My Truden Life

I am only reminding you

Lycos and the little yourky

About Time, Motion and Mind

A discussion I started in Facebook.

In a discussion on Facebook I stated that the definition of “time” is incorrect.

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Time is the relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.

In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:
Read more… »

God for scientists

My God, I still have my English weblog!
Let’s write something in it then.

—

With my Google friends (in Google forums) we have interesting discussion and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:

—

So let’s see is there such a thing as God for scientist.
I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named “matter” in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.
Read more… »

Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge (I can not believe it…!)

I won’t say “I can not believe that you call him philosopher” because that will bring difficulties in understanding the meaning of “belief”.
But I can say “Oh, my God!” and that will change nothing.

I don’t like seriousness and in support of my statement I’ll say – it sucks.

Now imagine that I’m the serious Bertrand Russel and I say: “human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter”, which will make you BELIEVE that this is the truth about belief.
Now, that sucks.
Because your belief will be put on Russell’s authority in philosophy and that will prove Russell wrong in his understanding about “belief”.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Well, let me explain myself.

Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Russell is right is not behavior.
Then what is it?
It is a strong positive position in your uncertainty.
You believe that Russell is an authority to trust and that position is the most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately the belief does not always reflects the truth.

But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.

What “knowledge” is?

There are few types of knowledge.

BASIC KNOWLEDGE
Read more… »

Bertrand Russell – knowledge and logic

“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” – Russell

Not being offensive to Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know (any answer).
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.

“I Know”? is wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge”? is the right statement.

As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
(How can we know what knowledge are we missing if we don’t already have the knowledge about the subject?)

The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
What “knowledge” is?

The self-awareness does not use words and meanings.
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object. Something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
Read more… »