The houses are new but there are prejudices. Aphorisms from Woe from Wit: quotes from the main characters of Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages never dreamed of.

Quote from Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet", no. 1, sc. 5, words of Hamlet. Translated by M. Vronchenko (1828):

Dictionary winged words . Plutex. 2004.

See what “There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages never dreamed of” in other dictionaries:

From the tragedy “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare (1564 1616), words of Hamlet (act. 1, scene 4). Translation (1828) by Mikhail Pavlovich Vronnenko. There is much in nature, friend Horatio, That our sages never dreamed of. Used: as a playfully ironic... ... Dictionary of popular words and expressions

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages never dreamed of.- wing. sl. Quote from Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet", no. 1, sc. 5, words of Hamlet. Translated by M. Vronchenko (1828): There is much in nature, friend Horatio, That our sages never dreamed of... Universal additional practical Dictionary I. Mostitsky

This article is proposed for deletion. An explanation of the reasons and the corresponding discussion can be found on the Wikipedia page: To be deleted / November 17, 2012. While the discussion process is not completed, the article can be ... Wikipedia

- “Science can do a lot of tricks” key phrase to show focus with playing cards. Sometimes erroneously conveyed as “Science has many gits.” Description of the trick The magician invites the spectator to shuffle the deck and lay out 10 pairs of cards face down on the table... ... Wikipedia

Essentialism- Essentialism ♦ Essentialisme The doctrine opposite to existentialism and nominalism. Its supporters believe that essence precedes existence or that the essence of every thing is contained in its definition. Also, excessive reliance on language and thinking... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

Books

• Talismans. Amulets. Charms
• Practical magic. “There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages never dreamed of...” These words of Shakespeare will probably be relevant to humanity forever. For official science knows about the Universe...

This quote is often used to imply that Horatio represents the universal image of skeptics and rationalists. But some experts focus on “wise men”, almost ignoring “ours”. In this discussion, this, in general, is not so important, it’s just that the second interpretation is more similar to Haldane’s “any wise men”.

The man to whom this book is dedicated made his living by making the strangeness of science comical. Below is another quote from his already mentioned impromptu speech in 1998 in Cambridge: “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravitational hole, on the surface of a planet shrouded in gas, rotating at a distance of ninety million miles around a fiery nuclear ball, and we believe “that this is normal is beyond any doubt - evidence of a colossal dislocation in our perception of reality.” Other science fiction writers, depicting the wonders of science, aroused in their readers admiration for the mysterious; Douglas Adams made us laugh (those who read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will remember, for example, the “improbability engine”). Perhaps laughter is the best response to some particularly intricate paradoxes of modern physics. The alternative, it sometimes seems to me, is crying.

Quantum mechanics, that elusive peak scientific progress XX century, allows you to make amazingly successful predictions about the real world. Richard Feynman compared their accuracy to predicting a distance similar to a width North America, accurate to the thickness of a human hair. What's based on quantum theory making such precise assumptions seems to mean that she is in in a certain sense true; as true as our other knowledge, including even the most banal facts. And yet, in order to obtain correct predictions in quantum theory, one has to make such strange and mysterious premises that even the great Feynman himself did not fail to remark (there are several versions of this quote, of which I present the most expressive): “If you think that you understand quantum theory... then you don’t understand quantum theory.”

Quantum theory is so strange that physicists have to resort to one or another of its mutually exclusive “interpretations.” "We have to resort" to in this case is the correct expression. In The Reality Factory, David Deitch describes an interpretation of quantum theory that suggests the existence of multiple universes, perhaps because the most repulsive quality of this option is simply its extreme wastefulness. It assumes the existence of a colossal, rapidly increasing number of parallel universes, invisible to each other, which can only be discovered in individual quantum mechanical experiments. In some of these universes I have already died. In several of them you have a luscious green mustache. And so on.

The alternative “Copenhagen interpretation” is no less ridiculous. It is not so wasteful, but it is desperately paradoxical. Erwin Schrödinger came up with the famous cat puzzle joke about her. Schrödinger's cat is locked in a box along with a mechanism that will kill him if a quantum mechanical event occurs. Without opening the lid, we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead. Common sense dictates that he must nevertheless be either alive or dead. The Copenhagen Interpretation is counterintuitive: according to it, before we open the box, everything that is there is nothing more than a probability. As soon as we open the lid, the wave function of the quantum mechanism collapses, it fires in one direction or another, and the cat becomes either dead or alive. Before the observation is made, he is neither alive nor dead.

The theory of multiple universes explains what is happening in the experiment described above by the fact that in some of the universes the cat is dead, and in others it is alive. Both of these explanations make no sense from the point of view of human intuition or common sense. But this doesn’t bother the most “cool” physicists. The main thing for them is that the mathematics works and the predictions of the theory are confirmed experimentally. Most of us don't have the courage to follow them. To understand what is happening “really”, we cannot do without some visual examples. By the way, as far as I know, Schrödinger came up with thought experiment with the cat precisely for the purpose of clearly demonstrating what he perceived as the absurdity of the “Copenhagen interpretation”.

Biologist Lewis Wolpert believes that the intricacies of modern physics are just beginning. Unlike technology, science, as a rule, does not stand on ceremony with common sense. Here's one of my favorite examples: Every time you drink a glass of water, there is a very high probability that at least one of the molecules you swallowed passed through Oliver Cromwell's bladder. It's just simple theory probabilities. The number of molecules in a glass of water is immeasurably greater than the number of glasses of water that could be obtained by pouring all the water in the world into them. fresh water. That is, every time we fill a glass, we have in it a fairly representative sample of water molecules existing in the world. The point here, of course, is not Cromwell or bladders. Now, haven’t you noticed that you inhaled the same nitrogen atom that the third iguanodon to the left of the tall cycad once exhaled? Isn't it wonderful to live in a world where such things are not only possible, but you also get to lucky opportunity understand why this is so? And then you can explain it to someone else, and they will agree with you, not because it is your personal opinion or belief, but because, having understood your arguments, it is impossible not to accept them. Probably, when explaining the reason that prompted him to write the book “A World Filled with Demons: Science as a Light in the Darkness,” Carl Sagan had this in mind: “Not explaining the achievements of science seems unnatural to me. Having fallen in love, a person wants to shout about it to the whole world. This book is my personal confession in the eternal, passionate love to science."

Evolution difficult life, even its very appearance in the Universe, which obeys the laws of physics, are remarkable and amazing facts or would be so, if we did not take into account that the ability to wonder can only be possessed by a brain that itself appeared as a result of this amazing process. That is, from the point of view of the anthropic principle, our existence should not be surprising. And yet I think that I will express the opinion of all my fellow humans on the planet by insisting that the fact of our existence is stunningly amazing.

Just think: on one, perhaps the only planet in the Universe, molecules that usually combine into objects no larger in complexity than a fragment of a stone, formed objects similar in size to fragments of stones, but so complex that they were able to run, jump, swim , fly, see, hear, catch and eat others similar complex objects; and some of them even learned to think, feel and fall in love with each other. Today we understand how this happened, but we did not understand it until 1859.

Before 1859, all this seemed very, very, very strange. Now, thanks to Darwin, it's just very strange. Grabbing the edges of the narrow slit of the burqa, Darwin tore it, and inside poured a stream of stunningly new knowledge that elevates the human spirit, such as humanity may not have known before him - I can only compare it with the discovery made by Copernicus that the Earth is not the center of the universe .

The great 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked his friend: “Why do people always say that it was natural to suppose that the sun revolved around the earth, and not that the earth revolved around the sun?” The friend replied: “It’s clear why - visually it seems that the Sun is revolving around the Earth.” To which Wittgenstein replied: “I wonder how visually it would look like the Earth was rotating?” I sometimes quote this remark from Wittgenstein during lectures, expecting to hear the audience laugh. Instead, every time there is stunned silence.

Within the limited world in which our brain arose and was formed, the movement of small objects is more likely than the movement of large ones, which are often the background for moving small ones. When the Earth rotates, objects that seem larger to us due to their proximity - mountains, trees, buildings, the earth itself - move, synchronously with each other and with the observer, relatively celestial bodies, such as the Sun and stars. Therefore, our brain, formed in the process of evolution, attributes movement specifically to the stars and the Sun, and not to the mountains and trees piled up nearby.

I would now like to develop the idea mentioned above a little: the reason that we see the world this way and not otherwise, and also the fact that some things are much more difficult for us to understand than others, is that our brain itself is a product of evolution - an on-board computer , which arose and developed to help us survive in the world around us - I will call it the Middle World - where the objects on which survival depends are not too large and not too small; in a world where things either stand still or move slowly compared to the speed of light, and where very unlikely events can safely be considered impossible. The window of the burqa of our consciousness is so narrow because this was quite enough for the survival of our ancestors.

Science, contrary to all intuition, teaches us that solid and massive objects such as crystals and stones are actually composed almost entirely of empty space. If you imagine the nucleus of an atom as a fly sitting in the center of a stadium, then the other nearest nucleus will be outside the stadium. It turns out that even the densest rocks are “in fact” almost entirely void, containing only tiny particles located at such distances from each other that in comparison with them the sizes of the particles themselves seem negligibly small. But why then do stones look and feel like they are hard, solid, and impenetrable?

I won't try to guess how Wittgenstein would have responded to this. As an evolutionary biologist, I would say the following. Our brains have evolved to help our bodies optimally navigate the world on the scale at which our bodies typically function. The possibility of our journey into the world of atoms was not provided for by evolution. If this were not so, then perhaps our brains would be able to perceive voids in rocks. We perceive stones to be hard and impenetrable to the touch because our hands are unable to penetrate them. They cannot penetrate through them not because of the size of the gaps between the particles that make up the matter, but because of the existence of force fields between these particles scattered in “solid” matter. It has been helpful for our brains to create concepts of “solidity” and “impenetrability” because by using these concepts, the body can more easily move in a world in which so-called “solid” objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

I would like to quote a small humorous digression on this matter from Jon Ronson’s book “The Man Who Watched Goats”:

There you are true story, which happened in the summer of 1983 in Arlington, Virginia. Major General Albert Stubblebine the Third sat at his desk, staring at the hanging a huge amount medals wall. These medals testified to many years brilliant career general - the chief head of American intelligence, under whose command there were sixteen thousand soldiers... Passing the awards, the general's gaze rested on the wall. He felt that something needed to be done, even though it was scary to even think about it. My mind focused on the impending choice. You can stay in this office or go to the next one. This is the choice - and he made it: he goes to the next office... Rising from the table and walking around it, the general went. If you think about it, he reasoned, what are atoms basically made of? From the void! He quickened his pace. What am I mainly made of? - he thought. From atoms! He almost started running. What is the wall mainly made of? - he thought further. From atoms! You just need to make sure empty seats matched correctly... And then General Stubblebine hit his nose painfully against the office wall. Damn it, he thought sadly. General Stubblebine just can't get through the wall. What's the matter? Maybe he just can't achieve the required level of concentration? The General has no doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects will one day become a common skill in the arsenal of psychological technologies. And when this happens, would it be too naive to assume that from that moment on there will be an end to wars? Who wants to deal with an army capable of such things?

On the website of the organization that General Stubblebine now runs in retirement with his wife, he is aptly described as “a thinker outside the box.” The organization is called FreedomHealthUSA and deals with “dietary supplements (vitamins, minerals, amino acids and the like), herbs, homeopathic medicines, nutritional medicine and pure food products(not poisoned by pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics), supplied without the interference of corporations dictating to you what drugs and in what doses you are allowed to use (thus limiting your freedom with the help of the state).” There is, fortunately, no mention of the precious vital fluids (see quote from Brigadier General Jack D.

Ripper from the film "Doctor Strangelove, or How I Stopped Being Afraid and Loved the Bomb").

Since our evolution took place in the Middle World, it is not difficult for us to understand this type of idea: “If a Major General moves at the speed characteristic of the movement of most Major Generals and other objects of the Middle World, then when he hits another object of the Middle World like a wall his movement will be immediately stopped in a rather painful manner.” Our brain is not able to imagine what we would feel when passing, in the manner of a neutrino, through a wall through those voids that “really” make up the wall. In the same way, our consciousness is not able to cope with phenomena that occur when moving at speeds close to the speed of light.

It is not easy for the intuition that emerged and was nurtured in the Middle World to believe, without special training, even Galileo’s statement that, if we exclude air resistance, a cannonball and a feather thrown from a tower will fall to the ground at the same time. The reason is that in the Middle World, air resistance is everywhere. If we evolved in a vacuum, we would have no doubt that the feather and the nucleus would fall at the same time. We are creatures of the Middle World and its inhabitants, and this imposes limits on the possibilities of our imagination. If we do not have particularly outstanding abilities or an exceptionally versatile education, then Middle world- this is all that is available to our gaze from the narrow window of the burqa.

