Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Einstein

Einstein and Me: Turned out to be I’m his great niece?

Does this legitimate my contribution to Relativity?

EINSTEIN et…moi .L’autre jour, en voyant une image où l’on citait une phrase d’Albert Einstein parmi d’autres (Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Malcom X) à propos du conflit israélo-palestinien, j’ai eu le sentiment de devoir faire ici un aveu.
Je me suis lancé et, tout à coup, l’indécence entre cette histoire à dire et celle que vivaient des milliers d’enfants, de femmes et d’hommes à Gaza (où de par le monde) m’a sauté aux yeux.
Ce statut, je l’ai appelé “RELATIVITÉ”. Le double sens était caché…
Si je me décide à en parler finalement sans attendre la fin des malheurs des Palestiniens et du monde, c’est qu’au passage, il se peut que ma parole gagne, auprès de certains, en légitimité.
Je sais, vous vous demandez déjà où je pourrais vouloir en venir et pourquoi tant de détours.J’y viens. Mais d’abord, la genèse.
GENÈSE. C’était en janvier dernier. Je reçois un email de Londres de la part d’un inconnu. Il me demande si je suis bien le fils de mes parents Robert et Denise. De toute évidence, oui.
Alors il dit qu’il souhaite me parler au téléphone le lendemain. Là, il m’annonce qu’il est ami avec une cousine de ma mère surnommée Ninette, 86 ans.
Il a dû sentir que j’étais interdit. J’avais toujours compris que personne, dans la famille de ma mère (décédée en 1995), n’avait survécu aux camps de concentration…Date est donc prise pour une rencontre lors d’un prochain voyage à Londres. L’occasion se présente début avril.
Dans le restaurant où John (l’Anglais) avait réservé une pièce à part pour pouvoir s’étaler (nous et nos documents), je découvre Ninette. Pendant la guerre, elle avait pu s’échapper à pied par les Pyrénées.
Ma mère, elle, s’était échappée de l’appartement parisien – où les soldats allemands venaient, après son père André trois mois auparavant, arrêter sa grand mère Alice, sa mère Maryse et elle-même – par l’escalier de la cuisine, avait pris le métro jusqu’à Porte de Vanves et avait trouvé refuge pour longtemps dans un couvent dont elle savait l’existence.
Elle avait prétexté d’un pull à aller chercher dans sa chambre.De la bouche de Ninette, j’apprends des choses toutes simples sur ma mère enfant (“une rebelle”) ou sur mes grands-parents (dont ma mère n’avait jamais vraiment voulu parler sauf, je me souviens, sur son lit d’hôpital, pour dire qu’elle ne supportait pas quand ils lui répondaient “ cela ne se fait pas“.
Et ce serait même pour cela qu’assez jeune, elle avait goûté un peu au bouddhisme et au catholicisme.De mon côté, en guise de récit, je n’avais qu’un vieux grimoire où figuraient tout de même plus d’une centaine de photos de famille.
Mais à part celle de mon grand père et de ma grand mère, j’étais incapable de reconnaître ceux que je ne connaissais pas.LE GRAND ROULEAU
C’est alors que John et Ninette posèrent sur la table voisine un très Grand Rouleau de papier: notre arbre généalogique. A côté des Schoenfeld, la famille de ma mère, il y avait les Lévy Sée, les Lang, les Bloch, les Dreyfus
Puis ils attirèrent mon attention sur un petit carré gris où l’on pouvait lire le nom de…Là, il me faut vous laisser chercher par vous-même sur l’image jointe. Vous trouverez facilement ce petit carré gris en pivotant à gauche de mon père, Robert Barrat, et de ma mere, Denise Schoenfeld (avec leur quatre enfants au dessous d’eux).
Pour ceux qui ne se sont pas parvenus à lire ce nom, je vous le donne : Albert Einstein.Comme je ne sais pas très bien lire les branches des arbres généalogiques, je me bornerai à dire que je suis l’arrière petit- neveu d’Albert Einstein. Ou alors vous me direz quoi au juste…
Bien sûr, mes proches, depuis, me charrient. Expliquant notamment ainsi le fait que j’ai pu faire “Maths Sup” (trois semaines).
LÉGITIMITÉSi vous me le permettez, j’aimerais vous dire maintenant la phrase d’Einstein en question :
Ce serait ma plus grande tristesse de voir les Sionistes (juifs) faire aux Arabes Palestiniens beaucoup de ce que les Nazis ont fait aux Juifs“.
Une chose ici m’intrigue, comme s’il s’agissait non pas d’une opinion possiblement héréditaire mais d’un axiome. Ma mère – cofondatrice par exemple de l’Association pour la Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Culturel Palestinien – aimait quant à elle à dire qu’elle ne supportait pas qu ‘”un Peuple qui a tant souffert puisse imposer d’autres souffrances à un autre Peuple“.
Quant à votre serviteur – ayant notamment vécu les raids sur les camps palestiniens du Sud Liban et sur Beyrouth, en 1981, le siège de Beyrouth en 1982, ayant ramassé au sol ces petits tracts roses dont les gamins s’emparaient d’abord en riant dans les airs, avant de comprendre que c’était là le moyen pour l’aviation israélienne de donner un délai de grâce de 40 minutes si l’on aimait ses proches -il n’a pas de phrase clef.
Je sais seulement maintenant qu’au bout du compte, je suis un peu plus Juif que je ne le pensais. Et surtout que je ne permettrai à personne de dire que j’ai honte de moi.P .B.!See Translation
Note: Einstein integrated the classical formula for energy by including Time as another variable. 

