Update (2006/03/03): This article is copied from the old version of my website. It is still awaiting a "grand reconstruction" to be more consistent with my current way of thinking. For now, here is the original version.

Abstract:
This article show my streaming thoughts concerning the theme of the capability of human being to move the bounds of its own knowledge forever. This knowledge is later used to manipulate and in long-time-period frame also to completely reassemble the underlying reality. There is no difference between the subjective personality of a human being and a reality fragment. The objective reality is multilayered. The objective reality is fragmented into individual subjective entities which are subject to biology allied sciences.

Prague, June 20th, 2001 

   First of all we should know a bit about the history of science to completely understand what really goes on. But still, even without the deep knowledge of the historical concepts, we can realize that all the technical progress was implemented as an extension of a previous, more or less genial, thoughts. Somebody was not satisfied with the way something was used to be and so thought out a new concept. If the new concept was easy enough to use it by creating appropriate tools based on it, it was done. If not, the concept becomes part of the fictional projection of the future reality. Maybe later it can be used again, as soon as the technical progress allows to make the thing working. Maybe in the meantime a better concept regarding the same problem is worked out and there is no need to implement the old one.

   As far as I know, the events chain described above is a non-expert definition of a term "production cycle". I suppose this ever was and ever will be the main principle, which brings ideas into tangible reality. This means some subjective concept is objectivised. With the invention of commonly understoodable language, there thing gets to be more complicated. Sharing subjective ideas between many people seems to do the some thing, but on the abstract layer. But I don't agree with, because I think this only allows to propagate subjective ideas to other individuals. Each person holds its own interpretation of what he/she heart or read, but there is no way to do this interpretations exactly identical. There are neither individual shortcuts to an independent idea nor some conservation mechanism which repairs all the arising divergence in the copies of the original idea. It makes more sense if we say that the shared idea is in fact population of very similar ideas. The reason for doing such a population is clear: subject for evolution. The part of original idea, which is well understood by others goes faster to the form which can be easier materialized in the ay of producing some new tool, medicine, car, .... with very little need of change in seeing (interpreting) the seemingly surrounding reality. First of all we use with every next step better and in more detail possibilities, which are already contained it the real world. We are making discoveries, not legitimate inventions.

   In this concept emerges science as an special tool for making discoveries. It goes behind the framework of production cycle, because it can generate new ideas without the initiating need to to something better. There are practical outcomes solving real, everyday problem as well as pure theoretical concepts where is really not sure if they can ever be helpful in the future. Of course, the science has also the unsubstitutable role in the people's ambition to understand themselves. But still, it is commonly believed the reality is unchangeable in the way the laws of nature are constant and if they evolve on the cosmological scale, the evolution is subordinated to more basic law which is constant.

   I don't thing the unchangeable reality is something real and here is why. We all are able to perceive the so called reality with our sensual organs. But does it mean we see, hear, smell, feel and touch something real what exists outside of our minds ? Not in the least ! We are receiving some signals and we are interpreting them constantly. Upon these interpretations we create our internal models of reality. Everybody has its own model and feels to be an individual part of this model. Even more - everybody of us models its own body to be able to interact with other objects constructed in his model.

   The most interesting thing is why we cannot model our local realities with fully independency. Why are we so much constrained to laws of nature which determine almost everything in our life and are unable to violate them ? This seems to be the evidence for the existence of some kind of  objective reality we share together. But this reality has to have nothing to do with the way we see our world. We can call this newly deducted layer of objectivity i.e. "mental network", "shared (super-) consciousness" or "God". The name of this thing is not much important. But consider that our personalities has its own individuality only for one reason: I'm part of the wholeness but I'm not able to control it as a one entity, because it is much complex. In other words, this can be the reason why ever some individuals emerged. If a system should exist, there must be a number of parts which are in some way different from each other. "What has no opposite, doesn't exist", says one old Asian wisdom. To generate some activity, we need to be complex. and to be complex, we need to be consisted of many interconnected but to some extent autonomous parts.

   We can gain from these ideas a critical knowledge. As far as we are part of the underlying reality, it is not more true that we cannot change it. We think we are subject to laws of nature which are very good described by our science. But we can also affect the basic principles which seems to make these laws working in our models of reality. Indeed, we constantly change them slightly. To allow our "mental network" to stay consistent, there cannot be drastic changes at one time in arbitrary way, but we can more and more extend the abilities of our mental models due to small shifts in shared ideas. So we can influence the "intersection" of our reality models. New concepts are born slow but instantly. It is important to realize that our reality models are no byproducts of intrinsically real world - they are part of it. Changing the part we can influence everything.

   To apply this theory in our everyday's world we can use many examples. For all other arts of animals was impossible to reach the level of our technical culture and to have silicon chips and electronical equipments based on it. It was not only problem of insufficient knowledge or somatic incapacity to perform such a task. Probably the current state of our reality doesn't allow to ascribe these attributes to them. In such a case it is obvious that it maybe never happens. Well, but we have many other examples, where the situation doesn't seem to be so definite. For example see what happens when humankind gets into the DNA code of various living creatures. The orthodox model of DNA and the whole machinery seems to be o.k., but there are so many exceptions from the standard schema that this will be very difficult to go in it. Nearly everything we could imagine can be found in some part of someone's' genome - switching between completely different living forms by manipulation with terminal codons by yeasts; the ability to rebuild completely disintegrated DNA in Deinococcus radiourans; self-replicating RNA which was not anywhere to find a few years ago; .... other examples can be found by social living insects - there are many observations from the last few decades which show us that these animals can do much more than was observed before. Do you think the prior observer were dull und raw ? Or do you suppose they ascribed to the observed objects other characteristics due to other ways of exploring the world ? I don't, because a believe that new experimental methods are here not due to the better knowledge but due to making them real. Let us see if some "paranormal activity" will be some day validated by our "objective" knowledge. I guess, it will.

   But the most fascinating things happens in the most dainty parts of modern physics. The speed-of-light barrier is not to overcome, however there are recent experiments which demonstrate we are really very close to pass the information through. Teleportation should be another field of interest. For now, it is already possible to copy not only internal quantum states but also movement of single atoms over the space-time interval. We can manifest an copper atom (i.e. binding or chemical activity) in the location where no such atom exists. And more and more. 

   All the given examples and many more ones can be explained in many ways. For example that we understand more details about the nature. But still, there is also the possibility that we managed to manipulate the reality in the way we can do this know. From this point of view, we can expect, that everything is possible - it only has to happen in the proper space-time coordinates. Once this happens, it opens the way to reproduce the results again and again for people who can rise to the occasion. So the keynote of this essay is, that we manipulate the reality by small, nearly indiscernible shifts in our own way of living (thinking). In other worlds, we are constructing the reality, we are constructing ourselves. The only problem is we don't know how to do it goal-directed.

   There is no real difference between the observed entity and the observation tool. And I hope the humankind will learn to produce the underlying reality likewise it produces tools to observe the so called objective reality.