-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
1, talking about nature
80 lines (74 loc) · 4.98 KB
/
1, talking about nature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
talking is in fact nothing but separating and grouping, they are the foundation of all concepts
this is especially evident in mathematics (a way of talking, in which the relations between concepts are clear,
and thus the foundation of any concept is determined)
the concept of a set (a group of parts) is the foundation of all mathematical concepts
the subtle point here is that, separating and grouping are circular concepts,
each defined using the other (yin and yang)
nature (everything) can't be a set
in other words, there is no set of everything, because at least it can't contain itself
even if we define sets, in a way that they could be members of themselves,
again a set of everything would not be possible (it's called Russell's paradox)
this is why:
suppose that we have a set named set1
another set named set2 contains those sets in set1 that are not members of themselves
it turns out that set2 cannot be in set1, here is the proof:
suppose that set2 is in set1, set2 is either a member of itself or it is not
if set2 is a member of itself,
then by its definition set2 must not be a member of set2, a contradiction
if set2 is not a member of itself,
since it is a member of set1 which is not a member of itself, set2 must be a member of set2,
again a contradiction
this shows that no set contains everything because at least it can't contain set2
it's the talking that must be contained in nature (eg in the form of a brain), not the other way around
nature, universe, reality, everything, god, being, or whatever we call it,
is not a group of parts, though it can be described as a group of parts approximately
ironically only the existence of (approximate) groups and parts in our brains,
allows us to talk about nature in general
so talking about nature, with approximate concepts, is possible, and indeed very useful,
it's called physics
quantum theory and general relativity (discussed in the following chapters) are
the best theories of physics we have at hand,
two different ways to talk about two different areas of nature
it's only at extreme areas namely Planck scales, that they meet each other,
and this meeting turns out to be disastrous, and at the same time, a useful guide to a unified theory
(as discussed in the chapter on Planck scales)
we will see that quantum theory and general relativity, when combined, imply that:
at Planck scales nature can't be described with parts and groups,
because at those scales the assumption that nature is a group of parts,
is not a good approximation any more
but even without mentioning quantum theory and general relativity,
we can predict the main aspects of the unified theory
since nature is not a concept, all concepts used in the unified theory must be unobservable
if something is observable, it means that it is a part of nature,
and it is observed through interaction with other parts
the following paragraph is quoted from "motion mountain" by Christoph Schiller "http://www.motionmountain.net/"
indeed there must be one and only one unobservable concept
if it was observable, the theory would not be final,
if there were more unobservable concepts, the theory would be fiction, not science …
in any unified theory, all the concepts that appear must be only approximately parts of the whole
thus we need an entity, describing nature which is not a set but which can be approximated by one
for example, the approximation should yield a set of space points and a set of particles,
but also, whenever we look at any part of nature, without any approximation,
we should not be able to distinguish it from the whole world
the simplest model would be a single entity which is extended and fluctuating,
reaches spatial infinity, allows approximate localization,
and thus allows approximate definition of parts and points
in more vivid imagery, nature could be described by some deformable folded and tangled entity,
a giant knotted amoeba
an amoeba slides between the fingers whenever one tries to grab a part of it
a perfect amoeba flows around any knife trying to cut it,
the only way to hold it would be to grab it in its entirety
however, for someone himself made of amoeba strands, this is impossible
he can only grab it approximately, by catching part of it,
and approximately blocking it, for example using a small hole,
so that the escape takes a long time
strand theory proposed by Christoph Schiller is an attempt for a unified theory of physics
(it's discussed in the last chapter)
still, no matter how we describe nature, we are here as pretty evolved parts of it
in fact we are so evolved that we can alter the path of evolution itself
the problem is that we are not still evolved enough to use this ability properly
we are going to create more suffering, and ultimately the destruction of all which has been achieved,
if we continue what we are doing now (excluding a few developed countries)
though it is possible that the evolution goes one step further,
leading to humans that can add to the beauty and richness of nature
see "a new earth" by Eckhart Tolle