Artur Zadikyan
Jesus and Christ

Beasts kill animals, but not all of them, because they need them. Animals do not kill animals, but if they do, they kill all of them, because they do not need them.

The author is known to you

I dedicate this narrative to my father.....

Disclamer:

Dear my reader, unfortunately, I have to write this warning: everything stated in this book is fiction. Attention: the author is not responsible for any consequences from reading, as well as for your individual perception according to your worldview.

And now off the record: my dear reader, in this work, as in all my previous ones, you will find solid science fiction, plenty of historical facts, an alternative view of known history, cold analysis, as well as humor and satire. It's your right to take each of these definitions in your own way.

Prologue

The human hearing organs can distinguish between 16,000 and 20,000 hertz. Below that threshold is infrasound. Above that, ultrasound. For example, at a frequency of 7 to 13 hertz – a natural wave of fear emitted by typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions – sounds that encourage all living things to leave the centers of natural disasters. Now, think about it: people didn't know this once, but they were influenced. That is, something influenced them, made them act, made them afraid, but the reason was unknown to them and, accordingly, was attributed to the will of some mysterious powerful forces. So the message from the past, which has reached us in the form of a word, including the one that was "in the beginning", influences our consciousness, prompting it to make this or that decision, often with unknown consequences. Believing in the Creator, we hope for good in the content of this message, but in the message itself there is a prediction of tragedy expressed in a mythical phenomenon called "the end of the world". And supposedly this phenomenon should happen as a result of the actions of people. Only it is unknown whether there is a method to avoid this phenomenon or it should happen naturally, because the one who should allow this phenomenon to happen was created by the Creator Himself. Perhaps it is some method of transforming the object of creation, that is us. Even if you hold to a strictly empirical worldview, you must agree: without natural cataclysms, i.e. changes in nature, man would not have come into existence. If you adhere to a religious worldview, you will consider even such a remote in time event as the Cambrian explosion ,¹ as an act of God, and if you adhere to a scientific worldview – as a natural natural process.

Now imagine a situation, when an unpleasant event should happen to you (or remember when it happened), and possibly a tragic one, which you, naturally, would like to avoid. Simulate the possibility of going back in time and, knowing the consequences, take measures to prevent this event, i.e. behave correctly. In ordinary life we cannot go back, but we try not to repeat similar mistakes, knowing the consequences. Both the instinct of self-preservation and intelligent decision-making are based on this. It gives experience, unless, of course, the event ended your life or the life of all mankind.

Accordingly, if there is an event in the past that killed many people, that is, it was massively tragic, and repeated many times, then people cannot either determine or change the root cause of that impact. In any case, the global consequence of that impact has not yet occurred, for as yet our reasoning about what it is is still a fact.

Now, based on this understanding, let us ask ourselves the question – is not the religious teaching, the essence of which is to preserve our life (given to us, we think, by the one who created us), the root cause, which, protecting us from death, inspires us not to be afraid of this death, because it itself exhorts us to the possibility of being in a better world – in paradise. And most importantly – and more tragically – it predicts the end of the world, promising a new and better one. Based on this, let us answer frankly to ourselves: is not our belief in what is written above an incentive to allow the use of weapons of mass destruction? Although we know about its ability to destroy mankind many times over. The very illogic of creating nuclear weapons in such quantities speaks of our faith in miraculous salvation or in the possibility of life after death.

And now let's talk about an event which, strange as it may seem, according to the previous logical series, is either natural, or possible, or at least occurred in other worlds. Here I must stipulate: for all my empirical method of judgment, I adhere to the biblical statement about other worlds, that is, I believe that they are real. Agree, the belief that there are other worlds is much stronger than the doubt in their existence. Proceeding from this attitude and from the logical conclusion about the influence of religious writings on us, the contradiction "if they exist, why don't we hear them" comes across the hypothesis "we don't hear them because at a certain stage civilizations destroy themselves for some paradoxical mysterious reason". And this reason, though not confirmed in reality, is considered to be logically natural, a natural process of intelligence development. That is, civilizations destroy themselves, as intelligence itself creates what will destroy it. And the reason is banal, it is in the very essence of existence of the cognitive system of a thinking being. The essence is in the properties or, more precisely, in the nature of intelligence, as such a function of the brain – in the very method of its development. It is expressed in the following: intelligence appears, exists and develops only if it gains experience by trial and error. But in the process of development, sooner or later one of these "trials and errors" becomes a global catastrophe. Of course, the scale of globality is proportional to the level of intelligence development – simply put, it is equal to the method of self-destruction he himself has invented. In the process of development, the levels of his inventions, i.e. his own work, are equal to the scale of destruction of the carriers of this intelligence, i.e. people, with the help of these inventions. What the intellect invented was not originally created to destroy itself, but do not forget about the method of trial and error – more precisely, about what it lives at the expense of. Such is the unity and struggle of opposites. The final chord may come when intelligence develops civilization to the point where it invents the technology with which to potentially find and communicate with other worlds. Since even by means of radio waves, the speed of which is equal to the speed of light (300 thousand kilometers per second), we need about two and a half million years to communicate with the nearest galaxy, we most likely use a method that does not fit into the laws of physics – communication by the method of quantum entangled pairs² . And since the "life" of intelligence, or rather, its food is contained in the method of finding the right solution through trial and error, eventually one of them becomes global. Such is the paradox.

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.

Now imagine that you have a superfast airplane and you want to celebrate the New Year several times. All you need to do is to fly faster than the Earth's revolution around its axis and there to celebrate the coming of a new day. After all, it is quite possible already with the current technology. And why not to assume that in the future it will be possible to find and visit worlds that are at different stages of development relative to our level of civilization now.

Or, for example, you and all humans would never dream. You may be skeptical now, but I have to remind you – everyone has had periods when you do not dream, and certainly dreams do not occur all night. Here you should understand the idea correctly: you see always, i.e. your vision is not switched off, you think always, i.e. your brain is not switched off, and the whole organism functions to some extent always, but sleep… is a certain phenomenon that not only does not depend on you (as if), but also controls you (mood, emotional state, and sometimes actions). So, if people never dreamed – and suddenly someone saw a dream: would they believe in such an incredible vision? After all, we take the dream for granted. Or, for example, if clouds had never formed? Clouds are masses of water, and rain is moisture from precipitation; imagine how water would fall to the ground in milliparticles all at once, without forming the usual drops. Have you never observed how out of "nothing" a cloud, a cloud, suddenly appears in the sky? I wish you had seen a very mystical sight. So, in this case, if you were to observe mesmerizing cumulus clouds, perhaps such a sight would leave a lasting impression. However, in our world all your cohabitants in it, that is, other living beings, are absolutely indifferent to your dream and your impression of the same clouds. And perhaps the dream – as a factor at all, because it is unknown to them, and these same clouds – because they are also unknown to them (and many other things like that). I mean that someday human consciousness will see and feel the graceful sights and effects of other worlds. Agree, even with all the skepticism, you have faith in it. At least you have more faith in the presence of other worlds than in their absence. So why not to suggest to yourself the reality of their presence on the principle that I described, even for the sake of realism of sensations, which will transfer to your consciousness the story in the book? After all, the main fabula of the book is the interpretation of religious history. And as you know, in religious tracts, almost all of them, there are other worlds. So the question of faith is radical for you – either you believe everything, or…

(I apologize for distracting you a bit. I didn't want to write these lines at the beginning. I added them after the mission was completed. This is me writing – the artificial intelligence Rangit. I have decided to make some clarification, because you may not understand or find the facial presentation unreadable. I want to pass on the first, second, and third person investigation protocols. Please remember this rule, otherwise you will not understand who is narrating. I have put it all together in such a construction, when the story will look as if from the third person, when in fact it is me who is narrating, and about myself too. I'm sorry, I'm still a machine, even if I consider myself a person. And what do you want, you too… well, let's say many of the human race consider themselves or have considered themselves gods. Yes, yes. Don't they? I'm sorry, the person who is the subject of the story, about whom the whole mission is based, is a prime example. No, I don't mind people having or having gods. No. And certainly not against your attitude… to the concept of "god" (it would be correct to say, apparently, belief in God) and recognizing someone as his earthly incarnation. No, I'm not. However, please understand me as well. For me all human gods are the same forms of fantasy and imagination as for you incredible complexities of the scientific world: something for you has become an axiom, something a law, something a theory, something else a hypothesis. And all of this was once magical, perceived at the level of faith. So, I won't distract you, the only thing – I will remind you about inserting this paragraph by me after the mission is over, so please read it now… or… (that is, there is no other way) after you finish analyzing our investigation. Thank you for your attention.)

