a guide - cover








What is the Universe?. 6

Creation as an Illusion.. 10
































Nightmare Worlds. 68








Each of us, to one degree or another, has an imagination. We are able to imagine, depict or create something non-existent in reality. Moreover, using the latest programming tools, a person can create any virtual worlds, populating them with inhabitants, who may well consider their world as real. We are approaching the creation of artificial intelligence and will be able to provide them with the inhabitants of virtual worlds.

Then the question arises, isn’t our world such a simulation?

This does not contradict the conviction that a certain creator put together our world, or theories that believe that our world spontaneously originated and evolves on its own. Both scenarios do not deny that the true basis of our world can be in a completely different world that has a fundamentally different nature.

Observing our ability to create virtual worlds, we can assume that such a complex world in which we live is the result of a meaningful creation, because the spontaneous generation of our world seems much less likely, although such a hypothesis has a right to exist, because as soon as our world exists, that probabilistic approach, alas, does not make sense.

However, delving into cosmology, quantum physics, molecular biology, genetics, science comes to the realization that the world has a certain basis or source behind it.

Modern scientists find more and more bases for such assumptions.

This book is about the fact that the world in which we live is not the only possible one. And the “reality” of our world is not absolute. After humanity in practice became acquainted with the concept of virtual reality, it became obvious that worlds can be any. At the same time, what the other world could be is unlimited.

The laws of physics and morality of our world are inherent only in our human perception of this world. They do not dictate what the world should be like, but only are our attempt at knowing and understanding it.

Worlds are above all as they are intended. But the laws of physics, morality, philosophy and any knowledge inside these worlds are secondary and only try to describe the arbitrary act of creation of a certain world.

The only limitation is that it is impossible to prove the existence of a certain basic reality, an absolutely real world, on the basis of which other worlds are created. Consequently, no creator can prove that he himself is not the creation of another world, and that his own world, in turn, is not the result of creation.

Moreover, one can imagine a closed chain of worlds that create each other: that is, a world that seems to be basic, is the result of the creation of one of the worlds in turn created by him.

This book raises questions why our world is such, and not different, showing a lot of opportunities to create other worlds, in some ways similar, and in some things fundamentally different from ours. The book offers the highest moral law of the creators – not to create imperfect worlds, painful for their inhabitants.






What is the Universe?


The new science of the creation (invention) of the worlds can be called cosmoinventology, from the Greek word “cosmos” for the world, and the Latin word for “invention”.

Based on our experience, sensation and acquired knowledge, the world is that within which we exist. That is what encompasses us and at the same time extends beyond our limits. We comprehend the world with the help of the sense organs, sometimes equipped with instruments, but always remaining the final authority and instrument of our perception, and hence the formation of the idea of reality [1].

Mentally, the world can be viewed from three points of view – our natural point of view, the inhabitant of this world (subjective reality), some objective observer in our world (objective reality) and an outside observer who is outside our universe. The latter point of view is purely speculative, for it is not verifiable, since our universe does not allow us to observe ourselves from without. In general, the possibility of such observation is doubtful, but it is quite acceptable as a mental exercise. Moreover, it is not at all important to consider our creation as the result of an act of creation or spontaneous generation and development. The difference of approaches does not affect the possibility of the existence of these three points of view. Although, of course, the very concept of the universe arises here as a result of believe in the creative process of a certain creator or meaningful creative power.


Realization is characterized by the reconstruction of reality in our consciousness and only then its analysis. One way or another, we can claim that the very process of our perception and analysis of reality consists in recreating it in our consciousness, and therefore we, whether we like it or not, recreate the world in ourselves. That is, our consciousness creates a certain world, which, we believe, corresponds to the real world.

For simplicity, take a photo. By taking a picture of a broken tree and showing a picture to another person, we allow him to come to the correct conclusion that the tree was broken, without directly watching the real tree. That is, we recreate the image of the tree in the figure, and this image may or may not have a prototype in reality. Moreover, the pattern in both cases will be the same. A person reviewing our drawing will not be able to reliably state whether the tree actually depicted by us exists or it is a figment of our imagination.

Since ancient times, such an act of recreation was drawing. So, cave paintings carry certain information about animals affected by spears. We can recreate the images of these animals in our minds and make a correct conclusion that somehow an animal existed that was hit by an object called a spear.

So, by sketching or photographing, we recreate the world, and based on this image, our senses (in this case, vision) recreate this image in our mind and allow us to analyze it. Moreover, at a certain moment it becomes completely irrelevant whether there is a broken tree or a dead beast in reality, our perception and analysis will take place in exactly the same way.

That is, we, in our own way, create certain elements of the world, transferring their mapping (or imagining them) to paper.

Here we can assert that under certain conditions our consciousness (subjective) and even the consciousness of many observers (objective) will not be able to determine from the drawing (except for indirect signs not related to this example) whether this image actually had a prototype or not.


Man is a creative being, because creation is peculiar to consciousness. So, any object of the universe tends to participate in the changes. This object can be passive or active, conscious or not. One way or another, the creative act depends not on the creator, but on the viewer, the observer, capable of awareness. Thus, such an inanimate phenomenon as the formation of clouds or frost on the glass can create images that will be understood in our consciousness, and then we will become co-creators of these images. And here it is important to emphasize that it is the creator of the image that is not only us, but also an unconscious material phenomenon. Without this basis, creating something that has not existed until now (clouds or frost), we would not have the impetus and the basis for the awareness and creation of some kind of meaningful image. That is even an object or process, completely unrelated to life, has an inevitable creative impulse. On the other hand, even the most ingenious work of the artist is not creativity in the absence of the viewer. Without an observer, his canvas is just a piece of matter with chemical compositions applied to it, because there is no one to perceive and realize them in the form of paints, and even less images.

 So, the main and only co-creator of our universe is our consciousness. We are constantly in the process of creation, or at least we are co-creators of the universe, and if the presence of the Creator is subject to numerous doubts, then our role as co-creators is completely obvious. In this case, we are even more creators than the Creator himself, because without our understanding the world has no meaning. The world becomes a world only when there is a witness to it. Our own meaningful and conscious existence does not cause us any doubt, thanks to the assertion of Descartes that if we think, then we exist [2]. So the process of reflection is equated with the process of existence.


Putting ourselves in the place of the creator, we can better understand our world. As N. Karamzin wrote: “I think it would be better to observe the great universe as it is, and, as far as it is available to our eyes, look at how everything happens there, rather than think about how everything could happen there, and this often happens with our philosophers … ”[3] However, mentally taking the place of the Creator of our world, we can try to imagine what motives He could have been guided by, creating the world in this way and not otherwise. Again, imagine a certain megalith [4] standing in the middle of a field. It can be considered in two ways, as a stone lump randomly brought by the glacier, or as a man-made object, or at least an object processed by human hands, built on the basis of certain motives. In the first case, thinking about motivation is meaningless, because, however unlikely it may be, the artifact was formed by chance, in the second everything is much more complicated, because by artifact we have to judge the motives of those who created it. If it is still possible to assume that a single megalith could be brought by a glacier, and then such a structure as Stonehenge [5] could not be formed naturally, in any case, the probability is minimal.

What can be said about the complexity and non-randomness of the universe we observe? Assuming that it was created, we need to reflect on the motives of the creator.

Comparing our capabilities to create any worlds in our imagination, to embody them on paper, and even in the form of computer simulations, we can easily assume that the Creator of our world had no limitations, and that the world was created in such a way and not otherwise. to lead us to think about what our Creator is, what are his personal preferences expressed in his creation.


Considering the world as the result of a meaningful creation, we can overcome the illusion of the inevitability of the structure of our world, as the only possible one.

In our time, the opportunity has arisen to create virtual worlds, which their inhabitants can perceive as real worlds. We are experiencing a unique moment of history, when our awareness of the universe has expanded so much that we can create our own, completely different and not going to our virtual worlds. This possibility, in general, has always been, for our imagination does not need any aids to create its own worlds. But our acquaintance with the possibility of creating virtual worlds that exist separately from our imagination has given the modern philosopher a new direction of thought, in which he can move further than his predecessors. Thus, by modeling other worlds, for example, as computer simulations, we can put in them inhabitants, which in turn can be equipped with self-awareness (more on this will be discussed below). And this is no longer just a fantasy. It is, in fact, the creation of a full-fledged world, indistinguishable in the mind of its inhabitant from the present, the real, the only one.



 Creation as an Illusion

This inevitably suggests that our Universe is a giant computer simulation. Are we real? What about each of us personally?

If the Creator does not wish to inform us about this, then, being in the world created by him, we cannot assert whether he is a final and absolute reality, or has a completely different basis, which is beyond the limits of our world and our awareness. So the hunter painted in the picture, becoming self-conscious, could not establish that he is a brushstroke of paint on canvas in our world. He would feel like a hunter in the forest, and he would perceive himself and the forest around him as a reality. He had no way to conclude that he was just the hero of the picture.

Previously, similar questions were asked only by philosophers. Scientists tried to understand what our so-called “real” world is and explain its laws.

But recent considerations regarding the structure of the Universe pose existential questions to science. Modern physicists, cosmologists and experts in the field of artificial intelligence suspect that we all live inside a giant computer simulation, taking the virtual world as reality. [6]

In order not to be subjected to a flurry of criticism, we can allow this state of affairs as a mental experiment. Let’s say our world is a kind of virtual simulation. This idea contradicts our feelings: after all, the world is too realistic to be a simulation. The severity of the glass in hand, the taste of tea poured into it, the sounds around us – how can you fake such a wealth of sensations?

But let’s take into account the progress in computer and information technologies in recent years. Modern video games are populated by characters that interact realistically with the player, and virtual reality simulators sometimes make it indistinguishable from the world outside the window. It is necessary to create a program not for the game, but as a scientific experiment in which every inhabitant will be provided with a subprogram simulating our consciousness, albeit in a simplified form, and in principle, such a world will turn from virtual to full and real in terms of perception and awareness of this subprogram beater.

In the fantastic movie “The Matrix” this idea is formulated very clearly. People there are enclosed in a virtual world that is unconditionally perceived as real. But if people are replaced by subprograms, then no material biological creatures will be needed.

And “The Matrix” is not the first film exploring the phenomenon of an artificial universe. All these dystopias raise two questions: how do you know that we live in a virtual world, and is it really important?

The version that we live inside the simulation has powerful supporters. As American entrepreneur Ilon Mask said in June 2016, the likelihood that our world is a virtual simulation is very high, at least “billion to one”.

A technical director of Google in the field of artificial intelligence, Raymond Kurzweil suggests that, perhaps, “our entire Universe is a scientific experiment of a younger pupil from another universe.”

Some physicists are ready to consider this possibility. In April 2016, scientists took part in a discussion of this topic at the New York American Museum of Natural History.

Cosmologist Alan Guth [7] from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that the Universe can be real, but at the same time it is a laboratory experiment. According to his hypothesis, our world was created by some supermind – just as biologists grow up colonies of microorganisms.

In principle, there is nothing that would exclude the possibility of creating a universe as a result of an artificial Big Bang, says Gut.

The universe in which such an experiment would have been conducted would have remained unharmed and unharmed. A new world would form in a separate space-time bubble, which would quickly separate from the maternal universe and lose contact with it.

This scenario does not affect our lives. Even if the Universe originated in the “tube” of the supermind, physically it is as real as if it were formed naturally.

But there is a second scenario that attracts particular interest, since it undermines the very foundations of our understanding of reality.

It is not excluded that our Universe was created artificially. But by whom? Musk and other supporters of this hypothesis claim that we are entirely simulated creatures – just streams of information in a giant computer, like video game characters.

Even our brain is a simulation that responds to artificial stimuli.

In this scenario, there is no matrix from which to get out: our whole life is a matrix, beyond which existence is simply impossible.

But why should we believe in such an intricate version of our own existence?

The answer is very simple: humanity is already able to simulate reality, and with the further development of technology, it will ultimately be able to create a perfect simulation inhabited by intelligent beings-agents that would perceive it as an absolutely real world.

We create computer simulations not only for games, but also for research purposes. Scientists mimic various situations of interaction at various levels – from subatomic particles to human communities, galaxies and even universes.


The invention of worlds helps overcome disappointment in our world.

In fact, we can say that we do not live in the real world anyway. The consciousness of each of us creates its own world, its own corridor of reality. Periodically, these corridors coincide, which allows meaningful communication. We also build worlds in a dream, if not consciously. Many know the feeling of relief or disappointment at the moment of awakening, depending on what dream we had.

That is, awareness of the possibility of the existence of parallel existing worlds, and at the same time, awareness of not the finality and not quite the reality of our world, can have a therapeutic effect of relieving tension from our psyche.

The possibility of mutual creation of worlds

In addition to parallel existing worlds, we can imagine that the inhabitants of one world create other worlds, whose inhabitants, in turn, create the worlds of those who create their worlds. A certain chain of mutual creation. We will discuss this below.



A world is a closed system [8], within which is placed an observer with consciousness [9], which is part of this system and is not able to go beyond its limits. A world without an inner inhabitant / observer / agent is meaningless and is not a world.

The creator of the world has complete control over the world and all its inhabitants, establishes the laws and principles on which the world exists.

In order to save the efforts and resources of the creator of the world, the construction of the world begins with the observer, that is, as he turns his attention to certain elements of the world, they are created and reflected in his consciousness, while when they are not under observation, then exist. That is, everything in the world appears ad hoc [10], as needed. From the beginning, an observer is created, and the world is built around him, as he turns his attention to one or another element of the world. In this case, the only one who exists constantly is the observer. The rest is created and arises only as needed. At the same time, observers create a complete sense of constancy and reality of the world around them.

An example of such a state of affairs can be quantum mechanics and its connection with the consciousness of the observer in our world. The effect of the observer in quantum physics is often viewed as the most shocking and interesting aspect of quantum physics. The outcome of a particular action — reduction or collapse of the wave function — is suspended during observation. This suggests that the human mind can physically influence the experiment. Electrons cease to exhibit their wave properties, unstable particles freeze in their decay [11]: Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon when pairs or groups of particles that were in contact with each other maintain communication with each other at large distances. When one of the particles is observed, the corresponding changes are instantly observed in the other particle. Under the all-powerful eye of the observer, the world is changing.

The effect of the observer [12] (the consciousness of the observer) is a group of hypotheses about the possible influence of the observer on elementary particles. This effect goes back to the ideas of the creators of quantum mechanics and is a consequence of the problem of measuring quantum effects. Some scientists equate the observer with the human consciousness. So Werner Heisenberg in the book “Physics and Philosophy” mentions a subjective observer. Hugh Everett writes in his scientific article “The formulation of quantum mechanics through correlated states” about a conscious observer. Wolfgang Pauli and Eugene Wigner came to the conclusion that quantum mechanics, which includes the mind of an observer, may not be compatible with materialism. Realizing that this may lead to a scientific explanation of religious concepts, John Wheeler states: “Observers are needed to bring the universe into being.” Other scholars such as Albert Einstein, David Bom, Amit Goswami, Roger Penrose, and Fred Alan Wolf were also interested in similar ideas.

One way or another, the created worlds do not have to be material in our understanding, for our world, with deep study, turns out to be highly illusory.



The fact is that it is not necessary to be God in order to create the world. It is enough to possess the properties of God in relation to the created world, and this is quite simple.

Sitting in front of a blank sheet, you have complete freedom of creativity and you can depict on it everything that you want, you can destroy your drawing, you can redo it, that is, you have all the attributes of God in relation to the observer you placed in the drawing, if he possessed consciousness. From the point of view of this observer, you will correspond to the concept of the absolute. Absolute (Latin absolutus – unconditional, unlimited, irrelevant, perfect) is the first principle of the world, the origin of all things, eternal and unchanging, which is understood to be one, universal, beginningless, endless and in turn opposed to any relative and conditioned being. [13] The same is true for a programmer who creates a program in which subroutines are placed that correspond to an observer inside the world. For him, the programmer has the properties of God. Indeed, such an observer will not be able to reliably say whether the creator of his world exists or not, will not be able to see and know him, without the will of the creator of his world. The creator of his world will be out of the world, but at the same time will be omnipotent in relation to this world, he will be the one who creates this world and sets its laws, he will be omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing, timeless.

So, each of us can be the creator of other worlds, while remaining a simple inhabitant of our world.

It is interesting that the similar role of the creators does not contradict the Christian and even the Orthodox model of the world. The equilibrium, or theosis (ancient Greek θςωσις from θεός “god”) is a Christian teaching about the union of man with God, the introduction of created man to uncreated divine life through the action of divine grace. Briefly, the meaning of deification is expressed in the statement of Athanasius the Great: “God incarnated man to be deified” —that means the potential opportunity for every person and the historical need for a person to attain nonhuman power in possession of himself and the natural world around him in organic unity with God. [ 14]

And the main characteristic of God is that He is the Creator. Therefore, the deification of creatures can lead to the fact that creatures also become creators.



You can create worlds on the basis of computer simulations, with the help of controlled sleep [15], imagination, and any improvised means — paper, paints, etc.

We can distinguish the following areas that allow us to enter beyond the bounds of objective reality: computer technologies, dreams, some literary works and films (fairy tales, fantasy, adventures), ideas with deliberate deception (tricks, scams), suggestion (hypnosis), religious revelations, the impact of psychotropic means (drugs, alcohol, drugs), the impact of natural phenomena (sudden pressure drop), mental illness, clinical death, etc.

As supercomputers are becoming more powerful, such programs simulate cooperation between people, the development of cities, the functioning of traffic and the state economy, as well as many other processes.

As the cumulative computing power grows, simulations become more difficult. Elements of thinking and consciousness are already embedded in separate programs that imitate human behavior – still primitive.

Researchers believe that in the not too distant future, virtual agents will be able to make decisions based not on elementary logic from the category “if … then …”, but on simplified models of human consciousness.

Soon we will witness the creation of virtual beings endowed with consciousness. Successes in understanding the principles of the brain, as well as the extensive computing resources that the development of quantum computer technology gives us, are steadily bringing this moment closer.

If we ever reach this stage of technology development, we will simultaneously carry out a huge number of simulations, the number of which will significantly exceed our only “real” world.

Is it really impossible, in that case, that some intelligent civilization somewhere in the universe has already reached this stage? Or can our future civilization create a simulation in which we live?

And if so, it would be logical to assume that we just live inside a similar simulation.

Moreover, there is no reason why it would be fundamentally impossible to create a very realistic simulation, the characters of which would consider that they live in the real world and are free in their actions.

Theoretically, humanity could refrain from conducting such simulations for ethical reasons – for example, considering inhumane the artificial creation of creatures who are convinced that their world is real.

But this seems unlikely. In the end, one of the main reasons why we ourselves perform simulations is our desire to learn more about our own reality. So, to conduct such experiments, there will always be sufficient ethical grounds.




The creation of a consciousness that is fundamentally different from human is possible. In order for a certain system to be considered a world, it is necessary to have at least one internal observer / inhabitant / agent. (Further: “inhabitant”)

The inhabitant must be provided with consciousness [16], primarily including self-consciousness. Optionally, the inhabitant may have a subconscious, but this is not necessary so that a certain system can be considered as the world.

Inhabitant consciousness is a separate subsystem from the system of the world. It should include the possibility of perception (reflection) of the inner elements of the world, awareness (analysis) of these elements, assigning a unique interpretation and the ability to adapt to changes in this world, one way or another reacting to them. That is, the property of consciousness is the ability to constantly bring its inner picture of the world into harmony with the surrounding reality and thus predict future events and adapt to them. In order to assess the correctness of perception and adaptation, consciousness must have a feedback device – an emotional response system, thanks to which something is acceptable to an individual and something is unacceptable. If the individual is good, then nothing needs to be changed. If it is bad, then there is an incentive to change the adaptive model. Consciousness should be characterized by intentionality (from the Latin. Intentio – intention) – a concept in philosophy, meaning the central property of consciousness: to be directed at some object or element of the world. This makes consciousness individual. Consciousness reflecting, analyzing and reacting to all elements can be considered “world intelligence”, but being immersed in this world, it requires creating and maintaining all elements of the world, while for the existence of individual consciousnesses of the inhabitants of the world it is enough to create elements that become the subject their attention (intentionality) as needed, which is much more economical and rational.

Does such a narrowly focused individual consciousness have flaws? Of course, the main one is the incompleteness and inaccuracy of any personal picture of the world. Another lack of consciousness is that it is not omnipotent, although it can create the illusion of omnipotence, potentially having the ability to pass through itself 100% of all new information. However, he does not have such physical ability. As for the subconscious, it may be present or absent in the created individuals. For example, human consciousness is an evolutionarily new instrument that at some point was built on over the unconscious part of the psyche. What creatures had their consciousness for the first time, and whether certain animals possess consciousness is a separate, very interesting and far from understanding question. Unfortunately, there is still no scientific tool for communicating with animals – be it cats, dogs or dolphins, and therefore we cannot find out to what extent they possess consciousness. At the same time, the unconscious, that is, the resources of the psyche, which are beyond the limits of consciousness, are preserved in man in full. It is impossible to estimate the size of the unconscious or control its contents – consciousness does not allow us access there. It is generally accepted that the unconscious is infinite, and this mental resource comes to help in situations where the resources of consciousness are not enough. Help is given to us in the form of processes, the results of which we notice, but the processes themselves are not. A textbook example is a periodic table of elements that Dmitri Mendeleev, after much agonizing reflections, allegedly saw in a dream. But one way or another, the presence of an individual or social subconscious is not necessary for the creation of the world.

Having a functioning consciousness makes it easy to create self-awareness. It’s just that consciousness itself is put forward as an object of attention of consciousness, and thus the individual (the inhabitant of the world) is able to reflect on himself, analyze himself and react to his thoughts.

So, the presence of consciousness and self-consciousness of the inhabitant turns into a separate world any system in which this inhabitant is closed.

The ban on going beyond the world is due to the difference in the nature of the foundations of this world and the world in which it was created. (For example, the basis of the virtual world in a computer is the electrical processes that take place in microchips that have a completely different nature than the images of the virtual world (for example, the ocean or clouds reproduced on a computer screen.) Therefore, it is impossible to leave the virtual world. It’s raining in our world. On the other hand, direct access from our world to the virtual world by means of the physical means of our world is also absolutely impossible (as it’s impossible to disperse ritual clouds, unless, of course, technical support does not translate the blow in the form of electronic signals).

That is, for the intercourse of the virtual and ordinary world, a translation from one basis to another is necessary.




Already since the end of the nineties of the twentieth century, the series of computer games called “Civilization” has been and is constantly being improved. This is a turn-based strategy game. The player controls civilization throughout all historical time – from the Ancient world to the present. Management includes the economy, religion, politics, military action, trade, the study of new territories and new technologies, and other civilizations compete. Games are characterized by the presence of a population, a tiled [17] and a generated [18] map, cities with buildings, combat units, diplomacy, a tree of technologies.

In an enhanced version of Sid Meier’s “Civilization V: Gods & Kings” players can initiate their religion and change its qualities and beliefs. These beliefs affect the play and distribution of religion, which generates a resource of “faith” (similar to the resources of “culture” and “science”). With the help of the Great Prophets, missionaries and inquisitors, the player can spread and control religion. Religion has the greatest influence on diplomacy and international relations in the first two-thirds of the game, while its effect will drop significantly as the modern era approaches. Supplement includes 11 religions (Buddhism, Taoism and others). The player has the ability to rename their religion. [19]

It is necessary now to add self-consciousness to the inhabitants and create the corresponding world intelligence, instilling in him that he is truly omnipotent, omnipresent, unborn and uncreated, eternal god, to supply the game with a department of the other world, divided into heaven and hell, and our dear inhabitants, dying, will full confidence in the correctness of their beliefs.

