wandelaar

That's another thing to explore: how do flow and ADHD relate to each other.

Yes - that's an infinite solution in yet another sense : https://codepen.io/pkra/full/xbgRNZ

Very good! That's the example: a ball that rolls off an inclined plane till it hits some wall. T is the time it takes the ball to hit the wall. In case the plane is horizontal ( α = 0 ) than the ball will not even start rolling ( T = + ∞ ). So then you could just as well take the ball and go home.

I'll be happy to start a separate topic about the double-slit experiment if anyone would like to explore its consequences.

Taoist Texts completely ignores the criticism of his methodology. I have seen him play this game before in the discussion on General Relativity, and I don't want get sucked into it again. The interpretation of allegorical texts is a difficult thing to do, but nevertheless some measure of scholarly consensus has been reached in the modern literature on the general philosophy that is expressed in the Chuang tzu. I am not basing my ideas on New Age literature but on careful translations of the Chuang tzu and scholarly books on Chinese philosophy and Taoism. Compared to those the position of Taoist Texts is idiosyncratic and extreme, and as he is using a fundamentally faulty methodology I don't think it's likely to be correct. What is correct however is that the Tao Te Ching is to a large extent a political treatise meant for the ruling class, but we are not talking about the Tao Te Ching here. And even if we did, the book could still contain wisdom for common folks to be worth the effort.

How often does it happen that an allegorical story explicitly mentions the phenomenon or issue that it deals with?

That's right, but the advantage of the simple double-slit experiment is that it can easily be understood without the use of quantum mechanics. This clearly shows that the weirdness isn't an artefact of modern physics but is presented by nature itself.

Questioning the double-slit experiment is questioning the facts.

Let me give you a hint. We will consider a certain experimental set up where a certain process takes a time T to finish depending on a certain angle α. Now it may happen that for α = 0 the process doesn't even start at all. In that case we should find that T = + ∞ (seconds) for α = 0, and that would be the correct answer.

The double-slit experiment experimentally disproves the idea that light simply consists of particles and it equally disproves the idea that light simply consists of waves. So the idea that light either consists of particles or of waves is simply wrong. Nature proves to be more complicated. And you don't need quantum mechanics and/or relativity theory to draw this conclusion.

Depends on the problem. Most physical and technical quantities are finite, so when you find an infinite solution there is often an error involved. But this need not be the case! I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find a physical example where an infinite solution would be the correct answer.

And that's just the beginning! After Cantor others discovered still other and/or more inclusive infinities. See:

As far as I know the placebo effect is acknowledged to exist by the medical sciences. Nothing new here. The opposite effect is called the nocebo effect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo It is partly because of the placebo effect that medical science needs the complicated research methodology that is used.

Yet another interesting article on flow and wu wei: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/677491/file/6819079

I don't care of what nationality you are or where you live. What matters is that you flatly refuse to have a serious discussion, and that you keep playing your silly games. So back on my ignore list you go. Bye bye!

Questions of priority have be decided on the basis of facts, it's not enough to pose as a suppressed minority. If I am getting angry it is because I have had enough of political correctness. Personally I don't care of what nationality the scientists were who are considered as being first. But I do care to get it right. All that moment has to do is to come up with some decent explanation of why our current understanding is incorrect, and I asked him to. But he doesn't do it, and he prefers to play the culturally suppressed underdog. Give us some links or articles to read. Asking suggestive questions doesn't prove anything.

To add: much of Slingerland's scholarly articles are free: https://eslingerland.arts.ubc.ca/articles-chapters/ Further he has free video's to watch: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcWbHnccEXLe9v9JDu6XUbQ And large parts of his popular book Trying Not to Try can be read for free on Google Books: https://books.google.nl/books?id=sTG0AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover So the idea that the guy is a crook and is only in it for the money is simply unfounded. You can see for yourself whether or not you like his approach, and if you don't than just don't buy his books. Further Taoist Texts simply fails to see that the Chuang tzu is a literary and philosophical work. That the writer(s) didn't use the characters 无为 in the stories of the cook and the woodcarver doesn't prove that the phenomenon of wu wei is not described. But let me stop - you can't win from somebody who doesn't get it.

If everything is an illusion, then nothing is an illusion. The concept of illusions only makes sense when you can point at something real by way of comparison.

Indeed there are many infinities, infinitely many. You don't need to be a guru to know that. A few minutes to consult the Wikipedia will do.

@ Stosh Thank you.

An interesting free article on wu wei and flow can be found here: http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/phil390582.pdf

Apparently you don't like to be disproved, so you completely ignore my argument and you resort to name-calling. Well, find another Bum to insult, and have a nice day. Goodbye!

Thank you, that gives us something to talk about. So because Chuang tzu doesn't uses the characters 无为 he cannot have meant the phenomenon wu wei? Apparently you are more interested in the characters used than in the theories or visions propounded. A big part of Slingerland's work is devoted to demonstrating that the idea of wu wei is much more prevalent in ancient Chinese philosophy than would be expected by merely counting the prevalence of the characters 无为. The same thesis is defended in his scholarly works. So I don't consider your argument as proving your point.

@ Taoist texts You are saying Slingerland doesn't know what he is talking about? If so - could you please say what makes you think so, instead of just posting empty accusations about "that author" ?

And here is the paradox. I know what real wu wei (or better flow) feels like, because I experience it when dancing to the music I like (melodic rock). Which I don't do often there days because my own apartment is chock full of books (no space for dancing and jumping around), and I hate the music of today (such as house, "R&B", and Rap). So I like to find other ways to get some wu wei and/or flow back into my life.