Types of thinking or methods for resolving problems? What methods your field of practice use?

Ten years ago, I was teaching an introductory class of Human Factors in Engineering. I had 60 students in class and the chairman refused to open a second class, and many of the students were in their third years of various engineering disciplines.

I asked the class: “What methods your field of specialty applies to resolving problems?

That was a pretty interesting question: The heavy silence and opened jaws convinced me that I threw a bomb in class.

I had to list over three dozen methods and asked them to “internet search” how these methods are used and how they are applied. Two students were very diligent and the remaining students copy/pasted a few methods: Too many methods and kind of verging on a philosophy course.

See this taxonomy of methods https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/an-exercise-taxonomy-of-methods/

Daniel Montano in his blog Framework21 posted

1. Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives

Leonardo da Vinci believed that, to gain knowledge about the form of a problem, you begin by learning how to restructure it in many different ways. He felt that the first way he looked at a problem was too biased. Often, the problem itself is reconstructed and becomes a new one.

2. Visualize!

When Einstein thought through a problem, he always found it necessary to formulate his subject in as many different ways as possible, including using diagrams. He visualized solutions, and believed that words and numbers as such did not play a significant role in his thinking process.

3. Produce! A distinguishing characteristic of genius is productivity.

Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents. He guaranteed productivity by giving himself and his assistants idea quotas. In a study of 2,036 scientists throughout history, Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California at Davis found that the most respected scientists produced not only great works, but also many “bad” ones. They weren’t afraid to fail, or to produce mediocre in order to arrive at excellence.

(And Edison stole many ideas and patented them as his and didn’t pay his genius assistants)

4. Make novel combinations. Combine, and recombine, ideas, images, and thoughts into different combinations no matter how unusual.

The laws of heredity on which the modern science of genetics is based came from the Austrian monk Grego Mendel, who combined mathematics and biology to create a new science.

5. Form relationships; make connections between dissimilar subjects.

Da Vinci forced a relationship between the sound of a bell and a stone hitting water. This enabled him to make the connection that sound travels in waves. Samuel Morse invented relay stations for telegraphic signals when observing relay stations for horses.

6. Think in opposites.

Physicist Niels Bohr believed that if you held opposites together, you suspend your thought, and your mind moves to a new level. His ability to imagine light as both a particle and a wave led to his conception of the principle of complementarity. Suspending thought (logic) may allow your mind to create a new form.

7. Think metaphorically.

Aristotle considered metaphor a sign of genius, and believed that the individual who had the capacity to perceive resemblances between two separate areas of existence and link them together was a person of special gifts.

8. Prepare yourself for chance.

Whenever we attempt to do something and fail, we end up doing something else. That is the first principle of creative accident.

Failure can be productive only if we do not focus on it as an unproductive result. Instead: analyze the process, its components, and how you can change them, to arrive at other results. Do not ask the question “Why have I failed?”, but rather “What have I done?”

————————————————————————————

Addendum: The items below are characteristics I have gathered from Einstein biographical resources.

————————————————————————————

9. Study philosophy.

  • Einstein studied philosophy and it influenced the way he thought.

10. Remain skeptical of your professors and other experts

  • Einstein sometimes showed a high degree of skepticism towards processed knowledge

11. Slow down your thinking process.

  • Einstein said that he was not smarter but that he stayed with problems longer. He has been described by himself and others as a slow thinker.

12. Imagine yourself as being part the problem you want to solve.

  • Einstein sometimes imagined himself being part of the dynamics he was trying to understand. He came to some great insights about time by imagining that he was riding a beam of light through space.

13. Not all innovative ideas are necessarily 100% “good”.

Any idea or innovation that can be used for the benefit of people may also be used against them.

  • Einstein’s breakthroughs in energy could be used to power cities and benefit society. But as we learned, the same ideas could also be used to kill thousands of people. It’s important to understand multiple possible applications of your ideas before you make them public. Einstein understood this. But it’s unclear if he understood this when he first proposed his theories or later, when others began talking about how to create a bomb.
  • (Einstein understood the impact of atomic bomb before he proposed his atomic bomb to Roosevelt at the beginning of the war: He suspected that Nazi Germany was working diligently on this mass destructive weapon).

14. Discuss ideas with other bright people to gain a more robust insight.

  • Einstein would discuss his ideas with colleagues and friends who were also experts in the subjects he cared about. His first wife studied along with Einstein early on and she was well versed in the same subjects. She is very likely to have contributed insights that moved his ideas forward.

15. Immerse yourself in the newest ideas from others.

  • Einstein worked as a patent clerk. He was one of the fist people to read many of the newest ideas submitted for patent protection by the brightest minds of his time.

