When we read Paul Davies and all scientists of the European pattern (Occident) of human thought we begin to laugh.

Such an ingenuity, the (scientific) ingenuity of Paul Davies and other scientists such as him!

«(...) The physical universe was literally created from the Nothing... (...)» was the way that Paul Davies found to characterize or describe the material origin in his (old) book «Superforce».

But Paul Davies ignores that nothing can come from the Nothing.

It’s a principle of the Logic and the definitions given by logical science (which belongs to philosophy). Unless we’ve changed the models of thought and speech... .

Is a proof of faith, so it is just a belief, in what concerns the Creation, both from a religious and a scientific point of view(s), that something can be created from the Nothing.

God can create it like that, one considers, because He has the power to do so.

Nature, because it has the natural conditions (it has the «natural principles», whose principles the makers of hoaxes and other mystifications call «Nature laws», as they confuse human principles and natural principles).

Just faith and believes! Almost (just almost?) religiously. And «scientifically», they say – ironically, for sure.

Nowadays, the physicians in general and the cosmologists in particular accept the idea that the Universe was created from a great explosion, the Big Bang, after a lapse of time during which took place an expansion of a primitive thing that seems to be a kind of fusion of all that exist(s) physically.

That finding was possible just due to conclusions of Edwin Hubble about the recession of galaxies. He found out, in the twenties, as an astronomer he was, that the Universe was in expansion once each galaxy showed that was going further from the observer that Hubble certainly was: the spectrum of light emission of each one had the tendency to run away towards the reds and infrareds in light spectrum impressed in convenient materials. And then, the Doppler Effect, applied to the light, was verified there.

Some logical conclusions got from that discovering were (1) that the Universe was in expansion; and if it was in expansion, (2) it would be more than a single possibility that it proceeded from a reunion point where all was before; due to the fact of the portions or amounts in the natural game (energy and matter), (3) a probable initial explosion took place.

But all those conclusions were (and are) extrapolations: one forgot that the global (cosmic) recession was recession just concerning the observer, finding himself in the same physical structure (the Earth). How could be, as he varied his referential location? And mainly varying his way of getting the results? And varying them from a minute to another? What could happen to his measurements? Because measuring a galaxy from Earth and another one from some other physical points in the Universe could result in a discording conclusion or in a contradiction. As two different galaxies are not in the same space and in the same time!

The problem of Davies and those such as him (innocently empiricists) is that they believe in what their natural Senses give them. Consensually.

They live in a sensory Universe: the Universe that they find out with their Senses and even with their technological instruments made by themselves with their Senses again.

Well: one may say that in the beginning of all started processes did not exist a reunion-point of material energy, or something like that, but simply what no one can quantify: what no one can measure.

And what is «not quantifiable» is, in its essence, nothing but... Thought.

A scientist can measure her or his own body. Can quantify it.

But it is impossible one does the same with the own thought.

What is the thought?

It is not the rationality. And also it isn’t the showings and performances of the mind in general taken.

Traces are not the owner, one may say.

Thought is not an amount of logical judgments which compose the sentences of the reasoning. Or the concept(ion)s of those logical judgments. And so on.

One thing is the Thought as a possibility of meaning and sentencing – and as a possibility, necessarily that it is a CONDITION, the main condition between all the (particular) conditions (and as a condition like that, it is a FORCE above all, because is a possibility of reality).

Another one is the thought as (a particular) EXERCISE of the main condition/possibility.

So: as a possibility, it has to be... (just) a force.

A force is a principle of anything: a condition to modify relations; a condition to origin things – and after that, to make, to establish, the universe of relations between them.

Yes, because the beginning of all is always... the RELATION.

The cosmologists affirm, today, that there weren’t time and space before the initial expansion which preceded the great explosion. Logically affirming it.

And they are right, because there are no time or space before any natural process.

Space (and time) is (are) consequence(s) of the... Relation. Considering the Relation a category in logical terms.

And what was the prior, the first and the main, relation?

It was the unknown act that the primitive reality did in order to become two and not just the only one that it is in its essence.

How to understand this is an impossibility for a rationality such as the human one is.

Space is not an entity in the physicist level of the natural kind of existence. It is just a consequence, not a cause. And more than to be more than a simple cause, it is more than a previous receptacle. It doesn’t exist independently, with no relational realities – one has to say: with no things connecting each other in any way.

Besides: one cannot cut off the time to conceive or even use the space. As to conceive the own hand just as a thing with spatial reality one needs the time to do that. The same with the time: to conceive one’s own hand, one needs to have two diverse conceptions of space.

The Relation is the beginning of everything – and not the space as a receptacle, which simply does not exist as a natural (physical) entity that it seems to be.

Even Einstein committed the same error on calculate the relations, considering TWO (!!) spaces: one as a receptacle and the other one as a part of a term: the continuum space-time.

The problem of contemporary science is to make confusion between causes and effects. And between so many other realities and relations.

For instance: between Life and Existence! Wearing out the Existence in Life. When the Existence, at last, is more (...implicative) than Life.

The problem of the normal science of nowadays (the science of the established paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn classified it) is the empiricism. Which discharge, at last, into the sensory consideration, that is supposedly positive, pragmatic – and so: utile.

But nothing can be reached with no logical exercise of the Thought – that is to say: the (non-quantifiable) principle of everything, which is a condition as a pattern for all.

Nothing could have had existence with no (previous) Thought that could give it... the meaning. So: that could give it... reality.

The problem is that empiricist science wants to see and touch (wants to reach sensibly) everything and quantify it.

But some realities are not quantifiable.
Above all are those essential realities which are patterns for everything: mainly pattern... for the existence in general, in the ending of the consideration.

And it is not a question of religion or God. These are false questions. Very human. Very conditional.

The divine reality, the pattern reality, is not an ontological reality in both senses: physical or non-quantifiable.

The essence of all realities, the essence of the Existence, is... the Thought: that main condition of an absolute wisdom. Unimaginable. Unthinkable. Not quantifiable. ...From a logical point of view. From a human point of view. I mean: from a natural point of view, in a physical way.

Everything is an... experience of consciousness. Not objectively existent with no subjective consideration.

EV,
25th of May of 2014.