Category Archives: Philosophy

The Mathematical Factors

Posted on by

1.   Before the beginning and forever there is nothing.

2.   And the entire secret is that nothing did not, not exist.

3.   Nothing existed.

4.   And the nothing was called zero, an ontological zero.

5.   It is immaterial and exists beyond space-time.
Thus had no beginning and no end, thus eternal

6.   It was dimensionless (a mathematical point)
Just like Descartes said: mind has no extension

7.   In other words the zero is the domain of the mind.

8.   In the nothing are the numbers equating to zero.
(-∞ – 0) + (0 – ∞) = 0

9.   All mathematical equations balance to zero.

10. Zero is the singularity as nothing existed before the Big Bang.

11. Zero is an existential plenitude of infinite potentials.

12. Implicit in the singularity zero is an infinity of zeroes.
There is no reason why there would not be an infinity of zeroes, if one zero already implies infinity, it follows that zero must contain an infinity of zeroes.

13. The physical universe stems from these mathematical points but have
® > 0. A mathematical point is a circle with radius ® zero, between zero and infinity we find the physical world.

14. The ground state or native state of the singularity is an infinite potential for knowledge.

15. And this goes for each of the zeroes which are all alive and sentient.

16. The zeroes evolve from sentience to intelligence and self-consciousness.

17. The evolution goes from full potential to full actualization.

18. The mind (zero domain) processes information (sinusoidal waves, or higher dimensional vortices) (numbers) to then experience that information as feelings, sensations, perceptions, adventures etc. in space-time.  

ref. Critique of Pure Scientology

Perfect Duplication

Posted on by

“AXIOM 12.

THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THERE-OF IS NULLED.”

Not that I have any trucking with Daniel Dennett but he would label the foregoing statement as deepity*. Perfect duplication as defined above by L. Ron Hubbard is by definition impossible. A condition by definition is a requirement. The absence of perfect duplication is said to be a requirement for any universe. Perfect duplication is not allowed in a physical universe, thus two spaces, energies or object can never occupy the same space. It is the law (condition) of the physical universe.

This means it can never be violated. Then it is meaningless to say that the impossible act of perfect duplication results in the disappearance of that which cannot be perfectly duplicated.

The closest physics comes to anything like perfect duplication is in the area of bosons which can occupy the same quantum state. In that case however there is no disappearance.

Perfect duplication is without a doubt possible as a purely mathematical operation and is only perfect in mathematics. Duplication just means two times the same, such as 2 x 1. In that case there is no disappearance either. But when one takes 1 – 1 , now we have zero and an actual disappearance one could say. So Hubbard was close but not as exact as one would expect from a mathematician.

See also Critique of Pure Scientology, the book which will revolutionize scientology.

* A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial.

SAD GURU

Posted on by

An example of the Sadhguru’s logic: “You assume you have a mind. No, I  am saying you don’t really know., isn’t? Okay if you have a mind you must be able to locate it, isn’t it? Can you locate it? Can you locate where your mind is? … Then you don’t know whether is its there or not.”

This is the type of nonsense you slide into when you can’t properly define your terms, when you don’t have a proper definition of mind. The correct definition of mind includes that it is in the zero domain. That means the mind is not in spacetime, so of course you can’t locate it.

If you believe in mind over matter, which is the power of the mind to control and influence the body and the physical world generally, then the mind is not in the physical universe.

++++++++++

CRITIQUE OF PURE SCIENTOLOGY

Posted on by

eBook and paperback (color+black&white) now available from Amazon!! https://tinyurl.com/y36s8jh7

The book ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’ has finally been published and is now available on Amazon. For the independent field this will perhaps be a shocker in that it reveals basic flaws in the philosophical structure of Hubbardian Scientology. On the positive side it also contains some new breakthrough material.

It’s a non-linear book analyzing and critiquing scientology philosophically, scientifically and logically. It is a serious and in-depth look at the subject, not a super-duper anti-Hubbard, anti-scientology tirade.

It examines in detail the psychological and metaphysical contents of the subject of scientology as presented in the original materials, not necessarily as presented by the Church of Scientology. It is different from the approach of certain new religion scholars, theologians and sociologists from different academia who tend to examine scientology as a social phenomenon.

It should be of interest to scientologists, ex-scientologists and those who have followed the media in the US and elsewhere, who now want to know more about the actual contents and beliefs. Scientology we believe was an attempt to create a sort of ‘theory of everything’.

We cover the scientology axioms, logics, and its theory of the mind, its origins, earlier and similar efforts and place it in a historical science and science fiction context. One of the things that showed up is that the subject actually contains a certain hitherto unrecognized mathematical substructure, related to zero and infinity.

The author has been personally involved with scientology and the book is his complete re-evaluation of the ethics, rationale, beliefs and mathematics of scientology. In fact it may be the first time an ex-scientologist has scrutinized the subject using scientology itself, its own logics and generally acknowledged philosophical views. The result will be most likely surprising–if not outright shocking–for scientologists and ex-scientologists alike.

Non-holistic view of the universe

Posted on by

An example from the “Three Universes” theory of Scientology.

The idea of the three universes as taught in Hubbardian philosophy is strictly in line with the American individualist paradigm and also with the classical atomist model of the universe. The physical universe in that view is the product of individual spirits joining in a co-creative project, each contributing part of their individual universes.

“The universes, then, are three in number: the universe created by one viewpoint, the universe created by every other viewpoint, the universe created by the mutual action of viewpoints which is agreed to be upheld — the physical universe.”                     Hubbard, The Factors (8-8008), April 23, 1953.

In other words the group consists of individuals or the molecule consists of atoms, which consists of ‘individual’ particles and the universe consists of elementary atomic, individual universes. This puts the particle or individual as the underlying basic structure of reality. This is still the favorite bottom up approach we know from mainstream science. You put all the elements together and thus build a whole.

What a difference it is to start from the highest level of the Absolute or Infinity which is an undivided whole. We have already seen this in our rendition of the new scientific theory of creation. It all started holistically. The whole is primary and the parts stem from the whole and not the other way around. The parts would not even exist without the whole. Saying that the whole is built from the parts is clearly backwards. The whole can be divided–not without loss–into parts, that is the more accurate statement.

Alright so how did the physical universe come about?

Condensed in a very few words it was the Absolute or the divinity itself that brought it about by its desire to see something new.  But being infinity it had no choice but to split itself into a seer and something to see. That something to see was the origin of the physical universe.

This is of course extremely abbreviated history, but you can be sure that it was not a number of Greek Gods meeting on Mt. Olympus each bringing some elements and putting together the physical universe. There is a great difference between this view and the holistic, divine paradigm.

…see also the post on Quantity and Quality in relationship

de Nada