Adaptive Algorithms (AI) & Computing

How Conscious AI Works (in theory)

Alan Turing, one of the major minds behind the modern computer, coined the term the “Turing Test“. It is a threshold for answers obtained from a computer simulation to be indistinguishable from those produced by a conscious entity. This test has been passed under certain evaluations, but this does not mean that the program which provided the responses possessed consciousness.

This program has sentences as input and sentences as output, which we will designate as S and S’ (S prime). Any computer program (also called “model”) that will be used to simulate consciousness must be adaptive so that it can reflect the human consciousness’ capacity to learn.

Example: Language Pulveriser

I will give an example of a language parametrisation algorithm which will first be used to identify languages, then translate sentences, then finally we will attempt to use this parametrisation to answer questions.

We have previously shown how we may perform general optimisations as well as given examples of pulveriser functions. Now, we will show how to construct a parse metric which will allow us to elucidate the problem inherent to artificial consciousness emulation. We will accomplish this by showing that the complexity of the residual (computation remaining after the algorithm has performed its function) is equivalent to the complexity of the original question. This means that (even in the most generic sense), there is no way to conclusively code consciousness because we do not have any means to encode the calculation in a manner which can reduce the calculational complexity. If we cannot reduce the computational complexity of a problem, then we cannot meaningfully deduce new information from successive computations. That is: any consciousness emulator will not ever satisfactorily give the impression of having a cogent personality, (i.e.: consciousness) without human interference.

Consciousness is indivisible – it is a single quantum potential form. There is thus no way to simulate a quantum potential form with a transistor-based computer.

The Grand Canonical Language Pulveriser

shooting light robot

In order to canonically pulverise a system, we must be able to prove that we have derived all possible information from the system. Thus, we model a language as the set of all sets of series of letters, which we will call the form archetype sets . The first form archetype set would simply be the alphabet, the second would be the set of all 2 letter sets. In the case of English it would be {aa, ab, ac, … , zz} and so forth. We can see that the cardinality of the set of successive form archetype sets is n, n^2, n^3,…, n^a where a is the final term of the series. So we therefore see how a equals the length of the longest word in the language. This pulveriser function therefore includes all possible form archetype sets (combinations of letters) in the language.

Algorithmic Implementation

We will use the English language. We will also assume we have a library of books sufficiently large as to convey the ethos of the cultural zeitgeist. We will also assume that predictions about what successive word forms are the best approximation to the state of human consciousness, because the books themselves were written with the aim of simulating human consciousness for a human audience.

We first compute the set of all form archetypes of these books and generate a statistical distribution of all forms. We can say that this computation can be known exactly because there exists a finite number of words in these books. We presume this distribution to be known and to have a matrix representation: M.

The consciousness emulator takes a sentence and canonises it as a set of form archetypes. It then searches the database of all possible combinations of forms and finds the likeliest form, returning the result of greatest likelihood which is also a true word. A word: W is considered true if it satisfies the criterion of existence, that is: it exists in the dictionary.

We thus impose that our algorithm includes all forms of punctuation as letters and impose the rule in the consciousness emulator that each time it simulates a period as the next likeliest form, then the result is truncated at the period and and the statement is outputted by the consciousness simulator as S’.

There is no guarantee that the set of forms (S’) of greatest likelihood to succeed a particular set of inputted forms (S) actually makes any sense though. To obtain a reasonable reply, the computer would need to do is to generate a set of the 10 likeliest sentences to succeed S and then have a human decide which is the ‘right’ answer. Thus we are right back at the problem of needing human intervention to answer the question, so you might as well just cut out this intermediary computer!

Thus although a good consciousness emulator can be created (by implementing the explanation above), it cannot reliably return an answer which indicates an entity with introspection and self-awareness. Thus though our model may pass the Turing Test, it will never pass the “True Ring” test, because of that elusive element in human consciousness indicating the existence of free will. There is thus no way to canonise the decision making process with a transistor (calculator) based computer.

Example: Language Identification Algorithm

The form archetype language pulveriser can be used for a great many practical applications, which I will give now an example of with a language identification algorithm.

We first compute the set of all form archetypes in the dictionary. We then rank them in order of frequency in a histogram. We then approximate the histogram with a Fourier Series and normalise the resulting function to have an integral area of 1 exposing our ad hoc presumption that all languages will have the same information content.

A spoken sentence: S.
A phonetic language database of form pulverisers: P

For simplicity, we will assume that we have 100% accuracy in speech to text. This is not realistic, but it is realistic that individual syllables could be identified in a particular recording (by a human), then translated to the phonetic alphabet at which point the information will be in a form that it can go into a particular implementation of the form archetype pulveriser.

If I want to identify what language is represented by a particular set of sounds, I must input it into each language pulveriser function and find the language which maps that particular set of sounds to a meaningful sentence with highest probability. That is: out of the set of all sets of forms in the set of all languages, how likely is that particular set of forms, per language, per all possible words in that language? The largest result of this computation is the identified language.


The language canoniser has a small computational design flaw. Find it.

Clue: Consider the problem of generating the first word of a sentence.


Moralfapping is Lame

People have been “purity spiralling” since long before I joined the Internet (November 2015). It’s really annoying and it’s not something you’d do in real life because there would be inhibition towards the impulse to create that much awkward social tension. As we all know, people who “purity spiral” most ardently often also end up being total degenerates themselves.

I get annoyed when people obsess over the actions of other people. You only have so much attention. You should primarily be giving it to yourself. You should give yourself so much attention that interactions with other people are a joyful exchange and not a toxic burden.

