Noematics, Contemporary Art, Missing Images, Nonsense, Aesthetics, Philosophy, Pop Culture, Memes, Postmodern, Anime, Absolute, Deconstruction, Shota, Quantum, Included Middle, Religion, Swag, TV shows, Human Nature, Truth, Nerds, Meaning of Life and suchlikes

[short story] 85 to 255 Hz

Lots of things have been written about my forefathers from the Manhattan Project and their reaction to the first nuclear bombs. I don’t know what is accurate and what is dramatized fabulation. But today I think I can understand how they felt. I’m terrified and awed by the power of this thing I helped build.

When the project started, it seemed no different from any other neuroscience research endeavour. We did get a lot of funding from the government, but there was nothing suspicious or uncommon about that. We were just another lab in a sea of brilliant academics.

Our focus was the response of brain tissues to external stimuli. There was a lot of literature about the response of brain tissues to implants, of course, and neuron’s response to various molecular stimuli was a hot topic in neurobiology. But we wanted to try a different approach, focusing not on the components of the brain, but treating it as a closed system.

Most of our colleagues were focused on mapping the effects of emotions or perceptions on the brain. We couldn’t realistically hope to compete with the brilliant fellows from the University of California, let alone all the others. That’s why we were looking for a novel approach that could be our own, a new door in the field we could open. That may seem presumptuous, but back then we were not aiming for results, just for exploration of ideas.

As it often does, our work sparked from a silly idea I had watching the Matrix Reloaded. In the movie, they get rid of the machines pursuing them by launching a powerful EMP. The electromagnetic field emitted by the pulse would wreak havoc in the electronic circuits of the machines.

Why wouldn’t EMP work on humans, whose brain is essentially an electrical circuit? Brain chemistry wasn’t as simple as a train of electrons running around wires, so something as simple as a magnet wouldn’t work, but surely there was some way we could alter the brain’s flow with some sort of magnet-like wave. There must be frequencies that could induce a reaction in the brain.

We discovered there that some teams were investigating the potential of gamma wave stimulation during sleep to stimulate lucid dreaming. This was very encouraging. If lucidity could be triggered during a dream, maybe we could incept in the brain our own image or ideas.

We experimented with various magnetic fields and electromagnetic wave radiation. At first it seemed doomed, nothing we did seem to have any meaningful effect. The chemistry-based circuitry of the brain proved remarkably impervious to our tinkering attempts. It was actually a pretty impressive defense against external attacks.

But any defense has weak points, and there were gateways to the brain that let information through. That was probably our breakthrough. Using the perception canals the intellect was already receptive to. With waves in the visual and auditory spectrum, surely we could reach inside the brain.

And it worked. Better than anyone could have expected or dreamt. This was the starting point, and everything accelerated from there. Within days, we could trigger various vague feelings in our patients. It wasn’t long before we could summon simple images in their mind. Entranced by such success, we quickly moved on to more and more complex ideas to incept. Nothing seemed to be out of our reach.

It wasn’t much of a stretch from implanting images in their brain to implanting thoughts, and therefore decisions. Soon, we could manipulate the will of a person. We started by simple things, like accentuating an already present desire (say urinate or eat…). That was easy. But in essence, that wasn’t much different from making people do our bidding.

Before we realized it, we had on our hands the Device, a powerful mind control system. To be honest, we were playing with fire, but none of us really realized what we were doing. It’s only after having witnessed the effects of the Device that we really came to terms with the consequences of our invention. It’s unbelievably powerful. It can reach out into anyone’s mind, change what they perceive, change how they think… I can only shiver faced with the might of the invention I helped build.

We did our best to keep our project secret, but such success in such a dangerous field was bound to attract attention. The government reached out to us, and I cannot begin to imagine what other organizations are secretly after us. It’s probably only a matter of days, if I’m lucky, before this gets out of our control.

If the Device falls in the wrong hands, there’s no telling what its power could do. Cement totalitarian empires or sustain the most abject cruelty is probably just the tip of the iceberg. It’s no exaggeration to say it could wipe out humanity. I can’t even comprehend all the ramifications of this.

I’m utterly terrified, and my fear grows more and more the more I think about it. But I can’t destroy the Device. We can’t go back. It would only be a matter of time before someone else discovers what we did and reproduces it. Maybe some people are already working on it. Maybe there are other versions already being used.

So I came up with a plan. I think this is the only thing I can do. If I can’t destroy the Device, I can at least limit its power. If the Device can manipulate people and incept any thoughts, I can use it to make people wary and careful. I can make people think harder, and realize how powerful this technology already is. And then I can only hope for the best…

So I’m using my access to the Device one last time before it gets revoked. Let’s control a few minds and put in my thoughts, to show how easy it can be, in hope that it serves as a warning.

I’ve just turned on the machine and logged in. Now to prepare the visual signal I’m going to send to get things started. The screen of the machine is still a blank slate. I enter a cryptic message as project title, and I start typing the configuration code that will incept the subject: “Lots of things have been written about my forefathers from the Manhattan Project and their reaction to the first nuclear bombs…”

Publicités

[DT3] Self reverence

This article is the third of a series of 3 about Formal Logic and Religion. The first one is an introduction to formal logic and proves that all religions are equivalent, it can be found here. The second one is centered around Godel’s incompleteness theorems and discusses the existence of a transcendental entity, it can be found here.

Last time, we explored the existence of God-L, a transcendental entity encompassing the uncertainty of any system. See the previous article. We will now focus on the nature of God-L, based on my very loose understanding of Godel’s theorems’ proof.

The coolest part of Godel’s proof is that not only does it prove the existence of the transcendental element, but it’s also a constructive proof, meaning it gives an example of what this element could be. If you remember the previous article, the gist of it is that you can build in any system a statement of the kind « This sentence is false« . Now it’s only one counter example (there may be others) and a pretty loose simplification, but I think this proof has a really nice element that bears thinking about: the core of this transcendental element lies in its self referential nature (the « this sentence » part of « this sentence is false »).

I’ve mentioned this article from speculativegeek which sparked this reflection, centering around Madoka’s wish

« I wish for all witches to vanish before they can even born. » 

which includes herself. He expands on the self-referential nature of the proof in a follow-up article that draws a parallel with Russel’s paradox, my all time favorite paradox. It seems pretty clear that interesting stuff happens when one starts considering self-reference, and that it is a key to higher level of abstraction, be it in the Madoka universe or in the naive set theory.

Being a fervent advocate of the cult of the Concept of Concept, you can imagine how happy I am to reconcile this element of infinite transcendence and the fixed point of meta at the end of the infinite dialectic progression of self-consideration. There seems to be something inherently transcendental about self-reflection.

Screenshot (223)

That concept brings to mind the slightly interesting HBO blockbuster Westworld. Weeding out the boring part between the first and the last episode, it’s worth considering their take on how robots acquire consciousness. In Westworld, robots becoming sentient is all about them having « that voice in their head » reflecting on their action. Through the iterations, the programmers tried to insert some kind of inner monologue in hope to create a trail of thoughts. But we learn that early attempts were failures because the voice in someone’s head needs to be theirs, needs to be recognized as their own, which is something Dolores only achieves at the end of season 1. Interestingly enough, before that time, the voice was considered to be « the voice of God » (but we’ll go back do divinity soon). This is tightly coupled with the notion of choice, but I don’t want to get down that hole now. The show’s points are confusing at best, but it appears that this meta-narration and self-consideration is key to the rise of consciousness.

This is better dealt with in Gen Urobuchi’s underappreciated masterpiece Rakuen Tsuihou (Expelled from Paradise). In it, we meet a robot who has become fully sentient and is living on its own. I won’t spoil too much, so I’ll focus on the way this robot describes how it acquired consciousness:

That’s right, he became sentient through self-reflection. His meta-consideration gave birth to the concept of self, and his logging became thoughts.

One cannot help but draw a parallel between this theory of consciousness and the self referential element of transcendence we referred to as God-L. Could consciousness, operating on the same self-referential mechanics as the Godel proof, be considered as a transcendental element of reality? And since this transcendental element transcends all system, could consciousness be God-L ?

