Name: Jamie Lebowitz
Username: jlebowitz
MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM
When faced with the question of how I would react if I were a body of light, I would have to agree with other students in that I would feel boundless, free, and spiritual. Then, I had a second thought. Maybe I am more inclined to feel this way because of the way in which the question was set-up.
Being in a place described as a “transcendental realm of bliss” initiates feelings of calm and serenity. However, I think being described as a “complex, unearthly composition of matter” would entertain me to the same extent. I feel that rather than being upset by reduction, people are more upset with how it is phrased and the feelings that are associated with that word choice.
The sense of “entrapment” that occurs from being materialized is said to be one lead into dualism. Perhaps believing in something that transcends our bodies makes us feel more meaningful. It is understandable that people would be upset by
It is a little ironic that people get upset when they are referred to as matter because Everything is composed of matter.
FILM 1: Either/OR Contradiction
After watching the video on existentialism, I was not sure what to make of this concept. It attempts to answer what it means to be alive as a human being in our world and does not attempt to overcomplicate things; it states that a person’s existence and the pure existence of things around them is all that is necessary for living.
As I researched, I stumbled upon a lecture by the founding existentialist, Jean Paul Sartre, given in 1945. This clarified things for me. He said in this lecture that “existence comes before essence, that we always begin from the subjective” (http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/sartre.htm). A book is made to serve our purpose of reading and learning – its essence exceeds its existence. Man, he described, exists before essence too. We are born and we exist, but what we do with our lives gives us essence.
This made sense to me. When we are born, we start with a blank slate. We have no experiences, good or bad. We have not made our mark in the world. It is when we grow and make changes to our environment that we develop this “essence.”
It seemed like Sartre emphasized the idea that what one does in the present will determine the future. What has already been done is a part of you and will contribute as well. Overall, the world offers us nothing and it is our own selves that create meaning. While in some sense this sounds depressing, in another I find it liberating that we are in charge.
REQ ASSIGNMENT 2
FILM 2: The Myth of Eternal Recurrence
This concept calls on a person to reflect on their decisions and lifestyle and whether or not it is repeatable. On thinking about reoccurrence, I thought about how events often repeat themselves in the next generation. For example, many times I have seen things that have happened to people’s parents happen the children of those parents. The concept of eternal reoccurrence may be nonsense within the lifespan of one person, but I think it is in many cases true when spread across the lifespan of parent and child.
I believe if the concept that events will cycle through one’s lifetime again were true, that people would act differently. Decisions in which they act quickly or irrationally would require a second thought because the result from that decision would repeat itself. This could sacrifice the wonderful spontaneity of life, but at the same time result in better outcomes. I would never willingly relive everything, but if I had to, I believe I would enjoy most of it.
I say this because I am, for the most part, satisfied with the decisions I have made and would be happy to experience my fondest memories all over again. I think about my favorite memories like competing in my first triathlon, learning how to play piano, and hiking the Grand Canyon with my dad. These are experiences that have shaped who I am and made me a happy person. I would revisit them in a heartbeat.
You cannot have good experiences without having bad ones to compare them to. You would not enjoy a lazy summer day in the sun had you not worked hard previously, indoors. Like most, bad experiences have followed good ones: Getting surgery and not being able to compete, my piano-playing ability fading away as other things took priority, and losing my dad to a preventable health issue. These events would of course repeat with regret and sorrow, but if they are outnumbered and overshadowed by good things then I would be content.
Film #4: The Emergence of Rationality
The emergence of rationality led to a more practical understanding of the world around us. Why should this be considered a bad thing? In the video, it sounds like there is an angry undertone because of the changes that occurred when the Greeks, Romans, Arabs exchanged religion for science. Once again, the idea of humans being materialized is weaved in by the end of the video. The narrator feels that humans are “demoted to a specimen.”
Rather than worshipping the sun and not knowing how or why it came about, people discovered these missing details and changed the people’s understanding. At the end of the video the narrator says they used gadgets and other material items instead of love to worship the sun. While the different populations may have gotten along fine with their knowledge of what was, they were missing out on a wealth of information about the world. The saying goes “ignorance is bliss.” I believe that any knowledge is enriching. In any situation, I would rather know about things that may change my life for the better or worse than live ignorantly.
Flipped video #1
Top of Form
How can the conflict between religion and science be partially resolved by developing a better and richer understanding of the word “matter”?Bottom of Form
It is understandable that people would be upset when something as personal as their bodies – or their entire being – is referred to as no more than “matter,” a word that triggers no feeling or room for thought. If we are indeed composed of just atoms, nerves, and tiny particles, is the mystery of our existence truly diminished?
By clarifying the word as it applies to our composition, we can eliminate the dispute. Those who feel materialized by the word feel this way probably because it means little to them. If instead, it was described with more depth and used in familiar terms, I think there would be a mutual resolution.
Flipped Video #2
The Chandian effect describes the phenomenon of one’s own experience and conscience influencing their perceived religious visions. Faqir Chand was, as one website described, “the master of controlled near death experience.”(https://sites.google.com/site/babafaqirchandsliterature/) The religious visions in which people claimed to see holy figures, he figured, was attributed to none other than their own experience and feelings. It is something within that shapes what occurs or who we see in these visions. Chand said that reality is a result of our own subjectivity. This makes sense when I think of cultural relativism, the idea that social norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. Similarly, the visions one perceives are subjective and within a certain context.
According to the video, when Chand was fighting in the war, his religious vision gave rise to a flood of thoughts. The advice he received was effective and helped save lives- how could this have happened? One source said how Chand came to the idea when he realized that many of his followers started having visions of him when they were in dangerous scenarios, when in fact, he was well alive and nowhere near them. As a result, Chand assumed religious visions must not be manifestations of other worldly forces, but must be perceptions of your own mind.
Flipped Video #3
FILM 3: The Limits of Science
I do not believe that the limits of our skull compose the limits of our understanding. To say that we have reached our limit would be to say that we have essentially stopped growing, or improving. If one person’s knowledge is stretched to their supposed limit, another person may build on that person’s knowledge to discover something one man might not have been able to singlehandedly. In this way we make new connections and conquer the unknown.
Our own neural constraints are not predefined. While there is only so much room for growth in our head, since a limit has not been defined as to how big the brain can grow, it seems wrong to say that a limit exists.
