для читателей старше 18 лет
“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
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…
First of all, two questions :
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.
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”.
There is no ONE hundred percent reliable observations of these miracles.
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…
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.
— “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”
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
— “… The main character in the book freely talks about God, and his arguments, to put it mildly, very unusual. It is unlikely you ever heard of anything like that…”
Adams With. “Fragments Of God”
At first I wanted to start a conversation like this :
— “In youth I opened my eyes, looked around, and didn’t understand. What I saw gave rise to many questions but gave no answers. The WORLD was large and mysterious, inexplicable, do not understand — why and what for.
First, I picked up the Bible. But then I was an atheist, and did not understand this Hebrew fiction. Then there were a lot of books. From Einstein, which I just don’t understand Art. LEM, L. Gumilev, In. Vernadsky, And. Asimov.
But in these books, the answers I found.
They only contained the author’s point of view, which was based on the books of other authors, or theories which also did not explain anything. Something clear I found only among the ancient Greeks.
And then I stopped being an atheist, and again took up the Bible.
And this Book opened my eyes. There are no controversial theories, there is no shamanic formulas and abstruse pseudo-scientific terminology. She speaks about the WORLD in simple, human terms. And I began to see the WORLD through this Book, and this is what I saw…” —
“FOR THE WRONG THOUGHTS SEPARATE FROM GOD, AND TEST HIS STRENGTH WILL CONVICT INSANE.” The book of Wisdom of Solomon CH. 1 St. 3
Next, I thought it appropriate to remember St. Hawking :
— “… of existing theories enough to make accurate predictions in all situations except the most extreme, the search for the ultimate theory of the Universe does not meet the requirements of practicality… and will not contribute to the survival and even will not affect the course of our lives. “Stephen Hawking “a brief history of time”
— so I’m not going to write the final theory of the Universe…
“Thought is energy”. Vernadsky.
But the soul… the Soul is the simplest unit of space. And the soul — the synthesis of body, mind, personality. (The body can only be seen as a contributing factor, although necessary, but not critical in light of new developments in computer technology …) the Mind is, no doubt, is largely determined by the personality, although he specifies many aspects of personality. Here two-way interaction. People love the mystery of the chicken and the egg… I Think the person in relation to the mind is secondary. It seems that when the soul leaves the body (not in the case of death), some properties of the mind in the body remain… People (such is often referred to crazy) continue to use the techniques of logic, make a choice, that is, evaluate things and circumstances have an opinion… Without a doubt it’s characteristics are not innate instincts, but of the mind. The reason “inadequate”. (this is the new buzz word)
In this case there is the presence of body, mind (inadequate), and… Identity? Is it possible in this case to say that a person is saved? Indeed, in this case, and the soul must be present … (I’m not Freud, and to write stories about uncontrollable subconscious not consider themselves to be competent …)
Got a logical chain… Always takes me somewhere. Wanted to understand that in this case energy.
Soul — energy education, this question is no. But what is the source of energy? In his theory I Express an opinion on the source of energy — emotions. This seems to be true. No doubt the energy just necessary for the soul, but emotion is a reaction of consciousness to external impressions (stimuli). Very similar to the perpetual motion — consciousness-emotion-energy of the soul… that is, thought, as an activity of the mind, is not a necessary condition. Probably all know it — we are experiencing some strong emotions, and only then begins the work of consciousness is processing of information received… And at what stage you receive the energy? Apparently, as a result of this work of consciousness…
The energy of the mind feeds the energy structure of space after the liberation of the mind from the insulating membranes of the body, the personality, and eventually from the heart. Pass-any signs of intelligence in the structure of space? I don’t think in absolute space is preserved individuality of all intelligent beings were in the infinity of the world — it would be pointless and wasteful for space. Rather, nedobora, devoid of emotion, is a kind of “information Bank” of the universe, hardly used space, but is required for the existence of another Universes as a determinant of intelligence…
Naturally, this warehouse of information is all the universal properties of space, in addition to the functions, — he is omnipresent. The human world is permeated with them. The question can noosphere to interact with this “library of knowledge” remains open. And this is unlikely to be available to the individual, rather the noosphere as a natural phenomenon. Of course, many rogues talking about the mysterious States of mind (prana, somati and many others — all heard), but it seems that the insulating sheath of the soul cannot directly communicate with the space. God has never appeared in true form, but approached it through different devices, and the information thus obtained, inevitably distorted… Like all the information coming to us from outer space…
Geophysicist In Vernadsky. And. considering the NOOSPHERE only as a geological phenomenon. I-also think that global changes in the Geosphere is only the direct mechanical interaction of nature and of reason, of civilization.
