giovedì 22 settembre 2016
The sirens
The sirens undermine the sailors with their song and the listener is bound to crashing against the rocks.
But because death strikes the listener?
Because it is the terrible punishment of the gods for those who have the presumption, arrogance, the hybris of wanting to hear what is reserved to the deity.
Mortals do not have access to the divine knowledge, on pain of death.
Even Socrates was put to death, punished for his hybris, revealing publicly in defense oration, which tells of the response of the Pythia of Delphi, "Socrates is the wisest of men."
But this response is not enough to Socrates, he attempts to show that God is wrong and that, therefore, he is wiser than God.
mercoledì 10 agosto 2016
The old gods are dead
The old gods are dead and with them their myths.
We built other myths, of course, but these are now more subtle than the ancients, because today we are unaware of them.
The old gods are dead and new ones and oppress us, prey of them, mock the old.
Today we are dominated by myths, sex and power, history and technique.
The first myth: the beautiful future everyone will eat abundantly and will have sex with whomever they wish and every difference will be answered in a common happiness.
The myth of history, a development from dark to light, with us in a dominant position, say at the height of knowledge and live happy.
This seems like the harder myth to die, although they appear constantly clues of its futility and inconsistency.
Our story today is called contemporary history, since 1789. And then? As you will later call? No way, the story is over.
And finally, the myth of the technique that solves everything and, if not resolved now, certainly not solve tomorrow.
But the technique is not that a useful result of science, which is instead pure invention and is, in its highest hypothesis, a metaphysical cosmology.
And the science tells us today that matter, energy, atoms, many, light, electrodynamics, are representations for us, expressions of something that is expressed mysterious and unknowable, which is behind, which is hidden.
giovedì 5 maggio 2016
Enigma
Enigma
This “enigma” is the question about a problem, that is, of an obstacle placed by the god of Delphi on our journey.
How to overcome the obstacle? He tried one way, comparing opinions.
And the comparison is done with the ways of rational dialectics, where the statement of the first who speaks is contradicted by another. Contradicting means that the exchange of opinions is presented as the origin “antifatic”.
Or is it true the first opinion is true or the second.
But because from debate it comes early in “antifatic” way?
The absolute choice between one or the other horn of the dilemma, reveals the true nature of the reasoning, that is, is based on the principle of contradiction and on principle of the third excluded, which is a consequence of the first.
But here it is not a choice, rational discourse may not have a different nature, it can only reveal its intimate nature, namely that of a system of logical rules.
The comparison does not end with these first statements, but unfolds in unpredictable ways and often very intricate, a genuine network, “griphos” for the Greeks, one of the synonyms of the enigma.
And in that network you can be harnessed and no more out.
The reason, in short, is born of the riddle and enigma can also be captured and destroyed.
It 's very frail.
giovedì 7 aprile 2016
sabato 14 marzo 2015
New book "Einstein & Parmenide"
This is a link to my new book "Einstein & Parmenide", Armando Editore, Roma
http://www.ibs.it/code/9788866778660/pistone-massimo/einstein-parmenide.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwuI-oBRCEi87g0K3O8OoBEiQAb25WAUfvhrjmrgmoGwtyyCK87KTyi98su91D18hpY9yohcIaAhbZ8P8HAQ
giovedì 19 dicembre 2013
E = mc²
E = mc²
This formula of Einstein appears in September 1905 and it is maybe the most famous equation about Physics.
This equality is a sentence, a proposition.
But it is not written in our ordinary language, daily talking,
the one with which we say “this table is green” or “i go out to buy bread”.
the one with which we say “this table is green” or “i go out to buy bread”.
It is written in a particular language, a formalized language, useful for physics.
It's necessary to understand it, a translation in our daily language
and that this translation could be possibile is obvious and It has also been demonstrated
by Kurt Gödel, the most prominent logical of our time, and Wittgenstein.
and that this translation could be possibile is obvious and It has also been demonstrated
by Kurt Gödel, the most prominent logical of our time, and Wittgenstein.
Let's go to read, sign by sign, our formula.
E : represents the mechanical energy, potential +kinetics
M : represents the rest mass, expressed in kilograms
C : represents the speed of light, expressed in m/s,
usually approximated to 300.000.000 m/s (3 x 108 m/s).
Therefore c2 = 9 × 1016 m/s
Meantime it is an equation, of equality, and means that all what is written
Mass and energy are, says this formula, two faces of the same coin one
is an enormous compression of the second, and the second one
is an enormous given off of the first.
is an enormous compression of the second, and the second one
is an enormous given off of the first.
Then mass and energy are the same thing.
Yes but, this same thing, that they are, what does it is?
We can define mass in function of the energy, energy in function of the mass, we can affirm
that we are talking about two different states of the same thing.
But of what?
Einstein’s formula tell us that the universe is made by just one thing, and that the thing, is absolutely mysterious.
Einstein’s formula is the highest expression of our reason, of our speech
And advert, with silence, the abyss beside which we live and move.
What it is. The Universe.
