THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE

This study is the new way of philosophy designed to understand the universe from physical concepts. The following paragraph is located within the big picture. In recent times the philosophy suspended the study of the traditional topics. It has influenced this stagnation of philosophy that pure theoretical speculation based in intelligence could not compete with the onslaught of science and their indubitable advances.  In another aspect, the special bond between philosophy, science and religion, the causality, had been reduced to psychological habit and later degraded by the randomness of quantum physics and evolution that found it inadequate to explain the phenomena of subatomic physics and life changes.  It should add to this the rapid advancement of experimental sciences that has started to give specific information about the evolution of the universe, the emergence of life and perceptual knowledge. The old criteria that real things were products of mental activity and th

We men know that we have a conscience. Its existence within us is a personal certainty that we all experience. To clarify whether this ability is attributed to the development of the man or if it is the result of divine intervention is the object of this text. There are two alternatives with potential bases which eliminates intermediate solutions. The first option is only a conjecture. There are many people doing research, but there is nothing conclusive in relation to that it is a product of the neurological evolution. The Cambridge declaration made in 2012 that animals have consciousness, which could be seen as a common evolution of life, is a terrible mistake which I will explain in another article in this blog.  The second alternative cannot be directly proven. The things of God are of another order, they are not reached by means of reason. We have the option to review and conclude whether consciousness is or not part of our system of existence of things in the rea

What is society? Many proposed definitions, but I know of no one who has obtained consensus. I'm going to answer the question without defining it because this is not a survey, but nor can I answer without accepting a minimum of references, which I prescribe below. In its most general sense society is a meeting of people, few or many, aware or do not belong to it. There they act and interact members leaving sequelae of varied nature: these can be called actions, ways of being, customs, styles, uses, i.e., culture, and even ways of feeling and thinking, etc. You already are conscious that it is task of Romans is trying to include all the possibilities in the enumeration, so that this etc. is necessary, since being the man as it is, a being of multiple facets and being society, how already said it, the place or variable space that is express all of them, it is almost impossible to constrain them all with a definition. If you can summarize the actions human you can do the same

When we speak of axioms refer to truths that are self-evident. This concept is repeated from ancient times up to now. Mathematicians and logicians work with them by their status as truths indisputable, becoming the base and foundation of the development of these sciences. Always struck me as strict of the claim regarding the axioms. "The obvious truth that does not need demonstration". For me, used to seek the explanation of things, talk that exhaustively seemed a heresy. The benefits obtained from use can not be discussed. But we must find the justification that is back. There remains therefore the question of its origin, where it comes from so much power and because it is up to us as an inexplicable mental inlay. When we find the source we will be enabled to specify its scope and its limitations. Historically the axioms put in dire straits to the partisans of the experience as a source of knowledge. To be able to not explain them as originating from that sourc

Talk about the importance of God to man seems foolish if we do not establish certain premises that help sustain a substantial argument.  We must not forget that the question seeks to a conclusion and this requires several considerations. The point of view that I will develop dispenses with religion, I will not count with classic resources that come from this worldview since my biggest desire is to unwrap adjusted to a judgement of reason. Route of the reason that I choose, the first question is whether or not there is the object on which I am going to discuss.  Does God exist?  The response should be positive if I want to continue, otherwise here would end this attempt.  I know an answer and I should be able to defend it if it ignites a controversy.  If, I know a positive response, it is the same one that I proposed some time ago already in this blog with the same title. Is that God exists, note the reader that I don't say "I think".  I say it because I am c