J.F. Gariépy Goes Off The Deep End

N.B.: Don’t accuse me of punching right. No one is more “right” than I am in that I am right about everything. Debates are part of my tradition and instead of crying like a little bitch with a skinned knee, either challenge me in a debate or shut your useless fucking pie hole.

Another incredible instance of peak idiocy is the atheist J.F. Gariépi making the claim that the mind is not a quantum computer. He got really emotional over it, which is never a sign that one’s words are underscored by true wisdom (around the one hour mark in the video below).

He states two main reasons that I will debunk here. Then I will further substantiate the quantum mind hypothesis.

It’s not a Quantum Computer Because Quantum Computers are Bullshitte

Well, first of all, I think the people over at D-link might disagree with you on that, since they actually built a working quantum computer. So, probably all those people who have already used the D-link QC to perform optimisations in their technology might disagree with you.


The Mind Can’t be a QC Because of the Correspondence Principle

The correspondence principle is not factually true, but rather is an ad hoc assumption introduced around the time of the Copenhagen Interpretation to bridge the gap between what was called “Classical Physics” and the newly discovered “Quantum Mechanics”, which was only validated on very small systems at the time. For instance, the single slit electron diffraction experiment proved that the position an electron is measured (at a screen) changes when a sufficiently small slit is placed in its path. I explained how that works here:

The correspondence principle is obviously false, because it is very clear that quantum mechanical effects happen on all orders of magnitude. This is counterintuitive to grasp at first, because we live in a world where the three spatial dimensions appear to be distinct. Thus, we are also inclined to believe that solids also exist and so the laws of classical physics (which apply to solids) must exclusively apply on our scale.

This is an extremely facile understanding of science. Is the Sun operating based on quantum mechanical principles? It’s very big, yet it undergoes fusion: a quantum mechanical process. Lightning is also a quantum mechanical discharge, and it occurs on our scale of magnification. Most extant phenomena are indeed: quantum phenomena.

What is a Quantum Computer Anyway?

Rather than jumping to asinine conclusions, one should first inquire what exactly is a quantum computer? Well, a computer is a system which effectuates computations/calculations and a quantum system is one that exhibits the properties of:

Since the mind is able to interpret its own eigenstates (you understand what you are thinking/feeling/sensing), we impose upon the quantum mind the additional requirement of coherence. This means specifically that: the eigenstates of the mind are coherent with the quantum mind itself. Thus the quantum mind hypothesis makes the predictions of entanglement, unitarity, locality and coherence. We note that locality is not always the case, as noted in experiments where staring into someone’s eyes for 10 minutes alters their state of consciousness, which means the mind must be somewhat nonlocal. For if it were localised exclusively inside the body, it would not be able to coherently interfere with (and thus would not be able to create measurable changes in) the consciousness of others.

There are only two choices: either the mind is a quantum computer or it is not. If it is not, and since it performs computations, it must be some other type of computer. And since the only options are physical and quantum computers, the mind is either computationally equivalent to a physical computer OR a quantum computer.

The mind as a physical computer has been disproven by many experiments, including when it was established that the alleged SSRI mechanism (of improving the intersynaptic serotonin uptake) was disproven. Now they admit they have no idea how they work (probably because they don’t).

We don’t know how it works! LMFAO.

Consider a person with brain damage. They do not lose a chunk of their personality, it merely becomes dulled. This means that attributes of personality are not stored in the brain but rather that the entire brain simultaneously projects the consciousness and that the event of brain damage lessens the intensity/clarity of the quantum mind, but it does not change its essential nature. That’s because the CNS is comprised of “qbits” (postulated to be sustained in microtubules by Dr. Stuart Hameroff on his website but which I will not endorse until I can look at the data myself), all projecting a very faint quantum mind but together forming the totality of human consciousness.

It’s pretty stupid to think that the mind isn’t a quantum computer since we can directly observe the electric field the body projects (which is a singular entity) and many science experiments yield data that could only be explained with a quantum computer.

Did somebody say: entanglement?

It’s Not What You Know, It’s What You Can Prove

The mind as a physical computer is not an hypothesis which makes accurate predictions. Consider this: is your personality divisible? Are you equal to a linear combination of personality traits or are you simply: one personality? If you agree that your personality is indivisible, and given that quantum mechanics deals with quanta or INDIVISIBLE entities, you must agree that the mind is: a quantum computer.

