Researcher Brian Whitworth from Massey University, believes that physicists should study the universe from the point of view that it is not an expression of the real reality, but a simulation on a huge scale of virtual reality. Its critics claim: it will be difficult to test the theory and design experiments that will allow it to be distinguished from other theories
Is our universe nothing but a part of a huge software of virtual reality in which the matter, the energy, the electric charge and the other properties are the results of numerical calculations? A scientist from New Zealand claims that physicists should seriously investigate the idea. The researcher, Brian Whitworth from Massey University, claims that logic requires examining the hypothesis that "the world is an information simulation running on a three-dimensional space-time screen."
The article seeks to explore the idea that the universe is a virtual reality, created in the process of data processing, and attributes this strange idea to findings in modern physics about the physical world. The concept of virtual reality is familiar from the online worlds on the web, such as Second Life, but our world as virtual reality on a huge scale is usually a subject of science fiction rather than science.
In the introduction to his article bArxiv website He wrote: "Logically, the world may be a data simulation, running on a multidimensional screen in terms of space-time. In fact, if the essence of the universe is information, matter, charge, energy and motion - they can all be aspects of information. All conservation laws can also form a face of one data conservation law. If the world is a virtual reality, its creation in the Big Bang will no longer be paradoxical, since every virtual system must have an initial push."
He also wrote that "the distinction of whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual one rests on science. Modern information science can offer ideas on how physical properties such as space, time, light, matter and motion can be derived from a data processing process. Such an approach may reconcile relativity and quantum theory, with the former explaining how the information processing process creates space-time, and the latter explaining how energy and matter were created."
Crazy idea, but…
It is hard not to question the theory, and Whitworth's opponents claim that it is very difficult to test it in the experiments he proposes. According to Whitworth, the idea is indeed crazy, but no more so than other views in physics, such as interpretation The multiple universes of quantum mechanics, the big bang and the Boltzmann hypothesis. The New Scientist reports that with no testable predictions about the universe to distinguish this theory from other theories, the virtual reality hypothesis is pure philosophy.
In a 2002 article, titled "Are we living in a computer simulation", wrote Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Yale University in the USA, that "it is not impossible that we are living lives programmed by a post-human society, living in the reality we define as 'the future'".
The glow of the big bang proves that the universe has a funnel shape
Microscopic proof of the expansion of the universe
76 תגובות
We live in a simulation but not a computerized one. Some kind of divine alien created us as an experiment and has since died or been lost. We remained stuck in the infinite space. Until we are destroyed by nature...
to ask:
I won't ask you to stop the cynicism again because it turns out you can't.
I wrote in all sincerity that I organized this activity of the ultra-Orthodox and I also claimed in all sincerity that it was not relevant.
Even among religious groups of other religions, there is extensive activity of charity without political goals (I write it this way even though I believe that many times they have goals that actually deserve the title political, but I don't have the strength to enter into a debate about what should be called political and what is not) .
Religion was not called "opium for the masses" for nothing. Religion is a drug and the effect of a drug can also be "good".
There is a reason for the quotation marks, but we'll see if I have the strength to elaborate.
The philosopher Huxley, for example, actually proposed drugging all humans as part of the solution to what he saw as behavioral problems characteristic of the entire human species.
In general, our debate is about what is real and what is not and not about what is effective and what is not.
It may be that the most efficient mode of existence for human beings will be achieved by a drug or by hypnosis and it may be worthwhile, in this context, to hypnotize people into believing in God but that will not create God. It won't be good either, in the sense I mean it - that's without the quotes because even though people might live in paradise it will be a fool's paradise.
And again - the fact that people set up charities does not save those who suffer from their violence.
Personally, I don't accept the well-worn saying "there is no good without bad" and I think you should take the good from everything. In religion, beyond the fact that it does not express any truth - there is both good and bad and the good does not eliminate the bad.
When you accept the religion as a religion, you take the good along with the bad.
I prefer to take only the good - as ideas and not as a religion and believe me I do. I have long since lost the shares of the charitable organizations (including the religious ones) for which I have a standing order in the bank - although there are also some that I have decided not to donate to anymore because I saw that they operate dishonestly or in disorder.
To Michael,
I promised to end the discussion and I will keep my promise.
Hezbollah's activity is an activity that originates from a political party and is intended to buy the population through a smart long-term investment (if you wish, compare it to the activity for the benefit of weak populations organized by the Shas; first the party was established and then the activity in the field); The many religious charity organizations operate without any guiding hand from above, while their heads themselves do not have a uniform political worldview (except for the fact that almost all of them are religious), and I have never heard that any of them (of course there are many of those I remembered) tried to make any political profit ( Only after 'Yad Sarah' became an empire, Uri Lupoliansky did not resist the temptation and ran into politics. No one has ever claimed that he founded the organization with such a far-reaching political vision.)
Political profit is not the motive of these organizations (as in the activities of Hezbollah) but rather religious commandment (if the motive was political, how do you explain the fact that 'Zikhron Menachem', for example, was established by ultra-orthodox people - to uplift the soul of their son who died of cancer - while the volunteers almost Are they all from the knitted domes? They are not stupid to go volunteer in an organization that exploits them).
By the way, who is interfering with the labor movement or the effort to establish such organizations in order to buy votes. Speaking of cynicism, I think you are the cynical one here.
Again, blessings for long days and health (why do you think I wrote this sarcastically???); Simply, we haven't found a hole with the exact dimensions for you yet. It's not easy to satisfy Yaka's demands (it's really sarcastic..)
Bye
borrowed:
There is no place for this cynicism.
Although I share your prayer and I also appreciate the action of the ultra-Orthodox on the issue of charitable giving (and you have not heard any other claim from me), but I hope you are clear that this does not belong to the discussion at all.
It should be noted that the success of Hezbollah in Lebanon is based on similar characteristics and I must emphasize (and not sarcastically) that I certainly appreciate this activity of Hezbollah and despite this I oppose them completely.
I forgot to mention that all the above services are also provided to infidels and heretics (those that for some reason we haven't gotten around to throwing into the pit yet..)
To Michael,
We both enjoyed the discussion and clarified our position.
I, as far as I'm concerned, close the discussion here with a prayer from the bottom of my heart that you will live a long life with a lot of health, happiness and wealth, and that the day you want to end your role in this world you will die in your sleep with the death of a kiss. That way (and only that way!) you won't be exposed to all the horrible and shocking things that religion causes and that affect all areas of our lives: you won't need to borrow a wheelchair from Yad Sarah, you won't need help buying medicine or transportation in a car adapted for the disabled from Ezer Lezion, you won't need For accompaniment or entertainment or summer camps organized for cancer patients by 'Ko Chaim'. Of course, you won't need free meals at the specialty restaurants of Meir Panis, or loans on favorable terms from one of the dozens of loans that the ultra-Orthodox are prone to. Your relatives will not need the food distributed to the house by 'Yad Eliezer' or by 'Hasadi Naomi', and of course, you will not need the assistance provided abroad by Satmar Hasidim to Israelis who come there for organ transplants.
You may still need the protection that all the ultra-Orthodox and the religious will provide you, since they man the combat units in huge percentages more than their sober and enlightened peers who grow up on the knees of 'Radio-Had', but you can always console yourself that in fact you also need this protection only because of the nonsense of the religious because in your opinion It would have been better to go to Uganda.
Bye Bye.
Roy:
But this "like it or not" - due to the fact that there is no truth here - was hijacked by "politicians" and public opinion makers and was apparently lost again.
There used to be a joke that said that if you don't succeed as a teacher - no problem - you can always be a supervisor (this joke turned out to be wrong because it turned out that if you don't succeed as a teacher - no problem - you can always remain a teacher). In art the situation is similar - if you are not successful as an artist - you can always teach art or be an art critic. Unfortunately, this trend has also caused that, as with the teachers - here too - you can always remain an artist (provided you know how to do your own public relations)
to ask:
Indeed there are those who managed to survive the religious with less vulnerability than others. Does it say something about religion? No. This only expresses how lucky they were, how much power the religious had in their environment and how much the religious internalized enlightened moral values that contradicted their religion.
Does Spinoza's story help, in your opinion, the couple who was attacked in Mea Shearim?
Pay attention - we are talking about a very narrow aspect of the hardships that religion causes to human beings. We didn't talk about the women who were anchored, we avoided talking about the homosexual community, we didn't talk about the burning of leafy plants and many other topics. One of these issues that has recently come to light is the refusal of the religious establishment for a constitution that would include a demand for equal rights between men and women.
