The Question Is That Whether That Insect Was In The Middle Of The Flower Flag And Got Me To Capture It,

If one asks about the characteristics of the observer of these images in order to be able to compare them with the images that can be taken with the same observers and arrive at a unique interpretation of the components of these images, he is an scientist/expert.

If someone, by looking at these pictures, provides answers or views that make me start thinking and asking questions about those answers and views, he is a philosopher.

If anyone both asks questions about the characteristics of the observer and offers answers and views that I am just beginning to think about and ask questions about, she is Newton or Einstein.

If anyone is insists on seeking the creator of those stuff inside the pictures, he is a religious person.

Meanwhile, If I take a stand against the questions are asked or the answers are given, I am a fanatic.

Nevertheless, I did not take this photos, it was taken by those who were next to me. I was fascinated by watching this scene and that moment is called life.

✨Life is more beautiful than all those discussed above.✨

Mistakes and uncertainties are not due to our lack of sufficient knowledge and experience. In many cases, despite having enough knowledge and experience, we still make mistakes or there are uncertainties in us. It may be argued that this was due to inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness. But accuracy is formed by a thorough review of all the related sciences and past experiences, experiences that are formed by mistakes and the transformation of uncertainties into uncertainties in the past. In fact, accuracy itself is expanding due to new mistakes and experiences and is not a fixed thing. The cause of mistakes, errors, and uncertainties are due to the lack of saturation of curiosity in us; in other words, the cause of errors, even in works in which we have sufficient expertise and experience, not due to inaccuracy and numerous studies, but due to lack of saturation of curiosity in us. Let's start with an example. Can you imagine infinite sweetness, infinite sour, infinite whiteness, or infinite curiosity? This is probably impossible for us as modern evolved humans. One reason for this is saturation in physics and chemistry. Our minds are naturally accustomed to saturation, and this limit does not allow us to have imagination outside the box. If we can experience the sweetness of over-saturated substances (infinite sweetness), our bodies would most likely react unexpectedly. I even think that if someone really claims strong imagination, when she wants to imagine infinite sweetness, she should get diseases like diabetes!! Certainly, our body today must react unexpectedly to such an imagination, otherwise we would not have imagined it. The only thing we can do right now is to visualize the effect of such imaginations on other things (like imagining getting sick after such an imagination), but we are not yet able to imagine those imaginations in an absolute manner, which is a sign of our imperfect evolution as human beings. We have not developed enough for such out of this world imaginations yet. This is the reason that it is difficult and astonishing for us to understand the existence of phenomena like Black holes. Our body has not perceived a gravity other than the gravity of the Earth; however, if man were able to perceive and evolve both in Earth and in another Earth that has a gravity 40000 times that of our Earth, it would be likely that saturation about gravity would be removed from his mind over time and he could think outside the box to imagine the gravity of phenomena such as Black holes today. At present, we can only imagine those things from Black holes that has nothing to do with our body's evolved nervous system. This is why it sometimes takes years of hard work to discover the mysteries of the universe that sometimes our imperfect evolution does not let our imagination to go beyond it either. But this is not the case for space and time. When I ask you to visualize infinite space, we will not face such a problem. There can be two reasons for this. First, we did not experience saturation for space during our evolution, and also thanks to great minds that were able to visualize infinite sweetness and whiteness, they introduced us to phenomena like Black hole that prevents us from forming a saturation limit in space. The second reason is that many ideas are not capable of infinity, like sweetness and curiosity, as a unique subject but this is not the case for space. Because we are talking about space infinite not infinity of space. The former can be made by our mind through repetition of ideas but the latter is an absolute matter. The space infinite is only one subject and is not repeatable by our mind. Because there will not be another space to project (space infinite +space infinite) into that space, even union (+) is not defined there. Attributes such as curiosity, sweetness and whiteness do not have such infinity feature described above for space; thus, they cannot be part of space and time, and they only made by our minds through repetition and union. The curiosity we have today is not the same as the curiosity we had a decade ago, although we call it the same curiosity. However, this is not the case for space and time, even if they are expanding and not fixed. Space and time are real because they have infinite property (infinite here is not a real infinity) that are not made by our mind. They contain an infinity that our mind has not made through repetition and union of ideas, and if our mind wants to create infinity of space infinite by repetition or union, it will not be able to do so, which shows that space and time are real. In other words, attributes such as curiosity, sweetness, and whiteness contain infinity properties that are made by our mind and they need us to have infinite properties, so they are not as independent as space and time to be real. Overall, space and time automatically have infinite properties, but attributes such as curiosity to have infinity need our imagination because they are not real like space and time. Although the physiology of our body, along with physics and chemistry, provides saturation limits for attributes such as sweetness and whiteness, fortunately we have not yet formed such saturation limit for some attributes like curiosity in our minds, and so we can imagine the infinite property for this property in our minds as we discussed before. As long as we enthusiastic about thinking outside the box, we do not have a saturation limit for curiosity, mistakes will not have a saturation limit too and uncertainty will go along with it. There is no uncertainty for absolute space and time, but there will always be uncertainty and error for all the artifacts of our minds, like curiosity, that can go to infinity. Only in a fixed or shrinking world one can claim that no mistake ever happens and there is absolute certainty, because our minds could form saturation limits for space in a such fixed world. But in a world that is expanding, the occurrence of error and uncertainty is undeniable and will continue to exist with any amount of knowledge and experience. As long as curiosity is not saturated, mistakes will inevitably occur. If we have never done any mistake and have been certain about anything, we definitely live in a world with limits, and the absence of error or lack of uncertainty is a proof of the existence of limits and saturation for the world in which we live. In fact, wherever there is mistake or uncertainty about an issue, it means that issue is followed by an attribute like curiosity that can be expanded to infinite through imagination. It can be said that we make mistakes, therefore we exist, but a God who never makes mistakes can definitely not exist. And if there is a God who makes mistakes, then he is a part of us and cannot be God. In general, trying not to make mistakes and achieving absolute certainty would be futile for a creature who can define attributes such as curiosity in space and time and expand it by its imagination power. It is better for us to talk more about our mistakes and our fears of uncertainties along with our successes in order to reach higher. Even if this writing is free from error and all these arguments are absolutely correct and valid, one should doubt that this argument is correct and valid. Image source:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/visions-of-the-future

