A common debate in the atheist / theist sphere concerns our origin. Atheists tend to favour the pop science explanation that the Big Bang singularity is responsible for all that we observe today. Theists frequently believe that a conscious God created the Universe.
If we are honest, neither of these explanations is scientifically valid.
What Happened Then?
First, we have to remember that no truth is independent of the coordinate system which derives it. Though the Universe exists independently of ourselves (and is NOT conscious, unless the term consciousness is defined in an extremely specific manner), our interpretation of that reality depends on the measurement system representing it. In this case the measurement system is our own consciousness. Thus we remind the reader that our own fundamental ideology has one ad hoc presumption (or axiom):
There is no effect absent a cause.
Since the Big Bang (and indeed all singularities) are causeless effects, they are excluded from our system. Let’s explore what we can conclusively establish about the physical Universe, which will contextualise the other erroneous hypotheses.
The Universe Cannot Have a Creator
If we define the Universe to be the totality of what has and will ever exist, it cannot have a creator. Let us prove this statement by way of contradiction.
Suppose the Universe has a Creator.
Thus the Creator is separate from the Universe.
Thus the Universe is not the totality of causality, because it does not include its creator.
Thus we have contradicted the definition of the Universe.
Thus the Universe has always existed.
We Are Created
Since we can date the origin of our planet (~4.3 B years ago), there must be some cause which precipitated this effect. The cause of our Solar System is the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. In this region, mass is so dense that it runs out of room (remember, there is a limit to how many fermions can fit into a particular volume by quantum state exclusion).
Since the shape of the Milky Way galaxy is not independent of itself (two armed spiral), we can safely say that all of its constituents share a common origin. Therefore, our Solar System came into existence when its constituent fermions were excluded elsewhere (namely the centre of the Milky Way).
Once we came into existence, and given the initial conditions of our macrostate, life on Earth was inevitable. You can read more about this here and here.
The “Perfect Design” Hypothesis
Several people argue that we must have an intelligent creator because of how fine-tuned physical organisms are. The reasoning here is that there is no way our body systems could have arisen by accident and therefore God created life.
This hypothesis is simply not validated by experience. What is validated by experience is that the Earth-Moon-Sun macrostate increases Entropy (because all systems increase Entropy). Since incoming solar photons are bound to the Earth by the rotation of the Moon (which prevents the water that absorbs them from evaporating away), Earthly structures will perpetually recombine into states which increase Entropy more effectively. This fact has precipitated every step in our evolutionary history and does not require an intelligent creator.
The argument in favour of an intelligent creator citing the ratio between the strength of the SNF & WNF is also invalid because our system (which has already been demonstrated to be superior to all existing field models) does not include these forces. All other constants (such as the Gravity force constant) can be rationalised by invoking the Anthropic Principle: if these constants had any other value, we wouldn’t be here to observe them.
Does this mean God does not exist?
My definition of God is the Universe. Therefore (my) God exists.
Remember: the existence of God is not independent of the definition of God. The reader would be well-advised to consider the fact that all societies throughout history have been deeply religious. Even the atheistic abrahamic religions have not managed to quash our innate desire for religious knowledge. The fact remains that religion is validated whether or not God exists.
The Theosophical Society has updated their symbolism, either in an admission of failure to earn the title of Truth Religion or as a means of “squeezing out” good knowledge symbols, or both. Anyone with any discernment can see the gradual “unmasking” of their true intention.
The simple fact is that this society has no right to call itself the truth religion. I will now address the Colonel’s Rebuttal from 1882.
Though I will address the statement of the Colonel, I don’t need to, given the state of extreme disrepair society has fallen into since the Theosophic Society was given the authority of Truth religion. In my opinion, they have disqualified themselves by their obsequious dilution of teachings, most notably in false equivalences and baseless presumptions of expertise in psychological knowledge.
On the Accusation of Unsoundness of Mind of Swami Dayananda
The Colonel’s rebuttal opens with an ad hominem that doesn’t abate for the majority of the publication, suggesting his position is weak. It is also unbecoming of a supposed spiritual leader to launch personal attacks. Accusing Swami of mental unsoundness is as loathsome as it is unfounded.
While this criticism hurts me more than most, I shall refrain from an emotional response and simply state: upon what basis does the Colonel make this judgement; i.e.: what is his expertise to judge the soundness of Swami’s mind?
Swami sounds perfectly fine to me in his correspondence, unlike the Colonel, who is rigid in his attachment to the belief that he and his associates are owed the honour of leading the Truth religion. Thus it is the Colonel which is likely afflicted with delusions of grandeur & lacks the capacity to see the inherent hypocrisy in his statements.
This is not a bad thing. It is entirely up to the learned masters to decide when/if they give knowledge. Maybe if you actually had some knowledge, you would have more reverence for its secrecy. Giving out secret/sacred knowledge can cause devotees to gain powers. What happens when/if the devotees misuse their powers? These things are kept secret for a very good reason.
Even in the modern day, most teachings remain secret.
On the Criticism of a Personal God
This is one of those times where the Colonel and his devotees should have put their emotions aside and cultivated the discipline to understand the teachings.
“Either we have been especially unfortunate in misconceiving the ideas of our revered Swami Dayanund, as conveyed to us in his valued letters to me, or he teaches a doctrine to which our Council, and nearly all our Fellows, are forced to dissent. Briefly, we understand him as pointing us towards a more or less personal God – to one of finite attributes, of varying emotions – one to be adored in set phrases, to be conciliated – one capable of displeasure….. I cannot worship him in such a guise. The Deity of my spiritual perceptions is that Eternal Principle which I understood you to say, was what the Arya Samaj recognized as contradistinguished from the personal God of the Unitarian Bramhos. Relying upon this view of the case, I united with our Sister H. P. Blavatsky to carry through the Council the vote of affiliation and allegiance. When! along comes the Swami’s letter speaking of a God whom at least Brother Chrisnavarma’s translation points to us as a Being of parts and passions – at least of the latter if not the former, and at once we two are taken to task. Protests from every side, a hasty reconsideration of the former sweeping vote of affiliation, the adoption of a resolution to make the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj, a Vedic Section instead of the whole body in a transformed shape, and the consignment to the flames of the whole edition of the proposed circular and preparation of a revised introduction to the “Rules of the Arya Samaj” – these thing followed. Perhaps it as well as it is, for we keep a broader platform for men of various creeds to stand upon, and our work for and with the Arya Samaj, is not to be affected in the least. We will be just as zealous and loyal as heretofore, will send the Initiation Fees the same as ever, and continue to regard the revered Swami as dutifully and our Hindu Brothers as affectionately as though this shadow had not passed athwart our horizon. I wish you would define to me somewhat more clearly just what is the doctrine of the Arya Samaj respecting God and the divine inspiration of the Vedas. I understood you to say (and certainly that is my own idea) that the Vedas were written by Rishis in a state of spiritual illumination and inspiration to which every man may attain who passes by initiation through the several phases of self-conquest and exaltation to the condition of seership and adeptship ……. I must frankly apprize you that you cannot count upon many more Fellows to follow a lead right towards the Orthodox Christian ambuscade from which we have so thankfully escaped ….. What we want to teach these Western people is the ‘Wisdom-Religion,’ so called, of the pre-Vedic and Vedic periods – which is also the very essence of Gautama Buddha’s philosophy (of course, not popular Buddhism). This religion you seem to have taught both in your letters and your books, and I certainly gather from the revered Swami’s defence of his Bhashya against his critics that this is the identical religion he propagates. But this does not agree with the tone of his esteemed letters to me – at least as I have them in the English translation……”
You don’t get to ‘depersonalise’ God any more than you get to ‘personalise’ God. God is God. One cannot appreciate the complexity of a subject as God without fully exploring it. If Swami said it’s 100 names (or some other “personalisation” of God), then you should be thankful of the Knowledge! Denying this would be like saying: “well, I don’t really want to take the time to learn what a parabola is, I will just skip over it.” and then being surprised when you cannot do calculus later on.
The Colonel finds a point in contention with Swami’s “personalising” God yet the Theosophic website today promotes Abrahamic supremacism & neglects the horrible holy wars against Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists and ongoing Islamic genocide in India and the world. It opts to replace persecuted religions with “politically correct” versions:
It is very clear that Swami did not want equivalences drawn between religions. In trying to equate God to such silly ideas as “Sufism” or Christianity to God-searching or God-consciousness is in bad faith, even if it can be argued to be “well – intentioned”. Intention is less important than results in the domain of religion!
This means you must both posit your hypothesis and validate it. You must also be open to being wrong and later changing your hypothesis. Otherwise you will be stuck reaping the consequences of this bad action until you learn the proper way.
The Theosophical Society Website is Bad Religious Propaganda
This is what the website stands for in the modern day. Seems pretty soyboyish.