Which Brings Me To My Next Point

You should run your opinions by me before professing them publicly if for no other reason than to avoid looking foolish in the future.

lets keep going we passed a point
errrybody needs to chill out

I Am Most Objective, I Am The Best Judge

There is a huge hate cult around me because I always speak the Truth. I don’t mind that, because I am confident that the heat generated by their hatred will burn away their illusions in time. I can deal with a gaggle of deriders: they don’t intimidate me. I enjoy the challenge. Anyone can have a personality cult, but it takes a lot of precision to have a good one. Part of having a good cult is having a permanent source of lulz. I don’t think you want to be a lolcow in my cult.

Don’t Take The Shadow Bait

We can envisage the “shadow self” as the part of oneself that one is unaware of. One is unaware of things because one is in denial. One is in denial because one’s consciousness acts in such a manner as to minimise the pain of ignorance. Ignorance causes pain because it places a burden upon the consciousness to simulate denial of reality. There is often confusion arising from these facts because the ego itself has an illusory nature. In spite of being illusory (in that it cannot be perceived directly), the ego, or “doer” is still a prerequisite for being alive. Celebrities denying this in unison does not change the fact that spirituality does not involve the active suppression of one’s core self. It involves learning about the deepest nature of the human spirit and eventually moving beyond the constraints of barriers of ego. At no point does this involve a fake smile, vacant stare nor concentrated shitty cartoon propaganda campaign.

oh wow, how original. sanctimonious prick!
jim carrey sarah huckabee sketch.jpg
et tu, Jim Carrey?

I don’t take people hating me personally because I understand that it is just a projection of their own self loathing. I have compassion because I understand that self-loathing is a terrible feeling. These people are in such denial about their true nature that their “shadow self” is eating up their non-shadow self. They are being consumed by their own demons and fruiting the putrid karma of interpersonal rivalries and egoic manipulation. Often, the consequence of this is becoming a lolcow.

Many People Fucked Up Bigly Lately

There’s a lot of people that aren’t worth being associated with. People who try to tell me who I can and cannot associate with anger me a lot, because I do religious work and I have to talk to people on a regular basis. If people stop talking to each other, that’s when problems start to fester and animosity builds up. That’s toxic. A refusal to communicate is nothing less than a decision to make peace impossible. Telling someone who they can and can’t associate with (and by association, be influenced by) is nothing short of terrorism when it’s paired with a threat (i.e.: forum censorship). “Doxing” is so general of a term that it can be used to blur the line between reasonable and unreasonable actions in such a manner as to greatly increase the chances of foul play. In fact, noted “polemic” Weev said it was his personal responsibility to “drop dox” because reasons:

As regards recent drama, the narrative that Weev is acting to maintain a monopoly on doxing has more merit than the narrative that doxing is categorically insupportable.

Don’t Punch Right? How About Stop Punching Yourself in the Face?

If we take the recent purity spiral pathetic LARP concerning the doxed Ricky Vaughn, most people virtue signalled by parroting media talking points: “Doxing bad!”.  Is it always bad though? Would doxing a spy be bad? Would accepting $2500 USD per month to shift public opinion in favour of paying candidates be good? Would selling databases of likely donors to politicians denounced as extremists be bad?

Instead of realising that this event is a perfect microcosm of morality in governance, people rushed to disavow, bandwagon hopped and generally chimped out. This is an error; what is good is to ask good questions. Good questions are those that go to the root of the moral values system. This process of inquiry is of central importance.

Should money be able to used to shift public opinion?

This is a nontrivial question.

What You’re Witnessing is a Cult Rivalry

There is an artificial cult of personality generated around Mike “Enoch” Pienovich that has been covered so many times I don’t care anymore. Don’t believe me? Have a look-see here that this group is computationally equivalent to a cult.

youre dissenting sven sontag
um… ok?

This lockstep morality is really creepy. It sounds like a new incarnation of Christianity, which relies heavily on guilt for “original sin” (or some permutation thereof, into which the guilt of original sin is transferred, in this case: “doxing”). You can contrast that with my cult, where it is a semi-joking cult and there are very few rules other than never disagree with me in public without a good reason and respect the origin of Knowledge as Vedic (revealed by God to Rishis and equal to the source and sum of all Knowledge) and that these were composed in the continent of what is called “India” in the modern day, but which was called Aryavarta less than 150 years ago.

Those are very easy rules. They don’t even involve emotional pleas like “protecting privacy”. Is one person’s privacy worth protecting if he is impeding the only person who can accomplish a goal from achieving the power to complete it? I posit that it is actually not that hard to know what is the correct answer to these types of questions, so long as all people discussing the phenomenon agree on a moral basis.

Moral judgements can certainly be made, but different moral paradigms exist. These paradigms are hierarchical, because there is one unique supreme morality. Some people cannot think past their own values and system to the true underlying universal one, but many can. Those that can should speak together to understand all angles of a phenomenon and put forth their opinions for general consumption to the public. That is how we serve mankind. Mandating disavowals using a crummy personality cult is not going to bring you any closer to that underlying universal truth you all crave. This appears to be a residual from the rigid (and often contradictory) morality of Christianity.

I’ve seen this type of transferance before in the female-heavy cult of “Kundalini Yoga” (as taught by Harbhajan Singh Yogiji). People start in a particular religion, in this case: Christianity or Catholicism. They become disillusioned over time, and decide to do something else. However, they carry the essence of their former religion into their new one and taint its practice with their unresolved subconscious beliefs. This dissonance will always happen when one is changing religions, it is unavoidable. Problems will arise however, when one attempts to become a theocratic dictator while still in this impaired state.

