Your Privacy Settings
Our website uses cookies to personalise content, keep contents in your shopping cart and as part of the checkout experience.- Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
- You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
Allow cookies for
Forums > Social Discussion > Husserl and Cubism
Login/Join to Participatenearly_all_gone
SILVER Member since Aug 2004
Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1626
SILVER Member since Aug 2004
Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1626
Posted:I've just a had a Phenomenology lecture and was amazed by how much the two things seem to have in common. Phenomenology expresses the fact that we only ever get adumbrations (a bit like "perspectives" but from the aspect of the object rather than the perciever - single facets which "point" to other facets endlessly) which never present a complete unified object, and we only unify objects in our own consciousness (rightly or wrongly)...
I was thinking, I don't know anything about art, really, but isn't that what Cubism tries to do? To expel the 2D nature of perception (or rather induvidual perceptions - the kind of momentary photographic representations we peice together to form a whole object.. or perhaps, more aptly, classical painting and its striving towards representations of a single facet or perspective) and present the actuality?
Hope someone arty or better at Philosophy can enlighten me about this. Is there a link between Cubism and Husserl in more than just this perceptual similarity?
(It's not for an essay or anything, I'm just interested now)
I was thinking, I don't know anything about art, really, but isn't that what Cubism tries to do? To expel the 2D nature of perception (or rather induvidual perceptions - the kind of momentary photographic representations we peice together to form a whole object.. or perhaps, more aptly, classical painting and its striving towards representations of a single facet or perspective) and present the actuality?
Hope someone arty or better at Philosophy can enlighten me about this. Is there a link between Cubism and Husserl in more than just this perceptual similarity?
(It's not for an essay or anything, I'm just interested now)
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
Wonder Monkey
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
Posted:I have to confess to being slightly confuzzled 
, first time ive heard of phenomonology and its explanation.
Am i right in my interp that basically, when you look at a table, you can only view it from one angle at a time, but that single angle points at the shape of the object which we then construct a full picture of in our mind in order to know what that object is
So we never know the object truely as we only ever *see* fragments of it. Which is what cubism is trying to address - the fact that the only way to *see* an object is for teh artist to show all sides at once (easy example for those who dont know - think of teh way picasso does faces....)
SO in that sense, yes, they are very closely linked
Do you know if the chronology of these 2 movements/schools of thought overlaps? (...does a quick search...)
Well, it kicked of in the mid 1890's, and cubism was early 20th century.
So I think that is a very good observation indeed you have made Sir Nearly!
, first time ive heard of phenomonology and its explanation.Am i right in my interp that basically, when you look at a table, you can only view it from one angle at a time, but that single angle points at the shape of the object which we then construct a full picture of in our mind in order to know what that object is
So we never know the object truely as we only ever *see* fragments of it. Which is what cubism is trying to address - the fact that the only way to *see* an object is for teh artist to show all sides at once (easy example for those who dont know - think of teh way picasso does faces....)SO in that sense, yes, they are very closely linked
Do you know if the chronology of these 2 movements/schools of thought overlaps? (...does a quick search...)
Well, it kicked of in the mid 1890's, and cubism was early 20th century.
So I think that is a very good observation indeed you have made Sir Nearly!
My Mummy Says Im Special
nearly_all_gone
SILVER Member since Aug 2004
Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1626
SILVER Member since Aug 2004
Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1626
Posted:
Yeah I think you got a pretty good understanding of it, or at least what *I* was saying (I may well be wrong!)
Thanks!
Yeah I think you got a pretty good understanding of it, or at least what *I* was saying (I may well be wrong!)Thanks!
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted:The things I remember from my philosophy degree were little haphazard snippets that had a bigger impact than the actual curricular stuff.
One concerned why humans used to think that the sun went round the Earth rather than the Earth going round the sun.
The justification was that it 'looked' as if the sun orbited the Earth; to which the reply was, 'What would it have looked like if the Earth went round the Sun?"
That changed the way I thought and made me reflect on perception and how things really are.
To relate this to phenomonology and cubism- if things really are fragmented and only become the ordered things we see after being perceived then is a cubist attempt at representation really more accurate than what we actually experience?
ie if you want to know what a fragmented reality looks like; it looks like exactly what you see when you open your eyes.
Or, to put it differently, if cubism expresses reality, which eyes would you have to be looking through to see that reality that way: and, if there are no eyes, or other conceivable other ways of accessing that reality, to what extent is it meaningful to say that it is real?
