Brian Greene “the ELEGANT UNIVERSE” – a book that explains the modern world? And I’m completely lost…

      They have EVERYTHING laid out on the shelves and weighed. On stage the SOUL and GOD are already TALKING about it. The latest fashion – the string theory… or Rather FIVE string theories. (The distinction is quite vague, but they are mutually exclusive).

      Or I’m going crazy…

      (“Occam’s razor” or the principle of brevity of thought, requires a scientist, so he tried to explain every possible phenomenon in a simpler way, without introducing “additional entities”, that is unnecessary hypotheses.”)

      I understand fully, there is BICARINATE build a picture of the WORLD.

      And for the sake of the process are themselves scientists are on DETAIL COMPLEXITY at the expense of CLARITY. The “discovery” of any new fact applies to the WHOLE picture.

      Black holes are sized from particles to galaxies, is the same thing with “strings” – or are considering using the Collider, or with the naked eye in the sky overhead … (each from physics – just in case – warns of possible refutation of another controversial theory. A safety net …)

      “Holographic nature” of threshold events!!! “Folded strings” hiding in the folds (!!!) space… As I understand it, these “folds” can hide EVERYTHING from particles to the Universe. Message Datetimetest (instead of SIX!) throws in delighted shock the scientific community … (AND ALL this is clothed in a toga mathematical reasoning – there is nothing you can do about it …)

      At the end of the book gives a vague message about the limits of knowledge (thank GOD!!!) but there also triumphant March – the possibility of infinite extension of the limit… the scientific world does not give up…And why would he give up? Not all disassembled… And yet there are people who understand something in their builds, they will not rest.

      Here’s what I learned – NEED a NEW CONCEPT of KNOWLEDGE that exists.

      The world is sufficiently simple, and if all this wisdom is really almost necessary, LET THEM have FUN… But to follow the path of ever-increasing complexity is a mistake that will inevitably lead to a standstill of knowledge … (There is such a law – the more complex a system is, the more vulnerable she is …) LOGIC, MEANING, and APPROPRIATENESS should be major criteria for the truth (Again.) All this is missing in the present scientific worldview.

      As knowledge lying at the basis of the present scientific worldview does not meet the requirements of true knowledge (Consistency-permanence-timelessness; does not have a strong rationale, it is not rational and impractical), and the other science now to offer are not able to, it seems that true knowledge now to be considered INTUITIVE.

      And maybe even SPECULATIVE…

      2…

      First of all, two questions :

      “What?” and

      “Why?”

      I want to Express with this Scripture and why do I need it? Actually at first I wanted to create something mythic, like the monumental Moduleusage work – “Where did the people.” … (From Shambhala the same!)

      And I started… then started again, then again… until I realized that no one needs it. And including me… And recently dawned on me that just simply exists I have such a need at the end of life to determine where I lived (in what world), why and how. So I have to write some kind of summary about my existence. A philosophical treatise? If you take into consideration that we are all philosophers, then so be it. But I do not want anybody to learn or review some established forms and systems.

      I just want to understand AT THEIR level what I learned from this life about the world and about yourself. For this there are a variety of ways: in the form of some entertaining works (“Gulliver’s Travels …"), or didactic texts, as “the Revolt of the angels”. France, or scientific treatises, as “the Treatise on the heavens” of Aristotle, or the form of a dialogue, i.e. a live conversation, like Fontenelle’s “plurality of worlds”. All opportunities not listed.

      Moreover, I don’t want to didactically formulate any provisions that are no doubt formulated in different ways by many philosophers, according to their systems and teachings.

      First of all I don’t like or understand mathematics, people tend to fear what they do not understand. Moreover, I do not understand is not the object itself (though that too), I don’t see these clever formulas make sense and expediency. I can’t IDENTIFY them with anything from the surrounding world of things and events… And consequently, mathematics seems to me a thing artificial, UNNATURAL, not belonging to our world.

      Better than I said why I don’t like math – Derrida, “Dissemination”: – “… mathematics do not know what they are talking about, and… they are also a little worried about how it is written corresponds to any reality…”

      “Newton tried to construct a General picture of the Universe, however, with all hands, she would inevitably shapefiles under the force of gravity.

      Einstein strongly believed in the beginning and the end of the universe and therefore came up with the eternally-existing static Universe. To do this he needed to introduce in his equations a special component which is created “antigravitation”, and thereby formally assuring the stability of the world order. This Supplement (the so-called “cosmological term”), Einstein considered inelegant, ugly, but all the same necessary (the author is General relativity not in vain believed my aesthetic sense – it was later proven that the static model is unstable and therefore physically meaningless).” —

      AS SUCH A FOCUS?

      Philosophy takes a variety of forms, i.e., a philosopher can only think so, and nothing else. But others should perceive it to build adequately different? Philosophers are human beings too, and no two are similar (and can be). The consciousness of each individual. Can be affected by acquired experience, can be all the same destiny…

      On the one hand it is good, but too much variation methods puts these people are often on different sides of the fence and prevents understanding…

      An example of the imposition of mathematics on the philosophy; – the Russian philosopher, mathematics teacher Kallistrat Zhakov “Logic” (section titles) :

      values of figures and translating them into one another

      on the use of mnemonic images of syllogisms

      – on the possibility of all modes of syllogism

      one form of output;

      This