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:

2018-07-22_08-21-56
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”.

2018-07-22_08-23-01
my theory is parsimonious as fuck
2018-07-22_08-20-53
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.

Addendum

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.

 

Advertisements

The Null Hypothesis Needs to Go Away

Preface

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.

2018-07-09_20-58-35.png
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!

QED

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).

P8070163.JPG
…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.

Proof

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.

cuboid
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.

QED

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.

Given:
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.

Challenge

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:

V8K8
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.

Michael-jordan-stop-it-stop-it-get-some-help

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.

confused-full.jpg
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”.

little-girl-trying-mothers-lipstick-growing-up-concept-wearing-clothing-evening-dress-felt-hat-making-make-mother-104592982
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.”

#flawgic

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.

Conclusion

 

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]

(Source)

(This pseudocode could be implemented into Matlab or similar)

Given

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

Desired

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

Pseudocode

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}

}

}

end

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.