One concerned why humans used to think that the sun went round the Earth rather than the Earth going round the sun.
The justification was that it 'looked' as if the sun orbited the Earth; to which the reply was, 'What would it have looked like if the Earth went round the Sun?"
That changed the way I thought and made me reflect on perception and how things really are.
To relate this to phenomonology and cubism- if things really are fragmented and only become the ordered things we see after being perceived then is a cubist attempt at representation really more accurate than what we actually experience?
ie if you want to know what a fragmented reality looks like; it looks like exactly what you see when you open your eyes.
Or, to put it differently, if cubism expresses reality, which eyes would you have to be looking through to see that reality that way: and, if there are no eyes, or other conceivable other ways of accessing that reality, to what extent is it meaningful to say that it is real?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Wonder Monkey
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
Posted:There is no spoon
Brain...cant...take...confuzzlement...
Non-Https Image Link
Brain...cant...take...confuzzlement...
Non-Https Image Link
My Mummy Says Im Special
_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
Posted:"The justification was that it 'looked' as if the sun orbited the Earth; to which the reply was, 'What would it have looked like if the Earth went round the Sun?""
ohhh.
"Or, to put it differently, if cubism expresses reality, which eyes would you have to be looking through to see that reality that way: and, if there are no eyes, or other conceivable other ways of accessing that reality, to what extent is it meaningful to say that it is real?"
OOhhhhh.
Thanks, Dave, for giving me something to think about tonight in work
It has been one of those days of examining and rethinking.
And Mr Monkey. That is gross. particularly the little green oozing slime.
ohhh.
"Or, to put it differently, if cubism expresses reality, which eyes would you have to be looking through to see that reality that way: and, if there are no eyes, or other conceivable other ways of accessing that reality, to what extent is it meaningful to say that it is real?"
OOhhhhh.
Thanks, Dave, for giving me something to think about tonight in work
It has been one of those days of examining and rethinking.
And Mr Monkey. That is gross. particularly the little green oozing slime.
Getting to the other side 
Posted:i'd like to add this in addition to daves comments
Written by:
In 1935, Erwin Schrodinger proposed an analogy to show how superposition would operate in the every day world: the somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead
is the universe created by observation?
Written by:
In 1935, Erwin Schrodinger proposed an analogy to show how superposition would operate in the every day world: the somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead
is the universe created by observation?
Love is the law.
Delete_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Can I ask... which universe? The one perceived?
And to follow on, does that mean everything unobserved does not exist?
And to follow on, does that mean everything unobserved does not exist?
Getting to the other side
Posted:which universe?
i thought schrodinger answered your next qustion nicely
i thought schrodinger answered your next qustion nicely
Love is the law.
DeleteMiG
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
Posted:you can answer that question effectively without opening the box.
If the box is fully sealed, and thus air tight, and you put a cat in there, then left it for say.. a week, then you could definitely say the cat is dead.
If the box is fully sealed, and thus air tight, and you put a cat in there, then left it for say.. a week, then you could definitely say the cat is dead.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: ado-p
....is the universe created by observation?
At the quantum (very small) level a particle which has the option of either decaying or not decaying is described by the quantum equation describing it as being in both states simultaneously.
According to quantum physics it is literally in both states, yet, at the macroscopic level (large ie the world we experience) all things are either in one state or another.
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment where the particle in question is connected to a detector connected to a poison vial in a box containing a cat.
The consequences of a subatomic quantum state is thus linked to a macroscopic object (the cat) in the real world.
According to quantum physics the particle is simultaneously in a decayed and non-decayed state, therefore the cat is similarly in a superimposed state of being both dead and alive.
Physicists are fairly happy with the notion of particles being both decayed and non decayed; they're not so happy about the notion of a cat being both alive and dead.
One proposed solution is that superimposed states somehow 'collapse' into coherent 'one or the other' states as we move from sub atomic scales to macroscopic (large/everyday human scales)- the problem with that being setting the line, and also explaining why it happens.
Another solution is that there is something special about consciousness- that when an observation is made by a conscious being the superimposed quantum states collapse. So, when the scientist opens the box lid the cat which was both dead and alive becomes definitely one or the other.
Problems here include-
1. what is so special about consciousness that it has this effect
2. what constitutes 'conscious'- for example,is the cat sufficiently conscious to collapse the quantum states, or does it take a human?
