Neopantheism is a senseless attempt to look beyond the border of the canvas
Draw me an irregular black square.
Explain to me that this is a window opening.
Through it you can see the sky without stars.
Through it you can go beyond the border of the canvas.
He said: “You are too weak, my pale-faced brother,
To dive into this abyss in search of the bottom.
You are not yet living for good, not in earnest.
The cinema screen is a plane, behind it is emptiness. "
Evgeny Romanov "Black Square", 2002.
From the author
– .
, , .
– . , .
., , a
In no way is it a scientific work. Perhaps an attempt to portray the picture of the world in the colors of IT technologies. There is a mechanistic, energetic and informational picture of the world, why not make one more - a narrowly professional one. In form - close to the essay. I vaguely suspect that modern philosophy is also moving in this direction. The times of Hegels trying to build a unified philosophical system, "to describe world harmony with algebra" - have sunk into oblivion, as well as subsequent attempts to create "the only correct doctrine" - Marxist-Leninist philosophy (how can one fail to recall the three components of Marxism).
Let us free the clearing for home-grown conspiracy theorists and creators of ideas to direct humanity on the right path.
Being a complete techie, a complete teacher and an incomplete programmer, I understand intellectually that a work of a philosophical plan should not be stated axiomatically - in the form of definitions, justifications or, God forbid, proofs, structural schemes, etc. down to UML class diagrams. I know firsthand that the “artistic-figurative approach to understanding the world” (see quotes) is equally productive to the formal-logical, and sometimes even more pragmatic - the image does not need proof, formal verification and testing, it “just works”. However, having stuffed my hand and other parts of the body on a formal-logical approach, I cannot get rid of it even here. Otherwise I would have written my "Man in a Landscape" (see below).
Not yet begun: on the futility of future attempts
The problem is that any formal system is limited and closed: no formal system can contain a complete description of itself. More precisely, this is formulated in an extended interpretation in Gödel's incompleteness theorems:
Theorem 1. In any closed formal system (theory), there is a true formula (statement) that is not provable in this theory.
Theorem 2. A formula (statement) expressing the consistency of a theory cannot be proven in this theory: that is, any theory cannot contain a consistent (complete) description of itself.
An interesting projection of this idea in the field of faith and philosophy. Both of them promise to give a person a complete picture of the world and determine his place in this world. Both of them, like science and technology, use both figurative and formal logical methods of proving or substantiating their conclusions. Both of them are faced with the problem of incompleteness even more than the formal theory: a person, as part of the world (system), tries to give a logically consistent description of the entire system. In this twice insoluble task (to give a description of oneself and the world “around oneself”), faith turns out to be more honest: it hides an internal contradiction in dogmas, that is, in a system of axioms that do not require not only proof and justification, but also discussion. Philosophy leaves this question open, as a rule,"Smearing" contradictions and unprovability throughout the entire system of worldviews, or giving preference to any one view. From this point of view, philosophy is more subjective than any other science.
- –
: . « »
“I'll tell you why,” he said, chewing on a cucumber. - This is a great thought. We are not born in a limitless world, are we? We gradually get to know him. Swaddled, we play with our little eyes and see the mother. She is the whole world. Then the world becomes the size of a room, a house, a street. Then we are convinced that we will never reach its edge ... Then they will explain to us about the ball, about the continents and countries, about the solar system, about the galaxy, about space ... And, teaching us what we cannot imagine, they will teach us substituting words for representations will convince us not so much of the infinity of the world as of the alleged infinity of our possibilities of cognition. Like, we have not yet understood and know everything, but now we know more than before, and then we will know even more,and then one day we will almost know everything ... And a person with the ability to think begins to rush with this ability all forward, further and further, and this is cleaner than a drug, I can tell you. You don't have to get out of the drug, but you can stay there, not that from a thought ... Like Semyon ... (I looked in the direction in which he nodded and where Semyon was not.) A former paratrooper ... He stayed there, where he was dropped off ... There he started using drugs. As they say, got on the needle. Now he doesn't need anything ... And they explain to us that oxygen, water, food are needed for life, and this will also be true, because it is so ... they explain that life on Earth is a rare miracle, because a combination of conditions which it is possible, unique and unrepeatable in space, that the range of life is phenomenally narrow, that we will perish as soon as we lack a degree of heat, a breath of air or water ... And this is again true.
