Quand les Soviétiques en 1988 ont envoyé leur navette spatiale, Buran, en orbite, certains media américains ont suggéré que les Soviétiques avaient copié les navettes de la N.A.S.A tellement la ressemblance était frappante entre les deux véhicules spatiaux.
Ce à quoi un représentant de l'industrie astronautique soviétique répondit avec humour : "Peut-être avons-nous de bonnes photocopieuses ou peut-être les lois de l'astrophysique sont-elles les mêmes pour tous."
De fait, ce ne sont pas seulement les lois de l'astrophysique qui s'imposent à tout le monde mais les lois physiques qui ordonnent l'univers et ces lois physiques ne nous sont accessibles que par le biais des mathématiques.
L'histoire des mathématiques en Égypte, en Chine, en Inde, chez les Arabes comme chez les Grecs et les civilisations précolombiennes, montre l'universalité de cette extraordinaire émanation de nos capacités cognitives.
Tôt ou tard devait apparaître et se développer la science mathématique car, tous, nous sommes soumis aux mêmes conditions face au cosmos, avec le même organe, notre cerveau tel qu'il est conçu pour le percevoir et en rendre compte.
Que l'on parte des neuf chapitres sur l'art mathématique des Chinois, de la numération décimale de position des Indiens, de l'algèbre propre aux Arabes et de toutes les autres découvertes engendrées par les hommes au cours des siècles, l'antériorité des uns par rapport aux autres ne change rien au fait qu'in fine les résultats devaient nécessairement survenir avec les mêmes attributs : ils sont universels.
L'universalité des mathématiques n'est autre que l'unicité de l'homme, fugace miroir de l'univers que lui seul peut appréhender par son universelle raison, capable de construire Enterprise ou bien Buran.
L'universalité des mathématiques n'est autre que l'unicité de l'homme, fugace miroir de l'univers que lui seul peut appréhender par son universelle raison, capable de construire Enterprise ou bien Buran.
Les lois de l'univers sont les mêmes pour tous, no matter what.
24 commentaires:
This post keeps appearing, disappearing and then reappearing. :-D
Something tells me that SemperFi might be curious about this upcoming billet.
Je pensais l'écrire hier et puis l'idée des Mille et une nuits est venue toute seule...
"Something tells me that SemperFi might be curious about this upcoming billet."
Because of the Buran shuttle? I hope he will be interested yes...
And now that you've written a comment I must write this post! ☺
car tous nous sommes soumis
Interesting grammatical construction. I would have written "car nous sommes tous soumis".
I don't suppose that there's any difference?
"I don't suppose that there's any difference?"
There's absolutely no difference save that a slight emphasis is put on tous.
Un peu comme I did say to her instead of I said to her
Flocon, une question d'usage. "car tous nous sommes soumis"
Ne serait-il "car nous tous sommes soumis" ou "car nous sommes tous soumis".
This is one of the problems I have with French.
Ned,
Tes deux propositions sont valables encore que la première soit inutilement "lourde".
"car nous tous sommes soumis" aux mêmes conditions etc. Hmmm... non c'est inutilement lourd et je me demande même si cette forme ne devrait pas s'écrire : "car nous tous nous sommes soumis etc. (avec répétition du nous).
Ce serait correct mais vraiment pas élégant je crois.
En langage courant et oral la phrase serait en effet : Car nous sommes tous soumis. comme l'a déjà remarqué Anijo.
A l'écrit, je me permets l'inversion de "tous" avec "nous" car cela permet une légère insistance sur le "tous".
Ce n'est qu'une question de style, une petite nuance. J'aurais pu écrire comme toi et Anijo l'avaient suggéré : car nous sommes tous soumis ce qui est la forme habituelle.
A la limite on peut dire que je me suis permis une petite coquetterie...
Peut-être aurais-je dû mettre deux virgules (ce que je vais faire) pour isoler le tous et rendre la phrase moins surprenante pour les non native French speakers.
The day before yesterday, President Obama praised the Egyptian people for seeking and gaining their "universal rights." Yesterday, Bill Maher, confronted with panelists who remarked about President Obama's repeated and express statements of Christian belief, insisted that he did not believe Obama was telling the truth. Maher claimed that Obama was a "secular humanist."
Is Obama, as a Christian believer who also believes in universal rights, a fool? Or is he a cynical hypocrite who lies abut these matters to gain political advantage?
