Science Is Fµ©king Magic! Works Of Mad Science Semi-Fiction Spell #4: Shadow Puppet Theater

Science Is Fµ©king Magic! Works Of Mad Science Semi-Fiction

Spell #4: Shadow Puppet Theater

Ozymandias The Mad! Please Give Me Money To Keep A Mad Scientist Off The Street!

Mad Ozzy's Circular Suggestion Bin: Ozymandias360@protonmail.com

Wordpress: https://ozymandiasthemad.wordpress.com/2021/11/02/spell-4-shadow-puppet-theater/

Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/ozymandiasthemad

Spell # 4

The Shadow Puppet Theater Of Plato’s Jungian Cave

Symbolic Association And Interrelation Among The Patterns Of Chaotic Shadows

Subjective human perception and cognition is unavoidably limited in a variety of different ways, by different effective veils upon reality, some of which can never be completely pierced. The complexity of existential truth, an infinitude of existential binary details, in infinite combination, and the infinite variations thereof, functions as one of the most important and frustrating veils to the understanding of the patterns of causal reality. If the patterns of causality are complex enough, the human mind simply cannot comprehend their functioning well enough to reliably predict their behavior, causing them to appear as seemingly random or indeterminate chaos, making consistency of simplified patterns the only gauge of truth available to us.

This veil of complexity, combined with the uncertainty principle, within the limits of the cone of certainty, establishes a perpetual guessing game of an infinite Platonian cave of shadows, a shadow puppet mystery science theater, where we are the shadows contemplating the nature of the shadows, in an infinite maze of shadows from which there is no escape, because there is nothing else but the shadows, as far as we the shadows can tell. However random or indeterminate things may appear to be, nothing comes from nothing. You may consider this an oversimplified restatement of the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, perhaps one of the most, if not the most well proven and consistently demonstrated patterns of behavior within the mystery science shadow puppet theater that we call reality.

To say nothing comes from nothing, is akin to saying, that there is no effect without some cause, if not multiple causes, an ironclad fundamental statement of causality. A function and extension of the first law of thermodynamics as applied to physical motion, are the Newtonian laws for the conservation of motion of classical Newtonian mechanics, which state that an object at rest remains at rest unless and until acted upon by another force or object. Likewise, an object in motion remains in motion until a force or object interacts with that object to alter or end that motion. Within the frame of reference of our naturally and organically observable experience, these principles are as proven as proven can be, and may be considered for all intents and purposes to be absolute. In spite of all appearances to the contrary, any in depth examination would only reinforce a greater consistency to the phenomenon in question.

Given the seemingly random behavior of some of the shadowy phenomenon surrounding us shadows, we may be forgiven in ever assuming that such phenomenon were ever truly random, free, or otherwise indeterminate, or even undeniably supernatural. However, no such conditions are even possible, as far as the consistency of the shadows can be trusted to reveal. Within the fields of probability and statistics there is a rule of thumb that says ‘once is a fluke, twice is a trend, and three times is a pattern.’ Just about anything physically possible is bound to happen at least once given enough time, and given an infinite amount of time, it is an inevitable certainty. Any rare occurrence, no matter how significant at the time, provides only interesting anecdotal evidence of possibilities, even seemingly miraculous and supernatural possibilities, but doesn’t necessarily provide any insight by themselves as to any governing rule for such phenomenon.

Likewise, a trend only provides information regarding the direction of phenomenon at the present moment, but the trend is the trend only until it stops being the trend, by the definition of trend, unless and until it becomes a pattern. However, even if the trend becomes a pattern, a pattern in and of itself does not necessarily provide a governing rule for the pattern, or any firm proof thereof. As it is, a pattern is just any relatively continuous or consistently repeating trend, or some complex trend of trends, or the correlation thereof.

Another principle from probability and statistics states that ‘correlation is not causation.’ Meaning essentially, if A is correlated with B, you don’t necessarily know whether or not A is a causal factor of B or if B is a causal factor of A. And it is not necessarily the case that it has to be one way or the other. There can possibly be a third factor C not contained within one’s data, or other such factors, that are in fact the causal factor or factors in common to both A and B, causing the correlation between them. They can also be a semi-closed partial feedback loop of interdependent causes of each other, as if in proper ying and yang style.

