Czytaj książkę: «The theory of everything, which is not»
© Oleg Oka, 2017
ISBN 978-5-4485-8497-8
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
“Imagination runs ahead of reality
and shows the way…”
1 BOOK “WHAT IS”
“… The scientific worldview is not
scientific a true insight
The universe – we don’t have …”
In. And. Vernadsky
1…
Everything I tried so far to benefit humanity – nonsense on vegetable oil. I’ve invaded someone else’s territory, and it is at least funny. Where am I poking around in a ten-dimensional space, where titans like Stephen Hawking was confused…
The only thing I found is God and the primordial space.
Of course, it was not my idea, it is impossible to come up with something that was always there, but I tried to look at these things differently… but that’s not probably to 12 billion people (think about many people have lived on this Earth for our foreseeable at the moment, the story.) already considered many possible options, what’s new to come up with not possible. Okay. You can at least flatter myself…
A good name for a book “The man who invented God.”? (Even Maestro Muldashev – Einstein’s near me!). That is the truth.
Brian Greene “the ELEGANT UNIVERSE” – a book that explains the modern world? And I’m completely lost…
They have EVERYTHING laid out on the shelves and weighed. On stage the SOUL and GOD are already TALKING about it. The latest fashion – the string theory… or Rather FIVE string theories. (The distinction is quite vague, but they are mutually exclusive).
Or I’m going crazy…
(“Occam’s razor” or the principle of brevity of thought, requires a scientist, so he tried to explain every possible phenomenon in a simpler way, without introducing “additional entities”, that is unnecessary hypotheses.”)
I understand fully, there is BICARINATE build a picture of the WORLD.
And for the sake of the process are themselves scientists are on DETAIL COMPLEXITY at the expense of CLARITY. The “discovery” of any new fact applies to the WHOLE picture.
Black holes are sized from particles to galaxies, is the same thing with “strings” – or are considering using the Collider, or with the naked eye in the sky overhead … (each from physics – just in case – warns of possible refutation of another controversial theory. A safety net …)
“Holographic nature” of threshold events!!! “Folded strings” hiding in the folds (!!!) space… As I understand it, these “folds” can hide EVERYTHING from particles to the Universe. Message Datetimetest (instead of SIX!) throws in delighted shock the scientific community … (AND ALL this is clothed in a toga mathematical reasoning – there is nothing you can do about it …)
At the end of the book gives a vague message about the limits of knowledge (thank GOD!!!) but there also triumphant March – the possibility of infinite extension of the limit… the scientific world does not give up…And why would he give up? Not all disassembled… And yet there are people who understand something in their builds, they will not rest.
Here’s what I learned – NEED a NEW CONCEPT of KNOWLEDGE that exists.
The world is sufficiently simple, and if all this wisdom is really almost necessary, LET THEM have FUN… But to follow the path of ever-increasing complexity is a mistake that will inevitably lead to a standstill of knowledge … (There is such a law – the more complex a system is, the more vulnerable she is …) LOGIC, MEANING, and APPROPRIATENESS should be major criteria for the truth (Again.) All this is missing in the present scientific worldview.
As knowledge lying at the basis of the present scientific worldview does not meet the requirements of true knowledge (Consistency-permanence-timelessness; does not have a strong rationale, it is not rational and impractical), and the other science now to offer are not able to, it seems that true knowledge now to be considered INTUITIVE.
And maybe even SPECULATIVE…
2…
First of all, two questions :
“What?” and
“Why?”
I want to Express with this Scripture and why do I need it? Actually at first I wanted to create something mythic, like the monumental Moduleusage work – “Where did the people.” … (From Shambhala the same!)
And I started… then started again, then again… until I realized that no one needs it. And including me… And recently dawned on me that just simply exists I have such a need at the end of life to determine where I lived (in what world), why and how. So I have to write some kind of summary about my existence. A philosophical treatise? If you take into consideration that we are all philosophers, then so be it. But I do not want anybody to learn or review some established forms and systems.
I just want to understand AT THEIR level what I learned from this life about the world and about yourself. For this there are a variety of ways: in the form of some entertaining works (“Gulliver’s Travels …"), or didactic texts, as “the Revolt of the angels”. France, or scientific treatises, as “the Treatise on the heavens” of Aristotle, or the form of a dialogue, i.e. a live conversation, like Fontenelle’s “plurality of worlds”. All opportunities not listed.
Moreover, I don’t want to didactically formulate any provisions that are no doubt formulated in different ways by many philosophers, according to their systems and teachings.
First of all I don’t like or understand mathematics, people tend to fear what they do not understand. Moreover, I do not understand is not the object itself (though that too), I don’t see these clever formulas make sense and expediency. I can’t IDENTIFY them with anything from the surrounding world of things and events… And consequently, mathematics seems to me a thing artificial, UNNATURAL, not belonging to our world.
Better than I said why I don’t like math – Derrida, “Dissemination”: – “… mathematics do not know what they are talking about, and… they are also a little worried about how it is written corresponds to any reality…”
“Newton tried to construct a General picture of the Universe, however, with all hands, she would inevitably shapefiles under the force of gravity.
Einstein strongly believed in the beginning and the end of the universe and therefore came up with the eternally-existing static Universe. To do this he needed to introduce in his equations a special component which is created “antigravitation”, and thereby formally assuring the stability of the world order. This Supplement (the so-called “cosmological term”), Einstein considered inelegant, ugly, but all the same necessary (the author is General relativity not in vain believed my aesthetic sense – it was later proven that the static model is unstable and therefore physically meaningless).” —
AS SUCH A FOCUS?
Philosophy takes a variety of forms, i.e., a philosopher can only think so, and nothing else. But others should perceive it to build adequately different? Philosophers are human beings too, and no two are similar (and can be). The consciousness of each individual. Can be affected by acquired experience, can be all the same destiny…
On the one hand it is good, but too much variation methods puts these people are often on different sides of the fence and prevents understanding…
An example of the imposition of mathematics on the philosophy; – the Russian philosopher, mathematics teacher Kallistrat Zhakov “Logic” (section titles) :
values of figures and translating them into one another
on the use of mnemonic images of syllogisms
– on the possibility of all modes of syllogism
one form of output;
This is when a person can not think mathematically, all logical reasoning is expressed by algebraic formulas, when the subject and the thought depersonalized masks of the characters, and for me, for example, the perception of the logic of his thinking is, to put it mildly, difficult.
(– “Oh, look at the math, said Logik. – He observes that the first ninety-nine numbers are less than a hundred, and hence, by means of what he calls induction, concluded that any number less than a hundred.
Physicist believe, ‘said the mathematician,” that 60 is divided by all the numbers. He observes that 60 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. He checks a few other numbers, such as 10, 20 and 30, taken, as he says, at random. Since 60 divided them, he considers the experimental data is sufficient.
– Yeah, but look at the engineer, – said the physicist. The engineer suspected that all odd numbers are Prime. In any case, 1 can be regarded as a simple number that proves it. Then there are 3, 5 and 7, all, of course, is simple.
Then, going 9 – an unfortunate incident; apparently, 9 is not a Prime number, but 11 and 13, of course, is simple. Go back to 9, “he says,” I conclude that 9 must be an error of the experiment.” (From the book, Etc. Polya. Mathematics and plausible reasoning, IL, 1957.)
“Development of existential question therefore means: flashing certain things – asking – in its Genesis. Asking this question as the modus of existence of certain things is itself essentially determined by what it is asked – being. It’s things that we ourselves always of the essence and which among other things has the existential possibility of asking, we grasp the terminology as presence. Clear and transparent formulation of the question about the meaning of being requires a prior adequate explication of certain things (presence) in the aspect of his existence.” Martin Heidegger “Being and time”. Here is a quite different matter; – the classical language of philosophy. Logic and meaning, vitality and feasibility… Someone here is understand what is said in this passage? (Not counting the professionals, dog ate …)
And the third example – “… hybrid forms matters svoemesto fill the deformation space, in which synthesis occurs. The synthesis process continues as long as the crumple zone does not fill completely, as if falling asleep with the stones of the pit, the surface of the dirt road is smooth. Hybrid of matter neutralize the crumple zone space. And that can only mean one thing – they affect the dimension of the space with the sign opposite to the sign of the deformation space in which the synthesis of these hybrid materials. Atoms create the secondary curvature of micropotenza…” – here and rushing “scholarship,” standing on wobbly stilts pseudo-scientific terms… And behind them – the emptiness and nonsense. Of course this is academician Levashov…
Know comments …
So I will try to put the language of “household” used, and it is not for the sake of the intended reader, as such, is not intended to, and only to not get confused.
3…
Each person I think needs to be unquestioned authorities, scientists, writers, poets, politicians, maybe even the characters, of myths, a kind of lighthouses in the ocean of human culture (that’s a stamp …).
Naturally, I have a couple of names. Not to say that the saints, but these names for me all the same mean a lot, forcing one to wonder who I am, why and where you’re going.
Homer, Shakespeare, Quevedo, Cervantes, Melville…
Russian – L. Gumilev, M. Bulgakov (which “Master and Margarita”). Vernadsky, And. Brodsky… people in the words and deeds of which I am not looking for any trick.
Then I will have to quote many famous and not so famous people. Some of them professed values, different from the dear truths of a neighbor. Who was right, who is not… to Judge in many cases I refuse in recent times the category of truth has shifted for me in a strange area… of Course, if I see a natural idiot, as, for example, doctor of Sciences ophthalmologist Muldashev er. R. – silence here is not possible… But among philosophers to look right and there’s is a thankless job… especially as a joke about space: There are two theories of the Universe; the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Both are correct but exclude one another
I’ll give you a quote. Most of the authors are specified, there is no other: just too lazy to look and remember… If the author is not specified, it does not mean that the quote is invented by me… Have to believe. If I doubt – I will be fair to warn you…
– “… historians, obviously, always tell the truth (as they always vouch for their words and so therefore can’t lie)…” George. Cohen
I have already given a hint about what you want to see a certain truth… of the true knowledge. Not someone’s opinion about “black holes” and “curled up string, hiding in the folds of space”, but a General truth…
“PARMENIDES introduces the distinction between truth and opinion. The truth is the knowledge of life, so her main criteria are CONSISTENCY, IMMUTABILITY, and TIMELESSNESS. -”
(Most modern theories is just the sin of absence of these signs …).
– “… My definition of truth is: a belief is true when it corresponds to fact.” – B. Russell’s “Philosophical dictionary of mind, matter and morality.”
“European medieval philosophy considers KNOWLEDGE AS the GRACE THAT comes FROM GOD. God discovers himself in creation and in revelation … " – another opinion, eligible to be…
“THEORY of KNOWLEDGE” (neokantianism, epistemology) – “… the doctrine of the knowledge that revealed the conditions in which it becomes possible to undoubtedly existing knowledge, and depending on these conditions establish the boundaries, which may extend any whatsoever knowledge and opening up the region are equally unprovable opinions.” – But this view already can waft boredom and discouragement because even theorize physicists acknowledge the possibility of the boundaries of knowledge (imagination runs dry?).
“INTUITIVE knowledge, knowledge that comes from life experiences, free associations, and ‘spark of God’. Often based on Intuitive knowledge born of hypothesis and theories, which take the form of postulates, for example, the theory of ‘black holes’, etc.” so, I choose the intuitive knowledge.
And not because it is “the mother of black holes”. My intuition tells me the opposite, that the theory “CH. D.” – is not true knowledge. His criteria, as we know from Parmenides – INVARIANCE, CONSISTENCY, TIMELESSNESS.
Or Parmenides already outdated?
Well, more modern – “real knowledge – must have strong justification, statistical, mathematical, logical… It must also be rational and expedient.”
– “… I think that truth and knowledge are different, and that statement may be true, notwithstanding the absence of any method that allows us to verify this. We can then make the law of the excluded middle. We define the ‘truth’ through an appeal to ‘events’ (we are not talking about logical truth), and ‘knowledge’ – through the reference to ‘objects of perception’. Thus, the ‘truth’ would be a broader concept than ‘knowledge’. ” – B. Russell’s “Philosophical dictionary of mind, matter and morality.”
About the basics of the modern world-arrangement – T. About. and quantum theory I mentioned…
As C. The skumbrievich: – “I did it not in the interests of truth, but in the interests of truth.”
…Still have “black holes” and “string”.
Statistics?
There is no ONE hundred percent reliable observations of these miracles.
Logic?
This is well stated in the book of St. Hawking’s “a brief history of time” and Hoyle and Sagan – these miracles and wonders are. That is, on the verge of a probable…
Math?
Mathematics have already considered (mathematically) both literally to the last particle… based On the method of extrapolation. Ie, just strictly looking at the side effects.
This is all given that the very existence of these objects is under question. Here to you and the feasibility and rationality…
– “… Scientists constantly invent words to fill the holes in your understanding… Sometimes understanding comes and the temporary words are replaced by others with more sense. But most often, these words take root, and nobody remembers that they were originally invented for convenience only. For example, some physicists describe gravity in terms of curved space of ten dimensions. But these ten measurements, just words for temporary use as replacement parts of abstract mathematical formulas. Even if these formulas will be useful, it does not mean that all ten dimensions do exist. Words such as dimension, field, infinity is not that other, as a convenient term for mathematicians and physicists. They do not describe reality, but we accept on faith that these things exist, hoping that someone still understands what they mean … —
– …Did you hear about string theory? he asked. – String theory says that all of our reality as gravity, magnetism, light can be explained in one General theory, which operates tiny, like strings, vibrating objects. String theory has not yet yielded any practical results. It still has not been proved experimentally, however, thousands of physicists devote their careers, on the grounds that it is plausible.”…
– “… Take gravity. Gravity is also impossible to jacket the. Its action extends over the whole Universe, and it affects all objects. And at the same time has no physical form. —
– As I recall, Einstein said that gravity is the curvature of space-time by massive objects, ' said I…
– All right, Einstein said so. What does that mean? —
It means that space is curved, so when we think that objects attract each other, in fact they’re just moving along the shortest path through curved space. —
– Can you imagine bent space? —
I can’t, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not really curved! Will you argue with Einstein.” Adams With. “Fragments Of God”
– AND WHY NOT? —
– “… World in which we live can be understood as the result of confusion and occasion; but if it is the result of a consciously chosen goal, that goal apparently belongs to enemy of the human race. As for me, I think the case is less painful and more plausible hypothesis.” B. Russell’s “is There life after death”
I’m not against both, and the third… In our world, everything can be… but I’ll stick with intuition. So just more interesting to listen to “the music of the spheres”…
Only how to be with the truth? Treat her poor as to abstraction? I don’t like to live by abstractions. It’s not even of Zurbagan A. green.
And for myself, I decided so (it is not a panacea and is not a recommendation!) :
– true knowledge the one that I designate as such ;
– rational, rationalize, received intuitively and based on my experience.
And experience of those I respect.
4…
– “First – that the soul is older than all that has been allotted birth; she is immortal, and rules all bodies; secondly, that the stellar bodies, as we’ve said many times, is the mind of all that exists.” Plato’s “Laws.”
And I found a good tool To have. Vernadsky – “philosophical skepticism”.
Practically, it means this (if I understand correctly);
– “all training and systems are good, choose on taste” – of course, it is necessary to know the leading philosophers, their views of the school system. But we must not make idols. To accept what fits your worldview, use, not forgetting to mention the author, analyze, develop…
But remember that you’re the smartest. So, no more stupid than others.
– “… the saying of Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated
mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
– “Sign of an educated mind is the ability to play
thought, disagreeing with her.” —
– With HUMOR, WITH HUMOR… We are not the first, well, not the first, and last, but not least…
– “In comparison with what in General, in principle, possible to know I know nothing. To create smart-sounding answers I used credo of the skeptics: – “the Simplest explanation is usually right.”.
All my experience shows, however, just the opposite – in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually always wrong. But I noticed that the simplest explanation is usually correct and looks much more convincing than any complicated explanation could be.” Adams, S. “Fragments Of God”
5…
Is it possible to represent infinity? Man needs a point of reference, he need mapping, otherwise it will not know what was going on. But what can be compared with the absolute?
The space of the Universe – infinitely. In all respects. This should be the starting point. As for Aristotle, the vector starts from the center of the World and went to infinity. But in the infinity Space Center is any arbitrarily taken point from which you can build a variety of coordinate systems, and each of these systems on their vectors will have infinite number of starting points for new coordinates…
And they are all identical to any other taken at random.
– “… The time may be continuous, and the moment will not last forever. —
– Yes, mathematically it all works. And as the moment lasts forever, we believe that the paradox of Zeno is not really a paradox. Unfortunately, this solution is incorrect. Infinity is a useful tool for mathematics, but this is just an abstract concept. This is not a property of our physical reality. —
– Isn’t the universe infinitely large? – I asked.
– Most scientists agree that the universe is huge but finite. —
– It does not make sense. What if I get there on a rocket to the end of the Universe and will not stop? Will I not be able to fly forever? Where would I be if not in the Universe? —
– You are always part of the Universe, by definition. So, when your missile crosses the current boundary of the Universe, the boundary will move with you. You will become a new external border of the Universe in this direction. But the universe still would have a specific size, not infinite. —
– Well, the universe may be finite, but all the nothingness around it endlessly, right? – I asked.
– Does not make sense to say that you have an infinite amount of nothing … "– Adams, S.“Fragments of God”
In infinity there is no space of Time, because here time is tied to any of an infinite number of arbitrary points is identical. That is, the time will be infinitely duplicate itself…
Can we somehow limit infinity?
This means to localize artificially taken volume of Space, to impose an invented measurement system, and so an infinite number of times. It’s all the same for each planet in the Solar system to invent their own physical laws, its own chemistry, Mineralogy, tectonics, optics, and spread this method to all the infinite space. But then will be destroyed by the laws, the tenets on which keeps all of our human science. And the infinity of Space wins.
Because the fact is that our little universe contains everything necessary for survival in a limited world, self-sufficient world, which is not the case INDEFINITELY, and if our world tries to get in touch with the absolute of the Universe, he will be put in the position of the necessity of self-destruction and assimilation into INFINITY.
I think, as has already happened an infinite number of times, because our world has the time, and therefore the beginning and the end, but this is not the beginning and end of the Universe, because it is a necessary condition for this constant cycle of Universes – a Holy place is never empty. We need the Universe, otherwise we never would be. In nature there are no accidents, there is a minimum and maximum capabilities, but in the infinite between them – our world.
“There will always be something larger or smaller.” Anaxagoras