My favourite proposed solution was put forward by Rupert Everett (may be spelt wrong) whose idea was that ther are no superimposed states to begin with, even at the quantum level.
Instead, when we have a particle which can either decay or not, both do occur, but in different worlds.
At each subatomic decision the entire universe effectively splits into two- a world in which the particle decays, and another in which it doesn't.
This has the advantage of eliminating the cat problem- we simply end up with a live cat in one universe, and a dead cat in another; many scientists are disturbed by the 'wastefulness' of requiring so many universes to explain it though!
I like the theory, I think it takes balls to come up with something so bizarre.
I believe amongst professional physicists it's considered a rank outsider, but nevertheless is respected by a significant minority.
Apparently when asked what he thought of Everetts theory (known as the 'many worlds' theory), Stephen Hawking replied that it was 'trivially true'.
Interestingly, the 'many worlds/splitting universe' view can in theory be proven true by an individual- but the result can't be passed on to others.
This is done by the individual going into the box and running the experiment many times.
Assuming the particle has a 50/50 chance of decay, then, if the theory is incorrect, the participant has a 50/50 chance of surviving the first run, a 1 in 4 chance of making it to the second, a 1 in 8 of surviving the third etc etc.
So survival becomes increasingly unlikely; for example the chances of surviving a thousand runs are incredibly small.
However, assuming the 'many worlds/splitting universe' theory is true, on each run the world splits into two, one in which the participant lives, the other in which he/she dies.
Thus, after a thousand runs, or ten million runs there will still be one world in which he/she still lives
If it is you that goes into the box, the appearance will be that you are indestructable as you beat incredible odds- the versions of you that end up dead will obviously be unaware (being dead), whereas the one version that always survives will be able to say with increasing confidence after each run, that Everetts theory is true.
warning: don't try this experiment at home- in the event that Everetts theory is not correct, it will almost certainly result in your death
....is the universe created by observation?
At the quantum (very small) level a particle which has the option of either decaying or not decaying is described by the quantum equation describing it as being in both states simultaneously.
According to quantum physics it is literally in both states, yet, at the macroscopic level (large ie the world we experience) all things are either in one state or another.
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment where the particle in question is connected to a detector connected to a poison vial in a box containing a cat.
The consequences of a subatomic quantum state is thus linked to a macroscopic object (the cat) in the real world.
According to quantum physics the particle is simultaneously in a decayed and non-decayed state, therefore the cat is similarly in a superimposed state of being both dead and alive.
Physicists are fairly happy with the notion of particles being both decayed and non decayed; they're not so happy about the notion of a cat being both alive and dead.
One proposed solution is that superimposed states somehow 'collapse' into coherent 'one or the other' states as we move from sub atomic scales to macroscopic (large/everyday human scales)- the problem with that being setting the line, and also explaining why it happens.
Another solution is that there is something special about consciousness- that when an observation is made by a conscious being the superimposed quantum states collapse. So, when the scientist opens the box lid the cat which was both dead and alive becomes definitely one or the other.
Problems here include-
1. what is so special about consciousness that it has this effect
2. what constitutes 'conscious'- for example,is the cat sufficiently conscious to collapse the quantum states, or does it take a human?
My favourite proposed solution was put forward by Rupert Everett (may be spelt wrong) whose idea was that ther are no superimposed states to begin with, even at the quantum level.
Instead, when we have a particle which can either decay or not, both do occur, but in different worlds.
At each subatomic decision the entire universe effectively splits into two- a world in which the particle decays, and another in which it doesn't.
This has the advantage of eliminating the cat problem- we simply end up with a live cat in one universe, and a dead cat in another; many scientists are disturbed by the 'wastefulness' of requiring so many universes to explain it though!
I like the theory, I think it takes balls to come up with something so bizarre.
I believe amongst professional physicists it's considered a rank outsider, but nevertheless is respected by a significant minority.
Apparently when asked what he thought of Everetts theory (known as the 'many worlds' theory), Stephen Hawking replied that it was 'trivially true'.
Interestingly, the 'many worlds/splitting universe' view can in theory be proven true by an individual- but the result can't be passed on to others.
This is done by the individual going into the box and running the experiment many times.
Assuming the particle has a 50/50 chance of decay, then, if the theory is incorrect, the participant has a 50/50 chance of surviving the first run, a 1 in 4 chance of making it to the second, a 1 in 8 of surviving the third etc etc.
