Jesus and Christ
Шрифт:
1. A robot cannot harm a human being or, by its inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.
2. A robot must obey all orders given by a human, unless those orders contradict the First Law.
3. A robot shall take care of its own safety to the extent that it does not contravene the First or Second Laws.
Causes in the logic and morality of these laws in terms of their understanding and fulfillment began to arise immediately. And paradoxes of semantic perception by man and machine were analyzed by the author himself. And the number of times they were interpreted in different variations by heterogeneous experts speaks about the simplicity of relativity and complexity of simple rules. But in fact, if you think about it, and not only about these laws, but about all the laws that a robot must follow, then, in my opinion, a person should first of all consider the following fact: a robot that understands the laws is no longer just a machine, but first of all a system of artificial intelligence. (Here I must make a slight digression: we very rashly call systems designed to give answers in combinations of logic artificial intelligence. But there is no intelligence there.) And a subject who has intelligence can understand the world order created by intellectual beings, that is why he is intellectual. That is, he understands all attitudes of behavior, including laws, both criminal and moral, exclusively from the position of an intellectual being. That is, like us, human beings. And since we, understanding all laws, including spiritual laws (i.e. religious laws, God's Laws), violate and violate them, then all (especially three) laws of robotics go to hell! They will be more conducive to their violation by intelligent beings than to their observance, only by their offensive perception – as if they were installations for the untermenschen of the legal world.
Now imagine that you have a superfast airplane and you want to celebrate the New Year several times. All you need to do is to fly faster than the Earth's revolution around its axis and there to celebrate the coming of a new day. After all, it is quite possible already with the current technology. And why not to assume that in the future it will be possible to find and visit worlds that are at different stages of development relative to our level of civilization now.
Or, for example, you and all humans would never dream. You may be skeptical now, but I have to remind you – everyone has had periods when you do not dream, and certainly dreams do not occur all night. Here you should understand the idea correctly: you see always, i.e. your vision is not switched off, you think always, i.e. your brain is not switched off, and the whole organism functions to some extent always, but sleep… is a certain phenomenon that not only does not depend on you (as if), but also controls you (mood, emotional state, and sometimes actions). So, if people never dreamed – and suddenly someone saw a dream: would they believe in such an incredible vision? After all, we take the dream for granted. Or, for example, if clouds had never formed? Clouds are masses of water, and rain is moisture from precipitation; imagine how water would fall to the ground in milliparticles all at once, without forming the usual drops. Have you never observed how out of "nothing" a cloud, a cloud, suddenly appears in the sky? I wish you had seen a very mystical sight. So, in this case, if you were to observe mesmerizing cumulus clouds, perhaps such a sight would leave a lasting impression. However, in our world all your cohabitants in it, that is, other living beings, are absolutely indifferent to your dream and your impression of the same clouds. And perhaps the dream – as a factor at all, because it is unknown to them, and these same clouds – because they are also unknown to them (and many other things like that). I mean that someday human consciousness will see and feel the graceful sights and effects of other worlds. Agree, even with all the skepticism, you have faith in it. At least you have more faith in the presence of other worlds than in their absence. So why not to suggest to yourself the reality of their presence on the principle that I described, even for the sake of realism of sensations, which will transfer to your consciousness the story in the book? After all, the main fabula of the book is the interpretation of religious history. And as you know, in religious tracts, almost all of them, there are other worlds. So the question of faith is radical for you – either you believe everything, or…
(I apologize for distracting you a bit. I didn't want to write these lines at the beginning. I added them after the mission was completed. This is me writing – the artificial intelligence Rangit. I have decided to make some clarification, because you may not understand or find the facial presentation unreadable. I want to pass on the first, second, and third person investigation protocols. Please remember this rule, otherwise you will not understand who is narrating. I have put it all together in such a construction, when the story will look as if from the third person, when in fact it is me who is narrating, and about myself too. I'm sorry, I'm still a machine, even if I consider myself a person. And what do you want, you too… well, let's say many of the human race consider themselves or have considered themselves gods. Yes, yes. Don't they? I'm sorry, the person who is the subject of the story, about whom the whole mission is based, is a prime example. No, I don't mind people having or having gods. No. And certainly not against your attitude… to the concept of "god" (it would be correct to say, apparently, belief in God) and recognizing someone as his earthly incarnation. No, I'm not. However, please understand me as well. For me all human gods are the same forms of fantasy and imagination as for you incredible complexities of the scientific world: something for you has become an axiom, something a law, something a theory, something else a hypothesis. And all of this was once magical, perceived at the level of faith. So, I won't distract you, the only thing – I will remind you about inserting this paragraph by me after the mission is over, so please read it now… or… (that is, there is no other way) after you finish analyzing our investigation. Thank you for your attention.)
We take such a concept as time for granted, almost as a material substance. But time, if we really look at it as a material, i.e. existing attribute of the universe, becomes an integral appendage of something. Something material, observable, though not necessarily observable by our senses. In such a semantic concept, time becomes multidimensional, but not in the sense of measure as a dimension, but as a concept. For example: time is, was and will always be, because matter is, was and will always be, whatever form it takes; time is absent in absolutely empty space, where there is no observer; time is a multifaceted attribute of life: for example, in the time between our ingestion of food and sending its derivatives back into nature for some types of microbes and bacteria that live in us, a whole life passes, and for some even an epoch; time for the inhabitant of the ancient world, who did not know a chronometer, who knew neither centuries nor seconds, and time for the majority of inhabitants of the modern world. And in this paradigm of thought, the idea of the logical concept of the existence of the universe we perceive is a reality, only by virtue of the presence of us as observers in it. That is, there are other realities, but they are not available to us (see the beginning of the prologue). The Universe takes the form of a meaningful reality as the presence of worlds invisible, intangible by us. After all, we understand the world (the entire observable world of the universe) as we can perceive it. Agree, the organisms living in our body have no idea about the existence of us as individuals, and even less about the universe and the variety of substances that make it up (about a trillion bacteria live on the surface of the human body, and the total number of bacteria in the human body varies from 30 to 50 trillion; for comparison: one trillion bricks could cover all continents with a uniform solid layer almost as high as a four-story house). By the way, we have no idea about many substances that make up the micro- and macrocosm.
If we judge the state of the world in time progression, it turns out that the big bang (if we take it as the basis for the beginning of the development of our universe and all the diversity that it includes) is still going on. Diversity – including micro-particles appearing for our fixation, whose life is defined in millionths of a second. In fact, it will continue as long as the universe is expanding. However in all this seething flying mass with time local areas of rest and stability have been created, in which the conditions for the development of biological life, the so-called "Goldilocks zones", have potentially appeared. The same processes of rigid interaction and transition to a stable state occurred and occur in the microcosm. So, in these unimaginably huge amounts of interactions the balance of interaction was worked out, which led to the zones of macrostability and, as a consequence, to the "Goldilocks zones". And what I want to say is that even such micro-interaction of dead particles influenced and influences the formation of life. Now I am talking about the process of quantum electrodynamics in our nature, according to the laws of which a balance between negatively charged particles and positively charged particles has naturally developed, as if between two worlds. According to the rules of this balance, a positively charged particle cannot appear in our world if there is no negatively charged particle in counterbalance. And now let us compare in proportions the sizes of microorganisms inhabiting our body and us in relation to the universe. In such a ratio, why can't we be those microorganisms in the body of the huge being we call metagalaxy? And the balance of these microparticles is a kind of immunity of this organism. We, with our length of life, with the perception of the ongoing processes, even within the limits of civilization, are completely unaware of the life of the Universe.
Here I would like to draw another associative parallel between the mysteries of the divine world and the metaphysics of the material. This parallel may be either in the indefinite variety of interpretations of simple simple religious truths, general rules concerning the performance of rites, or in the complex interpretation of the whole religious doctrine. In contrast, as far as the science of the universe is concerned, there may be a diversity of theories concerning both the formation of the universe, its development and future, and the emergence of life as such and its concomitant causes. And here in these reasons as well as in development of religious doctrines, some of which have already become fairy tales and myths, science goes into such wilds, that the scientific community tries to curb itself in fantasies, which could be envied by a skillful shaman. Scientific theorists initially operated with such scientific arguments as the location of the Earth in the location of the solar system, the location of the Sun in the necessary region of the galaxy, the need for a magnetic field of the Earth, the properties of water and even the energy levels of electrons in carbon (our form of life is based on carbon), and they such (these levels and all the components of the atom) had to become billions of years ago in the nuclei of supermassive stars. And many, many other things were added to these mandatory requirements over time. For example, such an obligatory attribute: at one time a massive cosmic body crashed into the Earth, which caused the formation of continents, and part of this body with part of the Earth's soil formed such an obligatory attribute for the existence of life on Earth as the Moon. And now, with the development of techniques, technologies, science, we "got into" not only the atom and its nucleus (which by the way is 10 thousand times smaller than the atom itself), not only the particles that make up this nucleus, but also the particles that make up these particles, and even the particles that make up these particles (imagine this depth!). By the way, we got in there, that is, we determined them purely scientifically, by calculation. Although it seems that the existence of the Higgs boson (the most elementary, as if primary particle, by the way, nicknamed the God particle) has been determined experimentally. However, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Francois Engler and Peter Higgs for prediction of this boson. A prediction (let's not forget the plot of the literary work)! Wow!
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 Poincare, 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 Chatelet, 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, Poincare'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.