- And only our consciousness, you see, is omnipotent and boundless, like the world ... Do you not catch the inconsistencies? Not yet? Let me explain. What we live in, what we see, perceive and comprehend, what we call reality, is also a range beyond which we perish as well as freeze or suffocate. We think that our reality is boundless, only, you see, we have not yet fully cognized it; in fact, our reality is the same range, by no means wider than what we hear or see. We are only alive in this range. And we live only in it, we live not at all in reality, but only in a layer of reality, which, in fact, if we were able to imagine real relationships, would not be thicker than a pictorial layer. It is in this layer of oil that we live, on which we were painted. And this painting is beautiful, because what artist wrote it! What an Artist!Leonardo is incomparable with him, how ... how ... And the comparison with him is incomparable! For us, he drew a life, the device of which we are gradually disassembling, disassembling also in the literal sense ... "So, stone by stone, brick by brick, we pulled this plant away ..." able to understand that there, in the depths, is no longer our reality, not released to us, by no means given to us in the sensation ... that the structure of our life still has its own structure, not at all located within our life. Newton's law is not in the apple, and not in the bath - Archimedes. In the layer of life drawn for us, there is a device, which, in turn, is a layer of reality, which, in turn, will have a device placed not in it, but in one more, several, I don’t know how many more layers, but again nothing to us even if we got there,not explaining. There was no such task for us to understand, there was a task for us to live! She was wonderful - God, how wonderful! - embodied. In embodiment, there is also a plane, not only flesh ... Now - a thinking person, now - an artist ... The artist does not understand, but reflects, therefore it is beautiful. That only that which was already beautiful can be reflected in it, but if at the same time he also comprehends, you see, then, believing that it goes deeper, it goes across the layer, and the layer is narrow, not thicker than oil, but what behind it? .. Behind it is the soil, behind it is a canvas, the base, and behind it is an abyss, a hole, torn edges, and there is dust, darkness, a stack with a nail and a rope to hang, a mediocre signature with a meaningless name ... About painting no one knows except painters, but, believe me, true talent in painting never goes further than a dumb guess that there is something beyond beauty,but the thinking fool will go. There, there they are all - Leonardo, El Greco, and Goya, and Van Gogh ... they all went beyond the range, beyond the image and nothing but madness, beyond these limits did not find ... Cezanne ... - And again he was warped like a toothache ...
-, -, -
- ( . μετά- «, , ») — , , , , -, - , , (, , ).
, ; , .
« -, -».
. «-»
:Grade 5 - the first grade of secondary school after primary. When I opened an algebra textbook - dry, strict, without pictures - and read several pages, I did not understand one thing: why do you need to denote numbers with the letters a, b, c, when arithmetic already works great with numbers. Then it became clear that you can work with variables according to their own laws, and the main value of algebra is the ability to use a variable as a designation for any number.
This was the first case of abstraction I realized, and later there were many of them in my professional education - programming is based on a system of abstractions - formal - actual parameters, data type - variable, class - object, interface - implementation.
Usually teachers do not try to explain this transition in general terms, there are reasons for this. To perceive the transition to a new level of abstraction, a certain level of abstract thinking is required, such a transition is easier to do non-verbally, according to the principles of "do as I do" or "see how I do." Inductively, from particular to general, it is always simpler.
The concepts of meta-system, meta-level are closely related to the principle of abstraction. The prefix "meta" needs to be specified here. Meta-system, meta-level - abstraction of the diversity of the original (target, target) system. An element of a meta-level is a generalization (abstraction), a description of a set of similar or related elements of the target system.
In UML (Unified Modeling Language - unified modeling language), an attempt is made to combine elements of describing complex systems based on an object-oriented approach. The abstraction principle is implemented in terms of classifier-instance. In the design process, a certain entity can be considered both as an abstraction (classifier) and as its installation in a specific environment - an instance.
The most popular in the field of programming are pairs - class-object, data type - variable. A pair of the UML - interface - implementation - also has a variety of programming reincarnation in the form of anonymous classes, classes with associated interfaces, anonymous functions, etc ...
Flashback:already having five to six years of experience in programming in Assembler, having started to study Pascal, for a long time I could not accept the abstraction "data type".
A reasonable question: why is a program, class or data type an abstraction if everything is specific to the computer architecture? A program is code, a class is also code for working with the data of the current object.
Answer: although the program code in memory is a "tangible" thing, but it is "dead" code. An instance of a program code is its execution (runtime) with specific data in a specific operating environment. The advanced ones will say that the stack is associated with the execution of the code, and recursive function calls and threads are instances of a function in sequential and parallel execution. The number of instances - executions - is infinite, as is the number of errors and failures that it can cause. Any set of launches and even an infinite number of them do not allow defining the essence of this program as a "black box". This is also the basis of unit testing - checking against a limited set of tests - representatives of the tested properties of the program code, input data or results. Metaphor: program code is the text you read,and a copy is the process of reading, understanding and evaluating the text in your mind.
Similarly - the actual parameter of the function is the stack area where it is written, and the formal parameter is the expected state of the stack. Those. the formal parameter does not seem to exist before the function is called, but this does not prevent the compiler from generating the code of the function that works with this parameter.
Similarly, a variable is a memory area that stores data in a format determined by its type. Physical memory itself is neutral to the type of its contents. The content is interpreted according to the format with which processor instructions operate. The format is described in relation to an arbitrary machine word. Its support by a hardware processor or software interpreter is already an implementation. Therefore, the data type is already an abstraction.
To avoid confusion, we will call abstractions entities, and their implementations - instances. The final picture looks like this:
- there is an entity as a source of an infinite variety of instances, an entity can include a mechanism for their generation
- many entities make up a meta-system, it establishes the rules (laws) of interaction between entities
- entities spawn instances that interact according to the rules (laws) of entities
Various entities of the meta-system, in turn, can be instances of one higher-level entity - the meta-meta-system. You don't have to go far for an example. In the Java programming languages and in C ++, the class-object pair works in approximately the same way at the level of executable bytecode and architecture-dependent program code. But in C ++ at runtime this is where the matter ends, in Java entities (classes) are instances (objects) of an entity - class Class. Those. for the Java virtual machine, as well as for the code written by the programmer, entity-classes are as natural to be manipulated as ordinary objects. The mechanism of reflection is based on this - the ability of the program to analyze its own structure, a kind of self-knowledge.
Another example of "meta-meta" - a database consists of tables of arbitrary structure - each table has its own set of columns, each column has its own type and name, indexes are attached to columns and their groups, etc. To store this meta-data the server supports tables describing tables, fields, indexes, i.e. essentially a database.
Fig. 1. Meta system. Essence and Instances (UML)
The above examples refer to a man-made world, here the "creator" of the meta-system and the meta-meta-system is known. If we go to the material (by analogy it asks - not made by hands) world, then from the pragmatic philosophy of a specific subject area we have to move to the philosophy of being, where there are professionals and authorities.
Matter and the Lord God as a way out of the endless cycle of meta-meta
The essence of the meta-system describes and generates instances, these entities themselves, in turn, can be instances of other entities of the meta-meta-system. If the linear structure seems too primitive, imagine that an instance can be reproduced from several entities of the same or different meta-systems. This chain of abstraction sooner or later runs into a meta-system with a single essence, which is itself both an essence and an instance, outside of which nothing exists. Do you recognize? It is matter, the absolute idea, or the Lord God, as you please. It is no longer generalizable, nothing exists outside of it, it contains everything for its own knowledge. In short, a complete absolute.
On the irreducibility of infinitely many to one whole
"Gogi, prove that the triangle is isosceles
- I swear by Mom, isosceles"
Anecdote
The essence gives rise to an infinite number of copies. All of them have properties and obey the laws set for the entity in the meta-system. There is one fundamental question: to what extent this set of instances allows one to judge the essence itself, is equivalent to it (formulate it as you like, the idea is clear). At the everyday level, this is quite natural: no one will prove the Pythagorean theorem, checking it on all conceivable triangles: it is proved for some abstract general triangle, i.e. as a property of an entity, and not as a result of testing instances (testers, ay ???).
The idea of exhaustive search also does not work productively: it is impossible to assemble a TV by shaking up the box with radio components. It is impossible to create an algorithm generator by generating all the algorithms in a row, selecting useful ones and discarding useless ones. It's not even about the infinity of the time required for this, but about the criteria of when to stop (TV) or how to create a filter to filter out. The latter is an algorithmically unsolvable problem; it is impossible to develop an algorithm (write a program) that filters other programs (source texts) for a nontrivial property.
The entity-instances link emerges in the process of acquiring knowledge - the foundation of any science in the form of a similar general-particular link. Inference (conclusion, reasoning) from the general to the particular is called deduction, from the particular to the general - induction. A deductive statement is true by definition, but unproductive, it does not provide new knowledge.
An inductive assertion, as follows from the above, is, by definition, generally unfounded. Nevertheless, it is induction that underlies the acquisition of knowledge, but not in its pure form, but in the form of the following process:
- private observation, experiment, specimen research;
- intuitive guess about the presence of a general property of the essence (induction), its formulation;
- formal proof or experimental confirmation of a general property
Thus, the reverse process from the particular to the general (instance-essence) takes place, but rests on the nature of intuition. Objective idealists will substantiate it by introducing it to the absolute idea, materializers of the ideal - by connection with the cosmos, the universal information field, materialists - I don't know what (see below).
Essence in the meta-system as a category of the ideal
Essence in the meta-system is an abstract concept, in the categories of philosophy - the ideal concept is closest to him. The essence, like any abstraction, cannot be “touched by hands”. Ideal too. Practically everything that social consciousness operates with belongs to the category of the ideal: knowledge, culture, speech, science and its laws, arts.
A short course in the history of VKPb
Here are fragmentary notes on selected issues that philosophy considers as a science. My amateurish positivist view of things.
The world is real and otherworldly
“Puppets are pulled by the strings,
they have smiles on their faces”
Time machine. "Puppets".
Man at all times of his existence believed that in addition to the real, comprehensible and perceived world, there is another world. He is parallel, he is subtle, he is also a bio-energy-informational field. It permeates everything and everyone, it is impossible to penetrate into it from the material world. Either it materializes spontaneously, or the world “pulls the strings”. In general, he outlined the idea, the options - in the studio.
Plato, Aristotle and Hegel - the meta-system - the world of ideas
To begin with, I will quote an excerpt.
“There was the main heavenly car,” said Volodin, “compared to which your six-hundredth Mercedes is complete shit. This celestial vehicle was absolutely perfect. And all the concepts and images related to automobiles were contained in one. And the so-called real cars that drove along the roads of Ancient Greece were considered just his imperfect shadows. Like projections. Got it?
- Got it. So what's next?
- And then Aristotle took it and said that the main celestial vehicle, of course, is. And all earthly machines, of course, are simply his distorted reflections in the dim and crooked mirror of being. At that time, it was impossible to argue with this. But besides the prototype and the reflection, Aristotle said, there is one more thing. The material that takes the shape of this car. A substance that has self-existence. Iron, as you put it. And it was this substance that made the world real. This is where all this fucking market economy started. Because before that, all things on earth were just reflections, and what kind of reality, tell me, can a reflection have? The only real thing is what creates these reflections. Victor Pelevin. "Chapaev and emptiness"
Perhaps the only educational value of Pelevin's work is that he introduced the young generation of the 90s to the philosophical heritage, shifting philosophical ideas to the then slang. Although captured accurately and conveyed intelligibly.
Figure: 2. Picture of the world in objective idealism
The above described is classified as a philosophical direction of objective idealism. Translated into our terminology it sounds like this: In the other world there is a meta-meta ... a meta-system of entities - ideas, there is an inert substance - matter, ideas, projecting onto matter, create instances in it - objects of the real world. The real world contains many instances of entities and is separated by an insurmountable barrier from the meta-system that exists in the otherworldly ideal world.
The humble charm of materialism
"The modest charm of the bourgeoisie" (fr. "Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie") a
film by Luis Bunuel, 1972
"No matter how much you repeat" halva "- the mouth will not become sweeter"
Hodja Nasreddin
Materialism - aka Marxist-Leninist, he is the only true and protruding, and protruding and protruding - in my interpretation proceeds from countless notes of Lenin's polemics at the institute, and others like him courses in social disciplines - from the history of the CPSU, philosophy to scientific communism.
So that's what the bottom line is. Matter - it is universal, life-giving, in it is the source of its own development. Materialism attributes the problem of the meta-system to the ideal, and the ideal, in turn, to consciousness. And consciousness is a property of highly organized matter. Thus, abstractions - a product of consciousness, are associated with certain processes in consciousness, and the processes themselves are material. The circle is complete. Matter - the Lord God and the clay from which Adam was created, in one bottle.
There is no meta-system as such. Essences are determined by the processes in our consciousness, they arise there as a reflection of the identical properties of the objects around us. Consciousness creates within itself meta-systems, with the help of which we study, classify and describe the world around us.
What about development? And then the same rabbit from the hat. The source of development lies in matter itself. It contains within itself the prototype of its own development and its laws, i.e. dialectics.
The ideal in materialism
But to be honest, the meta-system in materialism is not so simple. Here there are subtleties, and where it is subtle, there it breaks. First of all, the ideal is understood as everything that is connected with consciousness and its activity, but not only individual (personal, subjective), but also social - images, ideas, knowledge, language, art, etc. ... Products of the activity of consciousness exist in the material the world in the form of artifacts - books, sculptures, paintings, words written on the fence. Artifacts are not only hand-made items. Audio recording on magnetic tape, photography, motion picture on film - media that reproduce artifacts. With the development of IT technologies and the Internet, the problem of the ideal shone in its original purity: all artifacts of social creation are files, and the perception of their content by us should somehow be associated with the concept of the ideal.Somehow this should include artifacts that are not recorded materially - dance, live performance, oral speech. And finally, oral legends, anecdotes - they exist regardless of whether we posted them on the Internet or not, i.e. created a material artifact, or transmission by means of a "dynamic" artifact - speech.
Since materialism denies the existence of the otherworldly background, individual consciousness is exhausted by the neuro-physiological (or psycho-physiological) processes of the subject. In the first interpretation, this is the ideal. This is the so-called vulgar materialism. His problem is the ideal is subjective, since it refers to a specific consciousness. The integrity of the ideal is violated, it completely dissolves in the material and does not reach a full-fledged category, on an equal footing with the material.
Figure: 3. Ideal in the material world.
Further, even from Marx himself, there is an attempt to settle the ideal in a purely material world. Let's try to interpret it from the standpoint of our narrow-minded professionalism (Fig. 3). At first, everything is clear and understandable, as one should be in vulgar materialism. Artifacts of consciousness evoke in the brain - the carrier of consciousness - the corresponding neuro-physiological (psycho-physiological) processes. Those. there are two instances, one way or another connected with the ideal: a material artifact and its reflection in consciousness.
And then the dialectical yang / yin begins, as a result of which crap is obtained, which is no longer represented by UML diagrams. First, these processes are not themselves the essence of the ideal. Second: the ideal essence somehow objectively exists as an integrity in the public consciousness, the individual parts of which are actualized in the individual consciousness.
An analogy can provide some clarity: the above example with the program code and its execution. Although all participants in the process are material, the program code bears features of abstractness (ideality) in relation to its execution. By analogy: the ideal in the material is a kind of program, parts of which are executed in the individual consciousness. For the ideal, the collective consciousness in IT terminology is an executive system in which the processes corresponding to the essence of the ideal are actualized. This system is also parallel and distributed.
Finally, we get to the main point. Where is this program stored - the ideal entity? There is only one materialistic answer: fragmentarily in processors - individual consciousnesses, and then individual consciousness is both a carrier of a part of the ideal (dead code) and an environment for executing processes caused by artifacts of consciousness (execution of a code with data - artifacts). Some kind of blockchain turns out - an ideal entity is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The unity of the ideal somehow does not look convincing in this form.
One can, of course, assume that the ideal essence is itself a part of matter, it seems to permeate the entire material world, and the instances correspond to it by definition, generated by matter. But this is already some kind of objective idealism.
One gets the impression that idealism and materialism are two boots of a pair. But the first is still more honest: he refers the ideal to the incomprehensible otherworldly and leaves it there. And materialism freezes in dialectical nirvana: the ideal objectively exists, but it is impossible to reach it as a whole, but it is possible only through material artifacts and distributed ideal essences.
Numbered thoughts per topic
- Windows exists as long as there is at least one computer running Windows. The book exists as long as at least one who has read it is alive.
- Show me a bit of information without media. Immediately, materializers of the otherworldly will run up and say: here it is a bio-energy-information-torsion field, everything is ideal and written in it.
- It seems that Kant was right, here we come to the border of the canvas.
- – , . .
- , , : , — . , .
-
Strange as it sounds, physics does not explain the nature of the phenomena of the surrounding world. She discovers the laws by which these phenomena occur, but does not try to explain why they look like this and not otherwise. She formulates them strictly mathematically and verifies (verifies, tests - call it whatever you like). Anything beyond that is from the evil one (temptation and pride) - an accidental slip of the tongue, close to the truth. Meta-physics (from the Greek metaphysic - what is after physics) can be called any generalization that concerns the nature of things, but goes beyond private physical laws, in any case does not follow the principles of physics - the mathematical formulation of laws, a reproducible experiment. Meta-physics extends from the branches of philosophy, dealing with the study of the original nature of reality, the world and being as such,before attempts to deduce the law of laws in a strictly formal sense, to create a kind of periodic table for physics.
Note: In the first semester, there is an option in the individual programming assignment: simulate the motion of a particle in a gravitational field. The program must reproduce motion by modeling (simulation) the laws of physics and mechanics in their discrete approximation. In the original formula of the law of universal gravitation, the denominator is the square of the distance. The body, in accordance with the theory, moves in a circle / ellipse. But if you change the degree (for example, 1.5 or 2.5), then the motion ceases to be periodic - the law “does not turn” or, conversely, “turns too much” the receding celestial body.
In such a solar system, life could not arise by definition: there is no stability.
Objective reality given to us in sensation. Not certainly in that way
Lenin's famous definition of matter: "Matter is a philosophical category to designate the objective reality that is given to a person in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them." About reality and independent existence - please. As for sensations, the further we go, the smaller the percentage of "objective reality" we get from sensations.
The reality "observed by us" has long been mediated by a chain of sensors, transducers, processing algorithms that give us this reality in the form in which we can perceive it.
Hadron Collider.First, the theoretical physicist throws in an idea: could it be so? Calls on a professional mathematician. He builds a mathematical model - a system of equations. The model's solution says: maybe this and that. An experiment is planned in accordance with the expected result from the model. About the experiment itself: there have long been no Wilson chambers, where the tracks of particles are visible. The darkness of sensors from which gigantic streams of raw data come. They are filtered in real time, combined, events related to the interaction of particles are reconstructed from them, among them “suspiciously similar” to those predicted by the theory are searched for.
