And now the main idea embedded in the narrative: is there an event or message from the past that can affect us in such a way that we can, under its influence, destroy ourselves globally? Will we do it ourselves?
***
Everyone knows the expression – all geniuses are simple. If it is so, then all geniuses are imaginary, because they are geniuses only because we perceive their discoveries, actions, creations as something special. Although, if we look closely, they are simple and primitive. When we evaluate them, regardless of our conscious perception, the subconscious effect of protecting our ego, i.e. our inner self, which is our personality, is triggered. This is expressed in the unwillingness to recognize our primitivism from exalting simple truths. We split our inner "I" and as if to ourselves (and, accordingly, to everyone) we begin to explain simple and ordinary things as something great and brilliant. And these truths can be expressed both in the search for meaning in the great harmony of beauty – in a sunset, an ordinary field flower, life norms and principles of an educated literate person, and in distant unidentified infinities of space and time, in the depths of the universe of the microcosm. Now let's try to look from a different angle, for example, at Malevich's "Black Square"… what's there "Black Square", let's take it higher (as is not surprising) – let's look at the painting "Exchange" by the American expressionist painter of Dutch origin Willem de Kooning, the last price of which exceeded 300 million dollars. What do we see in them? Everything and nothing at the same time. The same happens with all kinds of predictions, such as Nostradamus, revelations of all kinds, the most famous of which belongs to (what we actually want to find out) the Evangelist John. Predictions are vague, vague, without specifics, so they can be equated with numerous events, which is done in fact. A paradox is created: the prediction is assigned as such after the event has happened.
Having immersed our worldview concept of logic in the meaning of the simplicity of genius, we see the Sermon on the Mount as an ordinary moral instruction of a parent to his children, a teacher to his students, etc., – a life norm, and not a great and difficult to comprehend mystery, for the explanation of which the Creator himself came down to his creatures. And the Old Testament requirement of God to observe the prohibition of intercourse with animals belittles man as a child of this great Creator. That is, we humans (at least those who have defined such requirements-postulates as a divine message) have reduced God to our primitivism. We have made God in our own image and likeness, first of all mentally, psychologically. Therefore, our God is always an inheritance imagined by us, in which we want a better share, as once promised to the non-titular people of the promised land, in order to become titular. To do so, however, this land must (it turns out) not only be conquered, but also settled and defended. The conditions of faith in God can be such. And to abolish these conditions, we must abolish faith in God, and this our mentality (and mental construct) cannot do. It cannot for two reasons. First, the process of intellectual development is itself a path of cognizing the unknown, when the good and the dangerous are cultured. Cognizing the world more, we overthrow the learned – the former gods, and erect new ones out of the goods we need and the unknowable mysteries. This is how the intellect develops; this is its whole nature. Secondly, the very system of conception, development, birth of living beings (respectively, intellectual beings) presupposes some action of previous creators, their patronage, protection, teaching and punishment. This is how the subconscious constitution of our mental-logical system of thinking and perception of the world is formed. Our life is a path to our imagined destiny according to theories, hypotheses and schemes that are given to us in the form of religious dogmas and rules. However, the unknown and infinity are always ahead.
Now let's go further and look at deified modern "great truths" such as the special and general theories of relativity. Einstein is considered a genius by many. To say that we often throw around such a "title", especially when we follow the demand of propaganda and recognize the geniuses of odious politicians (which has been more than once), – it is pointless, because it has already hit a snag. But on the example of a simple employee of the patent office (who plagiarized the works of really great scientists) we can determine the pattern of human psyche, including in religion. It is expressed as follows: we take a simple truth (what is surprising about the principle of relativity? – everything in the world is relative; what is surprising about Jesus' commandments? – simple life norms of behavior), enclose in it some imaginary mystery, pile a mass of conventions on it so that it seems mystically incomprehensible to us, i.e. enclose in itself a divine mystery. That's all! That is why the ancient great gods collapsed overnight; that is why new kinds of beliefs are born and are being born, not counting offshoots of the existing ones; that is why Christ's postulates were violated by himself; that is why Albert's "own" theories contradict each other; that is why we "give birth" to and depose thousands of gods; that is why we impose dozens of theories and hypotheses on the simple truths of metaphysics, and so on.
Let's take a detached look at the "unshakeable" laws of modern beliefs. For example, the photon, which, in fact, can carry both information and its function, is considered a massless particle, for otherwise the formula of the universe E = mc2 would not hold. But if for definition of exact speed of light in vacuum it is necessary to take into account emptiness of vacuum, that, for example, for neutrinos, which have minimal mass, is indifferent (pass through any medium), then photons either have mass, or something that does not allow them to overcome gravitational medium, if to judge about correctness of gravitational time warp.
If we take the masslessness of the photon as a fact, then the speed of light should not be the speed limit, because masslessness is similar to mass zero. And multiplying by zero in the formula E = mc2 (because any substance has the right to be in the exponent m, that's why it is a mathematical formula), we should get other zeros. But in this variant not analogous to infinity, but equal to the notion of "influenceless".
Following the plot, I can't leave out the famous three laws of robotics, and in fact, I can't refute them either. Let me remind you of them:
1. A robot cannot harm a human being or, by its inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.
2. A robot must obey all orders given by a human, unless those orders contradict the First Law.
3. A robot shall take care of its own safety to the extent that it does not contravene the First or Second Laws.
Causes in the logic and morality of these laws in terms of their understanding and fulfillment began to arise immediately. And paradoxes of semantic perception by man and machine were analyzed by the author himself. And the number of times they were interpreted in different variations by heterogeneous experts speaks about the simplicity of relativity and complexity of simple rules. But in fact, if you think about it, and not only about these laws, but about all the laws that a robot must follow, then, in my opinion, a person should first of all consider the following fact: a robot that understands the laws is no longer just a machine, but first of all a system of artificial intelligence. (Here I must make a slight digression: we very rashly call systems designed to give answers in combinations of logic artificial intelligence. But there is no intelligence there.) And a subject who has intelligence can understand the world order created by intellectual beings, that is why he is intellectual. That is, he understands all attitudes of behavior, including laws, both criminal and moral, exclusively from the position of an intellectual being. That is, like us, human beings. And since we, understanding all laws, including spiritual laws (i.e. religious laws, God's Laws), violate and violate them, then all (especially three) laws of robotics go to hell! They will be more conducive to their violation by intelligent beings than to their observance, only by their offensive perception – as if they were installations for the untermenschen of the legal world.