I don’t come down too hard on people for making mistakes based on previous illusions. It is not a sin to be an ignorant. It is a sin to continue to act badly when one has been shown better. And that is the difference.

“Fed!” “Shill!”

Glass Houses, Gentlemen

I could make anyone I want look like a buffoon. It is but for the grace of my discretion and desire to do nonharm that I don’t. Believe me, when I denounce a person or an ideology, that is going to stick forever. Since I understand consequences, I only act when I am certain that the harm caused by my inaction is greater than the harm caused by my exposing someone’s true nature.

Just because some bad things happened to you doesn’t mean you can treat other people badly and get a free pass on that. The covert or “bad faith” manipulation of public opinion is loathsome to all lovers of freedom and truth. People using drama to close ranks in respective personality cults are incompetent as leaders because a good leader doesn’t micromanage. Playing the gang-up divine & conquer game eventually leaves you excluded from the very power centre you seek because no one wants to be bound by arbitrary solipsistic protocols. People want a meritocracy where they can fit in, hone their strengths and eventually progress upwards through a well-defined hierarchy. They don’t want years of effort squandered because some “thought leader” decided their opinions were “dissenting”.

A piece of advice to wannabe dictators: “No one would blame you if you found something else to do for a while”.

Thank you

Update April 17th, 2018

Evidence has arisen supporting the hypothesis that the word “doxing” has been made into a bogeyman that will now be lobbed relentlessly without discernment. Establishment “cool guy” Jack Posobiec tweeted the following, using the term in entirely the wrong manner:

jack posobiec doxed hannity.jpg
ugh. no.

Did Ricky Vaughn Deserve Doxing?

The true identity of an artificially famous e-celeb named Ricky Vaughn was apparently leaked by the notorious Paul Nehlen, an American politician and “White Nationalist”. Vaughn’s faceless profile reads: “Staunch Republican, American Nationalist, Supporter of President Donald J. Trump, Free Speech and Anti-Racism Activist. Holocaust Respecter”. I am not sure how he was able to get so many followers, but I presume it is because people are paid to shill for him.

Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 9.17.06 AM.png
retrowave fashy dude! tubular!!!

An extremely irritating person called Greg “Grinder Greg” Johnson wrote a sharticle condemning the practice of doxing, exclaiming that: “Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence”. Greg. Greg. Greg. I don’t know much about you dude, but the only time I ever heard you speak, you were arguing in favour of a Christian Theocracy so that the government would stop you from your own degeneracy. The role of the Government isn’t to make sure you’re a good boy, Greg. I find it confusing that the same religion you espouse denounces homosexuality, Greg. If Christians were as adamant as you apparently are about your anti-doxing stance about their theology, shouldn’t they shun you for being a homosexual?

Greg, you tool, you know full well that many in this movement have been shunned by their whole families and friends for espousing non-pc beliefs. How can you now promote the idea that they should be shunned by their only friends because they exposed the true identity of a person who was actively undermining them? There is a big difference between disagreeing about optics of military uniforms and banning anyone who dissents from the opinion that public demonstrations are bad.

Is Doxing Bad?

It really depends who is getting doxed and who is doing the doxing. Anonymous doxes are a sign that someone has a lot of enemies. When someone is willing to dox you under their own name, that means you have severely angered them. The question then becomes: is this anger justified? This is a complex topic but we can give a general stance that whoever is motivated without consideration of the harm their actions will cause is the one who is less justified in taking action.

pienovich mcfeels jew trs.png
would things be better if he’d never been doxed?

Determining the least harmful path is not a simple matter because harm will often be caused either way. In the case of Vaughn, we have a list of alleged “movement contributions”  supposedly indicating his loyalty but we also have to consider the fact that his opinions cause more conflict than they resolve.

The general rule is: a doxer should be minimising the overall harm caused by his action. That is: the doxee’s continued anonymity is more harmful than their exposure. I think it’s pretty easy to see that more good than harm comes from doxing Ricky Vaughn. One’s identity should back up one’s statements if they are assailing the honour of another person. A lemma of this fact is that when one defames another person publicly, they risk a stain on their own reputation. The practice of double standards (i.e.: backing up seedy shysters and banning truth seekers on your shitty forum to mould opinion in your favour) is repulsive to any honourable person and it should be exposed. There ought to be consequences for alliances, there is no other way to build a good dictatorship hierarchy.

We Strive Towards Indifference in the Face of Fame and Infamy

You are free to act, but you’re not free of the consequences of your actions. If you’re going to act like a fuckwit, you’d better have a damned good reason for it. If all you do is obsess over “movement optics”, don’t be surprised when someone does some “optical analysis” of their own on you.

I would have been happy to just ignore the dweeb Vaughn but asswipes like Gregulator seem to want to force people to take a side. Well, I’m on the side of smart people who have the compassion to govern. I’m against those emotional trainwrecks who think politics exists to pad their wallets or stroke their massive egos while they peddle neo-bolshevism.

dugin nazbol young
fuck off, pinko scum

Where is the Line Drawn?

While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to force those opinions onto others. The day I take orders from a faceless, nameless online account is the day my brain takes a permanent vacation. Ricky Vaughn can fuck right off. Anyone who disagrees with me can fuck right off, especially Grinder Greg. This is unironically the future he wants:

the state apparatus isn’t a vehicle for your disgusting fetishes, Greg.

The Future is Personality Cults

In my past life, I strictly condemned false religious preachers, why would I stop now? Some dumbzos say that this is “punching right”. It’s not. Since I have a high standard, I can hold others to that standard and it’s not hypocritical. I help others become smarter and better people, thus minor pains experienced their egos reformatted is certainly worth it in the grand scheme of things. A fat anonymous slob hiding behind a groyper avatar with the support of a bot army does not have a standard worthy of judging others. He does not deserve a “personality cult”. You should not have a personality cult if you are anonymous.

The structure of society has always been a tapestry of personality cults. Sri Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Adi Shankara and many others all shaped the societies they influenced through the mechanism of their personality. This is why each individual must choose the personality they want to follow. This will inform everything about their decision making process from morality to logic and beyond. The only logical personality cult to follow is the one which is most God-like. We cannot know what is God-like without first performing inquisition and we will not be able to craft an optimal society if we are not free to criticise those that defy the protocols of the God-like cult. Thus the logical position is that no individual person can never fully embody the God-cult and thus it is the duty of all persons to combine their energies to create it together. Thus the person that best embodies the God-cult should lead it but the cult itself must always be open to improvement, when such arguments are offered in good faith. Anything short of this causes a slow degradation into individualism (“muh cult’s better than yours!”), which causes a loss of God-knowledge, which causes atheism and general spiritual decay. The future is personality cults. Either join one or start one if none suits your fancy. But stop denying the central role of religion in public life. Please. Just stop.


Individualists become morose nihilists by denying the natural hierarchy of nature and seekers gain knowledge about the natural hierarchy. This knowledge serves as a vehicle for the attainment of desires all the way to the realisation of the final desire: the desire for the cessation of suffering. I have explored this idea previously when I discussed the logical flaw of individualism. In that piece, I attempted to demonstrate how no one can truly be an individual unless one has internalised the fundamental node of the God personality. In this piece, I have tried to demonstrate that actions cannot be separated from intentions and that considerations of harm are complex and must be conferred central importance by those accepted as priests.

Thank you.

Commentary on Recent “Vice” Sharticles

I was recently drawn to two sharticles (racists are taking over atheism & muh racist pagans) on Vice in the manner common folk are drawn to the scene of a car wreck. Let’s have a look!

From the “muh racist pagans” sharticle:

Russian mystic Helena Petrovna Blavatsky is one figure whose race-related writings from the late-1800s continue to be controversial. According to Gregorius, her idea was that humanity evolved from several “root races.” “The most famous interpreters of a more racist [view] of Blavatsky’s ideas about ‘root races’ are German Austrian esoteric writers [of the early 1900s] like Guido List and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, who is often seen as the primary founder of Ariosophy, a development of Theosophy that saw the Aryan race as divine.” Blavatsky’s work is also admired by modern racists like Tony Hovater, the “Nazi sympathizer next door,” who was profiled by the New York Times in 2017 and worked as an organizer for the recently disbanded Traditionalist Worker Party. 

Blavatsky, the poster child of feminist Yoga, is somehow the spiritual inspiration of someone in the TWP.

mfw people still follow Theosophy

I don’t know how this happened but I think it’s safe to say that whatever goodness that initially existed within the Theosophical Society has been greatly eroded in favour of some pseudo-communistic hogwash about equality.

Dame Blavatsky, who has been thoroughly discredited and disproven over 100 years ago, cannot be said to represent any type of “Pagan” (let alone Yogic) tradition.

The Vice article promotes Blavatsky as a core figure in Paganism because they don’t want people to discover the Truth about native traditional faiths.

Screen Shot 2018-04-03 at 6.00.45 PM.png
… not suspicious at all

The teachings of the Theosophy Cult have been used in numerous aspects of modern ideology and give an excellent example of why people with no background in traditional teachings should not attempt to interpret Vedanta. This word means “the ending of Knowledge” and since people with no link to the teachings do not even have the “beginning of Knowledge” (& must be initiated by a master before they can start the learning process), it’s pretty laughable to think they could jump straight to the end. People who do this remind me of children dressed up in mom’s pumps with lipstick smeared all over their face playing “grown up”.

You’re not fooling anyone.

The atheism article is somehow more retarded than the Paganism one. Here is a quote:

“Some have argued that the mere fact of being an atheist does not obligate one to denounce Spencer, because atheism is not a belief system and Spencer is not a figure within the atheist movement, so his position in relation to the average atheist is different from the position of an average Christian in relation to a bigoted Christian leader.”


This sheer idiocy proves that “denouncement” is central to whatever cult “Vice” / atheism represents. The good news is I think they’ve denounced everyone by now, all that remains is for us to denounce them and we can get on with the business of spiritual teaching.

One’s lifestyle practice should not revolve around “denouncements”. One should seek to foster a good community through righteous actions, not exclude anyone who does not conform dogmatically to demented behavioural protocols. Yet this is how both the controlled cults of atheism & paganism are run. People should not be surprised that these movements are rejected by common folk. With extreme prejudice.

Deniers of Race have a Saviour Complex

When one seeks to deny facts about race and biology, one will find nothing but opposition in common folk. Since these communistic antagonists thrive in environments of conflict, they always fuel their own victimhood narratives by setting themselves up as proponents of “social justice”. Since justice needs no qualification, “social justice” must, by its very definition, represent an injustice – everything which is not perfect justice has some amount of injustice.

Screen Shot 2018-04-03 at 5.52.48 PM
who wouldn’t LOVE social justice?

Generally, people are good (empathy gives compassion for the suffering of others and thus a desire to decrease this suffering – this is good, in theory) and will spontaneously move to stop actions which are (perceived to be) unjust. Thus those promoting social justice can set up various businesses to extort money from this spontaneous good work. This gives a constant source of money (through motivation to oppose their evil) for those who identify as perpetual victims and a depressing descent into unadulterated chaos for everyone else.

We can see this article is creating a new “enemy” for those afflicted with perpetual victim neurosis: “racists”. I dislike this word a lot, and never want to use it. I wish no one used it. It is the same as every other false slander term: it promotes victim-blaming & prevents healing. I hope people will start contemplating better words than this one. The label “Racist” conflates truth seekers with bigots and therefore is not a word I would allow under dictatorship. While we accept the importance of freedom of speech in influencing freedom of thought and the importance of freedom of thought in the acquisition of Knowledge, we also accept the need to ban the promotion of false ideologies, because they actively undermine the ability of common folk to realise Knowledge.

Since the social justice cult has no rational/knowledge basis, only an emotional one, devotees of this cult equate their submission to PC protocols with their personal honour (what is referred to as “virtue signalling”). Onlookers grow ever more incredulous as increasingly obscene violations of causality are espoused, until the final maximum Entropy state of total nervous breakdown is reached. Whatever cult that is, it’s not traditional religion: it’s a flat out denial of objective reality.



Rather than fight me, people ought to look within themselves and embrace the final frontier of Knowledge: the mind. Before one can become cognisant of the deeper processes of the mind, one must eschew all false beliefs. All experience must wash over us without arousing denial. The cult of Social Justice is all about denial (of justice), so there can be no common ground with those practitioners of Truth Religion.

We must recall that the opinion of the sycophant matters little. No matter how many defamatory articles I have to rebut, and no matter how many idiots try to slow me down, I won’t stop saying the Truth.

Suck it, Vice!

Another Look at Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

I just perused the Wikipedia article discussing the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem again and I found it to be very confusing. It is summarised as follows:

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic systemcontaining basic arithmetic.

If someone is less confused by the Gödel proof than anything I’ve written, I’d be extremely shocked. Yet the Incompleteness Theorem is invoked to win arguments ranging from “God is the source of Truth” (Peterson, 2017) to “no grand unified field theory is possible” (Quora, 2017) to moral nihilism. These are some pretty big claims. Such claims arouse suspicion that is further fueled by my already having demonstrated Gödel to be a shitbag.

While limitations on possibilities must be imposed via axioms to ensure that causality (that effects follow causes) applies, but the limitations implied by the Incompleteness proofs simply do not correspond to physical reality.

What is the Incompleteness Theorem, Anyway?

This theorem hinges on two main ideas:

  1. That there exists an injective map between true statements and a finite sequence of prime numbers.
  2. Since for any finite prime number: N, there exists a prime number which is larger than it: M. It thus follows that even though M is a prime number, we cannot determine the truth of the statement that M is a prime number while we are in N.

Though both statements are false, #2 deals the death blow to the proof. This is because the set of all true statements cannot be effectively mapped into a set of prime numbers. This is because there is a physical limit to the number of true statements, but there is not a limit to the number of prime numbers. That is: the basis of true statements (the set of true statements which can be used to build all other true statements, in a manner identical to the formation of arbitrary vectors from a basis), is finite. The number of true statements associated with this truth basis is infinite, but all true statements originate from the finite truth basis. The size of the truth basis is not arbitrary, as the Gödel proof suggests.

We cannot arbitrarily construct truth bases ad infinitum. There exists a single true reality which can be modelled in multiple ways, but which ultimately converges to a supreme, unique truth. This supreme truth can be seen in the Measurement Limit. In other words, any true formal system that parametrises the Universe accurately will be computationally equivalent to the original formulation of the Measurement Limit, namely that there exist 3+1 (R4) spacetime dimensions embedded in a 14 dimensional electric potential (R14).

All true statements are determined by the actions of {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy} acting on the waveforms {neutron, proton, electron, photon and thus are limited to the possible results these actions can give.

If we accept that the Universe is the set of all sets of spacetime events and that all spacetime events must conform to the Measurement Limit, then it seems to follow that a finite axiomatic structure could indeed prove all truths in a system: namely my system proving all truths in the Universe. Since the zero spacetime event exists (nothingness) and that the sum of two spacetime events is a spacetime event, that the universe is a linear subspace of spacetime events closed under the operation of addition.

We must be careful to distinguish between the ideas of computations and axiomatic representations of systems. The former is defined by the very notion of causality (namely that an effect cannot precede its cause) and the latter relies on arbitrary implementations of logic. Gödel’s logic implies that the effect (the n+1st prime number) can belong to a different class of statements (statements for which the truth value cannot be determined) than its cause(s) (true statements).

This violates the structure of causality.

Gödel’s Flaw

The idea that successive true statements are not generated by previous true statements contradicts a very well-known means of performing mathematical proofs called induction. It is an accepted method of proof which generalises a formula upon the basis that if a statement is true for the nth term, then it is true for the (n+1)st term.

We can do proofs by induction because the thing which determines truth is built into the structure of numbers. Simply put: numbers have ordering: given 2 different numbers, I can always tell which one is larger. This is not arbitrary.

The Universe is thus computationally equivalent to a 4 dimensional vector space of spacetime events, which is closed under the operation of addition (which the Gödel sentences are not). The axiom allows for the possibility of mapping true statements onto prime numbers also prevents that map from generating a vector subspace (which must be closed under addition)) which prevents the map from being applicable to reality, which has been shown to be computationally equivalent to a vector subspace (of spacetime events).