Note 1: https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/%E2%80%9Cwhat-kind-of-methods-will-i-have-to-manipulate-in-human-factors%E2%80%9D/

Note 2: From Wikipedia:

Abductive reasoning, Abstract thinking, Analogy, Attitude, Calculation, Categorization,Cognition, Cognitive restructuring, Cognitive space, Cognitive style, Common sense,

Concept, Conjecture, Concrete concepts, Critical thinking, Deductive reasoning,

Definition, Estimation, Evaluation, Explanation, Gestalt psychology, Heuristics,

Historical thinking, Hypothesis, Idea, Identification (information), Inductive reasoning,

Inference, Instinct, Intelligence, Intelligence amplification, Intentionality,

Introspection, Knowledge management, Language, Lateral thinking,

Linguistics, Logic, Logical argument, Logical assertion, Meaning (linguistics),

Meaning (non-linguistic), Meaning (semiotics), Mental calculation, Mental function,

Metacognition, Mind’s eye, Mindset, Multiple intelligences, Multitasking,

Pattern matching, Personality, Picture thinking, Prediction, Premise,

Problem finding, Problem shaping, Problem solving, Proposition,

Rationality, Reason, Reasoning, Reasoning event, Self-reflection, Sapience,

Semantic network, Semantics, Semiosis, Semiotics, Six Thinking Hats,

Speech act, Stream of consciousness, Syllogism, Synectics, Systems intelligence,

Systems thinking, Thinking, Thought act, Thinking maps, Thinking process,

Thought experiment, TRIZ, Visual thinking, Working memory, Writing

One thing we know is that life reinforces the hypothesis that the world is infinitely complex and most of its phenomena will remain incomprehensible, meaning unexplained.  For example, no theory of life evolution was able to predict the next phase in evolution and the route taken to the next phase.  We don’t know if laws in biology will exist in the same meaning of laws of physics or natural phenomena.

For example, is the universe simple or complex, finite or infinite? The mathematician Chaitin answered: “This question will remain without any resolution, simply because we need an external observer outside our system of reference, preferably non-human, to corroborate our theoretical perception.”  (A few of my readers will say: “This smack of philosophy” and they hate philosophy or the rational logic deducted from reduced propositions that cannot rationally be proven)

So many scholars wanted to believe that “God does not play dice” (Einstein) or that chaos is within the predictive laws of God and nature (Leibniz), or that the universe can be explained by simple, restricted set of axioms, non-redundant rules (Stephen Hawking).

Modern mathematical theories and physical observations are demonstrating that most phenomena are basically behaving haphazardly.  For example, quantum physics reveals that hazard is the fundamental principle in the universe of the very tiny particles:  Individual behaviors of small particles in the atomic nucleus are unpredictable; thus, there is no way of measuring accurately speed, location, and direction of a particle simultaneously; all that physics can do is assigning probability numbers.

Apparently, hazard plays a role even in mathematics.  For example, many mathematical “true” statesmans cannot be demonstrated, they are logically irreducible and incomprehensible.  Mathematicians know that there exists an infinity of “twin” prime numbers (odd number followed by even number) but this knowledge cannot be proven mathematically. Thus, many mathematicians would suggest to add these true “propositions” but non demonstrable theories to the basic set of axioms.  Axioms are a set of the bare minimum of “given propositions” that we think we know to be true, but the reason is unable to approach them adequately, using the logical processes.

Einstein said: “What is amazing is that the eternally incomprehensible in nature is comprehensible”; meaning that we always think that we can extend an explanation to a phenomenon without being able to proving its working behaviors.  Einstein wrote that to comprehend means to rationally explain by compressing the basic axioms so that our mind can understand the facts; even if we are never sure how the phenomenon behaves.

For example, Platon said that the universe is comprehensible simply because it looks structured by the beauty of geometric constructs, the regularity of the tonality in string instruments, and steady movement of planets… Steven Weinberg admits that “If we manage to explain the universal phenomenon of nature it will not be feasible by just simple laws.”

Many facts can be comprehended when they are explained by a restricted set of theoretical affirmations:  This is called the Occam Razor theory which says: “The best theory or explanation is the simplest.”  The mathematician Herman Weyl explained: “We first need to confirm that nature is regulated by simple mathematical laws.  Then, the fundamental relationships become simpler the further we fine-tune the elements, and the better the explication of facts is more exact.”

So what is theory?  Informatics extended another perspective for defining theory: “a theory is a computer program designed to taking account of observed facts by computation.  Thus, the program is designed to predict observations.  If we say that we comprehend a phenomenon then, we should be able to program its behavior.  The smaller the program (more elegant) the better the theory is comprehended.”

When we say “I can explain” we mean that “I compressed a complex phenomenon into simple programs that “I can comprehend”, that human mind can comprehend.  Basically, explaining and comprehending is of an anthropic nature, within the dimension of human mental capabilities.

The father of information theory, John von Neumann wrote: “Theoretical physics mainly categorizes phenomena and tries to find links among the categories; it does not explain phenomena.”

In 1931, mathematician Kurt Godel adopted a mental operation consisting of indexing lists of all kinds of assertions.  His formal mathematical method demonstrated that there are true propositions that cannot be demonstrated, called “logically incomplete problems”  The significance of Godel’s theory is that it is impossible to account for elemental arithmetic operations (addition or multiplication) by reducing its results from a few basic axioms.  With any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-reference nature of any logical systems.

The theorem indicates that there is no grand mathematical system capable of proving or disproving all statements.  An undecidable statement can be thought of as a mathematical form of a statement like “What I just said is a lie”:  The statement makes reference to the language being used to describe it, it cannot be known whether the statement is true or not. However, an undecidable statement does not need to be explicitly self-reference to be undecidable. The main conclusion of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that all logical systems will have statements that cannot be proven or disproven; therefore, all logical systems must be “incomplete.”

The philosophical implications of these theorems are widespread. The set suggests that in physics, a “theory of everything” may be impossible, as no set of rules can explain every possible event or outcome. It also indicates that logically, “proof” is a weaker concept than “true”.  Such a concept is unsettling for scientists because it means there will always be things that, despite being true, cannot be proven to be true. Since this set of theorems also applies to computers, it also means that our own minds are incomplete and that there are some ideas we can never know, including whether our own minds are consistent (i.e. our reasoning contains no incorrect contradictions).

The second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems states that no consistent system can prove its own consistency, meaning that no sane mind can prove its own sanity. Also, since that same law states that any system able to prove its consistency to itself must be inconsistent, any mind that believes it can prove its own sanity is, therefore, insane.

Alan Turing used a deeper twist to Godel’s results.  In 1936, Turing indexed lists of programs designed to compute real numbers from zero to 1 (think probability real numbers).  Turing demonstrated mathematically that no infallible computational procedures (algorithms) exist that permit to deciding whether a mathematical theorem is true or false.  In a sense, there can be no algorithm able to know if a computer program will even stop.  Consequently, no computer program can predict that another program will ever stop computing.  All that can be done is allocating a probability number that the program might stop.  Thus, you can play around with all kinds of axioms, but no sets can deduce that a program will end.  Turing proved the existence of non computable numbers.

Note 1: Chaitin considered the set of all possible programs; he played dice for each bit in the program (0 or 1, true or false) and allocated a probability number for each program that it might end.  The probability that a program will end in a finite number of steps is called Omega.  The succession of numbers comprising Omega are haphazard and thus, no simple set of axioms can deduce the exact number.  Thus, while Omega is defined mathematically, the succession of the numbers in Omega has absolutely no structure.  For example we can write algorithm to computing Pi but never for Omega.

Note 2:  Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) tried to rediscover the founding blocks of mathematics “the royal highway to truth”  He was disappointed and wrote: “Mathematics is infected of non proven postulates and infested with cyclic definitions.  The beauty and the terror of mathematics is that a proof must be found; even if it proves that a theory cannot e be proven”

Note 3:  The French mathematician Poincaré got a price for supposedly having discovered chaos.  The article was officially published when Poincaré realized that he made a serious error that disproved his original contention.  Poincaré had to pay for all the published articles and for destroying them.  A single copy was saved and found at the Mittag-Leffler Institute in Stockholm.

“Abduction field” or a priori “stealing” program; (Jan. 23, 2010)

I am coining the term “abduction field” to describe and explain how people manage to function in their daily routine. People move and act as if executing an “a priori program”: they seem to mentally “pick up” objects and event as they go about. People seem to know in advance what they want to do.  Hazards are just obstacles that the “abduction field” in the brain failed to adjust in a timely manner to redesign the plan.  It might be a good idea to explain what abduction reasoning means before I venture into this topic.

Human mind uses many reasoning methods such as deduction, induction, and abduction. Deductive reasoning is a process that starts from a set of basic propositions (proved or considered the kind of non provable truths) and then prove the next propositions based on the previous set.  In general, a law, natural or social, or a theorem in mathematics guides the demonstration.  Practically, it is like using a function to find the appropriate pieces of data or information that are available on a well drawn path or trend.

Inductive reasoning is a process of selecting samples from a phenomenon or a basket of items and then studying the samples.  If the items are the “same” in each sample then the individual is prone to recognize that a law is guiding that phenomenon. The sample taker is ready to form a law, though he knows that logically, if in the future one sample is wrong, then the law is logically invalid. In the mean time, the sample taker can resume his life as if the law is valid, as long as it is working (more frequently than not).

We call a “paradigm shift” the period when accumulated samples or observations are showing to be “false” and that the law has to be dropped for a better performing law.  The process needs time before the scientific community reaches a consensus for a change in venue, simply because it was comfortable using well-known mental structures.  The paradigm shift period is shortened if a valid alternative is demonstrated to work far better, not just slightly better, than the previous theory.

Abduction reasoning is an “intuitive” process such as having a few facts or data and we manage to find a connection among these facts.  In a way, we got an idea that the facts follow a definite trend.  For example, the astronomer and mathematician Kepler started with the notion that planets move in circles around the sun; his observations of Mars detected two positions that didn’t coincide with any circle. Kepler selected another trajectory among those mathematically described in geometry that might be appropriate.  The elliptical shape accounted for the two observed positions of Mars. Kepler got convinced that planet trajectories are elliptical, but he needed to convince the “scientific community”. Thus, Kepler worked for many years waiting for Mars to cross different positions that he knew would inevitably be on the ellipse anyway.

Most scientific discoveries are fundamentally of the abduction kind reasoning. Usually, in order to describe the discovery process, scientists prefer to introduce as many deductive or inductive reasoning in the explanation so as to avoid sounding that the discovery was a pure fluke of intuition and not hard mental work.

People use the abduction reasoning technique as routine behavior to decide, move, or act. People have implicitly a priori (idea, plan, concept, hypothesis, path, or line of actions) before they get moving.  People move as if they already know what will happen next; they adjust their plan as frequently as obstacles occur.  Thus, abduction reasoning is the rule instead of the exception in most commonly used strategies.

A good way to explaining the abduction field theory is by observing someone who is familiar with a particular supermarket.  The customer moves around and pick up items in a determined manner. A few times, the customer stops and study particular varieties of the “same” items for prices, weight and chemical contents.  The customer might look as if he just woke up or is disoriented, but his action is kind of planned: he behaves pretty “sober” in his decisions.

People move and act within abduction fields of reasoning, otherwise, how can we imagine extending a step forward without advanced planning? The initial schemas of abduction fields are not that well oiled, and many errors and pitfalls occur during the abduction plans.  By the by, the human brain gets adjusted and trained to secure better fit in forecasting next steps and moves.

Highly intelligent people differ from normal intelligence in that, more frequently than not, they consciously apply deductive and inductive reasoning on their initiated abduction fields.  The implicit purpose is to optimize the “abductive field” performance by supporting it with better formal or coded laws among the working laws.

With conscious training and application of the other two reasoning methods, the individual acquire higher intelligence reasoning choices or diversified perspectives to viewing and resolving a problem.

Brainwashing is an application phenomenon of abduction field distortion.  Brainwashing is not so much a process of feeding misinformation or disinformation as in ideologically and dogmatic State-controlled government.  Brainwashing is the process of altering the abduction field so that an individual lacks the objective flexibility to pick up the appropriate objects, tools, or events to place on his “abduction path”:  The individual is picking what is available on his path, including ready-made terminology and definitions, and not what his brain was more likely to select in normal conditions.

When we say “this guy is a one track mind or one-dimensional mind” then we basically means that his abduction field has been restricted by habit: his brain ended up lacking the potential flexibility and versatility to train and develop his abduction field reasoning.

Note: I am under the impression that Spinoza had the same philosophical theory when he wrote: “The movements of our investigative spirit obey real laws”.  If we think well then we are bound to think according to rules that link things one to another.  Kant adopted this reasoning and offered the “a priori” dispositions of the mind.  I think Einstein misinterpreted Kant’s “a priori proposal” because Einstein was engrossed with the deductive processes in resolving the restricted relativity theory.  Einstein was not concerned of how people behave in their daily routines.

Note 1: The abduction field explains the contradictory feeling we have that our actions are determined frequently or following a free-will course of action, occasionally.  For example, if we consciously start with a thief program that is pre-programmed to suit what we want today, we tend to steal objects, events, opportunities on our way.  Otherwise, the default value is the “habit thief program”, and we feel that the day is pretty much determined.

Note 2: The individual “I” is spread all over our organism, physical, genetics, and mental (brain). Decisions are delayed until all the different varieties of “I” reach a working consensus, or a particular I override the other I, depending on which thief program we launched at the start of the day.

Responses to “Einstein speaks on Zionism”; (Dec. 8, 2009)

I received this comment on my post “Einstein speaks on Zionism”. I edited errors of spelling before replying.  I do enjoy developed comments which prove involvement.

            “At the risk of lending this diatribe even a modicum of credibility by responding to it I shall confine my comments to two easily verifiable factual matters.

1. ORT was not a Zionist organization at the time specified by “Adonis49”. Between the wars it was heavily influenced by the Bundhists and others who saw the future of Jewish communities lying within the countries in which they were already situated. The organization was founded in St Petersburg in 1880 by three prominent Jews – all of them patriotic Russians with nary a proto-Zionist whim between them.

2. As for Einstein calling Arabs in the British Mandated territory “Arabs” – this may well have been because the only people calling themselves “Palestinians” at that time were Jews living there. Arabs did not start calling themselves “Palestinian” until well after the establishment of the State of Israel. I refer you to the interview which Zuheir Mohsen, a then prominent member of the PLO, gave to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977, in which he stated: “The Palestinian people do not exist… Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”

3. Indeed, any archaeologists among you may want to try digging into the ground of Israel to find “Palestinian” artifacts. You’ll find Ottoman artifacts, Muslim pieces, even some remnants of the idolatrous Canaanites if you dig deep enough. But most of all you’ll find a lot of Jewish artifacts, stretching back some 3,000 years.”

            The translated book in French did not provide context to what Einstein’s wrote, published, or delivered in speeches; thus, I have no sources for the dates or events or purpose for these documents except what I may conjecture.

            The Bundhists organization that was founded in St Petersburg in 1880 may not have been pro-Zionist at first but most of the first Russian immigrants to Palestine at the turn of the 20th century were encouraged later by that organization. Those agricultural Russian immigrants worked the land and Einstein praised them for their effort to “re-constructing” Palestine. Their offspring joined the Hagana, then the British forces in the Near East, and then were dispatched to Europe in 1945 as allied soldiers to collect arms and be re-routed to Palestine. They were the ones that the Mossad relied on to negotiate with the countries soon to fall under Soviet influence (Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria) because they could speak Russian. It is from these countries that the first heavy arms came from after the first armistice in 1948: Stalin was convinced that the State of Israel will become the first communist state in the Middle East and was thus the first to recognize Israel.

            Zuheir Mohsen was a leader of a “Palestinian” faction (Al Saika) controlled totally by Syria that wanted to control the PLO; its propaganda tried to rob any independent entity to the Palestinians since Syria was planning to enjoy a mandated power over Lebanon during the civil war. Pan Arabism is not a national identity but an attribute for people speaking Arabic.

            I cannot understand the logic; if the freshly arriving Jews call their new land Palestine and they are known as Palestinians then why the original “Arabs” in that land for over two thousand years should not be called Palestinians? I understand the power of Zionism to disseminating fictitious stories and “facts” but I expect a minimum of rational thinking even from those who don’t care to read or reflect.

            As for artifacts, the fact is that for a century and since the recognition of Israel no Jewish artifacts were found even in Judea. It is not possible to find artifacts for nomadic people.  Artifacts are within the realm of urban civilizations such as the Canaanite and Phoenicians. Even the scrolls found are not Jewish but were written by sects fleeing the persecutions of the McCabe, Pharisee, and Sadducee sects based in Judea. No there are no “Jewish” artifacts and whatever will be found will not be dated before 200 BC.

            I might develop further on this article in the coming days.

577.  Climate change: Before Copenhagen; (Nov. 27, 2009)

 

578.  “War on Rhetoric”; (Nov. 28, 2009)

 

579.  Einstein speaks on “How I see the world”; (Nov. 30, 2009)

 

580.  Einstein speaks on Zionism; (Dec. 2, 2009)

 

581.  Testing 3 thousand years of babbling; (Dec. 3, 2009)

 

582.  “Sophie’s World” on David Hume; (Dec. 4, 2009)

Ironing out a few chaotic glitches; (Dec. 5, 2009)

              Philosophers have been babbling for many thousand years whether the universe is chaotic or very structured so that rational and logical thinking can untangle its laws and comprehend nature’s behaviors and phenomena.

              Plato wrote that the world is comprehensible.  The world looked like a structured work of art built on mathematical logical precision. Why? Plato was found of symmetry, geometry, numbers, and he was impressed by the ordered tonality of musical cord instruments.  Leibnitz in the 18th century explained “In what manner God created the universe it must be in the most regular and ordered structure.  Leibnitz claimed that God selected the simplest in hypotheses that generated the richest varieties of phenomena.”  A strong impetus that the universe is comprehensible started with the “positivist philosophers and scientists” of the 20th century who were convinced that the laws of natures can be discovered by rational mind.

            Einstein followed suit and wrote “God does not play dice.  To rationally comprehend a phenomenon we must reduce, by a logical process, the propositions (or axioms) to apparently known evidence that reason cannot touch.” The pronouncement of Einstein “The eternally incomprehensible universe is its comprehensibility” can be interpreted in many ways. The first interpretation is “what is most incomprehensible in the universe is that it can be comprehensible but we must refrain from revoking its sacral complexity and uncertainty”.  The second interpretation is “If we are still thinking that the universe is not comprehensible then may be it is so, as much as we want to think that we may understand it; thus, the universe will remain incomprehensible (and we should not prematurely declare the “end of science”).

            The mathematician Herman Weyl developed the notion: “The assertion that nature is regulated by strict laws is void unless we affirm that it is related by simple mathematical laws.  The more we delve in the reduction process to the bare fundamental propositions the more facts are explained with exactitude.”  It is this philosophy of an ordered and symmetrical world that drove Mendeleyev to classifying the chemical elements; Murry Gell-Mann used “group theory” to predicting the existence of quarks.

            A few scientists went even further; they claimed that the universe evolved in such a way to permit the emergence of the rational thinking man.  Scientists enunciated many principles such as “the principle of least time” that Fermat used to deduce the laws of refraction and reflection of light; Richard Feynman discoursed on the “principle of least actions”; we have the “principle of least energy consumed”, the “principle of computational equivalence”, the “principle of entropy” or the level of uncertainty in a chaotic environment.

            Stephen Hawking popularized the idea of the “Theory of Everything TOE” a theory based on a few simple and non redundant rules that govern the universe.  Stephen Wolfran thinks that the TOE can be found by a thorough systematic computer search: The universe complexity is finite and the most seemingly complex phenomena (for example cognitive functions) emerge from simple rules.

            Before we offer the opposite view that universe is intrinsically chaotic let us define what is a theory.  Gregory Chaitin explained that “a theory is a computer program designed to account for observed facts by computation”.  (Warning to all mathematicians!  If you want your theory to be published by peer reviewers then you might have to attach an “elegant” or the shortest computer program in bits that describes your theory)

            Kurt Gödel and Alain Turing demonstrated what is called “incompletude” in mathematics or the ultimate uncertainty of mathematical foundations.  There are innumerable “true” propositions or conjectures that can never be demonstrated.  For example, it is impossible to account for the results of elementary arithmetic such as addition or multiplication by the deductive processes of its basic axioms.  Thus, many more axioms and unresolved conjectures have to be added in order to explain correctly many mathematical results.  Turing demonstrated mathematically that there is no algorithm that can “know” if a program will ever stop or not.  The consequence in mathematics is this: no set of axioms will ever permit to deduce if a program will ever stop or not. Actually, there exist many numbers that cannot be computed.  There are mathematical facts that are logically irreducible and incomprehensive.

            Quantum mechanics proclaimed that, on the micro level, the universe is chaotic: there is impossibility of simultaneously locating a particle, its direction, and determining its velocity.  We are computing probabilities of occurrences.  John von Neumann wrote: “Theoretical physics does not explain natural phenomena: it classifies phenomena and tries to link or relate the classes.”

            Acquiring knowledge was intuitively understood as a tool to improving human dignity by increasing quality of life; thus, erasing as many dangerous superstitions that bogged down spiritual and moral life of man.  Ironically, the trend captured a negative life of its own in the last century.  The subconscious goal for learning was to frustrate fanatic religiosity that proclaimed that God is the sole creator and controller of our life, its quality, and its destiny.  With our gained power in knowledge we may thus destroy our survival by our own volition; we can commit earth suicide regardless of what God wishes.  So far, we have been extremely successful beyond all expectations.  We can destroy all living creatures and plants by activating a single H-Bomb or whether we act now or desist from finding resolution to the predicaments of climate changes.

