Täglich gibt es folgerichtige Entscheidungen All days there are logical decisions
In the search for truth, one needs at least a) imagination, b) trial and error,
c) the gradual discovery of our own prejudices with the help of a), b) and with the help of critical discussion.
Karl Raimund Popper
Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) tells about his visit in 1922 in Leipzig to a lecture of Albert Einstein about his theory of relativity. Here are excerpts: “Einstein’s lecture took place in a large hall ... As I was about to enter, a young man ... student of a well-known physics professor from a southern German university town, put a printed red slip of paper into my hand, on which was warned against Einstein and his theory of relativity: ... Unsecured speculations, unduly overestimated by an advertisement of Jewish newspapers alien to the German nature. ... When I was told that the author of the note was indeed the physicist who was highly respected because of his important experimental work and of whom Sommerfeld had also often spoken in his lectures, one of my most important hopes collapsed. ... The means used here by a physicist against the theory of relativity were so bad and unobjective that this opponent obviously did not trust any more to be able to refute the theory of relativity by scientific arguments ...“
In “Science, religion, worldview“ one reads that William Penn (1644-1718), one
of the first USA pioneers and Quaker, said: “People must be ruled by God, otherwise they will be ruled by tyrants“. Chiang Kai Shek (1887-1975) said,
“We must sweat more in peace to bleed less in war.“ Max Planck (1858-1947) says: “God stands for religion at the beginning, for natural science at the
end of thinking.“ The politically controversial physicist Pascual Jordan (1902-1980), who was very well recognized professionally, although a member
of the NSDAP and the SA, tried to make Einstein’s theory of relativity valid during the dictatorship of National Socialism, which he had to fail at
violating the “German Physics“. In his lecture in Clausthal in 1948, “Kosmogonische Anschauungen der modernen Physik“ (Cosmogonical Views of Modern
Physics), he presented his views on quantum and relativity theory, and also “that the cosmos was smaller and contained fewer stars in the past“; then,
four to five billion years ago, its growth began, starting with “zero volume and zero mass“. Before finite time the expansion “had begun out of a
nothingness.... no space existed, no star, and that the time ‘as such’ had to have a beginning“... the word “before“ loses its applicability. He
calls a circle a one-dimensional entity, a sphere surface two-dimensional. Towards the end of the lecture: Before the world the time could not be,
but with God it is not so. With “Him“ everything is present...
The necessity of religion turned to man is out of question and not only because otherwise tyrants rule (“there is nothing new under the sun“, Kohelet, biblical Apocrypha). To Max Planck can be positively commented by presupposing the ontological component of being. Pascual Jordan ignores this completely: Out of “a“ nothing “out“... space and mass “zero“... “beginning“ of time... with God “everything“ is present... – to be present means to be “there“ between past and future or ideally elementary in only-presence, too, and physically elementary in the flow of the moments. To think a circle or a spherical surface means that both are not really present, but if one records both, then immediately three spatial dimensions plus the temporal fourth arise on the paper during the recording. Physicality without these four dimensions just does not exist down to the thinnest atomic layer, how should otherwise things pass each other.
Kategorischer Imperativ ist nur Appell (I. Kant) Categorical imperative is just an appeal (I. Kant)
The Volks-Brockhaus of 1940 describes neither a “German physics“ nor Albert Einstein, but
the theory of relativity as “a doctrine of physics to explain contradictory experiences, especially in the propagation of light“. On the German Christians:
“A direction in the German Protestant Church, which strives for a unified “Reichs“-Church and a proclamation corresponding to the rebirth of people (‘faith
in Christ according to the species’)“. On ‘Deutscher Glaube Kampfring e.V.’: “Until 1938 ‘Deutsche Glaubensbewegung’, a ‘German religious movement’ that arose
in 1933 and strongly emphasizes the opposition to Christianity in its folk-determined faith. It is firmly committed to the National Socialist state and fights
for ‘true to folks type’ piety.“ On philosophy: “The scientific investigation of the ultimate reasons of being, of human cognition and of human action, the
summarizing consideration of the essence and meaning of the world; it is the basis of all individual sciences and at the same time their culmination and
summary. ... German philosophy of the 20th century, especially since the World War 1914-1918, has been striving for an organic, holistic way of thinking that does
justice to reality, following Nietzsche and the philosophy of life. It receives essential impulses from the National Socialist ideas of people and
The barbarism of dogmatically shaped political-totalitarian systems of rule, supported and promoted by fellow travelers, dictates to the ruled, as is well known, the immediate abandonment of their free creativity and worldview, which mostly transcends horizons of thought – who likes that? What is lost through resignation, through emigration? Who, at all, wants to let himself be determined by others in his development? A closing word of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some people all the time and all people some of the time, but not all people all the time“.
