Paradox as a conceptual construct of the transpersonal metaphysics of German mysticism. Paradoxes of spiritual metaphysics Comparison of the model with the presentation of creation

B. A. Kushelev

PHILOSOPHICAL SOLUTION OF THE PARODOX OF TIME AND A NEW CONCEPT OF METAPHYSICS

The paradox of time is considered as a paradox of metaphysics of the beginnings (being and non-being). The basis of philosophical anthropology is the symmetry of the relationship, which gives anthropology the character of the statics of social reality. Social philosophy acts as a science that studies the dynamics of reversible processes.

At the end of the 19th century, a crisis broke out in physics, which was caused by new discoveries in it. Overcoming it led to the creation of new theories: quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Methodologically, the revolution in physics was accompanied by a rejection of the old traditions. First of all, this was manifested in the fact that, along with the dynamic description of natural phenomena, their thermodynamic description also appeared. Consequently, dynamics lost its role as a "model of human rationality" because it implicitly postulated the equivalence between the past and the future, and, accordingly, the equivalence of "causes and effects"1.

The timeless description of physical phenomena that existed until now proceeded from Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason: the equivalence

"causes" and "effects" had a character predetermined by harmony.

The consequence of this approach was the exclusion of time from the description of reality and the denial of development in the world of physical phenomena. And only starting with Boltzmann, as noted in the work of I. Prigogine,

N. Stenger1, from his H-theorem, a conscious attempt to interpret physical phenomena in terms of thermodynamics arises, when the growth of entropy began to be considered as a process of the gradual disappearance of the cause, its dissolution in the consequences it produces2.

Somewhat earlier, that is, from the middle of the same XIX century, a crisis was revealed in philosophy, which was also accompanied by a breaking of traditions, primarily by the rejection of metaphysical problems. The origins of this crisis were the same as in physics: the limitation of the research methodology to a dynamic model of rationality, which was based on the same equivalence of "causes" and "effects", and, consequently, on the equivalence of past and future time. It turned out that the tragic paradox in physics, when Boltzmann tried to introduce time as a fundamental characteristic into the understanding of nature, trying at the same time to give irreversibility a dynamic meaning, was preceded by an equally tragic paradox in philosophy, when Hegel tried to introduce the category of “becoming” into natural philosophy.

Sofia, resorting to the services of the same dynamics. To be convinced of the correctness of this statement, it is enough to turn to its definition of the first principles: “Pure being and pure nothingness are, therefore, one and the same. Truth is not being and not nothing, it consists in the fact that being does not pass, but passed into nothing, and nothing passes, but passed into being. But in the same way, the truth is not their indistinguishability, it consists in the fact that they are not the same, that they are absolutely different, but also inseparable and inseparable, and that each of them directly disappears in its opposite.

Pure being thus immediately disappears into nothingness, just as nothingness just as immediately disappears into pure being. Thus, Hegel, like Boltzmann later, postulates the equivalence of the first principles, excluding the possibility of introducing time as a fundamental characteristic of development. This statement prompted Hegel to draw a paradoxical conclusion about the nature of the relationship between nothingness and pure being: “Their truth is, therefore, the movement of the immediate disappearance of one in the other: becoming”4. Such a definition of becoming appealed to the recognition of the equivalence of past and future time and thus excluded the irreversibility, and hence the unidirectionality of time.

Meanwhile, it was the 19th century, and then the 20th, with their revolutions, that tended to explain development more as an irreversible process than as a dynamic one. It is not surprising that the metaphysical schematism of Hegel's philosophy turned out to be far, first of all, from the possibility of solving problems. community development. The desire to bring philosophy closer to the realities of a particular historical moment, however, resulted in an attempt to attach it to the standards of the rationality of science. This kind of tendency was found in the works of L. Fey-

Erbach, K. Marx, O. Comte, in which quite specific problems were posed as the goals of philosophical research, with the only difference being that positivism appealed to sensory experience, and Marxism to revolutionary practice. As a result, the significance of philosophy was reduced to the role of a servant of science, just as in the Middle Ages it was assigned the role of a servant of theology. This role is, at best, the role of a commentator on new discoveries made in the natural sciences. There is nothing surprising in the fact that, having discovered the inconsistency of philosophy in the improper position allotted to it, the same creators of its reconstruction then proclaimed its historical inconsistency. Thus, M. Schlick stated that metaphysics has no real content, it is dead, and now philosophy must give way to science, just as mythology gave way to philosophy in its time5.

Obviously, this kind of reconstruction of philosophy turned out to be a loss of its face for it.

Another innovation in the philosophy of the 20th century - existentialism, on the contrary, excluded both experience and practice from the field of its research, locking itself completely in the sphere of the being of consciousness. Existence was proclaimed to be a completely autonomous reality, which, in principle, is inaccessible to a positive definition. Because of this, the classical language of philosophy was declared obsolete. The need for a new "arrangement" of the language was recognized, since it was required not to investigate the existence of a person, but to "listen" to him, not to measure him, but to "discover". Now philosophy was compelled to serve art, and human existence was closed in a kind of narcissism.

Poeticized philosophy, as well as educated one, in its striving for its own reconstruction and renewal, suddenly discovered its unclaimed

vanity in contemporary culture. Metaphysics, according to M. Heidegger, thanks to anthropology acquires such features in which philosophy simply disappears6. Thus, the commonality of these two non-classical variants is not only in their final denial of philosophy itself, but also in its simultaneous anthropologization. Naturally, such a narrowing of the problems of philosophy inevitably led to a break with the traditions of the classics, first of all, to the exclusion of metaphysics as the original method of philosophical discourse. As a result, systemic rationalism has given way to fragmentary and superficial empiricism.

The question is, was this revolt of modern philosophy so new? After all, even in ancient times, Socrates tried to exclude natural philosophy from the subject of the study of philosophy, placing at the forefront the nature of man, that is, the same anthropology. In the same way, Confucius, having discarded the upper and lower beginnings of the archetype traditional for Chinese culture, focused his attention on the study of the middle beginning (man). It is quite reasonable to assume that the nonclassical stage the latest philosophy there is a repetition of the Socratic-Confucian rebellion that was observed in ancient times and which, as we know, was successfully overcome by Plato. Such a comparison of present times and past times suggests that the causes of the crisis of philosophy have not been eliminated and that the very repetition of attempts to isolate philosophical anthropology and social philosophy from natural philosophy indicates that so far no such justification has been found, within which one could judge the systemic relationship between the world of things and the world of people. The very assumption of the possibility of their subordination follows from the fact that the world of man cannot manifest itself earlier, and outside the world of things. So

and an attempt to explain the nature of man by deriving it directly from the nature of physical phenomena is also unacceptable. Therefore, it is necessary to find more fundamental foundations for philosophical analysis, on the basis of which it would be possible, firstly, to develop a methodology covering several realities of different quality; secondly, to formulate on its basis the principle of consistency, different from consistency scientific knowledge. The need for such innovations is due to the fact that scientific consistency is determined by the spatio-temporal organization of experience. Consequently, the philosophical consistency should come from its time-spatial organization. It is also obvious that this problem cannot be solved without metaphysics. It is impossible, as history has shown, to use metaphysics in its former form. The initial premise of its reconstruction can be the postulate according to which matter can exist only in a specific form, that is, in a form that has a beginning and an end in time. Only in this case can metaphysics serve as the basis for solving the paradox of time that science itself discovered but did not solve.

The paradox of time as a paradox of metaphysics

Traditionally, consideration of the nature of development in philosophy is associated with the categories of non-existence and being. The question is, what, in this case, determines the status of non-existence, if a person in his activity and in cognition deals only with being? Is the category of being purely philosophical or does it implicitly serve as a tool for solving problems of natural science?

With the advent of A. Friedman's cosmological models and with the beginning of the formation of cosmology as a science of the Universe, the concepts ancient philosophers about its spatial integrity, a temporal characteristic was added,

according to which the development of the Universe should be unidirectional, that is, the arrow of time should be laid at the basis of its development. A new cosmological view of the Universe meant that it was assigned the status of a specific form of matter, from which followed the fact of its non-existence before its origin. Thus, natural science allowed the fact of non-existence of a particular form of matter, but by its nature could not use it without resorting to the help of philosophy.

Indeed, the statement about the non-stationarity of the Universe meant the actual recognition of the non-equivalence of the relationship between the past and the future, the consequence of which was the recognition of the irreversibility in the evolution of the forms of matter and energy. According to the anthropic principle, which follows from the fact that the Universe is non-stationary, at one of the stages of this development an observer appears who is able to think and act selectively. It turned out that the appearance of such an exceptional phenomenon as an observer should be due to the peculiarities of the previous stages of the formation of the Universe. But, on the other hand, in none of these preceding stages is there anything related or similar to sensory perception or thinking, that is, properties inherent in the observer. Due to this strangeness, the appearance of man appeared as an unexpected and exceptional phenomenon, like an act of creation.

Within the framework of a thought experiment, one can assume a movement back in time from the moment the observer appeared to the moment the Universe itself appeared. A feature of such an imaginary recurrence in time will be a tendency in which the entire variety of forms of energy and matter will gradually decrease, and within the limit of this imaginary reversibility will be completely erased, forming, in the end, a certain

singularity. If such a mental experiment is carried out by an observer-physicist, then he will discover his inability to reach the point of singularity, since on the way to it he encounters Planck's limitations. Further, that is, beyond the limits of the Planck values, which are the limit of our experience, and even further, beyond the limits of the so-called singularity, only the observer-philosopher can move.

He assumes that the existing universe, before manifesting its factuality, did not exist. And that, consequently, to designate the initial parameters of its evolution, there must be two characteristics, and not one, as in the case of natural science. Non-existence and being, thus, form the original, but dualistic in nature, a unit of dimension, a kind of information quantum of the initial event (01), that is, 1 bit of information, which consists of two opposite characteristics. On the one hand, the beginning of evolution can be represented as the complete absence of an event, its complete non-factuality, and on the other hand, as its presence, fixed by factuality.

Based on this provision, one can symbolically represent the evolution of the Universe, firstly, as a sequence of material-energy forms:

0, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... , K, ... ,

where 0 is the absence of any material properties of the evolution of our Universe; 2 - the presence of factual

properties in the form of radiation (particle-wave dualism); 4 - the appearance of paired (negative and positive) heavy elements; 8 - appearance of paired light elements; 16 - the appearance of stars and planets; N - the appearance of the observer.

Secondly, this evolution can be represented as a sequence of information series of events:

0,1,1, 1, ... ,K... ,

where 0 - non-existence of a particular Universe as an informational event; N - the appearance of the observer.

All material forms of an event are unambiguous in terms of information, since they have the same information property - factuality, although within this factuality they differ from each other in terms of density, length, duration, temperature, etc.

It is obvious that the distinction in the information series goes along (0), meaning non-existence, and along (1), meaning being. The sequence in this series of forms of being forms a continuity of the actual manifestation of the evolution of all forms of matter and energy. The information quantum (01), in this case, serves as the initial condition for the interpretation of all subsequent stages of the evolution of the Universe, with the help of which the change in all material-energy characteristics of matter is duplicated by informational characteristics. To do this, the information series should be given the status of the information field of the Universe. The factuality of the information series should be disclosed not only by changing its spatial characteristics, but also by means of the corresponding temporal ones. As already noted, the initial fact of the manifestation of the Universe in terms of information can be represented by the difference between two elementary components of the event. From the point of view of the dialectic of the one and the many, the many representing being cannot be a difference less than two. Otherwise, any one acquires the status of one and becomes non-factual. For the one cannot have parts, and therefore is not capable of quantitative, that is, evolutionary change. Consequently, the very assumption of the possibility of reducing the difference between two would mean the transition of the factual into the non-factual, that is, it would indicate the disappearance

change of the material in the ideal and would be accompanied by a violation of the laws of conservation of matter. The requirement for the minimum difference between two in the initial event is the requirement underlying the principle of information conservation: an information quantum cannot consist of only one quantity, and therefore it is initially dualistic. But if the beginning of the evolution of the factual in terms of information is represented by a minimal difference between the two, then it is obvious that the subsequent evolution of the information series can only be represented as a process of increasing this initial difference between the two. Moreover, the multiplication of a lot is always binary. Heavy and light particles appear in pairs with opposite charges, that is, the initial difference between the two within the framework of one event is subsequently accompanied by an increase in two new pairs with each successive information quantum, forming, respectively, the difference of four, eight, etc. A similar dualism is found in evolution of plant and animal species. With the advent of the observer, this dualism does not disappear.

Thus, the information field of the finite form of matter in time can be symbolically represented as follows:

0((011), (01111), (011111111), ... , N,... , ((%$

where 0 - non-existence, taken in the limit of its meaning and personifying the denial of all specific forms of matter (universes), the meaning of which is "there is no All"; (011) - the initial quantum of the formation of non-existence and the existence of our Universe, the meaning of which is that the appearance of existence has become a boundary that separated it from its own non-existence; I - being, taken in the limit of the increase in the diversity of its forms, that is, in the limit of its formation.

It is this kind of philosophical interpretation of the information field of the Universe that reveals the essence of the paradox

time. Indeed, if the information series, a kind of information code for the development of the Universe, is based on the modification of only two components

Non-existence (0) and being (1), - that is the former idea of ​​time, formed within the framework of the natural-science approach and based on experience, in this case is unacceptable, since it uses three characteristics of time: past, present and future, while the temporal interpretation of the dualism of the beginnings of the information series assumes only two characteristics and, therefore, one of the three must be excluded as redundant. We will proceed from the fact that for matter, which has the beginning and end of its existence, the progress of the process of becoming to the limit is characterized by the future time, and the original non-factuality will be considered as the past. Accordingly, the present time becomes an excessive temporal characteristic for interpreting the ratio of the beginnings of the information series. It is to be removed, depriving the relationship of past and future of the usual mediator separating the past from the future. Based on the etymology of this concept, the present tense is a characteristic of the event "now" at a certain point in space "here". On the one hand, the term "now" personifies the instantaneousness of an event, when a discrete fragment of space corresponds to a discrete time, that is, a given hour. But an hour of time is far from being an elementary instant, but rather a lengthy process, which also implies a rather extended “here” in space. Let's assume that we will reduce the standard of duration corresponding to our idea of ​​present time from one hour to a minute. A minute is less in duration than an hour, and therefore, the initial limit of this duration is the past and the final graph.

nitsa - the future will approach each other in the direction. The procedure is accompanied by a decrease in the length of the segment in which this minute has expired. Reducing the present time to the interval of a second, and then to the interval of the Planck value of time, we reduce the length of the event space to the corresponding Planck value, gradually reducing the past and the future, as they say, nose to nose. At the same time, it becomes obvious that by reducing the duration of the present time, that is, "now", and the length of the corresponding fragment of space, that is, "here", the observer-physicist shifts into the past to the beginning of the evolution of material-energy forms of matter and stops before the Planck limit of fragmentation of time and space.

The philosopher-observer continues

speculatively move on until it is beyond the point of singularity. And as soon as this happens, the fragment of duration and extension itself immediately disappears, and, consequently, the very fact of delimiting the past and the future. Approaching in this way, they merge with each other in the present tense as in an absolutely common characteristic for them, being present in it in a potentially indistinguishable form.

Thus, time, taken out of the beginning of the formation of a specific form of matter, is the present time, which only in this case acquires the status of an objective characteristic that eliminates the need to introduce one or another standard of duration, and the past and future are present in it as a possibility of subsequent duration in moment of the event update.

If we now move in the opposite direction, then the beginning of the formation of the Universe in time should be considered as a process of splitting the objective present time into an objective one.

the past and the objective future, in which the relations of the past and the future form a single event quantum. In the usual form for natural science, this time sequence can be represented as follows:

in in b ^ 2 ., 1(n-1))) b

This formula is an expression of the cosmological arrow of time and forms a kind of time code for the development of the Universe, where 1 is the objective present time; 10 - objective past; (11 12, ... , 1 (P-1)) - variables characterizing the objective future time of the formation of the Universe, the sequence of which forms a thermodynamic arrow of time; 1p - characteristic of the absence of time in the limit of the formation of the Universe, that is, the timeless state of matter.

The introduction of the concept of the information field of the Universe means the recognition of the ontological status of information and the legitimacy of the philosophical analysis of this reality, along with such forms of matter as energy and matter, which are the subject of scientific research. In terms of information, the Universe in its formation appears as an open-closed system, the openness of which is characterized by an objective present time, stating that each specific form of matter, before it appeared, was absent due to the limitations of its form. But since other similar concrete forms of matter are finite, the objective present time is an absolute time continuum for the entire set of Universes. As a specific form of matter, any Universe, before it arises, must have initial conditions for its occurrence. On the other hand, as developing in itself, and therefore representing in its formation the internal sequence of its states, striving to the limit of state

Innovations, any Universe is a closed system, and therefore is characterized by a thermodynamic arrow of time.

When the limit of its formation is discovered, it loses internal time and acquires the ultimate spatial certainty, becoming the cause of itself, but the cause without effect. In this case, the initial conditions of formation are completely exhausted.

Thus, philosophical analysis evolution of the Universe as a specific form of matter, in contrast to its natural science research, which deals with only one fragment of the information field and is based on the principle: one reality - one truth, proceeds from the fact that several realities become the subject of his research, each of which has its own true.

From the point of view of a philosophical approach, the study of any finite form of matter involves the allocation of five informational realities:

Informational anti-event (I 0), which marks the phase of transition from the previous form of matter to our Universe, within which the previous form acquires the status of the initial conditions for the emergence of our Universe;

Information event (0 I), which includes the entire history of the formation of our Universe as a single and complete act of the cosmological arrow of time;

Information quantum of the event (011), (01111), ... characterizing the internal stages of formation - fragments of the thermodynamic arrow of time;

The presence of an informational anti-event (I 0) also means a transition from our Universe, which, at the limit of its formation, turns from the cause of itself into the initial conditions of a new concrete form of matter that follows it.

Finally, the imaginary information

anti-event (0 (0 ^ T1) I) expressing

is only the informational nature of the observer, which is inconsequential because there is no reverse change in the nature of matter and energy. Only the order of the combination of a set of their individual fragments is reversed, always remaining an internal part of the event (0 I). The informational multi-qualitativeness of matter thus reveals five informational realities of different quality, where each of them is a fragment of a single systemic, but no longer spatial, but temporal cycle.

Before clarifying the nature of each of them, it is necessary to determine their relationship with each other. The initial methodological basis for solving this problem can only be metaphysics, which is capable of investigating what lies beyond the boundaries of physical reality. At the same time, the study of the relationship between information fragments of the time cycle gives metaphysics an objective character and opens up its own field of study for philosophy, which is different from the field of science.

If we assume that the procedure for withdrawing the present time as an intermediate link between the past and the future is proposed by an observer-physicist, then an insoluble question arises: how to distinguish between the past and the future time? For philosophy, this problem is solved automatically. The past is non-factual and therefore one and permanent, while the future is factual and continuous in its change. The boundary of their division is the boundary of the delimitation of non-existence (past) and being (future).

For science, past time is always a characteristic of factual reality, which no longer exists, but which once was. Thus, for science, the past and the future are always unambiguous.

factual. For philosophy, the past is a characteristic of what is not and never was, and the future is a characteristic of what is continuously becoming, that is, a characteristic of the growth of the multiplicity of forms of the factuality of being. This clearly shows the difference between the subject of philosophy and the subject of science. That is why a whole series of new questions arise which only philosophy can clarify. Indeed, if the past is non-factual and the future is factual, then the question arises: is it possible, in the traditions of science, to assert that the future follows from the past? Philosophically, past and future

These are autonomous characteristics of various information realities. However, if the informational realities of a single cycle, as well as their temporal characteristics, are autonomous, then, consequently, the past and the future do not interact with each other, and the future can follow from the past. But if the past and the future do not directly interact with each other, then how is the dependence between them formed?

First of all, it should be noted that this question is metaphysical in nature, because it touches upon the problem of the relationship between the one and the many, to which there is no unambiguous answer in the history of philosophy. So already Plato pointed out three options for his solution: “. either everything was prone to confusion, or nothing, or one was prone and the other not.

“The first two assumptions were found impossible”8, that is, it is not true that the one (the past) can flow into the many (the future), and the future into the past. It is also not true that the one (the past) cannot flow into the many (the future), and the many into the one, that is, the second option is also incorrect, according to which the past and the future are completely autonomous and do not directly interact with each other.

"The first two (assumptions)," continues Plato, "were found impossible. Therefore, who

only wants to answer correctly, will allow the remaining of the three. And this third assumption becomes the statement: “one is prone to confusion, and the other is not.”9. Plato, therefore, considers the correct option when the one goes into the many, but the many cannot go into the one. Formally, we can also talk about the fourth option: a lot can turn into a single, but a single cannot turn into a lot. At the same time, the option chosen by Plato is difficult to explain, because the one is invariable, has no parts, and therefore is non-factual, that is, ideal. Many things are made up of parts. It is constantly changing, factualized. In order for the one and the many to pass into each other, or only one of them into the other, it is necessary, as Plato himself rightly remarks, that “. the movement itself would stop completely, and on the other hand, the rest itself would move if they came into contact with each other.

The second solution to this issue was proposed by atomists, but for all its attractiveness, it turned out to be difficult to justify. According to Leucippus, non-being exists no less than being, and being exists no more than non-being. This statement contains the recognition not only of the simultaneity of the existence of both, but also the only possible justification for their dualism: non-existence and being are commensurable. Non-being cannot pass into being, because, according to Melissa: something can never arise from nothing. In other words, the one cannot mix with the many, and consequently, the peace itself cannot come into motion. Therefore, the future cannot in any way follow from the past. But, if this is so, then, one asks, in what other way, besides interaction, can

past and future? Past and future do not really interact with each other. They are related to each other. In explaining the nature of the relationship, the original philosophy implicitly collides with the paradox of metaphysics. What is the essence of this paradox? Due to the fact that any particular form of matter has a beginning in time, its occurrence reveals the boundary between existence and non-existence. But at the same time, non-existence acquires meaning information characteristic only with the appearance of being, since before its manifestation it itself was absent. But with the advent of being, non-being characterizes it as something that did not exist before, that is, it did not exist. Becoming a negative characteristic of time - the past, which, by virtue of its ideality, acquires the status of an information characteristic that precedes being, non-being acquires a relation to it.

It turns out that the emergence of a particular form of being gives rise to its own non-being in the past. At the same time, the essence of the metaphysical paradox of time is that being must manifest itself first, and non-being, which is already revealed as a consequence of this act, falling into the time series, turns out to be the first. Being, on the other hand, becomes like a consequence, arising from non-being as from its cause.

Thus, the paradox of the beginnings is refracted through the paradox of time. Obviously, it is impossible to resolve one of them without resolving the other. The methodological basis for resolving the paradox of metaphysics, of course,

the relationship of the first principles - non-existence and being - should become, and the starting point for clarifying their nature can be Parmenides' attempt to classify their finite set, which implicitly forms a kind of metaphysical metric for philosophical research of any direction. As you know, he proposed three options for the relationship of non-existence

and being: 1) there is being and there is no non-being, 2) there is both non-being and being, 3) there is non-being and there is no being. Proposing this classification, Parmenides, perhaps, pursued the goal of streamlining all the trends in philosophy that existed by that time. However, it cannot be ruled out that he was thereby trying to identify a finite set of all possible combinations of the relationship of non-being and being, since there was no such direction that would recognize the presence of non-being and the absence of being. Of the three postulates of his metric, Parmenides himself recognized only one as true - the first: there is being and there is no non-being. Meanwhile, it is his metric of relations between being and non-being that should be considered the first step towards the discovery of the informational multi-qualitativeness of matter, which he prepared, but which he himself did not use. This second step was taken by Plato for him, implicitly recognizing the truth of all three postulates of Parmenides' metric.

Indeed, according to Plato, philosophy should not talk about one reality, as Parmenides suggested, but about three at once: this is the world of ideas, the world of things and the world of matter, where the world of ideas

This is true being (the first postulate), the world of things is a combination of ideas and matter, that is, non-being and being (the second postulate), and the world of matter is non-being (the third postulate). Without going into the content of the sequence of these realities proposed by Plato, we note the very fact that he introduced the multiplicity of information forms.

From our point of view, we should speak not about three, but about four autonomous realities (the fifth reality is an imaginary version of one of the four). Consequently, Parmenides' metric reveals its incompleteness. And, indeed, in the entire subsequent history of philosophy, no one paid attention to the fact that if the third postulate is opposite in meaning to the first, then there must be a fourth option, logically opposite.

positive to the second. If the second postulate asserts that there is both non-being and being, then the fourth postulate must deny both: there is no (both non-being and being).

Let us now try, with the help of these four postulates of Parmenides' metric, to give a metaphysical interpretation of the cosmological arrow of time. Let's start with the second postulate of the metric: there is (both non-being and being).

This postulate proceeds from the recognition of the simultaneous manifestation of non-existence and being. Thus, their dualism is postulated: the boundary simultaneously cuts the event of the birth of the Universe into two areas - existence and non-existence. Neither of these two principles can be either the first or the second. There can be no past without a future and no future without a past. This is the essence of time dualism. Therefore, none of them can be derived from the other. Both beginnings are autonomous and do not interact with each other, and therefore are not capable of passing into each other. Accordingly, the "past" and "future" arise simultaneously. At the same time, the “future” cannot follow from the “past”, since the “past” is not factual and therefore cannot generate anything or change to anything. Thus, non-existence acquires the status of "past", and being - the status of "future", of course, not due to the following of one after the other, that is, not due to the fact that the first precedes the second, but due to their internal content, according to which non-existence is a constant, non-factual characteristic, interpreted in the sense of “was not”, and being is a variable, factual characteristic, always unambiguously interpreted in the sense of “is-being”.