Consequently, statistics and data are unavoidably not self explanatory. Some other hypothetical concept or principle must be posited as an explanation or a governing rule that supposedly determines the patterns of the phenomenon and the correlations thereof. In science, any hypothetical theory or explanation is validated, partially or completely, by virtue of its demonstrated predictive power, in terms of its ability to make further predictions of phenomenal behavior, which are then observed as predicted. Statistics and data by themselves may suggest possible explanations, subject to interpretation. But any such possibility must be put to the test of experiment and observation, and where experimentation is impossible, observation of natural phenomenon will have to suffice, however limited and inadequate they may be.

Where experimentation and observation are extremely difficult, or even impossible to perform directly, then most, if not all, of the phenomenon, is left to the realm of little better than a make-believe fantasy land of subjective beliefs, unbound by objective constraint. The only rational recourse here is then to engage in some kind informed guessing game, systematically designed to sort out the known from the unknown, the knowable from the unknowable, and the possible from the outright impossible. All of science is limited to some extent in this manner, and for this purpose must necessarily engage in this sort of systematic guessing game as needed, in order to fill in the gaps as necessary, wherever possible, thus partially defining it’s methodology by the necessities of the problem to be solved.

The uncertainty principle provides a veil to causality all its own, partially defining an entire field of science known as quantum mechanics, where it is all just a really sophisticated mathematical guessing game, utilizing the mathematics of probability and statistics in order to predict as accurately as possible, the behavior of phenomenon with a causality that is not entirely knowable, understandable, or observable. It is like a unsolvable Chinese puzzle box that can never be opened in order to look inside. We can observe this quantum puzzle box from the outside, observe it’s behaviors and interactions with everything all around it, and thereby derive the likely characteristics and expected continuing behaviors of what’s inside. But we can still never open the box in order to see what’s inside and behind it all. We can only gamble our hypothetical technology and civilization on our ability to guess correctly about it.

All of modern electronics and chemistry are built upon the foundation of this approach, as well as all of the modern technological civilization that comes from, and benefits from these disciplines. The whole entirety of the modern world, of modern human technological civilization, is built upon a foundation of the glorified systematic mathematical guesswork of the quantum puzzle box. However, expressing skepticism for some aspects of quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein once famously wrote in a letter to Max Born that “God does not play dice with the universe.” However, we are not gods, so we must unavoidably play dice and place our bets wisely, gambling our technology and civilization on the wisdom of our limited understanding and guesswork.

Famous physicist Richard Feynman is believed to have said during one of his lectures that “If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don’t understand Quantum Mechanics.” And as professor Stevie Wonder once famously observed, “If you believe in things that you don’t understand, you will suffer… superstition ain’t the way.” Of course, associate professor Stevie Ray Vaughn concurs. Remember that the next time someone tells you to believe the science that you don’t understand.

Belief is not entirely the legitimate province nor entirely the purpose of science. Science is about knowledge and understanding, and what you can do with them. In another quote attributed to Feynman “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself… The first principle is that you must not fool yourself… and you are the easiest person to fool.” This could be restated as defining science as seeking to understand the limitations of knowledge, certainty, and understanding, even more so than actually providing any of it. Determining belief is beside the point except by negation along the way as part of the process of essentially eliminating known proven nonsense, but not necessarily providing any real firm affirmative belief in it’s place, at least none that can ever be absolutely beyond doubt or questioning. Certainly there can never be any such thing as settled science, as science can never be settled, since science can never be so absolutely certain in any of it’s claims. And it can never ever be completed, because the task is infinite in scope and complexity, and would take a literal eternity only to never finish, by the definition of eternity.

All of this considered, how are we to rationally assess this situation where the foundation of everything in our modern world that we thought we certainly knew to be true, is nowhere near as certain and settled as we thought, or as we like to think, and yet the existential evidence of it’s validity and utility is all around us? How can a bunch glorified mathematical guesswork be such a reliable foundation for engineers to build the modern world with? What is there, if anything, to determine so seemingly absolutely, that all of these various phenomenon behave so consistently and reliably? The more superstitiously minded might posit a god or gods of some sort, or some other seemingly supernatural phenomenon or factors.

For the sake of argument, let us engage in an exercise in fringe theoretical metaphysics, as part of a kind of open source religion without the boundaries of dogma and heresy, and lets just attribute it all to some sort of god or gods. Assume they play shadow puppet masterpiece theater with our shadow puppet melodrama lives, by some as yet unknown means or power, be it supernatural or otherwise. Firstly, the word supernatural implies a causality that is separate and apart from the natural physical existential causality, but still somehow effecting and influencing the natural order, seemingly super seeding and transcending the natural order while still driving it. However, if there be any such real causality, separate and apart, there would have to be some mechanism of action by which the supposedly supernatural causality may interact with, and effect if not determine, the natural physical existential causality.

