Conferences of Agustín García Calvo
21 October 2011 at the Faculty of letters of Granada
Thanks to Dean for his invitation and for the presentation, tired honorable, and thanks to José Luis García Rua returned to him for having me and suddenly 20 or 24 years in Salamanca and in that excitement, that is the one and has to be repeated again among less educated people in one form or another of rebellion against the regime that is imposed on us. Thank you for the support, and hopefully not just for your ears, but because my journey to unravel a little problem here I bring you this morning, or this morning, almost late, not to solve it, but to somehow enlarge and dissolved.
You have to clarify a bit with the strapline that have made it to "the Future of Philology," which is almost like a joke, because what I think is that any good things to do are those that have no future. The future belongs to those who rule, the future of the Company, the Capital of the State; they change us every day life for a future, a future, and certainly to the extent that philology can be a good thing no future either, like any revolution in so far that really is doing something has no future, and the reason is very simple: because only by having no future in what is done can invent, make, discover, something other than what was actually invented and discovered. The condition does not have a future; if it has a future, as you know, is like in the scheme, in order, in the Company, the Capital, the Ministries, all governed by a purpose, a future. Philology in which I grew up, as José Luis, philology of ancient languages, to me is still a while do not be confused, as is often confused with the literature of any kind whatsoever; Philosophy, Literature. You're going to see in a moment that I return again to remember the rags that have come to us from the book of Heraclitus Heraclitus, to write down how that the logos, which is the same as common reason, common language, ie, anyone, not personal, that while it is within the world of reality, and at the same time has to be out to talk about it. This is also something that, in spite of Scripture, I have learned, I have collected, the written words of some of the old, pre-philosophers, philosophers not yet, not scientists.
But what I came here to present this problem is the the title says: "Physics to Psychoanalysis". We have to remember, or remembering inventéis: the child of one, once you have learned to speak, but has not yet been sufficiently assimilated to the horde rules of the elderly, children, that looking out the window a clear summer night, stares beyond, and asks: "If there beyond .... What if? What if there is no afterlife? "And is involved in that, which is already an elementary approach to the problem. That child is more or less the same while the other side is digging in, and in the torments of conscience and you are storming everywhere, from outside and from within as he asks himself, is to understand more who can really be him, penetrates, champagne, and fails.
I do not know if you you have within, like me, this memory, invented or not, this child, but that's the root of the problem that I want to present, and especially fighting what dominates, which is the separation between the two forms the problem, the problem that we call physical, (towards the sky, sinking into the endless sky), and the problem that we call psychic, psychological, which is the problem of self, of who really understand pussies can be one same, and if you can not really be anyone, or anything like that. These two problems, since incumbent on us the philosophy and science are separate, increasingly separated: one is about issues related to the mind, more or less psychological, personal, historical issues, names of lords also Man, common, Humanism, I am against an ever more decisively. Do not let him estrane philology remain a possibility of something alive, a true love for the word, and instead Humanism does not respect anything. I'm just here fighting against this separation on one hand the human is taken, then the things that we are not left on the other side. Against this separation I'm talking about, and I do it really fast, so Sharpen your ears to get this right before I go to ask you about it.
I'm against this separation. With this separation is achieved on the one hand, of course, that men forget the most basic we have, which is that things are like any other things in us. Whatever else you can say comes back, as a kind of special characterization of the thing we are, but we are things. Since the last time I changed the sentence timorúmenos heauton in the comedy of Terence, the "homo sunt", as you know, the "I am a man and nothing human is alien to me" to "I am a thing, and none of the stuff is me alien ". This is much less misleading, and I guess this briefly understand what "counter Humanism" that I'm talking about. Sure, you understand that if you are against humanism, whom you are engaged in a Faculty of Arts, for you are already suspecting, forced to acknowledge that you are stuck in a factory of lies of all kinds, because that is what is just holding this faith in Man and separation of things.
On the flip side, what about things? Well that deprives them of much of what we intend to be specifically human: are deprived of speech, are deprived of laughter, are deprived of crying ........... without any rights. This is done by simply right boss, who is no law, but a tyranny. Things speak, each in its own way, in their language, which of course we do not understand directly, we can barely hear from outside. Things laugh, cry ............. things and even more than that, that is what will happen, showing you how the problem has also been introduced in the physical studies themselves, Science excellency of reality, which I call here Physics.
It turns out that with the advance same physical studies, especially after the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, the condition of subatomic entities (electrons and even photons), that had been postulating or discovering, there has been less to become too problematic, even for some of the physicists who were not quite delivered a faith in science, which is the heir of the faith in God of the old regime, and the majorities are subject. But for many, however (and this I have found over the past years through thousands and thousands of entries in the network, rather than in the books of the most renowned physicists) that appeared to them, this problem as well: the condition physics, reality is ultimately you have to reduce information to come to when it comes to the very roots of reality, in the subatomic entities. So from there, that identification or confusion between reality and information, is to consider the problem, the big problem of the observer. The observer, who attends the smelt, which draws conclusions, the observer of things, it came thinking it was a man or a woman occasionally, ie, a man; a man in the sense that before I presented as an object of attack: a man, one of us, an observer, and therefore as someone also real things. Even if you are in a laboratory, although it is engrossed in his research, but he is driving mathematical symbols, which are the only language that can earn him, no longer a man, and that presents a lot of trouble. For what is done with an observer who is stuck between things? Do you consider that the observer is part of things, and therefore must be included in your own research? Or is it intended that the observer, in spite of being a real man or lady, is made or not, is left out, it is as if you were outside, and somewhere I could talk about other things?
You go and you see the problem. This is the problem, raised a lot worse, before alluded to the memory of the fragments of Heraclitus Heraclitus. Logos, which is equivalent to the calculation, reason, common language, indeed the one hand has to be in reality, because only through this common reason things are changed into each other, are made and broken, and reality is the business of the making and unmaking, which is governed by reason. So that it is inside, but on the other hand have to be out, the reason may be nothing real, because if not, could not speak about reality, that is clear to anyone: to talk about something really must be out, if he gets one inside is no longer true, and is not talking about the truth of something. This, to put it in brackets is precisely the conviction and disaster throughout all positive philosophy and science. Since these unsolved problems (as I presented the figure of the child looking at the sky, which looks within himself), since these problems have been presented to the people, could not less than emerge, replacing the religions of the old regime, a positive philosophy, a positive science, to try to remedy the failure, try to remedy the irremediable breakdown that is, it is truly a break as I'm having, but that is what is develop, from Plato and Aristotle better from a philosophy or positive esplicar Science dealing with reality, but without leaving home; in reality, we will not pass anything special, which is obviously very dangerous. Maybe you you do not take kindly to me you target so as to block all philosophy and positive science of all these three thousand or four thousand years we bring, but what can you do!, I speak what I village still remains; not by any personal animosity, but because I feel so, so I feel that deception hanging over us throughout this brief history. The problem came to be this too.
But back to our current physical, they then come to find out one thing, that goes in the sense that before you say otherwise, to give back to the things we've taken away our property, as if it were human. It is in this sense, especially a pair of physicists from ten or twelve years ago, they took very loudly this discovery, which was recognized as a result of the paradoxes, tortuous, unworkable, they face a subatomic entities (the esperimento photon or two photons entering through a hole, or a photon entering through two holes, which will sound the popularization), a result that eventually tenérsele be attributed to an electron for example, free will, free will ; the electron must have a free will, their own presence, the pressure of physical problems require it; ie, he is the one who can decide freely whether in a crash or throw for throw another angle, it is he who decides to go through that hole or the other .............
Well, I guess, rightfully, I estrañáis this, but this is a discovery of a few physicists not dominated at all that I bring here: they are returned, the electrons such as free will, the free will . Well, this pair of men (sorry not remember the name now, forgive me), it said in a more precise manner when in broader media published his discovery, and said: "to the extent that one can believe that he is free to rise now the chair he is sitting, take a few steps to the cupboard, take a jug of water, throw a glass, drink it, and also back when you want to sit where he was, to the same extent that we must attribute it to the electrons ". So you see, raised the issue in this way, it seems more honest, right: if we believe in our right to free will, then the electrons have the same right to choose.
Well, this is one of the forms of the problem. We have to remember another, why we are doing this leap between what can be called physical, or things, which may be psychic, one, or deeper still psychic. He postulated the uncertainty in modern physics is credited for some sixty years ago to Heisenberg and the formulation there, as you remember that you have read some of this, is that you can not simultaneously know ...... ...... the 'entity', I'll say, what philosopher, ie endowed with mass acceleration, what physicists usually call momentum and can be translated 'ímpetum' which is actually the entity particle. "You can not simultaneously know that momentum, that entity, while the position, the position in space." This is the formula of the principle of Heisenberg. Mark well what is committed, is not: a reality that can not be known in block but out on knowing the position in space is a bit different from the time that the individual knows, knows the ímpetum, the mass, etc.., the individual. This puts at risk the very own Science of reality, but there continued marching.
