List of contents
- My philosophical request
- My political request
- The creation of the theories
- Philosophy as a science
These websites shall distribute my ideas about philosophy and politics. It is the objective of my constructions to facilitate a universal interpretation of the human existence. Everyone will first think of an all religious focus of my ideas. But that is wrong. Because for me religions are only the desperate attempt to satisfactorily answer society’s questions about a collective philosophy of life.
I nevertheless arrived at the conclusion, on a purely agnostic basis, that the immortality of the human soul and God do exist. It happened through the combination of reliable facts from scientific investigations. That resulted in a homogeneous scientific system. With it also came knowledge of our human existence.
At the beginning of my efforts was philosophy. However I realized right from the start that a conclusive philosophy was to be deduced only from natural sciences. For without reliable facts no statement can be made about the real structure of reality.
These facts are normally the result of experiments which are achieved by special test arrangements and considerable conversion of the measured data. Therefore single facts cannot be the sole support for the entire scientific system. The facts had to be condensed into a system of fundamental propositions. This is called an axiom-system.
Therefore it was my objective to establish natural science and philosophy, weighted the same, through a universal ‘building of thought’ based on a homogeneous axiom-system. The sciences were to be linked to each other in order to gain the most important results in a comprehensive theory.
Only after that, with growing importance, came the creation of sociopolitical ideas. What use is the most beautiful and most certain discovery of our existence if criminals convert our world into a belligerent inferno or plunge mankind into an economic disaster. I realized that politics must be seen as a section of philosophy. It is therefore of considerable interest to the world view of all individuals.
When investigating today’s science I had to realize that the predominating opinions did not hold out against a severe analysis. In natural science Einstein’s special theory of relativity was proved to be inconsistent. The thereupon created constructions of space, time, force and energy contradict conventional scientific ideas.
My theory culminates in the proof of the immortality of the soul and the existence of God. It appears to me that the construction of an axiom-system valid for all sciences and therefore valid for all reality is more significant. Also the pure view of reality. This also has a meaning for politics.
My system shows how science is to be practiced one day. And it names the errors that need to be removed. Only now the individual recognizes the task that his existence assigned them. From now on a villain knows, from realization, what to expect as a consequence of his deeds in his afterlife. That will not be anything good. Everyone in this clan has my word!
I am convinced of the following: If the results of this theory should be confirmed, this would mean an overthrow of our whole present worldview. More precisely said: it would be the starting signal for a change of mankind’s valid paradigm.
For the first time it is scientifically possible for mankind to recognize the construction of matter. It also points out the basic errors which have crept into the constructions of society. Thus it shows mankind the only way to escape from intellectual misery and to fulfill the purpose of existence: the elimination of materialism and abuse of power, and a change of direction towards a considerate organization of life.
In the past I believed that philosophy and politics do not have anything to do with each other. So I would turn to one side of the subject one time and to the other side the next time. Whenever I did not make any progress with philosophy, I would occupy myself with political constructions. Whenever there was a difficulty that could not be bypassed, I turned back to philosophy. Only little by little did I come to the conclusion that the problems of both fields do not lie far from each other.
In both areas the great untruth prevails. In philosophy because of an inner inability, whereas in politics it is used as a great diversion. It is hatched by the crowd of the powerful and super rich. However, in the noble natural science things do not always happen in the correct way either.
The more I looked through modern science, the more suspicious factors accumulated: Physicists have presented us with a politically motivated practical joke.
If I may correct the great monologue in Goethe’s „Faust“: At the beginning of the world was not the deed but the lie. And it was not with God, it was with the rulers of this world. And the powerful thought they were God. However, now the lies and everything that is connected with them will end. The liars will be lowered into the manure pit, into the stinking darkness of soul. This is how today’s signs bode!
I came to realize that there is no essential difference between politics and science. They both see their main mission in the stultification of society. They feel obliged not to the truth, but to commerce. Therefore scientists normally are ready to follow the guidelines that are issued by the powerful unconditionally. And the guidelines are as follows: scientists must not criticize the knowledge that has been achieved so far.
However, science only represents a secondary theater of war. So do the many religions. In the religious communities it is also all a matter of power and profit. All great religions generally spread the truth to a small part only. Even in the case of the most benevolent assessment a great part of propositions that are not understandable or certainly wrong remain.
And there is more to it. There are the rules, coming from the books declared as holy. The religions’ dogmas are often only created for the sole purpose of manipulating the masses in a very unholy way and in order to pester them. However, the world would be able to cope with all that. The truly negative things happen in economy. Not in the way that simple-minded people would assume. There are the capital’s secret machinations that plunge the nations into misfortune.
But the capital alone could not achive that. There are helpers. The most loyal assistant of the capital is the media, above all the press and television. Particularly in the USA the press is dominated by the high finance. Those who want to become a representative of the Congress or House of Representatives have to submit to the rulers of finance. Otherwise media pushes them into offside.
Thus politics came completely under the influence of the capital. Press and television use this not only in order to manipulate politics. It can justifiably be spoken of a criminal deception of the masses through the media. Everything is covered up, everything is twisted. The masses become enmeshed in a web of lies, made of false information, out of which the normal citizen cannot find a way out.
Thus it is required to put the complex made of politics and economy onto a strong foundation and to put an end to the terrorist globalization. I was talking about the change of paradigm: My political ideas aim at the abolition of capitalism, no matter whether it is manifested in a liberal, global or conventional form. The hundred years of the reign of terror that capitalism has brought must end - otherwise mankind is threatened by immediate extinction!
