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!



I read this in the pages of www.kosmologia.gr








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


Go to Top