Is the rational creation of man?

VIEW:587 DATA:2020-03-20

Today I was in class, and in a questioning, it was analyzed that the rational is something built by man, and what is rational, rational is that which is contrary to the irrational. Now they say that the non-human animal is irrational. Would it be rational to say that a dog is irrational when it encourages its human companion to arrive? What if your human companion gives you food, and he leaves the food and goes to play with the human? Rational is what I consider to understand. The big question is is the universe understandable or incomprehensible?

For this we will understand the rule of probabilities. What is the practical foundation of probabilities? That there is something understandable and systematic in an analysis system, and each time I improve my probabilistic tools, I can arrive at more accurate results. And how much of that proximity of accuracy can you get? It depends on the measuring device you have. In quantum physics, Planck's uncertainty exists, in short it says that you cannot measure anything less, than the static precision of your device with the object of measurement.

The big question is Scrodinger's cat, a cat that is in a box, with radioactive material, which can drop a poison and kill a cat when the material releases radiation. The question is: Is the cat dead? Is the cat alive? Or is the cat undead? These are usually the questions that are asked, but the one that is not asked is: Do you know? On average, people experience the hypocrisy of knowing without knowing. And what is the maximum average of hypocrisy? It is to determine concepts in which one does not really know, and one determines to know. So I say that Scrodinger's cat is dead-alive. When the best answer is I don't know. So is Quantum Physics, basing that things exist only if I detect them. Einsten once analyzed the question and asked a thinker. "You mean the moon is only there if I look at it?"

There is a law on lenses that determines the vision limit of a set of lenses. Regardless of the size or number of lenses, the focus does not occur, because of Planck's final uncertainty, but does this mean that the object under analysis is not there, or does it follow the probabilistic rules? Nowadays fabrics that contain fluorescent materials are used, and thus it is possible to see objects that previously could not be seen, now, the problem is not that things are likely, but that I have no means of measuring. Soon the answer would be I don't know, and not that something is and is not in one place. It is as if I knew my mother was going to leave, but I would not know what time, and someone asked me, your mother is at home, and I said "she is and not at home". This ideology is the basis for the foundation of quantum theory.

In physics can we make a body in two places at the same time? We cannot make a body in one place, and in another place at different times, but so quickly that it appears that there are two. So much so that if you destroy it anywhere, your other appearance does not happen. What does that mean? It means that after all, everything works in the form of waves.

And the laws of waves work in fixed and undulating movements. This is the most logical form of existence. Because of the proof of the macrocosm. While measuring the microcosm it is mandatory to have smaller equipment, and most of the times impossible with our technology to manufacture. In the macrocosm this does not happen, so we can detect the accuracy of the physical constants. For example the precision of universal expansion is 10 ^-18 , a precision so great that it would go against the quantum system, that is, if the quantum system is right, there could be no precision of 10 ^-18. The question is, should I validate things by the tools I don't have or the tools I have? String theory determines the system of macro functionality with micro, the point is that the precision for examining the micro system of string theory is much less than the wave system of light.

A wave system is basically formed by a wave rule, which can vary between a maximum and a minimum point. When we have quantum theories linked to uncertainty, we have the view that there is a system of linearly independent formulas, with more variables than independent functions, making the system indeterminate, and with the mathematical rules of operators, we can have a map of a probabilistic area, showing the region where something is most likely to be. So it does not determine that the universe is variable, it just determines that I do not know the correct functions that describe the movement.

So how much theory is wrong? No. When we are ignorant of several factors, we use probability to map an area of ​​study and try to detect facts that have a greater incidence, and such a formulation is useful in all forms of science. Now when you have all the variables, linked to all the functions, you get exact values.

An example is a pool table, when we play a ball that collides with a cluster of other balls, the impression is that this action is chaotic, and the balls can follow different paths. But if you know strength, speed, angle of impact, air resistance and other functions, you can do a computer simulation that is similar to what is thought to be chaotic.

But the question is rational, is it an invention, or rational is an existence. What is the basis of rationality? The basis of rationality is logic, and logic what is it? The logic is based on true and false. The question would be whether true and false is relative or absolute in the universe? Because in the human mind, we can dream, wander, imagine, and do different things that have no meaning in the physical world.

To understand the difference between the physical world and the inner universe, let's create a story. Imagine thousands of people who have the "Superman" in their inner truth. So if you take a crane with a 200 ton container, get up and put the people who have the truth to be "Superman" underneath, and drop the container, if the truth is relative, one of them will hold the container, and leave flying with him. Now we define this as impossible, because everyone who is under the loose container will be dead. This shows that no matter how relative the truth is for someone, it is absolutely universal in practice. Often this concept of relative truth, creates people who feel like characters from games, or movies, and enter theaters, machine-gunning viewers, they go into schools and shoot students and teachers, they get into fights thinking they have special powers. But the truth is one, they are not game characters, nor are they movie characters, they are human beings like everyone else.

And so it proves that the logic of the true and false is real. Society can hypocritically say that what it likes is true, when it is false. It would be like a society that determines that a group of people are divine, and that this truth (lying), is spread throughout the population, and everyone believes that, that does not mean that the truth is relative, it just means that those people follow the lie, considering it is true.

For example, men used to have horses as a means of transport, today we have cars like BMW, Ferrari, and others. Which is more complex, the horse, or the cart? Some would say that the car is more evolved, but in fact the most evolved is the horse, because the car does not even breed to make new carts. Thus logic is a universal system, of the true and the false, the relative truth of man is only the characteristic that his truth may be false. So the surrounding universe shows that the truth is not in man. For if so, someone would have flown as "Superman" and took the container.

But let's go to something more basic, if the truth is relative, which man is alive today, and who is 300 years old, I don't even speak in truth of the man who thinks he is eternal, but of the man who, through his inner truth, has modified the outside reality and is 300 years old? Thus it can be involved in other cases, so that the desire to idealize a law that is not sequenced in the external law tends to generate some destructive form.

For example, in a well-functioning body system, altering this functioning would not help in a generalized view. The act of forming an "unreality", creates pressure in micro or macroscopically analyzed, forcing the return to the sequencing position of the universal law. There are two basic ways to be out of "unreality", one is to ignore reality, and to practice actions that in the future will prove to be harmful. Another would be to impose something even though you know you don't follow a natural order. While in the first it is found in the idea of ​​a lack of knowledge, in the second it involves other factors. Among the first factors is the will, linked to pleasures. When the mentality of the human being involves anthropocentrism, it defines that man is more important than all things, the question is what do you mean most important? Is it important to survive, or to force the human will on universal laws?

For example, in determining that anthropocentrism involves nature being the servant of human pleasures, we are defining that the mentality of man is the summit of the universe, which is not true, since man needs to follow universal rules to produce tools, and discover physical concepts that affect us. It is not possible to change the existing laws in the universe, by human will, but it can form paths that follow rules to achieve similar things. While a person cannot be a "Superman", he can develop a crane, and lift a heavy weight, he can create an airplane and fly, but all of these systems need to follow rules to be made.

So many times, man forgets that he must analyze the rules, and bridges his imagination to "unreality", implying that the universal system is forced to adapt to his own imagination. I could imagine a king who manages decrees, and he decrees that in his kingdom viruses are banned. Now what is dreamed is not what is real, unless the dream is similar to reality.

Returning to the logic, we have that true and false is something existing in nature, and it defines that such truth or falsehoods are involved with something outside, and not inside, since we acquire information from the outside, so that to get a certain desire, we need follow rules that are often not desired. When something is done that is formulated according to the rules of nature, a balanced system is achieved, such as rotating cultivation, in which the soil remains fertile, and a planting system in which no constant extraction of the same nutrient is sought, tends destroying the soil.

Thus imagining all concepts at all times and the development of all things studied, it is noted that people create their inner worlds, but only when this inner world is in accordance with the outer laws does an expansion of real knowledge have been possessed. While in the imagination of each person, each invents his reality, and in this the dreams can form the way he wishes, in the outside world he has rules, laws and norms.

What would be the truth, inside or outside? If a person dreams, does he change universal laws? Does not change. But if applying physical factors, such as applying a hallucinogenic drug, can it alter the norms established in a person's dream? The answer is yes.

So the truth is outside the individual, and follows mathematical orders, and everything that is mathematical is based on the rational, and every rational is based on true or false. So is the rationale a human invention, or a universal factor?

Yesterday I saw a video of a kitten that was trapped in a cage and learned to pull the latch of the cage, and get out. Every time he was put in a cage, he would open the latch. This characteristic shows that the cat understood how to get out. What is rationality, where does rationality begin and end? A caveman makes fire with the act of friction, was he rational in that? Or to be rational he has to understand the principles of combustion? And if he learns the tools of combustion, say that he understands if he does not know the atomic vibrational effects, and the entropy involved in it? And so on.

So when a person can do something, it becomes rational. The basis is the truth or lie. In the case of fire, it is true that rubbing two materials generates heat. This is not a man-made thing, it is something seen by man, and acquired outside of man. The man creates theory, theses, and other things to say why that happens. These studies are also based on logic of true and false, and any practical research that is lasting, has a logical contribution, based on the views of reason, based on logic.

For example, I launch a particle against another particle, and they collide, and in shock they send several sub-particles. The man understood that by hitting two particles at extreme speed they collide and create beams of sub particles. Is it rational to know that the shock of two particles generates an explosion of the particle and releases several sub-particles? Yes, it is logical. But is it rational to understand what the particles in the explosion are? At this point there are different ways of analyzing, so that many analyzes are not rational. And what is irrational? It is when truth and falsehood are the same. When something is true and false it is irrational.

Quantum theory involves probabilities, and probabilities are the logic of what has more truths, and what has more falsehoods. How many truths for launches do you face in a succession of launches. The answer is 1/2, so there is a half chance that the coin will come up. But now let's do the following, say that I know the initial position of the coin, I know the launch angle, the strength, and the moment of inertia of the coin, and the point of application. With this data I calculate and see that the coin will be expensive when it is launched. How likely is it to face this picture? 100% chance to face. Thus, the quanta are related to the probability of the currency, since there are no various initial values ​​of the system, in order to be able to make an accurate calculation.

So again we have that rationality is not the creation of man, it is a universal constant. And it is also a mystery that such a factor is in man. The factor of man being able to understand the universe, or the characteristic that the universe forms a being who can understand the universe itself. For rationality is as mysterious as the characteristic that chromosomes have information. As the universe can archive information, if to archive information it is necessary to have advance information. Therefore, information is not something invented by man, but something generated by the universe.

Whenever we analyze the man, we always see a big problem in his anthropocentric ideology, showing his childhood ideology, of a child who thinks his father is there to do all his pleasure. The more the years go by, the more this ideology that things are for man gets stronger, but clearly we see that this type of vision, forms a greenhouse effect, changes in nature, imbalances, and that increases hunger, disasters, and other things more. The childish mind of anthropocentrism, turns against the laws of nature and this when violated, naturally seeks to annul the violators, like an antibody that seeks to destroy a virus. Sometimes it is possible to destroy the virus and preserve the body, other times the virus and the body die.

Anthropocentrism, made us like viruses for nature, we can have the power to destroy nature and we with it, or maybe there is something in nature that can destroy viruses and preserve good and symbiotic ones, that do not see themselves as anthropocentric, but part of a whole. Who knows????

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores