Social conflict is…. About the origin of language Modern science has absolutely established that the human

My dear inquisitive readers who want to develop themselves!
Before you the most modern verified accurate data on the true origin of matter, the entire material world!
They are presented in the most accessible form in the most understandable language possible (for the popularization of these fields of science).
Almost all of us thought about where the objective reality, given to us in sensations, came from.
Some dark people still naively blindly believe in its eternity and infinity.
As modern science has firmly established, matter is a secondary, derived entity.
It unambiguously arose, happened.
Matter, all-all matter as a whole, all-all-all single integral material world arose as a result of the so-called Big Bang about 14 billion years ago.
Science believes that matter originated from a complete zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time.
And space and time as properties-attributes of matter were born together with matter itself.
Scientists also believe that matter has arisen, materialized from a complete vacuum for a reason, not out of the blue.
Someone helped her a lot in this.
About this someone and His role, I will also give out a lot of interesting purely scientific information in my article below.
Modern scientists have discovered and proven this:
Matter is fundamentally incapable of having primacy and self-sufficiency.
Science has absolutely proven that matter is a secondary, derived entity.
In the beginning, there was no matter.
All matter, all-all material world, as a whole, materialized, emerged from "zero" about 14 billion years ago.
Before that, matter had not yet emerged.
There was no matter - and suddenly it appeared.
Actually, both time and space as inseparable properties-attributes of matter appeared together with matter itself.
Matter, as scientifically established, is most likely generated by our Creator, the Creator from the so-called NOTHING - that is, from a complete physical vacuum.
The complete physical vacuum outside space and time is not matter, but a meaningful emptiness.
It is devoid of specific properties and limitations inherent in matter, not constrained by the framework of physical Laws that our Creator imposed by His Will on matter (to make it capable of giving rise to life and Mind - the container of Spirit in the material world), by the framework of the Laws that God gave matter for it elementary functioning.
In potency, the complete physical vacuum contains everything, everything, everything, and is inexhaustible in its potencies.
But only in potencies.
Without the Creator, the Demiurge, a complete physical vacuum just out of the blue is completely incapable of generating daunting worlds of trillions of galaxies (most of which are hundreds of billions of stars) and a lot of other things.
Despite the fact that the actual physical vacuum does not contain anything, it is actually sterile in itself, it contains everything, everything, everything potentially.
Therefore, due to the greatest commonality, he (along with God) can act as the ontological basis of the entire variety of objects and phenomena in the world.
In this sense, God and emptiness are the most meaningful and most fundamental entities.
And matter is undoubtedly a secondary essence that has arisen.
I want to define the terms as precisely as possible.
Sometimes (not always) in their scientific jargon, a vacuum is called a physical vacuum.
Most scientists and I understand the concept of "physical" first of all precisely: NOT SUPERNATURAL.
Theories of the origin of matter from purely supernatural phenomena are already beyond the scope of modern science.
But vacuum as meaningful emptiness is not matter, but the dialectical opposite, the antithesis of matter.
So both matter and its dialectical opposite are sometimes (not always) united under the concept of physical.
That is, they mean that elementary physics can also study the origin of matter itself, and not only theological and teleological sciences and philosophy.
In the broadest sense, GOD, the CREATOR is material, since HE objectively, completely real, absolutely exists independently of human consciousness and human opinion about His real existence.
In the broadest sense, God can also be called a superintelligent spiritual primary form of matter.
By the term matter, I mean specifically everything, everything, everything that in the Soviet official Diamatist philosophy was designated as reality, given to us in sensations and well-verifiable fixable, amenable to study by our devices, this very matter Diamat's philosophers traditionally opposed God, Spirit and consciousness in the so-called. "The fundamental question of philosophy."
They (Diamat's philosophers) considered this very essence (opposed to spirit, consciousness and God) to be primary, eternal and infinite.
But it turned out that matter is absolutely SECONDARY and finite in space and time.
Of course, you can awkwardly try to “save the situation” by calling anything you like matter - God, the souls of people, angels, demons, any spirits, and any metaphysical phenomena that are fundamentally different from matter, and at the same time absolutely any dialectical opposition of matter.
I personally designate in this article by the term "MATTER" exactly what Marx, Engels and Lenin understood by matter.
And the fact that Marx, Engels and Lenin considered NOT EXISTING phenomena (including supernatural and (or) metaphysical), I now scientifically demonstratively position as the creators and co-creators of this very matter.
A complete vacuum as a meaningful void is no longer MATTER, but its dialectical opposite.
And it is primary in relation to matter.
If someone is too biased to pick on the concept of "not matter", I will additionally explain: then call THIS "not quite matter", well, for example, angels and demons and spiritual grace - "not quite matter", "not quite material", but then it will be incompatible with Marxism and Marxist materialism (and not only with them) non-canonical your personal CONDITIONAL terms.
That is, "saving matter" with far-fetched terminological tricks, the opponent will inevitably excommunicate himself, fall away from the generally accepted Marxist terminology.
So, vacuum as a meaningful void is no longer matter.
This is its dialectical opposite.
Or (according to another philosophical well-grounded version) - the counter-dialectal antipode of matter.
In a word, not matter.
Other.
Well, the very thing from which according to the “Bible” God created matter, created the material world.
The vacuum is primary in relation to matter.
But the vacuum is not the most primary essence, it is also in a certain sense secondary and produced in relation to the Superintelligent Creator.
Only God is fully primary and truly absolutely eternal in Eternity.
He is the alpha and omega of everything.
No one has ever created God out of anything, He is the CREATOR himself, the Creator, the Demiurge.
It did not arise, did not arise, did not happen, it was and will be ALWAYS !!!
God is the true fundamental principle of all that exists.
Let's go back to the vacuum.
By itself, the complete absolute zero-dimensional vacuum outside the space and time of the material worlds as meaningful emptiness is not matter.
It's just that there are theories (and I will soon touch on them) about the origin of matter directly from supernatural or other non-physical entities.
To stay within the framework of natural science, fundamental physics, not getting entangled in the Divine and supernatural science, I (like many scientists before me) designate the dialectically opposite matter (and primary in relation to matter, but not to God) meaningful emptiness with the term PHYSICAL VACUUM.
It's just such a conventional natural science term.
And some gentlemen, militant atheist demagogues from among the readers can, have the liberal right in their works even to christen the Lord God Himself with matter, nature and nature - this is their copyright.
I will just modestly prove and scientifically substantiate that everything, everything, everything that Marx, Engels and Lenin considered to be a primary essence, in fact (and this is truly scientifically proven) is a secondary essence, not eternal and finite, and in particular having limited finite mass and energy.
So vacuum is not just emptiness, but meaningful emptiness.
Such a scientific understanding of the physical vacuum forces us to recognize the reality of existence not only in theory, but also in reality both “nothing” and “nothing” in one “bottle” (vacuum) in their indissoluble unity - the dialectic of something and nothing.
The "NOTHING" actualized (by the Creator), known to us under the philosophical term MATTER, exists as manifested (by the Creator from the vacuum) being - in the form of the substance-field physical world we observe, in the form of the objectified world given to us (partly directly, partly through devices) into sensations reality, but the "NOTHING" potentially pregnant "NOTHING" exists as an unmanifested being - in the form of a physical vacuum.
Therefore, unmanifest being, when extending this concept to the physical vacuum, should be considered precisely as an independent physical entity that is essentially different from MATTER, which must be studied.
The physical vacuum is not directly observed, but the manifestation of its mysterious properties is recorded in experiments. The already known vacuum effects include: the creation of an electron-positron pair, the Lamb-Rutherford effect, the Casimir effect. As a result of vacuum polarization, the electric field of a charged particle differs from the Coulomb one.
This leads to the Lemb shift of the energy levels and to the appearance of an anomalous magnetic moment in the particles. When a high-energy photon acts on a physical vacuum, real particles - an electron and a positron - appear in the field of the nucleus.
The Casimir effect indicates the emergence of forces bringing two plates together in a vacuum.
These (and many others) effects indicate that the vacuum is a very real existing entity.
The reality is that within the framework of ordinary (developed for matter) quantum physics, the theory of the physical vacuum did not take place.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the "zone of life" of the theory of the physical vacuum should be outside the limits of quantum physics and, most likely, precede it.
Apparently, the quantum theory should be a consequence and continuation of the theory of the physical vacuum, since the physical vacuum is assigned the role of the most fundamental physical entity, the role of the basis of the world, the ancestor of matter.
A very important and interesting scientific (and philosophical) question is whether matter arose (whether created, whether created) from a PHYSICAL vacuum or from non-physical entities.
Let's consider this issue in more detail.
Matter appeared along with its properties-attributes - space and time.
The linear counting of time itself began from the moment of the appearance (creation) of this very secondary entity - matter.
Before the appearance of matter, there was simply no space known to us or time known to us.
At all.
Our Creator was and is outside of time in Eternity.
That, however, does not prevent Him at all and it is excellently beautiful to be pantheistically present in the space-time continuum of the matter created by him too.
Outside the material Universe, as well as outside of other secondary material worlds-universes, there is absolutely no "empty" space and no "empty" time flows.
I understand that it is difficult to visualize this (however, as well as infinity) - but it is so.
If there are other parallel material worlds, then OTHER spaces are spread out in them and OTHER times are flowing.
That is why, first of all, we do not observe parallel worlds in any way - we simply do not come into contact with them in space-time.
As you know, the indissoluble properties-attributes of our material world, our Physical Universe, are space and time - our four-dimensional space-time continuum.
We ourselves, as observers within this space-time continuum, and therefore observe the physical vacuum precisely through the prism of space and time.
And it is very difficult for our brains to imagine a physical vacuum outside space and time.
And BEFORE the appearance of matter, the physical vacuum could only be outside the space and time we are accustomed to.
Either way or no way.
No "empty" space and "empty" (not connected in any way with the movement of matter, with moving matter) then simply could not be and did not exist.
Therefore, there is a clever and interesting hypothesis of the talented scientist Andrei Makarov that matter may have arisen not from a physical vacuum, but from non-physical entities.
This is a completely scientific and very talented hypothesis of Andrey.
Before the appearance of matter, there really could have been (and now they are OUTSIDE of matter) non-physical entities, for example, METAphysical entities, such as divine energies, divine emanations, etc.
But their study, unfortunately, takes us beyond the line of modern natural science, beyond the framework of ordinary earthly science into the glittering heights of metaphysics, esotericism and theology.
Therefore, we will modestly try to comprehend the phenomenon of materialization of matter from NOTHING in the strict limited framework of canonical natural science.
In natural science, due to the fact that the physical vacuum claims to a fundamental status, even to the status of the ontological basis of matter materialized from it, it should have the greatest generality and it should not have particular features inherent in matter that are characteristic of many observed material entities - objects and phenomena.
It is known that the assignment of any additional attribute to an object reduces the universality of this object.
For example, a pen is a universal concept. Adding a feature narrows the range of objects covered by this concept (door handle, ballpoint, etc.).
Thus, we come to the conclusion that an entity that is devoid of any signs, measures, structure and which, in principle, cannot be modeled, can claim an ontological status, since any modeling involves the use of discrete objects and description using signs and measures.
A physical entity claiming a fundamental status should not be composite, since a composite entity has a secondary status in relation to its constituents.
Thus, the requirement of fundamentality and primacy for a certain entity entails the fulfillment of the following basic conditions:
1. Don't be composite.
2. Have the least number of signs, properties and characteristics.
3. Have the greatest commonality for the whole variety of objects and phenomena.
4. To be potentially everything, but actually nothing.
5. Take no action.
Not to be composite means not to contain anything but itself. Regarding the smallest number of features, properties and characteristics, the ideal should be the requirement - not to have them at all. To have the greatest commonality for the whole variety of objects and phenomena means not to have the characteristics of private objects, since any concretization narrows the commonality. To be potentially everything and actually nothing means to remain unobservable, but at the same time maintain the status of a physical object.
To have no measures is to be zero-dimensional.
The initial total physical vacuum that gave birth to matter must be exactly zero-dimensional and in terms of space-time characteristics too.
It is very difficult for oneself to speculatively and associatively imagine a zero-dimensional complete vacuum outside space and time.
The physical vacuum is not just zero-dimensional, but at the same time NON-DISCRETE.
The above five requirements are not satisfied by any discrete object of the material world and, in particular, not a single quantum object of any material field.
It follows that only a continuous entity can satisfy these requirements.
Therefore, the physical vacuum, if it is considered the most fundamental essence, must be continuous (continuous). In addition, extending the achievements of mathematics to the field of physics (the continuum hypothesis of Cantor), we come to the conclusion that the multiple structure of the physical vacuum is inconsistent.
This means that the physical vacuum cannot be identified with the ether, with a quantized object, or consider it to consist of any discrete particles, even if these particles are virtual, not material.
The vacuum creates virtual particles under appropriate conditions, but does not consist of them at all, is not formed by them.
In my opinion, the physical vacuum should be considered as the dialectical antipode of matter. Thus, I see matter and physical vacuum as dialectical opposites.
The integral physical (in the sense: not supernatural) world known to us is represented by both the physical vacuum and the matter secondary to it, materialized from it.
The vacuum complements and enriches itself with matter as its other.
Matter contains a vacuum in its "removed" form, dialectically denies the vacuum and is denied by it (dialectical negation is not just a negation, but at the same time an affirmation).
This approach to these two philosophical essences corresponds to the true essence of dialectics.
And the pseudo-scientific preconceived dogmatic old Diamatist myth about the primacy of matter is anti-dialectical, antagonistic to dialectics.
In such a relationship of complementary dialectical opposites, the physical vacuum and matter should be considered.
That is why the Creator-Primary Cause for his full self-realization in the other through the other needs not only a vacuum, but also matter, the creation of IM material worlds too.
And in His relentless creation of more and more material worlds from the primary NOTHING, that is, from a vacuum.
Vacuum is a special, specific universal antipode of matter.
With this kind of physical object - unobservable, in which it is impossible to indicate any measures, physics has not yet encountered.
Now, at last, on the mountain, she collided with the last of the dogmas of the Stalinist dialectic, refuted by science.
It is necessary to overcome this barrier in science and recognize the existence (apart from matter) of a fundamentally new type of reality - a physical vacuum with the property of continuity.
Despite the fact that the physical vacuum is such a paradoxical object, it is increasingly becoming the subject of physics study.
At the same time, due to its continuity, the traditional approach based on model representations is inapplicable for vacuum. Therefore, science has to find fundamentally new methods of studying it.
Elucidation of the nature of the physical vacuum allows us to look differently at many physical phenomena in the physics of elementary particles and in astrophysics.
The entire material Universe (and the familiar matter given to us in sensations, and dark matter, and dark energy) is in an unobservable, continuous physical vacuum.
The physical vacuum genetically precedes matter, it gave birth to it, therefore the entire material Universe lives not only according to the laws of nature that are known to us directly by the Creator, but also according to the mysterious laws of the physical vacuum, which are not yet fully known to science, are almost unknown.
In the chain of problems associated with the knowledge of the nature of the physical vacuum, there is a key link related to the assessment of the entropy of the physical vacuum.
I believe that the physical vacuum has the highest entropy among all known real objects and systems, therefore, Boltzmann's H-theorem is inapplicable for it.
The above five criteria of primacy and fundamentality indicate that only an object with the highest entropy can satisfy such requirements.
And (respectively) the lowest negentropy.
I believe that the vacuum-matter phase transition is absolutely impossible without the presence of an Intelligent Creator, who gave the incipient matter an unthinkably supergiant initial megasource of negentropy.
Let me put it bluntly in Russian: without God, this fantastic initial reserve of negentropy simply has absolutely nowhere to come from.
God not only gave the Laws of Nature to matter, but such an unimaginably titanic primary resource of negentropy, which simply could not be taken from any other sources during the creation of matter.
Tell me, can you spontaneously heat up and boil a cold kettle on a cold gas stove disconnected from the gas.
And all-all-all teapots of all earthlings at the same time?
But can a train "Moscow-Novosibirsk" spontaneously grow on the field of farmer Sidorov purely by chance as a result of purely natural processes?
Believe me (and mathematical calculations confirm this well) that all of the above-described SPONTANEOUS purely random phenomena of a spontaneous increase in negentropy in many unthinkable trillions of trillions ... touched upon negentropy, which took place during the materialization of our material Universe from vacuum.
So think, pure chance or God gave birth to our unimaginably complex, unimaginably negentropic world from the original emptiness lying in full entropy.
In accordance with the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich, such a fantastically incredibly incredible mega-huge decrease in the entropy of the vacuum is possible only if it is an OPEN system and it will be brought into an NON-EQUILIBRIUM state by the unimaginably most powerful EXTERNAL (in relation to both the vacuum and the matter arising from it) organizing structuring cause.
Only God Himself is fundamentally capable of becoming such a cause.
Only God is capable of giving birth to the world.
If there were no God, then matter, our entire complex grandiose material world, would not have been able to arise.
The second law of thermodynamics fatally dooms the matter left to itself to inevitable degeneration.
The essence of the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich, in a nutshell and without formulas obscure to the general reader, boils down to the following:
"If the" equilibrium state "corresponding to zero values ​​of the control parameters is taken as the starting point for the degree of chaos, then as one moves away from the equilibrium state due to a change in the control parameter, the entropy values ​​referred to the given value of the average energy decrease."
In other (everyday) words, that is, without God or another powerful EXTERNAL RULER, matter would inevitably always inevitably remain in a state of complete chaos if it were eternal.
And if it had not been eternal, then over time it would still inevitably have fallen into complete and eternal chaos, without getting away from it.
And not only matter.
And the vacuum, too, would always be in the highest entropy, the lowest negentropy.
And then the vacuum would definitely not be able to generate matter.
It is and only the impact of the EXTERNAL RULER on the vacuum that gave birth to matter itself and our rational ones in it.
By the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich only when the vacuum is open to an EXTERNAL organizational structuring super-reason, it is possible to materialize, give rise to both matter itself, and such exorbitant that for many billions of years their entire matter was enough and will be enough, the immense reserves of negentropy for its (matter) development and the generation of life and humanoid Reason.
The same First Cause gave matter and the Laws of its development.
Matter definitely has an EXTERNAL RULER !!!
Returning to the question raised by the talented scientist Andrei Makarov about whether matter materialized from a physical vacuum or from non-physical entities, I will say the following.
Physical here (in relation to zero-dimensional vacuum) is synonymous with the concept of UNSUPERNATURAL.
It is difficult for my dear dear friend Andrei Makarov to visualize a zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time.
Of course, matter by itself will not be taken from ANYTHING, and NON-physical, for example, spiritual and intelligent entities (s), are involved in the materialization of matter from ANYTHING.
I have already proved above that the appearance and functioning of the material world known to us would be completely impossible without the key role of an EXTERNAL RULER.
But a complete absolute NOTHING, whether a zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time, or a completely real entity, concealing in itself nothing more than a complete absolute TOTAL nothing.
Here is the answer for the respected Andrei Makarov: from the TOTAL complete absolute nothing nothing can ever, is fundamentally incapable of being taken, emerging.
But from such a phenomenal NOTHING as a zero-dimensional vacuum outside the space and time of the material worlds, matter by God's will could well materialize.
After all, a zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time is not a sterile absolute nichol, but it is nothing and something "in one bottle" in their highest indissoluble unity.
Let me give you a more illustrative example for dear Andrey Makarov.
Dear Andrey Makarov, real-life objects to black holes are well known.
And black holes have such an outer radius - the Schwarzschild radius, which in simple cases roughly coincides with the gravitational radius of the black hole.
So, there is the event horizon of the black hole.
For an outside observer, Andrei Makarov, when I fall into a black hole, I will begin to flatten (to zero) in space and my biorhythms will begin to endlessly stretch in time (well, or the temporal rhythms of destruction of my corpse killed by a black hole are already details).
And on the sphere of a given radius-horizon, space is compressed to zero and time stops for an external observer.
Therefore, this horizon will become the event horizon for Andrey - Andrey will never receive any information from beyond this horizon.
Not a single material carrier of information is able to overcome the exorbitant gravity of a black hole and escape from under the sphere of its event horizon.
But I, falling on a black hole, will quite successfully overcome this horizon.
Despite these relativistic effects, both the fall of stars on black holes and the collision of two black holes can be quite successfully observed from the outside in real finite time.
That was recently recorded and led to the discovery of gravitational waves.
So, for an external observer Andrei Makarov, the vacuum on the surface of the horizon sphere will shrink unimaginably in space and unimaginably stop in time.
And just in this pale semblance of the primary zero-dimensional vacuum outside (inherent in material worlds) space and time, the most interesting things will begin to happen.
There, on the event horizon, from virtual particles of a vacuum degenerate in the space-time plane, as if out of nothing, MATERIAL PARTICLES are MATERIALIZED, new matter arises.
Of course, without the active assistance of such a great EXTERNAL RULER as God, nothing worthwhile and complex will not materialize there, will not arise.
Only the simplest elementary particles, mainly photons.
My conclusion: in order to materialize something worthwhile from a vacuum, it-vacuum must be exactly zero-dimensional and outside of space-time.
It is such a vacuum (zero-dimensional and outside space-time) that becomes the ideal highest potential for the creative self-realization of the Creator through the creation of matter from the vacuum by Him.
Indeed, in order for such an immensely huge superquantum (initially outgrown into a non-quantum) supersystem like all matter (that is, our material world, our Universe, born in the cradle of the Singularity) to burst through quantum potential barriers and other insurmountable restrictions in one gulp by tunneling, for this ordinary tunneling effect is absolutely not enough.
It’s like pulling the whole galaxy, not a camel, through the eye of a needle.
Of course, God is capable of not such tasks, but why is it unreasonable to create such fantastic unnecessary difficulties for himself?
It is one thing to tunnel a small photon through an unbearable potential barrier, but quite another thing is as much as the entire supergiant substance for building trillions of galaxies (and not only, after all, these trillions of galaxies make up only about 4% of the mass of our Universe).
It is by working with a zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time that the Creator minimizes the potential barrier and maximizes tunneling under it.
Apparently, this is how He facilitates the great creative task for Himself.
Follows the principle of Occam's razor-blade - cuts off all unnecessary, all unnecessary additional difficulties for Him in the creation of worlds.
He doesn’t run into trouble with unnecessary difficulties that he doesn’t need.
God needs both a worthy self-realization through the creation of matter and an ideal, best fertile primary basis for the optimal implementation of this.
And on the horizon of the sphere of events of a black hole, in comparison with this great deed of the demiurge-materialization of ALL MATTER, so ... sheer trifles ...
Perhaps, the Creator, during His creative work with vacuum as an initial essence, was also guided by the principle of “cosmic censorship”.
To quote Wikipedia a little:

"The principle of" cosmic censorship "was scientifically formulated in 1970 by Roger Penrose in the following figurative form:" Nature abhors a naked singularity. " It says that space-time singularities appear in places that, like the inner regions of black holes, are hidden from observers. "
It is quite possible that the Creator harbors an antipathy known only to Him for more dreary materializing creativity from the ordinary, thoroughly permeated with banal Euclidean and non-Euclidean space-time continua of material worlds, a vacuum.
Give him the most selective, blessed virgin zero-dimensional vacuum outside the four-dimensional space-time continua we are accustomed to.
And therefore, it is unimaginable by the visual-figurative-associative brains of modern homo sapiens.
I understand that it will be more difficult than visualizing a quantum as a particle-wave or the visible appearance of an information wave.
But I guess that most likely it is.
God most likely materialized matter precisely from a zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time.
Space and time arose (were created) together with matter itself.
Matter is absolutely certain, arose, materialized from a vacuum about 14 billion years ago.
The properties of the vacuum are such that without an EXTERNAL RULER, our material Universe could not arise from it in any way.
It is sometimes very difficult for some atheistically educated elderly people to get used to the correct, correct thought that the matter given to them in a sense did not actually exist always, not forever.
Now on Earth, all living beings are generated only by other living beings.
But it was not always like this, not forever.
Life once arose for the first time.
Likewise, material phenomena and entities now arise from other material entities.
Matter does not arise from nothing, but only transforms, moves, develops.
But this was not always the case either.
Science has firmly established that all-all-all matter 14 billion years ago was created by the Higher Mind through the so-called Big Bang, that it (matter) has a FINITE mass and a FINAL volume, FINAL energy, FINALISTS develops with a number of irreversible moments (such as a steady increase entropy and the steady burnout of hydrogen), that matter is UNSUFFICIENT, that it is fundamentally impossible to adequately explain matter from itself, that the material world is INTELLIGENTLY arranged, that MIND-SPIRIT is PRIMARY, and matter is secondary, derivative !!!
Our material world has a finite mass and a finite volume (this has already been strictly irrefutably proven) and was created by the Higher Power about 14 billion years ago, most likely from the so-called NOTHING - it is also NOTHING (dialectic of something and nothing), namely from a super-energetic complete physical vacuum outside of space and time.
Some isolated backward orthodox believers of the so-called (historically bankrupt) diamat are still illiterately convinced that the physical Universe supposedly (it is not clear why) has always existed.
But science has definitely established that due to the predominance in the Universe of the so-called dark energy, which has the properties of ANTI-GRAVITATION, our physical Universe is expanding with an ever-increasing ACCELERATION.
Matter scatters with ACCELERATION.
And, according to modern calculations, it will NEVER SHRINK INTO A NEW SINGULARITY !!!
The hypothesis of a pulsating Universe as well as the hypothesis of a stationary Universe have been completely rejected by modern science forever.
That is, SCIENCE (SCIENCE, not priests and not mullahs, and not lamas, not mahatmas there are different!), SCIENCE has proved that matter is not eternal, matter itself arose about 14 billion years ago (was it created by someone?), Happened together with all its space and time.
Indeed, the physical universe will most certainly never shrink back again.
There will be no eternal cyclicality.
And there never was.
Matter has happened all right.
The biblical hypothesis about the linear directional development of the ARISING world (and about the SECONDARY nature of the cycles and about the predominance of the non-cyclical linear vector of the development of the universe) turned out to be incomparably more accurate than the delusions of some individual ancient Eastern smoked catfish (and watched in a dull narcotic trance of glitches-fairy tales on a Mudril insult) matter.
Dear readers, modern science has precisely figured out and calculated that matter has definitely arisen and will never shrink again, will not return to its so-called circles.
My opinion: God created matter.
As you know, the majority of famous (and other) scientists also believe in God and perfectly move and develop science.
Archbishop Luka (Valentin) Voino-Yasenetsky himself comrade Stalin at one time for the development of science (surgery) already gave the first degree a large Stalinist prize of 200,000 Soviet rubles.
In the opinion of the militant atheists, we (believers and admitting the existence of God) are supposedly ungrateful enemies of science because we are supposedly against the dialectical method, which is supposedly the main one in science.
First, the dialectical method in science is not the main one - it is a fact.
In foreign science, he is generally little known.
Secondly, the dialectical method of cognition originates from the IDEALISTIC dialectic of Hegel and is most beautifully compatible with the presence of a Creator of matter.
God is not a hindrance to the dialectical method.
Thirdly, Marx and Engels were not militant atheists and did not consider believers to be ungrateful wreckers of science; they adequately appreciated the enormous scientific contribution of many believing scientists.
But on the basis of the materialist dialectic of Marx-Engels, in the early 30s, the so-called Soviet dialectic was created on the ideological order of Comrade Stalin.
The attempts of the Stalinist officialdom to impose this very dialectic as a methodology of science led to persecution of genetics, cybernetics, etc., to such ugly ideologized pseudo-scientific harmful phenomena as Lysenkoism, etc.
To the lag of many areas of Soviet science from the West, where diamat was not popular.
Many outstanding Soviet scientists, from Vladimir Vernadsky to Ivan Pavlov, were then strongly opposed to the Diamat's dictate in science.
Thousands of scientists, following Academician Vavilov, paid very dearly for this disagreement with the dominance of the Diamat's officialdom.
Before Feuerbach and Marx and Engels, atheism was very rare and extremely unpopular with the population.
And militant atheists in general were in those days curiosities in the Red Book, and (to be honest) they were usually mentally unhealthy people in those times.
Social revolts against the Catholic Church as a human organization were revolts of people who believed in the existence of a Creator.
Even the Jacobins in France established the cult of the Supreme Reason, the cult of the Supreme Being.
But political prostitutes, commissioned by Stalin's ideologists, hid and perverted the truth not only about Trotsky and other Stalin's associates, but about this too.
They falsified the long, bearded pseudo-history of the alleged thousand-year struggle of powerful dialectical materialism with idealism invented by the exploiters.
It was a shameless lie of the ideologues of Stalinism.
Long before all classes there was idealism and belief in the existence of supernatural beings, in spirits.
Idealistic views were inherent in our ancestors at the very dawn of mankind, and materialism became widely known only in the 18th century.
The very first intelligent people who appeared on Earth already (ALREADY!) Believed in the supernatural, were already idealists.
Already the Homo Neandertalis believed in the supernatural.
In different populations of Neanderthals, archaeologists have discovered different types of funeral rites, with different orientations of skeletons relative to the cardinal points, different rituals of burial use of ocher, accompanying objects, etc.
For example, Middle Eastern Neanderthals buried their dead in the fetal position.
It seems that man from ape is distinguished not so much by work as, first of all, by the presence of faith in the supernatural and an understanding of one's biological mortality, and the desire to somehow continue in a different way after the earthly death.
And completely wild chimpanzees are also able to make primitive tools in the wild - this has already been proven and filmed in detail.
Moreover, primitive artificial tools were excavated that were made by chimpanzees several centuries ago, very similar to the products of today's modern chimpanzees and in the same places (African people then made completely different tools, even bronze and iron ones).
Even chimpanzees have preconsciousness, but they have no real full-blooded consciousness and no religion.
For example, Diamat's paid manufacturers of lies first of all enlisted Voltaire as a militant atheist.
As is well known (and easy to read, and even on Wikipedia), Voltaire still caustically ridiculed the then extremely small number of militant atheists.
To quote Wikipedia:
“Fighting against the church, clergy and religions of“ revelation ”, Voltaire was at the same time an enemy of atheism; Voltaire devoted a special pamphlet to the criticism of atheism ("Hom; lie sur l'ath; isme"). A deist in the spirit of the English bourgeois freethinkers of the 18th century, Voltaire tried with all sorts of arguments to prove the existence of the Deity, who created the Universe, in whose affairs, however, he does not interfere, operating with evidence: "cosmological" ("Against atheism"), "teleological" ("Le philosophe ignorant") and "moral" (article "God" in the "Encyclopedia"). "
The ideologists of diamat have thought of declaring even Alexander Nikolaevich Radishchev as one of the founders of materialism.
They were very comfortable with the author of "Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow" in opposition to the autocracy for this role.
Although A.N. Radishchev quite definitely wrote (and his manuscripts were preserved and published) just about the opposite - that God is and the soul of man, in his opinion, is immortal.

Well, and two more words about the so-called Soviet diamat, which bent down with a bang in 1991-92. As you know, Christianity has existed for more than two thousand years.
Well, the belief of different Epicureans there in the real existence of the Olympic gods, consisting of a special kind of atoms.
But the Epicureans are a marginal and non-dialectical trend.
The dialecticians were just the IDEALISTS of post-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, etc.
Let me also remind you of Hegel's IDEALISTIC dialectics.
But the materialistic dialectic of Marx-Engels has existed only since the 40s of the 19th century.
Created by the ideological order of Comrade Stalin, the Soviet dialectic is completely the same age as my grandmother, he is quite a youth.
Moreover, an already dilapidated decrepit youth refuted by science, almost bent over and thrown into the backyard of philosophical thought.
The Soviet dialectic was based on the axiom: the material world is eternal, has always been.
Science has proved the opposite - MATTER HAS ARISENED.
In the beginning, there was no matter.
And then it happened.
Our material Universe, in principle, cannot be eternal and self-reproducible, moreover, in principle, of course, in its parameters - mass, volume, etc.
As for the total (total) entropy of the physical Universe, it is steadily increasing.
But in principle it cannot grow indefinitely.
There is a line, a limit.
So make scientific conclusions.
How could our entire Universe emerge from NOTHING?
An absolutely antiscientific mistake with a bang of the historically bankrupt so-called diamat, created by the ideological order of Comrade Stalin (created by Stalin personally and several of his half-educated in everything with Stalin, agreeable zealous slanderers-lackeys Mitin-Gershkovich and Yudin (about the limitations of which Stalin himself made fun of on more than one occasion) the materialist dialectic of Marx and Engels, already obsolete by that time) was Stalin's failed attempt to base the all-all-all worldview of Soviet people on a preconceived myth about the alleged primacy of matter.
About the primacy of matter, the infallibility of Comrade Stalin and the speedy building of wonderful communism.
Neither the second, nor the third, much less the first (the primacy of matter) was confirmed.
By the time the Soviet dialectic was created, by the 30s of the 20th century, the picture of the universe described by F. Engels in his "Dialectics of Nature" had ALREADY been refuted by science.
A real science seeking TRUTH.
A science, but not at all based on the dogmas of the eternal infallibility of Marx, Engels, Lenin and (who crowned their search for them with the sacred "eternal" diamat) Stalin by them (Stalin) with an artificially specially fabricated quasi-religion - Soviet diamat.
Diamat, a product of Stalinism, is the most natural dogmatic unscientific pseudo-scientific quasi-religion.
This quasi-religion not only stupidly and furiously ignored many millions of solid serious facts about the existence of supernatural phenomena in the world, but also flagrantly contradicted the perfectly verifiable purely scientific truths of the most natural sciences.
If the concept of the Creator of matter received only many new important and interesting indirect confirmations, then objective science completely refuted the most cornerstone axioms-the basics of diamat and revealed their deepest falsity.
Diamat has not stood the test of time.
Now it is essentially a historical corpse.
A long-stinking deceased, a pitiful ghost who still wanders across Russia, frightens serious scientists and finds himself dark ignorant worshipers of sectarians and even individual priests, and above all from among the rabid intolerant fanatics of irrational militant hatred of God and the feelings of ordinary believers ...
Fortunately, the diamat finds less and less of them.
Few people already uncritically believe in the cool archaic Stalinist dialectic, in the shabby dogmas of this one-day historical relic.
More and more people, including those who are not churched and not orthodox, believe in the co-ordination of matter with God.
Into the intelligent creation of our world.
Some of the so-called militant atheists believe that their opinion is true, although it is completely unfounded and unsubstantiated.
They believe that they have absolutely no obligation to prove that matter is primary.
They believe that it is their opponents who must shoulder the burden of proving that matter is secondary and created by the Creator.
Excuse me, I (for your sake, my dear dear readers and opponents) have taken on myself such a heavy burden (I will tell you) and now I will convincingly prove not only the secondary nature of matter, but also that all this (secondary, derivative) matter (and the so-called inanimate matter in particular) is also inherent in SPIRIT (its lower levels) !!!
Pay attention, dear readers, here it is - the naked deadly truth-womb about the undoubted secondary nature of matter and its filling with spirit (its lower levels).
Matter is not only created by Spirit, not only secondary, derivative, impermanent and finite.
Matter, it turns out (being generated by divine energies, emanations of the Spirit), contains spirit in itself as its indissoluble intention.
How exactly matter in itself the spirit (its lower levels) has, I will now strictly scientifically irrefutable tell you, my dear dear patient readers.
When the blinders of the historically bankrupt (created according to the ideological order of Comrade Stalin) Soviet dialectic fell, then (to the surprise of the comrades ossified in the dialectic) it turned out that the so-called inanimate matter is not at all an inert moving substance given to us in our sensations.
The latest science has discovered that matter absolutely harbors the SPIRIT.
Below I will tell you how science discovered this phenomenon.
And this is how all matter conceals spirit in itself.
Matter is not only absolutely certain (and this has been irrefutably proved by modern science!) Is not eternal and not infinite.
Matter is not only finite in space and time.
The Physical Universe has not only finite mass and finite energy, finite negentropy, finite volume and other finite parameters.
But it is also inseparably immanently filled with the SPIRIT.
Spirit is an organic, primordial intention of matter, and of all-all-all matter.
As the rigorous modern science has discovered, calculated and proved, all matter is definitely secondary, derivative.
Matter is neither eternal nor infinite.
Matter is a secondary, created entity.
But the latest science has discovered that matter is also a part of the SPIRIT.
All matter contains in itself, contains the spirit itself.
That is, it is not only created by the otherworldly superintelligent Creator-Spirit, but itself is the bearer of the lower forms of the spirit.
Here are some interesting conclusions of the author of this site, Sergei Bakhmatov, his opinion that matter is not a naked substance, that spirit is a property of matter (I will quote a little the article of the dear dear Sergei Bakhmatov "Note on the main question of philosophy"):

“Matter is an objective reality actively reflected on itself.
Spirit is an immanent property of objective reality (active reflection of objective reality on itself), which is the reason and law of structuring and development of the material world (microworld, macrocosm and megaworld) in terms of inanimate nature. Since the display is active, it must carry information about the states of matter over the entire history of its existence. The reflection of objective reality on itself explains all the known forces of interaction (gravity, weak, electromagnetic, strong) and self-development (movement) of matter. Thus, Matter is not a substance, but a manifestation of objective reality (substance) through an active reflection on itself (Spirit).
Consciousness is the product of an active mapping of matter in general and of the spirit inextricably linked with it into its part (highly organized matter or living nature, as you wish), which is a consequence of the development of the material world. Consciousness owes its existence to the emergence in highly organized matter of the ability to store and distinguish representations of the material world with their subsequent analysis and synthesis. Highly organized matter, endowed with consciousness, in turn is actively reflected on the surrounding material world, changing it. This active display and the corresponding changes in the material world receive a new quality due to the presence of consciousness in highly organized matter. Thus, in addition to spirit, the consciousness of highly organized matter is also connected to the development of matter.
The question of the primacy of spirit or matter is incorrect, since these are two aspects of one being. The way of existence of objective reality in its active reflection on itself. Here you can answer the famous question of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz "Why is there something and not nothing?" Objective reality would be "nothing" without active reflection on itself, and together with it, "something" becomes. At the same time, the illusory nature of the difference between science and religion is manifested. For representatives of the former, active reflection of objective reality on itself is identified with impersonal forces of interaction, and for representatives of the latter, with God, that is, the creator and manager of all that exists. True, in the first case, there are signs of such a worldview that can lead to pride, since science deals with what is known by humanity (at least, it is considered so), and religion, besides this, with what may have to be learned.

