Category Archives: scientific determinism

Scientism: When science becomes a clumsy and dangerous religion

Science is fine…as science; and what science is, is a methodology man uses to describe various relative relationships—between objects, between himself and objects, between himself and others, etc.—he observes in his environment. Via this methodology he creates an abstract conceptual framework, commonly mathematics, which then can be transferred and transmitted around the world with relative ease, in language, spoken and written, and used to whatever practical (like building a ship), or abstract (like charting a shipping route), end is desired. Science is a cognitive, conceptual tool the observer, mankind, uses to organize that which he observers, period, full stop. Go no further. This is the sum and substance of science. Anything more than this is a lie.

Take evolution for example. In the purely scientific sense, evolution is perfectly fine and reasonable, and should pose no threat whatsoever to any spiritual person, like the Christian, for instance…because the idea that evolution has anything to say about God, the nature of man, or the nature of reality is ridiculous. Evolution is literally nothing more than a concept man uses to describe a certain, specific relationship he observes in his environment—for example, what this fossil looks like relative to that fossil…or whatever. To add to this any metaphysical assertion, or to use it to deny that there is any such thing as the metaphysical at all, and evolution becomes a philosophy…and, sorry, it is just not that. At all.

Ask the evolutionary biologist to describe the philosophy of evolution and he will give you a confused look every time. Even he knows (or should) that one has nothing to do with the other…and yet so many atheists will call the Christian a fool for believing in God and use evolution as “proof” of their argument, even though the concept of “God” has everything to do with what evolution does not—the nature, value, and meaning of Man and Creation, and, perhaps most poignantly, consciousness—whereas evolution merely and only deals with the description.

The atheistic response to this fact is to cultish-ly and predictably deny that anything other than the description actually exists. There is nothing objective beyond the description, they assert; there is no real value nor meaning nor purpose…you can’t get an “ought from an is”, they will explain. Of course they ignore or don’t realize that the denial of any real philosophical meaning to man and creation is in fact a value judgment because it implies that the pure description of reality, removed from value, meaning, or purpose, is preferable because it is more truthful; and truth is obviously and observably more efficacious. Which means that truth is more valuable. See the irony?

The fact is that the only way that any observer (that is, any human being) can make a truth claim in the first place is by conceding at the very least implicitly that the truth has more objective value than a falsehood. Without a root, inexorable value distinction between truth and falsehood then what is the difference? None at all. If there is no objective value to truth and falsehood, then there can be no objective purpose, which means no objective way of telling the difference. In other words, if truth and falsehood have no objective value then they have no objective purpose, thus there is no objective way to apply truth and falsehood in order to verify and/or determine which is objectively which.

The fact is that there simply cannot be any description (truth claim) without prescription (value claim)—no truth without value; no epistemology without ethics; no science without philosophy; no physics without metaphysics. The argument that there is only description but no prescription, only “is” but never “ought”, only truth but no value, is fundamentally to deny consciousness—which is precisely what these scientific mystics do—and to deny that anyone is conscious is to deny that anyone is ever actually saying anything at all. So why bother listening to them…”them”being the peddlers of this nonsense? There is no “them”. “Them” doesn’t exist!

*

Do I have a problem with science qua science? Not at all. My problem is with what science has become, which is religion. Not that I have a problem with religion, but science makes for a particularly offensive, clumsy, and stupid religion…a uniquely unsophisticated gnostic-type mysticism I call Scientific Determinism, but which I think is more popularly called Scientism. I call it clumsy, stupid, and unsophisticated because it, by design, has no definable, articulable metaphysics or ethics, and openly denies them, whilst implicitly pushing the ever-loving daylights out of them to the point that its proponents (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens) are perhaps the most vicious and sarcastic religious disciples I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing. These hypocrites seethe at other belief systems to the point of pure loathing whilst pretending their metaphysics and ethics (i.e. meaning and value) don’t actually exist…which leaves one to ask why all the hate then? The answer is of course that they see other gods as threat their own; but since they cannot actually defend their god because they cannot articulate their own metaphysics, because their religion is stupid, they vomit all over everyone else’s god and pretend that they don’t actually have one. The hypocrisy breaks the scale.

