BOOK 2. THE BATH SCHOOL. N. LEVASHOV'S «SVETL BROOM» IN A. KHATYBOV'S «BATH SCHOOL» AND A LABOUR SPADE

Book 2. The Bath School. Introduction, or the wish in the reality 20 physicists themselves have started talking about the appearance of matter as "a form of primary and organized information" – VERILY, "IN THE BEGINNING WAS WORD"! In both cases, we are dealing with a virtual world, something reminiscent of the all-generating "world-wide computer network». It's like confirming the fact that everything in this world is governable. What is bad in the scheme for the "foundations of being"? I will tell you about this in the pages of this book. I will also tell you about the so-called "opening the Brain" and enlightenment. By enlightenment, I mean bringing in some key information from an inaccessible source – and it does not matter the way you call it. If man did not possess the gift of thought adapted to his needs, he could never get any knowledge. The more we learn to "rest" on logic, the higher the brain's intellectual activity and its focus on the objective world and the amount of classical information collected about it by our Brain, the lower the degree of initial confusion of consciousness with the environment, and the higher the possibility of "grasping" the higher levels of reality. Exactly in this is the strong point of Programs "SvetL " about which you knew when reading the first book and which allows many people to realize all this in the realities of the present day. The development of the Programs, AS WELL AS LOFTY CREATIVE WORK , WAS "ILLOGICAL ", because – only overcoming "impossible" or "not allowed", you can create something really grandiose . The convergence of the various directions of the world conception is largely facilitated by the continuous expansion of the science boundaries, as well as its gradual, step by step, REJECTION OF THE OUT-DATED " FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES " and the criteria of "scientific character". I am convinced that the "religious vestiges" of science, which compel scientists to defend "dead doctrines", are gradually becoming obsolete, just as the sacredly preserved church absolutes of "true faith". Despite the enormous efforts of the academic orthodox to combat "anti- science", I have never been able to find clearly formulated criteria separating pseudoscience from bold scientific hypotheses of a paradigmatic nature. I’d like to clarify here; the Paradigm is practically a scientific picture of the world. On the basis of this term, a new paradigm of scientific knowledge has arisen, and to be more precise, this implies recognized scientific achievements, which for a certain time give the scientific community a model of posing problems and their solutions ". As N. Levashov used to say, for any science, the scene and the subject of the research, methods of analyzing phenomena are necessary . It is precisely in the absence of these that an