Humans are constantly evolving and even if it seems like a limit must be reachable due to facts in the present, science is only a product of what our neural capacity has discovered thus far. I have heard of people “training their brain” and overcoming mental obstacles that people did not think possible. I think that whatever limit is imposed, humans will over time develop the neural capacity to overcome it and learn new things about the universe, surpassing expectations as we have in the past.
Flipped Video #4 7/1/12
I remember the first time I stargazed. I was camping with my family and the sky appeared darker than usual for a summer night. At the same time, it had character. Dots of bursting light seemingly the size of a freckle made patterns against the dark background. When I look up into the night sky, I realize just how small and insignificant I am amongst the millions of twinkling stars located further distances than the mind can conceive.
I know there is a satellite floating around above the atmosphere, enabling GPS for countless things. We are confident that we are in a certain place at a certain time, and there is nothing else to it. How can we know where we are in the universe if the universe is not clearly defined? How can we possibly know where we are in a space that is immeasurable? The only way I think we can attempt this is to designate relative locations. While this may not solve the great puzzle, at the very least it allows for communication.
Reading response #1
How Socrates Died
I think it is interesting how Socrates openly admires the qualities of Melitus, his accuser, even flattered by the grounds of his indictment. Socrates comes off as passive and unaware when he asks such simple questions, but in reality the questions do not have simple answers.
In the dialogue, for instance, Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain the difference between piety and impiety. Euthyphro responds by saying his actions reflect piety while the actions of Socrates represent impiety. This, however, was not directly addressing Socrates’ question. Socrates was a famous philosopher who asked questions, not necessarily for an answer but to stimulate thought. He did so in the dialogue and I liked how we were made to rethink the wording of Euthyphro’s original answer.
Reading Response #2
The Life of Pythagoras
It was clear that Thales had a major influence on the life of Pythagoras. He said that “[his] greatest lesson had been to learn the value of saving time.” Interestingly, this led him to a more free and natural lifestyle as he embraced vegetarianism. I think it was curious how Pythagoras chose to follow this type of lifestyle, especially considering it has become somewhat of a trend in today’s world.
Pythagoras had advice to give to everyone: children, women, men, and the community. To young boys he advised not to use revenge, and rather to devote themselves to learning. As for women, he said that they should offer to the divinities things they have made on their own, like cakes, honey-combs, and perfumes. A surprising piece of advice to women was that with regards to men, they “should take care neither to oppose their husbands, nor consider that they have subjected their husbands should these latter yield to them in any detail.” Amongst all the good advice that Pythagoras gives, the part about women being careful not to oppose their husbands did not seem to fit in. to men he advised It is a little disappointing that someone so respectable would advise that women play such a passive role.
The Pythagorean lifestyle seemed restrictive in comparison with today’s standards; his intimates had to resist all animal food, and any other thing considered “hostile to the reasoning power.” “On them he like-wise enjoined suppression of speech, and perfect silence, exercising them for years at a time in the subjugation of the tongue, while strenuously and assiduously investigating and ruminating over the most difficult theorems.” True followers had to abstain from wine, spare their food, sleep little, and “cultivate an unstudied contempt of, and hostility to fame, wealth, and the like.”
WEEK 2: Natural Philosophy
Video 1: Electric Surfer
The most basic unit of matter – the atom – consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The oppositely charged protons and electrons aim to balance each other. On a larger scale, balance is something we all strive for. “Balance” means different things to different people. For me, balance means maintaining good relationships with friends and family, doing well in school, and exercising to keep healthy and strong.
The ionization energy of an element measures how hard it is to remove an electron (http://dl.clackamas.edu/ch104-07/gaining.htm). The way I see it, once you achieve balance in your life, it becomes hard for it to be taken away, similar to how it becomes hard to remove an electron once an element achieves the highest ionization energy. I think that people who do not feel a pull in any one direction, whether it be in a negative direction to become sad with themselves or a positive direction to become conceded, are at peace and “balance.”
Concerning opposites and reality, I think we are attracted to people who bear opposite qualities, at least initially. The “opposites attract” theory argues that people are attracted to those whose needs conversely match his or her own. I believe we do this out of curiosity. We want our opposite to treat us to what we’re missing out on, whether it be a quiet girl trying to be more social or a someone who likes to go out all the time trying to spend a few nights in. Even if this theory is not correct, I think we all can appreciate something different. Even an atom can teach us something about ourselves if we dig a little deeper.
Video 2: Quantum Thinking
Response post
Jeremy Watkins, “Quantum Thinking”….
“We do not unlock nature pure and pristine,” in terms of quantum thinking, I think that means that our role in empirical research needs to keep in mind that theories like string theory need to be given a fair look in spite its challenges in observation. Our thinking about physics is mostly, if not mostly all, based on constructs. There is little that has been observed in the way of direct observation when constructing that which we have come to know about physics, and all of science as a whole. That is to say that for now, mathematics can suffice until a new breakthrough is observed. I think the best way to sum it up is that science is not witnessed crime; it is the investigation on the scene after the event has taken place.
My response: I thought that the last line of your paragraph was very insightful. I was doubtful about String Theory at first, thinking I would never accept it since I am the type of person who must see things in order to believe them. Since 11 dimensions are not visible to the naked eye, we can only continue to observe and make hypotheses based on experiments and simulations. No one can know what a particle is doing at the time of examination, so we can only make projections at best. These projections serve the necessary “investigation” of the scene, even if they do not lead us to the next breakthrough.
Videos 3-5: Eliminative Materialism
Is it really okay to throw up our hands and settle for “God did it”? In the past, we’ve been able to eliminate many theories resting on the work of God or some spiritual power. Despite sacrificing the beauty of mystery in how things come about, this “eliminative materialism” is the basis of our advancement.
It seems that as we eliminate our spiritual theories and draw conclusions with learned science, we have seen results. It was interesting to learn how we tend to systematically solve mysteries of life beginning with mathematics and ending with God.
Video 6: The Elegant Universe
It took around 200 years for Einstein to come along and show the world how gravity actually works. During those 200 years, the world followed Isaac Newton’s view of the universe. Einstein’s proposition of a 4-dimensional space-time model changed the way physicists thought about the solar system. According to Einstein, the force of gravity was curves in the fabric of space of time, a theory known to this day as “general relativity.”
