Einstein and Tagore

I’ve been exploring Brain Pickings lately, the best of what you can find on the internet. I’ve always wanted to spend some time with this conversation between Einstein and Tagore. In the excerpt, you see where many of our visitors get there woo-woo. Tagore says Brahma truth can’t be accessed by the mind, and that a table only exists as an image in our minds, it’s not ultimate truth. To me, he’s just making that up as something you can’t get to so he can tell how to try to attain it.

Einstein actually exceeds Tagore’s experience of a oneness with the universe, and he says so at the end. He says beauty may be subjective, and the art we leave behind will just be material, it won’t contain beauty, but truth exists without us. The Pythagorean theorem won’t cease to be true just because there are no longer symbols on paper representing it. He can’t prove this, so he admits it’s a belief. But I’m with Einstein, of all the things I’ve been asked to believe, I would most like to believe that there is Truth, and maybe even that some mind in the future could know that is has come very near to approximating what that truth is.

I like the idea that the truth is what has happened. History has had only one course and that course is independent of the ability of any mind to comprehend it.

I like that idea to, but it’s unobtainable. If truth is “what has happened” then we can never really know what truth is because all we have is the subjective records of what happened. They say, “History is written by the victors.” I found out the other day that my kids never learned about Japanese internment camps or the US dropping the only two nuclear weapons to ever be used in war from their history classes. They instead learned some form of American Exceptionalism BS.

While actual history is what it is, we can never see the actual history, only the flawed representations of it which we record. So we can never know real, unadulterated “truth”, just “truth” as seen through the eyes of the historians examining the records, giving us at least two points of adulteration, the records and the interpreters.

I like that idea to, but it’s unobtainable.
I think that is Einstein's point. Because he can't even prove that a capital T Truth exists, let alone know it, a belief in it existing is based on faith. He doesn't dismiss it or make up something about it, he gives some reason for believing it, then admits those reason are not that great, but still bases his worldview on the idea.

@ Lausten

Have you familiarized yourself with David Bohm’s physics and philosophies ?

I ran across this:

"Pribram believes that if psychology is to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm."

Just briefly. Thanks

Widdershins: “While actual history is what it is, we can never see the actual history”

I suggest it would be more accurate to say we may never see the actual history. Whatever memory we have or record we see may or may not be true to the “actual” history. We may never know whether what we think we know is correct or not. That’s where we begin talking ourselves in believing or accepting something. Epistemological nihilism?

On the other hand, I expect what we experience in the present is pretty much the truth, especially if we leave off interpreting it.