Consciousness is derived from matter and spirit and has freedom (in contrast to spirit, in which everything is determined) and for this reason - subjectivity, which can be explained by the fact that the bearer of consciousness (the individual) cannot fully reflect matter and spirit, which required for true knowledge, and displays only a part of them. This subjectivity is overcome in time thanks to the collective mind of mankind, proceeding from the experience of being, and directs the process of cognition of spirit and matter to infinity. Not only because the process of full cognition of a complex truth is possible only in the limit, but also because the constantly changing material world poses more and more new tasks. Highly organized matter, represented by humanity, is actively reflected on itself both in the literal sense (genetics) and on its consciousness. The reflection on consciousness creates a spiritual product (ethics), which is a reflection of a part of the universal Spirit (the law of the universe and its mover) in relation to humanity and its natural environment. Ethics is the science of distinguishing between good and evil. Good is the relationship of people, as well as the attitude of people to nature, which contribute to the self-affirmation of mankind through full and harmonious development in all aspects of human existence, while evil, on the contrary, contributes to self-denial and self-destruction. Self-preservation and development is the universal law of the existence of intelligent beings, and deviation from it is an aberration in the display of the universal Spirit, which leads to complete self-destruction. The concepts of Spirit and the universal Spirit are qualitatively different: the first concept has to do with the universal law and the reason for the development of the material world in terms of inanimate nature, the second has to do with the material world in general, including highly organized matter endowed with Consciousness by nature.
Consciousness is derived from the universal Spirit and Matter in the sense that its very existence and development is a consequence of the active display of the latter two on the first. The process of cognizing (displaying) them is endless, but it approaches the true one.
With the appearance in the developing material world of highly organized matter endowed with Consciousness, the Spirit receives a new quality: a conscious (subjective) component is added to external necessity as the cause and law of the course of material processes. Depending on how it fits into the harmony of the universal Spirit, the very fate of highly organized matter, endowed with Consciousness by nature, will be determined.
Matter, universal Spirit and Consciousness determine the further course of development of all that exists. The first two, actively displayed on the third, lead to its development, and as a consequence - to a corresponding change in the material world.

With regard to human society and its being, we can say that social being is displayed on social consciousness and thus determines it, but it is the display of the universal Spirit on the latter that sets in motion both. This display is much wider than what can be described in the framework of the development of productive forces and production relations, since it is the ethics of the existence of mankind as a whole. It follows from this that it is impossible to build a free, just and prosperous society by immoral means. The acceleration of the pace of the historical development of society is due to the fact that the more adequate this reflection, the more opportunities appear for humanity in the reflection of the universal Spirit on public consciousness. "

The great scientist Newton, who discovered the laws of motion of celestial bodies, as if revealing the greatest mystery of the universe, was a believer and was engaged in theology. Whenever he pronounced the name of God, every time he stood up reverently and took off his hat.

The great Pascal, the genius of mathematics, one of the creators of the new physics, was not just a believer, but also one of the greatest religious thinkers in Europe. Pascal said: "All the contradictions, which most of all, it seems, want to remove me from the position of religion, most of all led to it."

The great founder of all modern bacteriology, a thinker who penetrated deeply into the mystery of organic life - Pasteur says: "The more I study nature, the more I stop in awe at the deeds of the Creator."

Even Darwin, whose teachings were later used by semi-scientists to refute faith in God, was a very believing person all his life and for many years was a church head in his parish. He never thought that his teaching could contradict faith in God. After Darwin outlined his doctrine of the evolutionary development of the animal kingdom, he was asked where is the beginning of the chain of development of the animal world, where is its first link? Darwin replied, "It is chained to the throne of the Most High."

The great geologist Lyayel writes: "In every study we discover the clearest evidence of the foresight, strength and wisdom of God's creative mind."

The greatest scientist of our century, Max Planck, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918, says: “Religion and science are not in the least mutually exclusive, as was previously believed, which is what many of our contemporaries fear; on the contrary, they are consistent and complementary. "
But there are also so-called materialists among scientists.
But even they admitted that modern science has irrefutably proven:
MATTER IS SECONDARY. MATTER HAPPENED !!!
And now think, dear readers, whether such a reasonably arranged material Universe of trillions of galaxies (in each large of which there are hundreds of billions of stars) could also arise by pure quantum randomness as a virtual particle, and not just appear virtually, but materialize for billions of years and generate life and mind?
I personally believe that without a rational spiritual root cause, without the Creator, without the Demiurge, matter on such mega-scales and with such an initial reserve of negentropy could not have arisen anyway.
This means that SOMEONE created it from a vacuum and gave it the laws of nature, and in a surprising way, it is precisely such laws that allowed matter to give birth to Man.
Why is it that the believing majority of earthlings, Russians and scientists are of the opinion that there is a God?
Why are so many atheists, deeply familiar with science, then become believers in the existence of God?
That is why, because science has revealed to mankind the following amazing intelligent picture of the world:
It all started with a “naive” question: why the so-called physical constants (FP), for example, Planck's constant, have such and not any other values, and what would happen to the Universe if these values ​​turned out to be different? An increase in Planck's constant by more than 15% deprives the proton of the opportunity to combine with the neutron, that is, it makes it impossible for nucleosynthesis to proceed. The same result is obtained if the proton mass is increased by 30%. A decrease in the values ​​of these PTs would open the possibility of the formation of a stable 2He nucleus, which would result in the burnout of all hydrogen in the early stages of the expansion of the Universe. The required change in the existing values ​​for this does not exceed 10%. But this is not the end of the "accidental" coincidences. The collection of numerous accidents is called the "fine-tuning" of the universe. No less surprising coincidences are encountered when considering the processes associated with the emergence and development of life. Thus, science is faced with a large group of facts, the separate consideration of which gives the impression of inexplicable coincidences bordering on miracles. The likelihood of each such coincidence is very small, and their coexistence is completely incredible. The situation resembles a sharply sharpened pencil that stands upright on a sharp lead. From this point of view, the very fact of the existence of a directionally developing Universe appears as unlikely. But no one forces us to consider such facts as coincidences. It seems quite reasonable to pose the question of the existence of yet unknown regularities (with the consequences of which we have encountered), capable of organizing the Universe in a certain way. SCIENTISTS ALWAYS AGREE THAT the amazing "fine tuning" of natural laws and constants, as well as the huge number of "coincidences" that resulted in life being able to develop, suggest that, obviously, the universe arose as a result of deliberate planning and the work of a certain mind. In fact, this "fine tuning" is manifested so clearly, and there are so many "coincidences" that many scientists were forced to agree with the "Anthropic principle" according to which from the very beginning of its existence the universe was intended for the birth of man. Even those who do not recognize the Anthropic Principle nevertheless admit the existence of "fine tuning" and come to the conclusion that the universe is "too wisely constructed" to be the result of random factors. In the BBC science documentary, The Anthropic Principle, some of the most prominent scientific minds of our time talk about modern discoveries that support this conclusion. Dr. Dennis Scania, distinguished director of the University of Cambridge Observatories: "If you just slightly change the laws of nature, or slightly modify natural constants - for example, the charge of an electron - then the path of the universe will change so much that intelligent life is unlikely to have the opportunity to develop." Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: “If we push any of the physical constants slightly to one side, then the stars can only exist for a million years before they burn out, and there will be no time for evolution. this constant in the other direction, then in nature there will be no more elements heavier than helium - they simply cannot form. There is no carbon, which means there is no life. There will be no chemistry at all. There will be no structural complexity at all. " Dr. Paul Davis, eminent writer and professor of theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide: “The most amazing thing is not that the life of our earth is balancing on a razor's edge, but that the entire universe is essentially balancing on a razor's edge. The universe would be in total chaos If only one of the natural constants were slightly altered. You see, "adds Davis," even if you dismiss a person as a random phenomenon, you still cannot erase the truth that the universe seems amazingly well suited for existence of life. It seems to be specially designed for this, you can even call it pre-planned work. " According to modern scientific hypotheses, the matter of the universe originated from a huge explosion of energy - the so-called "Big Bang". At the very beginning, only hydrogen and helium existed in the universe, which then thickened and turned into stars. All other elements subsequently formed inside the stars. The most common (in descending order) chemical elements are hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle investigated the origin of carbon in the "blast furnaces" of stars, his calculations showed that it is very difficult to explain how stars were able to produce the amount of carbon necessary for life on Earth. Hoyle found that the existence of many one-time "favorable" coincidences proved that targeted "adjustments" were made to the physical and chemical laws to produce the required amount of carbon. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle summarizes his findings as follows: "COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF FACTS LEADS TO THE FIRST CONCLUSION: FIRST, SOME" GREAT CHIEF "MUCHED INTO PHYSICS AND HAVE BEEN INHIBITABLE. FORCES OF NATURE I THINK THAT ANY PHYSICIST HAS BEEN GATHERED WITH THE EXISTING DATA WOULD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS WERE SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED IN FACT WITH THE "ACTUALLY.
Scientists' statements about the anthropic principle. Astronomers were deeply impressed by the discovery of a concept of this level in the universe. As we have noted, Hoyle concluded that "the higher intelligence played a trick on physics, chemistry, and biology," and Davis concluded that "the laws [of physics] ... themselves seem to be the product of a highly ingenious design." He further writes: “It is quite obvious to me that there is something behind all this. ... One gets the impression that someone has perfectly calculated everything before creating the universe. ... An incredible sense of design. Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, expresses the following thoughts: “When you study all the evidence, inevitably the thought arises that some supernatural Force is behind it all. Is it possible that all of a sudden, unwittingly, we stumbled upon scientific evidence that there is a Supreme Being? Was it not God who so skillfully and carefully created the cosmos for us? " And Tony Rothman, a theoretical physicist, summarizes his article on the anthropic principle (the principle according to which the universe has very precise characteristics that provide a natural environment for human life): “A medieval theologian who looked into the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels flying into harmony through the spheres, became a modern cosmologist who looks into the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the finger of God not in angels, but in the constants of nature. ... When you come face to face with the order and beauty that reign in the Universe, and with strange coincidences in nature, there is a great temptation to move from faith in science to faith in religion. I'm sure a lot of physicists want this. I wish them the courage to admit it. " Physicist Freeman Dyson defined his interpretation of the anthropic principle as follows: "The problem here is to formulate some provisions regarding the meaning and purpose of the universe. In other words, the goal is to read the thoughts of God." Vera Kistiakowski, MIT physicist and recent president of the Association for Women in Science, comments: "The impeccable orderliness demonstrated by our scientific understanding of the physical world evokes a sense of the presence of God." Arno Penzias, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of cosmic background radiation, remarked: “Astronomy brings us to a unique discovery: we live in a universe that has arisen from nothing, which needs a very delicate balance in order to provide conditions for the existence of life, the universe , which is based on the (one might say "supernatural") plan. " Long before the fall of the communist regime, Alexander Polyakov, theorist and researcher at the Moscow Institute. Landau, stated: "We know that nature is described by the best mathematics because nature was created by God. Therefore, there is a chance that this mathematics will be created as a result of physicists' attempts to describe nature." Cosmologist Edward Harrison concludes: “This cosmological proof of the existence of God — Paley’s concept of design — is only refined and updated. The amazing harmony of the universe provides direct evidence of divine purpose. Choose: blind chance, which requires countless universes, or design, which requires only one ... Many scientists, when they admit their views, lean towards the theological concept, or the concept of design. " Allan Sandage, the recipient of the Craford Astronomy Prize (equivalent to the Nobel Prize), commented: “I find it completely incredible that such an order should arise out of chaos. There must be some kind of organizing principle. God is a mystery to me, but He is the explanation for the miracle of something appearing out of nothing. ”Perhaps astrophysicist Robert Jastrow gave the best description of what happened to his colleagues after they measured the cosmos:“ For a scientist who lived by faith in the power of reason , it all ends like a bad dream. All his life he climbed a high mountain of knowledge; he is already ready to conquer its main peak; and when, with the final push, he is upstairs, he is greeted by a group of theologians who have sat there for centuries. ”Robert Griffiths, who received the Heinemann Prize for Mathematical Physics, said:“ If we need atheists for discussion, I go to the philosophers to look for them. You can't find atheists at the physics department. "
Our Creator, in addition to our familiar matter, creates and created other material worlds that are inaccessible to our sensations.
Our bodily sensations and physical devices physically perceive precisely matter-substance.
The one that materialists prejudicedly declared to be the primary and only, eternal and infinite.
It is definitely not eternal, it is finite and derivative.
But besides it, there are other layers of reality, including the highest reality of the Universe.
They really do exist, but their existence is different and correlates very differently with our corporeality.
Only the matter of our material Universe physically and substantively interacts with our corporeality, flesh, nature, but not only it has the gift of existence, being.
Matter cannot be self-explanatory from itself.
It is impossible to explain in this way its finiteness, the existence of the universal laws given to it by the Creator, and a lot of its other properties.
It is also impossible to explain the anthropic principle, even in a weakened form.
If matter had not been intelligently created specifically for humans, for humanoids, then it would be completely different.
Slightly change the world constants - and neither life nor atoms would be elementary, they simply could not arise physically at all.
There would be no such suspicious isotropy-consistency of all matter even beyond the event horizon.
That is, the horizon of the physical influences of some material objects on others.
Everything was agreed by the Creator.
If matter had arisen by itself, then without an intelligent spiritual God, by the will of the blind element, an equal amount of mother and antimatter would have arisen in the material world.
With all the ensuing consequences, for example, the absence of us.
But this is not the case, God did not allow it.
The Creator did not confine himself to the creation of the world.
In order to save us and open to people the true saving spiritual and moral path, most likely God (the divine essence itself) materialized, incarnated, incarnated into a beautiful amazing earthling, earthly man Jesus Christ.
He could well do this and had very good reasons for it.
For the sake of love and humanity, He came to us and conquered evil.
The evil defeated by Him has not disappeared into nowhere and exists in the sublunary world.
In general, the problem of theodicy is the problem of the existence of evil in the mortal world with the goodness and humanity of God, this is a big, very serious and interesting philosophical problem, but this is not the topic of this particular article.
God created about 14 billion years ago a truly great material world - with a predominance of mysterious dark energy and dark matter.
And all the matter we are accustomed to make up only about 4.5% of the mass of the Universe.
But it also forms many trillions of Galaxies, including our Galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars orbiting at a crazy speed around a colossal black hole.
On the planets near some other stars of our Galaxy (and not it alone), our Creator most likely created brothers in mind for us evolutionarily.

Even modern materialists now admit (!!) that the ideal can exist quite calmly outside the head of a person.
Here is their timid reasoning and partial belated admissions on this score:
“It should be noted that the term“ objective reality ”in the definition and means matter that exists really and independently of a person. It was noted above that objectively from a person and his consciousness, the ideal can also exist. At the same time, the human body does not exist objectively in everything, that is, independently of him and his consciousness. The dependence of the human body on itself is very significant in terms of regulation, motivation, maintenance of normal functioning and other parameters. Other material phenomena may have ideal characteristics, especially in the culture of society. The ideal can also be recognized as an objective ideal independent of a person. In this sense, the term "objective reality" can encompass both material reality (matter) and objectively ideal. "
In a word, the former Soviet dialectic has been debunked by modern science.
And most of his elderly adherents rushed to God in temples in their old age.
Those who did not believe in the existence of a superintelligent Creator, the Creator of all things, in matter, because of the inconsistency of their old myths about the eternity of matter with modern strict exact scientific data, suffer from neuroses and depression en masse.
The main reason for the modern epidemic of neuroses and depression was very well revealed and shown by the famous psychologist, Candidate of Psychological Sciences Marina Lebed.
Now you will read (published with Marina's consent) the bitter truth about the main reasons for the modern mass trouble with borderline mental disorders.
Here are the wise, piercing lines of the respected Marina Lebed in front of you:
“The metaphysical fear of death exists, its invisible power over the psyche is enormous. Of all the critical situations, the most pathogenic are those in which a person faces death. Such situations can be incurable diseases, loss of close relatives, participation in a war. However, even outside such situations, every person immersed in everyday affairs knows in the depths of his soul that the victory over physical death is an illusion.

Knowledge of the fact of death is being forced out of public consciousness by all means. Society behaves as if no one dies, moreover, it deliberately distracts from comprehending these issues, creating systems of semi-forced labor, distraction and entertainment. And, indeed, people sometimes manage to forget for a long time, but the ritual side of death, any reminders of it, direct collisions with its terrible mask recreate suppressed and repressed fear, recalling the fact of the mortality of the physical body. The overwhelming horror of the awareness of mortality is called the fear of "nothing" or existential frustration, a thousand more names, but whatever you call it, the main thing is that it exists and has a tremendous impact on the psychological state of a person. The psyche develops defense mechanisms against the awareness of mortality. The mechanisms of such protection are individual - some people go into the visual world of television, others - into the virtual space of the Internet, others find oblivion in reality - in the pursuit of power, romantic hobbies or sexual adventures. Unconscious impulses of horror, in the case when they do not become a source of neuroses, temporarily recede before passions and hobbies and, especially, before short-term deceptions of erotic love, but, in moments of the greatest clarity of consciousness, a person is even deeper, in contrast to the beating of life, realizes the inevitability the fact of their finitude.

The topic of death for atheists is a kind of taboo - it is not customary to talk about it, it is bad to think, you need to live as if it does not exist. But the metaphysical fear of death exists, moreover, its invisible power over the psyche, its unconscious impulses is enormous. Even the most superficial analysis of contemporary art proves this. Modern psychoanalysis is also inconceivable without working on unconscious impulses of horror in front of the inevitability of death, because for modern man the suppressed and repressed fear of death is the source of neuroses.

The world in which we live at first glance seems to be safe, there are no predators waiting for their prey, ready at every second to inflict a fatal blow, it seems that terrible epidemics have been defeated in it. But deep down, everyone knows that victory over death is an illusion and no one can change the natural course of events. You can postpone the final event of your life, but you cannot fundamentally change anything, it remains passive, and, as far as possible, calmly await your fate. To the horror of realizing one's own finiteness is added the comprehension of the course of human development as meaningless "bad infinity", an endless replacement of the dead by the newly born.

No one knows what will happen outside of life, but atheists, claiming that after death a person is forever destroyed by the eternal Nothing, do not leave even a small loophole as a hope. There is nothing more destructive for the psyche, there is nothing worse for education than such a supposedly scientific and consistent materialism. The most harmful are the philosophical systems based on the denial of the Eternal and the Divine, which make it an axiom that death is inevitable and is an immanent part of the existence of living things. Materialist thinkers such as J.P. Sartre represent a dead-end branch of the most repulsive kind of philosophy - atheistic existentialism. Their worldview is pessimistic, and their atheistic systems are too vague, unformulated, and undefined. How could it be otherwise? After all, criticism of the idea of ​​God and the idea of ​​the soul is nothing more than destruction without positive. Attempts by existential materialists to derive psychological and psychotherapeutic recommendations from their anti-life philosophical systems naturally turn out to be a failure, since it is impossible to derive anything supporting and inspiring from deeply pessimistic teachings. Such philosophers argue that thanks to the realization that after death a person is waiting for Nothing, he tries to realize his capabilities and achieve a deep authentic being. In fact, such a worldview only reinforces fear and terror. It is no coincidence that the same Sartre, in the eternal search for oblivion from the philosophical truths invented by him, was a representative of extreme left views and a defender of bloody methods. According to Sartre, death is the last opportunity, thanks to which existence can reach its highest form, is an assertion based on nothing.

The negative consequences of the atheistic worldview are colossal, but its destructive forces are difficult to assess: who counted the number of people suffering from depression caused by the fear of death, who considered suicides committed precisely for this reason?

The ideological emptiness of everyday life, an attempt to forget, to hush up the problem of awareness of death, and, moreover, atheistic existentialism as well as any other newfangled materialistic systems - all these are dead ends that lead to only negative consequences.

Humanity needs new, truly humanistic worldview guidelines that allow the presence of the Highest principle in the Universe and the Eternal principle in the human soul. Only such a system of views on the world gives a person deep optimism and faith in the eternal existence of his immortal soul. "

Children's encyclopedia. Volume 7. Man. Page 315.

social experience in textbooks, where the necessary information is presented in linguistic form.

Finally, thirdly, language is needed so that a person can express his feelings and emotions with its help. For example, in poetry, a person conveys his innermost thoughts, feelings, experiences. And all this thanks to the language.

Without language, there would be no man himself, because everything that is human in him is connected with language, expressed in language and fixed in language.

ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE LANGUAGE

Even in ancient times, people puzzled over the question of why and how language could arise. Scientists in ancient Greece put forward two opposing theories. According to the first of them, language arose by itself, without the conscious intervention of man, by virtue of the action of the laws of nature. According to the second theory, language appeared as a result of a contract between people: let's call this object so and so, and that - so and so. Clearly, the smart contract theory is wrong. After all, it assumes that people already had consciousness by the time they had a language. And modern science has absolutely established that human consciousness is impossible without language.

But in this case, what reasons led to the emergence of the language? What did the primitive language look like?

Science cannot yet answer these questions with complete confidence. But thanks to the joint work of scientists of different specialties - philosophers and psychologists, anthropologists and ethnographers, archaeologists and linguists - in recent years, it has become possible, relying on objective scientific facts, to put forward some assumptions regarding the ancient language.

It is known that labor created man and that articulate speech arose through labor activity. In the process of labor, as F. Engels wrote, primitive people developed "the need to say something to each other." There is no animal species that does not have its own signaling system for communication. For example, in a herd of hamadryas baboons, more than a dozen different sounds are used, each of which causes a completely specific reaction in hamadryas.

But, unlike people who consciously perceive speech, understand what they are told, hamadrils cannot understand anything. This or that behavior in response to the heard signal arises in them due to the simplest conditioned reflex.

For example, if a hamadril hears another hamadryl shouting "ak!" And vice versa, any fear, any sense of danger evokes in hamadril an involuntary cry "ak!" In this respect, the sound signals of hamadryas are reminiscent of the interjections of the human language: you and I cry out the same "oh!" regardless of whether we burn our finger, prick or pinch it.

These sound signals, probably, served as the basis for the formation of human language. At first, when the thinking of primitive people was still similar to the reflex behavior of an animal, when a person was not aware of either individual objects, or their properties, or their actions, these signals probably served only as a regulator of behavior, And where were these signals most needed?

Of course, primarily in work, hunting. For example, in order to hunt down and kill a large animal - a mammoth or a rhinoceros, it is absolutely necessary that the actions of all participants in the hunt are coordinated, so that during the hunt one participant can tell the other what to do.

Later, when the economy of primitive man and his relationship to other people became more complicated, especially when tools so perfect appeared that a person was able to carry out some actions alone and the division of labor appeared, it became necessary to designate individual objects, phenomena, actions, states , quality.

This means that the first theory is closer to the truth. Language arose by virtue of the action of the natural laws of nature. Only with the appearance of man were these laws refracted in his development in a new way and new social laws that did not exist before appeared, which eventually began to determine the development of the human race.

But why do people speak different languages? Was there ever a language common to all mankind?

Based on our knowledge of modern languages, we cannot reconstruct such a common language. The solution to this question depends on the anthropologists. If it is proved that modern man first appeared in one place, then such a common language should have existed. But no matter how this issue is resolved, it is clear that in the beginning there were fewer languages ​​than now.

Linguists have restored, for example, the so-called common Indo-European language, from which all modern languages ​​of foreign Europe (except Finnish, Hungarian and Basque) and most of the languages ​​of the European part of the USSR originated, and in Asia - Persian, Afghani, Hindi, Armenian, Ossetian, Tajik and etc. Why did this happen? How could it happen that people first spoke one language and then began to speak different?

This is best illustrated with an example. In the XVII century. immigrants arrived in South Africa who spoke Dutch, which was no different from the language of other inhabitants of Holland. Villages were founded, then cities. Various institutions arose, little by little, its own culture was created, connected with the Dutch only historically.

The settlers did not even call themselves Dutch, but Boers or Afrikanders.

What happened to their language? Due to the fact that there was practically no connection with Holland, the Dutch language in South Africa began to change and more and more deviated from the "real" Dutch language. New words appeared, borrowed from native African languages ​​or created by the Boers themselves. The pronunciation of some sounds and grammar have also changed. The result was essentially a new language — Boer, or Afrikaans.

Why did all these changes not take place in the Dutch language on the territory of Holland? Because all Dutch speakers in Holland were connected (like the Boers in South Africa) by political, economic and cultural unity. The Dutch government issued a decree, it spread to the most distant corners of it, and the burgomaster of some provincial town, writing official documents for his small community, imitated the language of the government decree. The same books were read by educated people throughout Holland.

The Boers ended up on another continent, and the deviations that had been imperceptible before were given the opportunity to develop freely. Moreover, from deviations, from "irregularities", they became the norm of the new, Boer language.

It also happens the other way around: if tribes or peoples who previously lived separately from each other merge into a single whole, their languages ​​begin to mix. Long-forgotten peoples once lived on the borders of the Russian state - em, chud, torques, white hoods. They merged with the Russian people, and their languages ​​- with the Russian language.

www.childrenpedia.org

View of modern science: Does the soul exist, and is Consciousness immortal?

Any person who is faced with the death of a loved one asks the question is there life after death? In our time, this issue is acquiring special relevance. If several centuries ago the answer to this question was obvious to everyone, now, after the period of atheism, its solution is more difficult. We cannot simply believe hundreds of generations of our ancestors, who, through personal experience, century after century, were convinced that a person has an immortal soul. We want to have facts. Moreover, the facts are scientific. From school they tried to convince us that there is no God, there is no immortal soul. At the same time, we were told that this is what science says. And we believed ... Let us note that it was BELIEVED that there is no immortal soul, BELIEVED that science allegedly proved it, BELIEVED that there is no God. None of us have tried to figure out what impartial science says about the soul. We simply trusted certain authorities, without going into the details of their worldview, objectivity, and their interpretations of scientific facts.

What is Consciousness?

Scientific studies carried out in different countries of the world prove that nerve cells, like all other cells of the human body, are capable of regeneration (restoration). This is what the most serious international biological journal Nature writes: “Employees of the Californian Institute for Biological Research. Salk found that fully functional young cells are born in the brains of adult mammals that function on par with pre-existing neurons. Professor Frederick Gage and his colleagues also concluded that brain tissue renews fastest in physically active animals. "

For some reason, in our time, it is so difficult to prove what was obvious and understandable to the ancients. The Roman Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, who was still living in the III century, wrote: “It is absurd to assume that since none of the parts has life, life can be created by their aggregate ... besides, it is absolutely impossible that life produces a heap of parts, and that the mind gave rise to that which is devoid of mind. If someone objects that this is not so, but in fact the soul is formed by atoms that come together, that is, indivisible bodies into parts, he will be refuted by the fact that the atoms themselves only lie next to one another, not forming a living whole, for unity and joint feeling cannot be obtained from bodies that are insensitive and incapable of uniting; but the soul feels itself ”(1).

Where did the assumption that Consciousness is in the brain come from? This assumption was put forward in the middle of the 18th century by the famous electrophysiologist Dubois-Reymond (1818-1896). In his outlook, Dubois-Reymond was one of the brightest representatives of the mechanistic trend. In one of his letters to his friend, he wrote that “only physicochemical laws operate in the organism; if not everything can be explained with their help, then it is necessary, using physical and mathematical methods, either to find a way of their action, or to accept that there are new forces of matter, equal in value to physicochemical forces. "

Professor, MD Voino-Yasenetsky describes: “In a young wounded man, I opened a huge abscess (about 50 cubic cm, pus), which undoubtedly destroyed the entire left frontal lobe, and I did not observe any mental defects after this operation. I can say the same about another patient who was operated on for a huge cyst of the meninges. With a wide opening of the skull, I was surprised to see that almost all of the right half of it was empty, and the entire left hemisphere of the brain was compressed, almost impossible to distinguish it ”(3).

Another argument that is understandable for non-specialists is given by Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky: "In the wars of ants that do not have a brain, intentionality is clearly revealed, and therefore also rationality, which is no different from human" (4). This is a truly amazing fact. Ants solve rather difficult problems of survival, building housing, providing themselves with food, i.e. have some intelligence, but have no brain at all. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What is the nature of Consciousness?

With his colleague, the founder of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, who performed over 10,000 operations on the brain, Eccles wrote the book The Mystery of Man (5). In it, the authors explicitly state that "there is no doubt that a person is controlled by SOMETHING outside of his body." “I can experimentally confirm,” writes Eccles, “that the workings of consciousness cannot be explained by the functioning of the brain. Consciousness exists independently of it from the outside. "

Wilder Penfield, as a result of many years of studying the activity of the brain, also came to the conclusion that “the energy of the mind is different from the energy of the brain's neural impulses” (6).

Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation, Director of the Scientific Research Institute of the Brain (RAMS of the Russian Federation), a world-renowned neurophysiologist, professor, Doctor of Medical Sciences Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva: “The hypothesis that the human brain only perceives thoughts from somewhere outside, I first heard from the lips of the Nobel laureate, Professor John Eccles. Of course, then it seemed absurd to me. But then research carried out in our St. Petersburg Research Institute of the Brain confirmed that we cannot explain the mechanics of the creative process. The brain can generate only the simplest thoughts, such as how to turn the pages of a book you are reading or stir up sugar in a glass. And the creative process is a manifestation of a completely new quality. As a believer, I admit the participation of the Almighty in the management of the thought process. "

Back in 1956, the outstanding outstanding scientist-surgeon, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky believed that our brain is not only not connected with Consciousness, but that it is not even capable of thinking independently, since the mental process is outside of it. In his book, Valentin Feliksovich argues that "the brain is not an organ of thought, feeling", and that "Spirit goes beyond the brain, determining its activity, and our whole being, when the brain works as a transmitter, receiving signals and transmitting them to the organs of the body." (7).

Natalia Bekhtereva, talking about her meeting with the Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga Dimitrova, quite definitely speaks about this in one of her interviews: “Vanga's example absolutely convinced me that there is a phenomenon of contact with the dead” (8), and another quote from her books: “I cannot help but believe what I have heard and seen myself. A scientist has no right to reject facts (if he is a scientist!) Only because they do not fit into a dogma, a worldview ”(9).

The first consistent description of posthumous life based on scientific observation was given by the Swedish scientist and naturalist Emmanuel Swedenborg. Then this problem was seriously studied by the famous psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler Ross, no less famous psychiatrist Raymond Moody, conscientious scientists academicians Oliver Lodge (10), William Crookes (11), Alfred Wallace, Alexander Butlerov, Professor Friedrich Myers (12), American doctor -Pediatrist Melvin Morse. Among the serious and systematic researchers of the issue of dying, it is worth mentioning the professor of medicine at Emory University and the staff doctor at the Veterans' Hospital in Atlanta, Dr. Michael Sabom, the systematic study of psychiatrist Kenneth Ring is also very valuable, the doctor of medicine, intensive care physician Moritz Roolings was studying this problem , our contemporary, thanatopsychologist A.A. Nalchajyan. The famous Soviet scientist, a prominent specialist in the field of thermodynamic processes, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus Albert Veinik worked a lot on understanding this problem from the point of view of physics. A significant contribution to the study of the near-death experience was made by the world famous American psychologist of Czech origin, the founder of the transpersonal school of psychology, Dr. Stanislav Grof.

Mikhail Khasminsky

2. NI Kobozev. Research in the field of thermodynamics of information and thinking processes.

3.4. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky. “About spirit, soul and body”.

9. N. P. Ankylosing spondylitis. "The magic of the brain and the labyrinths of life."

12. Myers. Human personality and its survival of bodily death

wakeupnow.info

And now, when the tragedy has happened, there is a conflict inside us:

We feel that the soul of the deceased is eternal, that it is alive, but on the other hand, old and instilled in us stereotypes that there is no soul, pull us into the abyss of despair. This struggle within us is very difficult and very exhausting. We want the truth!

So let's look at the question of the existence of the soul through a real, not ideologized, objective science. We will hear the opinion of real scientists on this issue, personally evaluate the logical calculations. It is not our BELIEVE in the existence or non-existence of the soul, but only KNOWLEDGE can extinguish this inner conflict, preserve our strength, give confidence, look at the tragedy from a different, real point of view.

The article will focus on Consciousness. We will analyze the question of Consciousness from the point of view of science: where is Consciousness in our body and can it end its life?

What is Consciousness?

First, about what Consciousness is in general. People have been thinking about this question throughout the history of mankind, but still cannot come to a final decision. We know only some properties, possibilities of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of oneself, one's personality, it is a great analyzer of all our feelings, emotions, desires, plans. Consciousness is what sets us apart, what makes us feel ourselves not as objects, but as individuals. In other words, Consciousness miraculously reveals our fundamental existence. Consciousness is our awareness of our "I", but at the same time Consciousness is a great mystery. Consciousness has no dimensions, no form, no color, no smell, no taste, it cannot be touched or turned in the hands. Despite the fact that we know very little about consciousness, we know with absolute certainty that we have it.

One of the main questions of humanity is the question of the nature of this very Consciousness (soul, "I", ego). Materialism and idealism have diametrically opposed views on this issue. From the point of view of materialism, human Consciousness is a substrate of the brain, a product of matter, a product of biochemical processes, a special fusion of nerve cells. From the point of view of idealism, Consciousness is - the ego, "I", spirit, soul - an immaterial, invisible spiritualizing body, eternally existing, non-dying energy. The subject always participates in the acts of consciousness, who, in fact, is aware of everything.

If you are interested in purely religious ideas about the soul, then religion will not give any evidence of the existence of the soul. The doctrine of the soul is a dogma and is not subject to scientific proof.

There are absolutely no explanations, let alone evidence from materialists who believe that they are impartial scientists (although this is far from the case).

But what about the majority of people who are equally far from religion, from philosophy, and from science too, imagine this Consciousness, soul, "I"? Let's ask ourselves the question, what is “I”?

Gender, name, profession and other role functions

The first thing that most comes to mind: "I am a man", "I am a woman (man)", "I am a businessman (turner, baker)", "I am Tanya (Katya, Alexey)", "I am a wife ( husband, daughter) ”, etc. These are, of course, amusing answers. Your individual, unique "I" cannot be defined by general concepts. There are a huge number of people in the world with the same characteristics, but they are not your "I". Half of them are women (men), but they are also not "I", people with the same professions seem to have their own, and not your "I", the same can be said about wives (husbands), people of different professions, social status, nationalities, religions, etc. No belonging to any group will explain to you what your individual “I” represents, because Consciousness is always personal. I am not qualities (qualities only belong to our “I”), because the qualities of one and the same person can change, but his “I” will remain unchanged.

Mental and physiological characteristics

Some say that their "I" is their reflexes, their behavior, their individual ideas and preferences, their psychological characteristics, etc.

In fact, it cannot be the core of the personality, which is called "I" Why? Because throughout life, behavior and perceptions and addictions, and even more so psychological characteristics, change. It cannot be said that if earlier these features were different, then it was not my "I".

Realizing this, some make the following argument: "I am my individual body." This is more interesting. Let us examine this assumption as well.

Everyone else from the school course on anatomy knows that the cells of our body are gradually renewed during life. The old ones die (apoptosis) and the new ones are born. Some cells (epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract) are completely renewed almost every day, but there are cells that go through their life cycle much longer. On average, all cells of the body are renewed every 5 years. If we consider "I" as a simple collection of human cells, then the result is absurd. It turns out that if a person lives, for example, 70 years. During this time, at least 10 times a person will change all the cells in his body (i.e. 10 generations). Could this mean that not one person, but 10 different people lived their 70-year life? Isn't that pretty silly? We conclude that “I” cannot be a body, because the body is not permanent, but “I” is permanent.

This means that "I" can be neither the qualities of cells, nor their totality.

But here, especially erudite ones give a counterargument: “Well, with bones and muscles it is clear, it really cannot be“ I ”, but there are nerve cells! And they are alone for life. Maybe "I" is the sum of nerve cells? "

Let's reflect on this issue together ...

Does consciousness consist of nerve cells?

Materialism is accustomed to decomposing the entire multidimensional world into mechanical components, “testing harmony with algebra” (AS Pushkin). The most naive fallacy of militant materialism in relation to personality is the idea that personality is an aggregate of biological qualities. However, the combination of impersonal objects, whether they be atoms or neurons, cannot give rise to a personality and its core - "I".

How can this most complex “I”, feeling, capable of experiencing, love, be just the sum of specific cells of the body together with the ongoing biochemical and bioelectric processes? How can these processes form "I" ???

Provided that nerve cells made up our "I", then every day we would lose a part of our "I". With each dead cell, with each neuron, the "I" would become smaller and smaller. With the restoration of cells, it would increase in size.

Scientific studies carried out in different countries of the world prove that nerve cells, like all other cells of the human body, are capable of regeneration (restoration). This is what the most serious international biological journal Nature writes: “Employees of the Californian Institute for Biological Research. Salk found that fully functional young cells are born in the brains of adult mammals that function on par with pre-existing neurons. Professor Frederick Gage and his colleagues also concluded that brain tissue renews fastest in physically active animals "1

This is confirmed by the publication in another authoritative, refereed biological journal - Science: “Over the past two years, researchers have established that nerve and brain cells are renewed, like others in the human body. The body is able to repair itself the disorders related to the nervous tract, "says scientist Helen M. Blon."

Thus, even with a complete change of all (including nerve) cells of the body, the "I" of a person remains the same, therefore, it does not belong to a constantly changing material body.

For some reason, in our time, it is so difficult to prove what was obvious and understandable to the ancients. The Roman Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, who was still living in the III century, wrote: “It is absurd to assume that since none of the parts has life, life can be created by their aggregate ... besides, it is absolutely impossible that life produces a heap of parts, and that the mind gave rise to that which is devoid of mind. If someone objects that this is not so, but in fact the soul is formed by atoms that come together, that is, indivisible bodies into parts, he will be refuted by the fact that the atoms themselves only lie next to one another, not forming a living whole, for unity and joint feeling cannot be obtained from bodies that are insensitive and incapable of uniting; but the soul feels itself ”2.

“I” is the unchanging core of the personality, which includes many variables, but is not itself variable.

The skeptic may come up with one last desperate argument: "Could I be the brain?"

Is Consciousness a Product of Brain Activity? What does science say?

Many have heard the tale that our Consciousness is the activity of the brain at school. An unusually widespread idea is that the brain is, in fact, a person with his “I”. Most people think that it is the brain that perceives information from the outside world, processes it and decides how to act in each specific case, they think that it is the brain that makes us alive, gives us personality. And the body is nothing more than a spacesuit that ensures the activity of the central nervous system.

But this tale has nothing to do with science. The brain is now deeply studied. The chemical composition, parts of the brain, the connections of these parts with human functions have been well studied for a long time. The cerebral organization of perception, attention, memory, speech has been studied. The functional blocks of the brain have been studied. A huge number of clinics and research centers have been studying the human brain for more than a hundred years, for which expensive and effective equipment has been developed. But, having opened any textbooks, monographs, scientific journals on neurophysiology or neuropsychology, you will not come across scientific data on the connection between the brain and Consciousness.

For people far from this area of ​​knowledge, this seems surprising. In fact, there is nothing surprising in this. It's just that no one has ever discovered the connection between the brain and the very center of our personality, our "I". Of course, materialistic scientists have always wanted this. Thousands of studies and millions of experiments have been carried out, many billions of dollars have been spent on this. The efforts of scientists were not in vain. Thanks to these studies, the parts of the brain themselves were discovered and studied, their connection with physiological processes was established, a lot was done to understand neurophysiological processes and phenomena, but the most important thing was not done. It was not possible to find in the brain the place that is our "I". It was not even possible, despite the extremely active work in this direction, to make a serious assumption about how the brain can be connected with our Consciousness.

Where did the assumption that Consciousness is in the brain come from? This assumption was put forward in the middle of the 18th century by the famous electrophysiologist Dubois-Reymond (1818-1896). In his outlook, Dubois-Reymond was one of the brightest representatives of the mechanistic trend. In one of his letters to his friend, he wrote that “only physicochemical laws operate in the organism; if not everything can be explained with their help, then it is necessary, using physical and mathematical methods, either to find a way of their action, or to accept that there are new forces of matter, equal in value to physicochemical forces ”3.