So survival becomes increasingly unlikely; for example the chances of surviving a thousand runs are incredibly small.
However, assuming the 'many worlds/splitting universe' theory is true, on each run the world splits into two, one in which the participant lives, the other in which he/she dies.
Thus, after a thousand runs, or ten million runs there will still be one world in which he/she still lives
If it is you that goes into the box, the appearance will be that you are indestructable as you beat incredible odds- the versions of you that end up dead will obviously be unaware (being dead), whereas the one version that always survives will be able to say with increasing confidence after each run, that Everetts theory is true.
warning: don't try this experiment at home- in the event that Everetts theory is not correct, it will almost certainly result in your death
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Lol thanks Dave,
In a round-a-bout way it was Everett's bizarre theory I was referring to when I asked which universe... I'm just crap at writing this stuff down
I've been thinking about that idea (not knowing what it was called and certainly not so refined) since I was young, the possibility that for every 'decision', action or non-action made, it's opposite is true another universe. I find comfort in that.
Red Dwarf suggested something similar
And, Aidan, taking that into consideration, no Schrodinger did not really answer my question... I was thinking that if all these various counter-options and universes are continually brought into being, and are necessarily unobserved, can they actually exist?
Suppose they cannot, then does that put us on a predetermined course?
Blah. Maybe I am just utterly confused
In a round-a-bout way it was Everett's bizarre theory I was referring to when I asked which universe... I'm just crap at writing this stuff down
I've been thinking about that idea (not knowing what it was called and certainly not so refined) since I was young, the possibility that for every 'decision', action or non-action made, it's opposite is true another universe. I find comfort in that.
Red Dwarf suggested something similar
And, Aidan, taking that into consideration, no Schrodinger did not really answer my question... I was thinking that if all these various counter-options and universes are continually brought into being, and are necessarily unobserved, can they actually exist?
Suppose they cannot, then does that put us on a predetermined course?
Blah. Maybe I am just utterly confused
Getting to the other side
_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: spritie
If life is predetermind, doesn't that mean we are all puppets in someone's theater?
I would argue that it is only if the universe is deterministic that we can truly have free will.
I won't go into too much detail as my last post was a bit long.
In philosophy free will has long been considered a problem as the universe appears to be deterministic (ie effects are pre-determined by the preceeding causes) and this is generally considered incompatible with human free will (on the grounds that if one could not have chosen otherwise, then choice is meaningless).
Quantum mechanics was lauded by some as the saviour of free will, as one of it's features was the existence of truly random occurences at the quantum (very small/subatomic) level. (randomness on the scale of the large is actually only apparently random- eg a dice seems random as it can't be predicted, but, as it obeys the laws of large scale physics, its fall could, in principle, with sufficiently sensitive measuring equipment and computing power, be accurately predicted).
The reasoning was that the human brain could possibly be influenced by these microscopic random events, leading to non-deterministic human behaviour that, even in principle, could not be predicted and would therefore be 'free'.
To me that reasoning is deeply flawed as it means that free wil and human choice rest effectively on the throw of a subatomic dice; to me random behaviour is the opposite of human choice.
For me, human choice is the consequence of a deterministic mind that makes decisions based on its store of memories and experiences and the views and opinions it has derived from them.
So good people behave in ways that are mainly good; responsible people behave, on the whole, responsibly; idiots behave idiotically etc, etc.
On this view, only a mind in a determined world can be said to be choosing freely- random elements in that process would only diminish the free choice.
If life is predetermind, doesn't that mean we are all puppets in someone's theater?
I would argue that it is only if the universe is deterministic that we can truly have free will.
I won't go into too much detail as my last post was a bit long.
In philosophy free will has long been considered a problem as the universe appears to be deterministic (ie effects are pre-determined by the preceeding causes) and this is generally considered incompatible with human free will (on the grounds that if one could not have chosen otherwise, then choice is meaningless).
Quantum mechanics was lauded by some as the saviour of free will, as one of it's features was the existence of truly random occurences at the quantum (very small/subatomic) level. (randomness on the scale of the large is actually only apparently random- eg a dice seems random as it can't be predicted, but, as it obeys the laws of large scale physics, its fall could, in principle, with sufficiently sensitive measuring equipment and computing power, be accurately predicted).
The reasoning was that the human brain could possibly be influenced by these microscopic random events, leading to non-deterministic human behaviour that, even in principle, could not be predicted and would therefore be 'free'.
To me that reasoning is deeply flawed as it means that free wil and human choice rest effectively on the throw of a subatomic dice; to me random behaviour is the opposite of human choice.
For me, human choice is the consequence of a deterministic mind that makes decisions based on its store of memories and experiences and the views and opinions it has derived from them.
So good people behave in ways that are mainly good; responsible people behave, on the whole, responsibly; idiots behave idiotically etc, etc.
On this view, only a mind in a determined world can be said to be choosing freely- random elements in that process would only diminish the free choice.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002
Still wiggling
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Yeush. So then. If life is pre-determined... where does that leave Everett's theory.
And the cat?!
Lol, Dave... can I steal your brain? It would be fun for a few days
So then. If life is pre-determined... where does that leave Everett's theory. And the cat?!
Lol, Dave... can I steal your brain? It would be fun for a few days
Getting to the other side
Wonder Monkey
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
Posted:Sorry Fireposie
Now this is philosophy that loses me
Theres something somewhere (other than in the incubus song its in) that what we touch, smell, see, or hear is less than one millionth of a reality. Which is all well and good. BUt I find it hard to see how that is dependant on our existence (ie needing observation).
Isnt it like the 'tree falling in a forest making a sound' malarky. Or, 'does a bear sh!T in teh woods'...
Poor bears, I mean, if they only exist and sh!t when we observing them, then the only state of existing a bear would know would be being full of sh!T sh!tiing in front of a bunch of people. Im not sure if i could 'perform' if I were the bear...I mean....what if he'd had too many berries or something....but then how could he eat the berries if no-one saw him do it...ARE THERE BERRIES??!!!!!!!!!
Non-Https Image Link
i appreciate I could well be missing a very important point in all this
Now this is philosophy that loses me
Theres something somewhere (other than in the incubus song its in) that what we touch, smell, see, or hear is less than one millionth of a reality. Which is all well and good. BUt I find it hard to see how that is dependant on our existence (ie needing observation).
Isnt it like the 'tree falling in a forest making a sound' malarky. Or, 'does a bear sh!T in teh woods'...
Poor bears, I mean, if they only exist and sh!t when we observing them, then the only state of existing a bear would know would be being full of sh!T sh!tiing in front of a bunch of people. Im not sure if i could 'perform' if I were the bear...I mean....what if he'd had too many berries or something....but then how could he eat the berries if no-one saw him do it...ARE THERE BERRIES??!!!!!!!!!
Non-Https Image Link
i appreciate I could well be missing a very important point in all this
My Mummy Says Im Special
flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: Wonder Monkey
There is no spoon
There is so a spoon:
Non-Https Image Link
No wait, that's a spork. Maybe you're right
Now that's just deep
There is no spoon
There is so a spoon:
Non-Https Image Link
No wait, that's a spork. Maybe you're right
Now that's just deep
Delete
Wonder Monkey
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
Certainly confused
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United King...
Total posts: 121
Posted:you know what makes for a good paradox in schrodinger's universe...
the cat is both dead and alive in the box to a subjective perciever because it lacks the ability to percive the cat. that is, when there is a lack of sence there is a superposition of two uncertainties (dead cat and living cat, with a possible death scenario).
now what about when you sit in a room without light. the darkness blinds your sences to light, but at the same time darkness is defined as the lack of light. because the sence is simply in the off possition in both scenarios, at a basic level there is a superposition of the two uncertainties: 'a lack of a sence' and 'a covered up sence'. therefore there is lightness and darkness in a dark room.
i re-wrote this like 8 times so it may be a little off.
the cat is both dead and alive in the box to a subjective perciever because it lacks the ability to percive the cat. that is, when there is a lack of sence there is a superposition of two uncertainties (dead cat and living cat, with a possible death scenario).
now what about when you sit in a room without light. the darkness blinds your sences to light, but at the same time darkness is defined as the lack of light. because the sence is simply in the off possition in both scenarios, at a basic level there is a superposition of the two uncertainties: 'a lack of a sence' and 'a covered up sence'. therefore there is lightness and darkness in a dark room.
i re-wrote this like 8 times so it may be a little off.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeleteSimilar Topics
Using the keywords [husserl cubism] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Husserl and Cubism [19 replies]
2. Forums > My Dream House [31 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2019 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.