Part 1 (chapters 1-1 and 1-2) presents a connection between physics, astronomy, philosophy, psychology and evolution biology. The redshift of far away galaxies is explained with a tired light hypothesis.

Words by themselves give rise to feelings, but combined into sentences by logic they represent what we call a thought.

In essence a thought is nothing but a series of feelings. Thoughts are feelings with logic.
Rationality is logic in feelings. We use logic in order to make our (pleasant) feelings in their integrated form as large as possible.

Thus for a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe we can forget about thoughts and concentrate on feelings, like physicists can forget about molecules and concentrate on atoms (or even subatomic particles) when they are searching for a deeper understanding of matter.

Suppose you feel an itch on your back and you are about to reach out and scratch, but at that very moment there is an earthquake and you run out of your house and forget about the itch.
A feeling that is in us very consciously can be pushed aside by another feeling and thus become subconscious.

Consciousness and subconsciousness can be put on a scale with two ends.
End A is where a feeling has 0% consciousness and 100% subconsciousness, end B is where a feeling has 100% consciousness and 0% subconsciousness. In A a certain feeling is pushed aside completely by all other feelings, in B a certain feeling completely pushes aside all other feelings.
A nor B exist, like a sheet of paper can't be 100% white nor 100% black. And so: every feeling always has a conscious part and a subconsciousness part.

Thus for a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe we can forget about consciousness and subconsciousness and, again, concentrate on feelings.

I define “to live” or “life” as the capability to feel, not the capability to replicate.

Something that lives is an entity that has as such a beginning and an end and is able to experience its being from its begin till its end, or: to feel its existence from its begin till its end.
In essence there may be no sharp dividing line between a human and an atom, both may be able to experience feelings. There may be only two sharp dividing lines: between non-existence and beginning of existence and between existence and ending of existence.
If so then everything that exists (also an atom, neutrino or photon) lives, or: everything that exists has feelings.

If you combine the extremely weak feeling of an atom with the aforementioned lack of a sharp line between consciousness and subconsciousness then an atom will have some kind of extremely weak consciousness as well.

As examples of living entities I name: humans, animals, plants, cells of (multicellular) organisms, bacteria, viruses, proteins, amino acids, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, neutrinos and photons.

Particles have been observed to come out of nothing, exist for a while, and vanish again⁶. The meaning of the particle's existence (= life) may have been: the particle's experience of its existence, or: its feelings.

[December 2004: Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not a particle can come to existence out of completely nothing. On this website I often reason that for example photons may exist of multiple smaller particles, which too may exist of multiple smaller particles, which too may exist of multiple smaller particles, etc. There may always be a smaller class of particles to be found. This way one may never know if there are exceptions to the conservation of energy law. End December 2004]

The basic postulate from which all my ideas unroll is: Everything that exists wants the biggest amount of pleasant feelings.

[May 2003: This means, as I have written in a philosophical/cosmological article in Oct '94 (in the Dutch philosophy magazine Filosofie), that the meaning of life is: (pleasant) feelings. Also the meaning of our lifes and life in general (animals, plants, bacteria, but also non-biological “life” like a hydrogen molecule or a photon) is: feelings. End May 2003]

What are feelings? Experience of existence.
But the deepest way of understanding feelings is, of course: just feel it.
Feelings are based on the fight against finity. Feeling good is successfully fighting against finity.
Fight against finity and feeling good are strongly connected for all sorts of life, including our lifes. Our feelings and also feelings in general are related, directly or indirectly, to the will to keep on existing.
Bluntly you may say: everything that enhances existence gives pleasant feelings and everything that reduces existence gives unpleasant feelings.

How could primitive entities develop themselves into humans? Possibly by wanting the biggest amount of (pleasant) feelings.

Because of the interaction between cells of our body, we feel, as an entity of interacting cells, stronger feelings than our cells feel (as individuals).
Inside our cells there is interaction between the different cell compounds and you may expect that the feelings of a cell as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its cell compounds.
In a protein there is interaction between the protein's atoms and you may expect that the feelings of the protein as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its atoms.
In the atom there is interaction between its subatomic particles and you may expect that the feelings of the atom as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its subatomic particles.

During evolution mass particles (may have) started from a subatomic level forming respectively atoms, amino acids, proteins and cellular life. I think this may have happened because entities wanted as much pleasant feelings/interactions as possible.
Thus smaller particles (entities) may have started to co-operate in order to become more complex entities, which made them experience more/stronger (pleasant) feelings. (This may mean that a carbon atom in one of our brain cells feels more than a carbon atom in a carbon dioxide molecule.)

Without a natural tendency of atoms to form amino acids biological life can not come to existence.

[April 2004: Things may be different when you have (DNA) organisms that can travel by (for instance) meteorites or planets through interstellar/intergalactic space and thus go to other places (within a galaxy or within a cluster of galaxies or within the Universe). If such organisms only need atoms as basic nutrients (and no amino acids) then you'll have a different story, then (DNA) life may have been around in the Universe for ever. Of course, then you have to answer the question: “How did (DNA) life ever come to existence?” But this can be the same question as: “How did the (infinite) Universe ever start?” Thus, the Universe and (DNA) life both may be infinite. End April 2004]

[January 19 2006: Scientists have found that hardy bacteria can survive a trip into space, and now the list of natural astronauts includes lichen. Lichens are not actually single organisms but an association of millions of algal cells, which cooperate in the process of photosynthesis and are held in a fungal mesh. The algal cells and the fungus have a symbiotic relationship, with the algal cells providing the fungus with food and the fungus providing the alga with a suitable living environment for growth³⁷⁹.
If you have a planet with life as on Earth somewhere that is hit by another large cold object then rocks of the objects may blow off into space. If DNA life like alga can survive a large trip in space then this may mean that no amino acids are needed to be produced by evolution. Then life on Earth may have come to existence by a meteorite with suitable DNA life. Within our evolution theories the development of the first cells is a big problem. It is extremely hard to see how such an extremely complex mechanism as a single cell can come to existence from amino acids only, let alone single atoms and (small inorganic) molecules. With DNA life travelling through space DNA life may be infinite in an infinite universe. It may mean that DNA life as on our planet may be common all through the universe like the atoms and molecules like oxygen and nitrogen are common all through the universe. It may also mean that people as on Earth, descending from such DNA organisms, may be common all through the Universe.
Evolution of DNA life is a severe problem for the big bang model. How can DNA life as we now it on Earth come to existence within only 13 billion years in a big bang universe? The evolutionary gap is easily fixed with DNA life being infinite (as a “kind”) in an infinite universe like atoms (of course I don't mean to say here that individual atoms are infinite). End January 19 2006]

[September 10 2005: Infrared and radio telescope observations of molecular clouds (in outer space) have detected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as fatty acids, simple sugars, faint amounts of the amino acid glycine, and over 100 other molecules, including water, carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide. Although PAHs aren't found in living cells, they can be converted into quinones, molecules that are involved in cellular energy processes. For instance, quinones play an essential role in photosynthesis, helping plants turn light into chemical energy. The molecular clouds have never been sampled directly (they're too far away), so to confirm what is occurring chemically in the clouds, a research team set up laboratory experiments to mimic the cloud conditions. In one experiment, a PAH/water mixture is vapor-deposited onto salt and then bombarded with ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This allows the researchers to observe how the basic PAH skeleton turns into quinones. Irradiating a frozen mixture of water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and methanol (a precursor chemical to formaldehyde) generates the amino acids glycine, alanine and serine, the three most abundant amino acids in living systems. In another experiment a frozen mixture of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide was subjected to UV radiation. This combination yielded organic material that formed bubbles when immersed in water. These bubbles are reminiscent of cell membranes that enclose and concentrate the chemistry of life, separating it from the outside world³⁶³. End September 10 2005]

[October 25 2005: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in every nook and cranny of our galaxy. While this is important to astronomers, it has been of little interest to astrobiologists, scientists who search for life beyond Earth. Normal PAHs aren't really important to biology. However, PAHs in space also carrying nitrogen in their structures changes everything. Polycyclic nitrogen-containing aromatic hydrocarbon (PANH) molecules were recently found to be common in space. Much of the chemistry of life, including DNA, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen. Chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis in plants, is a good example of this class of compounds, called polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles, or PANHs³⁷⁴. End October 25 2005]

[January 23 2006: If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine. Researchers spotted the organic, or carbon-containing, gases hydrogen cyanide and acetylene around a star called IRS 46. Organic gases such as those found around IRS 46 are found in our own solar system, in the atmospheres of the giant planets and Saturn's moon Titan, and on the icy surfaces of comets. They have also been seen around massive stars by the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, though these stars are thought to be less likely than sun-like stars to form life-bearing planets³⁸⁹. End January 23 2006]

[May 2003: Recently there have been discoveries concerning H3+, the “ATP of the cosmos”, that suggest that molecules like amino acids may have been formed in interstellar gas/dust clouds⁷. End May 2003]

[September 3 2007: Astronomers have found the largest negatively-charged molecule yet seen in space. The discovery of the third negatively-charged molecule in less than a year and the size of the latest anion will force a drastic revision of theoretical models of interstellar chemistry, the astronomers say. They also say that the discovery continues to add to the diversity and complexity that is already seen in the chemistry of interstellar space. It too adds to the number of paths available for making the complex organic molecules and other large molecular species that may be precursors to life in the clouds from which stars and planets form⁴⁶².
Back in the 1960s, no one believed molecules could survive the harsh environment of space. Ultraviolet radiation supposedly reduced matter to atoms and atomic ions. Now scientists conclude that at least half of the gas in space between the stars within the 33-light-year inner galaxy is molecular⁴⁶⁴. End September 3 2007]

[January 30 2008: Astronomers have found the first indications of highly complex organic molecules in the disk of red dust surrounding a star known as HR 4796A, which is about 220 light years from Earth. The researchers found that the spectrum of visible and infrared light scattered by the star's dust disk looks very red, the color produced by large organic carbon molecules called tholins. Tholins do not form naturally on present-day Earth because oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly destroy them, but they are hypothesized to have existed on the primitive Earth billions of years ago and may have been precursors to the biomolecules that make up living organisms. Tholins have been detected elsewhere in the solar system, such as in comets and on Saturn's moon Titan, where they give the atmosphere a red tinge. This study is the first report of tholins outside the solar system⁴⁷². End January 30 2008]

There may be necessity for a chemical evolution before a biological evolution can start, with a “driving force”, a certain “will” that makes atoms “want” and thus makes atoms connect with each other to form amino acids. Before a chemical evolution can start you need a chemical/physical/astrophysical evolution in order to make heavier elements out of hydrogen. And before such a chemical/physical/astrophysical evolution you need a physical/astrophysical evolution that produces hydrogen.
In all those evolutions the particles may “feel” in a certain way and thus may have a “will” to make certain connections that makes them feel better one way or the other. This “will”, or, what I call, desire for happiness may be the driving force behind survival of the fittest.

Thus next to survival of the fittest there may be necessity for desire for happiness.

There may have been desire for happiness during the development of biological as well as non-biological entities in our universe, existence may need a reason.
Desire for happiness can be the reason why atoms formed amino acids and other macro-molecules, for atoms did not need any survival of the fittest (though this may not be entirely true on a deeper kind of level, survival of the fittest may count for atoms too in a certain way).

Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest may be two sides of the same coin:

1. Some day experiments may point out that (some kind of) particles decay faster when they are in a situation where one can expect them to “feel less good”.
2. Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest may melt together in: making good connections.

   [May 2003: Good connections with other entities. With survival of the fittest it is important that (biological) living entities can connect very well with other biological entities, for instance: by eating other entities or working together with other entities.
   For atoms this is different. Their co-operation may be done on a molecular level within, for example, an amino acid: different atoms co-operating and thus forming an amino acid. Why? Because they want to feel good and feeling good in this respect may mean: they feel good because if they co-operate with other atoms to form an amino acid they may survive longer as an atom than in the case they were not (chemically) bound with other atoms. So survival of the fittest of biological living entities and desire for happiness of atoms may both be: wanting to feel good by living longer and living longer is done by co-operation.

   Feeling good/living longer in the case of atoms may mean living longer as an individual. Feeling good in the case of biological live may mean: living longer as a specie (by passing on genes). And there may be something beyond this: living longer/further as a planet. This is where thoughts and compassion with other species come in: not only our genes (as individuals or as specie) are important, all genes (on our planet) are important (which is something extremely relevant in our time). But there may also be something like: all genes in our galaxy or in a galaxy cluster (which may be something becoming relevant in the (extremely) far future). End May 2003]

3. Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest are strongly correlated because they are both connected to the fight against finity.

   [May 2003: I see now that desire for happiness and survival of the fittest are as good as the same. It is like: we want to live versus we don't want to die.
   It is just that by thinking with desire for happiness and everything that exists wants the biggest amount of pleasant feelings I could, in a way, “understand” atoms that (may) need to co-operate in order to survive. Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest blend together in: the fight against finity.
   The fight against finity has two components: feeling bad when the fight is unsuccessful
   and feeling good when the fight is successful.
   End May 2003]

Desire for happiness may also explain the appearance of particles out of nothing: because their existence gave them “joy”.
Desire for happiness may “exist” by itself, without (physically) existing. As a concept, as an idea, like logic exists without (physically) existing. The reason why something physically exists, may not be physical itself.
Also: time and space make it possible for us to exist, but time and space may not be physically real themselves (see chapter 2-1).

This raises the question whether feelings are physically real or not. Perhaps this question will never be answered and may be connected with the smallest possible particles that we may never be able to measure, see also chapter 3-2. And: physical particles that appear to come out of nothing, may originate from smaller yet unknown particles, see chapter 3-2.