\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\widowpenalty=10000
\clubpenalty=10000
\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large\bf GOD BEING SCIENTIFICALLY DISCOVERED}\\
\vskip\baselineskip
 V.M. Lipunov\\
\vskip\baselineskip
{\it Sternberg Astronomical Institute,\\
Universitetskij pr., 13, 119899, Moscow V-234, Russia\\
E-mail: lipunov@sai.msu.su}\\
\end{center}

\vskip\baselineskip
\vskip\baselineskip

\section*{{\it Summary} -- The Giant Silence of the Universe or the absence of ``Space
     Miracles'' is in an obvious contradiction with the fast evolution of
     our civilization. The most striking is the  fact  that  both  these
     phenomena, if taking separately, are in crying  contradiction  with
     ``materialistic common sense'' and are to be considered as real Space
     Miracle themselves. As a matter of fact, this is the  main  problem
     of the modern natural science. This crisis may be overcomed if we
     recognize Superintelligence, that  is God which is discovered
     scientifically.}

\section*{\centerline{Introduction}}

     Here I shall try to speak about the most important problem of
     the modern natural science, the problem which  is  undoubtedly,  of
     more importance than discovery of Blacks Holes, creation of
     Grand  Unification Theory or  Artificial  Intelligence.  Moreover, this
     problem seems to be not only more profound and complicated but also
     much more urgent. In fact, if urgency implys the presence of
     any unexplained phenomenon being in contradiction with overwhelming
     scientific  views, then   solution   of   the   enumerated   above
     superfashionable problems  is  not  nowadays  of
     rigid experimental necessity (and will not in the nearest  future).
     Now, at least in physics (from the physics of low temperatures to
     the high energy physics), there is no  any  experimental  fact  which needs
     Grand Unification Theory (GUT).  There  is  no  such  experiment
     analogous to that of Michelson-Morley which created the  new  ideas
     on space and  time.  Moreover,  such  an  experiment  seems  to  be
     impossible in the nearest future (really,  for  testifying  GUT  an
     acceleration is required with an energy $10^{27}$ eV., it is hardly may
     be expected in the next century).

          Our Universe is still the unique  experimental  material,  and
     the new branch of physics, Cosmomicrophysics, appeared  mainly  due
     to this fact (basically owing to efforts of Ya.B.~Zel'dovich and his
     school). And here, for the first time during the history of natural
     science, we encounter an irreproducible  experiment.  A  number  of
     known universes equals to 1.

          So, I want to say that in modern natural science there  is  an
     experimental fact quite  inunderstood  and  paradoxical,  being  in
     crying contradiction with every  modern  orthodox  picture  of  the
     world., this is the fact  of  absence  of  Supercivilizations,  or
     ``Silence of the Universe''. Naturally, this fact has been discovered
     and realized previously. With the most acuteness it was realized in
     a post-mortal paper by  I.S.~Shklovskii$^{1}$ which, actually,
     appeared to be "the voice crying in a desert" (and seems to be still
     unknown at West at all). Generally speaking, the Shklovskii's interest
to the problem of extraterrestrial intelligence and, especially, evolution
of his views on this problem is rather instructive (from an optimistic
search of ``a needle in a haystack'' to a problem about ``awl in a sack'').
And also instructive was the lack of comments from the side of scientific
community to these ideas (one more paradox : ``Silence
of scientific community''). And this was in times when the paper
advanced with a terrible creak and came out only owing to mortal illness
of the author., and when there was a great interest for all
forbidden and half-forbidden items. It is not surprising, after additional
reflection. Indeed, humanity lived quiet normally for two thousand years
in spite of the obvious discrepancy between visible motion of planets
and theory of epicycles and deferents. And also, there is always a risk of
``soiling'' one's hands in so beaten by numerous UFOlogists and simply
unprofessional persons field as Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

\section*{\centerline{Fermi's Paradox}}

     As for me, a paper by I.S.~Shklovskii published in 1985 was of
great impression. In this paper written, as always, in clear
and witty language, Shklovskii formulated
the problem of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. He was engaged in this
problem almost all his life. But the most surprising is the fact that
having passed the way from the early romanticism of 60's (the artificial
creation of Fobos and Deimos) through the more realistic conception
of uniqueness of life in the Universe (an absence of space miracles$^{2}$),
which engages the west scientists up to now$^{3,4}$, he came to the
conclusion which could be obtained still before the space age and the
programs of searches of extraterrestrial life!

     Being impressed by this paper I wrote the note in the Soviet Astronomy
Journal$^{5}$. I obtained a simple estimate of contact probability and
tried to formulate a strict scientific problem. As a matter of fact,
the problem is reduced to the so called Fermi's paradox$^{6}$ which
in modern language looks as follows:

     there are two observational or, if you like, experimental facts:
1) the age of the Universe is $T = 10^{10}$~year, 2) a specific time
$t$ of exponential development for our civilization is of the order
of some tens of years. For the sake of simplicity it san be adopted
$t  =  100$~years  which  is  obviously  overestimated.  A   gigantic
dimensionless
number arises characterizing the growth of a technological
civilization over the time of existence of the Universe:
$$
        K = \exp(T/t) \approx 10^{43,000,000}\qquad(!)
$$
 It is enough to say that the theoretical physics never dealed with
so great dimensionless numbers. For example, the full number of
elementary particles in the Universe looks ridiculously small ---
$10^{80}$. Speaking nothing more, any theoretician having common sense
must prick up his ears when hear such a number. On the contrary, from
the experience of personal contacts I know  this is not the case.,
theoreticians seem to lose their common sense abroad some line. Fermi
himself exclaimed: ``If there are anywhere space civilizations, their
spaceships have been in the solar system long since'' (I don't
guarantee the exactness of the quotation). Naturally, this number is
so gigantic that any unknown intermediate factors are unimportant.
Really, it can be confirmed that probability of absence of
``space miracles'' in our Universe is $10^{-43,000,000}$, i.e. is
equal to zero! Nevertheless, nobody has discovered them even after 20
years of searches. On the contrary, a Giant Silence of the Universe
has been revealed. The world without miracles is incredible but it
exists --- that is a paradox.

\section*{%
\centerline{From Iosiph Shklovskii to Jordano Bruno,}
\centerline{and backwards}}

     How can Fermi's paradox be resolved in terms of modern scientific
approach? In the middle of 70's Shklovskii formulated a conception
of ``Space Miracle'' as a result of activity of Supercivilizations
and proposed an idea of uniqueness of our civilization in the whole
huge Universe$^2$. If there are no ``Space miracles'' and ``the Universe
keeps silence'' so there is no any Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
That was an awful thought, especially for a man who was looking
for artificial roots inside Mars' satellites. Neither for humanity
the matters were much better. One of the most optimistic human ideas
crashed down, the idea of multitude of the worlds. As was said by
Ya.B.~Zel'dovich in other connection, ``What Jordano Bruno was
burnt for?''

     Is a hypothesis of uniqueness of Terrestrial Civilization so natural?
Certainly, not. This hypothesis is in a crying contradiction with the
observable uniformity and isotropy of the Universe consequent from the
discovery of cosmic background radiation. A rise of only one civilization
in the uniform and isotropic (on the whole) Universe, in a galaxy
which is not distinguishes from others, near an ordinary yellow star,
seems rather incredible. There are billions of such stars
in our Galaxy. And the galaxies themselves, even more. Nevertheless,
the probability that terrestrial life is unique, is not so small
and cannot be compared to Fermi's paradox., so the question arises about
the number of planetary systems, the Drake's formula appears, and so
on. However the uniqueness hypothesis resets us at the anthropological
point of view from which the physicists always try to keep further.
Moreover, as will be shown below, this idea and connected calculations
on the probability of appearance of life lose their actuality in the light
of Tsiolkovskii's paradox.