I would like to supply the society with a true picture of the structure of matter and the conditions of our existence. In addition I want to support people in their decisions, whether they are individual or required by the community.
I want to give humans something like a schedule. With its aid they can behave themselves as an individual and as a part of the community without violating the laws of existence. Particularly in the area of politics and economy a better construction that is qualified to help people build up a life free of political constraints and material needs would be required.
I have not always pursued this objective in the past. First I only wanted to find out for myself whether the existence ends with death or if there are further possibilities of life after death.
My aim changed, however, when I achieved results that indicated the existence of an afterlife. I understood that humans are not born only for their own pleasure and enjoyment on earth. They must also accept an obligation towards other people, and have to help them according to their intellectual progress and their physical resources. In my case that meant: I was supposed to let them participate in my findings and the corresponding constructions.
That was, however, easier said than done. One must not forget that initially I developed a theory only for myself. For this no strict proof was required. Collisions with the philosophy or the physics could simply be brushed aside as curiosity. Why should I care that Kant thought to have proved that metaphysical findings about God and immortality would not be possible for the human being.
Nietzsche, already, had laughed about Kant. Therefore it was not difficult for me to ignore Kant as irrelevant. In addition his ideas collided with the results of modern mathematics. Yes, and that in such a strong way that, in my opinion, Kant’s statements were beyond remedy.
When I went to develop a philosophical theory that was understandable also for people other than me a situation had arisen that put created new difficulties. I had to give reasons for my results from established knowledge. The hitherto existing philosophic theories were not very helpful in this aspect. The maxim "I know that I don‘t know!" was their greatest result. As a basic discovery it was very little.
Also with physics I had my difficulties. Physics take finite values as a starting point. It however uses integrals which operate with infinitely small distances and infinitely small values. That was unacceptable for me. So one result of my philosophy was certain: The reality is finite both in parts and as whole.
In addition I resented the so-called wave-corpuscle dualism, according to which a particle is interpreted both as a wave and as a corpuscle. The only possible conclusion for me was that the elementary particles would have to be put together from far smaller corpuscles. That, however, violated all ideas of modern physics.
I could also not accept the unrestricted validity of Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory. Of course all is a question of definitions and limiting the area of validity. Therefore only partial propositions of physics were relevant for my purposes. The ideas of physics as a whole seemed to me like written in woolly language and too little thought through as an overall concept.
This leaves mathematics. Mathematics had indeed always denied its difficulties with infinity. I noticed, however, that the famous mathematicians always designed their constructions in a way that they would only operate in finiteness. And then mathematics had produced results which became decisive for my theory:
It is the changed interpretation of axiom systems, probably going back to David Hilbert. According to this, an axiom system of this kind has no god-like qualities or any possible derivation from within itself. Axioms are standardized determinations of the starting point for a certain investigation. Axioms are to be understood as elements of mathematics. And as I soon realized, also, though in a different way, as elements of philosophy which is the great fundamental science encompassing all individual sciences.
Furthermore there were the results of topology. In this specific area of mathematics the idea of space is expanded in a manner inconceivable for laymen. The image of space is completely changed. What seems far can be brought to close proximity by coupling far situated points.
In this mathematical discipline many things are quite vivid. One often operates with concrete aids. One uses paper, paste and scissors. One arranges the prototype models of topological space as models of paper. Yes, one can almost speak of a "paste and scissors" topology.
I found that: the space of our physical reality corresponds more to a mathematical paste-scissors-model, than to the idea Einstein’s space.
Based on these approaches and some facts from physics and psychology I then created an axiom system which provides the basic propositions for a complete theory of reality.
After what has been said it should be clear that I don‘t want to establish some pseudoscientific philosophy or any incomprehensible theory in the lines of Heidegger. My theory is exclusively about objects and their qualities. When I speak of a subject then I mean a certain object that is capable of having feelings. There is nothing apart from objects. Even God must be object and also subject, that is if he really exists.
Should the reader experience difficulties in understanding: These come with the complexity of the topic. It is also important that the ideas are strongly inspired by scientific ideas and their style. For an unobstructed understanding it is certainly helpful to be trained in scientific ways of thinking.
The prevalent opinion of the general public is that God and the immortality of humans are improvable. I ask you to consider that God must also be contained in the world as a whole; otherwise he would not be available for us. Everything that is part of the whole, however, must be noticeable in the remaining parts. Therefore it must be recognized from the other parts. This proves that the afterlife is not situated in a different space than the material matter but it penetrates the material matter. Its particles and the normal particles exist next to each other but its corpuscles are tremendously smaller than the well-known elementary particles.
I would also like to distance myself from certain kinds of pseudo-thinkers. There are followers of esotericism whose every second word is science. They do not have any knowledge of actual scientific investigation. By mentioning the word "science" no science is yet achieved. Next to those are the wafflers, thinking philosophy would be open to every numbskull. This is wrong. Philosophy, before it becomes science, is elitist. Not even the thousands of so-called philosophers who currently romp in this genre cannot change anything about that fact.
I would also like to reject the present method of sub summating philosophy under psychology, of pragmatism or struggle against fear. All these side streets do not have any place in philosophy and are topics in specific sciences. Also the philosophy’s capitulation in form of the so-called "principle of hope" must be rejected. It is the abandonment of the task that is the philosophical discovery.
Philosophy is and remains the queen of all sciences. It is not, however, the science of kings. This is because philosophy, practiced in right way, puts an end to the existence of kings, presidents and Popes. And also of super billionaires, mainly this, because they, and they only, have to take responsibility for the present, desperate situation of mankind. There will not be any return of these gentlemen from their exile in afterlife. I can promise that!