Posts Tagged ‘Albert Einstein’
E.B. White’s Letter to a Man Who Had Lost Faith in Humanity
by Maria Popova
What sailors teach us about hope and the resilience of the human spirit.
In 1973, more than two decades after a young woman wrote to Albert Einstein with a similar concern, one man sent a distressed letter to E.B. White, lamenting that he had lost faith in humanity.
The author, who was not only a masterful letter-writer but also a professional celebrator of the human condition and an unflinching proponent of the writer’s duty to uplift people, took it upon himself to boost the man’s sunken heart with a short but infinitely beautiful reply, found in Letters of Note: Correspondence Deserving of a Wider Audience (public library | IndieBound) —
This wonderful collection based on Shaun Usher’s labor-of-love website, which also gave us young Hunter S. Thompson on how to live a meaningful life.
White’s missive, penned on March 30, 1973, when he was 74, endures as a spectacular celebration of the human spirit:
Dear Mr. Nadeau:
As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate.
Hope is the thing that is left to us, in a bad time. I shall get up Sunday morning and wind the clock, as a contribution to order and steadfastness.
Sailors have an expression about the weather: they say, the weather is a great bluffer.
I guess the same is true of our human society — things can look dark, then a break shows in the clouds, and all is changed, sometimes rather suddenly.
It is quite obvious that the human race has made a queer mess of life on this planet.
But as a people we probably harbor seeds of goodness that have lain for a long time waiting to sprout when the conditions are right. (The conditions have never been right so far?)
Man’s curiosity, his relentlessness, his inventiveness, his ingenuity have led him into deep trouble. We can only hope that these same traits will enable him to claw his way out.
Hang on to your hat. Hang on to your hope.
And wind the clock, for tomorrow is another day. (Until winding clocks is back in fashion, what could we do instead?)
Sincerely,
E. B. White
Einstein Warns Of Zionist Facism In Israel: Open letter to NYT in 1948
Einstein was a staunched Zionist since 1920 and contributed hugely to the establishment of the State of Israel.
However, before and after the establishment of Israel, Einstein realized the ideological nature of Zionism and refused to serve in any official status.
Einstein lambasted the terrorist Zionist organizations against the British mandated power and against the civilian Palestinians. Those terrorist leaders became later Israel Prime Ministers like Menachem Begin, Shamir, Sharon….
Israel refuses to release the documents written by Einstein after the establishment of Israel.
Einstein Letter Warning Of
Zionist Facism In Israel
Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times
1948, Protesting the Visit of Menachem Begin
11-1-4
Note: All the massacres against the Palestinians in villages and towns immediately after the declaration if Israel as an independent state were agreed upon and with the blessings of Ben Gurion, first PM and leader of Hagana. Actually the genocide rampages were planned since 1937 in its minute details, the specific villages, the zones and the timing.. |
Hot posts this week (Feb. 20/2014)
- Slavery: Not only in the Middle East
- The World: As seen by Albert Einstein
- Handicapped journalist: Roula Helou Not allowed to board a plane
- Did Instagram Made It? Can’t save video for yourself? How about Glance Video?
- Most powerful woman. Angela Merkel: Good for the world, bad for the Middle-East
- Photographs of Palestinians: Israel Doesn’t Want You To See
- “I am naked”: Lebanon campaign. The government too is totally naked…
- Burning Man Festival? I saw a documentary. What are its secrets again?
- Beirut Rare Green square in Verdun: Cleared for Concrete? High, medium or no Towers?
- Snowden Bombshell: Downloaded All the roster of US public employees…
The World: As seen by Albert Einstein
“School failed me, and I failed the school. It bored me. The teachers behaved like Feldwebel (sergeants). I wanted to learn what I wanted to know, but they wanted me to learn for the exam.
What I hated most was the competitive system there, and especially sports. Because of this, I wasn’t worth anything, and several times they suggested I leave.
I posted a dozen articles on Einstein, his world view, on theoretical physics, sciences, how he saw the USA, and on Zionism… You may read more from the links in the notes
Christopher Chase posted this Feb. 16, 2014:
How Einstein Saw the World
Einstein resumed:
“This was a Catholic School in Munich. I felt that my thirst for knowledge was being strangled by my teachers; grades were their only measurement. How can a teacher understand youth with such a system?
From the age of 12 I began to suspect authority and distrust teachers. I learned mostly at home, first from my uncle and then from a student who came to eat with us once a week. He would give me books on physics and astronomy.
The more I read, the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.
Then one day this student brought me Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Reading Kant, I began to suspect everything I was taught. I no longer believed in the known God of the Bible, but rather in the mysterious God expressed in nature.
The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can’t grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.
If we look at this tree outside whose roots search beneath the pavement for water, or a flower which sends its sweet smell to the pollinating bees, or even our own selves and the inner forces that drive us to act, we can see that we all dance to a mysterious tune, and the piper who plays this melody from an inscrutable distance—whatever name we give him—Creative Force, or God—escapes all book knowledge.
Science is never finished because the human mind only uses a small portion of its capacity, and man’s exploration of his world is also limited.
Creation may be spiritual in origin, but that doesn’t mean that everything created is spiritual. How can I explain such things to you?
Let us accept the world is a mystery. Nature is neither solely material nor entirely spiritual.
Man, too, is more than flesh and blood; otherwise, no religions would have been possible. Behind each cause is still another cause; the end or the beginning of all causes has yet to be found.
Yet, only one thing must be remembered: there is no effect without a cause, and there is no lawlessness in creation.
If I hadn’t an absolute faith in the harmony of creation, I wouldn’t have tried for 30 years to express it in a mathematical formula. It is only man’s consciousness of what he does with his mind that elevates him above the animals, and enables him to become aware of himself and his relationship to the universe.
I believe that I have cosmic religious feelings. I never could grasp how one could satisfy these feelings by praying to limited objects. The tree outside is life, a statue is dead. The whole of nature is life, and life, as I observe it, rejects a God resembling man.
Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience. [A cosmic religion] has no dogma other than teaching man that the universe is rational and that his highest destiny is to ponder it and co-create with its laws.
I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified.
Our bodies are like prisons, and I look forward to be free, but I don’t speculate on what will happen to me.
I live here now, and my responsibility is in this world now. I deal with natural laws. This is my work here on earth.
The world needs new moral impulses which, I’m afraid, won’t come from the churches, heavily compromised as they have been throughout the centuries.
Perhaps those impulses must come from scientists in the tradition of Galileo, Kepler and Newton.
In spite of failures and persecutions, these men devoted their lives to proving that the universe is a single entity, in which, I believe, a humanized God has no place.
The genuine scientist is not moved by praise or blame, nor does he preach. He unveils the universe and people come eagerly, without being pushed, to behold a new revelation: the order, the harmony, the magnificence of creation!
And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its ‘I am better than thou’ creed.
This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed.
If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done.
We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind.
Religion and science go together.
As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth.
Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God.
The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed.
Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe.
I am not a mystic.
Trying to find out the laws of nature has nothing to do with mysticism, though in the face of creation I feel very humble. It is as if a spirit is manifest infinitely superior to man’s spirit.
Through my pursuit in science I have known cosmic religious feelings. But I don’t care to be called a mystic.
I believe that we don’t need to worry about what happens after this life, as long as we do our duty here—to love and to serve.
I have faith in the universe, for it is rational.
Law underlies each happening.
And I have faith in my purpose here on earth.
I have faith in my intuition, the language of my conscience, but I have no faith in speculation about Heaven and Hell. I’m concerned with this time—here and now.
Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now.
I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”
~Albert Einstein
Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954
PBS TV Special- How Einstein Saw the World
Note 1: Read more on this topic https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/einstein-speaks-on-%E2%80%9Chow-i-see-the-world%E2%80%9D/
Note 2: On Zionism https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/einstein-speaks-on-zionism/
Smart people? Sharing same habits good and bad…
There is no one picture of intelligence, but many people with high IQs do tend to share some of the same habits — both good and bad.
For example, according to research complied by Online-PHD-Programs.org, while those with high IQs tend to set goals and read avidly, they are also more likely to drink more heavily and suffer from anxiety.
Kathleen Davis, associate editor at Entrepreneur.com, posted this Sept. 13, 2013
The Habits of the World’s Smartest People (Infographic)
Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228313#ixzz2ndaRCuUG
Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228313#ixzz2ndaGaVcw
For more on the habits of smart people, including a look at the IQs of icons such as Albert Einstein and Bill Gates, check out the infographic below.
Click to Enlarge+
Note 1: Looks like I have all the good qualities and none of the bad qualities of genius people of IQ over 160 without sharing their high IQ quotient or their achievements as far as I recall.
I have submitted voluntarily and by coercion to all kinds of tests and exams, except taking this ignominious IQ Test that defines a person in school and throughout life. I am glad that I had not this opportunity to submit to an IQ test, other wise I would have felt more stupid than I am.
