100 years ago today, the New York Times announced the death of rationalism.pic.twitter.com/0z9rqicWfB
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Ok, so maybe @Meaningness is saying that to be rational is to deduce from premises. And, for the project to work, those premises must be exceptionless and true everywhere. But now there's reference frames, so there's nowhere to stand.
God
-> Newton
-> Einstein
Yes?
I think the somatic perception of space and time is special, and challenges to that in particular are likely to be felt as threats. It's not exceptions in general that are scary (we can conceive e.g. of physics being different at very high temperatures) but space and time.
Fascinating article. I did my PhD on hypnosis. On standardized inductions and assessments people go bi-modal on that as well. The low scorers don't experience much, the middle/high are amused, and the 10 and 11s (of 11) seem to slip into an alternative reality.
I wonder if there's a correlation with other bimodal stuff.
As a teen I struggled to understand the narrative versions of Einsteins theories. I read what the narratives that I could (no maths), then did LSD, hoping to break through to an insight. The wanted insight isn't what happened.
But since I was born into the meme-space of Einstein's theories, it never occurred to me to be anything but rational. Even now I have to struggle to see how it was once viewed as not rational.
I know one or two people who studied "the occult" and such quite seriously and now suffer from "knowing too much" . Very hard for them to function in the normal world. It's like they've become part of the curtain dividing the two worlds, able to live in neither.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.