1

Motto:
The antonym of "intelligence" is not the "stupidity" but the "knowledge".
Or "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5: 3,).
I find totally unacceptable the actual level of the scientific approach.
There is a "thing" (the scientist) that, eventually, says that he "knows" how it happens a
particular phenomenon.
I don't know why he made that statement because the base argumentation NEVER starts
with the beginning: the description of the scientist himself (the one that starts the respectively
process of "knowledge).
Not knowing how a model is generated we cant appreciate his degree of truth.
"Well, by experimental checking!" Really?! And the experiment (which obviously is not
spontaneous) how is generated?!
A complete model must contain both "scientist" and the phenomenon of interest, as parts of
the same reality.
Omitting of this truism was imposed in a mass proportion.
Always it misses the model of the author himself.
The "scientists" seems not to be interested in "what" they actually are when is generating a
certain model.
And how this happens.
Of course, in these circumstances, no one was interest by a biunivocal relationship (i.e.
unique) between them and the phenomenon.
And then the models obviously change ... SYSTEMATICALLY! So, accepted! Nobody no
longer interested by the truth!
"Like other sciences of nature (physics?!), biology of today has lost much of his illusions. It
does not seek the truth. It builds its own truth. "- Franois Jacob, Nobel laureate for genetic
in" Logic of living ", Ed encyclopedic Romanian, Bucharest - 1972, page 38.
But the motivation of the creating of a model is psychiatrically healthy only if it concerns
the TRUTH!
That means with the awareness that it exists (is unique and immutable)!
Otherwise the whole science is a behavioral deviation!
You see, the "shortcomings" in the scientific" method of analysis and knowledge are not
"natural". The fact that, for example, in physics could not get at the Great Unification Theory
(i.e. a model of self consistency of the reality accessible through the scientific method) it is
not surprising for physicists.
They know that this theory cannot be ever created!
Because the "reference frame", the "initial conditions" which precede any strictly
determined theory of causal analysis (containing "time") not subject of the causal
PARADIGM.
THEY "ARE"! So, a strictly determined "causally" model is always lacks the beginning,
which it has a different nature.
And physicists know that!
They omit themselves from the theoretical and experimental approach of a phenomenon
under the doctrine of the "objectivity".

This doctrine is one of the largest handling processes in history!

The principle of theoretical and experimental "non influence" of the phenomenon by the
"scientist" is an absurd assertion for that it claim that a special, not "causally", ABSOLUTE
relationship is needed between the "scientist" and the phenomenon: the "scientist" should not
influence the causal phenomenon.
What, conversely, should not "causally" influence the "scientist"? Why?
If, under the influence of the studied causal phenomenon, the "scientist" would turn from
one moment to another, then the different "scientists" would be witnesses to separated
phenomena which will be impossible to causally relate in a determined way!
Under what conditions the causal phenomenon does not influence the "scientist"?
When those it "stays" relative to "scientist".
But so, is no time, is no longer a causal phenomenon!
So, the "scientist" chooses only a "part" of it, which "stays", the "initial conditions".
So, the conditions for determining the generated causal models are not determined by the
reality in his wholeness. It's only a trivial process of choice of "parts" that "stays" relative to
"scientist" in a particular context (see below).
Choosing the "cause" (the "origin") is a strictly subjective process.
It is an unrealistic phenomenon of "offset.
This unpleasant evidence must be motivated by an apparently "objective" point: the mutual
non influence between the scientist" and studied phenomenon.
Then, if a certain" scientist "is strictly OBJECTIVE" (ISOLATED) how can see the causal
conduct of a particular phenomenon?
Only by an ABSOLUTE and not causal relationship!
Sad, isnt it?
At what level is this relationship ABSOLUTE?!
Physicists omit themselves from the theoretical and experimental approach and, simultaneously,
they omits the category of shape" of the respective models of any phenomenon.
Is it just a coincidence?!
This text is based on a theoretical analysis of the digital-analog relationship.
I referred at "analog" as the manifestation of the "shape".
Therefore two pegs and a rope will draw a circle that any IT system, no matter how
powerful, cannot accurately reproduce. An IT system cannot "draw" a circle but only a
polygon with many segments. The natural phenomena (i.e. the contact of control surfaces of
the aircraft with air fillets) are continuous ("analog"). "Quantum Mechanics" is a
contradictory approach of reality (like De Broglie wave packet) generated exclusively mental,
by slowing of nerve signals at the conditioned synapses level (the support of occurrence of the
sensation of "time").
The "time" sporadically interrupts the contact with a continuous reality (holographic).
And some of those continuous phenomena simply cannot be "seen" by IT systems (i.e. the
anti-spam shapes). Therefore, the Russian "analog" systems (filled with wires and springs)
will generate very unpleasant contacts with the "technological miracles" from the West.