Is it possible to overcome the paradoxes of the modern conceptualization of the Universe?

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

In Metaphysics, Aristotle cites, from our retrospective point of view, one of the first conceptualizations of the Universe, which in antiquity meant the Cosmos and the Sky with planets and stars. "There is something that is forever moving in non-stop motion… But the object of desire and the object of thought move in this way: they move without being in motion themselves<...> At the same time, the mind, by virtue of its involvement in the object of thought, thinks itself: it becomes conceivable by coming into contact with its object and thinking it, so that the same thing is the mind and what is thought by it. <...> And life is undoubtedly inherent in it: for the activity of the mind is life<...> and his activity, as it is in itself, is the best and eternal life" ^{[3, p. 211]}.

Such a universe was a reality, not just understandable to man, but in many ways ideal. The ideal moment of the Universe has been preserved in the history of European culture for a very long time, it is still visible in Kant. "Two things,? Kant writes, "always fill the soul with new, the more intense surprise and awe the more often and for a longer time we reflect on them, this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me" ^{[7, p. 729]}

The victorious march of natural science in the first half of the twentieth century erased all ideal moments from the understanding of the Universe and turned the starry sky into a poorly understood, partly meaningless process conceptualized in the theories of the "Expanding Universe", "Hot Universe" or "Big Bang". Why on earth, besides the desire to implement mathematical equations and physical laws, astrophysicists have built the following picture: the entire universe was first compressed to superdense and super-hot microscopic matter, which then exploded and flew in all directions, becoming more and more complicated (currently in the form of galaxies).

Hannah Arendt blames this loss and senselessness on scientists who, in order to realize their ideals, threw out a child with water. "According to Schrodinger," she writes, "this new universe that we are trying to "conquer" is not just "inaccessible in practice, but even unthinkable," because "no matter how we think about it, our thought is wrong; maybe not as meaningless as the 'triangular circle', but much more meaningless than the ‘winged lion’”…

The last thing scientists wanted was to “conquer space”, fly to the moon or something like that… In fact, it was nothing more than the search for “true reality” that made them disbelieve in phenomena, in phenomena in the form in which they themselves reveal themselves to human feelings and reason. They were inspired by an extraordinary love of harmony and lawfulness, which taught that if they wanted to discover the all-encompassing beauty and order of the whole (universe), then they would have to go beyond any simply given sequence or series of events. This may explain why they seem not so much tormented by the fact that their discoveries have served to invent the most deadly devices, as they worry about the collapse of all their most cherished ideals of conformity and necessity. These ideals were lost when scientists discovered that there is no indivisible matter, no a-tomos, that we live in an expanding, unlimited universe and that randomness seems to prevail wherever this “true reality”, the physical world, completely transcends the realm accessible to human senses or any devices that their rudeness was leveled" ^{[2, pp. 395, 400-401]}.

The main part

It is worth clarifying, the culprits, well, not literally, but figuratively speaking, are not just scientists, but philosophers and scientists with a natural science orientation. The latter can be considered in two ways: ontologically, from the point of view of the structure and characteristics of the objects under study, and epistemologically, bearing in mind the methodology of the study. Ontological optics with respect to the object of interest allows us to raise the question of the nature and type of the Universe as an object, which is usually answered that the universe is a physical object. "According to the definition of A.L.Zelmanov," writes Vadim Kazyutinsky, who has studied cosmological theories for many years, "cosmology is "the physical doctrine of the Universe as a whole, which includes the theory of the entire world covered by astronomical observations as part of the Universe" ^{[4, p. 10]}. Kazyutinsky himself believes in the same way, who says that "for all the originality of the object of cosmology, it still represents a physical object" ^{[5, p. 32]}. But it's not obvious to us.  

         Epistemological optics, based on Kazyutinsky's research, makes it doubtful that cosmological theories were built in strict accordance with the natural science approach and methodology. The methodology of natural sciences is usually compared with the methodology of the humanities, which comes from the opposition of the late 19th century, in which "natural sciences" and "spiritual sciences" (later called humanities) were opposed. If the natural sciences study nature, revealing its eternal laws, then the humanities study objects such as history, culture, certain aspects of man, works of art, etc., often understanding them as "individuals" (not subjects, but unique, single objects). The ideal of natural science is the mathematization of natural phenomena, the Galilean experiment, in which mathematical descriptions turn into models, orientation to engineering applications; all this makes it possible to predict and calculate natural processes ^{[18, pp. 23-24; 10, pp. 285-308]}. The ideal of the humanities is different: not mathematization, but "schematization" (building schemes ^[11]), which allows us to interpret and understand the phenomenon under study. ^[12] So, the description and genesis of cosmological theories proposed by Kazyutinsky does not allow them to be attributed to natural science, but these theories fully correspond to the ideal of the humanities.

Indeed, Kazyutinsky shows that the universe is not revealed to us naturally as an object of nature ("this object has not been isolated by any empirical means, in theory it is set by extrapolation" ^{[5, p. 11]}), therefore, we cannot talk about any Galilean decisive experiment. Next, the "anthropic principle" is introduced, bringing the universe closer to the objects of humanitarian science ("what we expect to observe should be limited by the conditions necessary for our existence as observers" ^{[5, p.49]}). It also brings together the presence of different cosmological theories that explain the same cosmic phenomena and observations in different ways (which is the most common thing for the humanities). The next problem is that modern cosmological evolutionary theories do not have a satisfactory number of predictions confirmed on their basis. Others have, but the predictions are not justified (for example, the solar neutrino flux turned out to be significantly less than predicted by the theory). The third predictions do not yet have a reliable explanation. "What happens in the nuclei of galaxies," Kazyutinsky writes, "we essentially do not know until now... numerous and very sophisticated attempts to solve the "mass paradox" have not yet been crowned with success. According to modern concepts, galaxy clusters should be stationary. But for this it is necessary to assume that 95-98% of the mass of matter in the Universe is in an invisible state ("hidden mass"). All attempts to understand the physical nature of the hidden masses are still "hanging in the air" ^{[5, p. 31]}.

"The "singularity problem" is especially intolerable, as Kazyutinsky shows, according to which, moving back to the beginning of the scattering of galaxies, we come to a zero point where many physical parameters (mass of matter, radii of particles, etc.) acquire infinite or zero values, thereby losing physical meaning. There is also such a fundamental question as what happened “before” the singularity. A number of researchers “cautiously expressed themselves in the sense that there is currently no reasonable physical answer to this question” ^{[5, p. 33]}. If it does not exist in physical reality, then perhaps this problem can be solved within the framework of the humanities? And how else can one interpret the answers given by many cosmologists: this question is meaningless, because time, as Augustine still believed, "should have arisen together with the Universe" ^{[5, p. 34]}. Finally, the interpretation of the red shift as the scattering of galaxies is not the only one. A.Belopolsky, for example, explained it by the "aging of photons", many opponents of the Friedman theory considered the red shift, well explained by this theory, as evidence of its falsity. The different measurements of the redshift were also confusing (the Hubble constant differs tenfold from different authors) and the discovery of phenomena in space that are inexplicable in this theory (for example, a gamma-ray flash was discovered relatively recently, commensurate with the power of the Big Bang ^{[5, p. 27]})

Thinking over Kazyutinsky's research, I formulated the following paradox ? within the solar system, a person is dealing with physical reality, and beyond it with humanitarian reality. In addition, I stated the following. "Cosmology should be classified as a scientific discipline of the humanitarian type, which does not exclude the presence of various physical and other natural sciences in it. The object of cosmology (similar to the objects of biology, cultural studies, and sociology) cannot be described in one scientific discipline. The “cosmological reality” is multilevel, and at each level there are different patterns that must be described by different cosmological theories. From the point of view of the philosophy of science, the Universe represents ideal objects of humanitarian theories that are created based on facts (astronomical observations and their interpretation), in the process of implementing the values and approach of cosmologists, conducting humanitarian discourse (for example, interpreting astronomical observations as peculiar texts and cosmic activity), taking into account the humanitarian nature of the Universe (a plurality of cosmological theories, the anthropic principle, etc.)" ^{[14, p. 128]}.

If we look at the work of cosmologists from the point of view of forms of conceptualization (i.e., ideas about the type and features of science itself), then we have to admit the existence of such a paradox. On the one hand, cosmologists try to implement in their work the principles of natural science, which really determine a number of features of their theoretical constructions, on the other hand, their work and thinking are better described by the principles of humanities. It turns out that they involve and implement two types of conceptualization at the same time ? natural science and humanitarian. At the same time, both conceptualizations are only partially implemented. For example, there is no full-fledged natural science experiment, the mechanism of galaxies and the universe is not really described. Since cosmologists do not realize the principles of humanitarian science at all (although they realize them under the pressure of material resistance), the humanitarian component of their thinking is incomplete, which is quite natural in the absence of adequate awareness.

         To understand how this situation can be resolved methodologically, let us first pay attention to the fact that the knowledge of the Universe has passed through two stages: mythological understanding in the Ancient World and, since Modern Times, rational and scientific understanding. At the first stage, semiotic "schemes" were the main tool of cognition, allowing to resolve "problematic situations", to set a "new reality", which provided an understanding of what was happening, to create conditions for a "new action" aimed at resolving a problematic situation. Here is one example.

"In the language of Tupi," writes E. Taylor, "a solar eclipse is expressed in the words: "the jaguar ate the sun." The full meaning of this phrase is still revealed by some tribes by the fact that they shoot burning arrows to drive away a ferocious beast from its prey. On the northern mainland, some savages also believed in a huge sun-eating dog, while others shot arrows into the sky to protect their luminaries from imaginary enemies attacking them. But next to these prevailing concepts, there are others. The Karaites, for example, imagined the eclipsed moon to be hungry, sick or dying... The Hurons considered the moon to be sick and performed their usual sharivari with shooting and howling dogs to heal it" ^{[19, p. 228]}.

Here, the expression "jaguar ate the sun" can be interpreted as a scheme, provided a) that the situation of fear of an eclipse and uncertainty about what to do can be understood as a problematic situation, b) a new understanding according to which an unusual jaguar lives in the sky, feeding on luminaries, and the disk of the sun disappears in its mouth, is characterized as a new reality, c) shots into the sky and sharivari are interpreted as a new action designed to force the jaguar to release the sun. As we have already noted, the schemes made it possible to comprehend the Universe, so to speak, "for man", to make it not only understandable to the latter, but also useful.

 Now the scientific explanation of the universe. It is created from a New Time, where completely different problems were solved: not understanding what is happening, but mastering nature, calculating and predicting its processes, creating a new technique based on such mastery. The same eclipse was now explained on the basis of the natural science (mathematical) models of Kepler and Tewton, which made it possible to accurately calculate the time and place of eclipses. Unlike schemes that define their own object (the jaguar appeared in the sky at the same time as the invention of the corresponding scheme), the construction of the model is based on the "simulated object" (planets of the solar system and their satellites orbiting the sun and other planets), in addition, the model allows you to transfer knowledge obtained from the model to the simulated object, and this knowledge allows you to act effectively with this object (calculate and predict).

         It seems that it could be better, but why then did the Universe target us: it can destroy Humanity in a variety of ways (the Earth's magnetic field will disappear, a huge asteroid will fall into it, glaciers at the poles will melt, a new star will explode somewhere near and energy flows will wash away life on Earth, the sun will burn out, shrink once again once the universe and then the Earth is also the end, etc., etc.). And man-made disasters, and the expected pandemics! Wait, is the last "handiwork" of the universe? It seems not to be, it is the result of human activity, civilization and sociality created by him. But at the same time, the universe. To deal with this paradox, let's take a look at the cosmic evolution that took place on Earth. First, however, a few assumptions based on a number of modern speculations.

         First. Evolution is a process of change (development) caused by the complexity of the universe, a variety of conditions, and interactions. In this regard, although there are certain general patterns, the current state of the universe is unique.

The second assumption. Sooner or later, the whole and the course of development of the Universe changes, that is, another universe is born and begins to live. "In his brilliant constructions," writes Robert Salman, "which have already become classics by now, the French mathematician Rene Thom expressed the idea that any organization, system or living organism obeys a certain logic in its development, following a certain growth curve until it reaches a certain ceiling. At such a moment, a breakdown (or "catastrophe") occurs, which determines the disappearance or disintegration of the object in question, thereby creating a new form, the type of which is almost impossible to predict based on previously observed conditions. At the same time, the new form self-organizes according to new principles, demonstrating a completely new way of development... any system of causal laws is reliable only at some certain level, and the creation of conditions for achieving a certain aggregate state depends on some other, fundamental principles and laws, higher-order causal relationships that can be formulated only then when there is a qualitative transition to a new state… Therefore, the universe, the world can be characterized as an open system, a certain sequence of worlds in worlds where the unpredictable (i.e. unknown laws of a higher order) and necessity (i.e. the principle of consistent, logical organization) constantly interact with each other…Modern science has proved that the world cannot be perceived only as a simple collection of solid objects or a collection of masses with energy, but should also take into account the information component in the sense of a certain genetic code, the communication component spreading between forms, the element of interaction between the observer and the object, the internal cohesion (that is, global interdependence) of all fragments of the mosaic" ^{[16, pp. 128, 129, 131]}.      

The third assumption. Since a certain moment of development, conditions have developed on Earth that have allowed the Universe evolving in the bosom of the Earth (let's call it the "local, terrestrial Universe") to develop differently than outside the Earth. "It's just amazing," Kazyutinsky shared with the author, "how well the earth turned out to be adapted for the appearance of life. It is located neither too close to the Sun nor too far away. In the first case, we would have been very hot, as on Venus, and therefore life would have been impossible, in the second – as on Pluto, eternal cold and ice, especially since protein life would never have arisen. It turns out some kind of pre-established harmony, or rather an a priori attitude to life.   Our sun is neither too young nor too old, in both opposite cases life would be impossible. Our planet is surrounded by an atmosphere and a magnetic field, which reliably protect life from ultraviolet radiation and harmful cosmic rays. We are located in the perfect peaceful place of the galaxy…It feels like the universe was created just for us, as if it were a specially designed test tube and laboratory for life. If I were a believer, Kazyutinsky finished, it would be based on the data of modern astronomy that I would come to the conclusion about the creation of life on earth, and the universe was conceived by God as a mother's womb" ^[13].

At the same time, as is known, the earthly Universe has passed through three main stages, more precisely, we can talk about three consecutive earthly Universes ? "cosmic" (physical), "vital" (biological) and "social". Within the framework of the latter, a person appeared and a culture developed. Each subsequent terrestrial universe included the previous one, respectively modifying it as its component or substrate. In the book "Cosmobiosocial Reality: The End of Modernity and the Formation of a Future Culture," I present the following diagram showing the relationships that have developed in evolution between these three earthly Universes (they are called realities here).

         Here, the regions of the earthly Universe are called modified, in which, for various reasons, changes have occurred that acted as prerequisites for the formation of the next earthly Universe (prerequisites are not causes, but conditions without which the next whole cannot be born). For example, as I show, the prerequisites for the formation of the social universe were: a change in climate about 10-1 million years BC, the transition of hominids to paradoxical behavior, the formation of signs and quasi-social behavior. ^{[15, pp. 87-104]}

         So the above cosmological theories ("Expanding Universe", "Hot Universe", "Big Bang") ? first of all, it is reflection (comprehension) A universe located outside the Earth, but made, fundamentally, from social reality, secondly, this reflection is carried out within the framework of a hybrid approach, conceptualized as a natural science approach. Let us now take into account that the social universe in its evolution has come to a dangerous point, has put itself on the verge of self-destruction. The paradox here is that in parallel, human life improved, culture, science, art and much more were formed, obviously good.

