1 + 1 = 2?
You might laugh after reading what ensues, Bertrand Russell proved that 1+1=2 in one of his work which he did with Alfred and it was published in the book Principia Mathematica. Something, which is the foundation of modern mathematics had to be proved .What we take for granted and pretty kids stuff had to be proved to move forward . What if 1+1 was 2.00001 (You might not know, may be it is), it might completely change everything we know about the world around us, indeed it's how all Investment banks mint money, defying number laws in mergers and acquisitions.
Yesterday, I was watching this strange program in National Geography as to whether The Da-Vinci Code was real? If I am right, I remember the same channel telecasting a program, about how Da-Vinci Code could be true, the timeline was when Dan-Brown hit the market with the concept that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and their bloodline is still out there.
Yesterday, I was watching this strange program in National Geography as to whether The Da-Vinci Code was real? If I am right, I remember the same channel telecasting a program, about how Da-Vinci Code could be true, the timeline was when Dan-Brown hit the market with the concept that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and their bloodline is still out there.
Everybody kind of gives their own interpretation as why something would be right or wrong and nobody is sure about anything. I would give a damn if it was true or not, because it does not affect my ability to appreciate the principles propagated by Christ irrespective of whether he was a virgin or not. It would make more sense to inculcate something good out of what was told by Christ rather than proving whether he was a virgin or not.
I think, it's rather the psyche of the human mind to understand, substantiate and interpret that drives the fury to prove something. You might have heard this often "It's a kind of intuition and there is no specific logic to what I think". Intuition is often defined as the act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational process. I might want to dispute this; in fact it is the highest form of knowing.
A person does not automatically learn to balance the bi-cycle, the first time he learns to drive. He does not consciously balance when he becomes a matured driver, this does not mean that the process of rationality is lost, it's so imbibed and quick, we are not cognizant of the underlying rationality.
The more we try to prove something we come across facts that there is a probability to be untrue. The more we are ignorant of the proof, the more is the tendency to entertain uncertainty. The more we accept the proof with constraints, there is limitation to the boundaries created by concept itself. The greater the limitation, there is always the better one which overwhelms it soon or later.
Labels: Meta Physics
| Permalink | 
