Карасев Александр Владимирович : другие произведения.

Against Epicurus

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
Школа кожевенного мастерства: сумки, ремни своими руками
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    Science considers it an absolutely proven truth that the world consists of elementary particles. However, in fact, it has only been proven that some minimal portions in the form of elementary particles can be pinched off from any object. It will be possible to assert that all objects really consist of particles only when these objects are synthesized in practice. However, so far such a synthesis has been carried out only for the most primitive objects. For more complex ones (and as the crown of creation - for the human person), there are only speculative assumptions about the possibility of such a synthesis.
  Against Epicurus
  A. V. KARASEV
   Science considers it an absolutely proven truth that the world consists of elementary particles. However, in fact, it has only been proven that some minimal portions in the form of elementary particles can be pinched off from any object. It will be possible to assert that all objects really consist of particles only when these objects are synthesized in practice. However, so far such a synthesis has been carried out only for the most primitive objects. For more complex ones (and as the crown of creation - for the human person), there are only speculative assumptions about the possibility of such a synthesis.
   Thus, the atomistic teaching is just a hypothesis that was introduced by Epicurus to substantiate his ethics of atheism and nihilism. Thanks to this substantiation, Epicurus' worldview took possession of the masses and became a material force. It is possible to resist this force only on the basis of an alternative description of the observed physical phenomena, which should initially abandon atomistic terminology.
  Such a description is possible, for example, in neural terminology, where physical processes occur in a three-address neural layer corresponding to our three-dimensional space. This opens up the possibility of suggesting the existence of other neural layers that do not manifest themselves at the physical level, but ensure the development of the individual and society.
  
  Here is Epicurus, who glorified debauchery
  Dante
  
  Atomism is the alpha and omega of modern science, at the same time its foundation and peak, as expressed in the famous statement of Feynman:
   "If, as a result of some world catastrophe, all the accumulated scientific knowledge would be destroyed, and only one phrase would pass to future generations of living beings, then which statement, composed of the smallest number of words, would bring the most information? I believe that this is an atomic hypothesis: all bodies are made of atoms - small bodies that are in continuous motion, attract at short distances, but repel if one of them is pressed more tightly against the other. This one phrase contains an incredible amount of information about the world, you just have to apply a little imagination and a little consideration to it "
  Everyone calls these words wonderful [1]. But perhaps the most wonderful word here is hypothesis. Truly, one must be a Feynman to emphasize this, because modern science has long considered atomism as an unshakable scientific truth. This is expressed very clearly and frankly in [2].
  "We really will never be able to" fully explain "the human psyche only with the help of laws operating at a lower level - for example, at the level of individual neurons. The properties of the brain cannot be reduced to the sum of the properties of nerve cells. You also need to know how these cells are among themselves are related to how they interact with each other and with the environment.If we know this exactly and in all details, we can really explain the psyche and even simulate it on a computer, creating artificial intelligence (although a computer for this, it seems, many orders of magnitude more powerful than the current ones).
  But taking into account all connections and interactions is precisely the transition to considering the phenomenon at a higher "level of organization". There is no reductionism here, but there is only the usual, classical natural science approach.
   In the same way, it is not reductionism to say that a living cell consists of molecules, and a molecule consists of atoms. Of course, if we simply write down in a column all the substances (types of molecules) present in the cell, and for each indicate its amount, we will not understand the work of the cell. The properties of a cell are not limited to the sum of the properties of its molecules. But if we also take into account the spatial distribution of these molecules and all their interactions with each other and with the external environment, all their mutual influences and transformations, then we will thus move to a higher level and get an adequate model of the cell as an integral living system. Only in this way, combining analysis and synthesis, can we understand the nature of things. "
  That is, the transition to a higher level of description of the system is possible only as an increase in the accuracy of the description of its constituent particles - in all details. Indeed, within the framework of the atomic hypothesis, nothing else can be assumed. It is only important not to forget that all this is just a hypothesis, albeit the most valuable and fruitful one. And it is also very important to remember where and for what purpose this hypothesis was introduced into science in order to understand its side effects in the field of ethics.
  It is well known that atomism (as well as almost all scientific trends) was invented by the ancient Greeks. Schrödinger [3] highly regarded Democritus. He does not really respect Epicurus, and some of his statements are directly called nonsense. I dare not, of course, argue with the creator of quantum mechanics, however, armed at one time with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, I dare to clarify that it was in the formulation of Epicurus that the atomistic doctrine took possession of the masses and, consequently, became a material force. Without Epicurus, no atomism in Ancient Greece would even have survived. All the texts of Leucippus and Democritus survived only thanks to Epicurus and his school - they were respected there, but only as sources and as components of the truly great teaching of Epicurus. At the same time, however, the very existence of Leucippus was questioned by Epicurus. And the direct continuity of the worldview of Democritus and was categorically denied. But if it were not for Epicurus, Plato and subsequent academicians bought up and destroyed all the scrolls of Democritus, and even more so no one would have remembered Leucippus. This must be remembered not so much for history as in order to clearly understand that atomism has become firmly established, not at all thanks to high scientific ideas, but only because Epicurus built his ethics on this foundation - as the main goal of teaching. For Epicurus, atomism is only a means of persuading and attracting supporters of the final ethical conclusions. Say, you can't argue with science - since the whole world is so arranged, it remains only to accept the ethics of Epicurus as the only possible one. At first glance, this ethics is simple - the world consists only of atoms and emptiness, there is nothing else. There is no god. There is no sky, but there is one atmosphere. So everything is allowed. It remains only to enjoy the pleasures available, if possible, and to accept death proudly and calmly, like a god. However, to substantiate this ethics, Epicurus wrote mountains of books - and in quantity of his books he surpassed everyone. His teachings captured significant masses of the people from all walks of life (though, fortunately, not the majority) and became a rather powerful material force. Epicurus's school in his garden in Athens maintained a direct lineage for more than eight centuries. Epicurus's teachings spread throughout the world through all eras [4].
  What Schrödinger considers nonsense is in fact is a ingeniously in its simplicity, a breakthrough from the endless whirlwind of fruitless thoughts to the desired ethical conclusions. Epicurus decisively cut the Gordian knot, claiming as something simple and uncomplicated:
   1. Our soul, just like the whole world, consists of atoms, the movement of which determines our mind and feelings.
   2. Our senses do not deceive us, the world is cognizable and exactly is as we see it.
  In addition, Epicurus threw away some of the overly pompous mental constructions of Democritus, embarrassing his disciples - he was ready to consider atoms as infinitely divisible worlds and the whole world was ready to be considered as a single atom. All this only interfered with Epicurus's main goal - the substantiation of ethics as the pinnacle of an integral and harmonious system of worldview.
   Therefore, atomism came in the era of New Time precisely thanks to the works of Epicurus [3]. Ethics of Epicurus in New Time is not very popular, rather marginal, more characteristic of the decaying aristocracy. The young bourgeoisie affirms the dominance of a Puritan ethic, which fundamentally contradicts Epicurus. But in a strange and still unexplained way, this does not prevent the unconditional recognition of atomism. Suddenly, it turned out to be possible to fully describe the motion of atoms in a vacuum based only on the characteristics of this motion - momenta and coordinates. Plato and Aristotle did not allow such a possibility. The most offensive thing is that, in principle, they were right, but Planck's constant turned out to be too small. Therefore, the conviction took root that nothing but atoms and emptiness exists, and other hypotheses were not needed. The mechanical level of describing reality seemed to be logically closed and completely self-sufficient. The mechanical description of the human person was considered a matter of the near future.
  Mechanism, determinism and atheism develop on the basis of classical mechanics. And here's another oddity. It would seem that the most superficial acquaintance with the foundations of Byzantine theology is enough to understand that an arbitrarily accurate description of mechanical phenomena can in no way serve as a scientific basis for materialism and atheism. But at that time theology was deeply studied in all universities. And suddenly in this environment the doctrine of materialism is accepted. Of the most coarse, primitive materialism - not even dialectical!
  No, whatever you say, but not without evil spirits!
  But that's not all. In antiquity, the insurmountable problem of atomism was the lack of free will, which the ancient sages considered one of the indisputable truths. Free will was also one of the pillars of Epicurus' ethics. Without this freedom, the description of the human person was considered absolutely impossible. And suddenly, in New Time, the most rigid version of absolute determinism is accepted with inexplicable enthusiasm.
  But Greek philosophy was studied as deeply as theology. But right up to the development of quantum mechanics, European scientists with truly sadistic stubbornness described a person as a biorobot with a uniquely predetermined behavior, But even today the quantum level of physics seems to be some kind of theoretical excess. Indeed, all biomolecules are fairly large objects; if quantum effects manifest themselves in bioprocesses, then precisely as classically probabilistic processes, without interference. Genuine free will does not smell here, but no one needs it anymore. If the atomic hypothesis contradicts free will, so much the worse for this freedom [2]:
  "Modern physics asserts that there is no strict determinism at the quantum level: some processes in the microworld are absolutely random. But randomness is no better approximation to the ideal of freedom than strict determinism. We were biorobots with uniquely predetermined behavior, we became biorobots with a built-in generator of random Even if our behavior is determined not only by strict sequences of cause and effect, but partly also by chance, this does not add freedom to us. And if we imagine that the built-in random number generator is actually controlled by some supernatural entity, then again we get determinism - a chain of reasons that runs deep into this entity, whatever it may be."
  Epicurus himself, of course, would never agree with such an interpretation, but this no longer worries anyone. After all, he taught that a person is not limited by anything in his freedom. And so, since the Enlightenment, science absolutely freely denies the idea of free will and no authority - not even Epicurus - can limit it in this denial.
  As a result, the atomistic worldview completely dominates modern science. And let it just dominate - after all, this is really the most valuable and fruitful scientific hypothesis - who will argue with Feynman! But at the same time, a very harmful side effect arises, which first alarmed Plato long before Epicurus - even in the version of atomism of Democritus. It was not for nothing that Plato destroyed the works of Democritus, and even his name was never mentioned anywhere. This effect is that modern atomism, just like in antiquity, brings an unshakable scientific foundation under Epicurus' ethics, and declares all other ethical values to be prejudices, at best, adaptations that have arisen in the process of adaptation and evolution [2].
  Of course, all this is not so scary - only those who are initially predisposed to this become Epicureans. Epicurus only gives them a kind of scientific justification for their way of life. The overwhelming majority of scientists who are sincerely convinced that there is no alternative to atomism are hardly conscious epicureans. A person who feels duty and responsibility will not be knocked out of this feeling by any atomistic teachings. This contradiction between theory and practice was especially amusing in Soviet civilization. It arose on the basis of the highest spiritual impulse that gripped the best people of Russia, sacrificing everything (and often a privileged position) for the sake of the kingdom of future justice. And, at the same time, the theoretical scientific basis of Soviet civilization was the most rigorous materialistic doctrine, which fundamentally denied the very concept of spirituality. It would seem that only epicurean views can be developed on this basis - it is not for nothing that Marx and Engels highly valued Epicurus. But in fact, the Soviet people left both in labor and in battle unparalleled massive feats of spirit, before which the deeds of Plutarch's heroes pale in color.
  And the attitude of the Soviet people to religion turned the story of the Apostle Thomas. He believed only when he saw and felt. On the contrary, we knew for sure that there was no God and could not be. We knew with all scientific rigor and accuracy that this was opium for the people, the lot of illiterate backward old women. We knew that atomism was not invented by Lenin and not even by Stalin - it is the pinnacle of all the riches that humanity has developed. We knew that Gagarin flew - he did not see God (If he had declared that he had seen God! That would be the greate problem of theology!). We knew all this precisely and strictly. And despite this knowledge, we believed! In spite of everything. Because Faith is higher than knowledge. Everyone who remembers that time will agree with me in their hearts. Of course, our faith is weak and wretched, but this is a somewhat different question.
  So, the material power of Epicurus's ideas acts strictly selectively, only as a justification for their potential apologists. Maybe leave them alone? Let them be comforted and justified. But in consoling and justifying themselves, they clearly go beyond all boundaries, asserting their worldview as the only scientific one, while declaring others to be ignorant, backward, or even simply mentally abnormal. Let us recall the not fatal, but still rather annoying feeling expressed by Mitya Karamazov after getting acquainted with the works of Claude Bernard - But all the same, I feel sorry for God!
  It is really a resentment - why Epicurus' worldview is considered scientific, but ours is not. Why did the ancient science (Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero) not accept atomism, and in New Time it was even forgiven for the complete absence of free will? And most importantly, is it possible to build such a (also scientific!) Worldview that, on the one hand, will correspond to all the observed facts in the world of atomic physics, and on the other, it will clearly show that these facts are only the simplest manifestations of the world, and that their observation and the description does not mean the absence of other, higher manifestations. Will we be able to use a little imagination and a little consideration?
  For example, in chess programs, there is the lowest level when any available move is chosen with equal probability. Imagine a researcher of this program who is absolutely unable to play - he will quickly determine the set of available moves. The rules of the game are the same at all levels. Research in our physics can be compared to research at the lowest level of this program. Indeed, in physical experiments everything that can cause complications is deliberately simplified. For example a fly flew into the device - drive it out! What remains? Only the most elementary particles, the simplest processes. And so such a chess physicist deliberately investigates the lowest level of the program and discovers the principle of uncertainty - each move is equally likely to be selected from the spectrum, which he may even call the wave function. These studies will be scientific and useful in practice. But let us further imagine that our chess physicist declares that the laws he discovered are absolute not only for all levels of the given program, but for all chess games in general - only for grandmasters it is difficult to calculate the wave function. But these difficulties are temporary and will undoubtedly be resolved in the future. Indeed, after all, the observed moves from grandmasters and novices are exactly the same! And the one who allows himself to doubt the absolute power of science is simply ignorant, or even worse. This is the case with the modern scientific worldview.
  To confront Epicurus, it is necessary first of all to change the terminology of modern physics. Once we have adopted the terms - atoms and emptiness - everything, further resistance is useless. You can endow these atoms with hidden parameters, or quantum properties - all this will again lead to Epicurus.
  I also emphasize that it is necessary to resist Epicurus at the physical level. Epicurus is genius first of all in that he built his teaching on a physical foundation, from which he cannot be moved by any of the highest considerations about holism and reductionism, about biospheres and noospheres. Simple but compelling questions immediately arise - where are these spheres physically located? Attempts to represent the biofield in the image and likeness of physical fields and particles are simply ridiculous. As a result, atomism is considered as the only possible implementation of the principle of causality and the scientific method as such [2].
  At one time, Poincaré suggested that physics be based on the properties of the observer, defining them so that the reality accessible to him in sensations would fully correspond to our reality [5]. The most important thing is for this observer at the physical level to have by themselves the illusions of atoms and emptiness. It seems to me that a quantum neural network can become a model of such an observer [6]. It seems that the internal observer of such a network will be able to construct the concepts of time and space in which elementary events described by a complex number wave function are observed [7]. That it will be convenient for independent internal observers to compare their observations based on the theory of relativity [8].
  At the same time, it becomes obvious that the concepts of atoms and emptiness are effective only at the physical level, that is, at the lowest, most primitive. For the physical layer, a three-address quantum neural layer is quite sufficient, in which the internal observer of the network perceives events as occurring in three-dimensional space [7]. At the same time, it becomes obvious that in this neural network there is no obstacle for the existence of more developed processes in the higher neural layers - to the extent that some phenomena are not fundamentally described by algorithms. These will be phenomena of a really high level - not of the highest accuracy and detail in the description of atomic interactions, but of a fundamentally different nature, different, non-physical addressing, non-physical algorithms. These higher manifestations can be interpreted as processes in the biosphere and noosphere [9]. And the observed neurons of the nervous system are only a reflection, only a three-dimensional classical projection of the higher neural layers, just as the observed movement of particles is only a classical projection of the processes occurring in the quantum neural layer.
  With this in mind, one can (with God's help!) dare to correct even Feynman about the most valuable saying:
  1. The Universe consists of neuron tissue, in which internal observers arise and develop, perceiving the world available to them at the physical level, as if consisting of atoms and emptiness.
  
  2. Accurate description and prediction of physical processes cannot, generally speaking, extend to the highest manifestations of the animal world, and even more so the human personality.
  
  In conclusion, one more amusing consideration. In Ancient Greece there were famous academies and lyceums, They were respected and feared, they influenced the powerful and rich of this world, from whom they received huge grants. They hardly even noticed homeless and marginalized people who studied for copper money, who gathered in an abandoned garden, in a colorful portico or on dog playground [4].
   But today we are unlikely to say about anyone - this is a follower of Plato, Aristotle, or Pythagoras. Their heritage is interesting only to narrow specialists. And at the same time, the words are absolutely clear to us - he is a stoic, cynic, epicurean. Because these teachings were created not for scholasticism, not for personal ambitions, not for the authorities, but for the people - both in good and in bad. These teachings have remained alive and understandable to people to this day and in the future.
   Literature
  1. Every book says about it!
  2. Markov A.V. Human evolution
  3. Schrödinger E. Nature and the Greeks
  4. Goncharova T.V. Epicurus.
  5. Poincare A. About Science
  6. Karasev A. V. Neural picture of the world. Bulletin of new medical technologies. 2002.vol. 9.N 2.http: //samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/nkmfs.shtml
  7. Karasev A.V. Three-dimensional space and electron spin in neural terminology. Quantum Magic, 2011, volume 8, issue. 2.
   Schrödinger's equation in the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/us_nkm_en.shtml
  8. Karasev A.V. The EPR paradox in the neural terminology of quantum mechanics. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/eprfs.shtml
  9. Karasev A.V. Justification of vitalism in the neural terminology of quantum mechanics. Quantum Magic, 2012, volume 9, issue. one.
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список

Кожевенное мастерство | Сайт "Художники" | Доска об'явлений "Книги"