home Perennial flowers

Does objective reality exist? Reality is objective and subjective. Matter as objective reality Give the concept of objective reality

For the last few thousand years, man has constantly tried to comprehend the surrounding Cosmos. Various models of the Universe and ideas about man’s place in it were created. Gradually, these ideas formed into the so-called scientific theory of the Universe.

This theory was finally formed in the mid-twentieth century. The basis of the current theory of the Big Bang was Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. All other theories of reality, in principle, are only special cases of this theory, and therefore, not only the correctness of man’s ideas about the Universe, but also the future of civilization itself depends on how the theory of the Universe reflects the true state of affairs. Based on human-created ideas about the surrounding nature, technologies, instruments and machines are created. And the way they are created determines whether earthly civilization will exist or not.

If these ideas are not correct or accurate, this can turn into a disaster and the death of not only civilization, but also life itself on the beautiful planet that we, human beings, call Earth. And thus, from purely theoretical concepts, ideas about the nature of the Universe move into the category of concepts on which the future of civilization and the future of life on our planet depend. Therefore, what these ideas will be should concern not only philosophers and natural scientists, but also every living person. Thus, ideas about the nature of the Universe, if they are correct, can become the key to the unprecedented progress of civilization and, if they are not correct, lead to the death of both civilization and life on Earth. Correct ideas about the nature of the Universe will be creative, and erroneous ones will be destructive.

In other words, ideas about the nature of the Universe can become a weapon of mass destruction, compared to which a nuclear bomb is a child's toy. And this is not a metaphor, but the very truth. And this truth does not depend on whether someone accepts it or not, but, like any true position, does not depend on the subjectivity of the person who perceives it, just as, for example, solar activity does not depend on whether a person understands its nature correctly or not. For the Sun, it does not matter at all what ideas a person has about the nature of solar activity. How close these ideas are to true phenomena matters only to the person himself. And it seems to me that most people who call themselves scientists have forgotten this simple truth and are carried away by creating theories that largely serve their personal ambitions, rather than serving to understand the truth, which anyone who has devoted himself to science should strive for. Everything said above is not fiction or verbiage, but, unfortunately, a fact. And this fact is not hidden in abstruse formulas and definitions that are incomprehensible to the majority, but only to a narrow circle of “specialists.” This fact is understandable to every living person, regardless of whether that person has an education or not, or knows how to read or not. Moreover, it is not only understandable, but, to a greater or lesser extent, already has a direct impact on every living person.

False, erroneous ideas about the nature of the Universe have become the cause of the environmental disaster towards which earthly civilization is so confidently moving. There is so much evidence of this that anyone who has a desire to see it cannot even have doubts about what is happening. Everything suggests that the technocratic path of development followed by modern civilization leads to the self-destruction of earthly civilization.

Modern science has accumulated a huge number of observations of what is happening in the world around us, in the so-called middle world in which man lives. The middle world is located between the macrocosm and the microcosm, at the level of which the laws of Nature exist. In our middle world, a person can only observe manifestations of the true laws of nature.

What a person is able to perceive through his five senses is just the tip of the iceberg that rises above the water. And everything else is that thing in itself, the unknowable, which Immanuel Kant wrote about in his works. And such an understanding will be inevitable due to the fact that using the five senses it is impossible to create a correct picture of the universe. And for one simple reason - human senses were formed as a result of adaptation to the conditions of existence in the ecological niche that man occupies as one of the species of living nature. These human senses allow him to perfectly adapt to this ecological niche, but nothing more. The senses are designed for the middle world and not for anything else.

Man has created many different devices that seem to have allowed him to penetrate the microcosm and macrocosm. It would seem that the problem has been solved: through the created devices, man was able to penetrate the micro- and macroworld. But there are several small “buts”. And the main one is that man, with the help of these devices, only expanded the capabilities of his senses into these worlds, but did nothing with the senses themselves. In other words, the limitations of the senses were transferred to the level of the micro- and macroworld. Just as it is impossible to see the beauty of a flower with your ears, it is also impossible to penetrate into the micro- and macroworld through the five senses. What a person received with the help of such devices does not allow one to penetrate into the “thing in itself,” but, for all that, it allows one to see the fallacy of ideas about the nature of the Universe created by man through the five senses. It was precisely because of the limited tools of human cognition that a distorted, false picture of the universe arose and began to form. Observing only partial manifestations of the laws of nature, man was forced to take the wrong path of understanding the nature of the Universe.

At the beginning of the creation of the modern concept of nature, man was forced to introduce postulates - assumptions accepted without any explanation. In principle, every postulate is God, since the Lord God was also accepted by man without any proof. And if at the initial stage the acceptance of the postulates was justified, then at the final stage of creating a picture of the universe it is simply no longer acceptable. With the correct development of human ideas about the nature of the Universe, the number of accepted postulates should gradually decrease until there remains one, maximum two postulates that do not require explanation, due to their obviousness. What, for example, is the postulate of the objective reality of matter, which is given to us in our sensations.

Of course, through his senses, a person is not able to perceive all forms and types of matter. A person is not able to perceive a whole series of radiations that have a very real effect on physically dense matter through his senses, however, this does not mean that these forms of matter are not real. For example, most people are unable to perceive through their senses 99% spectrum of electromagnetic oscillations, which are quite well known thanks to the created devices. And what can we say about what existing devices are not able to detect?! One way or another, a person strives to understand the world around him, and this knowledge, unfortunately, cannot happen instantly. Knowledge comes through trial and error, when erroneous ideas became the property of history, and they were replaced by new ideas, which over time can also add to the list of unsuccessful attempts. But every theory rejected by practice is inherently positive, since it tells everyone who seeks the truth where not to go in search of it.

A sign of the right direction in the knowledge of truth is a very simple factor - as grains of knowledge are collected, the number of postulates in theories should decrease. If this happens, everything is fine. But, if this does not happen, and the number of postulates does not decrease, but increases, this is the surest sign of moving away from understanding the true picture of the universe. And this is dangerous for the future of civilization, because it inevitably leads to its self-destruction. In modern science about the nature of the Universe, there are many times more postulates than there were, for example, in the 19th century. And the number of postulates continues to grow like a snowball. Everyone is so accustomed to them that they do not pay attention to the presence of postulates in almost every so-called scientific statement.

The simplest questions baffle famous scientists. When asked what electric current is, the academic physicist gives a definition known to every schoolchild: “ electric current is the directional movement of electrons from plus to minus" Everyone is so accustomed to such “inferences” that no one even thinks about the words spoken - not even academicians, who, by definition, should be the most knowledgeable in their disciplines. From the above definition, only the concept of directed movement does not require explanation, i.e. movement in a given direction. To the questions “what is an electron,” “what is a plus,” and “what is a minus,” and “why do electrons move from plus to minus,” one answer was received: “only God knows that.” And this is the answer of a man who has a worldwide reputation in physics! In the simplest definition of a phenomenon familiar to every child today, four concepts are accepted without understanding or explanation. Four postulates in one definition, which is presented as a law of nature! And this is not the limit. Almost all the so-called immutable laws of nature into which humanity has penetrated are statements of this kind.

It turns out to be a funny situation - if someone managed to find a word that can be used to designate a natural phenomenon, it is considered that the problem has been solved, and a new scientific discovery has occurred. A form is created that does not carry content, and thus a contradiction arises between form and content. One of the most striking examples of such a contradiction between form and content is the concept of “dark matter” ( Dark matter).

Astrophysicists studying the movement of celestial bodies have discovered a curious phenomenon. In order for celestial bodies - planets, stars and galaxies - to move in their current orbits, according to the laws of celestial mechanics, the mass of matter must be in ten times more. In other words, the matter known to modern science is only ten percent the mass of matter that should exist for celestial bodies to move in the orbits in which they move in the starry sky.