It is hard for me to accept theories of which I know little about. Even after learning of “String Theory” in the video, which builds on Einstein’s spacetime theory, it was difficult to grasp the concept. Rather than having only four dimensions as in Einstein’s model, String Theory suggests eleven dimensions. I was shocked to hear this number, because it seems so random. Personally, it is hard for me to consider String Theory a possibility. How can anyone who has not studied it extensively and whose everyday life is seen through only one dimension?
It is interesting to think how Newton’s theory of the universe, which dominated for so many years, could one day be swept away by Einstein’s theory. How did they get people to accept it as truth? As a person who needs to see most things to believe them, String Theory is a very difficult theory to accept. It seems like with every generation there is a new theory that claims to know the truth. I do not think the truth will be discovered for a long time, but if physicists keep working at it and building on these theories, it can be found.
.
Video 7 : Fabric of the Cosmos
Space can bend, twist, and ripple. We are not able to see it happen because space is in a sense, invisible. What is baffling is that space is the most abundant thing in the universe. It exists and is present in everything we do and have done since throughout our existence. We attempt to study its properties but fall short because we still do not know that much about it.
I imagined myself as the skater spinning in the video, my arms swinging out. When we are in motion, we are only in motion relative to our surroundings. When removed from those surroundings, we are moving in any number of dimensions. There is no means of comparison.
Interview with Brian Greene EC video
Greene acknowledges that theory after theory has been made which expands the definition what we call “the universe”. First our earth was not the center, then the sun, then our galaxy. Our universe may not be the center- there may be multiple.
Math gives rise to realities that can be observed. As long as we keep following the equations we can confirm. Math can reveal new picture of reality so scientists are investigating. Einstein’s mathematical equation that the universe is expanding was explored further and was not confirmed until after his time.
This video clarified some of the spatial confusion I was feeling regarding String theory. It was really interesting and helpful when Greene gave the example of a deck of cards and assuming that space is infinite, at some point we are point to run into the same particles again. This is because in any finite region of space, matter can only arrange itself in finitely different orders. In infinite space, the order of particles has to repeat.
Flipped Video #5: The Unknowable: Exploring the Mystery of Being
What lessons can human beings learn by understanding that there are limits to how much we can ultimately know?
As far as the truth, we can only make observations and test those observations to see if what we think holds true. Even then, we cannot assume we have all the right answer due to variability, repeatability, and human error. Human beings have their faults and human error is present in experiments seeking answers to great questions. Evident from theory proposed upon theory, there is simply no way to say that one truth is better than another truth– there can only be projections. Even with additional projections, this may lead us in the opposite direction.
Flipped Video #6: Is the Universe really made out of rubber bands?
It sounds silly at first to hear that physicists believe the universe is made up of virtually “rubber bands.” These bands, unidentifiable by even the world’s most powerful microscope, compose one of the most encompassing theories yet – String Theory. It is POTENTIALLY scientific rather than merely wishful thinking because it could be tested, given that we are able to produce the tools to test it. Scientists say that it is currently impossible to test for something in so many dimensions. String Theory may not be the key to unlocking the mystery of the universe, but some believe it can help us in other ways.
“Whether the result is some fundamental principle or some quirk of mathematics, we don’t know, but it is useful for making statements about quantum entanglement.”-physicist Michael Duff
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/stringy-quantum/
Feynman describes how theory becomes law through a step by step process I’ve learned as the scientific method. He says we must compare our results with nature or our experience and compare it with observation to see if it works. The idea is that science can prove something right or wrong by testing it. The Large Hadron Collider was one such experiment that involved smashing atoms together as they accelerate really close to the speed of light to see if when they get a direct hit a graviton escaped into a parallel universe. Feynman said that if observations disagree with experiment, it is wrong.
Reading: Spooky physics
“ Bohr ruminates, ―When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.‖ “
I think this quote is applicable to the theories we’ve learned about. Scientists, philosophers, and physicists share a common goal – in their area of expertise, they are attempting to describe a phenomenon. That which is said will be either rejected, believed, or be brushed aside. Creating imagery may be more important than describing the facts because of the limits of science discussed earlier. Therefore, Bohr postulates that the task of physics is not finding out how Nature is, but rather saying what we think it to be as revealed through our acts of measurement.
WEEK 3: Biological Philosophy
Evolution Trilogy
I have always felt there was some truth in Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” theory. I liked how this video illustrated a different perspective. It essentially says that, rather than surviving as the originals in which we began, we survive as a result of our “edits,” or changes made to us by our environment, food, and people. I think it is true that we are constantly being edited, shaped, and molded to fit into society. It turns out, those who are most easily adaptable, thereby adjusting to life’s edits, are the ones that will be left standing.
The second part of the video focused on evolution and the “nonsense” that humans may create in order to have a sense of purpose. While I am not very religious, this opinion seemed to belittle those who are. I think it is normal to search for one’s purpose and to fall back on some kind of god when there is no other explanation for our existence.
Darwin’s DNA
It is astonishing to think about how many different religions exist. Even more shocking, each one is distinct and has its own set of beliefs. We are all human beings, yet some of the greatest questions in life have incredibly different answers depending on the religion of the person you ask. Science can move forward, yet religion stays inscribed in scriptures. It seems to me like religion falls in line with the “God did it” explanation. If there were a more thorough explanation for why something is, then it is possible that some religions would not exist.
Battles have been fought and bloodshed over something that lacks progressive evidence. When I heard the narrator say how gods change when you go to different landscapes, I began thinking more deeply about my own religious connection. If I were born in a different place to a different family, not only my life, but my religion would also change. Would I passively accept my religious designation? In a different religion, would I be more passionate about the claims and beliefs?
I think religion is inherited much like physical characteristics. I call myself Jewish. I go to temple every year with my family, and I celebrate the holidays. As a child, I was forced to go to Hebrew School and I didn’t understand why. I was “bat-mitzvah”d, just like my older siblings. While I have a better understanding of what it means to be Jewish now, I feel that I would not have made the effort had I not been actively involved by the will of my parents. Religion seems almost too exclusive. People who are knowledgeable of and enjoy another religion cannot simply call themselves that religious affiliation. While I have respect for all religions, I wonder if people that identify themselves with a religion do so solely because it was engrained in them by their parents.