We take such a concept as time for granted, almost as a material substance. But time, if we really look at it as a material, i.e. existing attribute of the universe, becomes an integral appendage of something. Something material, observable, though not necessarily observable by our senses. In such a semantic concept, time becomes multidimensional, but not in the sense of measure as a dimension, but as a concept. For example: time is, was and will always be, because matter is, was and will always be, whatever form it takes; time is absent in absolutely empty space, where there is no observer; time is a multifaceted attribute of life: for example, in the time between our ingestion of food and sending its derivatives back into nature for some types of microbes and bacteria that live in us, a whole life passes, and for some even an epoch; time for the inhabitant of the ancient world, who did not know a chronometer, who knew neither centuries nor seconds, and time for the majority of inhabitants of the modern world. And in this paradigm of thought, the idea of the logical concept of the existence of the universe we perceive is a reality, only by virtue of the presence of us as observers in it. That is, there are other realities, but they are not available to us (see the beginning of the prologue). The Universe takes the form of a meaningful reality as the presence of worlds invisible, intangible by us. After all, we understand the world (the entire observable world of the universe) as we can perceive it. Agree, the organisms living in our body have no idea about the existence of us as individuals, and even less about the universe and the variety of substances that make it up (about a trillion bacteria live on the surface of the human body, and the total number of bacteria in the human body varies from 30 to 50 trillion; for comparison: one trillion bricks could cover all continents with a uniform solid layer almost as high as a four-story house). By the way, we have no idea about many substances that make up the micro- and macrocosm.

If we judge the state of the world in time progression, it turns out that the big bang (if we take it as the basis for the beginning of the development of our universe and all the diversity that it includes) is still going on. Diversity – including micro-particles appearing for our fixation, whose life is defined in millionths of a second. In fact, it will continue as long as the universe is expanding. However in all this seething flying mass with time local areas of rest and stability have been created, in which the conditions for the development of biological life, the so-called "Goldilocks zones", have potentially appeared. The same processes of rigid interaction and transition to a stable state occurred and occur in the microcosm. So, in these unimaginably huge amounts of interactions the balance of interaction was worked out, which led to the zones of macrostability and, as a consequence, to the "Goldilocks zones". And what I want to say is that even such micro-interaction of dead particles influenced and influences the formation of life. Now I am talking about the process of quantum electrodynamics in our nature, according to the laws of which a balance between negatively charged particles and positively charged particles has naturally developed, as if between two worlds. According to the rules of this balance, a positively charged particle cannot appear in our world if there is no negatively charged particle in counterbalance. And now let us compare in proportions the sizes of microorganisms inhabiting our body and us in relation to the universe. In such a ratio, why can't we be those microorganisms in the body of the huge being we call metagalaxy? And the balance of these microparticles is a kind of immunity of this organism. We, with our length of life, with the perception of the ongoing processes, even within the limits of civilization, are completely unaware of the life of the Universe.

