Tag Archives: Philosophy

Four days on Rhodos


As you may or perhaps may not know, I’m currently on a vacation in Greece. You may not know because I wasn’t in the mood to talk about it often. I am not very open on these kinds of things. I sometimes am an open person, but on some things, I’m also very secretive sometimes. Continue reading Four days on Rhodos

A Game Theory Workshop I gave for the Leiden Debating Union a while back


I gave this workshop somewhere in 2015 and probably should have uploaded it somewhere sooner. Underneath you’ll find the presentation and a link to the google drive where you should be able to download it (the red link underneath the embedded thing has the notes/remarks as powerpoint notes and the embedded presentation has them as separate slides).

I didn’t really change much to the text besides add some slides with text I said/ meant to say, but I think it will be useful to some. I remember that I was rather nervous and tired when I gave this presentation so the text version is probably strictly better than the one I gave in person…

Google drive link

My 3 positive core beliefs about the world


I don’t know how stable (They could change over time, or be different in different circumstances) the 5 core beliefs that I describe and argue in this post and my previous post are, however I feel like they are important (some a bit more than others) to me. Also the list of arguments for these beliefs (and of course against them as well, though I haven’t really shown you arguments against these beliefs) is of course a lot larger than I’ll provide in either of these posts. However I hope that these two posts give you some insight into who I am, at least politically/philosophically, and reveal some of the biases that this blog probably has.

1) I belief that equality is important, both in the economical sense as in the equal rights sense. Continue reading My 3 positive core beliefs about the world

Some of my core beliefs about the world


I think I have 5 beliefs that fundamentally shape the way I see the world and the way I interact with it. But before I continue, I must write that this self analysis is not based on the concept of core beliefs within psychology, which seems to be more based on beliefs about oneself. Instead the name is just something I came up with to describe 5 beliefs that I hold important in my life.

Here I’ll introduce the two negative beliefs I hold, and in the next post I’ll introduce the 3 positive ones. Continue reading Some of my core beliefs about the world

Idealism and realism


Idealism and Realism are terms that are used a lot to describe people, political ideas or groups, but a lot of people that use these words don’t really know what they mean. My last post is a good example of what idealism is, a notion that the world and reality are not as constant as they appear to be, that existing structures can be overthrown or changed by ideas or at least depend on how they are interpreted. On the other hand you have realism a notion that the reality or the world does not depend on how we interpret it, that our beliefs and ideas do not affect reality. These two opposites can of course be applied to different things, for example it is a lot easier to have an idealistic notion of society since it is clearly influenced by ideas and beliefs, while it requires a little bit more effort to construct an idealistic notion about the laws of physics. There are lots of other terms like these two that philosophers use to categorise ideas and beliefs, if you want to know more I would suggest starting with searching terms like Determinism and empiricism on either wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Why are the laws of physics the way they are?


Today I’m going to talk about an idea I’ve had for a few years. Before Einstein discovered his theory of general relativity the math behind it, about curved space was already discovered for a while, the same is true with the slow discovery of Quantum mechanics, before that started a lot of the math used to describe it was already discovered. In a universe where the math or the idea is always discovered before it is linked to physical properties one could imagine that the idea itself is the cause of the physical properties. So if you would discover something totally new something noone has ever thought of before that idea would create new laws for our universe to follow. At first thought you would think this doesn’t make any sense aren’t the laws of physics eternal governing over both todays world as that of the past. But once you realise that essential things such as nuclear physics can be explained by simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division it seems a little more plausible, but then you realise Mathematicians have made a lot more math than is used in physics or other sciences this must certainly be a problem? Well it doesn’t have to be, if you imagine that nature slowly tries to implant every idea into itself but tries to do it in a way that is still consistent with its previous state you would get something that slowly becomes more detailed and detailed, something that also happens to our understanding of the universe. In the end it is impossible to prove or disprove this idea at least it is for me, you could probably go a lot further in trying to if you had access to a lot of data and knew exactly when things where first thought of. Also to see that abstract math like the phibonacci series does find its way into nature check out Spirals Phibonacci and being a plant