The given example, fortunately, does not concern the concepts of macro- and microworld, which are unimaginable in everyday consciousness, as a particle-wave, the geometry of space-time. Otherwise, the observable reality indirectly needs some kind of projection into the coordinate system of our everyday reality (the now fashionable word is visualization).
It's good that Hegel did not know what information is.
Philosophy is subjective not only in the fact that it creates a picture of the world from the point of view of the subjective perception of the author ("I am not bad, but the world is like that", see "Not yet begun: on the futility of future attempts"). If you can still object to this, then about the influence of technology on the picture of the world - everything is obvious here.
The seventeenth-eighteenth century: mechanics, movement, steam engine, differential and integral calculus, the continuity of infinitesimal increments: wheels and planets rotate smoothly, a carriage with a graph smoothly drives up to the castle. The picture of the world is a gigantic mechanism, from the atom to the solar system, the laws of functioning of which are adequately described by the laws of mechanics. It's simple: the material is a physical body limited in space.
The beginning of the twentieth century - energy comes to the fore, Einstein's E = mc2 - energy is equivalent to mass. The crisis of materialism: matter has disappeared. Overcoming the crisis: energy is a form of existence of matter. Dualism is a particle-wave: for the first time there appeared that which is unimaginable in everyday consciousness (one more pebble in "given to us in sensation"). Ether and field. A particle is imaginable / tangible. The field created by the particle blurs it in space: it is, as it were, here, but its field is everywhere. The theory of relativity - relativity and the unity of space and time. Microcosm, tunneling effect: with a lack of energy, a particle can still overcome a potential barrier. Metaphor in the macrocosm: if you run well, then there is a nonzero probability of going through the wall.
We got used to this picture of the world. Some disprove any of the above. But they also use computers based on semiconductors, in which "it works."
The end of the twentieth century - information technology - information is trending. The picture of the world is discrete-informational, the consciousness is clip-on. That is why the ideal part of the picture of the world is often replaced by an information field, on the basis of which the material world is built. In fact, information is the same "halva" - an absolute idea with a fashionable label glued on - information.
Generally speaking, I am not against the informational picture of the world, only it is not necessary to build it on the understanding of information in a narrow technical sense: the non-material interaction of specific formal technical systems in the control process (non-material in the sense that the nature of the signal is not important here, and the material side of the interaction is emasculated ). There are many aspects of such interaction and many corresponding definitions of information, as well as its measures (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, algorithmic).
In the philosophical formulation of the question, information claims to be the ideal (https://habr.com/ru/post/403225/), and the processes associated with it - to the role of cognition.
That is why I, like the devil - incense, avoid the word information in highly technical questions and lectures. I use data instead. Data is information that can be stored in a specific format and processed by a computer program.
Subjective idealism - the real world and the meta-world in one's own mind
"One Jean-Paul Sartre cherishes in his pocket
And he is proud of this consciousness"
Boris Grebenshchikov "Two tractor drivers"
"He listens to" Aquarium "day and night,
Sells records and old books,
Hides Jean-Paul Sartre under his pillow,
Dreams of learning to play the sitar" ...
Chizh "Bus"
With subjective idealism, the easiest thing is: it is vulgar materialism turned inside out. Consciousness is the constructor of reality: "The world is a complex of my sensations." The unity of the world is based on the coordination of the sensations of the subjects. As the saying goes: “It seems to me that I am reading this lecture, and you - that you are present at it. In fact, we agreed so. " Accordingly, what materialism and objective idealism refer to as ideal is also a product of individual consciousness. We will not expand further. Nietzsche, Spengler, Bergson, Sartre, Heidegger, Jaspers, Camus are a mixture of German will, French reflection, depression and vanity. Maybe I'm wrong, but my attempts to read Sartre or Nietzsche ended in the first few pages. Even if at heart I am a hippie, but by education I am a pioneer.
The unity of the world - where is it?
Introduction: Andrey Bitov. "Man in a Landscape"
You don't see yourself when you look. And what you see, does it see itself? Well, the earthly creature sees for its own urgency. And what about trees, grasses, mountains, rivers? They don't see. Have you ever imagined yourself as a stone or a branch? Of course they did. They fixed themselves in place, positioned themselves in space ... And at the same time, they yearned for the poverty of the world you got to review. And each time, without noticing it, you continued to see and even hear, as if a stone or a branch had eyes and ears. You couldn’t take this away from your performance, it didn’t even occur to you, couldn’t it?
- Not so often I imagined myself as a stone, but perhaps ... not without eyes ...
- Can you imagine what a but-o-o-och! - He whispered the word "night" so terribly ... - What incomprehensible disinterestedness is in this deaf-blind-mute existence! After all, everything that is, is connected with each other, not knowing about this connection. And we see this in a unity that none of the participants in this unity knows! You went ashore: water, sand, pebbles are splashing, the forest is reflected in the water - you know that all this, of course, does not think like you, but you cannot imagine how separate stones and waters are for yourself, there is no whole for them! They are all in themselves! Like those things with the Germans. But the whole is there! This is the paradox. You did not invent it, and it does not seem to us that everything in front of our eyes is a picture. So someone ... No. So she was ... No. How could it connect, pink, by itself? And about beauty - we don't think about beauty.Our aesthetics are not motivated by the satisfaction of our vital needs. I froze once in winter in the tundra ... Nothing there was suitable for any life ... I was dying - in beauty. So - who-oh-oh-oh ?! - And he screamed terribly for five.
Instances are one only in their essence
And how the whole world of little things becomes whole,
Oh, how many names I gave them ... "
Alexey Romanov. “When you look at me”
In the common consciousness, the problem of the unity of the world is not worth a damn. Here, the government-Komsomol optimism of the official vocal-instrumental ensembles (VIA) such as "Gems" (the language does not dare to say "rock groups") comes to mind: ... ".
At the opposite end F. Engels: "The unity of the world in its materiality." Those. the unity of everyone and everything consists in the fact that this infinite set objectively exists within the framework of a single matter.
The meaning of the above quote (see Introduction): the unity of the blind and deaf "things in themselves" is not contained in them, it is in the sphere of the ideal. This is logical for objective idealism: the unity of the material in the absolute idea, it is the source of the complexities and interconnections of the reality generated by it. This is logical in a meta-system - properties and relationships of entities define similar relationships of instances.
And one more thing, noted in the quotation: the object (instance) does not name or name itself. The name (this is how the term - identifier) - exists in the mind as a designation (symbol) of this object.
Another clue to materialism
The problem of the ideal in materialism has already been considered above, and its solution seemed not completely convincing: the ideal is objective, integral, but represents a kind of blockchain of fragments stored in the minds of individuals and artifacts that actualize them.
The unity of the world also lies in the universal applicability of its laws, and the laws themselves are part of the ideal, the unity of which is somehow not clear. A falling brick does not know the law of uniformly accelerated motion, which, in turn, depends on Newton's second law at a constant gravity. Brick obeys them. Those. laws for him are non-verbal (unconscious, not formulated), as for a cyclist - riding a bicycle.
The laws are formulated in the collective consciousness, but all material objects obey them both in biblical times and in the 21st century, regardless of whether they were discovered or not. In relation to the tandem entity-instances, the law is exactly the entity that is actualized in instances. This should be followed by a repetition of "ideal in the material."
From the big bang theory to God's providence
Life-giving source of development
Chapaev: "Who will go to the bathhouse, clean or dirty?"
Petka: "Who the hell knows him, Vasily Ivanovich."
Chapaev: “And this is dialectics”
Anecdote
The laws of development are more or less clear - these are the universal laws of being, which the material (for materialists) and ideal (for objective idealists) world obeys. These are the laws of dialectics. But here is the root cause of movement / development - it is outside the laws. If we descend from general laws to particular laws of nature, development is always associated with complication (structure, connections, hierarchy - you never know what else), regression - with chaos, simplification. There is even a measure of disorder in thermodynamics - entropy.
Inertia and regression can still somehow be connected with the very essence of nature - over time, everything decays, everything that cannot break down breaks too. But the development / complication presupposes "control action" from the outside, "separation of sheep from goats", inspiration with an idea. This is equally understandable for the artist, engineer, and programmer. From a formalized point of view, a closed system cannot complicate or improve itself.
How do different branches of philosophy solve this problem? Objective idealism: the source of development in the absolute idea, the material world and consciousness not so much develop as they embody what is inherent in the absolute idea.
Materialism: matter itself contains the source of development. In relation to the "big bang theory" it sounds like this: it turns out that the original particle contains knowledge (design, prototype, information - be it wrong) about the future development of the Universe. Fortunately, physicists do not bother with this problem, but try to describe the process itself.
Oddly enough, the closest analogy is found in religion: the Lord God created the world, already having the plan (prototype) of the world in himself. If we digress from the rather metaphysical version of the Old Testament about the six days of creation, then it is logical to assume that creation / development is continuous: God's providence takes place in everything, and in its absence, “the abomination of desolation”.
Numbered thoughts per topic
- – . , , . .
- / . . : – , , , , – .
- « » , , ( ) – . . – , , agile- – .
.
«- ?
— ! — .»