But another outstanding physiologist, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig (Ludwig, 1816-1895), who headed the new Physiological Institute in Leipzig in 1869-1895, who had become the world's largest center in the field of experimental physiology, did not agree with him. The founder of the scientific school, Ludwig wrote that none of the existing theories of nervous activity, including Dubois-Reymond's electrical theory of nerve currents, can say anything about how acts of sensation become possible due to the activity of nerves. Note that here we are not even talking about the most complex acts of consciousness, but about much simpler sensations. If there is no consciousness, then we cannot feel and sense anything.

Another major physiologist of the 19th century, the outstanding English neurophysiologist Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, Nobel laureate, said that if it is not clear how the psyche arises from the activity of the brain, then, naturally, it is just as little understood how it can exert any influence. on the behavior of a living being, which is controlled by the nervous system.

As a result, Dubois-Reymond himself came to the following conclusion: “How we realize - we do not know and will never know. And no matter how we delve into the jungle of intracerebral neurodynamics, we will not throw a bridge to the kingdom of consciousness. " Raymon came to a conclusion, disappointing for determinism, that it is impossible to explain Consciousness by material reasons. He admitted that "here the human mind is confronted with a 'world riddle', which it will never be able to solve" 4.

Professor of Moscow University, philosopher A.I. Vvedensky in 1914 formulated the law of "the absence of objective signs of animation." The meaning of this law is that the role of the psyche in the system of material processes of regulation of behavior is absolutely elusive and there is no conceivable bridge between the activity of the brain and the area of ​​mental or mental phenomena, including Consciousness.

The largest specialists in neurophysiology, Nobel Prize winners David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel recognized that in order to be able to assert the connection between the brain and Consciousness, it is necessary to understand what reads and decodes information that comes from the senses. Scientists have acknowledged that this cannot be done.

There is an interesting and convincing proof of the absence of a connection between Consciousness and the work of the brain, understandable even to people far from science. Here it is:

Suppose that "I" (Consciousness) is the result of the work of the brain. As neurophysiologists know exactly, a person can even live with one hemisphere of the brain. At the same time, he will have Consciousness. A person who lives only with the right hemisphere of the brain certainly has "I" (Consciousness). Accordingly, we can conclude that "I" is not in the left, absent, hemisphere. A person with a single functioning left hemisphere also has an “I”, therefore “I” is not in the right hemisphere, which the given person does not have. Consciousness remains regardless of which hemisphere is removed. This means that a person does not have a region of the brain responsible for Consciousness, either in the left or in the right hemisphere of the brain. We have to conclude that the presence of consciousness in a person is not associated with certain areas of the brain.

Professor, MD Voino-Yasenetsky describes: “In a young wounded man, I opened a huge abscess (about 50 cubic cm, pus), which undoubtedly destroyed the entire left frontal lobe, and I did not observe any mental defects after this operation. I can say the same about another patient who was operated on for a huge cyst of the meninges. With a wide opening of the skull, I was surprised to see that almost all of the right half of it was empty, and the entire left hemisphere of the brain was compressed, almost impossible to distinguish it ”6.

In 1940, Dr. Augustin Iturrica made a sensational statement at the Anthropological Society in Sucre, Bolivia. He and Dr. Ortiz took a long time to study the medical history of a 14-year-old boy, a patient at Dr. Ortiz's clinic. The teenager was there with a diagnosis of a brain tumor. The young man kept Consciousness until his death, complaining only of a headache. When, after his death, an autopsy was performed, the doctors were amazed: the entire cerebral mass was completely separated from the inner cavity of the cranium. A large abscess has invaded the cerebellum and part of the brain. It remained completely incomprehensible how the sick boy's thinking was preserved.

The fact that consciousness exists independently of the brain is also supported by research recently carried out by Dutch physiologists under the direction of Pim van Lommel. The results of a large-scale experiment were published in the authoritative biological journal "The Lancet". “Consciousness exists even after the brain has ceased to function. In other words, Consciousness "lives" by itself, absolutely independently. As for the brain, it is not thinking matter at all, but an organ, like any other, performing strictly defined functions. It is very possible that thinking matter, even in principle, does not exist, said the head of the study, the famous scientist Pim van Lommel ”7.

Another argument that is understandable for non-specialists is given by Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky: “In the wars of ants that do not have a brain, deliberation is clearly revealed, and therefore rationality, which is no different from human” 8. This is really an amazing fact. Ants solve rather difficult problems of survival, building housing, providing themselves with food, i.e. have some intelligence, but have no brain at all. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Neurophysiology does not stand still, but is one of the most dynamically developing sciences. Methods and scale of research speaks about the success of studying the brain. The functions, parts of the brain are being studied, and its composition is being clarified in more and more detail. Despite the titanic work on the study of the brain, world science today is just as far from understanding what creativity, thinking, memory are and what is their connection with the brain itself.

What is the nature of Consciousness?

Having come to the understanding that there is no Consciousness inside the body, science makes natural conclusions about the immaterial nature of consciousness.

Academician P.K. Anokhin: “None of the“ mental ”operations that we attribute to the“ mind ”have so far been directly connected with any part of the brain. If, in principle, we cannot understand how the mental arises as a result of the activity of the brain, then is it not more logical to think that the psyche is not in its essence a function of the brain, but is a manifestation of some other - immaterial spiritual forces? " nine

At the end of the 20th century, the creator of quantum mechanics, Nobel laureate E. Schrödinger wrote that the nature of the connection of some physical processes with subjective events (to which Consciousness belongs) lies "outside of science and beyond human understanding."

The largest modern neurophysiologist, Nobel Prize laureate in medicine J. Eccles developed the idea that, based on the analysis of brain activity, it is impossible to find out the origin of mental phenomena, and this fact can be easily interpreted in the sense that the psyche is not a function of the brain at all. According to Eccles, neither physiology nor the theory of evolution can shed light on the origin and nature of consciousness, which is absolutely alien to all material processes in the universe. The spiritual world of man and the world of physical realities, including the activity of the brain, are completely independent independent worlds that only interact and, to some extent, affect each other. He is echoed by such prominent experts as Carl Lashley (American scientist, director of the Primate Biology Laboratory in Orange Park (Florida), who studied the mechanisms of the brain) and Harvard University doctor Edward Tolman.

With his colleague, the founder of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, who performed more than 10,000 brain operations, Eccles wrote the book The Mystery of Man.10 body ". “I can experimentally confirm,” writes Eccles, “that the workings of consciousness cannot be explained by the functioning of the brain. Consciousness exists independently of it from the outside. "

Eccles is deeply convinced that consciousness cannot be the subject of scientific research. In his opinion, the emergence of consciousness, as well as the emergence of life, is the highest religious mystery. In his report, the Nobel laureate relied on the conclusions of the book "Personality and the Brain", written jointly with the American philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper.

Wilder Penfield, as a result of many years of studying the activity of the brain, also came to the conclusion that "the energy of the mind is different from the energy of brain neural impulses" 11.

Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation, Director of the Scientific Research Institute of the Brain (RAMS of the Russian Federation), a world-renowned neurophysiologist, professor, Doctor of Medical Sciences Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva: “The hypothesis that the human brain only perceives thoughts from somewhere outside, I first heard from the lips of the Nobel laureate, Professor John Eccles. Of course, then it seemed absurd to me. But then research carried out in our St. Petersburg Research Institute of the Brain confirmed that we cannot explain the mechanics of the creative process. The brain can generate only the simplest thoughts, such as how to turn the pages of a book you are reading or stir up sugar in a glass. And the creative process is a manifestation of a completely new quality. As a believer, I admit the participation of the Almighty in the management of the thought process ”12.

Science is gradually coming to the conclusion that the brain is not the source of thought and consciousness, but at most - their relay.

Professor S. Grof says about it this way: “Imagine that your TV set is broken and you have called a TV technician who, having twisted different knobs, tuned it up. It does not occur to you that all these stations are sitting in this box ”13.

Back in 1956, the outstanding outstanding scientist-surgeon, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky believed that our brain is not only not connected with Consciousness, but that it is not even capable of thinking independently, since the mental process is outside of it. In his book, Valentin Feliksovich argues that "the brain is not an organ of thought, feeling", and that "Spirit goes beyond the brain, determining its activity, and our whole being, when the brain works as a transmitter, receiving signals and transmitting them to the organs of the body." fourteen.

The same conclusions were reached by British researchers Peter Fenwick from the London Institute of Psychiatry and Sam Parnia from Southampton Central Hospital. They examined patients who came back to life after cardiac arrest, and found that some of them accurately recounted the content of the conversations that the medical staff had while they were in a state of clinical death. Others gave an accurate description of the events that occurred during this time period. Sam Parnia argues that the brain, like any other organ of the human body, consists of cells and is unable to think. However, it can function as a thought-detecting device, i.e. as an antenna with which it becomes possible to receive a signal from the outside. Scientists have suggested that during clinical death, Consciousness acting independently of the brain uses it as a screen. Like a television receiver, which first receives the waves entering it, and then converts them into sound and image.

If we turn off the radio, this does not mean that the radio station stops broadcasting. That is, after the death of the physical body, Consciousness continues to live.

The fact of the continuation of the life of Consciousness after the death of the body is also confirmed by Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Director of the Research Institute of the Human Brain, Professor N.P. Bekhterev in his book "The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life." In addition to discussing purely scientific issues, in this book the author also gives his personal experience of encountering posthumous phenomena.

Natalia Bekhtereva, talking about her meeting with the Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga Dimitrova, quite definitely speaks about this in one of her interviews: “Vanga's example absolutely convinced me that there is a phenomenon of contact with the dead”, and another quote from her book: “ I cannot help but believe what I have heard and seen myself. A scientist has no right to reject facts (if he is a scientist!) Just because they do not fit into the dogma, worldview ”12.

The first consistent description of posthumous life based on scientific observation was given by the Swedish scientist and naturalist Emmanuel Swedenborg. Then this problem was seriously studied by the famous psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler Ross, the equally famous psychiatrist Raymond Moody, conscientious scientists academicians Oliver Lodge15,16, William Crookes17, Alfred Wallace, Alexander Butlerov, Professor Friedrich Myers18, American pediatrician Melvin Morse. Among the serious and systematic researchers of the issue of dying, it is worth mentioning the professor of medicine at Emory University and the staff doctor at the Veterans' Hospital in Atlanta, Dr. Michael Sabom, the systematic study of psychiatrist Kenneth Ring is also very valuable, the doctor of medicine, intensive care physician Moritz Roolings was studying this problem , our contemporary, thanatopsychologist A.A. Nalchajyan. The famous Soviet scientist, a prominent specialist in the field of thermodynamic processes, a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus Albert Veinik worked a lot on understanding this problem from the point of view of physics. A significant contribution to the study of the near-death experience was made by the world famous American psychologist of Czech origin, the founder of the transpersonal school of psychology, Dr. Stanislav Grof.

The variety of facts accumulated by science indisputably proves that after physical death, each of those living today inherits a different reality, preserving his Consciousness.

Despite the limitations of our ability to cognize this reality with the help of material means, today there are a number of its characteristics obtained through experiments and observations of scientists studying this problem.

These characteristics were listed by A.V. Mikheev, a researcher of the St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University in his report at the international symposium "Life after death: from faith to knowledge" which took place on April 8-9, 2005 in St. Petersburg:

"1. There is a so-called "subtle body", which is the bearer of self-awareness, memory, emotions and "inner life" of a person. This body exists ... after physical death, being its "parallel component" for the duration of the existence of the physical body, providing the above processes. The physical body is only a mediator for their manifestation on the physical (earthly) level.

2. The life of an individual does not end with current earthly death. Survival after death is a natural law for humans.

3. The next reality is divided into a large number of levels, differing in the frequency characteristics of their components.

4. The place of destination of a person during the posthumous transition is determined by his attunement to a certain level, which is the total result of his thoughts, feelings and actions during his life on Earth. Just as the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a chemical depends on its composition, in the same way the posthumous destination of a person is determined by the "composite characteristic" of his inner life.

5. The concepts of "Heaven and Hell" reflect two polarities, possible posthumous states.

6. In addition to such polar states, there are a number of intermediate ones. The choice of an adequate state is automatically determined by the mental-emotional "pattern" formed by a person during his earthly life. That is why negative emotions, violence, desire for destruction and fanaticism, whatever they may be externally justified, in this respect are extremely destructive for the future fate of a person. This is a solid foundation for personal responsibility and adherence to ethical principles ”19.

All of the above arguments just surprisingly coincide with the religious knowledge of all traditional religions. This is a reason to cast aside doubts and be determined. Is not it?

1. Cell polarity: From embryo to axon // Nature Magazine. 27.08. 2003. Vol. 421, N 6926. P 905-906 Melissa M. Rolls and Chris Q. Doe

2. Plotinus. Enneads. Treatises 1-11., "Greco-Latin Cabinet" by Yu. A. Shichalin, Moscow, 2007.

3. Du Bois-Reymond E. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen Muskel- und Nervenphysik. Bd. 1.

Leipzig: Veit & Co., 1875. P. 102

4. Du Bois-Reymond, E. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen Muskel- und Nervenphysik. Bd. 1.P. 87

5. Kobozev NI Research in the field of thermodynamics of information and thinking processes. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1971, p. 85.

6, Voino-Yasenetsky V.F. Spirit, soul and body. CJSC "Brovarskaya Printing House", 2002. S. 43.

7. Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands; Dr Pirn van Lommel MD, Ruud van Wees PhD, Vincent Meyers PhD, Ingrid Elfferich PhD // The Lancet. Dec 2001 2001. Vol 358. No 9298 P. 2039-2045.

8. Voino-Yasenetsky VF Spirit, soul and body. CJSC "Brovarskaya Printing House", 2002 p. 36.

9 / Anokhin P.K. Systemic mechanisms of higher nervous activity. Selected Works. Moscow, 1979, p. 455.

10. Eccles J. The human mystery.

Berlin: Springer 1979. P. 176.

11. Penfield W. The mystery of the mind.

Princeton, 1975. P. 25-27

12 .. I was blessed to study "Through the Looking Glass". Interview with N.P. Bekhtereva newspaper "Volzhskaya Pravda", March 19, 2005.

13. Grof S. Holotropic Consciousness. Three levels of human consciousness and their impact on our life. M .: AST; Ganga, 2002.S. 267.

14. Voino-Yasenetsky V. F. Spirit, soul and body. CJSC "Brovarskaya Printing House", 2002 P.45.

15. Lodge O. Raymond or life and death.

16. Lodge O. The survival of man.

17. Crookes W. Researches in the phenomena of spiritualism.

London, year 1926 P. 24

18. Myers. Human personality and its survival of bodily death.

London, year 1sted. 1903 P. 68

19. Mikheev A. V. Life after death: from faith to knowledge

Journal "Consciousness and Physical Reality", No. 6, 2005 and in the abstracts of the international symposium "Noospheric innovations in culture, education, science, technology, health care", April 8-9, 2005, St. Petersburg.

Will I be able to kill "I"? or Where does consciousness live - M.I. Khasminsky

(23 votes: 4.61 out of 5)

Mikhail Igorevich Khasminsky

Every potential suicide believes in the possibility of the cessation of consciousness and the onset of some kind of non-being, emptiness. Suicides dream of this emptiness as peace, tranquility, absence of pain.

It is clear that it is beneficial to believe in the cessation of consciousness of a suicide. Because if Consciousness continues life after death, religious ideas about heaven, hell and eternal and very difficult torments of this very consciousness turn out to be real, in which all major religions agree. And this is absolutely not included in the calculations of the suicide.

Therefore, if you are a thinking person, you, of course, want to assess the likelihood of the success of your enterprise. For you, the answer to the question, what is Consciousness and whether it can be turned off like a light bulb, is of enormous importance.

We will analyze this question from the point of view of science: where is Consciousness in our body and can it end its life?

What is Consciousness?

First, about what Consciousness is in general. People have been thinking about this question throughout the history of mankind, but still cannot come to a final decision. We know only some properties, possibilities of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of oneself, one's personality, it is a great analyzer of all our feelings, emotions, desires, plans. Consciousness is what sets us apart, what makes us feel ourselves not as objects, but as individuals. In other words, Consciousness miraculously reveals our fundamental existence. Consciousness is our awareness of our "I", but at the same time Consciousness is a great mystery. Consciousness has no dimensions, no form, no color, no smell, no taste, it cannot be touched or turned in the hands. Despite the fact that we know very little about consciousness, we know with absolute certainty that we have it.

One of the main questions of humanity is the question of the nature of this very Consciousness (soul, "I", ego). Materialism and idealism have diametrically opposed views on this issue. From the point of view of materialism, human Consciousness is a substrate of the brain, a product of matter, a product of biochemical processes, a special fusion of nerve cells. From the point of view of idealism, Consciousness is - the ego, "I", spirit, soul - an immaterial, invisible spiritualizing body, eternally existing, non-dying energy. The subject always participates in the acts of consciousness, who, in fact, is aware of everything.

If you are interested in purely religious ideas about the soul, then religion will not give any evidence of the existence of the soul. The doctrine of the soul is a dogma and is not subject to scientific proof.

There are absolutely no explanations, let alone evidence from materialists who believe that they are impartial scientists (although this is far from the case).

But what about the majority of people who are equally far from religion, from philosophy, and from science too, imagine this Consciousness, soul, "I"? Let's ask ourselves the question, what is your “I”? Since I often ask this question in consultations, I can tell how people usually answer it.

Gender, name, profession and other role functions

The first thing that most comes to mind: "I am a man", "I am a woman (man)", "I am a businessman (turner, baker)", "I am Tanya (Katya, Alexey)", "I am a wife ( husband, daughter) ", etc. These are, of course, amusing answers. Your individual, unique "I" cannot be defined by general concepts. There are a huge number of people in the world with the same characteristics, but they are not your "I". Half of them are women (men), but they are also not "I", people with the same professions seem to have their own, and not your "I", the same can be said about wives (husbands), people of different professions, social status, nationalities, religions, etc. No belonging to any group will explain to you what your individual “I” represents, because Consciousness is always personal. I am not qualities, qualities only belong to our “I”, because the qualities of one and the same person can change, but his “I” will remain unchanged.

Mental and physiological characteristics

Some say that their "I" is their reflexes, their behavior, their individual ideas and preferences, their psychological characteristics, etc.

In fact, it cannot be the core of the personality, which is called "I" Why? Because throughout life, behavior and perceptions and addictions, and even more so psychological characteristics, change. It cannot be said that if earlier these features were different, then it was not my "I".

Realizing this, some make the following argument: "I am my individual body." This is more interesting. Let us examine this assumption as well.

Everyone else from the school course on anatomy knows that the cells of our body are gradually renewed during life. The old ones die (apoptosis) and the new ones are born. Some cells (epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract) are completely renewed almost every day, but there are cells that go through their life cycle much longer. On average, all cells of the body are renewed every 5 years. If we consider "I" as a simple collection of human cells, then the result is absurd. It turns out that if a person lives, for example, 70 years. During this time, at least 10 times a person will change all the cells in his body (i.e. 10 generations). Could this mean that not one person, but 10 different people lived their 70-year life? Isn't that pretty silly? We conclude that “I” cannot be a body, because the body is not permanent, but “I” is permanent.

This means that "I" can be neither the qualities of cells, nor their totality.

But here, especially erudite ones cite a counterargument: “Well, with bones and muscles it is clear, it really cannot be“ I ”, but there are nerve cells! And they are alone for life. Maybe "I" is the sum of nerve cells? "

Let's reflect on this issue together ...

Does consciousness consist of nerve cells?

Materialism is accustomed to decomposing the entire multidimensional world into mechanical components, “testing harmony with algebra” (AS Pushkin). The most naive fallacy of militant materialism in relation to personality is the idea that personality is an aggregate of biological qualities. However, the combination of impersonal objects, whether they be atoms or neurons, cannot give rise to a personality and its core - "I".

How can this most complex “I”, feeling, capable of experiencing, love, be just the sum of specific cells of the body together with the ongoing biochemical and bioelectric processes? How can these processes form "I" ???

Provided that nerve cells made up our "I", then every day we would lose a part of our "I". With each dead cell, with each neuron, the "I" would become smaller and smaller. With the restoration of cells, it would increase in size.

Scientific studies carried out in different countries of the world prove that nerve cells, like all other cells of the human body, are capable of regeneration (restoration). This is what the most serious international biological journal Nature writes: “Employees of the Californian Institute for Biological Research. Salk found that fully functional young cells are born in the brains of adult mammals that function on par with pre-existing neurons. Professor Frederick Gage and his colleagues also concluded that brain tissue renews fastest in physically active animals. "

This is confirmed by a publication in another biological journal - Science: “Over the past two years, researchers have established that nerve and brain cells are renewed, like others in the human body. The body is able to repair itself the disorders related to the nervous tract, "says scientist Helen M. Blon."

Thus, even with a complete change of all (including nerve) cells of the body, the "I" of a person remains the same, therefore, it does not belong to a constantly changing material body.

For some reason, in our time, it is so difficult to prove what was obvious and understandable to the ancients. The Roman Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, who was still living in the III century, wrote: “It is absurd to assume that since none of the parts has life, life can be created by their aggregate ... besides, it is absolutely impossible that life produces a heap of parts, and that the mind gave rise to that which is devoid of mind. If someone objects that this is not so, but in fact the soul is formed by atoms that come together, that is, indivisible bodies into parts, he will be refuted by the fact that the atoms themselves only lie next to one another, not forming a living whole, for unity and joint feeling cannot be obtained from bodies that are insensitive and incapable of uniting; but the soul feels itself ”.

“I” is the unchanging core of the personality, which includes many variables, but is not itself variable.

The skeptic may come up with one last desperate argument: "Could I be the brain?"

Is Consciousness a Product of Brain Activity? What does science say?

Many have heard the tale that our Consciousness is the activity of the brain at school. An unusually widespread idea is that the brain is, in fact, a person with his “I”. Most people think that it is the brain that perceives information from the outside world, processes it and decides how to act in each specific case, they think that it is the brain that makes us alive, gives us personality. And the body is nothing more than a spacesuit that ensures the activity of the central nervous system.

But this tale has nothing to do with science. The brain is now deeply studied. The chemical composition, parts of the brain, the connections of these parts with human functions have been well studied for a long time. The cerebral organization of perception, attention, memory, speech has been studied. The functional blocks of the brain have been studied. A huge number of clinics and research centers have been studying the human brain for more than a hundred years, for which expensive and effective equipment has been developed. But, having opened any textbook, monographs, scientific journals on neurophysiology or neuropsychology, you will not come across scientific data on the connection between the brain and Consciousness.

For people far from this area of ​​knowledge, this seems surprising. In fact, there is nothing surprising in this. It's just that no one has ever discovered the connection between the brain and the very center of our personality, our "I". Of course, materialistic scientists have always wanted this. Thousands of studies have been carried out, millions of experiments have been carried out, billions of dollars have been spent. The efforts of scientists were not in vain. The parts of the brain were discovered and studied, their connection with physiological processes was established, much was done to understand many neurophysiological processes and phenomena, but the most important thing was not done. It was not possible to find in the brain the place that is our "I". It was not even possible, despite the extremely active work in this direction, to make a serious assumption about how the brain can be connected with our Consciousness.

Where did the assumption that Consciousness is in the brain come from? One of the first, such an assumption was put forward in the middle of the 18th century by the greatest electrophysiologist Dubois-Reymond (1818-1896). In his outlook, Dubois-Reymond was one of the brightest representatives of the mechanistic trend. In one of his letters to his friend, he wrote that “only physicochemical laws operate in the organism; if not everything can be explained with their help, then it is necessary, using physical and mathematical methods, either to find a way of their action, or to accept that there are new forces of matter, equal in value to physicochemical forces. "

But another outstanding physiologist, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig (Ludwig, 1816-1895), who headed the new Physiological Institute in Leipzig in 1869-1895, who had become the world's largest center in the field of experimental physiology, did not agree with him. The founder of the scientific school, Ludwig wrote that none of the existing theories of nervous activity, including Dubois-Reymond's electrical theory of nerve currents, can say anything about how acts of sensation become possible due to the activity of nerves. Note that here we are not even talking about the most complex acts of consciousness, but about much simpler sensations. If there is no consciousness, then we cannot feel and sense anything.

Another major physiologist of the 19th century, the outstanding English neurophysiologist Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, Nobel laureate, said that if it is not clear how the psyche arises from the activity of the brain, then, naturally, it is just as little understood how it can exert any influence. on the behavior of a living being, which is controlled by the nervous system.

As a result, Dubois-Reymond himself came to the following conclusion: “How we realize - we do not know and will never know. And no matter how we delve into the jungle of intracerebral neurodynamics, we will not throw a bridge to the kingdom of consciousness. " Raymon came to a conclusion, disappointing for determinism, that it is impossible to explain Consciousness by material reasons. He admitted that "here the human mind comes across a 'world riddle' that it can never solve."

Professor of Moscow University, philosopher A.I. Vvedensky in 1914 formulated the law of "the absence of objective signs of animate". The meaning of this law is that the role of the psyche in the system of material processes of regulation of behavior is absolutely elusive and there is no conceivable bridge between the activity of the brain and the area of ​​mental or mental phenomena, including Consciousness.

The largest specialists in neurophysiology, Nobel Prize winners David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel recognized that in order to be able to assert the connection between the brain and Consciousness, it is necessary to understand what reads and decodes information that comes from the senses. Scientists have acknowledged that this cannot be done.

The great scientist, professor of Moscow State University Nikolai Kobozev showed in his monograph that neither cells, nor molecules, nor even atoms can be responsible for the processes of thinking and memory.

There is evidence of the absence of a connection between Consciousness and the work of the brain, understandable even to people who are far from science. Here it is.

Suppose that "I" (Consciousness) is the result of the work of the brain. As neurophysiologists know exactly, a person can even live with one hemisphere of the brain. At the same time, he has Consciousness. A person who lives only with the right hemisphere of the brain certainly has "I" (Consciousness). Accordingly, we can conclude that "I" is not in the left, absent, hemisphere. A person with a single functioning left hemisphere also has an “I”, therefore “I” is not in the right hemisphere, which the given person does not have. Consciousness remains regardless of which hemisphere is removed. This means that a person does not have a region of the brain responsible for Consciousness, either in the left or in the right hemisphere of the brain. We have to conclude that the presence of consciousness in a person is not associated with certain areas of the brain.

Maybe Consciousness is divisible and with the loss of a part of the brain it does not die, but only gets damaged? Scientific facts do not confirm this assumption either.

Professor, MD Voino-Yasenetsky describes: “In a young wounded man, I opened a huge abscess (about 50 cubic cm, pus), which undoubtedly destroyed the entire left frontal lobe, and I did not observe any mental defects after this operation. I can say the same about another patient who was operated on for a huge cyst of the meninges. With a wide opening of the skull, I was surprised to see that almost all of the right half of it was empty, and the entire left hemisphere of the brain was compressed, almost impossible to distinguish it.

In 1940, Dr. Augustin Iturrica made a sensational statement at the Anthropological Society in Sucre, Bolivia. He and Dr. Ortiz took a long time to study the medical history of a 14-year-old boy, a patient at Dr. Ortiz's clinic. The teenager was there with a diagnosis of a brain tumor. The young man kept Consciousness until his death, complaining only of a headache. When, after his death, an autopsy was performed, the doctors were amazed: the entire cerebral mass was completely separated from the inner cavity of the cranium. A large abscess has invaded the cerebellum and part of the brain. It remained completely incomprehensible how the sick boy's thinking was preserved.

The fact that consciousness exists independently of the brain is also supported by research recently carried out by Dutch physiologists under the direction of Pim van Lommel. The results of a large-scale experiment were published in the authoritative biological journal "The Lancet". “Consciousness exists even after the brain has ceased to function. In other words, Consciousness "lives" by itself, absolutely independently. As for the brain, it is not thinking matter at all, but an organ, like any other, performing strictly defined functions. It is very possible that thinking matter, even in principle, does not exist, said the head of the study, the famous scientist Pim van Lommel. "

Another argument that is understandable for non-specialists is given by Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky: "In the wars of ants that do not have a brain, intentionality is clearly revealed, and therefore rationality, which is no different from human." This is a truly amazing fact. Ants solve rather difficult problems of survival, building housing, providing themselves with food, i.e. have some intelligence, but have no brain at all. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Neurophysiology does not stand still, but is one of the most dynamically developing sciences. Methods and scale of research speaks about the success of studying the brain. The functions, parts of the brain are being studied, and its composition is being clarified in more and more detail. Despite the titanic work on the study of the brain, world science today is just as far from understanding what creativity, thinking, memory are and what is their connection with the brain itself.

So, science has definitely established that Consciousness is not a product of brain activity.

What is the nature of Consciousness?

Having come to the understanding that there is no Consciousness inside the body, science makes natural conclusions about the immaterial nature of consciousness.

Academician P.K. Anokhin: “None of the“ mental ”operations that we attribute to the“ mind ”have so far been directly connected with any part of the brain. If, in principle, we cannot understand how the mental arises as a result of the activity of the brain, then is it not more logical to think that the psyche is not in its essence a function of the brain, but is a manifestation of some other - immaterial spiritual forces? "

At the end of the 20th century, the creator of quantum mechanics, Nobel laureate E. Schrödinger wrote that the nature of the connection of some physical processes with subjective events (to which Consciousness belongs) lies "outside of science and beyond human understanding."

The largest modern neurophysiologist, Nobel Prize laureate in medicine J. Eccles developed the idea that, based on the analysis of brain activity, it is impossible to find out the origin of mental phenomena, and this fact can be easily interpreted in the sense that the psyche is not a function of the brain at all. According to Eccles, neither physiology nor the theory of evolution can shed light on the origin and nature of consciousness, which is absolutely alien to all material processes in the universe. The spiritual world of man and the world of physical realities, including the activity of the brain, are completely independent independent worlds that only interact and, to some extent, affect each other. He is echoed by such prominent experts as Carl Lashley (American scientist, director of the Primate Biology Laboratory in Orange Park (Florida), who studied the mechanisms of the brain) and Harvard University doctor Edward Tolman.

With his colleague, the founder of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, who has performed over 10,000 brain operations, Eccles wrote the book The Mystery of Man. In it, the authors explicitly state that "there is no doubt that a person is controlled by SOMETHING outside of his body." “I can experimentally confirm,” writes Eccles, “that the workings of consciousness cannot be explained by the functioning of the brain. Consciousness exists independently of it from the outside. "

Eccles is deeply convinced that consciousness cannot be the subject of scientific research. In his opinion, the emergence of consciousness, as well as the emergence of life, is the highest religious mystery. In his report, the Nobel laureate relied on the conclusions of the book "Personality and the Brain", written jointly with the American philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper.

Wilder Penfield, as a result of many years of studying the activity of the brain, also came to the conclusion that "the energy of the mind is different from the energy of brain neural impulses."

Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation, Director of the Scientific Research Institute of the Brain (RAMS of the Russian Federation), a world-renowned neurophysiologist, Doctor of Medical Sciences. Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva: “The hypothesis that the human brain only perceives thoughts from somewhere outside, I first heard from the lips of the Nobel laureate, Professor John Eccles. Of course, then it seemed absurd to me. But then research carried out in our St. Petersburg Research Institute of the Brain confirmed that we cannot explain the mechanics of the creative process. The brain can generate only the simplest thoughts, such as how to turn the pages of a book you are reading or stir up sugar in a glass. And the creative process is a manifestation of a completely new quality. As a believer, I admit the participation of the Almighty in the management of the thought process. "

Science comes to the conclusion that the brain is not the source of thought and consciousness, but at most - their relay.

Professor S. Grof says about it this way: “Imagine that your TV set is broken and you have called a TV technician who, having twisted different knobs, tuned it up. It doesn't occur to you that all these stations are sitting in this box. "

Already in 1956, the outstanding outstanding scientist-surgeon, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky believed that our brain is not only not connected with Consciousness, but that it is not even capable of thinking independently, since the mental process is outside of it. In his book, Valentin Feliksovich argues that "the brain is not an organ of thought, feeling", and that "Spirit goes beyond the brain, determining its activity, and our whole being, when the brain works as a transmitter, receiving signals and transmitting them to the organs of the body." ...

The same conclusions were reached by British researchers Peter Fenwick from the London Institute of Psychiatry and Sam Parnia from Southampton Central Hospital. They examined patients who came back to life after cardiac arrest, and found that some of them accurately recounted the content of the conversations that the medical staff had while they were in a state of clinical death. Others gave an accurate description of the events that occurred during this time period. Sam Parnia argues that the brain, like any other organ of the human body, consists of cells and is unable to think. However, it can function as a thought-detecting device, i.e. as an antenna with which it becomes possible to receive a signal from the outside. Scientists have suggested that during clinical death, Consciousness acting independently of the brain uses it as a screen. Like a television receiver, which first receives the waves entering it, and then converts them into sound and image.

If we turn off the radio, this does not mean that the radio station stops broadcasting. That is, after the death of the physical body, Consciousness continues to live.

The fact of the continuation of the life of Consciousness after the death of the body is confirmed by the academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, director of the Research Institute of the Human Brain, a world-renowned neurophysiologist N.P. Bekhterev in his book "The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life." In addition to discussing purely scientific issues, in this book the author also gives his personal experience of encountering posthumous phenomena.

Natalia Bekhtereva, talking about her meeting with the Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga Dimitrova, quite definitely speaks about this in one of her interviews: “Vanga's example absolutely convinced me that there is a phenomenon of contact with the dead”, and another quote from her book: “ I cannot help but believe what I have heard and seen myself. A scientist has no right to reject facts (if he is a scientist!) Just because they do not fit into a dogma, a worldview. "

The first consistent description of posthumous life based on scientific observation was given by the Swedish scientist and naturalist Emmanuel Swedenborg. Then this problem was seriously studied by the famous psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler Ross, the equally famous psychiatrist Raymond Moody, conscientious scientists academicians Oliver Lodge, William Crookes, Alfred Wallace, Alexander Butlerov, Professor Friedrich Myers, American pediatrician Melvin Morse. Among the serious and systematic researchers of the issue of dying, it is worth mentioning the professor of medicine at Emory University and the staff doctor at the Veterans' Hospital in Atlanta, Dr. Michael Sabom, the systematic study of psychiatrist Kenneth Ring is also very valuable, the doctor of medicine, intensive care physician Moritz Roolings was studying this problem , our contemporary, thanatopsychologist A.A. Nalchajyan. The famous Soviet scientist, a prominent specialist in the field of thermodynamic processes, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus Albert Veinik worked a lot on understanding this problem from the point of view of physics. A significant contribution to the study of the near-death experience was made by the world famous American psychologist of Czech origin, the founder of the transpersonal school of psychology, Dr. Stanislav Grof.

The variety of facts accumulated by science indisputably proves that after physical death, each of those living today inherits a different reality, preserving his Consciousness.

Despite the limitations of our ability to cognize this reality with the help of material means, today there are a number of its characteristics obtained through experiments and observations of scientists studying this problem.

These characteristics were listed by A.V. Mikheev, a researcher of the St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University in his report at the international symposium "Life after death: from faith to knowledge" which took place on April 8-9, 2005 in St. Petersburg:

"1. There is a so-called "subtle body", which is the bearer of self-awareness, memory, emotions and "inner life" of a person. This body exists ... after physical death, being its "parallel component" for the duration of the existence of the physical body, providing the above processes. The physical body is only a mediator for their manifestation on the physical (earthly) level.

2. The life of an individual does not end with current earthly death. Survival after death is a natural law for humans.

3. The next reality is divided into a large number of levels, differing in the frequency characteristics of their components.

4. The place of destination of a person during the posthumous transition is determined by his attunement to a certain level, which is the total result of his thoughts, feelings and actions during his life on Earth. Just as the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a chemical depends on its composition, in the same way the posthumous destination of a person is determined by the "composite characteristic" of his inner life.

5. The concepts of "Heaven and Hell" reflect two polarities, possible posthumous states.

6. In addition to such polar states, there are a number of intermediate ones. The choice of an adequate state is automatically determined by the mental-emotional "pattern" formed by a person during his earthly life. That is why negative emotions, violence, desire for destruction and fanaticism, whatever they may be externally justified, in this respect are extremely destructive for the future fate of a person. This is a strong rationale for personal responsibility and ethical adherence. "

And again about suicide

Most of the suicides believe that their Consciousness will cease to exist after death, that it will be peace, a rest from life. We got acquainted with the conclusion of world science about what Consciousness is and about the absence of a connection between it and the brain, as well as about the fact that after the death of the body a person will begin another, post-death life. Moreover, Consciousness retains its qualities, memory, and its post-death life is a natural continuation of earthly life.

This means that if here, in earthly life, Consciousness was struck by some kind of pain, illness, grief, liberation from the body will not be liberation from this illness. In the afterlife life, the fate of a sick consciousness is even more sad than in earthly life, because in earthly life we ​​can change everything or almost everything - with the participation of our will, the help of other people, new knowledge, a change in the life situation - in another world there are such opportunities are absent, and therefore the state of Consciousness is more stable.

That is, suicide is the preservation of a painful, unbearable state of one's Consciousness for an indefinite period. It is quite possible - forever. And the lack of hope for improving one's condition greatly increases the painfulness of any torment.

If we really want rest and pleasant peaceful rest, then our Consciousness must reach such a state even in earthly life, then after natural death it will preserve it.

After reading the material, the author would like you to independently try to find the truth, double-check the data presented in this article, read the relevant literature from the field of medicine, psychology and neurophysiology. I hope that, having learned more about this area, you will abandon the suicide attempt or commit it only if you are sure that with the help of it you can really get rid of Consciousness.

1. Plotinus. "On the immortality of the soul."

2. N.I. Kobozev. Research in the field of thermodynamics of information and thinking processes.

3. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky. “About spirit, soul and body”.

4. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky. “About spirit, soul and body”.

5. J. Eccles, W. Penfield. "The Mystery of Man".

6 W. Penfield. The mystery of the mind.

7. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky. “About spirit, soul and body”.

8. I was blessed to study “Through the Looking Glass”. Interview with N.P. Bekhtereva newspaper "Volzhskaya Pravda", March 19, 2005.

9. N. P. Bekhterev. "The magic of the brain and the labyrinths of life."

10. O. Lodge. Raymond or life and death. O. Lodge. The survival of man.

11. W. Crookes. Researches in the phenomena of spiritualism.

12. Myers. Human personality and its survival of bodily death.

azbyka.ru

Does science solve modern problems

This work is an attempt at a philosophical understanding of the negative phenomena occurring in the surrounding world, as well as an analysis of the origins of the contradictions that have accumulated in modern scientific constructions and in society. You can even say that the human community today lives in an era of deep systemic crisis.

There are good reasons for such an understanding of the current state of science and society.

It should start with the fact that in many sciences mathematics has become the determining criterion for the truth of a theory, model, position, thereby displacing the actual analysis of processes and phenomena. This is based on the general premise that mathematics is the language of science. I do not argue with this, but I will allow myself to doubt the absoluteness of this thesis.