If there were ever any such causal bridge between the natural and the supernatural, it would serve as a causality of causalities, completing the total real causality. In which case, there really is no relevant causality possible, that is truly separate from the overall totality of our causality, thus nothing can be both truly supernatural and still be a relevant to us in any way, by definition of the supernatural. Thus the appearance of any real phenomenon to be supposedly supernatural in nature, is strictly an illusion born of rare transient seeming inconsistencies within the causality as we experience it, essentially parallel to normal causality and experience, thus providing a paranormal illusion of the supposedly supernatural.

Therefore, if there be any hypothetically real god or gods, there cannot be anything truly supernatural about them. If there be real gods, then their natures can be studied if not completely understood by the methods and processes of science, mathematics, and reason, without any recourse necessarily whatsoever to superstition of any kind. Consequently, in assessing our hypothetical unknown gods, without any real evidence thereof, what is left to us is the task of sorting through the patterns of the shadows all around us, in order to derive their hypothetical characteristics, behaviors, and principles of operation, the glorified reading of the tea leaves and of the entrails of the universe, in order to discern the theoretical influence of alleged gods.

For the sake of the clarity and simplicity of our considerations, lets attribute all such hypothetical influences to some Generally Absolutely Absolute Determinant ( GAAD ) functions and factors. One question to begin with, is just how many such functions and factors are there to consider, and how can we know how many? For all we know they could be infinite in number. What constraint or principle, if any, could be utilized to either narrow it down, or provide an ordering of rank among the various functions and factors in question? Is there, or can there even be, any such thing as an absolutely supreme GAAD?

As a means to an answer, lets entertain a digression into another classic conundrum, the age old intellectual puzzle of ‘what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?’ Normally this is stated as such, without mentioning that what we’re considering is actually an absolutely unstoppable force and an absolutely immovable object, otherwise it is a rather trivial question. For any relatively unstoppable force and relatively immovable object, it is a simple calculation of classical Newtonian mechanics, not a puzzle needing to be solved, because Sir Isaac Newton did it for us. If we include the proper characterization of the factors involved, then we must ask what does happen, when a truly absolutely unstoppable force meets a truly absolutely immovable object?

Firstly, the very existence of any such thing as a truly absolutely unstoppable force, automatically precludes any possibility of any such thing as a truly absolutely immovable object, as well as visa versa. The very existence of any such thing as a truly absolutely immovable object, precludes any possibility of any such thing as a truly absolutely unstoppable force. Either way, the existence of any one true absolute, automatically precludes any possibility of the other existing to begin with. Furthermore, we could just as easily generalize this behavior to a consideration of any hypothetical pair of truly absolute absolutes. If somehow there can be a pair of true absolutes, it is only because they are in fact two parts of one whole, like a type of ying and yang relation. The very existence of any such thing as a truly absolutely absolute factor or force, automatically precludes the possibility of the existence of any other such factor or force. Just like in the classic cult movie Highlander, ‘there can be only one,’ then slash goes the head of the false GAAD, as it tumbles into the circular file of philosophical history.

Thus, if there be any such truly absolutely absolute, then there is no other, by definition of the absolutely absolute. However, does there have to be any such thing as a truly absolutely absolute at all, can there even be any such thing, and how would we know? It could be argued that, without any such GAAD force, there could be none of the consistency of natural phenomenon that we all observe and benefit from, every day of our lives. Any true GAAD would, by definition, absolutely determine and absolutely force all of existence, whether directly or indirectly, to behave in an absolutely consistent manner, for an absolute eternity of infinite time. However, that is not entirely the appearance and behavior of existence, as far as what we can observe within the context of our finite lifetimes and subjectively limited perspectives.

If anything, as was previously mentioned, so much of what goes on all around us is seemingly random and chaotic. So much so that, it is often said that ‘the only real constant in the universe is change.’ Yet, in spite of that, the behavior and the patterns of change, perform with a seemingly absolute consistency, with respect to the first law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and classical Newtonian mechanics, if nothing else. But why should there be any change at all? Why doesn’t the GAAD freeze everything in place, if it is so absolute? This seeming contradiction may be no contradiction at all, but a function of our own limited perspectives.