Only TEN PERCENT!

Galaxies, stars and planets - very real, material objects of space - move along trajectories, for movement along which the matter of the Universe must be in ten times more! But, according to the concepts of modern science, what is matter is only ten percent of how much matter there should actually be. It turns out not just a “gap”, but a real absurdity. Material objects move along trajectories that simply cannot exist for them. But facts are stubborn things; they can be silenced, but you cannot get rid of them.

To get out of yet another contradiction, and a very significant one in both the literal and figurative sense, a “simple” solution was found: ninety percent of matter that no one can “touch with their hands” and perceive, both with the help of the five senses and with the help of devices created by man, “agreed” to call « dark matter» (dark matter), and everyone immediately calmed down. Ten percent of “ordinary” matter, plus ninety percent of “dark matter,” together give the desired one hundred percent of the mass of matter that had to be there for real galaxies, stars and planets to move along the trajectories along which they have already been moving for billions of years. Isn’t it a “beautiful” solution to the contradiction that has arisen? The only question that arises is: who will feel better and better off from such a “solution”!? But even in this case, modern science admits its complete helplessness. Such a statement confirms that modern science is not science in principle, since scientists themselves admit that they know (and even then, not everything) only about ten percent of the matter that exists in the Universe. Incomplete knowledge about ten percent of the matter of the Universe does not give them any right to demand recognition of their hypotheses and theories as a scientific understanding of the nature of the Universe and to act as accusers and experts in the criticism of other theories, even if these theories do not correspond to the truth.

Modern science is no different from religion. Since every postulate accepted without any proof is still the same Lord God, who is also accepted without any proof. From a logical point of view, religion has a clear advantage over modern science, since only the Lord God is accepted without proof, as a matter of course, and everything else is created by the Lord God. A logically flawless system, with one unknown - the Lord God, only this flawless logical system has one “small” flaw. Without postulating the Lord God, this system turns into nonsense. Beginning with the postulation of the Lord God, the logical construction ends with the Lord God. The logical chain of religion returns to its beginning. A vicious circle arises, the serpent of religion “bites” its own “tail”. A religion built on the postulate of the Lord God is evolutionarily dead from the very beginning.

Modern science is logically far from ideal, although, unlike religion, it seems to be based on real natural manifestations. But, due to the fact that modern science deals only with the manifestation of the laws of nature in the middle world, with the processes occurring between the macro- and microworld, it (science) acts as an outside observer. And everything would be fine if, from observing what is happening inside and around us, scientists did not attempt to explain the observed real natural phenomena. Such attempts led to the adoption of postulates - concepts and ideas accepted without any evidence. And this would not be a problem if, as ideas about the nature of the Universe evolved, the number of postulates would gradually decrease until only one postulate remained, the obviousness of which would not raise any doubts in anyone. And such an obvious postulate is the concept of matter as an objective reality, given in our sensations. And, the more developed our sense organs are, and the greater the number of sense organs a person has during his evolutionary development, the more complete and objective the picture of the universe created by man will be.

But, unfortunately, with the development of science, the number of postulates did not decrease, but, on the contrary, increased, and at the present stage, modern science has hundreds of postulates. At the same time, to explain one postulate, others are introduced, to explain which, in turn, new ones are introduced, and so on ad infinitum. And thus, each postulate turns into the Lord God. Religion, to explain all things, refers to the Creator - the Lord God, while the scientific explanation of all things is built on postulates, which, in essence, are mini-Gods from science. In both cases, logically flawed false systems of ideas about the nature of the Universe are obtained. In the case of religion, the Lord God is “located” at the top of the logical system, and in the case of modern science - at the foundation of the logical system. But, depending on where the Lord God is located, nothing changes, only in one case, the logical system of ideas is called religion, and in the other - science. In one case - monotheism, and in the other - polytheism (postulates).

Moreover, serious problems in modern science are observed not only at the macro level, but also at the micro level. During experiments on the synthesis of elementary particles, nuclear physicists encountered a phenomenon that, in principle, puts an end to all modern physics. When a new particle is synthesized, its mass must be less than or equal to the total mass of the particles that created it. This is what the cornerstone law of modern physics says—the law of conservation of matter. The essence of which is that matter does not disappear anywhere and does not appear anywhere. In some experiments on the synthesis of particles, the mass of newly formed particles was sometimes several orders of magnitude greater than the total mass of the particles that formed them (ten to a hundred times more). Real devices, real particles, and the results... in short, the results are incredible. Modern theory claims that this can never happen, but practical results say that it does happen. The question arises: “What to defend - theoretical principles or practical results?”

It would seem that the answer is obvious from any sane position. But not with the “scientific” one, which continues to rely on the same statements and postulates. For modern “science”, practical results are not important if they do not fit into the “Procrustean bed” of this very “science”. Instead of revising the foundation of this very “science,” they are trying to “supplement” this foundation with new postulates and assumptions. They add and correct, not understanding that only a viable theory can be “reanimated”; a “dead” theory, no matter how much you revive it, will remain “dead”.

By the way, about life. “Problems” with ideas are present not only among theoretical physicists, but also among biologists and physicians. Until now, scientists studying life cannot explain the nature of life, how the same atoms, connecting with each other in one spatial order, represent “dead” matter, and in another - living matter. Why pay attention to such “little things”, living matter exists, so why find out how it happened!? But, nevertheless, both biologists and doctors consider themselves experts in matters of life. When asked how the human embryo (as well as any other living organism) develops, brave biologists and doctors, with great faith in their knowledge, often with a condescending smile at the question of an ignoramus, famously answer: “in different zygotic cells (embryo cells) ) various hormones and enzymes appear and, as a consequence of this, the brain develops from one zygotic cell, the heart from another, the lungs from a third, etc., and so on.”

Again, a classic “explanation” from the school curriculum from the 8th grade high school textbook on human anatomy and physiology. There is simply no other explanation, even among academicians and doctors of science, both biological and medical. You just have to dig a little “deeper” and the answer is simply... no. Any embryo develops from one a fertilized egg that begins to divide. According to the laws of histology (the science of cells), confirmed by practical observations, when one cell divides, two cells appear, absolutely identical to each other. When they in turn divide, four identical cells appear and then: eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, etc. In other words, all embryonic cells have identical genetics and are copies of one fertilized egg. And due to this fact, the question arises: how do different hormones and enzymes appear in absolutely identical cells?! And, oddly enough, this question baffles any biologist or physician. And the only thing you can hear in response is: “Only God knows!” Isn't that an interesting answer for a scientist? And, curiously, in almost any position, statement or law of modern science, with careful analysis, you can “unearth” the Lord God, which only confirms the fact that the same “Lord God” is hidden in the postulates of science.

Naturally, postulation is necessary, only temporary. It is impossible to explain everything at once. But after explaining the fundamental points, it is necessary to return and explain temporary postulates that were previously introduced without any explanation. In this version, temporary postulation plays a positive role. But the problem is that modern science does NOT have temporary postulates. All its postulates are absolute in nature, and no one has ever even tried to give them any explanation. It is in this case that the postulates turn into “gods” of science, it is in this case that science turns into religion. And the most curious thing is that scientists themselves do not even think about it; almost everyone takes this state of affairs for granted and does not even see the problem itself. It was precisely this kind of “blindness” that led to the fact that modern science turned into a religion, and scientists into its priests. And this is confirmed by the statements of major scientists that in order to call oneself a scientist, a person must maintain healthy skepticism and not trust his eyes, ears, facts and evidence, but stand firmly in the positions of his science. A very colorful example of the transformation of science into religion...

Now let’s see what kind of “pillars” modern natural science stands on. Several postulates of modern science can be called the main pillars:

Postulate of conservation of matter,

The postulate of homogeneity of the universe and

Postulate of the speed of light.

Postulate of conservation of matter states that matter does not disappear anywhere and does not appear from nowhere. Moreover, by matter we mean only a physically dense substance that has four states of aggregation - solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma. That's all. These erroneous ideas about matter, as such, do not even closely reflect the essence of the real concept of it, and experimental data obtained with the help of more advanced instruments for studying the micro- and macroworld completely refute modern ideas about the nature of matter. Particle physics and astrophysics have obtained results that have baffled scientists. The masses of new particles sometimes turned out to be orders of magnitude greater than the total masses of the particles that form them, and the presence in the Universe dark matter(dark matter), which makes up 90% of the mass of matter, which for some reason no one can see or “touch”, speak of a serious crisis with the postulate of the conservation of matter. It is necessary either to admit that the concept of matter in modern science is incorrect or that the postulate of the conservation of matter is not correct. But in the form in which this postulate exists now, it does not reflect reality at all. The postulate of conservation of matter is one of the few postulates of modern science that were closest to the truth. It is enough just to expand the boundaries of understanding what matter is, and this postulate becomes true.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the postulate homogeneity of the Universe and postulate speed of light. But it is precisely these two postulates that are the foundation of A. Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. I would like to make some clarifications. Regardless of whether this theory is correct or not, it would be wrong to consider Albert Einstein as the author of this theory. The thing is that A. Einstein, while working in the patent office, simply “borrowed” ideas from two scientists: mathematician and physicist Jules Henri Poincaré and physicist G.A. Lorenz. The two scientists worked together for several years to develop this theory. It was A. Poincaré who put forward the postulate about the homogeneity of the Universe and the postulate about the speed of light. A G.A. Lorentz derived the famous formulas. A. Einstein, working in the patent office, had access to their scientific works and decided to “stake out” the theory in his name. He even retained the name G.A. in “his” theories of relativity. Lorentz: the main mathematical formulas in “his” theory are called “Lorentz Transformations”, but, nevertheless, he does not specify what relation he himself has to these formulas (nothing) and does not mention the name of A. Poincaré, who put forward the postulates . But “for some reason” gave this theory its name.

The whole world knows that A. Einstein is a Nobel laureate, and everyone has no doubt that he received this prize for the creation of the Special and General Theories of Relativity. But that's not true. The scandal surrounding this theory, although it was known in narrow scientific circles, did not allow the Nobel committee to give him a prize for this theory. The solution was found to be very simple - A. Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for... the discovery of the Second Law of the Photoeffect, which was a special case of the First Law of the Photoeffect. But, it is curious that the Russian physicist Alexander Grigorievich Stoletov (1830-1896), who discovered the photoelectric effect itself, did not receive any Nobel Prize, or any other, for this discovery, while A. Einstein was given it for “ study" of a special case of this law of physics. It turns out to be complete nonsense from any point of view. The only explanation for this can be that someone really wanted to make A. Einstein a Nobel laureate and was looking for any reason to do this. The “genius” had to puff a little with the discovery of the Russian physicist A.G. Stoletov, “studying” the photoelectric effect and now... a new Nobel laureate was “born”.

The Nobel Committee apparently considered that two were too much for one discovery and decided to give only one... to the brilliant scientist A. Einstein! Is it really that “important” whether a prize is given for the First Law of Photoelectric Effect or the Second? The most important thing is that the prize for the discovery was awarded to the “brilliant” scientist A. Einstein. And the fact that the discovery itself was made by the Russian physicist A.G. Stoletov, these are “little things” that you shouldn’t pay attention to. The most important thing is that the “brilliant” scientist A. Einstein became a Nobel laureate. And now almost every person began to believe that A. Einstein received this prize for “his” GREAT Special and General Theories of Relativity.

A logical question arises: why did someone very influential really want to make A. Einstein a Nobel laureate and glorify him throughout the world as the greatest scientist of all time?! There must be a reason for this? And the reason for this was the terms of the deal between A. Einstein and those people who made him a Nobel laureate. Apparently, A. Einstein really wanted to be a Nobel laureate and the greatest scientist of all time! And, apparently, it was vital for these individuals to direct the development of earthly civilization along the wrong path, which ultimately leads to environmental disaster. And A. Einstein agreed to become an instrument of this plan, but also presented his own demands - to become a Nobel laureate. The deal was completed and the terms of the deal were met. In addition, the creation of an image of a genius of all times and peoples only enhanced the effect of introducing false ideas about the nature of the Universe into the masses. It seems that it is necessary to take a different look at the meaning of the most famous photograph of A. Einstein, in which he shows his tongue to everyone?! The protruding tongue of the “greatest genius” takes on a slightly different meaning in view of the above. Which?! I think it's easy to guess.

Unfortunately, plagiarism is not a rare phenomenon in science and not only in physics. But the point is not even the fact of plagiarism, but the fact that these ideas about the nature of the Universe are fundamentally erroneous, and science created on the postulate of the homogeneity of the Universe and the postulate of the speed of light ultimately leads to a planetary environmental disaster. Someone can assume that A. Einstein and the people behind him simply did not know that this theory did not correspond to reality?! Maybe A. Einstein and Co. were sincerely mistaken, as many scientists were mistaken when creating their hypotheses and theories, which later did not receive practical confirmation?! Someone might even say that at that time there were no high-precision instruments that would allow one to penetrate into the depths of micro- and macrocosm?! Someone can also cite experimental facts confirming (at that time) the correctness of A. Einstein’s theories of relativity!

From school textbooks, everyone knows about the confirmation of A. Einstein’s theory by the Michelson-Morley experiments. But virtually no one knows that in the interferometer used in the Michelson-Morley experiments, light traveled a total of 22 meters. In addition, the experiments were carried out in the basement of a stone building, almost at sea level. Further, the experiments were carried out over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12) in 1887. During these days, data from the interferometer was taken for as many as 6 hours, and there were absolutely 36 rotations of the device. And on this experimental basis, as on three pillars, rests the confirmation of the “correctness” of both the special and general theories of relativity of A. Einstein.

Facts, of course, are serious matters. Therefore, let's look at the facts. American physicist Dayton Miller(1866-1941) published in 1933 in the journal Review of Modern Physics ( Reviews of Modern Physics) the results of their experiments on the issue of the so-called ethereal wind for a period of more than twenty years old research, and in all these experiments he received positive results confirming the existence of the etheric wind. He began his experiments in 1902 and completed them in 1926. For these experiments, he created an interferometer with a total beam path of 64 meters. It was the most advanced interferometer of that time, at least three times more sensitive than the interferometer that A. Michelson and E. Morley used in their experiments. Measurements from the interferometer were taken at different times of the day and at different times of the year. Readings from the device were taken more than 200,000 thousand times, and more than 12,000 rotations of the interferometer were made. He periodically raised his interferometer to the top of Mount Wilson (6,000 feet above sea level - more than 2,000 meters), where, as he suspected, the speed of the ethereal wind was greater.

And now, let's see what the facts tell us. On the one hand, there are the Michelson-Morley experiments, which lasted a total of 6 hours, within four days, with 36 rotations of the interferometer. On the other hand, experimental data were taken from the interferometer during 24 years old and the device turned whiter 12 000 once! And despite the fact that D. Miller’s interferometer was in 3 times more sensitive! That's what the facts say.