However there is a way of discovering the indeterminacy old, which is what you find, old readers in the first materialist physics, Epicurus, the first atomic physics, sung in Lucretius's poem, De Rerum Natura . There you can find good, and this question is best found in the second book of De Rerum Natura, in verses two hundred or so and many of the second book, better than the remains of Epicurus. See if I tell you in a moment what is the system of this ancient Epicurean physics, let's see: "In truth there are only atoms and void." Atoms and the void are therefore exterior to reality, because just running for esplicar reality. The atom, which is quite hard (this is their condition: quite hard, indecomposable, if you can imagine such a thing), and emptiness, which is the correlative, the place where there is nothing, where nothing happens. This is the contraption that physics is forced to run for esplicar reality. The reality, the real things (of which we are naturally included) are just composition; composition of atoms with more or less preserved in vacuum rest: if things very empty things are softer, less empty when there are harder, but in the end, everything comes from a composition of that.
Now that the atoms can be combined must collide with each other, because if there is no clash atoms fall in line perfectly straight and parallel all, and not result in any combination, and therefore there will be no reality. Epicurus part yes there is, there are reality, and therefore this is an argument ad absurdum. They have to hit. And to have that bump, behold these atoms also have to attribute a quality that I was human in a way: if you mean no free will, "the whim". For this it is necessary that "in uncertain times and uncertain place" úuuuun atom deviates little bit, at least, of his career. Only with such deviation can be understood that the atoms then come crashing each other. You understand that if not, do not understand. So it is that such departure, the famous 'clinamen', this minimum deviation of the atom, imperceptible, is the foundation of reality (because otherwise there would be no shock, and if there is no shock, there would be actually), but same time it is also a thing that since the atoms is transmitted to things and us, so that what we take as free will, or we observe in animals such as decisiveness free fancy that comes to us as a inheritance of the atoms we are made. There you have over how the two things I'm talking about whose separation is to combat ye also appear there together.
It could pasaros more, but I will finish, to give word out is us, presentándoos on my part the problem in a very simple way, which is what I was the pasao month using the meetings of the political talk of the Ateneo, where me with people Wednesday at eight-thirty, and now I'll use it again here. Imagine (you do not need to think in sophisticated things, like a pendulum) imagine a swing from ropes that are hung; think for example in a school yard, which is out of recess, and there is a swing, rope, hanging from your rod, for children to play. Leaves the teacher with the children, and asks one to give him a push on the swing, and then put them to the children this problem, which is what I put to you: how much is from the last time the swing it is still moving, until the first time the swing does not move? I believe you have noted, if not written, mentally, because that is what we are going to talk, and what will end our meeting, discussing the matter. Clearly the approach, right? I repeat: how much is from the last time the swing is still moving, until the first time the swing does not move? I do not have to, have to collect opinions that I have been raised and a few others before the presentation, outburst, the problem. Please help. What at any one has come. It can be said that the question is wrongly put, such that he tends rather to think this ..... Anyway, but come on, say it, because if I'm not going to leave without hear you, and I do not like it . Come on.
-I think there are an infinite number of moments between the time the swing moves and where it stops.
A-And how can that be? How one thing that is governed by Yes or No. .......? That is, the swing, or are moving, or is stationary. And how that can lead to any number of times and countless times? It is a question of Yes or No. But it's okay, thanks. And keep attacking the issue of the different ways you can think of. Come on, please.
-I think it's the same time, but viewed from two perspectives.
A-What are the prospects?
The prospect that there is no longer any motion and movement, and the prospect that the movement has ended. At that point the two coincide.
A-And you think the teacher is going to ask them what the children look from two perspectives, that look to swing from two perspectives? Or where is there to get away for that?
A-Well, I think it can not be, I think that the time may not be the same, because that would be a contradiction to suppose that 'a point', say, while there is movement and there is not. Again the question of Yes or No: If the last time they were moving the same as the first standing, would simply negating the notion of movement.
-The last time he was still moving, and the first time it is already stopped.
A-Yes, no need to repeat it to me. But if we do that, then it is that we find that is the same time, ie a time while it is moving while standing; ie, we are brazenly carrying any notion of movement or inertia. But it's okay, thanks.More!
-I believe that time does not exist.
A-I'm going to ask you to say it in vulgar language, because the word was invented to be God and belongs to God since then.
-You can not set the time.
A-No, not easier!
A-That there is not no such. That is, that the question of how long to / from, he responds by saying that there is no time, no time either. I see what you have quite as funny, but loaded ......... implies something that is also central to reality, ie, the time itself, consisting of days, weeks, hours, centuries, of eras, moments of successive moments, because it's on the device on which we mounted all reality, so if we charge the time, we are loading, questioning, leaving sink into doubt reality itself. All right.More!
But also loaded the concept of movement, that of Zeno's paradox that a mobile does not move or where he is or where it is not.
A-Well, did not want to distract you with this now. You know that the only quote from Zeno of Elea you have left is a piece in which he says simply: "a mobile does not move or on the site where it is, or at the site where it is not." Which is an argument that has apabullaos to leave you forever, if you will not deceive you, because obviously does not move in the place where it is, because (this is the problem we are considering), if it is there, not moving; and does not move in the place where it is not, because of course, on the site where it can or can not move or do anything else, or move or stand still, nothing. Well, I did not go to this, Isabel's fault.
Now back to the question. I still help to have more occurrences that will come, jumping a little flat: a problem like this in the service of Mathematics Science Science ............ as I said before, was founded as religions, like philosophy, to hold reality. And mathematics, which did not have to be inside, it could be a game, usually at the service of physics and other sciences. For the service of the Mathematical Physics is supposed to have solved this problem. It can be said in many ways, but I'll tell you, that means this: of course the mathematical see that about? "How goes from there to there," with a number of current can not be answered, and then drag it to the generalization of the concept of numbers you've all heard; therefore involves the invention of real numbers, which as you know are, as in the line, successive points, but we can not be confused with the cuts that separate them. So I'm moving the problem from the swing, from physical observation, mathematical formulation, which is what I tried. That's easy, and then if the real numbers are accepted, the notion of limit, just think of two monotone sequences converging, one of the most trivial thing to already ............ understand well, no need to paint it, two convergent monotone sequences have a common limit where they are, and then that would be the terms for which we are asking. We could respond with a number, but we have been able to respond with a more sophisticated mathematical device, if you have followed me. I have to hear you talk a little bit, and we were running out of time. If you have not understood how this solution, let me know. It is easy, right? All though ye have not studied, such as "science" is said, are accustomed to the notion of limit, limit progressions, and this ascension numbers to real numbers. And imagine this progression in opposite directions, it follows that the limit is not a point. I have already said that in line with the actual, real numbers, root example 2, or any that are not natural, are points, but they are not the same as the cuts, and the limit of progressions, and also the limit of infinitesimal calculus, is a court, not an element. So the answer is this: the limit, it's just a cut. It would be an answer to the question of how much is from the last time it was moved to the first that does not move. Take note of this response, although we could understand only half right.
Take note of this response, and take note of another, which is what this man has said before, that of "nothing", which involved the actual end time, the time on which we are assembled. Well, they are two very opposite responses. Then I will tell which region each comes, because obviously the answer via applied mathematics to physics comes from a very different place than that from which comes the reply "no time" but now we will end with: I I will ask, if nothing more than temporary, a little vote. As you will hear this afternoon, or tomorrow, or any time, I am against democracy, which seems a bit to Humanism, but in a way even more "dismounted". So Laugh a little now I ask myself if some vote, because we are against democracy, but please raise your hand all who are satisfied with the mathematical answer to the problem as I have esplicado: instead the number you have been given a well-mounted device, according to the rules, and what more can you ask for?
A-Everyone else're decidedly ..................? I was a bit strange as you who are skeptical of these responses because such responses is what gives you daily Science, huh, do not you believe otherwise, and I will swallow?; so I do not know why not now confess that this response convinces you, because responses of that type actually accept them every day. Raise your hand if you now respond by saying "is that there is not time," knowing what creeps with it.
A-Well, it's my fault, no doubt; certainly mine, and haste, which has not gotten a little more and throw yourself suddenly in this poll. In this we are going to be: I've just gotten responses in one direction and in another, have been two or three or four in one direction and the other too little. This esperimento, if you have patience, repetidlo with other people, including friends, repeat the question, and nothing, I end despidiéndoos thus leave of you: the answer accepts the mathematical formula as giving reason of reality, it can be say that comes from above, comes from above; and instead the answer denies, saying "no worth Time" comes from below. Up and down and want to say God is up so endless, that is what is below the branch, which is up the people, that is what is below, and all that stuff, right? And of those sites are definitely opposite the one and the other. This reality, what we are in real terms, is a struggle, and anyone looking esplicaros reality otherwise than as a struggle, a contradiction is cheating you, whoever and whenever. It's a struggle, a contradiction between the imposition of ideas, ideals (among which are the numbers, everything, nothing, one, that's what comes from above), and uncertainty, sinfinidad, which is what is below provided that never ends, and reality comes amid, in the clash between the one and the other. Now, each of you, and I, on one hand we are real, we are what is called people, and this is what I was trying to do a psychoanalysis, ie, a solution of the soul, the more quickly and clearly possible, because it is not by voting among several, but within oneself as both answers are fought: within oneself something thinks so, that reality is ordered and that mathematics can account for it; there is something that thinks so, and believes that there is something not to believe that all this is a story, and therefore denies the time and lost in infinity. This solution is the soul. In case any of you had come here quite convinced that he was one, as God, that's what we believe, especially in Democracy, if anyone had been convinced that he was one as God, so unless carried esperimento this: one is required to respond in two ways to a basic question like that, and that without further dissolves one, it negates its claim unitary condition, to be the same and always the same.
It was very late, and therefore I suppose there's no time for more, so good, thanks for your company, and it is this you can be.