HOME • UP • Two basic terms:




We can describe things with short voca­bulary and overall


Since the ancient years, some humans have attempted to talk about the totality of things and about things that are distant in space or time, after they had observed a lot of resemblances and common elements by their limited expe­rience. I be­lieved also in the same capability, without having observed it well and without having learned about Aristotle's thoughts in the start of my own attempt. The ascertainment of cer­tain resemblances, the theoretical possibili­ty for correlations from a phenomenon in order to explain another, the capability to think with the broadness of some notions for many things together and in figures of speech, gave optimism and courage.

In the beginning of my philosophical effort I could make a lot of thoughts and I sought logical (reliable) answers about the substance of all things, us­ing certain general notions. The first general notions which I perceived as keys (essential) for the philosophical investigation, were the notions of the cause, result and relation. Very quickly then, I perceived the long prospect that the abstract notions of " part " and the " totality " gave to my philosophi­cal investigation. I demanded, that everything has the trait to be a part and not the total. Then, I combined the notion of the word " part " with other traits and other similar words by this consistent observation, such as the re­striction, the limits, the obligatory relation of a part with the other parts, the obligatory action of a part and simultane­ously the reaction, because it is connected permanently with other parts, the in­herent change in the existence of a part and the impossibility for a part to be complete, immutable, without change. By the permanent relation (action-reaction) between the parts, I in­ferred the notion of " interaction " as a better-aimed word in order to imply the permanent relation that the parts have with each oth­er, in order to be parts, etc.

I had many expectations and somehow I had a feeling, that the so­lution of cosmological problems was hidden in the permanent relation of the no­tion " the totality " with the notion of " the part " and their coexistence. I did not overtake (avoid) the theoretical observations in the abstract notions as a game with words. I perceived that the obligatory rela­tions, which I ob­served amongst certain notions (which were traits of all things), reflect­ed some relations and attributes of all things. I perceived it with the same logic, as the numbers and their proportions can be applied in mathemat­ics and reflect relations of things. If I had a theoretical conclusion, such as that the abstract concept " complete totality " should be considered to be a stabi­lized and always the same so as to result some other obligatory relations, which I had deduced for the " parts ", then this would was a conclusion about the Uni­verse too, since we consider it as the total of all things and with all ways of interac­tions…


Paradoxically, while I was thinking easily about the total of the things and was attributing certain common traits to them and was observing some obligatory relations (in the notions), I observed with the same easiness theo­retically that the things are more complicated than we observe in our daily experience. The ease with which I was talking about all the things returned as a difficulty, when I was talking about a particular thing! I was impressed when others had distinguished the things clearly in their thinking (explicit segregation) and also when someone had used words like "independence", and if they had defined with clarity which the cause and the effect were. An example: All things in the thought were parts of a total and nothing of them were not an in­dependent or initial cause. Thus, a query arises theoretically: How can we determine what a cause is and what a result is between the things, since we cannot find the initial cause and never a final result... This is, because, theoretically, each thing, which be­comes a cause, is not the cause to itself and this thing has also a cause and has been realized with oth­er causes. If the cause has a cause, then it is not the unique cause. If the re­sult becomes cause, then it is not the unique result. How do we distinguish, therefore, the initial cause and the final result, since a beginning and end do not ex­ist in the thought? How do we define something as cause, since it has been creat­ed with other causes and is connected with other things that influ­ence it? When we look at things and try to explain their behavior, then we try to find substances, in particular some discernible things and obvious ac­tions. When we think about things too much without observing them and try to explain their behavior, then we seek explanations with invisible forces, with movements and laws ... The individual things are never enough.


When we talk about a “cause”, we mean in other words that some forces are applied and some things influence some other things. The things move to approach some other things or some other things mediate. Therefore, if the same things do not mediate or if not exactly the same things are used, then the results cannot be exactly the same and in the same amount. More­over, when the things, which mediate or are used (for a result) are not stable, but these change somehow (especially when they change fast and unstably), then it is more difficult to identify and determine the same results. If many things combine and mediate... and if these change (without a pace), then we talk about “indeterminacy”.


By the abstract notions of only three words " part ", " change " and " in­teraction ", all things in my thought had become unstable and without ex­plicit limits of beginning and ending! Really, the easiness with which I was talking about the total of things, was causing a difficulty to me, when I was talking about a concrete thing! By the most abstract notions of the world and with the simplest thoughts, I understood that great voids existed in our knowledge about the visible things and phenomena of casual and provision­al absence of their relations! However, these same easy thoughts, from which the conclusion for the complexity of things resulted theoretically, led easily to conclusions and solutions about many other problems and about ir­relevant issues, which we evaluate as more dif­ficult. This is for example, the role of the inorganic matter in the Universe and the relation of matter with a minimal time of an energy change. Another example is the necessity of in­terruption in the evolution and in time of existence of all things, including the living things.

I want to remark here, one of the many paradoxes of the philosophical undertaking that resulted to a book under the title " The Theology of Science ". In the long and everyday effort to formulate the theoretical thoughts about the traits of all things, the concept of "force", which is a well-defined phenomenon in physics and is described with mathematical precision, was not used. Paradoxically, in my own juvenile philosophical effort, this notion was not used in order to avoid unknown phenomena and because I hesitated to attribute the force as a certain trait of all things. Well or badly then, I con­sidered that the term " force " expressed an inexplicable and metaphysical phenomenon, the way in which it is caused should be explained and not to use this term in order to give explanations. I preferred to use some other terms to replace the " force ", some terms which I considered to be more explicit and safe in order to denote something about the things. I preferred to think about the things as if they were themselves that affected and influenced or had possibilities for interaction with their movement or with the mediation of some intermediary things. The term " force " reminded me of phenomena that could exist without the material world, invisible, bodiless and independent existences, something that I couldn't accept under the abstract concept of " thing ". The things of which I was thinking were inextricably connected within a whole, were permanently interacting and they could in no way be preserved or exist without bidirectional interconnection with the material things.

Somehow like this, I was formulating everyday for many hours thoughts and reworded them with minor differentiations and I was writing many pages… I will not extend my thoughts further here to narrate how the first book " The Theology of Science " was written and what was written in it. I only emphasize the great advantage of human thinking and I make compre­hensible that we can think efficiently and consistently (rationally) about is­sues, that seem to be the most difficult. We can approach in solutions of sci­entific problems or to simplify them, without having to specialize in few concrete things. Moreover I emphasize, that in certain cases, some of the philosophical and scientific questions cannot be answered with the knowl­edge of individual things but, on the contrary, the questions are obscured and some fallacies are caused.

Many times we do not know so well as some trained and skilled persons know. But our ignorance does not prevent us from thinking. When we talk and express our thoughts, then we apply rules of logic and grammar in order to be understood. Certain rules of logic and language are necessarily applied and do not depend on any specialization. Instead, all sciences apply these rules of logic and grammar. Mathematics also applies rules of logic, regard­less of our measurements for things. For example: The elements of a set are somewhat connected to each other or it is possible to be connected with each other in only one most effective way. This is a logical thought applied by all sciences. The elements X of a set S can be named differently in differ­ent sciences when the object of research is different. The parts can be called "gears" in engineering, "electrons" in atomic physics, "people" in sociology, "States" in politics, "cells" in biology. Read some more connecting rules of things as provided and imposed by rules of logical thinking. The following thoughts are some of the first thoughts about cosmological research that in­troduce someone to the field of cosmology. But you will not find them writ­ten in any books about cosmology.



"The Theology of Science" ©2000, publications "Dodoni", ISBN 960-385-019-5, pages 448

This was a philosophical book (in GR), which was written in a period of ten years, so that some questions regarding the substance of things (and other que­stions of Philosophy) could be answered with the use of common vocabulary and this by avoiding infrequent experiences and all earlier theories. A multitude of acci­dental and fragmentary ascer­tainments in our experience and a lot of separate expla­nations can result more fast, more easily and not accidentally. They can globally and briefly deduced through the rational analysis of notions, by the correlation of few general concepts and our possibility we know all things through some observations of rela­tions and rese­mblances of nearest things of our experience. This view (about the rational thinking) I had aim to prove in this philosophical book "The Theology of Science" but eventually a tiring and illegible book was written. How was it written (the personal experience) rather it will is an other more inte­resting book…



backnext page




Go to Top