In a certain sense, we animals have to survive not only in the Middle World, but also in the microscopic world of atoms and electrons. The very nature of the nerve impulses through which physical level thinking and imagination are carried out and are inextricably linked with the microworld. But understanding the laws of the microworld would not have helped our wild ancestors in any of their activities or in any of the decisions they made. If we were bacteria, constantly fighting the thermal movement of molecules, things would be different. But we, the inhabitants of the Middle World, are too clumsy and massive to react to Brownian motion. Here's another example: our existence is greatly influenced by gravity, but we hardly think about surface tension. But for a tiny insect, the priorities are reversed: for it, surface tension is not at all a weak and secondary force.

In Creation, or Life and How to Make It, Steve Grand describes our obsession with matter in a rather caustic way. We tend to believe that only solid, “material” objects truly exist. Electromagnetic waves in a vacuum seem somehow “unreal” to us. IN Victorian era believed that waves could only exist in a material environment. And since such a medium was not known, it was invented and called ether. But it is easier for us to understand “true” matter only because for our ancestors, who evolved in the Middle World, the idea of ​​dense matter was a useful model for survival.

On the other hand, even for the inhabitants of the Middle World it is obvious that a whirlpool or tornado is a thing no less real than a piece of stone, although the matter of which the whirlpool is composed is constantly changing. Among the desert plains of Tanzania, in the shadow of Ol Donyo Lengai, the sacred volcano of the Maasai, there is a large dune made of ash from the 1969 eruption. Its shape is determined by the wind, and what's great is that it moves. Such dunes are called dunes. The entire dune crawls across the desert in westward at a rate of about 17 meters per year. Maintaining a crescent shape, she glides where her horns are aimed. The wind blows the grains of sand up the gentle slope, and then they fall off the ridge into the crescent.

But even the dune is more like a “thing” than a wave. It only seems to us that the wave is moving horizontally across the sea; in fact, water molecules move in a vertical direction. Likewise, although sound waves move from one interlocutor to another, air molecules do not do this - otherwise it would no longer be sound, but wind. Steve Grand points out that you and I are actually more like waves than “things.” He invites the reader to remember

...something from childhood. Some vivid memory, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell as if you were still there. You were there, right? Otherwise, how would you remember all this? But do you know what the paradox is? You weren't there. None of the atoms that now make up your body were there at that moment... Matter flows from place to place and comes together for a moment to become you. Therefore, you are not what you are made of. And if this doesn't send chills down your spine, read it again, because this is very important.

The words “really” should not be thrown around left and right. If the neutrino had a brain that originated and evolved from its microscopic ancestors, it would confidently assert that rocks are “really” mostly made of empty space. Our brains are the product of the evolution of medium-sized ancestors who could not pass through stones; therefore, for us, what is “really” real is the reality in which stones are solid objects. For any animal, there is “really” only what the brain requires to help its body survive. And since different kinds live in different habitats - in different worlds, - the number of existing “realities” is frighteningly large.

What we perceive as the real world is not the true real world without embellishment; it is a model of the real world, tuned and adjusted using data received by the senses; it is a model organized in such a way that it can be used to successfully interact with real world. Features of the model depend on what animal it is about we're talking about. A flying animal requires a model that is significantly different from a running, climbing or swimming animal. The predator model is different from the herbivore model, although their worlds inevitably overlap. The monkey brain requires software that can simulate the three-dimensional interweaving of trunks and branches. But the water strider does not need a 3D program, because it lives on the surface of the pond in Edwin Abbott's Discworld. The mole simulation program is adapted for life underground. Naked mole rats probably use about the same software to simulate the surrounding world, just like the mole. But the squirrel, although it belongs together with the naked mole rat to the order of rodents, uses a modeling program similar to that of a monkey.

In The Blind Watchmaker and other works, I have suggested that bats may have "colored" hearing. In order to move in three-dimensional space and catch insects, bat What is certainly needed is a model similar to the swallow model, which performs very similar actions. The fact that the bat uses echolocation and the swallow uses reflected light to update model variables is secondary. I hypothesized that bats use categories like “red” and “blue” as internal labels for differences in echoes that are useful to them, just as swallows use similar categories to label differences in wavelengths of light. I want to emphasize that the structure of the model is determined by how it will be used, and not by which senses are involved in its work. From the example of bats, we can draw the following conclusion: the general structure of the brain’s “modeling program” - in contrast to the values ​​​​of its private variables, which are constantly updated based on data supplied by the senses - is the same adaptation of the animal to its way of life, like wings , paws or tail.

In the article cited above about “ possible worlds» B. S. Haldane expressed a similar thought about animals, whose world is built primarily from smells. He noticed that dogs could distinguish the smell of two very similar volatile fatty acids - caprylic and caproic, which were also diluted a million times. The only difference between the two is that the main molecular chain of caprylic acid has two more carbon atoms than the caproic acid chain. Haldane believes that a dog seems to be able to arrange acids in order of molecular weight, just as a person can arrange the strings of a piano in order of increasing length by the sound of notes.

There is another fatty acid, capric acid, similar to the two above, except for the presence of two more carbon atoms in its main chain. A dog that had never encountered capric acid in its life would most likely be able to imagine its smell, just as we, having heard the sound of a trumpet, can easily imagine the same sound with a higher note. It seems very plausible to me that a dog or a rhinoceros is capable of perceiving bouquets of odors as harmonious combinations. Perhaps there are dissonant chords. But it’s unlikely to be melodies, because, unlike smells, melodies are built from sounds that begin and end in strictly certain time. But there is a possibility that dogs and rhinoceroses have a “colored” sense of smell, just like bats, according to my assumption, there may be a “colored” hearing.

Once again, I want to repeat: the sensations we call colors are just tools our brains use to indicate differences in the world around us that are important to us. The shades we perceive - what philosophers call “primary sensations” - do not themselves have an organic connection with light waves certain length. They are just internal symbols, shortcuts that the brain uses when building a model of the surrounding reality; labels that serve to establish differences that are important for a given species of animal. For us or, say, for birds, these are light waves of different lengths. In the case of bats, I assume it could be differences in the sound-reflecting properties of surfaces, something like: “red” is a shiny surface, “blue” is velvety, “green” is rough. And for dogs and rhinoceroses, smells may well play a similar role. The ability to understand the extraordinary world of a bat or a rhinoceros, a water strider bug or a mole, a bacterium or a bark beetle is one of those gifts that science rewards us by tearing apart the burqa and opening up hitherto unseen horizons to our eyes.

The metaphor of the Middle World - a small intermediate range of phenomena visible through the narrow slit of a burqa - can also be applied to other scales, other “spectra”. We can, for example, imagine a probability scale, and again we will see that only a narrow window of it is accessible to our intuition and imagination. At one end of the probability spectrum there will be events that we consider impossible. Miracles are extremely unlikely events. A statue of the Madonna could wave to us. Atoms that make up crystal lattice The material from which the statue is made vibrate in different directions. Since their number is unimaginably large and since there is no strictly defined direction in their movement, the hand we observe in the Middle World remains motionless. But the atoms fumbling in the hand could, by chance, suddenly all move simultaneously in one direction. And again... and again... And then the hand would move and we would see it waving to us. This could happen, but the probability of such an event is so small that if you started writing a number at the moment of the creation of the Universe, you still would not print enough zeros. The ability to calculate such a probability—to quantify an almost impossible event, rather than throw up our hands in despair—is yet another example of science's liberation of the human spirit.

Evolution in the Middle World has poorly prepared us to evaluate highly improbable events. But events that seem incredible in the Middle World turn out to be inevitable in the vast expanses of space or geological time. Science opens wide the window through which we are accustomed to perceive the range of possibilities. Strengthened by knowledge and calculation, the mind is now able to look into those corners of probability that once seemed inaccessible or inhabited by dragons. We already took advantage of this opportunity in Chapter 4, looking at the possibility of the origin of life and how such an extremely unlikely event would nevertheless inevitably occur given enough planets; we also considered the possibility of the existence of many different universes, each with its own own set laws and constants, and the anthropic necessity of our being in one of those few worlds where life is possible.

How should we understand Haldane's phrase that the world is more unusual than we can imagine? More unusual than one might imagine in principle. Or is it just more unusual than we can imagine, given the limitations of our brains, nurtured and trained by the Middle World? Will we, by patiently working, be able to free ourselves from the limitations of the Middle World, tear off the black burqa and achieve an intuitive, and not just mathematical understanding of the micro- and macro-worlds and enormous speeds? Honestly, I don’t know, but I am very happy to live in a time when humanity is struggling to reach the boundaries of the knowable. And what's even better is that we may eventually discover that these boundaries don't exist at all.

More on the topic There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, That our sages never dreamed of:

I often quote this phrase. I read “Hamlet” in Pasternak’s translation, but in his version this phrase doesn’t sound right. I went to find out which translator it belonged to, found 27 (!) translations and it doesn’t appear in any of them. In the original the phrase sounds like:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Most popular translation " dreamed about", but certainly not " subject to". As I understand it, people simply tried it for themselves.

In the eighth grade we were asked to memorize a passage " To be or not to be"What is good about Pasternak's translation is that it has a very light syllable - the sentences cling to hooks, each one itself pulls the next one and sinks into memory without special effort. I learned Hamlet's monologue. And then the entire subsequent scene. And another scene in the cemetery. Just for my own pleasure.
And then more for a long time I recited it out loud using different intonations and facial expressions. For example, I dress up in front of a mirror, hit my heel on the floor and say to the reflection: "And the tail, and the leg, and the tongue, and every creature of God
He’ll call you names in his own way, but no matter what he throws out, it’s all one holy innocence. No, you're being naughty."
Or wash the dishes, move the saucepan forward at arm's length and address it: "Poor Yorick!" And then to the cups in the sink: “I knew him, Horatio. He was a man of endless wit, inexhaustible in inventions. He carried me on his back a thousand times. And now this very disgust and nausea comes to my throat. The lips that I kissed I don’t know how many times should have moved here. "
And then, emphatically sad:
"Rotten by Caesar from the cold
The outside of the house is being sealed up.
It sticks out like a plug in the crack."
I could wash dishes this way for hours. I was very educated in literary terms dishes.

Now I don’t remember these passages, but then they were

Hamlet

To be or not to be, that is the question.
Is it worthy
Resign yourself to the blows of fate,
Or must we resist
And in mortal combat with a whole sea of ​​troubles
End them? Die. Forget yourself
And know that this breaks the chain
Heartache and thousands of hardships,
Inherent in the body. Isn't this the goal?
Desired? Die. Lose yourself in sleep.
Fall asleep... and dream? Here is the answer.
What dreams will you have in that mortal sleep?
When is the veil of earthly feelings removed?
That's the solution. That's what lengthens
Our misfortunes last for so many years.
Otherwise, who would bear the humiliation of the century,
The lies of the oppressor, the nobles
Arrogance, feeling of rejection,
Slow trial and most of all
The mockery of the unworthy at the worthy,
When it's so easy to make ends meet
Dagger strike! Who would agree
Groaning, trudge along under the burden of life,
Whenever the unknown after death,
Fear of a country from which none
Didn't come back, didn't bend my will
It is better to put up with familiar evil,
Instead of trying to escape to the unfamiliar!
This is how thought turns us all into cowards
And our resolve withers like a flower
In the sterility of a mental dead end.
This is how plans die on a grand scale,
Those who promised success at first,
From long delays. But enough!
Ophelia! O joy! Remember
My sins in my prayers, nymph.

Ophelia Prince, were you healthy this time? Hamlet Thank you: completely, completely, completely. Ophelia
Prince, I have offerings from you.
I have long wanted to return them to you.
Take them.

Hamlet
Yes, that's it, you're wrong.
I have never given you anything in my life. Ophelia Gave, prince, you know perfectly well. With the addition of melodious tender words, Their value multiplied. Since their scent has worn out, take them back. Decent girls do not appreciate being given gifts and will be cheated on. Please. Hamlet
Oh, so you're a decent girl?

Ophelia
My lord?

Hamlet
And are you good-looking?

Ophelia
What does your honor mean?

Hamlet
The fact that if you are decent and good-looking, your integrity has nothing to do with it
to do with your beauty.
Ophelia
Isn't decency the best companion for beauty?

