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.

 

Advertisements

Redditors are Idiots

Update – A Rebuttal!

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

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

Update 2 – New Anti-Proof of Crappy Incompleteness Theorem

Note to the Haters

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

reddit jennifer scharf perfect optics.jpg

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

Original Article

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the redditor in a nutshell.

The Quantum Mind: Why False Ideologies Fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Comments

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

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

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

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

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

To Summarise

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

 

Debate Strategy I

I just listened to a recent debate between JF Gariepy and a Christian who sounded like his diet consisted exclusively of soy shakes. I am very much enjoying J.F.’s contribution to the intellectual culture on the “pooblic spayce”.

There is a shortage of good role models out there for young people and J.F. has a talent for conveying complex concepts in a manner which is both engaging and entertaining to the listener.

I am writing this now to help people understand a bit more of the context of what they are undertaking. I have already established that the Theocratic Dictatorship is the structure of all natural organisms, transcending individuality and culture so we will take that as a given and explore the current goings-on in that framework.

slave master computer hard drive
Even this plug has a Master/Slave Dictatorship

The Internet, pre-GamerGate

The Internet was very “ghettoised” in this era. Unbeknownst to the general public, several talking heads on Youtube collaborated behind the scenes to establish a cogent sociopolitical narrative. They all focused on the same themes and ignored the same things. This is a means to control public opinion. Thus these “Youtube Atheists” fulfilled the same function as theocratic dictators, and so comprise the cult of Atheism (i.e.: Atheism is Unstoppable, The Atheist Experience, The Thinking Atheist). In this cult, any beliefs deriving from religion (mostly from Abrahamic cults) is endlessly derided. Thus the public opinion was largely that Atheism was the logical or “proper” position.

Gamer Gate

The phenomenon of Gamer Gate had the effect of radicalising fence-sitters because the manufacturing of narratives (of “sexism” by the “social justice” cult) hit home for them. They watched a resistance movement form online and be gradually undermined by what has become the “Liberalist” cult (led by SarGandhi) who first claimed to promote “ethics in video game journalism” but ended up mainly making videos mocking SJW antics. This caused a rapid increase in cynicism in the “silent majority” of the Internet (lurkers) and further radicalisation.

Poking the Bear & the Dawn of Internet Blood Sports

Since the SJW cult needs a constant supply of “gnat-sees’s” lives to ruin in order to continue to fuel the narrative that they have the moral high ground, further radicalisation was inevitable. It all came to a head when a popular Youtuber called Kraut and Tea deleted his channel after being ritually humiliated on numerous J.F. Gariepy livestreams and the server he was using to dox dissenters was leaked.

Up to that point, the influence of Liberalism and Social Justice was decidedly waning, owing to constant trolling by Alt Right and 4chan activists. Youtubers increasingly engaged in livestream “bumfights”, reaching for personal insults as frequently as actual arguments in their quest for debate dominance.

So-called “Internet Blood Sports”, a trend that has caught on following the “sacrifice” of Kraut and Tea, involve a rivalry between one or more people being settled in an informal debate-style argument on a Youtube livestream. The atheist Gariepy has thus set himself up as a theocratic dictator: bestowing judgement and prestige upon his subjects.

Next Steps – Analysis of Arguments

It’s important to remember that just because one debater is wrong does not necessarily mean that the other is right. A debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Government is frustrating because both debaters are wrong. However, we can still critique the overall debate and gain wisdom from this.

On Christian Nationalism

The Christian soyboy arrogantly claimed that Europe owes its ‘scientific advancements’ to Christianity. Many anecdotal instances are cited, such as “but so-and-so was a Christian” even though anyone who didn’t submit to Christianity would have been killed in those days (something that would come back if modern day Christians got their way and instituted a theocratic dictatorship, they’d be bound to slay “heathens” by their law). Another idiotic claim is that since a Catholic Priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang, that this means Christianity is validated by science.

big bang einstein catholic priest.jpg
do you trust these greaseballs? I don’t.