The noosphere should be seen more globally as the interaction between the mind and infinite space. Hence the absolutism of the mind, i.e., mind can be regarded as one of the functions of the space. And the noosphere, respectively, as an area of spatial volume changes of civilization…
Hear natural question on the subject of the conversation — which in my understanding is the soul, the mind and personality. (I don’t touch my body, this dark matter, everyone can create and have an opinion.) And about the listed items I just had to speak out because they are always implied in this conversation.
The SOUL, as I have already mentioned — the simplest spatial structure of the cells placed by God in the new, born body on the Ground. This is the subject material, practically eternal, amounting to clean your form of the energy structure of space. The soul must pass through a number of reincarnations before will take its place in space with the desired energy potential.
MIND, unlike soul, the intangible, rather it is not an object but a property, a mode of existence of the soul in the human body. It is the mind that allows the soul to go through the procedure for acquiring the necessary skills, and to obtain the necessary energy potential. I think the energy of the soul occurs due to emotional States, received by the soul during earthly life. Depending on the polarity of the emotional charge can be positive or negative (physics course an elementary school).
I read somewhere that the Vatican in 2010, recognized the existence of souls in animals. Honestly, I do not know what to say about it. That animals experience emotions, not be questioned. And the example of his dog, I can say that she had a sense of love and the ability to co-FEEL what you know, not all people. And the soul? I do not know. But when my dog died, I physically felt the loss of a piece of my soul. And I still feel the constant pain of that loss.
PERSONALITY is a complex synthesis of mind, soul and body. It consists of many components, which are inherited from parents, life experience, impressions and knowledge acquired in the initial period of the bodily life. I think the personality comes at the moment when man becomes aware of the “I”, his individuality. And in the continuation of all life, and for some time after death when the soul leaves the deceased body, the personality is a kind of a safety “box”, gradually wearing as soon as the soul is freed from the yoke of earthly life, financial problems, all that constitutes the essence of life on earth. In the end, the liberated soul has no personality, and then the mind, which has already become unnecessary, and from the material world of the Universe goes to the level of spatial structures.
In General, I should probably give a couple of quotes respected me Elizarova E. D.;
— … possible through integration, ironically, may be the biological death of man … —
— … a complete assimilation of all objective reality to the practical activity of the subject (now becoming Global) mind means an exit from the field of spatial-temporal relations in the sphere of more fundamental dimensions of existence. —
— … Really: the dissolution of the mind in nature could be interpreted as the completion of his being, as his natural death. Elizarov E. “Global mind”.
Naturally, the author speaks specifically about mind, talking about the soul is still considered our scientists in bad taste…
More quotes Elizarova I would like to add a reason :
Mind Elizarov sees as a function of the highest stage of evolution of matter. Such, he believed the human nervous system? But according to Darwin’s theory in ancient times, at the beginning of the evolutionary ascent of man did not suffer from overloaded brains. His mind, therefore, was in a primitive state. That is, our ancient ancestors, simply put, were fools. Is this idea hard to promote the apologists of paleocontact: were savages, then came good, but a powerful Djinn-Anunnaki-shamballic, took away a good portion of wisdom, and it is universal happiness… Can this be? I doubt it. In my opinion, intelligence is either there or not there. Can’t be a primitive mind can be a primitive state of technology…
A thoughtful monkey would die from hunger, or she would be the steak for Breakfast the indricotherium. However, Elizarov it turns out that the evolution of matter (in the transition of the human body in Supermaresme state), he starts wildly to get smarter and manipulate matter Universes and even create a new intelligent civilization. And at the end of evolution will even create our own… where we are in the moment and finds…
Here something I refuse to understand. May be because I do not look at the world through the glasses of materialism?