SemperFidelis
SemperFidelis,
I don't know who you are asking the question to. As pertains American domestic politics, I have no say in the matter all the more since I ignore the global context and the specifics of Obama and his faith, or Maher's position.
Pour ce qui est de l'universalité mon billet voulait souligner l'universalité de la raison qui aboutit aux mêmes résultats through space and time because of its inherent attributes, not the universality of morality.
Flocon: Well, I do concede the post is off topic. But I had hoped for waiver, since the word "universal" was used.
I find it remarkable that G W Bush was mocked on the left in the US and everywhere in Europe for calling attention to his Christianity and arguing that the West should vigorously promote universal values of democracy and freedom from political oppression in the Arab world. Barak Obama does the same thing, and no comment is made. Or, even more interestingly, it is assumed both that he is lying, and that the lying is acceptable.
But it is not the first time that no one has been interested in this observation.
So I will have to think about the implication of universal patterns in the universe. Especially the most exact order implied by mathematics. Hmm.
SemperFidelis
Is Obama, as a Christian believer who also believes in universal rights, a fool? Or is he a cynical hypocrite who lies abut these matters to gain political advantage?
The only person who can answer this question is Obama himself.
Considering that one has to believe in God to be elected to higher office such as a senator or president of the U.S., and considering how much politicians stretch the truth and lie, I wouldn't be at all astonished to find out that Obama was being a hypocrite for political advantage. Likewise, I would not be in the least surprised that many other Democrats and many Rebuplicans pretend to believe in God for political advantage.
Now, imagine some American politician pretending not to believe in God for political advantage... You can't imagine that, now can you SemperFi?
As you can cleary see, not just believing in God, but actually being a Christian is a necessary quality for being accepted to higher office in the U.S. I don't think that this is fair. Do you SemperFi?
Or, even more interestingly, it is assumed both that he is lying, and that the lying is acceptable.
Well, "it" is assumed needs clarification. Bill Maher assumes you mean. Bill Maher is an atheist. He understands that an atheist could never admit such a thing and be elected president of the U.S., so he gives a pass to Obama. Clearly, Bill Maher represents a minority of Americains.
SemperFidelis,
For what I understand of the topic you raised, it may have to do with this article in today's N.Y.T.
I suppose you're endorsing Tobin Harshaw's point of view. Not all commentators do though.
Once again, I'm out of the picture here.
Anijo:
//Now, imagine some American politician pretending not to believe in God for political advantage... You can't imagine that, now can you SemperFi?//
Actually, I believe something of the sort is the case with Mr. Obama today. He was a regular churchgoer and active member of his congregation for many years in Chicago. Even though he has never run against Mr. Bush, the essence of his political strategy from the moment he burst onto the national political scene three years ago was that he is "not Bush." Bush was famous, or infamous, depending on your viewpoint, for his religious fervor. Obama cannot, therefore, be seen as "too religious." I think the real Obama is the man who went to church every Sunday for years with his wife and daughters. The political Obama is the man who must keep a more secular group of voters happy by avoiding public worship.
Flocon: Thanks for the link to the NYT. I had not read the article. I have just been thinking about the same issue recently. As we rednecks South of the Mason-Dixon line observe: "Even a blind hog will find an acorn sometime."
Guantanamo Bay and trials by military commissions are another example of this bi-polar treatment. Bush does it. Bad. Obama does it in the same place, in the same way, to the same people. Not worthy of comment.
Bemused,
SemperFidelis
The political Obama is the man who must keep a more secular group of voters happy by avoiding public worship
Right, like this
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: (Feb 3, 2011) "My Christian faith has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years. ... We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we are being true to our conscience and true to our God.
Bush does it. Bad. Obama does it in the same place, in the same way, to the same people. Not worthy of comment.
SemperFi,
One could use many examples where "Mr Obama" (the Muslim who has never shown his birth certificate) does it. Bad. President Bush does it in the same place, in the same way, to the same people. Good.
bemused
Anijo
Semper Fi, "Is Obama, as a Christian believer who also believes in universal rights, a fool? Or is he a cynical hypocrite who lies abut these matters to gain political advantage?"
This is a false dichotomy, a common error in logic. Obama could be called a secularist. Even religious people can be so if they think that religion should be kept to the personal sphere.
A man a mentioned before, Pat Condell, has coined a new word "secularphobia". That is widespread in the U.S. and Muslim countries and among Muslims in Europe.
SemperFidelis,
"Bush does it. Bad. Obama does it in the same place, in the same way, to the same people. Not worthy of comment."
I don't think it's so clear cut as you seem to believe.
There has been a slight disenchantment in Europe with Obama, precisely a propos Guantanamo and more specifically Afghanistan.
Here is a post I wrote when Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize.
Granted it's personal but the same kind of criticism can be read on a regular basis in the French, the English and the German press.
Anijo:
//One could use many examples where "Mr Obama" (the Muslim who has never shown his birth certificate) does it. Bad. President Bush does it in the same place, in the same way, to the same people. Good.//
I can't think of a noteworthy example of something Bush did to praise that Obama is now doing to censure.
Ned:
//This is a false dichotomy, a common error in logic. //
True, as set out in the post. On another site I once went through a proof starting with the premise: All religious believers are fools.
The exercise wasn't any more popular there and then than it is here and now.
SemperFidelis
SemperFi,
I can't think of a noteworthy example of something Bush did to praise that Obama is now doing to censure.
You mean you don't watch FOX news?
Let's take CNN for example since MSNBC is clearly more pro Democrat and FOX is clearly more pro Rebublican. CNN at least attempts to be balanced.
CNN gave positive coverage of George Bush's handling of the shoe bomber, Richard Ried. However, Obama was harshly criticized for reading Miranda rights to Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab. On the right, as reported in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer had this to say:
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension
You can see that even Mr Krauthammer agreed that the coverage of Obama's response was negative and thus "the country" was uneasy.
He also had this to say, again in the Washington Post:
After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
Where was Krauthammer's outrage over Bush's response to the shoe bomber?
It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid — the “shoe bomber” — was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.
No doubt, the way that we view the media is colored by our own political views.
Anyway, I don't know why I got involved in this political debate. I am so sick and tired of partisan bickering back and forth.
Best wishes,
Anijo
Anijo,
"I am so sick and tired of partisan bickering back and forth."
Take confort at thinking your garden has never been like it is today; if the sun is out it has never looked the way it does today; when you see the moon it will be the first and last time it will appear the way it will; look around and what you'll see will never has been seen by anybody else but you 'cos you're unique and so are the perceptions you get from your senses.
You're the world and the world is you as well as yours.
Dear Anijo, won't you come out to play
Dear Anijo, greet the brand new day
The sun is up, the sky is blue
It's beautiful and so are you
Dear Anijo won't you come out to play
Dear Anijo open up your eyes
Dear Prudence see the sunny skies
The wind is low the birds will sing
That you are part of everything
Dear Anijo won't you open up your eyes?
Look around round round
Look around round round
Oh look around
Dear Anijo let me see you smile
Dear Anijo like a little child
The clouds will be a daisy chain
So let me see you smile again
Dear Anijo won't you let me see you smile?
Dear Anijo, won't you come out to play
Dear Anijo, greet the brand new day
The sun is up, the sky is blue
It's beautiful and so are you
Dear Anijo won't you come out to play
SemperFidelis,
"On another site I once went through a proof starting with the premise: All religious believers are fools."
Not too diplomatic for a premise but it is fodder for a post I have in the offing.
(With John Travolta as guest star)
Other than that, there's no problem if you want to raise political issues if you feel like.
Dear Anijo won't you let me see you smile?
☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ♪ ♫
Anijo:
//Anyway, I don't know why I got involved in this political debate. I am so sick and tired of partisan bickering back and forth.//
I still have an appetite for it, but no taste for annoying you to no purpose. Consider the discussion finished.
Actually, as you have probably guessed from other posts, I admire Obama, although I think he is mistaken about some of his policy choices.
Sincerely,
SemperFidelis
I still have an appetite for it, but no taste for
I admire the way that you express yourself. Your prose has a touch of poetry to it.
I admire Obama, although
I will take the opportunity from this brief moment of bipartisanship to mention two things I saw this morning as I was watching television.
First I was watching a documentary about Ronald Reagan and discovered quite a few things about him that I admired. One thing about him that was impressive was the letter he wrote about Alzheimer's
He demonstrated a lot of character. I contrast this to how my own father dealt with this disease. He refused to admit that he had any memory problems. Reagan dealt with the issue directly, honestly and thought mostly about how this would affect his family.
Then, I was watching Morning Joe and Eugene Robinson mentioned this
Bush has spent more money on aid to Africa than his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and is popular for his personal programs to fight AIDS and malaria and to help hospitals and schools.
Enregistrer un commentaire