Genius of Darwin
I agree with the others in that it is alarming how some students today believe strictly what they are told. I am not a fan of religion when it becomes a means of “brainwashing” people to believe things without question. Students must know that ultimately what they choose to believe is their choice. There are theories, and there are stronger theories. Oftentimes, private Christian schools are very expensive compared to public schools. What doesn’t make sense to me is why parents would practically pay teachers to encourage close-mindedness.
It is strange how variable the teaching of evolution is across the world in spite of the evidence. Darwin carefully documented all of his observations and went through great lengths to prove his theory that species do change over time. Even now, as archaeological digs continue to happen, new things are being discovered that only support his theory. Science is measurable. Claims it makes can be tested, observed, compared, and rejected. Religion, on the other hand, lacks progressive evidence.
Nova’s Evolution
I did not learn much about evolution until I voluntarily took a Biological Anthropology class my freshman year of college. I was fascinated, to say the least, at the connections humans have made with the past. We are able to do things today that we were never capable of doing in the past. Things we are able to do today have not always been within our capacity. We did not appear on this earth spontaneously able to use tools, think creatively, and have societies; we changed, we adapted, and we evolved.
People that do not learn about evolution nor see the similarities with fossils and artifacts before their eyes have no reason to believe in evolution. It has a much stronger impact when one can compare the skull of Homo sapien to Homo erectus and so on. It is scary to think that students uninformed of evolution in the classroom setting may never learn about their true origins.
Lucy is one of evolution’s strongest arguments. From the waist down she looked like us, but from the waist up she resembled an ape. A skull fragment of “Turkana boy” showed one of a series of species that make up our ancestors. This skeleton was the key in the transition from ape to human. Skeletal findings like Lucy and Turkana boy have provided great evidence and confirmation to the theory of evolution.
Flipped Video #7: Physics of Deception
Nothing occurs as we see it. Instead, everything in view is an image being relayed from just moments before. We see the world with a type of delayed reaction because “nothing arrives on time, but rather things arrive in time.” “Maya” means “that which betrays its real origin.” It takes minutes for the light reflected from a sunset, stars, and anything in this world to physically reach us. Even then it must travel through the iris, lens, retina, optic nerve, and eventually to the brain where we process the thought. Does the phrase “live in the present” lose its meaning because it is physically impossible to do so?
If deception is built into our nature, does that lessen the charge on criminal behavior? I began to question whether we all have dark intentions rooted deep inside of us that are merely masked better than others. I think everyone is guilty of acting at some point in their lives with some level of deception. Deception falls in line with the animalistic characteristics that follow the evolution argument, specifically “Survival of the Fittest.” In the evolutionary race, humans will rely on deception to survive. Truthfully, my pride wants to deny the possibility, but having never been in such a situation cannot speak to it.
Flipped Video #8: Death as a Black Hole
What scares me most about death is not my own, but that of others. Dying is assumed to be painful. But once you are dead, that is the end of it. I am far more afraid of someone I love dying because I will live to feel the pain of their loss. I recall a very visual memory of when I first learned what “death” was. I was about 7 years old when I got into a casual conversation with my mom about her mom.
The conversation led to finding out my grandmother died when I was 2 years old. I remember learning afterwards from my mom that eventually she would die too. She said it so matter-of-factly that I couldn’t believe it. Aside from being upset that one day I would lose the most important person in my life, that person didn’t even seem willing to put up a fight. Now I wonder, what fight is there to make? When someone is facing death, they have no choice in the matter.
Reading: Darwin’s DNA
Richard Dawkins
In The Ancestor’s Tale, author Richard Dawkins relates humans to pattern-seekers, particularly when it comes to their existence. He refers to an interesting idea that I shamefully admit to taking part in. He called it “conceit of hindsight,” which sums up our belief that our species is the final goal in evolutionary history. Dawkins says that “we are wrong to think our predecessors were transitional beings and a halfway mark to us.” He is probably right; if the evolution theory holds true, than what makes us think we are at its peak?
Upon thinking about evolution and our ancestors, I began to ponder my perspective on our “advanced” species. I have always felt that we are the smartest beings on the planet because we are the latest in the evolution of our genus, thus succumbing to the “incorrect, human centric perspective.” While this may be true, looking back on our predecessors we cannot assume greater intelligence. In my opinion, intelligence by species should be measured on a relative scale.
I found it surprising that Dawkins chose not to illustrate how we would continue evolving, but rather show the unity among us and our predecessors by going backwards, beginning with humans. He refers to three main methods to understanding human evolution, including archeology, renewed relics such as DNA, and triangulation. Dawkins appears to have a unique take on evolution.
Reading response to Melissa Cruz: On the Tendency to…
It does seem like every population is kept in check by its environment… except us. I agree that survival in the end lies with the individual, however, it seems like individuals(humans) have warped the environment to accommodate more humans than the environment was intended for.
It is sad because overpopulation is such a huge issue. While we search for ways to prolong life in our country, women in underdeveloped countries are having many children. Survival of the fittest, however true, seems to have a lot of variability. For instance, there may be many more “fit” human beings – smart, athletic – however you want to define “fit,” but due to their birthplace or upbringing cannot live up to their genetic potential.
I also find it kind of ironic that we are the beings that truly populate the earth, yet we are the ones causing the most degradation. I think ultimately it will be an accumulation of our actions that will keep the human population in check, i.e., pollution, deforestation, etc.
2. In the magazine MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM (and in the film feature), it is
argued that the reason many individuals have a problem with a purely scientific
exploration in philosophy and religion is because of a misunderstanding of the
term “matter.” Explain his argument and feel free to either support it with
additional material or critique it.
A problem arises when terminology in science meets philosophy and religion. As the film and magazine Mysterium Tremendum explain, a conflict develops from a misunderstanding and miscommunication of the word “matter.” The problem may lie in the idea that we define matter as solely one thing. We see think it removes the transcendental “spark” that makes us unique among all other living things. It seems that this perception is not doing us justice, but rather limiting our ability to learn more about the complexities of neuroscience and physics. Matter composes everything and perhaps if people can appreciate the beauty in that, then we can move forward.