In addition, being is a lot, since it has parts, the number of which can change. But how many beings cannot be initially less than two, and therefore cannot change in the direction of decrease, since the decrease

the reduction of two to one would mean the transformation of the factual into the non-factual, that is, it would lead to the disappearance of matter and would be accompanied by a violation of all laws of conservation of matter and energy. Therefore, the starting difference between the two can only increase. But, growing in its diversity of forms, being moves away from constant and unchanging non-being as from its initial boundary, as from the starting point of the coordinates of its formation. The “is-being” itself, growing like a lot, does not follow from the past and is the only temporal characteristic of being. Therefore, the future is always a variable value, moreover, it has no duration. The initial difference between the two, in turn, is divided into the difference between four and absorbed by it (substance and energy do not disappear, but pass, according to the laws of conservation, from one form to another completely or partially). The future, therefore, is like the crest of a wave, continuously rolling and spreading with its difference.

Objectively, the time of the relationship between the past and the future does not last, but is quantized, being formed by the relationship of the past (was not there) and the future (is-being). If the original difference of the existence of two was revealed, then in the past there were no precisely these two. If in the process of becoming two were transformed into four, then in the past there were not all four. It is worth noting at the same time that in the past there cannot be three or five, that is, the negativity of the past cannot be less or more than the positive multiplicity of being. No matter how the diversity of the future increases, the past is always the same for him and is commensurate with him in its negativity. For the relation of the past and the future is the relation of symmetry, it is the statics incorporated in the dynamics of time quantization throughout the formation of being.

Following the second postulate of the Parmenides metric, we introduce the fourth postulate.

It expresses the evolution of non-existence itself, since non-existence can act in two ways: as a beginning, along with being, and as a negative limit, the content of which becomes the statement: there is no (both non-existence and being). Indeed, with the emergence of a specific form of matter (the Universe), which has a positive characteristic of time - the future, a negative characteristic of time - the past, immediately arises.

At the same time, it is legitimate to assert that both the past and the future were once absent, which means “no” for both. This repeated negation of 0(01) is an expression of the content of the objective present time, which, due to its extreme negativity, incorporates the objective past and the objective future. The objective present, as the limit of the denial of the beginnings, is a characteristic of that potential of time, which is determined for the formation of a specific form of matter. Moreover, if matter manifests itself only in specific forms, then each of them has its own objective present time. That is why we can talk about the ideal, that is, the negative generality of all specific objective real characteristics of time. This generality represents the limit of negativity of all limits of negativity of the formation of all specific forms of matter “There is No Everything for everyone”, a kind of informational pole of ideality, and therefore it is that kind of universal construct of philosophical theory, which, in the words of Aristotle, defines the purest of all forms - time. The metaphysical content of this universal limit of negativity is the third postulate of Parmenides' metric: there is non-being and there is no being. He argues that there is an objective, inexhaustible potential of infinite in time occurrence and disappearance.

new and new concrete forms of matter.

Finally, in order to reveal the content of the first postulate of the Parmenides metric, it is necessary to return again to its second postulate, according to which the past and future time, as a manifestation of the first principles, arise simultaneously, forming a symmetry of relationship with each other. Within the boundaries of this symmetry, as within the framework of unambiguous statics, the dynamics of the formation of being unfolds. A feature of being, as already noted, is its multiplicity and continuous variability, and the only temporal characteristic is the future. Moreover, this multiplicity must initially be at least two. The condition for the transition from the statics of the relation of the initial principles to the dynamics of becoming, these initial two must enter into interaction with each other. Interaction destroys the uniqueness of each of them, not allowing to dissolve in non-factuality, and their connection with each other leads to the formation of space. But being, like a lot, by definition, cannot become a whole into which space turns it, since the whole is a property of the one. However, it should be borne in mind that the formation of non-existence should not exist, because, by definition, non-existence is a single (whole) that is not capable of having parts. However, the whole is different. Each of the five fragments of the information cycle is autonomous, and therefore each of them has both a whole and parts, only organized differently.

A. Bogdanov's tectology defines three differently organized complexes: neutral with an additive effect, when the whole is equal to the sum of its parts; a complex with a positive non-additive effect, when the whole is less than the sum of its parts; complex with a negative non-additive effect, when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts11. Becoming non-existence

and represents a neutral complex in which the part - the past - is equal to the whole - the present time due to their identical non-factuality. Perhaps that is why the formation of the ideal precedes the formation of the material, since, according to Leibniz, the ideal is simpler than the material12.

To be more precise, the formation of the ideal within the framework of an anti-event manifests itself as a quality without quantity. And even more precisely, non-existence as one of the first principles, that is, as an element (it was not) and non-existence as the limit of its formation (there is no Everything) are equal to each other. The essence of the formation of the ideal is in the violation of the symmetry of the originals, the result of which is the asymmetry of the ideal in relation to the material in favor of the first. That is why the formation of being must be considered as its desire to equalize the asymmetry of the ideal due to its own asymmetry, which is achieved through the interaction of the elements of the material many among themselves, striving in its growth to the limit "there is Everything". Within the framework of the formation of being, the space of interactions of elements of many is a whole, characterized by a positive additive effect, in which the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Thus, the asymmetry of being is accompanied by the thinning of the whole and its complete disappearance at the limit of its formation.

In its initial state, the material principle is a set of at least two. The connection of these two with each other forms a whole that is less than their sum, since the materiality of the one as a whole is excluded, and the materiality of the space of the two cannot follow from the ideal one as a whole, due to the fact that the ideal and the material do not interact and do not follow from each other . Therefore, the positive non-additivity of the integrity of the space of two is a consequence without a cause. IN

in turn, the additive integrity of the ideal principle, not having the status of a cause in relation to it, acts as the initial conditions for its occurrence. But since in the process of becoming the original two are split into four, and these four have the material two as the cause of their appearance, the process of becoming of being appears as a [consequence (cause-effect)], that is, it appears as a process of gradual expiration of the original consequence of its origin and so the gradual strengthening of its causal self-sufficiency. Existence itself, with an increasing degree of certainty, becomes the cause of its consequences due to the fragmentation of the original universal connection between the two and the absorption of its initial potential by the process of increasing the diversity of material forms, while simultaneously strengthening the autonomy of each of them. Finally, in the limit of becoming, a complete exhaustion of the influence of its initial conditions is revealed, as a result of which the universal connection of the set of two breaks, the positive non-additivity of integrity is completely absorbed by elementarity, and the original consequence of becoming also completely disappears in the self-causality of being. Being becomes a cause of itself, but at the same time a cause without effect: due to the exhaustion of the initial conditions, the potential of the initial consequence is also exhausted in the limit, and the multitude of fragments, completely losing connection with each other, is transformed into a state that can be considered as “dead chaos” . Being that is becoming acquires the status of pure being, that is, "there is Everything", to which Spinoza's assertion that matter is the cause of itself is only now becoming applicable. If the first principles are dualistic in nature (there is both being and non-being), then the limits are monistic (either “there is Everything” or “there is no Everything”). Their simultaneity

manifestations are absurd. Pure being, thus, excludes the limit of the formation of ideality "there is no All." Strict disjunction of the relationship of non-existence and being within the limits of their formation characterizes the asymmetry that occurs during the transition from one specific form of matter to another - a condition for the emergence of an informational anti-event. The limit “is Everything” is the first postulate of the Parmenides metric, and therefore, corresponds to his requirements: if there is only being, then there is neither movement nor time, since the future time is a variable characteristic that disappears with the cessation of movement. The limit "is All" acquires the status of timeless being.

But does discontinuity in the formation of being mean the disappearance of time? Yes and no. The time of the dynamics of formation disappears, the time of interactions of parts of the set, but the time of statics, the time of the relationship of the first principles is preserved. Only the “polarity” changes, and with it the direction: pure being acquires the status of the past, and non-existence - the status of the future. This means that pure being from a cause of itself, but a cause without effect, turns into the initial conditions for the emergence of the Universe as a new one. There is an act of "rotation" of symmetry, and the event is transformed into an anti-event. Thus, the symmetry of the relationship between non-existence and being, defined as information statics, does not arise and is not destroyed, but, rotating, it only periodically quantizes the difference in the direction of time itself, alternating this change with a pulsation of mutually exclusive limits: either “there is no Everything”, or “there is Everything” . This is the essence of the metaphysical principle of the conservation of time.

In the limit of the formation of ideality (there is no Everything), the infinite potential of time is revealed, and in the limit of the formation of the material (there is Everything) - the limitlessness of the material diversity of specific forms.

In the history of philosophy and science, four concepts of time have been formed: substantial, static, dynamic and relational. At the same time, all this time there was a discussion about which of them is the only true one. From the point of view of this approach, it can be argued that all four are true, because each of them can be used to explain the nature of time, but only to characterize one of the five informational realities included in a single time cycle. The substantial concept of time is responsible for explaining the relationship of the original principles within the framework of the formation of an event (0 I), which is based on the time-spatial form of matter organization. The static concept of time explains the nature of the transition of an event (0 I) into an anti-event (I 0) within the mutual exclusion of limits.

The dynamic concept of time can be used to explain the beginnings of a reversible process, that is, the statics of social reality. The relational concept explains the nature of the transition from an event (irreversibility) to an imaginary anti-event (reversibility). The dynamic concept of time proceeds from the recognition of the simultaneous presence of all qualitative characteristics of time: future, present and past. The scope of its application is consciousness and self-consciousness. The scope of the relational concept of time is social activity, determined by the space-time

form of experience organization.

About the features of the interpretation of the dynamic and relational concepts of time used to explain the nature of man, see the following issues of the journal.

NOTES

Prigogine I., Stengers N. Time, chaos, quantum. M., 1994. S. 29. Ibid. S. 31.

Hegel G. Science of Logic. M., 1998. S. 68-69.

Essays phenomenological philosophy. SPb., 1997. S. 50. Heidegger M. Works and reflections of different years. M., 1993. S. 156. Plato. Sobr. cit.: V 4 t. M., 1993. T. 2. S. 323.

There. S. 323.

Bogdanov A. A. General organizational science. M., 1991. Leibniz G. Sobr. cit.: V 4 t. M., 1976. T. 1. S. 408.

PHILOPHICAL SOLUTION OF THE TIME PARADOX:

THE NEW CONCEPTS OF METAPHYSICS.

The paradox of time is regarded as a paradox of metaphysics of fundamental principles (existence and non-existence). The foundation of philosophical anthropology is a symmetry of the relation which gives anthropology a character of a static social reality.

Social philosophy is an investigation of the dynamics of retrospective processes.

Vladimir Gomankov

Was born in 1925 . in the village of Smolyany, Orsha district, Vitebsk region, BSSR. IN 1955 . Graduated from the Faculty of Physics of the Moscow State University them. M.V. Lomonosov with a degree in physics. From 1955 to 1959 . Jr Researcher Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, since 1959, junior researcher, since 1960 - senior engineer, from 1967 to 2006 . Leading Researcher, TsNIIChermet named after I.P. Bardina, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.

Old and New Metaphysics, or Worldview and Revelation

Different models have been used by science to describe the development of the universe. In modern times, the scientific worldview sought to refute the biblical picture of the world, but in the 20th century there was an unexpected turn: the development of fundamental science made it possible to overcome the differences between the Christian and scientific worldviews. Today, science continues to move towards a religious understanding of the world.

Natural and supernatural revelation

The successes of fundamental science in the 20th century in the study of the Universe and its matter led not only to an intensive process of changing the material life of mankind, but also to a revision of many worldview concepts: about the Universe, about the world around us and about the relationship between science and religion. This revision is due primarily to the development of quantum mechanics (the science of the structure of the microworld) and cosmology (the science that describes the properties of the universe).

From quantum mechanics follows the fundamental involvement of the observer (human) in the inevitable interaction with the object of observation (the microworld) and, consequently, the interconnectedness of the observing and observed systems. From the point of view of the Orthodox worldview, in this case, a person acts both as a creation of God, and as a researcher of the Universe and the laws of its nature created by God, and as an accomplice in the Creator's creativity. “God has made man a participant in creativity,” remarks St. Ephraim the Syrian.

Therefore, for an Orthodox scientist, faith in the Divine mind as the highest rationality coexists with faith in the rationality of the human mind, created in the image of God. St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: “Creation in the image of God means that royalty is inherent in man from the moment of creation… Divinity is wisdom and logos (reason, meaning). You see in yourself reason and thought, which is the image of the first mind and first thought ... "

For such a scientist, the Universe created by God and its nature are a reflection of the Divine mind, and God the Creator is revealed to man when studying nature in its laws. St. Dionysius the Areopagite points out: “We can know Him, firstly, by contemplating the well-being of the universe He created, which in some way is a reflection and likeness of His divine prototypes ...” In addition, nature, as a creation of God, is worthy of a careful and wise attitude. Looking at its beauty, grandeur and wise patterns, a person in admiration glorifies the Creator. “You revealed the eternal order of the Universe through the forces acting in it, You, O Lord, created the world, You, faithful in all generations, righteous in judgment, wonderful in power and glory, wise in creation and deeds ... ”- martyr Clement of Rome admires . This is how nature moves a person to prayer.