Nevertheless, there are man-made disasters, environmental crisis, injustice, social conflicts and wars, and all this against the background of nuclear parity and deterrence, which has almost stopped working. It is difficult to expect that a good, i.e. human-oriented, understanding of the Universe stretching beyond the "window" of the Earth will be born from the social universe with all its contradictions and conflicts. If a person has set himself the task of mastering nature, becoming powerful, and getting all kinds of benefits, then he at least mentally wants the same thing in relation to the Universe. However, paradoxically, the Universe does not just show a fig to a person, but directly threatens to erase him from the face of existence. The universe tells him, only a person who is passionate about his ideas of fix does not hear: "It is not enough for you that you have mastered and destroy the first nature, you want to get to me, you think, remembering the statements of Francis Bacon, that you will become so powerful that you can force me to serve. Haha, but you're a microscopic part of me. I can see all your attempts at power. As soon as you cross the red line, I will cut off this microscopic part of me from myself, and you will disappear. Better understand this and, if you don't want to disappear, change your life, admit your dependence on me and then maybe I will help you."        

         Speaking as a person, of course, I am not quite legitimately generalizing. Yet there are subjects who have heard the whispers of the universe. Some, like Martin Heidegger, repeat it loudly so that others can hear it, others, for example, Pierre Ado, agree to live without trying to understand and study the Universe at all, others, like Alexey Losev, return to the sacred interpretation of the Universe, others, like Kazyutinsky, hesitate in interpreting the Universe.

"Human subjectivism," writes Heidegger in his report "The Time of the Worldview," reaches its highest peak in the planetary imperialism of a technically organized person: from which he descends into the plane of organized monotony and settles there. This monotony is the most reliable instrument of complete, that is, technical power over the Earth <...> What has long threatened death to man and, moreover, the death of his essence, is the absolute character of pure volition in the sense of a deliberate desire to assert oneself in everything. What threatens a person in his essence is a strong-willed belief that through peaceful release, transformation, accumulation of the forces of nature, as well as their management, a person can make human existence more bearable and generally happy for everyone" ^{[22, p. 144, 148]}.

"Einstein," Pierre Ado reflects, "was delighted with the laws of nature, which presuppose a transcendental mind, and with the order of the world corresponding to the order of thought. One could say about this: it is not clear that the world would be understandable… For this topic, as you have admitted yourself, the question of providence and the order of the world are of little importance. Epicurus did not believe in this, and, by the way, the need for Stoics is, after all, not very far removed from some modern concepts" ^{[1, p. 240]}.

"This,? Losev said, explaining to Vladimir Bibikhin why he was a believer, ?amazed me. And that's how I've lived my life and I couldn't and I can't understand… God is the Creator, the Almighty ? and what is going on here? Can't he eliminate all this ugliness with a single movement of his little finger? Maybe. Why doesn't he want to? Secret... And the believer is the one who has seen through this mystery. Others say, uh, there is no God. This is rationalism, and foolishness... And faith begins when God is crucified. God is crucified! When you start trying to understand it, you see: It's a mystery. Both the ancient and the new, of course, knew this secret. Aristotle is naive: in one place “Metaphysics” says so, in another it is different. Everything is correct there and here. But if you say: how is it, you have an absolute mind there, a prime mover that controls everything, and here the devil knows what is going on?.. But if there were a believer, he would say: this is a mystery. That's why I didn't want to make an absolute out of “Metaphysics”…

That's why, setting out a tedious, boring metaphysics that claims to be absolute (a strong, divine structure of the world) ? I think that the whole relativity is laid down here. The sky, of course, moves for centuries. This god is at least lower, but even this god moves with the whole movement of the firmament. ? But if in one second it turns out that this vault is not there, some one moment, and this whole vault of heaven fell out, exploded, broke down, disappeared - I would not be surprised. Because I'm a believer. And if I were a pagan, then yes, of course, I would say, here on earth we have chaos, but the fixed stars all move constantly, eternally, invariably, etc. From a Christian point of view, this is relative, but paganism is the absolutization of the whole world. Well, let Plato and Aristotle believe that this device is indestructible ? let them believe. But if a catastrophe suddenly happens, they do not know where to go ? but I will say: the mystery of God has been fulfilled; it must be so."^[4]

In the article "No, cosmology is a physical science, not a humanitarian one! Answer to V.M. Rozin"Vadim Kazyutinsky writes immediately after the publication of my article that Rozin's interpretation of his views is "absolutely inadequate and is essentially parodic in nature." ^{[6, p. 129]} But about a year later Vadim came up to me and said confusedly that maybe I was right, since one famous Western cosmologist He expressed about the same thoughts about the universe as you. However, in my opinion, Kazyutinsky's research speaks for itself, it is more convincing than the opinion of a well-known Western cosmologist.

         And how does the author understand the situation presented here? He believes that a person must re-establish himself in his understanding of the Universe, namely, firstly, to recognize its presence (conditionality) in his actions, secondly, to agree that the development of the social universe has acquired a catastrophic character, thirdly, to begin to think through the established sociality in order to understand what is needed change it. I will explain with two examples ? the nuclear project and the pandemic.     

         An atomic bomb would never have been possible to create if there were no corresponding prerequisites in the physical reality (cosmic universe) in the form of processes of fission of uranium nuclei (chain reaction of fission). But in pure uranium, which has a critical mass, uranium nuclei are not collected by themselves, and impurities from uranium ore are not removed by themselves under the influence of the laws of nature. In order for these prerequisites to work, numerous human actions and a sufficiently high level of sociality development were necessary: research in the science of uranium fission, chemical processes and many other processes, both natural and technical, organization of uranium ore extraction, creation of new industries, political decision-making, allocation of large funds by the state, organization of espionage and secrecy, and In other words, only a certain development of the social universe, including the practice of warfare, technological advance, fears of Nazi Germany, which worked on the creation of atomic weapons, the desire to protect themselves in the competition of social systems and assert themselves, as Heidegger writes, "in everything", caused such a development of the physical universe, which It led to the creation of the atomic bomb and its use at the end of World War II. The question is, is it possible to develop another sociality that allows minimizing social conflicts and wars, making the world safer and fairer, restoring the ecology of the Earth, moving Humanity away from the threat of death? As a matter of fact, this is not even a question, but an urgent requirement of modernity, if it is not met, the consequences will be catastrophic. Now, the pandemic.     

Is this a purely biological phenomenon? Is it due to the current level of sociality development? Firstly, the contacts increased by several orders of magnitude. "Well, what kind of political model," Konstantin Remchukov, editor?in?chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, reflects, "could prepare us for the fact that the virus will come from somewhere in the context of globalization, when everyone flies on airplanes… I have already cited these figures, that in Wuhan 20 years ago, 18 million tourists visited the entire province, and in the 18th year 288 million tourists. Planes fly to 54 countries, and they fly to 82 cities in China. And can you imagine if they fly from this Wuhan, went to the market, ate... mice or snakes, or went down into a cave… Today I read some good article, they say that the walls of caves where bats are, that bats can lay on these walls… You touched the wall ? you walk in single file ? and then you took it out and it started. And then you all boarded planes and flew to 54 countries around the world. We went out in Italy, hugged friendly Italians ? and it started ... a completely different scale of communications, urbanization, this is an increased crowding of people. This is the subway where everyone goes… In the same Wuhan metro there was: one line ? 9 stations, now there are more than 20 lines and 256 stations. Imagine, everyone is crammed into the subway and going. And so it is all over the world. Why do we see that New York, New Jersey, all these metropolitan subways suffer from this, why Moscow … Of course, these factors are precisely predetermined by the level of globalization" ^[8].

         Secondly, in many countries experiments were conducted on animals, as well as with bacteria and viruses, both for the good purposes of creating new types of food, vaccines and medicines, and with others, for example, the creation of new types of biological weapons. So far, the world community has not decided whether the coronavirus was a natural mutation or was deliberately created in some kind of laboratory.

         Thirdly, the modern man-made environment (concentration of electric and magnetic fields, industries, machines) promotes and accelerates mutations of genes, including those dangerous to humans. 

         Thus, it is the development of sociality against the background of biological prerequisites that trigger pandemics and create conditions for their rapid spread.

"Similar processes were generated even earlier by the environmental crisis, man-made diseases, migration processes and a number of other negative processes, which together would be recognized as a threat to the death of our civilization. Indeed, the social development of modernity predetermined such a development of industry and technology, including the military, which, on the scale (sphere) of the planet, began to transform the processes of cosmic reality, and those, in turn, vital processes. The conclusion is obvious: changes in the existing sociality are necessary.

         one of the types of reality, say, social, but also renegade areas of reality from which this one came out (i.e., and having found this place, the reader can stop the author by exclaiming, but what about Vernadsky, he wrote a hundred years ago about the interaction of the types of reality considered by the author and, in particular, introduced an interesting concept of the biosphere and the noosphere. And his follower, the famous biologist Timofey-Resovsky, developed a project that allows, without destroying the earth's biosphere, to feed the rapidly growing population of the planet ^{[21, pp. 353-362]}. At the same time, he, thinking in the logic of the noosphere, suggests that governments urgently begin to solve the problem posed to them. Timofeev-Resovsky is sure that it is possible to solve all social problems along the biological path and in terms of goodwill; for him, social reality does not exist, it is unlikely that he would answer what would happen next when the world's population exceeds the second ten billion inhabitants, whether new social problems will arise, even more complex or will governments and societies want to throw all their efforts at increasing the productivity of the biosphere, who will decide on the implementation of the project at all, etc., etc. 

Philosophers L.V.Fesenkova and A.V. Pankratov ask: "Where does this moral, spiritual factor come from in models focused on the biological and ecological vision of the world?.. It appears as if from nowhere. This is the specificity of not only Vernadsky's ideas, but also of all subsequent developments of sustainable development models, which, as we noted above, necessarily presuppose the emergence of a morally perfect person for their implementation. This is an irremediable contradiction" ^{[20, pp. 166-167, 172]}. John Ritzer opens his book Modern Sociological Theories with the statement that although "people create a world that ultimately enslaves them," they "always have the opportunity to change the world order that limits them" ^{[9, p. 16]}. Let's see what opportunities they have for this.

At one time, social chaos and selfishness (we are talking about the formation of modernity) were curbed and minimized through the invention of new European institutions ? parliament, the national state, general elections, checks and balances, law and others. And at least this social order worked well in a number of European countries and the United States until the twentieth century. Today, it has ceased to fulfill its purpose, both because social life has changed dramatically, and also because technologies have been invented that allow the created social institutions to be used for other purposes, for the selfish purposes of individual communities and even individuals and groups.  

In general, selfishness is increasing in the world. Losev asks why God tolerates evil and does nothing? Maybe because the old social order of modernity has been ordered to live, but the new one has not yet been created? Emanuel Swedenborg argued that all people are divided into good people who reach out to God and Heaven, and bad people who cultivate evil, and God maintains a balance in the struggle of these forces. But then the evil would not have to increase, and it is clearly growing. We have to admit that it's not about biological nature, they say, there are predators and their victims, there is a food chain in which we occupy a certain place. No, at the level of social reality, the ideas of good and evil are valuable in themselves, they were created, among other things, by the "project mind".