In fact, what is more likely is that the Big Bang was promoted in order to stunt people’s understanding of the Universe. The result of presuming the Bible to be true and trying to fit your worldview to that, rather than fitting your worldview to the facts, is always going to be psychotic cultural appropriation. This Christian debater claimed that Christianity originated science, when all evidence proves that Christianity took us away from science, away from our ancestral religion and away from nature.

priest cuts down sacred pagan tree
this is psychotic

The story of Christianity in Europe is a bit like that of Macbeth’s wife in the Shakespeare play of the same name. She cannot stop seeing blood on her hands and begins to wash them obsessively. Christians cannot tolerate the guilt of having slaughtered their pagan brothers, so they constantly wash their hands (so to speak): obsessing over physical cleanliness (i.e.: calling Indians “street shitters”) in an attempt to wash away their spiritual decay. Just like with Lady Macbeth, it never works, because the stain is on your soul. You must look inward to heal, not seek justification for your continued ignorance in superficial propaganda and empty ideologies.

Christians must engage in cultural appropriation in order to justify the violence their ancestors committed in the name of their religion. Perhaps, if Christianity originated science, then it was worth killing all those priests, intellectuals, philosophers and artists? This is not a fruitful path. Without accepting the truth, it won’t be possible to heal from the generations of harm that these cults have caused.

On the Argument that Non-Christians did not Practice Science

This argument is patently false. The knowledge basis of native religions was the Aryan Vedic religion, from which all knowledge originates. My body of work is the proof of this, because I was not able to achieve the Knowledge without guidance from this very body of Knowledge.

8 periodic tables
my religion can beat up your religion.

It is very insulting to lie about the origin of Knowledge. It is much better to modestly pray for guidance as to the deeper truths in the Universe. They will come to you only when your heart is open to receiving them.

On the Argument that Religion is Justified by Fecundity

I understand that some people are in an existential panic about the survival of their race, but more babies is not the solution. In fact, more than 2-3 children per couple is a violation of the r-K selection ideal and thus one cannot claim to support the scientifically validated r-K selection model AND also argue for eugenics to increase fecundity past replacement rate. K-selected civilisation is advanced because it can survive at the carrying capacity. This means no garbage nor toxic waste can be created, no unwanted children can be born and no unnatural (plant and livestock) farming processes can take place. In other words, the White Westerners who argue in favour of r-K selection theory are themselves behaving like r-selected idiots (consuming everything in sight and acting like their actions have no consequences).

A false religion does NOT improve the quality of society, even if it increases fecundity. Those who are born will be traumatised by the false religion and thus suffering will increase. We are not immune to the suffering of others and so this is an unwanted path. What we want is people being born into a society that can nurture them. We want people to be able to find their true path in life and follow it diligently. This goal is not aided by infinity reincarnation deniers who wish to infight about which of the million Christian cults is the correct one.

Atheism is Good

It is also true that a society without a state religion will fail. This is because the highest Entropy state of any social group is a Theocratic Dictatorship. Thus to deny the existence of a theocratic dictatorship is to deny the very nature of all systems of governance. Even in the modern day, cults dominate democracies, albeit in secret. Thus, as a social movement, atheism is always going to denigrate culture, because at its core, it is denigrating government, namely any authority of priests (the rightful leaders of government).

im offended the amazing atheist
unless you count this as culture

Thus a state religion is required, but a false religion is always going to cause atheism. If you want to get rid of atheism, you have to get rid of the cause of atheism. The cause of atheism is a failure of religion to explain universal phenomena. That is why I suggest my science religion be instituted as the global dictatorship. I already have a scientific framework which can answer all questions about causality.

Democracy is Good

There is absolutely no argument to defend democracy. It is mob rule with the most degenerate cult leaders one can imagine. If you want proof of that, just look anywhere.

Literally, anything anywhere proves this hypothesis.

Theocratic Monarchism is Good

Monarchs were defeated by communists in the 19-20th centuries. They were defeated because they were weakened by false religion and decadence. A theocratic monarch is a nice idea, but frankly, no one is qualified for this role. All humans are weak to the appeal of materialism and egotistical gratification. Even my own Priest fold is not immune from the desires of ego. However, when a priest collective exists, it dis-incentivises egomania. That’s because we are all in a competition (of sorts) in the domain of religion. That means we all aspire to move beyond the confines of that which causes us suffering. But because we do not all have perfected consciousness, we cannot always know what causes us suffering. Thus we rely on the Priest collective to check our spiritual blind spots.