But maybe A. Einstein and Co. did not know about these results, did not read scientific journals, and therefore remained in their delusion?! They knew perfectly well. Dayton Miller wrote letters to A. Einstein. In one of his letters, he reported on the results of his twenty-four years of work confirming the presence of the ethereal wind. A. Einstein responded to this letter very skeptically and demanded evidence, which was provided to him. After which... no answer. There was no response to the facts provided for a very understandable reason. But the most curious thing is that in the Michelson-Morley experiments positive values of the ethereal wind were still recorded, but they were “simple” ignored. After the death of D. Miller in 1941, they “simply” forgot about the results of his work, they were never published anywhere else in scientific journals, etc., as if this scientist had never existed. But he was one of the greatest American physicists...

From all that has been said above, it becomes clear that humanity has had false ideas about the nature of the Universe. deliberately imposed, in order to prevent the development of civilization along the right path, and the reason for this can only be one thing - the fear behind A. Einstein that as a result of this they will lose their power and position. Fear of true knowledge, which would inevitably remove their masks and everyone, without exception, would be able to see their true face and what they do. If something is so carefully hidden by someone through the imposition of deliberately false ideas about the nature of the Universe on the scale of the entire planet, this indicates that something very important is hidden, and not only for physicists and philosophers, but also for every inhabitant of the planet Earth...

Moreover, this concealment of the truth continued for quite a long time and successfully, but even the development of science along the wrong path ultimately led to the emergence of new experimental data, which, at a different qualitative level, leaves no stone unturned, both from the special and from the general theory of relativity by A. Einstein.

The data obtained using the Hubble radio telescope, launched by the Americans into low-Earth orbit, after processing, gave very unexpected results to researchers. After analyzing radio waves coming from 160 distant galaxies, physicists from the University of Rochester and the University of Kansas in the US made the astonishing discovery that the radiation rotates as it moves through space in a subtle corkscrew-like pattern unlike anything else seen before. previously observed. A complete rotation of the "corkscrew" is observed every billion miles that radio waves travel. These effects are in addition to what is known as the Faraday effect - the polarization of light caused by intergalactic magnetic fields. The periodicity of these newly observed rotations depends on the angle at which the radio waves travel relative to the orientation axis passing through space. The more parallel the direction of motion of the wave and the axis, the larger the radius of rotation. This orientation axis is not a physical quantity, but rather determines the direction in which light travels in the Universe. According to observations from Earth, according to researchers, the axis runs in one direction, towards the constellation Sextants, and in the other direction - towards the constellation Aquila. Which direction is "up" or "down" is likely to be an arbitrary choice, they say. This discovery was made by astrophysicists Dr. George Nodland and Dr. John Ralston, a report of which they published in the Physical Review ( Reviews of Modern Physics) in 1997.

This discovery means that The Universe is heterogeneous.

The most accurate instruments of our time record changes in the speed of radio waves, depending on the direction of their propagation. And, what is most curious, these directions clearly reflect the layered structure of the Universe, since “top” and “bottom”, “east” and “west” are determined. The experimental registration of the ethereal wind of light waves in the experiments of the American physicist Dayton Miller in the 30s, and the discovery of changes in the speed of propagation of radio waves in the Universe, made already in 1997 by American astrophysicists George Nodland and John Ralston, irrefutably prove the heterogeneity of the Universe.

To make the picture clearer, I would like to give some explanations. The ethereal wind, recorded in the impeccable experiments of D. Miller, and the change in the propagation of radio waves, depending on the direction, are one and the same. Different terminology, but identical meaning. Thus, these experiments irrefutably prove the heterogeneity of the Universe and, thereby, the falsity of the first postulate used by A. Einstein in “his” special and general theories of relativity. But maybe at least the second, last postulate of these theories is still a true statement?! Let's figure it out...

Let me remind you that the essence of this postulate is that the speed of light is constant, in other words, it is a constant and the maximum speed of matter in the Universe and is equal to 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec). Without this, the conditions of the Lorentz transformation turn into nonsense, since, with the speed of matter (and even light) moving at a speed greater than 300,000 km/sec, according to these equations, even the mass of a photon becomes infinite. Let's now figure out how things stand with this postulate of A. Einstein's theory?

In experiments conducted by Doctor of Sciences Liuzhin Wang ( Dr. Lijun Wang) at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton ( NEC research institute in Princeton), surprising results were obtained. The experiment consisted of passing light pulses through a container filled with specially treated cesium gas. The results of the experiments turned out to be phenomenal - the speed of light pulses turned out to be 300 (three hundred) times more than the permissible speed from the Lorentz transformations (2000)! In Italy, another group of physicists from the Italian National Research Council ( Italian National Research Council), in her experiments with microwaves (2000) she obtained the speed of their propagation over 25% more than the permissible speed according to A. Einstein...

From the Lorentz transformations it follows that if the speed of light (or another material object) exceeds the speed of 300,000 km/sec by at least one millimeter per second, the mass will become infinite. In other words, in the above experiments, the mass of photons and microwaves should be greater than the mass of any “black hole” and, according to these formulas, as a result of these experiments, our planet itself should have turned into a super “black hole”. This is what follows from the formulas of A. Einstein’s theory. But... nothing like that happened, the waves, both light and radio waves, remained the same, their mass did not rush to infinity, etc. Thus, the second postulate of A. Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity turned out to be false, and without them these theories lose all meaning and, at best, should go into the section of the history of science, as another hypothesis not confirmed by experimental data.

But, oddly enough, not only after the publication of the results of D. Miller’s research (1933), but also after recent discoveries (1997-2000), A.’s theories continue to be studied all over the world in schools and in institutes with universities. Einstein, as theories reflecting reality. Without these two postulates, A. Einstein’s theories are nothing more or less than another unsuccessful attempt to create a picture of the universe, in the process of searching for an understanding of nature, if not for a small “but”. Both the “creator” of the special and general theories of relativity, and those behind him, knew from the very beginning that these theories do not even partially reflect reality. And yet they were imposed on all of humanity. As a result, earthly civilization took the wrong path, ultimately leading to self-destruction.

And this can only mean one thing: the correct path of development of civilization is dangerous for those who stood behind A. Einstein and continue to stand behind his theories at the present time. These people standing in the shadows are afraid of one thing: losing their power and influence on the masses, because with the enlightenment of knowledge, each person individually and all of humanity as a whole will be able to see and understand what is happening on Earth, and this group of people will lose their power, influence and, ultimately, your money. But why are these people so afraid of the penetration of true knowledge?! For one simple reason - they received everything listed above undeservedly, by deception, but they really don’t want to lose it all.

I would like to draw attention to one of the tools for imposing false ideas about nature - mathematics. What does mathematics have to do with this, someone might ask?! And here's what it has to do with it. The fact is that the only purpose of mathematics is practical calculations. And then, it is necessary to remember that, adding one apple to another, we are talking about two apples, thereby absolutely identifying one apple with another, not paying attention to their differences: differences in weight, shape, size, color, degree of ripeness, taste and so on. We simply say - two apples and this is enough to divide these apples relatively equally between two people. Everyone gets an apple, although in principle no two people are the same, even identical twins have differences. If one apple is 10-50 grams larger than another, turns out to be sour or sweeter, nothing in the world will change, and no one will suffer much.

But it’s a completely different matter when mathematics is used as the foundation of theoretical justifications, when real natural processes are denoted by one or another letter or symbol and... in the form of symbols and letters they are inserted into equations and formulas. And then they begin to manipulate these symbols and letters according to the laws adopted in mathematics, forgetting that natural phenomena and processes occur regardless of what ideas a person has. Forgetting what is behind these symbols and letters, mathematicians take the derivative, the integral, rush to the limit, impose restrictions and discard the “extra” terms, i.e. They do everything to obtain an elegant formula for the “law of nature.” A clear example of this is the same theory of relativity of A. Einstein. The only reason why the postulate of the homogeneity of the Universe and the postulate of the speed of light were introduced is that without them the Lorentz transformations lose all meaning, and therefore the entire general and special theories of A. Einstein. Lorentz transformations imply a requirement for the speed of propagation of material objects in space. The speed of movement of any material object (including light) cannot be greater than the speed of light in a vacuum.

According to the postulate, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and the maximum speed for material objects is 300,000 km (186,000 miles) per second. It cannot be more for one simple reason - if the speed of movement of a material object is greater than this constant, then, according to the Lorentz transformations, the mass of this material object must become infinite, including the conditional mass of the photon. This is what the formulas say should happen. But in reality, a real laser pulse, passing through a real cesium gas, moved at a speed of 300 times(90,000,000 km/sec) faster than the formula “allows” him. Wow, what an unconscious laser impulse, it doesn’t want to move the way mathematics and its laws require. And what is most curious is that the mass of each photon in this light pulse does not become infinite; they all behave exactly the same as before entering a special gaseous environment.

Mathematicians should be reminded that nature does not live and does not obey the laws of mathematics, which are only mind game, V to a greater or lesser extent reflecting visible reality. Nature will not adapt to laws invented by mathematicians, to theories based on mathematical formulas. For some reason, mathematicians completely forget about this, getting carried away by their abstract mind games. And a little more about the problems of mathematics. There are many contradictions within mathematics itself. There is no need to list them all; I would like to draw attention to only one of them, which almost everyone has encountered, but did not pay attention to. One of the basic laws of algebra states that the square root can only be a positive number, since the square root is the inverse of squaring. Any number, positive or negative, when squared becomes positive [for example: 2 x 2 = 4 or (-2) x (-2) = 4], since minus (-) by minus (-) gives plus ( +). This rule is known to everyone from elementary school.

So, in higher mathematics, during some mathematical transformations, when calculating real physical processes, a negative number (-1) turned out to be under the square root. Complete absurdity, from the point of view of the axioms of mathematics, this cannot happen in principle, but, nevertheless, this absurdity appeared in mathematical calculations of real physical processes. There was a conclusion from the current situation, and an obvious conclusion. The appearance of absurdity indicates the falsity of the approach to solving the problem, the contradiction of the mathematical apparatus used and the real physical problem being solved through this apparatus, which describes a real natural phenomenon. But no one even thought in this direction! It is much easier to get out of a dead end through “sleight of hand”, or more precisely, “sleight of inference”. Why change everything if you can “outsmart” the equations?!

The solution was found simple. If mathematics says that there is no square root of a negative number, then the negative number must disappear. No sooner said than done. Designated ( -1 ), How i 2, and the problem no longer exists! Since the square root of a squared number is a positive number ( √ i 2 = i), Where i- the so-called imaginary unit, but no one began to explain what it is and where this imaginary unit exists in reality. If there is an imaginary unit ( i), then an imaginary reality must also exist. But is it really worth paying attention to such “little things”?! Of course not, because if you pay attention, it turns out to be a complete misunderstanding. If you can replace minus one (-1) under the square root, then why can't you replace minus one in any other mathematical equation?! If this is done, complete chaos ensues. That's why they don't do it. Because by adding two apples with two apples (2 + 2), in a similar version, you can get a cucumber and a pear, and not necessarily four, but maybe zero or minus four imaginary tomatoes.

So, mathematicians did not do this, but began to use an imaginary unit when it is beneficial and convenient for them, calling for this an entire section of mathematics the section “functions of a complex variable.” And only in this “territory” does the imaginary unit exist officially recognized, and throughout the rest of the country of mathematics, minus one (-1) still remains minus one (-1), and there are no imaginary numbers. Isn't it funny?!

You can deceive someone else, but you cannot deceive yourself. You can only pretend to be deceived, but then the question arises: why is this deception needed and to whom?! Someone is ready to introduce any absurdities into modern science, just to prevent a revision of the foundations and principles of modern science itself. And this cannot be an accident or a misunderstanding. Someone is behind all this, someone really needs the development of humanity to follow the wrong evolutionary path. And the imposition of false or incomplete ideas about the nature of the Universe serves these forces as a means of keeping the civilization of the Earth as a whole and its individual ideas in ignorance, thanks to which they (these forces) can easily control civilization itself and maintain their financial and political power. And if someone breaks through this imposed illusion of reality, then these people and what they created are destroyed.

How it was destroyed, for example, Nikola Tesla- an American of Czech origin who created devices and instruments based on completely different principles, many of which could make humanity free from energy crises and at the same time preserve the ecology of the planet. He developed electric generators that had no moving parts and did not require any fuel. Electricity was obtained directly from space. He found a simple and cheap way to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Nikola Tesla created a number of amazing devices and devices. Shortly after demonstrating his instruments and devices, he “unexpectedly” fell ill and died. After his death, all instruments and devices from his laboratory were taken away by representatives of US government services, and the laboratory itself was razed to the ground, literally and figuratively, using bulldozers. The mechanic who realized Nikola Tesla’s devices and instruments in metal disappeared without a trace, so much so that no one knows anything about his fate to this day.

The US state thus illegally seized everything created by it, but so far N. Tesla’s electric generators and his other inventions have not appeared either in the US or in any other country in the world. But even just his electric generators could bring prosperity, warmth and economic independence to every home, to every family. But that did not happen. The energy crisis has not disappeared, but has only worsened. Electricity is obtained using primitive electric generators with rotating rotors, burning huge amounts of natural fuel, building hydro and nuclear power plants. And all these methods of generating electricity destroy the ecology of the planet, deplete its natural resources, and poison the atmosphere. And nuclear power plants are also extremely dangerous. And knowing all this, the source of practically free electricity is destroyed (or at least hidden from humanity by the state(s)), which in theory should serve that very humanity. They serve, the only question is - to whom?! Probably the same group of people behind the false ideas of modern science, behind such “scientists” as A. Einstein and co.

Thus, the theory of the Universe has the most direct impact on the objective reality in which you and I live. And what these ideas are depends not only on who is right or wrong, but the very future of civilization, whether the civilization of Midgard-Earth will exist or not tomorrow.

An alternative theory of the Universe is outlined in the concept.
]]>

Noun, number of synonyms: 2 objective reality (3) this-worldliness (2) ASIS Dictionary of Synonyms ... Synonym dictionary

Objective reality as an actual existence that realizes definition. historical rich possibilities; the concept of D. is also used in the sense of true existence, as opposed to appearance. The category D. was already used in antiquity. philosophy:... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Objective reality in all its concreteness, the totality of natural and socio-historical phenomena; the concept of reality is also used in the sense of true reality, as opposed to appearance... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Objective reality as a specifically developed set of natural and social historical phenomena; the concept of D. is also used in the sense of true reality, as opposed to appearance. In this ontological sense, the concept of D.... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Check information. It is necessary to check the accuracy of the facts and reliability of the information presented in this article. There should be an explanation on the talk page... Wikipedia

reality- and, only units, w. The objective world in all its diversity; environment. Modern reality. Reality always gives some reasons for optimism. But what you say undoubtedly happened in reality... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

AND; and. 1. That which actually exists, the real existence of something; reality. 2. Objective living conditions of people, the environment. Russkaya village. Modern village. In reality (in fact). * * * reality see possibility... encyclopedic Dictionary

In the categories of reason, the concept of D. is associated with the concepts of possibility and necessity, occupying the middle between them. First of all, in the very concept of D. one must distinguish a double meaning: D. the facts of consciousness as such and D. their object, or objective... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

REALITY- a philosophical category that includes the following main aspects: a) the integral unity of such spheres as nature, society and consciousness (thinking) in their interaction; b) the entire objectively existing world in the diversity of its manifestations: ... ... Eurasian wisdom from A to Z. Explanatory dictionary

Correlative philosophies. categories that characterize two main stages in the change and development of objects, phenomena, and the surrounding world as a whole. Reality (D.) is such a state of an object or the world that really, actually exists at a given ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Books

Objective picture of the world in cognition and language, G. V. Kolshansky. Readers are invited to read a book by the famous Russian linguist and philosopher G.V. Kolshansky, which represents a continuation and development of the ideas of communicative linguistics. In which…

Does objective reality exist?

A mess in the head is chaos in society.
UFS book

Nowadays, all educated people believe and even believe that the world around them is an objective reality, and moreover, this concept becomes a criterion of truth as opposed to subjectivity. It turns out that objectivity is good and subjectivity is bad, but is this really so? Let's consider a generalized definition of objectivity based on dictionaries. The generally accepted concept of objective has three meanings: 1) existing outside and independently of human consciousness, 2) inherent or corresponding to something separate and integral, 3) existing as unbiased and undoubted or true (idea or opinion).

However, all this is easily refuted by the obvious statement: if there is no subject, there is no object. But this does not mean at all that “objective reality” does not exist, since before the appearance of man the world existed in an unmanifested state and it exists as a conditional over-the-horizon limit of knowledge, when a person who has known everything “stands out” from it. However, all these speculations have nothing to do with understanding the reality around us. By definition, “objective reality” does not depend on consciousness, and, therefore, is not perceived by it and therefore not knowable. Strictly logically, a reality independent of consciousness must correspond to an observer independent of it, that is, God. Therefore, “objectivism” cannot do without God as the creator of “objective” laws.

Thus, the subjectivity of the world is easily provable: the subject of knowledge is a person, and the “object” of knowledge is his sensations, feelings and ideas, which are always relative, since they relate only to this person and conditional, since they exist for him under the condition of his life . The “objectivity” of the world is an extra-logical concept, since it replaces the total experience of people’s sensations with the concept of the existence and independence of the world from these sensations. Therefore, the “objectivity” of the world is, in principle, unprovable, and it is more correct to use the concept of simply reality, that is, what we feel and can imagine, based on our own and collective historical experience of knowledge. Lenin’s famous definition that the material world is “objective reality given to us in our sensations” is an actual recognition of the subjectivity of the world and at the same time an attempt to push “objectivism” into science.

The concept of an object, as a thing or object, arose in ancient times on the basis of direct observation of real objects and phenomena. And it is only in this sense that it can be used as a conditional concept denoting something separate that exists among other separate parts. As a philosophical category, this concept, according to I. L. Vikentiev, appeared in the works of I. Kant at the beginning of the 19th century and was firmly established in Western science by 1840. However, this is not just a scientific curiosity, because it contains fundamentally different approaches to worldview and understanding of the world.

The subjective world, existing as the sum of accumulated and transmitted experience, is knowable, and its laws invented by people are changeable as the process of cognition develops. In contrast, in the “objective” world there are sometimes incomprehensible “objective” laws that stand above people, which supposedly do not depend on the will of people and are eternal and unchangeable. In addition, “objectivism” excludes from scientific consideration the vast spheres of ultra-subtle interactions called spiritual experience and parallel projections of the world created by the imagination, which are also part of reality. The absurdity of the concept of “objectivity” is becoming in our time a direct brake on the development of science in the areas of ultra-fine experiments that require taking into account the influence of the researcher’s mind on the result of the experiment, as well as in the study of the thinking process itself.

In addition, modern “objectivism” is far from harmless, as it seems, as was shown in the 20th century by the practice of its communist supporters, who sacrificed millions of lives in the name of the “objective” laws of society they themselves invented. This happens because, in the concept of objectivity, the question of real power is hidden, since in an objective world independent of man, power is also objective, unknowable and stands above man as an objective law. In such a world, a person is insignificant and is a social animal or a consumable material of history, which an objective ruler grazes, feeds and slaughters as needed - this is a lie. This is precisely the root of totalitarianism, fascism and all forms of exploitation of people.

Moreover, the “objectivists” lost the person himself, who is the initial cause and final goal of the process of cognition, reducing him to the level of a formalized object. This directly leads to the dehumanization of science and all life, which consists in the absence of a single universal assessment of the significance of the knowledge acquired and manifests itself in the form of world wars, the use of weapons of mass destruction and massive lies in the media. Ultimately, this leads to an increasing disruption of the techno-humanitarian balance of society.

In the subjective world, power arises from subjects like us, and is therefore knowable and changeable. The subjective world belongs to every person who has the right to change it himself or in agreement with other people, because in it all people are equal in life and death, but everyone is different, creating an eternal diversity of worldviews. In the subjective world, each person has the highest value for himself, which is the whole Universe and is valuable for others as the joy of communication and the disclosure of his mysterious world to them. The subjective approach means, first of all, freedom of thought from the dogmas of objectivism, absolutism and authorities, taking into account the fact that this freedom must be within the limits of known laws.

Criticism of subjectivism mainly consists of criticism of its extreme manifestations that existed in the 17th - 19th centuries and comes down to hanging scientific-like labels without considering the process of cognition as such and, in fact, is a departure from reality into the world of scientific illusions and philosophizing. Modern subjectivism is not a recognition of the illusory nature of the world created by the transcendental spirit according to D. Berkeley, and not the recognition of the point of view of only one person on solipsism, for the Self-doctrine is obvious stupidity, and it is not a denial of the materiality or objectivity of the perceived, and not a denial of the existence of knowables laws of nature, and not the absolutization of sensory experience according to empiricism and sensationalism.

Modern science is moving from the classical physical-mechanical description of reality to a quantum mechanical description, in which there is no concept of substantiality (specific objects). It describes states that are, in principle, not observable, but only felt in their integrity as a subject-object. In this case, quantum reality is a superposition or being in possibility, and experiment gives decoherence (reduction) - one probabilistic result that depends on the subjective choice of a theoretical basis. The basis of all observable reality is the quantum mechanical world of elementary particles, which have a wave nature, confirmed empirically. According to W. Heisenberg, “The concept of the objective reality of elementary particles has thus evaporated, not into the cloud of some new obscure concept of reality, but into the transparent clarity of mathematics, which no longer represents the behavior of the particle, but rather represents our knowledge of its behavior.” In this case, the picture of the world under study becomes multi-valued or multi-modular, in which the concept of objectivity becomes incorrect and inapplicable.

Currently, the philosophy of subjectivism most closely corresponds to the holodynamic (holographic) picture of the world, which can be figuratively represented as a volumetric network of Indra or a system of multiple nested reflections of reality. Modern subjectivism in the form of a universal philosophical system (UPS) and other theories is the recognition of the primacy of sensory sensation, observation and understanding of reality, which underlies the process of human cognition. This is a recognition of the multidimensionality of the perceived world, consisting of many subjective reflections of it in the minds of people. To represent this phenomenon, the UFS introduced the concept of the universe of personal meanings (VSL), and the sum of individual VSLs forms the VSL of society, which is a new approach to social processes. UFS is based on a quantum mechanical description of the world, in which there is no sharp line between matter and consciousness, because they are different varieties of the unified field nature of the world. However, the UFS does not deny matter and therefore considers man and society as material-field formations and this is also a new look at the nature of the world. Perceiving the world in the form of a subjective projection and integrating it with collective experience is a necessary and sufficient way of cognition and does not need to be supported by “objectivity.” UFS, based on subjectivity and recognition of the plurality of perceiving minds, is a practical philosophy of systematization of the known world and a way of expanding consciousness, and its goal is the formation of a free universal self-organizing person or the Universal in the Universe. In the view of the UFS, the subjective world, in contrast to the “objective” one, acquires orderliness and semantic patterns that are inaccessible with the dogmatic “objective” approach.

Thus, “objective reality”, as a scientific nonsense, should be expelled or demoted from the category of philosophical categories to the usual descriptive level. In fact, this is the same archaism as the statement that the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. The use of the concepts of objectivism in its philosophical meaning should become an indicator of low culture and lack of independence of thinking.

Bibliography

1. Vikentyev I. L. History of the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity.
2. Heisenberg V. Representation of nature in modern physics.
3. Melnikov G. A. Book of the UFS.
4. Talbot M. Holographic Universe.
5. Fursa E. Ya. The Universe is a world of waves, resonances and... nothing more.
6. Chechetkina I. I. Truth and values in fundamental and applied science. www.cyberlenika.ru

In philosophy, reality means everything that exists in reality. There is a distinction between objective and subjective reality. Objective reality is what exists outside of human consciousness: space, time, movement; subjective reality can be defined as the phenomenon of consciousness, sensation, human perception of something and everything that is connected with it.

To describe matter, three objective forms of its existence are distinguished: movement, space, time.

Here, movement means not only the mechanical movement of bodies, but also any interaction, any change in the states of objects - the forms of movement are diverse and can move from one to another. Very often we talk about movement, contrasting it with peace, considering them equal. Meanwhile, this is a deep misconception: rest is relative, while movement is absolute.

Space and time are forms of existence of matter. The term space in philosophy denotes the structure of objects, their property of being extended and occupying a place among others. When characterizing space, the term infinity is used. The term time denotes the duration of existence of objects and the direction of their change. The last two categories: space and time are both relative and absolute. They are relative, since their properties are constantly changing, and they are absolute, since no object can exist outside of space and time.

Reality is a key concept in philosophy, and the main question of philosophy is associated with it: what comes first, matter or consciousness (objective or subjective reality); whether a person is capable of cognizing the reality surrounding him.

Matter- the fundamental initial category of philosophy, denotes objective reality, the only substance with all its properties, laws of structure and functioning, movement and development. Matter is self-sufficient and does not necessarily need anyone to be aware of it.

Space- means the structure of an object and matter as a whole, extension, structure, coexistence, interaction and volume of objects. It is a form of existence of matter. When characterizing, use the concept of infinity. Space is multidimensional.

Time- a form of existence of matter, characterized by such properties of change and development of systems as duration, sequence of changes of states. Time is divided into three categories: past, present, future. When describing time, the concept of eternity is used.

Categories of dialectics- general concepts that reflect the most significant natural connections and relationships of reality. We can say that philosophical categories reproduce the properties and relations of being in the most general form. By regulating the real process of thinking, in the course of its historical development, they are gradually isolated into a special system, and it is the system of categories that turns out to be the most stable in all transformations of philosophical knowledge, although it also undergoes changes, subject to the principle of development. The modern presentation of fundamental categories differs significantly from the way they were thought of in ancient times.

Essence- something hidden, deep, residing in things, their internal connections and controlling them, the basis of all forms of their external manifestation. Essence is always concrete; there is no essence at all.
Phenomenon- directly perceived properties of an object, one or another vision of which depends on the structure and action of the sensory organs of the subject of cognition. A phenomenon is a manifestation of an essence.
Singularity- a category that expresses the relative isolation, discreteness, delimitation of objects from each other in space and time, with their inherent specific features that make up their unique qualitative and quantitative certainty.
Accident- a type of connection that is caused by insignificant reasons external to the phenomenon. It can be external and internal.
Necessity- a natural type of connection between phenomena, determined by their stable internal basis and the set of essential conditions for their occurrence and development.
Liberty- a person’s ability to make decisions and perform actions in accordance with his goals, interests, ideals.
And etc.

Laws of dialectics.

Laws of dialectics- the basic laws of the world, expressing the relationship between universal, everywhere existing properties or trends in the development of matter. They do not have a specific functional form and are not expressed mathematically, because are not limited by any constants, parameters, certain conditions or specific groups of objects, but act as universal principles of all being, something general that is manifested in many laws.

The basic laws of dialectics represent the connection and interaction of categories. Moreover, they are expanded categories. Even the concept of law itself is a category. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, some categories themselves are also laws.

For example, the category of causality is a universal law of the world. In this case, the category law essentially expresses a fundamental philosophical principle. Reflecting the objective dialectics of reality, the categories and laws of dialectics, being cognized, act as a universal method of cognition and transformation of reality.

The history of knowledge begins with the identification of something common in nature, subject to the abstracting activity of thinking. At first, this generality is cast in the form of general concepts and categories, on the basis of which certain principles of both being and thinking itself are formed. In the future, cognitive thought strives, relying on developed tools of knowledge in the form of principles and categories and an increasingly enriched empirical base, to formulate fundamental provisions that organize our knowledge about the world - laws. The most general of these laws are the laws of dialectics.

Objective reality- these are things. phenomena and processes that exist outside and independently of our consciousness and are subject to the fundamental laws of natural science. . In philosophy, the content of a given reality is revealed through concepts: movement, space, attribute, substrate, substance. There is only one reality in the world that affects our senses.

To define objective reality, which a person can feel, copy, photograph, display (but which exists outside of his consciousness and sensations), in philosophy there is the concept of matter. Conditionally, matter can be divided into two groups: that which is cognized by man and that which is beyond his knowledge, however, this division is very conditional, meanwhile, its necessity is obvious: speaking about matter, we can only analyze what is cognized by man. To describe matter, three objective forms of its existence are distinguished: movement, space, time. Here by movement is meant not only the mechanical movement of bodies, but also any interaction, any change in the states of objects - the forms of movement are diverse and can move from one to another. Very often we talk about movement, contrasting it with peace, considering them equal. Meanwhile, this is a deep misconception: rest is relative, while movement is absolute.

Being- in the broadest sense, there is an all-encompassing reality, it covers both the material and the spiritual. It is something that really exists. The category of being is one of the most ancient philosophical categories; all the teachings of antiquity contained it as a central one. The antithesis of being is nothingness. Matter- the fundamental initial category of philosophy, denotes objective reality, the only substance with all its properties, laws of structure and functioning, movement and development. Matter is self-sufficient and does not necessarily need anyone to be aware of it.

Time- a form of existence of matter, characterized by such properties of change and development of systems as duration, sequence of changes in states. Time is divided into three categories: past, present, future. When describing time, the concept of eternity is used.

MAIN STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALISTIC CONCEPTS ABOUT MATTER.
In all subjective idealistic teachings, the objective is denied, i.e. the existence of matter independent of human consciousness. Berkeley argued: “there is no matter, and no one has ever seen it. The concept of matter can be used in the sense in which people use the word not that.” According to objective idealists, matter is generated by the spirit above the world mind.
According to Hegel, the absolute idea, developing, gives rise to the material world. Materialists have identified a number of stages in the development of materialistic ideas about matter: 1) This is a visual sensory representation of matter. Matter is seen as the material from which all things are “made”. (Democrat, Thales) 2) Real ideas about matter, they developed in the 17-18th century and were associated with the development of classical mechanics. Matter was identified with substance, and those properties of objects that are studied by natural science are attributed to it: mass, extension, impenetrability, atoms, molecules. (Diderot, Rousseau) 3) Philosophical and epistemological. Philosophical ideas about matter, they cover all material reality, have a sign of universality, matter in this case means all of nature as an objective reality, according to Spinoza, nature is causa sui (cause in itself). Philosophical ideas about matter were inherent in the classics of dialectical materialism. Marx and Engels did not identify matter with something specific sensory or with the properties of matter. Lenin gave a philosophical definition of matter:“matter is a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to man in his sensations, which are copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them.” Modern science testifies that objective reality exists in 4 forms: matter and field, vacuum, plasma. Modern science has brilliantly confirmed Lenin's idea of the inexhaustibility of matter. Disadvantage: the internal structure of matter is not studied; its ontological aspect is not explored.

– general theory of relativity;

– special theory of relativity;

22. The concept and content of subjective reality. Basic approaches to solving the problem of the ideal in modern philosophy.

In philosophy, reality means everything that exists in reality. There is a distinction between objective and subjective reality. Subjective reality- this is a reality that exists in the form of possible manifestations of patterns that exist in the human mind in the form of a set of archetypes, a system of ideas, a system of ideals. Here the pluralistic principle of the existence of subjective reality, the existence of the diversity of its types and forms is affirmed. Historical practice suggests that the world around us has properties of integrity and unity, and has an internal source of development.

The problem of the Ideal and its solution in modern philosophy. M. Bohm writes: “Modern science largely agrees with mysticism, which develops on the basis of mythology. This property is most clearly manifested in the following: Both mysticism and science raise the question of the source. Both mysticism and science co-cralize the world, giving it a moment of spirituality. Since a person changes the world around him by influencing it through the system of his fundamental values. Modern man cannot do without the idea of beauty as omnipotent... Beauty is always divine, therefore any person spiritualizes nature in search of his truth.

The problem of the ideal:

This problem is a fundamental problem; it helps to understand the process of the emergence of figurative thinking and its transition to a system of abstractions. Priority in developing the ideal belongs to the Soviet philosophical school. There are 4 directions: 1 - Ilyenkov, 2 - Dubrovsky, 3 - Livshits, 4 - synthet. theory of the ideal by V. Pivovarov.

Ilyenkov believes that the ideal is a form of existence of objective reality. The ideal exists regardless of the existence of its bearer. The ideal exists not only in the head, but also in reality, in the world. And he builds his concept on the philosophy of Plato, the doctrine of ideas that exist outside of matter and defines it. The ideal is a really existing phenomenon, a scheme of real objective human activity, consistent with a form outside the head, outside the brain, a scheme of activity, and not the activity itself, in its flesh and blood..

Ilyenkov believes that the ideal arises on the basis of socially transformative human activity. And activity is nothing more than a set of practical actions and labor operations for the emergence and creation of some thing; in the ideal concept, we are given not an image but a diagram of human production activity, which has for a person the significance of the law of existence, an algorithm. Bridgman wrote about this, who argued: “The entire historical activity of man is reflected and preserved in his language and exists in the form of cultural objects that have a universal aesthetic course.” The ideal exists in the form of: 1 - a universal law that determines human production activity, 2 - norms of social consciousness, 3 - an aesthetic ideal, 4 - coded cultural monuments.. The ideal is the law of human existence. Dubrovsky sharply contrasts his concept with Ilyenkov. The ideal is a purely personal phenomenon, realized by a certain type of brain neurodynamic process. He approaches the concept of the ideal from the position of natural science. The ideal is the form of existence of our psyche. Our psyche constantly absorbs information and therefore fundamentally cannot lose it. A person has a short-term memory or a system of current information, this is a set of necessary information that can eliminate the fundamental needs that have arisen. This information exists in the form of an archetype. Man is a living being, so he constantly has needs. And since our needs are the needs of body and spirit, the process is influenced by the characteristics of our body and state of mind.

Returning to the discussion between Ilyenkov and Dubrovsky, we can draw the following conclusion: the opposition of their concepts reflects the different nature of the ideal and the spiritual. The ideal is a reflection at the level of objective reality and it is characteristic not only of man, but also of the machine and all of nature as a whole, thus representing the highest systemic property of complex functional systems. The spiritual is unique to man and exists in man. From this position we can derive the following differences between the ideal and the spiritual.

Everything spiritual is ideal in its way of being and manifestation, but not everything ideal has spiritual content. Indeed, we have such a phenomenon as artificial intelligence, characteristic of a machine; in addition, according to Ilyenkov, the ideal is associated mainly with the materialized results of activity: the form of value, the icon, forms of state-political organization of life, which, in his opinion, are subjective in society in relation to nature, but not to man. The ideal is a bridge, a communication channel through which the spiritual enters the sphere of consciousness and through it into society.

The ideal is accessible to almost endless replication; the spiritual is always individual and unique. Their difference is the same as the difference between the master’s painting (I.E. Repin “Barge Haulers on the Volga”) and the corresponding reproduction, replicated in millions of copies.

The ideal, both in form and content, is accessible to a machine and can exist outside and without a person. The spiritual lives only in man, for man and only to him is accessible. It arises through experience, which is the most adequate way of realizing a value relationship. It is always associated with an ideal, with a certain way of realizing it.

The spiritual appears where the possibilities of the ideal are exhausted and it stops in powerlessness to solve the problem facing it. These are the questions that I. Kant posed to himself: whether there is a God or not, whether the soul is immortal or mortal, these are the problems of free will and the integrity of the world, expressed in its antinomies. These problems go beyond the limits of reason, these are supramundane problems, for the world for Kant is an idea, “only a creation of reason.” Reason, and for us it is ideal, is not able to solve these problems, leaving their solution to faith, the spiritual, therefore, as Kant declared, “he had to limit knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

The ideal is an integral part of natural existence. The spiritual is not an integral part of nature, but its highest qualitative value, inherent in man as another new form of being. The spiritual is not subject to quantitative factors and is not divided into parts.

Spirituality, the highest spiritual values can only be acquired through one’s own life experience and spiritual work to master them. Whereas the ideal is imposed on a person, acquired, appropriated by them, without affecting the deep foundations of a person’s inner world.

By dividing the ideal and the spiritual, we thereby separate the concepts of “consciousness” and “soul”. Two thousand years ago, the term “consciousness” (psyche) was quite appropriate in philosophy, although Plotinus already distinguishes between consciousness and soul, pointing out that consciousness is a memory. This is not reality, but a reflection of what happened to a person at the highest level, the level of “rest in divinity.” This is not only memory, but also the ability to fix higher-level content in language. In addition, consciousness is obliged to remind a person of his sinfulness, therefore consciousness, according to Plotinus, is secondary in relation to the soul. The soul is substantial, consciousness is functional. ON THE. Berdyaev also believed that consciousness was given to man so that he could experience the torment of a soul that had lost contact with God.

The spiritual is the basis of any culture and culture is accepted as a system of human values, the ideal is the law, the technology of production and labor activity, which creates objects and phenomena.

Articles on the topic

Letters from German soldiers from Stalingrad

Reality objective and subjective

Burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno

Accounting for fixed assets 1 with accounting for fixed assets

Determination of financial results in 1s 8

Regulatory and reference information

Regulatory acts of the Russian Federation

Legislative framework of the Russian Federation Rules for filling out form 1 of statistical reporting

Popular

Bosnian or Croatian script for Donbass What does the Croatian script mean for Donbass Vladimir Viktorovich Volk - expert at the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology As expected, the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the head...

Letters from German soldiers from Stalingrad An extremely entertaining read and very, very educational. In all senses. But it’s especially interesting to watch how over time...

Reality objective and subjective For the last few thousand years, man has constantly tried to comprehend the surrounding Cosmos. Different models of the Universe and ideas about the place were created...