The theory of everything, which is not

– on the possibility of all modes of syllogism

one form of output;

This is when a person can not think mathematically, all logical reasoning is expressed by algebraic formulas, when the subject and the thought depersonalized masks of the characters, and for me, for example, the perception of the logic of his thinking is, to put it mildly, difficult.

(– “Oh, look at the math, said Logik. – He observes that the first ninety-nine numbers are less than a hundred, and hence, by means of what he calls induction, concluded that any number less than a hundred.

Physicist believe, ‘said the mathematician,” that 60 is divided by all the numbers. He observes that 60 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. He checks a few other numbers, such as 10, 20 and 30, taken, as he says, at random. Since 60 divided them, he considers the experimental data is sufficient.

– Yeah, but look at the engineer, – said the physicist. The engineer suspected that all odd numbers are Prime. In any case, 1 can be regarded as a simple number that proves it. Then there are 3, 5 and 7, all, of course, is simple.

Then, going 9 – an unfortunate incident; apparently, 9 is not a Prime number, but 11 and 13, of course, is simple. Go back to 9, “he says,” I conclude that 9 must be an error of the experiment.” (From the book, Etc. Polya. Mathematics and plausible reasoning, IL, 1957.)

“Development of existential question therefore means: flashing certain things – asking – in its Genesis. Asking this question as the modus of existence of certain things is itself essentially determined by what it is asked – being. It’s things that we ourselves always of the essence and which among other things has the existential possibility of asking, we grasp the terminology as presence. Clear and transparent formulation of the question about the meaning of being requires a prior adequate explication of certain things (presence) in the aspect of his existence.” Martin Heidegger “Being and time”. Here is a quite different matter; – the classical language of philosophy. Logic and meaning, vitality and feasibility… Someone here is understand what is said in this passage? (Not counting the professionals, dog ate …)

And the third example – “… hybrid forms matters svoemesto fill the deformation space, in which synthesis occurs. The synthesis process continues as long as the crumple zone does not fill completely, as if falling asleep with the stones of the pit, the surface of the dirt road is smooth. Hybrid of matter neutralize the crumple zone space. And that can only mean one thing – they affect the dimension of the space with the sign opposite to the sign of the deformation space in which the synthesis of these hybrid materials. Atoms create the secondary curvature of micropotenza…” – here and rushing “scholarship,” standing on wobbly stilts pseudo-scientific terms… And behind them – the emptiness and nonsense. Of course this is academician Levashov…

Know comments …

So I will try to put the language of “household” used, and it is not for the sake of the intended reader, as such, is not intended to, and only to not get confused.

3…

Each person I think needs to be unquestioned authorities, scientists, writers, poets, politicians, maybe even the characters, of myths, a kind of lighthouses in the ocean of human culture (that’s a stamp …).

Naturally, I have a couple of names. Not to say that the saints, but these names for me all the same mean a lot, forcing one to wonder who I am, why and where you’re going.

Homer, Shakespeare, Quevedo, Cervantes, Melville…

Russian – L. Gumilev, M. Bulgakov (which “Master and Margarita”). Vernadsky, And. Brodsky… people in the words and deeds of which I am not looking for any trick.

Then I will have to quote many famous and not so famous people. Some of them professed values, different from the dear truths of a neighbor. Who was right, who is not… to Judge in many cases I refuse in recent times the category of truth has shifted for me in a strange area… of Course, if I see a natural idiot, as, for example, doctor of Sciences ophthalmologist Muldashev er. R. – silence here is not possible… But among philosophers to look right and there’s is a thankless job… especially as a joke about space: There are two theories of the Universe; the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Both are correct but exclude one another

I’ll give you a quote. Most of the authors are specified, there is no other: just too lazy to look and remember… If the author is not specified, it does not mean that the quote is invented by me… Have to believe. If I doubt – I will be fair to warn you…

– “… historians, obviously, always tell the truth (as they always vouch for their words and so therefore can’t lie)…” George. Cohen

I have already given a hint about what you want to see a certain truth… of the true knowledge. Not someone’s opinion about “black holes” and “curled up string, hiding in the folds of space”, but a General truth…

“PARMENIDES introduces the distinction between truth and opinion. The truth is the knowledge of life, so her main criteria are CONSISTENCY, IMMUTABILITY, and TIMELESSNESS. -”

(Most modern theories is just the sin of absence of these signs …).

