Abstract: For a Christian, freedom is TOTALLY compatible with the most rigorous science.

Let's suppose an unexpected event, something which proof to me that my mental life is still unable to predict everything... In the best of the cases what this event offers to my perception will let itself capture by a net woven of space and time.

It is not important to know if it is me or not me who weaved the stitches of that net. It doesn't matter if that net existed by itself before I used it or if that net is only an artifice of my brain when searching a "clear and distinct" language. The answer at such question doesn't change the problem that preoccupies me here.

Let's suppose therefore that my perception gives me to feel this unforeseen event a spatial location called 'X' during a length of time 'T'; the event is then “light up” in my mental life by the coordinates (X,T). In fact, that localized light can be the only indication offered to my intelligence to make circulate a mental representation of this event in the "conditioned productions" of the scientist (or of the Buddhist).

As a Christian, I think there are strong chances that this event doesn't let itself entirely capture and predict by that causality. It is not solely because of the lack of effort that I dedicated to the survey of that affair! For me, this 'something', although rigorously hinder in stitches of the spatio-temporal coordinates, therefore without pretending to be out of the geometry laws and, more globally, without pretending to be free of the scientific laws, can still move, still change, still have an autonomy, …in one word: still be alive, rather than to pursue a mathematical inertia! This surplus of existence that the Christian qualifies as "mysterious" requires evidently an extra-dimension that the science does not use.

For the pure and hard positivist, there is no mystery, but only, sometimes, enigmas. (An enigma is only a mathematical justification still missing because still waiting for our goodwill to be formulated!) Strong of his conviction, our positivist can even take the freedom to satirize about the "mysterious dimension" of the Christian; if such extra-dimension doesn't have any effect on the geometric coordinates, how could that affect us? If mystery doesn't have any effect on the geometric realities, why should we speak about? Of course, the Christian will be able to give an answer: as long as an experience will be susceptible to astonish a scientist by its result, the hypothesis of a mystery remained plausible like the hypothesis of enigma.

To say it in another way, I also admit by myself that the event is prisoner of the geometric coordinates. But I add that the net can be distorted in its entirety by the event! The fish who keeps the muzzle stuck in the stitch has also a free and powerful tail agitated behind. This tail tugs the sphere of space and time in a set of distances whose geometry is only a subset which is not affected here. The movements that modify this supra-geometric dimension have, at least in right, the possibility to interfere on the geometric life. The stitch of geometry that sticks the muzzle hinders the fish in the physical laws, it is true. But according to the caprices of the beast that agitate his flukes, the entire net undergoes distortions. This net will rake therefore in another way the abysses of the cosmos (to capture other preys into the rules of the science). These distortions of the net will make that such or such other event will finally escape to the stitches or won't escape to the stitches. Globally, the net, which hindered the muzzle of the event (its geometric part), is also manipulated by the tail of the same event! The net in the whole is agitated and twists in the distances of a dimension that will hide or reveal other muzzles of other fish that go to tug the net at their hours, etc.

All reality trapped by the geometry, by backlash on geometry, is (at least in right) susceptible to insert or to come out of other realities in the scientific sphere. We all know that by experience -and the scientists with their test-tubes before the others: the reality is always more than a mathematical formula that spreads out in the docile time of the geometers. More the scientist walk forwards, more the unknowns, the closed doors, the surprises, the questions arise. By its history, the science, while widening more and more its empire, disassembles every day the naive and dogmatic belief of the positivists. Front of this docile and fictional time of the scientists, a true duration exists which reveal the unforeseeable. The event that the scientists baptized (x,t) has for the eternity also a mysterious coordinate and becomes therefore (x,t,m). 'm' is the fin of the fish which regularly force the scientist to adapt the paradigms of his work. "m" is the stigma of the power of all things on the geometric spreading of the other inhabitants of the cosmos!

*

The outpouring of such obviousness is the opportunity to understand that the geometric coordinates of an event doesn't necessarily exhaust the question of its singularity. I won't be able to identify any event to a formula if I don't get the certitude that this event doesn't tug an unforeseeable manner the net in which his muzzle is stuck. It would be, in other words, deny that this event is more that what the scientist says. That affirmation is irremediably gratuitous. Even if the scientific formula includes a random value, it doesn't exhaust the suspicion of unsuitability. The event, although my intelligence inserted it rigorously inside the geometric causality, has still the possibility to surprise me by the emergence of one or many other events in the geometric sphere …even if those new events, in appearance, seems be not connected to the first.

