Matter is secondary in relation to consciousness states. What comes first - matter or consciousness? The Basic Question of Philosophy

Consciousness is primary, matter is secondary - this is what idealists think and this can neither be refuted nor confirmed. I knew about this and this was taught to me from the distant days of studying at the university. But now I started thinking about what kind of consciousness we are talking about. After all, some may understand by consciousness the reaction of an earthworm to a boot stepping on it, and others may understand it as the cosmic mind. So the question of matter and consciousness is also a question of language or the meaning of the words used.

I decided to look at this part on the Internet and in [email protected] I immediately came across a fragment that caught my attention:

"Maria mariya: Is matter primary or consciousness?

ANDREY NOVIKOV: Such a question can only be asked by proving that consciousness is not material."

So I started thinking: is consciousness material? How can I answer this question? I can answer this only by looking inside myself. Some of this matter simply goes beyond my experience, and some of it depends on the choice of what can be associated with the concept of “consciousness.” If we assume that consciousness does not exist without my thoughts, then the question arises: are my thoughts material? Well, yes, of course, absolutely: educated people know that thoughts are completely material movements of signals along completely material neural networks. So thoughts are material, just like, for example, the work of computer programs.

Now the question remains: can my consciousness, regardless of the fact that it is secondary or primary in relation to matter, be realized through material thoughts, while remaining non-material? I cannot verify this experimentally, but I cannot imagine such an immaterial consciousness. And what I cannot imagine is something that I cannot even talk about, because I cannot attach any specific meaning to the concept of “immaterial consciousness”. So for me personally, my consciousness is material.

As for the primacy or secondary nature of cosmic consciousness, I don’t know; this is not an area where I can even conduct a thought experiment. But in my internal representation, everything that can influence, condition or create something can only be material. I can’t imagine anything else, so it makes no sense for me to talk about anything else.

So, any consciousness that makes sense to talk about is, from my point of view, material.

Next, I decided to look at what other opinions there are on this matter on the Internet. In the information from the electronic newspaper http://novosti.vins.ru, I found an interesting article that just fits the topic of this article, as well as the more general topic of this section regarding the correctness of the language used. Here the newspaper cries are just in the spirit of the ardent popularizers of Einstein’s theory:

"Our world was created out of nothing!

Scientists have proven that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary.

The age-old debate about what comes first - consciousness or matter, was finally resolved, alas, not in favor of the materialists. A cascade of the latest scientific discoveries by Nobel laureates Paul Davis, David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine has shown that, delving deeper into matter, you are faced with the facts of its complete disappearance."

This is how scientific chatterboxes manipulate the meaning of the words they use, thus practicing at all scientific crossroads in a zealous desire to hang noodles on the ears of their fellow citizens. Yes, there are no such facts about the primacy of consciousness and the secondary nature of matter, and they cannot exist. There are only facts that someone can interpret as the disappearance of matter. But interpretation is such a matter: here you still have to work very hard to figure out what in this phrase can be understood by the disappearance of matter. This may be the failure to detect some expected signs of the experiment, or the movement of the object of observation to another part of space, etc., etc., and many more different possibilities to which the phrase “disappearance of matter” can be adapted. Even the so-called “physical vacuum” cannot exist without matter, so where can it disappear? But let's read further:

“Swiss scientists from the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) went even further: they managed to simulate the “moment of creation” of matter from the immaterial world. Experts experimentally proved that a portion (quantum) of virtual waves under certain conditions forms certain particles, and under different interactions of these But the waves of the particles completely disappear. Thus, scientists were able to create a mini-universe from almost nothing. This discovery proves that our world was indeed created from the void by some higher cosmic intelligence, or simply God."

To model is about the same as to fantasize or imagine, and it does not answer the question of the relationship between consciousness and matter. The product of fantasy can easily be transferred to a computer model. And the meaning of the phrase “to create from practically nothing” can only mean “to create from something.” Just like “practically pregnant” can only mean “pregnant.”

The last paragraph of this article on matter and consciousness is also impressive:

“By the way, with the help of retrospective modeling it was possible to calculate the age of the material Universe with an accuracy of a hundredth of a second. It was only 18 billion years. Before that, there was no matter at all in the vast expanses of the Cosmos!”

Calculating the age of the Universe “with an accuracy of a hundredth of a second” is so reminiscent of the chatter of the propagandists of the special theory of relativity about the incredible accuracy of its predictions, although in reality it does not predict anything other than what is already known, and experimental confirmation of its super-accuracy is very far away. In any case, this is not what its apologists say about the special theory of relativity.

“The latest discoveries, in fact, have not brought us anything new; they have only scientifically substantiated those truths that the ancients knew. Consciousness is primary, cosmic intelligence is primary, which created the Universe and continues before our eyes, at every step, to destroy matter, then again create it."

This is one example of how idealists answer the question of the primacy of matter or consciousness. It is not possible to scientifically substantiate such “truths,” contrary to the professor’s assertion.

If you are interested in the answer of materialists to the topic of what comes first - consciousness or matter, then their point of view can be reflected, for example, in the following fragment:

Matter is primary, and consciousness is secondary. This position is the starting premise of materialist philosophy. Human consciousness is the highest form of mental reflection of reality formed in the process of social life in the form of a generalized and subjective model of the surrounding world in the form of verbal concepts and sensory images.

So, from a materialistic point of view, consciousness is material in the sense in which any process occurring in matter should be considered material, but in relation to matter, consciousness is secondary. However, there is no evidence of the validity of this or the opposite point of view within the limits of our earthly experience, and there cannot be any. So everyone can choose their own answer.

This is the basic question of philosophy, to which I have a fairly simple answer.

Consciousness does not exist outside of matter, and there is proof of this. If consciousness existed outside of matter, then a person would receive consciousness as a certain program in a ready-made form from the outside. But this doesn't happen. Every adult will say that his consciousness was not given to him from the outside in a ready-made form, but it was created by himself under the influence of many factors: social priorities (for example, in some Muslim countries people are deprived of choice and they are forced to choose only Islam), their moral values ​​received from upbringing; their own interests; your own abilities; your temperament; your education; the presence or absence of a critical (analytical) mind. The evolution (change) of a person’s consciousness in the process of growing up proves that consciousness exists in a person and is created by him, and is not given from the outside in a ready-made form. Consequently, matter is primary, and human consciousness is secondary.

But a person’s consciousness influences the quality of the material (external) world in which this person lives. Therefore, human consciousness is primary in relation to the quality of the external world. If a person’s consciousness is of high quality, then the external world that a person creates around himself will be of high quality.

In the Bible, “God” is called the “Holy Spirit,” and the phrase “Holy Spirit” is figuratively translated as perfect (qualitative) consciousness. The Bible carries within itself a perfect consciousness (“All Scripture is inspired by God...”), and it was created for this purpose, so that every person would acquire a perfect (quality) consciousness (“The Holy Spirit” = wisdom), with the help of which he could create a quality world around himself. the material world and a qualitative (perfect) social structure - the dictatorship of the Law (allegorically: “God’s Kingdom on earth”).

Reviews

The question of what is primary and what is secondary, as a universal one, has no meaning, its meaning is always specific and this is a question of technology, not philosophy. The main question of philosophy is the laws of transformation of one quality into another.
In this case, the author has complete uncertainty with the concept of matter. If matter (root mother) is what everything is born from and what gives birth to everything, then consciousness (spirit) is no less material than matter and we can only talk about the spiritual and material components of everything that exists, distinguishing but not opposing them to each other . With this understanding of matter, the question “What comes first - matter or spirit?” is as inappropriate as the questions: “What comes first - matter or time?”, “matter, or space, movement,...?”

Systematization and connections

Foundations of philosophy

Consciousness is secondary.

In metaphysics there are two definitions of matter.

Aristotle gave one definition: THING = MATTER + FORM.

The second definition is given by materialism: matter is primary, consciousness is secondary.

It is striking that these two definitions of matter are not interrelated, since materialism does not include form in its definition, and Aristotle does not include consciousness in his definition. At the same time, materialism believes that consciousness is a derivative of matter, that is, consciousness somehow APPEARS in matter. Such APPEARANCE is possible only if the matter of materialism has a structure and this structure is capable of generating consciousness. But Aristotle’s matter is an inert structure of a thing, which means it is not capable of generating anything, at the same time, Aristotle has a generating structure and such a structure is form, since it is capable of deformation.

These comparisons allow us to synthesize the idea of ​​Aristotle and the idea of ​​materialism into the following ideas: THING = MATTER + FORM, CONSCIOUSNESS = DEFORMATION OF FORM.

Comments

Dmitry Kosoy, February 14, 2015 - 14:25, link
spirit is the matter of matter, the rest is emptiness, nothing. And the emergence of a special matter separate from the spirit refers to the effect of the loss of the Mother’s Body.

We could agree with your ideas if you indicated in them the place for inertia (mass). According to my ideas, the spirit has no mass, therefore it is impossible to connect the spirit in the sequence of its phenomena, since its appearance does not require time. At the same time, it is precisely the sequence of phenomena that ensures the operability of a priori forms of sensibility.

Dmitry Kosoy, February 14, 2015 - 16:05, link
the world of physical phenomena has nothing to do with the philosophical world, one is concrete, physical, and the other is abstract, in concepts.

I recently discovered that the philosophical world consists of two worlds . I will conventionally call them the World of Kant and the World of Hegel.

Kant's world is the nature of consciousness - metaphysics.
Hegel's world is the interaction of consciousnesses - philosophy.
So it seems to me that we are talking about different things: I’m talking about Kant’s metaphysics, and you are talking about Hegel’s philosophy.

philosophy is a dialogue, which means a proposal is required from you, but you do not offer anything for consideration, unlike me. Leave Kant and Hegel, they are yesterday's philosophy and can no longer serve as supports for any thinking, if only with quotations. The creators of the systems were not philosophers, either, but scientists, who were Hegel and Kant; before them, philosophers had already said such things that the philosophy of Kant and Hegel was no longer needed in principle. Anyone can muddy the waters.

Dmitry Kosoy, February 15, 2015 - 12:29, link
philosophy is a dialogue, which means a proposal is required from you, but you do not offer anything for consideration, unlike me.

I tried to understand your concept of the Mother’s Body. I came to the conclusion that, in my opinion, this is a chromosome (DNA molecule), and the loss of the Mother’s Body is the replication of a chromosome. I would like to supplement these ideas with the fact that the loss of the Body of Matter does not end the matter, because the process of preparing a new loss begins, and this process of preparation is called transcription of the Body of the Mother.

Thanks to Andreev, I changed my definition of the term “metaphysics”.
At the moment, I consider metaphysics the desire to search for the “first principle” (the foundation of Being).

I also don’t have any problems with the term “Matter” yet, but... the above formulations are not a definition of matter (by its very form)

THING=MATTER+FORM is the definition of a THING. In this case, the definition of Matter was as follows: Matter = Thing - Form.
The second idea contains Form Deformation i.e. Delta Form = Form1 - Form2

If in the first idea there is some kind of logic of searching for the fundamental principle (Thing1 = Matter + Form1, and Thing2 = Matter + Form2), then in the second idea (Consciousness = Delta of Form) I do not see any logic.

Those. it turns out that Consciousness is the result of a change in form? Those. If, as a result of the collision of two stones, they both changed their shape, did consciousness appear? Such an idea is not suitable even for any kind of thought experiment, much less for elevating it to the rank of the fundamental principle of Being.

Now about the term “Spirit” (mentioned by Alla). I don't understand him at all. It is (yet) absent from my model (worldview). Please give me a lexical definition of this term, and then I will analyze its relationship to the term “Matter” (The request is addressed to Alla) The generally accepted name “Spirit” is so polysemantic that it is impossible to use it in any logical constructions.

in my opinion, the problem with people who consider themselves materialists is that reality is considered “intelligible.” Materialists do not notice that by their installation on the objectivity of the basis they limit and fix the area of ​​their perception. Everything that does not correspond to their attitude, including the spirit, falls beyond the bounds of reality :). So you shouldn’t strain yourself and look for a materialistic interpretation of the spirit - there is none. Spirit is a purely subjective principle and it will not be possible to try to objectify it.

That's it!

The Spirit does not exist outside of us, just as it does not exist outside of Man’s relationship with all Living Things, and, above all, the Spirit is present in interhuman relations.

Spirituality is a characteristic of human actions.

You are much closer to the answer than Fidel. But... I don't agree with your use of the term "Object"

"There is NO spirit as an external object." I understood the idea and agree with it, but here is its expression in words...

I use the following tools: word, name, term, category.

A word is a graphic (written) or phonetic (spoken) symbol.
A name is a word associated with a sensory image.
A term is a name to which a single meaning is assigned by the lexical definition.
Category - a pair of terms that are united by the meaning and unity of opposites

I define the term object as follows: “That which I pay attention to or act on.”

Therefore, the Spirit as an object exists from the moment you mentioned it. But what are we exploring? Word? Name? Term? Category?

Word? Everything is simple here. Consists of three letters (written) or three sounds (spoken). Further analysis is clear.

Name? This is a word corresponding to a sensory image. The word is there... there is no image. It needs to be constructed (create an abstraction). That's what I'm trying to do.

Term? This name should become unambiguous. You almost did it: "Spirituality is a characteristic of human actions."

If we develop this idea, then: “The spirit determines spirituality as a characteristic of human actions”

Question: Only man is spiritual?
If YES, then the Spirit is inherent only in man, as a species, or as a representative of Reason? If as a representative of Reason, then wouldn’t the following formulation be more correct: “Spirituality is a characteristic of reasonable actions.”

But is spirituality the only characteristic of actions? If not, does that mean there are other characteristics? What is the difference?

Thank you! You have given me something to think about.

In this case, one of two things: You are either a Selfish Individualist or a Charlotan (a deceiver), clearing the way to his goal with the help of deception and creating false goals for others (not a desire to offend, but simply a description of the goal and method).

In both cases, you are not interested in transmitting the Truth to other Individuals.
THOSE. in the first case, your Truth cannot be conveyed, i.e. for another Individual it simply does not exist, and in the second case, your truth is a Lie.

It may be a little rude, but please don’t be offended, I see it that way. Dissuade me.
:-)))

:-))) That is Is it impossible to describe the Spirit using words? But how then to describe the relationship between Spirit and Matter? Then, in general, why use this name and ask such questions?

you misunderstood me. I tried to say that the conceptual level of perception itself shapes the character of the perceived reality, removing from it everything that cannot be reflected through conceptual perception. At the same time, there are other types of perception - for example, direct experience of the reality of consciousness, or this type of perception is also called “vision of the nature of consciousness.” In this case, the conceptual level of perception must be turned off since the nature of consciousness cannot be expressed through the products of the activity of the mind.

Have you been imbued with the Spirit and Happiness and Prosperity have descended on you? Are you no longer afraid of heat, cold, hunger or disease? Death will not befall you?

you demonstrate basic illiteracy. Hunger and cold in themselves are not a problem. The problem arises if you self-reflect on them.

But how you achieved this, you will not tell anyone because there are no words describing the Spirit and its properties. Those. your motto: “I know, but I won’t tell anyone!”

and where did you get the idea that I won’t say?

In the formula THING = MATTER + FORM, the “+” sign does not mean summation, it means the inextricable connection between matter and form. Try dividing the table into matter and form. If you imagine the table as a form, then only mass remains for its matter. And mass is kilograms (something shapeless in kilograms). Therefore, your formula Matter = Thing-Form is not realizable due to the inextricable connection between matter and form.
At the same time, the shape of the table can be copied onto the retina of the eye by a stream of electromagnetic waves, which allows a person to sense the thing. And this sensation appears to a person as a result of the interaction of a priori forms of human sensuality with the forms of the table perceived by the eye.

Those. If, as a result of the collision of two stones, they both changed their shape, did consciousness appear? Such an idea is not suitable even for any kind of thought experiment, much less for elevating it to the rank of the fundamental principle of Being.

As a result of the collision of two stones, the shapes of both stones are deformed and, at the same time, the shape of one stone is reflected in the shape of the other stone, this is a fact. Each instance of interaction between two specific things is an individual phenomenon inherent in these two specific things, and this follows from the individual atomic structure of the specific thing. Thus, the interaction of things is a phenomenon and a reflection.
There is evidence that this phenomenon and the reflection of things in each other's forms is accompanied by sensuality. So, for example, the chromosome of E. coli (thing), distinguishes the taste (feelings) of lactose and glucose (things) when reflected in the forms of the chromosome of the forms of glucose and lactose.

Now about the term “Spirit” (mentioned by Alla).

The bottle of “lilac” perfume contains the spirit of lilac. The spirit of lilac is the chemical bonds of lilac molecules.

Who:
"The bottle of lilac perfume contains the spirit of lilac."

Although they practically don’t say this (the smell of lilac), in some cases they use this name with this meaning. (The room was so stuffy that it took my breath away)
1. Perfume - smell
2. Spirit - breath (took your breath away)
3. Spirit - character trait (strong in spirit, weak in spirit)
4. Spirit is the basis of spirituality.
5. Spirit - the basic concept of idealism and religion (holy spirit, divine spirit)

This is offhand, from memory, and if you rummage through explanatory dictionaries, you can double the number of meanings of this name. So in what meaning did Allah use this name?

Further:
“As a result of the collision of two stones, the shapes of both stones are deformed and, at the same time, the shape of one stone is reflected in the shape of the other stone, this is a fact.”
I disagree regarding the use of the name “reflected”:
1. Reflects - bounces (the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection.)
2. Reflected - a mental (mental) or phantom (image) model of the object’s shape is created. (reflected in consciousness, reflected in a mirror)

This name is not suitable in either the first or second meaning. I understood the idea, but the contradiction in this phrase can be eliminated as follows: “As a result of the collision of two stones, the shapes of both stones are deformed and, at the same time, the CHANGE in the shape of one stone DEPENDS on the shape of the other stone , it is a fact."

Following:
"Each instance of the interaction of two concrete things is an individual phenomenon inherent in those two concrete things, and this follows from the individual atomic structure of the concrete thing."
I see no contradictions in this phrase and consider this information to be true.

Once again I see the contradiction caused by the use of the ambiguous name "Reflection"

In my model of Being, I use the term "Object" in the sense of the Name "Thing" that Aristotle used.

Thus, in my model, this thought will look like this: “Thus, the interaction of OBJECTS is a phenomenon THAT CAN BE REFLECTED IN CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH A SENSUAL IMAGE.”

Those. this is the definition of the term “Phenomenon” (I have an EVENT), which is one of the foundations of my model of being.

(The complete basis of my model (my worldview) is the triad: object, event, process.
An event is the interaction of objects.
A process is a repeating, natural event.
An object is a process limited in space and time of the lowest order of registration, which has boundaries that determine its form.
I call this triad the stage of organization of matter.)

And finally:
“In the formula THING = MATTER + FORM, the “+” sign does not mean summation, it means the inextricable connection between matter and form.”

:-))) That's what I'm talking about. If the Thing is deprived of FORM, then MATTER will remain in its pure form. Which is actually impossible, because... in my model, Form is the boundary of the process. Deprivation of form requires the introduction of the concept of eternity, infinity and singularity, which is only possible in the abstract.

This is our only disagreement so far, which I find in your text.

The essence of this disagreement is that you consider stones (physical things) to be insensitive, but I believe that physical things have sensuality. In my opinion, your statement “stones do not have sensuality” is unfounded and has no evidence, while my statement “stones have sensuality” has evidence.

Let me start by saying that you do not have the slightest evidence that physical things do not have sensuality. Or do you still have such evidence?
Keep in mind that if you do not have evidence that things do not have sensuality, then we just have to prove that the “reflection” of one thing in another is accompanied by sensuality.

Who:
:-))) Original! :-)))

“To begin with, you do not have the slightest evidence that physical things do not have sensuality. Or do you still have such evidence?”

It is generally accepted to consider a reaction to a stimulus as proof of sensuality (the presence of sense organs), and not “the force of action is equal to the force of reaction,” but a change in position or state through the release of internal energy.

Since neither stones nor any objects of dead nature demonstrate such a reaction to external stimuli (even under the threat of complete destruction), it is generally accepted that they do not have sensory organs, i.e. insensitive.

Interesting! I'm waiting for this proof. :-))) Although you again used the ambiguous name “reflection”, which I cannot fit into a logical diagram. Now, if, of course, you discard logic, turn on your imagination and go beyond any boundaries and boundaries.... I can do this and write science fiction novels. :-)))

Intrigued! I'm waiting for proof.

:-))) Although, based on my life experience, I assume (I make a forecast) that there will be not a presentation of my proof, but a criticism of mine, with the conclusion that my proof is untenable, and, therefore, the opposite is true, which is proof of the sensuality of the stone. It is not interesting to me.

This is a technique of demagogues (arguing for the sake of the fact of victory and not for revealing the truth).
The algorithm is simple:
Force your opponent (by any means) to make some statement.
Find a contradiction in this statement, or declare any ambiguity a contradiction.
State that this contradiction invalidates the opponent’s assertion, and therefore the opposite is true.

This algorithm is used in public debates when it is necessary to sway the viewer’s opinion in one’s favor. (The most common technique of lawyers and politicians) (Just a small digression :-)))

Yes, by the way, the situation changes if you state your statement, thereby exposing yourself to a similar blow. In this case, everything will end in a fight if you do not perceive each other’s arguments, or both receive a new point of view that does not contain contradictions, which is called the truth.

So far, in our entire dispute, the meaning of the name - Reflected - is causing controversy. In all other statements I do not see any significant contradictions. To resolve this contradiction, translate this name into a term used in your model of Being. (Give it a lexical definition that will eliminate ambiguity). If you use a generally accepted term, then provide a definition of the one you are using (from a dictionary or Wikipedia).

The problem of proof is that sensibility is not observable. We are sure that when the stones interact, their molecular structure is deformed, but we have no evidence that this deformation of the structure of the stones is accompanied by sensations from the stones.

But today, one opportunity has opened up related to elucidating the complete molecular structure of the simplest organisms - prokaryotes. This opportunity is associated with the Velikhov-Zinchenko-Lektorsky hypothesis, which states that the sensations of living organisms are transformed into living movement.

Since living movement is observable, it is necessary to get into the cell to the moment of the origin of living movement, and at this place the presence of sensation should be suspected. Such a moment is transcription - the deformation of a gene by an external signal, which means its deformation is accompanied by sensation.