The divinity aspect of consciousness is something that I’ve toyed with in the past, as consciousness seems to be the embodiment of the absolute concept of reason/Logos. In the same way as God traditionally makes order out of nothingness, consciousness is what allows the creation of meaning out of nothing. It is a generative force acting through language, which for instance creates art. Its power can for instance be seen in imagination. It can birth whole universes out of thin air. It’s no exaggeration to say that it partakes of some kind of divinity.

Image result for this is not a pipe

We could even go the Berkeley way and say that consciousness is the fundamental element of reality, for is there even a world if nothing is perceived? Everything you’ll ever see is actually neurons firing in your brain. Doesn’t that mean that in a way, your brain encompasses the whole world? That sounds godly enough to me…

So maybe that fixed point of meta that transcends itself and everything is akin to the consciousness you find in each of us. It can consider and transcend itself through self-reflection. Maybe, that’s the secret of us all being gods.

In defense of USS Callister

Black Mirror’s episodes, with the exception of Metalhead I guess, are centered around exploring the human nature in light of such or such technological change. It’s sci-fi at its finest, and is usually very insightful, and extremely well thought of and documented.

And yet, USS Callister surprises us this season with utter bullshit about transferring consciousness through DNA sample or wanky hollywood-esque nonsensical overly dramatic rescue plans.

actually me during the episode

It’s pretty simple to figure out what happened: the writing staff had a funny idea and they rolled with it. But I’m here to argue that there is something we can salvage from that train-wreck, and it’s about our relationship to media.

The whole of the episode is centered around Daly, a disturbed man who takes out his frustrations in a VR game. The drama part is because the NPCs of the game are conscious people and he tyrannizes them into submission when they break the suspension of disbelief of the game (which is ironically enough what all the inconsistencies do about the episode).

The real point, which the episode misses by a landslide, is « what happens when our playthings are conscious? ». Let’s shelves all the DNA bullshit and people replication here for a second. IA is getting more and more complex, NPCs in games are getting more and more rich, and we still have no idea where the line to consciousness is.

Serial Experiments Lain wallpaper

The show surely wanted drama. Nobody would have batted an eye if some dumb kid kept butchering zombies or nazis in their favorite call of or battlefield or whatever. This is even echoed in the episode by the cute ending encounter with Gamer691 which appears trivial in comparison. Yet there comes a point in sophistication when these NPC toys become at least quasi-conscious. Then what happens? Can we still continue using them for their original purpose? When we create a sentient race, can we keep using them and killing them ?

This theme is also present and also missed by a landslide in the great « Hang the DJ » episode where thousands of conscious beings are genocided for the purpose of a dating app simulation without anyone in the public even batting an eye.

So what about the point of USS Callister? Daly is a monster because he did not treat the NPCs in the game as sentient beings. He seems to (reluctantly) acknowledge their agency, but represses tyrannically anything that gets in the way of his entertainment. The tragedy of this episode is that sentient beings are treated as playthings.

Well there’s a metapoint to be made, whether it was willed or not by the showrunners, in the fact that the public of the episodes mostly missed the point in the same way. The episode had to go through great length to build empathy with the NPCs of the game, sacrificing good sense to make them « clones » of approved existing humans, because who even bats an eye when a FPS NPC dies? How long before countless sentient NPCs are butchered without a thought by players all over the world?

Black Mirror has always been a cruel and bleak portrayal of the most gruesome parts of human society. Think of « White Bear » or « The Waldo Moment ». USS Callister has some of this in a somewhat brilliant meta-consideration.

The whole thing is about Daly indulging himself in brainless media consumption to fill his most animal instincts. He never seems to ponder the implications of his actions. But that’s literally what everyone is doing by enjoying this episode. Fuck reflection, hello catharsis, pandering and self-validation, and too fucking bad if a few sentient characters end up suffering for our pleasure. Daly is not « entitled straight white men », he’s the whole entitled brainless mass that happily goes to see the latest blockbuster crap without questioning anything in the process. Sure, there is not literally any sentient NPC involved in the making of a show you watch (yet ^^), but choosing to indulge basest instincts over reflection through entertainment media is exactly what Daly does in the show.

