Truth is an Endgame
An Overview of the Cosmic Simplicity
O prisoners of Shadowland
You are transforming a universe;
You’re the process and processor,
The Vessel – the center and the source –
Of that which surrounds and contains you.
O children of time,
You’re the experience, the experiment,
The “test” designed to fail again and again;
You’re the medium, the message and Oh!
The massage – the great cosmic jokester
Who plays so subtly and furtively
With my sanity.
I’m here to call into question the greatest and most elaborate security blanket the mind of man has ever created for his self, that world of gross limitations called finitude. Infinity (unlimited) is absolute freedom and ultimately scares man to death. The responsibility of ones own thoughts and actions is enormous and so he takes pains to alleviate it. He feels more comfortable with authority: laws, dogma, idols, religions, science and other collective prejudices to guide his so-called ‘free will’. But free will in “the finite realm” is a delusion – almost by definition.
I am not here to sell books. I do not hold to trendy, new-age miracles and magic in some ‘post-modern’ world view. I’m here to point out a single, simple absolute truth: perpetual change, which, when understood, is so philosophically pure that it changes to its opposite, non-change. Simply put, we live in two separate physical realities: observation and appearance, plus process and substance; the third dimension of appearance, a virtual reality emerging from the procession of four dimensional substance, the actual reality.
Both hold equal importance. For the virtual treats purpose, the ‘why’ of universe, while the actual treats process, the ‘how’ of all universes. The former is finite, the latter is ‘beyond’, or transfinite. While we each create the virtual within, we share the ‘actual’ without. And neither could exist without el Otro, the other.
My work is no theory, nor is it mere speculation. It is not scientific. It was never meant to be. It is not even philosophical (in the academic sense). It's a testament, my 'footprint', so to speak. I know it's true because it has to be true. For it may be the only ideal that fulfills what has become my ‘foolproof epistemology'. And I live in that (my) universe.
Epistemology (probably the most important subject in all academia. Think of it as the criteria of Truth.)
To answer the critics of his first edition to The Emperor’s New Mind, Roger Penrose added a Preface to the second edition. In it he highlights an idea that to me became an epistemological breakthrough. It's "an instance of what is called transfinite induction... A way of organizing an intuition that can be directly obtained by familiarizing one self with the ‘reason’ that [it] is in fact true.”
My foolproof epistemology, which I call transfinite expression, is as follows. If you consider an idea true and it provides either an explanation, or major clues to an explanation, or adds major insights, to every physical mystery it’s applied to; and it satisfies the previous criteria of consistency, simplicity, (economy) and agreement with experience (and here we must emphasize our most relentless and dominant experience of the sensation we call ‘weight’) – and although it can never be seen, it completely explains why it can never be seen – while all along remaining irrefutable; and lastly, as Sherlock Holmes tells us, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable…”; well, can it be anything else but the truth – or at least the closest we have come to it?
At present, no “theory” I know of comes close to satisfying all these criteria. What follows, however, does.
Note that Complex mathematics cannot be a criterion for truth because a mathematical scheme can be created or resurrected to bolster almost any point of view. Plus, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell (not to mention Kurt Gödel) have all attested to the fact that “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Einstein, Sidelights On Relativity, pp 28)
Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. (Russell)
A Note on Method: Consider the statement: “Truth lasts a lot longer coming from the arts than it does from Science or Religion.” To distinguish their bureaucracies from their practitioners and artisans, I use Upper Case and lower case respectively. After all, art, science, and religiosity can be combined. Heraclitus did it. Einstein did it and so did Jung, Schrödinger and many others.
II: SO WHAT?
Great truths do not take hold of
the hearts of the masses. And now, as all the world is in error, how
shall I, though I know the true path, how shall I guide? If I know that
I cannot succeed and yet try to force success, this would be but another
source of error. Better then to desist and strive no more. But If I do
not strive, who will?
“The hearts of the masses” serve out their time on this earth by acting out a 3-d nightmare where billions of separate and, in many cases, conflicting points of view are maintained under the constantly redefined rubric of ‘freedom’. The power of this sleeping giant (which is us) has been shamefully diluted by a diversity of facts and opinions handed down by the local powers that be. These belief systems are not based on truth, mind you, but selected facts and majority opinions. Because if there were anything in the way of Universal Truth involved, religion and science would be combined in a unified philosophy; where physics and metaphysics would be complimentary and mutually reinforcing. We would not be forced to accept either a Religion or a Science with conflicting and highly competitive points of view based on their own self-preservation and self-perpetuation. While one gives us Santa Claus stories, the other gives us “mathematical fictions” (Pauli). They either insult our intelligence or assault it. Worse, we continue to buy it! We are so asleep and hypnotically conditioned, that we continue to refill their coffers to the tune of “billions and billions”–nay: trillions–of dollars. We do this year after year in our self-imposed incarceration. And this, my fellow inmates, “is indeed amazing”.
imagine what could be done, to the horror of officialdom, if we could
break those “chains of reverie” and unite some of those six or seven
billion points of view! A single, well-established, fundamental and
absolute principle depicting both the universal process and its purpose
would have enormous influence on “the hearts of the masses”. Especially
if this principle introduces ‘infinity’, the ultimate freedom. And
because virtually all official theories of thought are based on an assumed finite
existence, it would require at once the beginnings of a new type of science (“to
know”) and religiosity (re-attachment) because of a new foundation on
which to establish the understanding (philosophy, or more
Science, by replacing religion and devouring its own parent, philosophy, has become our only unanimously recognized avenue of acceptable knowledge. Indeed, we have been conned into thinking of science as a necessary evolutionary step instead of what it really is: an invention, a by-product from the plight of our human condition, the incarceration of modern man. The desire to understand has been gradually supplanted by a universal desperation: the need to know. And knowing – at the expense of understanding – carries with it the primordial evil: the security of belief.
Convictions make convicts: we are imprisoned by what we believe.*
*Stewart Gordon, Smile on the Void