It has been heard many times, that a butterfly, which flies in one hemisphere of Earth can cause storm in the other. This could be one of the infinite examples that we can say, in order to express the general law: Every detail (in volume, in time, in movement etc.) can cause big changes, new developments and a considerably fact in combination with other actions and after a time interval. By a detail we were given our birth and by a detail we die, as I often say. The detail can be the flying of a butterfly, can be a sting of insect, your fart, the moment of a walk, however these details are in a lot of cases under a decisive term: The detail can cause some incredible consequences but this is realized after the mediation of many intermediary things or after a long time interval and with the contribution of certain other effects. That is to say, not immediately but indirectly, not always fast and in a straight line (not directly), but late and in combination with other things (in an indirect way).
The mediation of things and phenomena, the transfer of action through a lot of things and time, which passes until the appearance of a result, constitutes a characteristic trait of the reality, which we can express with the notion " indirectly ". Easily, we can think now the opposite characteristic, since this one would not have meaning and existence without the other. The mediation of a minimal number of things, the transfer of action without mediation, the appearance of a result in a minimal time (or even simultaneously with the action) or the result without mediation, constitutes a characteristic (feature) of the reality, which we can express with the notion " immediacy ". Consequently, now we can say logically:
The flying of a butterfly can cause a storm in the other hemisphere of Earth, indirectly and after the mediation of other developments and things and with the contribution of certain effects. The indirect contribution, the most indirect action, the mediation of a large number of intermediary things and phenomena and of a long time interval render everything a detail concerning the eventual and distant results. Consequently, we can say: Yes, the detail is important and decisive, we should however note and not downgrade the most obvious and direct effects, which can prevent or reverse the result, that is prepared by certain other actions.
The simple term " immediacy or directness " and the term " indirectly " are both essential and important for the rational thought and for the description of the things, as much as the notions of " quality " and " quantity " are . These terms have an enormous importance for Science and particularly for cosmology and this became perceptible by the writer, in the beginning of his philosophical effort to formulate his physical interpretation of the creation of nature. By a historical retrospection in Philosophy, we will find that these terms acquired notable importance for the general description of the world and a central role for the formulation of a philosophical theory in the abstruse thought of the philosopher G. Hegel. The notions " directness or immediacy " and " indirectly " were unavoidable and were considered essential for the general description of the cosmos for the author and writer of the cosmological theory, that he named after some years " Theory of a Finished Time and the Relativity of Energy ". How indispensable and fecund these two terms " indirectly " and " directness " are for the general description of the Universe and how important they are for Science and not only for the Philosophy, will be perceived by everyone with some brief thoughts that follow. These are some thoughts with which the cosmological theory of the Completed Universe was being formulated for a long time and led to theoretical observations that shed light on physics and astrophysics.
As I said, in the beginning of my philosophical effort I perceived the exit of the labyrinth of the philosophical research using the abstract concepts of the "part" and "the whole or total". So I began writing about the things with the notions " part " and " total " and I observed theoretically the connection that all parts should have from each other. Soon the moment came to observe the need, the things with their action on others not to cause all the effects simultaneously. Easily, the thought followed, that the parts of nature in order to be distinguished and be separated from each other, should not exist in the same moment. In addition, nothing should be exactly the same as another or with the same modes of connection, as if they were perfect copies. Theoretically, all parts should be connected to each other, act and influence each other, in order to constitute parts of one total. However, our experience shows that this interdependence of theirs is not equally decisive for the existence of all remaining things (everywhere in space). We observe things that remain unaffected from the distant action of some other things and that can exist without many other things. All results are not caused at the same moment. So the thought followed quickly that the effect of a part (of the reality) on another part was not at the same time an effect on all remaining parts. For certain things the effect is fast, direct and nearest in space or time, while for other things, the effect is very distant up to impossible. Therefore it was needed to introduce these concepts with which I would make a segregation in the common notions of "relation" and "interaction". It was needed to seem that interactions exist or are realized between the parts that are permanent, or that are realized continuously or in near distance. But also a lot of interactions are not realized in the same moment and they do after a longer time interval or after the re-transfer of energy in a longer distance and with the contribution of many other things. Then I thought the notions of the words " immediately or immediacy or directness " and the opposite notion " indirectly or mediation ". Also, the concept of "interaction" was distinguished by the concept of "relation" as a particular case.
Because I considered the total of the things to be stabilized and always the same within the limits of a longest time interval, then the moment came, when I thought of a limit in the most indirect way of interaction, an insuperable limit in time interval of an interaction, also a limit in the longest distance, a limit in the number of parts and things and a limit in the number of things that can mediate… How important to Science the general description of the world is with the above abstract concepts, is revealed when we think that there are time limits and there is neither infinite time between the developments of the Universe nor an infinite number of "parts". A first and most important theoretical conclusion results from the simple thoughts and with these abstract concepts, with the terms " indirect relation " and " direct relation ". If therefore, the total of things is always the same, inside the limits of a longest time interval or if things aren't infinite in number (as I deduced through rational thoughts), then a limit is imposed theoretically on the " indirect relation ". The next conclusion is that in nature an infinite number of things and an infinite amount of time do not mediate up to the last result. From this theoretical thought - perhaps simplistic to some educated thinkers – imagination was needed to come to the following conclusion: Without being clear and certain in the beginning, it is concluded that there are results that are the most indirect and have always been realized, have been materialized in advance and are constantly present. If the wholeness of things (the full Universe) is always the same within a maximum time interval, then the results of the most indirect effect of things have always been there, and everything is influenced by all the rest (have been influenced by all the other parts) in the most indirect way, which is the same for all parts of nature. The most indirect way for a result could be only one.
"What are these more indirect results, which have always been realized and have a minimal impact on every thing?" I was wondering to provoke the imagination. A little hastily this answer followed: "As it will be proved, these common elements (from the most indirect effect of all things) are the common modes of interaction, which are called matter", that is to say, the structural elements of things. (p129) With this theoretical approach and ascertainment, philosophy was disconnected forever from physics and Science! It would be a philosophical, coincidental and unfounded thought, if in the course of this philosophical effort and the rational unfolding of thoughts a lot of theoretical observations and thoughts had not arisen that coincide with phenomena and observations of modern science and give explanations, avoiding the impasses of physics.
The two terms " indirectly " and " immediately " are necessary and important for the description of nature and are not a game of words. The existence of more indirect relations in things (distance in time and length) implies that there are conditions or laws on how things are connected, since all things cannot exist in the same direct way (towards each other) in the same immediate mode, with any priority and at the same time (between them). The vague meaning of these two words ensures that a priority exists and a time mediation in every effect and in the connection of things and gives a meaning to the separate existence of every physical thing. The indirect relation in nature is distinguished from the directness with enormous divergence (in length, in time, in the number of things and in certain sizes) and it has a limit. The next concept, which has a " key-meaning " for the interpretation of nature as a total, is produced by these first notions (indirect-direct relation) and is briefly the notion of " matter or structural elements ".
By an analysis of concepts, we can easily avoid the quick conclusions that emerge from some brief points of view, such as the usual thought "that all things are connected and depend on one another." It is not enough to say that things are dependent on one another (as they are really) and so we think we have provided a satisfactory explanation. We observe that the dependence happens with some physical processes and can be described. It can be a natural shift process until two things come in contact or a frequent repetition of their contact, it can be an electromagnetic interaction, it can be a fast electron exchange within a bloc of molecules, it can be the breathing of air into the lungs and the balance in placement of a body on top of another etc. Not all dependencies are the same. Some things depend more directly and in many cases, while one thing cannot exist without the other. But dependence can be one-sided and the existence of one thing depends on the other, while the other thing can be without the first. We understand that the world has not ceased to exist, but people "leave" the world. A patient in the surgery depends on the doctor's conscientiousness and ability, but the doctor's life does not depend on the patient. We notice that existence can depend overall. But we also notice dependence without which the existence would again continue and would not be destroyed. The dependence can be two-way and so many things are significantly affected by each other. The dependence can be creative and reinforcing for all parts, or only one part can be strengthened, while dependency can be devastating for the rest of the parts.
Ultimately, the most certain and easiest knowledge is about general and global phenomena and about those that are repeated very often. On the contrary, the rare and no repeated phenomena and individual things with their details require witnesses, special education and a new language of expression!
I apologize! The translation will be continued and corrected
"The Theology of Science" ©2000, publications "Dodoni", ISBN 960-385-019-5, pages 448. This was a philosophical book, 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…
Look more: "THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THE COSMOLOGICAL THEORY" | "THE ORIGINALITY OF THE CONCEPTS"
Go to Top