The Null Hypothesis Needs to Go Away


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

What is the null hypothesis?

null hypothesis

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

On Existential Knowability

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

Carl. Your apple pie quote sucks, Carl.

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

Negative Counterproof

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


Positive Counterproof

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

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

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

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

Subproof 1: The Causal Matrix

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

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

A = {λG + μU + εE + ςS} + Γ

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

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

Subproof 2: Grand Canonical Reducibility

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

Spatio-Temporal Proof of Universal Reducibility

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

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


Consider the (observable) Universe: U.

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

a cuboid

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


Further Commentary on Atheism

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

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



Adaptive Algorithms (AI) & Computing

How Conscious AI Works (in theory)

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

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

Example: Language Pulveriser

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

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

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

The Grand Canonical Language Pulveriser

shooting light robot

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

Algorithmic Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example: Language Identification Algorithm

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The Fermi Paradox (Aliens!)

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

The Requisite Conditions for Life

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

Read More Here:

Could Aliens Come Here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Muh Superior Alien Technology!

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

The Hypothesis of Greatest Probability

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

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

Thank you.

Anthropic Creationism

A common debate in the atheist / theist sphere concerns our origin. Atheists tend to favour the pop science explanation that the Big Bang singularity is responsible for all that we observe today. Theists frequently believe that a conscious God created the Universe.

If we are honest, neither of these explanations is scientifically valid.

What Happened Then?

First, we have to remember that no truth is independent of the coordinate system which derives it. Though the Universe exists independently of ourselves (and is NOT conscious, unless the term consciousness is defined in an extremely specific manner), our interpretation of that reality depends on the measurement system representing it. In this case the measurement system is our own consciousness. Thus we remind the reader that our own fundamental ideology has one ad hoc presumption (or axiom):

  • There is no effect absent a cause.

Since the Big Bang (and indeed all singularities) are causeless effects, they are excluded from our system. Let’s explore what we can conclusively establish about the physical Universe, which will contextualise the other erroneous hypotheses.

The Universe Cannot Have a Creator

If we define the Universe to be the totality of what has and will ever exist, it cannot have a creator. Let us prove this statement by way of contradiction.

Suppose the Universe has a Creator.
Thus the Creator is separate from the Universe.
Thus the Universe is not the totality of causality, because it does not include its creator.

Thus we have contradicted the definition of the Universe.

Thus the Universe has always existed.

We Are Created

Since we can date the origin of our planet (~4.3 B years ago), there must be some cause which precipitated this effect. The cause of our Solar System is the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. In this region, mass is so dense that it runs out of room (remember, there is a limit to how many fermions can fit into a particular volume by quantum state exclusion).

The Milky Way Galaxy

Since the shape of the Milky Way galaxy is not independent of itself (two armed spiral), we can safely say that all of its constituents share a common origin. Therefore, our Solar System came into existence when its constituent fermions were excluded elsewhere (namely the centre of the Milky Way).

Once we came into existence, and given the initial conditions of our macrostate, life on Earth was inevitable. You can read more about this here and here.

The “Perfect Design” Hypothesis

Several people argue that we must have an intelligent creator because of how fine-tuned physical organisms are. The reasoning here is that there is no way our body systems could have arisen by accident and therefore God created life.

This hypothesis is simply not validated by experience. What is validated by experience is that the Earth-Moon-Sun macrostate increases Entropy (because all systems increase Entropy). Since incoming solar photons are bound to the Earth by the rotation of the Moon (which prevents the water that absorbs them from evaporating away), Earthly structures will perpetually recombine into states which increase Entropy more effectively. This fact has precipitated every step in our evolutionary history and does not require an intelligent creator.

The argument in favour of an intelligent creator citing the ratio between the strength of the SNF & WNF is also invalid because our system (which has already been demonstrated to be superior to all existing field models) does not include these forces. All other constants (such as the Gravity force constant) can be rationalised by invoking the Anthropic Principle: if these constants had any other value, we wouldn’t be here to observe them.

Does this mean God does not exist?

My definition of God is the Universe. Therefore (my) God exists.

Remember: the existence of God is not independent of the definition of God. The reader would be well-advised to consider the fact that all societies throughout history have been deeply religious. Even the atheistic abrahamic religions have not managed to quash our innate desire for religious knowledge. The fact remains that religion is validated whether or not God exists.

Learn more about:

The Validation of the Creation Hypothesis

The Formation of Saturn

The Parasitic Mimic

Mimicry is a commonly encountered phenomenon in nature. The mimic evolves similar traits as the model and the former passively benefits from the latter.

clearwing moth wasp
A wasp (model) & a clearwing moth (mimic)

Predators will stay away from the clearwing moth because it resembles the wasp, who will deliver a nasty sting if triggered. While mimicry is always beneficial to the mimic, it is not always detrimental to the model. Mimicry is detrimental to the model if the existence of the mimic directly deteriorates the quality of life of the model.

