A phenomenon that I have realized with age is that all geometry, or physics for that matter, is a human construct or an approximation of what exists in nature. To be approximate is sufficient to the purpose of building a bridge or sending a rocket to the moon, but it is never exact. There are for example no circles in nature. There are only approximations. Nature is non-linear. There is a myriad of variables in all of nature's shapes and forms beyond human ability to account for, let alone calculate. As for happiness, it differs according to life experience. Age has a way of putting things in perspective.
You can take what you’ve said in many directions. One, is to wonder about circles! How is it, given the fact there are no circles in nature, that we can have this concept in the first place? One might say it’s by watching many “approximate” circles and extrapolating from there. But an approximate exists only in relation to the exact, of which it’s an approximation. How can we say “a pebble thrown in the lake produces ripples that look *like* if we do not already know what a circle is? That’s what Plato wondered about as well, and Once you understand that his ideas of “perfect Forms” was legitimate (dispute being ridiculed today) you can trace its decline throughout the history of philosophy. There you might encounter what we touched upon in this episode, that there was indeed a “break” with the ancient transition, a watershed moment around the 16tg and 17tg century that coincided with the rise of modern mathematics…
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Language infers what is not. We call it a circle and we understand what we mean. With mathematics we create an ideal. The mathematical ideal is not real. It is only a way to describe what is calculated according to theory. I think modern man often confuses what is theoretical with what is real.
@@IIVVBlues Yes but the point I'm trying to make is... does the circle even exist? From what you wrote, it seems like your answer would be "no". But if I'm right, then the question is: if no humans ever existed, would a circumference equal two times its radius times Pi?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited 2 X the radius x Pi is the circumference of the human constructed circle. We have invented a language to describe geometry, to represent reality. Our limited senses and perspective can never know "true" reality, only our approximations and descriptions of what really is. Modern scientific discoveries only recently have revealed this conclusively though technology. Would human mathematical constructs of any kind exist without human intellect? No, but another evolved intelligence might derive equal constructs for its onw limited view of nature. At the quantum level our usual perception of reality fails. We are constantly inventing new mathematical language to try and deal with these contradictions. My best illustration is the fact that some particles do not exist until observed. Mathematically they behave as waves, using our existing level of mathematics. According to existing mathematics, they can exist at wo places at once. Human perceptions define our language. Our language creates our reality.
@@IIVVBlues Be careful now, if the rule of circles does not “really” exist then nothing really does. Because anything you observe and understand you understand by it’s form. A house can be made of bricks or plastic but it’s only a house of it has the form we call a house. But if Forms do not exist then nothing dies, and it’s imposible to say that our perceptions are mere approximations because we’ll have nothing to approximate them to. In short, ti say that our senses “lie” we must have a concept of the truth. But according to you there is no such concept, right?
(1D - • - Point) (2D - ○■Δ - shapes) (3D - [▪︎] (•) - Stereo (4D - [▪︎] (•) - Stereo+Motion The same model applies on Greek language : (1D - A - Letter) (2D - ἀν-θρω-πό-της=Hu-man-i-ty - Syllable) (3D - ἄνθρωπος - Word) (4D - Periods,Periodicity) By learning the Ancient Greek language you realize from young age that everything in this world works exactly like that 1+2+3+4=10 (TETRAKTYS) Fire-Earth-Air-Water Tetrahedron-Octahedron-Cube-Dodecahedron Human-Daemon-God-(CREATOR) Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter Dawn-Noon-Evening-Midnight Body-Anger-Wisdom-Intellect Feelings-Believes-Science-(IDEAS) Kid-Teenager-Man-Oldman Human-Family-State-Country Eros is not just love and desire.. Έρως = Eros ἐρωτάω= ask ἐρώτησις= question ἐρέω= empty ἐρωή = quick movement εἴρω = connect εἴρων = ironic εἴρομαι= investigate Ήρως~Ήρωησα = Hero And by the way Έρως and Ερμής(Hermes) are strongly connected, they are 2 in 1
η λεξη ΕΡΩΣ δεν μεταφραζεται στα αγγλικα.Δεν σημαινει αγαπη , η αγαπη ειναι μια απο τις ιδιοτητες του.Βασικα δεν μπορεις να μεταφρασεις τα αρχαια ελληνικα στα αγγλικα αποδιδοντας 100% το νοημα , ισως με το ζορι μεχρι το ποσοστο 80%
@@ELLAS1234 Κοίτα, ο ορισμός των λέξεων ήταν ανέκαθεν δύσκολος. Μην ξεχνάς ότι ο Πλάτωνας "έκανε καριέρα" με αυτό. Οι περισσότεροι Πλατωνικοί διάλογοι προσπαθούν να ορίσουν μια και μόνο λέξη! Όσον αφορά τον Έρωτα, υπάρχει ένα υπέροχο βιβλίο της Ana Carson "Eros the Bittersweet" που μιλάει (σωστά κατά της άποψη μου) για την έννοια του έρωτα όπως την γνώριζαν οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες.
This was excellent. Thank you.
We are very glad you liked it. One never knows how it’s going to be received while recording it..
A phenomenon that I have realized with age is that all geometry, or physics for that matter, is a human construct or an approximation of what exists in nature. To be approximate is sufficient to the purpose of building a bridge or sending a rocket to the moon, but it is never exact. There are for example no circles in nature. There are only approximations. Nature is non-linear. There is a myriad of variables in all of nature's shapes and forms beyond human ability to account for, let alone calculate.