So we will create a creator who himself will be absolutely sure that he is a god. And for entertainment, you can create different gods, who will not suspect the existence of each other, and virtual hell and paradise can also be organized according to the religious preferences of the dead. To fool everyone so much that it never occurred to them that it’s just us having fun in our computer world.


It does not matter what it will be called: god, world mind, world soul. The World Soul [20] (Greek: ὴυχτ τοϋ κμσμου, Latin: anima mundi, German Weltseele) is in philosophy a single inner nature of the world, conceived as a Supreme living being (God), possessing aspirations, ideas and feelings. Many philosophies that deduced the unity of the world from the eternal realm of being, ideal or intelligible, recognized, however, the World Soul that lives in all phenomena as a subordinate principle that perceives and realizes the highest ideal unity in the sensual area and in the temporal process. .

This view of the World Soul was set forth in Plato’s Timaea [21] and then became one of the main points in the philosophy of Plato and the Neo-Platonists.

The universal soul or absolute spirit is in Hegel’s philosophy that which lies at the basis of all that exists. Only he, due to his infinity, can achieve true knowledge of himself. For self-knowledge it needs manifestation. Self-discovery of the Absolute Spirit in space is nature; self-disclosure in time is history.

History is driven by contradictions between national spirits, which are the thoughts and projections of the Absolute Spirit. When doubts disappear from the Absolute Spirit, he will come to the Absolute Idea of Himself, and history will end and the Kingdom of Freedom will come. Wars between nations express the intense confrontation of the thoughts of the Absolute Spirit. In them, Hegel saw a dialectical moment – the antithesis. [22]

Do not give up the idea to create competing with each other gods, who will be programmed to be unaware of the existence of each other. When one will perform a certain action, the other will believe that he has done it, following his absolute good impulse and his divine will.

It will be especially funny to watch the inhabitants of the created world shed rivers of blood for “whose god is more correct”. And each of our gods will assume that he is the true god.

We will make such a god in the created world a certain similarity to the moderator administrator, with the ability to answer or not answer prayers (it’s possible to laugh in a habit of answering prayers randomly, that is, in an accidental, unpredictable way), with our character and personal preferences. (Some gods can be made especially bloodthirsty). Exceptional “pleasure” will be delivered to us by the fact that at the same time they will be confident of their absolute kindness and that they are no more and no less and are the highest embodiment of love. And the inhabitants for centuries will wrestle with how to prove the goodness of their god, that he is kind, contrary to what he will be programmed by us in reality.

In our world, people call this occupation of Theodicy [23] (New lat. Theodicea “God’s justification” from the ancient Greek θεός “god, deity” + δίκη “right, justice”) – a set of religious and philosophical doctrines designed to justify the management of a good universe Deity, despite the presence of evil in the world.

In polytheism, responsibility for the existence of world evil rests on the struggle of cosmic forces (for example, the ancient religion), but already in monotheism, which presupposes the elevation of a single deity over the rest of the pantheon, the problem of theodicy almost arises (for example, the Lucian dialogue “Zeus caught”. However, in the proper sense of the word, the problem of theodicy is posed in religions of the theistic type: since God is interpreted as the Absolute in the semantic space of theistic doctrine, it turns out to be the final authority that bears full responsibility for its creation.

By the way, “We have a very irresponsible God” said in an interview with Julian Assange, the head of the famous organization WikiLeaks, hiding for many years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Vladimir Pozner, who took this interview with him, at one time answered the question of what he would say when he appeared before God: “How are you not ashamed?”

In the context of Christianity, where this problem was acutely identified at a rather early stage, theodicy as a conceptual and doctrinal genre was shaped in the 17th — 18th centuries. The use of the term “theodicy” is fixed after the appearance of the treatise of Leibniz “Experience theodicy about the goodness of God, human freedom and the origin of evil” (1710), where he defended the idea of God’s justice, despite the existence of evil.

In Russian literature, in addition to the works of Leo Tolstoy, the experience of Orthodox theodicy is represented in 12 letters most extensively in the work of priest. Pavel Florensky “The Pillar and Statement of Truth.” [24] Berdyaev writes about this in his work “On the appointment of a man.”

Perhaps, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus [25] first came to the theodicy analytically, using the following reasoning:


  • If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then there is no evil.
  • There is evil in the world.
  • Therefore there is no omnipotent, omniscient and all-good God.


In this argument, the method is used by contradiction. This argument is logically correct, if the premises are correct, hence the conclusion is true. In order to show that the first premise is true, in subsequent versions of this proof, we dwell on it in detail. One of the modern interpretations [26]:


  • God exists.
  • God is almighty, omniscient, and all-good.
  • The All-Good wants to destroy evil.
  • The All-Knowing knows where the evil comes from and how it can be destroyed.
  • The Almighty is able to resist evil.
  • God knows all the causes of evil, is able to prevent the appearance of evil and wants to destroy it.
  • If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God really exists, then the existence of evil is impossible.
  • But evil exists (logical contradiction).


This evidence demonstrates two variants of the logical contradiction of the existence of evil. They show that accepted judgments lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot be simultaneously correct. In philosophical debates, the most attention is paid to judgments stating that God and evil cannot exist simultaneously, and that God wants to eliminate evil. On the other hand, supporters of theism (for example, Leibniz) state the opposite: God can exist simultaneously with evil and use evil for good.

An example of this benefit from evil is the free will offered by Alvin Plantinga. The first part of his argument states that moral evil is the result of free human activity. The second part of this defense argues in favor of the logical possibility of a “powerful nonhuman spirit” [27], such as Satan, who is responsible for the so-called “natural evil”: earthquakes, floods and deadly diseases. Some philosophers agree that Plantinga successfully solves the logical problem of evil, showing that the simultaneous existence of God and evil is logically possible, although some philosophers explicitly object. The second part of Plantinga’s defense, however, recognizes the omnipotence of God, asserting the possibility of the existence of a “powerful nonhuman spirit” capable of generating evil, despite the opposite desire of God to eradicate evil.

From a logical point of view, the existence of hidden and unknown causes of the existence of evil is possible. However, the existence of God is treated like any major hypothesis or theory, amenable to interpretation and using facts in evidence. Now these facts are not enough, and the hypothesis has not been fully confirmed. According to the principle of “Occam’s razor” [28], you need to make as few assumptions as possible. Hidden causes are facts and theories that were not considered by people and that are actually hidden. Thus, according to Paul Draper, the theory that there is an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good being and indifferent, does not require any hidden reasons to explain evil. Therefore, this is a simpler theory than the one that also requires the hidden causes of the existence of evil in order to speak of a higher being as all-good. One can argue about the existence of hidden evidence, partially or fully justifying the evil, but with the same probability there can be hidden evidence that show the evil from an even more terrible side. Having made inductive reasoning, it can be argued that this hidden evidence neutralizes each other.

A common answer to the obviousness of the problem of evil is that there are probably excuses for assuming the existence of evil by God.

We offer the main justifying argument to our God, if it was created with a light hand by unlucky programmers from another world, that he himself does not know about it, quite sincerely believes that no one is created, and that the motives of his actions (such as the global flood) there are manifestations of his good will. That is, he is sincerely mistaken and cannot do anything about it. Because really everything is good for God, he doesn’t ask himself such a heretical question, is he really God? If we, the people, would also like everything, we would not be tormented by the search for answers to unsolvable questions and would not write such books as this one.

Over the problem of “divine cruelty” [29], humanity has been painfully reflecting since it has realized itself. The pagans reasoned like this: there is suffering in the world, because evil and no less powerful demons oppose good and powerful gods. But for those who believe in the One God, such an explanation fits badly: if God is all-good and omnipotent, how can He allow so much innocent suffering in the world?

If He does not want to stop them, then He is not at all good, and if he cannot, then he is not omnipotent. How many times have we encountered this logic … People are willing to come to terms with a lot of everyday troubles and even real personal tragedies, but when confronted with the utmost and senseless cruelty of Auschwitz or Beslan, any explanation stops working. God, why did you not do anything to save these children or at least facilitate their death?! Could they – or their parents – be so sinful to deserve all this? – There is a book in the Bible that asks God exactly this question. This is the book of Job. It tells how every conceivable calamity befell a perfect, immaculate righteous: he lost his wealth, children, health, and his closest friends considered all this punishment for his sins and turned away from him. And then Job made a complaint to God: why are you so with me?

Marina Tsvetaeva wrote in one of her poems: “it’s time, it’s time, and it’s time to return to Creator the ticket”. That is, not just to leave this world, but to bitterly reproach the Creator for the fact that this world is hopelessly bad and therefore it is impossible to remain in it. And Tsvetaeva was not the first at all – long before her, Job also spoke. He is terrified not only and not so much by the misfortunes that have befallen him, as by the fact that in general “the world is in evil” and there is no way to rid it of evil. “Why do the wicked live, and by their old age their power only increases?”

Job’s speeches begin with terrible words – he curses his birthday, even the night of his conception, in such words that remind us of the story of the creation of the world in Genesis: glimpses of dawn shall not he see. ” He seems to want to roll the film back, right up to the moment when the Creator created the light, separating it from the darkness, and began counting the days of this world …

His own suffering is above all a question of his relationship with God. “But how can a man before God justify himself? … He flew at me like a whirlwind, multiplying my wounds without cause; does not allow me to take a breath, bitterness overwhelms me. Is it to be measured with power, mighty? Whether to sue – but how to call him to court? … He laughs at the despair of the innocent; land is given to the power of the wicked, and He closes the eyes of the judges – and if not He, then who?! ”

He replies to reproaches of his friends: “Keep silent and let me say and there – come what may. He will kill me, and there is no hope, but I will repeat to Him that I am right – and this will be my salvation!” Job really insists on his own integrity and innocence, and the author of the book fully agrees with him. From the very beginning, he emphasizes that Job was a completely flawless man. This is probably the reason why this book sounds so sharply: it brings the tragedy of the situation to its final limit, it is no longer just a private injustice of fate, and it is a glaring and completely inexplicable example of undeserved suffering.

In the end, Job’s speech is nothing but a lawsuit to God: “Here is my seal – and let the Almighty answer, let my accuser write a scroll!”  Job is not like an atheist, he does not have the slightest shadow of a doubt that God exists (however, in ancient times few people doubted this). But he looks like a god-fighter who challenges God. And God accepts him, the “Prosecutor” answers the accused, but not quite in the way expected by Job, and with him the reader.

It would seem that God had to answer all his questions to Job, and could do it very easily. He could refer to the machinations of Satan (it is not by chance that he was mentioned at the very beginning of the book) or simply to say that it was such a test. It seems like the exam passed, five, well done!

But God does differently. He Himself brings down upon Job a question: “Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me if you know and reasonable. You do know who charted her size and who pulled the cord over her, into which her foundations were immersed, and who laid the cornerstone in the general rejoicing of the morning stars and the joyful cry of the sons of God? … Have you ever commanded Morning and Dawn to appoint a place so that she took the edges of the Earth and wicked off the wicked people, transformed it like clay — like a seal, and burned it like a canvas? … Does rain have a father? Who produces dew drops? From whose womb does the ice come out and who is carrying the heavenly frost when the waters of the abyss freeze like stone, hindering the surface of the abyss? … Do you know the statutes of heaven; will you establish their order on earth? ”

These words reproach: who are you, Job, to argue with God? But Job himself acknowledged this, and this is not the main thing here. God shows Job how difficult, but at the same time, this world is intelligently and intelligently arranged. Man cannot command the dawn and the rains; he cannot even understand the nature of these processes. Of course, today we are much better at working in astronomy and meteorology, but these questions have been replaced by others, and people are still in amazement with many secrets of the material world. And if we are not able to regulate the movement of luminaries or clouds, can we measure good and evil?

And then God says that not a single creature in this world was left by His care: “Who arranges a hunt for a crow when its chicks cry out to God and search for food? Who set the mount free; delivered the wild donkey I put in the desert from its fetters? ”

Job replies to God: “I have heard only the rumor about You, but now I have seen it with my own eyes, therefore I repent of the former and repent amid dust and ashes.” Well, he is crushed by the greatness of God, some commentators believe, and simply cannot find the words to express their feelings. It is unlikely that it is not at all like him. Apparently, Job really found what he was looking for, more precisely, the One He was looking for.

Previously, when everything was good for him, he simply lived in his cozy world, where there was family, wealth, and religion. And only when everything became very bad, when he experienced the tragedies of other people and his own, did he turn to the Living God with lively and sincere questions, and they did not go unanswered.

In the end, Job’s well-being was restored: he had new children (as if this could be compensation for dead children!), Wealth came back, but the Bible mentions this in passing as something relatively unimportant. The book of Job is not about success and distress, but about the secret of suffering, which cannot be resolved with the help of simple answers and formulas, but can be a reason for the meeting of God and man.

Wonderful! This is not only the answer, it is worse than the answer. It would be better for God to remain silent, as he does in all other cases.

So, if we undertake creating of worlds, in no case should we create evil creators in them who believe that all their actions are good.

It’s the easiest way to justify God. Any evil is a hidden good. How? Not our mind’s business. It’s a fine explanation of the shepherd to the sheep. Only the shepherd is kinder. He caresses and nurtures his sheep until he kills them one day. The Creator does worse; he admits the torment of his sheep, and whether it is so important that at the end there will be the heavens or the slaughter. The torment is not justified. All the good of the world is not worth the tears of the baby. And if Dostoevsky spoke about this many-sinful, how is it not clear to the holy all-powerful God?


It can be assumed that there is some need for evil in order for good to triumph. But the Creator is not limited by any conditions; He can create an ideal world, full of love and good, and not allowing any evil. And we just have no luck trying to find the answer, why He chose not to.

On the other hand, let’s imagine that the world was created and managed by a certain Higher Beginning, for which evil, in our understanding, is not evil. From our point of view, this is terrible, but does the Higher Primer care about our tastes?

Of course, the statement that “God is Love”, the greatest expression of God’s love, is revealed to us in John 3:16 and in Romans 5: 8. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “But God proves His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us when we were still sinners.” From these passages we see that God’s greatest desire is our communion with Him in His eternal abode, Heaven. He made it possible by paying for our sins. He loves us because it is a decision of His will. “My heart turned in Me, all My pity was kindled!” (Hosea 11: 8). Love forgives. “If we confess our sins, then He, being faithful and righteous, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1: 9).

Well, it is encouraging. That’s just not warm. It is the same as to slap a slap in the face to the interlocutor, saying that you love him. So understand how you want.

And Love in the Divine understanding is first of all what he gave us to exist (although no one asked him about it), that he supports our existence (although the very process of existence for us is extremely painful, rather, supporting our existence, it prolongs our suffering) . And finally, the promise of eternal life is not very good, because we have so much misunderstanding with God here in this life that you can imagine what surprises future eternal life can give us…

For example, in heaven all the saints, and Theothokos, and Christ cry for our sins. What kind of paradise is this if everyone is crying? That’s how. Here we should rejoice and have fun when we are persecuted for loyalty to God. And there we should cry for the sins of those on earth. To put it mildly, it is a dubious perspective.

We give up and realize that our world was created by a tragic spirit who loved suffering, and if he loved his suffering voluntarily, then he makes us love our suffering against our will.

This is a feeling that I was in an insane asylum without being able to get out of it. The Apostle Paul said: “For the wisdom of this world is folly before God” (1 Cor. 3:19). That is, the normal desire of a creature, and the Creator’s own desire, is not to be ill, to eat decently, and not to be in danger, not to accept a painful and inevitable death, to enjoy earthly love — all this is madness before the Creator. Then I ask, why did he give us all this? Here is an amazing neurotic logic. And to our questions – the answer, of course, full of love: “But who are you to ask me questions?” For the first time, the phrase “The ways of the Lord are inscrutable” was voiced by the Apostle Paul in the Book of the New Testament. The expression compels people to take on faith the power of the most just Almighty Father, who knows all events at all times. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, not your ways — My ways, says the Lord.” [30]


 Well, explain if You love! Or if we are not able to understand, so why did You create us so dull? Or of what You could explain, we absolutely do not like it? In general, is it worthy for the All-Mighty to play in the dark with his beloved creatures?

So it turns out that the original problem is not with us, not with our sinfulness, senselessness. What can be demanded from weak creatures hounded by life, which have just appeared and are about to disappear? “All claims are to be directed to the manufacturer.”






If we undertake to create virtual worlds, we can create any cosmology in them. [31] For the sake of jokes adapting it to the level of development of the inhabitants of our world. That is, in the primitive phase, you can throw the skin of a giant mythical animal with holes instead of the sky, through which the “heavenly” fire in the form of stars will shine through. Then make the earth flat and place it on whales, continue to get the celestial mechanics, well, and lastly let the fog with the Big Bang and the expanding universe. And so on, without end. Why not? After all, we are creators and the law is not written to us. And what could be more entertaining than fooling the inhabitants of the world we are creating, isn’t it? Observe how their scientists are puzzled over obviously intractable questions, how they are burned at the stake for asserting that the earth revolves around the sun. And to make it so that it really began to rotate, only after the burning of the first heretic who had guessed this. Thus we will leave in the cold and those who were sure of the opposite. We ourselves do not hurt and not hurt. Why not to have some fun?

For example, according to some scientists, there are enough reasons to think that we ourselves are inside the simulation. Simulation hypothesis is a philosophical proposition that reality is a simulation (most often it is assumed that this is a computer simulation). In order for the simulation to look realistic for the recipient, the program adapts to its perception, forming material objects, mind and consciousness of the inhabitant of our world (us). The main work in this area is Nick Bostrom’s article “Proof of Simulation,” published in 2003 in the journal Philosophical Quarterly.

However, the idea is not new. Back in Ancient Greece, Pythagoras founded a school that studied the basic philosophical concept of its creator about the illusion of everything that exists. The idea that reality is nothing but an illusion was followed after Pythagoras by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who came to the conclusion that only ideas are material, and other objects are only shadows.

The same approach was followed by Aristotle, but with the amendment to the fact that ideas are expressed in material objects. In addition, the position about the illusiveness of the real is one of the key in some religious and philosophical teachings, for example, in a number of Indian philosophical schools, in which the concept of maya is considered. Maya is an illusion of being (in particular, the daily existence of a human being against the background of the existence of the Eternal Absolute (Brahman in Hinduism or Nirvana in Buddhism),

With the development of digital technology, the theory that reality is a product of a computer program that was written and implemented by some other civilization began to gain a large number of supporters. The emergence of the term “virtual reality” proposed by inventor Jaron Lanier in 1989 was an important theoretical tool in the development of the simulation hypothesis and some other similar provisions.

And indeed, our Universe looks as if it was constructed artificially. The values of the fundamental physical constants are suspiciously ideal for the emergence of life in the Universe — one may get the impression that they were intentionally established. Even small changes in these values would lead to the loss of stability by atoms or the impossibility of star formation.


Cosmology still cannot convincingly explain this phenomenon. But one of the possible explanations is related to the term “multiversity”. What if there are many universes arising from events similar to the Big Bang, but obeying different physical laws? Randomly, some of these universes are ideal for the birth of life, and if we were not lucky enough to be in one of them, then we would not have asked questions about the universe, because we simply would not exist. However, the idea of the existence of parallel universes is highly speculative. (Perhaps it is more speculative than the assumption that the universe is a simulation.) So there is a possibility that our universe is actually a simulation, the parameters of which are specifically set by the creators to get the results of interest – the emergence of stars, galaxies and living beings.

In the end, we can just as well assume that the parameters of the “real” Universe in which our creators live were artificially set by someone. In this case, the adoption of the postulate that we are inside the simulation does not explain the riddle of the values of constant physical quantities.

But, on the other hand, the physics of the universe of our creators may be radically different from ours.

Some experts, as evidence that something is wrong with the Universe, point to very strange discoveries made by modern physics. Especially a lot of similar discoveries were given to us by quantum mechanics – a branch of physics, operating with extremely small quantities. So, it turns out that both matter and energy have a granular structure.

Moreover, the “resolution”, at which we can observe the Universe, has its minimum limit: if you try to observe smaller objects, they simply will not look sufficiently “clear”.

These strange features of quantum physics can be just signs that we live inside a simulation – just like when you try to view an image on the screen from a very close distance, it splits into separate pixels.

But this is a very rough analogy. Scientists gradually come to the conclusion that the “granularity” of the Universe at the quantum level can be a consequence of more fundamental laws that define the limits of knowable reality.

Another argument in favor of the virtuality of our world says that the Universe, as it seems to a number of scientists, is described by mathematical equations.

And some physicists go even further and argue that our reality is a set of mathematical formulas.

Cosmologist Max Tegmark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology emphasizes that such a result could be expected if the basis of the laws of physics were a computational algorithm.

However, this argument threatens to take us into a vicious circle of reasoning.

To begin with, if a certain supermind decides to simulate its own “real” world, it is logical to assume that the physical principles at the heart of such a simulation will reflect those that operate in its own universe – after all, that is what we do.


In this case, the true explanation of the mathematical nature of our world would not consist in the fact that it is a simulation, but that the “real” world of our creators is arranged in exactly the same way.

In addition, the simulation need not necessarily be based on mathematical rules. You can force it to function in a random, chaotic way.

The basis of the universe can be mathematics, some scientists believe. It would be unknown if this would lead to the birth of life in the virtual universe, but the point is that it is impossible to draw conclusions about the degree of “reality” of the universe, starting from its supposedly mathematical nature.

However, according to physicist James Gates of the University of Maryland, there is a more convincing reason to believe that computer simulation is responsible for the physical laws.

Gates studies matter at the level of quarks — subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei. According to him, quarks are subject to rules that somewhat resemble computer codes, correcting errors in data processing.

Is it possible? May be it is so. But it is possible that such an interpretation of physical laws is only the most recent example of how humanity has interpreted the world around from time immemorial, based on knowledge of the latest advances in technological progress.

In the era of the classical mechanics of Newton, the Universe was represented by clockwork. And later, at the dawn of the computer era, DNA was considered as a kind of storage of a digital code with the function of storing and reading information.

Perhaps we just extrapolate our current technological hobbies to the laws of physics every time.

Apparently, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find convincing evidence that we are inside the simulation. Unless a lot of mistakes are made in the program code, it will be difficult to create a test, the results of which could not be found any other, more rational explanation.

Even if our world is a simulation, says Smoot, we may never find an unequivocal confirmation of this – simply because such a task cannot be done by our mind.

Indeed, one of the goals of the simulation is to create inhabitants who would function within the framework of the established rules, and not deliberately violate them.

However, there is a more serious reason why we probably should not worry too much about the fact that we are only lines of program code.

Some physicists believe that the real world in any case is exactly that.

The terminology used to describe quantum physics is increasingly beginning to resemble a dictionary of computer science and computing.

Some physicists suspect that, at a fundamental level, nature may not be pure mathematics, but pure information: bits, like computer units and zeros.


 Leading theoretical physicist John Wheeler gave this guess the name “Substance from Information” (It from Bit).

According to this hypothesis, everything that happens at the level of interactions of fundamental particles and above is a kind of computational process.

“The universe can be seen as a giant quantum computer,” says Seth Lloyd, a staff member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “If you look at the “internal mechanism” of the Universe, that is, at the structure of matter in the smallest possible scale, we will see [quantum] bits participating in local digital operations.”

Thus, if reality is only information, then it does not matter whether we are inside the simulation or not: the answer to this question does not make us more or less “real”.

However, we simply cannot be anything other than information. Does it matter to us that this information was programmed by nature or by some kind of supermind? Hardly – well, except that in the second case, our creators are theoretically able to intervene in the course of the simulation and even stop it altogether.

But what can we do to avoid this? Tegmark recommends that we all lead an interesting life whenever possible so as not to bore our creators. Of course, this is a joke. Surely any of us will have more compelling motives to live life to the fullest than the fear that otherwise we will be “wiped out”.

But the question itself indicates certain flaws in the logic of reasoning about the reality of the universe.

