of words to say very little and I don't have the strength to allow the whole floundering.
What is clear is that science will not become the faith of the scientists. There is simply no such danger.
As for other people? - There are among them who are forced to believe all kinds of things and this is probably impossible to prevent. These people - it is better that they believe in scientific theories than that they believe in new age theories or religious theories.
What a genius idiot this is, reminds me of Lord Calvin who puffed up and spewed embarrassing nonsense. Who is this twisted cop who limits the insop anyway, what does he know about what he doesn't know or is there anything he doesn't know. Who will even remember this tadpole in ten thousand years, what will we know about existence then, will there even then be all kinds of geniuses who will tell us what is not
20
Science cannot become faith or religion.
Science is a method. A method for discovering the truth about the world. A method for finding the way to see reality without glasses (pink, black, blue or any other color). A method to discover the truth about reality as it is and not as it is explained by religious priests.
Anyone who is not a scientist or does not understand the scientific way, will not be able to see reality from the scientific aspect.
All that is left for that one to do is to believe others who do not advocate science.
And in such a situation, such people will not see the world in the right way, but will see the world in a distorted way.
On the one hand, their right. Everyone in his faith will live.
On the other hand, those who believe in another, harm those who advocate science (for example, Islam demands that all unbelievers in their faith be killed).
Physicists do not use mathematics in the purest sense, as mathematicians perceive them. Physicists use mathematics as a tool, for convenience. Sometimes physicists will perform mathematically forbidden operations just because it gives them what they want.
That's fine, that's how scientists work.
Science is based on the thinking of a small child. A small child will always ask "why?" For everything (there is this advertisement: because we are here (for you) to make money for your parents 🙂 ) the child doubts and tries to understand and the parents for their part try to work on the child by applying manipulations. (which are of the religious type)
I actually think that they are not that rare, look at "Punk" and also at Amnon Carmel.
The author claims in the comments to the article and I completely agree with him (sorry that apart from quoting him I don't write anything"
"But I see that you indirectly reached one of the points from the original article. I claim that it is the scientist's duty to know the philosophy of science and to be aware of its implications on what is "scientific" and what is not. The disdain that pervades our places in philosophy (philosophy in Pa Dagosha) can become a quagmire in which modern science will bury itself following flightless technocratic scientists but not bad rhetoricians. Therefore, it is not possible for the building (science) to exist without its foundations (the philosophy of science), which give it a basis and validity"
"no problem,
Bacon and Copernicus broke the Aristotelianism that assumes a purpose (teleology), Berkeley claimed that there is no substance and everything is an illusion, Descartes showed that the only thing we are sure of is that we exist. Yom showed that causality is a dubious relationship, then Kant came and made some order, followed by the flowering of modern science. From here to "evolutionary roots of beliefs" the distance is long.
The difference is that science, unlike religion, does not define a moral theory (which is the core of every religion I know of at least). The "beliefs" of science, also known as "basic assumptions" or "axioms" or "presuppositions" are necessary to define laws of nature for example, and they will have the advantage that they agree with experience (as opposed to belief in God which does not arise from experience). Some of those "beliefs" are clearly unfounded, for example the assumption that nature repeats itself (what has been will be) which is clearly incorrect - you cannot dip in the same river twice (even I, at the age of 7, realized that I cannot step on the same step again). However, for practical purposes those "beliefs" are useful - the computer I am writing this comment on would not exist without them. My car would not be built and rather drive without them.
We can conclude that Dov's idea is "somewhat true". Evolutionary roots? A picturesque idea but not suitable for the formulation of the synthetic theory of evolution. Beliefs? Not exactly, faith does not come from experience, the basic assumptions - yes. But the distance between faith and science is great - and it must be maintained, as I emphasized in the first point of my comments to Prof. Yuval's speech, *so that* science does not become faith. "
To the point - for your reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
And then read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism
and- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the scientist is a person who believes that it is forbidden to believe, and hence what motivates him is his belief? According to this method, faith is necessary and science is not possible, but it is not what we see with the eye, on the contrary, science is constantly advancing by refuting scientific methods. Your mistake is that you attribute totality to people here or there, but it's very simple - on certain issues we are driven by logic and on certain issues we are not.
Larnon - The Torah does not disprove the idols, rather it asserts that the human experience of multiple idols in the early days of civilization stems from a single personality that humans experienced in different guises. Incidentally, this is also the claim at the foundation of Freudian psychology. The Torah also claims (and Freudian psychology has no longer adopted this (: )) that the above-mentioned personality created the world and continues to interfere in its management, and that the demand from humanity (except the Jews) is to be atheist and not to believe in anything, only to behave logically and manage the world out of social decency. The ideal of the Torah for the Jew is a direct prophetic connection to the Creator of the world, and the Jewish religious hierarchy is a kind of necessary and temporary evil that gradually fades away until the Jew reaches the proper spiritual level. The religious ramifications that continued from here in other religions and to some extent returned and permeated Judaism do not concern the Torah but the need for humans to be controlled .
