Čas ne obstaja

Kaj bi bilo, če bi lahko ... ?
problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by problemi » 6.2.2011 1:56

NoSee wrote:Absolutno. Dobro, da si opomnil na locevanje sistem/podsistemi, kajti prav tu tici vecina tezav, ko se pojmovanja iz enega skusajo prenesti in operirati v drugem. Tako pridemo do vprasanja, kateri sistem najbolje zajame najsirsi mozni spekter obstoja, na kateri nacin najbolje obravnavati to cudo od vesolja?
Zame je to znanost, v bazi fizika(-delcev in kozmologija), vse vmes pa so podveje, locene po skrcenem polju preucevanja.
Dober si NoSee ni kaj, takoj za sistem določiš vesolje (fizika delcev, kozmologija). Jaz bi raje obravnaval družbeni, se nas nekako veliko bolj tiče. Govorila sva o vlogi na razvoj (napredek) človeka. Nisem na glavo padel, da bi izjavil, da naj filozofi rečejo: "Fiziki v stran, prihajamo mi, da vam razložimo to "čudno dogajanje" v mikroskopskem svetu."
NoSee wrote:Ne vem tocno, na kaj ciljas..utopij si lahko zamislimo neskoncno, sam raje gledam skozi ocala realizma.
Točno tako, v okviru realizma (dosegljivih možnosti).
NoSee wrote:Time will tell 8)
Morda. Ob tem predlagam v poslušanje:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuVMcOKJ ... re=related

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by problemi » 6.2.2011 1:59

NoSee wrote:Ce lahko le malenkost pristavim k tvojemu sprasevanju, problemi..

Za postavitev vprasanja je potrebna dovoljsnja kolicina informacij, tako lahko vprasanja vzniknejo le iz dovolj kompleksnih struktur.
Ponavadi vprasanje ze vsebuje odgovor, le formulacija(jezik) potrebuje postopek rekurzije in preoblikovanja za 'dobit'(ustvarit) odgovor.
Verjamem. Pa bi te kljub temu poprosil, da mi pokažeš, kje v mojem vprašanju se že skriva odgovor. (upam, da sem te dobro razumel, torej da problematiziraš moja vprašanja)

agata
Posts: 609
Joined: 19.1.2011 5:32

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by agata » 6.2.2011 6:46

Dobro bom pustila fiziko pri miru, ker se ne spoznam dovolj, mi je pa zelo zanimiva, ampak poanto sem pa podala. Bom pa poizkusila z drugo naravoslovno vedo, vzemimo laboratorij, v katerem preizkušajo novo snov, ki naj bi pomagala pri neki bolezni. Nujno je da se spremenljivke pri preizkušanju omejijo, saj ni dovolj časa, da bi vse upoštevali, pa še pogoji so umetni. No in potem je znanstveno dokazano, da to pa res pomaga. Hitro kupite.
Argumenti, ki nasprotujejo moji poanti z glasbo pa so kar precej majavi. Namreč notno črtovje poznamo le zahodnjaki in ne vem kako lahko vidiš frekvence? Glasbo slišimo. In še nekaj, za jezik je značilno, da je metaforičen, kar pomeni da lahko eno besedo vedno razložimo z drugo, tona ce pa ne moreš razložiti s fis in ge, je samo ce. Zapojte, pa mi povejte kaj vidite, kateri označevalec?
Ampak to je vendar rubrika o času o katerem bi morali razpredati, Če je bil čas pred človekom, me zanima kdo ga je meril? In mogoče bi kaj povedali orazličnih koncepcijah časa o linearnem in cikličnem. Namreč zagovorniki nedolžne objektivne znanosti lahko poslušajo kar nekaj dejstev, ki jih imamo za povedat manjvredni družboslovci.
Koncept linearnega časa je produkt krščanstva, ki pričakuje vrnitev sina božjega in tako imamo danes predstavo časa kot linerane črte, medtem ko so pred krščanstvom dojemali čas kot kroženje in vračanje istega. No in hkrati s to predstavo se je rodila ideja o napredovanju znanosti, ki da odkriva naravne zakonitosti, ki pa po Newtonu, Leibnizu in drugih velikih umih in utemeljiteljih sodobnega naravoslovja nujno potrebuje idejo Boga, ali drugače, brez predpostavke o Bogu kot intelegibilnem bitju, ki je iz kaosa napravil red in zakone ne bi bilo sodobne znanosti.

User avatar
shrink
Posts: 14549
Joined: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by shrink » 6.2.2011 10:13

agata wrote:Bom pa poizkusila z drugo naravoslovno vedo, vzemimo laboratorij, v katerem preizkušajo novo snov, ki naj bi pomagala pri neki bolezni. Nujno je da se spremenljivke pri preizkušanju omejijo, saj ni dovolj časa, da bi vse upoštevali, pa še pogoji so umetni. No in potem je znanstveno dokazano, da to pa res pomaga. Hitro kupite.
Kakšna omejitev spremenljivk? Kakšni umetni pogoji? Gre za dvojno slepe randomizirane študije, ki statistično dokažejo delovanje učinkovine, pri tem pa izločijo možnost placebo učinka. Ozadje delovanja učinkovine pa ustrezno pojasnjuje farmakologija, biokemija itd.
Namreč zagovorniki nedolžne objektivne znanosti lahko poslušajo kar nekaj dejstev, ki jih imamo za povedat manjvredni družboslovci.
Sklepam, da so to dejstva, ki jih naštevaš za tem.
Koncept linearnega časa je produkt krščanstva, ki pričakuje vrnitev sina božjega in tako imamo danes predstavo časa kot linerane črte, medtem ko so pred krščanstvom dojemali čas kot kroženje in vračanje istega. No in hkrati s to predstavo se je rodila ideja o napredovanju znanosti, ki da odkriva naravne zakonitosti, ki pa po Newtonu, Leibnizu in drugih velikih umih in utemeljiteljih sodobnega naravoslovja nujno potrebuje idejo Boga, ali drugače, brez predpostavke o Bogu kot intelegibilnem bitju, ki je iz kaosa napravil red in zakone ne bi bilo sodobne znanosti.
In to so zate dejstva? Tvoja teza, da je moderna znanost nastala in napredovala zaradi predstave o linearnem času, ki jo je uvedlo krščanstvo, je naravnost smešna. Če bi to držalo, spoznanja o naravnih zakonitostih ne bi stagnirala 1600 let, ko so se cerkveni učenjaki oklepali Aristotelovega nauka kot pijanec plota. In nastanek ter napredovanje znanosti ni potrebovalo nobene ideje Boga in vsekakor med utemeljitelji sodobnega naravoslovja obstajajo nekateri, ki so Boga postavljali na stranski tir. Naj citiram Galileja:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.

Nature … is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense–experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by problemi » 6.2.2011 10:15

agata wrote:Dobro bom pustila fiziko pri miru, ker se ne spoznam dovolj, mi je pa zelo zanimiva, ampak poanto sem pa podala.
Ne vem zakaj bi jo pustila. Problem pri družboslovcih je v temu, da včasih potegnejo prehitre zaključke na osnovi določenih spoznanj fizike, pri naravoslovcih (predvsem fizikih, pri matematikih je ponavadi druga zgodba) pa je problem, da ravno tako dajajo ponavadi prehitre zaključke na osnovi določene humanističnih in družboslovnih spoznanj. Redko kdaj se pa zgodi, da bi se vsedli skupaj in ob pogovoru rekli kakšno "pametno" skupaj.
agata wrote:Bom pa poizkusila z drugo naravoslovno vedo, vzemimo laboratorij, v katerem preizkušajo novo snov, ki naj bi pomagala pri neki bolezni. Nujno je da se spremenljivke pri preizkušanju omejijo, saj ni dovolj časa, da bi vse upoštevali, pa še pogoji so umetni. No in potem je znanstveno dokazano, da to pa res pomaga. Hitro kupite.
Ja, s tem se zelo strinjam. Tu trčimo ob "sprego" znanosti in kapitala. Nekako pričakujem odgovore v stilu: bazična znanost pa ne.
agata wrote:Argumenti, ki nasprotujejo moji poanti z glasbo pa so kar precej majavi. Namreč notno črtovje poznamo le zahodnjaki in ne vem kako lahko vidiš frekvence? Glasbo slišimo. In še nekaj, za jezik je značilno, da je metaforičen, kar pomeni da lahko eno besedo vedno razložimo z drugo, tona ce pa ne moreš razložiti s fis in ge, je samo ce. Zapojte, pa mi povejte kaj vidite, kateri označevalec?
Bojim se, da se nisva razumela, nikakor nisem mislil na notne zapise, čeprav bi, lahko da se motim, prav vsako glasbeno delo zapisal v notnem zapisu. Frekvence (tone) slišimo, saj ni poanta v tem da jezik vidimo. Mislil sem na umetnikovo refleksijo, na njegovo razmišljanje pred in ob ustvarjanju umetniškega dela. V tem vidim, da je umetniško delo tudi ustvarjeno preko jezika.
agata wrote:Če je bil čas pred človekom, me zanima kdo ga je meril? In mogoče bi kaj povedali orazličnih koncepcijah časa o linearnem in cikličnem. Namreč zagovorniki nedolžne objektivne znanosti lahko poslušajo kar nekaj dejstev, ki jih imamo za povedat manjvredni družboslovci.
Saj ne gre za merjenje časa. Gre za dimenzijo (prostor-čas). Mogoče bi bilo dobro, da si prebereš:
http://www.kvarkadabra.net/index.html?/ ... osebna.htm

User avatar
shrink
Posts: 14549
Joined: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by shrink » 6.2.2011 10:54

P.S. Sam Newton v prvi izdaji svojih Principov (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) sploh ne omenja Boga. To je povsem jasno iz samega uvoda:
Since the ancients (as we are told by Pappus) esteemed the science of mechanics of greatest importance in the investigation of natural things, and the moderns, rejecting substantial forms and occult qualities, have endeavored to subject the phenomena of nature to the laws of mathematics, I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics as far as it relates to philosophy. The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration, and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical. However, the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all, for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn, for it requires that the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately before he enters upon geometry, then it shows how by these operations problems may be solved. To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from mechanics, and by geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry that from those few principles, brought from without, it is able to produce so many things. Therefore geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. But since the manual arts are chiefly employed in the moving of bodies, it happens that geometry is commonly referred to their magnitude, and mechanics to their motion. In this sense rational mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated. This part of mechanics, as far as it extended to the five powers which relate to manual arts, was cultivated by the ancients, who considered gravity (it not being a manual power) no otherwise than in moving weights by those powers. But I consider philosophy rather than arts and write not concerning manual but natural powers, and consider chiefly those things which relate to gravity, levity, elastic force, the resistance of fluids, and the like forces, whether attractive or impulsive; and therefore I offer this work as the mathematical principles of philosophy, for the whole burden of philosophy seems to consist in this--from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena; and to this end the general propositions in the first and second Books are directed. In the third Book I give an example of this in the explication of the System of the World; for by the propositions mathematically demonstrated in the former Books, in the third I derive from the celestial phenomena the forces of gravity with which bodies tend to the sun and the several planets. Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, I deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of Nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles, for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards one another, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from one another. These forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy.
In the publication of this work the most acute and universally learned Mr. Edmund Halley not only assisted me in correcting the errors of the press and preparing the geometrical figures, but it was through his solicitations that it came to be published; for when he had obtained of me my demonstrations of the figure of the celestial orbits, he continually pressed me to communicate the same to the Royal Society, who afterwards, by their kind encouragement and entreaties, engaged me to think of publishing them. But after I had begun to consider the inequalities of the lunar motions, and had entered upon some other things relating to the laws and measures of gravity and other forces; and the figures that would be described by bodies attracted according to given laws; and the motion of several bodies moving among themselves; the motion of bodies in resisting mediums; the forces, densities, and motions, of mediums; the orbits of the comets, and such like, I deferred that publication till I had made a search into those matters, and could put forth the whole together. What relates to the lunar motions (being imperfect), I have put all together in the corollaries of Prop. lxvi, to avoid being obliged to propose and distinctly demonstrate the several things there contained in a method more prolix than the subject deserved and interrupt the series of the other propositions. Some things, found out after the rest, I chose to insert in places less suitable, rather than change the number of the propositions and the citations. I heartily beg that what I have here done may be read with forbearance; and that my labors in a subject so difficult may be examined, not so much with the view to censure, as to remedy their defects.


kot tudi "pravil", na katerih gradi svojo "filozofijo:"
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY

Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

Rule II: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

Rule III: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are movable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the inertia) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest, we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and inertia of the whole, result from the extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and inertia of the parts; and hence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and movable, and endowed with their proper inertia. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from ane another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, suffered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity.
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain; that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies than for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their inertia. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth.

Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
V drugi izdaji Principov je sicer dodal zaključni esej General Scholium, v katerem navaja tudi teološki argument (iz sistema sveta je moč sklepati o obstoju Boga), ampak ta dodatek nikakor ne pomeni, da so njegovi Principi grajeni na temelju "ideje Boga," da je ta ideja "nujno potrebna" in da brez nje "ne bi bilo sodobne znanosti". Prva izdaja Principov je več kot dovolj zgovorno dejstvo, da taka ideja sploh ni bila potrebna.

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by problemi » 6.2.2011 11:46

igy wrote: Če ne veš kaj je gibanje, potem poglej v slovar. Lahko pa (kako pripravno) razviješ svojo teorijo o tem, kako gibanje pravzaprav obstaja samo v naših glavah, kako je to pravzaprav produkt našega jezika in na ta račun (to je najlepše) veliko prihraniš, ko samo rečeš (recimo) London in, glej ga šmenta, si že tam.
Bejž, v slovar naj pogledam. Sprašujem te, ker trdim, da ti ne veš kaj je gibanje. Tebi se zdi odgovor na to vprašanje povsem tivialen. OK. Podaj ga.

Ko skušaš biti duhovit na račun drugega, kar seveda ni sporno, je dobro prej pomisliti, ali zaradi svoje nevednosti o neki zadevi, ne duhovičiš (se smešiš) pravzaprav na svoj račun.
igy wrote:Shrink, prosim te, ne naslavljaj problemi s kvazifilozofom. On je čisto tapravi filozof, ker samo pravi filozof govori tako, da ga nihče ne razume, na koncu pa se tako zaplete s svojimi odgovori, da še sam sebe ne razume.
Preden mi uspe odgovoriti na to tvojo misel, bi te vprašal:
Kaj je filozofija?
Kdo je filozof?

User avatar
NoSee
Posts: 609
Joined: 7.11.2010 17:04

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by NoSee » 6.2.2011 11:57

problemi> Jaz bi raje obravnaval družbeni, se nas nekako veliko bolj tiče. Govorila sva o vlogi na razvoj (napredek) človeka.

Ok, a keep in mind, da je druzbeni aspekt realnosti podmnozica sirsega konteksta, vesolja.
Pravzaprav je cloveski napredek predvsem v tem, da spozna okoliski vesoljni poligon ter kaj ta omogoca, nudi.
Ko se zave tega poligona, ugotovi kaksna je njegova pozicija v njem in kaksne nevarnosti pretijo vsenaokoli.
Tole si verjetno ze videl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g


Pa bi te kljub temu poprosil, da mi pokažeš, kje v mojem vprašanju se že skriva odgovor. (upam, da sem te dobro razumel, torej da problematiziraš moja vprašanja)

Ne zelim jih problematizirat, le nakazujem, da se odgovor nahaja v mnozici, iz katere crpas informacije in jih oblikujes v vprasanje.
Ce poenostavim ter se grem malo hudomusnosti, bom rekel...odgovor bo sestavljen iz enakih crk, s katerimi je sestavljeno vprasanje...le red bo drugi.


Se par zanimivih govorov; priporocam ogled, ko imate cas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQliI_WGaGk

derik
Posts: 2043
Joined: 6.3.2010 9:04

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by derik » 6.2.2011 13:10

shrink wrote:P.S. Sam Newton v prvi izdaji svojih Principov (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) sploh ne omenja Boga. To je povsem jasno iz samega uvoda:
V drugi izdaji Principov je sicer dodal zaključni esej General Scholium, v katerem navaja tudi teološki argument (iz sistema sveta je moč sklepati o obstoju Boga), ampak ta dodatek nikakor ne pomeni, da so njegovi Principi grajeni na temelju "ideje Boga," da je ta ideja "nujno potrebna" in da brez nje "ne bi bilo sodobne znanosti". Prva izdaja Principov je več kot dovolj zgovorno dejstvo, da taka ideja sploh ni bila potrebna.
V prvi izdaji tudi ni bilo pravil Rule 3 (dodano v drugi izdaji) in Rule 4 (dodano v tretji izdaji).

V eseju "General Scholium" (dodanem v drugi izdaji, ko je dodal tudi Rule 3) pa med drugim pravi:

"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing . . ."

User avatar
shrink
Posts: 14549
Joined: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by shrink » 6.2.2011 13:28

derik wrote:
shrink wrote:P.S. Sam Newton v prvi izdaji svojih Principov (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) sploh ne omenja Boga. To je povsem jasno iz samega uvoda:
V drugi izdaji Principov je sicer dodal zaključni esej General Scholium, v katerem navaja tudi teološki argument (iz sistema sveta je moč sklepati o obstoju Boga), ampak ta dodatek nikakor ne pomeni, da so njegovi Principi grajeni na temelju "ideje Boga," da je ta ideja "nujno potrebna" in da brez nje "ne bi bilo sodobne znanosti". Prva izdaja Principov je več kot dovolj zgovorno dejstvo, da taka ideja sploh ni bila potrebna.
V prvi izdaji tudi ni bilo pravil Rule 3 (dodano v drugi izdaji) in Rule 4 (dodano v tretji izdaji).
Ta opomba ne spremeni ničesar: V Principih, kot so zastavljeni, ne omenja ne Boga, ne kakega Bitja.
V eseju "General Scholium" (dodanem v drugi izdaji, ko je dodal tudi Rule 3) pa med drugim pravi:

"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing . . ."
Ja in? Saj sem rekel, da je v tem eseju (in zgolj v njem) izpostavljal (ta) teološki argument, na katerem pa ni gradil samih Principov (torej ostalega besedila).

derik
Posts: 2043
Joined: 6.3.2010 9:04

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by derik » 6.2.2011 14:07

NoSee wrote:Ce si recimo pogledas kako predstavitev, analizo statisticnih podatkov, o spremembah v zivljenjskem standardu razvijajocih drzav, je jasno, da se trendi izboljsujejo zaradi uvazanja nacina zivljenja in tehnologije, vse to izhaja(na grobo) iz fizikalnih spoznanj o obnasanju snovi in prilagajanju tega z namenom omogocanja boljsega prezivetja clovestva(saj clovek je celicni/materialni stroj).

Recimo tule si poglej:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPt8ElTQ ... r_embedded#
http://www.gapminder.org/
A lahko postrežeš s kakšnim konkretnim grafom, ki bi pokazal korelacijo med tehnologijo in kvaliteto življenja (čeprav korelacija sama še ne pomeni nujno tudi povzročanja). Recimo število internetnih priključkov na prebivalca in stopnjo zadovoljnosti z življenjem. Ker če primerjaš samo GDP in življenjsko dobo, to še ne pove vse resnice. Dolga življenjska doba sama po sebi še ni nekaj dobrega, če bi bila recimo povezana z drogami, nezaposlenostjo in kriminalom, stari ljudje pa bi bili osamljeni in slabotni ter bi si želeli, da bi čimprej umrli.

igy
Posts: 337
Joined: 25.11.2005 1:16
Location: Maribor
Contact:

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by igy » 6.2.2011 14:28

problemi wrote:Bejž, v slovar naj pogledam. Sprašujem te, ker trdim, da ti ne veš kaj je gibanje. Tebi se zdi odgovor na to vprašanje povsem tivialen. OK. Podaj ga.

Ko skušaš biti duhovit na račun drugega, kar seveda ni sporno, je dobro prej pomisliti, ali zaradi svoje nevednosti o neki zadevi, ne duhovičiš (se smešiš) pravzaprav na svoj račun.
Glej, odgovor je laho enostaven, lahko ga pa zakompliciraš do onemoglosti. Ok, ne poznam odgovora, res nimam pojma, me lahko, prosim, ti poučiš in mi razložiš, kaj je to gibanje, da se ne bom še naprej smešil. Hvala.

User avatar
mriz
Posts: 2036
Joined: 13.5.2004 23:52
Location: maribor

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by mriz » 6.2.2011 14:33

problemi wrote:
igy wrote:Če ne veš kaj je gibanje, potem poglej v slovar. Lahko pa (kako pripravno) razviješ svojo teorijo o tem, kako gibanje pravzaprav obstaja samo v naših glavah, kako je to pravzaprav produkt našega jezika in na ta račun (to je najlepše) veliko prihraniš, ko samo rečeš (recimo) London in, glej ga šmenta, si že tam.
Bejž, v slovar naj pogledam. Sprašujem te, ker trdim, da ti ne veš kaj je gibanje. Tebi se zdi odgovor na to vprašanje povsem tivialen. OK. Podaj ga.
Eh, na tak način lahko po nepotrebnem zakompliciraš čisto vsako stvar. Po tvoji priljubljeni logiki odgovarjanja bi ti nekdo moral vrniti milo za drago z nizom vprašanj v stilu - Kaj je slovar? Kaj pomeni pogledati? Kaj pomeni spraševati? Kaj pomeni trditi? Kaj pomeni vedeti? Kaj pomeni zdeti se? Kaj je odgovor? Kaj je vprašanje? Kaj pomeni povsem? Kaj pomeni trivialen? Kaj pomeni podati? In seveda - kaj pomeni pomeniti?

Če se tebi to vsakič znova zdi tako produktivno, res upam, da na tem ne boš našel somišljenikov zunaj mistikov in new-age zgubljenčkov. Jaz v tem vidim samo filozofsko sabotažo pogovora.


derik wrote:A lahko postrežeš s kakšnim konkretnim grafom, ki bi pokazal korelacijo med tehnologijo in kvaliteto življenja (čeprav korelacija sama še ne pomeni nujno tudi povzročanja). Recimo število internetnih priključkov na prebivalca in stopnjo zadovoljnosti z življenjem. Ker če primerjaš samo GDP in življenjsko dobo, to še ne pove vse resnice. Dolga življenjska doba sama po sebi še ni nekaj dobrega, če bi bila recimo povezana z drogami, nezaposlenostjo in kriminalom, stari ljudje pa bi bili osamljeni in slabotni ter bi si želeli, da bi čimprej umrli.
Pred kratkim sem prebral knjigo The Rational Optimist. Sicer je (za mene osebno) bolj 'mnjeh', ampak tam boš našel informacije, po katerih sprašuješ.

Roberto11.
Posts: 391
Joined: 30.12.2010 20:18
Location: Dolenjska

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by Roberto11. » 6.2.2011 14:56

Problemi wrote:Dober si NoSee ni kaj, takoj za sistem določiš vesolje (fizika delcev, kozmologija). Jaz bi raje obravnaval družbeni, se nas nekako veliko bolj tiče. Govorila sva o vlogi na razvoj (napredek) človeka. Nisem na glavo padel, da bi izjavil, da naj filozofi rečejo: "Fiziki v stran, prihajamo mi, da vam razložimo to "čudno dogajanje" v mikroskopskem svetu."
Dost filozofiranja....Problemi, podaj konkretne predloge, kako izboljšati našo kvaliteto življenja.

Roberto11.
Posts: 391
Joined: 30.12.2010 20:18
Location: Dolenjska

Re: Čas ne obstaja

Post by Roberto11. » 6.2.2011 15:39

Problemi wrote:Jaz bi raje obravnaval družbeni, se nas nekako veliko bolj tiče.
In zakaj ga ne obravnavaš ?
Zakaj se nenehno zaletavaš v to, da je kriva znanost in znanstveniki ?

Verjamem, da se nas vse tiče v kakšnem svetu bomo živeli...In mi tudi ni všeč, ko vidim, da nekatere združbe ne zanima drugega, kot denar...Zanima jih le monopol, za človeka pa jim ni mar...Vendar za to ni kriva znanost ali znanstveniki, ampak človeški pohlep in z njim povezani politični sistemi, ki omogočajo izkoriščanje. Zato se sprašujem, zakaj ne obravnavaš tega pomembnega družbenega pojava, ampak le kritiziraš znanost ? Kar je popolnoma nesmiselno.
Zanima me, če si že videl novi Zeitgeist (Moving Forward 2011) ? Sprašujem zato, ker me zanima tvoje mnenje o samih idejah v filmu. So tudi podnapisi, da ne bo nesporazumov.

Post Reply