     Shklovskii himself, in his last paper rejected the idea of
uniqueness and put forward even less consoling hypothesis of
``deadlock branch''. Let us see once more at the formula given
above., the only possibility to get rid of this gigantic number
is to suppose the time of exponential stage of the development of
civilization much less than the time of existence of the Universe.
In other words, Giant Silence of the Universe can be explained in
assumption that technological supercivilizations don't arise at all.
Why? At least, two answers may be proposed: because of loss of interest
for the technological development or because of their destruction.
Shklovskii chose the second variant, and he had his reasons for that
(we don't notice yet any limit for technological development).
Saying by words of Shklovskii, the Earth represents ``a cemetery of
species'': biological estimates argue that about one billion
species have evolved at the Earth from the beginning of
life appearance, and now there are only two million. May be, an
intellect is also some ``hypertrophic'' function (as a mass of a
dinosaur's body) leading to an inevitable destruction? Thus an
intellect may be only an unsuccessful invention of the nature, ``a
deadlock branch''. What is a direct reason for destruction? An atomic
war, an ecological catastrophe? It doesn't seem so. It is clear that in
spite of all possible variety of specific ``local conditions'' the
destruction of different civilizations must be due to the same,
universal reason. What reason? An interesting possibility is discussed
by V.Khlumov$^{7}$. A common reason for destruction of an intelligence
in the Universe can be connected with a loss of its main function, a
function of cognition. His arguments look as follows.

\section*{\centerline{Simple Universe}}


\hspace{0.5\hsize}
\hbox{\vbox{%
\begin{raggedright}
                             ``The world is arranged in a simple manner,     \\
                              it has been created by God.             \\
                              Why to create a complicated thing               \\
                             if a simple one can be made.''                 \\
                             \qquad\qquad V.Khlumov, ``In spite of''          \\
\end{raggedright}}}
\nobreak
\vfill
\noindent
     What is intelligence or intelligent life? What is the purpose of its
appearance among other creatures of nature? We shall not discuss in detail
these questions. We shall restrict ourselves with the following simple
thesis: an intelligent life try to understand and explain phenomena which
happen around. It is important that interest and curiosly arising in this
process are highly unstable. An interest to the phenomenon which has been
understood vanishes practically instantly.When we discover a new law of nature
we began at once to look for some new phenomena which are not subjected to
this low. There are no such practical applications of old laws which would be
more interesting than searching new ones. Various particular cases. new
regimes, original approaches etc. being attractive as they could, all this
is a pale shade of a real process of cognition. An intelligence is stunted
without principally new, unexplained phenomena.

     It is possible to perish from an atomic or biological bomb. But all this
are childish toys compared with what could be invented by a civilization
outstripping us, say, by some 200 years. Even nowadays in limits of natural
laws discovered by us, one can imagine so powerful weapon which, once applied,
could evoke consequences noticeable in a whole Galaxy. Such a
``brother-murdering'' war would be quite a space miracle. But miracles do not
exist!

     Forces which prevent to development of intelligence must be
of quite other nature. And they, certainly, must be of universal character
which doesn't depend on any specific conditions.

     Earlier than we shall begin to describe a possible reason leading
to destruction of an intelligence (its natural destruction), let us
consider the following problem: why a human being, during the
shortest time intervals (on a cosmological time-scale), has become
successful in understanding the laws of nature acting in a whole
observable Universe? Some two or three thousand years was enough to reach
quantum mechanics and General Theory of relativity. How has a man
whose every-day experience is limited by commonplace scales measured by
metres, by velocities of some tens of million times smaller then
the velocity of light, and by insignificantly small
gravitational field, --- how has this weak being penetrated, without
leaving a house, into huge space of the Universe and into the deepness
of infinitely small elementary particles?

     The ancient philosophers described the cognition process in the
following manner. Let us imagine an infinite plane. A circle on the plane
symbolizes the knowledge we have already attained. In the cognition process
the circle increases and absorbs the previous knowledge., but also a
boundary with unknown increases. Cognition yields more and more questions.
The process is infinite.

