Science, belief and faith

the limits of chance still, as they say, fell. But pushing back the limits of chance, it will never delete it for a good reason we do not know if the chance exists or does not exist: it is what bothers us; we are human beings explaining the world, neither more nor less.

We can make it by saying that everything is random, everything is chaotic except for a man who desperately tries to introduce himself in this chaos. But what we must understand is that the universe is absolutely irreducible to what we think it is. This is not the world that requires us any logic, any determinism and makes us chase the chance. Similarly, the universe is absolutely irreducible even of what we perceive of him. It is not said at all, indeed, the world has even the appearance of what we give to him. Kant said: “If we were born with blue spectacles on our noses, the world would be blue.” In other words, the mere fact that, we are there, it is understandable that the world around us has the features that rightly or wrongly, we give to it: the constitution is never empirically that the projection of our meaning. In short, as one can not separate the world that designs, it can not be separated from who collects the flower on which there is the butterfly. It has absolutely nothing to see with that is harvested by men. That is the concept of “nature” it is a concept entirely fortuitous, linked to the existence to a particular being (human or butterfly,) by the fact that it contains. Now we understand that we can not ask the man a hand, “nature” of the other: there is a relationship of the bipolar world. Another genius philosopher -Berkeley- was right on this point, saying “esse is percipi…” (But never cites the following) and percipere that means:

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12