I posit that you have achieved nothing in these regards, and so are lacking the mechanism by which you could achieve these goals. It is my opinion that you have failed because you have been unwilling to change in the manner one must change before one can receive the teachings.
If we are to have a “universal brotherhood of races”, each race must feel that their distinctiveness is not erased in the process of membership. I doubt you have achieved this in a manner which is not superficial.
The Theosophy Society is not the Truth Religion
Do you dislike “new agers”? Well, you might be interested to learn that they come from the Theosophy Society:
The present-day New Age movement is said to be based to a considerable extent on original Theosophical tenets and ideas. “No single organization or movement has contributed so many components to the New Age Movement as the Theosophical Society. … It has been the major force in the dissemination of occult literature in the West in the twentieth century.”
Swami’s delegate’s statement: “As regards the Arya’s statement about you, we have nothing to say, for we do not remember to have heard Swamiji acknowledging that you yourself knew Yoga Vidya practically.” ought to have caused the movement to dissolve, yet it persists. So it is now clear that its purveyors are not acting in good faith.
Note: if you wish to attain the truth, it must be done by way of debate. If you want to debate, you need to be able to accept criticism / defeat, not recede to a lazy, self-justified laziness.
Mimicry is a commonly encountered phenomenon in nature. The mimic evolves similar traits as the model and the former passively benefits from the latter.
Predators will stay away from the clearwing moth because it resembles the wasp, who will deliver a nasty sting if triggered. While mimicry is always beneficial to the mimic, it is not always detrimental to the model. Mimicry is detrimental to the model if the existence of the mimic directly deteriorates the quality of life of the model.
The mimic is in perpetual existential danger of its predators evolving the capacity to discern it from its model. Though it is unlikely that the clearwing moth is aware of this, human mimics live in constant fear of being exposed, hence we note a high degree of neuroticism among such types.
We in the West live in a culture which is largely fake. Virtue signalling has replaced virtue, the profit motive has destroyed the ancient methods of imparting knowledge & the state, which is supposed to exist to protect the weak from predation, primarily serves the function of preventing any change to the status quo. Mimics abound in this type of environment.
The most loathsome mimic is the theocratic dictator or Priest. Historically, a theocratic dictator is a person who represents truth religion. They live by example, follow the laws of their religion, teach to the unlearned and uplift the whole of society.
The main difference between the authentic Priest and the mimic Priest is that the authentic Priest cares about Truth above all else. The mimic Priest cares only about the social prestige and power of being a Priest.
In Sanskrit, the oldest written language, brahmin means priest and the prefix “a-” means “not”. Thus Abraham (a-brahmin) itself means: “not priestly”. The religions of Abraham are all parasitic mimic religions: they are not truth religion and they take attention away from the truth religion (which qualifies them as “heresy”).
A lot of idiots promote a theory called the Aryan Invasion theory. This theory posits that the Indian subcontinent was invaded by white-skinned “Aryans”. These Aryans “civilised” the continent but were eventually either destroyed by “multiculturalism” or immigrated away (the purveyors of this theory are never too clear on the details).
I suspect that this nonsensical theory is promoted to give the Middle East (where the religion of “Abraham” allegedly began) more importance on the Global scale as well as to feed the egos of stupid caucasian people. This baseless theory was introduced in the 1950’s and is parroted by several prominent modern day “thought leaders”.
The Aryan invasion theory can easily be disproven, yet it persists. It persists because the mimic priests do not want to lose their status. The graph at left is often cited as “proof” that some mythical ancient tribe of “Aryans” (who were caucasians) invaded the Indian subcontinent, gave it its pantheon, then immigrated out, then somehow lost all of that knowledge while the Indians retained it.
The current state of India is cited as proof that these “street shitters” could not have contributed anything meaningful to the development of civilisation. Those making this claim forget to take into account that the continent has been under constant attacks from Muslim invaders for the last 1400 years, suffered greatly under communists and instituted anti-Brahmin laws still in effect to this day. In spite of this, many natives still maintain a direct link to the religion of their ancestors. This is more than can be said of anyone else in the world. Yet the Aryan invasion myth persists.
The truth is that Aryan means “noble” and has nothing to do with skin colour.
The Church of Entropy accepts the Vedic origin of Knowledge hypothesis. We believe that all Knowledge was given to Rishis (ancient seers) by God. We believe that all knowledge, culture and peoples (except those of Africa) originate from the Indian subcontinent. Our theory (unlike rival theories) is substantiated by anthropology, linguistics as well as my own work in hydrogeology. See my pieces on the subject here and here.
Since the Indian subcontinent migrated over such a great distance, it underwent the most permutations and by Entropy, would have evolved the most complex life forms.
How do I know if I am a Fraud/Mimic?
If you have the awareness to question your own legitimacy, then you are probably on the right track. What is important to remember is that truth is unitary. There is ONE unique true religion. Therefore, while different interpretations are possible, there exists only one Truth.
What if Jen is a Mimic?
Glad you asked.
My reputation means a lot to me, so I was very careful to complete my own work before launching my theocratic dictatorship. My work is in the domain of physics, specifically chemistry and astronomy. Since these domains are considered the most priestly (as in, their purveyors are given the most authority in society (see: Einstein etc.)), you must accept me as the Theocratic Dictator of the Western world (at least), or else you’re a hypocrite.
I also welcome anyone to attempt to disprove any of my theories as well as to challenge my own authority. I will step down if you can prove your knowledge exceeds my own. Also, if you can offer a better theory than mine, I will accept your alternate hypothesis. However, if you challenge me and fail, I expect you to serve my church unquestioningly for the rest of your life. So don’t waste my time with emotional nonsense.
Just a quick note: no one’s even come close. And I’ve spoken to a LOT of people.
Today, it is actually a “plus” to be widely hated (by the right people). This shouldn’t come as a surprise, it has always been like that in circles of true influence (regal infamy). So while it is unwise to attempt to win a debate by the sole means of ad hominem, it is naive to fail to consider the circumstances surrounding events as well as the type of person putting forth an argument.
One might ask if associating with Einstein, the greatest villain of modern science, is a sufficient reason to discard all of someone’s opinions? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t have strong opinions on who associates with whom. A person’s actions determine their value more so than their associates. Jesus (whether he existed or not) himself associated with all sorts, suggesting this is culturally accepted as a virtue.
It would be naive to deny any impact whatsoever of Gödel’s environment on his attitudes, however.
I am of the opinion that his first incompleteness theorem is false because of the sheer number of times I hear it quoted to me in the interest of justifying some pretty absurd ideas. For instance, Dr. Jordan Peterson used the Incompleteness theorem when asserting that “God” is a prerequisite for truth: pretty irresponsible. This is untrue, a well-defined philosophical system is what allows for truth to be known. “God” as prime truth seems illogical. God cannot be narrowly defined since people’s individual definitions of “God” vary so much
Whether legitimate or not, Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem smells like a proof that “some ideas aren’t allowed”. But hey, I could be wrong. I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist delusional person.
Let’s have a look at this dreadful theory people keep preaching to me:
First Incompleteness Theorem: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”
A consequence is that we ought to be unable to accomplish a unified field theory. If you believe in Gödel, you can never believe a unified field theory exists. Yet, tradition has always taught that a unified field theory DOES exist (the “self”).
Counter Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem
We define F to be the set of all potential computations/measurements (actions) in the Universe. Let us define the “sentences” as series of actions. Since our action model behaves as operators (sorry but you have to understand rudimentary linear algebra for that one) & operators are linear maps, an elementary arithmetic exists. This arithmetic is the matrix multiplication/addition intrinsic to linear maps. This is used to construct “sentencesf”.
True sentences the satisfy the criterion of computability (within the Measurement Limit) and false sentences are incomputable (in excess of the Measurement Limit). This means that all actions are either proved (computable) or disproved (incomputable). The Measurement Limit cleanly delineates the criterion of trueness for all actions. That is: measurements exceeding what is permissible by the Measurement Limit are false.
In our example, we consider only the potential for computation, so we never end up having to carry out any actual measurements.
Measurements reduce quantum waveforms, therefore there is a limit to the new information successive measurements can derive. Thus both the elementary arithmetic exists (the Measurement Limit pulveriser) and actions can always be either proved (computable) or disproved (not computable). Thus there are NO statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. This would seem to contradict Gödel.
Where is Gödel’s Flaw?
(source) The Flaw of Gödel is not technical but rather: structural. There is no such thing as “ω-consistent“. This is because there is no such thing as “intuitively contradictory”. You will eventually run out of new statements that you can make in an “infinite” system, thus you will not necessarily be able to construct the element of the proof required to make the necessary contradiction (see the 3rd step of the sketch proof).