Behind the mysterious power of any reality, there is the famous third antinomy of Kant. A freedom of the object is compatible with its absolute submissiveness to causality: antinomy is only the expression of a limit of the representation (of the language) but not the theoretical impossibility to accept the concept of freedom. As Kant suggested, we are allowed to imagine a "freedom" in the most uncompromising causality! But the condition of such freedom is the existence of a kind of "topic system" which is extra-geometric. The history of the experimental surprises is as the proof of the existence of such dimension!

The movement of an "invisible hand" in the filings was the way of Bergson to repeat the content of the third antinomy in his own manner. The "invisible hand" distorts the sphere of the filings, but every grain of filings will continue to undergo under the same legislation the constraints of the other grains of filings and the borders of its sphere. It is because the global shape (affected by the invisible hand) of this sphere changes that laws induce new effects: to every instant, the future of each metallic grain remain open. The laws that govern the rubbings, the resistances, the pressures of each grain of filings remain the same laws but the values of the variables inside the laws are changing. For each grain, in the filings bag, all movement is strictly controlled, but the invisible hand, by the least of its caprice, affects the contexts. And not to simplify this affair, in this business we are allowed to suppose that each grain of filings possesses his invisible hand.

When the "tail of fish", or the "thing in itself", or the "invisible hand", distort the bag of geometry it is a storm in the contexts. That storm in the context modifies the material inertia of the things. But all that is happening in the strictest legality!

The contextual movements that seem to obey only to the scientific laws obey also to requirements of another nature. This symbolic distinction (between the constraints of the laws and the constraints of the contexts) was missed by some thinkers and drove them to deny the freedom. Believe in the freedom, it is not to believe in the possibility to defeat the rigor of causality but it is to believe in the possibility to modify the global contexts in which causality manipulates its objects.

Only the present and the past are determined completely, but not the future for which new contexts will enumerate their diktats before it will actualize himself! The future will be determined when it will have passed, not before! it is the present, not the future, which will reconcile in himself the laws of the nature and contexts (that will also depend on our free decisions and the impenetrable caprices of the Providence). The freedom exists. The freedom and the Providence, which are concerning so much the Christians, don't touch to the laws of the nature; they affect the contexts in which the laws are acting. The laws of the nature, it is the core of creation which separated God and his creature. And the freedom is what the nature will create in strict observance of the laws, after God's possible intervention.

To understand all that, the programmer who can understand the relevance of a formula like "If X=0 then X=1” has a length of advance. The programmer assumes in his microsphere the difference between the time of the scientists and the duration of Bergson. The data processing reproduces in miniature the consistency of the cosmos: nothing is more uncompromising, more legalistic than a computer program, but if its creator or its user decided that when X "was" 0, then X "will be" 1, the program should assume the free decision of its creator or its user and the program should obey without modify the laws of its electronic flesh!

*

What touch me in this affair; it is the dependence to a symbolic distinction. It was first required that my mental life distinguishes the power of the context of the power of the law before I understand an important philosophical meaning of the scientific experimentation. The surprising experience is now an affirmation of the structural limit of any positivism because I am obliged to confine the determinism in the past. I am obliged to consider that the present could always transform the "pre-programmed" future by affecting the contexts. But the ability to make a symbolic distinction is a business of perception's maturity. It is after that it becomes an affair of categories or concepts...

The mysterious dimension of the things is imperceptible for an immature exactly like the third of the spatial measurements of the scientists (the one that gives the perception of the volume) is imperceptible for a baby. The positivist is with the cosmos and the “mystery” like the baby who try vainly to insert cylinders and cubes in the wood platform of his game where adequate holes have been sculpted. Holes are ready to welcome these cylinders and these cubes but... The baby succeeds sometimes, by chance, until the day that his maturity allows him to discern the third dimension! This maturity, it is a business of perception (neurology) before to be a business of understanding.