Suppose I take this test at an advanced age and the score is somewhere below 100? And the interpreter of the result to scream: “Impossible. You were not supposed to be able to learn reading and writing, and in 3 languages. Impossible, You should have been forbidden to go through the PhD program and earn the highest degree in one of the hardest in engineering field… You have cheated and failed yourself. No one on the left tail of the graph ever reached this achievement. Your behavior is utterly unethical…”
Note 2: What could be the problem with me for not achieving much? Probably that I hate to plan for my actions, except in my daydreaming project, never were I exposed to any artistic talent to practice, and never had a strong inclination to a practical field to work on…
Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228313#ixzz2ndaRCuUG
Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228313#ixzz2ndaGaVcw
Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228313#ixzz2nda6nrQa
For more on the habits of smart people, including a look at the IQs of icons such as Albert Einstein and Bill Gates, check out the infographic below.
Universe, Physics, Quantification of Earth: From “A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson
Posted on: May 24, 2011
“A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson
Physics, the quantification of Earth, and the Universe
The physicist Michio Kaku said: “In some sense, gravity does not exist; what moves the planets and stars is the distortion of space and time.”
Gravity is not a force but a byproduct of the warping of space-time, the “ultimate sagging mattress”.
This new understanding of the universe that time is an intrinsic dimension as space was offered by Albert Einstein through his Special Theory of Relativity.
Among other principles, Einstein realized that matter is energy that can be released under specific conditions so that energy is defined as the product of mass and the square of the speed of light c = 300,000 km/s.
In his attempt to unify classical and relativity laws, Einstein offered his General Theory of Relativity and introduced a constant in the formula to account for a stable Universe. Einstein declared that this constant was “the blunder of his life”, but scientists are now trying to calculate this constant because the universe is not only expanding but the galaxies are accelerating their flight away from the Milky Way.
In 1684, Edmond Halley, a superb scientist in his own right and in many disciplines, and the inventor of the deep-sea diving bell, visited Isaac Newton at Cambridge and asked him what is the shape of the planetary paths and the cause of these specific courses. Newton replied that it would be an ellipse and that he did the calculation, but could not retrieve his papers. The world had to wait another two years before Newton produced his masterwork: “Mathematical Principles of natural Philosophy” or better known as the “Principia”.
Newton set the three laws of motion and that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. His formula stated that force is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of their corresponding distances. The constant of gravity was introduced, but would wait for Henri Cavendish to calculate it.
It is to be noted that most of his life, Newton was more serious in alchemy and religion than in anything else.
Henry Cavendish was born from a dukes families and was the most gifted English scientist of his age; he was shy to a degree bordering on disease since he would not meet with anyone and, when he visited the weekly scientific soirees of the naturalist Sir Joseph Banks, guests were advised not to look him straight in the face or address him directly.
Cavendish turned his palace into a large laboratory and experimented with electricity, heat, gravity, gases, and anything related to matter. He was the first to isolate hydrogen, combine it with oxygen to form water. Since he barely published his works many of his discoveries had to wait a century for someone else to re-discover the wheel.
For example, Cavendish anticipated the law of the conservation of energy, Ohm’s law, Dalton’s law of partial pressures, Richter’s law of reciprocal proportions, Charles’ law of gases, and the principles of electric conductivity. He also foreshadowed the work of Kelvin on the effect of tidal friction on slowing the rotation of the earth, and the effect of local atmospheric cooling, and on and on. He used to experiment on himself as many scientists of his century did, such as Benjamin Franklin, Pilate de Rozier, and Lavoisier.
In 1797, at the age of 67, Cavendish assembled John Michell’s apparatus that contained two 350-pound lead balls, which were suspended beside two smaller spheres. The idea was to measure the gravitational deflection of the smaller spheres by the larger ones to calculate the gravitational constant of Newton.
Cavendish took up position in an adjoining room and made his observations with a telescope aimed through a peephole. He evaluated Earth weight to around 13 billion pounds, a difference of 1% of today’s estimate and an estimate that Newton made 110 years ago without experimentation.
John Michell was a country parson who also perceived the wavelike nature of earthquakes, envisioned the possibility of black holes, and conducted experiments in magnetism and making telescopes. Michell died before he could use his apparatus which was delivered to Cavendish.
The 18th century was feverish in measuring Eart: its shape, dimensions, volumes, mass, latitude and longitude, distance from the sun and planets and they came close to the present measurement except its longivity, and had to wait till 1953 for Clair Patterson (a male geologist) to estimate it to 4,550 million years using lead isotopes in rocks that were created through heating.
Nature is worth a set of equations; (Nov. 17, 2009)
I have been reading speeches and comments of Albert Einstein, a great theoretical physicist in the 20th century.