Now if we step back 2500 years, we read what Parmenides wrote:
« So will just be words what mortals have established
sure that it was true: born and perishing, being and non-being
changes of places and mutation of bright color »
( Parmenides, frammenti – Diels).
Parmenides tell us here that being and not being are only words established by mortals.
For Parmenides being is a symbolic product of our intellect an attribute, a quality, not a substance.
“Believing to be true " indicates tu us, as a reference, the truth, Truth, goddess Alètheia.
At what refers Parmenides?
To all, to the universe. Truth is the universe.
The world as a whole we can not say nor reason above, is the mystic.
And this truth, graspable at signals only through the intuitive faculty,
never through rational thought, much less we can get with experience,
with touching things a closed street to any result.
never through rational thought, much less we can get with experience,
with touching things a closed street to any result.
Parmenides and Einstein say the same thing.
Rational thinking conversational speaks only of what we can talk.
The rest is silent.
The abyss between logos and the universe appears to us outside our talking.
This view, shared by two men separated by 2500 years shows us also the
inconsistency of the historicistic and evolutionary view of human thought
that would range from rough to elegant.
But doesen’t look like.
inconsistency of the historicistic and evolutionary view of human thought
that would range from rough to elegant.
But doesen’t look like.
Massimo Pistone
venerdì 21 giugno 2013
Physical and mathematical sight see the abyss of the Universe
"About what we can not talk, we must be silent!" Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus.
"About what we can not talk, we must be silent!" Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus.
What is inexplicable "shows itself", it can not be "told", it could not be told with the language, it is the mystic.
Even he says the same thing that Parmenides and Einstein said.
He indicates, whit the silence, the abyss between language and the Universe.
Even he says the same thing that Parmenides and Einstein said.
He indicates, whit the silence, the abyss between language and the Universe.
We must be silent on the "what it is", on the Universe like whole.
But we can not shut up and we wondered, first of all, if the Universe is an indistinguishable or if it is made of parts, small as you want, one distinct from the another.
The Universe is continuous or discrete?
To answer, let's start proceeding doing a survey. We investigate the nature of "what it is".
Our physical investigation, our experience, show us Poincaré, leads to the antinomy A = B, B = C, A<C, which is repugnant to our logic, we do not feel just accept that reasoning does not end with A = C.
In fact, if A weighs 10, B weighs 11 and C weighs 12 , and if we have an analysis tool that reads only the differences greater than 1, for our examination A = B and B = C, but A<C, because the difference between A and C is visible, while they are not visible the differences between A and B, or between B and C.
But we can not shut up and we wondered, first of all, if the Universe is an indistinguishable or if it is made of parts, small as you want, one distinct from the another.
The Universe is continuous or discrete?
To answer, let's start proceeding doing a survey. We investigate the nature of "what it is".
Our physical investigation, our experience, show us Poincaré, leads to the antinomy A = B, B = C, A<C, which is repugnant to our logic, we do not feel just accept that reasoning does not end with A = C.
In fact, if A weighs 10, B weighs 11 and C weighs 12 , and if we have an analysis tool that reads only the differences greater than 1, for our examination A = B and B = C, but A<C, because the difference between A and C is visible, while they are not visible the differences between A and B, or between B and C.
This situation is not remedied, because we will always have differences not detectable, however powerful is our tool of observation or measurement.
The concept of physical continuous, Poincaré concludes, is a creation of our intellect, fielded their own to overcome the blatant violation of a elementary logical principle.
And also the continuous mathematical and geometric contain aporias.
It 'just remember that Euclid creates the geometric point as a non-size, to avoid the absurd and establish a system.
Aristotle, in the book on Physics, observes that the continuous can not be composed of indivisible elements, otherwise its nature would be discrete, not continuous. That is, Aristotle tells us that the elements of the continuum are divisible to Infinity.
Zeno docet.
And again here the Socrates of the Theaetetus, where the first elements have only names, not attributes, not even that of being.
The concept of physical continuous, Poincaré concludes, is a creation of our intellect, fielded their own to overcome the blatant violation of a elementary logical principle.
And also the continuous mathematical and geometric contain aporias.
It 'just remember that Euclid creates the geometric point as a non-size, to avoid the absurd and establish a system.
Aristotle, in the book on Physics, observes that the continuous can not be composed of indivisible elements, otherwise its nature would be discrete, not continuous. That is, Aristotle tells us that the elements of the continuum are divisible to Infinity.
Zeno docet.
And again here the Socrates of the Theaetetus, where the first elements have only names, not attributes, not even that of being.
The thesis of Antisthenes, a disciple of Gorgias.
In fact, at this point of the investigation, there are some doubt on the name of "elements" and "components" of the continuum. Hard to imagine how they, as hypothesized existing can be identified. Elude us in a fog evanescent.
In fact, at this point of the investigation, there are some doubt on the name of "elements" and "components" of the continuum. Hard to imagine how they, as hypothesized existing can be identified. Elude us in a fog evanescent.