Hamlet
O, sure. And sooner beauty will drag decency into the pool than
Decency will correct beauty. Previously this was considered a paradox, but now
proven. I loved you once. Ophelia Indeed, Prince, I believed it. Hamlet You shouldn't have believed it. No matter how much you graft virtue onto our sinful trunk, you cannot smoke out antiquity. I didn't love you. Ophelia I was even more deceived. Hamlet Go to the monastery. Why produce sinners? I myself am of tolerable morality. But I could also reproach myself with so many things that it would have been better if my mother had not given birth to me. I am very proud, vindictive, and proud. And in mine
ordering more nasty things than thoughts to think about these nasty things,
fantasies to put them into flesh, and time to fulfill them. Why the hell do people like me push between heaven and earth? We are all deceivers all around. Don't trust any of us. Go well to the monastery. Where is your father? Ophelia At home, my lord. Hamlet We must lock him up tightly so that he plays the fool only with his family. Go in peace. Ophelia Holy powers, help him! Hamlet If you marry, here is a curse for your dowry. Be as pure as ice and pure as snow; you cannot escape slander. Shut yourself up in the monastery, they tell you. Go in peace. And if you absolutely need a husband, marry
stupid. The smart ones know too much what monsters you make of them. To the monastery, they tell you. And don't put it off. Go in peace. Ophelia Heavenly powers, heal him! Hamlet I've heard a lot about your painting. God gave you one face, and you
something else for yourself. Other with a tail, and a leg, and a tongue, and every creature of God
he will call you his own name, but no matter what he throws out, it’s all one holy thing
innocence. No, you're being naughty. Enough. I'm crazy about this. No weddings. For those who are already married, God bless everyone except one. Let the rest do as before. Go to the monastery. (Leaves.) Ophelia What charm the mind has perished!
A combination of knowledge and eloquence
And valor, our holiday, the color of hope,
Lawmaker of tastes and decency,
Their mirror... all shattered. Everything, everything... And me? Who am I, the poorest of women, With the recent honey of his oaths in my soul, Now that this mighty mind, Like a beaten bell, rattles, And the incomparable youthful appearance is Furrowed by madness. My God! What did you see? What I see before me! The king and Polonius return. King Love? He is not absorbed by her at all. Besides, even though there is no connection in his words, there is no madness in them. It’s not like he’s cherishing In the dark corners of his melancholy, Hatching for something more dangerous. In order to prevent trouble in time, I came to the following decision: He will immediately sail to England to collect the unpaid tribute. Perhaps the sea, new lands And people will knock out of his heart That which sits there and over which he himself racks his brains to the point of stupor. What do you think about this? Polonius Well, that's a thought. And I continue to think that the main subject of his blues is Unhappy love. - Well, daughter? Don't repeat what Hamlet said. We heard it ourselves. - Well, it’s your will. If I were you, after watching the performance, I would have brought the prince and the queen together sooner. Let him question him in private. Would you like me to eavesdrop on the conversation? If she can’t figure him out, well, send him to England, or put him in prison, wherever you decide. King So be it.
Influential madmen are sent to prison.
***Hamlet Whose is he? First gravedigger One damned scoundrel, it’s better not to say. Whose do you think it is? Hamlet I don't know. First Grave Digger Damn him, what a crazy tomboy he was! He poured a bottle of Rensky on my head once, what do you say. This skull, sir, is the skull of Yorick, the royal buffoon. Hamlet This one? The first gravedigger This one. Hamlet Let me take a look. (Takes the skull in his hands.) Poor Yorick! - I knew him, Horatio. It was a man of infinity
wit, inexhaustible in inventions. He carried me on his back a thousand times. A
Now this very disgust and nausea rises in my throat. Should have been here
move the lips that I kissed I don’t know how many times. - Where are yours now?
puns, your funny antics, your couplets? Where are your explosions
infectious joy, when the whole table rolled with laughter? Nothing in
reserve to grin at your own toothlessness? Total relaxation?
Come on, go into the boudoir of a high-society woman and tell her what she will be like,
despite the blush being an inch thick. Try to make her laugh with this
prophecy. -Tell me one thing, Horatio. Horatio What exactly, prince? Hamlet What do you think: Alexander the Great presented the same spectacle on earth? Horatio Yes, exactly. HAMLET Did it smell the same? Ugh! (Puts the skull on the ground.) Horatio Yes, exactly, my lord. Hamlet What wretchedness can one descend to, Horatio! What prevents you from imagining the fate of Alexander’s ashes step by step, right up to the last, when he goes to plug the barrel? Horatio That would be to look at things too prejudicially. Hamlet Nothing happened. On the contrary, it would mean following the subject respectfully, submitting to probability. Something like this: Alexander died, Alexandra
buried, Alexander became dust, dust is earth, clay is extracted from the earth.
Why wouldn't the clay he turned into end up in the coating of a beer barrel?