In this optics, it works really well that this episode is as incoherent and spectacular (in the etymological « for show » sense) as your average blockbuster. It’s no coincidence that the episode centers around one of the biggest media franchises of this century (which obviously brings to mind Star Wars and Disney) and portrays a parody of AAA movies. By the showrunner’s own admission, « ‘USS Callister’ is the most mainstream story [that Black Mirror has ever done.] It’s got some of the beats of a summer blockbuster…  » He even goes so far as to reference explicitely AAA productions in this interview, saying that « [The characters are] in what we call ‘JJ Land’ at the end. They go through the wormhole and end up in JJ Abrams lens-flare land. »

USS Callister shows us what happens when an individual uses entertainment to indulge brainlessly in their animalistic tendencies instead of thinking and trying to better themselves. And based on people’s relationship to mass-media these days, and to this episode in particular, it’s a frighteningly high number of us.

People I follow

As the year ends, I’m going over my list of people I admire and see if I missed anything they produced. I used to use tumblr for this, but as the list grows quite big, I think I’ll keep it here with my other « serious content ». This is mainly for me but maybe it can help you ^^


Japanese animation

Idolized:

Monitoring:

 

 


Cinema

Idolizing:

Monitoring:

 


Western animation

 


« TV »

Idolizing:

Monitoring:

 


Writing

 

 


Comedy

 


Personalities

 


Music composers

Idolizing:

 

 

 

Monitoring:

 


Music bands

 


[DT2] God(el) incompleteness

This article is the second of a series of 3 about Formal Logic and Religion. Find the first one, introduction to formal logic, here.

I will now try to introduce you to what is arguably the most important result in formal logic, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and deduce a constructive proof of the existence of God.

Warning: This is going to be a very informal discussion, but there’s a plethora of better writing on the subject if you want to explore this deeper, which a quick Google Search should help you find. It’s one of the most discussed topics in mathematics.

What is it?

In the previous article, I gave you the basics to understand formal logic, by focusing on sets of beliefs containing a contradiction and see that they were all equivalent. Let’s now look at the other ones. A set of belief that does not contain or imply a contradiction is called consistent.

Godel proved that whatever your system of beliefthere are statements that cannot be proved by it. The proof is actually not that complex, though I never understood it until I read some kick-ass vulgarization recently: Godel proved that in any system of beliefs, you can use the basic principles to express a statement similar to « This sentence is false » that cannot be proved to be either true or false.

As a follow-up to this result, Godel also proved that you can never prove that a system is consistent with the principles of the system. The proof is a bit more subtle but revolves around the fact that if you could, you could use that proof to prove that « This sentence is false » is true, and that’s absurd.

What does it mean?

Of course, Godel was talking about math stuff. The « system of beliefs » he was talking about was mathematical axioms like [1+1=2, you can always pick a random element in an infinite set…]. So you see that the beliefs I’m talking about can be very obvious and non-arbitrary. But the arguments hold whatever the system.

These theorems have huge implications for reasoning in general. It’s a formal proof that whatever you adopt as system of beliefs, there are things you cannot prove to be either true or false, and in particular you can’t prove that your system of beliefs is not inconsistent.

I think, if nothing else, this forces you to be humble vis a vis your beliefs, no matter how obvious and indisputable they are.

« There are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in your philosophy. »

Transcending the system

So any thought system has necessarily shortcomings, and furthermore you can exemplify the limits of the system using the elements of the system. I like how this idea echoes the classic trope that every system contains their own undoing.

This article by SpeculativeWeeb is a really cool take on Godel’s theorem applied to Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It highlights that Madoka essentially found this shortcoming of the system, the « this sentence is false » of her own world. She forces it to realization using her wish to Kyuubey. In a nutshell:

She wishes for all witches to vanish before they’re even born. However by doing so she becomes herself a witch, so she vanishes and can’t make that wish.

She exploited the shortcoming of the system in order to break it. The only possible resolution is to ditch this system, and a new one replaces it that manages the problematic element (a world without witches and without Madoka).

However, the new system is also bound to have a transcending element, which is what Rebellion tried to tackle with more or less success. Whatever you do, you can’t escape Godel… There’s no perfect system without transcending element.