The maturity is the key of the knowledge and it would be an absurdity to consider that the determinism precedes it logically. The belief to the determinism is the symptom of a immaturity in perception. Such certitude is possible only for the one that doesn't distinguish the difference of nature between the law and the variable; our lazy mind always tries to avoid the assumption of the irreversibility of the time...

Sarapee - Brussels - Augustus 2011

 

Back to menu "Religion"

Back to the welcome page

 

 

 

)))))))))))))))))))BILINGUAL(((((((((((((((((((

 

 

Note concerning this "basic English" translation: This is a summery edition (with "mirror test") of a French electronic translation witch means that English is poor... The main target is to give a simple text permiting electronic translations from "basic English" to any other Western language by online translators. (Google, Microsoft, etc.) New translations suggestions are welcome.

THE FREEDOM, THE SCIENCE AND THE CHRISTIANITY

La liberté, la science et le Christianisme (Native TXT)

Supposons un évènement quelconque inattendu, un signe de ce que ma vie mentale ne m'avait pas encore tout prédit... Dans le meilleur des cas ce que cet évènement offre à ma perception se laissera capturer par un filet tissé d'espace et de temps.

It is not important to know if it is me or not me who weaved the stitches of that net. It doesn't matter if that net existed by itself before I used it or if that net is only an artifice of my brain when searching a "clear and distinct" language. The answer at such question doesn't change the problem that preoccupies me here.

Peut importe que ce soit moi ou non qui ait méticuleusement tissé les mailles de ce filet. Peut m'importe que ce filet existe en soi ou qu'il ne soit qu'un artifice de mon cerveau en recherche d'un langage «clair et distinct»… Cela ne change pas vraiment le problème qui me préoccupe ici.

Let's suppose therefore that my perception gives me to feel this unforeseen event a spatial location called 'X' during a length of time 'T'; the event is then “light up” in my mental life by the coordinates (X,T). In fact, that localized light can be the only indication offered to my intelligence to make circulate a mental representation of this event in the "conditioned productions" of the scientist (or of the Buddhist).

Supposons donc que ma perception me donne de ressentir cet évènement imprévu en un lieu ‘x' pendant une durée ‘t' ; l'évènement est alors comme «allumé» dans ma vie mentale par ces coordonnées-là et cette lumière très localisée sera d'ailleurs peut-être le seul indice mis à la disposition de mon intelligence pour faire circuler une représentation mentale de ce quelque chose dans les «productions conditionnées» du scientifique (ou du Bouddhiste).

As a Christian, I think there are strong chances that this event doesn't let itself entirely capture and predict by that causality. It is not solely because of the lack of effort that I dedicated to the survey of that affair! For me, this 'something', although rigorously hinder in stitches of the spatio-temporal coordinates, therefore without pretending to be out of the geometry laws and, more globally, without pretending to be free of the scientific laws, can still move, still change, still have an autonomy, …in one word: still be alive, rather than to pursue a mathematical inertia! This surplus of existence that the Christian qualifies as "mysterious" requires evidently an extra-dimension that the science does not use.

Pour l'indécrottable Chrétien que je suis, il y a de fortes chances que cet évènement ne se laisse pas entièrement capturer et prédire par cette causalité-là, et ce n'est pas uniquement à cause du manque d'effort que je consacre à l'étude de cette chose! Pour moi, ce ‘quelque chose', quoique rigoureusement entravé dans mes mailles de coordonnées spatio-temporelles, sans prétendre donc être libre des lois de la géométrie et, plus globalement, des lois de la science, peut encore se ‘déplacer', se ‘transformer', ‘muter', avoir une certaine autonomie, …bref: «vivre» plutôt que poursuivre une inertie mathématique! Ce surplus d'existence que le Chrétien qualifie de «mystérieux» exige évidemment une dimension supplémentaire à celles que la science utilise.

For the pure and hard positivist, there is no mystery, but only, sometimes, enigmas. (An enigma is only a mathematical justification still missing because still waiting for our goodwill to be formulated!) Strong of his conviction, our positivist can even take the freedom to satirize about the "mysterious dimension" of the Christian; if such extra-dimension doesn't have any effect on the geometric coordinates, how could that affect us? If mystery doesn't have any effect on the geometric realities, why should we speak about? Of course, the Christian will be able to give an answer: as long as an experience will be susceptible to astonish a scientist by its result, the hypothesis of a mystery remained plausible like the hypothesis of enigma.

Pour les déterministes purs et durs, il n'y a jamais de mystère, il n'y a que des énigmes. (Une énigme n'est qu'une justification mathématique manquante parce qu'elle attend encore notre zèle pour être formulée!) Fort de cette conviction, le déterministe se permet même d'ironiser à propos de cette dimension «mystérieuse» dont parle le Chrétien car si cette dimension n'a aucun impact sur les coordonnées géométriques, en quoi pourrait-elle nous affecter? Et en effet, si le mystère n'a aucun impact sur les réalités géométriques, pourquoi devrait-on en parler? À cela le Chrétien pourra répondre que tant qu'une expérience sera susceptible d'étonner un scientifique par son résultat, l'hypothèse du mystère reste en droit aussi plausible que celle de l'énigme!

To say it in another way, I also admit by myself that the event is prisoner of the geometric coordinates. But I add that the net can be distorted in its entirety by the event! The fish who keeps the muzzle stuck in the stitch has also a free and powerful tail agitated behind. This tail tugs the sphere of space and time in a set of distances whose geometry is only a subset which is not affected here. The movements that modify this supra-geometric dimension have, at least in right, the possibility to interfere on the geometric life. The stitch of geometry that sticks the muzzle hinders the fish in the physical laws, it is true. But according to the caprices of the beast that agitate his flukes, the entire net undergoes distortions. This net will rake therefore in another way the abysses of the cosmos (to capture other preys into the rules of the science). These distortions of the net will make that such or such other event will finally escape to the stitches or won't escape to the stitches. Globally, the net, which hindered the muzzle of the event (its geometric part), is also manipulated by the tail of the same event! The net in the whole is agitated and twists in the distances of a dimension that will hide or reveal other muzzles of other fish that go to tug the net at their hours, etc.

Pour le dire autrement, l'évènement, j'admets moi aussi qu'il est prisonnier du filet des coordonnées géométriques, mais j'ajoute que le filet en entier peut être déformé par lui! Le poisson qui garde le museau coincé dans une seule et même maille a aussi une queue libre et puissante qui s'agite derrière. Cette queue tiraille la sphère de l'espace et du temps dans un ensemble de distances dont la géométrie n'est qu'un sous-ensemble ici non concerné… Les mouvements qui se déploient dans cette dimension supra-géométrique ont, au moins en droit, la possibilité d'interférer sur la vie géométrique aussi. La maille de géométrie entrave le museau du poisson dans les lois physiques, c'est vrai. Mais selon les caprices de la bête qui agite ses nageoires, c'est l'ensemble du filet subit des déformations. Ce filet ratissera donc autrement dans les abysses du cosmos (dans le but d'y soumettre d'autres proies aux règles de la science). Ces déformations du filet feront que tel ou tel autre évènement échappera finalement à ses mailles ou au contraire n'y échappera pas. Le filet dans son ensemble, solidaire de la maille qui a capturé le museau de l'évènement (la part géométrique du poisson), est manipulé par la queue du même évènement! Le filet s'agite et se tord dans les distances d'une topique qui cache ou révèle alors d'autres museaux d'autres poissons qui à leurs heures vont tirailler le filet, etc.

All reality trapped by the geometry, by backlash on geometry, is (at least in right) susceptible to insert or to come out of other realities in the scientific sphere. We all know that by experience -and the scientists with their test-tubes before the others: the reality is always more than a mathematical formula that spreads out in the docile time of the geometers. More the scientist walk forwards, more the unknowns, the closed doors, the surprises, the questions arise. By its history, the science, while widening more and more its empire, disassembles every day the naive and dogmatic belief of the positivists. Front of this docile and fictional time of the scientists, a true duration exists which reveal the unforeseeable. The event that the scientists baptized (x,t) has for the eternity also a mysterious coordinate and becomes therefore (x,t,m). 'm' is the fin of the fish which regularly force the scientist to adapt the paradigms of his work. "m" is the stigma of the power of all things on the geometric spreading of the other inhabitants of the cosmos!

