Every person at least once felt the aching feeling of loneliness when there are a lot of people around you, but there is no one to talk to. They won't understand. At least you thought so, especially as a teenager. Therefore, instead of solving the problems of loneliness by communicating with friends or a new acquaintance, you closed yourself even more and enthusiastically began to feel sorry for yourself.
A familiar picture? Moreover, it is believed that in most cases, women at any age suffer from loneliness. And all because they are more impressionable, and the psychology of loneliness is close to them in spirit. But to say that such a feeling is alien to men is impossible. Many psychologists are sure that they simply suffer in silence, considering their feelings an unacceptable weakness. What is there to say! They are not even ready to admit to themselves that they are lonely, not like a specialist at the reception.
If we talk about territorial divisions, then in megacities the problem of loneliness is felt more strongly. Long distances do not allow people to meet as often as they would like. And a huge crowd of people is not conducive to spiritual communication. Everyone is running somewhere, in a hurry, pushing their elbows in the crowd and not even looking back to apologize. A huge faceless mechanism absorbs people. And the person himself does not notice how he stops communicating with relatives (once), come to family holidays (far away), cook homemade food (why, if the restaurant tastes better). Men and women live as if by inertia. And at one fine moment they look around, and there is no one nearby. That's it - loneliness. Numerous colleagues with whom you spent most of your time live their own lives. Relatives have lost the habit of you, and you simply have nothing to talk about. Empty words about the weather and politics can kill time, but not loneliness.
The situation is better in small towns. But here, too, there are problems. For example, a person who suffers from loneliness cannot seek professional help to overcome it. We are not talking about dating services, but about psychologists. After all, in order to get rid of the problem, it is necessary to determine the cause of its occurrence. And how, tell me, can a man complain that his wife does not understand and does not hear him, when the psychologist is a friend of his wife? Or a guy who is in his teens can't go to a psychologist? In a small town, everyone knows each other, so it is not possible to meet someone new. How can you get rid of the feeling of loneliness? Let's figure it out.
Loneliness and human uniqueness
Oddly enough, loneliness is our whole life. Man came into this world alone. He will leave him alone. But it is very difficult for people to realize this fact. They created the institution of marriage, a social society, set up multi-storey buildings where it is impossible to hide from each other. And all in order to be close to someone. If primitive people huddled together in communities in order to make it easier to hunt, then it costs nothing for a modern woman to bring a carton of milk from the supermarket. But at the same time, she so wants to have a family, friends, acquaintances, to feel loved and needed. And the freshly killed mammoth on the threshold of the cave has nothing to do with it.
In order to understand what the essence of the feeling of loneliness lies in, it is necessary to trace the entire path of development of this psychological phenomenon. Let's go back to cave time. Primitive people at first did not feel alone. They went hunting, lit fires and were content with life. And so it went on until one of them realized that man is very different from inanimate nature. That human skin is not at all the same as, for example, the surface of a stone. The primitive thinker was shocked. The only solution that came to his mind was to raise a body unlike him to the rank of a deity. Do not blame our ancestors for stupidity and cowardice. They acted very discreetly - they tried to make friends with what was unfamiliar to them. But the key concept here is not fear or cunning, but awareness of one's own uniqueness.
Loneliness in childhood
As soon as a person began to understand that he was not like the same mammoths, the first feelings of loneliness began to emerge in him. And out of habit, he raised organisms unlike himself to the rank of a deity. Here it is - one of the main mistakes of mankind and the main problem of loneliness. We love to put everyone above ourselves. Nature is like that. If our ancestors sinned with this, then what can we say about us?
Tell me, who are people praying to today? Jesus. Man. We will assume that we have reached the limits of awareness of our uniqueness. First there was inanimate nature, then animals, and then man. People realized their dissimilarity to others and…. began to feel lonely. Because if he is different, not like everyone else, then no one can understand him. Moreover, it is not worth thinking that loneliness is an innate quality.
Man, when he is born, does not realize that he is alone. The baby is quite happy (with proper care). His parents adore him, grandmothers adore him. It is worth crying, as you have a clean diaper on, and your mother carefully gives milk. What kind of loneliness are we talking about? But the point is not in excessive concern for the child, but in the fact that he still does not feel like a person. When the baby learns to speak, he calls himself “we” and speaks of himself exclusively in the third person. He is in society. And as soon as the pronoun “I” slips in the conversation, you can be sure that the first brick to the feeling of loneliness is laid.
This quality will worsen in those children whose parents decided to realize all their dreams and aspirations in their own child. Mom didn't become a ballerina? The daughter is dragged to dance lessons every day, despite the active protests of the child himself. Did your dad want to be a surgeon? Since childhood, the son has been forced into a profession he does not like. And if the child begins to resist, moral blackmail is used. Parents begin to remind the child of all the benefits that they gave him. Do you want to go dancing? Bad girl. I'll take your new bike and give it to the girl next door. She is obedient.
The peak of such blackmail is the statement that an intractable child will be exchanged for another, good one. Tell me, will such a baby feel lonely? Of course it will. He sees that his parents do not understand his desires and aspirations. And most importantly, they do not realize its uniqueness. Worst of all, children's problems are laid deep in the subconscious and form a further character. A girl who never became a ballerina in her teens becomes withdrawn. She rightly believes that if her own mother did not understand her, then what to say about strangers. No, the girl does not interrupt communication with the world completely. She communicates, makes friends with her peers, but does not reveal her soul to anyone. And he feels extremely alone.
By the way, in adolescence, the problem of loneliness is especially acute. Absolutely no one understands you: neither parents, nor friends, and even more so teachers. To this are added distorted impressions of their appearance - and that's it! You're a loser with absolutely no one to talk to. And even after overcoming this difficult period, scars will remain on the soul, which will always remind of adolescence.
female loneliness
In addition, the psychology of a woman's loneliness is very often associated with the absence of a man. Have you noticed that a divorced girl very often calls herself lonely despite the fact that her child is sleeping nearby in a stroller? And when they begin to tell her that she is not alone, the woman begins to project her loneliness onto the baby: “no one needs us.” The girl means that she and the child are not needed by her ex-husband, but the projection is so wide that it covers all of humanity.
What is the problem with such a painful female desire to have a family? No, this is not a far-fetched need, as men like to talk about it. Such behavior is inherent in nature. Look at the kids in kindergarten. While the boys are running around the game room with machine guns, the girls are playing mother-daughter. They cook soup in a plastic pot, swaddle dolls, put tiny clothes in lockers. They already dream of a white veil and a handsome husband. So what about older girls?
Let's say that you managed to wear a wedding dress. And the engagement ring on her hand says that life has not been lived in vain. But where does this oppressive feeling of loneliness come from? It seems that the husband is nearby, and the children are growing. Such is the female psychology - loneliness often arises in people surrounded by relatives and friends. And quite justifiably. Very often, families live as if by inertia, not interested in the mood, thoughts and actions of those who are with them under the same roof. A woman lovingly prepares dinner, choosing the best dishes from a cookbook, and in response she hears a “thank you” on duty. There is an instructive joke on this topic: the mother of the family put an armful of hay on the table in front of her husband and sons, and when the men began to resent, the nurse said: “How else could I know that you see what you eat?” Did this woman feel lonely? Undoubtedly.
By the way, very often a woman herself dooms herself to forced loneliness. This usually happens after an unsuccessful romance, when the relationship ended very painfully for the girl. She was abandoned, humiliated, she hurts. Instead of adequately overcoming these difficulties, a defense mechanism is activated that finds the cause and, summarizing, says that men are evil. And the woman is no longer trying to build her personal life, believing that everything will end the same way as last time.
As a result, she becomes even more unhappy than before. Since fear prevents her from creating relationships, and her entire subconscious craves to love and be loved, a woman lives contrary to her desires. And, in the end, she has to restore not only the ability to trust men, but also to be treated for loneliness. But if the reason is not in the second half of the person? What if someone clearly lacks communication? Let's look at the problems of social loneliness.
From loneliness to self-improvement
Ask yourself the question: why do others not want to communicate with you? Maybe they are not interested in you? Or are you fixated on one topic that people get bored talking about for the hundredth time? This happens sometimes with young mothers who are ready to discuss their newborn baby all day long. How he eats, how he sleeps, how he holds his head. And if for the first time unmarried friends willingly listen to your enthusiastic speeches about the achievements of the child, then after a week they begin to leave communication, referring to some problems. Do not think that these very problems do not exist, and that a friend invented them in order to get rid of you. They are. And not at all with your interlocutor, but with you. You are no longer interesting to people. They stopped developing. And therein lies the problem of your loneliness.
What to do? Many young mothers will now begin to talk about the fact that they do not have enough time to study, otherwise they would be happy to learn something new and interesting. But is it? And what prevents you from taking a new book for a walk with your baby? While the baby sleeps in the stroller in the air, you are improving. And it can be not only a ladies' novel, but also a textbook on psychology or a self-instruction manual in English. You must do your best to be a useful and interesting conversationalist.
The psychology of loneliness is very multifaceted and combines a number of versatile human problems. That is, a young mother, and the director of a large enterprise, and an old pensioner, and even a minor student can experience loneliness. Everyone's reasons are different. Consequence is one. And in order to get rid of loneliness, you need to determine what type of psychological problem has overtaken you.
Types of Loneliness
- Cosmic loneliness
It can be encountered at any age. Here a person feels a break in ties with nature, the cosmos. But that's just his feelings. In fact, he loses touch with himself, and this is a much more difficult problem than the absence of an interlocutor. Cosmic loneliness is observed in those people who do not live their lives, sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, whose talent does not develop.
It can be as obedient child who does the will of the parents against their own needs, as well as a housewife who dreamed of becoming a leading economist, but ended up devoting herself to the family. To overcome such a problem, self-realization and upholding one's own point of view are necessary.
- cultural loneliness
This feeling arises if the personal values of a person do not fully correspond to the values of society. A similar problem is faced by dissidents, emigrants, people who have had to go through deep social changes. Cultural loneliness was very common among older people during the collapse of the Soviet Union. The country began to live in a new way, but part of society did not want to accept these changes. This type of loneliness is especially acutely experienced by people in adulthood and old age.
- social loneliness
When a person is forced to cut off contact with a certain group that he would like to be a member of. It can be a job (the woman was sent to a well-deserved rest) or an institute (the student was expelled for unsatisfactory behavior). In this case, a person feels not only lonely, but also expelled, unworthy. He withdraws into himself for a long time, over and over again experiencing his collapse in his soul, mentally replaying the situation, going through the options that, in his opinion, could save the situation.
Often the feeling of social loneliness is exacerbated by those who are close to the collapsed person. Colleagues continue to call and tell in a cheerful voice that the enterprise is flourishing. The students invite the expelled comrade to a party where they actively discuss the past session. Solution: Have you been fired? Are you suffering? Then cut all ties with your past job so that nothing reminds you of the fiasco. You can even change your route so you don't drive past your old job every day.
- interpersonal loneliness
Here the reason is the rupture of ties with other people. For example, a person has no friends. Or there are people around him whom he cannot trust. Many in this case turn to a dating service or begin to communicate with strangers on the street. However, if you do not determine the true cause of interpersonal loneliness, you will not be able to build new relationships. To overcome it, seek the help of a psychologist, delve into your memory. Most likely, you are hindered by an old inferiority complex. Get rid of him, and new friends will appear by themselves.
When is loneliness good?
Are there people who consciously accept loneliness as a model of behavior? Of course. These are introverts. Introverted people who don't need companionship to feel happy and self-sufficient. Naturally, introverts do not adhere to complete loneliness. They have family, friends. But in general, they lead a fairly secluded lifestyle. Moreover, they can only recover one on one with themselves.
When does loneliness become fatal for them? Then, when the connection with a loved one breaks, and at any age. For example, a woman had a fight with her best friend. Or your husband filed for divorce. Suffering is exacerbated by the fact that introverts are very reluctant to let outsiders into their lives, and those who are considered close are highly valued. From this, the losses become more significant than for a sociable extrovert. To overcome the resulting stress, an introvert needs time and, of course, healthy loneliness.
Changing attitudes towards loneliness
No matter how strange it may sound, but psychologists do not consider loneliness as the main problem - the essence is in relation to this feeling of people. Example: a woman raised children, married them off and now feels uncomfortable in an empty apartment. She lacks communication, the voices of children. She is alone. To smooth out the feeling that has arisen, the woman often begins to visit new families of children, call them in the evenings. Naturally, young people may not like such close attention. There is a conflict.
And what, according to psychologists, should a woman do to overcome her loneliness? Find yourself a new hobby. Join an interest club, make friends with people like her. Look at how people behave in old age in the West. They communicate a lot, travel, have parties where there is no place for loud music and strong liquor. Guests listen to old records and talk about knitting or fishing. They are happy and do not burden children with their problems. Therefore, try to love your loneliness, find the positive aspects in the fact that you are currently alone, and life will get better.
Talk 2
Fantasists depict most extraterrestrial civilizations as anthropomorphic, to the point of being completely indistinguishable from humans. There are works with non-humanoid characters, but these characters differ from a person most often in form, and not in content (Hol Clement, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, etc.). Very rare are works where another mind is incomprehensible, and contact is impossible (Fred Hoyle's Black Cloud, Solaris, Eden, Invincible, Stanislav Lem's Fiasco, Peter Watts' False Blindness). The last type of reason seemed to be the most probable in reality, but, with rare exceptions, far from literature.
Space is a different habitat, a different evolution, a different attitude to reality. Everything else!
The second circumstance that made the descriptions of contacts with distrust was the speed of light, which limits the possibilities of interstellar flights. Fantasts came up with spaceships flying through zero-, over-, under-, super-hyper- and other spaces, which subsequently received scientific justification in the form of "wormholes". However, to create an artificial "wormhole" you need as much energy as humanity does not have and will not have for a very long time (perhaps never). And natural "wormholes", if they exist at all, are unlikely to be located near the solar system, so they cannot solve the problem of interstellar flights.
Fiction about contacts developed in line with optimism. Space Science Fiction Paradigm: There are a lot of extraterrestrial intelligences. The science of space, on the one hand, confirmed the hopes of science fiction writers, on the other hand, it unconditionally rejected them.
Frank Donald Drake, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California at Santa Cruz, developed a formula in 1960 to estimate the number of highly developed civilizations. With optimistic scenarios, it turned out that only in our Galaxy there could be millions of civilizations more or less similar to ours.
However, over time, pessimistic estimates of the probability of the origin of life also arose, leaving practically no chances for a future meeting of brothers in mind. The probability of a random occurrence of a living molecule from non-living matter is so small that such a process requires a period that is many orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the Universe. In addition to this unlikely accident, dozens of others are needed to reduce the negligible probability of the appearance of intelligent life on Earth to almost zero. From article to article, the idea wanders that without the presence of a massive satellite (the Moon) near the Earth, which stabilizes the tilt of the axis of rotation, life would sooner or later die. And if there were no giant planets in the outer orbits of the Solar System, the bombardment of the Earth by comets and asteroids could destroy all life in the first billion years of its existence (there are, however, works in which intense asteroid bombardments are declared a consequence of the restructuring of the orbits of gaseous giants that perturbed the asteroid belt, but it was the bombardments that could contribute to the emergence of life, so everything here is rather foggy. Note. ed.). Similar bombardments (albeit weaker) repeatedly led to the extinction of many species of living organisms. Incredible luck that Homo sapiens survived, although his chances were extremely small.
The emergence of a universe suitable for life is also extremely unlikely. If the value of Planck's constant differed from the current one by a few percent, atoms could not form, there would be no stars and planets. If the cosmological constant (now called dark energy) were a little different, the Universe would either expand instantly or collapse very quickly. In both cases, life would not have had time to arise. And so on.
Pessimists are sure that for the origin and subsequent development of life on Earth, the coincidence of such a large number of different conditions is necessary that the probability of repeating such a process anywhere in the Universe is practically zero. Cosmologists call this "fine-tuning" and formulate the "strong anthropic principle" that "the universe is the way it is because we exist in it."
There are two alternative consequences of the strong anthropic principle.
First: God exists, and his will created the universe as we observe it. Probability theory has nothing to do with it.
Modern science offers a different alternative: our universe is not the only one. There are many universes with different laws of nature, world constants and initial conditions. No matter how small the probability of the emergence of our Universe, such a Universe is certainly present in an infinitely diverse set of worlds.
Modern physics comes to a similar conclusion based on various ideas and theories. The inflationary model of the Big Bang assumes the continuous emergence of many universes (chaotic inflation). String theory allows for an infinite number of worlds, each of which is no less real than the others. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of a huge (perhaps also infinite) number of worlds - as many as there are solutions to the Schrödinger equations.
The theory admits the existence of "parallel" worlds, but no one will ever be able to observe them.
In recent years, this concept seems to be beginning to change. Physical experiments have been carried out bordering on fantasy (the Dutch group of Paul Kvyat, the Japanese physicists Tsegaue and Namekata, the Brazilian physicists Adonai and Ottavio), the results of which, in principle, can be interpreted as the interaction of different physical realities.
It's time to come up with an idea that is equally crazy for science and fiction. The idea of inter-world astronautics, which will not need spaceships and sub-light speeds. Perhaps further research will show that this idea is wrong, but it has qualities that have always attracted science fiction writers, and now scientists. Such ideas, which at first seem crazy, sometimes win out and become everyday practice. At one time, the ideas of the constancy of the speed of light and the quantization of electron orbits in the atom looked crazy. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was at one time not only insane, but also seditious.
Almost all descriptions of contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence sin with anthropomorphism and extensiveness. The "strength" of the mind is determined by its energy capabilities. In 1964, the Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Semyonovich Kardashev proposed such a classification of intelligent civilizations.
Type I civilization uses energy comparable to the energy of its planet.
more developed type II civilization capable of harnessing the energy of a star.
Type III Civilization utilizes the energy of the galaxy.
According to this logic, there may be Type IV civilizations, capable of using the energy of clusters and superclusters of galaxies, and Type V civilizations utilizing the energy of the universe.
With this approach, expansionist needs grow to the size of galaxies, and the inherent human need to colonize new "lands", including through military intervention, extends to all extraterrestrial civilizations.
In my opinion, it is more correct to classify civilizations not by extensive (energy), but by intensive (new knowledge) feature. Reason is the ability to explain the surrounding world and the ability to create new knowledge about the universe. And only then - attempts to use this knowledge for practical applications.
Type I civilizations consider their planet to be the center of the world.
Type II civilizations consider their star to be the center of the world.
Type III civilizations sure that they live in a single universe.
Type IV civilizations know about the many worlds, but have not yet learned how to move from one world to another.
Type V civilizations can make contact with worlds where the laws of physics are the same.
Type VI civilizations make contacts with worlds where the laws of nature are different.
Type VII civilizations able to change the laws of physics and create worlds according to the changed laws.
Possible civilizations VIII, IX and more "advanced" types which we currently have no idea about.
Once upon a time, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and was created by God (gods) specifically so that humanity could live on it. Then they realized that the Earth is not the center, and placed the Sun in the center. Then came the understanding that the Sun is not the center of the universe, but just an ordinary star. The natural thought arose that many intelligent races could exist on many planets around many other stars. Moving on to the next stage of development (type III civilization), people realized that the Galaxy is not the center of the universe, there are billions of galaxies in the expanding Universe. And modern ideas about the physical many-worlds transform the Universe into the category of one of an infinite number of diverse universes.
Humanity moves even further away from the non-existent center of the universe, but returns (on a new turn of the spiral) to the understanding that there are an infinite number of intelligent races. The problem, however, is that each civilization is in its own universe.
Far from every universe, the existence of life and intelligence is possible. An infinitely large number of universes are unsuitable for the development of any kind of life, and only an extremely small fraction of them support the conditions for the emergence of intelligence. But since there are infinitely many worlds, even a very small part of them is enough for an infinite number of universes to exist, where not only life, but also intelligence is possible.
Humanity belongs to the type transitional from the third to the fourth.
In just five centuries, mankind has passed the path of development from civilization I type to III. It is a type III civilization that generates assumptions about many minds in a single universe, looks for them, does not find them, and begins to think about how unlikely the birth of mind is. When a civilization moves to type IV (we are already close to it), the vector of scientific research shifts, the main paradigm changes. The mind has already explained why it is alone in this Universe, and understood that communication with other branches of the many worlds is not only possible, but also inevitable. It is then that the long-awaited meeting with another mind will take place, which, most likely, is also unique in its universe.
A natural question arises: if we are the only ones in our Universe and it is practically impossible to find us among a huge number of star systems in a huge number of galaxies, then how can we, even if we manage to make the transition to another universe, find “brothers in mind” in its depths?
I don't have a scientific answer to this question. A discovery has not yet been made that allows our civilization to move on to the next, fifth type. But I am sure that such a discovery will be made, as the discoveries were made, thanks to which humanity evolved from the first type to the third.
Let's assume that the classification is correct, the reasoning is correct, and there are no other civilizations in the Universe than ours. To establish contact with other civilizations, one must first understand, then explain, and then learn how to communicate between different worlds in the multiworld. Is it necessary, therefore, to abandon attempts to reach distant planets and stars with the help of already existing technology?
Of course not. It is impossible to approach a new qualitative leap without going through all the previous stages of development. The faster humanity goes through all the current stages of research and technical development, the faster it will reach a discovery that will change the fate of our civilization.
Therefore, it is necessary to fly, explore space, build colonies on Mars, scientific stations in the orbit of Saturn, send expeditions to Pluto and the Kuiper belt. We need to search for extraterrestrial civilizations in all conceivable ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. We need to search for Earth-like planets located in the "belts of life" in distant star systems. The more powerful the offensive, the faster humanity will pass this necessary stage and rise to the fourth level of development.
Only when a type IV civilization makes another Copernican revolution and an infinite number of universes are opened for study, we will be able to choose for research worlds that have arisen “in our image and likeness”, contacts with other civilizations will become possible, probable and certainly will occur.
Show comments (41)
Collapse comments (41)
-
1. "It is not clear where these repeated stages of the development of the universe and their contents come from." - I recommend reading: Green B. "Hidden Reality" ch.2 "Infinite Doubles", Carroll S. "Eternity" ch.10 "Recurring Nightmares", Smolin L. "Return of Time" ch.18 "Infinite Space or Infinite Time? "
2. "Matter from stage to stage is constantly becoming more complex." - each such stage can be conditionally considered a "world" or "universe", so your hypothesis is just a "multi-stage" version of the "sequential" version of the multiverse.
3. "Free will is due to the laws of quantum mechanics, which postulates chaos." - strictly speaking, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with chaos, but I understand what you are talking about. A similar position is advocated by Frank Tipler in The Physics of Immortality. This does not give true freedom of will, because. no matter what "pulls the strings" - dynamical laws, random quantum events, or combinations thereof - we are in any case just puppets.
4. "It's much easier to model sugar with sugar itself." - the question here is not what is simpler, but that in ANY version of the multiverse, ALL possible objects and events are realized, REGARDLESS of how simple, probable, reasonable, etc. they are.
5. "...what I wrote is dialectics." - it's better to rely on physics, mathematics and logic (I recommend reading - Popper K. "Assumptions and rebuttals" ch.15 "What is dialectics").Answer
1. Currently, there are no reliably established observational and experimental data that would confirm the multiverse hypothesis. See the comment dated 21.07.2016 21:24 (fourth paragraph from the bottom). Therefore, all reasoning on this topic, including the contents of these wonderful books, is pure fantasy. If you think differently, then write arguments in defense of your point of view.
2. "Matter from stage to stage is constantly becoming more complex." - each such stage can be conditionally considered a "world" or "universe", so your hypothesis is just a "multi-stage" version of the "sequential" version of the multiverse.»
The sequential version assumes the emergence of each new universe from a "clean slate", with a new random set of parameters. Eventually, after an almost infinite number of stages, the set of parameters in the universe will coincide with the parameters of our world, which explains the existence of living matter.
In contrast, the hypothesis assumes that each new stage partially or completely inherits the properties of the previous one, possibly in a transformed form. At the same time, at each new stage, the properties of matter develop.
Hypothesis has much in common with Dialectics.
Dialectics teaches that everything in the world flows, everything changes, everything is in constant motion and development. From the point of view of dialectics, as a result of the action of the law of negation-negation, development goes in a spiral, each subsequent turn of which characterizes a new quality.
“The law of negation-negation gives a generalized expression of development as a whole, revealing the inner. connection, action. nature of development; it expresses such a transition of phenomena from one quality. state to another, with Krom in a new quality, certain features of the old quality are reproduced at a higher level. In a word, this law also expresses the process of a fundamental change in the old quality, a recurring connection between different stages of development, i.e. main development trend and continuity between the old and the new. Development takes place in such a way that the highest stage of development appears as a synthesis of the entire preceding movement in its sublated form (see Submission). Each moment of development, no matter how different it may be from the previous one, comes from it, is the result of its development, therefore it concludes, preserves it in itself in a transformed form. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/5985/DIALECTIC3. “...It does not give true freedom of will, because no matter what "pulls the strings" - dynamical laws, random quantum events, or combinations of them - we are in any case just puppets.
The Copenhagen interpretation states that in quantum mechanics the result of a measurement is fundamentally non-deterministic. This may refer to the "measurement" of nerve impulses by a neuron. The result of comparing the pulse with a commensurate threshold, due to quantum noise, is unpredictable. Therefore, no one can pull the "strings".
4. “... The question here is not what is simpler, but that ALL possible objects and events are realized in ANY version of the multiverse, REGARDLESS of how simple, probable, reasonable, etc.”
I'm sorry, I wrote about virtual worlds, not about multiverses.
5. "It's better to rely on physics, mathematics and logic (I recommend reading - Popper K. "Assumptions and Refutations" ch.15 "What is Dialectics").
The hypothesis is similar to dialectics, while it does not contradict physics. At present, due to the new level of knowledge, some concepts of dialectics need to be updated. For example, I do not agree with the self-movement of matter. Self-motion is typical only for virtual particles. Physical "self-propulsion" requires energy.
I mentioned dialectics in connection with the fact that this philosophical concept is well known. And it explains a lot, for example, the origin of life, the consistency of parameters in the universe, and so on. At the same time, you did not mention it among the alternatives.
Answer
1. "... there is no reliably established observational and experimental data that would confirm the multiverse hypothesis. ... If you think differently, then write arguments in defense of your point of view." - I consider any variants of the multiverse hypothesis to be absurd, and it was to demonstrate this that I deduced absurd consequences from this hypothesis in my post on LiveJournal. It is strange that you did not understand this.
2. "... the hypothesis assumes that each new stage partially or completely inherits the properties of the previous one, possibly in a transformed form." - Smolin ("cosmological natural selection") and Penrose ("conformal cyclic cosmology") already have such hypotheses. Despite the fact that both criticize the hypothesis of the multiverse, they still end up with different versions of the "consecutive" version of the multiverse, because they are based on physics, and physics can offer nothing but various variants of the multiverse ("... The general principle is clear. Every time we transfer control to the mathematical apparatus of the basic physical laws, we again and again find ourselves in some version of parallel worlds." - Green B. "Hidden Reality").
3. I did not mention the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic with its "law of negation of negation" as an alternative for the same reason that I did not mention the following "theories": the Buddhist theory of "dharmas" with its "law of causal arising" (pratitya Samutpada), Hindu philosophy of Sankhya with its three "gunas" in "prakriti", Taoist philosophy with its powers of "yin" and "yang", Greek philosophy with its "elements", Kabbalistic philosophy with its ten "sefirot", etc. P. All these "theories" also "explain" everything wonderfully, but "for some reason" even such adherents of atheism as Hawking, Dawkins, Stenger, Carroll and others believe that the only alternative to physicalism is the "God hypothesis" ("... In As a solution to the problem, two options are proposed. One is God. The second is an alternative - the anthropic principle. "- Dawkins R. "God as an illusion").
4. "... I wrote about virtual worlds, not about multiverses" - both virtual worlds and the objects that implement them are physically possible, which means that they exist in the multiverse, no matter how simple, probable, reasonable, etc. Since in my post I deduced logical consequences from the multiverse hypothesis, this is exactly what I wrote about.
5. Genuine free will cannot be derived from either deterministic or non-deterministic physical processes, which Hawking, Lloyd and others agree with. If you have not come up with some other physical processes that are not reducible to these two types, then what are you arguing.Answer
-
Dynamic chaos gives not "genuine randomness", but "unpredictability", which is perceived as randomness. In any case, for true (and not illusory) free will, no physical processes are enough ("It is difficult to imagine how free will can manifest itself if our behavior is determined by physical laws. Therefore, it seems that we are nothing more than biological machines , and free will is just an illusion" - Hawking S. "Higher Design").
Answer
Philosophical quotations have about the same power in this area as spells in medicine.
Dynamic chaos gives exactly true randomness. It cannot be "perceived" by finite automata otherwise. We don't have any other machines and never will. Hope for something "more accidental" - a matter of faith, moreover, completely unfounded.Answer
"Dynamic chaos is a phenomenon in the theory of dynamical systems in which the behavior of a non-linear system looks random, despite the fact that it is determined by deterministic laws." - quote from Wikipedia.
"... A truly random outcome is unexpected because it is unpredictable by its nature. This outcome is not due to any causal chain, even the most complex one. A truly random outcome cannot be predicted - because before it arose, it simply did not exist and was not necessary. Its realization appears as a pure act of creation. - Zhizan N. "Quantum randomness" (Nicolas Zhizan - a specialist in the field of quantum information, quantum communication, quantum mechanics, the author of a breakthrough Geneva experiment on the transmission of quantum entanglement of photon pairs via optical fiber)
As for free will, there are no quotations, except for philosophical ones, in this area at all. Whether you have free will or the illusion of free will is always a matter of faith.Answer
-
1. I used the word "absurd" not in a strictly logical sense, because I don't think it's possible to disprove the multiverse hypothesis with a formal contradiction ("A implies not-A, therefore not-A is true" or "A implies B and not-B, therefore not-A is true"). Falsification (in Popper's sense) is also difficult, because there is almost no "empirical basis". In addition, any contradiction can be declared simply a "paradox", and in case of discrepancy between the empirical data and the hypothesis, one can always "correct" the hypothesis or come up with another version of the multiverse. Therefore, in my post, I used something like what Schrödinger did in the cat example: there, too, while we are thinking about particles in a quantum superposition, the situation, although it seems very strange, does not cause rejection; when it comes to a cat that is in a superposition of a living and a dead cat, the situation turns into an unbearable absurdity. That is why "Schrödinger's cat" has been controversial and stimulates thinking for many decades up to the present.
2. "The circle narrowed down to the Smolin hypothesis" - Smolin's hypothesis is also unlikely to suit you: "Here is the essence of his theory. In any universe in which there is gravity, black holes can form. Smolin talks about what can happen inside black holes, in particular, at the point of singularity. He believes, in my opinion, completely unfounded, that instead of the collapse of space at the point of singularity, the universe is resurrected. New universes are born inside black holes. If this is so, Smolin believes, then black holes are formed in universes that themselves are inside black holes that form in universes - etc., which leads to evolution towards the maximum fitness of universes. By fitness, Smolin means the ability to produce a large number of black holes and, thus, produce numerous offspring. Smolin then suggests that our universe has the greatest fitness of all possible, that is, the laws of nature in our pocket are such that they lead to the maximum possible number of black holes. From which he concludes that there is no need for the anthropic principle. The universe is not ideally suited for life, it is ideally suited for the production of black holes "- Susskind L. "Spacescape".
3. "For example, in the previous stage there might not have been the space familiar to us, atoms, molecules, etc. At the same time, the laws of mechanics were meaningless." - with such a description, it is simply not clear what to discuss. Give at least something physical with which you can "work". For example, if your "World" (now or in the past) is spatially infinite, then you immediately get a "level 1 multiverse" in the terminology of Max Tegmark, or a "patchwork multiverse" in the terminology of Brian Greene (a multiverse of volumes within cosmological horizons). If it is spatially finite, then it must have a finite state space in accordance with fundamental physical principles, and it must pass through the same states (Poincaré's recurrence theorem) throughout the eternal past (this conclusion can only be avoided under very artificial assumptions ). If in your "World" even fundamental physical principles can lose their meaning, then any reasoning about such a "World" turns into empty fantasies (or into the "mathematical multiverse" of Max Tegmark). And by the way, if your "World" appeared "at minus infinity", then how did it get to the present moment through an infinite number of states? Any person understands that it is impossible to count from zero to infinity, but for some reason it seems to many that it is possible to count from "minus infinity" to zero.Answer
3. “For example, in the previous stage there might not have been the space familiar to us, atoms, molecules, etc. At the same time, the laws of mechanics were meaningless. "- with such a description, it is simply not clear what to discuss."
I meant the laws of classical mechanics, because space in its classical form at the previous stage could not exist. However, this is not an obstacle to the operation of the laws of quantum mechanics.
From the point of view of classical mechanics, the laws of quantum mechanics are absurd. For example, for particles, the principle of non-locality applies. A photon is a non-local particle. When interacting with matter, the wave function of a photon will instantly contract from the entire universe, regardless of its size, to the point of interaction, as if there is no space at all. The laws of quantum mechanics do not find an understandable explanation. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. The best interpretation is "do not try to understand, take it and count." Calculations based on quantum mechanics work great.
I think that the laws of quantum mechanics passed through the big bang as one of the foundations of our world.
Assumptions regarding space and time, in the previous stage
Perhaps time and space as such existed. However, there might not have been a classical linear space. Space could be multi-connected and chaotic, like quantum foam. In such a space, when moving forward, a particle, with a certain degree of probability, could hit any point - for example, both forward and backward. Moreover, at any classical distance, for example, from one “edge” of the universe to another. Over time, the space began to be structured with the formation of some order and straighten.
“For example, if your “World” (now or in the past) is spatially infinite, then you immediately get a “level 1 multiverse” in the terminology of Max Tegmark, or a “patchwork multiverse” in the terminology of Brian Greene (a multiverse of volumes within cosmological horizons) ."
The size of the present universe does not matter, because in the previous stage of the world, matter could be non-local. The entire real universe, no matter how big it may be, most likely obeys the same laws and arose at the same time. It follows from this that the universe does not have separate sections that have arisen from a different basis and which can be considered as different versions of the "patches" of the universe to justify the anthropic principle.
"If it is spatially finite, then it must have a finite state space according to fundamental physical principles, and it must go through the same states throughout the eternal past."
The point is that the state space is not static. The space of states can be finite only for a separate stage of the development of the World. With the evolutionary ordering of matter, new degrees of freedom are formed, and with the transition to each new stage of development, the space of states can increase by many orders of magnitude. And so it can be indefinitely, as long as evolution goes on. This is true at least for the current stage and for the process of transition from the previous stage to the current one (expansion of physical space, formation of matter, emergence of life). In fact, an increase in the state space is a prerequisite for constant evolution.
“If in your “World” even fundamental physical principles can lose their meaning, then any reasoning about such a World turns into empty fantasies (or into Max Tegmark’s “mathematical multiverse”).”
With regard to the loss of meaning of fundamental principles, I do not agree with such rigid formulations, at least in relation to the current and previous stage of development. In accordance with the laws of evolution, the laws of physics of the previous world must be included in the foundation of the current stage of the world. Evolution, as a rule, does not throw out the old.
In relation to more distant stages, one can assume and build hypotheses. It can be assumed that the physical laws at the stages remote in the past were different, and in the future, with the formation of new forms of matter, new laws and principles will come into effect. This follows from the accepted postulate - the constant evolution of matter.
As an example of new forms of matter, described using new physical and non-physical principles, we can name:
1) Life education. Speaking in another language, this is the appearance of self-replication of complex structures of matter. (At the previous stage, presumably, only replication of fundamental particles was available).
2) The emergence of the mind. The emergence of the mind is the formation of complex structures in the form of neural networks in living beings, the formation of an information model of the surrounding world in these networks and the possibility of complex behavior based on predictions that can be formed on the basis of the model. It should be noted that the neural network in the flow of external information highlights order and seeks harmony, and the internal model of the human world is more harmonious than the world itself. At the same time, a person forms his behavior on the basis of an internal model - he cuts lawns, draws pictures, builds objects of the correct form.
The grandiosity of the phenomenon of the emergence of intelligent life lies in the fact that over time, intelligent life is able to rebuild the entire landscape of the universe in accordance with the principles of harmony. This restructuring will be the result of not only the work of simple laws of physics, but the result of a combination of the laws of physics and information.
This combination of the laws of physics and the laws of information is a new principle that has presumably not been used before in the universe. (Although, who knows?)"And, by the way, if your "World" appeared "at minus infinity", then how did it get to the present moment through an infinite number of states.
Minus infinity appeared due to the fact that it was necessary to explain the origin of matter itself. If we accept infinity, then matter can arise from "nothing", by evolution. "Nothing" can be interpreted as absolute chaos. Absolute chaos is, on the one hand, the absence of anything specific, on the other hand, the possibility of absolutely everything. Out of chaos, in the process of evolution as a result of cutting off everything that is not viable, our World arose.
As I already wrote, an increase in the degree of order creates new degrees of freedom, which is the driving force of evolution. Chaos is an absolute disorder, so the magnitude of the driving potential for evolution is quite enough.
The space of parameters of possible states of strings according to string theory is not yet chaos. Compared to absolute chaos, this space can look highly ordered. The space of chaos parameters can be infinite. Therefore, in order to form our world, it is necessary to cut off an infinite number of unnecessary options, which requires time approaching infinity.
It should be noted that the origin of matter in the multiverse hypothesis cannot be explained in a similar way, since it is necessary to increase the number of universes with different parameters by a number in the form of one with more than a million zeros, which is an obvious absurdity.
Answer
The flight of your imagination is impressive, but with the ease with which you postulate new unknown states, principles and essences, any critical examination of your hypothesis loses all meaning. I have absolutely nothing to say here, so - good luck!
Answer
Dear xlost_z, thanks for the discussion. It seemed to me that because you spent a lot of time writing a post (on a livejournal) and reading a lot of books, you have a lot of energy and you will defend your point of view. I'm sorry you gave up so quickly.
What I have written are only fragments of a much larger system of beliefs, where all the fragments are well connected to each other. Therefore, I can quickly respond to your arguments. I countered your theological hypothesis with the hypothesis of the evolution of matter. If the hypothesis of evolution is true (in a local form - in the field of biological evolution it is certainly true), you will not be able to refute it, no matter how hard you try.
Any elements that you think I postulate, in the event of a different outcome of the discussion, I could try to explain in detail.
Answer
I think that the discussion should be stopped, because. I see radical contradictions in our views on basic principles, for example, on "infinity" and "existence". For me, "finite" and "infinite" are separated by an unbridgeable chasm, and when someone uses expressions like "time approaching infinity", I take it as an indicator that the discussion should end. I also consider your description of chaos to be meaningless (sorry for being harsh): ""Nothing" can be interpreted as absolute chaos. Absolute chaos is, on the one hand, the absence of anything concrete, on the other hand, the possibility of absolutely everything.
For me, something physical either exists or does not exist - there is no middle ground. If your chaos is the "absence of something specific", then such chaos simply does not physically exist, and there is absolutely nothing to "cut off" from. If your chaos physically exists and there is "the possibility of absolutely everything" in it, then this is the very multiverse in which "everything that is physically possible" exists, and which I consider absurd. The process that "cuts off" the possibilities is possible for me only in some kind of mind, and "natural selection" can act only on what physically exists.
Evolution purposefully going out of chaos in a single way in the direction of precisely our physical environment is completely implausible. It is not clear why only one "tree of evolution" appeared out of chaos and where all the rest of its endless "branches" that should have appeared throughout the infinite past disappeared. It is not clear what is the tool of "natural selection" if there is no "environment" for your "World", and what meaning can be put into the concept of "selection". Also, your distinction between "parameter space" and "number of degrees of freedom" is meaningless, and one of them gradually decreases (being initially infinite!), And the other increases.
I completely agree with you that I cannot disprove your hypothesis, no matter how hard I try, because if there is no agreement on the basic principles, then the discussion cannot lead to any result. I will definitely not change my views on the basic principles, and if you change yours, then your hypothesis will come to an end. That is why it is better to end the discussion (sorry again for the harsh assessments, I tried to avoid this).
P.S. "It seemed to me ... you have a lot of energy" - in fact, I am a very reserved person, and any communication, oral or written, exhausts me extremely quickly.
P.P.S. I believe in biological evolution, in the evolution of planets, stars, galaxies and in the Big Bang. But when they try to extend the principle of evolution to something infinite (infinite space, infinite time, an infinite number of post-inflationary domains, etc.), the "evolutionary tree" also becomes infinitely large ("overgrown" with an infinite number of "branches"), so that it turns out multiverse with its absurd principle "everything physically possible exists (or existed in the infinite past)". Therefore, I do not believe in anything infinite (but I admit the potentially infinite).Answer
Dear xlost_z, thank you for answering and explaining your position. For me your questions are interesting. I will try to answer them. Perhaps it will turn out to be very long and not entirely logical, but I will try to make it clear.
Regarding infinity.
If I wrote that the world arose, for example, during the big bang, in the form of one version of the string layout from string theory, the question would arise, who created the strings themselves and the spaces in which they exist. In this case, I would lose the discussion. Therefore, I tried to come up with a construction in which, there is no beginning, and at the same time it is not a cyclic universe. In addition, limiting the time of evolution reduces the degree of perfection of the universe. Ideally, a universe as perfect as ours would take a potentially infinite amount of time.
Regarding chaos.
The possibility of everything implies the following. Let's say you need to build a house. To begin with, you will drive a stake in the field, thereby marking the place where the house will be. By doing this, you significantly narrow the possibilities associated with the house that were before. The house will no longer be built on other plots of land. Next, pour the foundation of the house. This further narrows the possibilities. If the foundation is small, then the construction of the castle will be cut off. Ultimately, when the house is built, the possibilities associated with construction will be zero.
Not one of the modern theories, including string theory, does not assume the existence of infinite possibilities. The possibilities of the environment from which the multiverses could form are limited to approximately ten to the five hundredth power of the universes. In order for the universe to be more perfect, it is necessary that evolution embrace the maximum number of possibilities. In the analogy of a house, this means that, for example, before a stake is driven in, it is necessary that a process of reviewing and comparing tracts of land on the entire planet must go through. And even better, ideally, on all the planets of the universe. Maybe even in the stars, for a very exotic home, or in black holes. Which will take a lot of time.
With respect to the environment, is the vacuum material or not? It is believed that it is not material. However, it can generate known particles by giving energy to the virtual particles. But the vacuum is not absolute chaos, but a product of the evolution of absolute chaos, a significant part of the possibilities of which has already been exhausted - it has acquired quite definite properties and is oriented towards our concrete World. If you give energy to virtual particles, then it will generate particles known to us, and not a set of particles from an alternative universe or even abracadabra.
“Evolution purposefully going out of chaos in a single way in the direction of precisely our physical environment is completely implausible. It is not clear what is the tool of "natural selection" if there is no "environment" for your "World", and what meaning can be put into the concept of "selection" at all.
You are not right. Evolution is severely limited by paths that unequivocally lead to the World in which life and intelligence arise. Perhaps there are several such paths, and only one is implemented. But it does not matter.
The ultimate goal of evolution (if evolution can have a goal) is to increase the order and increase the complexity of the structures of matter. The process of increasing complexity and order is characterized by the fact that only in this case additional degrees of freedom for matter arise. Additional degrees of freedom, in turn, contribute to the process of evolution, which leads to an increase in the degree of complexity and order. Such a process can go on continuously and inevitably leads to the formation of structures of very high complexity, such as living matter and neural networks that are the carriers of minds.
From the point of view of thermodynamics, this means that as the degrees of freedom increase, the medium cools. The cooling of the medium leads to the manifestation of additional degrees of freedom based on weaker interactions. Weak interactions are characterized by the possibility of forming more complex structures that previously collapsed, and which, in turn, have more degrees of freedom.
From this point of view, the modern vacuum is an environment in which structures have maximized their degrees of freedom. As a result, the medium moved to the lowest energy level and “disappeared”, if we consider its influence on the movement of material bodies - it does not slow down the uniform movement of bodies and is absolutely transparent to electromagnetic radiation. The exceptions are the fundamental constants and the laws of mechanics (and, perhaps, all physical laws), which are the essence of the properties of vacuum. As a result of the formation of modern vacuum, material bodies received maximum degrees of freedom, which gave impetus to the evolution of matter at the present stage - the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, living matter, mind.
Evolution plays the following role in this process. As a result of the complication of matter, the resulting degrees of freedom must be occupied. This can take place on a competitive basis between different structures. Structures that are more adapted to the current state of matter and can form stable ensembles win. At the same time, natural selection at one of the stages can go on until an ensemble of structures is found that will lead to the formation of new degrees of freedom.
Figuratively speaking, the structures of matter are constantly fighting for the living space, and when it is conquered, the living space is equipped, which leads to the expansion of the degrees of freedom (or to the expansion of the living space) and a new war of the descendants of these structures for a new living space begins.
There were no material degrees of freedom in the initial chaos. There were only possibilities. In the process of evolution, the material degrees of freedom expand, but the global area of possibilities narrows, since evolution has already rejected entire areas (root branches of the trees of possibilities).
The term "chaos".
Chaos is the essence (from the word exist). The term "Chaos" is chosen as the most appropriate term (in my opinion) to denote the essence from which our world arose.
According to Wikipedia (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos) “Chaos Chaos (ancient Greek χάος from χαίνω - open, open) is a category of cosmogony, the primary state of the Universe, a formless combination of matter and space (as opposed to order)".
The closest entity in our world to absolute chaos is the phase of matter in our universe, which is called the physical vacuum. Vacuum is the absence of something concrete. But if the virtual vacuum particles (non-existent particles) are given energy, then the vacuum will give rise to a known set of particles. Chaos in the theory of multiverses is the initial vacuum or medium from which the vacuums and structures of the matter of the multiverses arose. This chaos is not a multiverse in which all these possibilities have already been realized.
Absolute chaos can be represented as white noise, which generally does not carry any information and fits the definition of "nothing". However, anything can be extracted from white noise by filtering. The whole set of possible filtered entities that can exist, including the sets of variants of entities that can be obtained (realized) as a result of the evolution of absolute chaos, fit the definition of "all".
You can also write that absolute chaos contains all alternatives. Initially, all alternatives have the same status. In this case, there is not a single alternative that can be specifically highlighted. Therefore, the initial chaos is "nothing" and at the same time the possibility of realizing all alternatives. This state can be natural and inherent in our world from the very beginning, like the fundamental uncertainties postulated by quantum mechanics. Next comes evolution and highlights some alternatives, the sequences of which make up branches of development, cutting off non-competitive branches and entire areas of possible options. In the process of evolution, many branches can run in parallel, competing with each other.
Chaos evolves in the direction of increasing the order and complexity of its constituent structures of matter. Chaos includes all phases of matter. The environment for evolution is chaos itself and the structures of matter in it.
The term "Opportunity" according to Wikipedia is the direction of development present in every phenomenon of life; acts both as an upcoming and as an explanatory, that is, as a category. (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity)
"What sense can be put into the concept of "selection"" - Increasing the complexity of the structures of matter (increasing order).
"Also meaningless is your distinction between 'parameter space' and 'number of degrees of freedom'."
There is a vague wording here. Please excuse me. It was meant that strings from string theory have parameters (the strings are different and form a certain set of strings) and states (each of the strings has several excitation modes). A more correct expression would be: “The number of possible states of strings in string theory is finite. Therefore, string-based chaos (which existed before the formation of the multiverse) cannot be called absolute chaos. In contrast to this, the space of possible variants of matter on the basis of its birth by absolute chaos can be infinite.” - the penultimate paragraph of the post from 07/28/2016 21:17.
Answer
Continuation.
PSSS "That's why I don't believe in anything infinite (but I admit potentially-infinite)."
Let there be "potentially infinite".Dear xlost_z, I really appreciate your criticisms. Especially useful for understanding the hypothesis was the last comment from 07/29/2016 14:23.
Only a small part of the aspects of the hypothesis has been discussed here. Some aspects are very compressed and therefore may not be clear. If you find it necessary to respond to the current post, express disagreement or ask questions, please write. I will answer. In anticipation of your response, I will occasionally look here.
I think that there are no insurmountable contradictions between us in our views on the basic principles. And if there is, then they benefit the evolution of ideas - after all, development is the unity and struggle of opposites. There is some mutual misunderstanding. But it is surmountable.
Answer
Before presenting my thoughts, I want to ask you one question that has been tormenting me for a long time: why, in YOUR opinion, is there not a single hypothesis with one universe and an eternal past left in scientific cosmology (which, as I understand it, you defend)? Hypotheses of this kind were the very first to be proposed, they were held for many decades with amazing tenacity, and they were abandoned only after a hard struggle. Why was the "weak anthropic principle" called to help the principle of "natural selection"? Why did this happen - through thoughtlessness or, perhaps, through malicious intent? So far, I have the impression (excuse me) that I am discussing with another "brilliant" inventor of "perpetual motion" (not literally, of course), who in his kitchen figured out how to get around the fundamental physical principles. Of course, there is a possibility that you are the "new Grigory Perelman", but this seems extremely unlikely.
To quote, for example, Leonard Susskind: "It's time to stop and respond to potential criticisms that can be made against this book, namely, accusations of one-sided coverage of the problem. Where are alternative explanations for the value of the cosmological constant? Is there no argument against the existence of a giant landscape? What about other theories besides string theory? I assure you that I do not ignore alternative points of view. For decades, many people, including the most famous physicists, have tried to explain why the cosmological constant should have a very small value or even zero. The vast majority of scientists agrees that none of these attempts succeeded.I simply have nothing to tell you about this.<...>As much as I'd like to balance the book by offering alternative explanations, I just can't seem to find them." (Susskind L. "Cosmic Landscape")
As for me, no matter how critically I treat modern cosmologists with their multiverse hypothesis, I do not consider them idiots at all, and I agree with them that there is no alternative to the multiverse hypothesis (except for the “God hypothesis”, of course). If you are so sure of the irrefutability of your hypothesis, and it is as well thought out and developed as you assure me, then why not make the scientific world happy with it, instead of discussing it with an anonymous interlocutor on the Internet?
P.S. "Evolution is severely limited by paths that unequivocally lead to the World in which life and intelligence arise.<...>The ultimate goal of evolution (if evolution can have a goal) is to increase the order and increase the complexity of the structures of matter." -
“A common misconception about evolution is that it has a goal or a long-term plan. In reality, evolution has no goals or plans, and evolution does not necessarily increase the complexity of organisms. organized organisms, they are the "by-product" of evolution, and the most common in the biosphere are more "simple" organisms" (quote from the Wikipedia article "Evolution").Even if WE managed to create network games, being at the level of "amoebae", in comparison ..., then what can be said about the Creator of everything and everything that exists in timelessness and outside space. Our material concepts are very far from what they really are. A piece of sugar is just a picture synthesized in sensations. Even our technologies give the impression of the impossible. When one microscopic crystal can capture many films with amazing quality. Remember your dreams, especially close to reality. Where is the computer that synthesizes them? There is nothing in nature that our sense organs manifest. There is no color, and even light, no heat, no cold, no tactile sensations. This is inherent only to initially intelligent matter that is capable of synthesizing feelings and sensations. How and for whom simply matter synthesizes them. And where did this one come from? Even if we have created mechanisms that do fine without them and will manage to solve the most complex problems. Any
Answer
Even if WE managed to create network games, being at the level of "amoebae", in comparison ..., then what can be said about the Creator of everything and everything that exists in timelessness and outside space. Our material concepts are very far from what they really are. A piece of sugar is just a picture synthesized in sensations. Even our technologies give the impression of the impossible. When one microscopic crystal can capture many films with amazing quality. Remember your dreams, especially close to reality. Where is the computer that synthesizes them? There is nothing in nature that our sense organs manifest. There is no color, and even light, no heat, no cold, no tactile sensations. This is inherent only to initially intelligent matter that is capable of synthesizing feelings and sensations. How and for whom simply matter synthesizes them. And where did this one come from? Even if we have created mechanisms that do fine without them and will manage to solve the most complex problems. Any
“Fiction about contacts developed in line with optimism. Space Science Fiction Paradigm: There are a lot of extraterrestrial intelligences.”Good paradigm.
There is no reason to argue that there are few extraterrestrial intelligences. The discovery of many planets located in the habitable zone of many stars gives grounds for this optimism.“However, over time, pessimistic estimates of the probability of the origin of life arose, leaving practically no chances for a future meeting of brothers in mind. The probability of a random occurrence of a living molecule from a non-living substance is so small that such a process requires a period that is many orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the Universe ... "
It is believed that life on Earth arose almost immediately, as soon as more or less tolerable conditions formed on it, which indicates that life did not arise by chance.
In our world, in addition to the increase in entropy, another process is going on - the process of complicating the structures of matter. If we admit that this process objectively exists, then the fact of the emergence of living matter and man is a natural consequence of this process.“In addition to this unlikely chance, dozens of others are needed to reduce the negligible probability of the appearance of intelligent life on Earth to almost zero.”
The complication of matter should be considered as a fundamental process, as well as the increase in entropy. Minor accidents, such as the lack of a moon on the Earth, cannot stop this process. At the same time, over time, at a certain stage of development, matter will become so complicated that mind will inevitably arise. It does not matter who or what will be the bearer of the mind. The emergence of intelligent life is an inevitable consequence of increasing complexity.
“The emergence of a universe suitable for life is also extremely unlikely. If the value of Planck's constant differed from the current one by a few percent ... "
There is also no improbability in this, if we assume that our universe is only one and arose as a result of the evolution of matter. At the same time, at the current stage of evolution, as a result of the cooling of matter, our world from a quantum state and chaos passed into a more ordered state, as a result of a process called the big bang. The information state or harmony of the old world, fixed in the laws of physics, the parameters of elementary particles, fundamental constants, "passed" through the big bang and began to unfold in the new universe under new conditions, characterized by large degrees of freedom, which gave room for further complication of matter.
“Modern science offers a different alternative: our universe is not the only one. There are many universes with different laws of nature, world constants and initial conditions. No matter how small the probability of the emergence of our Universe, such a Universe is certainly present in an infinitely diverse set of worlds.
The multiverse hypothesis has not been proven. There is no direct evidence of chaotic inflation - no gravitational waves from the big bang have been detected. Moreover, the data from the Planck satellite indicate that the parameter of the tensor-scalar ratio, which characterizes the intensity of space near the big bang, is more likely to be equal to zero. String theory has not been proven. There is no reason to believe that there are an infinite number of universes.
“Now is the time to come up with an idea that is equally insane for science and fiction. The idea of inter-world astronautics, which will not need spaceships and sub-light speeds.
Better not.-------
In a non-equilibrium system, where matter/energy flows take place, from the moment of occurrence, Life, as a local area where positive feedback is organized (autocatalytic reactions), accelerates the transition of the system to thermodynamic equilibrium.The expansion of the Universe after the Big Bang is a transition to thermodynamic equilibrium. The accelerating expansion of the Universe began approximately 5 billion years ago, or 8-9 billion years after the Big Bang - enough time for Life to master the energy of the Universe - vacuum energy ("dark energy").
Answer
In order to create a virtual world, it is not necessary to have a car. It is enough to have initially reasonable matter. Assuming that the Universe can appear from a point close to infinite nothingness, we nevertheless do not admit that the Universe can be just an illusion of some intelligent matter. We ourselves are just its integral part of the information space located inside it, virtually separated from each other in the information channels. Our EGO is an integral part of one big EGO inextricably linked with it. We are both virtual observers and participants in the overall process.
Even if WE managed to create network games, being at the level of "amoebae", in comparison ..., then what can be said about the Creator of everything and everything that exists in timelessness and outside space. Our material concepts are very far from what they really are. A piece of sugar is just a picture synthesized in sensations. Even our technologies give the impression of the impossible. When in one microscopic crystal you can capture many films with amazing quality. Remember your dreams, especially close to reality. Where is the computer that synthesizes them? There is nothing in nature that our sense organs manifest. There is no color, and even light, no heat, no cold, no tactile sensations. This is inherent only to initially intelligent matter that is capable of synthesizing feelings and sensations. How and for whom simply matter synthesizes them. And where did this someone come from? Even if we have created mechanisms that do fine without them and will manage to solve the most complex problems. Any most complex mechanism consists of the simplest elements. So in which of the simple did the ego appear? Moreover, even the simplest organisms capable of feeling have an ego. Why create a feeling of pain for a mechanism where there is no Ego. Or try to create pain or any other feeling for at least the most modern supercomputer. There is simply no one who can feel. Well, and so on :) That is, the modern Universe is a brilliant thing ... Try to come up with something that cannot be and never has been. Even the simplest things Civilization invents with great difficulty. And then come up with something that was not and cannot be in principle. Create laws restricting and ordering. But on the other hand, very, very predictable, unlike our dreams ... even manageable. :)Answer
Write a comment
1. To be honest, I really did not quite understand the absurdity of the consequences of the multiverse hypothesis. Can you give at least one consequence, which, in your opinion, is the most convincing? One refutation is enough to falsify a hypothesis.
From my point of view, I proceeded from the following. 1) The multiverse hypothesis does not explain the origin of basic elements, such as strings and the structure of space, if we consider string theory as the basis of the world order. 2) The multiverse hypothesis is closely related to the chaotic inflation hypothesis. However, the Planck satellite data do not support the existence of conditions for chaotic inflation. 3) On the other hand, there are hypotheses based on evolutionism that can explain the origin of our world. Actually, I adhere to one of these hypotheses.
2. Penrose's "conformal cyclic cosmology" most likely falls into the class of successive multiverses. Therefore, it should be excluded from consideration. The circle narrowed down to Smolin's hypothesis ("cosmological natural selection") and my hypothesis.
In my hypothesis, matter in one Universe (in one World) is directly subject to natural selection and evolution without a global enumeration of options. There is an enumeration of options only at local stages, within the framework of the evolutionary process. At the same time, at the next stage, evolution relies on the result of the evolution of the previous stage. If we use the analogy with evolution in living nature, then a person originated as a result of mutations from a monkey, and not by destroying a monkey, and then randomly, by mega-mutation, directly from a bacterium, bypassing all intermediate stages. Agree, the probability of the emergence of a person through consistent evolution is much higher than as a result of random fluctuations.
"The general principle is clear. Each time we transfer control to the mathematical apparatus of the basic physical laws, we again and again find ourselves in some version of parallel worlds." - Green B. "Hidden Reality".
From stage to stage, the conditions for applying physical laws may change. For example, in the previous stage there might not have been the space familiar to us, atoms, molecules, etc. At the same time, the laws of mechanics were devoid of meaning. And at a very remote stage, physical laws could be different in principle. Just as exactly as in the early stage of biological evolution on Earth a billion years ago there were no multicellular organisms and it was pointless to talk about the mind.
The transfer of control happened only once. Next comes evolution. It happened at minus infinity - outside of our time and in the absence of physical laws. Therefore, it makes no sense to write that there was even a transfer of control at all.
I think I've written enough to separate the evolutionary hypothesis from the multiverse hypothesis. Therefore, if you still insist, I propose that the critical material with which you refute the multiverse hypothesis be directly applied to the hypothesis of evolutionism.
3. I propose to narrow down the area of discussion a little and not touch Dialectics for the time being.
Answer
(on the topic of the post at http://lost-z.livejournal.com/724.html)
Consequences.
1. "If the universe is not 'multi-world', but has an eternal past, then these and all other physically possible events and objects must have existed an infinite number of times in an infinite past, and possibly exist now."
I agree that the universe, or rather the WORLD, has an infinite past. With regard to objects that have existed an infinite number of times - I do not agree. It is not clear where these repeated stages of the development of the universe and their contents come from.
In my opinion, the World is in constant development - the previous stages of development differ from the current stage. The world is not stationary. Matter from stage to stage is constantly becoming more complex.
I am not a supporter of the multiverse hypothesis in all its forms.
2. Free will is due to the laws of quantum mechanics, which postulates hos. Chaos is a fundamental concept. At the level of thinking, chaos in the form of noise in the neural network manifests itself in the form of a random decision - which is perceived as free will (as not complete predictability of human behavior).
3. In order for our World to be virtual, there must be another level of the World, where there is a certain computer that models the physical laws and behavior of objects in our world. So, if a similar machine existed in our world and could simulate the behavior of a small object from our world, for example, the exact behavior of a sugar cube when it is placed in a mug of water, then to calculate such behavior (based on the principles of quantum mechanics) would be required unimaginable computing power. In this case, the machine (taking into account modern technology) would be the size of our universe. It is much easier to model sugar by sugar itself. Just throw it in the water and see what happens.
4. See p3. About multiple copies without comment.
p 5, 6, 7 No comment.My hypothesis does not coincide with any of the alternatives you described (in general, what I wrote is dialectics).
Answer
There is hardly a person who, at least sometimes, has not experienced a state of loneliness. Throughout life, we lose friends, loved ones, loved ones.
To get rid of loneliness, there are two ways: either learn to accept this feeling and cope with it, switching to other meaningful things, for example, find an interesting activity, hobby, hobby, headlong into work, or learn to build relationships with people in a new way, in order not to feel your loneliness, to find new friends and a life partner.
The life of each person is one and only, and it passes surprisingly quickly. The unsolvable problem of loneliness for many people is not so much a problem as their real, only life that they want to live well, prosperously, successfully, diversely and fully. This is their right and this right must be respected.
We are all different and each of us chooses our own path in life. For one, loneliness is a painful existence filled with depression and a sense of inferiority, for another it is a calm, measured life for oneself, an opportunity to make a successful career or engage in creativity. Loneliness is different, not only negative emotions are associated with it, but also joy and pleasure. Many people are looking for it, tired of communication and deliberately reducing the number of their contacts with others.
Many periods of a person's life are necessarily associated with loneliness, and experiences during a period of loneliness depend not so much on isolation, but on a person's attitude towards himself.
In solitude we have the opportunity to choose what to do and, in many cases, these activities are quite useful and varied.
Loneliness allows us to comprehend our life experience and often stimulates, “spurs” us to actively search for interesting and meaningful communication. It is after a period of loneliness that we begin to value friendships or love relationships more, become less demanding and more tolerant of our partner. We can say that loneliness teaches us wisdom and love.
We begin to live fully and happily not only when we fight for some changes in our lives or desperately change ourselves, but also when we know how to love ourselves the way we are without any change, and accept our life as it is. what it actually turns out or develops. It is important to choose what you like - loneliness or family, to accept what you get with dignity, to have confidence in your choice, not to despair, not to experience an inferiority complex and strive for harmony in your life.
Loneliness is perceived as an acutely subjective, highly individual and often unique experience.
One of the most distinctive features of loneliness is a specific feeling of complete immersion in oneself. The feeling of loneliness is not like other experiences, it is holistic, covering absolutely everything. There is a cognitive moment in the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is a sign of my selfhood; it tells me who I am in this life. Loneliness is a special form of self-perception, an acute form of self-consciousness. It is not necessary to fully and accurately understand all your states, but loneliness requires the most serious attention.
In the process of everyday life, we perceive ourselves only in a certain relation to the world around us. We experience our state in the context of a complex and vast web of relationships. The emergence of loneliness tells us about disturbances in this network. Often loneliness comes in the form of a need or desire to be included in a group or a need to just be in contact with someone. The fundamental moment in such cases is the awareness of the absence of something, the feeling of loss and collapse. It can be awareness of one's exclusivity and rejection of you by others. From the point of view of existential phenomenology (which is very relevant in this case), loneliness threatens to split or even break the intentional structure of the personality, especially in the intersubjective area. In less scientific terms, loneliness is a complex feeling that binds together something lost in the inner world of the individual.
Given the above, we can offer the following definition of loneliness. Loneliness is an experience that evokes a complex and acute feeling that expresses a certain form of self-consciousness, and shows a split in the main real network of relationships and connections of the inner world of the individual. The distress that this experience causes often prompts the individual to vigorously search for remedies to counter the disease, for loneliness acts against the person's basic expectations and hopes and is thus perceived as highly undesirable.
The emotional states of a lonely person are despair (panic, vulnerability, helplessness, isolation, self-pity), boredom (impatience, desire to change everything, stiffness, irritability), self-abasement (feeling of one's own unattractiveness, stupidity, worthlessness, shyness). A lonely person seems to say: "I am helpless and unhappy, love me, caress me." Against the background of a strong desire for such communication, the phenomenon of “mental moratorium” (E. Erickson’s term) arises:
- a return to the childish level of behavior and the desire to delay the acquisition of adult status as long as possible;
- a vague but persistent state of anxiety;
– feeling of isolation and emptiness;
- constant stay in a state of something such that something will happen, affect emotionally and life will change dramatically;
- fear of intimate communication and inability to emotionally influence persons of the opposite sex;
- hostility and contempt for all recognized social roles, up to male and female roles;
- contempt for everything national and an unrealistic reassessment of everything foreign (well, where we are not).
Most often, the reaction to loneliness can be defined as "sad passivity" (K. Rubinstein and F. Shaver). What is this reaction? Cry, sleep, do nothing, eat, watch TV, get drunk or “pass out”, lie on the couch and think, fantasize. Of course, such methods only exacerbate loneliness.
Better "active privacy". Start writing something, do something you love, go to the cinema or theater, read, play music, exercise, listen to music and dance, sit down to study or start doing some work, go to the store and spend the money you saved.
We must not run away from loneliness, but think about what can be done to overcome our loneliness. Remind yourself that you actually have good relationships with other people. Think about what you have good qualities (soulfulness, depth of feelings, responsiveness, etc.). Tell yourself that loneliness is not forever and that things will get better. Think about the activities in which you have always excelled in life (sports, studies, housework, art, etc.). Tell yourself that most people are lonely at one time or another. Take your mind off feelings of loneliness by thinking seriously about something else. Think about the possible benefits of the loneliness you experienced (tell yourself that you have learned to be self-confident, understood your new goals for relationships with society, friends, loved ones - with those with whom there was a breakup).
Even better if you try to change your life. Try to be more friendly with other people (say, make an effort to talk to your parents, classmates). Do something useful for someone (help a classmate with their homework, volunteer to do a community service, etc.). Try to find new ways to meet people (join a club, section, debate, discussion, evening, etc.). Do something that will make you more attractive to others (change your hair, buy or make new clothes, go on a diet, exercise). Do something to improve your social skills (learn to dance, learn to be more self-confident, learn to regulate, do all the exercises in the book, etc.).
Using these methods, you will overcome one of the most dangerous qualities of the "psychological moratorium" - the search for a negative identity ("I want to become nothing", the tendency to commit suicide).
All researchers agree that loneliness is associated with a person's experience of his isolation from the community of people, history, family, nature, culture. Moreover, a modern person feels loneliness most acutely in situations of intense forced communication (“a lonely crowd”, lonely and distant, like planets in the Universe, family members, classmates, meeting friends every day), when a person feels painful discord with himself, suffering and crisis of his “I”, isolation and deprivation of the meaning of the world (“the connection of times broke up” - remember Hamlet?). Forced communication, mass production of the same T-shirts, trousers, clip-on earrings, hairstyles, facial expressions, phrases, tastes, assessments, behavioral styles, habits, feelings, thoughts, desires destroy our uniqueness and originality, erases the idea of ourselves as self-worth.
And communication comes with diversity. Two absolutely identical people will be interesting to each other, because communication is created as a community of diversity. One atom will never combine into a molecule with a similar atom. In order for a molecule to appear, the valences of atoms, their diversity, are needed, then there will be an opportunity for the transition of electrons, for the formation of common electronic fields. So the communication of people appears only with the corresponding uniqueness of people. And this variety of differences creates a human community, solidarity and merging of people. And the uniformity of the barracks only masks the complete indifference of people to each other (like bugs in a jar or grains of sand in a pile of sand). Only the acceptance and cultivation of one's own uniqueness and the uniqueness of the other can counter the growing loneliness in the modern world.
1. Philosophy of loneliness
A lot has been written and said about the phenomenon of loneliness: philosophers, writers, poets - all have studied it in order to clarify its essence.
Loneliness haunts man throughout his history. Nowadays it has become a social scourge, a real disease of modern society. Attempts at a philosophical understanding of this phenomenon also have a very long tradition. But only in the XX century, according to N.A. Berdyaev, the problem of loneliness has become "the main philosophical problem, the problems of the self, personality, society, communication, cognition are associated with it." Among the existing philosophical schools, the greatest attention is paid to this issue in the existential and phenomenological directions. In the works of Sartre, Husserl, Camus, Buber , Heidegger and others, the loneliness of a person in the world (thrown into the world) occupies one of the central places.
Loneliness is one of those concepts whose real life meaning, it would seem, is clearly presented even to ordinary consciousness. But this intuitive clarity is deceptive, because it hides the complex, sometimes contradictory, philosophical content of the concept, which eludes rational description.
Loneliness is often seen as something destructive in relation to the individual, preventing her from living, putting up barriers and breaking her. And often loneliness is considered as a consequence of the pressure of the outside world on a person, which forces her to fence herself off from it, to run away, while suffering from it at the same time.
Loneliness is almost always perceived by us as a tragedy. And we run down from its peak, unable to endure communication with our own Self.
But an escape from loneliness is an escape from oneself. For only in solitude can we understand our existence as something necessary for loved ones and deserving of indifference and fellowship. Only after passing the gates of loneliness, a person becomes a person who can interest the world. Loneliness is the axis that permeates our lives. Childhood, youth, maturity and old age revolve around it. In essence, human life is an endless destruction of loneliness and deepening into it.
Loneliness is insight. In its ruthless light, the routine fades and all the most important things in life come through. Loneliness stops time and exposes us.
Escape from loneliness is an escape into loneliness - that same loneliness in the crowd, at work, alone with his wife and children. Escape from loneliness is an approach to the cosmic loneliness of old age.
How to avoid this loneliness? The answer to this question can only be through the emergence of a new deeper question: "What is the meaning of loneliness?" The answer to it can only be the philosophy of loneliness.
The thinking of loneliness always opens the abyss before us. Alone we meet God or the devil, find ourselves or fall on our faces. Therefore, the theme of loneliness, like the theme of death, is forbidden for our consciousness.
Loneliness can be seen as a fundamental antipode to the very foundations of human community, humane interpersonal relationships and, ultimately, the very essence of man. Even Aristotle noted that a person outside of society is either a god or a beast. Of course, the centrifugal forces that tear a person out of his social context and put him in the position of a "god" or "beast" are also associated with such phenomena as individualism, egocentrism, isolation, alienation, etc. But in the end, all these factors of different orders, reflecting the complex processes of the social development of society, lead to a single result - to a stable state of loneliness associated with the experience of a person of his tragic "atomicity", being lost and abandoned in the boundless and meaningless expanses of society. In contrast to the objectively arisen isolation, which subjectively may not be perceived as such, loneliness fixes the internal, reflective discord of a person with himself, focusing on the inferiority of his relations with the world of "other" people.
Loneliness is one of those problems that have haunted man throughout his history. Recently, loneliness has been called a social disaster, and at present it is already a dangerous disease, a disease of many faces and insidious, causing compassion and protest at the same time.
Lack of rights, poverty, hunger, oppression, wars are the misfortunes of mankind. Their manifestations, as a rule, are obvious, and therefore the fight against them takes on the character of powerful protest movements that unite people with a common goal, elevate the human in a person.
Another thing is loneliness. Most often, it does not advertise its attack on the individual. However, as noted by American researchers W. Snetder and T. Johnson, "loneliness is becoming an all-pervading phenomenon in our society. Pronounced loneliness is the main problem both in terms of personal and social spiritual well-being."
What is more in the loneliness of misfortune or guilt of a person? Who is he, a victim of external circumstances, causing sincere compassion, or an egocentric who has committed a crime primarily in relation to himself? It is not easy to give an unambiguous answer to these questions, especially since they do not exhaust all possible alternatives.
The grave illness of loneliness is all-pervading and many-sided. It would be naive to believe that only reflective subjects prone to philosophizing are subject to it. Loneliness sometimes falls on quite "prosperous" people. Neither material wealth, nor involvement in the establishment, nor the outwardly prosperous existence of a person who perceives the Western way of life as a given, is not able to avert from her sooner or later the onset of loneliness, summing up the sad result of her whole life. The authors of Anatomy of Loneliness rightly point out that many people experience the most painful state of loneliness not in physical isolation, but just in the center of a group, in the circle of family, and even in the company of close friends.
All researchers agree that loneliness in the most general approximation is associated with a person's experience of his isolation from the community of people, family, and historical reality. Naturally, "isolation" does not mean physical isolation, but rather a violation of the context of the multifaceted ties that unite the individual with his social environment.
Loneliness, in contrast to the objective isolation of a person, which can be voluntary and full of inner meaning, reflects his painful discord with society and himself, disharmony, suffering, a crisis of "I".
The theoretical and artistic understanding of loneliness has a long tradition. And it would be wrong to associate it exclusively with the 20th century, or with the development of capitalist production. Even in the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes, words are cited confirming that loneliness was perceived by people of that era as a tragedy: "A man is lonely, and there is no other; he has neither son nor brother; and all his labors have no end, and his eyes are not saturated with wealth" (4:8). The drama of a person's loss of connection with the world of other people permeates this biblical text, which has become practically the first distant echo of existentialist pessimism.
The deep roots of the philosophy of loneliness in many ways permeate the modern vision of man and interpersonal relationships. We are talking not only about the proper philosophical reflection in the narrow sense of the word, but also about the wide spread of stable motifs of loneliness throughout modern Western culture.
"For the artist, the drama of loneliness is an episode of the tragedy in which we all play and the performance of which ends only with our departure into eternity," writes the famous French film director Jean Renoir. It is art, with its increased susceptibility to socio-ethical and psychological issues, that sharply reacts to the mortifying influence of an individualistic philosophical position that kills humanistic values, leading the artist to the drama of loneliness.
"Loneliness is as rich as it is a non-existent topic, - continues J. Renoir. After all, loneliness is a void inhabited by ghosts that come from our past." The "ghostly" past gradually but powerfully begins to form a vision of the present, moreover, as an alienated reality. This illusory reality becomes the dominant feature of the development of the artist's creative individuality. Truly "the dead drags the living."
If we wanted to get the most refined interpretation of the feeling of loneliness, then we could not find anything better than to turn to such authors as Pascal and Nietzsche. According to Pascal, a completely lonely person is thrown into a meaningless existence. In the bosom of an endless and empty universe, he is horrified by his own loneliness. The feeling of deep isolation and abandonment that we find in certain pathological states is a wound for each of us from the moment we become aware of the extreme conventionality of our being and metaphysical exile.
"Contemplating the whole silent universe and a man left in the dark to fend for himself, abandoned in these nooks and crannies of the universe, not knowing what to hope for, what to do, what will happen after death. I am horrified as a person who had to spend the night on a terrible desert island, who, waking up, does not know how to get out of this island, and does not have such an opportunity" [Pascal].
We also find in Nietzsche the assertion that with the death of God, man immediately finds himself in a position of final loneliness. The "last man" in Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" actually realizes that all of us and each of us individually are sentenced to metaphysical loneliness. Terrifying is the loneliness of the last philosopher!
"I call myself the last philosopher, for I am the last person. No one but myself addresses me, and my voice reaches me like the voice of a dying man! You help me hide my loneliness from myself and direct my path to many and to love through lies, for my heart is unable to endure the horror of the most lonely loneliness, it makes me speak as if I were split in two. As Jaspers notes, Nietzsche wrote this in 1876 as a young professor, probably surrounded by friends. The work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" had not yet even appeared on the literary horizon. But Nietzsche himself considers his work and the propositions expressed in it more as a personal fact than as a representation of the universal position of mankind.
We are born lonely and live lonely. This position of man was perhaps best expressed by Thomas Wolfe, describing in his first great novel the emergence of self-consciousness in Eugene Gant:
And when he was left to sleep alone in a room with closed shutters, where strips of thick sunlight lay on the floor, he was seized by inescapable loneliness and sadness: he saw his life lost in the gloomy forest colonnades, and understood that he was forever destined to sadness - locked in this round little skull, imprisoned in this beating, hidden heart, his life was doomed to wander along deserted roads. imprisoned in the dark womb of the mother, we are born without knowing her face, that we are put into her arms by strangers and that, having got into the hopeless prison of existence, we will never break out of it, no matter whose arms hug us, no matter whose mouth never kissed us, no matter whose heart warmed us. Never, never, never, never" [Wolfe T.]
History of philosophy
Western philosophy of the second half of the XIX - early. XX centuries: Modern Western philosophy differs from the "classical" stage of its development by a number of features, which can be understood only by comparing the stages ...
All Ionian thinkers were natural philosophers who took one of the four elements as the substantive-genetic beginning of the universe, not only in a purely physical, but also in an ideological sense. The water of Thales, the air of Anaximenes...
Metaphysics of astrology in the philosophy of Ancient Stoa
Pythagoreans. “Just as the practical aspirations of the Pythagoreans were aimed at ordering human life and giving it a harmonious form, so the worldview adjoining these aspirations ... has in mind, first of all ...
Metaphysics of astrology in the philosophy of Ancient Stoa
Anaxagoras is fundamentally different in his understanding of the first principles from all the philosophers who preceded him, since he rejects the elements as the first principles. It is not the elements that are primary, but all the states of matter without exception...
To understand the essence of this or that phenomenon, it is important to know how it arose, what it replaced, how its early stages differed from subsequent, more mature ones. Concrete people come to philosophical reflections...
Worldview, its types
Worldview, its types
The spirituality of philosophy, aimed at the free search for truth, leads directly to freethinking. In the living stream of the historically developing ideological culture, freethinking had several aspects...
Science of antiquity
The term probably goes back to Heraclitus or Herodotus. Plato and Aristotle for the first time began to use the concept of Philosophy, close to the modern one. Epicurus and the Stoics saw in it not so much a theoretical picture of the universe...
Theories of being, consciousness, the study of human essence
Logos is something manifest, formalized and, to that extent, "verbal" ... a through semantic orderliness of being and consciousness; it is the opposite of everything unaccountable and wordless, unanswerable and irresponsible...
Philosophy of Hegel
The basis of Hegel's philosophical views can be represented as follows. The whole world is a grandiose historical process of unfolding and realizing the possibilities of a certain world mind, spirit. The World Spirit is a completely objective...
Philosophy and methodology of science
Philosophy knows three forms of dialectics: 1. Ancient, in its judgments based on life experience, its representatives - Heraclitus, Plato, Zeno. 2. The German idealistic dialectic developed by Kant...
Philosophy and mythology. Law of negation of negation
To understand the essence of this or that phenomenon, it is important to know how it arose, what it replaced, how its early stages differed from subsequent, more mature ones. Concrete people come to philosophical reflections, engaging in philosophy in different ways ...
Philosophy and Science
Sometimes such questions are asked: what is better - philosophy or science, philosophy or art, philosophy or practice? Such questions are inappropriate. The fact is that philosophy, science, art, practice complement each other...
Philosophy F. Nietzsche
Nietzsche's style is tense, prophetic-peremptory or caustic-ironic. He fights all the time (in words, of course). Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole is very intense. He constantly says strong phrases, pathetic or sarcastically ironic...
Chaadaev and his concept of Russia
Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letter" (1836), published in the journal Teleskop, gave a powerful impetus to the development of Russian philosophy. His supporters took shape as Westernizers, and his critics as Slavophiles...
Federal Agency for Education
Moscow Architectural Institute (State Academy)
Department of Philosophy
Essay on philosophy on the topic:
"The problem of loneliness (ethico-philosophical aspect)".
Completed by a student
III course 4 groups
Orozova A.A.
checked
Lupin A.N.
Moscow, 2009
Introduction 3
|
Section 1. Section 2 |
What is loneliness. Paradox |
|
|
Section 3 |
A look at the problem |
|
|
Section 4 |
Truth and loneliness |
|
|
Section 5 |
Sense of duty and love |
|
|
Section 6 |
A bit of history. origins |
|
|
Section 7 |
Loneliness is like knowledge |
|
|
Conclusion |
||
|
Bibliography |
||
|
List of cited literature |
||
“Deep loneliness is sublime, but it is somehow frightening” 1
Immanuel Kant
Introduction.
This is the main problem of man - no one will ever be able to fully understand him. Existing in his own world, even if not realizing it, a person is in constant loneliness.
What is loneliness?
What is loneliness? It is impossible to answer this question unambiguously. One can only try to understand what meanings this definition conceals, find the reasons and draw some conclusions for oneself. There are many interpretations of this concept, but everyone agrees on one thing: loneliness is a complex phenomenon of human existence. This feeling can be both an emotional state and some form of consciousness. It does not exist "in itself", separately from the person. And everyone experiences it sooner or later.
Paradox.
"It's lonely among people too..." 3
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It seems that we feel alone when we are alone. But after all, even being among people, and not even just people, but people close to us, it happens to feel it - loneliness. This is rather paradoxical. But how is it that a person surrounded by other people feels lonely?
The reason is simple. Maybe he is surrounded by people, but contact with them occurs only formally. After all, whether we like it or not, each of us is fixated on himself, each is selfish. Communication occurs not because a person is interested in understanding the world of another, but because he wants to get some information, to establish himself in his rightness, to tell about himself, about his experiences.
At least take the beginning of any conversation between people: “Today I did something…”, “I thought something…”, and even if a person talks about someone else, he will still express his personal attitude to this, will remember a story from his life, which will somehow be connected with himself. Is it good or bad? It's normal, it's in human nature.
So how can a person not feel loneliness, if even in a conversation with other people he is still on his own. He opens the door of his world, but, in fact, remains alone in it.
If you create a certain scheme, then, perhaps, it will be clear to compare the model of society with a molecule, which consists of individual atoms (people) interconnected, but each of which has its own nucleus. That is, people contact each other rather superficially, reserving the right to own their personal world and not let anyone in there, nevertheless, reacting to the outside world, accepting its laws and conditional truths. “One could raise the question: is he (man) a social animal by nature or a lonely and avoiding neighborhood? The last assumption seems to be the most probable” (Immanuel Kant). 4
Or another example: like the stars that shine in the sky, people exist on earth. Although the stars are far apart, they form constellations. So are we, there seem to be so many of us, and all of us, it would seem, are nearby, but in fact, thousands of light years lie between us. If one star goes out, the whole picture of the starry sky will not change, but if the opposite happens and only one star remains, the sky will cease to be starry, a lone star will burn in the sky.
A look at the problem.
According to Berdyaev, since people used to live in a small space, this gave them comfort and a sense of security, and protected them from loneliness. Now humanity is gradually "beginning to live in the universe, in the world space with the world horizon" 5 , which undoubtedly creates feelings of loneliness and abandonment to an even greater extent.
This is true, because when a person understands that he is also a part of the vast and unknown universe, and relates himself to it, he willy-nilly realizes how small and defenseless he is. "But a philosopher is a person who has always lived in the universe, always with the world horizon, he does not know a close circle, and therefore the philosopher is initially lonely, just as lonely as a prophet, although lonely in a different way. The philosopher overcomes his loneliness not through life in collective consciousness, but through cognition". 6
There is loneliness with a small letter, and there is loneliness with a big letter. The first loneliness is only a part of the second. And although there is Loneliness in the nature of all people, not everyone sees it or not everyone wants to see it. (This is quite natural, because only a small part of people are moving towards the inexplicable, undiscovered, others are satisfied with the simplified model of the world in which they exist. And no one has the right to decide whether this is good or bad, the choice of a person is always his). The problem of loneliness as a social phenomenon can be solved with the help of communication. It is enough for a person to find several points of contact with the interests of another, common views on life and a feeling of loneliness leaves him. "We are all lonely ships in the dark sea. We see the lights of other ships - we cannot reach them, but their presence and similar to our position give us great comfort." (Irvin Yalom) 7
Loneliness is more difficult to fight, and maybe not worth it at all. Its meaning lies in the fact that a person understands: all people are individual, everyone has their own unique world and it is beyond anyone’s control to comprehend it, as this will go against one’s own Self.
"The master believed: what the whole world takes as truth is in fact a lie; therefore, the discoverer is always alone. - You think that Truth is a formula that can be found in a book. Truth is sold at the price of loneliness. If you want to know the Truth You have to learn to walk alone." (Anthony de Mello) 8
We can say that all creative people are Lonely. They see the infinity of the universe and want to at least get a little closer to it, to some kind of absolute. And this is another way when the feeling of Loneliness becomes a reference point for some kind of action, creation and creation. Maybe that is why philosophers and writers associate the feeling of loneliness with the concept of God. (“And God stepped into the void. And He looked around and said - I am alone. I will create a world for myself.” James Wheeldon Johnson) 9 . And if a person felt all the power of the Universe through Loneliness, did he thereby feel the Creator?
Truth and loneliness.
« While living with people, do not forget what you learned in solitude. In solitude, ponder what you have learned from communication with people. 10
Lev Tolstoy
Does a person need someone to understand the truth? Yes and no. If you follow the opinion of the above-mentioned Anthony de Mello, then a person on the path to truth must always remain alone. This has its own truth. Since the truth is subjective, there is no absolute truth, then a person has no choice but to go in search of it himself. But along the way, he has to go beyond the boundaries of his lonely journey. First of all, because of the need for communication. At these moments, a person learns some new information for himself, or he is convinced that he is right by telling someone about his arguments, which undoubtedly gives a positive impetus to continue working.
What are we afraid of and what do we strive for?
Loneliness can be positive and negative. If negative loneliness is isolation, then positive loneliness is solitude. One should try to avoid isolation, since it acts destructively, but develop in oneself a love of solitude.
People love "noise and movement", so for them "prison is a terrible punishment, and the enjoyment of solitude is an incomprehensible thing." 11 Solitude opens a person's eyes to the vanity of the world, allows him to see his own vanity, to discover something new for himself, to make himself better.
We are afraid of loneliness, because we are afraid to feel our uselessness. A person must have something that needs him. Most likely, this is another manifestation of human egoism. Parents are afraid of the moment when their children will no longer need them. After all, as soon as children become independent, the meaning of the life of parents is gradually lost, and thoughts about how to feed, shoe, teach a child come to thoughts about abandonment, uselessness - about loneliness. A void is formed in a person, which he somehow has to fill.
We are also afraid to be alone with ourselves, because as soon as a person stops thinking about everyday affairs, idle affairs, global questions arise about being, about the purpose of a person, etc. Not all people are philosophers, so most people are afraid of this pool of the unknown, where a philosopher, and an artist, writer, musician, in a word, creative people, rush headlong.
And if, usually, a person strives to avoid the state of loneliness through constant communication with other people, books, TV, then a person who realizes his loneliness tries to know himself, thereby knowing the world around him.
Sense of duty and love.
But how else can a person fill the emptiness of loneliness inside himself? This question, of course, is directly related to the feeling of being needed, irreplaceable for someone. After all, it is much easier for a person to live if love lives in him. It doesn't matter what kind, be it love for nature, parents, for another person. And then there is the opposite of love dependence - a sense of duty, responsibility to someone. And all this gradually fills a person, leaving very little space for the opportunity to at least sometimes be alone with yourself.
But all this satisfies "social" loneliness to a greater extent, the concept of global loneliness, Loneliness with a capital letter still remains somewhere inside a person untouched.
A bit of history. Origins.
Who is capable of seeking an answer to the problem of human existence? The very people who went through the agony of loneliness were able to overcome it, while retaining the cognitive energy that loneliness gives.
In the history of European thought, awareness of the homelessness and loneliness of human existence did not arise suddenly and not immediately. This process deepened from era to era, and with each step, according to Buber, loneliness became colder and more severe, and it was more and more difficult to escape from it.
The philosopher distinguishes two types of epochs in history: "the epoch of settlement" and "the epoch of homelessness". In the era of accommodation, a person feels like an organic part of the cosmos - as in a habitable house. In the era of homelessness, the world no longer seems to be a harmoniously ordered whole, and it is difficult for a person to find a "comfortable place" in it - hence the feeling of insecurity and "orphanhood", i.e. loneliness.
The feeling of well-being is typical, for example, for the thinking of the ancient Greeks. It found its fullest expression, according to Buber, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The world here seems to be a closed space, a kind of "house", where a person is assigned a certain place. Man here is a thing along with other things that fill the world; it does not seem to itself an incomprehensible mystery; he is not a guest in a strange and incomprehensible world, but the owner of his own corner in the universe. Within the framework of such a worldview, there are no prerequisites for a person to realize himself fatally lonely.
According to M. Buber, Augustine Aurelius (354-430), who lived in an era when, under the influence of the emerging Christian picture of the world, the Aristotelian idea of a spherical unified collapsed the world. The place of the lost spherical system was occupied by two independent and mutually hostile kingdoms - the kingdom of Light and the kingdom of Darkness. Man, consisting of soul and body, was divided between both kingdoms, became a battlefield between them, found himself, as it were, in a suspended, homeless position. "What am I, my God? What is my nature?" (Augustine). He calls man a great mystery. It was the era of homelessness that could prompt Augustine to be surprised at the existence of a person who is not like other creatures of the universe and occupies a special position in the world.
Later, however, Christian faith and thought created a new cosmic home for the lonely soul of the post-Augustinian West. Christianity "settled down", its world became even more closed than the world of Aristotle, because now not only space, but also time was presented as closed, ending on the day of the Last Judgment. The construction of the Christian "house" was crowned by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in which the question of human nature no longer seemed to be a problem.
At the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the New Age, the harmonious picture of the universe trembled again. In the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), the world was presented as infinite in space and time, and the Earth, therefore, lost its central position. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) completed the destruction of the medieval scheme, declaring the Earth an ordinary planet in the solar system. The earthly firmament began to lose the role of the unshakable foundation of the whole world: it itself is suspended in unimaginable infinity. Man in this world turned out to be defenseless before the abyss of infinity.
As a result of the changes in worldview that took place in modern times, the individual "became homeless in the midst of the infinite." "... The original agreement between the Universe and man was terminated, and the man felt that he was an alien and a loner in this world." Since then, "work has been going on on a new image of the universe, but not on a new world home ... It is no longer possible to build a human dwelling from this Universe." According to Buber, the generation that is to develop a new cosmology will have to renounce any image of the universe and live in an indescribable world (a new image of the world - no image). Einstein's cosmos can be conceived, but not imagined. A person is forced to accept as a fact his homelessness and being lost in the Universe.
Finally, the 20th century, with its global upheavals, completely opened the eyes of man to his homeless, unguaranteed existence. M. Heidegger, who called language the house of being, no longer builds either a cosmic or a social "house". In Heidegger, the loneliness of a person is conceived as a blessing that allows him to be himself. Heidegger's loner seeks communion only with himself.
This is how M. Buber sets out the path that has led modern philosophy to the notion of the fatal loneliness of man.
Loneliness is like knowledge.
From the previous section, it became clear that there were times in human history when people did not see in themselves an incomprehensible mystery, there was no place for a sense of anxiety in front of insoluble questions like “what am I?”, “Why do I exist?”, “Why am I exist?" Mankind was simply not ready for such questions. Consciousness must reach some critical point in its development in order to notice the mystery of human existence. Perhaps it is at the very moment when a person realizes his loneliness that he comes to these eternal questions.
"When I reflect on the transience of my existence, immersed in the eternity that was before me and will be after me, and on the insignificance of the space, not only occupied by me, but also visible to me, the space dissolved in the boundless infinity of spaces that I do not know and do not know about me, - I tremble with fear and ask myself - why am I here and not there, for there is no reason for me to be here and not there, there is no reason to be now, and not later or before. time and place?" (Blaise Pascal) 12
Conclusion.
Loneliness should be perceived as given, not giving it a positive or negative assessment. This is just another distinguishing feature of a person, standing along with the desire for freedom, selfishness, etc. Just as Schopenhauer found a way out of suffering in asceticism, i.e. through understanding that all people suffer, and putting up with it, you need to see that all people are also alone, that this cannot be taken away from a person.
“A person tries in vain to fill the void, the bottomless abyss with the vain and transient, to find support in the fragile and finite..” 13 Pascal is more than right in his judgment, but maybe loneliness is still not a void…
Loneliness is space Someone is trying to fill it inside themselves, using the outside world. And someone uses the space inside themselves, filling the space outside their world.
We need loneliness, because the consciousness that you are alone and no one understands you gives the necessary surge of emotions. And this release of energy necessarily carries with it some kind of action, desire. The most important thing is not to miss the moment. After all, when the feeling of loneliness leaves you, thoughts disappear and interest in the big, outer world (ie, in some convention, illusion) prevails, we forget about our true desires and possibilities for a while. And how much time do we have so that we can spend it so carelessly?
Loneliness helps us to concentrate on the most important things… The main thing is to learn how to use it correctly.
Bibliography:
Berdyaev N. A., Philosophy of the free spirit, M .: Respublika, 1994.
Gagarin A.S. Existentials of human existence: loneliness, death, fear. From Antiquity to Modern Times. Ekaterinburg. 2001
Daniel Perlman and Letitia Ann Peplo Labyrinths of Solitude: Per. from English. / Comp., total. ed. and foreword. N. E. Pokrovsky. – M.: Progress, 1989.
Losev A.F., History of ancient philosophy in a concise presentation., M., 1989.
Buber M., Two images of faith, M., 1995.
Pascal B., Thoughts, M.: Politizdat, 1990.
Internet links:
http://hpsy.ru/link/13.htm(Site e existential and humanistic psychology)
http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm (quotes about loneliness)
List of cited literature:
1. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm.
2. Somerset Maugham, Luna i Grosh, M. : Pravda, 1982. Per. - N. Man, S. 42.
3. Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince, chapter 17.
4. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm.
5.
6. Berdyaev N.A. "Me and the World of Objects", chapter "Me, Loneliness and Society".
7. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm
8. Parables by Anthony de Mello - http://www.sky.od.ua/~serg2002/pri.html
9. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm
10. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm
11. Pascal B., Thoughts. Fr.139. p.113
12. Pascal B., Thoughts, Fr. 205,S. 192
Problems loneliness and self-esteem in adolescents
Abstract >> PsychologySociety. philosophical concepts largely determined the sociological and socio-psychological approaches to problem loneliness being developed...
Philosophy. philosophical concepts, categories and global Problems
Cheat sheet >> Philosophyfear loneliness, remorse. According to Heidegger, philosophical truth is itself... and lived there long in loneliness. Then, after thinking everything through, he... 39.Global Problems modernity: philosophical Aspects So, the FIRST GLOBAL PROBLEM our days...
philosophical Problems life and death
Abstract >> PhilosophyThem like a feeling loneliness. Man's awareness of the reasons for his loneliness does not always relieve ... by philosophical aspects death and immortality. The third chapter is devoted to the meaning of life, its varieties and problem