     This point of view is old as the world. Is not this too primitive
generalization of our quickly passing experience? May an infinitely
complicated object be indeed so simple? Rather no then yes. ``A complexity''
is, first of all, a qualitative characteristic, not quantitative one.
An infinitely complicated object must consist of infinitely complicated,
qualitatively different parts which are not under an obligation to be
compatible. The world or, more correctly, a system of knowledge about
the world is not a ``matrioshka''. If we have understood a part of this
non-simple object we cannot be sure our knowledge will be entered into the
next system of knowledge like a small ``matrioshka'' enters into a big one.

     A process of cognition rather must be a strongly nonlinear one.
An extreme, but not particular, case could be so strong non linearity
that a comprehension of any part would be impossible without realization
of a full picture. In other words, an infinitely complicated object
cannot be comprehended in principle. An intelligence could not arise
in an infinitely complicated universe!

     A negative thesis expressed above as to incompatibility of
subsequently comprehensible parts is in a crying contradiction with all
our experience. All our experience cries that our world is something like
``matrioshka''. For example, the Newton's mechanics became a part of the
special theory of relativity by Einstein which, in turn, became a part of
the General Theory of Relativity. This is Bohr's compatibility principle.

     How can we take away the obvious contradiction. There are two
possibilities: whether our imagination of infinitely complicated object
is incorrect or the surrounding world is not infinitely complicated. One
can choose a correct answer only if he is based on observational facts\dots

     Let us recollect: an intelligence without food perishes. And everything
proves to be in its place. An experimentally proved absence of
supercivilizations argues for the fact that our Universe is too simple
for intelligence. Quickly (in some thousand years) an intelligent life
comprehends all natural laws, exhausts all possibilities of its applications
and perishes. This is a paradox but this is a fact: intelligence arises
and perishes due to the same reason, that is, a simple structure of our world.

\section*{%
\centerline{A Million Years of Stagnation}
\centerline{or the End of the Golden Age}}

     Certainly, an idea of world's simplicity although intrinsically
consistent and quite corresponding to experience, is only a possibility.
And is it really so necessary, the hypothesis of ``a deadlock branch''?

     We are living now (I mean the last hundred years) in a unique time ---
a sort of ``Golden Age''. For the first time during the whole history of
humanity a specific time of economical development became comparable with
a duration of a human life. Every man, independently of his education
and comprehension of surrounding reality, ``feels'' a progress almost by
his skin. Being borne in the time of first airplanes and steamers he grows
looking through TV blue screens and gets his pension with the use of
computer bank network. A life of a man of 20th century passes on a quickly
changing every-day background and gives birth to a quite new sensation of
world, and consequently, to a displacement of human values. Eternal
questions retreat, a tourist impetus to change places and
times becomes more important. This change of decorations is, anyhow,
a result of ingenuity and intellectual efforts. so, tax-payers continue
to give money in order that a part of population can satisfy their curiosity.
Nowadays every government (I mean advanced countries) understands that
fundamental investigations must be fed ud: they will be compensated,
they are, after all, economically profitable. But the astrophysics shows
that such a state cannot last eternally, it cannot last more than some
hundred of years. Otherwise, we would discovered small space miracles
long ago. And what follows after that? Dark ``middle ages''? Destruction?
``A deadlock branch''?

     Are human beings indeed like dinosaurs? Naturally, a simple and attractive
way out of Fermi's paradox is a suggestion about shortness of technological
phase but without destruction. Alternative to ``western'' variant (so an
exponential technological phase can be called), an ``eastern'' variant comes
to mind at once: immersion of a civilization into self-contemplation, so
called development in ``deep''. But how can be imagined such future life on
our planet with everything that has been created on it? I don't mean an
ordinary space filled with super-rapid trains, sky-scrapers with brilliant
glasses, and united computer network running through.
I mean a space of human activity. Where will be
thousands of curious minds looking for paradoxes? Instead of them ---
repairing teams, to sustain things invented thousands and thousands years ago.

     The most interesting possibility was proposed by the remarkable soviet
astrophysicist V.F.~Shvartsman$^{8}$. His central idea is not to take the
problem of ``Giant Silence of the Universe'' out of the scope of science but
try to change the conception of science itself. Here the paragraph from
his paper (1986) is given completely:

     ``The science is only a part, an element of the human culture, and
comparatively young element. Scientific methods of investigation, verification
ideas and a system of values of a modern science were ``crystallized'' inside
the culture only about 400 years ago. Only in the 18th century an experimental
growth of scientific factors began, i.e. its development became of unreversable
character. And only in 20th century science has become a productive force of
the society. Results of scientific investigations defined in many aspects
an appearance of humanity and even called in question its future. It is
generally accepted that change of science in 20th century proceeds on a
planetary scale and has an unprecedented character., it seems to continue
henceforth (for example, under the influence of other forms of spiritual
activity of man, or spreading supercomputers, or contact with an
Extraterrestrial Civilization\dots). It is most probable that by 30th century the
sense of the conception ``science'' will changed in the same radical manner as
during the last ten centuries.''

     As Shvartsman believes, this considerations being transferred to any other
civilization, show that we ``receive signals'' long since but do not realize
their artificial nature. In other words, ``Giant Silence'', Fermi's paradox
mean, actually, not only the crisis of any phyisical theory (as GTR, or GUT) but
the crisis of scientific method itself in its modern  comprehension.
By the way, this is confirmed also by a forthcoming crisis of the modern
physics encountered for the first time with irreproducible experimental data.

\section*{\centerline{Tsiolkovskii's Paradox}}

     I shall not discuss in detail other (less interesting) possibilities, for
example, connected with the invention of an artificial mind and self-producing
machines (this is often told by the western futurologists$^{3,4}$). They bring
nothing new in the problem under consideration as they encounter the same
Fermi's paradox. On the contrary, I want to show that in reality the Fermi's
paradox is only a pale shadow of that actual problem which stands before the
modern natural science. As a matter of fact, it stands already for several
centuries.

     Let us return to our formula. What has it from the modern science?
First, an exponent. Second, an observable rate of development of our
civilization and, third, an age of the Universe. Imagine now
you were living in the last century and trying to write a formula of such kind.
What would change? An exponential development had been already observed. It was
known already a characteristic time, $t$, of civilization development. In those
days it was somewhat more than nowadays but in our
calculations it was taken as from the last century. As concerns the age of the
Universe, the matters were quite different. In the last century, I had to
substitute in the formula $T=\infty$. Indeed, the expansion of the Universe
was not yet discovered, and, the Universe was believed to be eternal! And it
would be no matter for me how quick were the development of a civilization:
in a thousand, million or billion years. Before eternity,
everything is equal.

     Then, in the answer we would obtain not anomaly great number but infinite
one. This is not only a paradox, this is a real ``deadlock''. It is astonishing,
how could the best minds of the last century pass by such a crying fact? The
nature having a possibility to give birth to a life during an infinitely long
time sooner or later had to give rise to {\it SUPERINTELLIGENCE\/}. Not saying
of the last century, even in our century A.~Enstein, and F.~Hoyle after him,
tried to argue for eternally living Universe. They didn't know what they
created, did they?

     For a long time I have tried to find a physicist or a philosopher who
discussed, though in passing, this fact appealing for
comprehension. And such a man has been found, although not in the last but in
our century. As a matter of fact, he reasoned as a representative of the last
century because he didn't suspect about the expansion of the Universe, or
didn't believed in that (the matter is that the first estimates of the age of
the Universe were extremely low and contradicted to geological data). It was
K.E.~Tsiolkovskii, technician of genius, dreamer and evident philosopher.
Unfortunately, his most consecutive ideas were stated orally when he was
speaking to Chizhevskii and the latter wrote down their talk later$^{9}$.
But the results of reflections were published from time to time. Yes,
Tsiolkovsky understood, from his pure materialistic point of view, that
infinite development of the nature sooner or later (it is an expression almost
out of place) must come to complete expansion of intelligence. And so he derived
the idea of ``an intelligent atom'', ``perfect creatures'', and Intelligent
Universe. These ideas, of course, may be conceived by a modern natural
scientist with an irony, nevertheless a reason of their appearance is quite
natural for a scientific method. If the Universe has lived for an infinitely
long time then the Tsiolkovskii's paradox can be solved only with this key,
the  key of ``Superintelligence''.

     You may say, thank God, there was the astronomer Hubble who discovered
expansion if the Universe, and we understood that our Universe had not been
eternal. ``Only'' something about ten billion years and afterwards
we could close the eyes to this ``ten'' with 43 million of ``0''s, and refer
to the uniqueness, ``deadlock branch'' or ``an eastern variant''.

     First of all, as we saw, this is not so simple at all because of the
remoteness of years ``lived out'' by the nature. And besides, is not indeed
this world eternal, is it?

\section*{%
\centerline{Eternal Universe, or whether there was a Time}
\centerline{when there wasn't any Time}}

     The current state of matters in cosmology has been formed in the beginning
of 80ths when the inflation idea saw the light$^{10}$. I have not special
knowledge on the early Universe, I can only follow the basic ideas appearing
in this advanced field of the modern astrophysics and psychics. I shall
try to describe than below within my scope.

     Even before the appearance of the Guth's work it became clear that the
standard Friedmann's model of the Universe encounters three
unexplained or unnatural facts. First, why parts of the observable Universe
which were not causally connected in the early time turned out to be so
similar (isotropy and uniformity discovered by relict radiation). Second, why
the mean density of the Universe turned out to be so close to the critical
value under which the Universe must be closed (having in mind all the
possible variety of its numerical quantities)., and third, why the Universe
is expanded? As a matter of fact, these problems, taken isolated, have been
solved in a number of works (L.E.~Gurevich, A.A.~Starobinskii) but Guth was
the first who clearly associated then with the existence of the so called
``fifth force'', or the scalar field. Just for the same moment it became clear
that, besides gravitational, electrical, nuclear and weak interactions, there
must exists in the nature an additional type of interactions described by a
scalar potential. Actually, the scalar field in some conditions has
antigravitational properties and specifically at the early stages, in some
Planck's time intervals after the birth of the Universe, it has a negative
pressure and ``blows up'' the inflation of the Universe. This is so called
an inflation phase of the expansion of the Universe. Subsequently common
fields and particles arise due to phase transition and the expansion
decelerates. The Universe becomes of Friedmann's type. The initial size of
the Universe turns to be so small that different parts have sufficient time
for exchanging information, the energy of a scalar field exactly providing
for the critical density of the Universe. Sorry for these details, they are
required here only to make clear that the birth of the Universe is
considered now as some casual quantum-mechanical process of vacuum ``blowing''
accompanied by the very strong fanning. In reality, as A.D.~Linde and
A.A.~Starobinskii show in their models of stochastic birth, our Universe is
only a part in some quasistationary process of permanent arising and fanning
universes. In other words, the old dream of humanity about other universes is
now considered from a quite scientific point of view although in
semi-qualitative manner, in limits (more precisely, at frontiers) of the Grand
Unification Theory which is not yet constructed. There are two
important items here: 1) our Universe is not alone, 2) there exists a
``pre-Planck's'' life time for every such universe when, generally
speaking, the classical conception of time loses its sense (due to, for
example, purely quantum indeterminacy of causal-consequent cohesions). Briefly
speaking, in spite of the rescue discovery of E.~Hubble a question about the
time infinity of our Universe has floated once more, as in the 19th century.
And we are to consider once again the stationary variant by Einstein or that
proposed subsequently by Bondi and Hoyle. Of course, now we deal with quite
different conception of time. The significant point is that the nature has had
an infinite number of possibilities to create the worlds of our type,
consequently, for the life appearance. And so, we must solve the Tsiolkovskii's
paradox once more.

\section*{\centerline{Science and Religion}}

\hspace{0.5\hsize}
\hbox{\vbox{%
\begin{raggedright}
                             ``You find surprising that I talk   \\
                             of cognizability of the world   \\
                             (to a certain degree as we have  \\
                             a right to talk about it) as of   \\
                             miracle or eternal enigma''       \\
                                    \qquad\qquad     A.  Einstein  \\
\end{raggedright}}}
\bigskip

\noindent

     Let us return to the post-mortal paper by I.S.~Shklovskii, to its ending
so noticeable for the characteristic of our time and of the discussed problem.
Shklovskii writes: ``An alternative to the conception, sketched
above, rather non-optimistic, is the idea that intelligence is a manifestation
of some super-material, transcendental principle. This is an old conception of
God and the godlike nature of human mind. For the persons standing far
apart (and not always far) from the science this conception seems much more
optimistic and even moral. However, it is rather difficult nowadays to stand
for the position having nothing in common with the science. Oblivion of that
basic fact that we are a part of an objectively existing and recognizable
material world, doesn't promise anything to anybody although creates false
optimistic illusions'' (ending of the quotation). As to me, after having
read that now, I want simply to keep silent and to think.

     This fragment comprises our latest ten years, speaks
for the author himself and the problem itself. And it is not difficult
now to stand for this position., moreover, now, to the contrary, a person who
hasn't God in his heart is considered to be indecent. Nevertheless, the
striking intuition of this man has revealed itself in the finality. It is
clear, after all, that the conception of a ``deadlock branch'' can hardly
survive, and only in a small universe with a finite age. And what to think
having in mind the Tsiolkovskii's paradox? Really, we have
consequently conducted a materialistic, atheistic, scientific point of view
and have discovered God, the scientifically supported God.

     It is worth here to finish the quotation from the letter by A.~Einstein
to Moris Solovin on 1952, 30 March$^{11}$ set in the epigraph: ``Well,
a~priori a chaotic world is to be anticipated which cannot be cognized with
the use of mentality. This world only might (or must) be anticipated to
subject the law to a measure in which we can arrange it with our mind. This
would be an arrangement like an alphabetical arrangement of the words of some
language. On the contrary, the arrangement being brought in, for example, by
Newtonian theory of gravitation, is of quite different character.
Although the axioms of this theory were created by a man, a success of this
enterprise suggests a significant arrangement of the objective word
which we haven't any foundations anticipate a~priori. And this is ``a
miracle'', and the further our knowledge is developed the more magic it
becomes.

     The positivists and professional atheists see in that a vulnerable spot
as they feel themselves happy of the consciousness of succeeding not
only in banishing God from this world but in ``depriving this world of
miracles''. {\it It is curious, we must be satisfied with the admission
of ``a miracle'' because we have no legal ways to get out from the position.
(Italics is mine,-V.L.)\/} I have specially to underline this in order you
don't think that I, growing to the old age, became a victim of priests''.
(translated from Russian)

     This is also a very specific saying having mainly two points. First, a
real ``space miracle'' is admitted to exist and, second, there is an obvious
realization of the fact that this leads at once to the admission of the God
existence., but one cannot do so if he doesn't want to become ``a priests'
victim''. Equally, we cannot admit an infinite complication
of the world and its successful cognizability (i.e. the existence of a mind
in an infinitely complicated world) without admission of
{\it Superintelligence --- the scientifically discovered God\/}. If
Einstein would only suspect of the Tsialkovskii's paradox he had not to do
anything more natural than this.