Lezvika - it is impossible to prove a claim that claims to be above all proof, what is so complicated here.
point:
It's rattling.
First of all - do think about it.
Secondly - the fact that you think about it because it makes sense is not an argument at all because you will soon tell me that you don't use mathematics either because the mathematical operations are logical and they are performed only for that reason.
Michael, everyone quotes it because it's interesting. No working scientist thinks of philosophies when he comes to conduct an experiment. He thinks according to common sense. And if one or another philosophy describes what goes through the scientist's mind when he comes to conduct an experiment that is scientifically meaningless, equally scientific work can be described in terms of burning calories in the scientist's mind.
Tzvika and others,
I don't really have a point of view in Kabbalah, but it is very arrogant and a bit stupid to look at all the other religions that are blessed and think that they are all "idol worshipers" and only you are at the top of Olympus. I agree that the Jewish religion is "superior" to most other religions (the test of the result) but note that if you agree that God is only a symbolic figure, a kind of white lie that is the basis of the religion, it is still possible to maintain the Jewish religion without any changes.
It is clear to me that the Kabbalah and the other Jewish books of wisdom were written by very educated people, some of them were really geniuses, but this is not proof of the existence of God or heaven, etc. Mature people should understand the purpose of religion which is entirely positive (creating a better society) and not accept every word as it is. All in all, hell is the more sophisticated version of "don't eat everything, a policeman will come". The human mind always grasps the answers to everything and summing it all up that "it's God" is much more convenient than researching and sometimes saying "I don't know".
Contrary to the point, I think that the philosophy of science is a very important thing - and not only for the sake of practicing science.
Scientific research is definitely based on the philosophy of science and it is not for nothing that everyone cites the principle of confirmation and refutation and the absence of evidence - all of this belongs to the field of philosophy of science.
Yuval Steinitz's book is indeed based on hallucinations - but not of logicians but of logicians.
I recommend it only to anthropologists and psychologists who are interested in investigating how far a person is willing to distort logic to justify a predetermined goal.
Yuval Steinitz's books are good books and definitely recommended reading for any beginning philosopher.
Frege himself wrote a proof of the existence of God... everything is based on the ontological proof (=delusions of logicians).
Science is not based on the philosophy of science, science is based on scientists, i.e. honest and reliable people whose goal is to know the truth.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on an innocent public (most people) who are easy to manipulate.
He was a philosopher at Haifa University. The truth is, I tried to read the book and I couldn't find the hands and feet, either I don't like raw philosophy or there is nothing in it except meaningless and unrelated word combinations.
Dr. Yuval Steinitz? Minister of Finance?? wrote a book? On scientific proof of the existence of God???
Yes.
Indeed, a reliable source.
It is better that he cancels the excise tax, or lowers fuel prices, than that he writes a book like this.
Just someone who is interested:
1. Whoever wrote this does not understand what religion is.
2. Surreal people like the ones he describes are extremely rare. In general - what is "throwing all their gold on science"? Do they eat science? Are they having sex with science? Explain, detail and reason (and in every explanation - detail the alternatives they miss).
3. If Yuval Steinitz's book is considered by the writer of this text to be a wise book, then everything is clear.
http://www.haayal.co.il/story?id=296
"There are people nowadays who have converted their religion. They are no longer Jews or Christians or even atheists - they believe in science, which is a main extension of reason. The religion of science gives confidence in scientific research and its engineering-technological results. The religious priests - the scientists conduct the ceremonies - rites of passage (baccalaureate, first degree, second and third), holidays (also known as annual conferences), holy scriptures (articles and publications) and even legends (science fiction). No, I did not become a postmodernist, nor did the entire scientific world become haunted by its own demons. However, there are those who throw all their gold on science while ignoring the foundation that gives it foundations - the philosophy of science. A rough dichotomy for identifying those exemplarists is the litmus test of pronouncing the word philosophy in an emphatic manner, in a kind of disdain for the seemingly empty talk. Those people do not ask themselves the questions raised by Dr. Yuval Steinitz in his book "A Scientific Logical Missile to God and Back" such as "Where are the laws of nature written?" How are they enforced?". Those same people ignore the basic assumptions necessary for modern science after they have made them unquestionable truths. And now, what differentiates between belief in "what was is what will be" necessary for determining the laws of nature and belief in a watchful and intervening God?"