            I have impressions.  First, what the mathematicians and scientists are doing is not discovering the truth or the real processes but to condense complexity into simple propositions so that an individual may think that he is able to comprehend the complexities of the world.  Second, nature is complex; man is more complex; social interactions are far more complex.  No mathematical equations or simple laws will ever help an individual to comprehend the thousands of interactions among the thousands of variability.  Third, we need to focus on the rare events; it has been proven that the rare events (for example, occurrences at the tails of probability functions) are the most catastrophic simply because very few are the researchers interested in investigating them; scientists are cozy with those well structured behaviors that answer collective behaviors.

            My fourth impression is that I am a genius without realizing it.  Unfortunately Kurt Gödel is the prime kill joy; he would have mock me on the ground that he mathematically demonstrated that any sentence I write is a lie.  How would I dare write anything?

Einstein speaks on Zionism; (Dec. 2, 2009)

Einstein was a staunch Zionist since before 1920.  He said in reply to a letter “I discovered that I was Jewish by the non-Jews as I arrived in Germany 15 years ago” (Einstein was appointed professor at the University of Prussia immediately after WWI in 1918 as his theory of relativity was demonstrated by observation).

“The individual Jews reached a high state of evolution but they lacked the support of united communities of blood and tradition:  Individual insecurity generates and provokes huge moral fragility.  Only the creation of a homeland would heal this sick people.

You may call this notion of homeland  “nationalism”, a concept that I hate but you are not wrong in your term. It is a kind of nationalism with no will for acquiring political power but preoccupied mainly to preserving the dignity and moral health of the Jews.

If we were not living within intolerant communities then I would be the first to reject all kinds of nationalism for the benefit of a universal community”. (Didn’t we all read this lame argument?)

Einstein considered Herzl his guiding ideological leader who worked to aiding the Jewish people to discover solidarity for an achievable purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland.

Einstein never missed an occasion in supporting the Zionism cause in meetings, speeches, and collecting funds for various Zionist organizations such as (organization for handicraft and agricultural work, ORT) and (organization for health protection of the Zionists, OZE).

He visited the USA in 1930 to drum up funding and gathering specialist volunteers to establish a medical Jewish university in Jerusalem.  He bantered to the leading literary figures of the period such as Bernard Shaw and H.G Wells in order to draw support from international figures.

Einstein impressed upon the audience that Jews have passion for knowledge, justice, and individual independence that are rooted in Jewish traditions.

Anyone who is contrary to the ideals of reason and individual liberty is necessary “anti-Semite”. (Anti-democratic? Anti-secularism?…)

He claims that Judaism has no concept of the world; it focuses almost exclusively on the moral aspects, the sanctity of life, and the right of all living creatures to life.

Sanctity of life is the supreme value to which all moral values are linked to.

Judaism is not a “faith” because the Jewish God refuses superstitions; the God of the Jews cannot be considered a substitute to life on earth: serving God means serving life on earth; joy for the beauty in this world as the singing of birds, the mumbling of kids toward life.

Einstein would like us to believe that the God of Judaism is sort of a “cosmic spirit “, a symbol for the respect to life and justice and that Marx and Spinoza were inspired by that spirit.

He recalled that Walter Rathenau once said “when a Jew says that he is hunting for his pleasure, then he is lying”

(The brief history of the Zionist State has demonstrated that hunting Palestinians is the prime entertainment of the Israelis, Jews or not).

Einstein claimed that the Sabbath sanctifies animals (so that they may be slaughtered during religious ceremonies?)  Einstein ventures into saying that if the old Jewish traditions relied on fear tactics to impose its values then it has outgrown it (Israel is currently totally relying on instilling fear in the region on a State scale).

Einstein claims that if we factor out the teachings of Jesus and the Jewish prophets from their religious institutions then we discover that we have a doctrine capable of healing humanity of all its social ills. (What is then left to teach?)

He went on “as long as we lived in ghettos, the Jewish communities experienced material and physical hardship but never psychological or social problems.  After the emancipation of the Jews in (most of Europe) and their integration in the European societies then the Jewish youth integrated fully in schools, universities, and professional institutions and started to shun Jewish traditions and customs.

This conversion was unilateral: the overwhelming majority in the European societies engaged in discrimination. We have to clarify our condition as strangers and draw conclusions; we have to work out our social solutions; we have to establish our own syndicates and institutions and refrain from imitating the non-Jewish sets of values and customs.  That is the solution for anti-Semitism

Einstein abhorred the concept of nationalism but made it an exception for the Jews.

He insisted on calling the Palestinians “Arabs”; this is not a simple general label that the Europeans used, but an ideological Zionist indoctrination to rob the native Palestinians of any national identity.

He said that a Jewish homeland should be a spiritual center; the goal is not to establishing a political community but a cultural community founded on Jewish traditions.

Jews and Arabs (in Palestine) got to reach an understanding on guiding lines for efficacious community needs: Switzerland represents a state evolution that caters to the complex constitution among its various nationalities.  Our colonization enterprise to re-construct Palestine should be realized to serve the concrete interests of the Arab population; thus, we should refrain from allowing the mandated power of England to meddle in our affairs”.

These pronouncements came after the “Jewish colonization” came to a standstill in the late 20’s due to the trickling of external funding after the US financial crash and the stubborn resistance of the Palestinian to further Jewish immigration.

It seems that Weizmann managed to coax England to resume its facilitation to Jewish immigration.

