The geoversal civilization and
the unified method of substantiation of scientific theories

A.	Voin

      Modern humanity is divided by deep contradictions between peoples, countries, ideologies and religions, what leads to numerous armed conflicts with the threat of self-destruction due to the growing number of weapons of mass destruction and its types. In addition, scientific and technological progress has led to the emergence of other universal human threats and problems not related to armed conflicts, such as the destruction of the environment, the possibility of man-made disasters of a global scale, etc., requiring to unite at all mankind to overcome them. The task posed by the draft of the geo-global civilization, developed by the Chinese philosopher Zhang Shaohua and discussed at the 5th World Congress of Geoversal Civilization, held on 16.7-21.7 in Nairobi is the elimination of the above-mentioned contradictions and the uniting of mankind in the struggle for its survival and a worthy future on the basis of a universal ideology and value system in which "morality and responsibility" will replace the "pursuit of material goods and selfishness". In which in the first place will be the interests of all mankind, the value of the human person, human rights, preservation of peace. And as a final goal the transition from the form of homo sapience with its "physical desire" or "material desire" or "selfishness" or "ego" to a new "spirit-centered species" will take place during 500 years period. 
      I do not look as far as 500 years ahead, but I agree with the above mentioned goals of the geoversal project for the foreseeable future. However, there are obstacles to these goals. In particular, the creators of the project realize that "humanity, which has long been on the wrong path, will certainly resist the new thinking." But, it seems to me, awareness of these obstacles by the authors of the project is not enough and, consequently, a strategy for overcoming them has not been developed enough. In my opinion, the authors of the project overestimate the degree of determinism of the process of human development and underestimate the possibility of dramatic development right up to self-destruction.
       On the path to the adoption of a new ideology and value system are not only individual and group, in particular national, state and other selfishness, but also objective obstacles. The main one is the absence of a common language between representatives of different ideologies and value systems, as well as between different schools of humanitarian scholars, public figures and representatives of different religions and their confessions, which these ideologies and value systems formulate and substantiate. By common language I do not mean English, Chinese, Russian, or any other, but a system of concepts common to all and a way of substantiating statements. This lack of a common language prevents countries and peoples from agreeing that there is a right way for the further development of mankind and each country separately and how to properly solve specific universal human problems.
      International negotiations on the resolution of endless armed conflicts between countries gives us excellent illustration of the absence of above mentioned common language. Each side in such negotiations asserts that it strives for peace, for justice, for the interests of mankind and for all good: for spirituality, for morality, etc. But everyone understands all these things in their own way. For example, the authors of the geoversal project hardly consider Muslim fanatic terrorists to be moral and spiritual people. But the fanatics themselves are deeply convinced of their morality, spirituality and justice of their goal. And in confirmation of this, they even quotations from the Quran will lead. Of course, one can say that they misunderstand the Koran. But it is not enough to say so, we still need to offer the correct interpretation of the Koran and, most importantly, to prove to everyone that it is the right one. And this applies not only to the Koran, but also to other scriptures. After all, in the history of Christianity, for example, there were sacred wars, the extermination of heretics, the Inquisition, etc. and all this was done in the name of God, i.e. in the name of spirituality. I.e., calling for spirituality and not having an acknowledged and reliable method to determine the correct spirituality, we run the risk of not coming to the results we aspire to. This also applies to non-religious teachings that teach us how to live properly, such as Marxism, Freudianism, etc. I.e., first of all, a common language is needed, which is nothing more than a universally accepted and reliable method of substantiating the truth. And since there is none for today, we get that all the mentioned talks either do not lead to anything at all, or lead to an agreement that each of the parties considers unfair with respect to it and harmful to humanity, and which is therefore soon violated.
