THE FABULOUS HISTORY
Thanks to Darwin, we understood that
the human being, cousin of the monkey, had a history,
that it is the fruit of an
evolution. The concept of history, through the concept of evolution,
could apply to the life in general,
whereas it was limited until there to the development and
the decline of human civilizations,
the companies or a simple individual, Thanks to the
cosmological models drawn from the
relativity of Einstein by Friedman and Lemaître, the
concept of history still extended
its field of application to the entire universe.
The universe evolves. Any form to
be, of simplest to most complex, seems to evolve. The
concept of history poses the problem
of the origin. The majority of the physicists are
convinced that our universe results
from the explosion of a singularity. This explosion is
called " Big-bang ", great
boom. But the interesting point is this initial singularity. It would
have consisted of a point, i.e.
something of null size, but of infinite density and temperature.
Let us leave side the question of
knowing, very interesting in addition, how this singularity, of
null size, could give rise to a
universe in 4 dimensions of space-time. On the other hand, one
cannot prevent oneself from putting
the question to know from which comes this singularity.
Even if physics does not enable us
to go up in-on this side time of Planck,
that is to say one can consider the
logical possibilities related to the existence of this
singularity. If it always existed,
or if it comes from another form to be, or if it comes from the
vacuum. If nothing can come from the
absolute vacuum, to be it always existed. If something
can emerge from the absolute vacuum,
admit that it is the case of our initial singularity. At
present, let us go down again the
course of the universal history which we have just gone up
until the initial singularity. If it
is admitted that the initial singularity results from the vacuum,
we must recognize that nothing, in
the vacuum, lets predict the appearance of this singularity
which we will compare to a
vibration. Of this vibration results the first inanimate matter
shape. Nothing, in this vibration,
lets predict the appearance of the inanimate matter. The
history continues with the
appearance of the animated matter which represents the vegetable
world. Nothing, in the inanimate
matter, lets predict the appearance of the animated matter.
Emerges the animal life. Nothing, in
the animated matter, lets predict the appearance of the
life. Finally appears the
conscience, related to the development of the brain of hominids.
Nothing, in the alive forms, lets
predict the appearance of the thought. Each one of these
stages is a miracle, not with the
religious direction of the term, but in what it seems
unexplainable on the basis of
preceding stage, though each one is necessary to the complex
development which represents the
thought. The miracle term seems to me to be the least bad
to qualify these stages. But why
stop in so good a path? Why the complexification to be it
would stop it with the conscience.
Why the conscience constitute wouldn’t itself a stage in the
universal history to be it? My
question is thus: which could be the form to be complex which
follows the stage of the conscience?
In the logic of this reasoning, it should be admitted that
nothing, in the conscience, can
predict what will be more complex only it, even if it develops
in it. But can we be satisfied with this
answer? In addition, can one reject the assumption
according to which this form to be
higher than the conscience already started the process of its
evolution?
BE ? CONSCIOUSNESS ?
A significant question emerges at
the end of this reasoning: does the conscience constitute a
form to be? The answer to this
question conditions the interest of the preceding chapter. What
does one intend by " form to be
"? A form of existence. Here is a beautiful petition of
principle, a beautiful definition of
the word by the word itself. But can it be different? To
define a form to be as what is
perceptible by one of the five directions seems too restrictive. If
the conscience is not sensitive, it
can exert an influence on the sensitive world through the
acts of the individual or the
company. It seems that to define a form to be as " what can be
distinguished " that is to say
the good solution. Any individual significant form is
distinguished from all other
significant form, even if it can exist a very large resemblance
between them. Moreover, two forms to
be can resemble each other only because they are
different. A thought is
distinguished from another thought and a form to be sensitive. And in
the case extreme, if it exists alone
in the world, the thought differs from nothing. In the final
analysis, a form to be, sensitive or
intangible, can be defined as what differs from nothing. Let
us consider the following sentence:
" the ghosts exist ". One can doubt the existence of ghosts
reasonably, but one cannot question
the existence of thought according to which ghosts exist.
This thought, therefore absurd can
it appear, and it is knowingly that I chose this ambiguous
example, was not formulated less by
it, in my spirit initially, on this sheet then. Conclusion,
the conscience is a form to be, of
quality different from the significant forms, but a form to be.
The question of knowing which could
be the form to be more complex than the conscience
thus seems to make sense.
narcissistic wounds
NARCISSISTIC WOUNDS
One can read again the Fabulous
History under another angle, the angle of the narcissistic
wounds inflicted with humanity.
Narcissus is this character of the Greek mythology which did
not cease being admired. He was for
itself the center of the world. Freud was going to show
that humanity suffered in its
history from the same defect. The first of the narcissistic wounds
was inflicted with humanity by
Nicolas Copernicus.
