Science is not consensus. Science is not democratic. Democracy is not scientific. We must have a system of LEARNING in a linear timestream that does not allow controlled experiment. This can only be accomplished at the broadest base possible utilizing a formal structure of research and collection of data. Only through inference and pattern seeking beyond any one realm of study will we achieve the next level of civilization, a level of complete consciousness over the IDEAS that guide us.
This is the future of Memetics, an as yet incomplete theory I am completing. The solution is self-reference checked by constant external input. This can be either information or energy. the Theory of Memetics and unified all human existence in relation to the objective physical universe into a single system. Physical Science is unified with politics, psychology, climate science and other Linear Sciences which have lacked an appropriate Method of study.
This is achieved by taking a new perspective of the universe on three fundamental levels.
1: The universe cannot be unified in the traditional sense, it is not uniform but a series of increasingly complex balances of imbalances. each stage separated by a phase change which segments it into a new level of spectrum of self-sustaining(as long as there is energy input i.e. the chemical reaction of burning paper) self reference(it is the same reaction through out which can then trigger a new reaction and new level of phase change) driven by an initial imbalance.
2: The current view of entropy and complexity is flawed and the first hypothesis derives this hypothesis when combined with current observations and the concept that humans could potentially spread from the localized system to the rest of the universe ordering it as they go. This implies that complexity and entropy are two separate phenomena. When the universe began (if big bang theory has any validity) it was simultaneously low entropy and low complexity. This alone destroys the relationship between complexity and entropy as BOTH increased thereafter. Entropy increases linearly while complexity increases exponentially. Every increase of complexity is an increase of efficiency and this extends the life of the universe. Entropy must work harder to break each higher level of complexity into balanced state.
3: Human perception is based on a highly complex mind that begins with a very simple subjective "space". This subjective space is the perception of the external universe without definition. The mind works like a vacuum pulling in new information which increases definition (whether accurate definition or not is another topic). The mind must work DEDUCTIVELY. The universe on the other hand (working from the big bang model) Expands to fill a void and increases definition by adding complexity. Entropy serves as the vehicle driving each breakdown of existing complexity that is perpetually one level more complex than it began. If this were not true the universe would have annihilated itself as the equal parts of matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. Instead an imbalance of matter and thus higher complexity remains. So there must be something driving this externally. It is my hypothesis that it is the universes expansion itself that maintains the energy input to continue the increase of complexity. This further suggests gravity, which is always attractive is not a particle but a product of this expansion affirming Einstein's view of gravity as the warping of space time.
What all this further suggests is that the mind functions in the INVERSE manner of the universe. ABSTRACTION is the entropy that is experienced in the physical universe. Without energy input entropy would bring the universe into balance. Abstraction in the human mind, then, is the vehicle that allows the absolute abstraction of perception of the undefined universe to be defined. Abstraction is directly linked to complexity in the human mind because we are a product of increasing complexity, not increasing entropy and our existence is defined in relation to this. Abstraction when representing a correct observation increases complexity that can then be transferred to the external universe and increase that complexity with human INTENT.
However, the ideas of the mind will increase in complexity whether or not the abstract definitions are accurate. When they are not accurate interpretations they will either allow entropy to increase in the physical universe or will accelerate the process. Ayn Rand provided the closest there is to a complete philosophy of individualism. Her analysis was incomplete. By not delving into the development of civilization leading to capitalism she leaves a gaping hole in her philosophy. She begins and ends in preexisting capitalism.
She criticizes the left mercilessly and uphold selfishness as a virtue and Greed as good. This is evidence of an incomplete theory. Selfishness and greed are not good, it is not the words that are wrongly interpreted, they are misapplied. Wanting to keep what is earned is neither greed nor selfishness. They are misapplied. Greed and selfishness is the lust for the unearned and the disregard of others. They are terms to be attributed to the Left, not the Right. By simply criticizing the collectivists she discounts them and this is why she does not believe in converting them. She has no argument and believes that what is true should emerge on its own. I do not disagree that it is our responsibility to build the "ideal" civilization, but the destruction of the existing one is not a tenable option and I do not believe it necessary, though I do believe that we cannot work within an innately flawed political system. The system is not flawed because it is not adequate, it is flawed for the same reason Ayn Rand's philosophy is flawed, it does not account for ideology, because it does not understand it.
We must be legally protected as individuals, but we live in a complex civilization of MUTUAL SELF-INTEREST. Pure individualism is Anarchy. The government must retain the monopoly of Force while the individual citizens retain the monopoly (relative to the government) of Economy. CONTRACTS, including the $, are the only objective means of discovering greater accuracy of interpretations of reality, both physical and subjective over time. What is produced is the negotiation between the dreamt and the possible... civilization.
Throughout the last seven years I endeavored to discover a "scientific" premise for morality, which does not necessarily reject religion, but that can be applied beyond those who have religious beliefs. The political system does not incorporate religion. When someone says they killed a bunch of people because they were told to by God we do not accept that in a court of law. They are either locked up in prison or in an asylum. The founding fathers believed America must incorporate religion in their society, but not in their politics. But if politics is not driven by a morality, then it has no morality, at least consciously and is thus susceptible to secular ideologies such as socialism. Conservatives are pragmatists because they have no other standard. We individualists and capitalists are lacking an overarching ideology and the Left exploits that by generation after generation without conspiracy apply their philosophy to the democracy within our government. They are winning because the right concedes piece by piece every fundamental belief. Ayn Rand did perceive this and what I developed, as I discovered after reading Atlas Shrugged a couple months ago was structurally and politically identical to Ayn Rand's work.
Since I incorporated certain aspects of her base of terminology and tactic into mine to expedite acceptance into the libertarian/ objectivist mindset. We can fight this. I have developed the tools required, or rather discovered tools that will give us what we need to fight this. There is a fundamental morality, but it is LEARNED not innate or given by God as the Inquisition and current tenor of Islam establish. I'm sorry but these are not exceptions, they are inevitable outcomes of political, or APPLIED religion. If this is what happens when religion is applied there must be a fundamental flaw. The flaw is that they are not FAITHS but BELIEF systems. Science is faith, not belief. The American form of government is faith and not belief. Faith is not believing despite evidence. This is a distortion. The Jewish conception, the conception found in the Old Testament, of Faith is the origin of both complex democracy (representative contractual democracy) and science. I do not reject religion out right, not even the IDEOLOGY of socialism, its tenets I do reject outright, but its universalist structure is and will be essential. Religion and ideology after Judaism, once acquainted with Plato became a tool of breaking down tribal order and binding vast civilizations with abstraction or like perception.
The Jewish religion was never assimilated from its tribal state because it contains the portion that will be essential once the world is united as global, a process undergone abstractly by ideology and structurally by trade (eventually "capitalism" as Marx called it). It is the notion of the INDIVIDUAL with responsibility of their own salvation ON EARTH that will save humanity. Religion is not evil and this is why I reject the current "atheist" movement as out rightly as any other. Religion is ESSENTIAL to human development of civilization.
What the Jews produced out of their slavery was the greatest conception of all time, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY BOUND BY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE TO BE DISCOVERED. I envision the potential of a WORLD of priest doing what is right in their own eyes NOT doing unto other as they would NOT have done unto them. This is the beginning of the true revolution, the end of the rule of ideas and man. This is the beginning of the revolution of INDIVIDUALS coexisting in a complex civlization. We are the 100% The conclusion is that we must consciously engineer our ideas as we do our civilization. How we do this is the ultimate thesis of my work, of which the work is a self-referential product of.
Philosophy has attempted to model itself on the physical sciences as has climatology. This attempt is futile. Only with a new perspective and the use of inference from broad knowledge and the recognition of patterns in widely divergent studies can we achieve the next level when BELIEF as found in the religious, climatologist, atheistic and string theorist's sense is given a purely scientific perspective.
In a linear system where humans have evolved the tools required for this we must only recognize those tools humans use subconsciously everyday. All systems of measurement are products of subjective agreement to an objective reference. This work is an introduction to the reference point of life, the universe, and everything.