Mathematics, no matter how perfect and accurate in its constructions (and even then not always), gives only the result that the author of this or that mathematical model wanted to get.

I am not at all opposed to using mathematical methods of analysis. I am against the use of mathematical methods for researching physical and other processes and phenomena, when mathematics completely supplants the processes being studied, the physics of phenomena, in fact, replaces the research itself.

No wonder they say: to solve a problem, you need to know the answer. Therein lies the danger of shifting the entirety of "responsibility" to mathematical models.

But the meaning of this, at first glance, paradoxical statement is as follows. Our thoughts, our ideas, our logical constructions describe only our own perceptions, our sensations, and not the world around us. This is the main difficulty in organizing any research.

The most difficult thing for us is the understanding that we perceive our (external) environment only as a complex of our (internal) sensations. And it is for this reason that it should be said once again that it is impossible and impossible to replace reality with mathematics.

It is sensations that are the only reality, with the recognition of which we can in no way come to terms or, at least, come to terms. Therefore, it is believed that mathematics is able to give us a tool to overcome this barrier.

But the mathematical model, even being perfect, ideal, gives only the result to which we paved the way in advance on the basis of semantic analysis. Therefore, mathematics has the right to be only an auxiliary tool, but not a method of analysis or, even worse, an argument for proving the correctness of a model.

A striking example of this is the history of "discoveries" in the seventies of the twentieth century of a continuous series of "elementary" particles. The scientific world and the public were moved by each new "discovery". I remember being shocked by the hype about the "discovery" of anti-sigma-minus-hyperon ...

Each "new" particle received its own personal mathematical "support", although the structure of matter, its "structure" did not become clearer from this. On the contrary, everything was even more confused, and a general understanding of the essence of the substance did not arise.

It never occurred to anyone then (and even today) that all these particles were the work of experimenters, and not constituent elements of matter.

For a modern physicist, it is difficult, infinitely difficult to understand and accept a very simple truth.

There are only five types of elementary particles: a photon, an electron, a positron, a neutron and a proton, which do not exist and cannot physically exist any antiparticles (except for the only one - the positron).

For a modern physicist, it is completely incomprehensible to what extent all other particles are "related" to a photon, whether they can mutually pass into each other, and what conditions should be for this. This is a secret for them with seven seals.

It is difficult for a modern physicist to understand that quarks, hyperons, mesons and so on are just "fragments" of nuclei or basic particles. It is difficult to understand that these are "man-made" creatures. This is the remaining "rubbish" from truly elementary particles. And no mathematical tricks can justify this human delusion.

It makes no sense to develop the theory of elementary particles, going deep into the unknown what and unknown in the name of what, but away from the truth. Today, the science of elementary particles must answer the only question: why an electron, a proton and a neutron, being outside the atomic nucleus, can exist only for a limited time, and in the composition of the nucleus, the same particles are, as it were, outside of time and can exist practically forever.

The answer to this question will give a true understanding of the substance.

Consider today's understanding of what we call "substance".

"Substance is a type of matter, a set of discrete (discontinuous) formations with rest mass (atoms, molecules and what is built of them)."

Impeccable, at first glance, definition. But a photon that does not have a rest mass, according to this definition, does not belong to "material" formations. A photon is already "a quantum of the electromagnetic field, a neutral elementary particle with zero rest mass and spin 1".

Spin is "the intrinsic angular momentum of a microparticle, which has a quantum nature and is not associated with the motion of the particle as a whole." In other words, spin is a qualitative characteristic.

We see that the postulate about substance is quite openly built on our trivial sensory perception of a solid, liquid, gaseous substance. We find in this definition such an unclear characteristic as rest mass. And few people think about the real meaning of this concept.

As a result, we have a natural, but not scientific, embodiment of our usual sensations. And if a different approach to the explanation of the "rest mass" is discovered, then not only will our understanding of matter change, but some foundation of modern physics will also be destroyed.

Consider the following philosophical definition.

"Matter is a philosophical category for designating objective reality, which is displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them; substance; substrate (basis) of all properties, connections and forms of movement that really exist in the world; an infinite number of all objects and systems existing in the world."

This definition reflects an attempt to describe everything at once. But upon closer examination, certain weaknesses are revealed.

Firstly, what is called substance is also called matter, that is, in this part, the definition could be much simpler. But the category of matter also includes that which is not matter. For example, a photon.

And this could be accepted if it was clear that the photon is material. If this is an "electromagnetic quantum", then how to separate this quality from motion, which, of course, is not a manifestation of matter, but is a property of matter.

However, the photon cannot be imagined or described in any way in immobility. Perhaps the material of a photon is its property to somehow pass through some substances "transparent" to it? But this is also just a property, ability, a certain quality. Generally speaking, a property (any) should in no way be attributed to something material.

A property is a form of manifestation of the material. Speaking about a photon, we immediately get confused in applying the concept of matter to it, since all the qualities (properties) inherent in it cannot be separated in any way, so that the understanding of the photon does not collapse.

Thus, there was a confusion of concepts, and properties are designated by matter. Such a generalization is a logical and, as a consequence, a philosophical mistake. In addition, in the above definition of matter there is a reservation that generally negates the possibility of using this definition.

Let's single out this place: "the substrate (basis) of all properties, connections and forms of movement really existing in the world." Let's go back to the photon again. What is the "substrate" in it - the quantum itself, its movement, or something else?

Obviously, for a photon, the "substrate" (so to speak) is all at once, since one is inseparable from the other. Consequently, when trying to apply it to a photon, the concept of matter dissolved, evaporated, but the photon itself did not change from this. And this means that we still do not understand at all what a photon is. But we also do not yet understand the essence of matter itself.

The question involuntarily arises: is it possible to resolve the existing contradiction? Is it necessary to do this at all? After all, for so many millennia mankind did without an answer to this philosophical question, that it is possible to live without it in the future, that is, without understanding the essence of matter and matter.

But, as the analysis of the development of modern society shows, the further existence of mankind without understanding this may become generally impossible.

It is necessary to seek answers to these questions. And the answers will become possible if we manage to find new logical chains connecting the world of our sensations with the real external world that exists outside of our perceptions of the world.

In other words, we must try to get around the substitution that objectively arises every day, which generates the materiality of the world, which really exists only in our sensations.

The most difficult thing for us is the understanding that we not only perceive our external environment as a complex of our sensations, but also the understanding that apart from our own sensations, nothing can be given to us in principle.

The only mechanism for overcoming this semantic barrier can only be the logic of semantics, but not the logic of mathematics.

In ancient philosophical systems, the provision about the accessibility of only our sensations to us found a fairly clear statement. This is especially clear in the philosophy of ancient India. For example, the Brahman Chatterjee, being a conductor of the philosophical heritage of India, said the following in his lectures for Europeans at the end of the 19th century.

"You perceive it (atom - O. Yu.) In a fatal way, nevertheless, under the guise of color, smell, density, in general under the guise of quality. And we have just seen that all these qualities are consequences of motion, and nothing else. Where is your atom "Physics in dreams ... Everything disappears in motion. Those who have never focused on these questions will not understand me."

But if their thought follows my direction, if they ponder deeper, they will be convinced of the deep truth in the statement that the Universe as an object of our perception is nothing but movement. This is how all the great teachers of antiquity taught. Objects, as such, do not exist absolutely, but only relatively: in the consciousness that we have about them ...

Your own conscious being is the only power you can really know "(Brahman Chatterjee The Secret Religious Philosophy of India, Lectures given in Brussels in 1898, preface and translation from the 3rd French edition by H.P., S. Petersburg, August 17, 1905, Kaluga, Printing house of the provincial zemstvo council, 1905, obtained from the JAPANserver website).

It seems that everything in this statement quite accurately describes the true reality at the level of semantics. But this is so contrary to the historically established European ideas about the world around us, the historically accepted model of the essence of matter, that we involuntarily persist in accepting such a judgment as a genuine conclusion.

If even for a moment we assume that Chatterjee has expressed himself in the semantic sense with sufficient completeness and accuracy, then at the same moment we must accept that the current logic of constructions (philosophical, mathematical, and others) is failing.

Therefore, we will need to create a new model of the world. At the same moment of our acceptance of the ideas of ancient India, we will have to abandon the usual European understanding of matter as such and matter as well. These concepts will require completely new semantic content.

But for this to be possible, we need a new logical bridge between what is objective reality and our consciousness. This is not an easy task, and it requires a certain fortitude to admit that natural science and, in general, the scientific heritage of past centuries, must be revised from the very foundations.

Natural science is a modern system of sciences about the nature of the surrounding physical and biological world. Physics occupies a special, fundamental place in this system. Physics is the science of nature that studies the basis of the properties of the material world. These properties, on the other hand, are the most general and serve as the foundation for the rest of the natural sciences. It follows that in the event of a revision of some provisions of physics, a revision of other natural sciences will be required.

Thus, succumbing to the temptation for a moment to accept a different philosophical doctrine, we subject the system of natural sciences to a qualitative alteration, a complete revision. Therefore, one should ask the question: is it really necessary to revise the foundations of natural science? This question is not an easy one, and it does not have an unambiguous answer.

There are a number of indirect signs that the development of physics as a theoretical science, if not stopped, then at least significantly slowed down. For example, in recent years, there has been a clear trend towards an increase in the limitation period for the creation of works for which the prestigious Nobel Prizes in physics are awarded.

Twenty years ago, these prizes were awarded for works created twenty to twenty-five years before the prizes were awarded. Today the "age" of such works has increased to forty-five to fifty years. Consequently, all the works for which these prizes have been awarded in recent decades were created approximately in the same period of time and for a very long time. Consequently, there are no breakthrough ideas in modern physics today.

At the same time, the number of problems that should be dealt with not only applied, but also fundamental science, is increasing every year. I will cite here only those that are well known, but which, nevertheless, not only are not resolved, but are becoming more and more aggravated.

Problems affecting all of humanity include, for example:

The most acute energy problem;

The global problem of waste disposal of people and industries, especially metallurgical and chemical;

The global problem of shortage of drinking water;

The problem of creating fundamentally new, environmentally friendly and economical modes of transport;

Problems of creating new methods of treatment for numerous and ever-increasing diseases of people and the living world;

Problems of creating new types of materials with unique parameters;

Problems of global disturbance of the ecological balance of nature, leading to a reduction in the zones of safe existence of man and the living world in general.

It is easy to see that most of these problems are interconnected. Therefore, by solving some of them, it is possible to significantly facilitate the solution of others. But modern science not only does not solve these problems radically, but also often offers solutions that are far from the truth.

All that has been said allows us to draw a conclusion. Natural science, as a system of sciences, is undoubtedly going through an acute systemic crisis. Physics, as the foundation of natural sciences, having stopped in its development, does not create the prerequisites for overcoming the destructive effect of this crisis.

The statement of this fact could be limited, but for understanding the depth and acuteness of the systemic crisis in natural science, this is completely insufficient. The fact is that humanity is continuously increasing the forms, methods and volumes of the technical saturation of the life of modern society.

This is what creates the apparent progress of science and technology. But it is precisely the same "progress" in modern conditions that entails an exponential growth in energy consumption. This could at least somehow be justified if energy resources were used in the required measure, efficiently.

It is necessary to calculate the total energy consumption required to extract energy resources from the bowels (gas, oil, coal, hydro resources). Then it is necessary to add here the energy costs for the transportation and processing of these energy resources (up to the point of obtaining the required type of energy - electrical and / or heat).

Further, it is necessary to summarize with the costs of transporting this energy (electrical and / or heat) to the place of its consumption. As a result, we will immediately find extremely low efficiency of the described technological chain.

But this is not all the costs. Wasted energy should be supplemented with the costs in the technological chain of obtaining the product itself (industrial or agricultural) or consumer product.

In this chain, one should also take into account the fact that for the final product one should have (the final product includes) a large number of "auxiliary" products, which, after processing, will be included as components in the consumer product.

It can be assumed that no one has made such an assessment of the real energy consumption. And if such an assessment is made along the entire technological chain of converting energy into a product of production, then, I think, such calculations will horrify anyone.

We will almost certainly get that for one or two kilowatts of energy embodied in the final product, today we need to spend about 98-99 kilowatts, or even significantly more. It is this ratio that will characterize the real efficiency of modern technologies.

Moreover, the main losses will fall precisely on those links of the technological chain that relate to the stages of energy production and their transportation. Almost all energy in the process of its successive transformations is converted into thermal "waste", which negatively affects the climate of the planet.

With such a technological policy, there should be a chronic shortage of energy resources. Moreover, this shortage will grow continuously. I would not want to exaggerate, but the fact is that scientists are trying to solve this problem using the traditional, but technologically more dangerous method - by creating a controlled thermonuclear reaction.

If we talk in essence, having forgotten about the great and fundamental potential environmental hazard of this path, then in the previous technological chain of obtaining and converting energy absolutely nothing changes. Consequently, the strategy chosen by academic science to solve the problem of energy shortages will not only fail to solve, but will exacerbate the problem.

Let's try to grasp mentally this tangle of contradictions. To do this, it is necessary to imagine millions of hectares of land filled with mirrors from the reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants, thermal power plants and nuclear power plants. Let us try to imagine millions of hectares of land in the power transmission lines, thousands and thousands of hectares of land alienated near transport arteries (not only mechanical alienation, but also chemical alienation due to chemical poisoning by gas emissions into the atmosphere of nearby land strips).

We will try to see the land of alienation due to acid rain from emissions from thermal power plants (TPPs) and various industrial and domestic boiler houses. Thermal contamination of the environment from operating nuclear power plants and metallurgical plants should also be taken into account.

If all this is presented and correlated together with the described technological chain of energy conversion with a scheme for obtaining energy due to a controlled thermonuclear reaction, then we will see that nothing will change in the described chain when using thermonuclear fusion, but this chain itself will become significantly more dangerous.

The problem of energy resources can be viewed from a completely different perspective. Today man thinks that he has begun to master the Cosmos. This is certainly a naive delusion. The traditional approach to solving the energy problems of space launches will complete space exploration at the point at which this process is now: things will not progress further than near-earth orbits.

If nothing changes in the energy chain, then sooner or later humanity will abandon the idea of ​​space exploration and generally stop the practice of space research, since each rocket launch affects the ecological health of our planet.

If fundamentally new sources of energy are not created, which can be called "inexhaustible" or, at least, "conditionally inexhaustible", then we will have to forget about the exploration of not only the Cosmos, but also the Moon. But if such sources are created, energy problems not only in the exploration of the Cosmos, but also on the Earth will be left behind.

These problems require an unconditional solution. However, with the previous philosophical doctrine, this cannot be done. If these problems are not resolved, then the growing level of these problems will inevitably lead to a global environmental catastrophe.

As a result, life on planet Earth, if it does not disappear, will at least degenerate to a primitive level. Consequently, a new understanding of the world is no longer just and not only a philosophical task, but the task of preserving reason on Earth.

In ancient times, philosophy was the main and only method of studying the surrounding world. This means that in those days, all knowledge about the world around us, one way or another, fit into the Procrustean bed of a single worldview system, into a single semantic model. This continued until Newton, from which the new history of science began. It is from Newton that a fundamentally new approach to the organization and conduct of physical research can be seen.

A feature of early science (before Newton) was the use of philosophy as the main research tool. Philosophy translated from Greek means love of wisdom. In those years, this meant that the main instrument of any research was observation, contemplation, logic, semantics (reasoning, or logical analysis).

On this basis, the worldview was formed as a system of views on the surrounding world. Therefore, it should be said that in those days the worldview developed as a whole. And it cannot be said that it gave bad results.

The previously acquired knowledge was included in a unified philosophical system as constituent elements. Therefore, the philosophical system (good or bad) described the world around us as a whole, as a whole. However, the accumulating knowledge could not be kept within the framework of a single worldview system.

Moreover, the new knowledge gained made it possible to qualitatively change subsequent research methods, became, as it were, a "self-propeller" of science, influenced the subsequent content and methods of research. In other words, at this stage, new knowledge began, as it were, to break away from the tutelage of philosophy. Under these conditions, philosophy began to lose the status of a science of sciences.

In this sense, Newton's introduction of mathematical methods for describing physical processes and phenomena was the first step towards weakening the positions of philosophy. After Newton, philosophy gradually degenerated into a speculative and rather abstract science of knowledge as such. As a result, this caused damage to the entire body of sciences.

Physics, having lost, thanks to Newton, the status of a branch of philosophy, gradually acquired the status of a formalized mathematized science. This expanded the general horizons of physics due to the emergence of opportunities to more accurately predict the development and course of physical processes. On the other hand, there was a certain self-isolation of physics from philosophy, which gave rise to the systemic crisis of natural science, which was discussed above.

One of the main reasons for this crisis should be named just the process of formalizing science due to its intensified mathematization, which often nullifies the semantic basis of new knowledge. This formalization created certain "blinders in the eyes" of science, deprived it of some of the romanticism of reasoning, and, as a result, stopped its continuous development.

It seems to me that the reason for this is largely the refusal at a certain stage in the development of science from recognizing the existence of a certain substance that fills everything around.

A certain understanding of the presence of this substance - the substance of the ether - came from ancient times. The reason for the formal rejection of the concept of ether was the legendary Michelson-Morley experiment, thanks to which scientists tried to discover the action (influence) of the so-called "ether wind". Now I will only note that it was the "failure" of this experiment that led to the creation of the theory of relativity by Einstein.

Not physics, but mathematics formed the basis of the theory of relativity both as an argument and as a method of proving some physical properties. It was through the efforts of Einstein that mathematics ultimately turned into an instrument of physical research, since it became the main arbiter in the consideration of most physical models of our time.

By this, mathematical constructions have replaced the essence of phenomena in many cases. As a result, the essence of inanimate matter remained practically unknown.

I will give an example of the depth of the general misunderstanding of matter as such. We find such a pattern, for example, in the statement of Academician Ya. B. Zel'dovich.

"The universe is huge. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 150 million kilometers. The distance from the Solar system to the center of the Galaxy is 2 billion times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. In turn, the size of the observable Universe is a million times the distance from the Sun to the center of our Galaxy. And all this vast space is filled with an unimaginably large amount of matter ... Only in the observable region of the Universe is the total mass of the order of ten to the 22nd power of the Sun's masses.

Initially, I would like to contrast the words of the academician with the following.

The universe can only be huge if it is finite. But this assumption is based on the version of the birth of the Universe due to the Big Bang. Therefore, a certain a priori predestination of the academician's thought is striking. In fact, the universe is not just huge. It is infinite.

And even in this case (with the reality of the Big Bang), it seems that the almost complete emptiness of this space should amaze us, since the mass of celestial bodies is concentrated in microscopic volumes in comparison with the overall dimensions of the Universe. But Zeldovich's thought focuses our attention on the fact that the entire Universe (without gaps) is filled with matter.

Therefore, the question involuntarily arises: what kind of invisible and intangible substance fills the space of the Universe? And here the first paradox of modern physics becomes clear. The point is, according to modern physics, that all this vast and unlimited space is filled with plasma. This is the definition of plasma in modern physics.

"Plasma is an ionized gas, in which the concentrations of positive and negative charges are equal (quasineutrality). The overwhelming part of the substance of the Universe is in the state of plasma: stars, galactic nebulae and the interstellar medium. Around the Earth, plasma exists in the form of the solar wind and the ionosphere ..."

Such an idea of ​​the presence of ionized gas in the spaces of the Universe is historically, apparently, connected with two hypotheses.

The first hypothesis, expressed basically in 1644 by Descartes, is associated with an explanation of the origin of the solar system from a primordial nebula that had the shape of a disk and consisted of gas and dust (monistic theory). Nothing prevents this model from being extended to the rest of the Universe, explaining the origin of other star systems.