Therefore, in the Orthodox worldview, both the Universe and its laws created by God are considered as a natural revelation of the Creator, which is studied by scientists and is part of the dialogue between man and the Creator. Another part of man's dialogue with God is represented by supernatural revelation and is being studied by theologians. Hence, in the Orthodox worldview, fundamental science acts as a "theology of nature" and problems arise in reconciling natural revelation with the supernatural. Coordination different parts unified revelation is a hermeneutic task, which is often solved by studying the various parts of supernatural revelation. Here it is somewhat complicated, since, among other things, natural revelation requires knowledge of various branches of science in their historical development.

Historical Relationships of the Parts of Revelation

The two parts of a single dialogue between man and God in the history of mankind have often been opposed to each other, which can be clearly seen in the example of such a science as cosmology. In the geocentric system built by Ptolemy in the 2nd century, the cosmos, which at that time represented only the solar system, was considered limited in space and time. The Earth was considered the center of such a Universe, and the Universe itself had a beginning and was static, that is, unchanged. Such a model of the Universe more or less satisfactorily described the motion of the planets. solar system and fully consistent with the interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Some noticeable discrepancies between both descriptions (for example, the appearance of "light" before the Sun and stars) were smoothed out by the transition to a symbolic interpretation of individual concepts. However, as new astronomical results were obtained, Ptolemy's system lost its scientific significance, and with it the worldview ideas about the Universe changed.

In the 16th century, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Copernican heliocentric system, in which the Sun was seen as the center of the universe. In this Universe, the Earth was losing its anthropocentric status, and the accumulated astronomical knowledge testified to the Universe, consisting not only of the Solar System. Thus, the rejection of the geocentric cosmos contributed to the emergence of the idea of ​​an infinite universe. However, the heliocentric cosmology to some extent continued to correspond to the biblical description.

The first ideas about an infinite universe began to appear only in the second half of the 17th century among philosophers who could not articulate them clearly. Scientists, when considering the infinite Universe within the framework of the Newtonian theory of gravity, faced insoluble scientific paradoxes. Newton himself considered the universe to be spatially infinite and limited in time. In addition, the concept of infinity was not mastered by either mathematicians or physicists.

Only by the middle of the 19th century, when trying to explain the optical and gravitational paradoxes that contradict the infinite Universe, the concept of "infinite Universe" first appeared in the scientific literature. The spread of ideas about the infinity of the universe was facilitated by the secularization of science, which began in the 16th century and especially intensified in the atheistic era of the French Revolution and later. Along with the spread of atheism in the scientific worldview, the idea of ​​an infinite universe in time and space appears. Such a Universe does not need a Creator: it has always been, is and will be, and at infinity one can always assume the origin and self-organization of matter, to which lawmaking is also attributed. Thus, the Creator of nature in the scientific worldview was replaced by a self-sufficient entity - the eternal and infinite Universe.

However, such a universe is not amenable to scientific study: it must have an infinite number of physical interactions and, consequently, an infinite number of forms of matter. There is a metaphysical paradox of "infinity of everything". The visible part of the Universe turns out to be a tiny island of boundless space, devoid of specific features for study. The universe, on average, remains unchanged, static and, as a result, has neither history nor evolution. Actual infinity is explored in mathematics, but an infinite cosmos is not comprehensible. Hence it is obvious that the definition of "infinite universe" is formulated rather because of the prerequisites of an atheistic worldview. Despite this, by the end of the 19th century, the idea of ​​an infinite universe was firmly established. At the same time, in materialistic philosophy, matter was declared eternal. Thus, the deification of the Universe and its matter took place, and scientists, studying the created nature, ceased to recognize its Creator.

Cosmological model of the expanding universe

It was the infinite in time and stationary finite Universe that Albert Einstein tried to describe within the framework of general theory relativity in 1917. Naturally, it is impossible to harmonize such a view of the Universe with the Book of Genesis. This worldview is based on explicit pantheism.

In 1922, the Petrograd physicist A.A. Friedman showed that within the framework of the same general theory of relativity, a non-stationary Universe is described, which expands along with space. From the mathematical model it followed that in the past, when the volume of such an expanding Universe was equal to zero, matter, space and time arose, that is, the Universe had a beginning. Note that A.A. Friedman was a Christian and adhered to the Orthodox worldview. (He died in 1925 and is buried at the Smolensk cemetery in St. Petersburg, and a stone obelisk with a cross stands on his grave.)

In 1929, the expansion of the Universe was discovered experimentally by the American astronomer E. Hubble, who measured the spectra of distant galaxies. In turn, the Belgian scientist Abbé J. Lemaître in 1927 compared the expansion of galaxies with the expansion of the Universe and called the birth and expansion of the Universe the Big Bang. It should be emphasized that matter, space and time arose simultaneously and space expands along with matter in time, that is, the Universe swells, not an explosion.

By 1932, the idea of ​​an expanding universe was accepted by A. Einstein. Thus, a cosmological model of the expanding Universe arose in science, which made it possible to study it as a whole as a finite expanding volume that arose along with space and time and, therefore, has a history and is subject to evolution. Since 1952, the age of the Universe has been estimated at 10-15 billion years, which is consistent with the prediction of the A.A. Friedman. There are no stars in the sky older than this age, and this estimate is the second experimental fact confirming the reliability of the cosmological model of the expanding Universe. By the end of the 20th century, several more experimental facts appeared confirming the same.

On rice. 1 presents a diagram of the expanding universe, starting with the Big Bang. Here you can see the time of occurrence of some objects of the Universe: relic radiation, stars, supernovae, black holes, protogalaxies, galaxies.

The experimentally confirmed cosmological model of the expanding Universe makes it possible to estimate not only the size and age of the Universe, but also the density and temperature (energy) of its matter at any time after the beginning of its origin. It follows from the model that at the initial moment of the Big Bang the matter of the Universe was at gigantic densities and temperatures. This state of matter is described by a "hot model" of the matter of the Universe, which, using the energy dependences of the interaction of elementary particles, predicts the composition of matter at different stages of the expansion of the Universe. At gigantic temperatures, the matter of the Universe represented various types of plasma states of matter and radiation, the composition of which changed during the expansion and cooling of the Universe. So, for example, at times equal to less than one hundred thousandth of a second from the beginning, a quark plasma is realized (quarks are elementary particles: three quarks form a proton or a neutron), later - a hadron plasma consisting of protons, neutrons and other heavy particles, as well as from radiation. It is the “hot model” that predicts the appearance of light (radiation) before the formation of stars and the Sun, which is consistent with the biblical description.

Further, in the process of evolution of matter in the Universe, hydrogen and helium atoms are formed, while the substance is separated from the radiation, which cools as the Universe expands. The "hot model" predicts that the separated radiation has cooled to low temperatures by our time and, therefore, should be observed in the microwave spectral range. In 1965, it was indeed registered by American scientists and named "relic thermal radiation". Thus, the reliability of the "hot model" of the Big Bang was confirmed by another important experimental result, linking the development of the Universe with the evolution of its matter.

On fig. 2 the evolution of the matter of the Universe in time is schematically shown, starting from elementary particles to the formation of atoms, from which stars and planets are formed.

Thus, by the end of the 20th century, there were at least eight experimental facts confirming the reliability of the cosmological model, which is quite surprising for such a global and complex physical theory. It entered scientific cosmology and describes how the Universe and its matter originated and evolve. The model has been developing for more than 80 years, it is called the "Standard Cosmological Model" and forms a physical picture of the world, organically entering the general system of knowledge. Some variants of this model also predict the end of the development of the Universe.

Such a universe as a whole has its own specific features and subject to scientific research. Consequently, the scientific cosmological model expelled from the scientific worldview the "deification" of the Universe and its "religious" veneration as an infinite and eternal essence. And in the second half of the twentieth century, anthropocentric ideas returned to the scientific worldview in the form of "anthropic principles" postulating the emergence of the Universe for a human observer.

Mapping the Model to the Statement of Creation

The above scientific description of the origin and evolution of the universe in in general terms consistent with the creation of "heaven and earth" in Genesis. Thus, modern scientific data on the origin and evolution of the universe allow us to speak of a noticeable consistency of natural revelation with the supernatural. Consequently, "science in its development has evolved towards a religious understanding of the world."

Naturally, scientists with an atheistic worldview did not accept such a cosmology, according to which the Universe arose “out of nothing”, continues to expand, and even its end is predicted. In the USSR, where the atheistic worldview was the official ideology, such a cosmology was declared "priestly" and banned from teaching in schools and universities.

At the same time, there was a need among Orthodox scholars to form a consistent religious outlook, which would be consistent with the modern scientific worldview and would oppose atheistic propaganda. Such work was carried out in the early 1960s by G.A. Kaleda, doctor of geological and mineralogical sciences (since 1981) and secret priest (since 1972). For the first time, he compared the results of research in cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology and other disciplines with the description of the creation of the Universe in the Book of Genesis and showed that scientific data are more consistent with the biblical story of the origin of the world than contradict it. Consequently, there are no grounds for criticizing the biblical description of the creation of the Universe from the point of view of modern scientific ideas, and it is not correct to use science for atheistic propaganda. Naturally, this work contained an apology for the Orthodox worldview and was distributed through "samizdat". Father Gleb's work was first published only in 1996, after the author's death.

Today, however, not only the Orthodox worldview needs protection, but also fundamental science, and, consequently, the scientific worldview. The revived and spread neo-paganism and the occult shamelessly speculate as religious beliefs and scientific terminology. In addition, there are attempts by fundamentalist Protestants to impose on the Orthodox community their ideology of distorting and discrediting the system of accumulated knowledge developed by mankind.

creationism

In the West, an anti-scientific ideology of fundamentalist Protestants appeared - creationism, according to which the Creator created all forms of matter and man in exactly six days. Further, He no longer interferes either in the existence of created nature, or in the life of individual people. At the same time, nature and man remain unchanged after creation. A significant place in this doctrine of "non-interference" of the Creator is occupied by the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the denial of the evolutionary principle (the law of development) in nature, established through fundamental science. Before the era of perestroika, creationist literature sometimes entered the USSR illegally, but now it is not uncommon on the shelves. Orthodox churches. Moreover, “Orthodox creationists” have also appeared, who are also fighting against fundamental science and the scientific worldview, using the literature of Protestant creationists. Protestant creationists declare any evolution of nature a modern myth, and "Orthodox creationists" - heresy.

In the Orthodox worldview, creationism is understood as the creation of the Universe by the Creator “out of nothing”. This Divine act is as great a miracle as the Incarnation and Resurrection of the Savior. In turn, the definition of "scientific creationism", which is often used by creationists, the epithet "scientific" is not applicable, since it has no positive scientific content: it does not describe the totality of experimental facts, not to mention the predictability of phenomena. Creationism is not consistent with the modern scientific system of knowledge.

At the same time, Orthodox scientists who profess "creation from nothing" are not only creationists in the literal sense of the word, but also evolutionists who study the development (evolution) of created nature according to the laws of the Creator. For them, the development (evolution) of nature is confirmed by experimental facts. The Orthodox worldview and the scientific worldview coexist in dialectical dynamics.

Thus, the differences between Orthodoxy and the scientific worldview, which were exposed as a result of secularization, were largely overcome thanks to the development of fundamental science in the 20th century. It became possible to harmonize natural revelation with the supernatural, and fundamental science required the creation of a new metaphysics, in which scientists with an atheistic worldview assign a decisive role to "anthropic principles". It seems that further harmonization of the Orthodox worldview and natural revelation is also possible with the subsequent development of fundamental science and Orthodox theology.

NOTES:

1. Rev. Ephraim the Syrian. Interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Creations. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1901. Part 6. S. 234.

2. Clement O. Origins: Theology of the Fathers of the Ancient Church. Texts and comments.

M.: Way, 1994. P.79.

3. Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names. Social thought: research, publications. M.: Nauka, 1990. Issue. II. S. 207.

4. St. Clement of Rome. First Epistle to the Corinthians. Early Church Fathers. B/m. B / g. S. 60.

5. Kaleda G., prot. The Bible and the science of the creation of the world // Alpha and Omega. 1996. No. 2/3 (9/10). pp. 16-29; 1997. No. 2(13). pp. 34-51.

6. Katasonov V.N. The concept of actual infinity as a "scientific icon" of the deity. "Christianity and Science". Sat. conference reports // XII International Christmas Educational Readings. M., 2004. S. 123-148.

7. Novikov I.D. Evolution of the Universe. M.: Nauka, 1990. S. 192.

8. Grib A.A. The Big Bang: Creation or Origin? // The relationship of physical and religious pictures of the world. Kostroma: MIITSAOST, 1996. S. 153-167.

9. Zeldovich Ya.B. The theory of the expanding Universe created by A.A. Fridman // Advances in Physical Sciences. 1963. T. 80. Issue. 3. S. 357-390.

10. Reshetnikov V.P. Astronomical problems of the beginning of the XXI century, or 23 problems of Sandage // Nature. 2003. No. 2. S. 32-40.

11. Gomankov V.I. Anthropic cosmological principle and Christian anthropocentrism// Command it, and it will be created. Wedge: Christian life, 1999. S. 149-165.

