We know.

[socrat44]

  We know.
===
1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.
2 -  we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.
3 -  we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''
4 -  we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.
5 -  we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.
6 -  we can understand :   ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than  5% of  matter in the universe
7 -  we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.
======

absract.jpg (10.01 KiB) Viewed 3360 times

[Age]

  We know.
===
1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.

That is an assumption "you" and "others" make.

I KNOW there is NO beginning and there was NO end.

2 -  we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.

Human beings may THINK they know this.

3 -  we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''

Human beings THINK this may be true

4 -  we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.

A basis for 'modern philosophy of science' would all depend on what you SAY is 'modern philosophy of science'.

5 -  we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.

I do NOT know of one psychologist who has told me this. And, what is that 10%, which "you" have heard about, is based on exactly?

6 -  we can understand :   ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than  5% of  matter in the universe

I am pretty sure that "you" human beings can understand that those figures are NOT based on any actually real substantial facts. Unless of course "you" can show 'Me' as being wrong and prove otherwise

7 -  we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.
======
absract.jpg

And I KNOW WHY.

What "you" human beings supposedly KNOW can vary very differently from what 'I' actually KNOW.

But when "you" say "we" you might be referring to some thing other than "human beings"?

[henry quirk]

...I'm self-directin' meat (same as you) in an amoral reality (so it's all up for grabs, buddy).

[gaffo]

we know nothing.

[socrat44]

I know.
===
1 - i know: Newton's gravity describes that two objects with mass
        feel toward each other.
2 - i know:  Einstein's gravity describes that a single object with mass
  distorts the space and time around it in such a way that causes
    light in the vicinity to curve toward that object.
3 - i know: Newton's and Einstein's matter are less than 5% in the universe
4 - i know: these ≈ 5% of matter can bend only ≈ 5% of universe's space
5 - i know: the rest space of the universe (+ 95%) is flat continuum.
6 - i know: this simple arithmetic is hard to adopt.
======

FLAT.jpg (6.26 KiB) Viewed 3321 times

=====

[Atla]

  We know.

Aren't you making a little too many assumptions here?

1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.

- observable universe, not universe
- small or zero volume, not certainly zero
- huge or infinite density, not certainly infinite
- and the idea that in every sense, time had a starting point back then, is a wild guess and pretty illogical

2 - we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.

observable universe, not universe

3 - we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''

maybe, maybe not, personally I doubt it

4 - we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.

Well it's the most mainstream idea but I think anyone will admit that there are many issues with it. And there are scientists who flat out reject the Big Bang idea.
But yes the observable universe does seem to come from a singularity.

5 - we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.

Nope that's just a well-known urban legend.
A few people can seem to be able to directly tap into the raw processing power of their unconscious though, going way beyond what's "normal".

6 - we can understand : ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than 5% of matter in the universe

How do you know they won't discover the other 95% next week?

7 - we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.

Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.

[socrat44]

Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.

Heisenberg

Heisenberg.jpg (43.17 KiB) Viewed 3240 times

[Atla]

Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.

Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg

If anything, that's the godless "God" of Eastern philosophy.

(But maybe by "logic" you mean the standard Western worldview, yeah that one got destroyed, but that's not what I mean by logic.)

“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg

Anyway Heisenberg did go too far with the Vedanta stuff, the Copenhagen interpretation did a lot of harm I think.

[socrat44]

Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.

Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg

“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg

Agree
=====

[Atla]

Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg

“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg

Agree
=====

But in the end Vedanta only solves like half of the mistery too. The weirdest part of QM remains unsolved.

[-1-]

Listened to a philosophy lecturer in my home town, back about five years ago, who proposed that logic of humans has been shaped by evolutionary forces, and human intuitive logic excludes those logical possibilities that are counter or useless for use in our evolutionary past.

He proposed to call the evolution-shaped logic to be called Logic 1, and the non-intuitive logic which keep baffling humans Logic 2.

Apparently this is the latest breakthrough in logic theory and in philosophy of the last decade.

[-1-]

Further to my previous post:

In L1 (Logic 1) things move smoothly and in a continuous tranportation from A to B. In L2, they jump avoiding existence in the interim space.

In L1 the existence of things that cause other things to happen, precede in time the existence of the caused things. In L2, this is not always the case.

In L1, acceleration is smooth and speed is always a function of acceleration. Not in L2.

In L1, things are additive: one plus one makes an amount of twice one. In L2, this is not true at all.

The list continues, and new items get added to the list of differences between Logic 1 and Logic 2, as the research into QM continues.

[gaffo]

Listened to a philosophy lecturer in my home town, back about five years ago, who proposed that logic of humans has been shaped by evolutionary forces, and human intuitive logic excludes those logical possibilities that are counter or useless for use in our evolutionary past.

He proposed to call the evolution-shaped logic to be called Logic 1, and the non-intuitive logic which keep baffling humans Logic 2.

Apparently this is the latest breakthrough in logic theory and in philosophy of the last decade.

concur - came to the same conculusion about logic - in my sophmore year in college - wrote a paper on it in my philospy class. Logic was just a product of evolution of man's brain - a form of instinct (pre-frontal large brian, ect but still just an instinct).


of course the same prof thought i might be "mentally troubled" and "need help" due to my views of the only reality i knew of was myself (Solipsist from 5 yrs prior - 16 yr old).


so go figure.

[gaffo]

I do think "logic" is over rated and just an another animal instinct (just a newer one the man and maybe a couple of "higher" animals (apes/dalphins/etc) may have.

not related to any "truth" in the least.

imo of course.

[-1-]

I do think "logic" is over rated and just an another animal instinct (just a newer one the man and maybe a couple of "higher" animals (apes/dalphins/etc) may have.

not related to any "truth" in the least.

imo of course.

I think it may be related to truth. Or not related. But to prove that it's not related is just as hard or impossible as to prove that logic is related to truth.

Both a possibilities that defy verification by man.