Einstein is persuaded that mathematics, exclusively, can describe and represent nature’s phenomena; that all nature’s complexities can be comprehend and imagined as the simplest system in concepts and principles.
The fundamental creative principle resides in mathematics. And formulas have to be the simplest and most beautifully general. Mathematical concepts can be suggested by experience, the unique criteria of utilization of a mathematical construct.
I got into thinking.
I read this dictum when I was graduating in physics and I have been appreciating this recurring philosophy ever since. The basic goal in theoretical physics for over a century was to discover the all encompassing field of energy that can unite the varieties of fields that experiments have been popping up to describing particular phenomena in nature, such as electrical and magnetic fields as well as all these “weak” and “stronger” fields of energy emanating from atoms, protons, and all the varieties of smaller elements.
I got into thinking.
Up until the first quarter of the 20th century most experiments in natural sciences were done by varying one factor at a time; experiments never used more than one independent variable and more than one dependent variable (objective measuring variable or the data). Even today, most engineers perform these kinds of totally inefficient and worthless experiments: no interactions among variables can be analyzed, the most important and fundamental intelligences in all kinds of sciences. These engineers have simply not been exposed to experimental designs in their required curriculum!
Although the theory of probability was very advanced, the field of practical statistical analysis of data was not yet developed; it was real pain and very time consuming doing all the computations by hand for slightly complex experimental designs.
Sophisticated and specialized statistical packages constructs for different fields of research evolved after the mass number crunchers of computers were invented.
Consequently, early theoretical scientists refrained from complicating their constructs simply because they had to solve their exercises and compute them by hand in order to verify their contentious theories.
Thus, theoretical scientists knew that the experimental scientists could not practically deal with complex mathematical constructs and would refrain from undertaking complex experiments in order to confirm or refute any complex construct.
The trend, paradigm, or philosophy for the theoretical scientists was to promoting the concept that theories should be the simplest with the least numbers of axioms (fundamental principles); they did their best to imagining one general causative factor that affected the behavior of natural phenomena or would be applicable to most natural phenomena.
When Einstein mentioned that equations should be beautiful in their simplicity he had not in mind graphic design; he meant they should be simple for computations.
This is no longer the case.
Nature is complex; no matter how you control and restrict the scope of an experiment in order to reducing the numbers of manipulated variables to a minimum there are always more than one causative factor that are interrelated and interacting to producing effects.
Currently, physicist and natural scientists can observe many independent variables and several dependent variables and analyze huge number of data points.
Still, nature variables are countable and pretty steady over the experiment. Unlike experiments involving” human subjects” that are in the hundreds and hard and sensitive to control.
Man is far more complex than nature to study his behavior.
Psychologists and sociologists have been using complex experimental designs for decades in order to study man’s behavior and his hundreds of physical and mental characteristics and variability.
All kinds of mathematical constructs were developed to aid “human scientists” perform experiments commensurate in complexity with the subject matter.
The dependent variables had no longer to be objectively measurable and many subjective criteria were adopted.
Certainly, “human scientists” did not have to know the mathematical constructs that the statistical packages were using, just the premises that justified their appropriate use for their particular field.
Anyway, these mathematical models were pretty straightforward and no sophisticated mathematical concepts were used: the human scientists should be able to understand the construct if they desired to go deeper into the program without continuing higher mathematical education.
Nature is complex, though far less complex than human variability.
Theoretical natural scientists should acknowledge that complexity. And studying nature is worth a set of equations!
Simple and beautiful general equations are out the window. There are no excuses for engineers and natural scientists for not expanding their imagination and focusing their intuition on complex constructs that may account for many causative factors and analyzing simultaneously many variables for their interactions.
There are no excuses that experimental designs are not set up to handle three independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables; the human brain is capable of visualizing the interactions of 9 combinations of variables two at a time.
Certainly, scientists can throw in as many variables as they need and the powerful computers will crunch the numbers as easily and as quickly as simple designs; the problem is the interpretation part of the reams and reams of results.
Worst, how your audience is to comprehend your study?
A set of coherent series of relatively complex experiments can be designed to answer most complex phenomena and yet be intelligibly interpreted.
It is time to account for all the possible causatives factors, especially those that are rare in probability of occurrence (at the very end tail of probability graphs) or for their imagined little contributing effects: it is those rare events that have surprised man with catastrophic consequences.
If complex human was studied with simple sets of equations THEN nature is also worth sets of equations.
Be bold and make these equations as complex as you want; the computer would not care as long as you understand them for communication sake.
Adonis Diaries 