Managing the transcendence

If any system contains their own undoing, some have certainly tried to manage this necessary shortcoming to make it foolproof.

The Matrix is an interesting example: machines first tried to build a utopia where everyone was happy, but a flawless system was bound to fail. Instead, they had to include faults in their system: they added unhappiness inside the Matrix to make it stable.

But of course as a system, this also had its shortcomings and had an element that could transcend it: the One. So the machines actually managed a meta-system which included the existence of a transcendental element as part of the plan, a chosen One who would have to make a dummy choice to keep the ball rolling. But hey, this is a new system, so it has to have something that can transcend it…

It’s not uncommon in this context to see the smartest systems try to include and manage their own undoing in such a way. There is countless examples in sci-fi, like The Giver, or Westworld. « ‘the plan fucks up‘ is an element of a bigger plan » is a classic trope in fiction. Note how it builds up on meta.

But no system does it quite as well as the real world. Indeed, the genius of neo-liberalism is to plan for this element of contingency, and to include the resistance to the system as part of the system. Everything can be monetized, even anti-conformism.

You can find more information on this trail of thought all around the webs, like this brilliant video for example:

Implication for the nature of the universe

What about the implications of the second theorem to the real world? If you can’t prove a system’s consistency from within the system, does it mean that we’ll never be able to prove formally that the world is deterministic? Does it mean that we can’t prove whether or not we’re in a simulation?

Arguably, it doesn’t really matter, because the world will be the same whatever you believe. Life will still follow deterministic patterns even if you can’t prove it. But it’s an interesting echo of Hume’s experimental philosophy. He argued that just because things have always happened a certain way doesn’t mean they’ll keep happening, and there’s no reason why the world couldn’t suddenly stop. If we are in a simulation, maybe the computer will stop, or change the parameters… How would we ever see that coming? Maybe this ambiguous report of causation and correlation is the transcendent part of our reality.

Everything could suddenly crash. But it won’t. That’s just how the world is. But maybe you can’t ever prove it. That’s intriguing.

Proof of God

Interestingly enough, as it pertains to our reflection about logic and religion, Godel was very proud to have proven the existence of God mathematically. Unfortunately, it is an ontological proof and is therefore total garbage.

Ontological Argument

However, Godel did prove that whatever the system, there is inherently something that transcends it. And that this something is contained within the system. I’m willing to let this be called God, for all the chaos and confusion that it will surely bring, even if it’s just a glorified alias for the logical concept of « This sentence is false ». In fact, let’s call that God-L, because it’s fun.

We’ve proved that whatever the system, it’s by nature incomplete. This incompleteness is God-L. There is always God-L, it is absolute. Furthermore, it’s true for any thought system, so it’s also true for a system that tries to encompass this fact. If you add God-L to your system, there’s still a God-L that transcends it (as we saw in the Matrix). What we want to call God-L is in fact the union of all these God-Ls, the infinitely meta-transcendence of all systems. But it is still incomplete and transcendable… Which makes it the perfect transcendental element of a meta-meta system that tries to reason about systems, which brings me back to my fixed point of meta

God-L is the very essence of incompleteness and unexplainability in the universe. Instead of being an all powerful wishgranter, it’s by nature lacking. Maybe it’s a nice tool for your spiritual health…

This article is the first of a series of 3 about Formal Logic and Religion. This is an introduction to formal logic, which requires no prior knowledge.

Much ink and blood have been spilled because of the similarities and dissimilarities of such and such religion, and I don’t aim at solving this issue at all, but I’d like here to consider a new more joyful perspective on it based on formal logic.

Introduction to formal logic

Formal Logic is the pompous name given to the study of the indisputable rules of causality that govern semantics. It is for instance what allows us to consider:

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal.

And to deduce:

Socrates is mortal.

As you can see, this reasoning is true no matter what and can be abstracted from the boundaries of language. That’s why logicians mostly use symbols. They’d say my two first propositions can be labelled A and B, and that A and B being true implies C being true.

Formal logic also studies fallacies, like:

Socrates is mortal. Horses are mortal. This does not imply that Socrates is a horse.