I don't think there is any point in continuing the discussion on the subject because in my opinion, what I have said so far should have already convinced everyone who can be convinced, and if you are not convinced, you probably are not.
This theory sounds very logical on the one hand because then it is possible to understand where the black holes exist and maybe the black holes are part of the game. .
But on the other hand, if we're all in a game, how come the game hasn't turned off like other games with us?
That's why you have to look at this theory from both sides and despite it being strange try to investigate it and find out what the real story is behind the universe, since even a universe the size of 60,000,000,000 light years that started from two small atoms sounds fundamentally exaggerated (however, how two atoms are able to create a universe the size of I don't know what?), so I'm not sure of anything anymore.
How does the song "Shiro Shapshef" say "Who am I, I am only a man, I live and work like everyone else".
borrowed,
This is not a matter of cheating or fraud. By the very nature of the humanities - art, literature, poetry, etc. - they are not measured by the criteria of truth or falsehood. They are judged by only one criterion: whether they are loved or not.
To Michael:
You are blessed Spinoza Nido and nothing more. You will agree with me that what he did at the time is a little more serious than talking to some celebrity.
to roy,
Let's go back to my favorite topic:
About once a year, a scientist in the natural sciences is revealed to have fabricated results (here a Chinese scientist who claimed to have succeeded in producing printed circuits, and here a Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned cells in a miraculous way, and here a British researcher who initiated the Beagle-2 landing on Mars). I don't remember such an exposure in the humanities. It can be argued, of course, that all the swindlers and fraudsters were actually incarnated in the natural sciences, but it seems a bit more to me to say that in the humanities there is no way to expose fraud, because 'they are all right'. This should serve as a warning sign.
Bye
Roy:
It seems to me that we clarified our positions on the subject of studying the arts.
It may be that my personal relationship to the subject is also influenced by my relationship to what is commonly called art today (I don't remember the exact details, but in recent years a story was published about one "artist" who presented a toilet at an art exhibition at the Pompidou Center as a work of art and another "artist" who passed by the exhibition hit this toilet with a hammer and a crack The same in his claim that with the crack it is better. There was an argument and maybe also a trial and I, with all modesty, was not at all surprised by the story because to me everything is harte barte - just confessing and politics and nothing real).
I think that everyone knows what a good story, a beautiful sculpture, a beautiful picture or Arab music really are, and anyone who wants to create can easily be exposed to the variety of beautiful works that have already been created and adopt ideas. University studies, in my opinion, if they go beyond the teaching of skills, will only enhance the unreal part of art.
Hooligans and law breakers.
I hope the police will find them and deal with them to the full extent of the law.
Shaul and Michael,
As interesting as your argument is, I would like to address a previous point that you both agree with.
You both say that there is no real need to study the arts in universities. Shaul claims that 'there is no one good way to write a book'. Michael says that it is necessary to learn the skills only, and nothing beyond that.
Although there is no one good way to write a book, there are countless bad ways to write a book. How can you learn how to write better? The best way is to get an impression of the existing literature and the literature of the past, and derive the lessons that those authors discovered for us in the flesh. How do we know which books we should learn from? Who will direct us to the right books and help us internalize the lessons from the principles of writing used by the author? All this will be done by the teachers at the university.
Similarly, painters are required to learn more than 'skills'. Really good painters need to know the great paintings of history and the principles of the painting craft that stand behind them. Painting cannot be taught as a mere skill, but also show the results of each of the different skills (expressionism, cubism and so on).
And what do the arts of writing and drawing contribute to society? As I already mentioned, humans are not robots and we cannot treat them as such. A person cannot engage in work only all his life. He should also amuse himself, read suspense and comedy stories, let his imagination drift on the wings of other people's paintings, enjoy the beauty inherent in a dance or a theater performance, and so on.
There is no doubt that the government should support more the 'hard' sciences and less the performing arts, but as far as I know this is also the case today, so I see no reason to complain.
good week,
Roy.
Turns out I didn't remember correctly. The main damage was to the body and not to property.
This comment and the previous one are, of course, intended to ask
I thought the subject of the discussion was religion and not the religious.
It is true that the intimidation of the police and perhaps also, God forbid, the intrusion of morality from the outside world, somewhat restrains the activity of the ultra-Orthodox and prevents them from observing all the mitzvot of their religion, but it is enough to recall the events surrounding the pride parade to know that the restraint is extremely limited.
By the way, in Mea Shearim, members of the Chasity Guards recently destroyed the house of an ultra-Orthodox resident of the neighborhood, who dared to speak to Adi Ashkenazi.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3491642,00.html
I see no point in repeating the same things over and over again. I have already mentioned that in Halacha one must distinguish between rhetoric and implementation when to a large extent the failure in implementation is already built into the rhetoric (as I continued).
Take a trip to Mea Shearim or wherever you want in ultra-orthodox settlements. Will someone touch you badly? So who do you have complaints against???
borrowed:
I read your words (for the second time) and I didn't see the reason why you thought I didn't read them the first time.
In relation to what you define as a "rule" and an "exception", I can only say that the halacha is by its very definition a "rule" and there is no "exception".
This law permits and even requires all members of the holy community to kill people in certain cases.
These cases are not rare - in fact, the religion commands to kill all the seculars (see above "and the heretics, and those who disbelieve in the Torah and the prophecy from Israel") and it is desirable to do this with a sword in Perhasiya.
That is why I repeat: the laws of the Torah are not moral and anyone who tries to tie moral behavior to the observance of religious commandments (or belief in it) is wrong and misleading.
Regarding Venuno - not that it matters and I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that the law you're talking about applies to him, among other things, because he didn't go through his wartime crimes.
In extreme cases, the authority was indeed given retrospectively to the acting individuals (what Pinchas did is correctly defined and Morin is not). So from the exception you make the rule??? For the general re-read everything I brought.
To Michael,
Do yourself a favor and read my words again.
Precisely in the essential part, Judaism is extremely lenient (no punishment for experience, assistance, etc.).
If someone who was a president (Rev. XNUMX) behaved in a certain way and sages saw fit to tell it to future generations, this is the message.
And his punishment could not be a persecutor (read my words again: persecutor is only before and when he is on the way to execution and only for prevention and not for punishment). According to the Penal Law of the State of Israel, he could have been sentenced to death for aiding the enemy in wartime (section 99 of the Penal Law). Admittedly, his torture did not mean to help the enemy but to bring peace, but here the 'viewing process' applies - section 20(b) of the Punishment Law.
The fact that the state does not activate this section is another problem.
to ask:
Of course my words are not a novelty because they are quoted from books hundreds and thousands of years old.
However, it seems to me that you did not address them in the aspect that I wanted you to address:
When the execution of the punishment is entrusted to the individual and no court is required at all - all the things you are trying to say are not relevant.
Therefore, despite the great inhumanity that the Torah shows in what you call "the essential part", I made sure to focus on another part that you did not refer to, which is the part of carrying it out (without a trial) in many situations.
The things you say I forgot to mention were not mentioned by me because they are not relevant. The fact that a certain person, who served as a judge, showed mercy has nothing to do with the fact that religion does not require this mercy - certainly not in cases where there is no trial at all.
The comparison of the law in the matter of persecutory law to what "someone read" in the matter and its answer is fatuous.
What authority does the expression "some called for..." hold regarding the death penalty of almost every well-known figure in the country. There is a difference between the rants of enamored people and the law and whoever needs such a comparison in defense of the book of books has actually already mostly admitted.
To Michael
You haven't updated anything. What you brought only strengthens the claim that at the level of rhetoric there is severe punishment (to illustrate values and their level), but on the other hand at the level of execution the hand on the trigger is very merciful except for exceptional cases that you knew how to find; You forgot to bring the famous Bariata that the Sanhedrin that kills once every seven years and some say once every seventy years is called fatal. You forgot to mention that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakhai perceived a contradiction in the statements of witnesses regarding the stings of the figs that were on the tree (!!!) near the crime scene and based on this alone acquitted the accused, and on and on. Also in the sources of the stories it is noted that among the gentiles it was known that the punishments for the Jews were relatively light.
(Note that in Judaism the custom is the exact opposite of the custom in Western countries that the punishment may be lighter but the number of convictions is high and in some countries it reaches the sky). (By the way, the law 'pursuing' and similar to it also has a counterpart in the criminal law of the State of Israel: the proviso of 'necessity' and 'necessity'; so it is not clear to me who you are trying to catch).
