Moira and Eileithyia for Genesis by Alexey and Lev Burov

Dear Burov,

Zdrassti

Thank you for the nice essay on " Development of science vs Cognition "

I congratulate on Good flow of English you wrote; instead of usual translations from Russian....

Your observations are excellent like,

1. Rene Descartes came to a necessity to separate all knowable into two parts, one of which encompasses all material and the other all mental.

2. Cartesian dualism represented, before anything else, a methodological principle, a boundary condition, stating the problem at first approximation as a necessary step of the beginning of cognition.

3. the birth and development of thought and comprehension of the laws already

discovered by sheer power of chance seems utterly impossible

4. Third, we have to accept that even in those cases, when the fundamental cognition in no way benefits the improvement of life conditions--in fact, it often

being the opposite--the motion forward is not prevented. These assumptions are quite far reaching, and natural selection demands all of them without any arguments or a possibility of a scientific check.

5. "I f my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

.................... Probably here I will put a little remark that the Brain is hardware, food we eat is the Electrical power supplied to computer, and the Mind is the software.... So software is required then the atoms will work and the cognition will develop....

My essay is not on your subject....But I request to have look...

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Hello Alexey and Lev Burov,

I loved your general philosophical analyse.It was relevant to read.

good luck in this contest

Regards from Belgium

Hello Alexey and Lev,

There is much in your essay with which I agree, and even where I think I might disagree I find your ideas challenging and original. One important point with which I agree is your belief that "ethics, which answers the question about that which should be, is inseparable from metaphysics, which answers the question about that which is." However, when you discuss values, you bring in primarily aesthetic values, such as elegance, seriousness, and of course beauty generally. What metaphysical role do you see for ethical values, good and evil, right and wrong, as more particularly understood? In any case, I agree that we shall not attain the truth about reality unless we include an understanding of value, including the value of reality and the value of truth itself.

Thank you.

Laurence Hitterdale

Two Burov(s)

Excellent essay. Sufficiently excellent to inspire the following ramble:

I had a different interpretation of "cogito ergo sum" as no mention of any physical (external) reality. Thinking and being resolved into separate entities. But this just goes to show how many ways the investigation can unfold. The "blind spot" metaphor is an insightful one. Some of us are (perhaps dimly) aware of this feature as something we can't see directly but yet, on some level, we are aware of it. Do we understanding that this "blind spot" is obfuscated by "logical self-refutation"?

Somehow natural selection cannot be an intentional search for its own cognizance and this is opined as fact. As if fishing (a random search) should have nothing to do with any intention to catch fish. The spontaneous emergence of self-organizing entities from stochastic particle interaction manifests intention (may be subject to interpretation). To think otherwise belies our curiosity as something outside of this process and relegates us to an inconsequential side effect of entropy. From my frame of reference, most obvious to me, is the observation that the stochastic universe is weighted in such a way, to provide me with time to sit here, and receive the honor of your acquaintance, and discuss such matters, while the necessities of my survival run in the background. Or else our interaction is accidental and I am simply lucky and in no way loved by that from which I have emerged. We imagine many things are so. That physical reality exists aside from our imagination is unimaginable to my experience. Instead we have a correlation between experience and mathematical relationships. I fall into my self-referential pit of 'no understanding without interpretation and creativity'. (Is this statement an interpretation? fact? creation?) I have not encountered Epimenides Paradox before. It looks like Russel's paradox. You must have been amused by my cognitive suicide at the end of my essay. Actually I died during a religious experience in 1976, and have understood nothing universal since. So I imagine.

You point out a most fundamental feature of cognition central to my own pet theory; "For each correct solution to a problem competes a myriad of possible errors". The truth floats in a sea of falsity. I note further the resolution of any object, identification, symbol, attention, relation ... as singling out a particular perception from the background i.e. resolution of superposition (my pet theory). This is so basic that it escapes our notice. The "swarm of everything else" is an allusion to what I call the Superposition, which has connotations to quantum mechanics, wave theory, mechanics, electromagnetism, and everything else, and especially the nature of self (ego, God...)

My impression of your essay is the objectivity of mathematics and the subjectivity of its application to observables as two sides of the same coin. If you agree then we have both arrived at the same place from different approaches. Such a coincidence validates us as parallel expressions of the universal intention we recognize. That would be a beautiful thing.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the proliferation of life (change) manifests intention, then beauty is made for us and we are made for beauty. A significant step towards the unspoken Unity neither of us mentioned yet.

This essay, especially the closing paragraph, will live in my study from now on.

Vik

P.S. I don't get the Title

Hi Alexey and Lev,

Wonderful essay. I particularly liked "Only those moved mathematics ahead who loved it not for some other aim, however good and important, but for its own sake, for its eternal, super-human beauty."

For my own pleasure I would change it just a bit: "Only those moved humanity ahead who loved it not for some other aim, however good and important, but for its own sake, for its eternal, super-human radiant beauty."

Esthetics and a bit of emotion go a long way toward a goal. Appreciate your work.

Don Limuti

Hi, Alexey and Lev.

Congratulations on wonderful work! The beauty of mathematics and the unity of deep emotional reactions of multiple mathematicians in all the times and countries reveal the objective connection between the impersonal mathematical ideas and "mathematical needs" of personal human intelligence.

Like knows like. Like loves and enjoys like. Like consumes like. Thus, mathematics is the "food" for the mathematical, logical, rational nature of the humans. Human nature is not just biological and material, it is logical and mathematical. Mathematics show us the immaterial intentions of this immaterial part of the human being, of the human mind.