Communication is vital in all realms, and when it comes to answering questions about our existence, people take words very seriously. Different things come to mind for different people when they hear the word “matter,” This makes a scientific exploration in philosophy and/or religion extremely difficult, in addition to defining things. One example of this would be when Francis Crick, a Noble Prize winner defined consciousness as “just a bundle of neurons.” It is a shame that miscommunication is something that holds us back from from pursuing neuroscience and physics. It is a shame that we are hung up on this small hindrance in communication which prevents us from appreciating the more advanced information available in neuroscience and physics.
When faced with the question of how I would react if I were a body of light, my first reaction is that I would feel boundless, free, and spiritual. Similarly, if I were told that instead I was “just material and just a body,” I would feel small and unpurposeful. Once again, a linguistic conundrum occurs because the way I hear and interpret this is different from the way another would.
It is apparent in Professor Lane’s example of light that most students respond in this way. This may arise because humans want to believe that they amount to more than merely a compilation of “parts.” The film speaks of a human tendency to transcend ourselves above “matter,” which we dismiss as mere atoms and molecules. Matter, however, is not something that need be looked down upon. Defining things in physical terms does not discount its meaning. For example, Professor Lane says that learning the details of surfing does not take away from his enjoyment of the sport. Likewise, learning the plant biology of this leaf I found does not make me any less fascinated by its size, texture, and color.
In the Spanish language there are certain words that are frequently used in one country, but that translate to something completely different and even forbidden in another country with Spanish as the dominant language. This goes to show that words can be understood variably depending on the person.
It is understandable that people would be upset when something as personal as their bodies is referred to as no more than “matter,” a word that triggers no feeling or room for thought. If we are indeed composed of just atoms, nerves, and tiny particles, is the mystery of our existence truly diminished? By clarifying the word as it applies to our composition, we can eliminate the dispute.
I feel, however dehumanizing as it may sound, that we are just composed of matter. A book I read by Mary Roach called Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadavers, which delves into society’s relationship with the dead. One part I find particularly relevant is when she describes how cadavers are used by plastic surgeons practicing cosmetic surgery, such as nose jobs, on cadavers. I personally feel this exemplifies reductionism at its worst, although I understand the necessity of gaining experience for surgeons. Humans are indeed composed of matter. It is this knowledge of matter that allows us to study, operate on, and save lives of our fellow human beings.
Many times with the dissection or display of a human cadaver, someone will cover up the face and hands. I understood why the face would be covered up. The hands were concealed because people tend to have an emotional connection with the dead person when they see the hands, with nails intact. It was so interesting to me that in my Anatomy lab, the other students and I were required to examine a dead body and be tested on it. This, of course, was unlike anything I had studied in school before. We had to memorize where numerous muscles were on the cadaver. The objectification and detachment that serves as a vehicle for observation, I thought, was one excellent example of how scientists are not the only ones who reduce our own species to matter. If not for this “reduction,” I would have surely not been able to proceed with the lab. The objectification of the cadaver demonstrates reduction to matter and the emotion that one feels for the cadavers when they see their hands or face reflects our tendency to transcend ourselves.
I think at this point, so much is know about the inner workings of the human body that it would be wrong not to describe ourselves in scientific terms. We are just as much matter as anything else on this planet.
3. In the famous Einstein/Bohr debate over the implications of quantum
theory,who do you think won? Explain why and be sure to detail your answer
with pertinent information related to quantum entanglement, the double-slit
light experiment, and other strange factoids within physics. You don’t have to
side with either one, if you wish, and can present the pros and cons to each.
However, you should really develop your essays and I would suggest including
some new research that you can discover through a google search.
The battle between two of the world’s most pronounced physicists took place during the 20th century, in which they fought over how the world behaves at the microscopic level. Einstein had faith in the idea that the world behaved predictably given we had the right tools to measure it. At its core, his General Theory of Relativity explained gravity, the relation between a four-dimensional spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime. Bohr pioneered the theory of Quantum Mechanics, which lent an earth-shattering effect to the world – especially to Einstein. Quantum physics says that by emitting or absorbing a quanta of energy, a particle can appear in one place and the next instant appear in another. Alone, each of these theories makes good points supported by scientific evidence. Together, however, they do not bring us any closer to a grand unified theory (GUT) or a theory of everything (TOE).
I can understand Einstein’s frustration on the implications of quantum theory. It seemed like the world was on its way to being figured out with Einstein’s theory of spacetime, but when Bohr came along years later, he revolutionized the way we thought about the universe. Even Bohr was frustrated because although he felt he discovered the path that would lead us to the answer, he knew we didn’t have the tools to quantify it. Based on the fact that quantum physics is still a rival and is difficult to prove, I cannot say who won but I do believe Bohr has the advantage. I think since Bohr’s rivaling theory is a hot topic that is still being tested, it is a good competitor. Regardless, the Einstein-Bohr debate is still evolving, and new ideas are being added to the mix.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I would as Eintstein, like to believe in a “real world.”Albert Einstein tried to
prove Bohr wrong by performing various experiments against indeterminacy. While he felt that he was finding evidence against quantum mechanics in these experiments, he actually ended up proving an aspect of the opposing theory; he thought that uncertainty and probability could proven wrong with the double-slit light experiment.
Quantum mechanics filled in gaps that classical physics could not; it accounted for the properties of atoms, explaining how solids can be rigid, and how different atoms combine together or simply collapse. It seemed that although classical physics made sense, it could not explain enough at the atomic level that quantum mechanics could.
Quantum mechanics filled in gaps that classical physics could not; it accounted for the properties of atoms, explaining how solids can be rigid, and how different atoms combine together or simply collapse. It seemed that although classical physics made sense, it could not explain enough at the atomic level that quantum mechanics could.found this video, however simplistic, to give a good visual on how the double-slit light experiment works.
http://www.doubleslitexperiment.com/
A particle is what we perceive as matter, or something with mass. A wave is a disturbance in some type of substance. The Double Slit Experiment provides a means of testing which is the correct way energy moves.
