3. Mathematics and God’s Providence
The Matrix and “The Matrix” — two opposites · перевод (English) · раздел 4 из 8
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
3. Mathematics and God’s Providence
Accordingly with the definition of the word “matrix” given above, the machine system fabricating dreams about the life of humanity is named correctly. But this leads to the question: is the machine system the Matrix, or it belongs to another matrix which predetermines its existence and operation?
To avoid limiting the generality of reasoning, it is better to assume that the machine system, localized on planet Earth, may only exist and operate only, if it has a place or “cell” in a superior, enclosing matrix, within a certain arrangement of mutually-nested matrices. The superior matrix, in turn, occupies a cell in a more superior, higher level matrix. This way, in the process of considering the successively widening subordination of mutually-nested matrices, which predetermine the existence of nested matrices and processes created by them (including the existence of universes), we come to two questions, an affirmative answer to one of which is a negative answer to the other:
● does there exist a limit of this successive widening of matrices? that is, does there exist a certain all-enclosing matrix, predetermining the existence of all matrices nested in it and the possibilities of filling them with some matter and information?
● or this limit does not exist, and the order of matrices, enclosing nested limited matrices, may continue to be built, creating more and more new possibilities of existence of various worlds?
Humanity has come to these questions multiple times, and over the course of history various worldview systems (schools) answered these questions in mutually-exclusive ways. But in all the diversity of developed and detailed worldview systems, they all may be correlated with one of two classes of answers:
● There exists a limit of the escalation of these matrices, and the process of escalation of this order of mutual enclosure of matrices, leads to equating the limit of the sequence[4] with a certain all-enclosing matrix, named from the ancient times as... God’s Predetermination of the Life of the Universe.
● There objectively exists only a certain basic element of life, a sort-of building block of the universe, “a fundamental element”, with “addition”, “multiplication”, “subtraction”, and other operations applied to it. Application of these operations on the element leads to an order of mutual inter-links of individual matrices of life, which can be limitlessly escalated, not converging to any certain all-enclosing matrix.
Both views accept infinitely widening orders of enclosure of individual matrices of life, but express qualitatively different understanding of this infinity: in the first case, it is an initially predetermined from Above “infinity”, and in the second case it is “infinity” built by trial and error of escalation and transformation of individual matrices, representing “finished elements” in this infinite “construction”. At first sight, both mutually-exclusive views are equally grounded, and to judge about the truthfulness or falseness of either one of them does not seem possible.
But giving it some thought, the first view is correct: there exists some all-enclosing predetermination, as a result of which the process of escalation of the order of mutually enclosing individual matrices of life, and their filling with matter and information, fails, if there is an attempt to create something, that has no place in the all-enclosing matrix — God’s Predetermination.
In the worst case, the laws of physics and chemistry, which manifest the highest of currently constructed predeterminations, could be changed with the spawning of any new matrix-superstructure, enclosing the matrices preceding it in the order of their mutual enclosure, and completing (temporarily) this order, which corresponds to the “second law of dialectics”, according to which quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes[5].
Besides that, accepting the second view creates the necessity for having, besides some fundamental “matrix” (“building block”), the means allowing to escalate this the order of mutual enclosure. This is one and the same God’s Predetermination of Life, but smuggled into reasoning either due to thoughtlessness, or to avoid calling things their proper names.
But the two mutually-exclusive assumptions express different worldviews, which are also mutually-exclusive. The first is God-centric, coming from the fact that the Universe as a whole, and the planet Earth in particular, are God’s creation, a result of the Predetermination of the Creator and Almighty, and the life of a person with such a worldview lies within the course of God’s Providence.
For a human, living within the course of Providence, it is natural to realize that the Universe is united and whole, and everything in it (including relationships between people) is causally-determined and multi-optional (generally) within the aims of Providence. And any person builds their life in the course of God’s Predetermination either in harmony with Providence, or opposing It with their actions. In the first case, God for the human is the super-Universal reality, the Hierarchically Highest All-enclosing control, with Which the human constantly strives to maintain certain ethics of personal relations based on his actual morality. In the second case, goes the process of constant (more often than not — unconscious) resistance by the individual to God’s Providence, in which manifests a certain morally-based worldview of the individual.
In the first world-understanding, measure (Russian “mera”) and matrix are different words for the same objective phenomenon. And if one understands God’s Predetermination of Life as a multidimensional matrix of possible states of all matter in the Universe, then some portion of the matrix — God’s Predetermination — is accessible to the human sense of measure (sense of proportion). Accordingly, any attentive and good-willed human, who is given from Above the ability to distinguish (discriminate) cause-effect chains of his own life and the circumstances around him, perceives the manifestation of God’s Providence as Hierarchically Highest All-enclosing control, and is thus able to and strives to act in harmony with God, within the course of His Providence based on the individual’s own sense of measure.
The second worldview may be called “I-centric”, or ego-centric. In its essence, it is either completely atheistic, lifting human to the level of God or conqueror of Nature, or arrives at pantheism, equalizing the Universe with God, and accepting that not everything in Nature can be controlled by humanity. But in either case this worldview insists that the Universe, the Earth and its biosphere and humanity have somehow “self-created” (but even then the unconscious of adherents of this worldview generates the question: “from what?”) either as a result of an explosion (again a question: “of what?”) or as a result of lengthy evolution (again: “of what?”).
Such a worldview also has the property of perceiving the objective reality as a collection of unconnected accidental facts or coincidences, processes and phenomena, the constantly changing multitude of combinations of which determines for them the evolutionary development of the universe, happening “by itself” in accordance with the discovered and still undiscovered laws of nature. This is a result of the fact, that the invisible for the atheist cause-effect chains between different (from the atheist’s point of view) phenomena, in which directly manifests the Hierarchically Highest all-enclosing control of the Almighty, are considered as objectively “non-existent”: everything that the individual cannot perceive directly is by many considered as objectively non-existent.
Such a worldview places at the center of the universe (be it unconsciously) either the person and his limited capabilities, or the laws of nature, having discovered which the person begins to see himself as the “crown” of nature. But “I-centrism” stays “I-centrism” independent of the breadth of his horizons: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”, said Isaac Newton.
And due to lack of understanding of their own atheism, adherents of “I-centrist” worldview perceive the strive to comprehend the one God and His Providence for his creation as opposing the strive to cognize the laws of nature.