In this religious capacity—science as scientism; where science co-opts metaphysics whilst pretending to reject them—science is no longer an innocent conceptual tool, but an amateurish yet supremely arrogant and destructive philosophy which seeks to describe the nature of man and the nature of his environment; the nature of the relationship between them; the nature of his existence; and, most disturbingly, the value of his creation and consciousness, by promoting the idea to themselves and others that none of this is actually real. Instead of seeing man as an objective frame of reference, which he is (the Observer), Scientism makes man’s frame of reference as the conscious observer a product of science…of “natural law” and “mathematics”, the “language of the universe”. The “laws of nature” are no longer conceptual tools invented by man to describe his environment and his place in it, but are now his Creator. In other words, they are no longer tools but gods. Man the observer is, in the religion of Scientism, now a direct function of that which he observes.

This of course is a rank contradiction in every rational and logical sense, but it is to be expected as Scientism is nothing more than bog-standard mysticism minus the explicit metaphysics and ethics, and, like bog-standard mysticism, Scientism looks first to subvert man, then murder him. Which it will do, inevitably, if left to its logical conclusion.

Under the mysticism of Scientism, science is no longer a conceptual framework for man to use in service to himself, but a cause of man, himself, which is ironically about the least scientific premise possible, should someone have thousand years to think one up. “Laws of nature”, like evolution, are not longer a conceptual abstraction that man creates from his own inexorably conscious frame of reference, but have their own “objective” and distinct existence “outside” of him. They are “discovered”, not contrived. Science is no longer a product of man’s consciousness, in other words, but man’s consciousness is a product of science…or it isn’t, and consciousness is punted into the cosmic abyss of epiphenomenon or transient illusion or some other such rubbish. The point is that under Scientism, the observer is somehow a direct function of what he observes; and the very inexorable distinction which is utterly required for observation to occur in the first place is magically obliterated.

If this isn’t rank religious mysticism then nothing is.

Proponents of Scientism deliberately or implicitly attempt to sidestep this bit of metaphysical pap by asserting that observation, by which is meant consciousness, is just an illusion, a-la Sam Harris…or that consciousness is some kind of ontologically transient epiphenomenon at best—certainly not objective, absolute, and/or epistemologically essential—as if this obscures the clumsy metaphysics rather than spotlight them…and, to be fair, sadly it does much of the time. Science as Scientism is no longer about what the observer observes but what the observer is; and what he is is nothing.

This is a death cult, period. Take a look around, friends…read the paper, watch the news, and listen to your political leaders…what solutions are they proposing for the world’s problems? Trust they science they say…and what does science think of you as an ontological individual with moral worth and agency? Not much. Not much at all.

Again, science is now just bog-standard mysticism, and probably worse because it lies to itself about its metaphysics, and this is what we all should be debunking…because the idea that man, the observer, is a direct function of those processes and forces he observes from his unique and distinct conscious frame of reference is rank folly, and simply cannot be defended rationally, which is why science interpreted this way becomes Scientism, which becomes a religion steeped old fashioned gnostic mysticism, which is nothing more than a death cult.

The fact is that the very truth and integrity of science rests upon an absolute distinction between the observer and the observed, as well as the basic, elementary logical understanding that the former simply cannot be a function of the latter. To assert otherwise is to obliterate both, and, most atrociously, reduce man to a mere thing, having no particular existential value at all, and dismissing his consciousness as nothing but an illusion at best, and more like an outright offense to reality, which obviously renders truth and morality as they pertain to man’s fundamental ability to actually, objectively posses them entirely moot. This is the stuff mass murder is made of…demonic.

By the way, if we follow the logic of the claim that “consciousness is an illusion” to its necessary conclusion, we realize that this means that man’s very ability to perceive anything at all, and certainly anything objective, is entirely absent from his nature according to the “science”. Man’s very epistemological and ethical frame of reference is fake…so of course he cannot perceive anything real. In which case, how can he actually know anything?

He can’t. Which is why he is implored again and again by his clueless and/or complicit leaders to “trust the science”…by which they mean “trust the divinely enlightened priests of Scientism’ because only they have been given the “grace to perceive” in the utterly gnostic sense.

Needless to say (or is it?) that what follows from this half-baked ideology is the rise of the tyrant-class—the “special”, “uniquely enlightened”, “divinely appointed”, “bred-better” philosopher kings, who by some religious magic have gained absolution for their own failed, illusory consciousnesses. These people have been appointed by the gods to compel the great, unwashed, unconscious masses into “right behavior” by violence and threats of violence, often manifest in the State, whereupon the masses are inevitably and summarily dashed against the rocks of what amounts to nothing more than the hedonistic whims of their “leaders”. This is where Scientism, like all cults, goes in the end.

*

As stated, the very rationality and truth of science rests upon a necessary a-priori distinction between the observer and what he observes; between the mere perception of the senses and the singular self of the consciousness; between objects and the nature of objects; between mere description and value, or meaning; between science and philosophy. In other words, science cannot describe a metaphysic—a metaphysic must already be assumed before any science is actually possible; and that metaphysic is, again, the basic distinction between the observer and the observed. Once that is wrecked, there is no science, there is only a religion. And a stupid one at that.

No Christian, nor any other spiritual person, should ever feel threatened by criticism coming from anyone claiming science as a means of disproving or casting reasonable doubt upon the existence of God or any other spiritual matter. Science has nothing to say about metaphysics nor ethics, and without these things, no effective argument against any religion or religious idea is possible. Advocates of “scientific truth” as a means of dismantling religious and other philosophical ideas, in order to get at the “objective truth” of man and creation, become the witting or unwitting evangelizers of their own religious dogma; and their method of arguing their own metaphysical assumptions is to simply pretend that they don’t have any. The intellectual fraud and hypocrisy is shocking…and even more shocking is the fact that most of the time the disciples of scientism don’t even notice. They really do think they are being objective. Embarrassing.

Do yourself a favor—embrace science, but reject scientific mysticism, or Scientism. Science doesn’t make for much of a philosophy…unless violent, nihilistic, death-worshiping, dysgenic philosophy is what you’re after.

Then it’s the crown jewel.

END

The Observer and the Observed: Science cannot make the distinction, and thus it is philosophically illegitimate.

One of my primary metaphysical axioms is the following: The observer cannot be a direct function of what is observed. A rejection of this axiom implies that the observer and the observed are fundamentally one and the same, in which case there is no such thing as either, since no distinction is possible. Nothing is observed, therefore no knowledge is acquired, therefore nothing can be said to exist, either the observer or the observed.

The reason for this axiom stems from my observation that the science, the scientific method, and scientific determinist claims about the nature of reality, all being iterations of empirical, materialist ideas when discussed in philosophical terms (which they should never be, as science is NOT philosophy….meaning that it is decidedly NOT a meta-analysis of reality and existence, and does not possess the tools be such), all presume—that is, prima facia—that such a distinction between the observer and what he observes simply does not exist. The observer is his body, his senses, his brain, and these are all material objects existing empirically and thus whatever scientific knowledge is acquired about those things which the body, brain, and senses observe about reality must also apply to the observer.

This of course is a clear—or at least, it should be clear—contradiction, and only by engaging in the cognitive dissonance ironically seen in mysticism, can science make such an assertion. If the observer is, at his most basic level, just a function of the same materials and forces which comprise what he observes, then there is of course no distinction possible by which the observer may know and understand what he IS versus what he IS NOT, which of course is a clear and obvious prerequisite to actually observing anything in the first place. The materialist assumptions of science when it is asserted as a philosophical discursion render scientific philosophies entirely self-defeating, and thus, to insist that science has anything to say regarding the nature and purpose of reality, is to insist that the “truth” is purely mystical, which means, irrational. As a philosophy, science, the scientific method, and scientific determinism should be rejected out of hand. The very fact that science roots itself it the ability of a scientist to actually observe natural objects and phenomena makes all assertions of scientific determinism/materialism/naturalism with respect to the nature of the observer himself an exercise in irony so profound as to make it perfectly ridiculous.

*

The predictable “scientific” defense appeals to an illusory consciousness, which is simply another way of describing the inability of science to make a meaningful distinction between the observer and what he observes. This begs the question: If consciousness is an illusion, then an illusion of what, exactly?

You see, the claim of “the illusion of consciousness” really means that consciousness—meaning the conscious frame of reference which is ipso facto necessary in order that any actual observation can occur at all—is in its fundamental nature entirely anathema to existence. In other words, the “illusory consciousness” is just the baseless idea that not only does consciousness not exist, it is completely antithetical to existence and reality at root. That consciousness is necessary to make such a claim in the first place—because someone must be in a position to know, and thus to be aware, and thus to be conscious of the fact, in order that they may communicate it—is seemingly never considered. Truly, when scientists stray into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy on the whole, the limitations of their intellect, or the the lengths to which they will go to ignore it, become obvious and quite startling.

Another claim made in service to the idea that science and its philosophical iterations can make a distinction between the observer and the observed is that space is the distinction. In other words, the space which separates the senses, and thus the brain and body, serves as the distinction between what is observed and the one doing the observing. However, this does not work either, because space, if we look at it fundamentally, removed from it abstract mathematical renderings (abstract mathematical renderings which ironically necessitate consciousness…that is, a distinct, independent, conscious observer) is not actually anything at all. Space, in other words, is not something which exists, it is, in its nature, quite the opposite…it is the absence of existence. Space is void…it is null. It, by definition, is not there. This fact is why I have for years found the concept of “wormholes” amusing and entirely fantastical, at least when described as “holes in space”. My response has been to question just how you can have a hole in space when space, itself, is the hole. For example, how can you have a hole in the hole of a doughnut? How can you have a hole in the hole? How can space occupy space? It’s nonsense on its face.

So, no, space does not suffice to serve as the distinction between the observer and the observed because space IS NOT. Space does not exist in the first place to serve as a distinction or anything else, because space, independently, is meaningless, purposeless, and categorically null.

And here’s the hard part. Unfortunately for all of the empiricists, objectivists, scientific determinists, naturalists, etc., and despite all of the (false claims) of my appealing to the mysticism of Primacy of Consciousness, we are at some point simply going to have to accept the fact that all distinctions between objects, including the brain, body, and senses of the observer and that which he observes, are entirely conceptual. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, but there is simply no rational, logically consistent way around it. Consciousness is categorically necessary to realty and existence at the most fundamental level. Period. Full stop. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can start to talk real philosophy, and, somewhat ironically, real science for a change.

When Mathematicians and Physicists Become Our Philosophers and Priests…

When mathematicians and physicists become our philosophers and priests we are all f**king dead.

https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function-auid-2120

Penrose here is saying that consciousness, which is a frame of reference, and inexorably so (all arguments to deny this frame of reference must necessarily contradict, since they must be made from a place of consciousness), is a direct function of something outside of it. Which is as nonsensical as it is impossible. He is saying that the conscious observer is a function of what he observes. Spot the contradiction…it shouldn’t be too hard. It’s about as subtle as a hand grenade.

This is why these people shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand miles of metaphysics. A. They are absolutely horrible at it. And B. Their ideas can only have one ethical outcome: mass murder.

From Penrose’s claims we can only conclude that consciousness is not actually conscious; the observer is utterly irrelevant because he does not actually perceive anything…that is, he does not actually think. Which means that you are not really you; I am not really me. All human existence and conscious experience is merely the manifestation of a mathematical (wave function) process which can have no beginning and no end; no premise and no conclusion; no purpose and no outcome, because the process itself is all that actually exists. The Process is Reality because it is the Process; Reality is the Process because it is Reality. Tautology is the rationale of Scientific Determinism, and this religion is poison.

No one actually exists, as such, is what we must ironically understand about the nature of our existence, according to Penrose. Thus, there is no victim; there is no murderer. It’s all just process. Ethics are zero sum, and all politics therefore can only ever be expressions of power…which is also zero sum, because power is simply the infinite Mathematical Process expressing itself…the “wave” collapsing into “reality”; “reality” returning to the “wave”, and on and on and so on and so forth.

Welcome to hell.

Coronavirus and Lockdown Overreach: Why the science is both odious and irrelevant

It is unfortunate that those of us who point out the unnecessary misery and chaos which has arisen from the embarrassing State overreaction to Covid-19 are compelled to include the epidemiological data in our arguments, as well as a variety of quotes and perspectives from scientific and medical experts in the field. And it is unfortunate for a couple of reasons.

First, it conflates and combines what are really two separate issues, the virus itself and its medical impact, and the government measures taken to manage it. The virus itself and its medical implications for you and me should have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. And if you ask me why, I will kindly direct your attention to the US unemployment and debt data, the current stats on psychological trauma related to the lockdown, as the burning cars and tire fires in front of the White House.

Second, it presumes and implies the lie that the State would have been perfectly justified and within its scope to seize control of private property, and dictate the terms by which individuals associate and where they are allowed to do so; that it would have been perfectly acceptable for the State to immediately claim ownership of every man, woman, and child, to collapse the economy, to plunge the nation into ever greater heights of unplayable debt, and usher in an pandemic of psychological fallout that shall dwarf the coronavirus and every other pandemic which came before it.