     Authors of the geoversal project propose to base a universal human value system on the general that was in each historically existing civilization and this, in their opinion, should give a common language. Of course, when developing a universal human value system, one must take into account the general that existed in previous civilizations. But this is not enough to develop such a universal ideology and value system that will ensure the safe, sustainable and acceptable development of mankind, and to persuade representatives of today's ideologies and value systems to accept it.
      After all, as the authors of the geoversal civilization project justly assert, we live in an era of globalization that is different from all the preceding ones, and, I add from myself, in the era of rapid scientific and technological progress, which radically changed the conditions of our existence in comparison with previous eras and in particular gave birth and globalization, and human problems, which were not in previous eras. Therefore, not everything that is common to what was in previous civilizations may prove acceptable in our era. And among the priorities put forward by the authors of the geoversal project, there are such as, for example, the value of the human person, human rights, etc., which can not be called the general that was in all previous civilizations.
     The authors of the geoversal project also substantiate it by the fact that "embryo of (future) civilization is integrated from many contingency in history and "probability" in reality which is the unique "inevitability" in the future”. Here, in an explicit or implicit form, there is a conviction of authors of the project in the objective inevitability and lack of variance in the future development of mankind and in the fact that they correctly describe this inevitable and only possible way and prove its uniqueness and inevitability. Of course, when designing the future, we must take into account the previous development and the “"probability" in reality". This prior development and “"probability" in reality” limit the possibility of an arbitrary development option in the future. But is the assumption of the complete lack of variance in future development justified? As for the lack of invariance of the geophysical and biological evolution which have occurred to this day, scientists have no common opinion. And most of them tend to believe that this development was not non-alternative. Then how is it possible to derive from this the invariability of future development? This lack of variance contradicts also my theory of determinism ("Неорационализм – духовный рационализм" Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2015).
      But let's say that future development is non-variant. Does this mean that the authors of the geoversal project correctly extract the trajectory of this future development from the past evolution and from the "probability" in reality? This is by no means self-evident. I fully share the call of the authors of the project to unite humanity in the name of its survival and better future. But this unity itself can be understood in different ways. In my opinion, the authors of the project understand this unity too literally, in the sense of complete unification up to the merging of all cultures into one, the replacement of all languages with new Esperanto, etc. If we look at the previous development, for example, on biological evolution, we will see that nature has avoided complete unification and cared for the conservation and enhancement of biological species, although it rejected the unsuitable in some sense. And the unification, for example, of cells into organisms was not due to the unification of incoming cells, but due to their integration into a complex organism while preserving their original individual properties and differences and when supplemented with new properties or functions useful to the united organism. T.i. the integration took place simultaneously with the increase in the diversity of the unifying elements. Similarly, the evolution of human society took place. On the one hand, there was a union along the line: the family, the tribe, the people, the nation, humanity. On the other hand, within each new enlarged unit, there was a differentiation with division into parties, ideologies, interest groups, etc. up to football fans, who are sick for different teams and on this basis fighting with each other sometimes to death. It follows that, even if there is only one objective variant of future development that is rigidly determined by the past development and the state of humanity today, then there may be different, alternative ideas about this path (and they are) and for all to accept the only correct one, it is necessary common language, which is the accepted by all method of substantiating of this correctness.
     Finally, in what sense is the expression "inevitability" in the future used by the authors? As I understand it, it is used in the sense that this future is inevitable, but provided that on the road to it humanity will not turn its neck, for example, in the world nuclear war. I.e., in the sense that if we do not follow the path indicated by the authors, then we are doomed. But even if we go along this path, we will reach the ultimate goal - we will turn into a new, absolutely spiritual kind only after 500 years. But this interval of time must still be lived. And taking into account our present moral and spiritual state, well described by the authors, and the extraordinary creative and, moreover, destructive power that we have achieved thanks to scientific and technical progress and increasing every day, we must, first of all, take care to live not only the next 500 years, but even the next 5 years. And for this we need to urgently negotiate new rules of hostel on the planet. And since we have to negotiate, it still and in the first place requires a common language (in the sense mentioned above).
      Even the idea of the World Coalition Government and the parliament (the idea that I fully support), proposed by the avtors of project, does not negate the need for a common language, because in this government and parliament there will be different parties, different groups and different opinions, and a common solution will have to be worked out. (Not to mention the fact that before the World Coalition Government and Parliament, you still have to live). And although the authors of the project offer solutions to all the visible problems facing humanity today: the organization of the economy, social life, culture, ecology, etc., and even assuming that this is the only right decision, life will continue and new problems will appear, which will have to be solved, and, therefore, a common language will be needed to solve them.
     But is there in principle such a common language, such a single and reliable method of substantiating the truth and, if so, what is it like? There is teachings in Western philosophy, the main of which is post positivism, whose representatives claim that such a common language does not exist in principle and these teachings are dominated today/ The most categorical of this view was expressed by Kuhn, who wrote that the concepts of science can not be uniquely determined and, as a result, there can not be a common language between scientists and representatives of different paradigms (fundamental theories). Others post positivists argued that the concepts of science are not tied to experience (Quine), that the scientific theory is fundamentally fallible (Popper), that science changes the "justification layer" from time to time (Lakatos), etc. In general, in one form or another and with some changes, they all share Kuhn's view of absence the common language among scientists. But if there can not be a common language between scholars of humanities and public figures, who formulate and substantiate ideologies and values, then it can not be more between politicians, who try to resolve international conflicts on the basis of justice and between ordinary people who practice this or that ideology, religion and value system.
     The above-mentioned philosophical schools, which still dominate the West today, the main points of which have not been refuted till this day, have a strong influence on the transformation of the system of values and morality not only in the West itself, but throughout the world. Under their influence, the Enlightenment era was replaced in the West by the era of modernism, and then postmodernism, the essence of which is reduced to the relativization of truth and morality under the slogan: "Everything is relative." Indeed, if we can not in principle have common concepts and can not agree on what is truth, then the truth becomes relative and in particular the moral truth. And from this it follows that the only reliable values are freedom and enjoyment, which can be obtained by any means. This new world view, which has spread far beyond the Western world, has a strong impact on the ability of countries, peoples and representatives of different ideologies to negotiate among themselves over conflicts between them and the solution of human problems. Not only that there is no common language for mutual understanding, so, thanks to this worldview, there is no desire to find a common language and no belief that there is a truth and justice common to all, about which there is a sense to negotiate. And all these talks about peace, justice, and the interests of mankind have become only a propaganda cover for the achievement of each of its sides by its narrowly group goals. And only the theoretical defeat of post positivists and other relativists of scientific knowledge can restore to mankind the belief that the truth is one and we can comprehend it.
     How do the positions of the opponents of post positivism and their attempts to refute post positivism look today? The so-called axial religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism advocate the opposite positivist point of view, namely, that "God is one and the truth is one" and each religion proposes in its God's name a system of morality and values as the only correct one. The only trouble is that these systems not only of axial religions themselves, but also their numerous confessions do not coincide and there is no common language for finding out which of them is right. Moreover, these contradictions have often led in the past, and continue to lead this day to bloody wars between representatives of different religions and even denominations of the same religion. The most vivid example of such wars is the centuries-old war that has not ceased between Sunnis and Shiites in Islam. Therefore, representatives of religion can not refute statements post positivists who base them on the data of modern science and rely on its authority.
     The position opposite to post positivists and other relativists of cognition and morality is occupied not only by representatives of axial religions, but also by many philosophers from other schools, and by many scholars. However, none of them has so far been able to refute the post positivists who cite the irrefutable fact that science periodically changes its concepts and inputs. (Newton's absolute time becomes relative in Einstein's theory; velocity is formed according to Galileo's formula in Newton's theory, in Einstein’s one is formed according to the Lorentz formula, etc.). From what post positivists conclude that the concepts of science are not tied to experience, science does not have a nuified method of substantiating its conclusions, and its conclusions are unreliable and do not guarantee us the truth. It is clear that if in science there is no unified method of justifying the conclusions, then there is not and there can not be a common language between scientists. And as I said, if it does not exist between scientists, it can not even be between politicians and ordinary people.