– “… My definition of truth is: a belief is true when it corresponds to fact.” – B. Russell’s “Philosophical dictionary of mind, matter and morality.”

“European medieval philosophy considers KNOWLEDGE AS the GRACE THAT comes FROM GOD. God discovers himself in creation and in revelation … " – another opinion, eligible to be…

“THEORY of KNOWLEDGE” (neokantianism, epistemology) – “… the doctrine of the knowledge that revealed the conditions in which it becomes possible to undoubtedly existing knowledge, and depending on these conditions establish the boundaries, which may extend any whatsoever knowledge and opening up the region are equally unprovable opinions.” – But this view already can waft boredom and discouragement because even theorize physicists acknowledge the possibility of the boundaries of knowledge (imagination runs dry?).

“INTUITIVE knowledge, knowledge that comes from life experiences, free associations, and ‘spark of God’. Often based on Intuitive knowledge born of hypothesis and theories, which take the form of postulates, for example, the theory of ‘black holes’, etc.” so, I choose the intuitive knowledge.

And not because it is “the mother of black holes”. My intuition tells me the opposite, that the theory “CH. D.” – is not true knowledge. His criteria, as we know from Parmenides – INVARIANCE, CONSISTENCY, TIMELESSNESS.

Or Parmenides already outdated?

Well, more modern – “real knowledge – must have strong justification, statistical, mathematical, logical… It must also be rational and expedient.”

– “… I think that truth and knowledge are different, and that statement may be true, notwithstanding the absence of any method that allows us to verify this. We can then make the law of the excluded middle. We define the ‘truth’ through an appeal to ‘events’ (we are not talking about logical truth), and ‘knowledge’ – through the reference to ‘objects of perception’. Thus, the ‘truth’ would be a broader concept than ‘knowledge’. ” – B. Russell’s “Philosophical dictionary of mind, matter and morality.”

About the basics of the modern world-arrangement – T. About. and quantum theory I mentioned…

As C. The skumbrievich: – “I did it not in the interests of truth, but in the interests of truth.”

…Still have “black holes” and “string”.

Statistics?

There is no ONE hundred percent reliable observations of these miracles.

Logic?

This is well stated in the book of St. Hawking’s “a brief history of time” and Hoyle and Sagan – these miracles and wonders are. That is, on the verge of a probable…

Math?

Mathematics have already considered (mathematically) both literally to the last particle… based On the method of extrapolation. Ie, just strictly looking at the side effects.

This is all given that the very existence of these objects is under question. Here to you and the feasibility and rationality…

– “… Scientists constantly invent words to fill the holes in your understanding… Sometimes understanding comes and the temporary words are replaced by others with more sense. But most often, these words take root, and nobody remembers that they were originally invented for convenience only. For example, some physicists describe gravity in terms of curved space of ten dimensions. But these ten measurements, just words for temporary use as replacement parts of abstract mathematical formulas. Even if these formulas will be useful, it does not mean that all ten dimensions do exist. Words such as dimension, field, infinity is not that other, as a convenient term for mathematicians and physicists. They do not describe reality, but we accept on faith that these things exist, hoping that someone still understands what they mean … —

– …Did you hear about string theory? he asked. – String theory says that all of our reality as gravity, magnetism, light can be explained in one General theory, which operates tiny, like strings, vibrating objects. String theory has not yet yielded any practical results. It still has not been proved experimentally, however, thousands of physicists devote their careers, on the grounds that it is plausible.”…

– “… Take gravity. Gravity is also impossible to jacket the. Its action extends over the whole Universe, and it affects all objects. And at the same time has no physical form. —

– As I recall, Einstein said that gravity is the curvature of space-time by massive objects, ' said I…

– All right, Einstein said so. What does that mean? —

It means that space is curved, so when we think that objects attract each other, in fact they’re just moving along the shortest path through curved space. —

– Can you imagine bent space? —

I can’t, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not really curved! Will you argue with Einstein.” Adams With. “Fragments Of God”

– AND WHY NOT? —

– “… World in which we live can be understood as the result of confusion and occasion; but if it is the result of a consciously chosen goal, that goal apparently belongs to enemy of the human race. As for me, I think the case is less painful and more plausible hypothesis.” B. Russell’s “is There life after death”