As for happiness, it differs according to life experience. Age has a way of putting things in perspective.
You can take what you’ve said in many directions. One, is to wonder about circles! How is it, given the fact there are no circles in nature, that we can have this concept in the first place? One might say it’s by watching many “approximate” circles and extrapolating from there. But an approximate exists only in relation to the exact, of which it’s an approximation. How can we say “a pebble thrown in the lake produces ripples that look *like* if we do not already know what a circle is? That’s what Plato wondered about as well, and Once you understand that his ideas of “perfect Forms” was legitimate (dispute being ridiculed today) you can trace its decline throughout the history of philosophy. There you might encounter what we touched upon in this episode, that there was indeed a “break” with the ancient transition, a watershed moment around the 16tg and 17tg century that coincided with the rise of modern mathematics…
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Language infers what is not. We call it a circle and we understand what we mean. With mathematics we create an ideal. The mathematical ideal is not real. It is only a way to describe what is calculated according to theory. I think modern man often confuses what is theoretical with what is real.
@@IIVVBlues Yes but the point I'm trying to make is... does the circle even exist? From what you wrote, it seems like your answer would be "no". But if I'm right, then the question is: if no humans ever existed, would a circumference equal two times its radius times Pi?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited 2 X the radius x Pi is the circumference of the human constructed circle. We have invented a language to describe geometry, to represent reality. Our limited senses and perspective can never know "true" reality, only our approximations and descriptions of what really is. Modern scientific discoveries only recently have revealed this conclusively though technology.
Would human mathematical constructs of any kind exist without human intellect? No, but another evolved intelligence might derive equal constructs for its onw limited view of nature. At the quantum level our usual perception of reality fails. We are constantly inventing new mathematical language to try and deal with these contradictions. My best illustration is the fact that some particles do not exist until observed. Mathematically they behave as waves, using our existing level of mathematics. According to existing mathematics, they can exist at wo places at once.
Human perceptions define our language. Our language creates our reality.
@@IIVVBlues Be careful now, if the rule of circles does not “really” exist then nothing really does. Because anything you observe and understand you understand by it’s form. A house can be made of bricks or plastic but it’s only a house of it has the form we call a house. But if Forms do not exist then nothing dies, and it’s imposible to say that our perceptions are mere approximations because we’ll have nothing to approximate them to. In short, ti say that our senses “lie” we must have a concept of the truth. But according to you there is no such concept, right?
Cultivation of wonder, we lost it.
(1D - • - Point)
(2D - ○■Δ - shapes)
(3D - [▪︎] (•) - Stereo
(4D - [▪︎] (•) - Stereo+Motion
The same model applies on Greek language :
(1D - A - Letter)
(2D - ἀν-θρω-πό-της=Hu-man-i-ty - Syllable)
(3D - ἄνθρωπος - Word)
(4D - Periods,Periodicity)
By learning the Ancient Greek language you realize from young age that everything in this world works exactly like that 1+2+3+4=10 (TETRAKTYS)
Fire-Earth-Air-Water
Tetrahedron-Octahedron-Cube-Dodecahedron
Human-Daemon-God-(CREATOR)
Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter
Dawn-Noon-Evening-Midnight
Body-Anger-Wisdom-Intellect
Feelings-Believes-Science-(IDEAS)
Kid-Teenager-Man-Oldman
Human-Family-State-Country
Eros is not just love and desire..
Έρως = Eros
ἐρωτάω= ask
ἐρώτησις= question
ἐρέω= empty
ἐρωή = quick movement
εἴρω = connect
εἴρων = ironic
εἴρομαι= investigate
Ήρως~Ήρωησα = Hero
And by the way Έρως and Ερμής(Hermes) are strongly connected, they are 2 in 1
no whispering or better audio
Truly, the quality can be greatly improved.
η λεξη ΕΡΩΣ δεν μεταφραζεται στα αγγλικα.Δεν σημαινει αγαπη , η αγαπη ειναι μια απο τις ιδιοτητες του.Βασικα δεν μπορεις να μεταφρασεις τα αρχαια ελληνικα στα αγγλικα αποδιδοντας 100% το νοημα , ισως με το ζορι μεχρι το ποσοστο 80%
Συμφωνώ. Γι αυτό κάνουμε εκπομπή 2 ώρες προσπαθώντας να την καταλάβουμε :-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited εχεις δικιο, μερικες φορες βιαζομαι και θελοντας απλος να κανω ενα σχολιο καταληγω να ακούγεται σαν υπόδειξη
@@ELLAS1234 Κοίτα, ο ορισμός των λέξεων ήταν ανέκαθεν δύσκολος. Μην ξεχνάς ότι ο Πλάτωνας "έκανε καριέρα" με αυτό. Οι περισσότεροι Πλατωνικοί διάλογοι προσπαθούν να ορίσουν μια και μόνο λέξη!
Όσον αφορά τον Έρωτα, υπάρχει ένα υπέροχο βιβλίο της Ana Carson "Eros the Bittersweet" που μιλάει (σωστά κατά της άποψη μου) για την έννοια του έρωτα όπως την γνώριζαν οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες.