An artist must be judged according to his own laws. Cancer develops according to the same laws as plague and cholera, the history of which I studied well Kundalini and clairvoyance

The counterterrorist operation in the Caucasus is led by the Russian FSB. Both officially and in fact. The investigation of all crimes related to kidnappings, theft of budget money, illegal oil production, sabotage, murders and terrorist attacks is within the competence of the Chekists. Neither the military nor the civilian prosecutor's office, nor the police, nor the troops have such influence in Chechnya as the FSB. Of course, this is the most closed structure here. For citizens, for the press, for everyone. Sergei BABKIN, lieutenant general, head of the FSB for the Chechen Republic, has not given long interviews for a long time. He made an exception for Izvestiya correspondent Vadim RECHKALOV. - Who captured "Nord-Ost"? I know that there is a detailed list of terrorists, which contains not only their data, but also describes the things that were found with them. And from these things, as far as I understand, one can judge a lot. People who have seen this list assure that it is unlikely that the terrorists were suicide bombers. What motivated these people? - Where do your mom and dad live? - In Moscow. - If bandits come to you and say that tomorrow they will kill all your relatives, if you refuse to seize the building of the Palace of Culture, what will you do? Surely you will agree. Most of the terrorists were in this position. There were also drug addicts, several bandits - religious fanatics. - Against the Minister of Health of Chechnya, Uvais Magamadov, who has already been a former, a criminal case has been initiated on abuse of power. He is suspected of causing damage to the budget in the amount of 35 million rubles. Now Magamadov has been put on the federal wanted list. How did he steal the money? We won't go into details. Magamadov reads newspapers. - How can you steal budget money in Chechnya? - Do you know which bandits in Chechnya are disguised as special services? And for what? - Maskhadov, Basaev, Gelaev need it. To cover up the tracks. In order not to fall under the blood feud. Who are they kidnapping? - First of all, people who are to some extent connected with federal structures, with local authorities. - On October 23, unknown persons detained Adam Gazmagomadov in the village of Prigorodnoye, Grozny District. Without any charges, protocols. They just put it in the car and drove away. Then I talked to him myself, and I have a record. He was kept for 5 days. According to him, in the area of ​​some bivouac of federal troops. They beat me, showed photographs of some people, demanded to identify them. And then they threw it away in the substation area in the same Prigorodny. Could the secret services act in this way? - Whom do you mean by special services? - FSB, GRU. - Of course not. Well, to be honest, Adam wasn't crippled. They beat hard. Then they returned - alive, healthy. Because he's not guilty. That's probably why they returned it. - And who detained him? - It could be the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the FSB, and the GRU. Could be - theoretically. But in practice, as far as the special services are concerned, we are supervised by the prosecutor. Moreover, both the military and the prosecutor of the republic. - Well, not in Chechnya, probably. You are in charge here. You are entrusted with the leadership of the counter-terrorist operation. - And what, someone changed the laws in Russia? We live here exactly according to the same laws as the FSB officers live in the Vladimir and Ryazan regions. - Is it possible to neutralize the bandit here legally? That is, not to destroy it, but to bring it to justice? So you have completed the investigation into the case of Islam Khasukhanov, the so-called. the head of the so-called. the main headquarters of the so-called. armed forces of the so-called. Ichkeria. He is accused of organizing illegal armed groups. You hope for a good judicial prospect... - We do not hope, we are sure. Because there is a huge evidence base. - How did you do it? - Well, not torture and bullying. Nobody broke his fingers. Our investigators collected all the evidence in the manner prescribed by law. - How? - Due to the testimony of witnesses, the collection of documents, video recordings, with the help of expert examinations. He walked under Maskhadov. Since Maskhadov is a military man, he also has a military structure, he did not come up with anything new. Khasukhanov was one of the most effective so-called field commanders. We do not say that he is a notorious killer who cut heads. There is no article for murder. He has the issuance of orders, directives, control over their execution - from attacks on military columns to large-scale operations to seize settlements or objects on the territory of the Russian Federation, including submarines. - How many influential bandit leaders are currently operating in Chechnya? Please name them. And how many people follow them? - There are a lot of so-called field commanders. We know them. The new ones haven't been born yet. - Here in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in Khankala they are talking about a certain Doku Umarov. Allegedly, he commands a thousand people, his gang is called "South-Western Front". It is located in the south of the republic - in Shatoi, Sharoi, Itum-Kale. What is true, what is false, is unknown. What can you say about this person? - This is a bandit who is waiting for the same fate as Khattab. - Khattab is your job? - The time will come - you will know everything. - How many people are in Umarov's gang? - I don't want to count them. This amount is determined by Doku Umarov's money. - How many fighters can Umarov put behind him if he is given money? - Well, 20 people. Around yourself. These 20 can still bring a few people behind them. I don't want to make personalities out of gangsters. Let's not make Robin Hoods out of them. And then you popularize them like that - more than us. We are scary and evil, but they are all good and kind. - You're talking to me. - I mean the press in general. Part of the press. - Nevertheless, answer: are the gangs in Chechnya strong? - Yes, there are some quite serious ones. With weapons, communications, money. They have been preparing and fighting for 11 years. - Is it true that heads of district administrations pay tribute to militants? - Do you have proof? - One of the employees of the Chechen police told me about this under the record. - You would also pay in their place. - What part of the Chechen oil still goes to the needs of the bandits? - Unfortunately, it's significant. But the results of the measures taken are evident. One of these measures is the disbandment of the Chechen police battalion to protect oil facilities. - They guarded poorly, and even plundered? - Yes. - And who will replace them now? - Other local militiamen. - The process of "Chechenization" has begun, that is, the transfer of power to the local population. Isn't it too early to leave Chechnya to the locals? - There are no such officials who would be interested in unjustified haste. - As well as in any region of Russia. For example, medicines with an expiring expiration date are bought in Moscow. They should be written off in two weeks. You sell, I buy. And we write both. We split the money in half. And that's all. - According to my information, two corpses were found the other day in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. One, as far as I know, is from the village of Shalazhi, Urus-Martan District. And the second is unclear where, because without a head. Both corpses with mine-explosive wounds. And there are dozens of such cases in Chechnya - when people are kidnapped by people in camouflage, masks, etc. And then the abducted are found blown up in some ditch. The local population sins against you. But really, who does it? - Recently, the vice-president of Lukoil was kidnapped in Moscow. People in camouflage and masks. And what, now to conclude that these are special services?

Cities follow changes in population density in the same way that galaxies formed from the dense matter of the early universe, scientists say. They described the mathematical law underlying both processes in an article published on the website archive. org . The density and spatial distribution of cities around the planet surprisingly predicts an empirical law called Zipf's law. This mathematical pattern was formulated by the American linguist George Zipf to describe the frequency distribution of natural language words. He proved that if all the words of a language were placed on a frequency scale from highest to lowest, the frequency of a word in the list would be approximately inversely proportional to its ordinal number or rank. That is, the second most frequently used word occurs about two times less often than the first, the third - already three times less often, and so on. The development of cities also obeys the same mathematical law. If you place cities on the same scale in descending order of their population, it turns out that the ordinal number of the city in this list will be inversely proportional to the size of its population. If the largest city in the country has 8 million people, then the second largest city will have about half as many, and so on. Why this law works in this way, and not otherwise, no one could explain. Lin and Loeb, on the other hand, started by creating a mathematical model of how the population density of the Earth is distributed in a flat Euclidean space (they ignored the curvature of the earth's surface, proving its insignificant effect on the distribution). This is how astronomers mathematically model how galaxies evolve from the primordial density of matter in the early universe. Scientists have now applied this decades-old modeling mechanism to new material - the growth of cities due to changes in population density. “We consider population density as a fundamental value, believing that cities appear when the density exceeds a critical threshold,” the scientists explain in the article. They tested the created model against known population density data. And the theoretically built system very closely repeated the one that takes place in the real world. They counted the number of cities with a population above a certain threshold and showed, using their mathematical model, that this number also refers to the number of inhabitants of the city, as already shown in Zipf's law. Thus, the model used to analyze and predict the development of galaxies is also suitable for working with other data, as in this case, with the analysis of urban development. The work of scientists, in fact, has very important consequences. Using this unified mathematical model, it will be possible, for example, to predict the spread of epidemics around the planet.

HOW ARE THE LAWS OF NATURE? STUNNING HYPOTHESES OF PHYSICISTS

How did the laws of nature originate? In the old days, people thought
that they were created by God. Today, physicists are again asking this question and putting forward amazing hypotheses. What are the laws of nature?

We see that the world lives according to certain rules, called "laws of nature." They are available to our understanding. Scientists discover these laws and formulate them. Their search has long been considered the most important and honorable duty of researchers. Progress in science is closely connected with the discovery of the laws of nature. They help to summarize the facts, to explain what is happening, to predict the future. It seems natural to many that in the chaos of the diverse processes taking place around us, a harmonious order is guessed, and it is palpable at all levels from the Microcosm to the Macrocosm. The whole universe lives according to the laws that hold it together, like a body - a skeleton.

But where did they come from? Are they permanent or do they change over time? Does nature obey them blindly, or can they break them? Why can we formulate many of them - especially the laws of physics - in the language of mathematics? Perhaps God himself is a mathematician, as scientists joke?

For centuries, people have answered these questions without thinking. The laws of nature were created by God. They work forever. Therefore, they arose at the moment of the creation of the Universe, - in scientific terms, during the Big Bang. And, obviously, even then they were "ideal". But it's hard to believe this. Is it possible to foresee everything in advance? Why, at the moment of the birth of the Universe, do we need a law that would "see" that some metals at a temperature close to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale lose their electrical resistance? What ultra-low temperatures were we talking about at that moment? About what absolute zero? In that constantly boiling "original soup" that filled the emerging cosmos, there could be no question of superconductivity!

What if the answer is different? Maybe the laws of nature are "not created" by anyone? What if they gradually formed over many millions of years? We know that nature is undergoing evolution. Living organisms adapt to the world around them and change accordingly. Perhaps a similar evolution occurs in space. Elementary particles (protons, electrons, neutrinos and others like them) somehow "adapt" to each other. There are certain "rules of community" of these particles. Some rules are forgotten, some are assimilated more and more clearly - they become the "laws of nature". So, for example, says biologist Rupert Sheldrake. However, he has long been branded as a representative of pseudoscience, who came up with the theory of "morphogenetic (shaping) fields."

Such ideas really contradict the knowledge accumulated by astrophysics. The light of distant galaxies conveys to us the news about what laws were in effect shortly after the "creation of the world." The spectral lines of light rays indicate that the stars in that era obeyed the same laws as they do now.

From belief in a higher mind to higher mathematics

For the ancient Greeks, there were no laws of nature. In their view, Nature behaved as chaotically as human society. Separate atoms - they corresponded to the Greek city-states - wandered, collided with each other, connected for a short time, and then their fragile unions broke up again.

As a result, ancient scientists managed to discover, perhaps, only three physical laws that deserve the name "laws of nature": the law of the lever, the law of reflection of light by Euclid, and, finally, the famous law of Archimedes ("A buoyant force acts on any body immersed in a liquid ..."). However, neither Archimedes nor other scientists of that time called these views "laws", but spoke, as in mathematics, about "principles", "axioms" and "theorems". Since the time of Pythagoras, it has been believed that some kind of mathematical harmony lies at the heart of the world order. Every complex entity has its own simple logic. So the image of the "principles" that govern the world began to be initially formed from mathematical elements - numbers and operations on them.

In general, only in medieval Europe did a person think about the fact that nature has its own inexorable laws. And how could you not think about it? After all, the world was in the power of a strict God, who zealously watched how his commandments-laws were observed. For Augustine the Blessed, they were something like the habit of the Lord to do one thing and not another, a habit that He could change at any moment in order to reveal the desired miracle.

The laws only for a moment (what hundreds or thousands of years before eternity, if not one moment?) limited the almighty will of the Lord, but did not cancel it at all. The laws imposed by the Creator are comprehensible, and miracles, like any exception, only confirm the harsh correctness of the rules.

In the Renaissance, religion and natural science were still closely intertwined with each other. The hostility between scientists and theologians should not be overestimated. Science and faith were united by a deep, inner commonality. Their fruitful relationship is not lost in the future. So, Newton was a devout believer, and Leibniz saw in the laws of nature the immutable will of the Lord. Their very existence testified to the harmony in which the world lives and how beautiful everything that God creates. Believed in a higher mind and Albert Einstein. Without this belief, the idea of ​​a "formula of the universe" that describes all the phenomena of the phenomenon that occur in our world could hardly have been born.