Aufgefasster und erfasster Text Text recorded and captured
“We can be sure,“ says Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970), “that three plus one equals four; but because this is true in every possible world, it can tell us nothing about the world in which we live. ... The laws of logic and pure mathematics cannot – it is their nature – be used as the basis of scientific explanation, because they give us no information about the real world that would distinguish it from other possible worlds.“ (I add: ...the not-manmade world from the manmade world from the perspective of mankind). Albert Menne already points out that wrong understanding is also “understanding“. Hermeneutics as the doctrine of understanding includes the understanding of all subject areas, which means that, for example, a philosophical text can be understood “somehow“, but also incorrectly in terms of content, as Erwin Leibfried (1942-2019) precisely points out. This results in the task for the theory of interpretation to first consider the conditions of understanding in the first place. Interpretation is possible only if understanding is terminologically clarified, and the doctrine of understanding can be established only insofar as interpreting takes place. Hermeneutics theorizes the understanding that is revealed in interpretation. If a scientific text has been understood, this does not yet prove another in the understanding, the understood can be other than the understanding. The difference between understanding and explicit presentation of what is understood in this understanding as an object of interpretation must not be overlooked (mostly these two regions are mixed up). The understanding, for example, of the same (criticizable) text is always the same, but not what is understood in the understanding. Thus the same reality can be “grasped“ differently, and one can grasp only what has been “grasped“ before, in any case somehow, Erwin Leibfried makes clear to us undoubtedly. The text gives itself only as a “grasped text“, the difference of an interpreter to other interpreters in their disposition as (simplified) their personal attitude and quality, and their constitution, simplified general constitution, shows, that the text is subject to the “habitus-constitution interference“. A simple textual example as an apparent antinomy is given to us by H. Lange, formerly of the University of Cologne, in the “Clausthaler Gespräch 1948, Natural Science, Religion, World View“, with the sentence of Oswald Spengler (1880-1936): “There is no absolute truth – for either this sentence is correct, then it is itself an absolute truth and thus destroys itself, or it is false, then there is an absolute truth and it must not be said. Thus, the proposition contains an unavoidable contradiction. The reason lies in the fact that with the little word ‘there is’ already that which is supposed to exist is set as true.“ But if we take the Spengler theorem in such a way that “no absolute truth“ cannot exist at all (how can no absolute truth be at all), so that “no absolute something“ only is not, that is never, then this sentence contains nonsensical emptiness. We say, for example, “I have no money“, but no money can neither let itself be had nor can no money not let itself be had; no money cannot, here referred to, be something. Every thought-reference to never-existing is nonsensical. To make what is understood in the first understanding and the reflections on it the subject of an ontologically coherent interpretation and statement was the concern and purpose of this little excursion
Philosophie ist für alle da Philosophy is for everyone
Sympathetic humor as a constructive added value of a text in which philosophical-ontological statements are requested in order to critically include factually suitable results of scientific knowledge and to consolidate them by natural reality – thus sympathetic humor, an old experience, probably relaxes every recipient. “Two things are infinite, the universe and the human stupidity, but about the universe I am not quite sure yet“, Albert Einstein has stated for example. “Most of the sentences and questions that have been written about philosophical things are not false, but nonsensical,“ Ludwig Wittgenstein states. Jean Paul (1763-1822) writes that “with virtue, beauty and truth we already have three heavens within us, or a universe that calls for a second world.“ And also: “That we meet again in heaven, just like that, that is a thought that dishonors sorrow“. Whoever sets out on a philosophical or technical track in order to arrive at the simple first reason for a complex reality, may keep to Jean Paul: “Going up a river for a long time and finding it smaller and smaller“. This can mean toil and stormy days, and once again we read him, the descriptive artist: “Heaven cheers itself and us up“ – adding that “art theories always come from the lesser minds, which is nice, so you don’t need to read them“. And he “actually never enjoys his being more than on a day full of half weakness after evening drink“.
KI-Intelligenz in Entwicklerköpfen AI intelligence in the minds of developers
Digital data and commands for the realization of algorithms made by specialists, which lead to results in computer systems at high speed instead of at human snail’s pace for a wide range of tasks: Often immediately justifiably resented, more often immediately highly welcomed. For example, advanced technology is elevated to the status of “science as the religion of modern times“, technology “its cult“ [Gregor Siefer (*1928), philosopher, sociologist, in: Changing values and meaning in life]: “We know more and more and are (therefore) becoming more and more stupid“, in the postscript “relatively more stupid“. Artificial intelligence (AI) as an exaggerated term, because the intelligence lies in the developers’ heads, not infrequently leads to exaggerated interpretations – as already the term “digital“. The term “analog“ was transferred to a “good old time“. On the other hand, the welcome is based on the great wealth of advantages offered by digital technology, right down to the every-man’s smartphone, whose abundant usability not infrequently captivates the eyes instead of directing them to possible dangers in rural and urban traffic, as was still the case in the good old days. The word digital (“finger...“) is simply based on finger-signal uniqueness, according to which yes or no the entire digital technology (binary system) was basically built. The number 0 is represented by the clenched fist, the thumb stretched alone can correspond to the number 1, thumb down and index finger up alone = 2, thumb and index finger = 3, middle finger alone = 4, thumb added = 5, index finger added alone = 6, thumb added = 7, ring finger alone = 8, and so on, until all fingers stretched make the number 31, thus 32 uniquenesses with five fingers. Ten fingers stretched in this way end with 1024 counting possibilities. The digital technology, whose “fingers“ (bits, binary digits, a bit has the valence 0 or 1) in adapted-practicable number lead from zero up and down to many ascending uniquenesses, realizes this by multifunctional-minimized hardware, which must be developed in the analog technology task-related and thus expensively, in order to receive results, which are inaccurate, even if often negligible. The “limits of progress have been reached,“ writes Gregor Siefer, “a reflection, a rethinking is needed.“ “A specter is haunting us,“ writes Richard David Precht (*1964), philosopher, “the specter of digitization. ... The question is not: How will we live? But rather: How do we want to live?“ And a page earlier, “The technicians have never understood man, and the financial speculators don’t care about him.“ Quite apart from this, Precht devotes himself excellently to philosophical history. He dedicates himself decidedly to the temporal events in the years after the public became aware of the influences of digital technology on society (microprocessor technology already took a notable runup around 1970), and other intellectually educated people do the same. “We must learn,“ he writes, “to see the possibilities of digital technology not only from the point of view of economic competition, but as an opportunity for a good model of society.“ That technicians “have never“ understood man shows that there are philosophers who “have never“ understood technicians – and physicists rarely, although physicists often have to think philosophically (at first ontologically, quod erat demonstrandum). We all have prejudices (Popper), so Precht has too, of course. However, one will have to assume that immanent advantages and disadvantages of digital technology give people many opportunities to create a “good“ model of society. What is good or not good is decided in each case by the society. Relatively “not good“ is digital technology as precision weaponry when politics aggressively misuses it. It is relatively “good“ as a military defense technology. Analog technology could not achieve this precision.
NAVI ohne „Einstein“? Geht nicht. NAVI without “Einstein“? No way.