Samer Darwich

Hey spondontahsan2003. You might approach it from a pragmatist’s perspective: Can I still learn from it even if it seems a little irrational or unrealistic?
Indeed, even if one were to be aware of such a thing, it would still present the possibility of encountering and learning from some significant inner experiences on the psychological and cognitive levels.

Fantastic article, Zahra!
How stereotypes are utilized to muddy the line between the protagonist and antagonist is an intriguing topic.
From the audience’s point of view, the conflict that runs through the entire film is between psychological conformity with stereotypes and adaptation to the manifestations of behavior, or, to put it another way, between expected history and unexpected present.
A conflict between inner impulses and insight is another way to interpret it.
A valuable lesson in perception and judgment might be learned from this film by everyone.

Hi Erin.
The existence of one particle in two places at once had never been demonstrated through experimentation, or even by scientific evidence in the mathematical sense. Such a statement is just an interpretation of a few of the mathematically abstract patterns. Yes, that will seem silly to us when we interpret it that way using our everyday language. One approach I’d like to advise is to try to think of it in terms of potential, unrealized properties rather than actual, established ones. It would be similar to optical illusions. if you take a close look. Another picture could appear. And once you see it, the picture seems irrevocably altered.

Rowan, hello. You might be interested in the article that follows. Consider this:

A Cinematic Journey Through Time

Hello, Marty. At its essence, writing is about communicating ideas to others rather than simply placing words on documents or spreadsheets. By imparting his ideas through teaching and turning them into deeds, Socrates was expressing himself. He didn’t write his ideas on papers; rather, he somehow imprinted them in the minds of his students, passing them down through many generations.

Haidar, greets. This is simply astounding! It’s one of the most intriguing concepts worth paying attention to. That’s great to hear from you, actually.

[A physicist flirts with philosophy (and lives to tell the tale)] by James Lloyd, was the title of an interesting blog post he published for Scientific American on September 23, 2011. The following are some quotes from what he wrote:

“Five years ago, I wouldn’t touch philosophy with a barge pole. I was nearing the end of my physics degree, and this had provided me with an adequate enough explanation of the workings of the cosmos.

(…)

Philosophy, in my view, was obsolete – important to the Ancient Greeks, but of about as much use today as an inflatable dartboard. Who could need frustratingly unprovable ruminations on the nature of life when physics provides handy, bitesize equations with which to describe the universe?

(…)

But philosophy has since come back to bite me on the backside.

(…)

… advances in physics have tended to pour petrol, rather than water, on the philosophical bonfire.

(…)

Given that science and philosophy are so intertwined, I sometimes wonder why I was skeptical about philosophy. Maybe I bought into the cliché of philosophers as aloof types who pontificate about the nature of a chair. Maybe I was just put off by all the long words. But whilst there are some brain-meltingly abstract ideas in philosophy (epiphenomenalism, anyone?), there are, thankfully, people who make the subject more accessible, explaining how philosophy’s influence can be found lurking in the most unexpected places.

So, I’m now converted – science and philosophy make surprisingly cosy bedfellows. After all, science can explain the ‘hows’, but it’s not so good at the ‘whys’…”

Finally, please feel free to share the URL with us so that we may view your work.

Many thanks.

Haidar, greetings. What’s fascinating about this is how a simple description of a concept might alter all we thought we knew about the world. Revising the terminology we usually use intuitively without critical thought is a really interesting exercise!

It might prove beneficial to consider the [behavioral outcome.] It could be the result of an impulsive or deliberate component of human faculties. The latter, which is linked to logic, depicts making a choice. So there may be no conflict between [free will] and [determinism]; but rather a misperception of what [will] and [determinism] represent. I’d like to recommend Paul Bloom’s Atlantic piece [The War Against Reason] again and again.