\section*{\centerline{Endlessly Complicated World}}

     What does it mean, God being discovered scientifically, or
Superintelligence? And what is future science dealing with an endlessly
complicated world? Can a human intellect create any model, theory, conception,
even primitive, for an endlessly complicated object, uncognizable in its parts?
It is hardly to do so in terms of the contemporary science. In fact, all
the science originally is constructed on an ``atomic'', ``matrioshka''logic,
acting in a linear world, and suggests the existence of independent and
countable elements. And the mathematics supporting the contemporary physics
is based on a pastoral experience with numbers
--- a herd of sheep can be divided to separate ones and counted. (This is
also surprising: how the science with this slight luggage in hand succeeded
to penetrate into the deepest mysteries of the Universe and of the atoms?)
This classical scientific method has operated
in terms of the approach that suggests transition from simple to more
complicated objects. Thus the sense of the modern science is ``to explain''.
But a human lexicon has also so important words as ``to understand''
and ``to believe''. One of them rather belongs to the art, and especially
to the literature (which, as the science, uses the language of words), the
other  --- to the religion. But how all this can be joined together, how
can formal mathematical expressions be ethically coloured? And how the
scientifically discovered God which has been inevitably reached by the
modern simple science correlates with the religious God?

     When I asked Maxim Solokhin how does the Bible correlate with the
modern estimate of the age of the Universe, he answered: ``Ten thousand
years ago, during one week, God created the world which was ten billion
years old''. This sounds not only witty.

     Yes, V.F.~Scvartsman seems to be right here believing that in future
the science will be in synthesis with all other parts of the culture. But
how this future Metalanguage will look like, we can only guess now
(There is an excellent book by E.L.~Feinberg$^{12}$ who wrote about an
interesting alliance between the science and the art). The future advance seems
to be possible only if one try to answer the extraordinary questions such as,
for example: how do the categories of good and evil correlate with the causality
principle? And with the time presence or absence? If a hidden sense,
ambiguities in scientific sayings, and probability interpretations can be
spoken about?

     Certainly, the search of an extraterrestrial intelligence must be one of
the most important directions in natural-scientific investigations. Although
it must be clearly realized that the discover of habitable planetary systems,
being interesting in itself, hardly can provide any significant advance. Such
a discovery resembles the discovery of indians by Columbus. It is important, of
course, if we are aware of a new biological species., but what is much more
important those are their impressions of God, of Good and Evil.
\bigskip

Moscow, 1994
��᪢�, 1994�.

\section*{\centerline{References}}
\leftskip=\parindent\parindent=-\parindent

\hspace\parindent
1. I.S.Shklovskii, Zemlia i Vselennaya (the Earth and the Universe), 1985,
No 3,76 (in Russian)

2. I.S.Shklovskii, Voprosy philosofii (Philosophical questions), 1975, No 9
(in Russian)
3. F.J.Tipler, Q.J.R.Astron.Soc., 1981, v.22, 279

4. G.D.Brin, Q.J.R.Astron.Soc., 1983, v.24, 283

5. V.M.Lipunov,  Sov.Astron., 1988,  v.32,  p.221

6. C.Sagan, Planet Space Sci., 1963,  v.11,  p.485

7. Vl.Khlumov, Zemlia i Vselennaya, 1987, No 1, 95

8. V.F.Shvartsman, ``Problema poiska zhizni vo Vselennoi'' (Problem of the
life search in the Universe), Moscow, Nauka, 1986, p.230 (in Russian)

9. K.E.Tsiolkovskii, ``Monizm Vselennoi''(Monism of the Universe), in ``Griozy
o Zemle i Nebe'' (Dreams about the Earth and the Heavens), Tula, Prioksk Publ.,
1986, p.276, 419 (A.L.~Chizhevckii, ``Teoria kosmicheskikh er'' (The theory of
the space eras)) (in Russian)

10. A.H.Guth, Phys. Rev., 1981, v.D23, p.347

11. A.Einstein, ``Sobranie nauchnyh trudov'' (Collection of scientific works),
Moscow, Nauka, 1967, v.4, 567

12. E.L.Feinberg,  ``Kibernetika, logika, iskustvo'' (Cybernetics, logic, art),
Moscow, Radio and Sviaz Publ., 1981

\end{document}