World Chart Scene
- Part of the philosophical significance of "gallery"
Wu Zhen [1]
(Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)
Abstract: Philosophy should think about the conditions and boundaries of scientific world depiction. The whole world is a whole, but it is impossible to exist, otherwise it will have a paradox. The world map is a public field, it is impossible to be complete. If it is complete, there will be a paradox. The "gallery" of Ehel is a complete but inconsistent strange circle, which makes can't play at the same time. The strange circle suggests the absurdity of the world. The more the science is, the more borderless, the more the world of science is, the more ridiculous.
Keywords: World Chart; Paradox; Ai Sher
CLC number: B01 Document identification code: A Article number:
Natural Science It is said that "Yes" "" "" "" "" "" "" The world depicted by science first is natural, and later includes human and its brain awareness activities. In addition, the scientific territory is also expanded from nature to the social field, and so-called social sciences have emerged. In the process of scientific development, professional differentiation and unified integration are almost simultaneously. Most of the small and medium-sized scientists do special work in a relatively small range, and a few major scientists do a unified work. The unified result is to provide a relatively complete picture about the world. The details of these pictures continue to be improved and supplemented by those in small and medium scientists.
However, it is to give a worldview about the world, and this is often considered a philosophical work. The fact is true, no matter which point of view, the work of many scientists has more or less with philosophical properties. So some people say that great scientists are often a great philosopher. For example, there is a Vinstein in the "World Wen Library" in Silp. But the problem is, if science and philosophy have been a research topic, scientists and philosophers have any difference? Whether all the philosophers have to engage in scientific research, such as scientific research make huge achievements to become philosophers? If you don't engage in scientific research, is the philosopher may also engage in philosophical research?
All these questions come from "Philosophy is a worldview". If you give up this premise, such as the "philosophy is the language analysis", of course, it will not let the philosophy are in such an embarrassment. This is the number of ways to analyze philosophy. But in two thousand years, philosophy has been dealing with the worldview, and therefore won the special status of ourselves in human knowledge, now gives up, let people be unwilling. So many great minds have made thousands of years, and they have announced that they are not awkward. Besides, the number of words specified in philosophy into language is said, and many people who have a great trial of philosophy have fallen too late. For example, Hawko can't help but sigh in his "time simple history": "This is the great tradition from Aristotle to Kant's philosophy!" [1] (p156)
I don't give up "philosophy is the worldview", we can also have a philosophical path to go, that is, the worldview of the philosophy is not the world view of science. Today's science sits, everything is scientific, the worldview is no exception, of course, is a science. But philosophy should be followed, not talking.
The story is not to say that the world of science is not perfect, and philosophy should be perfect than science. It is true that a unified scientific world picture is far from being established, and regardless of the natural science itself, it is not possible to provide a complete world picture. Even physical science provides a complete picture of the Physical World, even if it can, social science and nature The integration between science has not yet been done. According to the "big scientist" to engage in integrated ideas, it is necessary to make this integration. Never engage in natural sciences, and do not engage in social sciences, naturally don't try to do this super-great care. But truly, I am afraid that there is no "scientist" to take this task. Although in fact, we can't find a super scientist who knows, but in principle, it is still possible to imagine a full talented scientist. However, the way the philosophy is even not doing such super scientists. The following philosophy is not talking about what the world is in the world - this is always scientific lecture, usually the so-called "intrinsism" in this sense, is actually the scientific attachment. The story is to talk about why it is always like this in the world, not anything else. Or, why people will have a world, not no world. This kind of saying, in fact, it is necessary to figure out the conditions and boundaries of the "world depiction" of science.
This kind of philosophy is starting from Kant. Kanta's awakening of the dogmatic dreams is still a significant significance in today's "scientism" tide.
Daquan paradox
The world, the universe can be formulated as "the overall exemplary", is "Daquan" (this article is temporarily synonymous with "world" and "universe" words). What I am now interested in is: "Daquan" is itself a dealer? Is it a "thing" with popular words? This problem seems to be strange. Because it is generally believed that the universe is of course an exist, it is a thing. This kind of self-evidential attitude is first belonging to Greece - the philosophical tradition of the West - the Greek called the universe to Cosmos. On the contrary, Chinese thinking tradition lacks a clear attitude: 浑天 说 主 主 是 is a thing, and the announcement said that the universe is not a thing, they have the market.
Although it is considered that the universe is an exist, it is limited or unlimited, but the view is inconsistent. From Badenide to Aristotle, the Greek regards the universe as a spherical "thing", advocating a universe. But after the modern coming from the Coani revolution, the ball was broken, and the universe was unlimited. After the relativity of Einstein, the universe was once again seen as a thing (physical entity), and there was a discipline that was subject to the universe - Cosmology. The history of the concept of universe has experienced a limited-unlimited-limited cycle process. But at all, the universe is limited or unlimited?
Kant has a special importance for this issue. Almost all philosophers his previous, there is one or the answer to this issue, only his answer is not or this. He put forward the opposite of the second law of the universe, that is, the limited theory of universe and universe is reluctant. Is the universe unlimited? However, it is impossible to complete the synthesis of an infinite series, it is impossible to be a given overall, so the universe cannot be an unlimited entity. Is the universe limited? We cannot determine where this limit should be set, and how to specify this boundary itself, because the boundary is specified by the association inside and outside the universe, and this association is impossible. Therefore, the universe cannot be limited.
Just as general, it cannot be avoided, like Kant's philosophy, and research the philosophy of the cosmology cannot bypass Kant's second law. After Kant, only one or the answer is destined to be superficial. Whether it is the theoretical choice of Newton, it is not limited, or the theoretical choice of Einstein is limited, and there is no special force from philosophical perspective. The meaningful job is from Kant here, go forward.
Kant has pointed out that the second law of the cosmology shows that the universe is not the object of our experience, but the concept (rational concept), so the intellectual category cannot be applied to it, and it is contradictory. Kant actually has a problem for us - the universe as the overall existence - a negative answer: the universe is not a presence. The universe used the universe in the armed arvers of the second law is a premise of the existence, which leads to the reverse of the second law. From the reverse of the second law, as the overall itself of the existence itself, it is not possible to have a dealer, similar to the solution of the gathering paradox. Russell paradise is constructed. All collections can be legally divided into two categories: the first type of collection as its own elements, called abnormal collection, such as all collection, collection of all ideas, it is also a collection; The second type of collection does not do herself as an element, called the normal collection, for example, the collection of all Chinese components (it is not Chinese), all the collection of natural numbers (it is not natural), all the collections of all Latin letters (Itself is not a latin letter). Now, let all the collections that do not use themselves, that is, all the normal collections, make up a collection R, then, then R belongs to the above classification? If it belongs to the first class, it is a non-normal collection, which makes yourself as an element, but the definition of R is that all of its elements are normal collection, so R should be a normal collection. If it belongs to the second category, it is a normal collection, then according to the definition of R, all the normal sets are the elements of R, so R is also the elements of R, so R should be a non-normal collection. A popular expression of Russell paradise is a paradox of hairdresser: Barber must give all people who don't shave themselves, but they don't give those who give them a beard. The hairdresser did not shave himself? If he is shaved, he became a person who gave himself, according to the second provisions, he could not be scraped; if he did not scrape, he became a person who didn't give him a beard, according to the first provision, he scratch. Logic people find that such paraphosies are derived from those "self-transfected" concepts, such as their own concept of their own elements. Finally, the key to solving the paradox is that the concept of "all collection" is abolished through the aircraftization of the collection, so that such concepts are illegal. As the overall of the existence, if it is also a presence, it is very like "all collection collection", which belongs to "non-normal collection" of ourselves, it must lead to paradox.
There is no "world" "Cosmic" "things", which is surprised to advocate "ready-made" scientific thinking (limited thinking). If there is no universe, the universe is studying what. Modern cosmology naturally has its specific research objects, but it is certainly not "Daquan". As a "universe", it is an unfinished synthesis. It is in a unresser, so it is impossible to be "object." Yang Shen, Ming Dynasty, said: "The sky is extremely, what is the extreme? There is no greatness, anything must be extremely extreme," "" Sheng Hui · Zhi Tian said "), the expression is also a similar to Kangde. As the universe of the whole, the universe is invisible.
Daquan paradox reveals that there is a well-consistent picture about the universe. The universe is exaceced to be complete, then it will not be consistent (two laws).
Paradox of the cosmic view
The controversy scene is another form of Daquan. The cosmic view or the world picture is all some of the existence of a group of collective appearances or a collection method. He said in Heidegger, "Photo" is open. Our question is: Can the world map can be complete? The conclusion has already been: World Chart will never be complete, if it is complete, then it is necessary to lead the paradox (inconsistent). why? As the open field, the picture is in fact, it is also a role in which its traction and maintenance is used as something that is not present. Therefore, the picture itself is not present, it refuses to "into the picture". If scientific knowledge is regarded as a description of a world picture, then this kind of drawing is possible, not in the picture. In Kant, scientific general inevitable knowledge is possible, depending on a priori. Only this prematter body provides inductive forms, and there will be universal and inevitable pictures that have experienced science. But this priori is impossible to be an object of scientific knowledge. A complete world picture is always trying to include this priori body, it must be unreasonable. Try the problem of time issues and people's freedom as an example.
Kant's called time is to appear as a priori inductive form, it is used to ensure the universality of the sensory material, so it must be uniform, independent (not affected by sensory materials). It is popular, because there is a time form of Kant's established, yesterday's feeling experience has the commonality and comparability of the feeling of today's feelings. Yesterday's experimental results can be used to enrich scientific knowledge. In other words, there is no form of time, don't say scientific knowledge, even clear feelings have been problematic.
The two characteristics of Kant Time, namely uniformity and independence, and the nature of Newton time, the Newton name is absolute. Newton is also aware of the absolute time is not a measuring time in the usual sense. Instead, it is possible for all measurements. He said: "All exercises may be accelerated or decelerated, but the absolute time will not change. Regardless of its sports, it is not exercise, all existence of continuity or persistence It is always the same. Therefore, this continuation should be distinguished from the perceived metrics, and it is derived from the perceived metrics. In order to determine an apparent time, this equation must Sexual has been proved in terms of the corrosion bell experiment and the satellite of Jupiter. "" Natural Philosophy of Philosophy "Definition 8 Note) [2] (PP14-15) Here is very clear, absolute time is just sports A factor in equation is implied, and only by sports equation, apparent, usually, can be determined. Since all time assays are premised on absolute time, the absolute time itself is unspeakable. We can find that this is also completely consistent with Kant, that is, absolute time is not anything that can be measured. Instead, it is a premise that it can measure the proven time (prior art).
Newton's absolute time suffers from two explanations: First, Kant's "priori form" explanation; one is the "physical theory" explanation of physics, that is, the time itself also thinks as a "physical entity" and physical objects , Require an operational definition. This will be explained to Einstein to achieve the peak. In relativism, time is no longer an external coordinate parameter, which is itself the attribute of the gravity field. Time is no longer independent, and its uniformity is no longer set. In different gravitational fields, the uniformity of time is no longer maintained.
Newton's absolute time conceptually contains two interpretation possibilities. The relativistic era is too tight abandoned Newton's absolute time concept. In terms of "Object Explanation" of a physical entity, the absolute time should of course give up, but in the "prior explanation", the absolute time can not give up. In fact, there is no abandonment. The cohabement in the relativity is the absoluteness of a priori.
The current problem is that it is the same time as the relativity time and the congenial time as a prior art. If you pursue the completeness of the picture, you must say that they are the same time, and the entity time given by the relativism. Ok, suppose our current science community lives in a huge gravitation site, making the time height uniform, so that the efforts of the construction of any scientific theory become a white fee, so that we live in a huge gravitation The field has also become a ghost-exporting a result of a self-excavation wall. Take people as an example. In the process of world map, people's roles are also double. On the one hand, people are also sufficiently reducing to part of the picture, which is embedded in the chain of the world. Originally, people have their position on the biological evolution chain, which is like all life from natural circular evolution, which survived and reproduced like animals, obeying the law of genetics; people's awareness and cognitive activities occurred In the brain, obey the law of brain science, neuroscience, psychology; people are social animals, the sum of all social relations, its social behavior obeys historical, cultural, customs, laws, ethics, etc. All in all, people can also be fully imaged.
But there is still another aspect, that is, it is free. The freedom is open, is the reason and premise of the image. People can only meet with the existences in the open field in the open field, otherwise, the image itself is impossible. This is like the priori time mentioned. Is it the same person with a person who is free with an image (obeying the inevitable person)? The completeness of pursuing image is said that they are the same person, but the free people exercise their freedom, and there is a potential that may be shaking the inevitable person. This is of course self-excavation wall. This is like a person returned to the past through the time tunnel [2], came to a stroller, and he fell asleep on the car. Can he still kill this baby? As a free person, he certainly kills this baby, but what is he come from?
The above two paradoxues about time and freedom require certain priority principles to ensure avoidance, in fact, such principles have been discovered. I believe that the second law of thermodynamics and thermodynamics is this priority. The first confirmation of energy conservation law has been proved by quantum mechanics and the equivalent of time, the second law, ie, entropy, and the time irreversible.
"gallery"
The Dutch version of the painter Aisle (M. C. Escher, 1898-1972) is a strange, many of his paintings originated from paradox, hallucinations and double significance. The co-wrapped strange circle is the main movement that he painted in his painting. Hou Shida said in his famous Geb (Godel, Escher, Bach, "Gotel, Escher, Bach"), mathematician is the first admier of Essel, there are many physics. For example, Li Zhengdao also likes these paintings. I think these paintings are also worthy of philosophers.
The reason why the strange circle is a strange circle, and it is said that it is the completeness of the picture. Or in other words, the strange circle is to let those who are not possible at the same time.
A young man in the gallery is watching a picture. The picture is a water city. A motor boat is driving on the water, and two or three people on the shore are stopping. A woman is looking out over the windowsill. However, bizarre is that the woman's downstairs is the gallery of the young man watching. The screen will include the entire gallery including the young man who is watching in the picture.
The young man who is watching is a symbol of the era of modern people - the era of the world. The world is present in front of us through science, just like a picture. We are bystanders, this is an objective requirement of modern science: scientists don't influe individual factors in the understanding of the objective world.
We look at this painting. Starting from the left side of this picture, we may see the early situation of the universe, the formation of the galaxy, the birth of the earth, the emergence of life, the evolution of human beings, the origin of civilization, and the closer, the more wealthy , Recently, to the era of contemporary - world map, everyone is "see". The people on the shore stop watching, the woman in front of the window sill is looking forward, and an old man in the galleries is watching. History, sociology, anthropology and other humanities and social sciences come to draw our human activities themselves, psychology, brain science, cognitive science, to draw our understanding activities. Why is this young man draw this, why do you take this angle, why is this look, wait, has been included. However, people in the scientific age will definitely have forgotten, all of which have been drawn and observe, and all the scientific activities have become scientific research. Objects. However, can such a picture that can eventually be completed? Can science ultimately describe the world, so as a world-made? Do you always make the world in a established state? This is the philosophical problem that we care about: all existence-all the details on the screen are exist - all in a established state, but their existence is still unrestricted.
"Gallery" is a completed painting? This picture of Escher is of course completed, but it has not been completed. Please pay attention to a white area in the center of the screen. This area is also a practical, like other strange circles in Ehe, are all practical, but there is no tract here. This is a highlight of this painting, which makes this strange ring of this painting. It conveys two points:
First, it indicates that this picture is not completed. The conclusion of "gallery" is: "The world" is difficult to say. Popper has a similar consideration with the Gallery. He draws scientists to someone who draws a map in their room. He must also include the map he is drawn is included within this map. "His mission is impossible to complete, because he must draw the last one of him painting map in the map." [3] (P109)
Second, it signed the name of Aiser in this blank, meaning that this is not completed but the form has been completed, is "Ai Sher" "created" . This blank place, hidden the truly secret of this painting, and the truly birthplace of this painting. Of course, it is white, this painting is Ai Sherl drawing! Human beings exist in the way in the world map, who is the creation of the destiny? This is our largest blind spot (highlight), the biggest secret, the use of Heidegger is "EREIGNIS).
At the highlight, it is in a blind spot, gathered a large number of eternal issues. They are: the origin of language, the origin of humanity, the origin of consciousness, time, space, existence, life ... Why can't I remember the process of learning my mother tongue? This issue does not expect an empirical answer, which is a philosophical problem. Our experience is basically a picture, objective, and the origin of the language, the origin of humanity, the origin of awareness, is always a blind spot on the picture. Science, can also be able to study it, narrow the area of this blind spot, but does not completely eliminate this highlight. Scientists have repeatedly claimed that they have a speech on these issues and will have a major breakthrough. This is good, but it is a never-ending task. This highlight seems to have a no-hole - black hole.
Highlight, blind spots, is the so-called dead point in the martial arts novel, is the navel on each person - it records your origin, but it can't be retrieved. It can't be contracted. It cannot enter the world map. Similarly, in the start of the universe (within the Prani scale), all the laws are all unacified. At the black hole, all the laws are all faithful. Some people say that Escher represents the sense of space sensation in non-European geometry, and its basic feature is the bending of space, which is reasonable. The bending of space makes the entanglement possible to make "limited unbound" possible. Today we know that physical space can be bent due to gravity, but it can be limited: unbound is not equal.
Theory is once a focus of the Cartesian and Newton dispatch. Question of the Mechanical Machinery of the Cartesi said that a particle can transcend space to another particle, because they only believe that the collision of particles is the only reason for motion changes, and gravity is in the object, and it is super-visual The role of things is rejected by the orthodox mechanical world. In fact, "gravity" can be seen as the only mysterious characteristics in Newton Science. Einstein found, with gravitational, our space to be bent. The greater the gravitation, the worse the space bend; when the gravity is large enough to a certain level, the space is almost bent into a closed point and cannot be expanded. This is the black hole.
Gravity is a symbol of the world of life that cannot be inactive (unreducible). In fact, the scientific territory takes into account certain "gravitational", it must also be presented as a "space" "unbounded but limited". Kant said: "In mathematics and natural science, human rationally recognizes that there is a limit, but it will never be recognized that there is a boundary; in other words, it recognizes that there is still something that it is never reached, but not Acknowledging that it will terminate in some point in the inherent advancement. "[4] (P141)
Science in the process of opening up their own world, has always encountered "gravity" of life in the world's innovation (restore), making it bending its object space, thus revealing its "unbound finite". Science is strange, endless, but it is always limited. "Life", "Nature", "There is" such strong "gravitational", which makes scientific finishes.
Underwseus
Kant pointed out that although the universe is a concept, it is an idea that human rationality must require. Why? It is used to ensure the unity of human knowledge, which is a constraint as a restriction, while pure rationally has a tendency to trace the restriction.
Such a tendency is fixed by Heidegger as a phenomenological structure, which is "in-der-welt-sein, being-in-the-world). Our existence is the first to open a world. "A stone is no world, plants and animals are not." People always have a world. The people 's sinking is ridiculous.
The absurdity of "gallery" is that the picture is boundless. The picture is endless to expand its own site, only a strange circle. In fact, the more scientific is no restricted area, the more scientific and boundless, the more the scientific world map is, the more ridiculous. Winberg wrote at the end of his famous "first three minutes":
"No matter how these problems can be resolved, no matter which universe model is proved to be correct, we will not get any comfort from it. Humans always think that we have some special relationship with the universe, think Human life should not be a product that traced back to the initial three-minute occasional incident with a laughed nature, but exists in some way from the beginning of the universe. I wrote these words, just in San Francisco To Boston's go home, fly over Ondoming over, the earth looks soft and comfortable, the clouds are everywhere, the road is vertical, the sun, the snow is red, it is difficult to understand this is just a hostile universe. The small part, can't imagine that the current universe is evolved from an unmodied unfamiliar early state, but also in the endless day of infinite ice, or the end of the hot, the universe can understand, and it will be inert. "[5] (p.120) The unintentional sense of cosmologist is the absurdity of" gallery ".
[references]
[1] Hawking. Time briefing [M], Xu Mingxian and other translations, Hunan Science and Technology Press, 1995.
[2] ISAAC Newton, The Principia, Trans. By Andrew Motte, Prometheus Books, 1995.
[3] K. Popper, The Open Universe, London, 1982.
[4] Kant. Introduction to the future, the introduction [M], Pang Jingren translators, business printers, 1978.
[5] Winberge. Initially three minutes [M], Ding Dynasty, Science Press, 1981.
Paradox of the World Picture: on the philosophical meaning of escher's print gallery
Wu Guosheng
(Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing 100871, CHINA)
Abstract: It's philosophy's proper work that to think the condition and limit of scientific world making World as the totality of beings can not be a being itself otherwise there will be paradox World picture as a open field can not be complete or else there would be paradox.. . Escher's Print gallery is a complete but inconsistent strange loop which put the absent to be present. Strange loop imply the absurdity of the world. The more boundless, the more nonsense the scientific world picture will be.
Key Words: World Picture, Paradox, Escher
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
[1] Author: Wu Zhen Sheng (1964-), male, Hubei Wucao, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Peking University, doctoral tutor.
[2] Relativity is logically indeed eliminating such possibilities, and the famous mathematician Gotel has had a strict argument.
Individual picture appreciation:
