ABOUT ME
I AM A PATRON MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
I AM A POLITICIAN
I am an international expert who proposed to the United Nations Senior Management Group (SMG) a new model for co-ordination in the UN system of organizations, with the potential for elimination of the negative administrative and financial effects of the present mechanism of co-ordination in the UN system. My model is based on the idea of introducing a budgetary control mechanism into the United Nations inter-agency system by providing the UN General Assembly with a legal power to approve (not only consider) the regular (administrative) budgets of UN-related agencies, by amending article 17 (paragraph 3) of the United Nations Charter. This amendment would induce a stronger de facto and de jure binding power in all United Nations decisions relating to the program(s) and budget co-ordination within the UN system and thus create a more centralized and efficient system. Administrative agreements and arrangements governing relations between the United Nations and the UN-related organizations (Specialized Agencies and IAEA) in the UN system would also be amended in accordance with that revision.
My scientific work is partly related to an afford to resolve the most fundamental Philosophy question of Why Everything Exist (rather than How Everything exist, since that is the job of Physics). My recent article on that most fundamental question of Philosophy se at this page [1].
Shortly, my explanation is that basic question of Philosophy logically needed to be correctly formulate as Why Everything Exist to relation to Nothingness. By negation of either pole (element) in that question, either the category/element of an "Everything" or of "Nothingness", question is reduced to absurdum (see Reductio ad absurdum). Therefore, my job was, in fact, to negate the pure "Nothingness", and accomplish the criteria of the reduction to absurdum. What I found at the end of my logical analysis was that "Everything" and "Nothingness" are systemically inseparable poles of a relation (since relation appears to be more fundamental category that the element). In addition, relation of "Everything" to "Nothingness", appears to be a relationship of the opposite poles of interaction, similar to irreducible quantum in Physics. Therefore, "Nothingness" as a pole of basic interaction is systemically connected to opposite pole (Somethingness), and since that this basic relation, as quantum is irreducible, "Nothingness" alone is not logically possible, and therefore something always logically exist. That outcome and conclusion was derived from the solving of the problem of methodological “paradox of the basic element” (i.e. endless division). Namely, elements could not be divided (as Nature have proved) to infinity, but to the threshold. The final solution to the ”paradox of the infinite division of elements” is in fact similar as in Physics with quantum, so by replacing an ”element” with fundamental quantum level irreducible relation, as most fundamental methodological category, the criteria (of Reductio ad absurdum) was met, since only one pole (or fundamental sub-element in division process to infinity) reaches Zero value (or nothing in mathematical terminology). By resolving “paradox of the basic element division” that is in fact the same methodological problem of (generalized) relation of opposite Ontological poles (Somethingness and Nothingness) on an ontological level, the question was resolved, with the same logical approach (as in an elementary level). It appears that the Ancient dilemma of existence of Everything in Philosophy was result from wrongful Structuralist logic or methodology, that presumed Elements as grounds of any Structure. Namely, by showing here that not the element, but rather the irreducible relation (at quantum level) is the basic “entity” (of the system), problem of Somethingness (as element/pole and Nothingness (as category) was resolved, since these elements/categories (including the Nothingness) are inter-connected and this connection. In conclusion, the question of "Everything" was thereby reduced to an absurdum. Since this category/pole ("Everything" in relation or interaction) is systemically in relation with its opposite necessary pole of "Nothingness", and these poles were/are inseparable and irreducible, in exactly the same way as category of quantum in the Physics, pure Nothingness could not exist, per se. Therefore, when we start Philosophy or logic examination with at least "Nothingness" (as, in fact, operational negation of Somethingness or Everything), that category ("Nothingness") is systemically always accompanied with "Everything", and than the question "Why there is Something/Everything, rather then Nothing" (placed by philosopher Martin Heidegger in Introduction to Metaphysics (1953)) is reduced to an absurdum. In simple words, if "Nothing(ness)" is the lowest category (or to put it simply the Lowest common denominator) that we expect (to "exist"), than this category always has to be accompanied with "Somethingness" or more generally "Everything" as necessary logical requirement. In conclusion, "Nothingness" may not be possible alone (or per se), so "Everything " must exist (or logically need(s) to exist), as irreducible truth in the Philosophy.