12. Blessed Augustine. Confession. creations Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. 1914. S. 347.

13. Kaleda G., prot. Introduction to Orthodox Apologetics // Alpha and Omega. 2003. No. 1 (35). pp. 200-216.

14. Kuraev A., deacon. Can an Orthodox be an evolutionist? // Command it, and it will be created. Klin: Christian Life, 1999, pp. 82-113.

15. Zworykin D., deacon. Creation and the created world from the standpoint of Orthodoxy and Protestantism // Toy commanded, and created. Klin: Christian Life, 1999, pp. 114-128.

16. Timothy, priest Orthodox worldview and modern natural science. Creation science lessons in high school. M.: Palomnik, 1998.

17. Bufeev K., priest. On the Trinity of Evolutionism, Humanism and Ecumenism // Holy Fire. 2001. No. 6. S. 96-103.

18. John (Wendland), Metropolitan The Bible and evolution. Yaroslavl, 1998. S. 128.

19. Gomankov A.V. The book of Genesis and the theory of evolution // That command, and created. Klin: Christian Life, 1999, pp. 172-188.

The problem of self-determination of philosophy in the post-non-classical era is one of the central topics around which there are heated discussions among philosophers. Whether philosophy can meet the demands and requirements of the time, give adequate answers to the challenges of our time, depends on its future fate. But the problem of self-determination is even more acute for metaphysics, which needs to position itself not only in relation to science and civilization, but also in relation to philosophy proper.

Link to original article:
Khalapsis A. V. Metaphysics and the paradox of time / Aleksey Vladislavovich Khalapsis // Philosophy, culture, life. - 2007. - VIP. 29. - S. 202-213.
APA style :
Chalapsis, A. V. (2007). Metaphysics and the paradox of time. Philosophy, culture, life, 29, 202-213.
Chicago/Turabian style:
Chalapsis, A. V. "Metaphysics and the paradox of time." Philosophy, culture, life 29 (2007): 202-213.

Development in the last two centuries has been highly controversial. On the one hand, it opened up new areas of research (the transcendental philosophy of Kant, the phenomenology of Hegel and Husserl, the Heideggerian turn in the interpretation of the problem of being, etc.), on the other hand, metaphysics begins to be ashamed of itself, it is oppressed by its own history and embarrassed by its own title . A very ambiguous situation arises: metaphysics exists and is successfully developing, but there are, as it were, no metaphysicians. Not that they, like the famous Moliere character, did not guess about the nature of their activities, but in every possible way they disguised him under other nominations. An interesting fact is related to this: over the past two centuries, more self-names of philosophical doctrines have appeared than in the entire previous history of philosophy. Heraclitus and Parmenides, Socrates and Plato, Augustine and Boethius, Eriugena and Aquinas either did not set out to somehow nominate their research at all, or used ready-made names - philosophy (first philosophy), metaphysics, theology, etc. For all Descartes' dislike for the scholastic tradition, it never occurred to him to come up with some other, "non-metaphysical" name for the Metaphysical Meditations. Apparently, he defined metaphysics on the basis of its highest principle, and not from the fact that it is also practiced by people whose views are unacceptable to him. This is the most honest and natural, in my opinion, position.

For metaphysics, overcoming the "Jourdain effect" is not connected with the movement "back to the future" with the goal of formally returning the ancient title, but with the need for self-determination in a new cognitive situation. This article is devoted to the consideration of problems, goal which is the definition of a strategy for updating metaphysics in the post-non-classical era.

Throughout its history, Western philosophy has experienced both periods of triumph and universal recognition, and periods of persecution and obstruction, when the question arose of its very existence as a specific form of theoretical activity. Its relationship with theology developed in different ways (if Augustine or Thomas Aquinas used philosophy to conceptualize theological doctrine, and Eriugena put its authority even higher than the authority of theology, then Tertullian could not deny himself the pleasure of sincerely rejoicing at the thought of the torment of philosophers in hell), with science (from the grandiose new European projects of knowledge, in which philosophy played a key role (Descartes, Fichte, Hegel, etc.) to doubts about its cognitive capabilities, attempts to reduce it only to an analysis of the language of science, or even to completely deny the meaningfulness of philosophical statements) , the state (from complete disregard to complete recognition, and the latter sometimes turned out to be even worse (the situation when philosophy became a servant of ideology) of the former). A feature of philosophy is also that, unlike science and theology, whose subject areas are more or less clearly defined and defined, throughout its history it has been in a state of permanent self-determination, and discussions of philosophers regarding its subject either flare up or fade, but never stop completely; not least because of this, there are many "philosophies" whose higher objective unity, frankly, is not always obvious.

Philosophy in the present era does not face the threat of extinction, it is not persecuted or oppressed, it is not imposed with ideological frameworks and is not driven underground. On the contrary, interest in philosophy is manifested both in scientific circles and far beyond them. In other words, today philosophy is quite popular (as far as a theoretical form of activity can be), which, in general, is very positive and provides it with wide opportunities for practical influence on life (not only spiritual) of society. But there are also very serious risks involved. Popularity sometimes turns into omnivorousness or topicality, discussions about the subject - pointlessness, the recognition of the dialectical nature of truth - theoretical arbitrariness, and the ambiguity of the language - verbal tightrope walking.

Accepted in certain circles as a sign of "good form" arguments about the "eternity" and "insolvability" of the problems of philosophy, about the fact that it does not matter at all what exactly philosophy says, but it is important, they say, only how it does it, that philosophy does not at all look for answers to its (last) questions, but only engages in questioning, etc., having already ceased to shock the uninitiated with their extravagance, they have become fixed through consensus omnium as an obvious and even trivial fact. In this situation, the question of truth is simply ignored, and if it is raised, it is only to show how the question of truth becomes a question of truth, and so on ad infinitum. Such meaningless questions that have nothing to do with the noble goal of knowledge, but only with refined demagogy (a thought in which a thought is thought, which could be a thought about reality, if the last word mattered regardless of the process of thinking, etc.) , form the image of philosophy as a refined entertainment of an intellectually depraved bohemia. In the rejection of philosophy from the disinterested service to truth and dissolution in the optionality of opinions, I see the action of its eternal antigen, which can be called empty sophistication or "glasswork".

Through the efforts of dreamers cut off from life, philosophy has gained a reputation as an exciting, but completely useless activity for practical activities. To refute this kind of current opinion is a very thankless task, and, by and large, meaningless. The trouble is not that there is a distortion in the perception of philosophy by the general public, but that philosophers themselves sometimes cannot clearly define the forms and degree of its participation in the life of society, as a result of which it is “on the sidelines” of sociocultural processes. Excessive academicism of modern philosophy, expressed through detachment from practical activities, turns, oddly enough, into thematic vagueness and contextual fragmentation of discourse, as a result of which any certainty becomes purely conditional. But philosophy itself falls under this rule, which is less and less determined on the basis of its highest goals, and more and more - by negative ad hoc nomination (any text too abstract to be attributed to science, and too dark and abstruse to to classify it as fiction would almost certainly be called "philosophical").

I do not believe that the creative potential of philosophy has been exhausted, and its only refuge is verbiage, through which heuristic barrenness is masked. The great thinkers of the past compare favorably with our contemporaries in that, in particular, they were not afraid to take on broad topics and slippery issues; the current generation philosophizes "with an eye." The emergence of a new cognitive situation in science provides philosophy with significant opportunities in the development of topics, the potential of which hastened to be considered exhausted. In the light of what has been said, the search for the first principles of existence (in the ancient sense) can give unexpected and fruitful results and lead philosophy out of the postmodern impasse.

Being firmly convinced that philosophy has a higher purpose and wanting to oppose it as knowledge striving for truth by juggling the concept of "truth" to the ancient "postmodernists", Aristotle wrote: "There is a certain science that considers beings as such and what is inherent in it . This science is not identical with any of the particular sciences: none of the other sciences investigates the general nature of beings as such, but they all single out for themselves some part of it (being) and then consider in relation to this part what will be inherent in it ... And since the subject of our study is the beginnings and higher causes, then they, obviously, must be the beginnings and causes of some existing reality according to its own nature ... Therefore ... we need to find out (establish) the first principles for beings as such. (Met. 1003 a 21-32). “Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary” (M., 2002) clarifies that metaphysics “... is the science that makes the subject of study the existing as such, examines the elements and basic conditions of everything that exists in general and describes significant, important areas and patterns of the real, i.e. e. it is a science that seeks constant and connection in the whole change of phenomena. Very briefly, the subject of metaphysics was outlined by N.O. Lossky: “Metaphysics is the science of the world as a whole; it gives a general picture of the world as the basis for all particular statements about it.

The place of this science, behind which, with light hand Andronicus of Rhodes, the name "metaphysics" was fixed, in the system of philosophical knowledge it was positioned and is positioned differently. Sometimes it is identified with philosophy, sometimes it is considered as part of it; sometimes metaphysics includes ontology, cosmology, epistemology, etc., sometimes it coincides with ontology. Metaphysics can be considered (in the Marxist literature of the Soviet period this approach prevailed) and as a specific method, opposite to dialectics.

Without claiming to be universal, I will formulate my position on this issue. I believe that metaphysics is one of versions philosophy, and in this sense it cannot be considered part philosophy, and also cannot include some philosophical disciplines, excluding, thereby, the rest. Metaphysics declares itself as a complete philosophy, philosophy as a whole; each of the fundamental sciences has its own metaphysical dimension, and each of the philosophical disciplines has its own representation in the structure of metaphysics, which (structure) is identical to the structure of philosophy itself. The specificity of the metaphysical formulation of questions lies in the initial focus of thought on the transcendent, hence its interest in the fundamental foundations and first causes of existence. But such an orientation of thought is not characteristic of all possible philosophies; that is why it is appropriate to speak of non-metaphysical versions of philosophy.

This allows one to properly position dialectics in relation to metaphysics. Being a holistic philosophy (albeit one of its versions), metaphysics is a spiritual phenomenon of a different scale than dialectics. Metaphysics is a form of posing problems, and dialectics is a way of searching, metaphysics is concerned with the first principles, dialectics is the laws of the movement of thought. Dialectic is, first of all, very effective method knowledge, and the systems built with its help can be both metaphysical (Heraclitus, Fichte, Hegel) and non-metaphysical (Marx).

Why has metaphysics become ashamed of itself? Apparently, there were serious reasons for this, without the elimination of which any project of the revival of metaphysics would be unviable and doomed to failure.

It's no secret that the crisis of classical metaphysics naturally coincided in time with the successes of natural science, primarily physics. Under the conditions of the picture of the world radically changed under the influence of science, metaphysics lost its exclusive rights to the interpretation of being, and the cognitive tool of classical metaphysics - pure speculation - lost its authority and epistemological legitimacy. Philosophy no longer claims to be a self-sufficient and complete doctrine of being, which would be autonomous from scientific theories, therefore, in modern times, ontology is gradually becoming just a more or less adequate generalization of the experience of natural science. A similar situation develops with epistemology (epistemology). It is impossible to overestimate the role of philosophy in the formation of new European science, but at some point philosophy's guardianship began to burden science, which no longer needed its methodology to be developed by a "third-party manufacturer". Therefore, the Wolffian classification, which is still sometimes used, is now hopelessly outdated. (Emerich Koret noted: “His (H. Wolff. - A.Kh.) systematics, which to a large extent entered the school philosophy of [that] time, understands by metaphysics the total theoretical philosophy as opposed to practical philosophy. Metaphysics as the science of everything that exists , as far as possible, extends to "general metaphysics" (metaphisica generalis) - ontology as the science of beings as such and "special metaphysics" (metaphisica specialis), which in turn is divided into three subject areas: cosmology as the doctrine of the world (or nature : natural philosophy), psychology as the doctrine of the soul (about all living things, especially about man: philosophical psychology) and the doctrine of God (theologia naturalis: the philosophical doctrine of God). This division of philosophy is largely essential for modernity "). I see the problem not so much in clarifying the structure of metaphysics as in the need to form a fundamentally different approach to the organization of metaphysical research.

Whatever problem area the latter is devoted to, ontology (otherwise there is no reason to consider the study as metaphysical) and epistemology (without the certainty of cognitive capabilities and methodological techniques for solving the tasks set) must be mandatory and priority parts in it. study is impossible at all, but only meaningless speaking is possible). But that is precisely why the expediency of singling out ontology and epistemology as individual disciplines gives me serious doubts. In my opinion, in the modern era, metaphysics cannot afford the luxury of talking about "being in general" or "cognition in general", regardless of the subject areas developed by "private" metaphysical or scientific disciplines. Today there is no single generally accepted philosophy about being, as well as a unified philosophical doctrine of cognition (they will arise no earlier (if they arise at all) than in natural science - the “theory of everything”, the prospects of which are very vague), but within the framework of individual subject areas, ontological and epistemological questions can and should be allowed. In other words, it is necessary to move from a subject-oriented to a problem-oriented type of metaphysical research, which, by the way, is quite in the spirit of the ideas underlying the methodology of interdisciplinary synthesis.

Is there the necessary ideological potential for this? I believe that the need for a metaphysical focus on supra-empirical reality has not disappeared. Moreover, this need makes itself felt not only among the humanities. Many representatives of the natural and exact sciences, who are becoming "cramped" within their subject areas, turn to metaphysics for help in solving those problems that cannot be solved by the cognitive means of particular sciences (as Max Planck noted, "... scientists realized that the starting the point of their research lies not only in semantic knowledge and that science cannot do without a small portion of metaphysics ”(quoted from:). The change of paradigms in natural science (classical-non-classical-post-classical) has already ceased to shock anyone; it would be surprising if modern metaphysics would not have gone beyond the framework of the paradigm setting set back in antiquity.Since the development of metaphysics and the development of science are two sides of the same process of the development of the spirit, there must necessarily be a correlation between them, although one cannot speak of absolute identity or even coincidence of chronologies.

In such a situation, it is quite logical modern stage development of metaphysics to designate as "post-non-classical". Such a name (namely, in relation to metaphysics) is already found in philosophical literature(see, for example:), although it has not yet become, as far as I know, generally accepted. The point here is not so much in formal identification, but in the actual absence of a developed methodology of post-non-classical metaphysical discourse. The interest of philosophers in the post-non-classical scientific paradigm (and, it must be said, it is considerable) finds its expression mainly in “non-metaphysical” versions of philosophizing. Therefore, for now, “post-non-classical metaphysics” is more of a project than a conceptualized and methodologically formalized sphere of knowledge. What are the prospects for this project? The answer to this question depends on whether metaphysics can find its place within the framework of the post-nonclassical scientific ideal.

One of the key goals of post-non-classical science, as is known, is the introduction of the “arrow of time” into the fundamental description of the world. At first glance, it seems that such a topic is not new for metaphysics. Indeed, the problem of time is one of the most ancient and central themes of philosophy (including metaphysics), which, to one degree or another, is touched upon by most of the outstanding thinkers of the West. But with all the diversity of existing opinions, there is one interesting pattern noticed by Russian historians I.M. Savelyeva and A.V. Poletaev. They note: “When analyzing the views of the greatest philosophers on the problem of time, first of all, you pay attention to the fact that almost all of them spoke about two types, more precisely, images of time. Such ideas, despite some differences in the methods of description, have remained practically unchanged for two and a half millennia of European history. From antiquity to late modernity... the vast majority of philosophers, when speaking of time, think in terms of a remarkably stable structure. This fact, it seems to us, is quite unique and represents an independent topic for reflection. And further: “The views on the problem of time turned out to be unusually stable - neither the growth of scientific knowledge, nor the creative individuality of thinkers are manifested here as strongly as in cases with other philosophical concepts» .

In essence, the two images of time that these authors speak of can be designated for clarity as eternity(αίών, aeternitas, residence time, Divine time) and actual time(χρόνος, tempus, action time, human time). So here it is despite the debatability of the question “what is time?” and the presence of different versions of his solution, I argue that in Western metaphysics it never had practical significance, since in fact it has always dominated eternity over time. The universe of classical metaphysics is ontologically stationary, and the processes taking place in it (the thinkers of the Parmenidean hardening, however, denied the very possibility of the processualization of being) are not so significant (or even non-essential) as to affect being-as-such. The history of Western metaphysics is the history of comprehending a timeless reality, the metaphysical model of the world did not imply a time dimension, and time turned out to be the subject of metaphysical studies either as a phenomenon of the illusory world, or as a phenomenon of human perception. Time is interpreted not as a characteristic of being, but as a criterion of illusory nature: true being is not subject to time, and what is subject is not true being. The ideal of classical metaphysics has always been to find a finite number of quantities, knowing which, it would be possible to level the difference between the past, present and future, opening timeless being. Time is simply not conceived as existing in the true world, being "on this side of the illusion."

However, this fact in itself does not at all testify to the falsity of the metaphysical path of cognition (which the Marxists hastened to proclaim), just as the inability of classical and non-classical natural science to introduce time into the fundamental description of the world does not testify to the falsity of the corresponding sciences. In this I see not a diagnosis, but a problem, in modern scientific concepts one should look not for a panacea, but for an incentive. I'll try to determine the direction of the search.

In the classical tradition, the first principles of being are regarded as rational in nature, and therefore intelligible. “With necessity, what is conceivable necessarily exists, that which cannot be thought cannot exist.” This maxim has not always been directly declared, only because of its self-evidence for classical thinking. The piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that, with the exception of the simplest situations that science has not been interested in for a long time, a theory designed to present the beginnings of being in an intelligible form (although science is not interested in the first beginnings, but at least the “second ones”), almost never does not grasp reality in its entirety adequately, i.e. the adequacy of a scientific theory is determined by the roughness of the measurements and the approximations acceptable in a given cognitive situation. Moreover, the point here is not only in the dialectic of absolute and relative truth. Now I am not referring to the epistemological complexity of the representation of being in theoretical models, but to the fact that being itself resists such modeling, it does not fit into the framework of an elegant and precise scheme. Genesis includes a certain insoluble residue that prevents it from being beautifully and systematically sorted out. Nevertheless, being cannot be called absurd and irrational, since it nevertheless allows itself to be theoretically "restrained" to certain limits. Being, the truth of which both science and metaphysics are trying to comprehend, is partly intelligible, partly not, it is, so to speak, rough.

To explain the roughness of being, I will use a theological image. The perfection of the world created by the perfect God has its limitation due to the fact that even the almighty God cannot create something as perfect as He Himself, since only the whole can have absolute perfection; the multitude, divided in itself, already by virtue of this division, cannot possess perfection, at least in the aspect of plurality. The presence in the world of only Divine will would make it perfect, but a meaningless and superfluous continuation of God, who, having created a meaningless and superfluous world, would thereby lose his perfection. The presence in the world of a will different from the will of the Creator makes the world free and creatively justified, but because of this, imperfect. So, the perfect God creates an imperfect world, and a person, living in an imperfect world and using the freedom that makes this world justified, but imperfect, talks about the perfection of God, which manifests itself through the imperfection of the world.

I'll use it in a different way. Suppose there is some theory that predicts the behavior of a system under appropriate circumstances. Armed with a theory, a researcher can “calculate” the future in a short period of time by substituting the initial conditions of the system under study instead of variables. Ideally, the result obtained will correspond to the real state of affairs, regardless of how much time the system spends during the transition from the initial conditions to its final state, predicted by the theory. It is possible that reality will confirm the correctness of the theory. However, the longer the period of time required for the system to reach the "planned milestone", the greater the likelihood that time will make its adjustments into the ideal model. An event may occur that will radically unfold the hypothetical mechanism of being and lead the system to a state that not only was not “calculated”, but was not even thought of or was simply impossible at the time the study began. Describing being post factum, the metaphysician is inclined to attribute to key events necessary character (it happened because it could not have happened); his taste is disgusted by the very idea that it could be completely different, and he himself, categorizing being, might not appear in it at all. What has been realized, by virtue of its weighty (albeit former) facticity, acquires ontological significance, which is substantiated retroactively and projected onto the future.

The presence of free will (and there is every reason to believe that in this world at least some objects have some freedom) makes it impossible for anyone to completely control the situation, from which it follows that the intention is always different from the result. But to understand the logic of being, there is no other way than to move from the “result” to the “intention”, i.e. from the revealed, realized, given - to the first principles, thanks to which this is something became co- being. In view of this, the main task of metaphysics must be supplemented and include not only the search for the first principles as they exist in themselves, and not only the clarification of what place these principles occupy in human life, but also the solution of the question of how the first principles manifest themselves through changeable and transient forms. In addition, it is necessary to reveal the ontological status of the first principles, i.e. find out whether they exist independently of events, or whether their being from the latter is inseparable? Do the first principles remain unchanged or change under the influence of events? Etc. and so on. The content of these questions in each of the sections of metaphysics will, of course, have its own specifics.

Metaphysics has always claimed (like classical physics) a timeless description of being (hence the corresponding connotations: temporal - transient - illusory; respectively: timeless - imperishable - true, etc.). I repeat that the history of metaphysics is the history of various forms of domination of eternity over time, caused by the dubious and presumptuous conviction that the consideration of being sub specie aeternitatis is communion with the Divine vision of the world. To solve the practical problems that history poses to modern metaphysics, it should get rid of this beautiful and ambitious prejudice. The question is not to return to the discussion of the problem of time. It is necessary to reserve a place in the metaphysical description of the world for unique and inimitable events taking place in time. events capable of changing the essence and structure of being.

So, post-non-classical metaphysics is forced to proceed from the recognition of the incompleteness of the description. Philosophy can no longer dogmatically impose its schemes on science, demanding their unconditional acceptance; in turn, science will have to come to terms with the idea that the movement towards truth does not necessarily have to take strictly scientific forms. The multidimensional nature of truth implies the possibility of not only different interpretations, but also different ways of comprehending it. As V.I. Pronyakin, “... the removal of alternative initial settings is in the nature additionality, which ensures completeness descriptions of the subject; here, in fact, lies the heuristic effect of the interaction of science and metaphysics. It is known that a consistent cognitive system is incomplete; this means that in order to adequately describe reality, it is necessary to supplement it (the description) with some alternative material ... Outside of complementarity, any installation orients cognition towards the original foundations, which ultimately leads to the degradation of the system: after all, each of the parties, if it is “not provided” with the opposite, forced to complete the construction of the completeness "with their own means" .

From the principle of complementarity, in particular, it follows that, unlike classical, modern metaphysics (as well as modern science, unlike classical natural science) is forced to be in a situation of ontological openness, incompleteness, since its prerequisites and conceptual assumptions cannot be substantiated. with the strict necessity of herself. Moreover, under the identity of theory (description) and reality (described object) has not only instrumental, epistemological and concrete historical reasons. Here the main role is played by the ontological factor, which is associated with the difference between the possible and the actual, the idea and the result, the plan and the implementation, the idea and its implementation (such nominations imply the existence of an active creative principle, but even if this theological and metaphysical assumption is “bracketed”, the essence of the matter will change little from this, only nominatively it will be necessary to confine ourselves to the categories of “possible” and “actual”). In the process of implementing an idea (or, if you like, in the process of transition from the possible to the actual), one of the most critical factors is time, which, nevertheless, has always been excluded from the fundamental description of being, and this was done not only by physics (which was remarkably shown by I. Prigogine, designating such a cognitive situation as the "paradox of time"), but no less - metaphysics.

In essence, the idea of ​​the immutability and self-identity of being is an object of faith for metaphysicians. But this belief turns into superstition if, in order to preserve the traditional attitude, they have to “ignore” the scientific revolution taking place before their eyes, associated with the need to introduce the irreversibility of dissipative processes and the uniqueness of events into the fundamental description of the world. Such a position seems to me especially inadequate in view of the ontological shift taking place within the framework of the modern civilizational situation, which is expressed in the widespread and increase in its (time) influence to a previously unthinkable level both on the lives of individuals and on the life of all mankind. The more metaphysics will appeal to immutable essences, imperishable being and eternal values, the less reason it will have to hope for understanding from science, and the more “superfluous” it will be in modern society.

conclusions

The resolution of the paradox of time is one of the main tasks of post-non-classical metaphysics. To work on this topic, it will have to review many of its premises and assumptions, taking into account and critically evaluating existing scientific concepts, if necessary using their most productive elements. Interdisciplinarity is not a good wish and not a tribute to fashion, but necessary condition self-determination of modern metaphysics and finding its cognitive niche. Synergetics (in the Prigogine tradition, the theory of dissipative systems) can become one of the methodological foundations of such a synthesis, and, I believe, both sides will benefit from the use of its developments by metaphysics.

Of course, the strategies for resolving the “paradox of time” by metaphysics, which is interested in the first beginnings of being, and by science, which sets itself other goals, are essentially different. The first principles of being fundamentally cannot be “captured” in their quantification characteristics, if only because the ontological meaning of the variables and constants that could be represented in the corresponding formulas would not be defined. Let's say it would be absurd and ridiculous to try to express the essence of the spirit through a set of mathematical equations. This is not about bringing metaphysical and synergetic constructions to some kind of identity, but about the need to harmonize the relevant theories. This necessity is caused by the fact that the subject areas of metaphysics and science turn out to be adjacent and even intersect somewhere: metaphysics is interested in the first principles of being insofar as they make themselves felt through the manifested forms of being that fall into the field of view of science; the constructions of the latter will be unstable and abstract without an explicit expression of the accepted metaphysical tolerances. In my opinion, there is a vast field for cooperation here, both in the field of epistemology and in the field of worldview. Metaphysics should not replace science, should not serve it and should not compete with it; they should act in conjunction in solving the actual problems of our time.

Literature

1. Aristotle. Metaphysics: Per. from ancient Greek - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1999.
2. Can R.G., Dunn B.J. The boundaries of reality. The role of consciousness in the physical world: Per. from English. - M .: United Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995.
3. Evlampiev I.I. Non-classical metaphysics or the end of metaphysics? European Philosophy at the Crossroads // Questions of Philosophy. - 2003. - No. 5. - S. 159-172.
4. Zaichenko G.A. The necessity of metaphysics // Philosophical age. - St. Petersburg. - 1998. - Almanac 7. - S. 133-137.
5. Koret E. Fundamentals of metaphysics: Per. with him. - K .: Tandem, 1998.
6. Lossky N.O. Sensual, intellectual and mystical intuition. - M .: TEERA-Book Club, Republic, 1999. - P. 5.
7. Mamardashvili M.K. The inevitability of metaphysics // Mamardashvili M.K. The need for oneself / Lectures. Articles. Philosophical notes. - M.: Labyrinth, 1996. - S. 101-115.
8. Okorokov V.B. Metaphysics of the era of transcendental thinking: specificity, essence and development trends. - Dnepropetrovsk: DNU, 2000.
9. Pronyakin V.I. History of philosophy in a special world of philosophy // Philosophy. Culture. Life. – Dnipropetrovsk: Dnipropetrovsk State Financial Academy. - Vip. 26.
10. Pronyakin V.I. The subject and cognitive means of metaphysics. - Dnepropetrovsk: DGU, 1997.
11. Savelyeva I.M., Poletaev A.V. History and time. In search of the lost. - M., 1997.
12. Sobol O. Post-metaphysics - future philosophy // Philosophical and sociological thought. - 1993. - No. 11-12. - S. 46-60.
13. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary - M.: INFRA-M, 2002.
14. Shabanova Yu.A. Mysticism and Metaphysics: Difference of Paths, Unity of Purposes // Grani. - 2006 - No. 1. - S. 58-61.

This entry was posted in and tagged , .

Paradox (from Greek paradoxes - unexpected, strange)

unexpected, unusual (at least in form) judgment (statement, sentence), sharply at odds with the generally accepted, traditional opinion on this issue. In this sense, the epithet "paradoxical", i.e. non-standard, deviating from the most common tradition, is opposed to the epithet "orthodox", understood as a synonym for the word "tested", i.e. generally accepted, literally following the dominant tradition. Any P. looks like a denial of some opinion that seems "undoubtedly correct" (regardless of how true this impression is); the term "P." and arose in ancient philosophy to characterize a new, unusual, original opinion. Since it is much easier to perceive the originality of a statement than to verify its truth or falsity, paradoxical statements are often perceived as evidence of the independence, originality of the opinions they express, especially if they also have an outwardly effective, clear, aphoristic form.

Such a reputation can, of course, be well deserved - such philosophical and ethical generalizations, for example, have a paradoxical form, such as “Your views are hateful to me, but all my life I will fight for your right to defend them” (Voltaire) or “People are cruel, but the man is kind” (R. Tagore). But even regardless of the depth and truth of a particular statement, its paradox, especially when it comes to oral statements, attracts attention; therefore, the unexpectedness of the conclusions, the inconsistency with their “natural” train of thought is (along with the general logical sequence of presentation and the beauties of style) one of the essential attributes of oratory.

Often, however, there is a backlash; a phenomenon (or statement) that contradicts, at least outwardly, "common sense" is characterized as P., testifying in a certain sense to the "contradiction" of the corresponding phenomenon (or statement). Such, for example, was the "actor's P." noted for the first time by D. Diderot: an actor can evoke in the audience a complete illusion of the feelings he portrays, without experiencing anything himself. The “reverse side” of the same P. is played by O. Wilde: one of his heroines cannot play the role of Juliet precisely because she herself fell in love.

Both of these tendencies in the interpretation of P. are manifested in the effect of witty and unexpected endings of Anecdotes and, more generally, can underlie the comic (See Comic) as an aesthetic category. If, for example, T. Jefferson's statement "War is the same punishment for the winner as for the vanquished" is perceived by the modern reader as quite serious (and its "paradoxicality" consists only in the fact that it draws people's attention to something that is often calmly past pass), then the numerous statements of J. B. Shaw usually sound like frank parodies (for example: different tastes”) and O. Wilde (“Do not put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow”). P. to a large extent also underlie the poetics of proverbs (See Proverb) (“The slower you go, you will continue,” etc.) and a number of literary genres (for example, the famous fable “The Nobleman” by I. A. Krylov is built on P .: a fool-ruler goes to heaven... for laziness and idleness). P., as an artistic device, are widely used in children's "poetry of absurdities" (L. Carroll, E. Miley, E. Lear, K. I. Chukovsky).

Paradoxes in logic. Scientific understanding the term "P.", although it "grew" from the general colloquial, does not coincide with it. And since in science it is natural to consider truth as the “norm”, it is just as natural to characterize any deviation from the truth, that is, a lie, a contradiction, as a P. Therefore, in the logic of P. is understood as a synonym for the terms "antinomy", "contradiction": this is the name of any reasoning that proves both the truth of a statement and the truth of its negation. At the same time, it is precisely the correct (corresponding to accepted logical norms) inferences that are meant, and not reasoning in which errors occur - free (Sophisms) or involuntary (Paralogisms). Different meanings (and different clarifications) of the concept of Evidence correspond to different meanings (different levels) of the very concept of “P.”. At the same time, the analysis of any reasoning that has (or claims to) probative force shows that it is based on some (hidden or explicit) assumptions - specific to this reasoning or characteristic of the theory as a whole (in the latter case they are usually called the Axiom mi pli Postulate ami). Thus, the presence of a theory testifies to the incompatibility of these assumptions (and if we are talking about a theory constructed by means of the axiomatic method (see Axiomatic method), then it indicates the inconsistency of its system of axioms; see Consistency). However, the elimination of any assumption, even if it leads to the elimination of some particular P., does not guarantee the elimination of all P.; on the other hand, carelessly abandoning too many (or too strong) assumptions can result in a substantially weaker theory (see Completeness).

Any successful fulfillment of both of these conditions (consistency and completeness), in turn, presupposes a thorough identification of all the prerequisites implicitly accepted in the scientific theory under consideration, and then their explicit consideration and formulation. The implementation of these problems was at one time assigned to the axiomatic method, which found the most complete expression in the program for substantiating mathematics and logic proposed by D. Hilbert (see Metamathematics). Since the task of eliminating the P., discovered at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was considered first of all. in set theory, which lies at the foundation of almost all mathematics, the ways of its solution were seen in the creation of systems of axiomatic set theory suitable for a fairly complete construction of mathematical theories, and in the subsequent proof of the consistency of these systems. For example, in one of the most famous P. set theory - the so-called. paradox B. Russell a - we are talking about a set R all sets that are not their own elements. Such R is its own element if and only if it is not its own element. Therefore, the assumption that R is its own element, leads to the negation of this assumption, from which it follows (and even according to the rules of intuitionistic logic, i.e. without using the excluded third principle (See the excluded third principle)) that R is not its own element. But it already follows from this (by virtue of the previous phrase) that R is its own element, i.e. both contradictory assumptions turned out to be proven, and this is P.

In the systems of axiomatic set theory by E. Zermelo and Zermelo-Fraenkel, the question of a set R(whether it is its own element) is simply removed, because the axioms of these systems do not allow us to consider such R(it does not exist in these systems). In other systems (belonging to J. von Neumann, P. Bernays, K. Gödel (See Gödel)) such R can be considered, but this set of sets is declared (with the help of the corresponding restrictive axioms) not as a set, but only as a "class", i.e., it is declared in advance that R cannot be anyone's (including one's own) element, which again annuls Russell's question. Finally, in various modifications of types of theory (See Type Theory), coming from A. N. Whitehead (Great Britain) and B. Russell himself (for example, in the systems of W. O. Quipe, USA), it is allowed to consider any sets described meaningful linguistic expressions, and raise any questions about such sets, but the expressions themselves like “the set of all sets that are not their own elements” are declared meaningless due to the violation of certain agreements of a linguistic (syntactic) nature. In the aforementioned theories, other well-known set-theoretic paradoxes are eliminated in a similar way (for example, G. Kantor's paradox about the cardinality of the set of all subsets of the "set of all sets", which would inevitably have to be larger than itself, etc.).

However, none of the systems of axiomatic set theory fully solves the problem of eliminating paradigms, since Hilbert's program of substantiating mathematics turned out to be impracticable: by virtue of K. Gödel's theorem (1931), the consistency of sufficiently rich axiomatic theories (including the formal arithmetic of natural numbers and, all the more so, the axiomatic set theory), if it does, cannot be proved by methods alone acceptable from the point of view of the traditional Hilbert proof theory. In the framework of classical mathematics and logic, this limitation is overcome by attracting stronger (in in a certain sense constructive, but no longer “finite” in Hilbert’s sense) means of mathematical reasoning, with the help of which it was possible to obtain proofs of the consistency of formalized arithmetic (P. S. Novikov, German mathematicians G. Gentzen, V. Ackerman, K. Schütte, etc.) . The intuitionistic and constructive schools (see the Constructive trend in mathematics) do not consider it necessary to consider the problem of metaphysics at all: the “effective” methods of constructing mathematical theories they use lead in essence to completely new scientific systems, from which “metaphysical” methods of reasoning have been expelled from the very beginning. and the formation of concepts responsible for the emergence of P. in classical theories. Finally, within the framework of the ultra-intuitionistic program of substantiating mathematics, the solution of the problem of paradigm is achieved through a decisive revision of the very concept of mathematical proof, which made it possible, in particular, to obtain proofs of the consistency (in ultra-intuitionistic terms: “the unattainability of a contradiction”) of some systems of axiomatic set theory.

The P.'s discussed so far are often referred to as "logical" because they can be reformulated in purely logical terms. For example, Russell's paradox then looks like this. Let us call properties that are not self-related (“blue”, “stupid”, etc.) “impredicative”, in contrast to “predicative” properties that are self-related (for example, “abstract”). The property "impredicable" is impredicative if and only if it is predicative. However, some logicians (for example, the Soviet scientist D. A. Bochvar) rank among “proper logic” (“pure logic”) only a narrow predicate calculus (perhaps with equality), free from predicates (see Logic of predicates, Logic ). But, from Bochvar's point of view, paradigms arise already in set theory itself (to which the extended predicate calculus also belongs) due to the unlimited application of the so-called principle of contraction (or the principle of abstraction), which makes it possible to introduce into consideration sets of objects specified with the help of arbitrary properties of these objects (see Definition via abstraction). The elimination of P. is achieved here with the help of many-valued logic (See. Many-valued logic): paradoxical statements (such as Russell's, for example) are assigned a third (along with truth and falsehood), truth value: "meaninglessness."

Another important class of paradigms, which also arise when considering some concepts of set theory and multistage logic, is associated with the concepts of designation, naming, comprehension of truth (falsehood), etc.: these are the so-called semantic paradoxes. These include, for example, the Richard paradox - Berry (in one of the formulations of which we are talking about the phrase "the least natural number, which cannot be called by less than thirty-three syllables ”, defining - at least according to the usual ideas about “definability” - some natural number using thirty-two syllables), the oldest known P. is the so-called "liar", or " lying Cretan" (generated by the phrase "all Cretans are liars", attributed to the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, or simply by the phrase "I'm lying"), as well as Grelling's paradox: let's name adjectives that have the property they call (for example, "Russian" or "polysyllabic" ), non-heterological, and adjectives that do not have the corresponding property (“English”, “monosyllabic”, “yellow”, “cold”, etc.) are heterological; then the adjective "heterological" is heterological if and only if it is non-heterological. Since semantic paradigms are formulated not so much in logical-mathematical as in linguistic terms, their resolution was not considered essential for the foundations of logic and mathematics; however, there is a close connection between them and logical paradoxes: the latter refer to concepts, and the former to their names (compare Russell's and Grelling's paradoxes).

P., that is, conclusions from seemingly correct (at least generally accepted) initial principles that contradict experience (and, perhaps, intuition and common sense), are found not only in purely deductive sciences, but also, for example, in physics (Thus, "paradoxical", that is, contrary to the centuries-old scientific tradition, conclusions abound in the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics). The analysis of many such paradoxes (for example, photometric and gravitational paradoxes in physics and cosmogony; see Cosmological paradoxes), as well as in logic and mathematics, has played an important role for the corresponding scientific disciplines. In a broader sense, what has been said can generally be attributed to any refinement of scientific theories due to the fact that new experimental data conflict with principles that previously seemed to be reliably verified; such clarifications are an integral part of the general process of the development of science.

Lit.: Frenkel A. and Bar-Hillel I., Foundations of set theory, trans. from English, M., 1966, ch. 1 (detailed lit. available); Fraenkel A. A., Bar-Hillel J., Levy A., Foundations of set theory, 2 ed., Amst., 1973.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

Synonyms:

See what "Paradox" is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek paradoxos unexpected, strange) in a broad sense: a statement that is sharply at odds with the generally accepted, established opinion, the denial of what seems to be “undoubtedly correct”; in a narrower sense, two opposite statements, for ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (Greek paradoxos “contrary to common opinion”) an expression in which the conclusion does not coincide with the premise and does not follow from it, but, on the contrary, contradicts it, giving its unexpected and unusual interpretation (for example, “Be natural posture”, “I I believe... ... Literary Encyclopedia

A cat is like a cat, like a cat is a fact. We see a cat, and we know that what we see is a cat. The cat doesn't mind either. Those who wish can replace the cat with the number one (1) or the word "yes".

Second level code. The level of Aristotle's formal anti-logic, or the level of anti-fact that we mistake for fact. Suppose, from afar, we see a small beautiful dog, the same dachshund, and when we get closer to it, it turns out that this is not a dachshund at all, but a cat. Those who wish can designate a cat as an antifact with the number zero (0) or the word "no". It turns out, in such a way, that you and I mistook a cat for a dog, the number zero (0) was mistaken for the number one (1), and the word “yes” was mistaken for the word “no”. Therefore, if a cat is a fact, then a dog is an anti-fact. Or vice versa. Or if the number zero (0) or the word "yes" is a fact, then the number one (1) or the word "no" is an antifact, or vice versa. Antilogic is the realm of creative illusions of perception.

Third level code. The level of quantum, procedural logic, the logic of not a fact or antifact, but the logic of probability as a fact or antifact that has not taken shape to the end. This is the mystical form, or trans-form of the cat. The cat appears before us in it as a mystical cat-dog, or a transitional form from a cat to an anti-cat, or simply a dog. Or vice versa. From the point of view of spiritual physics, there are only two probabilistic transforms, and not one, as quantum physicists mistakenly believe, hence their mystical quantum “entanglement” and “blindness”.

The quantum logic of the process is located between the formal logic of the fact (cat, number one (1), the word "yes") and the formal logic of the antifact (dog, number zero (0), the word "no") and represents two interconnected mystical trans-forms - from a cat to a dog (cat-dog) and from a dog to a cat (peso-cat), or from the number one (1) to the number zero (0) - 10 (zero-one), and from the number zero (0) to the number one - 01 (one-zero).

Thus, it turns out not a confused conflict quantum algorithm “cat - cat-dog” or “peso-cat” - “dog”, where the dog and the cat are forced to fight forever for one “confused” mystical transformation of themselves, but a harmonious spiritual tetrad algorithm "cat" - "cat-dog" - "peso-cat" - "dog".

In spiritual physics, when a cat goes into trans-form “cat-dog”, the dog goes into trans-form “peso-cat”, and when a cat goes into trans-form “peso-cat”, the dog goes into trans form “cat-cat”. dog”, then they pass into each other and mutually annihilate, mutually annihilate, turning into a single divine animal.

And at the same time, they do not “get entangled” and do not conflict anywhere, because in this transition each of them occupies either only his own mystical niche, or the vacated, empty mystical niche of a neighbor, up to mutual annihilation into a single divine being. If, like quantum physicists, they are given only one mystical niche for two, then they will “stick” there, will forever divide it and always clash because of it. And they will never pass into each other harmoniously, only by force, and this is a temporary transition. For everything violent is rejected sooner or later.

Let's give an example of quantum antagonistic and spiritual harmonic algorithms with numbers and words.

A quantum algorithm with numbers looks like this: 0 (zero) - 01 (zero-one) or 10 (one-zero) - 1 (one).

This is a ternary, conflicting algorithm because of this “either”, because of the quantum uncertainty.

The spiritual algorithm with numbers looks like this: 0 (zero) - 01 (zero-one) - 10 (one-zero) - 1 (one).

There is no “either” here, everything is clear here.
Let me explain with an example the difference between quantum uncertainty (probability) and spiritual probability, probability-antiprobability, antiprobability.

Let's say we see something that looks like a cat. For a quantum physicist, it will be complete uncertainty and probability, like "maybe it's a cat."

But the quantum physicist excludes from his syllogism the anti-probability of the type "maybe this is not a cat at all."

For probability, in fact, is not alone, as quantum physicists believe, but always paired - it must always be considered either as a “probability-antiprobability” pair, or antiprobability must be considered as the opposite of probability, and probability, as the opposite of antiprobability.

Only a spiritual physicist can say that he sees something like a cat, but suggests that it may not be a cat at all. Here probability is combined with antiprobability. Indeed, from a distance it may seem to me that this is a cat, but in fact it is a small dog. He can also say that he does not understand what he sees at all (anticot). Then it will be pure antiprobability as the opposition of probability.

Under the word "I see not a cat" anything can fall. In spiritual physics, quantum uncertainty is always linked to the logic of a fact or antifact, and cannot be considered in isolation from them. It is simply a procedural extension of the formal logic of fact and antifact.

Suppose we tossed a coin, and it falls to the ground, but has not yet fallen either heads, or bars, or butts. The quantum physicist will say: this is uncertainty and confusion. But the coin always spins either heads, or tails, or butt. Therefore, we cannot separate probability from the formal logic of fact and antifact, it is simply their continuation, or they will like it.

Roughly speaking, either I see “something”, or I think I see “something”, but in fact I see something completely different, or I simply admit that I do not understand what I see at all. Quantum physicists, on the other hand, separate fact from anti-fact, probability from anti-probability, they do not give the observer the right to make a mistake. They prevent the observer from seeing antiprobability as another interpretation of probability. This is the dogmatism and limitation of quantum physics.

Quantum physicists say: "probably what I see in the distance is a cat." But they do not admit, like spiritual physicists, the anti-probability that what they took for a cat is likely not to be a cat, but a dog or a lion!

Thus, probability without antiprobability turns into a kind of mystical certainty and loses its character of probability. It becomes a mystical fact without an anti-fact. Thus, quantum logic, if it does not recognize probability-antiprobability and antiprobability as the opposite of probability, is the same rigid logic of Aristotle's fact, only transferred to the realm of mysticism, to the realm of mystical transitional forms.

This, in fact, is a "mystical tin", there is no other way to say it. It is mystical tin, without taking into account the possibility of mystical errors, without the right to antiprobability, that is akin to Marxist dogma, only in the field of mysticism.

To get out of this "confusing" situation, we need to apply the spiritual algorithm of the notebook.

It's very simple. Let's say we see something that looks like a cat. When we guess that it may be a cat, then this is a probability or probability-antiprobability, in case of an erroneous perception. If we cannot guess what it is at all, then it is antiprobability as opposed to probability.

The terms "probability-antiprobability" and simply "antiprobability" are introduced for the first time by spiritual physics, in quantum physics such terms are absent.

We can make a mistake in our interpretation of probability, and then it is a probability-antiprobability pair. If we just don't know what we see, without any assumptions, then it is "anti-probability" in its purest form as the opposite of "probability".

Roughly speaking, if I see something that looks like a cat, from the point of view of quantum physics, I see only a probability. But my interpretation of the probability may turn out to be false, for example, when I get closer, I see that it is a dog, not a cat. Then I actually saw not "probability", but a pair "probability (cat) - antiprobability (dog)". If I did not understand what I saw at all, I did not have any probabilistic assumptions about this, then I saw simply “anti-probability” in its purest form as the opposite of probability.

Just as an antifact is a distortion of fact, a pair of probability-antiprobability is a distortion of probability, and simply antiprobability is a complete ignorance of probability, when there are no assumptions about it, only surprise.

Spiritual physics, in contrast to quantum physics, allows the observer not only to make probabilistic errors, but it gives him the right, including simply not to know the reality that he sees, not to have any assumptions about this at all. Thus, it significantly expands the possibilities of the observer in comparison with quantum physics and also expands the very concept of reality, supplementing and expanding it.

Fourth level code. This is the level of goal-setting logic. The logic of goal-setting is the logic of influence, the logic of change, the logic of integrity, the logic of energy, and not the formal linear logic or the quantum logic of diversity. Here we can imagine our cat in the form of a structureless world energy egregor, a world force that, with the help of energy signals from this egregor, sets the goals for the development of both the linear material world and the procedural diverse spiritual, quantum world.

At the level of goal-setting logic, our cat acts as an integral world force that controls both material structures and spiritual, quantum processes through the development goals that it sets for these structures and processes in the form of its energy structureless, integral signals or "gestalts". These energy signals are then formed into various material, structural forms of displaying these signals, as well as into various spiritual trans-forms of spiritual interaction - the relationship between matter as a reflection and energy, energy egregor as an influence.

Imagine that an energy impulse suddenly arises from the void (cosmic energy egregor), and this force impulse first takes the spiritual form of a force impulse rather than a cat, then the spiritual form of a cat rather than a force impulse, then suddenly suddenly takes the material form of an ordinary cat Vaska who eats sour cream from a saucer.

So our cat as a world force took the form of an ordinary cat. At the same time, he can dematerialize at will, and again go into the state of the world energy egregore. Either materialize again from the energy egregor into the material form of an ordinary cat, or in general into any material form (a dog, a vase, a horse, whatever he wants).

But at the same time, that empty place where an ordinary cat has just been, understands everything and is aware of everything. And he can even say: "Meow."

Thus, under dematerialization, spiritual physics understands the transition from a manifested material individual form (individual), a material global form (diversity), as well as spiritual procedural energy-material or material-energy trans-forms of interaction-relationship into a structureless energy form of goal-setting, into a form world power. By materialization, spiritual physics understands the reverse process.

Fifth level code. This is the level of goal-setting logic integrated into formal and procedural logic. In this case, the reverse process also occurs - formal and procedural logics are also integrated into the logic of goal setting. These are countless completely self-managed forms of manifestation of both formless and shaped cat. Suppose we see an ordinary cat in front of us. But in fact, it is not just an ordinary material or spiritual cat, but also a world force that can itself set goals for its own development, and can itself transform itself into any material or quantum form. Therefore, do not be surprised if this "cat" after a while turns into a horse, and instead of "mur-meow" neighs like a foal.

Sixth level code. This is the level of the metalogical root cause of logic, the logic of pure unconsciousness or the logic of pure awareness. Here the cat does not even have a structureless energy form, and not only material forms or spiritual quantum, processual trans-forms. This is a formless and boundless cat as the primary source of himself as a world force, himself as a world reflection of this force (matter) and himself as a relationship-interaction between force and matter, himself as spiritual, energy-material and material-energy trans-forms . Our cat as the root cause generates from itself a cat-goal, a cat-process and a cat-result, where the cat-goal as a cat-force controls the cat-result as a reflection of this force through the spiritual process of mutual transition of force into reflection and reflection into force as an instrument such purposeful management. The cat as the root cause controls the cat as a goal, the cat as a goal controls the cat as a process, the cat as a process controls the cat as the result of such a process. It turns out such a completely self-managed cat.

Suppose at first we don’t see any cat at all, only emptiness, and we don’t feel any force impact on ourselves from this emptiness at all. This cat is the root cause. The cat-first cause is in complete peace in all things, and watches him. This cat abides, including in us, but we do not feel it. Then we suddenly feel how we suddenly wanted to take a bowl, pour sour cream into it and put it on the floor. It is from the cat-original cause that the cat-goal arises, the cat, as a control energy impulse that we perceived. We run to the kitchen, take a bowl, open the refrigerator, take sour cream from there and pour it into a bowl. When we run and do all the manipulations with the bowl, we act as a process cat, which is necessary to achieve the target cat and is a form of target cat manifestation, controlled by the target cat.

So the cat-goal controls the cat-process of realizing this goal, because we don’t even understand that there is no “we”, but only a cat. And suddenly, unexpectedly, an ordinary cat Vaska materializes from the void, who begins to slurp with pleasure that sour cream, and from the bowl that we set for him. In this case, we are already communicating with the cat-result of the process, as a structural form of manifestation of the controlled cat-process.

The seventh level of the code. This is the level of the unlimited potency of the cat. In the process of cosmic development, somewhere in a billion years, our cat will become a god. In the meantime, God is only his potential for cosmic development, embedded somewhere deep in his feline soul. But the time will come when the cosmic cat will dictate to the new cosmic prophets new cosmic scriptures. Naturally, with his cat's irony and a slight smirk at the vanity of this world.

The eighth level of the code. This is our cat in a state of perfect love as an equal and harmonious interaction in dynamics and interconnection in statics of all its seven code levels listed below. At this level, there is no longer a division of the integral manifold cat into the root cause cat, the goal cat, the process cat, and the result cat. Here, not only the cat-cause controls the cat-goal, the cat-process and the cat-result, but the cat-goal, the cat-process, and the cat-result also control the cat-cause on an equal footing, thanks to their initiation into this root cause. It turns out such an integral mutually controlled and mutually developing super-cat. Imagine a kind of super-cat that connects not only galaxies, but also all lovers around the world, leading them by the hands to the altar. This is the eighth and final level of the reality of spiritual metaphysics.

All these levels of codes refer to the process of cosmic development. At first, this process goes on unconsciously. The conscious potency of the unconscious as the potency of the root cause organizes it first as the root cause (the logic of the conscious potency of the root cause sets the logic of the unconscious root cause), then the conscious root cause organizes the goal (the logic of the root cause sets the logic of goal setting), then the conscious goal organizes the process (the logic of goal setting sets the logic of the process, spiritual or quantum logic), then the logic of the process organizes the result (the logic of the process sets the formal logic).

Then the development process goes in the opposite direction - the logic of the result is aware of itself as the logic of the process, the logic of the process - as the logic of the goal, the logic of the goal - as the logic of the root cause, the logic of the root cause is aware of its infinite potential for development, and organizes itself as this potential for development, and then the logic of the potential development is aware of itself as everything that exists in this infinite potential for mutual development, is aware of the relationship and interaction between all logics as the highest, eighth level of the code or perfect love.

This is where the process of cosmic development ends and the process of cosmic self-development begins through the process of mutual development of all its logics of development.