Toute réalité captive de la géométrie, par les contraintes qu'elle impose en retour à la géométrie, est (au moins en droit) susceptible d'insérer ou de sortir d'autres réalités de la sphère scientifique. Cela, nous le savons tous d'expérience –et les scientifiques devant leurs éprouvettes avant les autres : l'univers est toujours beaucoup plus qu'une formule mathématique qui se déploie dans le temps docile des géomètres. Plus la science avance plus des inconnues, des portes fermées, des surprises, des questions se posent… La science, tout en élargissant plus et plus son empire, par son histoire, démonte chaque jour un peu plus la croyance naïve et dogmatique des déterministes. Face à ce temps docile et fictif des scientifiques, une vraie durée existe qui débusque de l'imprévisible. L'événement que les scientifiques ont baptisé (x,t) a depuis toujours aussi une coordonnée mystérieuse et devient donc (x,t,m). ‘m' est la nageoire du poisson qui empoisonne le travail du scientifique qui ne cesse d'essayer de s'y adapter en ajustant ses paradigmes… «m» est le stigmate du pouvoir de toute chose sur le déploiement géométrique des autres habitants du cosmos!

 

***

 

The outpouring of such obviousness is the opportunity to understand that the geometric coordinates of an event doesn't necessarily exhaust the question of its singularity. I won't be able to identify any event to a formula if I don't get the certitude that this event doesn't tug an unforeseeable manner the net in which his muzzle is stuck. It would be, in other words, deny that this event is more that what the scientist says. That affirmation is irremediably gratuitous. Even if the scientific formula includes a random value, it doesn't exhaust the suspicion of unsuitability. The event, although my intelligence inserted it rigorously inside the geometric causality, has still the possibility to surprise me by the emergence of one or many other events in the geometric sphere …even if those new events, in appearance, seems be not connected to the first.

Le déballage de ces évidences est l'occasion de comprendre que la coordonnée géométrique d'un évènement n'épuise pas nécessairement la question de sa singularité. Je ne pourrai identifier un évènement à une formule déterministe que si j'obtiens la certitude que cet évènement ne tiraille pas d'une manière imprévisible le filet dans lequel son museau est coincé. Ce serait, en d'autres mots, nier que cet évènement est plus que la formule scientifique que j'en ai. Or cette affirmation-là est irrémédiablement gratuite. Que cette formule assume ou non une variable aléatoire n'épuise évidemment pas le soupçon d'inadéquation car l'évènement, quoique rigoureusement placé par mon intelligence dans la causalité géométrique, possède encore et toujours le droit de me surprendre par l'émergence dans la sphère géométrique d'autres évènements qui en apparence seulement n'y seraient pas liés.

Behind the mysterious power of any reality, there is the famous third antinomy of Kant. A freedom of the object is compatible with its absolute submissiveness to causality: antinomy is only the expression of a limit of the representation (of the language) but not the theoretical impossibility to accept the concept of freedom. As Kant suggested, we are allowed to imagine a "freedom" in the most uncompromising causality! But the condition of such freedom is the existence of a kind of "topic system" which is extra-geometric. The history of the experimental surprises is as the proof of the existence of such dimension!

Derrière le pouvoir du mystère de toute chose, c'est en fait la troisième antinomie de Kant qui se cache. Il n'y a évidemment pas d' inconciliable ilité entre une certaine liberté de l'objet et sa soumission absolue et intégrale à la causalité: l'antinomie est l'expression d'une limite de la représentation (du langage) plutôt que l'impossibilité théorique d'accepter la liberté. Comme Kant nous y invite, nous sommes autorisés à parler de «liberté» au sein même de la causalité la plus intransigeante! Mais la condition de cette liberté, c'est l'existence d'une topique extra-géométrique. L'histoire des surprises expérimentales est comme la preuve de l'existence de cette « dimension»!

