Title : Discuss Fine Tune with Nuwan (Lakshan)
Author: Lakshan Bandara
Created Date: 2020-09-23
Last Modified Date: 2020-09-23
Article Code: 154
Keywords: communication, Fine Tune, sender, receiver, message
[22/09, 22:46] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Thanks for sending this but not enough information to give an answer.
How one answer that without knowing how things work, any answer is just mere speculation, isn't it?
If finite chunks exist, what happens in between, does one disappear from one chunk & appear in the other?
Does the arrow teleport? From one chunk of now to the next chuck of now?
Without knowing how things work, it's useless to speculate, unless you know how to test it.
Do you think arrow paradox has no solution because you don't know what you mentioned?
I'm not saying it doesn't have a solution, I'm just saying it's useless to speculate without knowing the basics necessary to answer that question.
[22/09, 22:53] Lakshan:
If there's solution, what you don't know are not relevant to the solution.
[22/09, 22:57] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Yes, that's true for everything. If there is nirvana, what I do not know is not relevant to nirvana. It'll always be there. It's just without knowing the basics, I won't be able to comprehend it with full certainty.
[22/09, 23:03] Lakshan:
I found the solution.
But, others may condemn right away as usual with or without reason, because they cannot think what i think.
[22/09, 23:05] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Ok. Say it if you want. I only care about whether it's another speculation or an educated observation.
[22/09, 23:07] Lakshan:
[22/09, 23:07] Nuwan - Philosophy:
My take was another question,
If a photon travels a Planck length from point A to point B during a Planck second, then how that photon moves from point A to point B within that Planck second? Does the photon teleport from point A to point B to cover the Planck length? Any theory for that, too?
[22/09, 23:09] Lakshan:
I will think and reply later. It needs some study.
[22/09, 23:10] Nuwan - Philosophy:
I didn't understand your explanation and I have no idea what relative time you are comparing the current time to take the relative difference.
Think about my question if you want to but my advice is don't. Because we don't have enough understanding.
[22/09, 23:11] Lakshan:
I will explain it with another article, instead of confusing with short answers.
[22/09, 23:12] Nuwan - Philosophy:
I wanted to make a point, that we don't know everything & speculation is not going to help.
So, it's just unwanted time consumption.
Sometimes, accepting "I don't know" is accepting the truth.
[22/09, 23:20] Lakshan:
As mentioned before, this is a matter of thinking. Others need to tune to what i think to see what i see. It's true for you as well. Most of the time, being different is to be alone.
[22/09, 23:22] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Maybe, I can't look into your mind. So, you may deal with it alone. My only question is does this question & it's actual answer, worth your effort & time?
[22/09, 23:24] Lakshan:
Yes. I research existence and nonexistence. Buddha also did it. Difficult challenge.
That's what free thinking is all about.
[22/09, 23:25] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Ok then. Please go ahead. Let me know when you figure it out. I don't want to know what you figured out, I only want to know how you figured it out. The path to understanding, not the understanding itself. Good luck.
[22/09, 23:28] Lakshan:
Path is tuning into thinking.
Eight fold path to nivana.
[22/09, 23:30] Nuwan - Philosophy:
I was talking about the question you're attending.
Also, saying "eight fold" path is easy but can you explain it to me?
[22/09, 23:31] Lakshan:
Yes, i will write another article on relativity to explain arrow paradox solution.
[22/09, 23:33] Nuwan - Philosophy:
I already said, I don't want to know the solution. I just want to know how you derived that solution or how you came up with that solution.
[22/09, 23:33] Lakshan:
If you are tunned in with eight fold path you can experience nibbana.
[22/09, 23:34] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Like a radio tuning in? What do you mean?
[22/09, 23:34] Lakshan:
That article will explain the missing part to tune in.
[22/09, 23:35] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Ok, let me know when you write your article.
[22/09, 23:36] Lakshan:
Yes. There's a frequency in thinking to tune in. That's how we communicate clearly.
Otherwise we are on different pages.
[22/09, 23:37] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Ok, I'm lost at the word "frequency". Please write your article clearly explaining what you mean, write it in Sinhala if you want to, then let me know.
[22/09, 23:37] Lakshan:
Ok. English is clear and easy to type.
[22/09, 23:38] Nuwan - Philosophy:
As your wish.
[22/09, 23:38] Lakshan:
Good night then. Sleep well.
[22/09, 23:39] Nuwan - Philosophy:
You too. 👍
[23/09, 11:54] Nuwan - Philosophy:
මම හිතුවා tune in එක ගැන. මම හිතන්නේ නම්, කවුරවත් කාගෙවත් හිතන විදිහට tune in වෙන්න ඕනෙ නෑ.
උදාහරණයකට මම හිතන විදිහට ඔබත් හිතන්න tune in වෙන්න ඕනෙ නෑ.
මට පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනෙ කියන්න තියෙන දේ අහන කෙනාට හරියටම තේරෙන විදිහට articulate කරන්න.