The idea that some experimenters of a higher order will eventually get tired of messing with us, and they decide to start some other simulation, is too much anthropomorphic.

Like Kurzweil’s statement about our Universe as a school experiment, it implies that our creators are just capricious teenagers having fun with game consoles.

Of course, any attempt to imagine how the supramental beings could act will inevitably lead to an extrapolation of our own experience. But this does not negate the unscientific nature of this approach.

The universe can be represented in the form of a quantum computer. But what will it give us?

Probably, it is not by chance that many advocates of the idea of a “comprehensive simulation” admit that in their youth they avidly read science fiction.

 It is not excluded that the choice of reading predetermined their adult interest in the problems of extraterrestrial intelligence, but it also prompts them to put their thoughts in the usual forms of the genre.

Harvard physicist Lisa Randell cannot understand the enthusiasm with which some of her colleagues are worn with the idea of reality as a total simulation. For her, this does not change anything in the approach to perception and exploration of the world.

According to Randall, it all depends on our choice: what exactly is meant by so-called reality.

Ilon Musk is unlikely to think all day long that the people around him, his family and friends are just constructs consisting of data streams and projected into his consciousness.

In part, he does not do this because constantly thinking in this way about the world around him simply will not work.

But much more important is that we all know at heart: the only definition of reality worth our attention is our immediate sensations and experiences, and not the hypothetical world hidden “behind the curtain”.

However, there is nothing new in the interest in what actually can stand behind the world accessible to us in sensations. Philosophers have been asking such questions for many centuries.

From our point of view, the quantum world is illogical.

Even Plato believed that what we accept as reality can only be shadows projected on the wall of the cave.

According to Immanuel Kant, although some “thing in itself” underlying the images we perceive can exist; it is not given to us to know it.

René Descartes’s famous phrase “I think, therefore I exist” means that the ability to think is the only clear criterion of existence.

The concept of “the world as a simulation” presents this old philosophical problem in the modern high-tech wrapper, and there is no great misfortune.

Like many other paradoxes of philosophy, it makes us look critically at some ingrained perceptions.

But until we can convincingly prove that deliberate dilution of “reality” and the sensations we experience from it leads to obvious differences in our behavior or in the phenomena we observe, our understanding of reality will not change in any significant way.


Empirical phenomena without a clear scientific explanation, which may indicate that our universe is an illusion / simulation.

Until now, we have no explanation for the existence of our universe. What is the origin of the matter, energy and space-time that formed the universe? Perhaps this indicates that the answer is in a different world. Just as a denizen of a computer simulation cannot explain the existence of his world, without realizing that his world has a completely different and inaccessible to him material basis (computer chips of our world), so perhaps we cannot understand the true causes of matter. The Big Bang Theory has many inconsistencies and explains almost nothing. Rather, it resembles the observer’s theory in a one-dimensional world that the inclined plane along which it moves arose as a result of some kind of explosion.

Why in the observable universe there is much more matter than antimatter? There is also a volitional act. “It will be so, and not otherwise, but how do you explain it, we, the creators of your world, do not care about us.” The explanation that then the whole Universe would be annihilated will not work either. It is the same as saying that the universe exists because it exists.

Why is the speed of light in a vacuum maximal, finite and constant in our Universe? And it is very small relative to the size of our universe. So the distance to the nearest Andromeda galaxy covers the light for two billion years! And to come from the most remote corners of the universe we observe, it took the light more than thirteen billion years, three times longer than the sun and the earth exist. That is, such a limitation of the speed of information transmission allows, in principle, not to create any Universe at all. Anyway, the observer (that is, we) in principle will never reach there and the signal will not be sent. Although, on the other hand, we know that according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the object moves closer to the speed of light, the slower the time passes for it, which allows a living observer to climb quite far during the period of his life. But here the possibility of accelerating a macro object to the speed of light is in doubt.

So, the speed of light is determined by the will of the creator of the world as a fundamental physical constant, which is exactly equal to 299,792,458 meters per second. That is, mentally accepted as a constant, and on this postulate, as well as on the idea that all inertial reference systems are equal, Albert Einstein built his own special theory of relativity, which no one can refute for a hundred years.

But why, in fact, is it so constant, so maximal and so finite, there is no answer, it is just an axiom, i.e. an assertion on faith, confirmed by observations, but in no way logically or mathematically deducible. And it is likely that it is not so true, but no one has yet been able to refute it by any experience.

Why does zero vacuum energy not lead to a large value of the cosmological constant? What cancels this dependence?


Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe.

74% – dark energy,

22% dark matter,

3.6% intergalactic gas,

0.4% – observed stars.


 What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe (de Sitter phase)? Why is the energy density of the dark component of the energy – the value of the same order as the density of the substance at the present time, whereas these two phenomena have evolved completely differently over time? Maybe it is because we are observing at the right time? Is dark energy a cosmological constant, or is it a dynamic field — some kind of quintessence, such as phantom energy?

What is dark matter? Is it related to super symmetry? Is the phenomenon of dark matter related to one or another form of matter, or is it really an extension of gravity?

What is the reason for the coordinated movement of a large group of clusters of galaxies to a single point in the Universe?

Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in a difference between the past and the future and the second law of thermodynamics?

Why is the part of the Universe remote from us so homogeneous, whereas the Big Bang theory predicts the measurable anisotropy of the celestial sphere more than it is observed?

Some common features of the microwave radiation of the sky at distances of more than 13 billion light years seem to indicate the presence of both the movement and orientation of the solar system. Is this a consequence of systematic processing errors, contamination of the results with local effects or an inexplicable violation of the Copernican principle?

What is a 3-manifold of concomitant space, that is, an accompanying spatial section of the Universe, informally called the “form” of the Universe? Neither its curvature, nor its topology is currently unknown, although the curvature is most likely “close” to zero on the observed scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the Universe may be immeasurable, but since 2003, the team of Jean-Pierre Luminet and other groups have suggested that the Universe may be in the form of the dodecahedral Poincare space. Is the shape of the universe immeasurable, is Poincare space or has a different 3-manifold?

Why is there no thermodynamic equilibrium in the observable part of the Universe?

All these and other questions can be answered by the fact that the universe is a virtual simulation with laws and parameters that are intentionally assigned in it, and that they are absolutely not obliged to be explained by self-sufficiency, self-generation and self-development of our universe. Moreover, even these laws themselves do not necessarily have to be absolute and unchanged. In accordance with his free will and the power of the creator of our world, a certain creator can completely arbitrarily create any phenomena and objects that our scientists will call “paradoxes” for centuries.

Indeed, are there too many questions and inconsistencies for a self-sufficient, self-generated world?

So, using the example of the cosmology of our world, we can conclude that the cosmology of the created worlds does not necessarily have to be explainable, which is called “doesn’t have to make sense …” and you don’t need to be a super mind to create it. Even a child can create an arbitrary cosmology of the world in accordance with his taste. And the scientists of this created world will be puzzled by insoluble riddles for all times.

All the theories that have been proposed for many millennia explaining our universe, fail safely. So, the famous String Theory [32], which never made a correct prediction about cosmology, slowly goes into oblivion.

The so-called “Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” is now coming into fashion – a unified field theory that combines all the known physical interactions that exist in nature proposed by the American physicist Garrett Lisi on November 6, 2007. The theory is based on the Lee group of type E8 and is interesting for its elegance, but requires serious improvement. Some famous physicists have already expressed support for it, but a number of inaccuracies and problems have been found in theory.

Such an approach to the structure of the universe on the smallest scale can be seen in computer simulations, when complex forms are built from elementary virtual structural units.

Albert Einstein expressed the program for building the Unified Field Theory, and after creating the general theory of relativity, he devoted the rest of his life to trying to build such a theory. Many physicists just as unsuccessfully tried to build a unified field theory. That is why the announcement of Lisi’s publication caused a mixed reaction.





The inhabitants of worlds, possessing consciousness and self-consciousness, can, in turn, create their own worlds. Moreover, they can create worlds whose inhabitants have created their world. And so on in a circle.

For simplicity of perception, let us imagine the orphan from birth, who created in his imagination the image of his mother, or the believer, who created in his imagination the image of God the Creator, who created him. If these examples are translated into a more complex virtual reality environment, then we can offer a model in which the creation of worlds is mutually. And you can indefinitely lengthen the chain of creation of worlds, and thus we really cannot say with certainty that this world, having created another world, is not an indirect creator of itself.

Known since ancient times in Egyptian, Vedic and many other cultures, the symbol of uroboros (ancient Greek οὐροβόρος from οὐρὐ “tail” + βορά “food, food”) is a coiled serpent or dragon biting its tail. It is one of the oldest symbols known to mankind, the exact origin of which — historical period and specific culture — cannot be established. [33]

This symbol has many different meanings. The most common interpretation describes it as a representation of eternity and infinity, especially the cyclical nature of life: the alternation of creation and destruction, life and death, constant rebirth and death.

You can offer a different interpretation of this symbol, the name of which seems to be incorrect. Why would a snake bite its tail?

The snake gives birth to itself from its own mouth. (Something similar happens when a snake comes out of its own skin, only without isolation). Moreover, it is known that the no less well-known notion of the logos-word [34], the current force of creation of the world. In the beginning was the word – ἀν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. (Gospel of John 1-1), and the word proceeds from the mouth.



The world in which we live seems to us harmonious and natural. In whatever world we live in, we would perceive it as habitual and, therefore, in harmony with us. However, the world is full of contradictions, which we are trying in vain to explain. It seems that the creator of our world was not too worried that his world fit into well-proportioned physical systems.

It seems to us that if the physical laws were different, then the world and we could not exist in it. This is because we believe that the world is governed by certain laws and they are above the world. This is not true. Physical laws are only human reasoning about the world, designed to explain and predict the phenomena observed in it.

Now appear something completely inexplicable, first the physicists will call it a “paradox”, and then they will come up with an explanation, trying to link this paradox with all other observations. Then one of these explanations will temporarily take the place of the physical law, only until a replacement is found for it. At best, the universal physical law will become a special case, and at worst – will be thrown into the dustbin of the history of science. Who remembers the world ether, caloric …

The law of conservation of energy [35] is good only until it appeared undeniable objections, confirmed by experiments.

 The theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and other branches of modern fundamental physics are manifestations of “physical” idealism. [36] Einstein wrote: “The goal of any science, whether it is natural science or psychology, is to harmonize our sensations with each other and reduce them to a logical system”, “Our concepts and systems of concepts are justified only because they serve to express the complexes of our sensations”, “Content truth in the system is determined by its reliability and completeness of its compliance with a set of sensations “[37]

Science, which he studied, Einstein describes as follows:

“Physics is a developing logical system of thinking, the foundations of which can be obtained not by isolating them by any inductive method, but only by free fiction. The substantiation (truth) of the system is based on the proof of the applicability of theorems derived from it in the field of sensory experience, and the relationship between the latter and the first can only be understood intuitively. Evolution takes place in the direction of the ever increasing simplicity of logical foundations. Moreover, in order to get closer to this goal, we must decide to recognize that the logical basis is more and more removed from the data of experience. ”[38]

Ultimately, the creator’s decision is primary, and the laws of physics are secondary, ad hoc [39], until another case presents itself to change them. And in general, since the universe is fundamentally unobservable from the outside, and in its entirety, then any law of physics may be an attempt to say something about the oceanography of the earth, being in the middle of the Sahara. This desert is very large, but the idea that the entire surface of the earth is a desert will be false.

Let’s create such a force of gravity and a low density of the atmosphere, so that in any awkward fall, the inhabitants of our world would break their limbs. We will not create a habitat for them, as in water, where the density of the environment does not allow its inhabitants to fall to the bottom and break all the bones. Let’s create electrical discharges in the form of lightning. This is spectacular and, by the way, all spontaneous fires can be blamed on them.

Of course, all this is not a call to action, but rather draws attention to how our world works, in which we live, and what can be said about its creator.

