Thread: the smartest man in the world

The story of man’s wisdom is the Supreme Comedy that is a 5000 year old story in the East. In the West it starts and ends more recently with a very funny fellow, a Greek named Socrates.
This Socrates was such a funny fellow that he was condemned to death for it. And so his Laughter was Lethal.
The Oracle of Delphi called Socrates the smartest man in the “world.” He was so smart that he was the authority on “nothing.” Socrates was famous for a saying: “All I know is that I know nothing.” For being the smartest man in the world this saying made him this very funny fellow.

Even though it could not make them laugh, Modern Physicists finally discovered the Joke that made Socrates funny when they discovered: “ the observer determines the observations.”

If the observer observers/seeks wisdom he has to find wisdom. And the more he seeks the more he will have to find until he has the wisdom to be the smartest man in the world, like Leonardo Da Vinci or Newton or Einstein.
(To take this subject to another level: if the observer wants to observe Napoleon well enough, then he will sooner or later have to be locked up because he will be -- think that he is -- Napoleon.)

But if some sort of miracle makes the observer suspicious about this wisdom… if the miracle makes the observer suspicious that wisdom is not what it appears… and so the observer seeks to find the limits of stupidity, like Socrates did, then he will sooner or later have to explode with the Lethal Laughter that gives stupidity no limits. It cannot be any other way because, just like Modern Physics tells us, the observer determines the observations, be it particles or waves, wisdom or stupidity.

This Lethal Laughter is the Supreme Comedy that they call Kundalini in the East
and the Holy Spirit in the West,
and doctors cannot call it “Socrates’ Disease” because they have to call it every mental-disease in their books.

The comedy is Supreme because its Laughter is Lethal. It kills the ego to leave no wisdom or stupidity only thoughts, the mind, that like Socrates tells us “knows nothing” mostly because there is nothing to know. (There is nothing to know when the observer is the observation)
This Laughter keeps the ego utterly dead .. and should it, the ego, surface it would be only to trigger (BE) this Laughter that wisdom is when it pushes the limits of stupidity to new depths.


The Supreme Comedy is a huge Joke
we play on OURSELVES
because there is no other
because in Reality the observer is the observations
and that is
The Supreme Comedy called
“There Is No Other.”

Smartest man in the world is actually a woman. An US citizen living in New York (or near) working as a artist (Poet?). Thats it if u assume ppl with highest IQ r the smartest too.

I have 140 IQ . and i cannnot enter MENSA. But i read a lot and keep up my curious nature.

Yes, physics says that there are limits to what we can know. But we can still learn a whole hell of a lot before we bump up against the limits.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Yes, physics says that there are limits to what we can know.

This is only true if you assume that the methods of physics are the only means to know anything. Most people, including physicists, would say that this is a ridiculous thing to assume.

If you are talking about the uncertainty principle, however, I am afraid you don't quite get it, and it is probably due to some misleading (or outdated) statements of the principle (the following for example).

Originally Posted by http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/science/terms.html

One of the basic ideas behind quantum theory/physics/mechanics is the H.U.C. It states, more or less, that the more you know about one aspect of a subatomic particle, the less you can know about the other. This means the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the less you can possible know about it's position.

A more modern and accurate statement follows

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that one cannot assign with full precision values for certain pairs of observable variables, including the position and momentum, of a single particle at the same time. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

The problem with the first statement is all the talk about knowing as if a particle has both a precise position and momentum and we just don't know what they are. This is nonsense. The measurement which give a position to some degree of precision actually changes the particle so it has that position. The paricle is in fact a wave with no precise postion or momentum and the uncertainty principle is not about knowing a precise position and momentum of a particle both at the same time but giving them a precise position and momentum to a particle both at the same time. It is not about knowledge but about the effects of measurement upon what you are measuring.

PS. I know you are just responding to genep. But I don't bother responding to genep's posts directly because he hasn't replied to mine.

I do believe this is a classical application of Catch-22. The more one knows, the more he understands how little knows.

daytonturner:

I do believe this is a classical application of Catch-22. The more one knows, the more he understands how little knows.

Yes or possibly not... It has become sadly clear that personality
will affect this...

I once knew a man that knew a lot, but his awareness of this
made him believe that he was "supreme" to other of his kind...
Finally this lead to the fact he refused to see, that he
also could be wrong (otherwords, he started to think his knowledge
as absolute right)... Result of this can be easy imaginated.

Oh, In my opinion (if anyone is interested), the world smartest man
is not the one to know/understand/invent/etc. most, but the one
who can accept that his/her knowledge is his/her own...
In other words he/she is aware of the fact that he/she knows
things others might not and others know things he/she might not.