The activities of a large galaxy of artisans and engineers of the Renaissance made the people of the New Age take a different look at the laws given by God. It was possible not only to obey them, but also to use them for your own benefit, inventing devices that operate according to these laws, intruding into the processes that take place according to these laws, and finally, controlling nature itself, subordinating it to yourself, forcing it to serve you. The Lord could intervene in our dialogue with nature, sometimes depriving her of the opportunity to live according to the law given from time immemorial, and forcing her to live according to the law of the Miracle of God. But since this violation of the age-old rules was not observed, new generations of scientists decided that God is inactive because ... He died, He does not exist in nature, He is not of this world. Not allowing all the last centuries of exclusion from the rules of the universe, God was excluded from the universe itself, as an extra entity in it. Dry formula lines replaced it. But the question remains: how do we know that the mathematical language exactly - "one to one" - reflects reality? Even now, the most complex formulas that lie on the verge of reasonable are used to describe it. What's next?

Realists, constructivists and all-all-all

The hypothesis of the existence of certain laws in nature turned out to be so effective that scientists continued to adhere to it, even when the alleged creator of the laws - God - was abolished. The expulsion of God only complicated the question of the origin of laws. Do they exist forever? Or maybe they are "forever" invented? In disputes about the essence of the laws of nature, several parties stand out.

Realists, or Platonists, believe that the laws of nature exist independently of our formulations and definitions. They are as real as chairs, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg wrote polemically in his book "The Dream of the Unity of the Universe": We believe that this subject should be taken quite seriously, since it is not in our power to completely control it, which means that we ourselves can to some extent experience its influence.

Of course, the laws of nature deserve much more respect than any objects. After all, the latter still cannot escape from our power. We are free to rearrange a chair, move the clock, crush a block of stone, but we cannot influence the laws of nature. No matter how much we observe the Sun, we are unable to change, for example, the force of its attraction. We depend on the laws of nature, but they do not depend on us. These laws are not invented by us, but are open. And, just as a deserted island, lost in the ocean, existed long before man saw it, so the laws of nature were mathematical even at the time of it, and not only since they were discovered. Some modern scientists are also convinced of this, for example, the American physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who grew up in the USSR: "It must be assumed that the laws of physics existed" even before "the Universe arose." In his opinion, the very fact of the birth and formation of the Universe a priori presupposes the existence of certain laws, according to which its development will proceed. This point of view is close to the tradition of Plato, who believed that outside the world we see, there really is a world of ideas.

The positivists and nominalists are convinced of the opposite. “I disagree with Plato,” says Stephen Hawking. “Physical theories are just mathematical models that we construct. We cannot ask what reality is, because we cannot verify what is real and what is not, not resorting to various types of models. Such an opinion is not new. The physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach, who once became the object of attacks of the first classic of Leninism, called for limiting himself to simple mathematical descriptions of empirical processes. And the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" polemically stated that "the basis of the entire modern worldview is the erroneous belief that the so-called laws of nature are explanations of natural phenomena."

Pragmatists, avoiding the extremes inherent in supporters of both scientific camps, consider the laws of nature to be some useful tool that helps to describe natural phenomena quite accurately. “I am interested in a model that will most effectively explain the observed facts,” emphasizes the American physicist and cosmologist Paul Steinhardt. “Whether it corresponds to reality is an empty question. Models always simplify reality. In fact, reality itself is not very important to us. We need, first of all, a model that describes the variety of complex phenomena with the help of the simplest concepts that are understandable to our understanding and allow us to predict what is happening. Speaking to students, Steinhardt often gives the following example. A football match is being broadcast on TV. In this case, when trying to predict what will happen in the next moment, it is best to assume that the color spots on the screen are the likeness of football players, and continue to be guided by knowledge of the football rules and the laws of the game as such. Of course, you can resort to a "more realistic" model - remember about the features of a cathode ray tube, about electromagnetic fields - in general, about everything that generates color signals on a monitor screen. “But knowing these fundamentals of electronics will be useless if we want to understand what will happen in a football game in the next minute. So, the choice of model depends on what tasks we set for ourselves. Reality is not always what you would like, And you would like to understand.

Conventionalists are even more radical about the laws of nature. For them, they are not just a useful tool invented by people, but also a reflection of certain norms and traditions that have taken root in society. In their opinion, nature lives according to the laws imposed on it by people, for example, by a caste of theologians or scientists. To exaggerate what has been said, there is no difference in whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth, it is only important what opinion is formed about this in society, and it is changeable, like the fate of the law that describes the relationship between our planet and the luminary.

Constructivists, or instrumentalists, see laws as a means of describing nature. They believe that it is pointless to talk about truth or falsehood and it is necessary to evaluate the laws of nature according to other criteria - whether they are practical or not, understanding this practicality in the literal sense of the word, namely, whether it is possible to design various devices, mechanisms and measuring devices on their basis. Naturphilosophy in this sense is an applied technique, "a set of the latest technical know-how," says Peter Janich, professor of philosophy at the University of Marburg and author of "The Limits of Natural Science: Knowing is acting." According to him, "the notorious laws of nature are just statements about functioning machines, statements that can be used without any special transformations as instructions for constructing various kinds of machines."

Such polemical opinions naturally evoke a sharp rebuff from those who ask in surprise: “What can be constructed using the theory of relativity or the Schrödinger equation? And do the planets move around the Sun only so that we align our telescopes with them and improve their design? "

Against this background, the considerations of the "realists" look much more practical. After all, from their point of view, it is possible to explain why some scientific theories are true, while others are false. Nature is the ruthless, incorruptible judge who decides whether a theory is true or not. There are no several different, but equally true theories describing a certain phenomenon. Surely one of them prevails, and others, despite all their persuasiveness, turn out to be false. We are drawn to the truth, we are looking for it. But what does truth look like in our interpretation?

How to come up with a law?

The simplest laws of nature - such as "the dependence of the force of gravity on the square of distance" - we can still imagine purely geometrically. But what do you want to do with the general theory of relativity or quantum physics? Why is Mother Nature aware of such complex structures that they are inaccessible to the understanding of most people? What if we are mistaken in believing that nature follows some formulas? After all, patterns can be seen in any heap of random facts.

It is possible that many patterns that we take for inexorable laws are only a consequence of our ability to find certain patterns in any observed processes. It has been rooted in us since the Stone Age. To survive in that era, a person had to show remarkable powers of observation. Not a single suspicious detail should have escaped his gaze - not a broken branch, not a crushed grass. Otherwise, it was easy to become a victim of a predator. Fear has big eyes, and our distant ancestors sometimes noticed danger where there was none at all. They looked for the sign of the beast where his foot had not set foot.

So we often see what is not there. Perhaps quantum physics and astrology have more in common than many people think. In either case - looking at a horoscope or looking at an equation - we want to see what these formulas promise us. And we see it.

What readers may not know is that the Schrödinger equation, the most important equation in quantum physics, interprets reality in a very loose way. Here is what is said about him in E. Wichmann's "Berkeley Physics Course": "The theory of the Schrödinger equation ... is based on several strong assumptions, of which we note the main ones:

1) particles are not born and do not disappear: in any physical process, the number of particles of a given type remains constant;
2) the speed of the particles is sufficiently small; only in this case is a nonrelativistic approximation possible.

We consider these assumptions strong, because, firstly, it is known from experience that the processes of particle creation and annihilation do occur, and secondly, any fundamental theory must take into account the principles of the special theory of relativity.

So, it would be hasty to say that the laws of quantum physics perfectly reflect reality. It can only be noted, again quoting E. Wichman, "that the application of Schrödinger's theory to atomic and molecular phenomena has been extremely successful. In this area, it should be considered, despite its limitations, a good approximation." It quite correctly predicts the behavior of elementary particles.

So, the laws of physics, as well as horoscopes, tend to "predict" - you just need to correctly formulate them, making certain assumptions. In practice, we are forced to neglect many factors that hinder the manifestation of these laws. So, they definitely idealize nature and often follow the peculiarities of our thinking. Sometimes we are ready to invent laws rather than discover them.

Take, for example, the "law of conservation of energy". What will happen if it suddenly ceases to be observed - in the Microworld, in the Macroworld? It won't bother us. We are sure of its inviolability. We will immediately, casually, invent a new form of energy - some kind of vacuum energy - relieving us of any doubts. And now the energy balance has been restored.

So, for example, when the mass of the visible Universe turned out to be insufficient for the laws known to us to be observed, we had to "discover" dark matter at the tip of a pen, and then dark energy. The logic of reasoning forced us to admit that the universe is 95% composed of matter, which almost does not declare its presence. Discoveries like these have led some to claim that all of physics is a sham.

When time flows from the future to the past

Here is a curious hypothesis explaining the evolution of the laws of nature. Imagine a stone thrown into water. It generates a wave that propagates in time and space - goes to the future and infinity. We see this wave in the next second a meter away from us; it runs forward, further... The equation describing the behavior of such waves has two solutions. The first of the solutions - "retarded" - describes the behavior of the wave as it is seen by the observer. You can resort to this formula: "Some signals emitted by the present affect the future." But there is another solution to the equation - "leading". It describes everything exactly the opposite. From somewhere in the infinite distance and from the future, some subtle ripples are directed towards us. Finally, reaching "here and now", it thickens. A singular event occurs: a stone flies out of the water. You can resort to this formula: "The present catches some signals emitted by the future." For this wave, time flows in the opposite direction.

At first glance, such a description of reality is sheer nonsense. What if it's not? At one time, two leading American physicists, Richard Feynman and John Wheeler, took up this problem. They were interested in whether there could be a Universe in which both types of waves we have described meet: a wave directed towards the future, and a wave that returns from the future and affects the present. The result obtained is as follows: if we assume that all waves act according to the “fifty-fifty” principle, that is, the same wave is half “late”, half “ahead” of the future, then there is nothing impossible that the future affects our present world. The most amazing thing is that such a world, recreated by the art of mathematics and under the control of its own future, we cannot distinguish from the world that surrounds us and which we see in front of us. We live in this world.

The American physicist John Cramer developed a hypothesis that he called the "time meeting hypothesis". If an atom emits a photon, then it follows that someday this photon will inevitably be absorbed. The first event - the birth of a photon - can take place only if the second event takes place - its absorption. Both events emit waves that propagate in time. One is heading into the future, the other is rushing into the past. In the middle of space and time they meet. So, a photon can exist only if it is confirmed that both the most important events for it are real, that it will be born and die.

(How can one not apply this hypothesis to human destiny? From it it is clear that all events that can bring death to a person, from global catastrophes to microbes not yet born, emit certain waves that randomly pass us by, until, finally, one of us Let's explain this process with the following comparison: Let's imagine that next to the street where we walk every day, a blind, insane submachine gunner hid, firing at random in bursts day after day. that everything around us is saturated with the "miasma" of death emitted by the future.)

The laws of nature could arise like particles of light. If we assume that they are addressed to themselves, who are outside our time - in the distant future world, then we have the right to consider the laws of nature from two points of view. The first is the causal relationship of events in the present, which is familiar to us. This is a "deterministic" approach to the universe. Another point of view is "teleological": the future influences the present. The waves penetrate into the future and come from there. In the middle of space and time, they meet and create a certain order: the laws of nature. So two hypotheses converge: the laws of nature are formed gradually, gradually, but on the other hand, they are created by the future.

However, if all these arguments seem too vague to you, then why not agree with the credo of the British historian Thomas Carlyle: "I do not pretend to comprehend the Universe - it is too big for me."

"The laws of nature created our world"

(From an interview with the German physicist Peter Mitelstedt * to the magazine "Bild der Wissenschaft")

You can endlessly talk about what the laws of nature are and whether they exist in reality. You devoted a whole book to them, which is called just that - "Laws of Nature". What do you understand by this term?

Mitelstedt: The laws of nature determine the course of natural processes. Describing nature, we resort to the help of universal laws, as well as specific initial conditions. The latter characterize particular cases and single factors, while laws reveal something in common in ongoing processes.

What are the laws of nature?

Mitelstedt: They are more than just laws of logic or mathematics, and therefore they can be refuted empirically. Of course, the latter also operate in the material world, but they are not the true laws of nature. Much that we take for the laws of nature turns out, upon closer examination, to be logico-mathematical laws. This is especially true for quantum mechanics.

Are there laws of nature only in physics or, for example, in biology too?

Mitelstedt: The laws of physics describe the universal categories of the material world. These are the laws of time and space, these are the fundamental laws that determine the behavior of matter. They operate everywhere, including in biology. The existence of special laws applicable, for example, only in biology - laws that cannot be reduced to the laws of physics - I consider extremely improbable.

For many philosophers, the laws of nature are akin to Platonic ideas - they exist somewhere outside our material, space-time world. For others, it is just a useful tool to help describe the world we observe, or even special categories of our consciousness. And what is your opinion on this matter?

Mitelstedt: The laws of nature are artifacts with which we try to comprehend reality in all its complexity and integrity. In natural phenomena, we distinguish the simple and universal (laws) from the complex and characteristic (initial and boundary conditions).

And can we understand whether our world is a product of the laws of nature, or vice versa?

Mitelstedt: The laws of nature that we seek to discover and formulate must operate independently of place and time in all possible worlds. They acted even before the birth of our world, and will act until its end, and even after that. So it was they who determined the formation of our world - they created our world.

* In 1965-1995, Peter Mitelstedt was a professor at the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of Cologne. In 2005, in collaboration with the philosopher Paul Weingartner, he published the book "Laws of Nature".

CONTROL PART:

Module III.

B. Russell, emphasizing that man is a part of nature, believed that human "thoughts and movements follow the same laws as the movement of stars and atoms." What was Russell's point of view?

Materialism;

Naturalism;

Idealism;

Realism?

3.2. Montesquieu, who believed that climate determines social laws, customs and consciousness of people, was a representative of what trend in sociology?

Geographic determinism;

demographic determinism;

Technological determinism?

3.3. The political doctrine that justifies the seizure of foreign territories by geographical reasoning is called:

Geopolitics;

Monarchism?

3.4. Idealism considers the basis of being (basis) of society:

culture;

Economy;

Consciousness?

3.5. A social doctrine that explains social phenomena by the biological (racial) characteristics of people:

Geopolitics;

Realism;

Naturalism;

Reformism?

3.6. Which direction in sociology believes that social consciousness determines the existence of people:

Idealism;

Materialism;

Naturalism?

3.7. Materialism under the basis of being (basis) of society understands:

Consciousness;

culture;

Economy;

Religion?

3.8. What direction in sociology considers that the development of society is a real process of people's being, which is based on a certain mode of production?

Realism;

Materialism;

Naturalism;

Idealism?

3.9. The main institution of the political system of the society that manages the society and protects its economic and social life:

Church;

State;

Parliament;

Union?

3.10. The state is primarily

Manadgement Department;

An instrument of oppression;

An organ of secret surveillance of people's behavior?

A tool for solving foreign policy goals?

3.11. The political structure of society, based on the principles of equality and freedom, is called:

Totalitarianism;

Oligarchy;

Democracy;

Monarchy?

3.12. Totalitarianism - as a political regime involves:

Dictatorship of law and democracy;

Legal state structure;

Dictatorship of the nomenklatura and genocide against one's own people;

The dictatorship of crime and the shadow economy?

3.13. Man is a unity of biological and social. How do they compare:

The biological determines the social;

The social takes precedence over the biological;

In different periods, their combination is different, but biological prevails;

In different situations it is different, but the priority is for the social?

3.14. Does scientific and technological progress affect

biological (natural) basis of man?

3.15. Is there a semantic difference between the concepts of "man" and "personality":

These concepts are identical;

There is nothing in common between these concepts;

- "man" characterizes the biosocial side of people, "personality"-social?

3.16. A person is free when he acts:

Of necessity;

As he pleases;

Recognizing the need and acting in accordance with it?

3.17. Under what conditions is the type of behavior described by A.N. Nekrasov: “Whoever I want, I’ll have mercy, whoever I want, I’ll execute!”

totalitarianism;

Democracy;

the rule of law?

3.18. Personality is a person:

Achieved significant results;

Able to learn a lot from public consciousness;

Giving a lot to society;

With certain character traits, abilities and inclinations?