In its De Revolutionibus Orbium
Coelestium, it proved with the 16th century that the Earth
and the other planets then known
turn around the sun and that it is not the sun which turns
around the Earth. It had to be
admitted with him that the Earth is not the center of the
universe. Retrospectively, one
wonders for which reason it would have had this privileged
place. But the astronomers, like
everyone, trusted what they saw; and what they saw, was a
brilliant star to make it around the
Earth in twenty-four hours. The second narcissistic wound
was inflicted with humanity by
Darwin with the 19th century. It is with him that the concept
of evolution of the species,
including mankind, took all its direction. Biblical teachings made
man a separate build of a part by
God; the man starting from clay, the woman starting from a
rib of the man. If few cultivated
people took this teaching to the letter, everyone agreed to
recognize the exceptional character
of the human race, distinct from the animal world. Darwin
forced us to admit that we were the
cousins of the monkeys and that we descend all, men,
animals and insects, of a form of
microscopic primitive life, and especially that the evolution
towards increasingly complex forms
of life swallowed hundreds of million years. Us here, far
from the seven days of biblical
creation. Humanity loses its privileged place on Earth. It is the
fruit of an evolution among much of
others. The third narcissistic wound was inflicted with
humanity by the creator of the
expression which is used as discussion thread with this chapter,
Freud, with the 19th century still.
Freud revealed with the man the existence of the
unconscious one. Extremely of his
intelligence, the man dominated the world without
realizing that it itself was
dominated by impulses of all kinds. Not only the man had lost his
privileged place in the universe, then
on Earth, but it still lost the privilege to be the Master of
itself. But it is not all. Perhaps
it is necessary to inflict a fourth wound with humanity. This
time, it is a question of putting at
evil another obviousness, that which consists in believing
that the conscience represents the
form to be most complex which is possible. We note all
which the conscience is the form to
be most complex that we can observe, just like we must
still do everything an effort to say
to us that it is not the sun which turns around the Earth, that
man is not a species with share, or
which we are not able to have a perfect command of us.
Certain men of science defend even
the idea that all the evolution of the universe tends
towards the realization of man and
his conscience. It is what they call the principle "
“anthropic” ". In its hardest
version, the principle “anthropic”, known as " extremely ", shift
the traditional scientific step.
" It is not any more the conjunction of a whole of given
properties which allowed the
emergence of the life, it is the existence of observers which
imposed on the universe its
characteristics ". (Jacques Demaret) This principle represents a
beautiful illustration of the
narcissism which characterizes humanity, even if it is based on the
observation on the remarkable side
of the value of the parameters which intervene in the
operation of the laws of the
universe. But after all, these parameters are determined by man
himself and in the light of the
wounds inflicted by our large predecessors in their company of
demystification of our convictions,
it is necessary for us to recognize the simplistic side of
such a vision of things and it is
even necessary to realize that if his logic is admitted, the
principle “anthropic” itself pushes
us to pose the following question: why the evolution of
complexity in the universe would
stop with the conscience? Lastly, one cannot conclude this
chapter without referring to the
ideas of the Father Teilhard de Chardin, and more particularly
with his assumption of the "
Point Omega ".
THE BEYOND
The question which arises then is
the following one: which could be this form to be more
complex than the conscience?
Copernicus, Darwin and Freud have advanced evidence of their
convictions. Even if the majority among
us never checks that the Earth turns well around the
sun, or will be able to obstinately
refuse to admit that he is the cousin of the monkey and that
he is influenced by his unconscious,
he remains that concrete facts can convince us. But is
that possible on the assumption that
we formulate? Can one find a fact objective which
convinces us of the existence of a
form to be more complex than the conscience? Let us
review some suggestions made by
interlocutors attentive with this assumption. Some suggest
that this form to be could be
unconscious itself. However the unconscious one is only the
complement of the conscience; it
does not present a degree of complexity higher than the
conscience: the conscience
discovered the existence of the unconscious one, but the
unconscious one does know the
conscience? But especially, the existence of unconscious does
not present a character more
exceptional than the conscience, which is a condition of the
existence of the form of being more
complex than the conscience. On the impetus of this
argument, their holding affirm that
the conscience of the need for a qualitative jump of the
conscience to an entity
indeterminable, distorts the reasoning and mortgages its validity,
because it removes part of its
mystery to the assumption. With that I will answer that one of
the characteristics of the
conscience is its capacity to put forth assumptions. He to reproach
this character would be to denature
it. In addition, this character does not help us to conceive
the form of the entity which would
be higher to him. Perhaps is even induced it in error while
being focused on the concept of
entity. Perhaps any word is useless and distorts the problem.
Perhaps the reason and the language
which translates it are only illusions, and with them the
observation of an evolution of the
universe towards a greater complexity. If one pushes the
doubt in his ends, plus any question
nor observation do not make sense. Others suggest that
this form to be higher than the
conscience would gather the universe of the paranormals
phenomena. In addition to this
suggestion is very vague, because what a paranormal
phenomenon , it fishes by simplicity
and lack of spectacular. That can appear paradoxical, but
the paranormals phenomena, like
telekinesis (the actuation of objects by the thought),
telepathy, the phantoms, the
poltergeists, etc, present a character well less singular than the
existence of most negligible of the
particles. It is remarkable besides to note that the majority
of men are fascinated by such
phenomena and considers with a disillusioned mind the fact
that they exist and that they are a
aware, which is infinitely more spectacular than the voices
of in addition to-fall or the gifts
from premonition. Conversely, these same people will be able
to wonder then with common sense why
the minority of the skeptics tests so many sorrows to
accept the reality of the
paranormals phenomena. It is an excellent question to which it is very
difficult to answer. Pascal had
drawn argument from it to justify his belief in the resurrection
of Christ, wondering what it is most
difficult to believe, " which something which never was
either, or that something which
already was, or again ". And yet, such ideas shock our reason.
Perhaps because we are aware that
the life and the conscience are the fruit of a long process of
complexification of the matter, and
that a phenomenon as complex as the life cannot emerge
in an instantaneous way. However the
majority of the paranormals phenomena like telekinesis
or telepathy, utilize "
instantaneous " actions. It is besides what enables us to distinguish our
assumption from a form to be more
complex than the conscience, existence of paranormals
phenomena. This form to be must be
the fruit of an evolution, of a " process " of
complexification, even if it must
occur at a time given a kind of timeless qualitative jump
(instantaneous). For this reason the
assumption of its existence can appear more plausible to
us than that of the phantoms, for
example. At all events, it seems that the paranormals
phenomena are too simple to
represent a form to be more complex than the conscience. Other
people suggest that this form to be
is held in beyond. Very interesting proposal, but what
means the expression " beyond
"? Force is to us to admit that it does not have much direction.
From a space point of view, the
beyond indicates what is located other side of the horizon or a
border. But nothing prevents from
conceiving the possibility of exceeding this border. It is
only one question of times and
average techniques. An alternative of the concept of beyond
space is the assumption of the
" parallel universes ". It is used as spectacular illustration in
quantum physics, where it makes it
possible to justify the coexistence of solutions in what one
calls the process of reduction of
the package of waves. In other words, it supports the idea
according to which the equation of
Schrödinger (see chapter " 1 = 0 ") admits several solution
simultaneous. Unfortunately, this assumption
does not satisfy the expensive principle of
economy to science. The beyond more
often indicates in the spirit of people a higher
dimension. We evolve/move in a
space-time of three space dimensions and a temporal
dimension. This beyond for example
would make up of a space-time space with 4
spatial.dimensions and with a
temporal dimension. What would mean such a space-time? We
do not know anything of it. Not only
we are unaware if it is possible, but we do not have any
idea of what would represent a life
in this beyond, if the life is possible there. But if this
space-time exists, it seems that he
is not the fruit of an evolution. Our own space-time is
simultaneous with the form to be
simplest, i.e. it appears at the same time as the matter
because it is the matter which
constitutes it. It is not the fruit of an evolution, it " is " the
evolution. To say the things such as
they are, we are already in beyond. This miracle that
constitute it to be and the thought
is the beyond which we have tendency to project naively in
a higher dimension. We must even go
further. Since the conscience represents the shape to be
most complex of the universe in our
eyes, since this conscience is part of the universe, since it
constitutes it also the universe as
well as stars and the life, it should be recognized that " we
are beyond "! But of what are
we beyond? Absolute vacuum. Which can-to be the least
unsatisfactory image of the form to
be more complex than the conscience? The infinite one.
Why the infinite one? Because the
concept of infinite is most disconcerting that we can
imagine. It appears the absence of
very limiting, space or temporal, it gives the giddiness by
its depth which resembles the
vacuum, to nothing. Thus, the scientific formalism must
unceasingly endeavor to control the
infinite solutions which undermine the solutions of the
equations. A progress is
accomplished when is controlled one of these solutions, but it is for
at once seeing emerging the infinite
one in a new form. But in the light of the conclusion of
our fabulous history, it should not
be possible for us to conceive what could be the form to be
more complex than the conscience.
However, even if we do not manage to really control it,
otherwise than by denying it, we can
conceive the infinite one. It is a concept which must thus
be still too simple or too obvious
to answer our waiting. It remains to approach a possible
significance of the term "
beyond ": it is that of beyond in time. Beyond in time, it is the
future, the past being it in-on this
side. Time did not await the conscience to appear, it was
satisfied with the appearance of the
form to be most elementary. The conscience allows only
time to become aware of itself. What
it is a question of finding, it is precisely the form to be
complex which will give to this
beyond temporal dimension higher than the conscience. We
give each other the illusion of
possible discovered of this form to be for the only pleasure of
search. Because it should be
recognized that if the form to be more complex than the
conscience exists or will exist, it
can or will be able raise the question to know which could be
the form to be which is more complex
than it, and so on... ad infinitum. Giddiness!
GOD
Impossible to conclude this article
without evoking another possibility: God. God would be
this form to be higher than the
conscience. The disadvantage of the proposal, it is that God
must be from time immemorial. It
thus precedes the conscience in time. God is thus the
manifestation of infinite, temporal
like space. But is this really a disadvantage? Is not there
this a character qualitatively
higher than that of the conscience and all that precedes it. God
represents the going beyond of
causal logic, a form of irrationnality which makes the junction
with the first times of the
evolution, which would result from the vacuum or the infinite one.
It is at the bottom the assumption
of Teilhard de Chardin according to which the universe
must converge at the end of the
evolution towards the point " omega ", God. But the true
disadvantage doesn’t it come owing
to the fact that we can put forth this assumption? Isn’t this
assumption yet too rational? Isn’t
it naive to reduce what is completely irrational with the
logic of an evolution? Let us go
further: of which right can we qualify an entity of "
completely " irrational? At the
bottom, that this entity that we call God is completely
irrational or not, it is not q’
another way of saying " form to be higher than the conscience ". It
advances us of nothing in our search.
On the contrary, it seems that it
makes only confirm that this search is useless. The answer of
which we must be satisfied is the
following one: why the evolution of complexity in the
universe stop would with the conscience?
As for the eternity of this evolution, here another
question: if the evolution had a
beginning, why wouldn’t it have an end? But then, why the
conscience represent wouldn’t the
form to be most complex possible in the universe? The
argument which enables us to escape
from the difficulty is the following: we observe the
evolution, it is a concrete fact, on
the other hand we can only put forth the assumption of a
beginning of this evolution. But to
distinguish empiricism and logic radically is perhaps too
easy. We are not satisfied to
observe the evolution, we draw some from the logical arguments.
The evolution is " a logic
". At the bottom, perhaps the conscience represents it the result of
the evolution of the matter; perhaps
is form to be the most complex possible. But this
assumption does not remove anything
with the force following question: why thus the
conscience represent would the form
to be most complex possible? quasi-certainty by the
absurdity It is possible to
determine by defect some characteristics of the possible form to be
more complex than the conscience. In
the evolution of the absolute vacuum until the
conscience, the size and the volume
of the forms to be increased. Admittedly the brain of the
man is not the largest thing in the
universe, but it is bulkier than the least of its components:
atoms,
molecules, cells. If it must
rest on a material form, one can imagine that the form to be
more complex than the conscience
will have as a support a thing bulkier than the brain. It is a
conclusion to which brings us also
the systemic analysis. The systemic analysis studies the
operating mode of the forms to be
complex like the cell, the organization, the company.
However precisely, it seems that the
interconnection of the consciences can be used as a basis
for the appearance and the
expression of the form to be higher than the conscience, just like a
complex molecule rests on the
combination of simple molecules, the organization on the
combination of complex molecules...
With less than each individual brain is not the center of
production of more complex molecules
yet than the neurons and than the continuation of the
evolution towards more complexity
does not require an agglomeration of the consciences.
Another quasi-obviousness is the
immateriality of the form to be more complex than the
conscience. If the conscience rests
on the neuronal matter, it is intangible. It seems logical that
it is the same for the fruit of the
next stage in the process of complexification of the universe.
In all logic, it seems that the
conscience, though intangible, must be used as support with the
miraculous jump which will see
emerging the form to be more complex than itself. The
apparently absurd character of such
an assumption does not make that to consolidate it since it
indicates the pit between to us what
we think and what could occur. It seems that one cannot
advance more in the conjectures. Our
only hope to see confirming our assumption, it is to
receive a sign or a message of the
form to be more complex than the conscience. But are we
able to include/understand it, or to
even receive it?
BRAIN AND PHYSICS
The brain is the most complex form
to be currently known. It would undoubtedly be
interesting to study the quantum
world in the brain, to compare the behavior of its atoms with
that of the inanimate matter and to
raise of possible differences. With each stage of the
fabulous history, an instability, an
innovation occurs and is stabilized: a selection is operated
in the multiplicity of possibilities.
The memory makes it possible to keep what is worth the
sorrow of it. Any form to be
(persistent) is a memory.
(rough copy of loose ideas)
Time Travel, Logic and
Speculation
(Noesis)
Time
Travel, Logic and Speculation II
(COJ)