It is not clear how to reason about time because of Bell's inequality. The idea is that things do not have actual classical values of time or position in space until measured. [That was based on the Einstein Rosen thought experiment about polarization of light that shows either one of two things. Either action at a distance or things have no classical values of time until measured. [The experiment was done in the 1960's.] We know there is no action at a distance from GPS which depends on Relativity, so the second is true.]
21.3.20
Was the connection between the Philosopher Leonard Nelson and David Hilbert deeper that just Hilbert well known kindness and help for people in need? Leonard Nelson could definitely not get anywhere because all the philosopher in Germany were against him. [Not just in the university where David Hilbert was, but even in all Germany.]
But my point is that Hilbert saw a great importance in axioms, and getting to a basic set of axioms that all mathematics depends on. He wanted to expand that to physics. So the fact that Leonard Nelson wanted to expand that to philosophy would fit right in!
[It was not just the beauty aspects of having a small set of axioms, but also to make progress. And even though Godel showed that if you axioms are consistent then the system you derive from them can never be complete still David Hilbert's idea of the importance of the axioms is valid.
But my point is that Hilbert saw a great importance in axioms, and getting to a basic set of axioms that all mathematics depends on. He wanted to expand that to physics. So the fact that Leonard Nelson wanted to expand that to philosophy would fit right in!
[It was not just the beauty aspects of having a small set of axioms, but also to make progress. And even though Godel showed that if you axioms are consistent then the system you derive from them can never be complete still David Hilbert's idea of the importance of the axioms is valid.
Socialism and eating pets.
“You would think that when your economy gets to the point where people are eating their pets, people might have second thoughts about what system they’ve chosen.”
[Senator Rand Paul, contemplating the quick descent of once-rich Venezuela].
It occurred to me the main problem with socialism is equality. That is the idea that everyone has to be equal in the amount of goods. The problem with that is there is nothing in it to create goods. Only to divide what there already is. And add to that the further problem that there is no motivation for anyone to create anything. The only motivation to go and work is that the police arrest you after three months of you have a blank in your "work book" and send you to a gulag. That is a motivation but not a motivation do do anything constructive.
Marx himself had noticed the tremendous potential of capitalism to create goods needed and wanted by people. But he thought that the age of the new man, the "idealistic socialist man" had arrived such that people would happily work for others and the state with no thought of their own needs.
[Senator Rand Paul, contemplating the quick descent of once-rich Venezuela].
It occurred to me the main problem with socialism is equality. That is the idea that everyone has to be equal in the amount of goods. The problem with that is there is nothing in it to create goods. Only to divide what there already is. And add to that the further problem that there is no motivation for anyone to create anything. The only motivation to go and work is that the police arrest you after three months of you have a blank in your "work book" and send you to a gulag. That is a motivation but not a motivation do do anything constructive.
Marx himself had noticed the tremendous potential of capitalism to create goods needed and wanted by people. But he thought that the age of the new man, the "idealistic socialist man" had arrived such that people would happily work for others and the state with no thought of their own needs.
20.3.20
There is sometimes an intersection between a law that is from the words of the scribes and a law of the Torah. Usually this is rare and in theory almost impossible. Still it does happen sometimes.
An example is a woman gets married by the testimony of one witness [who says her husband died]. The two witnesses that are not accepted because of a decree of the scribes come, and say he is still alive. She can say married to her new husband. [See Rav Shach law of Divorce.. chapter 22.]
[What i mean is that one witness against two is always nothing. So here you have her getting married on the belief that he husband died in war or somewhere else. But there was only one witness to testify to that. So even if she can get remarried still it is not really valid testimony. Then come two witnesses that are OK from the law of the Torah [that is they are not women, nor relatives, nor have received money for their testimony]. Yet these last two are not accepted by a decree from the scribes--for example they gamble or play the lottery. So they are not good witnesses from the words of the scribes but are OK from the Torah. So from the law of the Torah she would have to leave her second "husband" since two witnesses say her real husband is still alive. Yet she is still allowed to remain married to the second one because the later testimony was from two that are not accepted from the words of the scribes.
