|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 4/1/2006
|
Hi Ace, hi all!
After long thoughts, here is the same content like in Ace's poem but in the mathematical language:
The whole building of understanding is based on some few unprovable things, which we call axioms. They are only accepted to be true, because they are so elementary that we just can't do anything else than believing them Such a thing for example is A=A, i.e. something is equal to itself. We simply admit that as true. Similar with formal logic and its rules. Then come definitions and relations between defined objects, which are proved following the rules of logic and the axioms. So we have theorems. Theorems and axioms are used to find other theorems following the rules of formal logic. And so on, and so on. But at the start we have those not provable things which we simply... *believe* to be true. Now, it turns out that if we don't accept those axioms then it gets rather silly, since we can prove then that... anything is true. This boring world where anything is true is not very tasteful, since it makes thinking completely obsolete. (Why think if anything is true?)
Then we have one of the greatest things in history of mental work, set theory. In that theory, objects are defined, called sets, that have some interesting properties, and the relations between them are subject of investigation. (But not only this. In this theory, counting of... infinity (!) is also investigated.) Now, it turns out that anything can be defined using sets and relations between them such as mappings, functions etc.
One of the most fundamental things in set theory is the empty set, i.e. the notthing! With this nothing, and with logic and relations we can build up... the whole universe as a mental cionstruct. How? Well imagine there is nothing! So, you still have something, i.e. the empty set. Denote that as {}. Having this thing you can think of another set that contains the empty set. I.e. {{}}. And then think of another set that contains the empty set and the set you just thought of: { {}, {{}} }. And so on. Now, using formal logic you can relate all the (infinitely many) sets in such a way that objects are defined with the properties of anything you like - planets and stars, and so on. So youn build up the universe using... essentially nothing!
Now imagine a theorem, that is some kind of statement that is proved to be true, which doesn't state something about some object, but rather states something about... itself! Such self-referencing theorems can be rather crazy! (And by the way rather beautiful!) Imagine a theorem stating: "I cannot be proved in the frame of this particular theory". Uh oh! This crazy thing is true but can't be proved to be true, i.e. it looks itself in the mirror. The material analogon to such mental contructs is more usual that you might think. For example, any brain must contain its own representation in order to "know" that it is there. So, its representation must also contain the fact that the brain contains its own representation - i.e. the brain contains the representation of the brain, which contains the representation of the brain, which... and so on. So, you get a kind of loop that has no start and no end - it is essential!
More of this very interesting stuff: Read "Goedel, Escher, Bach", which is *the* book for such crazy unorhtodox but still very mathematical thoughts. http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3423300175/302-9648768-3769628
Oops, my mathematical enthousiasm got control over me. Sorry for the many bytes I ate! :-D
But we should see photography and any othen art connected to thze wholistic approach, that doesn't prefare any art or science but loves all of them equally.
Yours,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/28/2006
|
I understand it as a self referencing statement, and such statements are beautiful, but hard to grasp.
I have to think on that, Ace!
Many many thanks for the part of the poem!
Best wishes to you, my friend!
|
|
|
|
Ace Star
{K:21040} 3/27/2006
|
very well said brother! time never exsisted before when he was alone before this universal thing came into action really a big question we know its hard to answer even think about i explain it this way when he was alone even i put it on my main Info on UF u can check out :)
All through eternity
Beauty unveils His exquisite form
in the solitude of nothingness;
He holds a mirror to His Face
and beholds His own beauty.
its a long poem by Rumi just a part of it! u agree with this beauty because i want your view on it
good luck
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/27/2006
|
Hi Ace, and thank you for the comment and the idea that is very good for thinking.
According to what we know, the translation of the question, how long was God alone before the world was created, cannot be even stated. Even time didn't exist before creation, so there was not "how long".
Crazy, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Ace Star
{K:21040} 3/27/2006
|
hi Nick! this image is special in many ways just beautiful and a mysterious feeling come out of and it and how good you explain in About
u know Nick at a time when GOD was alone ... for how long? just imagine we r just new to this universal truth!
good luck
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/26/2006
|
Many thanks Mark, for your so nice comment!
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Drago
{K:10902} 3/26/2006
|
beautiful, Nick. wonderfully graded blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/25/2006
|
Exactly Giuseppe!
Observed in contrast to the huge cold universe, any common being on earth gets some kind of almost... holy attitude - in the sense that it should not be considered as "an ordinary being" despite its ordinary being.
Thank you very much for looking so deeply in the matter of this picture.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/25/2006
|
The deep blue of cold outer space in contrast to the warm red of life here on earth - exactly my intention.
Thank you very much, Nessa, for your comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/25/2006
|
Thank you, Meldijana!
That beauty of nature, which could some day be lost for ever, is the very intention here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/25/2006
|
¡Gracias por el comentario, Alicia! Eso se levantó de hecho golpe mi ojo inmediatamente cuando lo vi.
|
|
|
|
Giuseppe Guadagno
{K:34002} 3/25/2006
|
Two comments this time because I cant go away and say nothing about this rose, made splendid by the background colour: the infinite deep blue of the universe. Here is how the most photographed and common flower becomes original and impressive.
Bravo Nick!
Ciao.
Giuseppe
|
|
|
|
vanessa shakesheff
{K:68840} 3/25/2006
|
Beautiful ,like the blue backdrop and light,,nessa
|
|
|
|
|
Meldijana Omerbegovic
{K:4079} 3/25/2006
|
Wonderful light and composition,Nick..one more beautiful photo that celebrates the Beauty of Nature..
Congratulations
Meldijana
|
|
|
|
|
Alicia Popp
{K:87532} 3/25/2006
|
Delicada y bella rosa, abre sus pétsalos a lanoche y a las luces de la noche. Bellísima imagen nick, me gusta!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/25/2006
|
¡Oh, de que era una estrella! La caja de la descripción era:
"hablar de la posibilidad de la inteligencia extraterrestre, una consigue a menudo la sensación que la pregunta" qué si no estamos solos en universo "causa miedo y malestar. Pero la cosa terrible verdadera es pedir "qué si estamos de hecho solos en universo?" Si todos fue a un extremo - por ejemplo con la fabricación de la buena vieja tierra completly incapaz apoyar vida con la contaminación - entonces... nadie sabe siempre hacia fuera allí en el polvo cósmico frío."
¡Espero el google traducido eso bastante bueno!
¡Gracias mucho por el comentario, Gustavo!
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 3/25/2006
|
Muy lindo detalle flora, no obstante hay un punto blanco a la izquierda que molesta.
Un abrazo!
|
|
0 