I find it ironic, if not rather depressing, that people feel that they must resort to mortality and case fatality statistics, SIR models, and R rates in order to defend the philosophical axioms that make individual existence, and all of that scientific data, possible in the first place. Among these philosophical axioms is the inviolable (without disastrous consequences) truth of one’s sovereign ownership of one’s own Self and correspondingly of one’s own labor. Further, I submit that an appeal to the epidemiological data as proof that the State has acted incompetently is really, in fact, only proof that one does not understand the State at all, nor appreciate the fact that if the defense of freedom from tyranny and exploitation were left in the hands of the scientists, with their tenuous grasp on philosophical reasoning and their irrational devotion to ludicrous determinism as an explanatory basis for anything, documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights never would have been written in the first place; and representative democracies throughout the world would never have seen the light of day.

The idea that I have to prove that the coronavirus is not particularly medically dangerous and represents no existential threat to man nor society in order to make a digestible and acceptable argument for ending the lockdown makes me, quite frankly, sick to my stomach. Neither the State nor any other agency or institution, nor man, woman, or child, may claim a right to my life, body, property, or associations, in any circumstance, ever, be it the coronavirus or a giant asteroid or a “war on terror”, a locust plague, a famine, a drought…anything. Government should never be in the business of risk management, because government, frankly, sucks at it.

The State’s answer to saving and protecting life means creating a situation in which life is not worth living. Risk management, the protection of individuals from the dangers of simply being alive, whether it involves climbing a ladder, flying on an airplane, driving a car, eating certain foods, engaging in certain sports, or navigating through the scary microscopic world of viruses and bacteria—whatever—requires nuance, an understanding and appreciation of context; it requires flexibility and temperance, a sense of proportion, and above all, an acceptance of the truth of the individual as a singular and singularly free-thinking agent, ultimately unattached to some collective ideation, and thus able to make efficacious choices in pursuit of a moral existence on his own—that is, that the individual in and of himself is naturally sufficient to his own existence.

Government understands none of this. There is nothing nuanced or delicate or nimble to the State. The State is blunt force…it is murder, it is flattened cities, it is prison, it is one-size-fits-all; it is bombs and guns and tear gas and jack boots and mushroom clouds, it is FORCE. Every drawing it makes looks like scribble, every photograph it takes is black, every song it composes is a shriek. The State knows nothing about protection, only SUBMISSION. It attacked the coronavirus with the same tool it uses to attack any problem, the only tool it has—a hammer. It cannot medically subordinate the virus…for that takes knowledge and experience and forethought and experiment; it cannot discern the at-risk from the unaffected and make public health recommendations accordingly, for that takes nuance and discernment and strategy and mercy and compassion. It cannot smash the virus into oblivion, for the virus is too small and elusive; and it cannot threaten the virus, for the virus cannot recognize its authority.

The State can, however, demolish the lives of the citizens it rules…it can “save” them by destroying them before the virus does; it can make the virus look like a party compared to the misery the State can produce. It can, within the span of a few short weeks, amass numbers of dead and dying that make the coronavirus look like a mole hill, rendering the virus completely innocuous by comparison.

How do you flatten the coronavirus curve?

By making a bigger curve out of the misery and destruction of the population you govern.

THAT is what the State is good at, and that is just what it has done.

So spare me the science; tie it to a rock and throw it in the lake. Show me a man who believes that you and I have a right to our own lives ONLY when the science shows that there is no longer any risk from the coronavirus, and I will show you a man who believes that you and I NEVER had any right to our own lives in the first place.

END

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part Two)

Death is an action without a consequence; birth is a consequence without an action. What I mean by this is that in both cases, birth and death, the relationship between cause and effect is irrationally severed. It is said that you are born, but if we define the birth of you as your “coming into being”, then the question is how can one be born if one does not exist in the first place? How can you experience birth if birth is the fundamental beginning? There is no YOU to be born prior to your birth, and so the consequence is birth but there is no action which involves you at all. The action which is entirely mutually exclusive of you somehow concludes with you. Frankly, this makes no sense at all. I don’t care how you twist it or what mathematical, evolutionary, determinist magic you try to invoke to square the infinite circle.