What is astounding is that everything we perceive as having mass is just a wave of information until we observe it in some way. Once we observe it, it has particle-like characteristics. This relates to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which states that we cannot know two physical properties of a particle simultaneously because the more we know about factor x, the less we know about factor “y.” The best example of this is position and momentum of an atom. At best we can predict beforehand what that position will be. If we know the momentum exactly, then the particle is equally likely to be anywhere. I wonder how we can possibly prove the theory of Quantum Mechanics when the very act of studying it alters the results. In an evidence-requiring world, this does not cut it.
In the double-slit experiment, there is a surface with two thin, parallel slits. A light is shone on the surface with the slits, and the light passing through is observed on a screen behind the surface. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen — a result that would not be expected if light consisted strictly of particles.
Since I was under the impression that the particles examined were so small that one would need a microscope at the minimum to be able to observe anything going on, I was shocked when I read in one article that human eyes can detect the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
Quantum Entanglement occurs when particles like photons, electrons, and molecules interact physically and then become separated. The concept is introduced when explaining the inability to distinguish an electron’s spin. The electron pair is emitted with each electron going to a different observer. In a certain state of this experiment it is impossible to associate either electron in the spin singlet with a state of definite spin. Thus, the electrons are “entangled.”
In one experiment “the researchers would send one photon to a standard detector and the other to a human observer in a dark room. The human would see a dim point of light in either the right or left field of view, depending on the photon’s quantum state. If those flashes of light correlate strongly enough with the output of the ordinary photon detector, then the scientists can conclude that the photons are entangled.”
The only problem with using humans is that we cannot see individual photons. Due the complex pathway of photons from the retina to the brain, we would never at least hundreds of photons to make a practical human quantum detector.
Physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen hypothetical paradox, which claimed that Quantum Mechanics was incomplete. Based on their reasoning, “a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). After providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of QM.”
However, experimental tests after Bell had made these claims which used quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons, convincingly demonstrated that the predictions of QM are correct in this regard. Quantum mechanics is no way a complete answer and Bohr has certainly not answered all of our questions. The Theory of Everything has yet to be established and although we may feel close, I do not think we will reach a solution for a long time.
4. Why is the theory of evolution so important in doing philosophy? More
pointedly, why is the theory of evolution key to understanding why human beings
behave the way they do? Focus on evolutionary biology and evolutionary
psychology when giving your answers. I also suggest being creative here and
perhaps using your own life as a template to explain some aspects of evolution.
Be sure to incorporate material from Darwin directly or other evolutionists when
possible.
Not everyone is in accordance with Darwin’s theory of evolution. For example, fundamentalist Christians tend to hold strong opinions of how the universe was created. This echoes the debate that occurred between Einstein and Bohr; a conflict remains between believers of evolution and believers of creation.
One thing philosophers agree on is that we must set a common ground in order to move forward. This is a particularly difficult topic because while the evidence is there, religion is a sensitive topic in which information counter to the Bible is deemed insensitive.
It is sexual selection and genetic mutation make us look as we are. We then face the world hoping to survive the competition and be successful. People act differently from one another and this is rooted in differences in our DNA. These genetic variations allow natural selection to take place, and thus pass on traits that will rule out competitors and succeed. As Andrea Diem-Lane put it, “Knowing the conditions from where we originally arose is a central key to understanding why we survive as we do in the present.”
The theory of evolution goes hand in hand with our existence. Philosophy centers around the deepest questions of our existence. Thus, it makes sense that in studying philosophy we must look back at our evolutionary past to help solve questions of the present and future.
Ancient philosophers have taken interest in biology, especially in regards to how and why we are the way we are. Why are humans so different from every other being on this planet? This theory is still greatly contested and although it would seem as ancient as the philosophers who first questioned our existence, it is relatively new. The theory of evolution did not truly surface until Charles Darwin first published a scientific theory within his book titled “On the Origin of Species” in 1859. Now considered the foundation for evolutionary biology, at its core was the idea that populations evolve over generations through a process called “natural selection”. Simplified, natural selection suggests that those who adapt will survive.
Evolution is key in understanding why human beings behave the way they do. By spreading acceptance of this theory grounded in scientific evidence, we can move forward. Oftentimes, the past gives us clues about the present. We have not changed much over the past hundred years, but if we go back thousands of years, we come across distinct changes in our abilities, physical characteristics, and way of life.
We can solve problems in the world by knowing more about the way we think. For example, some believe that we have reached our evolutionary peak – that we could not possibly be getting any smarter. Are our neural capacities limited by our skull? If we are done evolving, maybe so.
I was 13 years old when I first learned about wisdom teeth and needless to say, I was utterly confused. Why did we grow them just to get them pulled out? I had always thought that every part of us was built for efficiency. Wisdom teeth seemed like a trifle of the past. Long ago, our jaw could comfortably accommodate all 32 teeth, including the third molars. This was about 100 million years ago, when our evolutionary ape friend led the way.
Some evolutionists call upon vestigial organs as evidence for evolution and against creation. It seems that humans have a number of parts that no longer serve useful functions and are rather unnecessary, wisdom teeth included. We have been using utensils for years now, in addition to the technology that makes our food more easily chewable. In other words, we do not require the extra molars that might have come in handy in our evolutionary past.
To my surprise, toes are also a sign of humanity’s evolutionary past. They lack the grasping ability of our fingers and we don’t need them to balance or walk. Apes and other primates have four good-for-grasping hands. According to one website, (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html) “As human beings gained the ability to stand and walk upright, our feet lost their grasping function, but the digits themselves, though now shrunken and largely useless, remain.”
If anything confirmed my belief in evolution, it was this: more and more humans are being born without wisdom teeth.
“Early man’s jaws were larger and more prominent because teeth played a vital role in survival. With the front appendages occupied with balance and running, teeth were prehistoric man’s means of catching, dismembering and consuming prey. Our ancestors subsisted on a tough and chewy diet of leaves, roots and raw meat. Having 32 teeth’s worth of chewing ability was a huge advantage at this point, especially because early man didn’t visit the dentist with the regularity we do today; third molars might have played an important backup role when teeth were lost or worn down.”
http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/parts/no-wisdom-teeth1.htm
This explanation leads me to reference Darwin’s natural selection and survival of the fittest. If humans are being born without wisdom teeth, does it mean that this is more advantageous and those of us with them are less “fit?” Perhaps in the future none of us will have wisdom teeth.