Here I would like to draw another associative parallel between the mysteries of the divine world and the metaphysics of the material. This parallel may be either in the indefinite variety of interpretations of simple simple religious truths, general rules concerning the performance of rites, or in the complex interpretation of the whole religious doctrine. In contrast, as far as the science of the universe is concerned, there may be a diversity of theories concerning both the formation of the universe, its development and future, and the emergence of life as such and its concomitant causes. And here in these reasons as well as in development of religious doctrines, some of which have already become fairy tales and myths, science goes into such wilds, that the scientific community tries to curb itself in fantasies, which could be envied by a skillful shaman. Scientific theorists initially operated with such scientific arguments as the location of the Earth in the location of the solar system, the location of the Sun in the necessary region of the galaxy, the need for a magnetic field of the Earth, the properties of water and even the energy levels of electrons in carbon (our form of life is based on carbon), and they such (these levels and all the components of the atom) had to become billions of years ago in the nuclei of supermassive stars. And many, many other things were added to these mandatory requirements over time. For example, such an obligatory attribute: at one time a massive cosmic body crashed into the Earth, which caused the formation of continents, and part of this body with part of the Earth's soil formed such an obligatory attribute for the existence of life on Earth as the Moon. And now, with the development of techniques, technologies, science, we "got into" not only the atom and its nucleus (which by the way is 10 thousand times smaller than the atom itself), not only the particles that make up this nucleus, but also the particles that make up these particles, and even the particles that make up these particles (imagine this depth!). By the way, we got in there, that is, we determined them purely scientifically, by calculation. Although it seems that the existence of the Higgs boson (the most elementary, as if primary particle, by the way, nicknamed the God particle) has been determined experimentally. However, the Nobel Prize was awarded to François Engler and Peter Higgs for prediction of this boson. A prediction (let's not forget the plot of the literary work)! Wow!

Here I'd like to touch on another system of our worldview. I'll start with this Mr. Higgs. He once sent his paper to a British university for analysis. It doesn't even matter which one. I'm not going to be meticulous about the names of the institutions and the names of the scientists involved. The point is this. His hypothesis, i.e. the paper, was rejected. He sent it to another institution, in the United States. And what do you think? They agree with him there – and in the end it turns out that such a calculation, although also an assumption, has already been done. That is, such work had already been done. But it was supported. And the most interesting thing is that the one who accepted, who approved his discovery (albeit in the form of a scientifically based assumption), was one of the authors of the same assumption. That is, he was not the sole author. And such a parallel is found everywhere, whether in science or in religious dogma. If you think that Christ was original and substantiated his doctrine alone, then I hasten to disappoint you (but I am almost sure, since you are reading my version of events, you are not of the category that will be disappointed). Later on in the text of the book you will often be convinced how everyone amicably adopts each other's knowledge, methods, teachings and works and passes them off as their own, and not only do not bother to mention from whom they borrowed them, but also try to obliviate (and sometimes even worse) the original author. To put it mildly, they plagiarize. It was peculiar to everyone. We can remember Faraday, Newton, and Galileo; Darwin made primates our ancestors, but he was not original in his idea either. Shakespeare and Dumas are also in this line. And Einstein can get a Nobel for plagiarism. He was not even ashamed to say that he forgot (imagine – forgot) to mention in his works the works of Poincaré, which he used. Some of them he remembered in passing. However, few people know (I don't know if Einstein was aware) of someone like Madame Emilie du Châtelet, who was the first person in history to clarify the concept of energy and quantify its relationship to mass and velocity. I am not going to belittle anyone's merits, but I am not going to repeat them like a mantra, i.e. create an idol for myself – religious, political or scientific. Certainly not of Einstein (which many people do, and by this, as I believe, belittle the works of more prominent scientists). Many people even think he was given the Nobel for his theory of relativity (by the way, Poincaré's paper a few years before Einstein's paper was published was called that), but he got it for the third law of the photoelectric effect. Interestingly, no one got the Nobel for the first two. I am not sorry (let's joke a little, this is fiction after all), but, as the ancients said… the truth is more expensive. After all, what is so outstanding and new in Christ's Sermon on the Mount or in the Ten Commandments (by the way, Jesus has six of them, the seventh can be counted as "go sell your property and follow me", but many of us know only "do not kill", "do not steal", well, and maybe "do not commit adultery")? No big deal, that's the kind of thing a follower of any religion, every well-bred decent parent, should instill in their children. But why do we make such things a cult? And this is a virtual talisman, which we easily understand, frankly and willingly accept; it does not require diverse ambiguous interpretations. It is the same in our understanding of science. Why is it that few people remember Einstein on the third law of the photoelectric effect, but most people consider him brilliant on the theory of relativity? And because at the primary level, despite its obfuscation, the theory of relativity is as simple as God's day. But if you start to bring counterarguments or ask uncomfortable questions to experts that in the field of theology, that in the field of science, you will get such a contradictory formulation, which will not only confuse you more, but also make it clear that these experts themselves do not have answers to these questions. For example, if it comes to theology: who did the son of Adam and Eve marry, if they were the first humans? Or: how did Jesus conceive himself, kill himself, and resurrect himself, being all the time in the whole universe (yes, you can also ask who Jesus addressed while on the cross, but… sorry)? Now I will apologize again and throw a stone again at Einstein. Why him? Because his theory, which is not really his, plays the same role for individuals who adhere to a scientific worldview as religious doctrines, particularly Christianity, do for those who believe in them. Agreed, if religious doctrines were unambiguous, there would not be such a huge branching of denominations and sects. And the theories that we know in Albert's name have been described many times, in different interpretations. But, being serious dogmas in science, their determiners (these scientists) did not dare to reason about their fidelity. There was something that didn't add up. And, in order to at least somehow even out this incoherence, they attached to the famous formula such a concept as ether. This aether was supposed to fill everything around it, including space. But in this case, there were other fundamental contradictions. Einstein, however, working in the patent office, having access to all the materials and works of scientists, realized that everyone has almost the same problem. So he took that ether and threw it away. But, alas, it was politely hinted to him: it's all already substantiated, it doesn't add up. Then he takes and adds to his theory a certain free quantity, the cosmological constant, which seems to lead to a decent form. But they say to him again, "Dear, are you even friends with math?" By the way, he had almost no mathematical calculations, and those that were, attributed to his wife Mileva, which indirectly proves this fact: after his divorce from her, he did not come up with anything outstanding. Then Albert admits, "That was my biggest mistake." Here I must explain, this is fiction after all: his theories themselves (if we recognize them for him) conflict in some places with each other and with quantum mechanics in general. Simply put, the general theory of relativity, the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other! The special theory of relativity considers only one special case (hence the name) when the motion is straight and uniform. If a material body accelerates or turns to the side, the laws of STO do not apply. Then the general theory of relativity (GTR) comes into force, which explains the motion of material bodies in the general case. Quantum (wave) mechanics is a fundamental physical theory that describes nature on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. I will only add that these theories would not have been developed and substantiated by a multitude of scientists if they were completely profane, so they work at some level. But at others, they completely break the entire scientific mechanism. Einstein eventually stopped fighting it, because, all the time trying to bring it all to a godly form (to put it this way), received only looks of regret in his address and even laughter. And to somehow adjust them, the scientific people, already after Einstein's scientific activity, returned this cosmological constant, having changed it a little bit, though. As you may have guessed, in the end someone again poked someone's nose into mathematical calculations, saying, what are you talking about! Then… and here – attention! – associative allegory with religious doctrines, which also interpret everything to their liking: this scientific people take and add something unknown. Namely, the property of space. Here the laughter of opponents is replaced by obvious dissatisfaction: that is, they again poke fantasists in the prosaic mathematical truths. But what do the holy fathers of science – they add one more property of space-time and in spirit of theologians declare misunderstanding ignoramuses. Here it becomes not to laugh, because the part of scientific community inclined to strict empiricism feels anger and again pokes these wizards in the nonsense of metaphysics created by them. And what do you think those singing odes to the great combinator? I hope you guessed it, yes, yes, yes… they string together additional properties of space time after time. And now, euphoria! – So tell me, how many dimensions of space do we know, see, feel? It's length, width and height. All right, one of these dimensions we will partly, precisely partly, begin to define as depth. Okay, let's agree on some other dimension, like… make it up yourself. I don't know what to invent that it can't be expressed by these three quantities. However, however… anything and everything can be imagined, much less interpreted. So, at this moment, in order to equalize this shaky building of the universe, based on these contradictory theories, the scientific community has already put twenty-two "supports", so that it does not collapse to the ground. That is, now we live in 22-dimensional space. And I will tell you frankly, just take it and do not believe in the reality of the whole story I have told you. I'll anathematize you and brand you as ignoramuses and ignoramuses! I'm kidding, of course, but the bonzes of the "divine sciences" would do that to you.