American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

Kant, Plato, Schopenhauer, Krishna, Heisenberg

04 06 11 - 13:57

Modern science is a brilliant retard. It toddles on its little trisomy-21 twisted legs, grimaces its underdeveloped face, and then constructs a brilliant exposition of detail.

Then it wants a treat.

As we suffer through yet another round of the cosmic horseshit navel-gazing that passes for physics these days, this little nugget (ahem) catches the eye:

TWO of the strangest ideas in modern physics - that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse - have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment.

The problem is the observability of our universe. While most of us simply take it for granted that we should be able to observe our universe, it is a different story for cosmologists. When they apply quantum mechanics - which successfully describes the behaviour of very small objects like atoms - to the entire cosmos, the equations imply that it must exist in many different states simultaneously, a phenomenon called a superposition. Yet that is clearly not what we observe.

Cosmologists reconcile this seeming contradiction by assuming that the superposition eventually "collapses" to a single state. But they tend to ignore the problem of how or why such a collapse might occur, says cosmologist Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley. "We've no right to assume that it collapses. We've been lying to ourselves about this," he says. - NewScientist

I mentioned this stumbling mental cognition block earlier:

This Kantian data field corresponds to Plato's world of forms, Myattian acausal space, and illustrates the importance of Schopenhauer's principle of sufficient reason: that which is informationally different is unique, and thus outside of placement in the spaciotemporal, has a secondary role which may be more or less importance than its position in context. - The root of disregard that; I suck cocks

Here we must cite another source:

Relativity: no thing exists except as defined by other things. You do not have darkness without light, or cold without heat, because without the potential for the other, the one cannot exist. It is not distinguished from the mean enough. If all temperature is a gray 74 degrees, there is no need for extremes like hot and cold. It just is a temperature.

On a more practical scale, this means that space and time only exist relative to their contents. Time is defined by the variations in matter; space is defined by the proliferation of matter. The two are inextricably linked, because without time we cannot have space, as without iteration all things remain static.

Taking that further, we have to ask ourselves: what were the relative ingredients that had to separate themselves to make the matter/form/energy division that is an apparent precursor to spaciotemporal existence?

Immanuel Kant argued that we are relative agents like any other interactive force. Our interaction with our world, like its own existence, is relative to what it contains and what is around it. In other words, because we are here, we find time and space waiting for us. Because material had to exist, it found spaciotemporality and form waiting for it. But what was the origin state of that?

Schopenhauer sort-of-sidesteps this by saying that without time, you do not have causality. Almost true: you do not have linear causality. Without time, you may have logical causality so long as it does not depend on linear events; this is like the relationship between two objects as near one another, or of being the same color. This does not require a time-dependent causation.

Thus the precursor state is not so much a precursor as an enclosing state, or a groundwork for the state of matter/form/energy. This is like the idea of a philosophical groundwork to God being Godhead; or the ancient tales of aether... or even our thoughts being formed of the same type of logical circuits as the universe itself. It is pure related-ness, or relevance.

As Kant suggested, this enclosing state is much vaster than what we know as matter/form/energy, which because it is relative is like a worm burrowing through dirt. Wherever it goes, it creates a space for itself; around that is enclosing state, to use a goofy spatial metaphor. Schopenhauer then suggested another piece of the puzzle: with his "principle of sufficient reason," he argued that all objects which were mathematically/informationally different from others existed in a singular state. This is a way of saying that nothing exists without context, but also a way of explaining what this enclosing state -- what we might call an acausal, associative, informational state -- uses to organize itself: the exclusivity of patterns.

This leads us directly to Plato and his Forms. When he speaks of forms, it seems he speaks of two things: (a) a logical definition of what an object, say a chair, is; (b) the unique informational pattern that causes that to make sense or to come to be, and its origins in an enclosing state to matter, form and energy.

For us to make greater sense of that, we must turn to the ancient god Krishna, who like Schopenhauer argues that all we know of existence is changes in configuration of pattern, but not creation or destruction; it's more like making sculptures out of sand, and the sand returns. He also hints at something else however: the pattern, once expressed, is in harmony with its originating form in the acausal state. The uniqueness means that it serves a role beyond the material and that material interactions, while they seem to have material causes, may have preexisting causes in the acausal state, e.g. the material fulfillment of patterns that originate elsewhere.

In this view, we see the wisdom of Heisenberg: the observer changes the results of an experiment because the observer is an interacting pattern. This puts the experiment into a different state of complexity, and shows us what we should intuitively know: our consciousness does not have a physical or mystical root, but is most likely a pattern which exists independently in matter, form and energy, and thus expresses itself through the material but obeys logical laws beyond what our limited spaciotemporal, biological and self-reflective (solipsistic) viewpoints can grasp. - From "Futurist Traditionalism by Brett Stevens

Disregard that, I... uh...

five comments

I understood everything in this article
Yeah, in a way what you say is true, but it could also not be true... It's somewhat accurate so I must say that I agree, but at the same time, I disagree a bit... I understood everything in this article - 04-06-’11 14:23
another wordy article based on rapid inspired thoughts that are suppose to have deeper meaning into the human physic. pfff whatever! bloodandfire - 08-06-’11 22:10
I heartliy endorse anyone who wants to talk about Plato, Kant, Hinduism, or especially Schopenhauer, but everthing said here is only sort of true. Maybe Brett Stevens really knows all abut this stuff and just can't express it well in a few paragraphs, but it seems like he is blatantly wrong about Kant and Schopenhauer. Kant explicitly argues that we are not relative beings when it comes to space and time. As objects, yes, but as intelligent beings, no. Einstein said that, not Kant.

"because we are here, we find time and space waiting for us. Because material had to exist, it found spaciotemporality and form waiting for it. But what was the origin state of that??

Kant says we don't find space and time waiting here for us, we create it. Why does material have to exist? And what does it mean to ask about the origin state of spaciotemporality? States are states of matter, so to ask about the origin of the condition for matter (spaciotemporality) is either nonsense or it is to ask for Kant to reexplain his theory to you.

As far as Schopenhauer goes, he does say that without time you have no causality, but Schopenhauer narrrowly defines the word causality as what you are calling "linear causality." So when you say that Schopenhauer is "almost right" you are just not understanding that Schopenhauer denies causality proper without time, but he does not deny the principle of sufficient reason of knowing or the principle of sufficient reason of being, which determine things like spatial relationships, mathematical truths, and logical truths, all of which do not require time. But, like I said, those are not causlaity; those are forms of the principle of sufficient reason, of which causality is one form. This all sounds very new-agey; maybe Futurist traditionalism is just a code word for new-age. Brett Stevens has managed to throw around concepts from 4 or 5 of the most brilliant and complex philosophers from all of history, summarize the views that he wants to appropriate without ever proving that he actually understands those views, and then mashes them all together to produce some sort of result that probably none of the original thinkers would endorse. What I just described seems to be the very method of new-age types, and apperantly Brett Stevens. Brian (Email ) - 09-06-’11 17:34
ya allah
i bet whatever you know about lord krishna is from osho baba i bet ya allah - 11-06-’11 03:26
wow gold
Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research on this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more clear from this post. I am very glad to see such fantastic information being shared freely out there. wow gold (URL) - 25-01-’13 03:00

(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.