0. Why a letter to hardly existing God?
My dear God,
I may be an atheist and may not believe in existence of divine beings, but this is a matter of believing
, this proves nothing! So that don't be put astray by such simple arguments for nearly imbeciles because I am an intelligent being, and the question of You existence must not change the rules of politeness; besides, I am not questioning Your reasonable, even super-reasonable behaviour, I am questioning only Your existence as some substance or entity, so to say. So that I must have some reasons for writing to You, surely, and even if You are bound to know everything about everything, hence also this trifle of reasons for writing of one more letter, I will explain my intentions, because, well, let's say because of Your subordinates, they may not bother to pass this letter to Your Supremacy (although there are other reasons to which I am coming).
One may say that I am writing to You because I pose some very important questions to You, which can be of interest for everybody, so that You may show a wish to write some New Testament or the like where to answer these and many other questions, what is probable, this letter of mine can
be used in this way, yet You will quickly understand that this is not the real reason, because my questions are too philosophical, they are not such that a common worker or housewife or child will ask; these questions may be used as schedule for a meeting of some Executive Counsel of gods, if You have had such a thing, but I'm afraid that You haven't, You must be the sole master there. Or You can accept the letter as a kind of prayer or confession, or the like, what each believer can do sometimes, surely, yet I am not
a believer, as I said; and even if I will some day become a believer in You (or some other god) I will never begin to pray, this is too debasing for me, and also utterly undemocratic
. And also, as I hinted, I am un
commonly clever, so that the reason for this my letter has to be more twisted and original.
If so You may be inclined to think — if You have not known everything in advance, as I said, but, with Your permission, I will suppose here that this is not the case, that You are kind of my pal (and it may even happen that I will curse You sometimes, why not, it is so between pals), because otherwise I must just stay dumb as if hit by thunder and mumble something like "ah", "oh", "wow", etc., what has to be the reason for inventing of English word "worship" — so that You may come to the thought that I may just pretend that am writing a letter to You but, in fact, am speaking with myself, am trying to make some questions clear to me. In this case I may say that, well, You are a clever Guy, this is now near to the truth, because this is how it usually is, one begins to explain something to his collocutor in order to understand it alone
better, this is why the professors give lectures, to check one more time some professional truths, this is something extraordinary as reason, yes, but not enough for me. There has to be another more peculiar reason to write a letter to some highly placed authority, who usually does not bother about the applicant.
Now, let me give You some more information (my clever Pal), let me tell You that in my nearly 70 years I have written several times letters to high authorities, and they were answered, say, fifty-fifty, when were closed
, but as open they were never
answered! I have published here one such example, and I have one more under another pen-name (invented exactly because of not answering my letters), so that I came to the conclusion that if one writes an open letter to somebody, the latter never bothers to read is, unless this becomes well-known and he was forced to keep informed about the problem. Yeah, but under democratic circumstances I can do nothing else than to try to use this occasion to inform other people, bigger auditory, about some improper acting. So that my conclusion is that: open letters are not read by those to whom they are sent, but they are read
people, to whom they surely are not
In the present case this means that You, my dear (and of dubious existence) God, may exist or not, but the real readers of this my letter will be enormous masses of people all around the world (or Universe); You may or not answer me, but the people will think about what I have written, and for me this is even better
than if You have answered me (on some watermarked paper saying "Heavenly Office, His Majesty God Almighty, personally" or the like, and maybe perfumed with smell of young virgins, ah?). This phenomenon of reaching bigger auditory when writing open letters, but not from the part, to which the letter was sent, is explicable, because the concrete addressee is usually too busy to answer each letter, even those closed, and the people always like to poke their noses in other people's busyness, in order to find something scandalous or at least improper. Well, here I will not say scandalous things, but if people want to delude themselves (what they usually want) with something, let them expect this, though the tings that can be expected to be found here are rather philosophical, sometimes etymological, in all cases untraditional, requiring thoughts, sometimes cheeky, sometimes funny, and sometimes even in poetical form.
And here is what will be the plan of this essay. I will begin with some preliminary information about God, what this means in several languages, and why this is quite necessary notion even in the exact sciences, to say nothing about the life of common people. Then there will be posed a question to His Majesty God Almighty, why He has created the living matter, having in mind that it is so unpredictable and its behaviour is so chaotic. The next question to God will be about the used, so called, bottom-up method of creation, not like it is described in the Holy Scripture. Then comes the natural question, to what purpose is this, the whole life, the Creation. After what I will say bye-bye to my dear God in whom I don't believe (but use Him as unavoidable requirement for the existence of the matter), where I may turn to be not such real unbeliever as I have shown myself. After what, as Appendix, is added the traditional poetical piece, which is worth to be read as philosophical poetry, yet it was written specially for this essay. So that you just take your decision, dear readers, is it worth to continue to read me, or to quit (and go to have some refreshing sex for a while); have in mind, though, that this is not an entertainment reading, or if it is for some of you, then for profound thoughts, not to read and forget it.
1. What God means, and why we need Him?
Now, my dear God (together with the hidden behind Your back readers), let me tell You first why I don't believe in Your existence. In short, it is for logical
reasons, because You are and provide to us exactly this, what we want — purpose in life, obedience, conviction to do good things to the others, reward and retribution if not in this life then in some other, as well also fables and delusions, escapism from this life, such things —, and the life is, surely, indifferent to us, the humans are not center of the Universe, they are part
of it, and no part has the right to believe that it is the whole apparatus, especially if the latter is immensely complicated. That our religions are simply funny can be seen with the help of some ... substitutions, say, to substitute one god with another, or one organism with another (say, to suppose that instead of us are supposed the cockroaches, or amoebas, etc.), or simply by alternating them (say, on Mondays to visit catholic cathedrals, on Tuesdays mosques, on Wednesdays Buddhist's temples, etc.). What is obvious for me is that the religions are necessary
for at least 90 % of people, but to believe really in such fables can only small children, before their teens, and when they begin to see that there is not really Santa Claus, in the same way they are bound gradually to see that there is not exactly such God, like they were told. But, well, when we are still so silly to grasp that the gods have died and we have to invent new ones then let it be so: I am enlightened, and the predominantly number of people are just "grey" mass.
More interesting are the names of God, where exactly this word is obviously related with the good (things), what is German invention (Gott
, resp.), and although it is not so in Latin languages I have found there something of the kind, namely Italian godere
as to like, enjoy. I can understand the wish to believe that our boss or master is good, not some bad monster, but this is too perfumed to be believable. More interesting is Slavonic name 'bog', what is neither bog nor bug, but rather an ... upper arc, something that is ever-present and impending
over us; this can be proven by German Bogen
as this, or also a rainbow, and bottom arc (or simply earth, ground) is Boden
there. This is more probable because of the similarity or rhyming between the opposite notions (what has to be so, because from old Sanskrit times the opposing ideas go hand in hand, this is dialectically motivated). Yet there is another ancient word here, there was some old Persian exactly 'baga
' as 'bog'-god, and I find this mobilizing idea, to take care that somebody is watching from above, as more natural and ever-present (even today, in the era of mobile phones), than the unmotivated goodness (if You'll excuse me, my dear God-Pal).
Even better than this, because philosophically thought through, is the idea of god-the-two
, which is something Pythagorean, and it is also never-aging, because everybody who has heard about binary digits has to know that with only 2 symbols everything can be marked! If You know this, my "Pal", let me add some explanations for the masses, let me say that this means splitting, dividing by two, multiplication, and if one puts something on the one branch one can split the other to infinity (these are called linked lists
), and this is what some long organic molecules usually do (though not exactly for ever). If one wants there can be another look at this matter, I can remind some old scholastic (what etymologically means learned in some school
) disputes about this: how many devils can stand on a needle point, where the core idea was not 2 or 2000 but finite or infinite, so that we come to the idea of infinity, but first let me add one more thing. Let me add the simple Pythagoras understanding that the two symbolizes exiting from the ego, from the single person and this way of thinking of both (usually) opposite points, or of two (and more) beings is prerogative only of some clever guys (like me, to be sure) or of some divine beings (like You, my Goody God).
So that it is a nice thing to be a deity — what is some double
being, old Greek Theos
, or Latin Deus
as two-thinking being, so to say — and to know 2 and 200 (there is such Bulgarian proverb, that who knows the one thing, he knows also the other one), or to be impartial
, in a way — year, God has to be at least impartial —, and also to know how to come to really big (resp. small) things, to the infinity (or infinitesimal
, infinitely small, things)! Yeah, this idea of some god able to do the splitting, in various aspects, is much better than the silly, sorry, Christian idea of the Good Being who has done the Creation once and for all; and if I gave You some old Greek words, this does not mean that the Greeks were the inventors, no, because the numbers have come from old India, and in Sanskrit the 2 was dwan
, near to what stays Slavonic 'dve /dva' (and there is even the peculiar relation with our door and the court, where the first in Russian is 'dverj' — and 'j' I use for softening here —, and the second is 'dvor', what has to be so because the door moves here and there, it makes some fork, and similarly the fence of a court divides the space in two parts), or then the English twig can be cited (as making trees).
And now let me come to the infinity, because, what is it? Well, repeating just forever, on and on, what we can't do, we can measure only the measurable
, and the infinity is not such a thing. The infinity has different characteristics, like that infinity plus infinity gives again infinity, what is not so with the usual numbers, but when we try to subtract infinities we become stuck in the mud and can't find a way out of it. Yet the infinity exists
, there is such simple way of building or integer numbers with only adding of one to whatever, beginning with the ego-one, that there are no reasons to deprive us of the infinity, but it just isn't a number. So that this is, if You ask me, where the mathematicians have seen for the first time You, my dear God! Because everything is clear but in many cases one has to add some exception which does not exist in the nature, is not material, so to say, but is necessary in order to describe better the real world, the matter, even such abstractions like the numbers. Even the zero is not a proper integer, and for this reason it was not present in the old Greek, it appears only in the new one (yet I will not indulge here in more profound explanations, because You, my dear God, know already everything, and my readers can as well look in my enormous "Urrh, cum commentis" or then in my "Reflexions about the numbers"). And in the case of infinitesimal it is important to do really infinite number of steps, if they can give as a result pretty nice finite number. So that the scientists just need the infinity, like people need some God, in order to fill some gaps in the existing things.
Similar to this is the recursion, and the recurrent formulas to which the mathematicians have also come. This means to do something really for ever, like the life exists really for ever (from our standpoint). And there is the philosophy, too, where is absolutely necessary to have some notion of the spirit
of everything, of what is hidden and not seen but organizes everything; we may call these things: nuclear actions, or genes, or natural laws, or the only reasonable behaviour (taking everything into account) but there is no way to understanding of the matter without the idea
for it. The reverse is also true, there can't exist the idea (about whatever) without the matter where it has to be coded, so that I, for myself, simply take for granted that there exist the matter and
the idea and they have ever existed and will do so in the future; otherwise, to require supremacy of one of these two things, is as silly as to argue about what is first, the egg or the hen! Hence God, You, my dear "Pal", can be taken for the idea, and the God-idea can move freely in the time and the space; or then He could have made
the time and the space, but out of what?
Ah, I can tell You about of what, namely to remind You about some old Sanskrit pre-god or Father of the gods called Tathagata
, who has built the Universe out of his ... bowels, as emanation of them! Now, I will not explain in more details what this "emanation" can be, I hope that my readers are clever enough to guess this alone, but I will only stress on the probability of this, because this is not very different from the theory about the big bang, or the primary egg, the expanding Universe, et cetera. Because in order to build something one surely must have some resources and some ideas about this, which things have to come from outside
, else we have to suppose existing of generations of gods, and even in this case the questions remain about the first god. ( Yet let me add in parentheses that the name of this ancient god can be split in two, where the tatha
part correlates perfectly with Bulgarian 'tati' as father, and the gata
part surely must mean German Gott
. And the last means not only something good, it means also something that we have got or caught, that we have as defender; yeah, but maybe it is meant also that we have caught — and this time in English, hence the old English are guilty for this meaning — Him by the ... balls, ah? )
But, You see, my dear God, for some time I have come to the conclusion that this is not important
for us, after all, the question about the priority or precedence of matter or idea has purely academic interest, some of us can ask themselves such question, but the answer to it is meaningless for us, and even if it has some meaning it can as well happen that we come to the right answer using wrong prerequisites, or to wrong answer using right prerequisites, ha, ha. So that let me not indulge in more judgments here, but to stress only that without some god there is no go. Yet not as such to whom one has to pray, burn candles, make sacrifices, and believe literally, because a God is a being from another dimension, we just can not understand Him properly, we can only use some similes, picture Him somehow, call Him somehow, yet this is for us, it must not correspond well to the truth. And because of this in the Islam, for example, the God is not pictured, only His artifacts or creations.
2. Why the living matter was created?
This is now a question to You, my dear God, so that You better awake, if have begun to dose a bit, reading my monotonous explanations. So the question is simple: why You needed to create this animated matter, when it is so unpredictable
, unstable, chaotic, and so on? Because the nature-morte
is understandable, when You make, say, a stone, it stays where You have put it, while if, well, maybe not You but I, lie naked on a meadow then either a stick will try to poke me in the ass, or an ant to clime on my arm, or some bug will want to see what is there in those holes named nose, and, thank God, as is said, that I have not some orifice in front between the legs, because there is always some probability that a grasshopper will try to hop also there. There can exist mutations or defects in the crystal lattice, but they are, so to say, dead, they exist once and for all, one can not expect that, say, the red veins in some piece of marble will become green, or that the stone will burst open and there will appear spoonful of orange juice, right? Neither water turns to wine, nor plumbum to gold, neither stones begin to jump to the sky, and if one hits a stone with some force, the stone hits him with the same force but in reverse direction. All planets are dead in the beginning and hardly one out of billion such things will allow the existence of some organic matter on it. And were these only some vegetations, this would have been not so bad, they don't move, but the animals do, they just can't stay on one and the same place.
Or let me give You another example: one paints a picture, finishes it and puts it in a frame, but nobody expects that the picture will change
, say, on the faces will grow beards, children will grow up, cows will say moo, or the like, no, this would have been utterly improper
behaviour on the part of the picture, am I right? Also here, proper things are somehow predictable, their actions are adequate to the stimuli, while the animated matter has some anima
-soul in it, like the engine is supposed that has some jin
-spirit in it that makes it move. And inadequate means more precisely that on weaker
actions correspond stronger
reactions, and vice versa. This is justified, I can't say that this is silly, no, this is right, because when the action is weak it only bothers the animal (or even the plant) and with the same reaction the action will probably continue or increase its power, while strong and significantly higher reaction will run away the cause for disturbance (be it animated or not), this is, in a way, anticipating and preventing the further increase of the action, yet, nonetheless, this is somehow improper in a dead environment. Similarly in the reversed clause, if the action is too strong, there is no need to spend the own power, the cause will not be driven away. But why this is necessary at all, is what I ask You, my dear God? Because this means inadequate reflection
, this is not ... chivalrous, after all, this is what leads to the escalation of violence (or at least of forces). In this way some weaker object may succeed to conquer some stronger object (or subject, when it is conquered), what You mean with this?
And I have marked that this is not something occasionally, or unforeseen, no, this is deliberately, You, my dear Pal, want to distort
the situation, the environment, the relations between the participants. Yeah, because You have made even the insects, say, the cockroaches, with their imperfect in many aspects organs of feeling, to react fast, so fast that, in fact, to avoid thinking
, You have taught them to have some relatively safely schemes of reactions in case of danger (because they have neither good sight, no feeling for smell, no homeostasis, to say nothing about a brain, but they become in many cases winners in the fight with the humans, really!). The reflection of the living matter, in my view (but I don't thing that this is rejected by the scientists in some concrete fields), is conditional
and distorted, where the first means that it depends on the memory of the animal, on some reflexes, on the environment, what might have been intellectual behaviour, but it is again not just, this allows to survive not the stronger, or the better (this exactly can't be measured at all, this is only an unattainable wish), but the meaner and /or villainous, while if one hits two stones together "survives" the stronger, this is obvious to be expected.
reflection means that by the perception nearly always is used logarithmic scale, which allows the diapason to be increased, but the signals are anyway distorted. Still, there is more to this, there is quite often used modal scale
(also centered), what means — I explain this for the curious readers, who are not so immensely wise like You — something like the week, after the 7th day comes again the 1st, or then (in order also to center it), like a thermometer from -49 through 0 and to +50, where hotter than 50 is measured as minus 40-something! This also allows some
measurement, but it is kilometers away from the true value, and as strange as this seems but it often happens so, like, say: very big cold we accept as big heat (and frostbitten flesh feels like burned), after very loud sound we feel deafened, the red colour seams for us similar to the violet one, but they are not at all related, and so on. I can add that this uniting of extremely left point on the scale with extremely right one often happens through the ... infinity (what means, so to say, with Your help, my Pal), i.e. next to minus infinity stays plus infinity! ( For example, the simplest fractional-rational function y = 1 / (x-1), for x=1 is undefined, but for some tiny ε>0, in the point 1-ε, y -> -∞ , and in the point 1+ε, y -> +∞. ) With what I want to say, that the opposite notions, even highly opposite notions, meet, what is nice dialectics from Your part, but these are different values, there is no necessity for the organic matter to have such highly distorted perception scale.
As if the only thing, for which I can congratulate You, is that You have perceived one very important rule about the complicated systems (to which I have come before about 20 years, and would have come probably earlier, had I not been occupied with studying in some exact sciences), namely that: the complicated systems must be built by simple rules
(because else the complexity begins to grow terribly fast and the system simply cannot be built)! Well, I don't declare that no mortal being has come to this conclusion before me, yet I have come (I suppose) alone to it. And what You have done is to make frequent use of linked lists, binary or other trees, recursive methods of declaring of even unanimated objects, and especially the fractals
(what are such structures, which are built by recursive usage of some simple objects, so that each part is self-similar
, and one can zoom infinitely in it). Even the river or ocean ... borders are fractal, and many plants and organs are of that kind, where the infinity breaks only reaching the dimensions of some building elements, cells (or atoms, when speaking about river borders). So that there is for what to pet You on the back (or the muzzle) if I could succeed sometime to find Your back (or muzzle) and say: Good God, Good God.
OK, but the question remains, for what purpose is all this organic matter necessary? Because it is like some ... mould
, it covers the nice and simple and predictable and obedient dead matter, whole planets (at least ours), and only causes disturbances and problems for the same living matter, surely, but also, I suppose for some divine being like You, my Pal. The only reasonable answer to which I have come is that this is simply ... interesting to watch
, to see what will happen next! And this, surely, independently of Your existence, i.e. if You exist, then You have done this on purpose, because are born player, gamer, hunter, like to solve puzzles or find secrets; and if You do not exist, then such is the very matter, it wants to experiment, does not know its abilities, is like small child who plays with what can (ultimately in order to learn something, but be it only for the kick of the game). Yeah, but do You know with what little children, if they are badly or not at all brought up, happen sometimes to play?, Ha, ha, they are ready sometimes to play with their own ... faeces, stirring them with a stick (not necessary with a finger). So that, if we reject temporarily the possibility that You do not exist, tell me now: are You just playing with Your — or, then, of Tathagata — excrements, or this has happened somehow by itself, or there is some other possibility?
3. Why this bottom-up method?
Because it is so, really. You make the leaves of some tree, but the very tree is nowhere to be seen. There are relations between the organisms, but they appear after
some new organism arises, not before this, not as if You have said to Yourself: let me make now a new branch of whatever (say, of animals with all possible kinds of horns, or noses, etc.). This is important, because when one can not see the branches on which the leaves are hanging one is inclined to think that everything happens just haphazardly, they can't see You
behind the things! And I may not believe in You as a Being or Substance, but I believe in the system and organization, and the relations, and the reason; after all, You may not exist as people describe You but something
exists! Because of this it is said somewhere in the Holy Scripture how You have built everything for six days — or months, or years, or millenniums, and so on, here it goes not
about measuring of some time but about the ... number
six, which is related with the very ... sex, I have explained this on several places, but You surely know this —, yet it is not so, the succession is not exact, and this process can not
be finished, such things like the Creation cannot be done once and for all, they must continue always, must be open
. Or if this is closed then the reason for this has to be clearly seen, and there can appear many new such realizations, like new pictures, or sculptures, or musical pieces. So that, in short, I am bothering about You and Your image, my Pal.
And, really, nobody begins to raise some building without whatever plan, not knowing neither the dimensions, nor the number of storeys, nor the purpose of it; or, then, nobody builds a company just so, to have registered a company, but with some relatively clear intentions what he will produce or sell; or, then, to begin to write a book not having decided about what to write. Allow me to understand here something, because I have written some
number of books, I have to know this; and even if sometimes — what may happen often to be the case — one begins to write, say, a verse, and is left to be carried by the "current" of the words, by the rhyme, he must have some hidden idea in his brain; he may not be able to describe it (this is why it is spoken about some muses who whisper in the ear of the authors nice thing, or maybe even hold him, the author, it must be supposed that only men can create something really new, are endowed with imagination and creative power, so they hold him by the "cock" — if You see what I mean, ha, ha), but something (for what the words are not descriptive enough) exists. And here You have begun to do something and have left it, then something else, and again have left it, and nobody can guess Your plans. Yeah, but maybe this is because You have just no
You see, nowadays, when we have begun to read the genetic code, and not only to read it but to change it, i.e. to understand how the things function, it can't be longer hidden that there exists no planning in the genes, they happen to encode some ad hoc
decisions, that have proven to be efficient, but in the moment, and later can be (and are) forgotten. Say, I have heard that the genes of some tiny fly are more complicated than those of the human, and that they look as if all made by patches
(what we, in Bulgaria, like often to do literally when repairing the streets); and I have also some personal experiences, because have worked for about a decade as computer programmer, and know that in every field (say, in law-making, or in sciences, etc.) there comes some moment after which further patches don't give the desired results, no, the thing has to be redone or rebuild anew. So that maybe it is so also with Your Creation, ah, my dear God, it has to be demolished and done anew, and this probably before it will happen by itself, by the next ... shrinking of the Universe?
Yet some stages can be seen. For example, when the volcanic activity has ceased the stones have begun to crack little by little, in order to build some primitive soil, the continents have also begun to form, the oceans, too, and it has come time for the organic to appear. Then after some aeons of time the single-cellular have appeared and they looked funny, but they were necessary — I don't deny the necessity of some steps, I only stress on the chaotic way of Your Creation, and on the lack of planning, what could have avoided many ... victims, after all, unnecessary loss of organic matter. Then it turned out that one only cell is not well equipped in order to ... use better the lying around nutritious sh#t — if You'll pardon my French — and it became obvious (for You) that there must appear several specialized cells that will somehow learn to live collectively and to build some multi-cellular organism. And then You have stopped and pondered for another aeons, and have made the fishes (that are called in this way in German and English, because they are very fast and can make one swift ... 'fishh' and disappear).
Then came the insects, which are really perfect
, I congratulate You here, for their dimensions they are faultless and highly effective ... killing machines, yeah. Then (if not before, I am not in my waters here) You have had a whim to check how big can be some animal and have come to the dinosaurs, but they have proven not much effective and have disappeared. Still, You could have preserved a pair of some little dinosaurs to be used like home pats, instead of dogs, I suppose, but have forgotten about this, believing that the making of birds will compensate for Your forgetfulness, what is also a nice move, I admit this, but some dinosses
would have done nobody harm, I think. And the birds could have been again the top of Creation if You could have somehow found a way to make ... meat
(I mean some high-calorie food) grow on trees. So that again something was not very good, yet this time You have left the birdies be, and then came the mammals and You have done what You have thought proper to do there, but why have not
again stopped, before making the humans, is beyond my abilities to grasp! Surely, but about this next dead-end of You I will speak in the next point; what I want to add here is that there is a whole labyrinth of errors and blunders and patches and dead-ends, and unmotivated adhocracy instead of some thoughtful planning of everything in beforehand. So that for me the question now is whether You have done this on purpose, or have been forced
somehow to do this!
And here comes one delicate moment, my Pal, because I don't believe — and this, alas, is a matter of believing, like Your existence —, that You are some nasty devilish demon, Who likes to do bad things on purpose, no, I am afraid that You, the God Almighty, have been made non operandi by some characteristics or the matter, or by the situation. I can only commiserate with You if it is so, but You know that there is a saying that the King's crown is heavy, so that in our interrelated world nobody can be really free and exempted of duties to the others, and this may happen to be true also for divine Creatures like You. If it is so I will be happy to absolve You
of any guilt related with this bottom-up method, because I have given You the example with painting of some picture, but this is if one wants to do something and forget about it, yet if it goes about incessant "picturing" and by changing circumstances, which can influence the goal, and if the process is repetitive, it may turn that some method of arbitrary and thorough choice will be really the best one (like when a river finds its way through the valleys and to a sea). If it is not so, though, if my guess is not correct, then the set question remains.
There is one more thing that leaves a bit bitter taste in my mouth, and it is the unnecessary, from my standpoint, loss of organic matter by all these dead-ends of Your bottom-up Creation. But I may be wrong — I confess this, like before God, really —, for two reasons, the one is that I can't become used with the fact that the organic matter, equipped or not with a soul, can be of practically no
-cost, and the time is also of nearly no importance, and the other reason is that in a so intermingled world, where even the excrements (I begin to like this word, ah, a kind of ... cream after all) of some beings can be used as food for some other beings, the seeds or kernels or entire bodies of some beings are welcomed and necessary for many other beings; we are all some phagi
-eaters. So that it is not improbable that You, my dear God, are right, in the end, and You are not so glad with Your role and with Your ever
lasting life, to what I will come to the end of this philosophical essay, but let me go further.
4. To what purpose is everything?
Now, my dear Pal, this is again a question to You, but, I am afraid, it is more rhetorical than real, because I alone, and probably before 20 years or so, have come to the conclusion that there are only two ways of moving in one and the same
direction, and they are, as follows (using mathematical functions to describe them): either by sinusoid or by exponent! Where the first means cycle, crashes, demolitions, returning back to the beginning, what is the usual case, because the exponent is an invented
circle, it involves the infinity (infinitely smooth, if on base e
then all derivatives of it are exactly the same) and I suppose that even a God will become bored in the end to maintain such moderately measured increase or decrease forever, but it is possible also some mixture of both of these functions. And if we are moving in cycles then there can be only local goals in some moments, because later everything will crash — like the supposed shrinking of the Universe. What means that there cannot exist some ultimate goal or purpose, and everything is dynamic, and the only purpose can be seen in the continuing of this purposeless tremor
Anyway, the question is the ever-existing one, to which everyone comes in his (her) early years, and again to the end of his life, because when he begins his reproductive life he is too busy copulating and finding means for existence, in order to be able to copulate et cetera. The question states: what is the purpose of this life, after all, why we have to be born in order to die, wouldn't it have been better if we were not born and, hence, not be forced to die, or other similar variants. I, for my part, can add also: why is this local order on the background of global disorder, why is the retribution not to the concrete guilty person (or beast, or bacterium, or tree, etc.), or why we have to be better when we get nothing out of our good behaviour to the others, we just become easy prey in the hands of vicious beings (or not beings, of the nature) — because I have heard some old Hebrew saying that: no good
deed on this world has remained unpunish
ed! Or also: why this world is so arbitrary and indifferent
to us (be we humans, or bed-bugs, or worms, or grass stems, or whatever alive)? Or: why the humans were created after all, because the other animals can't think and ask themselves questions, but we can, yet can't find the necessary answers?
So let me answer for You this time, ah, my Pal? The core postulate here is that in some cyclical process the only reasonable goal can be for the cycles to continue
, because else stagnation will come (but the planets are circling, the stars are also moving, the galaxies too, the Universe is changing, on the other end of the scale the electrons, and whatever sub-atomic structures exist, are also in incessant movement, nobody has the right to stop). And for the purpose of the same incessant movement there has to be big arbitrariness present, which makes the life, in fact, interesting
, yeah, by one determinate reaction to each action we would have liked the things even less
, this is so (we just like to complain — especially the feminine individuals — because this, in a way, helps
in the changing of everything). So that I, really, can't see other way for organization of the things if the incessant changing of everything has to continue. The arbitrariness is, so to say, the core of life; I have even read that there is pretty interesting to find the laws by which the very big (with, say, thousand digits
numbers are distributed, because they are distributed for us practically randomly, at least until we have found some rules to which they have to stick. And the arbitrariness of our world is indispensable prerequisite for existing of dynamical life!
Then about the local organization and the global chaos, well, probably there is no other way for the same reasons, if something is top-down rightly regulated then this inhibits the change and the dynamics, but without whatever organization there is also no go. This is understood also in the society, in the free market system, which is a kind of chaos, so that the subtlety is in this to allow some freedom yet not entire chaos; or to have partly top-down and partly bottom-up method, this is often done. And do You know, my Pal, I have even thought about this enormous spaces
between the solar systems, then between the galaxies (and probably there can be even many many Universes, who knows — except You, my God Almighty), so big that even flying with the speed of light one will come to other galaxy for thousands and more years. And I have come to the conclusion that — only don't laugh at me — that this is just necessary
(if something exist then it has
to exist, its existence is justified when it is a fact — I am learning from old Eastern philosophers)! This is necessary first of all to allow
existence of differences, otherwise by some law of connected vessels everything will be averaged, and this will diminish the variety; probably because of this the Universe is expanding and we are living now in the, so to say, positive half-wave, it could have been much worse if or when the Universe shrinks, thanks God that this is not in our times, am I right?
You see, my dear Pal, I have begun my questions to You with the living, self-organized matter and its creation, because each organization is diminishing of the chaos, or of the entropy in concrete physical meaning, while usually in a closed system the entropy is always increasing, what means also that arise new differences of various kinds, and the differences make the life interesting, am I right? So that the organization, the living matter, especially such high-intelligent beings like the humans, contradict to the unanimated, dead matter, where the entropy constantly increases. Hence this is an obvious contradiction: if we want the dead matter (which has to be highly predominant part of all matter in the Universe) to continue to exist, and the entropy-chaos to increase, then we should avoid any unnecessary introduction or expressions of intellect, or some additional (except the introduced by the chaos, so to say, minimal) organization, and vice versa. And this is because I think that the creation of this ... monstrous
human beings, because they are badly constructed, they are only universal
, but good practically for nothing, is, if not an error, then questionable; the other animals don't ask questions and do what are told (via the genetic code) to do, they are more disciplined, but we try to come to the meaning of some things that have not
a meaning, in the expected by us form (and I have met somewhere that the humans deem themselves for free because they understand their wishes, but not the hidden motifs for the wishes). Or that the animals just live but we are always trying to better the life, in which process we often do many mischiefs and harms even to ourselves.