The beauty of mathematics attracts human consciousness like voice of Moira and pulls it out of animal existence like Eileithyia to the birth of pure human mindfulness and happiness. Your essay shows this with indisputable clarity!

You are welcome Mr Burov,

sincerely

Dear Alexey

First of all thank you for a very insightfull essay. It was great reading, so I rated you an 8.

I fully agree with you that "Thought from matter" is an error, it is like searching for the announcer in the radio, or like the wolf I have at home who is looking at the flatscreen TV, sees a duck and directly goes to look behind the TV. (she is very intelligent).

The second part of your essay about the beauty of mathematics I can fully underwrite, but you know it is like listening to music, you hear the beauty but in my case I cannot play the instruments.

You are (like me) one of the researchers for truth who is not afraid to use metaphysics bravo.

So I invite you to read/comment and certainly rate my contribution: The Purpose of Life" that gives another perception of the THOUGHT that is often translated with the word God and is called Total Simultaneity.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Alexey;

Thank you for reacting on my thread, I post my reaction also on your thread so that you get a message when received.

Sorry that you did not quite understand my perception of the emergent phenomenon that is called reality. So I hope that I can explain it more clearly and answer your questions.

Indeed I accept that TC is the "source" of everything, everywhere from any time restricted reality. TC is time nad spaceless.

I argue that time and space are both restrictions from Total Consciousness in TS to create "realities".(without consciousness TS would only be just a singularity that didn't exist.

ALL created Realities together (also those we don't understand) are represented as "availabilities in TS.

These "availabilities" (available life/time lines) are forming you could say the "ALL". This ALL cannot be a complete set when any of the life-line availabilities are missing. So the specific life-line reality that you are experiencing NOW is essential for the completeness of ALL.

TS is not a meaningless dream because it harbours the Completeness of Total Consciousness. In one of my articles in The Scientific God Journal The Consciousness Connection I compared TS to the Christian Holy Trinty : "The Father : TS (the ALL), Jesus Christ : the emergent human being with its causal part of consciousness and the Holy Ghost : Total Consciousness creating order out of chaos.

All our efforts in our specific life-lines (originating from the ALL) are part of this ALL. A life-line is in TS only an excitation. Through the addition of time and space we seem to experience a "FLOW".(between a beginning and an end)

In my essay I mentioned already that at each NOW moment the time-restricted consciousness is offered a choice out of an infinity of crossroads. This free-will choices seem to be made in the past (we are living in the past) here in our life-line, but don't forget that the moment of choice of your part of Total Consciousness in TS, timeless, eternal.

The "confidence I am getting with this world-view is :

1. Every creature is an essential constructive part of the "ALL".

2. Even when your life seems useless it still counts as being an important part of a totality we cannot understand, without you the Totality is NOT a Totality.

3. Birth and Death are two points on a by Total Consciousness created restricted beginning, end) life-line. There is at any moment the availability of an infinity of ME's. The Total ME is eternal. Death is only one of an infinity of ends of an infinity of availabilities.

4. The "poal in my perception of time-restricted consciousness is coming closer to the Total ME, part of Total Consciousness and part of Total Simultaneity.

(come closer to God ?)

I quite understand the confusion because what I am proposing is a scientific approach of the essence of our emergent reality, the only thing I hope is that it will not be explained as a BELIEF.. 5Religions are always misused for Power).

Don't hesitate to ask me more if you need to.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

more articles I published :

Reality out of Total Simultaneity. Scientific God Journal , volume 2 issue 4, june 2011

A metaphysical Concept of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. november 2012

The Quest for the Origin of Created Reality. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, vomume 4 issue 9, november 2013

A beautiful essay, extolling the beauty of mathematics. And yet, as I'm sure you know, Gödel has pointed out that mathematics is inherently incomplete. We humans, in recognizing that fact, are thereby able to actually transcend mathematics.

In our appreciation of mathematics, which being ultimately imperfect in its self-enclosure, and being abstract and lifeless, is unable to reciprocate and appreciate us -- are we not the more beautiful? Alive, transcendent, and more beautiful?

I would appreciate your review of my essay, particularly for your appraisal of whatever beauty there is in its comprehension.

Dear Alexey,

I will try to explain what I meant with ALL and the completeness of the Total YOU. (and put this post also on your thread)

I introduced the TOTAL Consciousness, including the Total Consciousness of ALL agents.

An emergent agent in an emergent reality is just ONE life-line of that specific agent. The agent there is an individual because he is not the complete Unity. The emergent agent is furthermore restricted through time an space while the Totality is time and spaceless.

The Total YOU could be described (in our restricted way) as the totality of ALL possible (and the impossible : the ones you did not yet think about) and available time/life-lines.

So YES, all the bad ones are available too. But also the "best of all worlds" is an availability.

During the FLOW of a specific time/life-line each NOW moment decisions are made and your specific time/life-line switches, the time/life-line you left still is available in TS.

This process of continually switching and the coexistance of availabilities of the time/life-lines that are not chosen, I described as the origin of FREE WILL.

In this specific emergent reality the time/life-line you are experiencing as a FLOW may exist as a singularity in TS, this doesn't mean that also your future would be concrete for this specific FLOW. Each Eternal Now Moment represents its own time/life-line. The emergent FLOW that we seem to live in can be compared to a time and spaceless singularity in TS.

The complete YOU could be described as a complete set of singularities in TS.

best regards and I like the exchange of thoughts with you.

Wilhelmus