Easy generalization with philosophical thinking

Those, who have studied philosophy and directly some older philosophi­cal works, have observed that many older thoughts for the interpretation of nature have tremendous similarities with modern thoughts expressed in new vocabulary and with more knowledge. I noticed this early in my philosophi­cal effort and quickly found that few words with concise meaning can give meaningful information for the whole world. With this encouraging view I wrote and thought about the cosmos for more than 10 years until the publi­cation of the philosophical book "The Theology of Science". I had speculat­ed that the cosmos has common features and many similarities throughout the space and during the course of time. This is the brief explanation of how one can talk about the Universe and about the essence of things in a few words and without any specialization like the ancient philosophers. For ex­ample, if things next to us somewhat interact, interaction is a phenomenon that is not only local here. If things change next to us, we can say the same for the whole world, and not just about the things we see here next to us. If here the bodies are divided into a few elemental parts (particles), that can be said about all things. In short, with easy generalization, we can think rightly about a great number of things that are not next to us in the space and time we live, and for more things than we observe. The gravitational force as ob­served by Newton is another bright example of how much time we save and how much we know by easy generalization.

The renowned philosopher Kant, rather than concluding the obvious, that things have similarities, common features, and that there are common laws etc, sought paradoxically the explanation for similarities exclusively to hu­man perception. To explain how things have similarities and always some common elements Kant thought paradoxically. He thought that things have common elements because traits are introduced by the biological and spiri­tual processes of humans. For example, space is a general form formed by the senses and not a common feature outside of things. So we perceive in space everything, since our senses work in this manner and every represen­tation of things is possible by introducing the "space" from the senses. When I carefully studied Kant's core works in the early 1990s, I quickly no­ticed this paradoxical explanation (and of course I was ceaselessly writing about my own views). In spite of my immaturity then, I appreciated that it is logical and simpler to accept that things themselves have common elements that are summarized in a few words, such as space, time, matter, force, inter­action, movement, stability and more. This is, because some other queries arise from Kant's explanation, that cannot be answered rationally and the is­sue is more complicated: What is an observer and how exactly are the forms of space and time introduced? How does this happen to many other people? Do the other observers perceive a totally different reality (without any similarity)? How do things in themselves affect the human body while the observer is something completely irrelevant to the bodies and things themselves? So, it was more convincing that things are such as they are with their change, their relations, and their interdependence. In the early 20th century, researchers found with the most modern instruments of technology, that things have similarities and common laws, although the boundaries of the observable world have widened. So they were encouraged and began to think with easy generalization, as the philosophers have done so far.

With this courage of philosophers who generalize easily, I was attempt­ing to explain the beginning of the cosmos (that was so great as we were learning then and infinite as I was thought then), and what the essence of bodies and particles might be, and whether they have an essence. Then I thought to start with an optimistic and bold view. I have never hesitated to think the most unlikely, because the simple things around me had already been for me unusual and unlikely to exist. I was amazed by our lives... I was looking for the common elements of the world with which we could think about the whole world, without observing each one thing and separately. For me, movement and matter were not the most assured and understandable characteristics of the world, and they should also have an explanation. What characteristics do you think I found as a basis for all explanations? I took the common meanings of "total" and "part". The time has come for the cosmos to be defined as "the full wholeness of all things", while every perceived thing was defined "as part of a common whole". So I tried to explain things based on the principle of this thought. With the wording of my thoughts on paper I had options for subtle differences of meaning and I was trying to choose the wording that seemed more consistent. This written effort was im­portant to keep my thoughts in mind and to think rationally without new things being introduced into the mind with the careless use of a new word. I noticed that from the definition of "part" I would never have reached a thing that would be self-existent, independent and primordial. Every part was such because there were other parts. Every part had limitations and dependence on other parts. Every part affected other parts and received influences from other parts. Every part changed and was never complete. As more as we think and get to know one thing, we will also need to think about its adja­cent things and we will not find the end. Therefore, we had to forget about the individual things for the interpretation of the world. We do not have to waste our time, since the parts are countless, with innumerable combinations and what we can see is here and close to us, while we will not travel in the vast space.

Then I found it easy to think that only one thing can be considered to be first and decisive for all things: The common Total of all parts. Only this was distinct in my thinking, since only this could not be part (as I was think­ing then). It was the common Total of all parts and it somehow had to stand apart from its parts. Then, surprisingly, I wondered: If the Common Total changes over time, then will it be a complete Total? I appreciated that if the Common Total changes, then the frustrating conclusion arises again that the common Total is not the complete Total. If it changes, then it's a part within time ... I had thought. And what was it at first? And how much the total that preceded is decisive? And how satisfactory explanation can a common totali­ty give that is not complete? We should again look at how the common Total is such as it is and from what it is affected or on what it depends ... Therefore, to stop looking for what it has been before and for which thing can explain the whole world , we do not have many choices. For my own solution, I had to think that the Common Total is complete only if it is stabi­lized and always the same! Only with so convenient thinking did I find an undeniable thing about which I could say: There is one thing on which ev­erything else depends and by which everything else is fully explained. There is one thing that we can think of as self-contained. The complete Total of the world as stabilized was the most optimistic solution. But in order the common Total to be stabilized, it had to be something in all possible ways! A complete Total in all possible ways could be identified with Time or this is equivalent to say that Time is finished for this complete Total. A common Total in all possible ways is stabilized and can provide a full explanation for all its parts, while no part can give a full explanation ...

But that was how a philosophical adventure began in my life, because the shared experience shows that everything changes. Normally I should have concluded that the common Total is not the same over time. But this com­mon finding of the change of all things did not discourage me. I trusted a simple rationale. I believed that no one could offer a more convincing expla­nation for the world, with thoughts about any phenomenon, any attribute, about any thing and with any knowledge. This is, because the most convinc­ing explanation should not create query for a previous thing that determines or affects the rest. No part of nature appears to be uncreated. No one can reasonably think of a thing that is connected with the natural world, and this thing does not need any other explanation. The only thing about which we can think and talk without being cut off from the physical world and being sufficient to explain all the other things is the common and complete Total of the world that we summarize with the word "Universe". This was opti­mistic and so convincing that I was certain that we could find out how a complete and stabilized Total is not seen thus by the common experience. That is, the common finding of the change of all things was not considered to be a denial of the thought of a complete and stabilized Total, and did not discourage philosophical search. On the contrary, it was considered to be the only problem that had to be solved and caused the suspicion that so generalized change as a universal law serves something and has an explanation. On the other hand, things as they appear to the senses are neither exactly the same for all the biological bodies, nor are they exactly the same in reality without us. This was a finding that also encouraged us to rationally think about things beyond our eyes and the limited time intervals of our live. All thoughts which are briefly written here had been formulated carefully until the early 1990s, in the first five years of philosophical quests, starting from a low educational level and avoiding discussing of these thoughts. Here I made a pause in the early 1990s to emphasize that until then as I had been thinking about the complete and stabilized Universe (for which time is finished), the most improbable thoughts and many stupid thoughts had gone through of my mind. But I still could not conclude that the common and the complete Total we call "Universe" exists at the same time toward its parts!

This persistent and long-lasting effort to answer totally, briefly and ratio­nally to many questions of Philosophy is recorded in the philosophical book under the title "The Theology of Science”.¹