But maybe evil can still be caged and minimized by creating a new social order? However, how can this be done if there are many social forces and organisms in the world that are at different levels of development: some are already ready to change, while others are not, they are only connecting to the benefits of modernity. Some are obsessed with the ideas of social reconstruction and justice, while others do not believe in them and believe that social justice is unattainable. The idea of dialogue and mutual concessions presupposes a certain level of development from their participants, which does not exist, and it is unknown whether it is possible in principle.  

The situation is aggravated by two more circumstances. First, modernity is undergoing a crisis and a new type of culture and reality is emerging against its background ? "postculture". This culture is only becoming, its features are not yet clear, a number of social trends are evident (the processes of globalization, the convergence of socialist and capitalist forms of management and economics, the formation of metacultures and new ethics, etc.), but these are only trends, everything can change.

The second circumstance is that in addition to the three types of reality discussed above, a fourth one seems to be becoming, it can be called an "anthropo?activity-technical" type of reality. This idea is suggested by the Internet, mobile communications, robotics and a number of other neoplasms. Is the Internet, for example, a purely technical invention and system? No, the Internet is constantly being improved, due to which it is developing, people are sitting on the Internet who solve a variety of social and individual tasks, packet transmission of information on the Internet, as well as virus attacks and the fight against them are very reminiscent of a special form of life, the Internet is changing our vision and way of life, connecting the people of the planet in a new way^[1]. The expression, "the world has become small, and everyone is connected to each other" reflects a new worldview that is replacing the social type of reality and modernity.

Isn't it then that our world is doomed? However, this is not the first time. Let's recall, for example, the end of ancient culture and the beginning of the Middle Ages. The decline of culture, savagery, the spread of evil, the cholera pandemic and much more testified to the death of the world. But, starting from the VIII-IX centuries, the rise of culture, the development of cities and crafts, and the formation of Christian morality began in Europe. The need to live, trade, maintain order, and defend against enemies has taken over evil and social chaos. I think the same thing will happen in our world."^[13]

Conclusion

Well, what about knowing how the universe works, as well as how to protect the Earth from its accidental influences? What meaning do we attach to the concept of the "structure" of the universe? Either sacred ? God arranged the universe, or again natural science. The first, of course, provides comfort, and the second, as Arendt says, has led to the fact that the universe is "inaccessible in practice and even unthinkable." For the sake of truth, it is worth noting that both, however, do not deny the possibility of the death of the Earth from accidental cosmic influences, the probability of which, however, is exaggerated. The structure of the Universe should be thought of not within the framework of a natural science approach, but in terms of "salvation", which we proposed to associate with such a rethinking of the established sociality and the resulting changes that will move Humanity away from destruction, and will work for life and good. By the way, the work of rescue should also include the protection of the Earth from accidental cosmic influences.

From our reflections, the following idea of the universe suggests itself. It is a kind of matryoshka of Universes ? cosmic, physical, biological, social and noospheric (the latter is just beginning to take shape). It is possible, although the probability of this is small, that life and intelligence (not necessarily similar to ours) have arisen not only on Earth; in this case, a number of planetary Universes will be added. At the same time, there are two multidirectional processes in the social universe. One works for man and culture (Plato and Aristotle realized it for the first time, speaking of "justice" and "good"). Another process, due to its diverse (conflicting, egoistic) orientation, which takes place in all Universes, in fact, acts against man and culture. This second process is caused not only by the actions of individuals, but by many other social actions (for example, wars, trade, production of things, division and cooperation of labor, management and power, etc.). Two important features of the noospheric Universe will have to be the attitude of salvation and real changes aimed at realizing this attitude.       

Traditionally, we think of the universe using categories such as space, time, matter, energy, and motion. We will have to form other optics and understanding that allow us to explain the universe as a condition for our salvation. We are used to understanding the structure of the universe in a physicalistic way, the understanding proposed here is certainly different. But after all, people managed to change the Ptolemaic universe to the Copernican one, I think sooner or later they will rebuild their consciousness in this case.