      In my philosophy, I refuted the conclusions of post positivists and showed that although science changes its concepts and conclusions in the transition from one fundamental theory to another, but the method of justification remains unchanged a unified method of substantiating scientific theories. ("Неорационализм – духовный рационализм." Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2015, "Единый метод обоснования научных теорий." Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2017, 2nd edition). This method was developed in the process of the evolution of natural sciences, primarily physics, but until now it was not explicitly presented and existed only at the level of the stereotype of naturally scientific thinking. Therefore, natural scientists more or less have a common language among themselves and are capable of accepting concrete theories, even if not immediately, as proven and others reject. And representatives of the humanities and social sciences, in which this method is generally unknown, do not have a common language and are divided into many schools that are incapable of agreeing and accepting by the whole community this or that theory, as proved. I presented this method explicitly and showed the possibility of applying it with appropriate adaptation in the field of humanities and social sciences.
    I showed that, although concepts and conclusions change in the transition from one fundamental theory to another, but if both theories are based on a unified method of substantiation, then the concepts both of the old and new theories are tied to experience and only to experience (although in the new theory this binding takes place in a wider area of reality than in the old one). And also that although the conclusions of the old and new theories differ qualitatively (ontologically), both are true (new ones in the extended field of reality) in the sense that they "predict the results of future experiments on the basis of past experiences" with a given accuracy and probability. (Whether we will calculate the motion of a body in the region of velocities far from the speed of light according to the formulas of Newton or Einstein, we can guarantee the deviation of the result from the predicted value by an amount not more than given with a given probability). All this is only for theories substantiated by a unified method of substantiation and, naturally, under the conditions for which the theory is created. For theories that are not grounded on this method, we can not guarantee anything. Part of a unified method of substantiation is the theory of concepts, in which I show that science can uniquely define its concepts and unambiguously bind them to experience and how exactly this is done.
      Thus, a unified method of substantiation gives a common language to scientists, including humanitarians, to public figures and to all people when it will be introduced into the education system. I showed that by constructing, in accordance with the requirements of a unified method of substantiation, the theory of optimal morality (Неорационализм – духовный рационализм, Part 4, Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2015), determinism and freedom theories (Ibid., Parts 2 and 3 respectively) and rational theory of the spirit (Ibid., part 5). In the latter theory, I rendered that spirit and spirituality do not necessarily have to be good, and that even a good spirit tends to deteriorate over time and how to distinguish a good spirit from a bad one and what to do so that it does not deteriorate. I also proposed a new interpretation of the Teaching of the Bible based on my hermeneutics, based on the unified method of substantiation ("Эволюция духа. От Моисея до постмодернизма ", Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2015), the beginning of a new macroeconomic theory («Начала новой макроэкономической теории», Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2014), also based on the unified method of substantiation. I also showed on many examples in the books "Единый метод обоснования научных теорий" and "Наука и лженаука" (Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2014) of the consequences of not applying the unified method of substantiation, especially in the humanities and social sciences. And in the book "Философия и глобальный кризис" (Direct Media, M. - Berlin, 2016) I showed how the state of modern science and in particular philosophy, connected with the absence in it of a recognized unified method for substantiating theories, reflects on the state of society and the processes taking place today in the world.
      I believe that for the successful promotion and implementation of the project of a geoversal civilization it is very important to include in the project the unified method of substantiation scientific theories and to promote it along with the theories of Zhang Lan underlying the geoversal project. Moreover, this method is organically combined with the requirements of The Oneness of All Matters, The Oneness of All Humanities, The Oneness of All Faiths, etc., which underlie the geoversal project.