A quantum computer is a potential function from which observations are made. In the case of the human consciousness, those observations fall into the broad categories of {thoughts, emotions, sensations}. These are thus the eigenstates of the quantum mind. Eigenstates are the set of possible measurements observed in a QM system. Thus the mind must be a quantum computer.

The quantum mind hypothesis makes all predictions about the mind. It explains why we dream, what happens when we die, how memories form, brain injury pathology, and many more.

While We’re On the Subject

I want to mention a few things that bother me about J.F., since he went so nuts about one of the central tenets of my theory, I figure a punch back is only fitting.

Your Phenotypic Revolution isn’t Revolutionary

You claim a phenotypic revolution enslaved simpler replicators for the purpose of reproduction, but you can only cite one such instance of said enslavement. Why have there been no other instances in the totality of the genetic record? Why do you claim we are at risk of becoming slaves to some completely unsubstantiated fantasy about machines taking over our reproduction process?

You have an incomplete understanding of genetics because you do not accept reincarnation and thus have made the same error as the other atheist Richard “I’m so cool” Dawkins.

dawkins atheist infinity loop
what a baboon

You have presumed that genetics are the cause of the soul, when it is actually the soul that is the cause of genetics. The soul incarnates to a body (at the same time the foetus’ heart starts beating) and subsequently polarises the genetic substratum to match its nature. That explains why siblings have different personalities (something your crap theory fails to predict)

Can you explain why genetic changes don’t happen continuously, but rather step-wise and sometimes not at all? Your theory cannot explain living fossils, it cannot explain the recent finding that 90% of Earth’s animals appeared at the same time, it cannot predict the future of our own human evolution, because it is simply not based on truth!

…So it’s starting to look like Creationism has more merit than your “theory”

You Don’t Understand Race

You once claimed that the number of racial groups is arbitrary because all you’d have to do is change the phenotypic markers used to designate race. I have seldom heard anything so laughably stupid in my life! What is true is that although you can parametrise race in an arbitrary number of ways, only one way is correct. And the correct racial parametrising is equal to the one which correctly identifies which groups became geographically isolated from each other and did not significantly interbreed for enough time as to precipitate genetic divergence.

nelson mandela chinese
Your superficiality has made you blind to the reality of race

You are probably wondering if I understand race. The answer is: I understand a lot more than what is on this blog right now, but I don’t divulge everything I know publicly for a few reasons:

  1. I have no way of mitigating the potential harm this knowledge could do.
  2. I need leverage against the communists who want to kill everyone with an IQ greater than potato salad and enslave the rest.
  3. I don’t want anyone copying my results (again) and passing them off as their own.

But rest assured, I can answer all of your questions. You might not like the answer, and I will never condone one “race” as categorically superior or inferior to another because superiority goes beyond race. It is an accomplishment of the soul. While it is good to celebrate one’s culture, we must never do it to the detriment of other cultures nor can we rest exclusively on the laurels of previous “accomplishments” of a particular race: that’s what our enemies do.

Eschew Charlatans, Trust Your Own Judgement

Just because someone is telling you something you want to hear, does not mean they are telling you the truth. Truth must be fundamental to our governmental strategies, because that is the only way we (and by we I mean humanity) can survive. We have seen unfathomable decay in the world caused by the fundamentally untrue system of fiat extortion, which has only been around since the 1600s, and has caused immense poverty and unjust enrichment

central banks

and associated unnatural government system of “democracy”, which has never done anything but deceive the masses and enrich the most evil people you can imagine.

illusion-free-choice sheep democracy.png
No one votes in a dictatorship

The human race is at a crossroads where we must decide if we will demand that our governments will be guided by the principles of truth (not anecdotes that support delusions of racial superiority). Though I do not deny race, I absolutely refuse to make claims about one race’s superiority to another. Even if it were true, all it does is make people complacent. Excellence is demonstrated through ACTIONS, it is not inherited from your ancestors for you to do sweet fuck all with, insult traditional scholars online and then proceed to masturbate in front of a mirror like a dilettante piece of filth.

Thank you.

The Universe is NOT a Simulation and Mike Cernovich is a monkey.

I have previously demonstrated that the Universe is not a simulation (link). In spite of this revelation, the monkey: Mike Thernovich, who tells his followers to behave as gorillas has recently claimed otherwise. The video below can be summarised as follows: “uuuga boooga, we are living in a simulation!”.

Thernovich is an irritating baboon who makes politically motivated videos even though he claims to hate covering politics and that “life was so much better before Trump”.

mike cernovich leaves social media.png
cernovich neutropics delusional
he also unironically sells blue pills.

Why Do People Believe the Universe is a Simulation?

Electric car maker turned flamethrower merchant & intellectual wannabe Elon Musk himself admitted that he hoped the universe was a simulation because “then we could reset it”. As surprising as this may be to some people, the Universe actually doesn’t give a shit about what you want. It’s rules are fixed and cannot be changed. Laws of physics are precisely that: laws. They are without exception or they are not laws.

Let’s have a look at the underpinnings of the idea that the Universe is a simulation:

  1. It has zero supporting evidence.
  2. It can be disproven using the measurement limit.

Since we have already proven that the Universe is all there is (by definition), if it were simulated, that would mean something existed outside of it that was the “simulator”. The simulator would have to be more complex than the Universe itself. It would have to be more complex because it would need to contain all the data about the Universe plus all of the metadata (data about how the universe works). If it is more complex, it follows that it must be larger, so as to be able to hold all of that information. So, where exactly is this unfathomably large simulator supposed to be? We have no evidence that such a simulator exists, we have only evidence that our own Universe exists.

The Mind is a Simulation

It is easy (?) to imagine that people might think our universe is a simulation because our minds are a simulation. Our body is a physical system which projects our mind, and so the latter is technically a simulation. The causality of consciousness is confusing because it inverts between life and death. Before birth, the mind is magnetically attracted to the body which is best suited to bring about its desires. Thus, in this sense, the mind is the cause of the body. However, when alive, the body projects the mind and thus the body is the cause of the mind in this sense. The mind also causes changes to happen to the body, because it is the chooser of what modifications are made to the body (though this happens on a much longer timescale). Thus the mind is the primal cause of the body and there exists a bi-causal feedback loop manifested on different timescales. The body causes small time scale changes to the mind (for instance, the mind changes as a result of stimuli conveyed to it by the body) and the mind causes large time scale change to the body. This is hardly self-evident.

Some people also like the idea of multiple / parallel universes. This is also a hoax. The measurement limit conclusively proves that nothing outside of our 3+1 dimensional universe can exist. It is as impossible as the existence of a 119th element: it will not happen because it cannot happen. Let’s just focus on the universe we know exists, that is complicated enough!

Thank you.


Aryan Invasion Nonsense


I have not yet devoted an article to the Aryan Invasion Theory because I feel it is beneath me to even acknowledge such obvious quackery. No traditionally accepted scholars have ever promoted this theory and it has always been promoted for nefarious reasons. Nefarious reasons like equating white skin to nobility and parasitically posing as a member of the priest class (I wonder who could be behind that… whoops no I don’t because I’m not an idiot).

What are you going to tell me next? Europeans invented Sanskrit? STUPID.

It would seem rather obvious that not a single shred of evidence exists in support of AIT and so it should be summarily dismissed, but we note that widespread propaganda in support of this theory can have the effect of making people believe outright falsity.

sanskrit language similarities
let’s play a game. it’s called: whichever language is most similar to Sanskrit is the geographic region it originated in!!!

The propaganda has created a situation where European people are more inclined to believe that they descend from aliens / atlanteans / solutreans (or any other number of wholly unsubstantiated groups) over the rather obvious truth that Europeans descend from Indians.

indian european chinese
It really couldn’t be more obvious

Many people want to believe that “aryans” came into the Indian subcontinent from “somewhere” (we don’t know exactly where but it doesn’t matter, all that matters is that they had blonde hair and blue eyes haha!) and overcame the local “Dravidian” populace. These übermensch conquistadors then left India to colonise Europe and other regions, yet somehow lost their native religion while the natives of India (who were presumably force converted to this foreign religion) somehow managed to maintain the invaders’ traditions better than they could.

Wow. Smart. Really logical.

How Could People be so Stupid?

It’s not the first time people have been fed an appealing lie about their origins.

This is what you sound like when you promote AIT.

Mainstream media propaganda is a powerful tool, and they certainly love this lie. But if you watch the video below, you will see, they have absolutely no clue where these “Aryans” came from, but they are somehow DEAD SURE that they had white skin. Because that’s all that matters. White skin.


But really, if you’re as smart as you think you are, you should know better. No one is going to trust you if you claim to be “aryan”, yet know nothing about the religion, nothing about the history and nothing about the anthropology. If you stand by this theory, you are in VERY bad company.

Wait so… the Economist is credible now? lol fuck off commie.

But Muh R1a Haplotype

A large number of people with no background in science and no clue what they are talking about will often cite the “R1a haplotype” as some sort of ace in the hole to back up their stance. However, they fail to realise that genetic commonality does not actually prove the direction of migration and that this result is actually substantiating the Out of Arya hypothesis.

Do you even know what this graph means, fucktard?

People need to stop crying like 4 year old girls and remember that your personal emotions have absolutely no place in science. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and nothing more. It’s not a vehicle to pluck anecdotes out of thin air to justify a sense of racial superiority. Superiority is acquired in one and one way alone: by getting off your fat ass and actually accomplishing something that will make your descendants revere you. If all I did was ride on the coattails of my previous accomplishments, I’d not have discovered the Universal Field Model.

It’s a pretty good Universal Field Model, TBH.

Even I cannot eschew my duty to continue on the path of greatness, because greatness is a practice, not a destination.

Which Brings Me To My Next Point

Communists gained full control of all Western educational institutions after World War 2 (which they won, at the cost of oh, I don’t know… 30 million people. was it worth it? you, the viewers, decide!). Though it’s rather obvious, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the main goal of communism is state power, not truth. Thus we have absolutely zero reason to believe anything peddled by communists. And this Aryan Invasion Theory, having been presented post-world war two, is certainly communistic propaganda.

If a commie said it, it must be true! haha.

This is why I have taken great pains to prove that communistic physics, from Einstein to Feynmann is wholly false. I have done so successfully because I took the trouble to validate a Unified Field Model before I entered the public domain to perform debates (as would seem logical, if one were actually interested in winning debates)

jay dyer quote edited meme
You’d be surprised how few people are actually interested in anything other than an intellectual circle jerk, however.

So far, I have proven the following:

  1. Einstein’s General Relativity is Horseshit
  2. Gödel was Wrong
  3. The Null Hypothesis is Wrong
  4. Stellar Creationism & Uncreated Universe are True
  5. Kurtzweil’s “Singularity” is Bullshit

And many more. My friend, who has a master’s degree in Physics said “if this is true, then Feynmann deceived a lot of people” when I explained to him how my theory predicts nuclear reactivity (yes, yes it does. no, no I’m not telling you how)… So you can rest assured that a counterproof of Feynmann’s pinko diagrams will be forthcoming at some later time.

And in spite of all this, some morons still continue to defy me. Clearly, they are either acting in bad faith or are so limited in intelligence that it would put your health at risk to listen to them.

“But it doesn’t matter where we come from”

Some have argued that the ultimate origin of Europeans is not relevant because the society they have built is so great that all that matters is its continued survival. This is wholly false. Without a solid understanding of human history, how can we hope to give our descendants a means of accessing ancient wisdom? If there is a weak (false) link in the chain of ancient wisdom, it will eventually break.

While only a dilettante would seek refuge exclusively in the accomplishments of their ancestors, stealing the accomplishments of another people is downright hostile and certainly not noble (which is what the word ARYAN actually means).

That’s the last I’m going to say on this nonsense because to persist further would give this bullshit theory more attention than it deserves, and I don’t like to waste my time with unsubstantiated communistic filth.

If you still aren’t convinced, you can read what ACTUAL TRADITIONAL SCHOLARS have to say here. Just ignore the post by Jamal Kangersteinsteenburg III.

Truth is our survival strategy. Ignore that at your own peril.


Mark Passio is a Turd

Update August 3rd, 2018

It appears the amount of butthurt that I have caused Curt Doolittle is nearing the universal limit.

no one cares, Curt. you’re the one shilling Globalism, not me

I have long opposed the teachings of Mark Passio, who advocates on behalf of “Natural Law”. I basically disdain anyone purporting as a master of such, because they serve as gatekeepers to knowledge of actual natural law. My exchanges with these hucksters almost always leads them to the “dogwhistle disavow” wherein they reject my persona without naming me specifically. For example:

curt doolittle meltdown.jpg
no one cares, Curt.

Mark Passio is especially dangerous because most of what he says is true. However, the lies he tells render these truths impotent. He gives much insight into the machinations of “globalists” but ultimately fails when he goes full retard and accuses the USA of being “Nazis” (video below). It is quite ironic that someone telling people to not have a master is also telling people what to think!

The quote that tipped me off as to the nature of this angry puffy demagogue was this: “when a bad order is given, the order follower is more culpable than the order giver”. This is patently false, obviously the order giver is much more guilty than the order follower. That is the nature of authority.

If there exists such a thing as natural law, it must be unique. And since Snatana Dharma has already been declared to be natural law by traditionally accepted scholars, any ideology which deviates from this must be fraudulent. Thus any model which represents Natural Law must be computationally equivalent to the edicts presented therein. And since dipshits like Passio and Doolittle are not initiated into this tradition, they can be accurately described as imperialistic cultural appropriators.

not the bullshit kind of cultural appropriation

While social justice warrior tier claims of cultural appropriation are 99% hallucination, there are indeed some instances of behaviour which can accurately be described as being [improper] cultural appropriation. And there is very good reason to steer clear of such practices. There is a proper manner to practice religion and it involves a great deal of humility and openness, not a desire to be seen as a member of the intellectual elite (without the burden of actually knowing anything).

I have found that these types always use big words to cover up the fact that their basis of knowledge is quite meagre. They seem to think they can skirt the requisite scientific knowledge that precedes the ability to do statecraft; that they can read a few books written by people who were proven to be charlatans over 100 years ago; that they can ignore half the world’s wisdom because it happened at a different time and place and still be valuable. This delusion is both false and dangerous.

I know people would like to be “tactical atheists” (i.e.: discard all facts which don’t suit their particular worldview), but we must remember that we are basically TV for the spirit world. These entities “watch” us in the same manner we watch TV: LARPing. But these spirits are often more than passive observers and can easily place curses on you for offending them. And I can guarantee you that falsely purporting as a master of “Natural Law” is bound to trigger the sorts of entities you wouldn’t want to glance sideways at, let alone offend their most treasured beliefs.

human born big.jpg
curses like reincarnating all the false theocrats as hideous beasts, for example.

It’s a dangerous world out there. Be careful. Be humble. Do not defy the edicts of validated tradition or you will find yourself opposed by the most powerful entities that exist.



Panpsychism Rising

A recent news article by Aeon indicates that the establishment has accepted what will eventually be called one of:

  • The Quantum Mind Hypothesis
  • The Measurement Limit
  • “Panpsychism” (pls no)
  • Jen Scharf Grugmath for Winners (TM)
grug groyper
think about it

The piece glosses over the fact that it was my theory that forced them to accept this idea (since “panpsychism” has supposedly been around since Bertrand Russell). Defeat is admitted here:

guess who was actually wrong tho.

My theory eloquently posits that the measurement limit is the cornerstone of reality. It shows that the 7 (2+2+2+1) rows of the periodic table are fractally symmetric with the 3+1 spacetime dimensions we observe in our day to day lives. Spacetime manifests differently on the (micro)scale of the Periodic Table and therefore the 3 spacelike dimensions occur twice (but are of identical cardinality, i.e.: contain the same number of elements).

Hence my theory is “parsimonious”.

my theory is parsimonious as fuck
where have I heard this sort of argument before?

Now, I know it probably sounds “crazy” that I am uniquely responsible for the displacement of a 100+ year old scientific dogma, but remember that in science, it’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove. And I can indeed prove that without my work, this “revolution” never would have happened.

meta right join revolution
Learn it. Live it. Love it.

The article spends much time beating around the bush to eventually say that a measurement-centric universe is the only model which predicts the observable universe, rather than just explains it. (kind of a big deal in science, that distinction). However, we do not need to invoke consciousness to explain the universe (as it is quite unintuitive and sounds “try-hard”). We can simply posit the following, in the context of MEASUREMENT.

  • The measurement limit of spacetime is 3+1. On the microscale, the measurement limit manifests as the 118 microstates of the periodic table (the elements). On the macroscale, the measurement limit manifests as 3 spacelike and 1 timelike dimensions, which are maximally orthogonal. (in other words, the only non-orthogonality (other than measurement uncertainty) between space and time are the length and side of an orbit period, planetary, solar, galactic… all of these orders of magnitude occur simultaneously. i.e.: you live on Earth (1 d), but you also live in the Solar System (365 d) and so forth, you exist in every spacetime interval for which a measurement exists.

Where Does Consciousness Fit In?