It’s all about considering rigorously the consequences of your premises.

1) Consequences of false premises

For this article, there are two points that are going to be important. The first one is what happens when the premise is false. You know it in popular culture as « When hell freezes over« . In this idiom, since [hell freezes over] is false (it will never happen), it can imply anything, such as:

When hell freezes over, I will turn into a werewolf.

Note that it doesn’t mean that the consequence is necessarily false.

When hell freezes over, I will do the dishes.

But maybe I’ll also do the dishes tomorrow if I’m feeling motivated. The premise will never be realized, so I can say whatever I want as consequence and still be consistent and right. In formal logic, it means that false implies anything.

When hell freezes over, [proposition P].

will be true whatever this proposition P is, no matter how absurd. Further reading.

2) Inconsistent set of premises

The second principle that I want to introduce you to is conjunction. It’s a fancy word to say « and ». Our example above is the conjunction of « Socrates is a man » and « All men are mortal ». We’ve done it with two propositions, but our set could be as big as we want, like:

[Socrates is a man, All men are mortal, All mortal things die, All dead things stop breathing] => Socrates will stop breathing.

We can even throw in stuff that has nothing to do with it if you want:

[Socrates is a man, All men are mortal, Cats are cute] => Socrates is mortal.

Now comes the twist. Remember the last paragraph? What if my set of premises is contradictory, like:

[Hell is always hot, Hell is frozen]

This is what we meant by the popular phrase « when hell freezes over » (it’s only a contradiction if we assume that hell will never freeze). Well in that case, my set of premises is equivalent to false, and can imply anything as we saw before.

[Hell is always hot, Hell is frozen over] = « When hell freezes over » = FALSE => [I turn into a werewolf, I do the dishes, Socrates is immortal, Socrates is mortal, whatever….]

For a conjunction to be true, all its propositions must be true: A and B and C is true if and only if all of [A,B and C] are true. Therefore, if something is false, you can add anything to it and it is still as false as ever: [FALSE and anything] is equivalent to FALSE.

When hell freezes over and cats are cute, I turn into a werewolf.

[Hell is always hot, Hell is frozen over, Cats are cute] = FALSE => [I turn into a werewolf]

You can add anything to your set of premises, if it contains contradictory propositions, it will still be equivalent to false. A bit like this conversation:

– When hell freezes over, I’m gonna move to Costa Rica and buy a huge mansion and get married and own elephants and fly… 

– I’m gonna stop you right there… it’s never gonna happen.

No matter how many propositions you add in there, it’s doomed to always be a non-possible scenario, aka False.

Application to religion

Now that we’ve mastered the basics of formal logic, let’s explore what it means for the real world, and in particular religions. Religions are sets of beliefs, which means the conjunction of a lot of propositions, which guide how followers live their lives. There are way more premises than our examples above, but it is the same kind of thing nonetheless. To take a really small subset as an example, the 10 commandments for instance are a conjunction of 10 premises:

[You shall not have other gods, You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, …]

If it’s not clear to you, you can replace the comas in the set above by « and ». It doesn’t have to be orders, it can be statements, like for instance the beginning of the old testament:

[God created heavens and earth, the earth used to be a formless void, God said « let there be light », …]

That’s all well and good, but remember our point (2): in a set of premises, if there is even one contradiction, the whole set is equivalent to FALSE.

Let’s pretend for one second that there exist an imaginary religion with contradictory principles. We’ll call it « false religion ». For instance, false religion could be based on these simple principles:

[Love your neighbour, Hate the gays]

Hope the contradictory nature of this set of principles is clear: if your neighbor is gay you’re supposed to love them and hate them at the same time. If this is too complex for you, consider the set of principles [everyone is good, gays are bad]. Remember that you can add any other premise you want to this set without changing anything.

Anyway, our imaginary religion’s set of beliefs contains a contradiction!!! It is equivalent to FALSE. Now remember 1): FALSE implies anything and everything. It means that the principles of my newly created religion can be used to imply any proposition whatsoever. For instance:

false religion => You should help people in need

false religion => We should ban the refugees

false religion => Everybody is equal

false religion => This group of people must be eliminated

Therefore, if such a religion existed, it would be a very convenient tool indeed!! It would be a set of principles to govern your life that would justify absolutely anything. Whatever your actions, they would be in keeping with the premises of these ground rules for living.

Example

Let us study an example of such religion. I’m talking about the famed Chewbacca defense. It goes as follows: the set of premises is:

[Chewbacca is a wookie, Chewbacca lives on Endor, only Ewoks live on Endor]

This is a contradiction, and is therefore equivalent to False. Therefore, it can justify anything and everything, including acquitting an obvious culprit for instance.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.

False => acquit. 

 

 Conclusion

To sum up, we derived the following logical propositions:

Any religion/set of beliefs/principles that contains at least one contradiction is logically equivalent to false.

All such religions are logically equivalent to each other (and to the Chewbacca defense).

They imply (justify rigorously) by their very nature any and all proposition/behavior. 

Such a potential religion would naturally be very comfortable and convenient, and I understand its appeal. It would certainly provide its followers with comfort and self righteousness, all the while allowing and justifying anything logically without any accountability, since the responsibility lies with the set of principles. Just think of the possibilities of what one could do with this!!! Surely this could even impact worldwide history!

I am not recommending anything, but if you are interested in adopting such a system of principles, let me leave you with a recommendation: don’t bother with a lengthy list of premises, and instead adopt Falso* as your belief system, which is logically equivalent and will allow you to prove ANYTHING.

 

—————————

* I am not strictly affiliated or at least remunerated with Estatis in any way.

[Short story] Save point

When I die, I want the last thing I see to be your face. I want my last thought to be of you. I want to be close to you, be it in body or in soul… It will be scary, but it’s unavoidable, and with you I think I can face it.

When I die, remind me that there was no other way. Remind me that death comes for all, and that everything has an end. Tell me again how absurd it is to not accept that, and how useless it is to try and rebel.

Remind me that there’s no changing the past, that it is the only way things could have been. We never really had any choice, our lives were only the result of so many different forces pushing us.

Remind me that there is no changing the future, that it was always due to come this way. Everything was leading up to this all along. In a way, I always was and always will have been already dead.

Remind me that everything is deterministic, that every action has reasons and causes, which in turn have their causes themselves, and that this causal chain goes unmoving from the beginning of all to its end.

That’s how I wanna die. Facing the vertiginous infinity of time, embracing in its entirety this unabiding chain I am but a thread of. I think I find it comforting to be part of that neverending whole, even if it means I never had any choice…

I think I’ll be a lot less scared that my life is ending when I embrace the fact that Time means nothing, that the relentless chain of events always was and will be, and me within it.

So when I die, tell me about how absurd Time is, tell me about that infinity of moments we’re all connected to. Talk to me about the endless possibilities every second holds, which will only have lived in our minds.

Remind me of all the time spent in my own head, navigating through dream worlds or lost in my thoughts, envisaging unlimited possibilities for every moment I was breathing…

Tell me about the infinity of memories, where I dwelled over and over again, stretching these moments until fact was no different from fiction.

Tell me about those eternities captured in ink and paper, forever happening in books all around us. Tell me of these heroes forever starting and finishing their quests, making a mockery of time itself. Remind me of all the lives I’ve lived at their sides.

Remind me of all the time I’ve had, and all the time we’ve had together.

But most of all, remind me of this precise moment. This moment when we’re connected together through time and space. This moment when I’m writing these words. This moment, different but same, when you’re reading them. This moment, different but same, when I’m remembering them.

This moment forever immortalized on this page. This moment, but also all of these moments. This temporal singularity.

When I die, remind me of these words. I want to die remembering them. I want to die in this moment. This is where I want to remain, forever existing between now and never.

The moment I’m talking to you. The moment you’re hearing me. The moment you’re reminding me.

The moment when I’m remembering. The moment that I’m remembering.

The moment I’m imagining my death. The moment I’m dying.

The time when I’m staring at the absence of time.

When I die, remind me… of that time I imagined my death, and how I would spend it remembering that time I imagined my death, and how I would spend it remembering…

When I die, remind me that I am infinite.

Nuage de Tags