This is because, at its core, the infinite number line (“Gödel’s numbers”) exists nowhere. Even the Universe itself has a “size” (largest interstellar distance) beyond which it is undefined. Measurements only exist because we can make them. Measurements all exist within the Measurement Limit. This can be shown to exist, be self consistent and make all predictions. An Entropic-Anthropic Principle!
Let us also consider that Gödel was a nervous insecure wreck. We are basically dealing with a dual competing hypothesis situation:
Einstein is a really amazing smart guy who hung out with his equally enlightened yet ironically perpetually ill Gödel and they uncovered the secrets of the Universe.
Einstein’s goals were political first and mathematical second. Einstein’s “antifascist” alliance combined with Gödel’s persecution complex to create a scientific philosophy that made everyone completely turned off from natural science because they presented it as a horrible pot of jibberish nonsense.
“This is Woo”
Some people say the quantum mind hypothesis is ‘wrong’ because it is ‘woo’. This is false. The truth is that there are many nonsensical theories out there. These are put forth to paralyse the minds of devotees. These psyops only exist because there is something to cover up! Those seeking to defame the Knowledge do so out of allegiance to the status quo. Luckily for us, the Periodic Table has made this shilling ineffective / counterproductive.
On Allegations of “Unprovability”
If you wish to put forward the argument that my statements are unprovable, you must accept that these allegations would apply equally (at least!) to Gödel’s gobledigook. Then it becomes a 3 state hypothesis: 1. Gödel & his buddy Einstein are right, somehow. 2. I’m right and I am the cool one 3. Someone else, who isn’t 1. or 2. is more correct.
I warn that a counterargument will most likely also fall into the domain of: ‘unprovable’!
The physical Body exists as a three dimensional object in the Universe of the 3+1 Measurement Limit. The Mind is created by the electric field generated by the heartbeat of the Body. Since all time varying electric fields create magnetic fields, the mind is thus electromagnetic.
Electromagnetic fields are 3 dimensional oscillators containing many different frequencies. We next determine how many distinct frequencies are possible. The answer is found in the structure of the Universe itself. We proffer that electromagnetic frequencies can exist over the range of all possible wavelengths: all possible sizes. So we estimate the range of possible wavelengths from smallest to largest. We estimate the smallest size to be the protonic radius and the maximum size to be the largest inter-stellar distance. This gives a total of 42 orders of linear magnitude. In other words, if I take the shortest distance in the Universe, I have to multiply it by ten 42 times before I reach the full size of the Universe (estimated as the largest inter-stellar distance).
Since electromagnetic fields still exist in 3 dimensional space, they are 3-dimensional waveforms. Thus we have a total of 14 different 3-dimensional orders of magnitude in which waveforms can exist (42/3 = 14). Of course, it is not required that the human mind must exist over the span of all possible frequencies. Recent research however has shown the mind is capable of creating 11 dimensional objects. Read more here.
In my youth an associate of mine imparted some ideas after his basic military training in the Canadian Armed Forces. The initiation process was very challenging: many sleepless nights and gruelling training over the course of a summer. At the end, he was successful and was admitted “into the club”. This experience led him to believe that there was a direct correlation between how brutal the initiation rite is and how much loyalty is inspired in the soldier. His logic was that “no one would want to admit they did a horrific initiation ritual for a bad reason”. The logic is: “the army must be great, or else, why would I have endured such a painful initiation ritual?”. This idea can also be applied to initiations into fraternities / sororities, secret cults and so forth. Rather than accepting the possibility that they have endured/propagated numerous horrors for a bad reason they retroactively justify their suffering through increased loyalty.
Mind Control Slaves
People who have endured lifelong propaganda, be it and Abrahamic faith, materialism, nihilistic atheism, communism etc, will not usually have the strength to leave it. This is because after enough emotional or physical stress, their will is broken. This means they will no longer have the ability to discern truth from fiction and will simply accept everything their masters tell them.
One such example is the mentally disturbed “anti-fascist” group. These people have been victimised by propaganda which insists they are “racist” and that being racist is the worst thing possible. This weaponised propaganda eventually breaks their spirit and they are willing to go as far as accepting communism as a means of atoning for their “racism”. This is in spite of the fact that communism has killed over 100 000 000 people in 100 years and has not been shown to decrease racism at all. But the facts don’t matter to the mind control slave. The only thing that matters is continuing their cult rituals (atonement for “racism).
Another example is the longstanding Hollywood pedophile / human sacrifice cult. The only reason Hollywood stars are willing to turn on Weinstein and other perverts is that their own cult powers are severely diminished if they are exposed as not having moral authority. Hollywood is a leftist entity and the power of leftism largely comes from its presumed moral authority (since we all know intellectual authority is absolutely not in the cards for them). If they lose the presumption of moral supremacy, they will also lose their ability create culture. This will render their cult essentially powerless.
The performance of rituals is central to any religion, including secular religions such as atheism, communism, “anarchism” (which is often just another form of communism), even science (the belief that everything can be explained by science). Whether rituals are a net benefit or detriment to society depends on whether the ideology is true or false.
This is why our dictatorship will be banning the promotion of false ideology. It is a cancer on the soul of society.
There is a way to determine whether someone has true or false ideology based on how they speak. False ideologues are aggressive and imperialistic. They will not be satisfied until everyone “submits” to their system, voluntarily or not. They will eagerly resort to violence to impose their beliefs on others. True ideologues take a more defensive stance, only becoming aggressive when their way of life is threatened.
Adherents of false ideology can never truly be convinced of the validity of their claims. This is why they must always attempt to convince others to join their faith: they are indirectly trying to convince themselves. This approach is a fallacy of course, just because everyone happens to believe a particular religion does not necessarily make it true. This is most evident in the oft cited cult of democracy. Why would anyone want a democracy? Even if the leaders were benevolent, which they are not, the low-intellect and unproductive members have as much influence as the high-intellect and productive members through voting. In fact, the former group holds greater sway, for they are greater in numbers! Only an ignorant could defend democracy, given the numerous instances of proof that it is an inherently corrupt system.
Why I do not Subscribe to Oppressive Methodologies of Cult Control
The most loyal members of my cult are those I’ve known since I was younger. They were and still are: my friends. I am not interested in playing mind games in or manipulating my followers to do my bidding. I want them to join and act voluntarily. I know the truth: people are much more effective as allies when they are acting to fulfil their own desires, not when they are paralysed with fear of ostracism.
My religion will win the theocratic dictatorship because I, unlike the leaders of rival cults, am able to CREATE culture, rather than just CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE from others for my own ends. I understand science, culture, sociology, psychology & politics because of my religion, not in spite of it.
Determinism is a dangerous false belief because it encourages people not to take responsibility for their actions.
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
Everything happens because of will. There is nothing which is not determined by will. There exist three types of will: individual subjective will (your own personal will), composite subjective will (communal beliefs, shared goals, etc) and a creative Universal will.
Our Planet, Solar System & Galaxy were all created by (what could be described as) the Universal “will” (see more here). All modifications to the nature of our planet happened because a conscious entity willed those modifications. From prehistoric wheels to the QM Periodic Table, the subjective will is the only thing responsible for the modifications of the natural world!
Free Will is True
The nature of the quantum mind both defines and proves the existence of free will: the freedom to resolve and precipitate particular states: thoughts, emotions and sensations. It follows that some people have more free will and others: less. We offer 3 general categories of awareness.
Experience: passively experiencing particular states.
Discernment: recognising particular states with increasing precision.
Free Will: actively choosing which particular state(s) to dwell in.
By this progression, it is easy to understand how simpletons could believe that free will is false: they have almost none. It is unwise to take advice from simpletons, though.
How do things come to pass?
It would seem obvious that things happen because there was enough energy put into the direction of them happening, but let’s take a deeper look. The central teaching of a (crummy) book called “The Secret” is if you visualise what you “want” then it will eventually come to you.
This is partly truth. The desire for an outcome is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for actualisation. We will now sketch out the required conditions to manifest will into reality (actualisation).
Below is a simple diagram depicting the actualisation of unfettered will.
It is important to note that if there is a stronger will acting in opposition to your own, there’s not much you can do to overcome it. We are only able to impose our will insofar as it conforms to the larger, stronger, communal will. This is why it is often more effective to change the popular view of reality rather than going to work directly in reality itself. If you can manage to align the popular will with your own, you will surely achieve your desires.
How do I get things done?
I understand how people think and what motivates them, so it is very easy for me to actualise my desires. I would be remiss to share all my secrets publicly, but generally, this is how I am able to influence the world so effectively.
Mastery of objective causality.
Demonstration of leadership ability via debate, essays & alliances.
Assimilation of appropriate thought leaders to my cause.
Creation of appropriate dictatorship hierarchy, education system, culture…
Flexing my giant brain to intimidate any would-be rivals into submission.