In short, it does not. Or rather, it does not need to, at the stage of material science. There have historically been numerous issues in the translation of ancient Vedic and associated texts, specifically as regards the word “mind” (n.b.: when I use it, I mean it in the sense Westerners do). I sincerely do not think Eastern mystics and Western pupils are referring to the same idea when they use this word. What is mind anyway? It’s not brain! There is too much confusion in this level of understanding and thus we must temporarily abandon it. Only when we realise what we ourselves mean when we say words like consciousness / mind / awareness can we begin to hope to answer questions about universal conscious nature.

Or you can just take my word for it.

Here’s What We Know

When approaching a problem as complex as consciousness, it can sometimes help to reframe the question in a manner which simplifies it. Thus, in my system, we start with the general architecture of the Universe. In short, this theory indicates that:

  • The Universe is a Gravity and Electromagnetic Quantum Computer.

If this idea is understood, it becomes easy to understand that the elecropotential field of the body must generate the mind itself (read more here) and thus:

  • The mind (i.e.: subjective human consciousness) is an Electromagnetic Quantum Computer

So yes, both the human mind and Universe itself are quantum computers. And that’s a pretty cool thing. It also implies that our minds are capable of synchronising themselves with the universe itself (being essentially alike in nature) and that, since we possess mass, that we are ourselves “mini universes” (equal to a gravity and electromagnetic quantum computer). But those are all just words. The significance of these ideas must be felt with more than words. Words are just the starting point.


In one of my many debates, I have indicated to people that I am “panpsychic”. This does not mean I endorse a “panpsychic” universe model (as I am not going to endorse the idea that a rock is “conscious” or that “the Moon doesn’t exist until we observe it” – both gross misrepresentations of Quantum Theory). What I meant when I said that was that I can read everyone’s mind. When you think about me, I feel it. That is what I mean when I say I am panpsychic.


The Null Hypothesis Needs to Go Away


This piece shall serve to shift the burden of proof from those skeptical of the null hypothesis to those defending it. It is a very stupid hypothesis that is touted by a great many hucksters not worth naming. I want you to attack this idea, so I’m going to attempt to persuade you to see things my way, thus becoming able to do what I want.

What is the null hypothesis?

null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is essentially scientific atheism. It posits that In inferential statistics, the term “null hypothesis” is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups (source).

On Existential Knowability

It is important to note that before we can muse about the nature of all that is fundamental, we must first master the true causal web.

Carl. Your apple pie quote sucks, Carl.

You may posit that such a web is fundamentally unknowable, but you’d be back in the trap of atheism, which has already been negatively disproven herein and so I will ask you to suspend your disbelief in the existence of a true causal web because the opposite action of this has caused no observable good effects by any metric. I feel my proof (even if it is technically not the 100% perfect truth and ends up getting improved on someday) is convincing enough to make people think: “ya, the null hypothesis is a steaming pile of crud” and that it is foolish to assert ad hoc that measurements are unrelated.

Negative Counterproof

Presented and massively promoted since the 1930s, the null hypothesis made it “cool” to presume that nothing was connected to anything, and groups weren’t associated. This would appear to be quite a naive approach to science, given that connectedness is pretty ubiquitous. Separateness is apparent. Thus if one of these hypotheses is to be given primacy, it would be the non-null hypothesis i.e.: that some degree of sameness exists between two measured quantities. It would also seem rational that what science would attempt to measure is precisely this degree of difference/sameness!


Positive Counterproof

My theory contradicts the null hypothesis because it proves that everything is connected. Note, once again, my theory makes all predictions, is of minimal cardinality and thus represents the epitome of science relative to the metrics of complexity and totality. The Null Hypothesis has no such claim (propaganda-induced ad populum to the contrary notwithstanding) and thus we can conclude that it certainly does make sense to presume that all measurements are related. In fact, the measurement limit is a proof that only three spacelike and one timelike measurement per order of magnitude can be made!

periodic table god touching wojak Thus although the glaring obviousness of the Quantum Mechanical Periodic Table is not manifest upon all orders of magnitude, it must be true since this order of magnitude also manifests 3+1 spacetime like dimensions (it is not worth attempting to prove this because it is intuitively obvious that we live in a world of 3 apparent space-like and one apparent time-like dimension. In fact, if anyone doubts that only 3+1 dimensions exist, you can probably safely write them off as being unenlightened).

…not that easy to understand but you try summarising the whole Universe in just one diagram.

The Fourfold Action model ({Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy} = {G,U,E,S} first distinguishes the actions then relates them by equations denoting their sameness. But for manifold Entropy and Gravity, no true sameness occurs. Gravity and Entropy both act simultaneously on all orders of magnitude and thus must act in conjunction with Uncertainty and Electricity. Thus G and S are in the state of sameness as U and E in the sense that U and E never occur without G and S also occurring. Thus they are not truly the same, but rather: concurrent. That is: It is possible for G and S to act without E and U also acting but it is impossible for E and U to act without G and S also acting . From this, we conclude that the apparent cause of E and U must be some combination of G and S, which is indeed the way my theory frames it. (We do not exclude the possibility of other explanations, but such distinctions will not be fruitful until such time as a sufficient number of people have assimilated the core teachings as I have presented them. Such nuances are meaningless to the uninitiated.

Subproof 1: The Causal Matrix

The Causal Matrix is the set of all sets of Universal actions. In order to expound the universal actions, we first remind the reader that the Universe has no creator (by definition, the totality of existence can have no external creator which is unequal to it) and thus is considered to be the primal cause. If you cannot understand this logic, simply accept that the Universe is the primal cause because no cause can be found which is precedes it. It is also unique in the sense that it is not a set of actions (because the set of all sets [of actions] is not a set). Thus it follows that the Universe itself is not directly observable as a measurement. It will therefore only be indirectly observable. These observations consist of logical and factual statements which can be used as a substratum upon which to construct all knowable chains of causality (which aren’t actually chains, but more of a web, which we will denote a matrix because it will come in handy when we transition to proofs expounded using tensor algebra).

That is: given some derivative action: A, there exist actions from the grand canonical set: {G, U, E, S}, which, given appropriate coefficients {λ,μ,ε,ς}, we can define the residual Γ (also an action) (capital greek letter “rho”) such that:

A = {λG + μU + εE + ςS} + Γ

Where Γ is also a linear combination of {G, U, E, S} and where is immeasurable in A. This shall henceforth be referred to as the principle of knowability and distinction.

We further posit that there exists some reference frame ℜ for which Γ ⊂ (is a space-temporal / entropy-informational subset of) ℜ. This is the principle of reducibility.

Subproof 2: Grand Canonical Reducibility

We posit that since the Universe is the totality of causality, if we can demonstrate that the Universe is reducible, then it follows that any subset of the Universe and therefore all of its constituent actions are also reducible.

Spatio-Temporal Proof of Universal Reducibility

Since the entropy-informational realm is derived from the space-temporal realm (because space-time requires gravity-entropy and entropy-information requires electricity-uncertainty and because U and E are derivative (i.e.: appearing to be caused by) of G and S), the proof of entropy-informational reducibility must also be derived from the space-temporal proof of reducibility.

Thus if the space-temporal domain is reducible, it follows that the entropy-informational domain is also reducible (challenge: prove that the entropy-informational domain is reducible a) in the space-time domain (easy) and b) in the entropy-information domain (more challenging)) because the latter is derivative of the former.


Consider the (observable) Universe: U.

If I am to estimate the size (space-like measurement) of the Universe, I need to know the three greatest interstellar distances. If I (reasonably) presume that these measurements are possible and denote them {M1, M2, M3} , then it follows that if we define the cuboid C1 as having dimensions equal to M1xM2xM3 that U ⊂ C1, spatially. Then, if we come down to the next 3 largest interstellar distances: {M4, M5, M6} , we can define a new cuboid: C2 =  M4xM5xM6 such that C2 ⊂ C1 and U ⊂ C1.

a cuboid

Thus I define my action A to be the measurement of C1 and the residual of A to be the measurement of C2, and C2 is a proper subset of C1, it follows that there exists some reference frame ℜ (in this case: the Universe) for which Γ (in this case, C2) ⊂  ℜ. Thus it follows that A is reducible, by definition.


Further Commentary on Atheism

I have often referred to atheism as a scourge on humanity. Like Entropy, no matter how perfect things start out, they always eventually decay and become a hollow shell of their former ideals. When an ideal theocracy becomes degenerate those with high discernment will lose faith in it and atheism will surely follow. Holding two contradictory belief simultaneously (in this case, faith and doubt in theocracy) is exhausting and highly sensitive people tend to grow wary of such obligations and eschew the entire dichotomy.

This departure often leads to a generalised loss of faith (in all theocracies), followed by despair. But one should not lose faith in the ideal of theocracy, because it is the fundamental node of natural society. The solution to theological despair is not atheism, it is scientific theism.


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.