OBSERVATIONS OF PHYSICS that are fore­casted with philosophical thoughts

What was the intuition that motivated a young man to attempt to write for many years about the total of things with the most abstract words? What did it encourage him and made him seek the expla­nation of a lot of phenomena with a few concepts and not prefer the concrete things and clear definitions? What a lot of educated per­sons and scientists have not observe in the human intellect that offers our possibility to we de­scribe a lot of things with usual vocabulary and overall the things? Human intellect has an ability that many well-educated people and scientists have not properly appreciated. We can describe things with short voca­bulary and overall. We can think creatively and with imagination, but in a way to facilitate logical thinking. We can have different views through assumptions and predictions with reaso­nable consequences. Our thinking can so easily and finally unco­nsciously, drift away from the answers and be deceptive.

When we do not name any particular thing and we search what traits are the same (common) for all the things without exception, this easy thought can be checked equally easily in the experience. If you claim that the all things have a common trait, then it will be supposed we will not find one thing which it would not have this trait. This extreme generalization, with which we attribute a trait for all the things without exception, has the advantage of not hav­ing to precisely identify the number of things with the same trait. We do not need to determine how many things have the same trait, which these things are precisely and what are not and a time-consuming and difficult investiga­tion and in every detail.

For example, suppose that we claim that the politicians are liars. With this generaliza­tion we make possibly an error, since we attribute the same trait (that they say lies) to a number of political persons and not to a few par­ticular cases from our experi­ence. Then, if all the politicians are not liars, it is not easy to calculate their number and distinguish who the liars are and who are not. It needs time for investigation and to overcome a lot of diffi­culties (in what society, in what times, when they said lies, if it was a lie or an error etc), while the danger of some inaccuracy in the conclusions or in­validation of conclusions from developments in reality exists al­ways.

Do the same traits exist for all things without exception? If they exist, then this case means that these traits will exist in every picture (or more widely in every per­ception) of the things. If the same traits exist in all the things, then it results from this thought, that their common traits might be observed from all people and in all experiences. It is true that all things have certain common traits and in point of fact this theoretical ascertainment has already been stated since ancient years. We have been informed by his­tory, that, humans had thoughts (correct or erroneous) in ancient years about all the world and general opin­ions about a big number of things were ex­pressed very easily, without having previously searched the things. Humans had this possibility by nature itself and their biology, because the words, which were modulated by their voice, expressed and transmitted some ab­breviations (summarizing traits) of the things. Words themselves are not the things, we do not forget it. They are made and connected to each other so as to express the things and this could not possible, if common and constant traits did not exist in the things and also for the other people. An exclama­tion (vociferation) in a moment of fear transmits a message of danger and the same message can be received from a lot of recipients and then, those re­cipients will express themselves in a similar way (with a similar exclama­tion). The meanings of the words reflect and correspond to some common traits that many other people will recognize when they hear the same words (with the sound details of their tone).

This ability to refer quickly, succinctly, briefly, concisely and overall to a great number of things, with few words and by observation in a minimal number of cases, was perceived by few humans called philosophers who at­tempted to use it theoretically. As we are informed by the historical testi­monies, Aristotle (384-322 B.C. born in the ancient city Stageira of Mace­donia) was the first who researched the rational and linguistic possibility of humans and wrote down on paper his observations and conclusions. The writings of Aristotle about the human thought and logic were assembled in a book with the known title " Organon " in the Byzantine Period. Aristotle founded a region of Science that we call " Logic " and his theoretical work influenced decisively the philosophical and scien­tific thought of the Arabs and all Europe for a lot of centuries later in the Middle Ages. The basic ob­servations of Aristotle about the formation of our thoughts and how we dis­tinguish the truth (such as the laws of logic, identity, not contradiction and the law of excluded middle) have been taught until today in the schools and in the Universities of all the world, in some cases without knowing him. Aristotle's philosophical work did not cease to constitute a source of inspira­tion for many thinkers and researchers of philoso­phy. In the era before Christ, Aristotle already distinguished and men­tioned a small number of words in the daily vocabulary, only ten funda­mental concepts, which he called CATEGORIES. These categories include the first and es­sential traits that we find in the things and the other concepts and things can be classified and be categorized under these concepts.

A thing is something, with certain attributes (quality), it has the property of having, it is related (or is connected), it is in space, in time, it affects somehow, it receives somehow actions of other things and may contain a quantity. One of the fundamental concepts for which many philosophical theories have been formulated is the substance. We can separate a lot of things according to the quality, the quantity, time they exist and the space they are in, how and with what they are con­nected to, how they are af­fected and what they cause and so on.

Many centuries afterwards, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) processed again the Aristotle's categories in his own philosophi­cal effort to explain the suc­cess of mathematics and the failure of metaphysics and claimed a foolish­ness (even for that time of history) in one of the most intelligent and arduous philosophical theories that have strengthened the philosophical current of Agnosticism. Kant claimed that we never know things as they are alone and inde­pendent, but only as the things seem to us through the categories that our human intellect introduces. He considered the human intellect as some­thing isolated, detached from things and the things completely different than the phenome­na. The abstruse German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) replied very aptly a few years later to this fooli­shness (I'm sorry Kant) in his philosophical work under the title "The Logic":

" These categories, unity, cause, result etc of course belong to the intel­lect. If from two facts that we perceive, one is the cause and the other is the outcome, their causal relation is not categorized in the perception, but it is conceived only by the intellect. However it does not follow from this fact, that the categories are only own our determinations (exclusively) and that they are not also determinations of objects. However Kant, consider them in this way … "