Arquivo para a ‘Astronomia’ Categoria

Ad Astra and the worldview

07 Oct

Writer James Gray’s vision of our cosmic futures towards the stars, ie Ad Astra, goes through a psychological-worldview of the contemporary world, I recall Byung Chull Han’s psycho-politics, and that in the future with machines prepared for this.

In the future there will be, in addition to the physical and technical tests we already do in various fields of sport to air pilots, also the psychics will be done for certain missions, in the case of the film, the evaluation of Roy McBridge (Brad Pitt), the space engineer for a trip to meet his father Clifford McBridge (Tommy Lee Jones) may still be alive there, although they say he was lost on a trip to Neptune.

Brad Pitt’s artistic competence helps the film, the film can be considered an approximation of Aliens, as when visiting a lost ship they encounter killer primates, or close to Apolipse now describing a future war scenario, where there is Space pirates on the military bases of the moon, purposely placed on the dark side of our lone satellite.

The parallel that I consider best is that of Blade Runner 2049, where the psychological climate overcomes the purely technological issue, and the psychopower becomes more visible and deeper, and the technological issue is the idea that improper use of propulsion energy now causes waves as violent forms, and this wave itself is then used to return to Earth.

It is true that the writer Gray’s worldview is of a war scenario, even for the trip McBridge will have to fight with military colleagues in order to make the trip against his father, since the psychological test evaluates that the son is affected by the filial relationship.

He can travel with the help of Lorraine (Kimberly Elise) who had his family murdered by his father, who had to fight a mutiny by the ship’s crew, who under psychological pressure wants to return to Earth, paradoxically Lorraine is one of the first born on Mars, since their parents lived in the military base of the planet.

After all, he finds his father, finds out that he was not exactly a hero, and that the version made for him was only to maintain the economic interests of the mission, and in the end they do not return to earth together, because their father found it difficult to go to the ship.

In return, he asks to be thrown into the infinity of space with which he had always dreamed. Despite the good acting, Brad Pitt’s nomination for awards would be more by the weight of the actor, the special effects are no big deal, there is a curious scene in which to reach the return ship, it shields a panel easily torn from a space artifact and then through one of Saturn’s rings like pebbles hitting the shield.

The interesting thing about the film is the existential and psychological aspect, so we seek in the universe answers that for our existence and the farther our worldview, the more possible to lose and lose contact with the “earth” can become reality, as the McBridge’s father, the first to land on planets where the man had not yet stepped.



The unspiritualized asceticism

23 Sep

Not a phrase of any theologian, not even of a religious person, is the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, who besides being one of the most read and controversial of our time, had and has had enormous influence on Byung Chull Han, author well known for many works, but perhaps his main work is “The Society of Tiredness,” Sloterdijk coined “despiritualized asceticism.
It is in his book “You can change your life” not yet published in Portuguese, besides a well done sentence, after all he also works immunology, a life of exercises, which is one of the characteristics of modern man, I do not have a spiritual exercise If you do it systematically and consciously, you indulge in “exercises” to find immunology.
I also found, I was actually expecting this because it is a consequence of his thinking, a worldview, in an interview and not in books, I read his sentence: “Ancient philosophy did not place the accent on the rationality of the world, but on the need to conduct a life regulated according to cosmic prescriptions of being: his concern was above all ethical “.
He hoped because his book “Critic of Cynic Reason” is blunt and even difficult.
He explains in this interview his main concept which is the anthropotechnique: “the beginning of my book, I spoke mainly of repetitions”.
The critical point in the history of civilization is, in my view, represented by the emergence of explicit exercises: the human being, as such, lives in repetition and gives form and content to his life through a more or less conscious ritualism, made up of exercises. repetitive”, so ritualism is part of human life, but spirituality is not.
Sloterdijk’s “spirituality” is not imbued with religiosity, since it is increasingly linked to financial, political and even ideological appeals, the true form of change that the world, and man himself needs, is one capable of revalue life, the Being itself and depends on an inner action.
Says Sloterdijk in the interview, contrary to the categorical imperative upon which the current idealistic asceses move: “The imperative that I propose is, on the contrary, a transforming imperative: human beings sensitive to their appeal should start working on themselves”.
To live is to prepare oneself, to transform oneself, to access the status of the wise, to respond to the vertical tension that requires modifying one’s existence”.
The emptying of Being, a project of contemporary idealism is empty of spirituality, its appeals to ethics, go through the construction of power, what Foucault called biopower, and what Chull Han, Sloterdijk’s disciple says, has now moved to psycho-power, a form of “control” by an excess of bad information in the idealistic sense.


Worldview and paradigm shift

21 Sep

Dualism leads to an incorrect view of the separation of body and mind, theory and practice, and consequently matter and soul, although this remains for many in the “department” of religion, it happens to correspond exactly to a worldview, which separated subject from object.

This was the discourse of modernity, that of Heraclitus in pre-Socratic times, in the idea of ​​the fogist (fire substance) and that everything changes, but Aristotle’s “De anima” is the culmination of his natural theory, but a first study of the psyche, and this duality is not justifiable.

Popper was right to return to Parmenides’ primary idealism and say that this view of cosmology, not ontology, would last until 1900, but from Democritus’s atomism and that only with Maxwell’s entropy and now the new view of the quantum universe From the dark energies and masses another vision begins to spring, but the worldview is present and already behind.

Even the double track that plagued Popper, which in our view was only surpassed by the analysis of Thomas Kuhn’s “scientific revolutions,” but Popper’s point is beyond conceptualizing normal science, one that goes “by additions” and conjectures a In the form of change he will defend the idea that Parmenides was not an ontological, but a cosmologist.

And so, the limits of modern idealism are a misinterpretation of the Greek eidos, where thoughts give voice to the soul, or the mind, to those who deny this very metaphysical human essence.

The reason for the opposition to materialism of modernity is not due to idealistic separation, but to the false interpretation of eidos that would not give rise to the soul, but only to knowledge as experience and observation of the world, which from the pre-Socrates is already opposed to This view, which is naive, has neither an ontology nor a cosmology, Popper calls it the “Baconian myth.”

Thus modern materialism does not emerge as a current that merely gives dualism a dichotomy, a tension between subject and object, mind and body, nature and culture, as Bruno Latour proposed in “We were never modern,” the essence of materialist discourse is not. medieval realism, the ‘thing in itself’ of phenomenology, but the ‘unreachable goal’, empiricism as a support, and the scientific and cultural crisis of our time.

One of the most complicated texts for exegesis and biblical fundamentalism is the passage from the administrator who will be dismissed in the parable in Luke 16: 1-13, (moralists will call it dishonest only and fundamentalists smart problem), when in fact the problem is dualism. Knowing that he was about to be fired for squandering his boss’s money, the administrator begins to reflect Luke 16: 3-4: “You will take my administration away.

What am I going to do? To dig, I have no strength; to beg, I’m ashamed. Ah! I already know what to do so that someone will welcome me to your house when I get removed from the administration” and decides to give the boss’s debtors a discount. The boss praises him saying he was clever, and this confuses the biblists, but there is no confusion because this was the way the administrator was always clever, even at the time of resignation, he is consistent retains his posture, and although dismissed the boss praised the “dishonest administrator,” says the biblical text.

He was consistent, but right after it says: “You cannot serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other”, we must follow principles ALWAYS, be faithful in little to be faithful in enough, is the training that we make us who we are.



Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.



Idealism: back to the pre-Socratic

18 Sep

Karl Popper knew, the Vienna circle knew, and Husserl knew that to discuss the contemporary crisis it was necessary to return to idealism, the great foundation of contemporary Enlightenment, but Popper’s thesis goes deeper than we should return to the pre-Socrates.

Both Wittgenstein and Popper are known to have their connections with the Vienna Circle questioned, as a thought, but as an influence they certainly brought the questioning root of logical positivism in general, and of conventional Kantism in particular, a critique of idealism and enlightenment. resulting from it due to the detected crisis of science.

Both speak of a return to cosmology, although Popper claims “the Tractatus was a cosmological (albeit crude) treatise and because his theory of knowledge was closely linked to cosmology” (Popper, 2014, p. 2), rather than linguistic philosophy, as many of Wittgenstein’s readers suppose, clippings are always complicated.

He will explain that “specialization may be a temptation for the scientist… for the philosopher, it is a sin” (idem), but unfortunately it has happened, philosophy is now a “department” as if the other sciences did not do it implicitly (or explicitly by bad practices) his theories.

Ironic with the Baconian spirit, he was the first in modern science to appeal to empiricist “practice,” and Popper claims all science (I would say almost every thought except the refusal to think that it is more serious): “every science starts from the observation and then, slowly and cautiously, moves towards the theory ”(Popper, 2014, p. 3), the curious thing is that they use Popper himself to affirm this, poor reading, the mediocracy of“ illiteracy ”. secondary”.

His thesis is that rationality departed from Tales of Mileno and the Ionian school, and quotes it verbatim from the fragment [15]: “that the earth is sustained by water upon which it moves like a boat. If we say there is an earthquake, the earth is being shaken by the movement of the water ”(Popper, p. 4), amazed rationalism was born along with earth moving.

Compatible with the Baconian myth, Popper states in the following passage: “The purpose of the Baconian myth is to explain why scientific statements are true, indicating that observation is the“ true origin ”of our scientific knowledge” (idem), of course, he questions. This and its purpose is to unveil the idealistic building from antiquity.

Who is going to question Tales’s idea is Anaximander in suggesting the earth as a drum, but supported by nothing, in Popper’s quote from the fragment [A 11]: “… it is supported by nothing, but remains stationary because it is equally distant of all other things.

Its shape is […] like that of a drum […]. We walk on one of its plant surfaces, while the other is on the opposite side. ”(Cit. POPPER, 2014, p. 4).

It states shortly afterwards “it made possible Aristarchus and Copernicus’ theories.” (Idem), but her idea was bold because it was about seeing the Earth freely suspended in the middle of space, and perhaps by observation, there were oceans of all ages.

On the other hand, Tales’s idea seemed natural. It is from there and from Xenophanes that Popper will build the cosmology of Parmenides, his disciple, where immutable reality, the immobile Earth is presented as a kind of logical proof (Popper, 2014, p. 14), where his idea will come from. from the one, from the undivided from a single premise, “that which is not is not,” where nothing, that which is not, does not exist. In this world full of Parmenides, there is no room for movement, this is its cosmology, which is what we refer to from the preface, when Popper stated that there is no ontology in it.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.


Idealisms and science

17 Sep

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were marked by scientific, technical achievements due to the Industrial Revolution, with a world-wide expanding and flourishing trade, which gave rise to confidence that humanity seemed to flourish and history ruled by Reason, as the Enlightenment alike triumph.

With few dissonant voices, Kierkegaard first and then Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the rest seemed to flow in a full and satisfying turn, the colonies were not spoken, and the Arab and Eastern world seemed to submit to the Western order, but there was something to disturb the colonial struggles. and the danger of war, which would see its outbreak in the 19th century. The science that seemed to do so much had an Achilles heel, had not yet solved the problem of social disputes, not only that which subjected workers and colonies, but especially the trade wars and disputes that came to subject the defeated.

It was the exacerbation of nationalism, which now returns, the trade war between nations, now between the US and China, but also between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that made the first to be called war of war, with 10 million dead. Amid the two wars emerged the Vienna Circle, neopositivism and neologicism, among several other names a prominent scientific name was Karl Popper, among others, such as Godel, Carnap, Hans Kelsen and Moritz Schlick.

In the scientific field besides Husserl who criticizes the method, Popper will also propose that the positivist inductive method presented itself to science as a volatile knowledge, which could not guarantee anything about the constancy of observed facts, and it is not possible to affirm that any assumption is the truth. with absolute precision, what Heisenberg physics already said.

But his return to Parmenides is more essential, where idealism began, and there is its ontological root: ‘being is’ and ‘non-being is not’, there is no contradiction or third hypothesis.

By stating in the previous post the return to root, it will not be in its heyday of German idealism, or even Hegel’s sacralization, Marx will say that there are new against old Hegelians, but in the origin we will find something essence to the idealism and enlightenment described by Karl Popper .

In the book “The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment” (Popper, 2014) that we find several pearls of idealistic foundations, the first in the preface by editor Arne Friemuth Petersen, he states that he gave the lecture quoting “To be or not Of Hamlet, to which Popper himself interrupted, stating more or less this:

“You see, Parmenides was neither a language analyst nor an ontologist, but a cosmologist. Your “Being” has nothing to do with ontology. ”(Popper, XIII, 2014).

I was also amazed to read this right from the preface to the book that speaks of the worldview at the origin of idealism and also of the Enlightenment, not only in Parmenides, but according to Popper himself also in Xenophanes cosmology and Parmenides epistemology (page XV). , which comes to clarify a non-rational origin, as one might suppose, he will propose that Heraclitus (everything changes) and Parmenides (nothing changes) “were reconciled and combined in modern science” (p. XX), and thus faces of it. currency.

In the notes of the Brazilian post-impression, fragments found after printing, there are several notes by Popper, the seventh that says: “Historical hypothesis: Tales is the inventor of the rational discussion method”, new surprise, but the Enlightenment was born there. back.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.



Worldview or Cosmicview

12 Sep

Husserl’s concept of the world of life evolves into Heidegger’s Weltanschauung, his student, and is hasty to immediately link it to the worldview, just as both have a closer meaning than what some say is “superior” to the “world of life.” life ”, but in everyday philosophy we do not even get there, they still speak of“ theory ”the empiricists and idealists.
To the letter in German Welt – world, chauen look, means nothing other than a viewpoint on the conception of the world, but it was not just ‘philosophy’ but a vision beyond.
Ronald Nash, a Reformed theologian, gives a definition that seems to encompass many more and be more precise: “Life’s most important set of beliefs… is a conceptual framework by which we consciously or unconsciously apply or adjust all the things we believe, and interpret and judge reality, ”since we know even by normal science only 4% of the universe, that is, baryonic matter, and only now do we penetrate energy and dark mass with black hole studies.
Indigenous religiosity, especially Andean, as an example, has a complex view of theological interaction between original elements (what we call original culture), which interacted with phenomena and ideologies produced in modernity, even Christianity comes in with concepts of literacy. and I work with methods of modernity.
This has caused an interpenetration and reinvention of worldview that can and should be related to a worldview, the link with nature and the cosmos, with animals and which has led to the syncretism and reinvention of culture itself (Geertz 1978), and many other studies point to this worldview, such as Peruvian Maria Rostworowski and Colombian scholar Berna Carolina among others.
What purely economic or ideological studies do not understand is that cultural meanings change according to culture and its own worldview, it is impossible to treat it only with modern, colonialist or even pseudo-liberating categories.
It is necessary to enter the culture itself, to understand its originality, what is deep in the soul of these peoples, without this, colonialism with other names is reinvented.
GEERTZ, Clifford. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1978.


Physical cosmovision

11 Sep

Some people are impressed by flat earth theory, or those who do not believe that it is possible to step on the moon and that man has not undertaken this adventure, but quickly believe in miracles, meteors that will collide with the earth and other crazy things.
Stephen Hawking died last year, shortly before he gave an American TV interview, and when American astrophysicist Neil Tyson asked Hawking, “What was there before the Big Bang?” He replied that nothing, maybe there was matter or something, but did not follow the laws of physics, so at the origin there is a meta-physics, or a paraphysics, so the laws of physics and matter were not worth it, but of course there may be a kind of matter.
With his Brief History of Time, Hawking gained fame in the 1960s by explaining the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying it to the logic of black holes throughout the universe, and for those who understand and embrace this worldview it has changed what we think of. science and religion.
It is good to remember that Fr. Teilhard Chardin (1881-1955), before this had already formulated a theory of the Universe, and even Augustine of Hippo (354-430) admitted the Big Bang not with this name of course, but the formation of the universe and the planets. Hawking also agrees with the biblical text that there was a great burst of light, about 13.8 billion years, and from it a dense sphere of matter was expanding.
Hawking gained international fame in formulating, in the 1960s, the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying the logic of black holes to the entire universe. It has also changed the way we view science today, helping to spread physics and astrophysics.
Therefore, what existed before cannot be contemplated in any theory we formulate to explain our current observations. For Hawking, no law of physics applies until the Big Bang occurs.
The universe has evolved independently of what it was before. In 2014 the story of Hawking’s life was told in the Oscar-winning movie “Theory of Everything” (below), but what was before the Big Bang is a big mystery.


New worldview and future

06 Sep

Tied to preconceptions and the worldview that is gradually overcome by reality can do little or nothing to make the future come true, the crisis is wider than the economic warns us Edgar Morin, is not the problem of technique, but of Being , to see the Other that is not the same, to leave worlds limited by limited worldviews and that admit no others.
This means abandoning many things that are dear to us, not the principles, but the ability to review them for even greater principles that include EVERYONE and not just the self or US of selfish, closed groups.
Quantum physics, dark bodies and energies (not holes, but still unknown matter and energy), show how limited our worldview is.
It is not about wisdom or phrases made superficial, theologies made by careful analysis of reading the text, the hermeneutic circle is precisely the possibility of a textual reading from the admission of preconceptions, seen here positively, the Indeed, we can accept another worldview with a different preconception from mine.
Invited to participate in the nascent Christian community, Jesus was also asking his disciples to abandon the ancient worldview of family attachments, work, and riches, but despite the growth of Christianity over millennia (now in reverse), this view has been misunderstood and misunderstood. by the exegetes.
In Luke 14.27: 30, the Master invites them to leave behind their worldviews to follow him: “He who does not carry his cross and walk behind me cannot be my disciple.
In fact, which of you, wanting to build a tower, does not sit first and calculate the expenses, to see if it has enough to finish? Otherwise, it will lay the foundation and will not be able to finish.
And all who see this will begin to mock, saying, “This man began to build and was unable to finish!”, But the contemporary step is bigger.
Yellow September requires that you see the Other not as someone with the same rights as US.


Not even Einstein’s notion of time is correct.

02 Sep

The absolute time of Galileo, Newton and even Kant, their idealistic perfectionism needed this idea and today’s idealists still worship it, collapsed with quantum physics and then relativity theory, then because Werner Heisenberg worked at the Neils Institute Bohr, when he stated the principle of uncertainty in the article: “On the Perceptual Content of Quantum Theoretical Kinematics and Mechanics.” 
The uncertainty principle stated that we cannot measure the position (x) and momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision, not because there is no precise equipment to measure, but because it does not have an absolute position, as momentum depends on time, he is not absolute either.
Einstein did not accept this idea well, and wrote an article with Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, so famous that EPR was known by the initials of the surnames of the three, which said that there was a ghostly action at a distance in quantum theory, his became known as quantum mechanics, as opposed to quantum physics, and the problematic phenomenon was quantum entanglement.
What the famous EPR article showed was that there was a “hidden variable”, saying that position could be measured without disturbing the particle, that is, it argued that space is absolute, but this theory was shown to be false by many scientists in the decade. from 70, Einstein didn’t live to see this, but now it’s more complicated.
The theory of relativity is valid for gravity and the behavior of stars, galaxies and the universe itself (except the 94% which is dark matter or energy, rs), and quantum mechanics describes the behavior of particles, ie the microuniverse of matter, which we just said has errors. Scientists mixed the two together and the result was astounding, if the presence of a massive object could “slow down” time, “placing a massive object – like a planet – right next to a ship could slow the passage of time,” explains physics Dr. Magdalena Zyck of the University of Queensland, Australia, one of the authors of the article.
The article in the prestigious scientific magazine Nature explains that “time has a very profoundly different character in quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum theory, events unfold in a fixed order (an arrow in time said Stephen Hawking), while in general relativity the temporal order is influenced by the distribution of matter. When matter requires a quantum description, the temporal order is expected to become nonclassical – a scenario beyond the scope of current theories”, the article states.
In terms of thinking, there is a paradox, most reasonings, even those considered scientific, live in a mechanistic logic coming from Galileo and Newton, the famous clockwork, not even quantum physics, since physics begins to go further of quantum and a new conception of time emerges. Here’s an explanation of current physics below: