Cosmology

In recent years, with the light hand of three nimble yankees (S. Perlmutter, A. Riess and B. Schmidt), almost the whole world community suddenly sparked with very outlandish for many (and erstwhile unknown) problem of dark energy and dark matter. Whereas for natural philosophers there is nothing mysterious about it. Especially when you consider that multilayer ignored by modern science is inherent not only in habitual biological bodies, but also in crystals (possessing at least two additional sheaths) and, possibly, even in some evolutionarily advanced planets. Though, undoubtedly, the bulk of dark matter falls on Universe noosphere.

As for dark energy, it is, rather, a kind of epistemological paradox that depends entirely on the position of observing subject. At least, in V.A. Ambartsumian’s "throat" hypothesis as well as in the author's version (about the illusory character of the universal acceleration ostensibly recorded by the American trio), it can be removed without any special difficulties. After all, one way or another, on the periphery of a topologically closed Universe, an observer in both cases won’t just find a single dark erg or even an extra electron-volt.

***

Generally we can imagine, by and large, two principled dynamic schemes of the Universe:
a) a kind of swing "from energy (Will) - to information (Reason) and back";
b) continuous experiments or even improvisations of Will itself (by the by, the old theosophical teaching about the previously existed 5 discarnate races also fits into here).

In the first case, predicting events (proscopy) is possible due to the global repeatability of history; and in the second - through the management of the events relevant for Will. As for the semi-fantastic idea of parallel worlds (or, say, multidimensional space), it doesn't, apparently, jump beyond this framework but only brings some own colorful variety to the overall picture.

If, according to Drake's formula, in our galaxy should be 10 highly developed alien communities, and there are, alas, none at all, then a simple Laplacian justification does not work here.

That is, more specifically, this may indicate one of three options:
а) the etiological complexity of the origin of civilizations associated with the nonlinearity of the paths "from inanimate - to living" (which, as it were, is confirmed by the spread version of the 5 races that preceded us);
b) a certain planning of space exploration (but this obviously requires the creative participation of some almighty Scheduler!);
c) the consumering nature of the activities of our Universe’s neighbors (or, for example, their hedonic modus vivendi)..

However both the banal consumerity and the notorious hedonism can hardly be regarded in the form of some persistent attribute of public shapings: unless as a certain mediate stage in the structuring of the intelligent Universe).

***

The principle “the Universe is being ordered in a qualitative (i.e. more essential and important) relation, simultaneously disordering in a quantitative (thermal entropy)” should, apparently, be extended to all laws of thermodynamics (and in particular, the second). Although the same concerns to synergetics either - contrary to what I. Prigogine imagined (supposedly, individual fluctuations arise against the background of a general increase in entropy, but all this is only in some limited space).

Most likely, the disordering goes along the energetic vector, and regulation - along the informational one. But this dependence, however, is not linear, since a developed intellect creates new algorithmic products much easier and faster - without high energy consumptions (when compared with what was at the dawn of Universe’s formation).
And hence, the dilemma about “what exactly (self-organization or intelligence) the current algorithms are spawned by” is no longer almost meaningful, since any modern intelligence, in turn, is a product of the streamlining. The vast majority of today laws of physics, chemistry and biology (and especially the first of them) are the result of the action of self-organizing processes, for they all, in one way or another, are associated with motion. Well and as known, it is namely the ordered movement underlies Haken & Prigogine’s the revolutionary mathematical discoveries.

***

The apparent polarity of the interests of Reason and Will is actually sometimes felt, perhaps, only in the socio-historical plane. At the rest they are everywhere going side by side, as if complementing each other, and moreover under the general supremacy (for now, at least) of Reason. That's why we can oppose them each other on the scale of the Universe (and even then – as one of several permissible options) only in terms of time parameters: from the energy of saturated but structureless chaos - to an extremely structured but cold & lifeless Cosmos. And just at this finishing segment, due to the critical shortage of energetic resources, the transition from the current living civilization to the hegemony of robots seems to be quite real.

***

All five options of the modern interpretation of “grande silentium universi" may, alas, turn out to be untenable without involving a number of additional entities. So, let's briefly recall them here.

а) Life is an extremely rare phenomenon.
(Parried by the data of paleocosmonautics and, in particular, the presence of bacteria in meteorites.)

b) All civilizations eventually come to hedonism.

c) All civilizations available today are non-technogenic.

d) All civilizations sooner or later come to self-destruction.

e) Though life as such is widespread throughout the Space, but on a whim of fate, our civilization was the initial (or at least the second) in this “happy-scroll”.

However, with the postulating an extra-material god, the 3rd and 5th versions can even so get a completely reasonable explanation here. In addition, item 5 entirely fits into the anthropogeocentric platform. And since the existence of higher powers is indirectly confirmed by many other mysterious artifacts, then god-presence (in relation to i.5) can be interpreted transcendentally: say, as a manifestation of some parallel worlds or the "soft” dictate (seeming to us unobtrusive at all) of a priori sacralized Chronos ie, to put it simply - time. Let’s note, by the way, that the last thing is yet equivalent to the statement of dominating astrological dependence either. And moreover, these are not even two sides of a single coin but in general two completely tantamount definitions of the same phenomenon.

***

The naivety and a low-grade amateurism of the so-called anthropic principle is now being criticized by many serious experts. Although, in fact, in the model of the "pulsating Universe" (as well as in L. Smolin's very just relevant today evolutionary hypothesis), the choice of the initial free parameters is obviously not accidental. First, it can be assumed that they - as inviolable reference samples - are entirely passed from generation to generation. Secondly, even if they are formed anew at each next Explosion, it is due to having some kind of “through” ontological memory. But even with the culling away both of these facultative guesses, as a decisive unshakable argument against the imaginary anthropophilicity of our existence is what in absolutely any Universe there must present subtle demigods & angels (pranophytes) as well as, apparently, the smallest fragments of the mind (informons). This, of course, also applies to those cases when the self-assembly of heavy elements or molecules (and hence, the habitual life for us) would turn out to be too energy-intensive and de-facto unpromising from the astrophysical point of view.

The final conclusion from all of the above as follows: "the strong principle" on the version of the overseas authority J.A. Wheeler («Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being»), despite its wit and ostentatious elegance, is actually quite trivial and does not give researchers any practical benefit. As for the "weak" (a little earlier proposed by our countryman G. M. Idlis in such formulation: «We are observing a deliberately not an arbitrary region of the Universe, but the one whose special structure made it suitable for the emergence and development of life», - then here, alas, things are much worse. Not only is it, already inherently imbued with sophistry (having unceremoniously reshuffled cause and effect) but also does not correspond at all to the reality around us. Because for any corpuscular parameters, the probability of the emergence of intelligent life (and along with it - of an observer himself) remains all the same high enough! Well, perhaps only, however, not in vacuum space; and of course, not there right away - as if by a fleeting whim of a goldfish but at least after a few billion years...

Author – Emir E. Ashursky