Thank you

Is Physics Subverted?

The challenge of finding a perfect theory of material physics is that you must first transcend material reality. If you want to transcend the nature of reality, you must make an intellectual inquiry. Since all inquiry is framed through the lens of one’s own ideology, how can we ever hope to understand what is going on outside of that?

We first start to understand things by imposing a model on them. Over time, we retain the models which make predictions and (hopefully) discard those which do not. Even language is a model: sounds are used to convey the nature of the human experience. The prediction of this model is that it is indeed possible to convey this experience.

How Physics Models Reality

Even if the mechanism we use to understand reality makes verifiable predictions, we cannot be guaranteed that it is objectively true. We will see below that two systems with extremely different structures still make a majority of convergent predictions.

Theoretically, physics is the practice of designing and fine-tuning a physical model satisfying the following criteria:

  • The model makes all predictions.
  • The model is minimally complex.

This is my definition of a complete physical model. Taking this definition as correct, we can use these requirements to evaluate the Standard Model as well as contrast it with my own Fourfold Action Model.

How Ideology is Formed

Often, people are quick to reject the idea that theocracy is natural, instead appealing to some other system. However, if we accept (take it on board as an hypothesis) that all forms of governance are computationally equivalent to theocratic dictatorships, we can start to predict who the associated “cult leaders” are. Thus, the hypothesis that the spontaneous state of government is a theocratic dictatorship makes verifiable predictions. These predictions further elucidate the nature of government, creating additional knowledge.

sargon evolution
i.e.: Sar-Gandhi’s Liberalist Cult isn’t working out too well.

Generally a theocratic dictatorship has a leader. The leader may have several associates and delegates and beyond them there is a larger, more superficial following. Anyone else is considered outside of the cult. This shape (of a cult) is manifold, and so we can observe it on all levels of human interaction. For example, a small group of 3 people will have a “leader”, even if no one explicitly agrees to it. Even on the individual level, there are two “cults” vying for control of the mind: the wolf and the monk. The wolf craves hot blood gushing into his mouth from a fresh kill and the monk desires to move beyond the prison of existential angst. Two rival cults, with different natures, perpetually vying for control of the biomass is a transcendent meme: which means it is true on all levels of magnification.

Modern Cults

Cults rooted in communist ideology share a similar pattern. There is always a single leader whose opinion is vociferously defended to the point of being unquestionable. As such, the cult of modern physics has led to a great number of uneducated folks endlessly quoting one-liners as anecdotal evidence of their condescending assertions. For example:

  • Gödel’s Theorem (somehow) proving the Christian God (lol wut?)
  • Karl Popper’s assertion about unfalsifiability somehow meaning that unfalsifiable posits are unscientific.
  • Evolution being unquestionable, even though it is technically an unfalsifiable hypothesis!
popper meme fraud
idiot

It is quite ironic that every possible means is employed to justify that no theory can ever be proven with certainty (because all scientific theories must be falsifiable) while certain models are completely unquestionable within the “peer review community”, making them de facto unfalsifiable! But self-consistency is not the goal for these people, the goal is power.

Was Einstein a Fraud?

The question of the legitimacy of various scientific theories was of interest during the third reich (see here). After WW2, Einstein was promoted as the sole leader of the Physics cult and his theoretical framework was elevated to the status of Godhood.

There is absolutely no question that the political affiliation of Einstein was zionist and there is no question that he did not originate the majority of what is attributed to him in the modern day.

What is less clear is the extent to which unseen forces played a role in the creation of the modern day narrative of physics. While it may be impossible to know the precise causality, we can nonetheless compare the principal tenets of the mainstream narrative of physics with that which can be demonstrated in my scientific formalism, which is demonstrably better, because it is both simpler (less complex) and makes more predictions.

Isotopes_and_half-life5jp
really cool predictions

The Standard Model

The Standard Model holds the following tenets:

  • Matter is fundamentally comprised of 17 (?) particles (see chart below).
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
lol wut
  • All accelerated reference frames are equivalent (General Relativity).
  • Charge-Parity-Time Symmetry is true (if the charge, parity and time of a system is reversed, then the new system will be symmetrical (possessing the same physical properties).
  • The speed of light is constant, for a constant medium (Special Relativity).
  • All forces are mediated by fundamental particles which travel at the speed of light (see: Feynmann diagrams).
  • The observable Universe came from a singularity: the Big Bang, which happened some 13 Billion years ago and at which point the laws of physics didn’t apply (bc “reasons”) and from which the entire observable Universe originated.
  • Chaos is fundamental, order is imposed.
  • Singularities are true.

What predictions does this formalism make?

  • Gravitational Lensing (light bending under the influence of gravity).
  • Unlimited flavours of fundamental particles (hence: CERN).
  • No limit to the number of elements on the Periodic Table.
  • Stellar and Planetary “accretion” (space gas magically self-assembling into planets and stars. because reasons).
  • GR-derived GPS calibration of satellites to correct for the force of gravity being lower in orbit.
  • Universal Background Radiation (supposedly, but not really*).

The Fourfold Action Model holds the following tenets:

  • {neutrons, protons, electrons, photons} exist.
  • The Measurement Limit is true for fermions (predicts the Periodic Table / Chemical Reactivity / 118 Elements in the Periodic Table).
  • Matter is fundamentally composed of waves.
  • Special Relativity is true.
  • Gravity acts instantaneously at a distance on all waveforms attractively (predicts gravitational lensing & gravity effects).
  • Uncertainty governs all instances of the transmutation of matter (predicts Nuclear Reactivity).
  • Electricity governs all other energy potentials.
  • Entropy acts upon every system (dt => dS).
  • Order underlies all chaos.
  • The Universe is uncreated.
  • Planets are created by Stars, which are created by Neutron Stars (before you start crying, it’s been demonstrated).
  • Singularities are false.

This model makes all predictions (meaning its constituents can be used to describe any physical system).

These are basically polar opposite theories. These results support the hypothesis that physics is indeed subverted for the goal of preventing people from understanding how the Universe actually works.

If people are truly science-minded and not ideology-bound, they should seek to understand my scientific system and abandon the false one. The Standard Model devotees endlessly promote that “little is known”, “we don’t know everything” and even “we can’t know everything”. It is very nihilistic and causes a loss of knowledge because people cannot coherently observe that which they do not believe in. My world view promotes that it is possible to garner information from a system, that this information can be optimised and that the only limit on measurement are the 3+1 dimensions of spacetime.

At this point, whether physics was subverted or just unfortunate is not really relevant. Because now we can all enjoy the quantum mechanical periodic table together:

8 periodic tables.jpg
Quantum Mechanical Periodic Table, Artistic Impressions

I really like that meme. The Standard Model does not have that meme.

eating einstein
Come over to the dank side.

Ideological Differences Between Physical Models

How, if the observations of material reality are the same, can these models be SO different. The reason is that the Standard Model is fundamentally wrong. However, because its (fundamentally wrong) assertion that there can be any time symmetry is approximately true on the microscale and thus results can be produced that appear to validate this hypothesis. Let’s find out why:

In my system, we accept that time travels in a unique direction. That is the direction of increasing Entropy. Our formalism summarises this in the following expression:

dt => dS

Which means that for every infinitesimal (smallest nonzero) increment of time, there will be a corresponding infinitesimal increase in Entropy. Outside of Standard Model particle physics, this is not even a controversial statement. Thermodynamics, which expounds the laws of heat transfer, explicitly teaches the so called “arrow of time” (time can only go forward, not back). Yet the SM teaches that if we reverse charge-parity-time, then we will end up with identical physical systems. This is false.