However, a miracle does not cease to be a miracle, since the question of the primary origin of dust and gas in such a model remains open. One can, of course, assume that these forms of matter have always existed. But then what brought some matter (or some substance) into a gaseous or dusty state?

After all, solid, liquid and gaseous matter surrounds us. In addition, in the monistic model, there is no attempt to explain the initial reason for the onset of rotation of these gaseous-dust formations, which led (according to this model) to the formation of solid and liquid phases of matter.

The second hypothesis, which seems to provide an explanation for the conditions for the birth of matter, is called the Big Bang theory. The birth of this model is due to the provisions of the general theory of relativity. But there are contradictions in this model as well. Now let's just give the general position of the Big Bang theory.

According to this theory, the modern Universe was born from a point (zone, region) as a result of an explosive process of expansion of the original matter, initially compressed into a state in which no physical laws operate (from the so-called singular state).

According to this model, the Universe is a continuously expanding sphere, in which infinity is determined by spherically curved space. In this case, the Universe, according to this model, remains a completely closed sphere, from which not a single photon can escape.

This model creates even more questions that cannot be answered. These fundamental questions include, for example, the question of the primary causes of the emergence (beginning of the process) of the Big Bang.

Another question is related to the lack of understanding of the initial state of primordial matter, from which the birth of the Universe began. The fact is that a miracle does not cease to be a miracle, no matter how we postpone the starting point of this miraculous process. And the theory of the Big Bang is, in essence, a method of moving back into the time of the moment of the emergence of this "miracle". In addition, the Big Bang theory also does not allow answering the question of the reasons that led to the general twisting of matter in the Universe.

The question of the size of the initial volume, from which the "outflow" of all the matter of the Universe, formed during the explosion, occurred, cannot be considered important or fundamental. It could be a speck of dust or an area several million light years in diameter: the essence of the problem does not change from this.

If we find answers to the main questions, then the answer to this question will become clear. True, then the Big Bang model may have to be abandoned, and this model will disappear by itself.

Modern theoretical physics is like an athlete who wants to be a winner without fail, but does not have the strength and resources. Today there is no explanation for the phenomenon of electricity. The modern model of heat, heat transfer, and many other models do not answer many of the questions that the practice of life puts forward.

This means that modern physics is fundamentally wrong and must be revised from the very beginning. Indeed, there are so many criticisms of modern physics that one should involuntarily think: is everything all right in the Danish kingdom?

However, modern theoretical physics, like a weak boxer, has taken an all-round defense and avoids considering criticism. If physicists could look back at the path traveled, they would see that the twentieth century was lost for theoretical physics. The reason for this is the theory of relativity, which physicists want to preserve at all costs. But if you leave the fight, then sooner or later you will lose and you will be overthrown.

Therefore, the question can be asked: should we not look back and, having critically comprehend the path traversed in the twentieth century, return to the principles of Faraday and Maxwell and begin in a new way the construction of modern natural science on a new philosophical basis?

Even in ancient times, people puzzled over the question of why and how language could arise. Scientists in ancient Greece put forward two opposing theories. According to the first of them, language arose by itself, without the conscious intervention of man, by virtue of the action of the laws of nature. According to the second theory, language appeared as a result of a contract between people: let's call this object so and so, and that - so and so.

Clearly, the smart contract theory is wrong. After all, it assumes that people already had consciousness by the time they had a language.

And modern science has absolutely established that human consciousness is impossible without language. But in this case, what reasons led to the emergence of the language? What did the primitive language look like?

Science cannot yet answer these questions with complete confidence. But thanks to the joint work of scientists of different specialties - philosophers and psychologists, anthropologists and ethnographers, archaeologists and linguists - in recent years, it has become possible, relying on objective scientific facts, to put forward some assumptions regarding the ancient language.

It is known that work created man and that articulate speech arose through work. In the process of labor, as F. Engels wrote, primitive people developed "the need to say something to each other."

There is no animal species that does not have its own signaling system for communication.

For example, in a herd of hamadryas baboons, more than a dozen different sounds are used, each of which causes a completely specific reaction in hamadryas.

But, unlike people who consciously perceive speech, understanding what they are told, the hamadryas cannot understand anything. This or that behavior in response to the heard signal arises from them due to the simplest conditioned reflex.

For example, if a hamadril hears another hamadryl shouting “Ak! Ak! ”, Then he will turn to flight, because in his psyche this sound is associated with the idea of ​​danger. And vice versa, any fear, any sense of danger evokes in hamadril an involuntary cry "Ak!" V In this respect, the sound signals of the hamadryas are reminiscent of the interjections of the human language: you and I cry out the same "Oops!" regardless of whether we burn our finger, prick or pinch it.

Language is also needed so that a person can express his feelings with it.

These sound signals, probably, served as the basis for the formation of human language. At first, when the thinking of primitive people was still similar to the reflex behavior of an animal, when a person was not aware of either individual objects, or their properties, or their actions, these signals probably served only as a regulator of behavior. And where were these signals most needed? Of course, primarily in work, hunting.

For example, in order to hunt down and kill a large animal - a mammoth or a rhinoceros, it is absolutely necessary that the actions of all participants in the hunt are coordinated, so that during the hunt one participant can tell the other what to do.

Later, when the economy of primitive man and his relationship to other people became more complicated, especially when tools so perfect appeared that a person was able to carry out some complex actions alone, and the division of labor appeared, it became necessary to designate individual objects, phenomena, actions , condition, quality.

The system of signs regulating traffic is also a kind of "language".

This means that the first theory is closer to the truth. Language arose by virtue of the action of the natural laws of nature. Only with the advent of man were these laws refracted in his development in a new way and new ones appeared that did not exist before. social laws that eventually began to determine the development of the human race.

If the hamadril hears the cry “Ak! Ak! ”, He will turn to flight, since this cry is associated with his idea of ​​danger.

But why do people speak different languages? Was there ever a language common to all mankind?

Based on our knowledge of modern languages, we cannot reconstruct such a common language. The solution to this question depends on the anthropologists. If it is proved that modern man first appeared in one place, then such a common language should have existed. But no matter how this issue is resolved, it is clear that in the beginning there were fewer languages ​​than now.

Linguists have restored, for example, the so-called common Indo-European language, from which all modern languages ​​of foreign Europe (except Finnish, Hungarian and Basque) and most of the languages ​​of the European part of the USSR originated, and in Asia - Persian, Afghani, Tajik, etc. Why did this happen?

How could it happen that people first spoke one language and then began to speak different? This is best illustrated by the following example. In the XVII century. immigrants arrived in South Africa who spoke Dutch, which was no different from the language of other inhabitants of Holland. Villages were founded, then cities. Various institutions arose, little by little their own culture was created, connected with the Dutch only historically. The settlers did not even call themselves Dutch, but in a different way - Boers or Afrikanders.

What happened to their language? Due to the fact that there was practically no connection with Holland, the Dutch language in South Africa began to change and more and more deviated from the "real" Dutch language. New words appeared, borrowed by the Boers themselves from the languages ​​of the original inhabitants of Africa. The pronunciation of some sounds and grammar have also changed. The result was essentially a new language — Boer, or Afrikaans.

Why did all these changes not take place in the Dutch language on the territory of Holland? Because all Dutch speakers in Holland were connected (like the Boers in South Africa) by political, economic and cultural unity. The government of Holland issued a decree, it spread to the most distant corners of it, and the burgomaster of some provincial town, writing official documents for his small community, imitated the language of the government decree. And of course, the same books were read by educated people all over Holland.

The Boers ended up on another continent, and the deviations that had been imperceptible before were given the opportunity to develop freely. Moreover, from deviations, "irregularities" they became the norm of the new Boer language.

It also happens the other way around: if tribes or peoples who previously lived separately from each other merge into a single whole, their languages ​​begin to mix. Long-forgotten peoples once lived on the borders of the Russian state - em, chud, torques, white hoods. They merged with the Russian people, and their languages ​​- with the Russian language.

But such a complete merger is rare. Most often, when peoples mix, their languages ​​change only partially: some sounds begin to be pronounced differently; some grammatical forms are simplified; instead of some words, others come into use. Before the Norman invasion, led by William the Conqueror, Anglo-Saxon was spoken in England. The Normans spoke French, and the gradual mixing of Anglo-Saxons and Normans resulted in a modern English language, unlike either Anglo-Saxon or French.

This was approximately the case with the common Indo-European language. At some time in their history, Indo-European tribes began to roam the continent of Eurasia. Some of them reached India and encountered tribes there that spoke the so-called Dravidian languages ​​(they are still spoken in southern Hindustan).

In the following centuries, features characteristic of the Dravidian languages ​​began to appear in their speech. And other Indo-European tribes went to the territory of modern France: some peoples unknown to us with very own figurative languages ​​lived there. We can judge about their originality by the fact that the Celtic languages ​​(for example, Irish) formed as a result of mixing with them are completely unlike other Indo-European languages, for example, Russian, Greek, Lithuanian.

About the origin of the language

French poet of the 15th century. Charles from Orleans wrote in one of his poems: "There is not a single beast, not a single bird that does not sing or scream in its own language!" But scientists, of course, are not interested in every sound emitted by animals, and not every signal, in one form or another, "transmitted" by them. We are worried about how human language, the greatest achievement of human history, could arise from sounds and other signals inherent in animals. After all, language is not just an instrument of communication; all the social experience accumulated by mankind, almost all scientific and practical, "everyday" knowledge is stored and transmitted from generation to generation in linguistic form. Each person who enters the world and takes possession of its material and spiritual wealth, uses language and aids replacing it - writing, drawings, maps. The very consciousness of man exists thanks to language. In a word, human culture and, in general, all of humanity can exist and develop only because a person speaks the language.

The secret here is that language has an important feature, noted by the founder of scientific linguistics, Wilhelm Humboldt: it "manages" to be at the same time a social phenomenon, reflecting the achievements of collective knowledge, and does not depend on the will and consciousness of each individual person; but in a certain sense it is also individual - the form in which only logical thinking, inner speech, and poetic creativity of each individual individual can proceed. Acting as an instrument of thinking, language, however, retains its objectivity, its social character: thanks to language, a person always measures his behavior by a social yardstick, segregates and perceives the surrounding reality as the social experience of mankind dictates to him with the help of language, etc. etc.

Even in antiquity, people racked their brains over the question: why and how language could arise? Scientists of ancient Greece put forward two opposite points of view, two theories. One of them was called the theory "fyusei", which means "by nature, naturally" (the name of the science of physics comes from the same Greek root); the other was called the theory "tesey", which means "artificially, by definition." According to the first of them, language arose by itself, without the conscious intervention of man, by virtue of the operation of the laws of nature. According to the second theory, language appeared as a result of an agreement or contract between people: let's call this object so and so, and that - so and so.

Clearly, the intelligent contract theory is wrong — it assumes that humans were already conscious by the time they had language. And modern science has absolutely established that human consciousness is impossible without language. Only society makes a person a person, and it does it with the help of language.

So, the theory of "Thesei" is erroneous, and language arose by virtue of natural laws.

But in this case, what reasons led to the emergence of the language? What did the primitive language look like?

Science cannot yet answer these questions with complete confidence. But thanks to the joint work of scientists of different specialties - philosophers, anthropologists and ethnographers, archaeologists and linguists - in recent years, it has become possible, relying on objective scientific facts, to put forward some assumptions regarding the origin of the ancient language.

You know that labor created man and that articulate speech arose through labor; in the process of labor, as Engels wrote, primitive people developed "the need to say something to each other." But this need did not appear out of nowhere. There is not a single animal species that does not have its own system of signals used for communication, for communication. For example, in a herd of hamadryas baboons, more than a dozen different sounds are used, each of which causes a completely specific reaction in hamadryas.

But unlike people who consciously perceive speech, understand what they are told, hamadryas can not understand anything. This or that behavior in response to the heard signal arises in them due to the simplest conditioned reflex. For example, if a hamadril hears another hamadryl shouting "ak, ak!", Then he will automatically take flight, because in his psyche this sound is conditioned reflexively connected with the idea of ​​danger. And vice versa: any fear, any sense of danger will cause an involuntary cry of "ak!" In hamadril. In this respect, the sound signals of hamadryas are reminiscent of the interjections of the human language: you and I cry out the same "oh!" regardless of whether we burn our finger, prick or slam the door.

It is these sound signals that probably served as the basis for the formation of human language.

It is known that the speech of a modern person is articulate. This means that sentences, words, morphemes (i.e. roots, prefixes, suffixes and endings), syllables, and finally sounds can be distinguished in it. A careful study of the mechanisms of speech and how the child acquires language shows, however, that not all of these units of human speech arose at the same time.

It can be said with almost certainty that the speech of the most ancient man did not disintegrate into sounds - the syllable was the smallest particle of his speech. This feature of the primitive language was reflected, though not directly, in the structure of some modern languages ​​and especially in the patterns of language acquisition. For example, a child who does not yet know how to read, as a rule, does not know how to distinguish vowel sounds in a syllable - for him they are merged together with consonants into syllables. He has to be specially taught, as psychologists say, the sound analysis of the word.

It is obvious that the division of speech into morphemes is a rather late matter. After all, there are languages ​​that have almost no prefixes, no suffixes or endings at all. Most morphemes in a wide variety of languages ​​can be traced back to full-valued words — usually adverbs or pronouns. It is very likely that morphemes were not distinguished in the primitive language.

In modern language, the syllable, word and sentence coincide only in rare cases (for example, if we shout out to someone: "Stop!"). And in the primitive language, apparently, the syllable was both a word and a sentence. And in the future, primitive words-sentences began to decompose in different ways into sounds and syllables, to combine in different ways in speech, which led to a difference in the sound and grammatical structure of different languages.

But all the features described are characteristic only of the "real" human language.

There is nothing like this in the signals used by animals. And it is not so easy to answer the question: what should have happened to our ape-like ancestors in order for their communication system to receive a new quality and be able to become a tool of thinking?

In search of an answer, scientists turned to the study of monkeys living now. Studying the higher, great apes, or anthropoids, they hypothesized that the human language arose from the so-called noises of life - involuntary sounds, biologically insignificant and accompanying various actions of chimpanzees or orangutans. However, this hypothesis has one weak side: after all, chimpanzees, orangutans and other anthropoids are not social animals, they live alone or in small families. And our ancestor was, of course, a herd animal, reminiscent of hamadryas, macaques, that is, "lower" monkeys.

Meanwhile, hamadryas and other monkeys living in herds have very special sound signals that serve specifically to communicate within the herd. And since the human language arose, no doubt, in society, for the purposes of communication in the labor process, it is most likely that the basis for its formation was not "life noises", but the means of signaling in the herd.

For example, in Pithecanthropus, joint labor activity played a large role, for example, hunting. And we needed a means of communication that would help regulate behavior, direct it in one way or another, and not just signal something.

But a person at this stage probably did not yet have consciousness. It appeared later, when it became necessary to designate not separate actions, but separate objects. “At a certain level of further development, after they have multiplied and further developed ... the needs of people and the types of activities by which they are satisfied, people give separate names to entire classes ... objects that they already distinguish from the rest of the external world by experience. "(K. Marx).

Now a person, hearing the sounds of speech, no longer blindly reacts to their sound, but realizes the meaning, content of speech. The language has acquired a symbolic character.

The origin of the language has not yet been completely explained, and a large and serious joint work of scientists of different specialties is required in order to answer with any certainty: was it so or not? But in any case, the problem is interesting.

Social Studies Grade 10

Municipal stage

Preparation time is 3 hours.

Total 70 points

1. Choose the correct answers. Write them down in the table.

(total 5 points)

Which of the following is a trait of an economic culture?

a) the level and quality of economic knowledge

b) electoral activity

c) political absenteeism

1.2. Social conflict is….

a) a special type of cooperative activity

b) special interaction of individuals, groups and unification in the event of a clash of their incompatible views, positions and interests

c) an element of the culture of compromise

1.3. The common features of a democratic regime are:

a) parliamentarism and pluralism of opinions

b) censorship and domination of one political position

c) absolute control of the state over the economic activities of people, the absence of civil society

1.4. The most important features of economic interests include:

a) economic apathy and inactivity

b) the desire of a person to receive benefits to ensure his life and family, as well as to achieve profit in the entrepreneurial sphere

c) transition to a marginal state

1.5. From the statement of L. Peter "Economics is the art of satisfying unlimited needs with limited resources", the following conclusions can be drawn:

a) economics should be studied only by art critics

b) in order to engage in economics, it is enough to study art

c) in order to deal with economics, you need ingenuity, knowledge and experience

a	b	a	b	v

2. Establish the correctness or falsity of the statements ("YES" or "NO") and enter the answers in the table.

(10 points in total)

2.1. The Renaissance brought a different understanding of freedom, focusing on the humanistic (human) principle.

2.2. Morals are legally formalized rules in any state.

2.3. The economy is an economic system that meets the needs of people and society by creating and using the necessary benefits of life.

2.4. Competition is born only under the conditions of monopoly capitalism.

2.5. The unification of different groups of people is called differentiation.

2.6. The transition of people along the steps of the social ladder up or down is called vertical mobility.

2.7. Currently, the UN has been replaced by the League of Nations.

2.8. Consumption always prevents the stimulation of the production process.

2.9. Self-governing units are commonly referred to as municipalities.

2.10. Political marketing creates an attractive image of politicians for voters.

Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes

What unites the concepts that form each of the presented series? Give a short answer

(2 points for each answer, 6 points in total)

1. Majority, mixed, proportional

2. Rockers, punks, music fans

_______________________________________________________.

3.judicial precedent, legal custom, normative legal act

_______________________________________________________.

1.types of electoral systems

2.youth subcultures

3.sources of law

Errors were made in the above text. Find and fix them

(2 points each for a mistake, 10 points in total)

Economy is the most important area of ​​modern society. So far, economic life has been studied only by pedagogical science. Modern scientists have established quite precisely that the equalizing principle of distribution generates colossal motivation among workers. On the other hand, research graying indicates that the phenomenon of consumption does not in any way affect the growth of production. The most important economic indicator of any country now is the gross domestic product (GDP), which implies only the projected value of agricultural products. To increase the GDP indicator, most modern governments have decided to carry out a large-scale nationalization of their economic sectors and a strategy of absolute domination of the state in the economy.

Answer:

1. Economic life is studied by economic science.

2. The leveling principle hinders the motivation of workers.

3. Consumption affects the growth of production.

4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) means the total value of all final products and services produced by a country in a year, divided by the population.

5. Most modern countries have opted for privatization and a decrease in the regulatory role of the state in the economy.

(2 points for "compliance", 10 points in total)

Theories: theory of activity; theory of value; categorical imperative; theory of conflict. theory of social action;

6. Parable:

(total 5 points)

Khoja Nasreddin addressed the crowd with the words:
- People, do you want knowledge without overcoming difficulties, truth without delusion, achievement without effort, advancement without sacrifice?
Everyone shouted: "We want, we want!"

What do you think Hodja Nasreddin answered?

Answer:

Wonderful, ”Nasruddin said. “I want it too, and if I ever find out how to do it, I’ll be happy to let you know.”

A source -

http://www.newacropol.ru/Alexandria/pritchi/nasredins_parable/

Economic challenge

(total 8 points)

Costs per 1000 units of products were formed on the basis of

from the following:

salary - 20 million rubles;

raw materials and supplies - 30 million rubles;

buildings and structures - 250 million rubles;

equipment - 100 million rubles.

All products were sold at a price of 122.5 thousand rubles, depreciation rate

buildings and structures is 5%, and the service life

equipment is on average 5 years. Determine the profit

Solution:

Costs: 20 + 30 + 0.05 x 250 + 0.2 x 100 = 82.5 million rubles.

Revenue: 122.5 thousand rubles. x 1000 = 122.5 million rubles.

Profit: 122.5 - 82.5 = 40 million rubles.