Modern Leonardo Da Vinchi or Just a Dreamer?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by LesMagnifiques, Jul 22, 2008.

  1. LesMagnifiques Registered Member

    Recently I’ve come across an article of some unknown author. Has anyone heard about Andrey Shvets? Who’s he?:shrug:

    "Modern Leonardo da Vinchi” or a Belorussian Dreamer?

    I’ve got acquainted with Andrey Shvets' works after a friend of mine called him seriously or for fun modern Leonardo da Vinci. The breadth of scientific interests of this Belarusian author is really amazing. He offers new original ideas almost in every field of knowledge. However, nobody knows whether his ideas are proved or caused by the desire of the author to look for paradoxes even if they are not present.
    For example, it is considered to be that the “thermal death” of the system comes in case of its maximal entropy value, and in this case all processes stop in it. Therefore the system can be only in one static condition. Shvets approves that if the system has only one possible condition, its entropy is equal to zero. Hence, the recourse of the system and its approaching to the point of the “thermal death” is accompanied by the reduction of the entropy, and the progress – by the increase of the entropy. So the author makes the conclusions in the field of sociology and the economic theory. The divergence with the accepted position explains the mess between the information entropy and the thermodynamic entropy. I’m not an expert in this area, but I’m inclined to trust much more to the opinion of several generations of scientists-physicists than to Shvets.
    Let’s take another example. The paradox of Zenone about Ahille and the turtle has not been a riddle for a long time. Nobody doubts that the runner would overtake the turtle. And the paradox is based on the ignorance of the ancient people of the basics of the differential calculus. If people in Zenone’s time knew that the sum of the infinite quantity of the decreasing pieces can be equaled to any final number, there would have been no paradox at all. But Shvets writes that the opportunity of division of the final piece to the infinite number of infinitesimal pieces had been known earlier. In the very statement of this paradox the certain algorithm of the runner’s movement is incorporated. While Ahille is running to the point where the turtle was, he does not know where it is moving at this time. Only having reached this point the runner can see the following point to which the reptile gets. That is, if Ahille chases the turtle not knowing how it moves and in what point it appears next, he could never catch up with it. It’s impossible to catch up with the thing that moves absolutely vaguely, appearing here and there. However, the photons of light move like this. So Shvets makes the assumption that because of the uncertainty of the occurrences of photons of light, the more predicted particles could never "catch up" with them at the microlevel.
    Shvets has also formulated “the most general principle of relativity” which says that any observer has the right to consider himself based. The principle of relativity of Galilee gives such a right to the rectilinearly moving observer at the regular intervals, the general theory of relativity of Einstein - to the observer accelerating in the gravitational field. And still more “general principle of relativity” says that it’s possible to explain any physical phenomenon operating physical laws by having accepted any system of coordinates for based.
    Andrey Shvets goes beyond physics. It mentions economy, psychology, mathematics, philosophy and religion. But he does not try to join together various religions and philosophical doctrines as many people are trying to make it now. He has created his own direction, but at the same time all religious and mystical currents have found their place in this construction. This doctrine looks strange enough, and some religious dogmas have got absolutely other sense. It is supposed that we represent some comprehensions which are having dreams. These dreams are synchronized among themselves as well as the programs of the players in the computer network. As a result, the uniform world which we consider to be real is formed. This world-dream carries out a role of a simulator for those comprehensions which have not got stronger yet for the perception of the real world. Gradually the sleeping man changes his dreams and sees himself as different animals and different people passing on higher levels. It’s called the resettlement of souls. In the process of strengthening the comprehension starts to feel the illusoriness of this world-dream, and it becomes less interested in it, and passions and desires of this illusive world dominate less over it. Finally, the prepared comprehension ceases to require these dreams-simulators and wakes up at long last breaking off the circuit of regenerations. The sin is all that prevents to perceive the real world. And if the sin is still present, the comprehension is born in this world-dream again, and the idea of the “fall of the man” is concluded in it.
    Just as the communication between the computers can be broken, the communication between the sleeping and seeing one dream comprehensions can be broken, and then all of them would wake up. Our world-dream would disappear. There would come a doomsday. And then the comprehension prepared for the perception would apprehend the true reality as pleasure or the paradise. For those who has not had time to get stronger or for sinners, the perception of this reality would cause intolerable tortures like listening too loud music with too bright flashes of light. Indeed Shvets doesn’t insist on this model of the world.
    Beside the listed areas of human activity Andrey Shvets is interested in the Chinese philosophy and interprets it in a new fashion. In spite of the fact that it is exciting to read his works, probably it is necessary to recognize that the time of the talented and "omnivorous" self-educated persons is over. The future is for the narrow experts who have given to the field of knowledge a significant part of their life.
    William Barret

Share This Page