So, we can assign any physical laws for the worlds we create. Moreover, we may well not worry at all about the laws of physics, wondering “how is this possible?”. First of all, only our unlimited will of the creator is important, and the explanation of our creation lies on the shoulders of the unfortunate physicists and philosophers who inhabit the world created by us. And that is because we do not care about them. Is not it? Why should we look back at them, make the nature of our world convenient for comprehending, describing and systematizing them? And these scientists themselves do not need to be supplied with particularly sensitive organs of sensation, a priori knowledge [40], intuition and overly developed intellect. So let them suffer. It seems so funny…





To invent moral laws for the inhabitants of our worlds is especially entertaining. But it is even more interesting to give them the opportunity to invent their own morality. Do not initially give them any special guidelines, absolute bans. Well, for example, in our world no one can destroy the sun. (At least for now). Moreover, a person cannot eat the sun. That is, there is an established absolute ban on such an action. If you try to do it literally, the human body will burn long before a person comes close to our star. Yes, and 1.99 * 10 in 30 kg degrees are unlikely to fit in a person’s stomach, even if you squeeze the sun to a singularity. Even a black hole that would have come out of the sun (if it were possible) would have a radius of about 3 kilometers [41]. Alas, a man does not push an object like this into his stomach.

But seriously, one person may well eat another person, and there are no physical restrictions or prohibitions on this. And then it is possible to let people decide for themselves what moral law they should establish for themselves. Moreover, these decisions will be different depending on the circumstances…

On the other hand, a person cannot eat the conscience of another person, for conscience is an ephemeral substance.

Of course, it would be possible to create a world where absolutely immoral things would be physically impossible. Indeed, in our world we are not afraid to wake up one morning – and the sun ate a crocodile, like Chukovsky’s [42]: “Woe! Woe! The crocodile swallowed the sun in the sky!”, That is, he entered a highly immoral way, using the luminary inside only for personal use.

But the creator of our world decided to have fun and created it so that we can decide whether to eat or not eat each other according to circumstances.

So, the creators of the worlds can assign moral laws, hint about them, or just leave this matter to chance. It all depends on the taste of the creator and his sadistic inclinations or the lack thereof.

It is especially interesting to divide the world we create into physical and non-material, spiritual, subtle, so to speak. Divide by visible and invisible to the inhabitants of your world.

And make it so that the fate of the inhabitants in the subtle world, where, in turn, you can create heaven and hell depended on actions in the physical world. If you want, you can create and something between light and darkness, well, for example, peace. And you can without it. Simple and clear, heaven and hell.


 Or create something like the laws of karma. Or, as was suggested earlier, only hell can be created, and paradise can only be in a potential form, since no one can be allowed into paradise and thus save on its creation. They say that, it seems, there is a potential paradise, but since no one deserves it, and in general, it cannot be deserved, not create it at all. Well, for example, every beggar can assign a prize of one billion dollars on his own behalf to a person who can eat the sun. In this case, it is not necessary to have a prize fund. After all, no one can literally eat the sun.

Or offer paradise as a prize to someone who can refrain from devouring their own kind. It is also, apparently, impossible, and paradise cannot be created.

Or if you have already created paradise and, so that the work is not in vain, you still want to let someone in there, and then you can confuse everything with morality so that without your help from an outside administrator you cannot enter paradise and call this path with your intervention “Grace.” That is, the level of “paradise” can be reached only by the “grace” of the administrator. And here it is possible to have fun with the principles of selection. You can accidentally, as in a lottery, but you can those who ask politely. And it is possible both in the mood.

And let the philosophers of your world puzzle over moral paradoxes.

In general, the more absurd and illogical the moral law of your world turns out to be, the more interesting it is to observe how its inhabitants suffer. And in order not to incur their reproaches, make sure that these tortures go to their benefit and are even necessary.

Let them establish various cults of suffering. It is extremely entertaining to watch prudent brigands go to heaven, and the righteous turn out to be hypocrites and go to hell.

Feel free to violate any logic and reasonable limits. After all, you are the creator. You are permitted to be original.



It is especially interesting to create evolving worlds, that is, self-developing, from complex to simple and vice versa. We are laying an initial impulse, a certain general plan, setting the basic principles and going to drink beer. We are returning and observing with interest what our world evolved into. If he does not like or just tired, we destroy most of the forms of life and make room for new directions of evolution.

Of course, we do not propose to commit all these atrocities, but simply emphasize that, since our world is like this, it says a lot about its creator.

For example, take our world, where mass extinctions repeatedly occurred. [43]

To keep the peace for a long time does not make sense. We can invest time in it in such a way as to create the illusion of an infinitely long past and an equally endless future. In fact, it suffices to take care of the existence of the world only in the present moment.

As for the end of the world, there are several approaches to the destruction of the worlds you created. You can create a world and all the time of its existence to threaten it with destruction. Let there be a lot of dangers on the cosmic and planetary level, so that the inhabitants are constantly maintained apocalyptic moods. Large asteroids will rush past at terrible speed, the planet itself may be a hot red-hot ball covered only with a thin crust of hard rocks. Let the galaxies collide. Come up with anything. If only the inhabitants had no hope. Realizing that their world will be destroyed sooner or later, the inhabitants will be apathetically based not only at the individual level, but also as a community of intelligent beings as a whole.

You can act more humane, making your universe a safe place, and then, when this world bothers you, just turn it off without warning.

The choice is yours. But forever hold your worlds that do not make sense. After all, sooner or later they will bother you. Yes and considerable resources are required to maintain the created world, on whatever basis it was created.

Ideal when the inhabitants of the world destroy themselves, because without internal observers the world ceases to be peace. Therefore, of course, if you are predisposed to extreme cruelty and sophistication, you will allow the inhabitants of the world to effectively and reliably destroy themselves.



Of course, depression can be explained by the chemical imbalance of our brain, but, on the other hand, the reasons for depression are laid in the very foundations of our world. On the contrary, one should be surprised when depression does not develop.

Alas, as much as we can create worlds, so much can one create our world, and how cruel we are to the worlds we create, so much so our creator can be cruel to us.

Unfortunately, the golden rule of morality does not work here. [44] “Do not create a world in which you would not like to live on your own.” The fact is that the choice of a particular world depends on the taste and character of the creator. And the creator may be a masochist. He will want to create, for example, the tragic world, and he will love him so much that he will wish to become one of its inhabitants and to endure all the torment connected with it. [45]

Do not follow these sad examples. Your short-term entertainment or solving your own personal psychological problems is not worth the suffering of the whole world.






“If you do something, do it well. If you can’t or don’t want to do well, it’s better not to do at all. ”L.N. Tolstoy


The concept of “perfect” has several meanings. In this case, characterizing the worlds as ideal, we mean the “ideal” as perfect, characterized by the highest degree of qualities, corresponding to the ideal. The ideal (lat. Idealis from the Greek. Ἰδέα – image, idea) – the highest value, the best, the complete state of a phenomenon – a sample of personal qualities, abilities; the highest standard of moral personality (personal ideal); the highest degree of moral conception of good and proper (axiological ideal); perfection in human relations (ethical ideal); the most perfect social order (social ideal).

Properties of ideal worlds

Ideal worlds are characterized by absolute perfection. “Absolute” means perfect, complete, universal, unconditioned, free from limitations. [46] Perfection is the fullness of all virtues, the highest degree of positive qualities. An example of positive properties: joy, creativity,


Create the inhabitants and the world around them so that they are peace-loving, free, happy, reasonable, calm and creative creatures. Could support the ideality of their world and create new ideal worlds.

 Over task

Creating ideal worlds will prove that our world in which we live is not ideal, and that ideal worlds are possible, and, therefore, the non-ideality of our world is the free choice of the Creator.


Create a perfect world you need immediately in perfect form. The presence of development is characteristic of a non-ideal world. It suggests that it used to be worse and better, which means that at the time when it was worse, the world was not perfect. Even less ideal is the world in which it was better and worse. In an ideal world, neither development nor degradation is intolerable.

 The existence of the world

The passage of time can be allowed, because if negative events are impossible in an ideal world, then time does not make such a world non-ideal. Changes on the contrary are possible due to the passage of time. But these changes are good, because there are an infinite number of good options [i] [47].

 The end of ideal worlds

The ideal world has no end, for having an end will make any ideal world not perfect. If the creator is bored to maintain an ideal world, or for some reason he cannot support him, this world simply needs to be turned off, without any process of destruction. Such an end will not appear tragic and in no way impair the ideality of the world, because during the existence of the ideal world its inhabitants cannot assume the possibility of its non-existence in the past and the possibility of the termination of the existence of the world in the future. Having such an opportunity to complete the existence of an ideal world without the concept of the end of the world in this world itself, says that our non-ideal world was created by our Creator intentionally in such a way that we can assume the possibility of the end of the world [48], consider its scenarios, both on a personal, and on a planetary, and even a universal level. Such a painful awareness, given even to the most primitive people, indicates the Creator’s intentional desire to make our world fundamentally tragic, even if He does not intend to carry out such apocalyptic plans. For the expectation of the apocalypse is much more painful than a painless, sudden and unpredictable complete cessation of existence. The presence of a certain part of our world, which we call the otherworldly, on the one hand softens the possibility of the end of the world, limiting it only to our so-called, visible, material world, but on the other hand, introduces uncertainty regarding our existence in the other world (paradise [49] and hell [50]), which complements the tragedy and torment of our being. Disappointment in this so-called real world forces one to come to the conclusion that the other world, unfortunately, may well be quite disappointing. So you cannot create a paradise at all, putting everyone in hell. But the paradise created in order that in hell was enviable and even more painful, only emphasizes the tragic and agonizing concept of the Creator about our world. Moreover, the paradise for sinners becomes more painful than hell, and therefore sending them to hell is a paradoxical act of mercy of the Creator.

Thus, the creation of an ideal world without an end is not only no more difficult than the creation of a non-ideal world, in which the end is laid in the very structure of the world, but much simpler. Thus, the awareness of the finiteness of our world is the result of the direct and deliberate act of the creation of the Creator, who wanted to make our world painful and tragic, which contrasts sharply and contradicts some divine attributes of “grace” [51]. The justification for such a decision by the Creator is the statement that having an end implies the need for repentance and self-improvement, but in an ideal world, the inhabitants are already perfect from the beginning. There is no need to create perfect beasts, laying in them and in their world the possibility of damage (original sin [52]) and imperfections. (Namely, plant the notorious forbidden tree, or locate it in the immediate availability of creatures). Such a decision can arise only if the creator wishes to create a tragic world, painful for its inhabitants.


 Inner essence

The inhabitant of ideal world is not born and does not die. He is convinced that existed and will always exist. To do this, he should invest an infinite memory of the ideal past in the form of positive confabulations. [53] That is, when a denizen turns his memory into the past, as needed, he creates memories of his ideal existence.


Anatomy and physiology

To create the inhabitants of ideal world by material [54] and even more so biological beings is incompatible with the concept of ideality. Although the definition of materiality itself arises and is confirmed on the basis of our senses, modern studies of cognitive processes have shown that it is not possible for a person to know for sure what reality is. The brain does not know the difference between imaginary and reality, memory. The reproduction of the one and the other is carried out by the same brain cells.

 In these real-imaginary worlds, man is guided by cognitive strategies. He chooses on the basis of certain criteria from the mass of possibilities and imaginations what he considers to be real – a real memory. These cognitive strategies (which may be erroneous or partially erroneous) form the fundamental criterion of reality. The problem of distinguishing between real and imaginary is the main task of knowledge. [55]

 Self-consciousness of the inhabitants of ideal worlds

The inhabitant of ideal world possesses the fullness of self-awareness as a free, kind, creative and active individual.

 The appearance of the inhabitants of ideal worlds

Anyway, in the guise of the inhabitant of an ideal world, no deformity is allowed, that is, the property of an object to cause it’s kind of disgust, hostility. One can argue long about the relativity of beauty, about the differences of tastes, and so on. However, it can be clearly stated that in an ideal world, as in a closed system, no deformity is intolerable. That is, nothing can arouse in its inhabitants a feeling of disgust and hostility. This does not mean that the inhabitants are devoid of aesthetic taste; this means that the laws of the ideal world do not allow anything ugly to exist in this world. In an ideal world, the inhabitants cannot feel a feeling of disgust, and, in turn, there are no objects and phenomena in it that could cause this feeling. In our world, a lot of things cause us disgust and hostility, which once again proves that our world is not perfect.

