понедельник, 29 сентября 2014 г.



If you will deeply thought about the significance of the word “Space” you will have to admit that practically impossible to say about it something definite and really explain what it is.
Such words as “emptiness”, “vacuum”, “infinity”, “Universe” or something of the sort will come to mind.
Agree it’s not easy for the human to talk about what is empty for him (her) – invisibly, unheard, impalpable, without taste  and smell, while all around us we can touch, see, hear, scent and taste.
As a result, in the minds of most people, the space has always been no more than an endless volume of emptiness where there is our world and we - in other words, something non-existent.
The thinkers of philosophy and science have spent a good deal of time and effort trying to discover the relations between the space and all the objects in it.
Sure, originally the scientists are mainly interested in the space from a practical point of view. Even in ancient times people had experienced a need to know the distance between the bodies as accurately as possible.
A distance measurement is a measurement in the space. For this purpose there is geometry, the basis of which was laid in III century before Christ by Euclid. He considered the space as “emptiness”. From his point of view it is isotropy, homogeneous and limitless.
For realization of distance measurements it was needed to Euclid only three coordinates as opposite to the multitudes following of the Einstein physics, for whom it’s not enough three and they brought down on us yet the fourth coordinate (dimension), fifth, sixth and so on. What are they for?      
Hereinafter the scientific views on this question became all more to approach to the philosophical.
In this scientific-philosophical synthesis we view the space everywhere together with other category – “time”. For them there was contra posed the “Matter” or otherwise “material objects”.
In the history of philosophy there are two concepts describing the relation to each other of the space (and the time) and objects in it.
We name one of them as substantial, and other – as relational.
Disagreement with each other of these concepts is directly connected with the scientific dispute of the classic mechanics and relativistic. This scientific debate we can call as the “dispute of Newton and Einstein extended through the time”.
The basis of classical mechanic is the substantial concept according to this the space (and the time) exists by itself, regardless of the objects located inside this space.
I. Newton supposed that the space where we live is like the forever existing, unrestrictedly large, fixed “box” without sides – the container of the Matter. The properties of this "box" do not change over time and do not depend on how the substance distributes and redistributes in it.

Isaac Newton

The Space of Newton and Euclid is not able to shrink and stretch – i.e. to curve. Therefore, in this space the shortest distance between two points - is always a straight line and not a curve.
The relational concept (hence the similar name) lies in the framework of relativistic mechanics. Proponents of this view consider that the "space" is produced by the objects existing in it.
The space of A. Einstein can bent (contract and expand) and it is a non-Euclidean (or in other words a non-Newtonian).

Albert Einstein

In such non-Euclidean space the shortest distances between points, the segments must constantly bend, and the distances between points must increase than decrease.
Einstein connected gravity with the compression of space, and the acceleration or deceleration of time with a degree of curvature of space.  The more it is compressing and the more weight at this point, the slower time passes there. The more extended and less weight at this point - the faster it flows the time.
We share the conviction of the first concept - the substantial and, so are increasingly proponents of classical mechanics, not relativistic.
We consider that the space does not disappear, if vanish all existing objects in it.
In addition, we believe that space is not compressed and expanded. These properties are inherent only in the substance.
But at the same time, we must acknowledge that the relational concept of relativistic mechanics has lifted on a surface a very important layer of knowledge about the structure of the universe.
The only problem is that the proponents of each view describe the universe from their own points of vision.
At the same time, classical mechanics and the substantial concept are really talking about the relationship between the space and the objects in it.
While the concept of relational and relativistic mechanics tells not about the space, but about what actually exists in it, and is one of its manifestations, namely, about the Spirit (Energy, Ether).
The fallacy of relational concept and relativistic mechanics is that they attribute to the space the property of mobility while it is actually stationary.
We can say that relativists have based on all things of the Movable, Fluid Space, while  moving and flowing is the Spirit, the second aspect of the Absolute, but not the Space (Matter, Substance), First, Primal Aspect.
The merit of the same Einstein is that he came close to understanding that "something" in the space can move in any desired direction.
Yes, that's right, "something" is "flowing" in space and from the flowing of this "something" all processes and phenomena in the universe are depended. This "something", as has just been said, it is the Spirit.
Besides the views on space of science and philosophy, a special place among all the existing opinions occupies the Theosophical course led by Madame Blavatsky and AA Bailey.

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

Master KH, the Master Morya, Master Rakosi,
HP Blavatsky

Alice Ann Bailey

Alice Bailey

Theosophical views on this matter are such that we can attribute them in some extent to the substantial philosophical concept.
The difference is that the theosophists not only consider the Space as secondary to the objects of the Universe, but also give it the main role, seeing it as the first principle. While for all the objects, "moving and existing" within the borders of this space, the Theosophists gave the position of the second plan. For them, the objects are secondary, and the Space is primary.
We offer to your attention a series of quotes taken from the theosophical literature, particularly from books Blavatsky E. and A. Bailey.
“There is one Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which, antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression.
The manifested Universe is contained within this Absolute Reality and is a conditioned symbol of it. In the totality of this manifested Universe, three aspects are to be conceived.
1. The First Cosmic Logos, impersonal and unmanifested, the precursor of the Manifested.
2. The Second Cosmic Logos, Spirit-Matter, Life, the Spirit of the Universe.
3. The Third Cosmic Logos, Cosmic Ideation, the Universal World-Soul.
From these basic creative principles, in successive gradations there issue in in ordered sequence the numberless Universes comprising countless Manifesting Stars and Solar Systems” (Alice Bailey's "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire", pp. 32-33).
“Space is an entity and the entire "vault of heaven" (as it has been poetically called) is the phenomenal appearance of that entity” (A. Bailey "Esoteric Astrology", page 18).
“The Ancient Wisdom teaches that “Space is an entity” (A. Bailey" Esoteric Astrology ", page 19).
“What is that which was, is, and will be, whether there is a Universe or not; whether there be gods or none?' asks the esoteric Senzar Catechism. And the answer made is —SPACE” ("The Occult Catechism", taken from the Secret Doctrine by HP Blavatsky).
Theosophists gave to the space a reality. In their interpretation, it is something concrete, real, and not "empty". In their understanding the space is not "nothing", it is - "something".
Finally, we should mention one more look at the space - the religious. The uniqueness of this view lies in its imaginary abstraction from what it really dedicated.
The theosophical literature leads us to this point of view on the space.
Actually, the Theosophical course is just intended to unify and reconcile of all existing religions in the world.
Therefore, we can assume that the theosophical literature paves the way for the reader, on the one hand, in the world of religion, and on the other - in the realm of science.
Theosophy seeks to give a scientific explanation of religious beliefs, as well as to resolve the problems and dispute the questions of science with the help of esoteric concepts and information.
If you start to study religious treatises, it turns out that mystically minded researchers of mysteries of Being and seekers of meaning in life always spoke about the Space. Of course, they were well aware of what they spoke, but preferred not to call directly that about they wrote by the Space, and gave for it all sorts of names. The Space - this is the Matter, the first aspect of God. And we have already spent a lot of time trying to tell the tale of this Unknown Something.
However, we repeat and give the most famous of these names - Creator, God,  Absolute, the Almighty, the World Mind, Allah, the One, "One of Whom About Naught May Be Said", One Reality, Infinite Principle, the Lord of the World, the Universe, Space, Brahman, Nothing, Eternity, Divine Unity, the Absolute Consciousness, the United Self-existing reality, the One Being,  Alpha and Omega, Svabhâvat, Global Essence, the Divine Being, the Absolute Principle, Parabrahman, Reality not having a second, Comprehensive Space, Infinite One Being, Absolutely Everything, the Absolute Container of all things, the One Life, "In him we live and move and have our being", Rootless Root, Infinite and Eternal Cause, the Unconscious and the Unknowable, Mulaprakriti (Mula – the root, Prakriti – the Matter) "All in All", Pradhana, the One Eternal Element, All-ness, Causeless Cause, "Eternal Breath are unaware of itself," Apeiron, Arche.
This list we could go on and on. Minding of the need to unite the scientific outlook with the religious, we also will attribute to this list such scientific concept as a vacuum.
The striving of Initiates poets and writers ahead of time do not disclose to immature people all Secrets of Being and Not-Being - that's the reason for the presence in their literature the mystical cover, with which they hid from the uninitiated the very foundation of our existence.
Let us try to combine as much as possible the views of scientists and poets. This should benefit both, and others - bonding, thus, the foundation of the human world view.
The Space described by Euclid and Newton – it’s the Matter, the Primal Essence, the Infinite Constant Principle, the Absolute Reality.
We can really compare this Unmanifested Cosmic Mind with an empty box without walls. Although in reality this "emptiness" is not empty.
This is the foundation of the universe, its origin, the matrix. This void we can see as a fundamental principle, "fabric", on which the manifested Universe is painted like a pattern.
About this Space Blavatsky and Bailey told, calling it the "entity".
This Space is really absolute – i.e. constant, fixed and eternal. And it is "empty" in the state of unmanifestation.
Are there anywhere borders of the Space? Whether it comes in contact with something similar or different from it? If are applicable to it all our human notions of borders? To these questions we have no answers.
In relation to Space it’s pointless to use pronouns that characterize sexual identity, as the division into two sexes - a phenomenon unique to the plant, animal and human organisms.
Therefore, the space - it's not "he" or "she." The closest thing to it the pronoun "it", but this is a convention.
To the space in general we should not use the concepts related to sex differences. This can be done only to the Spirit and Matter, and then symbolically.
In the state of manifestation the Spirit flowing in the “Souls” fills the Cosmic Substance (Matter).
Modern scientists have largely rejected the idealistic approach to the questions of the structure of the Universe. They reject the Creator, God as the main leading and the creative principle of the Universe. However, in science everywhere you can find the concept "Nature" Incomprehensible, inexplicable, omnipotent, and semantically it is very reminiscent the religious terms "God" and "Creator". And when the scientist says: "Laws of Nature", it sounds like the "Word of God" in the mouth of a true believer.
Everywhere you can find manifestations of creative activity of God (Creative Space). Each chemical element, each elementary particle - is the result of Its incessant "work." By observing the physical, chemical, biological and astronomical phenomena of the world, we touch the God.

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий