The Question of Authority (2114 words)

Curt Doolittle did a manifold own-goal a few days ago when he tagged me in a public post claiming both that you “can’t debate with theists” and also that debates must always be done in writing because “reasons”. For a so-called expert on “Natural Law”, Curt seems to know very little about how said system actually works.

If you won’t debate me live, you’re not a traditionalist

It was not a good debate for Curt, who probably alienated a large part of his audience by claiming that theists cannot be debated. Even if I were hypothetically an atheist, which I’m not, it would be pretty insane of me to think I could avoid debating theists. After all, I’m sure I’d eventually get bored of debating with the other atheists about which of our fedoras is the most stylish.

conversations about the same thing all the time get kinda boring

Whether you are atheist or not, you have to debate people on the other side, that’s the whole point. Curt would do well to study world history in this regard because at no point in time have atheists ever won a debate. Atheism seems to be like Entropy: a scourge on humanity but woven into the fabric of causality and so to some extent: unavoidable. I can no more avoid debating atheists than Curt can avoid debating theists (well, I guess he can just block them all, but he might get repetitive strain injury from having to effectuate so many blocks, so be careful there, “dear”).

that’s funny I thought my followers were like, really smart. oh well, I guess not haha.

Determining Authority

The matter of determining who is an authority is non-trivial. Even when natural theocracies existed (i.e.: scientific ones that aren’t cannibal death cults), authority was challenged all the time. In fact, the best debates are the ones where popular opinion on authority shifts. This can and does happen. People come along with a better understanding of religious scripture and displace the extant authority, just like Adi Shankara and Swami Dayananda did. It doesn’t happen very often but it does happen. Authority is not meant to be fixed, it’s meant to evolve as knowledge evolves. Though the underlying truth of our Universe does not change with time, our understanding thereof most certainly does. Thus we must always be open to learning new things when new knowledge is discovered and/or the existing authority is challenged.

My opinion about determining authority is as follows: to be an authority, one must satisfy the following criteria:

  • Non-hypocrisy. You wouldn’t take mental health advice from a depressed person and expect results, would you? (looking at you Jordan Peterson fans). An authority must always meet their own standard.
  • Wisdom: An authority must be able to clearly communicate their wisdom in a vernacular which is not overly esoteric (looking at you, Doolittle).
  • Understanding of Scientific Causality: An authority must express their opinions in the form of a hypothesis that makes predictions (looking at you, everybody).

The last criterion on the list is the hardest to establish because this is where the growth of knowledge takes place. Scientific theories can always be improved. When a scientific theory is improved, it must be either more general or more precise than the theory it displaces. Thus a replacement theory must either/or:

  1. Make more predictions
  2. Make better predictions

In either case, we can see how improved scientific wisdom moves us TOWARDS general statistics and AWAY FROM anecdotes. Science is the process of using logical deduction on a finite set of data and from those observations, creating inductive hypotheses about the underlying mechanism dictating the causality of the system being studied. Debate usually centres around which scientific theory (also known as archetype canon) is superior. For example, for a long time, people debated which doshas were the correct fundamental archetype cannon. They did not bother with silly questions like “do doshas exist?”, because it was just so patently obvious that they did. We’ve fallen greatly from this lofty discourse and now mostly talk in circles about extremely worthless things like whether Earth is flat, morality is relative, the finer points of fake cosmology and my own personal anti-favourite: whether the universe is a simulation. Such armchair theorising is frustrating because it never actually leads to an increase in knowledge, only the accumulation of (probably useless) facts/formulas and condescending one-liners such as:

  • “we don’t know anything about the Universe huhuhuh.”
  • “the mind can’t be a quantum computer!”
  • “there’s no proof of reincarnation!”
  • “no axiomatic system can be self-consistent”
maybe youre wrong
wow, what an insightful question I’ve certainly never heard before

We can easily see that in atheists and theists alike, an unwillingness to look at things scientifically often leads to superstition, paranoia, hysterics and ultimately the unmaking of one’s own conscious coherence (see video below for an example). Everything, including our own consciousness, is dictated by the laws of physics. Thus our minds are optimised when we have a deep understanding of such laws: knowing truth is the only way our mind can harmonise with the “Universal Mind” (the flow of the laws of nature). Truth is the optimised state of mind because we are true (in the sense that we exist and therefore reflect the laws of physics), this is why lies are categorically different from truth. Lies always require effort to maintain, truth does not. Truth can stand on its own, lies cannot. Truth is eternal, lies are temporary. And when the house of cards of lies collapses, the results are often catastrophic for the believers.

Who is an Authority?

I believe I’m an authority on science and consciousness. My blog is an argument to support that position. However, you have to decide for yourself whether you accept me as an authority. Judge the evidence and make your own decision. In the Natural Religion, you can never eschew the duty of personal accountability.

Note that the negation argument fails here. You cannot simply denounce me as an authority without presenting an alternative authority. If you do not present an alternative authority, by process of elimination, you are presenting yourself as the authority. For if you were not an authority, you would not be fit to give judgement on me and since you do give judgement on me, you must consider yourself an authority (that’s called contraposition, if you’re wondering)


Why I’m a Moral Authority

I’m reasonable, compassionate, understanding and firm. I don’t use double standards and I am willing to listen to any argument. I give everyone a chance to be associated with me.

I posit that morality is objective and it is equal to that which creates and defends the system of governance that minimises the suffering/ignorance of all participatory entities. All of my acts can be proven to minimise ignorance and maximise one’s ability to overcome suffering. Thus I can both define and meet my own standard of morality, so I am a moral authority.

Why I’m an Intellectual Authority

I have proven about 95% of modern physics to be logically inconsistent (and therefore false) as well as provided a replacement unified field model. My fourfold action model can predict all emergent phenomena using only {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}. My theory is rooted in quantum mechanics & measurement, specifically that all interactions are equivalent to measurements and so is a variant of panpsychism. Since physics is the highest science, I must have the best intellectual capacity.

My intellectual authority is both easier and harder to establish because mainstream publications refuse to cite me. However, all we have to do is look at the historical record to realise that something must have changed around the time I started publishing because panpsychism has been accepted even though no new tests were made to validate it – I just explained it in such a way as to make it irrefutable. Mainstream science has therefore been forced to accept my theories. They had to accept it because a failure to do so would compromise their own credibility.

I will provide an example below.


Several articles have been forthcoming lately which express a (reluctant) acceptance of panpsychism. Today I will discuss this one. Granted, it’s not a very good article (because pretty much none of the people studying this subject know their ass from a hole in the ground), but still, you can kind of get the basic idea.

ugh… what a disaster

The truth underlying this train wreck of an article is that observation is the cornerstone of material physics. They erroneously call this “consciousness”,  but it’s not, it’s just a feature of the fabric of the Universe. Going back to Copenhagen Interpretation article 3:


Since everything is a quantum mechanical system, every interaction is technically a reduction of the waveform representing the system [to one of its eigenstates]. A rock, for example, is the eigenstate of that particular type of mixture of elements at that particular temperature. The rock has a well-defined shape because it is in the solid state, none of its dimensions are potentiated (possessing the potential to be deformed, as with liquids and gases) and so it remains a solid with fixed dimensions (unless an outside force acts on said rock). The rock appears to us as a particle-type of entity, even though fundamentally, it is not. The rock simply represents the collapse of a waveform containing the constituent elements to a solid state. The solid state has no deformation potential because all its 3 dimensions are realised (i.e.: non potentiated). The constituent particles are bound together in a manner that makes the wavelike properties of the rock inaccessible. But we also know that the potential for deformation exists within the rock and so its essence must be: quantum mechanical. The observer is the sum of the particles in the rock and the observation is the rock itself. They are distinct, yet connected entities.

This revelation probably seems tautological but the link between observation and observer (specifically that the observation is the eigenstate of the observer) places a hard limit upon the number of linearly independent measurements that can be performed on a system. First, you have the measurement limit, that dictates that every spacetime event has 3+1 possible measurements and second you have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that proves that subsequent measurements irrevocably alter the set of observables (eigenstates) in a QM system. These effects team up to make a universe that is fundamentally self-aware. The universe is self-aware of its own laws and its own laws are its self-awareness: no interaction of QM systems occurs without state reduction – the act of observation and the reduction of the system into an eigenstate are the same thing.

How can an idea that’s technically correct sound so wrong?

The Universe isn’t conscious the way we are. However, all quantum mechanical interactions (i.e.: all interactions) are computationally equivalent to observations. What is doing the observing? The material universe itself. The Periodic Table, for instance, is the smallest complete spacetime event. Is the Periodic Table conscious? Well, it contains information about all potential reactions (whose spontaneity can be directly predicted by a relation called the Gibbs Free Energy), but does that make it conscious? The answer depends on your own definition of consciousness, doesn’t it? If consciousness means “whose actions are wholly defined by interaction aka waveform reduction to eigenstates” then yes, the Universe is “conscious”. But if by conscious you mean self-conscious in the way that humans and some animals are, then obviously: the Universe isn’t conscious.

So the question then becomes at what point does the (quantum mechanical) Universe become self-conscious? In other words, a trivial quantum mechanical waveform (equal to the sum of all chemical bonds) exists for all massive entities, it is electromassive because it contains both electrical bonds and mass. A non-trivial quantum mechanical waveform exists only in life forms and it is equal to the total electropotential function. It is non massive and includes only the photon matrix held by the electron potential function of the body. That is still not technically consciousness, that is sentience. Therefore we can say that all living matter is sentient while all non living matter is not sentient. When the sentience potential function is sufficiently complex, it becomes able to interact with itself. This is when the organism becomes conscious.

Thus the universe is trivially sentient, living matter is nontrivially sentient, conscious living matter is both nontrivially sentient and self-sentient. Thus I am able to conclusively state the difference between universal sentience (“panpsychism”) and living sentience (psychism).


For the reasons stated above as well as the scientific, psychological and sociological insights I have offered on this blog, I posit that I am an authority on these subjects.


4 thoughts on “The Question of Authority (2114 words)

  1. You have just went through some Basic Truths Very Detailed and very Well.
    The Question is more important than the Answer as within the Question is Wrong Assumptions. Or sometimes , the Answer is within the Question.
    Fear Based Reality Creates Culture and Religion that is , Well, Fear based Aslo. Then , Simply “Devotion” . I Believe this and That. Instead of “I AM” this and that.
    An Authority DOES NOT have to meet their own standards. I currently cannot Meet my own standards due to other Forces playing their part. Of Wich , You have explained these forces quite Well.
    “Maybe Your Wrong”. This is “Infinity” and “There is Always More”. Just Your Existence and every part of Your Existence is ” Correct”, and Influences what You exist within. Perspective! Are You Looking from the inside of this Diminision Outward or Outside this diminision looking in?
    Self Conscious – Groups of Trees create like a Tree Demi-God or does the Tree Demi-God create the Trees ? It doesn’t matter ! Like cells in the body. All is One. This can’t be understood from inside “The Experience”. A Tree just Grows and Seys “I AM Strong”. The Tree is not too worried about the Tree Demi-God That Governs the Trees. But , the Tree would not exist without the Tree Demi-God.
    I have a Totum Pole that Reads both Directions. Eagle, Woodpecker, Kachina, Owl. The Meanings of Each read both directions creating Duality or “The Cosmic Movie”. The Eagle-God , Woodpecker-To Be Known, Kachina-Holly Ghost or Angels. Owl-Duality or Can Die or Death.
    The Other way is Owl-You, Kachina-Holly Ghost or Influence, Woodpecker-Being Known or Action, Eagle-Enlightment or Singularity.
    The Road does not have to go just One Direction. It just Looks that way to us as We flow through time and think that Time is some kind of Governing Force. It is NOT. See What is Happening , Not Necessarily What is Happening to You. See what “is Not”. Staying focused on Just “What is” keeps You trapped. As You have just defined Your limitations.


    1. good observation Rick. I think what you’re getting at here is the essential difference between anecdote-based (collecting data and making theories but also never being sure if you have the complete picture) and archetype-based (presuming the existence of groups possessing essentially different qualities, and refining the groups as more evidence is gathered) thinking. Each have intrinsic weaknesses (anecdotal thinking can lead to conclusions precluding the existence of archetypes, as we see in the Godel Incompleteness Proof, which suggests that the truth archetype is unknowable and archetypal thinking can have the tendency to be self-affirming yet fail to meet a scientific standard). If you have an anecdotal approach, it is hard to see patterns and see the sameness in things, that’s why we consider the archetype-based thinking to be superior because it is more natural. Archetype based thinking presumes truth exists and can be obtained through a process of recursion while anecdotes based thinking allows for the possibility that truth may not be knowable – that’s a bad thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s