In response to a letter from an “Arab” in March 1930, Einstein suggested the formation of mixed “private councils”; four members of each “nationality” would delegates of non-political organizations and syndicates such as medical, legal, worker syndicates or orders and a religious representative.

The private council would meet once a week and discuss and deliberate; all discussions to stay secret then decisions would be disseminated to the public as an entity.

Einstein must have played the dumb: if the Palestinians could find non-political organizations then it was not the case with the Jews. Also, Palestine had a dozen religious sects including many Christian sects and Muslem sects to be able to sending one religious representative.

It is very possible that Europe would have considered reserving statehood for the Western Jews in east Europe because they were integrated in European societies; the main apprehension was the flooding of oriental Jews to Europe, a potentially not agreeable policy to racist Europe.

Einstein must have learned of the genocide committed against the Palestinians after Israel was recognized a State by the UN in 1948; hundred of thousands of Palestinians were displaced by brute force from their towns by a policy of transfer enacted by Ben Gurion.

Has Einstein written or spoken on these crimes against humanity?  

It is said that Ben Gurion PM has proposed to Einstein to be President of the new Israeli State but that he refused for declining health.

All Einstein’s manuscripts and documents are preserved in Israel.

Is there any time limit to have Einstein papers released to the general public?

Einstein was the prime disseminator of the Zionist movement targeting the elite political and academic figures in the western world due to his aura as the leading theoretical scientist since 1918.

It is very plausible that after the recognition of Israel that Einstein was formally hired as a spy so that his pronouncements be strictly controlled and kept secret after Israel decided on political policies that didn’t agree with Einstein’s principles.

Note: Einstein warns on fascist nature of Israel https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/einstein-warns-of-zionist-facism-in-israel-open-letter-to-nyt-in-1948/

How mind acquired knowledge? (Nov. 25, 2009)

Berkeley, the British philosopher of the 19th century, insists that we cannot directly comprehend objects with just our senses: our senses are causally linked to phenomena that are affected by the objects. In this case, the “existence of objects” becomes problematic if we try to insert a third transmission factor between the subject and the object to account for our comprehension.

Hume, another British philosopher, claimed that causal relations, among other concepts considered essential, cannot be understood from matters that are offered to our senses.  According to Hume, the sensed brute matter is our only source of knowledge and thus, it modifies our understanding but it should never leads us to formulating laws: “empirical knowledge is never certain”.

Hume warned against indulging into metaphysical concept (as the true opposite to objectivity). This word “metaphysics” aroused this erroneous fear that got the subsequent contemporary philosophers rattled and wrote thousand of obscure pages just to sound objective.

This anxious fear of extending metaphysical notions prompted philosophers into describing objects as equivalent to their qualities or characteristics, thus, evaluating relations is equivalent to evaluating qualities.

Consequently, contemporary philosophers reached this understanding that sure and stable knowledge has to be founded on reasoning such as it is done in geometry and the principle of causality.

The paradox, said Einstein, is that we learned that most reasoning systems do not necessarily generate certainty in any field of science or that they are intimately necessary for our knowledge development.

The traditional reflection that we need a speculative concept-based system of thinking to mediate between object and subject has been disrupted by physical sciences.

By the by, the conviction that transformations of our senses lead to comprehending brute matters relied on a double proof:

First, the impossibility of acquiring knowledge by the sole speculative thinking and

Second, empirical research enhanced our knowledge base.

Bertrand Russell in his “Inquiry into meaning and truth” stated:

“We all start with the realism that objects are what they appear: grass is green, snow is cold, and stone is hard. Then physics teaches us that color, heat, or hardness are different in quality or characteristics of what we might have experienced.

The observer is in fact registering the impressions of the grass, snow, or stone. When science attempts to be objective it sinks, against its will, into subjectivity.

Thus, naïf realism leads to physics, physics then demonstrates that realism is false. Logically false, and thus false.”

To avoid their concepts of being labeled “metaphysical” the scientists have been formulating boundaries or axioms to their concepts.

For example, in order for a concept not to degenerate into metaphysics first, enough numbers of propositions must be linked to the sensed world. And second, the conceptual system must have essential functions of re-arranging, organizing, and synthesizing the sensed “reality”.

A system expresses a game of logical symbols ruled by logical arbitrary given propositions.

Einstein is not bothered at all by the term metaphysics: he does not mind accepting an object as an independent concept in spatial-temporal structures. As he views it, it is unavoidable bypassing metaphysical concepts and thus, there should be no need to be apprehensive of a concept being considered metaphysical.

Einstein thinks that concepts are logical creations of the mind, that it cannot be due to inductive reasoning from the sensed experiences.

For example, prime numbers are considered invention of the mind. That concepts are extracted from the sensed brute matters is a reasonable contention, but what is wrong is to exclude all concepts not considered to be related to the sensed world as metaphysical concepts.

What is so fishy about contemporary philosophy is that they avoid dwelling on the processes of hundreds of thousands of years that was necessary for human brain to acquire the necessary associations and images of objects and expressions, of metaphors, and abstract analogies.

It is my contention that reasoning methods of induction, deduction, and logical systems of rules are but organizations and descriptions of mental processes of the brain and memories for retrieving and recalling stored information.

I believe that the neo-cortex has been undergoing specialized connected areas for expert specialized and restricted disciplines for work or labor divisions.

General knowledge is going down the drain and I believe restricting knowledge to specialization will result in man destruction and moral oblivion.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,462,433 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 803 other followers

%d bloggers like this: