An initial observation: The word " Universe " is compound and it simply means, the total of everything, that is to say all what they exist.
This definition does not prohibit us, we accompany the word " Universe " with an adjective as the words " complete " , " full " , or we say
more stressed " the total of the Universe ". The notion in the word " Universe " is reported in something unique, that it distinguishes from
each particular thing. The word " Universe " or phrase " the total of all that they exist " these not so much explicit, so
much as rather we believe, and all people will not think precisely the same, when they hear this word. It isn't immediately obvious what we mean with words "
things " and if in the notion about word " total ", we include the multitude of exterior things as a sum or if we include moreover our
dreams, our thoughts, the movements of the things and something other. From the initial and " enormously" notion about the Universe, we
leave outside the precision of its definition and we open the possibility to think somehow otherwise, when we will determine more precisely
the most general notions, as they are the " existence " and " thing ". Then, philosophers and modern researchers have formulated
so many theories about the nature, world and the Universe and up to
absurdity, therefore obligatorily we should emphasize or clarify such meanings that
are obvious and logical for a lot of people.
One of the more
ancient and popular biases in human history takes shape when we hear the simple word " Universe ", that is to say entire the world, everything, the totality of all things. The truth of our smallness with criterion our geometric dimensions leads the thinking to a
generalized concept for our smallness in all other our capabilities and faculties. This generalized view about our total smallness in
contrariety to an infinity Universe chains our thinking
and discourages the exploratory thought, same as happens with our opinion about a God. The alone persons in history which they dared to
make thoughts in order to comprehend the wider world are the Philosophers. This bias constituted an obstacle in the historical growth of
entire Science. With this bias the human thought was dispersed in the most
direct and nearest phenomena, without has conscience and knowledge of their unity and deeper interconnection (of phenomena) and about a common beginning that
conditions the different phenomena. Furthermore, downgrading
the role of abstractive thought for the approach in
experience and for the simplification of concepts. The " concrete " was identified as " visible " and " constant " while the " abstract " is
considered as " invisible " and " fantastic ", that is to say in diametrically opposition.
Ought it causes a big impression, even that in science they can to tell us about the Universe entirely, while REMOVING THE MOST NUMBER OF
THINGS THAT IT CONTAINS. We
say "Universe" , that is to say everything, the all things
that exist and which never no one will not measure, neither
no one will know all that. We seek to know the "Universe" ,
that is to say something that appears like infinity. If we
knew the all things that the Universe contains then we would be " gods ". It paradoxically happens, we think more
easily about the Universe and it is more difficult we
understand the human society, which the Universe includes.
Because the Universe is a total Universe, for this reason we
can be reported in its entirety of things without we speak
about no one particularly. On the contrary, is required… we
know less number of things and not most! IS IT KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT
EXPERIENCE? NO!
We can tell about
some experience which we do not have and this possibility
emanates from the experience, by the median of some
notions (of words) that can emanate from a minimal
number of perceptions (or observations), but they correspond and
find itself in much bigger number of perceptions. For example, when we say, that a man has two legs, this is truth not only for those who we
have perceived - only this is our real experience
- but also for an innumerable other people, present and
absentees. A multitude of accidental and fragmentary ascertainments in experience and a multitude of separate explanations can be revealed
more fast, easily and no accidentally. They can through unfoldment and correlation of few concise concepts and usual notions and with our
possibility we know all things through the discovery of relations and resemblances in
nearest things of our experience. From analysis of a few words and meanings that are reported in widespread
physical phenomena (for example, light, time, movement) and on common experience, we can approach to correct answers and well-aimed approaches
around scientific questions. Because if we reject or change their correct meanings or say a foolery, then thinking will be led in
absurdities and to impasses! Many of scientific observations by accidental way could have resulted by reasonable consequence and if we had begun from different observations.
An of greatest biases in science and more generally of people is the opinion, that the
observation in particular things and the attempt to describe things with clarity ensures us more knowledge. Not only, this does not ensures more
knowledge but simultaneously increases our ignorance and presupposes we make the
error to remove things, which we consider them arbitrarily that are not
connected. That is to say, concrete = piecemeal, extracted and removing
at will. In daily life and in science, we remove things and
relations accommodatingly for reasons to we succeed simplification and priority, anticipating what is related more immediately and what
indirectly. We are reported in "concrete" things without we know
well what precisely it needs we remove, also what are the details, but
because thus it facilitates to us and because we needed to begin from
somewhere, for inquiring aims or in order to we can live. When we report
to concrete things, in same moment automatically we remove the total of
reality and possibilities, it could easily say someone, and this usually
we make without conscience. We cannot think about something unknown and about things which do not fall in our perception, but our difficulty remain for
visible things. Our difficult is not only for the survival but also for the correct
and precise thought on our
information!
Did they wonder in modern cosmology, how advanced can be a physical
interpretation of the Universe, such as the one that researchers dream, if their theory doesn't offer the minimal knowledge in order the
presence of life in the Universe to be explained? The cosmological theories that have been formulated with mathematics and are considered
prevailing theories
do not open any path to this direction of nature. Physicists would be supposed to understand this theoretical impasse more as responsible scientists
and they do not leave the problem unsolvable or for answer
from theology.
Do not forget, the world is offered to us itself with possibility to be concisely and
abstract known and described in general, even in field of sciences and particularly with mathematics