And death is like birth except that in this case, the action is of you but the conclusion is entirely absent you. You die, but since death represents the oblivion of you—the complete absence of you—then the consequence of dying has absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You could not have experienced your death, since to experience something you must exist—existence is a prerequisite to experience. This is axiomatic. Further, how do we make any claims about you once you have died? If we define death as the categorical absence of you, or the non-existence of you, then who exactly are we talking about when we speak the life one lived prior to death? If death represents the utter non-existence of one who once lived, then there is no longer any ONE upon which to hang the life which is said to have been lived. We cannot speak of so and so doing this, or so and so doing that if, so and so is entirely nonexistent. But if we insist that so and so did actually do this or that even though so and so doesn’t exist, then we concede implicitly that existence itself is transitory. Existence is not fundamental, but is itself, merely a mist which fades. Existence then cannot be trusted to be objective, and thus any arguments to the objective and empirical nature of reality and truth collapse.

There are a few ways that reconciliation of these contradictions is attempted, and all of them fail the test of rational consistency. One is to deny the existence of YOU qua YOU entirely…to insist that the Conscious Self is purely illusory; a hiccup of the otherwise perfect and perfectly determined mathematical, perpetual cosmic evolution. This rank nonsense was debunked in part one of this article series.

Another explanation is that death is in fact an illusion; that you transition to an after life, as the Christians or Jews or Muslims claim. The problem here is that Christianity makes no such claim about birth, and as far as I know neither does Judaism or Islam. Yet we cannot claim that death is merely a transition but birth is absolute, for both are the exact same relationship between being and non-being. You see, if death is merely a transition into an alternate state of existence, then so must be birth. For going from nothing to something is no more rational than going from something to nothing. In other words, if man does not go from absolute being (life) to absolute non-being (death) then he likewise does not go from absolute non-being to absolute being. If there is a life after death then there must concordantly be a life before birth.

The reality is that only when we accept that the Conscious Self is a constant—that the position of the Observer is to be the reference for an otherwise infinitely relative reality—does one’s existence as a conscious being begin to make sense. It is a hard truth to swallow, for it runs contrary to all popular religion and philosophy, which accept either death, or both death and life, as infinite and absolute bookends to a purely transitory existence as One who is utterly aware of himself, his environment, and possesses the capacity to conceptualize both, as well as the relationship between them, and from that prescribe definitions, and from these meaning, and from meaning, truth, and from truth, morality. But One who is so absolute as this cannot also be rendered subjective and finite via birth and death as they are commonly understood.

END Part TWO

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part One)

The idea of death is something I have rejected from a philosophical perspective…that is, from a perspective of capital-T Truth. I am okay with death form the purely emprical side of things…that eventually our bodies give out for whatever reason and we are returned to the dust from whence we sprung. But from a rational position, one where fundamental epistemological conceptual consistency is the only real basis for knowing anything at all (which is true), nothing about death makes sense. And birth, being death’s corollary in this regard, is in the same position. You see, if we only accept truth based upon empirical “evidence” then we can never arrive at a rational, relevant, and meaningful answer to the question “what is man?”. For man is more than his senses; more than just his body. If he were not, then consciousness would be impossible. The Singularity of the Self…that is, the constancy which is necessary for consciousness, and from consciousness, observation, and from observation, conceptualization, and from conceptualization, meaning, and from meaning Truth, is utterly denied when we accept that man is merely a transient phenomenon; that there is nothing constant and absolute about his Self; that consciousness is entirely finite; it begins with blankness, and returns to blankness, which fundamentally nullifies all which it had learned and spoken in the meantime.

Consciousness is where the empiricists and determinists and objectivists completely fail in their philosophy, which is why they relegate it to mere epiphenomenon—an illusion, with a purely subjective ontology. Consciousness, by their standards, remains “inside”, whilst “objective truth” is that which is found on the “outside”. That this renders consciousness mutually exclusive from objective existence, and thus makes conscious understanding impossible, and thus any claims about what constitutes objective existence and truth likewise impossible, which voids their entire philosophy…well, that never seems to come up much. But we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). The 1 of consciousness cannot be born from and then die to the 0 of oblivion. Consciousness, whether we want to accept it or not, is a Singularity; it is Absolute. The existence of You is predicated on You being a constant. If there is no constant/absolute frame of reference for You, then You is impossible.

You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You. And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define “You” in the first place. And You, and by that I mean Your Self, and by that I mean your Conscious Awareness of Self, cannot merely be some (perhaps complicated or mysterious) kind of cosmic or evolutionary illusion because that begs the question: “An illusion of what?” And that question has no answer because the “what” is that which the proposition (that consciousness is purely an illusion) denies can even exist in the first place. And consciousness cannot likewise be a non-illusory product of some unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative process because that creates the self-defeating assertion that consciousness is direct function of unconsciousness….that somehow consciousness can step out of the absolutely unconscious processes from which it directly springs, observe these processes from a specific and distinct frame of reference, and proceed to make claims about the “objectivity” of the utterly unconscious determinative nature of consciousness.