The mimic is in perpetual existential danger of its predators evolving the capacity to discern it from its model. Though it is unlikely that the clearwing moth is aware of this, human mimics live in constant fear of being exposed, hence we note a high degree of neuroticism among such types.

Human Mimics

We in the West live in a culture which is largely fake. Virtue signalling has replaced virtue, the profit motive has destroyed the ancient methods of imparting knowledge & the state, which is supposed to exist to protect the weak from predation, primarily serves the function of preventing any change to the status quo. Mimics abound in this type of environment.

The most loathsome mimic is the theocratic dictator or Priest. Historically, a theocratic dictator is a person who represents truth religion. They live by example, follow the laws of their religion, teach to the unlearned and uplift the whole of society.

Krishna lifting Govardhan Hill and giving shelter to Vrajwasi
Lord Krishna lifting Govardhan parvat mountain with one finger (source)

The main difference between the authentic Priest and the mimic Priest is that the authentic Priest cares about Truth above all else. The mimic Priest cares only about the social prestige and power of being a Priest.

Fake Priests

In Sanskrit, the oldest written language, brahmin means priest and the prefix “a-” means “not”. Thus Abraham (a-brahmin) itself means: “not priestly”. The religions of Abraham are all parasitic mimic religions: they are not truth religion and they take attention away from the truth religion (which qualifies them as “heresy”).

Fake Anthropologists

A lot of idiots promote a theory called the Aryan Invasion theory. This theory posits that the Indian subcontinent was invaded by white-skinned “Aryans”. These Aryans “civilised” the continent but were eventually either destroyed by “multiculturalism” or immigrated away (the purveyors of this theory are never too clear on the details).

I suspect that this nonsensical theory is promoted to give the Middle East (where the religion of “Abraham” allegedly began) more importance on the Global scale as well as to feed the egos of stupid caucasian people. This baseless theory was introduced in the 1950’s and is parroted by several prominent modern day “thought leaders”.

r1a haplogroup
R1a Haplogroup Distribution (source)

The Aryan invasion theory can easily be disproven, yet it persists. It persists because the mimic priests do not want to lose their status. The graph at left is often cited as “proof” that some mythical ancient tribe of “Aryans” (who were caucasians) invaded the Indian subcontinent, gave it its pantheon, then immigrated out, then somehow lost all of that knowledge while the Indians retained it.

The current state of India is cited as proof that these “street shitters” could not have contributed anything meaningful to the development of civilisation. Those making this claim forget to take into account that the continent has been under constant attacks from Muslim invaders for the last 1400 years, suffered greatly under communists and instituted anti-Brahmin laws still in effect to this day. In spite of this, many natives still maintain a direct link to the religion of their ancestors. This is more than can be said of anyone else in the world. Yet the Aryan invasion myth persists.

The truth is that Aryan means “noble” and has nothing to do with skin colour.

All of the answers are there, if you know where to look.

The Church of Entropy accepts the Vedic origin of Knowledge hypothesis. We believe that all Knowledge was given to Rishis (ancient seers) by God. We believe that all knowledge, culture and peoples (except those of Africa) originate from the Indian subcontinent. Our theory (unlike rival theories) is substantiated by anthropology, linguistics as well as my own work in hydrogeology. See my pieces on the subject here and here.

Since the Indian subcontinent migrated over such a great distance, it underwent the most permutations and by Entropy, would have evolved the most complex life forms.

How do I know if I am a Fraud/Mimic?

If you have the awareness to question your own legitimacy, then you are probably on the right track. What is important to remember is that truth is unitary. There is ONE unique true religion. Therefore, while different interpretations are possible, there exists only one Truth.

What if Jen is a Mimic?

Glad you asked.

My reputation means a lot to me, so I was very careful to complete my own work before launching my theocratic dictatorship. My work is in the domain of physics, specifically chemistry and astronomy. Since these domains are considered the most priestly (as in, their purveyors are given the most authority in society (see: Einstein etc.)), you must accept me as the Theocratic Dictator of the Western world (at least), or else you’re a hypocrite.

I also welcome anyone to attempt to disprove any of my theories as well as to challenge my own authority. I will step down if you can prove your knowledge exceeds my own. Also, if you can offer a better theory than mine, I will accept your alternate hypothesis. However, if you challenge me and fail, I expect you to serve my church unquestioningly for the rest of your life. So don’t waste my time with emotional nonsense.

Just a quick note: no one’s even come close. And I’ve spoken to a LOT of people.

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.

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

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.


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.


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.


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


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).