inconsistent, unclear, obscure, right. consistent, clear, down-to-earth, wrong. X

Either the rules of quantum mechanics don’t always apply, or at least one basic assumption about reality must be wrong: “A New Theorem Maps Out the …

“Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscure, and right. Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth, and wrong.”*…

—– How far can philosophy be applicable?

I am not a mathematician, nor a physicist, nor a quantum physicist. I probably am totally misunderstanding the brief synopses that this post and it’s links provide us of deeply complicated theoretical formulas.

Nevertheless . It sounds to me that this new theory which expands upon Bell’s Theorm, Is really just “proving” what I am saying in recent posts about synthetical a priori knowledge.

That is, in short, human consciousness is able to construct knowledge which presents “reality” but has nothing to do with actual reality.

Now, my point falls to the “able to”. What I am saying is that indeed we are able to “believe” some thing is true, have an actually function viably as true, effective in that “truth value belief”, and yet have it have nothing to do with what is true of the universe itself.

Yet the crucial point to be understood here is not that all consciousness or all knowledge that can be had by human beings is merely “of belief”. My point is more that there is a particular kind of knowledge that is asserted and indeed implements power in such a way that “reality” must necessarily be only constructed by human consciousness and its capacity to reason. There is a bias which accompanies that approach and that assumption upon the category that is “all human beings” which is promoting a particular truth which is ultimately not true, even as it is real.

My point is that we indeed are able to find out and know and speak about and communicate a world that is indeed true in itself despite what we may “believe”, but as well, despite synthetical a priori dominance for reasoning.

I mean, it seems to me that this is what physics is proving. It’s kind of weird to me that people cannot make this connection. That we are so convinced by synthetical knowledge which arises through reason only, through its ability to “make sense”, indeed, as though reason itself indicates a singular situation of knowledge, That we can harbor ourselves within categories and convince ourselves, “believe” ourselves into the reality that is unable to understand things that are not encompassed by those a priori categories.

And the evidence that I give you is this post right here. This post that I just wrote is evidence that there is not a common reason that stems out of a synthetic sensible reason.


Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s