Chuang-Tzu wrote: 'The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish. Once the fish are trapped, the trap is no longer required. The springe is to catch hares. Once the hare is caught, the springe is no logner needed. Words are to capture ideas. Once the idea is caught, you no longer require words."
A fun read. I've wrestled with this many years ago shortly after not-finishing my physics degree. You video link has brought me up to date with the research which, I am rather delighted to say, aligns with my conclusions that I had reached from the initial (1980s) results from Bell's theorem. This goes straight to yogic thought: there is only a present that is infinitely evolving. The physical appearance is a manifestation of one aspect of the infinite, and itself seems to have an infinite set of mandlebrot sets that swim together. Fun stuff.
I didn't know the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Using a liberal interpretation of fractal, I would understand you mean to say that these constructs are just origami-equivalent? I mean to say by that, that we could fold and morph one into another without loss?
I really like the idea, but what I rescue from relativity is not that all reference points are the same, or that truth is impossible, but rather that what is important is knowing that our map is *local* and how to relate that local map to other maps.
Second, I do go down the rabbit hole of "I think therefore I am" as a metaphysical statement. In my What is Reality? playlist, I look at whether our minds exist in the world or whether the world exists in our (singular) mind. It's really different to say 'nothing is real' than it is to start with Descartes' revelation that consciousness exists, is self-evident. FYI: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS5WYJBpd75vCQeiHmz4jbOpgu9Scnr4f.
And last, I love your post and its thoughtfulness and humility. In my original intro video, I stressed that I was an uncredentialed, unpublished, unemployed nobody--and nobody is perfect! My book bio says, "Tereza Coraggio offers no market credentials by which you can determine her worth or the value of this book. Open it and decide for yourself." Here's the OG intro (which is no longer up on my YT page) and I look forward to your next post!
There is a lot here. It seems appropriate to mention "The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusians, and the Unmaking of the World" by Ian McGilchrist.
Then there is Linguistic Determinism. It seems like an area where our intuitions betray us. I'm with John McWhorter on this. Here is an easy-to-follow discussion: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/sapir-whorf
Chuang-Tzu wrote: 'The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish. Once the fish are trapped, the trap is no longer required. The springe is to catch hares. Once the hare is caught, the springe is no logner needed. Words are to capture ideas. Once the idea is caught, you no longer require words."
A fun read. I've wrestled with this many years ago shortly after not-finishing my physics degree. You video link has brought me up to date with the research which, I am rather delighted to say, aligns with my conclusions that I had reached from the initial (1980s) results from Bell's theorem. This goes straight to yogic thought: there is only a present that is infinitely evolving. The physical appearance is a manifestation of one aspect of the infinite, and itself seems to have an infinite set of mandlebrot sets that swim together. Fun stuff.
I didn't know the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Using a liberal interpretation of fractal, I would understand you mean to say that these constructs are just origami-equivalent? I mean to say by that, that we could fold and morph one into another without loss?
I really like the idea, but what I rescue from relativity is not that all reference points are the same, or that truth is impossible, but rather that what is important is knowing that our map is *local* and how to relate that local map to other maps.
Also, I found Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk, which I'll link here. I'll watch it and respond later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
I love being your first commenter on your first post! What an honor!
So many possible responses, infinite time.
The first is that the prelude to my book is called In the Beginning Was the Purpose, which I reproduced on my Substack: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-beginning-was-the-purpose. You might like it.
Second, I do go down the rabbit hole of "I think therefore I am" as a metaphysical statement. In my What is Reality? playlist, I look at whether our minds exist in the world or whether the world exists in our (singular) mind. It's really different to say 'nothing is real' than it is to start with Descartes' revelation that consciousness exists, is self-evident. FYI: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS5WYJBpd75vCQeiHmz4jbOpgu9Scnr4f.
And last, I love your post and its thoughtfulness and humility. In my original intro video, I stressed that I was an uncredentialed, unpublished, unemployed nobody--and nobody is perfect! My book bio says, "Tereza Coraggio offers no market credentials by which you can determine her worth or the value of this book. Open it and decide for yourself." Here's the OG intro (which is no longer up on my YT page) and I look forward to your next post!
What & Why & Who Am I? https://youtu.be/oc4w9Do_tSQ
There is a lot here. It seems appropriate to mention "The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusians, and the Unmaking of the World" by Ian McGilchrist.
Then there is Linguistic Determinism. It seems like an area where our intuitions betray us. I'm with John McWhorter on this. Here is an easy-to-follow discussion: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/sapir-whorf