Decayed by Caesar from the cold
The outside of the house is being sealed up.
Before whom the whole world lay in dust,
It sticks out like a plug in the crack. But be quiet! Let's move on! There's the king.

Quote from Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, no. 1, sc. 5, words of Hamlet. Translated by M. Vronchenko (1828): There is much in nature, friend Horatio, That our sages never dreamed of. Dictionary of popular words. Plutex. 2004 ... Dictionary of popular words and expressions

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages never dreamed of.- wing. sl. Quote from Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet", no. 1, sc. 5, words of Hamlet. Translated by M. Vronchenko (1828): There is much in nature, friend Horatio, That our sages never dreamed of... Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

This article is proposed for deletion. An explanation of the reasons and the corresponding discussion can be found on the Wikipedia page: To be deleted / November 17, 2012. While the discussion process is not completed, the article can be ... Wikipedia

- “Science can do many tricks” is the key phrase for showing a trick with playing cards. Sometimes erroneously conveyed as “Science has many gits.” Description of the trick The magician invites the spectator to shuffle the deck and lay out 10 pairs of cards face down on the table... ... Wikipedia

Essentialism- Essentialism ♦ Essentialisme The doctrine opposite to existentialism and nominalism. Its supporters believe that essence precedes existence or that the essence of every thing is contained in its definition. Also, excessive reliance on language and thinking... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary

1. Averkiev Dmitry
Horatio, - in the sky
And there are more things on earth
What our philosophy dreamed of.

2.Vronchenko Mikhail

There are many things in nature, friend Horatio,

3. Gnedich Peter

Horatio, - in heaven and earth
There are many things that we never even dreamed of
Science.

4.Danilevsky A.M.

There are more such things in heaven and earth,
about which your school wisdom
and never dream, Horatio.

5.K.R. (Prince K.K. Romanov)

There are many such things in heaven and on earth,
What our wisdom, Horace, never dreamed of.

6. Kanshin P.A.

There are many things in heaven and on earth, Horace,
What our wisdom never even dreamed of.

7. Kronberg Andrey

There are many things in heaven and earth,
As in a dream, Horatio, never dreamed
Your learning.

8. Lozinsky Mikhail

There is more hidden in the sky and in the earth,
What does your wisdom dream about, Horatio.

9.Morozov Mikhail

There are more things in heaven and earth Horace,
What did your philosophy dream about?

10.Pasternak Boris

Horace, there are many things in the world,
(Option: Horace, there is a lot in the world that)
That your philosophy never dreamed of.

11.Peshkov I.V.

There is enough in heaven and earth,
That philosophy, Horatio, never dreamed of.

12. Polevoy Nikolay

What our sages never dreamed of.

13. Poplavsky Vitaly

Horatio, not everything that is in nature
Science can explain.

14.Radlova Anna

After all, much is hidden in heaven and earth
Such things, Horatio, that you never dreamed of
All your philosophy.

15. Rapoport Vitaly

Horatio, there are things in this world
That philosophy has never been dreamed of.

16. Rossov Nikolay

There is such a thing in heaven and on earth,
That our wisdom would never even dream of.

17. Sokolsky A.L.

Horatio, on earth and in heaven
There are more miracles than your dreams
Human wisdom.

18.Somin Efim

There are many wonders in heaven and earth, Horace,
Undreamed of by your philosophers

19. Feldman Yakov

There are many things in the world, my dear,
What science has never seen in a dream

20.Chernov Andrey

Horatio, our world is much more wonderful,
What did your philosophers dream about?

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio,
What a person is not supposed to know.

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio
What our sages never dreamed of.

There are many such things in the world, friend Horatio,
What our sages never dreamed of.

How many things, friend Horatio, in the world,
What our sages never dreamed of

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio,
What is unknown to our sages.

On Earth and in Heaven, Horatio,
There are a lot of things
What our sages never dreamed of.

Nikolai Polevoy’s version, No. 12, is closest to me. What about you?