The movement of an "invisible hand" in the filings was the way of Bergson to repeat the content of the third antinomy in his own manner. The "invisible hand" distorts the sphere of the filings, but every grain of filings will continue to undergo under the same legislation the constraints of the other grains of filings and the borders of its sphere. It is because the global shape (affected by the invisible hand) of this sphere changes that laws induce new effects: to every instant, the future of each metallic grain remain open. The laws that govern the rubbings, the resistances, the pressures of each grain of filings remain the same laws but the values of the variables inside the laws are changing. For each grain, in the filings bag, all movement is strictly controlled, but the invisible hand, by the least of its caprice, affects the contexts. And not to simplify this affair, in this business we are allowed to suppose that each grain of filings possesses his invisible hand.

Bergson qui croyait dépasser Kant sur ce terrain, avec la main invisible qui trifouille dans la limaille, répétait le contenu de l'antinomie d'une manière plus pédagogique. La main invisible déforme la sphère de la limaille mais chaque grain de limaille continuera à subir sous la même législation les contraintes des autres grains de limailles et des frontières de sa sphère… C'est parce que la forme globale (affectées par la main invisible) de cette sphère change que les résultats de l'application des lois changent : à chaque instant, le futur de chaque grain de limaille reste ouvert. Les lois qui régissent les frottements, les résistances, les pressions restent les mêmes lois mais les valeurs des variables au sein de ces lois changent. Au cœur même du sac de limaille, tout mouvement est strictement régulé, mais la main invisible, par le moindre de ses caprice, affecte les contextes… Et pour ne rien simplifier dans cette affaire on est en droit de supposer que chaque grain de limaille possède une main invisible…

When the "tail of fish", or the "thing in itself", or the "invisible hand", distort the bag of geometry it is a storm in the contexts. That storm in the context modifies the material inertia of the things. But all that is happening in the strictest legality!

Que la «queue du poisson», que la «chose en soi» ou que la «main invisible» déforme le sac de géométrie et c'est la tempête dans les contextes qui mobilise dans la plus stricte légalité la matérialité des choses!

The contextual movements that seem to obey only to the scientific laws obey also to requirements of another nature. This symbolic distinction (between the constraints of the laws and the constraints of the contexts) was missed by some thinkers and drove them to deny the freedom. Believe in the freedom, it is not to believe in the possibility to defeat the rigor of causality but it is to believe in the possibility to modify the global contexts in which causality manipulates its objects.

Les grands mouvements contextuels qui semblent n'obéir qu'aux lois scientifiques sont aussi sous l'emprise d'exigences d'une autre nature. C'est cette distinction symbolique-là, celle qui distingue les contraintes des lois et les contraintes des contextes qui a manqué aux penseurs qui nient la liberté. Croire en la liberté, ce n'est pas croire en la possibilité de vaincre la rigueur de la causalité mais croire en la possibilité de modifier les contextes globaux dans lesquels la causalité manipule ses objets…

Only the present and the past are determined completely, but not the future for which new contexts will enumerate their diktats before it will actualize himself! The future will be determined when it will have passed, not before! it is the present, not the future, which will reconcile in himself the laws of the nature and contexts (that will also depend on our free decisions and the impenetrable caprices of the Providence). The freedom exists. The freedom and the Providence, which are concerning so much the Christians, don't touch to the laws of the nature; they affect the contexts in which the laws are acting. The laws of the nature, it is the core of creation which separated God and his creature. And the freedom is what the nature will create in strict observance of the laws, after God's possible intervention.

Seul le présent et le passé sont totalement déterminés, mais pas l'avenir pour lequel des contextes neufs énuméreront leurs diktats avant qu'il ne s'actualise! Le futur sera déterminé lorsqu'il sera passé, pas avant! L'avenir, c'est un arrangement que fera le réel en réconciliant dans son alambic les lois de la nature et des contextes qui dépendront aussi de nos décisions libres et des caprices insondables de la Providence. La liberté existe. La liberté et la Providence dont les Chrétiens font grand cas ne touchent pas aux lois de la nature, elles affectent les contextes dans lesquels ces lois agissent. Les lois de la nature, c'est ce qui a détaché Dieu de ce qui n'est plus Lui. Et la liberté, c'est ce que la nature créera à partir des lois et après l'intervention éventuelle de Dieu.