The only options we have are: 1. That Consciousness IS, and is Singluar, and thus does not come from the Nothing which precedes birth and return to the Nothing which follows death; or 2. That it is a function of either a purely relative existence, unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative processes, or is an illusion. In other words, that consciousness is in fact entirely unconscious.

And only one of thes two options makes consciousness actually possible.

You ARE; and You are Constant. I don’t really care what objectivists, empiricists, scientific pseudo-philosophers, or other nihilistic determinists think—I have listened to their positions on this for years and years and it never changes and never manages to wiggle its way out from under the rock of self-defeating contradiction which crushes it to dust. I have heard everything, from appeals to quantum physics to cosmic evolution to taxicab geometry (where apparently squares are also circles…which, no; this is verifiably false all day long). Any and all attempts to negate consciousness as being what it self-evidently IS fail, always fail, and will fail forever.

So…with that being said, how now can we proceed to understand birth and death from a rationally consistent point of view? Do they even exist at all. Well, subjectively, perhaps. But objectively, no. More in part two.

END PART ONE

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part One)

The broader point I am trying to make with the last two articles on the lie of the “smallest particle”—a particle with no dimensions and no sub parts, which physics acknowledges as existing—is that at some point, no matter how hard we ignore it, or do not acknowledge it, or lack the wisdom or critical thinking skills to see it, empiricism runs out. At some point the ability of the observer (man) to sense reality (that is, using the sensory transmitters of taste, touch, vision, hearing, smelling) breaks down and can only be accessed consciously. Now, by “consciously” please understand that I am not talking sollipsism or mysticism or faith, I am talking reason…the rational (non-contradictory) integration of concepts, which is a process that is wholly cognitive. That is, is a product of man’s mind, and not a product of his senses. Indeed, I submit that the ability to conceptualize precedes the senses in the rational metaphysical chain…or perhaps better said, the senses are a function of man’s ability to conceptualize his existential context (‘enviroment’) and not the other way around. But an expansion on that topic is best left to another article.

At any rate, speaking of mysticism, I submit that the objectivists, empiricists, scientific determinists, scientific rationalists are the real mystics, for they are the ones who ignore where reason takes them, insisting that only that which can be sensed is objective; and when the senses break down, as in quantum physics, conflate the part of physical reality which can literally only exist as mathematical equations, which are catagorical functions of man’s (the obeserver’s) ability to conceptualize, which is the foundation of consciousness…yes, they conflate the mathematical equations with empirical proof; that is, the wholly conceptual (math) is the empirical nature of the quanta.

Impossible.

No, my friends, the objectivists, rationalists, and determinists are the true hypocrites…are the true peddlers of determinist, mystic forces which act as the tyrannical overlords of creation and reality, with the minds of men—those very minds which create the formulas which describe the quantum universe in the first place—relegated to rank illusion, with only those “enlightened” souls able to know the truth. Men, you see, do not create the mathematics which describe the unobservable-yet-still-empirical reality of the quantum universe, they merely “discover” them. And only those given the “grace to perceive”—the particular intellectual proclivities necessary to grasp their hyper-complex design—can really understand. The rest of us are to simply accept their scientific wisdom on faith, as though a divine command, and to punt the explicit-yet-conveniently-ignored rational contradictions (e.g. waves of spacetime) into the abyss of “unknowable mystery”.

But here’s the truth: Objectivists, determinists, empricists openly (though they may not know it themselves, for they are much blinded by hubris and religious zeal) deny the right of anyone else to hold mystic ideas. Everyone else is a fool. Everyone else is deceived and a deceiver. Oh, they can demand fealty to their gods and goddesses—the quanta revealed through quantum theory and the cosmic noise generated by the Church of Billion-Dollar-Atom-Smashers—but the rest of humanity…well, god forbid that they should ever give any mind or deference to other divine ideas. Only the pernicious, mendacious, indolent, and simple would deny the supremacy of the gods of science. Only the irredeemably immoral, the unwashed barbarian, would reject the enlightened sight of  the Preisthood of the White Lab Coats.

Yet what is the difference between “Empirical Church” and other churches? We are told that the difference is that there is no actual faith involved in believing the “scientific evidence”, and this is because it is observable; tangible; physical; actual; sense-able; that science believes is observably distinct from this or that, or him or her. That what they believe can be seen and measured. It requires no more faith to believe in the truth of the quanta than it does a bowl of oatmeal.

