The moment I start looking at these entries as "work", as something that must be done, most of the motivation drains away as if a certain sink hole were unplugged; perhaps its why I need these few words in the beginning that put my thoughts out in the open, taking me to a place where everything is just is.
I'm bound to read some more about paradoxes, and the next essay combines this with another area of my interest - observation. The author is William Egginton, who is a writer and a professor, and the article was published in the NY Times online opinion pages on April 28th of this year.
The writer begins with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which was a major scientific breakthrough, and says that it was in fact intuited by the poet and fiction writer Luis Borges. Borges was obsessed with paradoxes, and believed answers lied in Kant antinomies, who was again inspired by Zeno.
The rest of the essay talks about the idea of "pure observation", which does not exist, through one of Borges story from his collection "Fictions". According to the author, the story shows that at its most basic level, any observation requires a synthesis of impressions over time. To perceive something, one must be able to distinguish it from past and future impressions. This, says the writer, underlies the paradoxes of motion, antinomies and uncertainty principle.
He concludes by saying that the uncertainty principle and other aspects of quantum theory may point towards a reason that says the world as we know it is false, but it is always the world as we observe it.
The writing style is organised and logical - each paragraph links to the previous one, before coming to a final conclusion. The sentences are neither long nor short, and to the point, which makes it easy to read and understand. The way he links paradoxes, science and perception is fascinating, and is something that I'd like to explore further.
I'm bound to read some more about paradoxes, and the next essay combines this with another area of my interest - observation. The author is William Egginton, who is a writer and a professor, and the article was published in the NY Times online opinion pages on April 28th of this year.
The writer begins with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which was a major scientific breakthrough, and says that it was in fact intuited by the poet and fiction writer Luis Borges. Borges was obsessed with paradoxes, and believed answers lied in Kant antinomies, who was again inspired by Zeno.
The rest of the essay talks about the idea of "pure observation", which does not exist, through one of Borges story from his collection "Fictions". According to the author, the story shows that at its most basic level, any observation requires a synthesis of impressions over time. To perceive something, one must be able to distinguish it from past and future impressions. This, says the writer, underlies the paradoxes of motion, antinomies and uncertainty principle.
He concludes by saying that the uncertainty principle and other aspects of quantum theory may point towards a reason that says the world as we know it is false, but it is always the world as we observe it.
The writing style is organised and logical - each paragraph links to the previous one, before coming to a final conclusion. The sentences are neither long nor short, and to the point, which makes it easy to read and understand. The way he links paradoxes, science and perception is fascinating, and is something that I'd like to explore further.
No comments:
Post a Comment