[The idea is usually a decree from the scribes can forbid something that is permitted from the Torah because of making a "fence" a safeguard around the Law. But they can not permit something the Torah forbids. Yet here for some reason these two witnesses which are OK from the Torah are not accepted even to forbid. (I might add that even the ability to forbid what the Torah allows is subject to a debate. [See the Mishna "To make a fence" in Avot DeR. Natan. There you see the very concept in itself is subject to a debate. After all, why add to what the Torah says? Is it not enough?] Usually the Gemara is interested in what is forbidden or permitted from the Torah.
[When this comes up in money issues the answer is הפקר בית דין הפקר but here there is a different reason.]
[What i mean is that one witness against two is always nothing. So here you have her getting married on the belief that he husband died in war or somewhere else. But there was only one witness to testify to that. So even if she can get remarried still it is not really valid testimony. Then come two witnesses that are OK from the law of the Torah [that is they are not women, nor relatives, nor have received money for their testimony]. Yet these last two are not accepted by a decree from the scribes--for example they gamble or play the lottery. So they are not good witnesses from the words of the scribes but are OK from the Torah. So from the law of the Torah she would have to leave her second "husband" since two witnesses say her real husband is still alive. Yet she is still allowed to remain married to the second one because the later testimony was from two that are not accepted from the words of the scribes.
[The idea is usually a decree from the scribes can forbid something that is permitted from the Torah because of making a "fence" a safeguard around the Law. But they can not permit something the Torah forbids. Yet here for some reason these two witnesses which are OK from the Torah are not accepted even to forbid. (I might add that even the ability to forbid what the Torah allows is subject to a debate. [See the Mishna "To make a fence" in Avot DeR. Natan. There you see the very concept in itself is subject to a debate. After all, why add to what the Torah says? Is it not enough?] Usually the Gemara is interested in what is forbidden or permitted from the Torah.
[When this comes up in money issues the answer is הפקר בית דין הפקר but here there is a different reason.]
Torah scholars that are demons.
Rav Nahman was not the first one to point out the trouble with Torah scholars that are demons.
I only brought this from Rav Nahman's LeM because it was one of the most striking features of his teaching that I saw when I first started looking at his books. [LeM vol I: 8 I:12, I:28 I:61 II:1 II:8 and many other places I have forgotten off hand.]
The statements of the Gemara itself I forget the page numbers. One is from tractate Shabat.
"All the troubles that come into the world come only because of the religious leaders of Israel as it says in the verse in Isaiah, 'Your judges judge for the sake of getting bribes...'"
So already there was this connection from the start. It was not a new phenomenon in the time of Rav Nahman.
The question is why Rav Nahman would have picked out this particular point among thousands of possible great ideas from the sages he might have chosen to emphasize?
In any case, from the emphasis itself of Rav Nahman it seems these kinds of Torah scholars are not uncommon. Rather if anyone has trouble finding them they probably could not find a snowflake in a blizzard.
Clearly he saw this issue as sine qua non--[without which nothing good can even begin.]
I only brought this from Rav Nahman's LeM because it was one of the most striking features of his teaching that I saw when I first started looking at his books. [LeM vol I: 8 I:12, I:28 I:61 II:1 II:8 and many other places I have forgotten off hand.]
The statements of the Gemara itself I forget the page numbers. One is from tractate Shabat.
"All the troubles that come into the world come only because of the religious leaders of Israel as it says in the verse in Isaiah, 'Your judges judge for the sake of getting bribes...'"
So already there was this connection from the start. It was not a new phenomenon in the time of Rav Nahman.
The question is why Rav Nahman would have picked out this particular point among thousands of possible great ideas from the sages he might have chosen to emphasize?
In any case, from the emphasis itself of Rav Nahman it seems these kinds of Torah scholars are not uncommon. Rather if anyone has trouble finding them they probably could not find a snowflake in a blizzard.
Clearly he saw this issue as sine qua non--[without which nothing good can even begin.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)