What is true is that law is 'moral', that is, law is morally imposed on the people of Israel to a Gentile (this is different from 'pursues' because law persecutes vigorously only during the persecution itself and only if one pursues in order to kill and only if there is no lesser means and only for prevention, but not for punishment afterwards), They also used to apply it in certain places (that is, throw them into the river in a sack so that the body would not be found), because they saw the 'morals' as a threat to the community as a whole (many times the morals were 'Orthodox' in the classical sense and in the XNUMXth century they 'took care' of them). I just want to remind you that both Mordechai and Anonu were called at the time to impose the death penalty, and also in the Penal Code of the State of Israel there is a death penalty for those who cooperate with the enemy during war.
Bye.
to ask:
In the question about the Siamese twins, they turned to religion because the tools of philosophy did not give an answer.
Let's say it's true. What it means? Does religion have an answer? How do we know this answer is correct?
It reminds me, unfortunately, of one of the sick evils of the state education system. This system does not refer at all to the questions that do not have a clear and absolute solution, such as what is the meaning of life, what is morality, what is our destiny on earth, and the like. You can deal with these questions honestly and qualify things with "I don't really know but..." But the state education system (by a terrible mistake) does not deal with this at all, and therefore teenagers who are looking for answers to these questions are dragged behind the religion that gives them answers (albeit wrong) and abandon the secular system that did not pretend to know.
I will not address the issue of the death penalty. I bring him up as a clear example of the immorality of religion. Strangely, the "contrary" examples you bring do not at all contradict my words and in some cases even strengthen them. Is it moral not to punish someone just because he failed to carry out his plot? And in this context, in relation to what you said in a later section - is the release of criminals moral?
It is very interesting that the only law with which you find it appropriate to compare religion is an English law that was abandoned many years ago and characterizes one of the darkest periods of humanity.
When it is written about blood revenge for killing a relative:
"And the redeemer of the blood found him outside the border of the city of his refuge and the redeemer of the blood killed the murderer, he has no blood" (Bamadbar, Le; 27) Is a discussion before 23 required here?
There are other types of death sentences that are given only to the individual and not to the courts, and it is also practiced in our time defined in the language of the Sages, "The zealots hurt him". " (In the wilderness, 7:13-XNUMX).
Likewise, those who are subject to a "persecutive law" are allowed to be killed individually. This punishment actually applies in two cases: one who pursues to kill, and one who pursues to rape a woman, which is forbidden from a halachic point of view (note that the rape of a single woman is not subject to the persecutory law, but only for married women).
The same applies to the permission to kill infidels and converts given to an individual, as written in the Shulchan Aruch:
"The people of Israel, and those who worship the stars, or the one who commits offenses to anger, even (d) eat indecency or wear clothing that causes anger; and the heretics, and those who disbelieve in the Torah and prophecy from Israel, would be in the habit of rioting in the Land of Israel. If he had the power to riot with a sword, with a sword, They were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. How, one of them saw that he had fallen into the well and the ladder in the well, first and removed him and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and we will bring him back to you, and the like in these words (Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah Siman Kanah Section B).
And other interesting facts:
Since the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of the Sanhedrin (the courts authorized to impose death sentences) the authority to punish was given to the discretion of the court, to beat, excommunicate, excommunicate and even kill. This is how it is explained in the Talmud: "Ar Elazar ben Jacob: I heard that the Sabbath prepares punishments that are not from the Torah, and not to transgress the words of the Torah but to make a reservation to the Torah; And the act of one man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of pigeons, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved it, but because the time needed it. . And again, there was a case of one man who slapped his wife [a husband's wife] under the fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because he deserved it - but because the time required it [even though the written law does not require flogging, the court required flogging so that the burglaries would not increase]!" PB).
In conclusion, I repeat that on the subject of the death penalty, the Jewish religion is not at all as merciful as you are trying to portray it and, in general, its laws do not at all reflect the natural morality of human beings and even contradict them many times.
A little after the summary it is interesting to add (just to illustrate the cruelty) the following:
"These are the charges: the one who brings the mother, the father's wife, the bride, the one who remembers, and the animal, and the woman who brings the animal, the blasphemer, the one who commits idolatry, and the one who gives his seed to your father, and the one who has an obscenity and knowledge, the one who desecrates the Sabbath, the one who curses his father and his mother, and the one who brings On a betrothed girl, and an instigator and a washerwoman, and a sorcerer, and a disobedient son and a teacher,..." (Mishnah, Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX).
"And these are the burnings that come upon a woman and her daughter, and a priest's daughter who commits adultery... and these are the slain by the murderer and the people of a rejected city by a murderer who struck his neighbor with a stone or an iron" (Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX).
"These are the strangler who strikes his father and his mother and steals a soul from Israel and an old man from Mira according to the court and the false prophet and who prophesies in the name of star worship and who comes on a man's wife and plots against a priest's daughter and a prostitute who strikes his father and his mother" (Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX)
Small addition:
In the discussion of the death penalty, in Judaism there is no appeal against a verdict of acquittal, but only against a verdict of conviction (similar to the USA and unlike the State of Israel). There is much more to write, but the shortness of time is limiting.
More in this thread: I talked about the 'cultural' feminisms as they are called: cultural feminism from the seminary of Carol Gilligan except from the liberal feminism from the seminary of Catherine McKinnon. The former say that women have a different voice (as in Gilligan's book), and the latter say that the voice is different because the male foot is placed on their neck. In the public discourse in Israel, as usual, they made one big use out of everything: the Alice Miller affair was dominated by the liberal feminists who wanted to prove that a woman is like a man, and rather, the masculine codes will threaten a woman just as much as a man and just as a macho man is a pilot, a macho woman is also a pilot (and if there is Women who feel different is only the result of a false consciousness that was burned into their brains by the male elite), while in the Carmela Bohbot case the discourse of cultural feminism prevailed which claims that a woman is different and therefore one must understand why she did not run away from her husband until the moment of crisis when she murdered him.
bye again
To Michael,
A. In ethical questions, people turn to religion, simply because the tools of philosophy have no answer to these questions. you have twins
Siamese women who without separation will die and thanks to separation one of them will be saved. do you separate On which of them do you pronounce the 'death penalty'? And if the parents oppose the separation, do you force it on them? (Exactly such a problem was in England about two years ago)
B. Since this is not the first time you address the prevalence of the death penalty in Jewish sources, I must respond. The full response can require a lot of investment, so see what is written as chapter heads only.
Criminal punishment is divided into three parts: a substantive part, a deliberative part (which is divided into two: criminal procedure, and evidence law), and the penal part.
In the penal part, there are offenses that Judaism aggravates (which you bother to mention every time), and on the other hand, there are offenses that Judaism mitigates in an alarming way (a thief pays only double (in England the death penalty was accepted under the bloody code), and if he is a robber, he only returns a penny, and so on and so forth) . Let us, therefore, leave the penal part alone and move on to the other parts.
In the essential part: in Judaism there is no punishment for an attempt (imagine: I can fire a LAW missile at a house, blow up the house, and not
accomplishing the goal only because the exact tenants are not at home, and there is no criminal responsibility for the act in Judaism), for aiding and abetting a crime, for solicitation, and there is a very limited responsibility for doing it together. In the State of Israel, execution together, attempt and solicitation of 'Mezkim' are fully punished and assistance is half of the punishment.
In the legal order: the death penalty requires a hearing before 23, the death penalty requires a special majority; And in addition: the death penalty has the right to be appealed forever (with no limit on the number of times) until the execution (in the State of Israel, the death penalty is discussed before 3, a simple majority, and only one appeal is automatic)
In the law of evidence: in Judaism there is no circumstantial evidence, there is no self-incrimination (in a criminal trial) ever; Only two observant men are kosher to testify, and on and on.
I have already read quite a few criminal judgments. In all of them - without exception - if the Hebrew law had been applied, the criminal would have been released. If you have a reason to oppose the halachic state, it is that according to the halachic law it is almost impossible to convict criminals.
What does all this mean? Hebrew law believes in the need to assign punishments to express society's 'I believe', in which severe punishments are assigned to offenses that society considers serious offenses (this is accepted in all countries in the world), but Hebrew law does not at all believe in punishment after the offense has already been committed. Hebrew law believes in the ability of society, the role of parents, etc., etc., with all of this in the interest of prevention in advance, but after the built-in mechanisms have failed, Hebrew law does not see any special interest in punishment. Indeed, in a society as sick as ours, which is rife with crime, it will be necessary to make adjustments in Hebrew law so that it is possible to cross the road safely, for example.
A point for thought: in criminal law, a trend has been developing in recent years that calls not only for the abolition of the death penalty, but for a significant reduction in incarceration, and perhaps even for the abolition of criminal punishment altogether (they are called 'abolitionists'), in view of the concern for the rehabilitation of the victim, for example, as a priority over the punishment of the offender (in trials for sexual offenses The two interests often collide). Maybe Judaism (as always) was ahead of its time?? (The 'cultural' feminists claim, for example, that the entire form of administering justice in our country is male, while according to their method we should try to create a female form of justice that will focus to a lesser extent on punishment) (Also regarding feminism, etc., I have a lot to say, and due to the lack of time we will be satisfied for now with what I wrote ).
Bye
borrowed:
There is something tautological in the claim that the sages of the wisdom of Israel will cleanse the world of yeshivas.
The sages of the wisdom of the world (including the Jews) did not do this.
In general, the claim that most Jews - even those who define themselves as secular - are not really secular is true because the religious brainwashing has done a really good job. Therefore, it is clear that even if there was someone who thought that there was nothing wrong with the establishment of the Jewish state in Uganda (and I, by the way, think like him), it would not be practical because most Jews did not know how to separate their need for a state to be saved from the clutches of anti-Semitism and the many years of brainwashing according to which they must return to the land of ancestors.
So you ask why? My answer is because of the brainwashing.
The reference to the Hebrew sources of halacha is also made in large part (although not entirely) for similar reasons.
Somehow the brainwashing that gives religions a special status in the field of morality has managed to bring about the fact that in every committee that deals with issues related to it, a religious person is included and even turn to the religious sources.
This does not mean that we accept the dictates of the sources because these are sometimes simply monstrous (it is important, for example, for all situations in which Judaism imposes the death penalty and even such that every person on the street is called to carry it out).
For an exhaustive overview of the relationship between Judaism and morality, you are invited to read Yaron Yedan's book - The religion arose from its creators.
A wise man once said: "There is one simple principle according to which a good book can be written; The problem is that no one has discovered it yet..." Hence my opinion on the science of literature and the like.
Regarding yeshivots: I am sorry, gentlemen, but the world of all the sages of Israel's wisdom - and also of those who have alienated themselves from the heritage - has been completely drained from the world of yeshivots. The most famous are Bialik and Berdichevsky, the least famous are Agnon. And if we look broadly, all the great events that happened to this nation will be cleansed of its legacy (the socialist second immigration people came to Israel and not to Argentina. Why?).
By the way, with the progress of academic research that enables solutions to problems that no one had faced in the past, a culture of turning to the Hebrew sources of halacha was created in all issues of ethics and medicine; In other words, Christian pastors are also interested in many questions about what the Halacha thinks in order to get an impression. A law on the rights of a dying patient (Yaani, euthanasia) was passed after a committee consisting of rabbis, philosophers and doctors discussed the matter and made unanimous recommendations. Is there alienation here? Maybe the problem is just a political image.
Bye
Something else:
There are artistic skills that can and should be taught.
They are not art but they are necessary for an artist.
I'm not sure that the university is the place to do this, but if they already teach a subject called in the name of some kind of art, then these skills should be the material that is transferred.
You should read Betty Edwards' book "Drawing on the right side of the brain" on this topic
to praise:
If your words are a response to my words then you should read them to their proof.
You will not find in them any reference to history and the reference to Popper is only by way of negation by saying that I am not talking about his narrow definition.
My words focused mainly on the teaching of art and here I move on to the response of
Roy:
I also did not include the history of art in my words, but it is important that they understand that those who study art history do not become craftsmen and studying the history of art is therefore not related to the question of whether it is important for us to have art.
It is true that nowadays many people go to university because otherwise it is not nice, but I am very satisfied with the contribution of art studies to the artists' art. I'm even inclined to believe that if they had studied science instead of art they would have become better artists because the world they draw inspiration from would have expanded.
general:
Although, as I mentioned above, I made sure not to include history in my words, because I knew that reservations could be raised (which eventually arose even though I did not refer to history) but personally I am really not sure that the study of history contributes much to our society. Much of their contribution is even negative because history makes people drive their cars looking back in the mirror instead of the road ahead. It is easy to see, for example, that all the "arguments" put forward by both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "historical" and the beauty is that most of these arguments, even though they are true, are not relevant.
I do not rule out the study of history completely, but I think that they need to be fundamentally changed so that what is produced from them will be, on the one hand, just facts designed to satisfy curiosity and, on the other hand, general insights into human behavior (for example, the insight that tends to suppress that the behavior of the Germans in World War II is behavior that humans drifting into it under certain conditions which is replaced in our places with the belief that this is a result of their Germanness)
Shaul, Hillel and Michael,
First I would like to say that I am happy to return to the discussion here and see how many layers have grown in it since I left it last night.
I will try to respond to two of the main arguments presented here by Shaul, but I prefer not to address the issue of secession and the deportation of the residents of the settlements. There is no doubt that an injustice will be done to the residents by the government. Some justify this injustice due to the collective good that should result from it, and some deny it completely. Either way, it has no place in the current discussion.
Shaul -
You claim that since World War II the humanities have contributed nothing. But here comes Hillel and describes in our ears how much they added to the issues of feminism, the cloning controversy, environmental quality, racism and so on. So it seems to me that on this point there is no justice with you. The humanities contributed before World War II and continue to contribute to the world.
Hillel also explained the yeshiva problem nicely. I will add and say that not only do they lead to division and the separation of the people, they also contribute nothing to the country. The Fund for the Preservation of Israeli Cinema finances cinematic works that reflect Israeli culture and markets it around the world. Universities produce research that improves the various fields of science. What do the yeshivas contribute to Israel or its position in the world?
And now, for Michael -
I agree with you about the definition of science, but I would like to add another layer to your sharing of knowledge. Even if art cannot be taught at the university (and we will soon talk about this issue as well), what about art history? This is an important field in the humanities from which one can learn and draw important and current lessons about the nature of cultures and times. A similar spiritual science is the history of literature.
I do not think it is possible to argue with the contribution of these sciences to our understanding of cultures different from our own - and as a result, our own cultures as well.
A website says that art cannot be taught, but I disagree with you on this point. Many of the famous composers, poets, painters and writers had people who taught them their art. Composers and painters must learn their art step by step. Writers and poets also learn step by step, from a wise reading of existing literature, and university studies during which they will be directed to the right literature can help them a lot.
Do you have to go to university to draw well, or write well? No, of course not. But there are few people who have not gone through some period of study in the field of their art. There are those rare geniuses, but most of us are not like that, and I don't think that the arts should be left only to those rare ones.
Good week to you all,
Roy.
To Sifa - it is very true that in all scientific-philosophical matters there is openness and Roy and Shaul are undoubtedly inspiring. Regarding the disconnection - it seems that Shaul's opinion is final. Once the opinions are heard - that's enough for us.
For Risha - the person determines what interests him and usually there is one benefit or another.
For an example of benefits, in addition to the examples I have given so far:
The huge interest that a person has in the past is not casual and not cultural just for the sake of beautification. Its social consequences are enormous. See, for example, the echo that the new biography on Menachem Begin has, for studies on the part of the Poles in acts of anti-Semitism, and more.
Science or not? It turns out that since Popper we have indeed gone through several steps -
The study of history is scientific in the sense that it must be based on factual findings and an interpretation compatible with other facts. But it's definitely not a chemistry lab.
And also in the natural sciences there are more descriptive subjects (such as geology and paleontology and animal behavior) that are not experimental sciences such as chemistry in the laboratory.
-
And also in psychology - it must be admitted that there is a scientific aspect - experimental psychology - mice... and another more descriptive one.
And the natural sciences sometimes deal with what appear to be trivial things - just to exaggerate - in the taxonomy of water beetles...
And all of this is in the realm of critical human thought - therefore in the university.
By the way, the most expensive scientific studies are the studies carried out by NASA - what is the use of them? Not at all proportional to the benefit. including many human lives.
In any case, the natural sciences receive more money, . From Asshurology, always also in Israel, only that today they are trying to eliminate what little there is - and for that we will cry for years.
It should be noted that Ber Ilan - when it was established, was intended to emphasize the Jewish sciences - the situation today is a little different.
And it must be said that even in science there is quite a bit of politics that determined where the big grants are.
And these and these (on loan) are the words of a living God.
To Roy, Shaul and Hillel
I did not enter the discussion up to this point because I did not think that a discussion about Matrix would develop in the direction it developed.
I think that a large part of the problem (as the clarifications you started writing show that you also feel) is a problem of terms that are unfortunately used in our places even though they are confusing to say the least.
What are the "humanities"?
It is common to associate professions such as literature, cinema and the like with them, but I was told - has the human spirit created a greater work than mathematics? How is it that mathematics was deprived of the right to be called "spiritual science"?
What is "science"?
Are what are commonly called "humanities" even "sciences"?
I will not go into the narrow definitions that talk about the need for experimentation and the like. In my opinion, it is not for nothing that the word "science" is related to the root "knowledge". The word "sciences" should, in my opinion, be reserved to describe the disciplines in which man creates "knowledge" and stores it.
And what is "knowledge"?
As far as I understand "knowledge" is a collection of facts engraved in a person's memory.
There are several types of memory and when we talk about "knowledge" that can be instilled in the university, we probably have no choice but to refer only to the so-called "declarative" knowledge - knowledge that can be conveyed in words.
Even if we want to expand the applicability of the knowledge handled in universities beyond that, I think we will never expand it to such an extent that we exceed the limits of the knowledge that can be imparted to others.
Why is all this fuss necessary?
Because in my opinion there is no connection between literature studies and our need for literature. If there is a way to teach a person to be a writer, then this way has not yet been discovered. The writers whose works we enjoy are not the product of the universities (even if some of them studied at the university, their work was not created as a result of these studies).
The situation is similar in all types of art.
Therefore, whether we think that art is necessary or not, it seems to me that there is no place to question whether it should be taught in universities (since even if "it should be taught" we don't know how to do it).
A stepchild within the so-called "humanities" is philosophy.
During the Renaissance, there was almost a distinction between a scientist and a philosopher, and I think this is the approach that should be taken even today. Philosophy, like science, limits itself to the laws of logic and even if it does not subject its doctrine to areas where an experiment can be conducted, it will not go so far as to describe a doctrine that contradicts the experiment as true.
In a large number of cases (not in all) the study of the philosophers at the university is definitely an activity that provides knowledge and is therefore appropriate.
If on these issues my opinion is very similar to Shaul's opinion then on the issue of secession I completely disagree with him but it seems to me that getting carried away into the discussion on this issue would not be in its place.
A. Go out and see how much that stupid deportation is currently costing the country in human lives (citizens) and in money. If we take into account the future cost in the lives of soldiers to regain control of the Strip, then every sane person should have difficulty falling asleep every night from insomnia. It turns out in hindsight that apart from the 60 million dollars a year that Gush Katif would go abroad and today they do not, the state at the time earned protection for 'free'.
B. At the time, I argued in many forums that it was the right of the state to go and leave the settlers to fend for themselves. If you leave the leftist fixation, you see that this was the solution that was profitable for everyone.
borrowed,
I understand unfortunately. I even somewhat agree with the criticism of the very thing and the form it took.
But in that matter - you are wrong. A serious and infuriating mistake.
By the way, in the matter for which we gathered) did Gush Katif benefit the state as a settlement that was financed at the time by the state? Was this the parameter of every settlement placed so far in the territories? Is this how the Jewish community would like to be measured in terms of utility?
to praise,
I personally (!!!) and my family are among the deportees of Gush Katif (Kfar Darom). Anyone who has experienced this knows for sure that even if they had the order to execute us, they would have carried it out without any hesitation.
The 'experience' of thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of human robots silently performing acts that without proper psychological preparation they would not have been able to do is a lifelong trauma (softened only by the knowledge that such things have already happened...).
Shaul, Roy.
First I will state my words about their accuracy regarding the importance of the humanities.
Now that you have combined the same position and clarified it... it is even more difficult for me to understand your position: here is an enlightened country like the USA that was (and still is) infected for years with disgraceful racism, here are countless countries that oppress people, here is the issue of environmental quality, here is the issue of feminists, science dealing with cloning and what not. Is it conceivable that the place of thinkers - jurists, philosophers, people of literature and culture will be placed at the center of the stage in the debate and the struggle on these issues? Their contribution to the cultural, ethical, emotional and moral debate is enormous, and has changed and continues to change the face of humanity no less than the members of the Manhattan Project. And it's not true, friends - since the World War the contribution has not been negative at all: feminism, racism, social integration, ecology, medicine, war and peace, globalization - all of these are also dealt with by thinkers of the humanities, based on their view of the productivity and thought of human society.
Even in the humanities we (all of us) stand on the shoulders of giants and thanks to them we can see far.
I will admit that sometimes there is a problem with branding and classification - and in universities there is an inflation of different classes and courses, but you have to look at the fascinating spiritual aggregate that has been created. The legal world, for example, could not exist if not for all that human social thought that has changed and will change the face of society. And there are countless examples of this.
I am short of answering your question, Saul, what is the benefit of everything - not everything has an immediate benefit, if at all, and yet - there are also terrible harms that science has been able to create -
See around you our world that has been able to advance its ability to kill to enormous dimensions - and there is the combination of weapons and worldview that are a recipe for many human disasters.
In general, utilitarian judgment cannot be the leading basis for any decision. The treasure boys, however, can take this path, but not humanity...
And in the same matter - tuition fees - there are indeed economic approaches that assume sophisticated markets in which everything works out without any interference, those who want to study will find their way, etc. Show me where it worked and we'll talk - after all, at Harvard the big gimmick is scholarships for all the world's poor. And inequality in the US is a muscle and exists.
It is also known by the way that the number of postgraduate research students in the USA, among those born in the USA - has actually decreased in recent years, masses of Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Israelis are flooding the universities with advanced degree studies. It is possible that there is also a problem there - when it will come to light, I don't know.
In any case - maybe this time will come anyway, Israel has very deep interests in education as a factor that enables equality.
A country that interferes every day in the lives of its citizens - such as from immigrating to Israel and settling them in the isolated Negev, preventing transportation and development, for years, from the north and the south and more, cannot state that there is a free, sophisticated market free of unbalanced economic costs and send everyone to get by.
The price of inequality is huge and many. It creates a violent, polarized, frustrated, cynical and disloyal state.
Yeshivot - the money is not the issue but the social issue. The money is small - the ongoing halukha is the problem, the social isolation of an entire section of society is the problem.
Leave the money.
Regarding the disengagement - forgive me Shaul if I react a little sarcastically and say that it seems to me, as someone who was there, that you are the one who is brainwashed (that is - the information you have, is incorrect and biased) The IDF soldiers who went to the evacuation were overwhelmingly mature, settled in their minds, responsible, moral and with free will, In fire for the way they behave and react, at every moment. Not Germany and not even similar. And the psychologists - show off feathers that are not theirs.
Precisely in the matter of brainwashing, the settlers should be examined, some of their young people were ready (theoretically at least) to commit suicide, if not more, and for what?
praise
The world and the universe is really a simulation, and fortunately they called it the world of lies, everything is an imagination, as soon as you close the poor, the truth is revealed..
Roy,
Hello,
Your distinction between the social sciences and the humanities is correct, so I was precise in my words to exclude only the humanities.
At the level of principle, the humanities certainly have a contribution to society (after all, philosophy is the wisdom that fueled all the revolutions in the natural sciences as well); I only claimed (I really wasn't precise in my words, and I should have emphasized more that I was mainly referring to the state of the spirit as it is today) that since World War II the contribution has been negative... that is, in light of the situation that the scholars of the humanities brought these wisdoms to, it is better today to dry them up at least in the sense that the state Don't have to finance them.
In addition: explain to me why supporting the Foundation for the Preservation of the Tradition of Israeli Cinema (or anything like that) is a proper act and supporting yeshiva is not proper (I personally will never oppose government funding for yeshiva to prevent the state from wanting and being able to buy them).
It seems to me that the tuition fee increase will not prevent a large part of the students from studying, but will only prevent them from spending time and trips abroad, if they are able to live according to the proper order of priorities. For that sector that really depends on these amounts, it will be possible to develop financing tools such as convenient loans, etc.
In the United States, saving for college studies (in certain populations) is a ritual almost from the moment the child is born, and here in Israel, even after being released from the army, quite a few people plan recreational trips without even hinting that one day they will have to finance their university studies. Isn't this contrast strange??
Bye.
Hello Shaul,
This discussion is certainly fascinating, so much so that I started checking the issue with relatives who have studied the humanities all their lives. I will answer three of your arguments, one by one.
1. "I am not at all convinced that the quality of life in the Western world has increased because of modern studies in the humanities."
I think it is necessary to separate the humanities from the social sciences. The social sciences in my opinion are sociology, political science and psychology. These are exact sciences for everything, which contribute and continue to contribute to human beings - whether on the psychologist's couch or in support of capitalism (which you support), or even in preparing the soldiers for evacuation from Gush-Katif. There is no doubt that these sciences have proven themselves more than enough.
The humanities, on the other hand, are the less precise sciences - they include, in my opinion, literature, art, cinema, radio and others.
2. "There is no need for the state to invest in the humanities, because they have no proven contribution to society."
Although you are correct in stating that the humanities probably have no significant technological impact on society, you ignore their other impacts. In the end, we are all human and not robots. If we were emotionless robots, the humanities would have nothing to offer us. Since we are human beings, we live in a society with collective emotions. In a simple allegory, science provides us with the secret of melting iron, but the humanities tell us whether to melt it into a sword that can kill, or a hammer that can help build a house.
Some of the humanities - such as Chinese art and the culture of Arab countries - provide us with a different way of seeing other cultures and peoples, which we need to understand our own culture. As the saying goes, "The only way to understand a society objectively is to look at it from the outside." The humanities can provide us with the perspective necessary to understand our society objectively, see its strengths and weaknesses, and learn how to correct them.
Other humanities - such as theater, literature, cinema and radio - satisfy the public's need for entertainment, education and understanding of the society in which we live. Beyond that, they can convey important messages. Who among us who read Dostoyevsky's Sin and Punishment did not participate in Raskolnikov's insights and learn from the sin he committed, even without committing the sin of murder himself? In this respect, literature, theater, cinema and radio can teach us as a society many important lessons.
So the humanities are indeed important and I would not give them up so easily. I admit that I would have been much happier (and the State of Israel would have been more profitable) if the 'hard' sciences such as physics and chemistry had become more popular than the film department, but I cannot dispute that the dignity and importance of cinema are also placed in their place.
And if to bring, reluctantly, an example from Nazi Germany, then we must think of the Minister of Propaganda Joseph Gables. He used propaganda so successfully that he swept all of Germany behind Hitler. The propaganda was everywhere - in the cinema, on the radio and on the streets. If and when another Gables emerges, the knowledge gained from the humanities will help us understand and prevent a potential disaster.
3. "Once again I call (in the dry and arid desert) to raise the tuition fees in the universities (at least ten thousand shekels per academic year). This socialism will kill all higher education."
If we raise tuition by 10,000 NIS per year, the direct result will be that far fewer people from the lower and middle classes will enter higher education. That is, fewer students, less money for universities, fewer educated people in Israel. The level of higher education in Israel will drop drastically, and we will reach a country where the gaps between the classes will be even greater than the situation today. Doesn't sound so good to me.
Roy.
Once again I call (in the dry and arid desert) to raise the tuition fees in the universities (at least ten thousand shekels per year of study). This socialism will kill all higher education.
The theory is definitely true...
It gives a pan that can explain everything between quantum theory and the physical world.
You don't need crazy processing power to maintain this system either.
The system requires processing power for every observing power, namely man, who is connected to a universal information channel (reality) and basically every time he looks at reality, through fixed laws and reaching low resolutions of the building blocks which are fixed.
A small addition: can a person be a complete leftist and justify the sword of Gush Katif. I referred to the fact that the IDF knowingly sent soldiers to this 'mission' who, in frustration on the side, would say that they would never carry out such an order in their lives, and whoop: a few workshops and they carry out without batting an eyelid. No one noticed this deterioration that the IDF turned from an operational body into a political body until the last Lebanon war and it showed that poor commanders and overly disciplined soldiers are not a recipe for victory in battle.
I didn't look at the page for two days, and voila, things moved.
A. As long as the funding for academic institutions comes from taxpayers' money, he is entitled to an explanation of how the money will be returned. In technological matters, I accept Roy's words that there is no way to predict the future and therefore the public must spread its money in a kind of investment in venture capital funds; That is, to spread the investment in many areas knowing that one of them will return the investment in everything. In matters of 'spirit' I have difficulty getting an explanation of how the money will be returned. It can be argued that all these matters are important for the advancement of society in the sense of quality of life (which is also a form of reimbursement), but against this I have a few objections:
A. That the research in these fields contributes to the quality of human life requires clearer proof.
B. By virtue of the same argument that justifies funding for humanities studies, the other cultural enterprises should also be owned: theater, cinema, radio, 'a star is born', 'lame dancer' and who knows who else.
third. In light of the lack of resistance that Europe is showing today towards anyone who is at war against Western civilization - a weakness that is largely a product of the left-wing culture in the humanities in Europe in the last forty years - I am not at all convinced that the quality of life in the Western world has increased because of modern research in the humanities.
With Germany, by the way, I don't have any problems today (!!!). It seems to me that they are the only country in Europe that has feelings of guilt for what happened in World War II. The Austrians, for example, were themselves only victims of Nazism...
Besides, those who followed the psychological manipulations that the IDF used on its soldiers to prepare them for the operation to destroy Gush Katif (the IDF psychologists are proud of the methods they developed for this purpose, and also presented their methods at the conference. They just didn't bother to explain if there is anything in the methods theirs is a built-in fallacy that will prevent the soldiers who go through their workshops from executing the settlers) knows that it was not the 'Germans' who did the holocaust, but rather human nature, which has always been herd in essence and drifted after its leaders. There is no psychological barrier that cannot be broken under a suitable environmental atmosphere, and especially if it is directed from above.
Bye
Dear Hillel
To say that Germany suffered from an "excess" of culture on the eve of the rise of the Nazis is to completely ignore the causes of the rise of the Nazis. I have been living and studying here for several years and can tell you that according to what I know (in the NRW region), it is precisely the same factors that cause that ugly act to be the factors that make this nation harvest Nobel Prizes like we harvest oranges in the land of oranges. Of course, if the above-mentioned character is directed in the wrong direction, their inability (or desire) to think about politics leads to a world war. for better and for worse).
By the way, I study physics and am married to a German who is a genius in languages, of all her classmates (and some of them even study Chinese or Arabic literature) there is not a single one who is interested in quantum theory, let alone able to understand it.
I just had to respond 🙂
To Mr. Moshe Levy. The fact that a theory cannot be disproved does not actually make it worthless if it has no non-philosophical basis whatsoever. And of course every physical theory is backed by a mathematical proof or through an experiment where the experiment is the ultimate proof (as Feynman and Einstein claimed for example). A second and important thing is that the various theories of physics are mostly supported by each other and the scientists strive for integrated work between the various currents.
One last thing: I wouldn't rush to talk about the big bang theory because few people in the world really understand Hawking's proof. (unfortunately I am not one of them)
Liniv is too crude for this respectable site, the entire universe should be written in the palm of Olmert's hand who thinks he can create imaginary worlds The conclusion Imagination pushes us to sail into the depths of the universe...
As someone who comes from there you should know that you really live in the Matrix.
And it could be that the whole universe is just one hair up the ass of a giant
praise,
First of all, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate.
I agree with you about the importance of the humanities, including Chinese and Arabic literature. These areas add to a person's understanding of the world around them and allow them to learn to think in other ways.
Should less be invested in them than scientific subjects?
i don't know On the one hand, as a 'hard' scientist, I'm tempted to say yes. All the insights that come from knowing Chinese history do not advance us in understanding quantum theory. On the other hand, as I wrote myself in one of the previous messages, anyone who cancels a field of study risks missing the next scientific / thought revolution.
There is no doubt that these are issues that require deep thought. But to balance your closing sentence, many of those who study Arabic and Chinese literature are not into quantum, cryptography, the structure and relationships of matter in the universe, or any other kind of science. And the scientists who study those subjects do not necessarily develop professionally in their main field.
Nice weekend,
Roy.
It has been a long time since I had the privilege of reading an intelligent debate, even though I did not agree with all of its content, of the kind conducted by the two honorable members Cezana and Bar Ilan.
As a layman, I will only add that topics that have passed in silence among you, especially in the background of the sacrifice of the universities at the hands of wrongdoers and unworthy leaders, some of whom won for nothing I will not know, deserve more attention such as the topic of the meaning of humanities studies in universities, including Chinese and Arabic literature. There is absolutely nothing to do with the question of university funding and the importance of scientific engagement in culture. Just as the contributors to yeshivos do not ask themselves if they will be more involved in Halacha or in the sermon, will they learn Gemara or will they also, God forbid, Tanakh and Seshonyyyah.
It would actually be correct to say that it is proper for a person to engage in culture in a wide range and as much as he is engaged in it... well here too one must be careful because a cultured nation like Germany, where did he end up?
Be that as it may, the humanities and social sciences and with them philosophy play an important role in our world. This is not the subject of a quick judgment. I do not believe that the two scholars really hold this opinion, but rather took it for the benefit of the polemic of funding the university.
The influence of human thought on the status of women, the way children are raised, the attitude to the environment, education and more has nothing to do with the natural sciences but with the thought of man from the dawn of history in Sumer to the present day in Sodom of the Western world.
And by the way, those who study Arabic and Chinese literature are the ones who are also interested in characters, encryption, the structure and relationships of matter in the universe and the age of the basalts in the Jordan Valley.
Why associate with a "post-human society" and not with the creator of the world!!!???
When I saw the movie Matrix it reminded me of the existence of worlds that split according to Kabbalah: the physical existence is the world of doing our thoughts in higher worlds.
Food for thought…
to roy,
If we broaden our perspective, we will discover that there are no miracles in the economy (they call it the paradox of the blanket): they gave in to the students, they had to screw the lecturers, and in the end the students are also hurt. If they had raised the tuition by 10000 shekels per year (and no, my children do not have miraculous funding for the day they will study, as you would try to guess), everything would look different.
A small clarification: when I am in favor of the separation of religion from the state, it is not because Judaism has nothing to say on the matter. On the contrary, Judaism has an incredible and wonderful influence on how a country should be run. The situation, to our dismay, is that instead of the Holy Torah guiding the behavior of the heads of the state, they brazenly (and the brazenness of those who were supposedly chosen to speak in the name of the Torah) take over the Torah (in return for the request from time to time) and issue halachic rulings from it as much as they please (just yesterday it became known that the government is threatening judges who do not Convert enough immigrants, if they don't line up they will be fired.) In this situation it is better to separate completely.
Of course, not only religion should be separated from the state, but also all other things: I have already mentioned that there is no justification for funding plays, films, museums, etc., etc. Here, too, the invisible hand will set the rules: if there aren't enough customers to justify the existence of the stage theater, it's probably not worth it either (and I'll forgive Vakhtangov). The Yeshivas for Aad will take place - and without any government funding. I can guarantee you that.
As someone once told me,
I had a 1:1 XNUMXD model of the universe but forgot where I put it.
While I wrote my last message, you already managed to clarify your intention.
I am not opposed to a moderate increase in tuition fees, as long as they provide favorable terms for loans and their repayment after graduation. At the same time, I doubt that such a moderate increase will return to the universities the one billion and two hundred million NIS that were ripped from their hands several years ago.
In any case, note that it is not on this point that the lecturers are opposed to Shohat's reform, but on the conditions of their employment and their wages - and we have already agreed that they necessarily differ from the free market.
borrowed,
We have already reduced the Prime Minister and the Shas to givers and takers of bribes and whores and whores. You can continue to compare them to a drug addict and a drug dealer (and in this case the crime is on top of both), but there is really no point in that. It's all a matter of perspective.
Regarding the academic research:
Anyone who studies the history of science is aware of the problem you call 'structured market failure' in academia. I admit that I don't understand you when you talk about a 'capitalist solution'. After all, you agree with the fact that the free market based on differential wages does not work in academia, and has not worked throughout its 2400 years of existence. When they tried to subject it to capitalism or communism, thus limiting the freedom of research, the academy in that country did not produce fruits worthy of their name. If so, why do you insist on changing the method?
Canceling the school year is not a minor thing in my eyes at all. At the same time, I would rather that the school year be canceled so that the lecturers can get their point across, than that the Treasury continue to steal money from the universities and the lecturers and pass reforms that limit the freedom of research. This way will lead us to universities of an inferior level, as history has already proven, and from there it will lead to damage to the entire country, which is based on our human capital.
A small clarification: when I spoke about capitalism regarding higher education, I mainly meant that I am in favor of raising tuition fees; A move that will in any case lead to an increase in the university budget and an increase in research budgets, etc., etc. Anyone who raises children knows how much daycare, kindergarten, etc. cost; Go out and check and you will find that the university tuition costs much less!!!
(Where will the students finance the tuition? They will spend a little less, travel the world a little less, and also earn more the day they reduce the income tax - we are capitalists)
to roy,
Regarding the handing over of the Ministry of Religion to the Shas, there is no debate between us. Only in the analysis of the situation you have two mistakes:
A. The thought that before handing it over to Shas the Ministry of Religion was frozen is a complete mistake. Any Likud center member will tell you what Omri Sharon did in his heyday to get a majority in the center. In other words: when the government hands over the Ministry of Religion to Shas, it is not inventing a ministry to pamper Shas "S but only moves the wallet from her pocket to someone else's pocket. Never did anyone think of canceling this wallet at all. Have you ever seen a politician Friar???
B. Even in the western countries where prostitution is prohibited (Switzerland, I think), the prostitute is never punished but the client. The rationale is that the hacker has motives of necessity, while the client does it of his own free will. If we go to the analogy, the Shas is selling itself due to constraints (completely invalid in my opinion, but these are still constraints), while the Prime Minister is the client. Now you will understand for yourself who you should come to with complaints.
Regarding investments in academic research: by adding in parentheses, I stated in my words that the missing hand is the best hand except for the realities of market failures. You are trying to argue that academia has an inherent market failure. This may well be true. That is, one should be aware that there is a problem, but the solution should be in a capitalist direction with an attempt to deal with the problem and not in a socialist direction that only leads to worse results than the results you are talking about!!! Is canceling an entire school year a small thing in your eyes???
Regardless: I still don't understand why the state should fund the humanities. Yeshivas do not appoint, but the history of China or Arabic literature do?????
Bye
I really enjoyed the article
A few years ago I also dealt with the subject as part of writing a seminar paper and raised possibilities for looking at the subject through the binoculars of the social and political sciences.
borrowed,
A very interesting link to the research done on the claims of the Shohat Committee
This is not a new idea...Berkeley describes beautifully how everything comes from God.
borrowed,
I do not intend to argue about the Ministry of Religion, since it seems that you, like me, believe that there should be a separation between religion and state. We will suffice to point out that even if the government does buy Shas in advance, and not Shas is the one wooing for money or powers, then for everyone who gives a bribe, there is also someone who receives a bribe - and both parties are guilty.
Regarding your position -
Even behind the most 'piggy' capitalist there is a country and a culture, and so, I'm sure, in your case as well. You surely agree with me that the good of the country should not be neglected just to support a free economy. The 'disappearing hand' does not work by itself. Even in the freest market, rules are needed to prevent the formation of cartels, the governor has to raise or lower the interest rate, it is necessary to determine how much cash the banks are required to keep with them, etc.
Similarly, the disappearing hand does not work for the universities. Many times it happens that studies that at the time seem to be negligible, or unimportant, later contribute to very practical fields of knowledge.
From the moment you give a differential salary (and try to apply the principle of the invisible hand to academia), then you can instruct the researcher what he should focus on. Such a thing was already tried in Australia about twenty years ago, and led to a real academic disaster, which put Australia decades behind in research (question for thought: how many important publications do you see from researchers from Australian universities?). The world has progressed in the study of science. Australia stayed exactly where it was.
Another similar case happened in England. I don't remember the exact details of the case and I can't find it online right now, but the general idea is that around the middle of the century, a committee was established that looked at the current fields of physics, and decided which fields of physics should be given more money in the universities. They chose to support a field that was at the forefront of science at the time (vacuum tubes, as I imagine). All the other physicists - for example of the solid state - moved to other countries or remained in England but could not engage in fruitful and efficient research.
Twenty years later, the world is based on solid-state physics. Where is England in this revolution? From a scientific point of view, it is far, far behind in the level and scope of publications, and as a result also in patents and companies.
So the free market is not a good idea when deciding which areas of research to support in academia. The tenure that professors get is for a good reason - so that they have the freedom to explore any topic, without worrying about how ridiculous it seems at the time. I gave only two examples from the world that show that when you instruct scientists on what to research, the country simply loses out in the long run, and in a big way.
Want to see more evidence in the field? Check how many benefits Australia offers to students who have completed a bachelor's/master's/third degree and are ready to move to become Australian citizens. She is still trying to get out of that fling and its implications for higher education.
I would love to see the article that describes your opinion. In the worst case, we will simply present each one's opinions.
Roy.
It seems to me that all these circular arguments really have no way out. That is, does anyone know how to remove the stacker that feeds the energy to the above argument circuit.
On the other hand, it is not really principled to verify or contradict the argument, the interesting question is if it is possible to use this approach to create some kind of bypass, some useful new product. Something that the common man will be able to use at the push of a button.
Of course, the author of the article did not even consider the possibility that even if it is proven that our entire cosmos is nothing but a simulation created in an 'external' world, we will still have to deal with the claim that maybe that universe that keeps us in its simulation, that universe too is actually just a simulation of yet another universe Doubly intelligent, and God forbid...
In other words, an argument of the kind that opens an endless door does not need to be dealt with because the confrontation will never end either.
(In the meantime, you just have to pray that all these universes don't run out of electricity or something like that; otherwise, in one moment we'll all evaporate, but they have an automatic RAID 1 backup plan)
Regarding the article:
In my opinion, we are currently living in a period that is parallel (but more advanced) to what was when they thought that the country was on four elephants standing on the back of a turtle.
We already know that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, and even a few other things.
But today physics is at a crossroads. There are many opposing theories that live at the same time: the theory of relativity versus the quantum theory, light as waves versus light as particles, the big bang (hypothesis from the discovery that galaxies are moving away from each other) versus another possibility (because the big bang theory is more likely if the distance of the galaxies was slowed down to a very slow expansion or to the point of future collapse, while there is new evidence of accelerated expansion).
Each theory is fortified in its position, and in order to continue to support the big bang together with the accelerating distance of the galaxies, they mobilized invisible repulsion forces.
In such a period of physics, theories flourish. Most of them, almost certainly, are not true, as well as the theory in the article.
What's more, in my opinion it was appropriate to publish the article because:
1. He is interesting. Even if it is more philosophical than purely physical.
2. The theory cannot be disproved (even if it cannot be proven).
3. That researcher is not a clergyman who is trying to sell us something to enslave our minds and property to him in the future (at most he will receive a budget for next year as well).
Even the possibility that the earth revolves around the sun was unfounded in Galileo's time. This was not only heresy in the church. It is also considered ridiculous and illogical.
Therefore, it's worth giving a platform to even theories that seem entertaining.
Finally, to symbolize the universe, you don't need a simulation on a huge scale of virtual reality. A simulation of one human brain is enough.
After all, maybe only I exist and the whole world around me (including the one I think I'm typing now) is a dream. Perhaps this is enough to simulate an entire universe - a whole world.
It turns out that a great many people who research these topics can actually accept all the processes in nature as an axiom without a disappearing hand, but are motivated by basic laws of nature.
My life in the movie The Scientist...(:
Now seriously, it's hard to accept all the sparks in nature as an axiom without a disappearing hand behind them.
Even concepts such as "infinity" that are difficult for us to grasp turn out to exist in the universe. Beyond our definitions in the Bible.
To my father Blizovsky,
I just saw your comment. Perhaps it would be better if you devoted an article to the topic (even if in a formal application it is all comments) whose link would already be from the site itself?
Dear Roy,
I am personally an extremely extreme capitalist (in a style that at one time was known as a 'capitalist pig'), as you could already understand from my previous comments. Therefore, the solution of the problem, as I see it, is far away, unfortunately (I hope only 'yet') from the eyes of all those involved in the affair. Therefore, not only do I not have time to write on the subject, but also that the product, obviously, will not be to the liking of many (tuition at a prestigious university in the USA is about forty thousand dollars per year. Why should our country subsidize a student so that he can obtain a degree with two thousand dollars per year, And all this so that he can later leave the country (universities in Israel have a good name abroad) and not return anything. On the other hand, why shouldn't the lecturers' salary be according to advertisements; I mean, differential?
Both in the matter of 'fallen leaves' and in the matter of higher education, I repeat: let the 'disappearing hand' (the economic one, of course) shape the rules (with the exception of market failures, etc.).
If you mentioned the Ministry of Religion, then this is actually an example of how the religious are not extortionists and only the government creates needs in the religious so that when the day comes you can buy them (as every beginning drug marketer knows: you can give the first dose for free...). The establishment of the Ministry of Religion did not follow any coalition negotiations, but as a way to buy Shas in order to keep it in the government despite the Winograd report and despite the negotiations on Jerusalem and the core issues; In other words, more than Shas wanted the Ministry of Religion, Olmert wanted Shas (this, by the way, is one of the reasons I strongly oppose any budgeting of religious institutions by the state, because it is an elegant way for the state to buy the Torah and get as much from it as possible spirit; there is no greater blasphemy than this).
Bye
Friend, what could be simpler than that. Today I am at home. Any striking lecturer who wants to talk about the situation or alternatively someone affected by the strike, please find my email and phone number at the bottom of the page, please call and I will write a detailed article tonight, there is no word limit.
Now the ball is in your court.
Mr. Bar-Ilan,
If I may respond to your words addressed to my father:
I agree with you because it also seems to me that an article is missing on a topic that is so critical to higher education.
Since the subject is bothering you, why don't you write a news item dealing with it, and pass it on to my father? I am sure that if she deals fairly with the issue (and there is nothing to be done, we must also show the other 'investments' the government is making in Israel, such as reopening the Ministry of Religion), he will be happy to publish it on the website.
I would be happy to read your words and your opinion regarding the strike in more detail and in detail,
Roy.
I wonder why there is no reference to the book 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'; There the idea is described in a much more elegant and clever way (from the beginning of the book to its original end).
One of the questions that troubled Einstein in his later years is why the world - about the laws in it - is precisely the way it is, or in his words: "Could God have created the world differently". This is a question that is both philosophical and physical; So, in fact, maybe the style of the article is a bit provocative, but the very question (only in a more refined formulation) probably has 'kosher' since the days of Einstein.
A small personal addition (if I may) to Avi Blizovsky:
If the original and elaborate factory (the 'Zionist' as Shaman called it) of 'Falling Ali' had gone up in smoke by some crazy fanatic or by just some short circuit, I have no doubt that you would have devoted at least one article to the demons that are rampaging in our country and the value of enlightenment etc. etc. plus all kinds of their stuff and science has nothing to do with it. And here, wonder of wonders, not an esoteric incinerator of organic waste from aging individuals of Homo sapiens goes up in smoke, but an entire semester of one hundred and fifty thousand students (and perhaps an entire school year) goes up in smoke, and with it goes up in smoke the technological and scientific (and economic) future of the State of Israel , and you are standing on the sidelines and plowing like Kofi Anan in his good days??? The question can be phrased a little differently: if the money had been taken from the universities for the yeshivas, you would have gone over the barricades, and now that there is nothing left to discuss except the crisis in higher education as it is unrelated to religious issues, are you standing and blubbering?? If all the scientists flee the country, who will be left to browse your site (after all, you seem to make almost every effort to expel the ultra-Orthodox surfers)?
Bye
That actually sounds interesting.
Although this sounds absurd to us,
We must not forget that even theories published in the past that were considered very absurd, succeeded and were accepted by many.
Just treat the theory as a real possibility, and let researchers investigate. There are many scientists who often engage in philosophy as well, and always come out against theories that are exaggerated in their opinion, but like any researcher, they can also be wrong.
Good luck with your research!
PS, it seems that the speed of the information that is transferred from object to object in this simulation is actually the speed of light, as Einstein claimed. Something to think about.
I actually thought that I brought all the reservations even in the subtitle, and I chose to quote from the opening of the article in ARXIV and not from the New Scientist (mainly for copyright reasons but also for reasons of better adherence to the source). The section I chose to quote from the New Scientist according to the permissible citation rules, is the section dealing with criticism, and it is not just a criticism, it is actually a nail in the coffin of this study.
Say are you crazy?? How did an article proposing to discuss physics in terms of "information processing" get such a title?!
The movie "The Matrix" appears as an example only on the sixth page and is an indication of the weakness of this article which is at best from the field of metaphysics.
Apart from that, this is an article that - ARXIV! That is, an article at the Pre-Print level (before publication) that has not yet been accepted for publication in any serious newspaper (and I don't think it will be accepted either; my hypothesis is that the guy "scribbled" something to fill a quota for the framework in which he works).
As one smart commenter has already written, New Scientist doesn't seem to choose the studies it publishes very wisely.
what nonsense And it has nothing to do with the truth of the content of his words. The language he speaks is that of a pseudo-scientist (or at least that of the reporter). And I am a person who observes Torah and mitzvot. Just write the words energy space time logically (I don't know what logic has to do with physics in this context (and I studied a little physics and mathematics)) or a virtual virtual system and feel knowledgeable
One might think that the laws of mechanics in their various incarnations or the holographic theories of superstring theory are not abstract enough to get excited by the word "data simulation"
It is not suitable for Idan to publish such articles