Jesus and Christ

Here I'd like to touch on another system of our worldview. I'll start with this Mr. Higgs. He once sent his paper to a British university for analysis. It doesn't even matter which one. I'm not going to be meticulous about the names of the institutions and the names of the scientists involved. The point is this. His hypothesis, i.e. the paper, was rejected. He sent it to another institution, in the United States. And what do you think? They agree with him there – and in the end it turns out that such a calculation, although also an assumption, has already been done. That is, such work had already been done. But it was supported. And the most interesting thing is that the one who accepted, who approved his discovery (albeit in the form of a scientifically based assumption), was one of the authors of the same assumption. That is, he was not the sole author. And such a parallel is found everywhere, whether in science or in religious dogma. If you think that Christ was original and substantiated his doctrine alone, then I hasten to disappoint you (but I am almost sure, since you are reading my version of events, you are not of the category that will be disappointed). Later on in the text of the book you will often be convinced how everyone amicably adopts each other's knowledge, methods, teachings and works and passes them off as their own, and not only do not bother to mention from whom they borrowed them, but also try to obliviate (and sometimes even worse) the original author. To put it mildly, they plagiarize. It was peculiar to everyone. We can remember Faraday, Newton, and Galileo; Darwin made primates our ancestors, but he was not original in his idea either. Shakespeare and Dumas are also in this line. And Einstein can get a Nobel for plagiarism. He was not even ashamed to say that he forgot (imagine – forgot) to mention in his works the works of Poincaré, which he used. Some of them he remembered in passing. However, few people know (I don't know if Einstein was aware) of someone like Madame Emilie du Châtelet, who was the first person in history to clarify the concept of energy and quantify its relationship to mass and velocity. I am not going to belittle anyone's merits, but I am not going to repeat them like a mantra, i.e. create an idol for myself – religious, political or scientific. Certainly not of Einstein (which many people do, and by this, as I believe, belittle the works of more prominent scientists). Many people even think he was given the Nobel for his theory of relativity (by the way, Poincaré's paper a few years before Einstein's paper was published was called that), but he got it for the third law of the photoelectric effect. Interestingly, no one got the Nobel for the first two. I am not sorry (let's joke a little, this is fiction after all), but, as the ancients said… the truth is more expensive. After all, what is so outstanding and new in Christ's Sermon on the Mount or in the Ten Commandments (by the way, Jesus has six of them, the seventh can be counted as "go sell your property and follow me", but many of us know only "do not kill", "do not steal", well, and maybe "do not commit adultery")? No big deal, that's the kind of thing a follower of any religion, every well-bred decent parent, should instill in their children. But why do we make such things a cult? And this is a virtual talisman, which we easily understand, frankly and willingly accept; it does not require diverse ambiguous interpretations. It is the same in our understanding of science. Why is it that few people remember Einstein on the third law of the photoelectric effect, but most people consider him brilliant on the theory of relativity? And because at the primary level, despite its obfuscation, the theory of relativity is as simple as God's day. But if you start to bring counterarguments or ask uncomfortable questions to experts that in the field of theology, that in the field of science, you will get such a contradictory formulation, which will not only confuse you more, but also make it clear that these experts themselves do not have answers to these questions. For example, if it comes to theology: who did the son of Adam and Eve marry, if they were the first humans? Or: how did Jesus conceive himself, kill himself, and resurrect himself, being all the time in the whole universe (yes, you can also ask who Jesus addressed while on the cross, but… sorry)? Now I will apologize again and throw a stone again at Einstein. Why him? Because his theory, which is not really his, plays the same role for individuals who adhere to a scientific worldview as religious doctrines, particularly Christianity, do for those who believe in them. Agreed, if religious doctrines were unambiguous, there would not be such a huge branching of denominations and sects. And the theories that we know in Albert's name have been described many times, in different interpretations. But, being serious dogmas in science, their determiners (these scientists) did not dare to reason about their fidelity. There was something that didn't add up. And, in order to at least somehow even out this incoherence, they attached to the famous formula such a concept as ether. This aether was supposed to fill everything around it, including space. But in this case, there were other fundamental contradictions. Einstein, however, working in the patent office, having access to all the materials and works of scientists, realized that everyone has almost the same problem. So he took that ether and threw it away. But, alas, it was politely hinted to him: it's all already substantiated, it doesn't add up. Then he takes and adds to his theory a certain free quantity, the cosmological constant, which seems to lead to a decent form. But they say to him again, "Dear, are you even friends with math?" By the way, he had almost no mathematical calculations, and those that were, attributed to his wife Mileva, which indirectly proves this fact: after his divorce from her, he did not come up with anything outstanding. Then Albert admits, "That was my biggest mistake." Here I must explain, this is fiction after all: his theories themselves (if we recognize them for him) conflict in some places with each other and with quantum mechanics in general. Simply put, the general theory of relativity, the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other! The special theory of relativity considers only one special case (hence the name) when the motion is straight and uniform. If a material body accelerates or turns to the side, the laws of STO do not apply. Then the general theory of relativity (GTR) comes into force, which explains the motion of material bodies in the general case. Quantum (wave) mechanics is a fundamental physical theory that describes nature on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. I will only add that these theories would not have been developed and substantiated by a multitude of scientists if they were completely profane, so they work at some level. But at others, they completely break the entire scientific mechanism. Einstein eventually stopped fighting it, because, all the time trying to bring it all to a godly form (to put it this way), received only looks of regret in his address and even laughter. And to somehow adjust them, the scientific people, already after Einstein's scientific activity, returned this cosmological constant, having changed it a little bit, though. As you may have guessed, in the end someone again poked someone's nose into mathematical calculations, saying, what are you talking about! Then… and here – attention! – associative allegory with religious doctrines, which also interpret everything to their liking: this scientific people take and add something unknown. Namely, the property of space. Here the laughter of opponents is replaced by obvious dissatisfaction: that is, they again poke fantasists in the prosaic mathematical truths. But what do the holy fathers of science – they add one more property of space-time and in spirit of theologians declare misunderstanding ignoramuses. Here it becomes not to laugh, because the part of scientific community inclined to strict empiricism feels anger and again pokes these wizards in the nonsense of metaphysics created by them. And what do you think those singing odes to the great combinator? I hope you guessed it, yes, yes, yes… they string together additional properties of space time after time. And now, euphoria! – So tell me, how many dimensions of space do we know, see, feel? It's length, width and height. All right, one of these dimensions we will partly, precisely partly, begin to define as depth. Okay, let's agree on some other dimension, like… make it up yourself. I don't know what to invent that it can't be expressed by these three quantities. However, however… anything and everything can be imagined, much less interpreted. So, at this moment, in order to equalize this shaky building of the universe, based on these contradictory theories, the scientific community has already put twenty-two "supports", so that it does not collapse to the ground. That is, now we live in 22-dimensional space. And I will tell you frankly, just take it and do not believe in the reality of the whole story I have told you. I'll anathematize you and brand you as ignoramuses and ignoramuses! I'm kidding, of course, but the bonzes of the "divine sciences" would do that to you.

But let us look at ourselves from the outside, namely, at such a quality of ours as the love and worship of idols. That is, we not only create them ourselves – we cannot live without them. This is a certain feeling, which at the level of primary reflexes is fixed in all living things (perhaps this is my personal opinion about everything, but… all living things are born). All living things emerge from a place where it develops comfortably, where it is in defense from the outside world it then enters. That is why there are deeply subconscious feelings (if this concept can be called so, although I don't think we have found a definition for it yet), which even on a psychological level require a kind of defense system. Here is one of the main definitions of this system in our human understanding – God and everything connected with him. We subconsciously need, for our own survival and development, someone to protect us, to educate us, and, of course, to give birth to us (in the sense of species – intellectual beings) should be the one who is better than us. That is why we perceive Darwinism on the same psychological level with such antagonism.

And I will tell you frankly – in this whole system there is not only brazen plagiarism, but also circular bail. And a circle of vouchsafes is an organization. In these cases, an organization with a purpose. Since this organization needs such idols, to whom the society should be equal, the goal is the same as – management of this society.

Now the question is, do you believe in other worlds? Worlds like ours in the vast expanse of the universe? I don't know your answer (yet), but here is the next question : do you believe in God? According to Gallup International/WIN, 62% of respondents worldwide consider themselves religious, while a quarter (25%) consider themselves non-religious and 9% of respondents called themselves atheists. I will only note that the non-religious believe in God, but do not consider it necessary to fulfill religious dogmas and rituals for this purpose. The majority of atheists try to prove the absence of God, proving their belief in the existence of something similar. Total – from 87 to 96% in the projection of 10 years (from 2015 to 2025). Based on this data, you are most likely a believer. Which means you believe in religious interpretations of God's or gods' descriptions of the world. Accordingly, you believe in other worlds, such as those worlds that scripture speaks of as having fallen away after the so-called fall of Adam and Eve. There you see how simple and complex it is at the same time. Either you believe the scriptures, respectively, in other worlds, or it's schizophrenia. Well, how about that? Well, I believe in the existence of other worlds, by the logic of the infinity of time and space, more than the statement about them in any religious literature. And the whole system of my narrative is built on that – on faith!

And now let us ask: if God created man in his own image and likeness, did he also create the inhabitants of other worlds in his own image and likeness? At the same time, let us note that God, as a concept, may not necessarily be a human-like being, – he may well be a concept of another kind, that is, as a system, which Newton, for example, accepted as "Almighty" and… justified the law of universal gravitation. That is, it can be some universal rule of origin and development of living and – most importantly – intellectual beings. And on the basis of this, I am almost sure that all worlds are very similar, including their inhabitants. Agree, if aliens came to us, which would be very identical, the diversity of people of our planet for them would be a grandiose difference of species. So when I say "very much the same", I mean identical, but not copies of us and each other. Here, for example (following the theme of the book), the original Christian sects and the first church envisioned subsequent identical cloning of the like. But who knew at the very beginning of the birth of Christianity how many churches there would be and in how many countries? They did not even know how many continents and parts of the world where they are now represented in large numbers. And now you can ask a specialist, a guide, a pilgrim or a traveler to places of religious worship – what is the difference between one church and another? He would, of course, tell you about many differences, but the basic essence would be the same. Similarly with worlds: no matter how different they are, they are all subject to the same laws of physics, so they are very similar. After all, we are not surprised that almost all living beings have the same organs, especially internal organs.

***

Reason is only reason when it realizes its search for the reasonableness of the universe in which it exists – it searches for the meaning of this universe and the reason for its existence. It can be in any form, not necessarily in human form. Mind is the universal form of understanding the universe in terms of its self-determination. The mind understands the world as it considers its form to be the most acceptable for itself. That is why there are so many different worldviews. Religious teachings are both the pinnacle of sense understanding of being and the beginning of the beginnings of reasoning about its meaning. In the human form, reason has brought the world to the state that we have: in searching for the meaning of the universe, we search for the meaning of our existence; in searching for the meaning of our existence, we search for the meaning of the universe. This is the kind of energy generator that drives civilization. However, the meaning of civilization… its ultimate ц spel may not be the best for humanity at all, not even for it to be the meaning. Even more, humanity may not be in it (in the form we are used to) at all. Otherwise there would be no God. After all, according to human concepts of existence, the world is ruled not by man, but by something else. And if this something created man, it is certainly for some program. But it is not the fact that this program has no completion, but only intermediate goals, which, by the way, we periodically fail, judging by the prediction of the apocalypse. So, in the meaning of our existence, we want to define the meaning of the existence of all humanity, humanity as such, as the only unique substance of the cosmos, thinking and understanding the world around us, including the entire universe. For in order to understand the world around us, it is necessary, among other things, to understand ourselves and the whole universe, otherwise, without our place in the universe, it is impossible to understand our purpose, our role in the universe. Asking such questions, mankind and man himself found himself on the planet Earth; the Earth in the Solar System; the Sun in the Galaxy; and the Galaxy – in a series of other structures that make up the Universe. The search continues, for in order to understand the whole system, we must understand what is infinity. Having understood infinity, we will understand our final destination and place in this infinity – matter, time and space. But it is impossible to understand infinity with the mind (accustomed to operate with dimensional parameters). Our mind is accustomed (or at all adjusted) to operate with dimensional parameters, no matter how great or small they are, be it an attosecond (quintillionth of a second) or Brahma's life cycle (311 trillion 40 billion years), the value of an angstrom (10−10 m – approximate diameter of an electron orbit in an unexcited hydrogen atom) or the diameter of the Universe (about 93 billion light years; light travels 300 thousand kilometers per second). Whatever we imagine, no matter how immeasurable the distances of time and space, our mind puts this something into some form for our understanding of the imagined magnitude. And what magnitude we do not imagine – it is still the smallest for infinity. That is in fact infinity has no size, no center, no point of reference, that's why it is infinity.

To get a little closer to understanding it, imagine one second in the lifetime of our universe (about 14 billion years). It doesn't seem to mean much. Now imagine that it is the first second of the birth of our universe. Now imagine one second as the length of the lifetime of our universe, instead of those 14 billion years. Now imagine all the seconds that make up the life length of our universe as individual universes, that is, as many universes as there are seconds in 14 billion years (don't forget the diameter of one universe is about 93 billion light years). Now let's remember how a second is scientifically defined: an interval of time equal to 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two superfine levels of the ground state of a caesium-133 atom at rest at 0 degrees Kelvin. The beginning of the scale (0 Kelvin) coincides with absolute zero. Absolute zero temperature is the minimum temperature limit that a physical body in the universe can have. That is, cold cannot be reached below this value. On the Celsius scale, absolute zero corresponds to a temperature of -273.15 °C.

Now you're probably wondering why this is here. It's to give you some idea of what infinity is. So, let's continue the comparison: imagine now not how many seconds have passed since the beginning of the big bang (well, since this theory of the birth of the universe is the prevailing one), but how many of these periods of radiation of the cesium atom have occurred during this time. Now let's remember that we have conventionally visualized each second of the life of our universe as a separate universe. Can you visualize such a multitude? Yes? Then let's go further. Now imagine how many periods of radiation the cesium atoms in general had in all the seconds of life of these universes and how many of these periods all these atoms had. Now imagine that all this diversity is one second, and all these universes are one atom. Now imagine that this atom, which consists of the enormous number of universes described, is one atom out of the whole number of atoms that make up the matter in our universe. Now imagine a number equal to the number of atoms in all these universes. That number is somehow hard to even visualize, let alone imagine, isn't it? Now let's move on to time periods. Imagine the life of these universes, from the Big Bang to collapse, that is, compression, explosion and expansion, as one second (the time of years of the supposed life of our universe is 150 billion). Now imagine all the seconds that make up the lifetime of our universe as a succession of alternating times of existence of all these hypothetical universes we have presented, from explosion to collapse, that is, as a process in which in every second of the existence of our universe, as if this gigantic number of universes is born and dies. Imagine how this incredible number of universes, each with trillions of galaxies, with billions and trillions of stars, suddenly multiplied by 31,500,500 (the approximate number of seconds in a year) multiplied by 150 billion (the time of years of the supposed life of our universe)? Such a peculiar fireworks display in hyperspace and hypertime. Can you imagine it? And I'll tell you – it's the most minuscule fraction of time that can be determined at all. Why? Because for eternity, any greatest value of time is equal to the smallest, infinitesimal period of time. You will say, "What is the meaning of this unimaginable amount of time, matter, and space for us? And I will answer you: someday this quantity will pass away and will turn into the very smallest particles of time, distance and mass, which we took for comparison. That's what eternity is for. And it is the same in any direction of the plane – eternal time and space.

Now let's go into another story.

The earliest known mass extinction, the Ordovician-Silurian, killed 70% of all species. Then the Late Devonian extinction repeated those numbers. Then the Permian-Triassic event wiped out 96% of all species. The situation leveled off with a Triassic-Jurassic episode that killed somewhere between 70-75% (it was caused by a 5 million year volcanic eruption!!!). Finally the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction killed off 75% of all species, opening the way for dinosaurs to become museum pieces and humans to eventually rule the world. And why can't that happen again? It can, of course.

Now for another episode, world infinity.

Sixty years ago, to explain this paradox, Hugh Everett put forward a multiworld interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which all possible states are realized in nature, only in different universes. Each collapse of the wave function (as if the end of one process) myriad times a second gives birth to a new parallel reality, events in which develop in their own way. Together they form a densely branching "world of many worlds", a continuously unfolding multiverse.

***

Faith in man is strong after all. Intuitively, each of us feels the presence of God, but also doubts his existence. However, a person cannot allow his absolute absence not because he does not want to, no, but because he subconsciously hopes for protection. This, as they say, is absorbed by him with the milk of his mother. Indeed, even an embryo in an egg cannot survive without a protective layer. That is why the belief in salvation (as the basis of the instinct of self-preservation) was formed in living organisms as the basis of existence of these creatures. On a reflexive instinctive level, a living being realizes, even if it has no mind, that it lives only because there is something that makes it alive. And this can be either the shell of an egg, the womb of a mother, or the ozone layer. This certain "unconditional condition" for the existence of life is naturally formed in the universe, thanks to which the conditions for the origin of life are created. For example, it turns out that it is the area in the galaxy, which has not been left by our solar system for about 5 billion years, that created the conditions for the origin and development of life. This is the only place where the velocities of stars and spiral arms coincide – the so-called corotational circle. Life simply cannot appear and exist in any other way without this obligatory condition, the so-called "corridor of life". This is the code of life, the rule for the whole universe… just like the fact that with the emergence of intelligence, God appears. So the theory is simple: where there is intelligence – there is belief in the Creator; the whole hierarchy of gods. All intelligent civilizations, in any part of the infinity of space, follow the same path. And intelligence is a natural phenomenon, like the need for protection and some "unconditional condition" for the existence of life. We believe that someone must always save us, otherwise everything is meaningless, and already from this comes the understanding of the Creator. This also explains why we, having passed thousands of gods, have left the incorporeal ones as the personification of the Creator. Why would he save us if we are not his creation, if he is not like us? This is the logic that brings people to their knees; entrenches the dream of a magical paradise; rushes them into space; gives birth to the idea of other (including parallel) worlds; but also leads to revolutions and wars.