We All Are Idiots!

"I see a canoid patch of colour"

Such images evoke the "primary language" in me which belongs to a lower level of language hierarchy.

like Images, the existence of a hierarchy in language is essential because we have to live in a society made up of people with different backgrounds and desires, idiots are also included!

High-level language is necessary to deal with the idiots of society, and also we have to construct " the language" instead of "a language". never, the higher the level of language in "the language" hierarchy, the farther we are from having a unique interpretation about the facts.

The primary language confined to matters belonging to the biography of the interpreter without engaging any element of inference in order to become "all" observers rather than "some" observers. So primary language a lower level of language hierarchy is more appropriate to describe such images, though we may seem idiot this time!

"I see a canoid patch of colour"

Knows relatively everything, but absolutely nothing!

Finding the laws and wonders of nature and the universe has not been and is not interesting for most of the people. Regulating the issues that we face in daily life has not been surprising, too. On the other hand, the irregularity of those issues is not interesting either!

So what surprises us?

People are often surprised by nonsense issues (nonsense in my view) and encourage them instead of being surprised by scientific facts. Surprisingly, these people have understood the facts better than scientists and scholars!

They have understood that our nature as human beings has always tended to be surprised; therefore, any law, whether scientific, experimental or intuitive, that doesn't cause surprise might be doubted, because it may not in analogous with our nature. Humanity eager to be surprised. I do not know if this trait is good or bad, but I know it is a fact for a realist. Although we prefer that everything be predictable, there is no doubt that unforeseen events have surprised us the most and challenged our knowledge and experience to the extent that the advancement of science owes to them today. Hence, it seems that scientists prefer to be surprised rather than taking refuge to predictable issues.

The problem is that we always pay attention to the cause for surprise rather than the surprise itself. This illusions arise from this fact that any group is eager to surprise people by its own favorite topic. In fact, what is surprising is the surprise itself not the cause of surprise. The surprise itself is a mere concept.

A less related example may increase the transparency of my discussion! We are all familiar with something called the "aha moment". The moment you reach the solution, the answer, or the desired results. Most of us think that that moment is amazing because we came up with a unique solution, answer, or result that can be expressed as a rule. However, it is amazing because the solution or result was beyond the researcher's previous imagination/thoughts, and not because the researcher discovered a hidden law. If the researcher knows what he is looking for and only more accuracy than previous efforts will lead him to the desired solutions or results, then what curiosity means at all! In this case, he would rather be a science businessman or science entertainer than a scientist. Only that accuracy and perfection will be more significant if it leads to a surprise.

If someone told you "I/we know that...", do not believe it, even if what he/she said was the result of a lifetime experience. If everything is supposed to be certain from someone’s point of view, we humans would have realized the mechanism of the universe a long time ago, but we couldn't! Then it seems that we face with twofold problem; no one knows, or everyone knows.

If someone says "I know this ...", then everyone knows it. But if even one person did not accept it, then the first speaker did not know, too. When we are trying to express our ideas it is safe to emphasize that we claim knowing something based our personal experience at a particular period of time. But we always generalize our spatial and temporal experiences due to our language limitations, and this will definitely be fun for future intelligent generations.

Nevertheless, the only principle that can be relied upon is that whoever told "I/we know this ...", "I/we believe in ...", etc., should not be expected to surprise us and consequently have a profound effect on our life.

I always like to be surprised, whether by a single person or a creative group, such that my whole life and experiences be questioned. That allows me to rethought and reinvent.

I never like to be a scientist, not an intellectual, not a science businessman, not a science entertainer. I always want to be surprised such that all or part of my experience and knowledge be completely challenged.

It was snowing and our yard seemed to belong to another planet today. It was the first time that my cat was seeing the snow. Curious, frightened, she went down the stairs and stood at the bottom of the stairs and stared at the snow for some time. She started curling around the snow for a full circle, then stopped again and stared at the snow in fear. Then she scratched a piece of snow with her paw and pulled it over to smell it. Maybe she was seeking for some familiar smell, which was obvious from his appearance that it was not so! She stood there for a few minutes. When she understand that there was nothing left for her to be more curious about this bizarre surface, she stepped into the snow and reached the other dry side. She sat there and watched my father shoveling the snow. When she got enough of it, came home right from the middle of the snow and started licking himself as usual!

I was wondering why something that is normal for us--walking in the snow--should be so impressive to me that I want to write something about it.

In fact, the reason for the cat's action was her thoughtful and deliberately planned action rather than a simple curiosity. If the cat rudely entered the snow, her action would be funny to me than effective and inspiring.

It seems that any courageous action that is done precisely and thoughtfully, however time consuming and tedious, will definitely be effective and inspiring for others.

My father shoveled all the snow and there are no cat footprints left for me to take and share a photo for you, but here is the real story of our cat!

Do you prefer to have your heart beats or it is a necessity?

Do you prefer to protect the Earth from an impact by an asteroid or it is necessary to protect it?

A free man may prefer what he can do, to what he cannot do.

However, modern man thinks that necessity has made these dilemmas unalterable and this is why he is less happy. Because he did not learn to prefer what he can do to what he cannot do!

I do not believe in the word happiness or misery, but if these words were to be true, happy people would probably make more prefers such that necessity would have no meaning in their lives.

Sometimes time is deceptive and we think that because of the lower risk in the near future we would prefer to protect the Earth from an impact by an asteroid, but in fact we consider it necessary or at least we have to induce it! Humans have been so preoccupied with necessities throughout evolution that we sometimes even have to make what we do necessary for them instead of presenting it as our preference. They are more concerned with necessities than preferences, and this is not their fault.

Imagine a generation who really prefer what they can do to what they cannot! Sometimes this is not even imaginable to me! Imagine open-minded and happy generations who prefer to have their heart beat rather than an unalterable necessity. Imagine a free generation of who prefer to protect the Earth from the impact of an asteroid the rather than considering it as an unalterable necessity.