But does it?

Can you observe that which is dimensionless, possessing no sub parts, and thus existing at no place, and in no time? In other words, can you empirically observe that which isn’t actually there?

I think you know the answer to that one.

And the answer is—faith.

END part one

Math Masquerading as Emprical: The lie of the “smallest particle”

There is no such thing as a smallest object; no smallest particle can exist. For such a particle, containing no sub-parts could possess no dimensions—and quantum physics openly concedes dimensionless particles…though it misses the broader rational consequences of this idea. And thus it could not be said to have a location in space, and thus would exists nowhere; it would exist therefore at no time. A dimensionless particle lacks a “what”, so it lacks a “where”, so it lacks a “when”.

A dimensionless particle, absent sub-parts, and thus existing literally nowhere in space could only be described mathematically. And in quantum physics this is the case. So, to be clear, quantum physics will declare the objective and indisputable existence of objects with no dimensions which thus cannot be empirically verified (lacking a specific “what”, “where”, and “when”) whilst at the same time completely aware that these particles only “exist” as mathematical equations, because this is the only possible way of “knowing” that they exist at all. Scientists will run experiments and smash atoms and set up billions of dollars of tax-payer funded detection equipment to  record “evidence” of the “objective” and “empirical” existence of mathematical equations, completely immersed in a cognitive dissonance which tells them that it is possible to record tangible evidence of an utterly intangible conceptual representation; that the physical effects which the machines record is the product of the cognitively abstract which the machines cannot detect.

When what is being scientifically studied is no longer observable according to the very definitions science uses to describe it, we are not longer being scientific.

END

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravity Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 3)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagatein all directions away from the source like waves inwater caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

Referencing back to part two of this article series, the logical fallacy discussed there relative to space and time is what science commits when it clams that “gravity waves are fluctuations in spacetime”: space and time manifest volume and temporality to themselves; they act relative to themselves, which is redundant and contradictory. Space and time are objectified as distinct, not fundamental (i.e. the context for the relative existence of physical reality-that is, physical objects), and then subsequently asserted to act as distinct objects relative to themselves. By both presuming a fundamentality and irreducibility to spacetime and obejctifying spacetime as a distinct object which interacts as a material object with other objects in the physical universe by being displaced in waves as a consequence of certain massive object interaction, science reveals its ignorance of the difference between metaphysics and physics, and pretends that they are one and the same, and that the metaphysical manifests as the physical, and vice versa. Which constitutes an outright embarrassing intellectual error on the part of those (physicists and mathematicians) who are widely considered to be the brightest minds humanity has to offer. This is not surprising, as the scientific community at best pays lip service to metaphyscis, and when it does it is usually in the form of some scientist who happens to be an adherent of some organized religion who is espousing scientific phenomenon as mrerely proclaiming the wonders of the Divine. In other words, proclaiming that science constitutes a validation of the mystical. And that’s not actually dealing with the metaphysics so much as punting them into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”…which is it’s own brand of codswallop that we won’t be dealing with here.

Here’s the problem: Space and time simply cannot be relative to the physical universe without fundamentally nullifying their very nature through redundancy and self-nullifying contradiction. Space (we will deal specifically with space here), once objectified, becomes a distinct entity itself—the vacuum, in reality, the absence of existence (that is, the absence of that which IS, is really a metaphysical context in which the relative relationships of those things which do exist becomes possible), becomes physical…it becomes not the absence of that which IS but something which IS, physically, itself. This being the case, space must have its own location, a location which is now relative to other objects which physically exist. In other words, space must now occupy space. And thus by occupying space may thus be displaced as “waves of gravity”.

But if space is actually what is implied and outright proclaimed by science and all rational and conventional defintions…that is, if space is indeed a vacuum—is the absence of that which exists—and thus does not and cannot occupy space, then it is, ipso facto, fundamental. For nothingness, by definition, is by nature infinite. But the infintity of the metaphysical is of course not directly (or, perhaps better said, not physically) compatible with the finity of the physical. Space, being the vacuum, and not a thing itself, thus exists nowhere. Thus, it cannot be displaced in waves, for there is literally nowhere for it to go. Waves by definition indicate a displacement of the medium which is “waving”, therefore, there can be no waves in a medium which cannot by its nature be displaced.

END part 3