But a gene is a molecule-stone and an external signal is a stone, which means that the deformation of stones is accompanied by sensations, but the stones do not transform their sensations into behavior.

Well, the second path has been chosen! I respect you.

But this is only a hypothesis that can eliminate contradictions (which ones?)
In the very text of your statement I see the following contradiction.

“Transcription is such a moment - gene deformation by an external signal, which means its deformation is accompanied by sensation.”

This phrase uses the term “transcription - deformation of a gene by an external signal.”
It's good that you gave a clear definition, but... the generally accepted definition is:
“Transcription (from Latin transcriptio - rewriting) is the process of RNA synthesis using DNA as a template, occurring in all living cells. In other words, it is the transfer of genetic information from DNA to RNA.

Transcription is catalyzed by the enzyme DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The process of RNA synthesis proceeds in the direction from the 5" to the 3" end, that is, along the DNA template strand, RNA polymerase moves in the direction 3"->5"

Transcription consists of the stages of initiation, elongation and termination. The unit of transcription is the transcripton, a fragment of a DNA molecule consisting of a promoter, a transcribed part and a terminator.

Firstly: even in your interpretation you use the concept of “Gene”, which is a complex molecular structure, a carrier of biological information.

Don’t take what is essentially correct reasoning to the point of absurdity.
The logical conclusion of the development of your model is the conclusion: don’t throw stones, they hurt, don’t dig the ground, she doesn’t like it, don’t live, you’re disturbing nature. :-)))

In principle, I agree with this conclusion, but I am not going to follow it. All my ancestors did not fight for Life so that I could voluntarily leave this evolutionary race. :-)))

Olan Doug, February 19, 2015 - 11:46, link
“transcription is the deformation of a gene by an external signal.”
It's good that you gave a clear definition, but... the generally accepted definition is:
“Transcription (from Latin transcriptio - rewriting) is the process of RNA synthesis using DNA as a template, occurring in all living cells.

My definition: “deformation of a gene by an external signal” corresponds to the one you provided: “the process of RNA synthesis using DNA as a template.” Both of these definitions describe transcription as the process of a DNA nucleotide moving out of the matrix body (DNA nucleotide deformation) and an RNA nucleotide attaching to it. The process of extension itself is a blow to the nucleotide by the polymerase (the blow of the polymerase stone to the nucleotide stone). This blow is transformed into a future protein (living movement) and disturbs the intra-atomic world of the elementary particles of the nucleotide, where sensation arises.

At the same time, a stone is a substance in the solid phase that has a uniform, unchanging crystalline structure (lattice). This structure is monotonous and does not contain the information formation that bears the name of Gen.

And the stone, and the gene, and the nucleotide are made up of atoms and there is nothing else there. And the sensation appears in them as a result of the deformation of chemical bonds between atoms, and this deformation disturbs the world of elementary particles of the nuclei of atoms and stone and gene, where the sensation appears.

Who:
“Both the stone, and the gene, and the nucleotide consist of atoms and there is nothing else there. And the sensation appears in them as a result of the deformation of the chemical bonds between atoms, and this deformation disturbs the world of elementary particles of the nuclei of atoms and the stone and the gene, where the sensation appears.”

So be it. In principle, the definition that: “reflection (sensation) is a deformation at the level of chemical bonds between atoms that disturbs the world of elementary particles” is no worse than other definitions.

In this case, I did not challenge the paradigm (the main idea), but worked out a technique for translating polysemantic names into terms (strictly single-valued names).

I think the main problem with FS is that many people use ambiguous names or similar terms in communication without clarifying their meaning.

Good luck and I wish you to be understood. :-)))

There is NO spirit as an external object.

Spirituality is a characteristic of human actions

I agree that the spirit is not an object and it cannot be the essence of reality external to man. Nevertheless, there is an internal reality that is no less infinite than the external one, and in this internal reality of consciousness, I would call the connection the reflection of infinite consciousness with the individual psyche (including in actions) as spirit.

Unfortunately, internal reality is finite. If internal reality were infinite, you and I would not be discussing and dying.

the discussion is not led by internal reality, but by its tiny part called the psyche, which is also what dies

My formula “you and I have different ideas” corresponds to yours “we have different experiences”, because the subject’s ideas accumulate as a result of his experiences.

In order to consolidate their ideas, the subject has to repeat the experience many times, for example, learn poetry. And, in this sense, the subject is a container of finite size into which experience is poured.

Yes, this container is large, but the “verses” that we pour into it cannot be thrown out of it, we can only connect them with new “verses” into a single structure, which is the model of the external world of the subject. That is, a person lives in the external material world, but uses it through his model of the external world.

The container into which the subject pours experience is his genome. This is an absolutely individual container of finite size, which in the process of life is filled with experience in such a way that it is impossible to squeeze something new in there, and not because there is not enough space, but because it is not possible to connect this new thing with the content of the model. We have to give birth to a new genome of children, and die ourselves...

What do you think is prakriti in Hinduism?

You may not believe me, but a person can perceive not only what he usually perceives. Such perception is very limited, mechanical and material. The human psyche is very limited and finite, but the consciousness accessible to perception is infinite and the material reality in it is just a small film surrounded by spiritual infinity

I completely share this idea of ​​yours. The material reality of the ax is a small film that allows you to use it as an ax, and the spiritual infinity allows you to cook buckwheat porridge from an ax.

This ability of a person is due to the fact that in addition to the genome as sensuality, a person also has a brain as a model of material reality (toy), and this toy presents him with endless possibilities for playing with reality (spiritual infinity).