And another question — the mind as a result of all will be a single MAHARASAKAM human civilization, or their will be a lot (much more than now of the people on Earth, many, many billions) — enough for their ambition of Universes in the infinity of space, or through the Black Holes they trample in parallel worlds? And there the rowdies enough… That somehow the Universe will mess up…
In August 1987, I first arrived to Baikonur on a business trip. And the airport Extreme was shocked, breathing in the desert air. I am originally from Uzbekistan, and the air of Central Asia to me is not unusual, but after St. Petersburg I nearly suffocated — it was the searing, dense, viscous, it is with difficulty passed into the lungs and smelled somehow of iron and dry grass… the Second shock I experienced late at night, on the launch pad 45. Released under the open sky and froze up from fear, it is fear that I felt, finding himself in the endless blackness where there was nothing — neither me, nor the earth under your feet, anything… Only giant stars. The dome of stars was located around at eye level, and closed above his head. Such clearly defined stars in the “Northern capital” I never saw — not the atmosphere.
Especially in August is not over yet white nights, and here… maybe then, not in childhood or adolescence, I realized that they are not just a unit of the billions of the same, but a part of something that has no analogue here in the everyday life of earthlings. Maybe it was a vision, or a feeling, but since then, looking at the surrounding people, it seems to me that on each of them to infinity overhead stretched an invisible thread (?) something like the pneumatic tubes mail, bundles of energy, strings… I don’t know how to describe it… Perhaps it is the power of our many-esteemed esoteric shamans in the fifth generation. That’s when I know that any of the chakras, the aura, this feeling has nothing to do. I am not a descendant of the Atlanto-Lemurians with the Aryans and as-Syrians. I am a simple, the most ordinary people, and all this shamballah-blavadskaya hell, I drum. I do not like crooks.
But I am sure that EVERYTHING in the universe is interconnected… However, it was not my idea and copyright to swing not going. And did it the ancient Greeks who in shambalah didn’t understand, and just wanted to know about the prospects of stay in this life. And yet, what is actually happening around, to, God forbid, not to run into those pitfalls… the Greeks now to mention fashionable, like God, only in a different key. God people are now angry, in fact, brought out by the crises and reptiles. And the Greeks — the guys are harmless. We’re just jealous of them; — lived, nothing but philosophy, and bodybuilding not interested, no GMOs, neither the IMF nor the financial-political-oil problems. Management companies are not stolen, and repaired the road and the facades of temples. Even unconventional sex was in a number of household amenities. No drugs, no Internet with stupid networks, nor the media promoting interracial hostility (Such hostility they feel for Ukrainians, Asians, refugees from Africa and the UAE, US policy and the European Union that do not live and others …).
In General, the ancient Greeks knew how to enjoy life. And their gods were respected and offense to different academics were not given. And said all sorts of interesting things about the Universe, time, space and elementary particles. (About “black holes” they knew nothing, but I guess something in the infinity of the suspect, and quantum theory and string theory had a premonition …).
However among them there are snickering, Plato example (but who among us is without sin, let him cast a stone Plato …), he did not like the state, the law, and said. But we all know that laws are written not for people but for the gods, and who and for who invented the Constitution with the Declaration of human rights — no one knows.
With the gods and quite solid neponyatki, and not from Greek, where it was regulated, and with our family … (I’m not talking about the Volos talking with other frights …).
— " And who are you, o man, to talk back to God?
The product will tell you who made it :
Why hast thou made me thus? “Rome., 9:20
Okay? I don’t. That is, there seems to be in Russian: every cricket, there…
But it is actually much more serious.
“It is impossible to grasp the immensity.”
A new TENET of FAITH
The SOUL is the simplest element of the space.
The SOUL needs to be structured, because it bears both the BEGINNING ("… heaven and hell are the two halves of the soul”). The SOUL in our World can actively exist only tied to the fabric of our universe (the BODY). The SOUL is organized by the MIND, and the synthesis of three principles (BODY-SOUL-MIND) creates the IDENTITY. It’s the last that separates the SOUL from Space. The man — monster from the soul and body.
Schematically this can be expressed as ;