 Morals and relationships of the inhabitants of ideal worlds.

Every inhabitant of the ideal world is a creature unique, special, and multifaceted. He is able to think beautifully, analyze, feel, perform only positive actions and various kind actions, bringing exceptional benefits both to himself and to the world around him.

  In relation to other inhabitants, such qualities as kindness, sociability, sensitivity, responsiveness, respect, kindness, sincerity are characteristic of him. The tendency to creation, conscientiousness, responsibility is peculiar to the inhabitant of the ideal world. In relation to self: self-esteem, modesty, absolute honesty. The inhabitant of the ideal world is not only incapable of deception and hypocrisy, but the world itself does not imply such a necessity.



Theology of Ideal Worlds

In an ideal world, the presence of a creator is unacceptable. He must remain behind the scenes. His presence will suppress and embarrass the inhabitants of the ideal worlds. Therefore, there is no any theology in the ideal world. Every inhabitant of the ideal world is perfect enough, benevolent and kind and he does not need to impose the will of the creator. His will is perfect and self-sufficient.

 Philosophy of ideal worlds

 Our entire earthly philosophy tries to explain or justify the non-ideality of our world, while the description of ideal worlds fits on a couple of pages.




The universe of the ideal world should not be too large, since its colossal dimensions will cause its inhabitants a sense of their own insignificance. Also, the size of the universe should be stable and unchanged, since neither the expansion of the universe nor its collapse can create a calm confidence in the future of its inhabitants. The ideal universe should not be too small; otherwise the inhabitants will be in it closely.

Such a universe should not have boundaries. The solution to the infinity of the universe can be its closure to itself.

In an ideal universe there should be no places where its inhabitants could not be comfortably without any adaptations.

Movement in an ideal universe by its inhabitants should be instantaneous; moreover, they should be able to be simultaneously in an unlimited number of places. The speed of transmission of the signal should also not be limited by the speed of light. The passage of time in an ideal universe must be reversible and every inhabitant must be able to be at any point in the time sequence and even at any time simultaneously, exclusively in accordance with the will of the inhabitants themselves.

The source of energy in the ideal universe should be the inhabitants themselves, thus their self-sufficiency and complete independence will be ensured.

The way of exact organizing an ideal universe depends on the individual preferences of its creator, especially since it is not so important if we take into account that the inhabitants of an ideal universe can modify it in accordance with their tastes. If tastes do not coincide between inhabitants, they will be able to create other ideal universes for themselves and be in them as ordinary inhabitants, since, as already noted, the obvious presence of the creator inside the universe created by him makes it not perfect.

It makes no sense to indicate which astronomical objects should be in the ideal universe, since, provided that these objects cannot in any way harm or confuse the inhabitants, these could be planets, stars and galaxies or just some kind of clouds. The invulnerability of the inhabitants of the ideal universe allows any variations of solutions, but these objects should not be made too huge, again, so that the inhabitants of the ideal universe do not experience negative emotions about their insignificance in relation to such objects.

Residents, if necessary, should be able to occupy as much space as they please, and it should be possible to occupy the same space to an unlimited number of inhabitants without any inconvenience for themselves and others.

So, the cosmology of the ideal worlds is quite simple and does not require much sophistication, excessiveness and absurdity, which we observe in our non-ideal universe.



 Describing the worlds as imperfect, we mean the “imperfect” as not corresponding to the ideal.

Imperfect worlds are characterized by one or more imperfections, and cause all sorts of suffering to their inhabitants.



 In extreme cases, it is possible to create not quite ideal worlds, only if they do not bring any suffering to the inhabitants.

If the imperfect world is tormenting for the inhabitants, then the creator commits a crime against the inhabitants of his world. Moreover, even if the creator wishes to become one of the inhabitants of his world and to suffer with them, this in no way serves him as an excuse. Still, creating such worlds is mean, low and cruel, and no higher considerations, according to the creator, can justify the act of such a creation.

Let’s look at various imperfect worlds. Of course, they may have different imperfections that torment the inhabitants, but still, with a view to ordering, we will try to describe various non-ideal worlds in accordance with the prevailing characteristics of their imperfections.




There is no order in chaotic worlds. Events are not predictable. Inhabitants are subject to constant hazards and die in large numbers. Chaos is generally not compatible with perfection. Existence in the chaotic world is extremely painful for the inhabitants.

Their attempts to somehow organize their lives everywhere are failing. Moreover, the more chaos in the world, the more its inhabitants suffer. In such worlds, constantly here and there, hurricanes rage, wars between the inhabitants flare up. They live on planets, which are balls of fire covered with a thin crust of rocks. Volcanic eruptions, falling meteorites constantly threaten their inhabitants. And, of course, entropy [56] must be present in such a world as the main condition for the basic destruction of everything.


The inhabitants of the primitive worlds are extremely limited in their abilities; they can practically change nothing in such worlds to make them more acceptable. The inhabitants of the primitive worlds have an awareness of their primitiveness and the primitiveness of their world, which causes particular suffering.


In the pagan [57] worlds, various deities and demons operate. They make the existence of the inhabitants of such worlds especially painful. For no reason, these deities humiliate, torture, and destroy the inhabitants. At the same time, they themselves can be completely suffering beasts. An example is the Greek mythology.




In the dogmatic [58] worlds, certain dogmas are revered as deities. They are above rationality and reason. Dogmas prevail over the inhabitants, who are completely subordinate to them. These are painful worlds.


In the despotic [59] worlds, hierarchies are built up in which everyone, beginning with the creator, suppresses and terrorizes the inhabitants, imposing their will on them. A world in which the inhabitants voluntarily subordinate their will to a despot is considered especially sophisticated.


The tragic [60] worlds are characterized by the constant play of tragedies, the lack of reasonable exits. In such worlds, the creator himself is involved in the tragedy of his world. He even becomes one of the inhabitants and takes upon himself all the blows and injustices of the world he created.


In such worlds, inhabitants are divided into races, castes, and classes. An irreconcilable struggle arises between them, war, mutual destruction. Moreover, the basis of division can be as insignificant as the color of the outer cover of the occupant’s body, the nature of his occupation, or a completely insignificant sign.



In the heroic worlds, nothing significant can be accomplished without great effort, and only by exposing to terrible danger. Everyone suffers – both heroes and those who are not capable of heroism.



In the science-like worlds everything has a scientific explanation. No matter how incredible the phenomenon is, it will surely find some scientific explanation, which, however, almost immediately can be refuted. The inhabitants of such a world suffer from the inexplicability of the explicable. In such worlds, even the definition of the concept “zero” and “infinity” turn out to be inconsistent, and, despite the fact that all phenomena are explained by science, all sciences are based on some improvable axioms.



Inhabitants of the ascetic worlds suffer in particular sophistication. Everything is possible for them, but they limit themselves in all of them in order to achieve some kind of supreme good, which in actual fact is not.



The inhabitants of such worlds suffer from the impossibility of attaining saturation; they all drag and drag themselves into their holes, until they suffocate from being sat down.



In the comic worlds, the creator, without hesitating, mocks and laughs at the inhabitants of the world, putting them constantly in comic and humiliating situations. At the same time, the inhabitants of comic worlds are not at all funny.





In infantile worlds, inmates play toys for life. For example, they can imagine that they are teddy bears like Winnie the Pooh. The inhabitants, of course, suffer – most often from eating honey and the inability to get out of the hole of the rabbit, who treated them to this honey.


In erotic worlds, everything is subordinated to the desire to perform unintelligible actions, from which, at first, inhabitants feel very good, but then very bad. An example of the hyper-erotic world can serve as bed bugs. [61]


In idiotic worlds, everything is arranged in an idiotic way, which causes incredible suffering among the inhabitants, who, although they themselves are idiots, are aware of their idiocy for greater cruelty.

Nightmare Worlds

In such worlds, everything ends in a nightmare. For example, blooming children turn into disgusting old men and women, die and rot in graves with worms. Love turns into hate, Loyalty – betrayal, Freedom – slavery and Justice – disgusting deception.





  An imperfect creator can create a perfect world. So go ahead. As we have shown in this book, the creation of ideal worlds is quite simple. But the perfect creator cannot create an imperfect world. For the ideal creator will never create a non-ideal world, as this will automatically make him non-ideal, imperfect.

Please, be conscientious. Do not create imperfect worlds!




[1] Reality (from the Latin. Realis – real, real) – a philosophical term, used in different meanings as existing in general; objectively manifested world. (Large Dictionary of Foreign Words. – IDDK Publishing House, 2007.)

[2] “I think, therefore, I exist – a philosophical statement of Rene Descartes, a fundamental element of the modern Western rationalism. This assertion was put forward by Descartes as the primary authenticity, a truth in which it is impossible to doubt – and with which, therefore, one can begin to rebuild the building of authentic knowledge.

[3] “Es wäre doch besser, glaube ich, das große Weltgebäude, so wie, es vor unsern Augen da ist, zu betrachten, und zu sehen — so weit unsere zugehen könnte; “Philosophen …” (Correspondence of Karamzin with Lavater / / Coll. ORYAS, 54, 1893, No. 15, pp. 40—41).

[4] Megaliths (from the Greek. Μςγα большой – large, λίθος – stone) – constructions of huge stone blocks, characteristic mainly of the final Neolithic and Eneolithic (IV — III millennium BC in Europe, or later in Asia and Africa).

[5] Stonehenge is a megalithic stone structure (cromlech) inscribed on the World Heritage List in Wiltshire, England. It is located about 130 km south-west of London, about 3.2 km west of Amesbury and 13 km north of Salisbury.

[6] Carina Girvan. “What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. »Educational Technology Research and Development October 2018, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp. 1087–1100

[7] Alan Harvey Guth (Gus) (born Alan Harvey Guth; born February 27, 1947, New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA) was an American physicist and cosmologist who first proposed the idea of cosmic inflation.


[8] The system (ancient Greek σύστημα “whole, made up of parts; connection”) is a set of elements that are in relations and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. The need to use the term “system” arises in cases where it is necessary to emphasize that something is large, complex, not completely immediately understandable, and at the same time whole, united. In contrast to the concepts of “set”, “aggregate” the concept of a system emphasizes orderliness, integrity, the presence of patterns of construction, functioning and development. (Definition of System. Collins Encyclopedic Dictionary//https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system.)

[9] In philosophy, consciousness is seen as the ability to relate, to be aware of a subject (Hegel). At the same time, “consciousness” is understood not as the psychic ability of the body (as in psychology), but as a fundamental way in which the observer relates to his object and the world in general. It is said about this that consciousness is a form or a method of an object’s givenness, a form or a method of a givenness of the world in general. (Consciousness: Examples and Definitions. Philosophical Terms.// https://philosophyterms.com/conscience/; Conscience. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.// https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conscience/. )

[10] Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “specifically for this”, “on a special occasion”.

[11] As it is known, unstable radioactive particles disintegrate in the world not only for the sake of experiments on cats, but also quite by themselves. In addition, each particle is characterized by an average lifetime, which, it turns out, can increase under the watchful eye of the observer. This quantum effect was predicted for the first time back in the 1960s, and its brilliant experimental confirmation appeared in an article published in 2006 by the group of Nobel laureate in physics Wolfgang Ketterle from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this paper, the decay of unstable excited rubidium atoms rubidium in the ground state and photons). Immediately after the preparation of the system, the excitations of the atoms behind them began to be observed — they were illuminated by a laser beam. In this case, the observation was conducted in two modes: continuous (small light pulses are constantly fed into the system) and pulsed (the system is occasionally irradiated by more powerful pulses). The results obtained perfectly matched the theoretical predictions. External light effects really slow down the decay of particles, as if returning them to their original, far from decay state. At the same time, the magnitude of the effect for the two modes studied also coincides with the predictions. And maximally the life of unstable excited rubidium atoms could be extended 30 times.

[12] The results of quantum experiments of the twenty-first century change the metaphysical ideas about reality. Experimental verification of Bell’s inequality, Leggett, Leggett-Garg’s Inequality, as well as experiments with deferred selection and a “quantum eraser” confirm that quantum objects require a substantial revision of the concepts of classical realism. (P. Zarkeshian, S. Kumar, J. Tuszynski, P. Barclay, C. Simon.)

[13] Absolute Truth. Philosophy and Religion// https://www.britannica.com/topic/absolute-truth.

[14] Rev. Simeon the New Theologian “The Composition of Man.” St. Gregory Palam “Triad in the defense of the sacred and silent”, “Letters like the saints of our Father Gregory the Theologian to Basil the Great”

[15] A lucid dreaming (English lucid dreaming) is an altered state of consciousness in which a person realizes that he is dreaming and can, in one way or another, control its content. This is a kind of borderline between the phase of REM sleep and wakefulness. The term “lucid dream” was introduced by the Dutch psychiatrist and writer Frederick van Eden (1860-1932). Lucid dreams are the subject of scientific research, their existence is confirmed. Lucid dreams can begin either during normal sleep, when the sleeper realizes that he is sleeping, or directly from the waking state without a temporary loss of awareness. (Watanabe Tsuneo (March 2003). “Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions.” Journal of the International Society of Life Information Science. Japan. 21 (1): 159-162.)

[16] Consciousness – the state of the mental life of the organism, expressed in the subjective experience of the events of the external world and the body of the organism, as well as in the account of these events. Consciousness can be understood in a wider or narrower sense. So, for example, from the point of view of the theory of reflection, consciousness in the broad sense is “a mental reflection of reality regardless of the level at which it is carried out — biological or social, sensual or rational,” and in the narrow sense — “superior, peculiar only to people and associated with the ability to explain thoughts, brain function, consisting in a generalized and purposeful reflection of reality, in a preliminary mental construction of actions and prediction of their results, in reasonable regulation and self-control human behavior at the expense of reflection. ” The problem of what consciousness is, what its scope is, and what the meaning of the existence of this term is, is the subject of study of the philosophy of consciousness, psychology, disciplines that study the problems of artificial intelligence. (Consciousness // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

[17] Tile, tile or familiar graphics (from the English. Tile – tile) – a method of creating large images (usually levels in computer games). The image is made up of small fragments of the same dimensions (patterns), like a picture of tiles – hence the name. Tiles are small images of the same size, which serve as fragments of a large picture. Usually tiles on one “world” are made of the order of several hundred. The matrix of cells is composed of tile numbers. In this way, you can build huge two-dimensional spaces that consume quite a bit of memory. Tile graphics are close to text mode. To make a text video adapter tiled, you need to add another line, another column, variable font, scroll registers and hardware sprites. Therefore, this graphic system was also called “familiar graphics”. The problem of tile graphics in its monotony: the eye easily notices repetitive elements. They struggle with monotony like this: “Cleverly” cut the pattern into tiles, providing for transitional tiles between different surfaces and not allowing within one tile areas with very different optical density. They make several tiles of the same, with a slightly different pattern.

[18] In video games, a random card is a card created at random by a computer, usually in strategic games. Random maps are often the core of single-user and multi-user context.

[19] Schreier, Jason Gods, Spies Take Center Stage In Civilization V Expansion. Kotaku (February 16, 2012).

[20] Absolute Spirit // http:www.britannica.com/topic/Absolute-Spirit.

[21] Handschin J. The “Timaeus” Scale // Musica Disciplina, IV (1950), pp.3-42

[22] Schlette H.R. Weltseele. Geschichte und Hermeneutik. Frankfurt a.M., 1993.

[23] The term was introduced by Leibniz in 1710.

[24] (1st ed .: “The Way”, Moscow, 1914).

[25] The formulation may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who sees from his Christian perspective. According to Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), The Problem of Evil, pp. xix-xxi. Wiley-Blackwell. According to Reynold F. Glei, it is an epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. Reinhold F. Glei, Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), p. 47-58

[26] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The Evidential Problem of Evil”, Nick Trakakis

[27] Alvin Plantinga. God, Freedom, and Evil. – Harper & Row, 1974. – 58 p. – ISBN 0-8028-1731-9.

[28] The Occam razor (sometimes Occam’s blade) is a methodological principle: “What can be done on the basis of fewer [assumptions] should not be done on the basis of the larger” and “Diversity should not be assumed unnecessarily.” It is important to remember that Occam’s razor is not an axiom, but a presumption, that is, it does not prohibit more complex explanations in principle, but only recommends the procedure for considering hypotheses, which in most cases is the best.

[29] Hereinafter the material from the article ““For what guilt” or “for what reason”: questions of Job” is used, Thomas Magazine: No. 9 (41) September 2006

[30] The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Chapter 55-8

[31] Cosmology (cosmos + logos) is a science that studies the properties and evolution of the Universe as a whole.

[32] The string theory is the direction of theoretical physics that studies the dynamics of the interaction of not one-dimensional particles, but one-dimensional extended objects, so-called quantum strings. Sunil Mukhi (1999) “The Theory of Strings: A Detailed Introduction”.

[33] Gauding, Madonna. The Signs and Symbols Bible: The Definitive Guide to Mysterious Markings. – Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2009. – P. 89

[34] Logos (from the Greek. Λόγος “word; thought, meaning, concept; number”) is the term of ancient Greek philosophy, which means both “word” (saying, speaking) and “concept” (judgment, meaning). Heraclitus, who used it for the first time, called logos “eternal and universal necessity,” a stable pattern. Subsequently, the meaning of this term was changed several times, however, by logos we understand the most profound, stable and significant structure of being, the most essential laws of the world. In Judaism, this is “Memra” (Heb. ממרה), or “Maamar” (מאומר) – “Logos”, “Word”, as the creative principle of the word of God.

[35] The law of conservation of energy is a fundamental law of nature established empirically and that a scalar physical quantity can be introduced for an isolated physical system, which is a function of the parameters of the system and is called energy that persists over time.

[36] C.Rovelli. Physics needs Philosophy, Philosophy needs Physics.// Scientific American. – https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/.

[37] A.Einstein. Collection of scientific papers. M. 1966 Volume 2, p.5, p.6, p.36

[38] A.Einstein I.L.Infeld Evolution of Physics. 1966. p. 354

[39] Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “specifically for this”, “on a special occasion”. As a rule, the phrase indicates a way to solve a specific problem or task that cannot be adapted to solve other problems and which does not fit into the overall solution strategy is some exception.

[40] A priori (lat. A priori – literally “from the preceding”) is knowledge obtained before and independently of experience (knowledge a priori, a priori knowledge).

[41] For details, see: https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/8028/ (Science and Life, Black Holes in the Universe)

[42] K. Chukovsky. “Stolen Sun” – poems for children.

[43] Mass extinctions are global catastrophes in the history of the Earth, when a high (compared to the background level) proportion of species of a large number of higher level died out during a short geological time scale. Over the past 540 million years, there have been five major mass extinctions and about 20 smaller ones.

 [44] The Golden Rule of Morality is a general ethical rule that can be formulated as “Treat people the way you want them to treat you.” The negative formulation of this rule is also known: “do not do to others what you do not want yourself.”

[45] “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through Him. ”The Gospel of John. Chapter 3 verse 16.

In the same place “I and the Father are one”

 The adherents of the trinity see this as a clear statement of the unity of the Father and the Son as a teaching about the trinity. JOHN 10:30

[46] Encyclopedia Britannica.//http:www.britannica.com

[47] Good Definition and Meaning.// Collins English Dictionary. – https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/good.

 [48] The end of the world is a common idiom, meaning a real or imagined threat of the extinction of all people, civilizations, all of humanity, the Earth, or even the entire Universe. In a narrower sense – the destruction of all living things.

[49] Paradise is in religion and philosophy: the place and / or state of eternal perfect life (being). It implies two concepts: Primary Paradise is the primordial state of a person in Eden, lost due to the fall; Paradise is an eschatological state achieved by overcoming the separation of heaven and hell at the end of time (in Kabbalah – at the end of evolution): the kingdom of heaven, Elysiy, Gmar tikkun, Fraso-keret, nirvana, moksha. Nikolai Berdyaev wrote: “Paradise at the beginning is the original wholeness, not knowing the poison of consciousness, the poison of discrimination and the knowledge of good and evil. There is no return to this paradise. And this paradise does not know the freedom that we value so much as our highest dignity. Paradise at the end suggests that man has already passed through aggravation and a split consciousness, through freedom, through discernment and the knowledge of good and evil. This paradise means a new wholeness and completeness after bifurcation and fragmentation. ”(Nikolai Berdyaev,“ On the Purpose of Man, ”part 3, ch. 3, Paradise. Beyond Good and Evil) Christianity, Islam, many schools of Buddhism, Hinduism, in transhumanism (the concept of “paradise engineering”), in Rastafarianism.)

[50] Hell in the representation of religions (Abrahamic religions, Zoroastrianism), mythologies and beliefs is a terrible, often posthumous, place of punishment for sinners who suffer in it pain and suffering. As a rule, contrasted with Paradise.


[51] Grace (ancient Hebrew חן, ancient Greek χάρις, Latin gratia) is one of the key concepts of Christian theology, considered as a gift from God to the person, served exclusively by the grace of the Lord, without merit from man and intended for his salvation and sanctification (“growing in grace”). Grace is understood as the effective condescension of God to man, the act of God, which changes the heart of man, and the very property of God, indicating His goodness and mercy. (What is Divine Grace? Understanding Christian Meaning. – https://www.christianity.com/theology/what-is-grace.html )

[52] Primordial (progenitor) sin is a Christian theological term meaning the first sin committed in Eden by the progenitors Adam and Eve. In formal understanding, sin consists in disobeying the will of God, violating the prohibition “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you do not eat from it” (Gen. 2:17). Adam and Eve, tempted by the devil, ate from the forbidden fruit of their own free will. The consequences of violation of the ban were damage to human nature, expulsion from paradise, loss of access to the tree of life and death. Now, as a rule, theologians use the phrase “original sin” in two meanings: first, as the violation of the commandment in Eden itself, and, second, as the sinful state of human nature damaged by evil as a result of this violation. (Original Sin // Progenitor Sin // Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. Volume 4. Publication of Petrograd. Appendix to the spiritual journal “The Wanderer” for 1903)

[53] Confabulari (lat. Confabulari – telling) – false memories in which the facts that were in reality or modified, are transferred at a different time and can be combined with absolutely fictional events. (N. Finberg. The Confabulating Mind: How the Brain Creates Reality.// American Journal of Psychiatry. – https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08010037?trendmd_shared=0&. )

[54] A material is an object that exists in reality and is made of a certain substance, material, etc., and which can be perceived with the help of the senses.

[55] P. Fusella. Dynamic systems theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications and Debates surrounding the Evolutionary Theory. – 2013. – http://dynapsyc.org/2013/Fusella.pdf.

[56] Entropy is a measure of irreversible dissipation of energy, a measure of the deviation of the actual process from the ideal. Thermodynamic entropy is a function of the state of the thermodynamic system

[57] Paganism in form – the deification of created objects, in essence – demon-worship. In a broad sense, paganism can be not only a type of religious world perception, but also the level of moral life, the quality of attitude to the spiritual world.

[58] Dogma, or dogma, is the basic statement of any teaching, accepted in the framework of this teaching as true, without the requirement of proof.

[59] Despotism (Greek despoteia – unlimited power) – the unlimited power of the despot, arbitrariness, autocracy, the suppression of another’s will.

[60] Tragedy – hopelessness, hopelessness, hopelessness. The heavy, dark side of something, some kind of life situation or literary work, a work of art.

[61] Of all forms of animal sexuality, bed bugs sexuality (Cimex lectularius) is the most amazing. No human imagination is capable of such perversions.