ඒක තමා බුදු හාමුදුරුවෝ කලේ කියලා මම හිතන්නේ. නැතනම් නිකන් පසේ බුදු කෙනෙක් වගේ තමන් දන්න දේ තමන්ට විතරයි.
අනික අධ්යාත්මික නොවන භෞතික කාරණා වලදී අනිවාර්යෙන්ම අනිත් කෙනාට තේරෙන විදිහට ඒ දේ කියන්න පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනෙ. නැත්නම් ඒ දැනුමෙන් තමන්ට ඇරෙන්න වෙන කාටවත් වැඩක් වෙන්නේ නෑ.
ප්රශ්ණය තියෙන්නේ tune in ද නැත්ද කියන එක නෙමේ තමන් දන්න දේ අහන එකාට තේරෙන්න කියන්න පුළුවන්ද කියන එක.
තමන්ගේ මට්ටමේ නැති කෙනෙකුට වුවත් සරළ භාෂාවෙන් එය පැහැදිලි කරන්න පුළුවන්ද කියන එකර්
එහෙම බැරි නම් ඒ දැනුම තමන්ට හැර කාටවත් වැඩක් නෑ.
එක්කො ඒ දැනුම කට පාඩම් දැනුමක්, තමන්ටත් තාම හරියට නොතේරෙන.
තමන් ප්රත්යක්ෂයෙන් යමක් දන්නවා නම් ඒ දේ තමන් දන්න ඕනෑම භාෂාවකින් සරළව පැහැදිලි කරන්න පුළුවන් කියලයි මගේ මතය.
සමහරුන්ට එහෙම බැරිව ඇති. හැබැයි එහෙම අයගෙ දැනුම ඒ අයට විතරයි.
[23/09, 14:16] Lakshan:
ජලය පුරවන්න කොපමණ උත්සාහ ගත්තත්, පොල් කට්ට අනිත් පැත්ත හරවා තිබෙන විට, එයට ජලය පිරෙන්නේ නැත.
[23/09, 14:31] Nuwan - Philosophy:
එසේ නම් පිරවිය හැකි පොල්කටු වලට පමණක් ජලය පුරවන්න... අනිත්වා හැරෙන කාලෙකදී හැරෙනු ඇත... ඒ ගැන කම්පා වී ඵලක් නැත...
[23/09, 19:55] Lakshan:
Fine Tuned (Be on the Same Page):
In communication, both sender and receiver of message and/or feedback shall have background knowledge on the matter they communicate.
[23/09, 19:59] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Then no one can become a teacher... 😁
How can you teach if students are required to have background knowledge beforehand. There's nothing to teach no.
[23/09, 20:03] Lakshan:
Teaching anyone is not possible. Only thing can be done is to make other think.
Learning is his choice.
Learning is done from known to unknown.
Known is the background knowledge.
[23/09, 20:06] Nuwan - Philosophy:
Ok, then, how you bring a person from "no background knowledge at all" to "have necessary background knowledge" to communicate your message?
Otherwise, it's useless no. Only you are there.
[23/09, 20:08] Lakshan:
Everyone has some background knowledge because they can think.
[23/09, 20:08] Nuwan - Philosophy:
So, according to Buddhism, you think Prince Rahula had that background knowledge when he was ordained.
If everyone already have the necessary background knowledge then why do you even have a clause like that. It's unnecessary no.
Basically, if I know something I should be able to go down to anyone's level and tell it in a way that person may understand. That's what I think.
[23/09, 20:14] Lakshan:
What do you mean by "that background knowledge "?
Knowledge is built in steps.
When discussing a matter, there must be background knowledge to it. Otherwise, communication will be කොහෙද යන්නෙ.. මල්ලෙ පොල්.
[23/09, 20:14] Nuwan - Philosophy:
ඕනෑම භාෂාවකින් අසන්නාට තේරෙන්න සරළ භාෂාවෙන් කියන්න පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනෙ. බහුශ්රැතයො එක්ක ඒ විදිහටත් පොඩි අය එක්ක ඒ විදිහටත් කතා කරලා එකම දේ ඒ දෙකොට්ඨාසයටම තේරෙන විදිහට පැහැදිලි කරන්න පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනෙ. බාහිර උදාහරණ භාවිතා කර හෝ.
[23/09, 20:15] Lakshan:
What you suggested is background knowledge.
[23/09, 20:15] Nuwan - Philosophy:
පස්වග මහනුන්ට දෙසපු විදිහට රෙදි කඩක් දීලා රජෝ හරණං කිය කිය ඉන්න දුන්න හාමුදුරුවන්ට කිව්වේ නෑ.
ගුරුවරයා හරියටම දන්නවා නම් ඒ දන්න දේ පැහැදිලි කරන්න පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනෙ.
Then as you say, everyone has it, because everyone can think.
[23/09, 20:17] Lakshan:
He had background knowledge to communicate the message. It's not all in direct words.
Good communication is a choice.
[23/09, 20:21] Nuwan - Philosophy:
I don't understand your definition of background knowledge.
Watch this. This is all I'm going to send. If you know what you're talking about, then there are no unwanted prerequisites.
(Last Comment on Top)