The truth is that Entropy always increases and it does so in a manner which is strictly not symmetric. However, on very small time scales, the increase in Entropy will be correspondingly small. Thus proponents of the Standard Model are able to generate experimental results which appear to have CPT symmetry because the time interval over which they are measured is so small that the increase in Entropy is not detectable.

we're all spacetime events
don’t make me have to meme on you.

Belief in the Standard Model ideology undermines one’s understanding of nature. Everything originates from the Zero Point Waveform. If you don’t believe that this waveform exists, then you won’t be able to perceive it. Belief in existence is a necessary condition for understanding and assimilating the Zero Point Energy Knowledge.

*Because the Big Bang is a singularity and singularities are regions where the laws of physics break down, they make all predictions (both true and false) and thus are tautological.

 

 

The Fallacy of Individualism

Is there such a thing as an individual?

Collective identities are archetype systems. For example, Marxism stratifies society along materialistic lines: proletariat & bourgeoisie. The collective identity of Christianity idealises the personality of Jesus, evoking self-sacrifice, patience and generosity in its followers. While they are not always aware of this motivation, members of a collective strive towards the ideal of their archetype system. While we all exist as individual conscious entities, an individual has no distinctiveness without a corresponding collective: archetype system.

Can a patient exist without a doctor? Can a student exist without a teacher? The answer is no, and it is because the former requires the latter to even be defined in the first place. A Doctor can exist without a patient, but not without an organisation which bestows upon him the authority to practice. In fact, all but one archetype requires an associated collective. The archetype which does not require a collective is the archetype which creates all others: the God archetype. The God archetype exists whether or not anything else does.

Religion Creates Culture

I think many people will be resistant to this idea, but I ask that you keep an open mind. Remember that the word “culture” derives from cult (a religious organisation) and so it is logical that civilisations spontaneously progress towards a Theocratic Dictatorship.

This simple fact is why the likes of Sargon of Akkad (debate here and “after party” here)  will always reach absurd conclusions when attempting to place the “individual” as the highest ideal. This strategy will fail because it contradicts the fundamental archetype of God. God alone is worthy of worship, not the ego. Individualism is a form of ego worship. Ego worship causes the consciousness to be directed inward. While everyone has an ego, true spiritual practice requires the consciousness to be outwardly directed in order to experience expanded consciousness.

black sun.gif
don’t get your ego caught up your own ass.

“Individualism” is a Selfish and Unnatural Ideology

“Individualism” is nothing more than self-aggrandisement. In fact, it is a cruel ideology because those of inferior intellect need collectivism. While those of superior intellect can “make do” without collectivism, those lacking a fully formed ego require a rigid hierarchy around which to frame their identity (so that they can actualise their archetype, optimise their archetype and ultimately transcend their (and all) sociological archetype(s)). Traditional teachings have always emphasised the importance of optimising ones adherence to their natural archetype.

The Solution to Shitty Collectivism is Optimised Collectivism

All forms of collectivism should be eschewed in favour of Theocratic Dictatorship. This system of government allows for anyone to join the governing class, provided they are considered fit. When a new recruit is brought on board, an existing priest must stake their reputation on their behaviour. If the new recruit commits a bannable offence (the High Priest Collective decides what constitutes a bannable offence), then the honour of the recruiter is diminished and the recruit is shunned. This system may sound harsh to the uninitiated but remains nonetheless the best defence against . To wield power over others, one must be held accountable and to the highest possible standard. People must be dis-incentivised from corruption to the greatest possible extent.

government gugvernment
where’s the lie tho?

Individuals Will Always Fail Against a Unified Collective

With the exception of the God archetype (who can defeat any opposition), individuals tend to fail when going up against collectives. Collectives contain numerous people and their combined brainpower and physical might usually overpower those operating alone or by “muh individualism”.

The MSM has made such a golem out of the Alt-Right that it has become a type of virtue signalling to attempt to criticise, “debunk” and “take down” this “organisation”. This often proves easier said than done.

Screen Shot 2018-01-11 at 10.12.17 AM
No, you didn’t.