To understand all that, the programmer who can understand the relevance of a formula like "If X=0 then X=1” has a length of advance. The programmer assumes in his microsphere the difference between the time of the scientists and the duration of Bergson. The data processing reproduces in miniature the consistency of the cosmos: nothing is more uncompromising, more legalistic than a computer program, but if its creator or its user decided that when X "was" 0, then X "will be" 1, the program should assume the free decision of its creator or its user and the program should obey without modify the laws of its electronic flesh!

Pour comprendre tout cela, l'informaticien qui peut comprendre la pertinence d'une formule comme «Si X=0 alors X=1» a une longueur d'avance. L'informaticien assume dans sa microsphère la différence entre le temps des scientifiques et la durée de Bergson. L'informatique reproduit en miniature la cohérence du cosmos: rien n'est plus intransigeant, plus légaliste qu'un programme informatique, mais si son créateur ou son utilisateur a décidé que lorsque X «était» 0 alors X «sera» 1, le programme devra assumer que son créateur ou son utilisateur «est» libre de ses choix et il devra y obéir sans pour autant tergiverser avec les lois de sa chair électronique!

***

 

What touch me in this affair; it is the dependence to a symbolic distinction. It was first required that my mental life distinguishes the power of the context of the power of the law before I understand an important philosophical meaning of the scientific experimentation. The surprising experience is now an affirmation of the structural limit of any positivism because I am obliged to confine the determinism in the past. I am obliged to consider that the present could always transform the "pre-programmed" future by affecting the contexts. But the ability to make a symbolic distinction is a business of perception's maturity. It is after that it becomes an affair of categories or concepts...

Ce qui me frappe plus particulièrement dans cette affaire, c'est sa dépendance à une distinction symbolique: il fallait que ma vie mentale distingue le pouvoir du contexte du pouvoir de la loi pour que je puisse comprendre ensuite une dimension philosophique importante de l'expérimentation scientifique. L'expérience surprenante m'apparaît maintenant comme une affirmation des limites de tout positivisme puisque je suis maintenant structurellement obligé de confiner le déterminisme dans le passé. Je suis obligé de considérer que le présent a la possibilité de transformer le futur "pré-programmé" en affectant les contextes, sans même toucher aux lois. Or, à bien y regarder, pouvoir faire une distinction symbolique, c'est une affaire de maturité perceptive avant d'être une affaire d'entendement, de catégories, de concepts…

The mysterious dimension of the things is imperceptible for an immature exactly like the third of the spatial measurements of the scientists (the one that gives the perception of the volume) is imperceptible for a baby. The positivist is with the cosmos and the “mystery” like the baby who try vainly to insert cylinders and cubes in the wood platform of his game where adequate holes have been sculpted. Holes are ready to welcome these cylinders and these cubes but... The baby succeeds sometimes, by chance, until the day that his maturity allows him to discern the third dimension! This maturity, it is a business of perception (neurology) before to be a business of understanding.

Un immature ne perçoit pas encore la dimension mystérieuse des choses tout comme un bébé ne perçoit pas la troisième des dimensions spatiales des scientifiques (celle qui donne la perception du volume)… Le déterministe avec le cosmos et l'altérité qui y habite est comme ce bébé qui essaye vainement d'insérer des cylindres et des cubes dans un socle pourtant bien sculpté pour accueillir ces cylindres et ces cubes. Le bébé y arrive parfois, par hasard, jusqu'au jour ou sa maturité lui permet de percevoir la troisième dimension... Cette maturité, c'est une affaire de perception (donc de neurologie) avant que d'être une affaire d'entendement.

The maturity is the key of the knowledge and it would be an absurdity to consider that the determinism precedes it logically. The belief to the determinism is the symptom of a immaturity in perception. Such certitude is possible only for the one that doesn't distinguish the difference of nature between the law and the variable; our lazy mind always tries to avoid the assumption of the irreversibility of the time...

La maturité est la clé du savoir et ce serait une absurdité que de considérer que le déterminisme la précède logiquement. La croyance au déterminisme est le symptôme d'une immaturité perceptive: elle n'est possible que pour celui qui n'arrive pas encore à distinguer la différence de nature entre la loi et la variable; notre intelligence peine toujours à se rendre capable d'assumer pleinement l'irréversibilité du temps...

 

Sarapie - Brussels - Augustus 2011

Sarapie - Bxl – Août 2011