Perhaps indeed the continuous and the discrete symbolic constructions are in our thoughts, not attributes of the space-time unity.
A different way, groped to unravel the tangle, consists of the infinitesimal calculus.
Perhaps, in the infinite sets, we can untie the knot of the discrete-continuous.
The first step in the infinitesimal calculus does Galileo wrote in his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences, when he was under house arrest, after recantation.
Galileo compare the ordered series of natural numbers with the ordered series of their respective square and, by relating strictly and exclusively each element of a series with each element of the other, the two-way link, shows that the former are as many as the seconds.
Yes, they are equal in number, but that number is? How big is an Infinite?
Cantor called the cardinality, the measure of an infinite set.
Cantor then exposes his continuum hypothesis around 1878: Every infinite subset of the continuous has the cardinality of the natural or that of the continuum.
There is a further cardinality between that of the real numbers and the set of natural numbers? No, says Cantor.
This conjecture have never found a demonstration (such as the set theory has not found a satisfactory adjustment of the internal consistency), for nearly 140 years until today, even if the most important and logical mathematicians of the world are committed to it, without interruption.
A different way, groped to unravel the tangle, consists of the infinitesimal calculus.
Perhaps, in the infinite sets, we can untie the knot of the discrete-continuous.
The first step in the infinitesimal calculus does Galileo wrote in his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences, when he was under house arrest, after recantation.
Galileo compare the ordered series of natural numbers with the ordered series of their respective square and, by relating strictly and exclusively each element of a series with each element of the other, the two-way link, shows that the former are as many as the seconds.
Yes, they are equal in number, but that number is? How big is an Infinite?
Cantor called the cardinality, the measure of an infinite set.
Cantor then exposes his continuum hypothesis around 1878: Every infinite subset of the continuous has the cardinality of the natural or that of the continuum.
There is a further cardinality between that of the real numbers and the set of natural numbers? No, says Cantor.
This conjecture have never found a demonstration (such as the set theory has not found a satisfactory adjustment of the internal consistency), for nearly 140 years until today, even if the most important and logical mathematicians of the world are committed to it, without interruption.
Gödel dedicated decades of reflections and some public conferences. Without outcomes by himself deemed conclusive.
How many are the points of a Euclidean line? This is the question that underlies the hypothesis.
To understand this, it happens that on a straight Euclidean line I put the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, then add the related numbers , -1, -2, -3, -4, then still the rational numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on.
How many are the points of a Euclidean line? This is the question that underlies the hypothesis.
To understand this, it happens that on a straight Euclidean line I put the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, then add the related numbers , -1, -2, -3, -4, then still the rational numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on.
For each addition the numbers seem more, the set looks more dense.
But, when I add irrational numbers, like pi greek ones, the straight line becomes saturated, it becomes a continuous, the elements disappear and suddenly I find myself with a totality. The elements are not more numerous, they disappear.
This is a different form of the same conjecture. Tertium non datur.
But, when I add irrational numbers, like pi greek ones, the straight line becomes saturated, it becomes a continuous, the elements disappear and suddenly I find myself with a totality. The elements are not more numerous, they disappear.
This is a different form of the same conjecture. Tertium non datur.
Aleph one indicates the cardinality of the continuum.
Aleph zero indicates the size of a discrete set, it is fully within the dialectic of the rational faculty.
Aleph one indicates the size of the continuum, is out of rationality, outside of logos, is attainable only with the intuitive faculty.Logos and Nòos.
And nothing between them.
Perhaps too may the question: "What is the cardinality of the continuum?" And there is a bizarre response: "what it is."
This risky answer also responds to the question of Gödel on the existence of a "maximum" in the collection of increasing cardinality. There would be a maximum, which is also a minimum.
Even in the case of set theory and infinitesimal analysis, we are exercising a point of view, I do not think that we should never think that it is a "objective" look , "certainly fair", that we are giving the "realistic description of the reality "that we have captured the essence ".
The dogma is always lurking, imbues the language, the thought. And it does rot.
The reality of space-time, however, shows no propositions, and even contradictions or paradoxes. The paradoxes and the antinomies are reserved for our languages.
Aleph zero indicates the size of a discrete set, it is fully within the dialectic of the rational faculty.
Aleph one indicates the size of the continuum, is out of rationality, outside of logos, is attainable only with the intuitive faculty.Logos and Nòos.
And nothing between them.
Perhaps too may the question: "What is the cardinality of the continuum?" And there is a bizarre response: "what it is."
This risky answer also responds to the question of Gödel on the existence of a "maximum" in the collection of increasing cardinality. There would be a maximum, which is also a minimum.
Even in the case of set theory and infinitesimal analysis, we are exercising a point of view, I do not think that we should never think that it is a "objective" look , "certainly fair", that we are giving the "realistic description of the reality "that we have captured the essence ".
The dogma is always lurking, imbues the language, the thought. And it does rot.
The reality of space-time, however, shows no propositions, and even contradictions or paradoxes. The paradoxes and the antinomies are reserved for our languages.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)