Base: Giordano Bruno GB, selected and introduced
by
Elisabeth von Samsonow into "Philosophy Now!" returned by Peter
Sloterdijk, Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-423-30690-4
"About the infinity, the universe and the
worlds"
(My
antitheses are
coloredly removed). Nonsense is
respectively:
GB: The lines (geodetic lines) of the universe
would be
straightly lined up into the metric infinity. The universal lines are curved to
themselves so that the
universe forms a closed ball as a black hole.
GB: There wouldn't be any area outside the
universe. The
area outside the universe cannot be
discovered with our experimental means since our coordinate system is
closed
into itself.
GB: The limitation of the senses would be the
reason of the
impossibility to be able to aware the infinity. One cannot be aware of some. One
nevertheless makes use
of a kind of drawing with that the imagination is completed - these are the highly
imaginative
buildings of the mathematics!
GB: Bruno concludes then, if no matter of our
understanding
was outside the world, there should be nothing and this nothing should
be treated
as an object of the philosophical absurdity. Other empires lie there which obey
other laws.
GB: Aristotle already was ahead of
Einstein’s ideas by
the fact that he saw the curved world closed into itself. Bruno doubted
this
when he made the mistake that he wants to use just his senses for this
decision.
A world closed into itself is a
black hole. Every movement leads to a curvature. The metric longest
curvature in
the form of the bend of 17.6 billion light years completes the
universe. One
simply cannot see this! One cannot measure this. One must take this
from the
complex world model which head solutions are approximately correct.
GB: In evaluation of Aristotle to Bruno, our world
would be
in the nothingness. If one cannot
describe the outside world legally and physically from the inner world,
then it
is not such a matter like ours of the residents of this world. However,
no
matter is simply "nothing" - nothing that we know here, nothing which
happens here. But something else as this what we know here, other
events, as our
laws allow! Therefore the primitively prudent trifle even is a little and
namely
something else anyway!
GB: Bruno cannot separate the spaces since he is
missing
the fourth dimension in his knowledge. Therefore he thinks to mean that
the
space were infinite to itself like the universe. And in this universe
space,
there would be infinitely many worlds, with
„worlds“ he will have meant our
earth world well. For Bruno it is
inconceivable that a space could be limited completely and that it
could be able
to separate itself from other spaces of other laws by the compactness
of its
coordinate system completely, through
what it would finally become finite.
GB: Bruno thinks, this universe would be perfect by
the
fact that the things of the universe would be perfect.
This is wrong. All things in the universe are incomplete and
transitory because they consist of the stable particles by combinations of
them.
Just the four stable elementary corpuscles as well as the universe
corpuscle are
perfect, because they are absolutely stable, when we don’t
know if they even
wouldn’t get support by the outside for stability has to seem
as such a
feature and has to be conserved.
GB: Bruno equates the putative trifle with the
emptiness
and no location. This is then the statement problem of a finite
universe which
would be nowhere. What but prevents
us from explaining that behind our universe in a different kind, there is a world
feature which
construction we cannot explain by the laws of our manner of the
world. With
our imagination, nobody impedes us to think God would hold the world in
his hand.
Is the ignorance better than imagination? Ignorance is a hole! Do we
have to ignore
God and his outside so that we more simply can concentrate us to the
inside?
No, we haven't. The people want to philosophize about things that they will never
prove
because they lie at the outside. Others will see that they cannot
explain this
outside. They will refer to their inside. And they can assume or ignore
the
existence of the outside. This has no influence on the outside. It is a
purely
human property to believe in something or not. May we actually forbid
faiths und
ignore faiths? Doesn't every invention begin with faiths? Doesn't
everyone
believes in himself without any experimental certainty? Faith is
ubiquitous as a
condition which isn't religious anyway. Religious faith is only a
special
condition of faith. The whole inner truth in a head depends on faith
conditions
for the most part.
GB: Bruno
told his ideas in the shape of PHILOTHEO, the universe
would
be „altogether infinite, because it had neither edge nor
limit still surface. Absolute mistake! By the fact that the
universe is a black hole, it has a radius, a size, a surface and a
limit as well
as an edge, too. An earthly man knows that he cannot overcome the
extremely big
strength at about ten high fourty Newton (10e40 N) to go out of the edge, the limit or
the
surface with his spaceship, though! From this the question surrenders
for me:
With the knowledge of the Einstein's space curvature, how can today's
scientists
still follow Bruno’s fantastic ideas which do not correspond
to any
scientific clues anymore because, at that time, they couldn't follow
them?
GB: He then says, the universe would
„not“ be „all-embracingly
infinite, because every part we can take from it ...is finite." This is
the cardinal error, which all the
scientists have run behind to this day uncritically. If the universe
was
metrically infinite (because the talk is of edge, limit and surface),
then every
any old inner size would be infinite since you define mathematically:
An
infinite number divided by any number is equal infinite! The
philosophical
thought of Bruno is absolutely erroneously and intolerably shared by in
this
point.
GB: Bruno regards the universal causality as
infinite. But
inside the inferred universe, the
finite number of all things is practically a condition of the fact
that the
causality must refer to the finite things that it has no liberty for
something
resulted, but it
has the compulsion
to be able to arise something willed by God. This kind of included
causality is
a program like in a computer. Only arbitrariness can use the program so
that it
opens the causality into the future following coincidental changes.
However, who
can make arbitrariness in an inferred program if not one internal
nature that
got programmed this ability? If there wasn't the nature of the
arbitrariness,
the program would go off from start to end and the repetitions at once
eternally.
Bruno couldn't know that the world oscillates and goes off in
repetitions with
that. Only living nature - particularly mankind - whose reflection
ability
produces the arbitrariness is able to change the program and to
influence the
causality in the smallest measure. The world however doesn't consist of
causality but of networks
and discontinuities.
The networking of the
finite leads to the sluggishness effect. Every change of the networking
has its
influence on the whole net for welfare. This however doesn't consist of
extremely little bodies but of hierarchical structures which stock
cannot be
changed by the change of a minimal size. Well: it is insignificant in
the
parable, whether the macro bodies' man has eaten a blueberry or a
strawberry.
This doesn't change him lastingly. The transition of cosmos to cosmos
goes
discontinuously because the coordinate system doesn't follow from
everything
continuously. Only the primary has an all-embracing coordinate system
in the
hierarchy. The elementary, e.g. the proton inside, at its inside, has a
closed
coordinate system of its own, otherwise it wouldn't be apparently
eternally
stable like also the electron particle. We shake a bag full of protons
and
electrons, then in its inside no single particle changes lastingly so
that it
would change into other particles or unstable particles! Even then, if
one
destabilizes a proton by nuclear processes, it decays back into itself and
into
that energy again.
Bruno
has
understood the movements of the stars as rotation systems correctly.
Perhaps he
must dramatize, but to explain the universe as infinite, otherwise he
would have
been able to list no reasons to take the center away from our earth
world.
Bruno
also
correctly understood changing the things, like the life makes it.
Definitely my
protocosms discovery confirms the principle of the universal life.
These
transformations however aren't infinite and not inexhaustible.
Living
in a finite
universe sphere, I also can notice that the information cannot be able
to desert
this body. Consequently, it has to revolve or to circulate in it in the
form of
light and strengths. Therefore the same laws are valid everywhere and
we see the
development which follows these laws everywhere. However, we don't see
the same
everywhere! A gigantic rest of the Small Bang lies in the
center
of the universe. The cold gasses of the homogeneous Small Bang are
stored on him.
Above this center, the first larger collections of matter as stars and small
galaxies
each are located in homogeneous form almost narrowly. Above this
state, the
space is
more stretched before bigger galaxies are taken up in still larger
distances of
each other. This streching, present science means to explain as
"inflation". But this is a mistaken understanding. The real inflation is a
picture of an installation. It is not a reflection of a dynamic action.
Above this central area, the galaxies form systems in the
shape of
galaxy clusters which distances become larger and larger, the
more they
came next to the edge of the universe or the more
they may leave the
universe
center. The edge of the universe is an area which is held together by
the
gravitation of all the internal masses of gravitation and electrition and which forces these masses that they
cannot
fly out from a precalculated surface while their movement. The orbits
of the
masses have to turn around. Only their radiations, their energies can
be moved
once again beyond this edge except for the double of the edge radius.
There the
radiations curve to the turning back as the inner radiations also turn
around.
Returning radiations burn back the objects living there in the meantime
into
black-white holes BWH (which are PKs) which fall on curved orbits to the center of the universe
then.
After and after all these protocosms fall back to the center with
almost light
speed where the first and last divergent shpere waits to become united with
all the
other protocosms and to be contracted. After its contraction to its minimum,
the primary protocosm
expands and ejects the Small Bang (innumerable miniature protocosms,
which cause
the condition of the homogeneity and which give the appearance of the
"big bang") and some further primary protocosms.
On the surface of the first homogeneous cloud the other protocosms are flying
guided by the
radiation of
the Small Bang forming the so called and observed "inflation" of the universe now.
Everything
of this,
Bruno could not know and not include, why his wild philosophizing
mostly leaves
the impression that he simply didn't come on because he was missing the
facts of
future. The greatest portion of his representations in this respect is
simply
wrong.
ARCUS on February
15th, 2005, correcting 2021
|