My dear curious readers who want to develop themselves!
Here is the most modern, verified, accurate data on the true origin of matter, the entire material world!
They are presented in the most accessible form in the most understandable language possible (for the popularization of these areas of science).
Almost all of us have thought about where the objective reality given to us in sensations came from.
Some dark people still naively and blindly believe in its eternity and infinity.
As modern science has firmly established, matter is a secondary, derivative entity.
It definitely arose, happened.
Matter, all, all of matter as a whole, all, all, all of a single, integral material world arose as a result of the so-called Big Bang about 14 billion years ago.
Science believes that matter originated from a complete zero-dimensional vacuum outside of space and time.
And space and time, as properties-attributes of matter, were born along with matter itself.
Scientists also believe that matter arose and materialized from a complete vacuum for a reason, not out of the blue.
Someone really helped her with this.
I will also give out a lot of interesting purely scientific information about this someone and His role below in my article.
Modern scientists have discovered and proven this:
Matter is fundamentally incapable of having primacy and self-sufficiency.
Science has absolutely proven that matter is a secondary, derivative entity.
In the beginning there was no matter.
All matter, the entire material world, as a whole, materialized, arose from “scratch” about 14 billion years ago.
Before this, matter had not yet arisen.
There was no matter - and suddenly it appeared.
Actually, both time and space as inseparable properties-attributes of matter appeared along with matter itself.
Matter, as scientifically established, is most likely generated by our Creator, the Creator, from the so-called NOTHING - that is, from a complete physical vacuum.
A complete physical vacuum outside of space and time is not matter, but a meaningful void.
It is deprived of specific properties and limitations inherent in matter, is not constrained by the framework of physical Laws that our Creator imposed with His Will on matter (to make it capable of generating life and Mind - the seat of the Spirit in the material world), by the framework of the Laws that God gave to matter for its elementary functioning.
In potency, the complete physical vacuum contains everything, everything, everything, and is inexhaustible in its potencies.
But only in potencies.
Without the Creator, the Demiurge, a complete physical vacuum is simply completely incapable of giving birth to extremely complex worlds of trillions of galaxies (most of which are hundreds of billions of stars) and giving birth to a lot of other things.
Despite the fact that the actual physical vacuum contains nothing, it is actually sterile in itself, it contains everything, everything, everything potentially.
Therefore, due to the greatest commonality, he (along with God) can act as the ontological basis of the entire diversity of objects and phenomena in the world.
In this sense, God and emptiness are the most meaningful and most fundamental entities.
And matter is undoubtedly a secondary, emerging entity.
I want to define the terms as precisely as possible.
Sometimes (not always) in their scientific jargon they call a vacuum a physical vacuum.
Most scientists and I understand the concept of “physical” first of all precisely: NOT SUPERNATURAL.
Theories of the origin of matter from purely supernatural phenomena are already beyond the scope of modern science.
But vacuum as a meaningful emptiness is not matter, but a dialectical opposite, the antithesis of matter.
So matter and its dialectical opposite are sometimes (not always) united under the concept of physical.
That is, they mean that elementary physics, and not just theological and teleological sciences and philosophy, can study the origin of matter itself.
In the broadest sense, GOD, the CREATOR, is material, since HE exists objectively, completely realistically, truly, independently of human consciousness and human opinion about His real existence.
In the broadest sense, God can be called a superintelligent spiritual primary form of matter.
By the term matter, I specifically understand everything, everything, everything that in the Soviet official Diamatovian philosophy was designated as reality, given to us in sensations and well verifiably fixed, amenable to study by our instruments, this same matter Diamatovian philosophers traditionally contrasted with God, Spirit and consciousness in the so-called "The Fundamental Question of Philosophy."
They (Diamatian philosophers) considered this very essence (as opposed to spirit, consciousness and God) to be primary, eternal and infinite.
But it turned out that matter is absolutely SECONDARY and finite in space and time.
Of course, you can clumsily try to “save the situation” by calling anything matter – God, the souls of people, angels, demons, any spirits, and any metaphysical phenomena radically different from matter, and at the same time absolutely any dialectical opposite of matter.
In this article, I personally mean by the term “MATTER” exactly what Marx, Engels and Lenin understood by matter.
And what Marx, Engels and Lenin considered NOT EXISTING phenomena (including supernatural and (or) metaphysical), I now scientifically and conclusively position as creators and co-creators of this very matter.
Complete vacuum as a meaningful emptiness is no longer MATTER, but its dialectical opposite.
And it is primary in relation to matter.
If anyone is too biasedly picky about the concept of “not matter”, I will further explain: then call THIS “not quite matter”, well, for example, angels and demons and spiritual grace - “not quite matter”, “not quite material”, but then they will already be incompatible with Marxism and Marxist materialism (and not only with them), non-canonical, your personal CONVENTIONAL terms.
That is, by “saving matter” with far-fetched terminological tricks, the opponent will inevitably excommunicate himself and fall away from generally accepted Marxist terminology.
So, vacuum as a meaningful emptiness is no longer matter.
This is its dialectical opposite.
Or (according to another philosophically well-founded version) – a counter-dialectal antipode of matter.
In a word - not matter.
Other.
Well, the very thing from which, according to the Bible, God created matter, created the material world.
Vacuum is primary in relation to matter.
But the vacuum is not the most primary essence; it is also, in a certain sense, secondary and derivative in relation to the Superintelligent Creator.
The completely primary and truly absolutely eternal essence in Eternity is only God.
He is the alpha and omega of everything.
Nobody has ever created God out of anything, He himself is the CREATOR, the Creator, the Demiurge.
It did not arise, did not arise, did not happen, it was and will ALWAYS be!!!
God is the true source of all things.
Let's return to the vacuum.
In itself, a complete absolute zero-dimensional vacuum outside the space and time of material worlds, as a meaningful void, is not matter.
There are simply theories (and I will touch on them shortly) about the origin of matter directly from supernatural or other NON-physical entities.
In order to remain within the framework of natural science, fundamental physics, not entangled in the Divine and supernatural science, I (like many scientists before me) designate the dialectically opposite to matter (and primary in relation to matter. But not to God) meaningful emptiness with the term PHYSICAL VACUUM.
This is just a conventional scientific term.
And some gentlemen, militant atheist-demagogues from among the readers can, have the liberal right in their works to even christen the Lord God himself as matter, nature and nature - this is their copyright.
I will simply modestly prove and scientifically justify that everything, everything, everything that Marx, Engels and Lenin considered the primary essence, in fact (and this has been truly scientifically proven) is a secondary essence, not eternal and finite, and in particular having limited finite mass and energy.
So vacuum is not just emptiness, but meaningful emptiness.
Such a scientific understanding of the physical vacuum forces us to recognize the reality of the existence not only in theory, but also in reality, of “nothing” and “something” in one “bottle” (vacuum) in their inextricable unity - the dialectic of something and nothing.
“Something” actualized (by the Creator), known to us under the philosophical term MATTER, exists as a manifested (by the Creator from the vacuum) existence - in the form of the substance-field physical world observed by us, in the form of what is given to us (partially directly, partly through devices) in the senses of objectified reality, but “nothing”, a potentially pregnant “something” exists as an unmanifested being - in the form of a physical vacuum.
Therefore, unmanifested being, when extending this concept to the physical vacuum, should be considered precisely as an independent physical entity essentially different from MATTER, which needs to be studied.
The physical vacuum is not directly observed, but the manifestation of its mysterious properties is recorded in experiments. Already known vacuum effects include: the creation of an electron-positron pair, the Lamb-Rutherford effect, and the Casimir effect. As a result of vacuum polarization, the electric field of a charged particle differs from the Coulomb field.
This leads to a Lemb shift of energy levels and to the appearance of an anomalous magnetic moment in particles. When a high-energy photon acts on a physical vacuum, material particles - an electron and a positron - appear in the field of the nucleus.
The Casimir effect indicates the occurrence of forces that bring two plates in a vacuum closer together.
These (and many other) effects indicate that the vacuum is a very real existing entity.
The reality is that within the framework of conventional (developed for matter) quantum physics, the theory of the physical vacuum did not take place.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the “life zone” of the theory of physical vacuum should be outside the boundaries of quantum physics and, most likely, precede it.
Apparently, quantum theory should be a consequence and continuation of the theory of physical vacuum, since physical vacuum is assigned the role of the most fundamental physical entity, the role of the basis of the world, the ancestor of matter.
A very important and interesting scientific (and philosophical) question is whether matter arose (was created, was it created) from a PHYSICAL vacuum or from NON-physical entities.
Let's consider this issue in more detail.
Matter appeared along with its properties-attributes - space and time.
The linear counting of time itself began from the moment of the appearance (creation) of this very secondary entity - matter.
Before the appearance of matter, neither the space known to us nor the time known to us simply existed.
At all.
Our Creator was and is outside of time in Eternity.
Which, however, does not at all prevent Him from being superbly pantheistically present in the space-time continuum of the matter He created.
Outside the material Universe, as well as outside other secondary material world-universes, there is absolutely no “empty” space and no “empty” time flows.
I understand that this is a little difficult to visualize (however, just like infinity) - but it is so.
If there are other parallel material worlds, then OTHER spaces are spread out in them and OTHER times flow.
That is why, first of all, we do not observe parallel worlds in any way - we simply do not come into contact with them in space-time.
As you know, the inextricable properties-attributes of our material world, our Physical Universe, are space and time - our four-dimensional space-time continuum.
We ourselves are observers within this space-time continuum and therefore observe the physical vacuum precisely through the prism of space and time.
And it is very difficult for our brains to imagine a physical vacuum outside of space and time.
And BEFORE the appearance of matter, the physical vacuum could only be outside the space and time familiar to us.
Either this way or not at all.
There simply could not be and was not any “empty” space or “empty” space (in no way connected with the movement of matter, with moving matter).
Therefore, there is a smart, interesting hypothesis of the talented scientist Andrei Makarov that matter may have arisen not from a physical vacuum, but from NON-physical entities.
This is a completely scientific and very talented hypothesis of Andrei.
Before the appearance of matter, there really could have been (and now they are OUTSIDE matter) NON-physical entities, for example, METAphysical entities, such as divine energies, divine emanations, etc.
But their study, unfortunately, takes us beyond the line of modern natural science, beyond the framework of ordinary earthly science into the sparkling heights of metaphysics, esotericism and theology.
Therefore, we will modestly try to comprehend the phenomenon of materialization of matter from NOTHING within the strict limited framework of canonical natural science.
In natural science, due to the fact that the physical vacuum claims to have a fundamental status, even the status of the ontological basis of the matter materialized from it, it should have the greatest generality and should not have the particular features inherent in matter, characteristic of many observable material entities - objects and phenomena.
It is known that assigning any additional attribute to an object reduces the universality of this object.
So, for example, a pen is a universal concept. Adding any attribute narrows the range of objects covered by this concept (door handle, ball handle, etc.).
Thus, we come to the conclusion that ontological status can be claimed by an entity that is devoid of any signs, measures, structure and which in principle cannot be modeled, since any modeling involves the use of discrete objects and description using signs and measures.
A physical entity claiming fundamental status need not be a composite, since a composite entity has a secondary status in relation to its constituents.
Thus, the requirement of fundamentality and primacy for a certain entity entails the fulfillment of the following basic conditions:
1. Not to be composite.
2. Have the least number of signs, properties and characteristics.
3. Have the greatest commonality for the entire variety of objects and phenomena.
4. To be potentially everything, but actually nothing.
5. Have no measures.
Not to be compound means not to contain anything other than itself. Regarding the smallest number of signs, properties and characteristics, the ideal requirement should be to not have them at all. To have the greatest generality for the entire variety of objects and phenomena means not to have the characteristics of particular objects, since any specification narrows the generality. To be potentially everything, but actually nothing, means remaining unobservable, but at the same time maintaining the status of a physical object.
To have no measures means to be zero-dimensional.
The original, complete physical vacuum that gave birth to matter must be exactly zero-dimensional and in terms of space-time characteristics too.
It is very difficult to imagine associatively and speculatively – a zero-dimensional complete vacuum outside of space and time.
The physical vacuum is not just zero-dimensional, but also NON-DISCRETE.
The five requirements listed above are not satisfied by any discrete object of the material world and, in particular, by any quantum object of any material field.
It follows that these requirements can only be satisfied by a continuous entity.
Therefore, the physical vacuum, if considered the most fundamental entity, must be continuous. In addition, extending the achievements of mathematics to the field of physics (Cantor's continuum hypothesis), we come to the conclusion that the multiple structure of the physical vacuum is untenable.
This means that the physical vacuum cannot be identified with the ether, with a quantized object, or considered to consist of any discrete particles, even if these particles are virtual and not material.
Vacuum gives birth to virtual particles under appropriate conditions, but does not consist of them at all, is not formed by them.
In my opinion, physical vacuum should be considered as a dialectical antipode of matter. Thus, I view matter and the physical vacuum as dialectical opposites.
The holistic physical world known to us (meaning: not supernatural) is represented by both the physical vacuum and the matter secondary to it, materialized from it.
Vacuum complements and enriches itself with matter as its other.
Matter contains vacuum in a “sublated” form, dialectically denies vacuum and is negated by it (dialectical negation is not just a negation, but at the same time an affirmation).
This approach to these two philosophical entities corresponds to the true essence of dialectics.
And the pseudo-scientific biased dogmatic old Diamatovian myth about the primacy of matter is anti-dialectical, antagonistic to dialectics.
In such relations of mutually complementary dialectical opposites, physical vacuum and matter should be considered.
That is why the Creator-First Cause, for his complete self-realization in something else through something else, needs not only a vacuum, but also matter, and the creation of material worlds by Him too.
And in His tireless creation of more and more material worlds from the primary NOTHING, that is, from the vacuum.
Vacuum is a special, specific universal antipode of matter.
Physics has never encountered this kind of physical object - unobservable, in which no measures can be specified.
Now I’ve finally encountered the last of the Stalinist dogmas refuted by science on the mountain.
It is necessary to overcome this barrier in science and recognize the existence (in addition to matter) of a fundamentally new type of reality - a physical vacuum, which has the property of continuity.
Despite the fact that the physical vacuum is such a paradoxical object, it is increasingly becoming a subject of study in physics.
At the same time, due to its continuity, the traditional approach based on model representations is inapplicable for vacuum. Therefore, science will have to find fundamentally new methods for studying it.
Clarification of the nature of the physical vacuum allows us to take a different look at many physical phenomena in particle physics and astrophysics.
The entire material Universe (and the familiar matter given to us in sensations, and dark matter, and dark energy) is in an unobservable, continuous physical vacuum.
The physical vacuum genetically precedes matter, it gave birth to it, therefore the entire material Universe lives not only according to the Laws of Nature known to us given by the Creator directly to matter itself, but also according to the mysterious laws of the physical vacuum, which are not yet fully known to science, almost unknown.
In the chain of problems associated with understanding the nature of the physical vacuum, there is a key link related to the assessment of the entropy of the physical vacuum.
I believe that the physical vacuum has the highest entropy among all known real objects and systems, therefore Boltzmann's H-theorem does not apply to it.
The above five criteria of primacy and fundamentality indicate that only an object with the highest entropy can satisfy such requirements.
And (accordingly) the lowest negentropy.
I believe that the vacuum-matter phase transition is absolutely impossible without the presence of an Intelligent Creator, who gave the nascent matter an unimaginably super-giant initial mega-reserve of negentropy.
I’ll express it directly in Russian: without God, this initial fantastic reserve of negentropy simply has absolutely nowhere to come from.
God not only gave the Laws of Nature to matter, but also such an unimaginably titanic primary resource of negentropy, which simply absolutely could not be taken from any other sources during the creation of matter.
Tell me, can a cold kettle SPONTANEOUSLY heat up and boil spontaneously on a cold gas stove disconnected from the gas?
And all, all, all the teapots of all earthlings at the same time?
Could the Moscow-Novosibirsk train spontaneously grow spontaneously in the field of farmer Sidorov as a result of purely natural processes?
Believe me (and mathematical calculations confirm this well) that all of the above-described SPONTANEOUS purely random phenomena of a spontaneous increase in negentropy in many unimaginable trillions of trillions... trillions of trillions of decillions are incomparably more likely than the sudden purely random purely spontaneous appearance of such an incredible initial resource - touched upon the negentropy that took place during the materialization of our material Universe from the vacuum.
So think about it, pure chance or God gave birth to our unimaginably complex, unimaginably negentropic world from the initial emptiness that lay in complete entropy.
In accordance with the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich, such a fantastically incredibly mega-huge decrease in the entropy of the vacuum is possible only if it is an OPEN system and it will be brought into an UNEQUILIBRIUM state by an unimaginably powerful EXTERNAL (in relation to both the vacuum and the matter emerging from it) organizational structuring cause.
Only God Himself is fundamentally capable of becoming such a cause.
Only God is able to give birth to the world.
If there were no God, matter, our entire complex, grandiose material world, could not have arisen.
The second law of thermodynamics fatally dooms matter left to itself to inevitable degeneration.
The essence of the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich, briefly and without formulas that are obscure to the general reader, comes down to exactly the following:
“if we take the “equilibrium state” corresponding to zero values ​​of the control parameters as the starting point for the degree of chaos, then as we move away from the equilibrium state due to a change in the control parameter, the entropy values ​​related to the given value of the average energy decrease.”
In other (everyday) words, that is, without God or another powerful EXTERNAL MANAGER, matter would inevitably always inevitably remain in a state of complete chaos if it were eternal.
And if it were not eternal, then over time it would still inevitably fall into complete and eternal chaos, and would not escape it anywhere.
And not only matter.
And the vacuum would also forever remain in the highest entropy, the lowest negentropy.
And then the vacuum would definitely not be able to generate matter.
It was and only the influence of the EXTERNAL MANAGER on the vacuum that gave birth to matter itself and the intelligent us in it.
According to the S-theorem of Yu.L. Klimontovich, it is exclusively only with the openness of the vacuum to an EXTERNAL organizational structuring super-cause that it is possible to materialize and give birth to both matter itself and such exorbitant reserves of negentropy for its (matter’s) development and generation of life and humanoids for many billions of years. Reason.
The same First Cause gave matter the Laws of its development.
Matter definitely has an EXTERNAL MANAGER!!!
Returning to the question raised by the talented scientist Andrei Makarov about whether matter materialized from a physical vacuum or from NON-physical entities, I will say the following.
Physical here (in relation to the zero-dimensional vacuum) is synonymous with the concept SUPERNATURAL.
For my dear friend Andrei Makarov, it is difficult to visualize a zero-dimensional vacuum outside of space and time.
Of course, matter itself will not come from NOTHING; NON-physical, for example, spiritual and rational entities, are also involved in the materialization of matter from NOTHING.
I have already proven above that the emergence and functioning of the material world known to us would be completely impossible without the key role of the EXTERNAL MANAGER.
But the complete absolute NOTHING is either a zero-dimensional vacuum outside of space and time or a very real entity, concealing within itself something more than a complete absolute TOTAL nothing.
Here is the answer for the respected Andrei Makarov: from the TOTAL complete absolute nothing, nothing can ever, is fundamentally incapable of taking on, arising.
But from such a phenomenal NOTHING as a zero-dimensional vacuum outside the space and time of the material worlds, matter by God’s will could well materialize.
After all, a zero-dimensional vacuum outside of space and time is not a sterile absolute nihel, but it is both nothing and something “in one bottle” in their highest inextricable unity.
I’ll give you a more clear example for dear Andrei Makarov.
Dear Andrei Makarov, real-life objects like black holes are well known.
And black holes have such an outer radius - the Schwarzschild radius, which in simple cases approximately coincides with the gravitational radius of the black hole.
So, the event horizon of a black hole passes through there.
For an external observer Andrei Makarov, when I fall into a black hole, I will begin to flatten (to zero) in space and my biorhythms will begin to stretch endlessly in time (well, or the time rhythms of the destruction of my corpse killed by the black hole - these are already details).
And on a sphere of a given horizon radius, space is compressed to zero and time stops for an external observer.
Therefore, this horizon will become the event horizon for Andrey - because of this horizon, Andrey will never receive any information.
Not a single material carrier of information is able to overcome the exorbitant gravity of a black hole and escape from under the sphere of its event horizon.
But I, falling into a black hole, will quite successfully overcome this horizon.
Despite these relativistic effects, both the fall of stars into black holes and the collision of two black holes can be quite successfully observed from the outside in real finite time.
This was recently recorded and led to the discovery of gravitational waves.
So, for an external observer Andrei Makarov, the vacuum on the surface of the horizon sphere shrinks unimaginably in space and unimaginably stops in time.
And it is precisely in this pale semblance of the primary zero-dimensional vacuum outside (inherent in material worlds) space and time that the most interesting things will begin to happen.
There, on the event horizon, MATERIAL PARTICLES MATERIALIZE from virtual particles of a degenerate space-time vacuum, as if out of nothing, and new matter arises.
Of course, without the active assistance of such a great EXTERNAL MANAGER as God, nothing worthwhile or complex will materialize there or arise.
Only the simplest elementary particles, mainly photons.
My conclusion: in order to materialize something worthwhile from a vacuum, the vacuum must be precisely zero-dimensional and outside of space-time.
It is precisely such a vacuum (zero-dimensional and outside of space-time) that becomes the ideal highest potential for the creative self-realization of the Creator through His creation of matter from the vacuum.
After all, for such an exorbitantly huge superquantum (initially developed into a non-quantum) supersystem like all matter (that is, our material world, our Universe, born in the cradle of the Singularity) to break through quantum potential barriers and other insurmountable restrictions with a tunneling salvo, for this ordinary tunneling effect is absolutely not enough.
It’s the same as dragging not a camel, but the entire galaxy through the eye of a needle.
Of course, God is capable of not such tasks, but why is it unreasonable to create such fantastic unnecessary difficulties for oneself in vain?
It’s one thing to tunnel through an overwhelming potential barrier for a small photo niche, but quite another thing to tunnel all the supergiant substance to build trillions of galaxies (and not only that, because these trillions of galaxies make up only about 4% of the mass of our Universe).
It is by working with the zero-dimensional vacuum outside of space and time that the Creator minimizes the potential barrier and maximizes tunneling underneath it.
He apparently makes this great creative task easier for himself.
Follows the principle of Occam's razor blade - cuts off everything unnecessary, all additional difficulties unnecessary to Him when creating worlds.
He doesn’t run into any unnecessary troubles that he doesn’t need at all.
God needs both worthy self-realization through the creation of matter and the ideal, best, gracious fundamental principle for the optimal implementation of this.
And on the horizon of the sphere of events of a black hole what is happening, in comparison with this great matter of the demiurges-materialization of ALL MATTER, is so... sheer nonsense...
Perhaps the Creator, during His creative work with the vacuum as the initial essence, was also guided by the principle of “cosmic censorship.”
I'll quote Wikipedia a little:

“The principle of “cosmic censorship” was scientifically formulated in 1970 by Roger Penrose in the following figurative form: “Nature abhors naked singularity.” It states that space-time singularities appear in places that, like the interiors of black holes, are hidden from observers.”
It is quite possible that the Creator has an antipathy known only to Him towards the more dreary materializing creativity from the ordinary vacuum, completely permeated with the banal Euclidean and non-Euclidean space-time continuums of the material worlds.
Give him the most selective, blessed virgin zero-dimensional vacuum outside the four-dimensional space-time continuums we are accustomed to.
And therefore unimaginable visually, figuratively, and associatively by the brains of modern homo sapiens.
I understand that this will be more difficult than visually imagining a quantum as a particle-wave or the visible appearance of an information wave.
But I assume that this is most likely the case.
God most likely materialized matter precisely from the zero-dimensional vacuum outside space and time.
Space and time arose (were created) along with matter itself.
Matter definitely arose and materialized from a vacuum about 14 billion years ago.
The properties of the vacuum are such that without an EXTERNAL MANAGER our material Universe could not have arisen from it.
It is sometimes very difficult for some older people who were once atheistically brought up to get used to the correct, true idea that the matter given to them in their perception actually did not always exist, not Eternally.
Now on Earth all living beings are generated only by other living beings.
But it wasn’t always like this, not forever.
Life once arose for the first time.
Likewise, material phenomena and entities now arise from other material entities.
Matter does not arise from nothing, but only transforms, moves, develops.
But this was not always the case either.
Science has firmly established that all, all, all matter was created 14 billion years ago by the Supreme Mind through the so-called Big Bang, that it (matter) has a FINITE mass and a FINITE volume, a FINAL energy, develops FINALLY with a number of irreversible moments (such as a steady increase entropy and the steady burning out of hydrogen), that matter is NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT, that it is fundamentally impossible to adequately explain matter from itself, that the material world is INTELLIGENTLY arranged, that MIND-SPIRIT IS PRIMARY, and matter is secondary, derivative!!!
Our material world has a finite mass and a finite volume (this has already been strictly irrefutably proven) and was created by a Higher Power about 14 billion years ago, most likely from the so-called NOTHING - it is also NOTHING (dialectics of something and nothing), namely from a super-energetic complete physical vacuum outside of space and time.
Some isolated backward orthodoxies of the so-called (long historically bankrupt) Diamatism are still illiterately convinced that the physical Universe supposedly (it is not clear why) has always existed.
But science has definitely established that due to the predominance in the Universe of the so-called dark energy, which has ANTI-GRAVITY properties, our physical Universe is expanding with ever-increasing ACCELERATION.
Matter scatters with ACCELERATION.
And, according to modern calculations, it will NEVER COMPRESS INTO A NEW SINGULARITY!!!
The hypothesis of a pulsating Universe, as well as the hypothesis of a stationary Universe, have been completely rejected by modern science.
That is, SCIENCE (SCIENCE, not priests and not mullahs, and not lamas, not different Mahatmas!), SCIENCE has proven that matter is not eternal, matter itself arose about 14 billion years ago (created by someone?), happened together with all your space and time.
Indeed, the physical Universe will most definitely never shrink back again.
There will be no eternal cyclicality.
And it never happened.
Matter all happened smoothly.
The biblical hypothesis about the linear directional development of the EMERGING world (and about the SECONDARY importance of cycles and the predominance of a non-cyclical linear vector of the development of the universe) turned out to be incomparably more accurate than the misconceptions of some individual ancient Eastern soma-smokers (and having seen enough glitches-fairy tales in a stupid drug trance at the demonic instigation) wise about supposedly ETERNAL cyclicity matter.
Dear readers, modern science has precisely found out and calculated that matter absolutely arose and will never shrink again, will not return to its so-called circles.
My opinion: God created matter.
As you know, most famous (and other) scientists also believe in God and at the same time move and develop science well.
Comrade Stalin himself once gave Archbishop Luke (Valentin) Voino-Yasenetsky the first degree large Stalin Prize of 200,000 Soviet rubles for the development of science (surgery).
According to militant atheists, we (believers and those who admit the existence of God) are supposedly ungrateful enemies of science because we are allegedly against the dialectical method, supposedly fundamental in science.
Firstly, the dialectical method in science is not the main one - it is a fact.
It is generally little known in foreign science.
Secondly, the dialectical method of knowledge originates from Hegel’s IDEALISM dialectic and is most beautifully compatible with the presence of the Creator of matter.
God is not a hindrance to the dialectical method.
Thirdly, Marx and Engels were not militant atheists and did not consider believers to be ungrateful pests of science; they adequately assessed the enormous scientific contribution of many believing scientists.
But on the basis of the materialist dialectic of Marx-Engels, in the early 30s, at the ideological order of Comrade Stalin, the so-called Soviet Diamat was created.
Attempts by the Stalinist officialdom to impose this very same thing as a methodology of science led to the persecution of genetics, cybernetics, etc., to such ugly ideological pseudo-scientific harmful phenomena as Lysenkoism, etc.
To the lag of many areas of Soviet science from the West, where diamat was not popular.
Many outstanding Soviet scientists from Vladimir Vernadsky to Ivan Pavlov were then resolutely against Diamatov’s dictatorship in science.
Thousands of scientists, following Academician Vavilov, paid very cruelly for this disagreement with the dominance of Diamatov’s officialdom.
Before Feuerbach and Marx and Engels, atheism was very rare and extremely unpopular among the population.
And militant atheists in general were curiosities from the Red Book in those days, and (to be honest) they were usually mentally unhealthy people in those eras.
Social indignation against the Catholic Church as a human organization was the indignation of people who believed in the existence of a Creator.
Even the Jacobins in France established the cult of the Supreme Reason, the cult of the Supreme Being.
But political prostitutes, commissioned by Stalin’s ideologists, hid and distorted the truth not only about Trotsky and other associates of Stalin, but about this too.
They falsified the long bearded pseudo-history of the supposedly thousand-year struggle of powerful dialectical materialism with idealism invented by the exploiters.
This was a shameless lie from the ideologists of Stalinism.
Long before any classes there was idealism and belief in the existence of supernatural entities, in spirits.
Idealistic views were inherent in our ancestors at the very dawn of humanity, and materialism became widely known only in the 18th century.
The very first intelligent people who appeared on Earth already (ALREADY!) believed in the supernatural, they were already idealists.
Already Homo Neanderthalis believed in the supernatural.
In different populations of Neanderthals, archaeologists have discovered different types of funeral rites, with different orientations of skeletons relative to the cardinal directions, different rituals for the funeral use of ocher and related objects, etc.
For example, Middle Eastern Neanderthals buried their dead in the fetal position.
It seems that what distinguishes man from ape is not so much work as, first of all, the presence of faith in the supernatural and understanding of one’s biological mortality, and the desire to somehow continue in another existence after earthly death.
And completely wild chimpanzees can make primitive tools in the wild - this has already been precisely proven and filmed in detail.
Moreover, primitive artificial tools were excavated that were made by chimpanzees several centuries ago, extremely similar to the products of today's modern chimpanzees and in the same places (human Africans then made completely different tools, even bronze and iron).
Chimpanzees even have preconsciousness, but they have no real full-blooded consciousness and no religion.
For example, the Diamatov paid manufacturers of lies first of all enrolled Voltaire among the militant atheists.
As is known (and easy to read, and even on Wikipedia), Voltaire caustically ridiculed the then extremely small number of militant atheists.
To quote Wikipedia:
“Fighting against the church, the clergy and the religions of “revelation,” Voltaire was at the same time an enemy of atheism; Voltaire dedicated a special pamphlet to criticism of atheism (“Hom;lie sur l’ath;isme”). A deist in the spirit of the English bourgeois freethinkers of the 18th century, Voltaire tried with all kinds of arguments to prove the existence of a Deity who created the Universe, in the affairs of which, however, he did not interfere, using evidence: “cosmological” (“Against Atheism”), “teleological” (“Le philosophe ignorant”) and “moral” (article “God” in the Encyclopedia).”
Diamat ideologists thought of declaring even Alexander Nikolaevich Radishchev one of the founders of materialism.
The author of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” who was in opposition to the autocracy, was very convenient for them for this role.
Although A.N. himself Radishchev quite definitely wrote (and his manuscripts were preserved and published) about exactly the opposite - that God exists and the human soul, in his opinion, is immortal.

Well, two more words about the so-called Soviet diamat, which failed miserably in 1991-92. As you know, Christianity has existed for more than two thousand years.
Well, and the belief of various Epicureans in the real existence of the Olympian gods, consisting of a special kind of atoms.
But the Epicureans are a marginal and undialectical movement.
The dialectics were precisely the post-Socratic IDEALISTS, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, etc.
Let me also remind you of Hegel’s IDEALISMIC dialectics.
But the materialist dialectic of Marx-Engels has existed only since the 40s of the 19th century.
The Soviet diamat, created by the ideological order of Comrade Stalin, is exactly the same age as my grandmother, he is just a youth.
Moreover, he was already a dilapidated, decrepit youth, refuted by science, almost bent and thrown into the margins of philosophical thought.
Soviet diamatism was based on the axiom: the material world is eternal, has always been.
Science has proven the opposite - MATTER HAS ARISED.
In the beginning there was no matter.
And then it happened.
Our material Universe fundamentally cannot be eternal and self-reproducing, moreover, it is fundamentally finite in its parameters - mass, volume, etc.
As for the general (total) entropy of the physical Universe, it is steadily increasing.
But it fundamentally cannot grow to infinity.
There is a line, a limit.
So draw scientific conclusions.
How could our entire Universe arise from NOTHING?
An absolutely unscientific mistake with a misfortune of the historically bankrupt so-called Diamat created on the ideological order of Comrade Stalin (created personally by Stalin and several of his half-educated zealous lackeys Mitin-Gershkovich and Yudin, half-educated in everything with Stalin (the limitations of which Stalin himself more than once made fun of) on the basis The materialist dialectic of Marx and Engels, already outdated by that time), was Stalin’s failed attempt to base the entire worldview of the Soviet people on the preconceived myth about the supposed primacy of matter.
About the primacy of matter, the infallibility of Comrade Stalin and the speedy construction of beautiful communism.
Neither the second, nor the third, and especially the first (the primacy of matter) was confirmed.
By the time the Soviet Diamat was created, by the 30s of the 20th century, the picture of the universe described by F. Engels in his “Dialectics of Nature” had ALREADY been refuted by science.
Real science, searching for the TRUTH.
Science, but not at all based on the dogmas of the eternal infallibility of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin (who crowned their search with the sacred “eternal” diamat) by an artificially specially fabricated quasi-religion - the Soviet diamat.
Diamat, a product of Stalinism, is the most natural dogmatic unscientific pseudo-scientific quasi-religion.
This quasi-religion not only stupidly and violently ignored many millions of solid, serious facts about the presence of supernatural phenomena in the world, but also blatantly contradicted the perfectly verifiable purely scientific truths of the most natural sciences.
If the concept of the Creator of matter received only many new important and interesting indirect confirmations, then objective science completely refuted the most fundamental axioms of diamata and revealed their deepest falsity.
Diamat has not stood the test of time.
Now it is essentially a historical corpse.
A long-smelling dead man, a pitiful ghost who still wanders around Russia, frightens serious scientists and finds dark, ignorant admirers, sectarians and even individual priests, and above all from among the rabid intolerant fanatics of irrational militant hatred of God and the feelings of believing ordinary workers. .
Fortunately, less and less of their diameter finds itself.
Few people already uncritically believe in the cool archaic Stalinist diamatism, in the dilapidated dogmas of this historical relic of a throwaway moment.
More and more people, including non-churched and non-orthodox people, believe in the sovereignty of matter by God.
Into the intelligent creation of our world.
Some of the so-called militant atheists believe that their opinion is true, although it is absolutely unfounded and unproven.
They believe that they are not at all obliged to prove that matter is primary.
They believe that it is their opponents who should shoulder the burden of proof that matter is secondary and created by the Creator.
Excuse me, I (for your sake, my dear dear readers and opponents) have taken upon myself such a heavy (I’ll tell you) burden and will now convincingly prove not only the secondary nature of matter, but also the fact that all this (secondary, derivative) matter (and the so-called inanimate matter in particular) is also inherently inherent in SPIRIT (its lower levels)!!!
Listen, dear readers, here it is - the naked, killer truth about the undoubted secondary nature of matter and its filling with spirit (its lower levels).
Matter is not only created by the Spirit, not only secondary, derivative, non-eternal and finite.
Matter, it turns out (being generated by divine energies, emanations of the Spirit), contains within itself the spirit as its inseparable intention.
How exactly matter has spirit (its lower levels) in itself, I will now strictly scientifically irrefutably tell you, my dear respected patient readers.
When the blinders of the historically bankrupt (created by the ideological order of Comrade Stalin) Soviet diamat fell, it turned out (to the surprise of the comrades ossified in diamat) that the so-called inanimate matter is not at all the inert moving substance given to us into sensation.
The latest science has discovered: matter most definitely contains SPIRIT.
Below I will tell you how science discovered this phenomenon.
And this is how all matter conceals the spirit within itself.
Matter is not only absolutely certain (and this has been irrefutably proven by modern science!) not eternal and not infinite.
Matter is not only finite in space and time.
The physical Universe not only has finite mass and finite energy, finite negentropy, finite volume and other finite parameters.
But it is also inextricably immanently filled with SPIRIT.
Spirit is the organic, primordial intention of matter, and of all, all, all matter.
As strict modern science has discovered, calculated and proven, all matter is absolutely secondary, derivative.
Matter is not eternal and not infinite.
Matter is a secondary, created entity.
But the latest science has also discovered that matter is also involved in SPIRIT.
All matter contains within itself, contains within itself the very spirit.
That is, she was not only created by an otherworldly superintelligent Creator-Spirit, but she herself is the bearer of lower forms of spirit.
Here are the interesting conclusions of the author of this site, Sergei Bakhmatov, his opinion that matter is not a bare substance, that spirit is a property of matter (I will quote a little from the article of the respected dear Sergei Bakhmatov, “Note to the main question of philosophy”):

“Matter is an objective reality actively reflected on itself.
Spirit is an immanent property of objective reality (an active reflection of objective reality onto itself), which is the cause and law of structuring and development of the material world (microworld, macroworld and megaworld) in terms of inanimate nature. Since the display is active, it must contain information about the states of matter over the entire history of its existence. The mapping of objective reality onto itself explains all known forces of interaction (gravity, weak, electromagnetic, strong) and the self-development (motion) of matter. Thus, Matter is not a substance, but a manifestation of objective reality (substance) through an active reflection of itself (Spirit).
Consciousness is a product of the active reflection of matter in general and the spirit inextricably linked with it onto its part (highly organized matter or living nature, as you wish), which is a consequence of the development of the material world. Consciousness owes its existence to the emergence in highly organized matter of the ability to store and distinguish between images of the material world, followed by their analysis and synthesis. Highly organized matter, endowed with consciousness, in turn, is actively reflected on the material world around it, changing it. This active reflection and the corresponding changes in the material world receive a new quality due to the presence of consciousness in highly organized matter. Thus, in addition to spirit, the consciousness of highly organized matter is also connected to the development of matter.
The question of the primacy of spirit or matter is illegitimate, since these are two aspects of one existence. The way of existence of objective reality is in its active reflection on itself. Here you can answer the famous question of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Why is there something and not nothing?” Objective reality would be “nothing” without an active reflection on itself, and with it it becomes “something”. This reveals the illusory nature of the distinction between science and religion. For representatives of the former, the active reflection of objective reality onto itself is identified with the impersonal forces of interaction, and for representatives of the latter - with God, that is, the creator and manager of all things. True, in the first case there are signs of a worldview that can lead to pride, since science deals with what is known by humanity (at least so it is believed), and religion also deals with what may yet to be known.

Consciousness is derived from matter and spirit and has freedom (unlike the spirit, in which everything is determined) and for this reason - subjectivity, which can be explained by the fact that the bearer of consciousness (individual) cannot reflect matter and spirit in its entirety, which is required for true knowledge, but displays only part of it. This subjectivity is overcome in time thanks to the collective mind of humanity, based on the experience of existence, and directs the process of knowledge of spirit and matter into infinity. Not only because the process of full knowledge of complex truth is possible only to the limit, but also because the constantly changing material world poses new challenges. Highly organized matter, represented by humanity, is actively reflected on itself both in the literal sense (genetics) and on its consciousness. The reflection on consciousness creates a spiritual product (ethics), which is a reflection of part of the universal Spirit (the law of the universe and its mover) in relation to humanity and its natural environment. Ethics is the science of distinguishing between good and evil. Good is the relationship between people, as well as the attitude of people to nature, which contribute to the self-affirmation of humanity through full and harmonious development in all aspects of human existence, and evil, on the contrary, contributes to self-denial and self-destruction. Self-preservation and development are the universal law of existence of intelligent beings, and deviation from it is an aberration in the reflection of the universal Spirit, which leads to complete self-destruction. The concepts of Spirit and universal Spirit are qualitatively different: the first concept is related to the universal law and the reason for the development of the material world in terms of inanimate nature, the second is related to the material world in general, including highly organized matter endowed with Consciousness by nature.
Consciousness is derived from the universal Spirit and Matter in the sense that its very existence and development is a consequence of the active reflection of the latter two on the former. The process of learning (displaying) them is endless, but it is getting closer to the truth.
With the appearance in the developing material world of highly organized matter endowed with Consciousness, the Spirit receives a new quality: a conscious (subjective) component is added to external necessity as the cause and law of the flow of material processes. Depending on how it fits into the harmony of the universal Spirit, the very fate of highly organized matter, endowed with Consciousness by nature, will be determined.
Matter, the universal Spirit and Consciousness determine the further course of development of all things. The first two, actively reflected on the third, lead to its development, and as a consequence - to a corresponding change in the material world.

In relation to human society and its existence, we can say that social existence is reflected on social consciousness and thus determines it, but it is the reflection of the universal Spirit on the latter that sets both of them in motion. This reflection is much broader than what can be described within the framework of the development of productive forces and production relations, since it represents the ethics of the existence of humanity as a whole. It follows that a free, just and prosperous society cannot be built through immoral means. The acceleration of the pace of historical development of society occurs due to the fact that the more adequate this reflection is, the more opportunities appear for humanity to reflect the universal Spirit on social consciousness.”

The great scientist Newton, who discovered the laws of motion of celestial bodies, as if exposing the greatest secret of the universe, was a believer and studied theology. When he pronounced the name of God, he stood up reverently every time and took off his hat.

The great Pascal, a genius of mathematics, one of the creators of new physics, was not just a believer, but also one of the greatest religious thinkers in Europe. Pascal said: “All the contradictions that most seem to want to remove me from the position of religion have most of all led to it.”

The great founder of all modern bacteriology, the thinker who penetrated deeper than others into the mystery of organic life, Pasteur says: “The more I study nature, the more I stop in reverent amazement at the works of the Creator.”

Even Darwin, whose teachings were later used by semi-scientists to refute the belief in God, was a very religious man all his life and for many years was a churchwarden in his parish. He never thought that his teaching could contradict faith in God. After Darwin outlined his doctrine of the evolutionary development of the animal world, he was asked where is the beginning of the chain of development of the animal world, where is its first link? Darwin replied: “It is chained to the Throne of the Most High.”

The great geologist Lyell writes: “In every investigation we discover the clearest evidence of the foresight, power and wisdom of the creative mind of God.” The learned historian Müller declares: “It was only with the knowledge of the Lord and through a thorough study of the New Testament that I began to understand the meaning of history.”

The greatest scientist of our century, Max Planck, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918, says: “Religion and science are not at all mutually exclusive, as was previously believed, which is what many of our contemporaries fear; on the contrary, they are consistent and complementary.”
But among scientists there are also so-called materialists.
But even they admitted that modern science has irrefutably proven:
MATTER IS SECONDARY. MATTER HAS HAPPENED!!!
Now think, dear readers, whether the so intelligently structured material Universe of trillions of galaxies (each large of which has hundreds of billions of stars) could also arise by pure quantum chance as a virtual particle, and not just arise virtually, but materialize for billions of years and give birth to life and mind?
I personally believe that without an intelligent spiritual root cause, without the Creator, without the Demiurge, matter on such a megascale and with such an initial supply of negentropy could not have arisen in any way.
This means that SOMEONE created her from a vacuum and gave her the laws of nature, and in a surprising way, precisely the same laws that allowed matter to give birth to Man.
Why do the believing majority of earthlings, Russians and scientists adhere to the opinion that God exists?
Why do so many atheists, having become deeply acquainted with science, then become believers in the existence of God?
That's why, because science has revealed to humanity this amazing reasonable picture of the world:
It all started with a “naive” question: why do the so-called physical constants (PPs), for example, Planck’s constant, have such and not some other values, and what would happen to the Universe if these values ​​turned out to be different? An increase in Planck's constant by more than 15% deprives a proton of the ability to combine with a neutron, i.e., makes it impossible for nucleosynthesis to occur. The same result is obtained if the proton mass is increased by 30%. A change in the values ​​of these PTs downward would open up the possibility of the formation of a stable 2He nucleus, which would result in the burning of all hydrogen in the early stages of the expansion of the Universe. The change in existing values ​​required for this does not exceed 10%. But the “random” coincidences don’t end there. The combination of numerous accidents is called the “fine tuning” of the Universe. No less surprising coincidences occur when considering the processes associated with the emergence and development of life. Thus, science is faced with a large group of facts, the separate consideration of which creates the impression of inexplicable random coincidences bordering on a miracle. The probability of each such coincidence is very small, and their joint existence is completely incredible. The situation is reminiscent of a sharply sharpened pencil that stands vertically on a sharp lead. From this point of view, the very fact of the existence of a directionally developing Universe appears as unlikely. But no one forces us to consider such facts to be random coincidences. It seems quite reasonable to raise the question of the existence of as yet unknown patterns (the consequences of which we are faced with) capable of organizing the Universe in a certain way. SCIENTISTS INcreasingly agree that the amazing fine-tuning of natural laws and constants, as well as the huge number of coincidences that allowed life to evolve, indicate that the universe apparently arose as a result of deliberate planning and the work of some mind. In fact, this “fine-tuning” is so evident, and there are so many “coincidences” that many scientists have been forced to agree with the “Anthropic Principle”, according to which, from the very beginning of its existence, the universe was intended for the birth of man. Even those who do not accept the Anthropic Principle nevertheless admit the existence of "fine tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too wisely constructed" to be the result of random factors. In the BBC science documentary The Anthropic Principle, the most brilliant scientific minds of our time talk about modern discoveries that support this conclusion. Dr. Dennis Scania, distinguished director of the Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change the laws of nature just a little, or modify the natural constants just a little - for example, the charge of the electron - then the path of the universe will change so much that intelligent life is unlikely to have the opportunity to develop." Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, University of Oxford: "If we nudge any of the physical constants slightly in one direction, stars might only last a million years before they burn out, leaving no time for evolution. If we nudge this constant in the other direction, then there will no longer be elements heavier than helium in nature - they simply will not be able to form. There is no carbon - which means there will be no chemistry and there will be no trace of structural complexity at all." Dr Paul Davies, eminent author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Adelaide: "The most amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balancing on a razor's edge, but that the whole universe is essentially balancing on a razor's edge. The universe would be in complete chaos." , if only one of nature's constants were slightly altered. You see, Davis adds, even if you dismiss man as a random phenomenon, you still cannot erase the truth that the universe seems amazingly well adapted for. existence of life. It seems to be specially designed for this, you can even call it a pre-planned work." According to modern scientific hypotheses, the matter of the universe originated from a huge explosion of energy - the so-called "Big Bang". At the very beginning, only hydrogen and helium existed in the universe, which then condensed and turned into stars. All other elements were subsequently formed inside stars. The most common (in descending order) chemical elements are hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle studied the origin of carbon in the “furnaces” of stars, his calculations showed that it was very difficult to explain how stars were able to produce the amount of carbon necessary for life on Earth. Hoyle discovered that the existence of multiple, one-time "favorable" coincidences of circumstances proved that deliberate "adjustments" were made to the physical and chemical laws to produce the required amount of carbon. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle summarizes his discoveries as follows: "A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS LEADS TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: FIRST, SOME 'BIG BOSS' HAS INTERVENTED PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY; SECOND, THERE ARE NO VIRTUES MENTIONS OF THE BLIND FORCES OF NATURE. I THINK THAT ANY PHYSICIST, CONSIDERING THE EXISTING DATA, WOULD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED WITH THE OPERATION OF THESE LAWS INSIDE STARS."
Statements by scientists about the anthropic principle. The discovery of a design of this level in the Universe made a deep impression on astronomers. As we have already noted, Hoyle concluded that "a higher mind has played a trick on physics, chemistry and biology," and Davies concluded that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of purely ingenious design." He further writes: “It is quite obvious to me that there is something behind all this. ... It seems that someone perfectly calculated everything before creating the universe. ... An incredible sense of design." Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, expresses the following thoughts: "When you examine all the evidence, the inevitable thought arises that some supernatural Power is behind it all. Is it possible that suddenly, without meaning to, we stumble upon scientific evidence that there is a Supreme Being? Didn’t God so skillfully and carefully create the cosmos for us?” And Tony Rothman, a theoretical physicist, sums up his article on the anthropic principle (the principle according to which the Universe has very precise characteristics that provide a natural environment for human life): “A medieval theologian who looked into the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels flying in harmony through the spheres, has become a modern cosmologist who looks into the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the finger of God not in angels, but in the constants of nature. ... When you come face to face with the order and beauty that reigns in the Universe, and with the strange coincidences in nature, there is a great temptation to move from faith in science to faith in religion. I'm sure many physicists want this. I wish them to have the courage to admit it.” Physicist Freeman Dyson defined his interpretation of the anthropic principle as follows: "The problem here is to formulate some statements about the meaning and purpose of the universe. In other words, the purpose is to read the mind of God." Vera Kistiakowski, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and recent president of the Association for Women in Science, comments: “The immaculate orderliness demonstrated by our scientific understanding of the physical world evokes a sense of the presence of the Divine.” Arno Penzias, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of cosmic background radiation, noted: “Astronomy brings us to a unique discovery: we live in a Universe that arose from nothing, which requires a very delicate balance in order to provide the conditions for the existence of life, the Universe , which is based on a (one might say “supernatural”) plan.” Long before the fall of the communist regime, Alexander Polyakov, a theorist and researcher at the Moscow Institute. Landau, stated: "We know that nature is described by the best mathematics because God created nature. Therefore, there is a chance that this mathematics will be created as a result of physicists' attempts to describe nature." Cosmologist Edward Harrison concludes: “This is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the concept of Paley's design - only improved and updated. The amazing harmony of the Universe provides direct evidence of the Divine plan. Choose: blind chance, which requires countless universes, or design, which requires only one... Many scientists, when they confess their views, lean towards the theological concept, or the concept of design. Allan Sandage, winner of the Craford Prize in astronomy (equivalent to the Nobel Prize), remarked: “I find it quite incredible that such order could arise from chaos. There must be some organizing principle. God is a mystery to me, but He is the explanation for the miracle of something coming out of nothing." Perhaps astrophysicist Robert Jastrow gave the best description of what happened to his colleagues after they measured the cosmos: "For a scientist who lived by faith in the power of the mind , it all ends like a bad dream. All his life he climbed the high mountain of knowledge; he is already ready to conquer its main peak; and when, having made the last push, he is at the top, he is met by a group of theologians who have sat there for centuries." Robert Griffiths, who received the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics, said: "If we need atheists for discussion, I go to the philosophers to find them. You won’t find atheists in the physics department.”
Our Creator, in addition to our familiar matter, creates and created other material worlds that are inaccessible to our senses.
Our bodily sensations and physical devices physically perceive precisely matter-substance.
The very one that materialists biasedly declared to be primary and unique, eternal and infinite.
It is definitely not eternal, it is finite and derivative.
But besides it, there are other layers of reality, including the highest reality of the Universe.
They really do exist, but their existence is different and relates very differently to our physicality.
Only the matter of our material Universe physically substantially interacts with our corporeality, flesh, nature, but it is not the only thing that has the gift of existence, being.
All known SELF-sufficient models of the eternal existence of matter are mathematically erroneous and do not work; all of them inevitably require the introduction of the Creator of our known material world into their formulas.
And here's why in my opinion:
These are the fundamentally possible strictly materialistic models of the purely material origin of universes (including our Universe) without the involvement of spiritual-informational, non-substances in our understanding, intelligent, creative, creative demiurgic entities.
I will give a model of the author of this site, respected Lyubomir Pavlov:

I IMAGINE THE ETERNALLY EXISTING LIMITLESS MATERIAL WORLD AS A LIMITLESS FLUTUATING WORLD, i.e. UNCHANGEABLE, AN OCEAN, WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL FLUCTUATION - THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED CYCLE CONSISTED OF AN UPSCENDING BRANCH OF EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT AND A DESCENDING BRANCH OF DEGRADATION, RETURNING THE UNIVERSE TO THE OCEAN OF THE ORIGINAL STATE I AM EQUILIBRIUM CHAOS. AT THIS WAY, ALL HER FORMER INDIVIDUALS ARE ERASED.
In my opinion, only with such an assumption can one substantiate the ETERNAL EXISTENCE OF THE MATERIAL WORLD.

Best regards, Lyubomir

The discovered, absolutely accurately discovered by strict science a number of IRREVERSIBLE VECTOR NON-CYCLIC parameters (entropy, etc.) and the fact that even our Universe (expanding with acceleration) will not return back to the singularity have now put an end to such unconfirmed strictly materialistic models of the entire universe, the entire Universe.
The latest scientific facts known to us indicate the absence of MAGA-static fluctuating matter-substance, which gives birth to fluctuation-universes by the will of blind, unreasonable cases.
Thanks to the predominance of dark energy in it, our Universe will never return “to normal”, will not return to a singularity akin to the one from which it was born.
Both the earlier model of F. Engels in his “Dialectics of Nature” and this one are clearly not confirmed and turned out to be incorrect and inaccurate.
All models of matter without a Creator inevitably turn out to be incomplete and inaccurate, not self-sufficient and leading to logical and mathematical dead ends.
These are the consequences of precisely the exclusion from these narrowly materialistic models of such a component as the Intelligent Creator of the simulated matter.
There is SOMETHING (SOMEONE?) outside the dust, decay and goths familiar to our eyes; there are, of course, imperishable, enduring world lines not just into the Future, but precisely into Eternity, into Immortality.
And they go straight through our souls and destinies!
I am a resolute opponent of that tightly sewn theory that the whole world was supposedly created just by blind chance and inert substance.
I am also opposed to ridiculous, unfounded attempts to extrapolate the part of reality known to us, given to us in sensations, to the entire inexhaustibly diverse reality.
I consider anti-scientific statements that our known world is supposedly infinite in time and space to be completely wrong.
Our material world is definitely about 14 billion years old in time, it is definitely not infinite in space, and has a finite mass.
These are the elementary truths of any physics student.
These are the basics of modern exact, rigorous science.
I'm not going to extrapolate it to all things.
Our world given to us in sensations is generated by a certain REASON.
I believe that She is most likely intelligent and spiritual.
I am a supporter of the existence of a supersocial form of movement of matter (an objectively existing reality).
I am against the narrow, limited views of those who consider the only form of intelligence to be the biological brains of primates who have mastered tool labor.
Especially against imposing such a superficial opinion on others and writers.
Matter cannot be explained SELF-sufficiently from itself.
It is impossible to explain in this way its finitude, the existence of universal laws given to it by the Creator, and a host of its other properties.
It is also impossible to explain the anthropic principle, even in a weakened form.
If matter had not been intelligently created specifically for humans, for humanoids, then it would have been completely different.
Change the world constants a little - and neither life nor atoms would exist at all, they just physically would not be able to arise at all.
There would not be such a suspicious isotropy-consistency of all matter even beyond the event horizon.
That is, the horizon of physical influences of some material objects on others.
Everything was coordinated by the Creator.
If matter had arisen on its own, then without an intelligent spiritual God, by the will of the blind elements, an equal amount of mother and antimatter would have arisen in the material world.
With all the ensuing consequences, such as our absence.
But this is not the case, God did not allow this.
The Creator did not limit himself to creating the world.
In order to save us and open to people the true saving spiritual and moral path, most likely God (the divine essence itself) materialized, incarnated, became human into a beautiful, amazing earthling, an earthly man, Jesus Christ.
He could do this and had very good reasons for this.
For the sake of love and humanity for us, He came to us and defeated evil.
The evil He defeated has not disappeared into nowhere and exists in the sublunary world.
In general, the problem of theodicy is the problem of the existence of evil in the mortal world despite the goodness and humanity of God, this is a big, very serious and interesting philosophical problem, but this is not the topic of this particular article.
God created about 14 billion years ago a truly great material world - with a predominance of mysterious dark energy and dark matter.
And all the matter familiar to us makes up only about 4.5% of the mass of the Universe.
But it also forms many trillions of Galaxies, including our Galaxy from hundreds of billions of stars rotating at crazy speed around a colossal black hole.
On planets near some other stars of our Galaxy (and not just this one), our Creator most likely created us brothers in mind through evolution.

EVEN modern materialists (!!) now admit that the ideal can quite easily exist outside the human head.
Here are their timid arguments and partial belated confessions on this matter:
“It should be noted that the term “objective reality” in the definition means matter that exists really and independently of man. It was noted above that the ideal can exist objectively from a person and his consciousness. At the same time, the human body does not exist objectively in everything, that is, independently of it and its consciousness. The dependence of the human body on itself is very significant for regulation, motivation, maintaining normal functioning and other parameters. Other material phenomena may have ideal characteristics, especially in the culture of society. The ideal can also be recognized as an objective ideal independent of man. In this sense, the term “objective reality” can cover both material reality (matter) and the objectively ideal.”
In a word, the old Soviet diamat has been debunked by modern science.
And most of his elderly followers rushed to God in churches in their old age.
Those who never believed in the presence of a superintelligent Creator in matter, the Creator of all things, due to the inconsistency of their ancient myths about the eternity of matter with modern strict, accurate scientific data, suffer en masse from neuroses and depression.
The main reason for the modern epidemic of neuroses and depression was very well revealed and shown by the famous psychologist, candidate of psychological sciences Marina Lebed.
Now you will read (published with Marina’s consent) the bitter truth about the main causes of modern mass ill-being with borderline mental disorders.
Here in front of you are the very wise, piercing lines of the respected Marina Lebed:
“Metaphysical fear of death exists, its invisible power over the psyche is enormous. Of all critical situations, the most pathogenic are those in which a person faces death. Such situations can be incurable diseases, loss of close relatives, participation in war. However, even outside such situations, every person immersed in everyday affairs knows deep down that victory over physical death is an illusion.

Knowledge of the fact of death is being driven out of public consciousness by all means. Society behaves as if no one dies; moreover, it purposefully diverts understanding of these issues by creating systems of semi-forced labor, distraction and entertainment. And, indeed, people sometimes manage to forget themselves for a long time, but the ritual side of death, any reminders of it, direct confrontations with its terrible mask recreate suppressed and repressed fear, recalling the fact of the mortality of the physical body. The overwhelming horror of awareness of mortality is called fear of “nothing” or existential frustration, a thousand other names, but whatever you call it, the main thing is that it exists and has a tremendous impact on a person’s psychological state. The psyche develops defense mechanisms against the awareness of mortality. The mechanisms of such protection are individual - some people go into the visual world of television, others into the virtual space of the Internet, others find oblivion in reality - in the pursuit of power, romantic hobbies or sexual adventures. Unconscious impulses of horror, in the case when they do not become a source of neuroses, temporarily give way to passions and hobbies and, especially, to short-term deceptions of erotic love, but, in moments of greatest clarity of consciousness, a person even more deeply, in contrast to the beating of life, realizes the inevitability the fact of its finitude.

The topic of death is a kind of taboo for atheists - it is not customary to talk about it, it is not good to think about it, you need to live as if it does not exist. But metaphysical fear of death exists, moreover, its invisible power over the psyche and its unconscious impulses is enormous. This is proven by even the most superficial analysis of works of contemporary art. Modern psychoanalysis is also unthinkable without working on unconscious impulses of horror before the inevitability of death, because for modern people, suppressed and repressed fear of death is the source of neuroses.

At first glance, the world in which we live seems safe, there are no predators waiting for their prey, ready to deliver a fatal blow at every second; terrible epidemics seem to have been defeated in it. But deep down, everyone knows that victory over death is an illusion and not a single person can change the natural course of events. You can push back the final event of your life, but you can’t fundamentally change anything; you just have to wait passively, and, as far as possible, calmly await your fate. The horror of realizing one’s own finitude is joined by understanding the course of human development as a meaningless “bad infinity”, an endless replacement of the dead by the newly born.

No one knows what will happen beyond life, but atheists, claiming that after death a person is forever destroyed by the eternal Nothing, do not leave even a small loophole as hope. There is nothing more destructive for the psyche, nothing worse for education, than such supposedly scientific and consistent materialism. The most harmful are philosophical systems based on the denial of the Eternal and Divine, which make it an axiom that death is inevitable and is an immanent part of the existence of the living. Materialist thinkers such as J. P. Sartre represent a dead-end branch of the most repulsive kind of philosophy - atheistic existentialism. Their worldview is pessimistic, and atheistic systems are too vague, unformed and unspoken. And how could it be otherwise? After all, criticism of the idea of ​​God and the idea of ​​the soul is nothing more than destruction without positivity. Attempts by existential materialists to derive psychological and psychotherapeutic recommendations from their anti-life philosophical systems naturally turn into failure, since it is impossible to derive anything supportive and inspiring from deeply pessimistic teachings. Such philosophers argue that thanks to the awareness that after death a person faces Nothingness, he tries to realize his potential and achieve a deep authentic being. In fact, such a worldview only increases fear and horror. It is no coincidence that the same Sartre, in an eternal search for oblivion from the philosophical truths he invented, was a representative of extreme leftist views and a defender of bloody methods. According to Sartre, death is the last opportunity through which existence can achieve a higher form - this is a statement based on nothing.

The negative consequences of an atheistic worldview are colossal, but its destructive forces are difficult to assess: who counted the number of people suffering from depression caused by the fear of death, who counted suicides committed precisely for this reason?

The ideological emptiness of everyday life, the attempt at oblivion, the hushing up of the problem of awareness of death, and, especially, atheistic existentialism as well as any other newfangled materialistic systems - all these are dead ends that lead to only negative consequences.

Humanity needs new, truly humanistic ideological guidelines that allow for the presence of a Higher principle in the Universe and an Eternal principle in the human soul. Only such a system of views on the world gives a person deep optimism and faith in the eternal existence of his immortal soul.”