Hanan, you would like to turn your enemies into your own kind so that you can smash into them. But it is not so, science itself has an anti-religious concept by its very definition. It is clear that there are people who do not behave according to the scientific criteria (indeed there are some, religiosity and the religious need is a universal human problem) but we will not identify it with science in this matter.
The question is fundamentally, will that one when presented with reasonable proof that his perception is based on irrational beliefs, will he accept the fact that he is wrong, or will he reject the facts for his theories.
By the way, Hanan:
To your first question - although you did not give any successful examples, the answer is actually positive and successful examples of this are Nazism and Communism.
Zvika:
a few questions:
How did you conclude that Aaron doesn't know anything about the Kabbalah?
I'm willing to bet that you know nothing about what Arnon knows and what he doesn't know, but you still allow yourself to criticize him.
Do you really need to know in depth everything that is rejected?
of course not.
I'm not talking about the cases that are invalid - like your unfounded disqualification of Arnon's opinion. I'm talking about more logical cases - like Arnon's rejection of the Kabbalah or like the rejection that the US Patent Office rejects every patent that claims a leading perpetuum invention.
There are things we know enough to dismiss even if we don't know them.
If, for example, I tell you that I can guess your future based on guesses on the bottom of the last camel you passed by - I assume you will reject my claim without checking.
Hanan:
You ask: "Aren't there some who have turned, for example, science itself into a religion?"
The answer is, of course, no, as you have probably already read here.
An essential element of religion are rules of conduct. This is such an essential element that the word "religion" was chosen because of it, which is a Persian word meaning "law".
The other examples you give are not religions either.
True - their friends also believe in something, but contrary to your beliefs - these beliefs are based on logic.
In any case, this is not a religion and rest your mind - even the superstitious belief in the existence of aliens is not a religion.
I wonder - aren't there those who call themselves secular/heretics, etc., who do everything to abandon religions but adopt new religions for them or turn a field into a religion?
Aren't there those who have, for example, turned science itself into a religion? Is it not possible to identify among different communities - for example the scientific community itself, a behavior reminiscent of a religious cult: a charismatic leader, a herd of blind believers who say Amen after everything said by the "leadership" without checking anything or half a thing and of course no one dares to challenge Determining the leadership…
In my opinion, there are those who turn different communities into a religion, and all this instead of the classic religious belief. Many of those who boast of the title of enlightenment and scientists are nothing more than religious fanatics, whose behavior and actions are no different from the behavior of every sect and religion in the world.
Take for example the SETI organization and its supporters. In my opinion, this organization is a classic example of the behavior of a sect/religion. Charismatic leadership whose assertions are not disputed by anyone (Seth Shostak for example) and a flock of fools who say Amen after all the ideas raised in the organization, without daring to challenge assertions, arguments and central ideas.
Zvika,
Before you decided that other myths are not true, did you also study them about Borim? If I ask you about African bamboo mythology or Sumerian religion or Hindu or Tamil or Buddhist or Aboriginal myths or any of the thousands of other myths that mankind believes or has believed in in the past, will you demonstrate the same level of knowledge that you have in Kabbalah?
According to your logic, even in order to form an opinion about the existence of fairies, it is also appropriate to study all the mythology surrounding them.
Indeed, before criticizing, it is advisable to teach the subject under review, although if the subject is deprived of any evidence, goes against the laws of nature known to us and originated in a period when paper was a modern invention, the reasonable conclusion is that it is a period myth and nothing more (for a person who formulates conclusions based on logic and evidence And not heartbreaks and practical stories of course).
Arnon
I agree with you.
Apparently it is easier for a religious person to be a slave to another, than to be a master of himself.
Such a choice (which makes a religious person) stems, in my opinion, from real laziness at best, or illness at worst.
Laziness- refers to a 'lazy mind'. That is, those who prefer not to think and that others will think for them.
To be precise - they prefer the rabbi to tell them their opinion.
Larnon
Before conducting a review, it is advisable to teach the subject under review.
After you study Kabbalah and decide that what is written there is fabric stories and that's it. I will respect your opinion, but slandering without understanding or trying to understand is not serious.
And of course believing every whim of every "rabbi" "righteous" or "Messiah" without understanding is fundamentally wrong
The universe probably has no end and neither does humanity's ignorance.
Thousands of years ago during a solar eclipse people would offer an altar to the gods to appease them (not from Facebook's language).
Today there are already airplanes and spaceships, deciphering DNA and the rest of nature's secrets, but a significant public still misses God. We'll probably never get rid of it.
How convenient it is to be a "believer", you don't have to try to understand anything, just listen to the rabbis and follow the commandments of the Torah and the surrounding (and measured) society.
🙂 If only for the action