But it depends on the viewpoint, or on the model that we apply, or on our scope (local or more global), and one, I suppose You, can state that exactly because the entropy tends to increase we have to decrease it somehow, or because there is global chaos then has to exist local order, or because the humans are good for nothing they may prove (and are
proving, in fact) good for everything
(because the intellect works slowly, but it can give results when the fast reactions are erroneous), or that the purpose of some defects is to avoid the crashing of the whole construction in some non-desirable place, or that nobody can predict exactly what will be necessary in the next moment, and so on. Or, then, we have not to lose from sight the inversions in the negative half-wave, because we (and probably also You, ah?) don't know what will happen in the end of expanding phase of the Universe, how exactly will begin this shrinking, what is the infinity in the time-space continuum and what are its features. Because it may happen some, as it is said, elastic transformation
, which will transform one form into its dual (in some sense) one, like, for example, we may think that the circle has two "points" (in some extended meaning), the center and the (whole) periphery (which can be in the infinity, yeah), that are connected with many (infinite number) of radiuses, and then we begin to extend the center and to shrink the periphery using some new dimension
, what will make a cone, then a cylinder (or, rather, truncated cone), and then a cone directed in the opposite direction, then to leave the new dimension and return to the old ones, and, voila
, the center has changed places with the periphery (even in the infinity)! I don't understand the relativity theory and some similar subjects, but as far as there everything depends on the geometry
of the space such transformations are not to be entirely excluded.
So that the disorder is as necessary as the order, and the organic "mould" may be really necessary as building points or grains of local organization in order to make the global chaos more "palatable" so to say. Till the moment the humans as if more disfigure our planet than the contrary, but maybe some tens of thousands of years are nothing, we have to wait much more? Or then the humans will disappear more or less like the dinosaurs, and will leave the scene to some intelligent ants or cockroaches, or — why not? — bacterias (if they could succeed to connect themselves somehow and build some bacterial, instead of neural, net). So that, all in all, I begin to come to the conclusion that there are we, the humans, who do not understand the Creation, respectively God (You, my Pal), but it is also not necessary for us to be very clever, because, with our egoistic natures, we will make the things only worse, had we understood more profound the Nature-Creation. After all, we have not to forget that the intellect has nothing to do with the procreation of the species, and if in life the latter mattered, then the first must be of no big importance. And now I an moving to the last point of this philosophical essay, which is one of my usual monologues, or talks with myself, but can be taken also for dialogue with one divine Being, with You, my dear Pal, Who I have modelled in my head, in order to be able to feel You better.
5. Bye-bye, God, or a new miracle
And now, feeling you better, I come to the conclusion that You must be not
exceedingly happy, am I right? Because everything becomes boring, also the free movement not only in the space (and probably with 6-7 dimensions, what do I know) but also in the time. And I am sure that You understand me, because everything changes
, only You can't
change, yeah, You are infinitely wise, so that You can't become more wiser (while I can, and every time and again I become a bit wiser than was before). And one must add to this the immortality and the lonely life (because there can't be relatives of the gods, they don't multiply, they live alone, even I can converse with my readers on the sites, have tedious everyday things to do, that engage me somehow — You can't imagine how happy one may feel sometimes even ... emptying the bladder, yeah, believe me). And this for ever and ever, ah, this must be a nightmare for You. And You probably with all Your heart yearn to be able to die
, but are immortal, alas! Yet maybe I can help You, I have come to one quite simple solution, which I will tell You now, if You don't mind.
I want to help You because I become more and more convinced that You are conscientious Being, and do Your duties and never tire, and were I at Your place I would have, after all, behaved myself in the same
way, I am feeling You like my brother. And what if You have simply failed to see the obvious solution (or, then, have not had other mortal being to whom You may trust)? While the idea is the following, it is in the correct understanding of what a divine Being can be! For me it is clear that this is some kind (or, then, all
kinds) of information, am I right? And the information can simply be transferred, can change places with other information, such things are done. So that if You swap Your information, Your being so to say, with my information, my being presented in my head, then when it comes time for me (i.e. for my older me) to die, then will die, in fact You, in my body, and I will live for ever in Your former, in fact, no
-body (where Your vital info is written)! This is it in broad outlines, where, I suppose, You can leave some dormant (inactive) copy of Yourself but the real performer of Your eternal duties will become I. In other words, I can sacrify
myself in the name of our friendship, right?
With me this swapping can be done also because I have decided when
I will die, there may happen some little fluctuation of the date in only positive direction of the time, but this is not significant, and my body is pretty decently preserved, I am neither fat nor too slim, neither high nor of very low stature, and have practically no illnesses in my nearly 70 (at least no internal diseases). So that, if you wish, and have some unknown to me ways for longevity, and with my heavenly help (I promise You this) You can manage to live a pair of decades more, or probably centuries, if You manage to change Your body with someone's else's because to live more than, say, 120, will become suspicious. And I have decided to die exactly at the 3rd day of the 5th month of the 35th year of this century, between 3 and 5 o'clock in the night, after the second ... emptying of the bladder! This will make about 85 years, what I find decent age to die nowadays. So that You are welcome to jump in my body after the first pissing and send me (i.e. the content of my brain) back to where You have come from. And don't care about this, that publishing this paper people will know about this possibility, because they will simply not believe, they will think that I am joking, while I am deadly serious, my Pal.
I am serious while looking at life as at an everlasting and ever-changeable game
, what is the only proper way of looking at such unstable thing. Only that I have a bit more humane look at the wasting of biological matter, but I can become used to its generous spending, when this is necessary in the name of the Creation. And I'll tell You one more thing, I not only think that on Your place I would behave in Your way, but that You, most probable exist
, after all! Only that You must unquestionably be quite different
from the ideas that each religion tries to implant in the heads of its believes (especially of Christian religion, which is unnecessary and unbelievably decorated) and I am sure that You know why this is so. Of course for the reason that people are in their masses like little children, they want to be lulled and deluded, while reasonably thinking people are, and have always been, a minority of 2-3, at most 5 percents. But everybody wants to have his fun, most of us in the delusions, and a tiny amount in finding of the truth. I can't
say what is better, it depends on the nature of the person, but on the background of no global goal in the everlasting life this is also of no big importance.
And You are bound to exist, because I perceive You as some spirit of the Universe, as sum of all possible laws of existence and characteristics of the matter under the given circumstances, and each thing has its spirit, this can't be denied. If I were not of such high opinion about You, I would have said that it is possible that You have not yet recognized Your existence and are just doing Your duty in maintaining the equilibrium of the matter in each moment like a disciplined dog, for example (or like what I am doing after the coming of democracy in my poor country, I am educating the people in each possible way as independent and unemployed thinker), but You are bound to know that You are God (if You are, that's it). Only that You, as also I, are in the unwavering hands of the material necessity, You have free will, but in some limits, this is my conviction, because everything is interrelated, everything is dynamic and changeable, and everything is not perfect, but the only possible variant (one of the unlimited number of parallel Universities) under the circumstances. As also I guess that this proposed by me swapping is not something entirely new for You, this has to be the way in which You have influenced the ... ovum in the uterus of some Mary, virgin or not, if there is some truth in the Christian fable. And, ha, ha, even if You do not exist, why me not to take Your place, being already so enlightened, ah? From strictly logical point there is nothing that can disallow performing of an implication (i.e. conclusion, if - then clause), if the precondition is not satisfied, this can, or can not, happen.
Ah, but I have preserved one surprise for You at the end, I want to give You the possibility to show
Your existence, if You want this, to make, so to say, a new miracle. This will not be scientifically sound proof, but in this case such proof is not
at all possible, because You have to be not (or at least partly) material, and we can't measure non-material things, even rays or waves have material nature, they can be registered, but unless we register something non-material (what we cannot register) then Your existence is questionable. And I have met even one jocular sentence, that: if the existence of God can be proved, then He does ... not
exist! This is incorrect logical conclusion (yet let me not indulge in more explanations) but the idea is clear, it is that if somebody has proved something of the kind, then he has obviously made somewhere some error. OK, but there remain the so called circumstantial evidences, that increase the conviction of people, and they are massively used in law suites, and will suffice also here. The idea is to make something nearly impossible happen, and then the masses will believe that there is the finger of God staying here.
Good, but this 3-5 date (let me shorten it so) of my death — natural, let me say this explicitly, no killing and no poisons or other suicidal methods —, prophesied more than 15 years in advance (rather 17), what makes more than 5,000 days (rather 6,000), is obviously something unbelievable, so that if this happens then all people will say: "Wow, how was this only possible? But the ways of God are unpredictable. And this guy Myrski, he is also Chris, this can't be occasional? And he has lived between us and we have marked nothing!", and such things. Because in this case it will be clear that You have either somehow visited also my mother, or have come into my brain some time later, have assisted me in all my creative activity, and so on; nobody will suppose that such exact guess is else possible; and, besides, to make a good prophesy is what the ... professors are able to do, the professionals, so that somebody, either me or You, and predominantly You, as just mentioned, will be taken for insurmountable prophet. And I'll tell You, dear God, that there can be some minuses or pluses in the date, only the pluses twice more than the minuses, because I have said that it may be later, but not before. Say, one day before or two after is brilliant precision, the same with weeks is also miraculous, even a month earlier or two later is still something remarkable. This is so, because it can always be said that I, with my brain of mathematician, and my love to the numbers, have unconsciously changed a bit the date told me by You.
So that, my dear Pal, if You are game to show Yourself I am ready to sacrifice myself, and die only
at 85, while I have interesting ideas for, maybe, a pair of centuries more, really. But if I will take Your place the time will be of no importance for me, and helping You in the dying business will give me strength, so that I agree.
Anyway, bye-bye, my dear God, and I will expect Your visit at the mentioned night, or any time later, what suits You better.
IF I WERE GOD
Oh, life is pretty doubtful a matter,
We judge about it, but that's a clatter,
And no one's ever grasped the part its greater,
So that we move in it like mannequins,
And ultimately lose, just rare win,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Then God's existence can be proved with nothing,
But to disprove Him means that one does not think,
For He the Nature ... dresses, is like clothing,
What seams discouraging for lot of us,
We find, this world is rotten, lies in pus,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
And good and bad is relative a notion,
We sink in these nuances like in ocean,
Exacerbate the matter the emotions,
So we spill juices, albumins, or blood,
To multiply and th'others t'kill in bud,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Or sex and propagation take, such number
Of future copies makes us often stumble,
Survival's hindered thus, and I can grumble,
That in the sex we fun have but the trees,
Or grasses, fishes, suffer giving seeds,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Each living form is perilous for th'others,
Thus the variety is lessened rather,
While chaos is the equilibrium's mother,
What means that life is as if kind of mould,
And it disfigures Nature pretty bold,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
To this is added bottom-up Creation,
And movement hazardous to no end-station,
With risk — the cause for joys, exhilarations,
And building this process will never stop,
And we shall always move in silly mob,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
With this I don't raise for discovery my claim,
From atheistic point is life a perfect game,
And if a God exists I praise Him still, don't blame.