3.19. Individuality is:

Spirituality in man;

An individual who has become a personality;

Unique in man?

3.20. A civil position, the meaning of which is love for the motherland, is called:

Internationalism;

Patriotism;

Nationalism;

Cosmopolitanism?

3.21. What is the role of the masses in the historical process? They:

Inert, do not act independently;

Act as a decisive force in social development;

Can only be a destructive force;

Like a wheel, but not a motor, stories?

3.22. A historical prominent person is one who:

Holds a high leadership position;

It personifies the radical progressive transformations of the era;

Enjoys national recognition;

Qualitatively transformed the socio-political and economic situation in the state?

3.23. Heidegger believes that man, being a more or less important atom in the movement of world history, acts as a "toy of circumstances and events." What worldview is consistent with such views?

Fatalism;

Voluntarism?

3.24. What is the relationship between necessity and freedom?

Necessity and freedom have nothing in common;

There is no freedom in the world, everything happens out of necessity;

A free man is not subject to necessity;

Is freedom the knowledge of necessity and action in accordance with it?

3.25. How are civilization and culture related?

Civilization is older than culture;

Culture arose before civilization;

Civilization and culture arose simultaneously;

Civilization and culture have nothing in common?

3.26. The philosophical doctrine of values ​​is called:

Epistemology;

Epistemology;

cultural studies;

Ontology;

Axiology?

3.27. Did the global problems of mankind exist in past centuries:

3.28. The gradual movement of society from less perfect to more perfect is called:

degradation;

Regression;

Perestroika;

Crisis;

Transformation;

An artist must be judged by his own laws.
The expression was formed on the basis of a phrase by A. S. Pushkin (1799-1837) from his letter to A. A. Bestuzhev (end of January 1825). In this letter, the poet speaks about his impression of A. S. Griboyedov's play "Woe from Wit":
“A dramatic writer must be judged according to the laws he himself has recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboyedov's comedy.

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003 .

See what "An artist must be judged by his own laws" is in other dictionaries:

Literature of the era of feudalism. VIII X century. XI XII century. XII XIII century. XIII XV century. Bibliography. Literature of the era of the decomposition of feudalism. I. From the Reformation to the Thirty Years' War (late 15th–16th centuries). II From the 30 year war to the early Enlightenment (XVII century ... Literary Encyclopedia

- - scientist and writer, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor of chemistry at St. Petersburg University; was born in the village Denisovka, Arkhangelsk province, November 8, 1711, died in St. Petersburg on April 4, 1765. At present… …

I. From the history of the word "personality" in Russian until the middle of the 19th century. 1. Many of the meanings and semantic shades that developed in different European languages ​​in a large group of words dating back to ... ... The history of words

- - was born on May 26, 1799 in Moscow, on Nemetskaya Street in the house of Skvortsov; died January 29, 1837 in St. Petersburg. On his father's side, Pushkin belonged to an old noble family, descended, according to the genealogy, from a native "from ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

It got its start in ancient Greece. Even before Aristotle, many Greek philosophers not only thought about the issues of aesthetics and literary criticism, but wrote entire treatises about them. So, according to Diogenes Laertes, Democritus wrote several ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

I Medicine Medicine is a system of scientific knowledge and practice aimed at strengthening and maintaining health, prolonging people's lives, and preventing and treating human diseases. To accomplish these tasks, M. studies the structure and ... ... Medical Encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word "judgment" is closely related to the concept of "judgment". To judge this, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze some object, try to understand its meaning, give ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

D. as a poetic genus Origin D. Eastern D. Antique D. Medieval D. D. Renaissance From Renaissance to Classicism Elizabethan D. Spanish D. Classical D. Bourgeois D. Ro ... Literary Encyclopedia

Biography. Marx's teaching. philosophical materialism. Dialectics. materialistic understanding of history. Class struggle. The economic doctrine of Marx. Price. Surplus value. Socialism. The tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat ... Literary Encyclopedia

- (nlato) (427 347 BC) other Greek. thinker, along with Pythagoras, Parmenides and Socrates, the founder of European philosophy, the head of philosophy. school academy. Biographical information. P. is a representative of an aristocratic family who took an active ... Philosophical Encyclopedia