The “Personal Freedom / Rights” Fallacy

People don’t usually know what they are talking about when they invoke the “muh rights” argument. This is fallacious. Human rights do exist, but they derive from God, not man. Laws are man-made and can either reflect the Natural Law or (as is the case in the current system) fight it tooth and nail. The problem with “human rights” as ideals is that one person’s positive “right” will necessarily be a violation of someone else’s “right” wherever resources are scarce. This subtlety is often overlooked by those of lower intellect.

The Proper Approach is r-K Selection Theory

r-K selection theory is a good dual (containing 2 elements) pulveriser function to use as a first pass ideology for genetic migration. This means we can continue to infer increasingly more precise measurements at all orders of magnitude from this system. We just have to make sure that we accurately define exactly what is meant by r and K type behaviour. For this, we always return to the original definition: K-type behaviour is near carrying capacity and r-type behaviour is far carrying capacity. Thus this pulveriser will be accurate as long as it is properly parametrised.

If you are interested in this subject, you can learn more here.

It is also a worthwhile endeavour to learn how to derive the logistic differential equation, from which r-K selection theory derives.

Thank you

 

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

Update March 20th: Reddit is Scum

Update March 28: Another Counterproof of the Incompleteness Theorem

*Proof follows below

banned from reddit bad math

I just wanted to let the Reddit people know that ridiculing my math theories as a prop to project the fantasy that you’re oh so smart has failed. Your comment thread is pathetic, you haven’t made a single counterargument to what was admittedly my laziest and most incomplete proof ever. Why would I disprove it 100% & risk someone plagiarising my work when I can just say anything and people will believe me even if it isn’t true (which it is) because you’ve ruined your own reputation.

At some point you have to give the insane conspiracy theory that there exists a “right wing conspiracy” against the actions of the radical left. At some point you have to accept that you are the one who is deceived: not me. The amount of mental gymnastics you must have to perform to hold a cogent worldview would make Cirque du Soleil blush.

Contortionist-New-York-3
get a life

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

Today, it is actually a “plus” to be widely hated (by the right people). This shouldn’t come as a surprise, it has always been like that in circles of true influence (regal infamy). So while it is unwise to attempt to win a debate by the sole means of ad hominem, it is naive to fail to consider the circumstances surrounding events as well as the type of person putting forth an argument.

kurt godel
shitbag?

To be honest, Gödel seems like a shitbag.

One might ask if associating with Einstein, the greatest villain of modern science, is a sufficient reason to discard all of someone’s opinions? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t have strong opinions on who associates with whom. A person’s actions determine their value more so than their associates. Jesus (whether he existed or not) himself associated with all sorts, suggesting this is culturally accepted as a virtue.

It would be naive to deny any impact whatsoever of Gödel’s environment on his attitudes, however.

I am of the opinion that his first incompleteness theorem is false because of the sheer number of times I hear it quoted to me in the interest of justifying some pretty absurd ideas. For instance, Dr. Jordan Peterson used the Incompleteness theorem when asserting that “God” is a prerequisite for truth: pretty irresponsible. This is untrue, a well-defined philosophical system is what allows for truth to be known. “God” as prime truth seems illogical. God cannot be narrowly defined since people’s individual definitions of “God” vary so much

godel quote language
If you cavalierly quote someone’s obscure theory to substantiate your position, you look like a dumbass when your statements contradict their ideology!!

Whether legitimate or not, Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem smells like a proof that “some ideas aren’t allowed”. But hey, I could be wrong. I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist delusional person.

godel von neumann quote
Oh, well, if Von Neumann endorses him, well, I just don’t know!

Let’s have a look at this dreadful theory people keep preaching to me:

First Incompleteness Theorem: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”

A consequence is that we ought to be unable to accomplish a unified field theory. If you believe in Gödel, you can never believe a unified field theory exists. Yet, tradition has always taught that a unified field theory DOES exist (the “self”).

Counter Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

We define F to be the set of all potential computations/measurements (actions) in the Universe. Let us define the “sentences” as series of actions. Since our action model behaves as operators (sorry but you have to understand rudimentary linear algebra for that one) & operators are linear maps, an elementary arithmetic exists. This arithmetic is the matrix multiplication/addition intrinsic to linear maps. This is  used to construct “sentencesf”.

True sentences the satisfy the criterion of computability (within the Measurement Limit) and false sentences are incomputable (in excess of the Measurement Limit). This means that all actions are either proved (computable) or disproved (incomputable). The Measurement Limit cleanly delineates the criterion of trueness for all actions. That is: measurements exceeding what is permissible by the Measurement Limit are false.

In our example, we consider only the potential for computation, so we never end up having to carry out any actual measurements.

Measurements reduce quantum waveforms, therefore there is a limit to the new information successive measurements can derive. Thus both the elementary arithmetic exists (the Measurement Limit pulveriser) and actions can always be either proved (computable) or disproved (not computable). Thus there are NO statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. This would seem to contradict Gödel.

QED

5DS_1214
I’m probs right tho. Statistically speaking.

Where is Gödel’s Flaw?

(source) The Flaw of Gödel is not technical but rather: structural. There is no such thing as “ω-consistent“. This is because there is no such thing as “intuitively contradictory”. You will eventually run out of new statements that you can make in an “infinite” system, thus you will not necessarily be able to construct the element of the proof required to make the necessary contradiction (see the 3rd step of the sketch proof).

This is because, at its core, the infinite number line (“Gödel’s numbers”) exists nowhere. Even the Universe itself has a “size” (largest interstellar distance) beyond which it is undefined. Measurements only exist because we can make them. Measurements all exist within the Measurement Limit. This can be shown to exist, be self consistent and make all predictions. An Entropic-Anthropic Principle!

Let us also consider that Gödel was a nervous insecure wreck. We are basically dealing with a dual competing hypothesis situation:

  1. Einstein is a really amazing smart guy who hung out with his equally enlightened yet ironically perpetually ill Gödel and they uncovered the secrets of the Universe.
  2. Einstein’s goals were political first and mathematical second. Einstein’s “antifascist” alliance combined with Gödel’s persecution complex to create a scientific philosophy that made everyone completely turned off from natural science because they presented it as a horrible pot of jibberish nonsense.

“This is Woo”

Some people say the quantum mind hypothesis is ‘wrong’ because it is ‘woo’. This is false. The truth is that there are many nonsensical theories out there. These are put forth to paralyse the minds of devotees. These psyops only exist because there is something to cover up! Those seeking to defame the Knowledge do so out of allegiance to the status quo. Luckily for us, the Periodic Table has made this shilling ineffective / counterproductive.

On Allegations of “Unprovability”

If you wish to put forward the argument that my statements are unprovable, you must accept that these allegations would apply equally (at least!) to Gödel’s gobledigook. Then it becomes a 3 state hypothesis: 1. Gödel & his buddy Einstein are right, somehow. 2. I’m right and I am the cool one 3. Someone else, who isn’t 1. or 2. is more correct.

I warn that a counterargument will most likely also fall into the domain of: ‘unprovable’!

I think mine is better.

 

Thank you.

 

Scientific Philosophy

Philosophy – General

No matter what topic you want to discuss, there will always be a structure (hierarchy of values) within which this discussion takes place. The truth value of conclusions drawn are thus not independent of said structure.

Generally, observations are first made through the subject’s fundamental ideology, then interpreted through their values hierarchy. This is a parse metric which sorts the information in a manner which eventually leads the subject to be able to draw a conclusions about the original statement, such as whether it is “true” or “false”.

truth value ideology hierarchy.jpg

When discussing particular subjects, we often run into problems because people have different values hierarchies. Rather than obtaining a conclusion, most debates turn into a stalemate. This is why it is very important to be clear both on the definitions of words and values hierarchy. Let’s explore each step of the process in greater detail.

Observations

These are sensory impressions delivered by means of the body’s electro-chemical potentials which form the bridge between the body (massive) and soul (a light-like quantum computer).

Fundamental Ideologies

Observations are first interpreted/simplified/compressed by the fundamental ideology. Given the large amount of sensory data, our mind must condense the information it is first supplied with so it can make sense of what it is experiencing.

While not everyone has the same fundamental ideology, most will have a fundamental ideology connected to their primary sense organs sight/forms and hearing/sounds.

Let’s clarify this abstract notion by way of example.

Sounds

Language: {vowel, consonant, tone, click}
ex: English = {(a,e,i,o,u,y), (b,c,d,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,v,w,x,y,z), ∅*, ∅}

*  denotes the null or empty set

Forms

Visualisations: {0,1,2,3…} (orders of complexity)
Linear: {point, line, plane, hyperplane…}
Geometric: {, point, line, triangle, square, pentagon…}
Quantum Mechanic: {point, sphere, torus, bisected ellipsoid / toroidal spiral, hypersphere…}

twirling black sphere
If it makes you feel any better, 99% of mainstream scientists don’t understand this stuff either.

While we could argue about which system was optimal as regards to parametrising a particular set (i.e.: the linear system is optimised for physical computers, the geometric system for physical buildings, the QM system for the consciousness…), it’s clear that we cannot associate a Truth value to any of these ideologies: they are unfalsifiable. (for example: English is “true”, as in: it exists. but then again so does French). Ideologies cannot usually be falsified, rather optimised.

We seek to optimise our fundamental ideologies in my religion. We achieve this by studying them and debating which is best.

Values Hierarchy

The Values Hierarchy is the structure demarcating what values are most important. Some examples of values include: religious scripture, truth, pandering (wanting to make everyone happy), identity, history.

quantum mechanic periodic table
My Primary Value is Truth

To summarise, observations are the measurements made by the mind/body. These are first interpreted by the fundamental ideology before being sorted by the values hierarchy. The end result of this sort process is the entity deciding a truth value for the original statement.

truth value ideology hierarchy

The complexity of the subjective experience highlights why it is very important to be clear both about the definitions of individual words (Sound Vectors) and ideologies (individual values hierarchy).

Types of Assertions

Falsifiable, Predictive: Limited scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding causality in a partial manner. Once they are falsified, they must be abandoned (something the communists seem to have a hard time understanding).

Falsifiable, Unpredictive: These are false descriptions, such as: “you’re ugly”. Pretty much useless.

Unfalsifiable, Unpredictive: Trite theories, such as: “There is an invisible unicorn in the room”.

Unfalsifiable, Predictive: Complete scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding the causality (the totality of all cause-effect relationships) of a particular system in a complete manner. For example, the Measurement Limit.

We generally run into problems when we use FP instead of UP theories. There can exist UP theories in psychology & philosophy (these subjects overlap in the domain of the Quantum Mind), but most people end up arguing in circles ad infinitum over minutia.

Optimising Ideology with Quantum Geometry

We cannot escape the need to parametrise all systems we are intent on describing. Because topographies vary, we must first and foremost parametrise a system within its particular configuration space (3+1 measurements per order of magnitude). Luckily, most systems don’t need to be parametrised exactly (with full formulaic representation) before we can make viable predictions about them. In any case, we begin by subdividing a system into what information is knowable and what is unknowable.

parse metric optimisation

Next, iterative/recursive optimisation is employed. Ideally, we want this process to be convergent, that is: the optimised version includes the original parse metric.

In order for a parse metric to be complete it must make all predictions within a particular system. Thus our optimisation process will involve either one or both of:

  1. Shrinking the domain of applicability
  2. Increasing the complexity of the parse metric

Applied Science Philosophy

It is not realistic to expect to find simple (low cardinality) parse metrics to expound causality of subjective phenomena. This is why people fight so much about the causality of race and culture: these parse metrics are often improperly defined / delineated and can’t help but create controversies.

Criticising an unfalsifiable parse metric without a viable alternative hypothesis is counter-productive. Presuming that an unfalsifiable, predictive parse metric is sufficient to transcend the causality of complex systems is naive. Only by studying the set of unfalsifiable parse metrics can we gain the intuition required to judge which parse metric is optimal for a given situation.

Examples of Unfalsifiable Predictive Parse Metrics

  1. The Fourfold Action model: {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}.
  2. Alpha / Beta (as human archetypes).
  3. The Logistic Equation (of which r-K selection theory is an instance).