5. Your teacher argues that philosophy done well is science and philosophy
done poorly is. . . well, philosophy. What advantage is there with doing a
philosophy predicated on science (Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience) versus a
more traditional route? What are the drawbacks to a purely scientific endeavor in
this regard?
When a chemist performs an experiment, he keeps a journal and records his observations so that not only can he look back on them for reference, but also so the experiment can be repeated and thus accepted by others. When trying to prove a philosophic theory, a philosopher cannot simply say how he feels without backing it up. Anyone can make a claim, but only claims that are well-supported with evidence, experimentation, and documentation transcend to something meaningful. This is especially important in philosophy, where there is someone with an opposite theory for nearly every claim.
Philosophy is just as much a science as biology, chemistry, and physics. It calls upon these subjects as it attempts understand everything in the universe. Answers without a clear logical response are not taken seriously. Philosophy is a subject that questions; the questions it asks can be answered with science. Science yields results and acceptance in the world; without it, philosophic ideas are dismissed. Therefore, the advantage to doing a philosophy predicated on science is that it answers questions in a logical and systematic way. Science is accepted because it offers rationality. While all subjects have their limit, science is able to expand our horizons.
The double-slit experiment, while not providing an answer to the theory of everything, introduced new ideas and made us reevaluate our current theory of how light moves. The experiment now serves as a basis for many new and improved experiments in quantum physics. Philosophers who use experiments and record their findings will undoubtedly have more success in earning the world’s trust in their theories.
As we learned in the video, the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was banished from Athens for offending the sun God, Apollo. When a philosophy opposes popular belief, science becomes the only means of winning approval. Anaxagoras claimed that the god who the Greeks worshipped for hundreds of years was instead a mass of red-hot stone, virtually reducing an almighty power to material. This theory was incorrect, of course, but had it not been, it would have been more credible with a little more experimentation and proof. The emergence of rationality was not welcomed long ago when it challenged various gods.
Philosophy and religion wrestle with similar questions. Religion is a contested topic in philosophy because oftentimes it lacks concrete evidence because it is based off history. Philosophy uses current science and reason to support theory. When they both attempt to answer a question, I believe that philosophy predicated on science trumps religion. Some might scowl because inevitably this can lead to a God-less world.
I believe there is a notable effort that separates philosophy predicated on science from a more traditional route. This also differentiates philosophers’ work from religion. In religion, reasoned arguments often reference some basic faith in God or religious principles which cannot be argued with.
Consilience occurs when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement. This strengthens a conclusion that received from individual sources appears weak. Edward O. Wilson’s book Consilience includes a section which I felt really captured my feelings on science and religion in regards to our creation.
Wilson began questioning his Baptist religion as he became both more educated and rebellious into his adolescent years. To summarize, “people must belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than themselves….Perhaps science is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the same end.”
Science wants to answer the same question, but knows it must have a way to do it so it is plausible to the world, especially those whose religion may take a second priority. This sounds harsh, but the good thing about science is that it is objective. This may just as well be a drawback, and appear insensitive to people.
Indeed, the objectivity of science can actually be a burden. Sadly, a purely scientific endeavor is incapable of translating certain humanistic things like consciousness. “For the problem is not to explain if or how we can transmit subjective feeling, but how subjective feeling is possible in the first place. Deciphering some super-EEG is impressive but ultimately beside the point.” http://bostonreview.net/BR23.5/Orr.html
6. What is eliminative materialism? Please elaborate. Give an example of how it
works.
Eliminative materialism is a recurring theme when it comes to philosophy based on science. Science uses reason to solve problems and eliminative materialism is the way in which it is articulated. It appears as a slightly radical concept because it does not accept commonsense terms.
Anaxagoras referred to the sun god Apollo as “a mass of red-hot stone.” The late Francis Crick said that consciousness is just a bundle of neurons. These are just a couple examples of Eliminative Materialism, a view that favors biological reduction of psychological concepts of behavior and experience. I think that as humans uncover more about the unknown, eliminative materialism will increase in importance.
The theory postulates that “there is no fundamental distinction between observations (and our observation language) and theory (and our theoretical language), for previously adopted conceptual frameworks shape all observations and all expressions of those observations.” This makes for a very straight forward definition of all things.
The most notable eliminative materialist is Paul Churchland. He argues that we need to overhaul our self-conception and eliminate such mental concepts as “desires” and “beliefs”. Subjects that employ commonsense mental terms are not applicable in this theory and do not contribute to our understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzT0jHJdq7Q
In this video, Patricia Churchland says that due to recent developments in neuroscience over the past hundred years, it is an ideal time for philosophers, neuroscientists, and psychologists to collaborate. The only problem with this is that the data from neuroscientists constrains how philosophers theorize, especially in what it is to be conscious.
What comes from experimental psychology can be compared with neuroscience and analyzed by philosophers. As Churchland discussed the conflicts that arose when trying to describe certain phenomenon, “decision-making” was mentioned as a conscious process that one automatically thinks as intuitive. She says that because it is a question of fact, this type of answer must be reconfigured. The same follows for “attention” and “will.”
“Deeper scientific understanding of mental phenomena doesn’t make it go away – it gives us a richer understanding.” As i said earlier on the forum, it seems that as we eliminate spiritual theories and draw conclusions with learned science, we have seen results that can be measured. It was interesting to learn how we tend to systematically solve mysteries of life beginning with mathematics and ending with God.
Beliefs, desires, thoughts, are only words that in reality do not exist. How can we simply erase these mental concepts from our memory? I struggle with this concept because it is hard to accept that mental phenomenon.
I think that eliminative materialism is taken to the extreme when it completely gets rid of the idea that supposedly doesn’t exist, as in this case. As one blogger put it, “if substantial parts of our commonsense psych are radically false, we would expect to see major changes in commonsense psychologies among different societies, yet it appears to be uniform across all societies; each society similarly feels desire, hope, etc.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSYAzSu6Evc )
For example, one of my deepest desires right now is to travel to China right now. I want to go, but this is just a thought, a mental state driven by my fondness of travel. Getting on a plane and going puts the thought into action. It is physical and requires movement. Wanting or desiring is mental in nature.
Materialists do not waste time on that which is mental. Instead, it must be physical. Defining the mind in this way is inherently difficult, but is no more easily defined when words with no concrete measures are tossed around, so eliminativists simply deny their existence in the way people deny the existence of witches another sorts of things. It is to deny that which becomes a problem when added to the situation.