They prefer more than us to the point that necessity no longer makes sense. In order to have free, happy, and open-minded generations, so that preference takes the place of necessity, we need to teach them to prefer more. To this end, they must first eliminate their fear of the future: the fear is tied to our age’s necessities! This is a great start.

How much do you think that “preferring” to protect the Earth is a sign of freedom for humanity?

#DartMission

Probably the owner of this skull could not forget the pain and the memory of an accident for the rest of her life. Surely what I could not forget years after seeing this historical skull was the delicacy, passion and effort to reconstruct and improve the consequences of the accident, and not the accident and the pain that the body probably could not forget. https://www.instagram.com/p/CTs2hMnoxpK/?utm_medium=tumblr

Strawberry Moon 🍓or🌕 https://www.instagram.com/p/CQjiP5VrM3H/?utm_medium=tumblr

Energy is going to be scaled!

By this move, the cat wants to teach us to consider energy consumption as both relative and scaled. 😁🤫😴

Anyway, the moon was moving before the stars appeared!

I have never been able to come up with a precise and unique definition of the word “ideal”, like ideal conditions. For example, what conditions might be ideal for a full moon day? A clear sky and living in a small and remote town with less light noise might be considered as an ideal condition for observing a big and bright full moon. However, it has always been a question for me whether the facts we want to observe defines the ideal condition or the ideal conditions determine the facts. I never found an answer to this dilemma, but I made a solution to solve such dilemma for myself. Most of the time I realized that before answering a question, the definition of all phrases inside the question had to be defined precisely from the questioner’s point of view. The problem is that I always had trouble defining the facts and phrases.

The problem in my mind arise from this question that what if the truth is not unique? In this case, the definition of ideal condition should not be unique. So if the ideal situation is not unique, it means that the facts is not unique and a different fact can be achieved in different ideal conditions for an identical event. For example, if the observing of a big and bright moon on a full moon night is an ideal condition, so forecasting a cloudy night can ruin your whole day. That day should be regretted for losing a unique fact due to the lack of unique ideal condition.

I had already learned to regret and be depressed in those days until I tried to change the meaning of the facts for myself and define it from scratch for myself. Practicing this strategy helped me realize over time that the facts are never the same and unique to a subject. And this might be what causes to have diversity in human species and their thoughts about different events, which makes the earth a very beautiful place, but makes life complex and sometimes difficult. Maybe it is better learn to find more beauty in the complexities to enjoy life!

I remember the day I saw for the first time in my life that the moon was moving by the clouds for a few seconds, but in order not to look stupid I had to convince myself that those few seconds were nothing more than imaginary and that it was the clouds were moving. But the moon was moving! It was as if there were ideal conditions that allowed the moon to move in my view for just a few seconds.

Stubbornness to look stupid allowed me to ask: does the movement of other objects determine where I am, or does my position determine the type and direction of movement of other objects? Anyway, I always had a full moon without a pre-determined schedule, and if I was lucky and the weather was cloudy and there was good light noise, I would see at first glance that the moon was moving behind the cloud. But it did not take long for my eyes to get used to the darkness of the night and pinpoint the faint stars and realize that I was on Earth and it was the clouds passing in front of the moon.

I later found out that light noise is not a bad thing either. Light noise helped me not be able to pinpoint faint stars next to the full moon, which in turn helped me not to limit the observable space of the moon to a certain boundary. From then on, I realized that any condition can be ideal for a different fact if I do not consider it to be a mere and unique fact. This kind of thinking made me realize that any situation can be ideal for understanding different aspects of a fact, even if that condition is not an ideal condition for others as they already intended to understand the same fact in a different ideal condition. This makes us more open-minded in accepting the realities of life than in resisting.

The problem is that the facts from different perspectives are not in line with society's beliefs, can lead to isolation, but instead you learn that every problem has a solution, although different, difficult, not conventional, and, consequently, time consuming.

It is yet a big question for me whether the facts we want to observe defines the ideal conditions or the ideal conditions determine the facts. Maybe one day I will come to the conclusion that both were an identical question; or maybe I didn’t ask the right question.

Anyway, the moon was moving before the stars appeared!