Thus of the set of systems to which the Incompleteness Theorem applies does not include the Universe. Since subsets of the Universe still obey the law of causality, it follows that the Incompleteness Theorem can apply to no subset of the Universe. Thus it follows that the Incompleteness Theorem is useless.

Generating Prime Numbers

(From Wikipedia) Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic. […] The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

We have argued that the system of Universal causality is consistent (possessing a single axiom, namely: causality), can be listed as an effective procedure (by the Fourfold Action Model) and is itself capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of numbers. Thus we have conclusively disproven the first incompleteness theorem by way of a counterexample.

We will next show how finite subsets of prime numbers cannot be mapped onto the set of true statements. This is because a finite set of true statements exists, which forms a basis of all possible true statements, which form a vector space of spacetime events closed under the operation of addition, are limited by causality and the Measurement Limit and governed by the fourfold actions of {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}. No true statements are excluded from this class and all true statements are caused by these primary truths. Thus the set of axioms is finite and the set of true statements is infinite. The set of true statements can therefore not have the same cardinality as a finite set of prime numbers (which the Incompleteness theorem relies on).

We show that the nth prime number can be used to compute the n+1st prime number by means of an effective procedure. This will effectively demonstrate that the truth value of the n+1st prime number is dependent on the truth value of the nth prime number and thus cannot be part of a different class of numbers.

Prime Number Generator

Next we will show that an effective procedure exists which can generate the n+1th prime number, given the nth prime number, showing that the metaphor of Gödel does not even satisfy his own requirements. Let’s have a look at what an effective method is:

A method is formally called effective for a class of problems when it satisfies these criteria:

  • It consists of a finite number of exact, finite instructions.
  • When it is applied to a problem from its class:
    • It always finishes (terminates) after a finite number of steps.
    • It always produces a correct answer.
  • In principle, it can be done by a human without any aids except writing materials.
  • Its instructions need only to be followed rigorously to succeed. In other words, it requires no ingenuity to succeed.[3]


(This pseudocode could be implemented into Matlab or similar)


a prime number: m
p = false (we have not found the prime number yet)


the next prime number: n, which we start counting at m.
initial condition: n = m.


n = m
p = false

while (p = false) %code will iterate while the state of p is false

{ k = m %  designate the initial value of the counting index as the given prime number
n = n + 1 % increase the value of n by 1

while (k – 1 >= 0) %loop will end once all factors of n have been evaluated


if (k – 1 = 0)
% if all possible factors of n have been explored and no factors of n have been found

{return num(n) is a prime number
p = true}

else {
% if possible factors of n have not been been explored

if {(n mod k) = 0

return num (k) is a factor of n
f = true
factors = [k, n / k)]
k = 1 %end the loop because a factor has been found}

else {
%if we have not yet reached a factor of n, then we decrease k by 1, thus k will diminish all the way to 1 until the first if() condition is true when n is prime

k = k -1}




Thus we have expressed an effective procedure which will generate the (n+1)st prime number from the nth prime number. By the nature of computations on the set of natural numbers, the truth value of future prime numbers depends on pre-existing primes in a manner which can be deduced using an effective procedure.

In physical reality, the number of statements which are truly true (not based on some previous true statement) is very low. These  fundamental truths are the axioms of the Fourfold Action Model. The axioms are of causality, fourfold action (4 action potentials) and fourfold waveform (only neutrons, protons, electrons and photons exist). Since all true statements can be derived from these core truths, no true statements exist which are not derivative of these prime truths. Thus all systems bound by causality are homeomorphic (a continuous bijection exists between the sets) to linear subspaces [of spacetime events, or more generally: actions] closed under addition subject to fourfold actions & fourfold waveforms, not arbitrary collections of finite sized sets.

Redditors are Idiots

Update – A Rebuttal!

Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 10.16.58 AM
not an argument

Wow, how insightful! Amazing amazing brilliant argument. I guess that means the Incompleteness Theorem is true now!

Update 2 – New Anti-Proof of Crappy Incompleteness Theorem

Note to the Haters

You’re a huge minority. The “silent majority” loves me. It is very obvious from the feedback on Reddit that all my media coverage so far has received.

reddit jennifer scharf perfect optics.jpg

So if you’re anti-me, you’ll have to deal with the fact that basically everyone disagrees with you. Most likely, you’re such an annoying canker sore that they care so little about your piddly opinion that they can’t be bothered to oppose you. But it is my duty to oppose purveyors of falsehood wherever they manifest. Most people like getting knowledge from me, but when your ego has swelled to a cancerous polyp on the anus of causality, it can hurt to get the treatment. But it’s still way better than dying.

Original Article

I got banned from the “bad math” subreddit after I responded to the second post they made about my media empire there.

Never mind that most of the commenters were ridiculing me, they still felt justified to ban me from posting on the sub because I “only wanted to insult people”.

It seems we have another case of “dish-it-out-but-can’t-take-it”-itis that is so common amongst leftists.


I learned about Reddit when an article I was featured in was shared in 7 subreddits in 2015. I had a lot of fun with that experience. That was when I decided to start my religious outreach organisation. Even though I had previously been opposed to starting a religion, I felt that the despair and lack of religiosity in my home culture (Ottawa, Canada) justified it. (Also, “atheists” are really annoying people. So I troll them with Church of Entropy).

Though many supported me when my stretching class was unjustly cancelled the redditors did not really understand the context of the circumstances. People were more interested in defending the hypothesis that Yoga isn’t cultural appropriation than the truth of the matter. People wrote news articles, social media posts and blogs. The tremendous lack of insight can be summarised in the following quote from a website called “Women of Grace” (cringe).

While some argue that cultural appropriation doesn’t apply to the modern yoga movement, others disagree and say that anytime we take something from another tradition and fashion it into something that we call our own, we are misappropriating someone else’s culture and/or, in this case, beliefs.

Because both options are incorrect, this is a false duality. The truth is that some forms of cultural sharing are non-offensive. Others are not. Indeed, if “cultural appropriation” as a pejorative applies to anything, it’s Yoga in the “West”. There are scarcely any white people with anything remotely close to the experience required to undertake the path of Yoga, much less be experts on the subject (see for instance: a crypto-marxist “Yoga” blogger covering the cancellation of my class).

You know your culture is degenerate when people care less about offending the Yogic Tradition than they do about eating burritos. Nice job, leftists.

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 5.59.59 PM.png
are you retarded?

The thought process here seems to be that if one abstainins from benign forms of cultural exchange (such as breaded beans), then the significant forms of cultural abuse can be ignored. This logic stems from the idea that man can rewrite the moral code according to personal whim, which stems from the idea of moral relativism. I have on numerous occasions stated that if morality exists, then it is absolute: if it is relative, it doesn’t exist. Since many of us have an inborn sense of intuitive justice and this sense of justice is shared amongst all of those practicing natural religions, we have pretty solid evidence that objective morality exists, since it is serving as our compass. We can furthermore solve the moral relativism quandary by rejecting it in its entirety and accepting that the morality that would put forth the notion of moral relativism is itself: inferior to the morality that seeks to rule benevolently. Moral relativism is an individualistic ideology: its appeal lies in the idea that you can talk yourself out of taking responsibility for the evil acts you commit. It doesn’t matter how you rationalise your degeneracy, the external standard of moral justice doesn’t lower itself to your whims.

One’s current state of mind is influenced primarily by one’s previous actions, we can say that bad actions make us worse people. Thus moral relativism causes moral decay because believing in the validity of moral relativism makes you more likely to practice it in the future. Thus the redditors, though well intentioned, did not represent valour by presuming the Western “practice” of Yoga was not offensive. It most certainly is. Just because there aren’t worldwide Yogic anti-defamation organisations trawling the Internet to get you banned from social media for claiming you are a Yoga master because reasons or that you are fit to teach because you are enlightened by your own intelligence does not mean these acts are acceptable.

In my opinion, there is nothing more offensive than whites posing as “yogic masters”.

furor teutonicus.png
your degeneracy offends the honour of your ancestors!!!

By focusing on virtue signalling vis a vis hysteria over minutia, the PC-devotee prevents spiritual healing/progression from taking place because they refuse to look at things honestly. By choosing virtue signalling over real virtue, you are basically saying that you don’t mind if others suffer, as long as no one thinks your public image doesn’t suffer.

That is the redditor in a nutshell.

The Quantum Mind: Why False Ideologies Fail

We must remember that the nature of our mind is quantum mechanical and operates on the principle of eigenstate reduction (see: Copenhagen Interpretation #3). That is: you are not equal to your thoughts, they are part of your mind (eigenstates). When you think, you reduce your conscious waveform to an eigenstate [a particular thought]. That is where free will comes in: you choose your thoughts from a pre-existing basis of thoughts. Your thoughts then evolve based on the frequency of each thought experienced. In short: if you choose a bad thought, that bad thought causes an impression. The sum of impressions determines the mental landscape which in turn determines the range of potential thoughts.

The bi-directional quantum feedback loop is tacit to the thought process. It is:

  1. The Quantum Mind (consciousness) chooses thoughts from a pre-existing basis of possible thoughts.
  2. The pre-existing basis of possible thoughts is determined by the sum total of stimulus the Quantum Mind has meaningfully internalised information from.

The question of what exactly is free will can thus be satisfactorily defined as:

  • The average total number of distinguishable possible thoughts per stimulus.

Some people will have a very small free will, others will be very large. It all depends on the level of attainment one has achieved in perfecting one’s mind/body for such a task.

Both the original thoughts and the choice of which thought to think determine the future states of the quantum mind. The choice is made on the time-scale of 5-10 seconds whereas the thoughts can take years and even lifetimes to form completely. Thus the mind is a biological-quantum mechanical feedback loop with causes that exist on multiple orders of temporal magnitude. [note: This fact has led several people to mistakenly draw the conclusion that linear time is an illusion. This is of course: false. What is true is that there are 2 canonically conjugate measurement spaces: the manifest and the unmanifest (what some have named “physical” & “metaphysical: a dichotomy I am ambivalent towards). The measurement space of {space, time} is canonically conjugate to the measurement space of {Entropy, Information}. Time only explicitly exists in one of those realms and thus we can see how someone might conclude that “is nawt rael”. This is however, not the case.]

venn diagram periodic table jpg
Challenge: What is MORE real than time?

The sum total of bad thoughts turned bad ideas turned bad ideologies turned minds of poor quality discernment is the bad karma associated with being made to look like a mental midget, as a collective, by an individual who esteems your intellectual protocols so lowly that she intentionally violates them every chance she gets. It also leads to looking like the loser that sits on their ass watching Dr. Phil and getting an air of superiority because “at least I’m not that degenerate!”. Voyeurism at its worst. You’ve been sitting on your armchair philosophising so long that you’ve completely lost touch with reality!

Thinking you can change the course of the world by writing some words on a blog that your basement dwelling BFF’s virtually high five you for in the most reverberant echo chamber on the Internet is misguided. No one ever had an impact by “going with the flow” of an unjust system. And when justice finally does assert itself, you look all the worse. Justice illuminates all things, that is its power. It yields for no man, spares no illusion and takes no prisoners. You can’t hide on Reddit. You can’t hide anywhere.

The Comments

Usually, when someone disagrees with a hypothesis held by a rival, they will assert a counterhypothesis. The practice of endless criticism may feel intellectually virtuous, but if you are not driving at some underlying wisdom, you are just going to burn yourself out. Discernment, the root of criticism, is hot. Heat is required for light and for focus, but when taken to extremes, it causes anger, aggressiveness, hatred, obsession and possibly a full-on nervous breakdown. Thus if you want to criticise, you should also have a very good argument to substantiate a counterhypothesis – criticism on its own is discouraging at best and counterproductive at worst.

The stupidest comments are the ones mining for proof I am a “neo-nazi”.

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 6.46.29 PM
mental illness speaks.

These plebs are so smart and virtuous that they would feel perfectly justified to ruin my life and reputation, so long as they can get some cheap laughs out of it! I think these people are really deranged. They are in dire need of legitimate mental health therapy.

Redditors: get out of your echo chamber: you sound ridiculous.

To Summarise

If you focus on impure things, you become a shitbag. Which may have no consequences for a long time. But when your chickens come home to roost, you’re going to have a no-good very-bad time and I’ll be laughing at you.


The Fermi Paradox (Aliens!)

The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all. We will see in this article why it is perfectly plausible that alien life exists elsewhere in the Universe and why aliens have never (and likely will never) come to our planet. In order to understand this, we must examine 2 ideas: the requisite conditions for life and the maximum efficacy of engines.

The Requisite Conditions for Life

All you need for life to be unavoidable is surface water and a satellite large enough to bind this water to the surface and sufficient proximity to the nearest star to liquefy the water. Together, these ingredients create a heat vortex on the surface of the planet which eventually gives rise to life, simply because any system tends to equilibrium and the equilibrial state is the one where the rate of change of the system is zero. That means the system will spontaneously reconfigure to be able to keep the system at a more stable temperature, which means that solar energy has nowhere to go but chemical bonds. Chemical bonds gradually become more complex until a self-replicating organism (such as RNA / DNA) self-assembles, at which point life is permanently seeded.

Read More Here:

Could Aliens Come Here?

Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth. In a Universe of 14 energetic dimensions, humans can construct ideas which are up to 11 dimensions in size. This suggests that as an organism, we are nearing the universal limit of intellectual capacity. Thus if aliens are smarter than us, they would have brains that could generate objects which were up to 14 dimensions in size: the universal limit.

Indeed, life, wherever it arises, will be limited by the Measurement Limit. Advanced consciousness happens only in more complex life, because the consciousness is a subset of the total electric field of the body, which itself is generated by the total caloric intake.  Thus those beings capable of manifesting the consciousness required to create a spaceship capable of interstellar travel would have to have a high caloric requirement.

This presents a problem for continued survival aboard a spaceship because of the high mass of the food that would need to be brought along for the trip. Even Saturn, which is very close to us, relatively speaking (it is in our Solar System) is 1 400 000 000 kilometres away. The fastest land craft ever created was able to travel at 1227 km/h. At this speed, it would take 1140994 hours or 130 years to reach Saturn. The fastest rocket would get you there at 75639 km/h in about 2.11 years. Even this is hardly a small feat, because we would need to bring aboard enough food to feed the astronauts for all this time. If you just went there and came right back, it would still take over 4 years! How are you going to fit all that food / fuel onto the ship!?

We already know that there is no complex life elsewhere in the Solar System, and we also know that the next closest Solar System: Proxima Centauri is 4.22 light years away. The fastest human-made rocket would only get there in 60 253 years! We cannot even guarantee that the Earth biomass can create the amount of food required for such a journey.

In fact, we cannot even guarantee humans will persist on Earth another 60 000 years!

These facts may seem inconsequential to the reality of aliens, but we must recall that these hypothetical aliens are still bound by the same causality laws that we are. That means that they would have to travel all the way to our Solar System to be able to physically land on Earth. We can see based on the math above that this scenario is implausible.

But Muh Superior Alien Technology!

Aliens would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. They would not be able to build an engine which is more efficient than a Carnot engine, which can be proven to be the most efficient engine using Entropy alone. These aliens would face the same issues with keeping their biomass alive in space as we would. In fact, if they were indeed intellectually superior, their caloric demands would be even higher than ours!

The Hypothesis of Greatest Probability

In our religion, we examine all possibilities and then evaluate the explanation of highest probability. This is similar to the idea of Occam’s razor: if a simpler explanation exists, we favour it. If no evidence supports an hypothesis, we reject it. If those purveyors of an indirectly validated hypothesis are not credible, we also reject it.

The hypothesis of greatest likelihood is that there are indeed U.F.O.’s but that these are human technology or meteors. Any “abductions” are either attention-seeking fantasies or they are done by humans. Aliens are not physically present on Earth because of interstellar distances which are insurmountable to complex living organisms. Given the size of the Universe however, we can be pretty much guaranteed that life will arise somewhere. Namely: anywhere where a sufficient body of water is gravitationally bound to a planet by a satellite at a sufficient proximity to liquefy at least some of the water. Note that life arose at approximately the same time as the planet did (some 4 Billion years ago), and so it doesn’t take long for life to arise once the proper ingredients are there. How complex life is on any given planet depends on how much time (and therefore how much solar energy has been absorbed by the biome) has passed since the planet was created. Note that planets are created by Stars and Stars are created by Neutron Stars, as evidenced here.

Thank you.