« »
«… , ,
, - ,
— ,
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
— — .
…»
. « ». 01.02.2002
The weakest point in philosophy is the nature of the ideal. The natural sciences cope with the material at the very least. The ideal remains outside the border of the canvas, on which the picture of the world is drawn and on the surface of which we crawl. Canvas and paints are matter. The picture is beautiful, but we see it in separate strokes. Soaring up and seeing the plot from above is not in our power, and even more so - to understand the plan. "Born to crawl, cannot fly." This is not our habitat. In philosophy, the closest thing to this is the good old - no, not the blues, but pantheism.
Numbered credo
In order not to bother with logical linking into a single whole, which, in fact, is not here.
- Reality layer, canvas border - the metaphor is impressive
- Kant's Thing-In-Itself Is At Least Honest
- Where to place the meta-system of all things is an open question
- After all, we do not live in a matrix, but if in a matrix, then miraculously
- The development of the system in itself is impossible, that is, God's providence
- No matter how much you say "matter", your mouth will not become sweeter
- In the beginning there was a word (logos) - a plan ahead of creation
PS When I learn new scientific facts from genetics, molecular biology, neurophysiology, nuclear physics and cosmology, it seems to me that God exists. When I see a crowd of raging religious fanatics, it seems to me that he never was.
Epilogue. Conversation about the chief programmer (C ++: from amateur to professional, 2008)
Philosophy is the idea of a program about the programmer who wrote it.
Thoughtful Programmer
Lunch break was coming to an end. My good friend and no less good programmer, Gennady Ivanovich P., was flipping through a tabloid newspaper at random, trying to find something useful to the heart or mind.
- Found a significant number of copies of the same genes and individual fragments of the genetic code. The human genome differs only fifty percent from the genome of the fruit fly and five percent from the horse genome. Deciphering the genetic code opens up wide prospects ... further is no longer interesting.
- So what - I suddenly got excited - They didn't decipher anything. For a long time, as a programmer, everything is clear to me. All this resembles a disk that has not been cleaned for a long time, and at the physical level. A bunch of cut-off versions of the same files. And they made a dump of the entire hard drive and think that they understood what was really going on there.
- Like what. You know from school - DNA, RNA, protein synthesis.
- Nothing like this. Yes, you yourself know, to read the text of the program and understand what it does, and most importantly, how - there are two big differences. Everything is dashingly twisted right there. The gene is responsible for protein synthesis, and that, in turn, activates some biochemical processes, and they create conditions under which other genes are activated - and off you go. Where it will lead is unknown. The rules are known, but how they work and what the result will be is not clear. I'm interested in something else. So to speak, programming technology. For example, when you write a program, do you know what you want to get and how to do it?
- Well yes.
- It's another matter, you can't always explain why exactly this is. Therefore, they teach mainly according to the principle - do as I do. And here an interesting program has been made: you change the input data, that is, the conditions, the turtle will work out, take the others, the crocodile. Change a couple of teams - man, the king of nature. Well, I don’t believe, I just don’t believe that such a thing appeared by itself, as a result, as we were taught, of the development of matter and the action of lightning discharges on the organic soup in the oceans. There seems to be a better programmer than us, who wrote and wrote all this, and even dropped it halfway. I, you know, am an atheist by education, but I do not strongly believe in the origin of these programs by natural selection. THE PROGRAMS ARE NOT WRITING THEMSELVES, it's not for me to explain it to you.
- Well, this is already a brother, philosophy. You don't love her yourself, since college.
- I didn’t like - I specified - her unfounded claims to be the science of all sciences. Philosophy is, I thought for a moment, collecting my thoughts - from our professional point of view, an attempt by a program to understand the programmer who wrote it. You, just count it, write a program, suffer, shred it, poor, if you did not immediately hook the logic, you put patches, you gush coffee. And then she thinks that the whole world is in her image and likeness, with all her vices and imperfections.
- And if you rewrite it?
- Well, this is already reincarnation, like the Buddhists have - the transmigration of souls.
- You just look at things - Gennady Ivanovich looked out the window. - Look what gene pool is rushing down the street.
On the porch of the building opposite - the educational building of the institute, a crowd of students poured out.
- In this case, Gena, great programming knowledge is not required - I pointed my finger at one of the spicy pictures of the tabloid newspaper - the main thing is to copy your file while it is still being read. And how the carrier fails due to radiation or the environment - the bad sector will fly out - and the ungrateful descendants will remember you with an unkind word. And the programming process itself ... Then a "bearded" anecdote about Lieutenant Rzhevsky came to mind. Old Freud, as always, was in his place.
The lunch break is over. All went to their places and began the usual improvement of the unfinished picture of the universe in its formal and logical embodiment.