Since belief, desire, and other mental terms fall under the category of “folk psychology,” which is a false theory to the eliminativist. They are merely theoretical terms and we must instead look for what gets the job done, transcending the mental to the physical.
7. How did Socrates die? Do you think his death was justified? How did Socrates respond? Explain your answer.
Socrates lived in a time where the majority was in charge. While this can be good in some cases, it was not for Socrates, nor was it fair in my opinion. Socrates was born in the wrong time, although staying true to his beliefs despite an angry majority glorify him as a free thinker. Socrates was charged for corrupting the youth and acts of “impiety.” He chose not to acknowledge the gods of the people of Athens and introduced new dieties instead.
In our country, people are free to follow their own individual religion. If they want to invent a God for themselves, they are free to do so. I believe him death was not justified simply because I feel anyone should have the freedom of paving their own road. The opinions and ideas of Socrates stood out from those in political power, and this led to his downfall.
Socrates wisely stated that “people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.” This means that disagreements are inevitable when people hold different opinions on the same things. Who is right? It seems like there can be no “right.” Instead, the winner is he who wins the war among them, or in the case of Socrates, who wins the trial.
Socrates seemed unusually calm for someone who was about to be poisoned to death. However, his very unique ideas in contrast to traditional spirits and rituals no more faded when he accepted his death sentence as when he argued his beliefs prior. When it was time to drink the poison, he ignores Crito’s delay for the sunset, “[refusing] to make himself ridiculous by showing such a fondness for life.” While some interpret think of this more as suicide, I think it moreover exemplifies his firm beliefs. Even as he was about to die, he shows that he did not give up.
It was interesting how Socrates related death to philosophy, stating that philosophy itself is nothing else than a preparation for and meditation on death. They share one thing: death separates the soul from the body. For Socrates the two realms had unfortunately met.
Socrates responded in the way a thinker like himself would. He knew that while his body would die, his soul live on in another world. His decision to not succumb to pressure in worshipping the gods of his leaders was taken, aware that he could die. He was willing to take the chance to defend his ideas, which were important to him and his followers.
There are many people in the world just like Socrates, who choose not to worship the gods of their leader or majority around them. They take this risk knowing what is at jeopardy, but it is worth it to them because it adds value to their life. These people would rather fight for their beliefs even when the stakes are high, than live to meet the satisfaction of others. It takes courage to do so, but it makes a life worth it.
Voicing one’s opinion should never be shot down, but unfortunately this is a common circumstance, even in the United States where freedom of speech and religion is amended into our Constitution. While a trial like that of Socrates would not occur for the same reasons, people who speak out against the majority are almost always criticized. Maybe this is human nature. Maybe human nature is not the friendliest.
8. How does evolutionary theory connect with quantum mechanics? Feel free
to do a google search to buttress your answers here. Clue: Think of Brian Greene
meeting Charles Darwin.
Evolutionary theory and quantum mechanics are two scientific theories that were developed by two completely different thinkers. While I would think that the two thinkers would have a lot to say in opposition to one another’s theories, Johnjoe McFadden has a theory that unexpectedly combines the two; he says that quantum mechanics has a direct, significant effect on living organisms by providing a mechanism for “directed evolution”.
http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=412
Evolutionary theory is based off of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Natural selection is a gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Darwin provided evidence of certain biological traits surviving among “weaker” biological traits when he detailed examples from his 5-year voyage.
During a measurement in quantum mechanics, the change of the initial wave function into another is unpredictable, or random. On this basis, I would expect Darwin to react in disbelief to Brian Greene’s theory of how subatomic particles act, being as random as it is. He would probably question Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle because as he sees things, there are explanations for everything.
One similarity I found between the two theories was a lack of intermediary between two definite things. One of the difficulties Darwin faced in getting his book published was that often there were no intermediate forms between closely related species found, though the theory implies such forms must have existed. Similar is the “quantum jump” in Quantum Mechanics, where a quanta, or unit of energy jumps. On a subatomic level this is often a change in the orbit of an electron with the loss or gain of a quantum of energy. At first this jump could not be explained. Only with the quantum model did it begin to make sense.
As we’ve learned through studies with Quantum Mechanics, a complete explanation or prediction for nature’s behavior cannot be provided. However, scientists believe the discoveries made in Quantum Mechanics may be able to explain more thoroughly what Darwin had begun.
A great explanation of quanta as they relate to evolution and the science of natural selection can be found on this website: http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/news/releases/1-3100quan.html \
“Mutations have always been assumed to be random. But mutations are caused by the motion of fundamental particles, electrons and protons – particles that can enter the quantum multiverse – within the double helix. If these particles can enter quantum states then DNA may be able to slip into the quantum multiverse and sample multiple mutations simultaneously. But what makes it drop out of the quantum world? Most physicists agree that systems enter quantum states when they become isolated from their environment and pop out of the multiverse when they exchange significant amounts of energy with their environment, an interaction that is termed ‘quantum measurement’. Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate – perhaps they can’t utilise a particular substrate in their environment. They may collapse out of those quantum states when their DNA superposition includes a mutation that allows them to grow and replicate once more. In this way the environment interacts with, and performs a quantum measurement on the cell, to precipitate advantageous mutations. From our viewpoint, inhabiting only one universe, the cell appears to ‘choose’ certain mutations.”
9. Extra Credit
Interview with Brian Greene EC video
Greene acknowledges that theory after theory has been made which expands the definition what we call “the universe”. First our earth was not the center, then the sun, then our galaxy. Our universe may not be the center- there may be multiple.
Math gives rise to realities that can be observed. As long as we keep following the equations we can confirm. Math can reveal new picture of reality so scientists are investigating. Einstein’s mathematical equation that the universe is expanding was explored further and was not confirmed until after his time.
This video clarified some of the spatial confusion I was feeling regarding String theory. It was really interesting and helpful when Greene gave the example of a deck of cards and assuming that space is infinite, at some point we are point to run into the same particles again. This is because in any finite region of space, matter can only arrange itself in finitely different orders. In infinite space, the order of particles has to repeat.
10.
Thanks for reading!
jamielebowitz 