Perhaps, what happens when the absolutely unstoppable and the absolutely immovable come together, is that they create an infinite spinning over the course an eternity of infinite time, akin to a GAAD function. An absolutely unstoppable spinning on an absolutely immovable axis, may in fact form a single absolute whole that makes the universe go round, as part of the ultimate universal jujistu of the absolute, or something like it.

Imagine an infinite crystal top, as a universal crystal merry-go-round, spinning at constant speed for all eternity, with everything within the crystal locked in place and with nothing else in existence, spinning on an absolutely immovable axis. If we were a hypothetical supernatural outside observer, this spinning of the top provides an illusion of meaningful change, as the top spins around, since the appearance would seem to change from your limited perspective. Different parts of it would appear to come towards you, as others moved away, all at the same time, but this is largely an illusion, as everything is locked in place, and the only real change is the constant ceaseless spinning on an immovable axis.

Closer in to the axis, the illusion of change might be simpler, observably repeating itself, with relatively fewer details compared to further out and little to no appearance of meaningful change. As you go further and further out from the axis, the more complex will be the illusion of change, repeating less obviously, with far more of an illusion of meaningfulness added to the illusion of change. Far out enough from the axis, the illusion of change may become all encompassing. If we ourselves have a finite lifespan, and the period of repetition is long enough to completely contain an entirety of said lifespan, then we may never have any knowledge of the cycle of repetition at all.

Furthermore, given the infinite nature and scope of our infinite top, there needn’t be any exact repetition at all, but an infinite variation of approximately repeating patterns. The Nietzsche concept of eternal recurrence, needn’t ever actually happen, because infinite variation can never be exhausted. In which case, all change would appear to be either completely meaningful or completely random, or some combination thereof.

If we ourselves are natural creatures of this hypothetical universe, the only indication that we would have to the nature of this existence, is the consistently observed repetition of shorter less complex patterns, repeated wrinkles within the larger pattern, and whatever we can derive from this consistent behavior, like the first law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and classical Newtonian mechanics. However, if we wished to absolutely prove this hypothetical GAAD, we would have to prove an absolute consistency in this behavior, over the course an eternity of infinite time, which is completely and absolutely impossible for us, within the context of our relatively short finite limited lifespans, even if it is absolutely and completely true. Even if we could live forever, the task of proof itself takes an eternity and could never be completed, by the definition of eternity. Consequently, whether true or false, there is absolutely no possibility of absolute proof.

The consistency of the first law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and classical Newtonian mechanics themselves, provides no absolute proof of absolute consistency, only proof of the consistency within our limited memories, our incomplete records, and the limited access to the physical record of the natural environment all around us. For all we know, we could be stuck in a trillion year trend that is about to be ended tomorrow, leaving us possibly having to start from scratch, assuming that the new rules will even allow for our continued physical existence at all in the first place. However, I’m not betting on that possibility, and I’m not holding my breath waiting for a change in the weather of a potentially trillion year storm.

Of course, that doesn’t stop anyone from trying, or claiming to have succeeded, let alone representing themselves as the hypothetical GAAD it self, or their sacred appointed representative here on earth. But why would anyone necessarily believe this, even in this day and age? I happen to believe that people intuitively and instinctively know what is true, but they don’t necessarily want to know, and they can never be certain of what they know, even if they want to know. The incorrigible habit of the human mind to succumb to oversimplified superstitions is a necessary feature for the survival of a human species that evolved within the confines and constraints of the Plotonian shadow puppet theater, as a necessity in dealing with the unavoidable uncertainty of subjective experience of shadows dealing with shadows. To save time and increase the species chances of survival, reason and logic cannot be relied upon because they may take too long to work properly for life and death decisions that must be made immediately and without hesitation for survival.

Properly understanding causality with logic and reason takes time, so it stands to reason that the necessities of survival demanded shortcuts to this understanding be hardwired into our brains by evolution. Of course, the fullness and complexity of the actual causality can’t be hardwired perfectly into our brains. Only imperfect, incomplete, and oversimplified basic drives can be hardwired this way. Otherwise, intelligence may never have had to evolve in the first place, and we could not even have this discussion. Computer software that exists today can make shockingly accurate predictions using nothing but metadata, big data, and the mathematics of statistics and probability, in terms of pattern recognition, projection, and prediction.

This technology was produced by human engineers in an evolutionary process of trial and error with respect to coding, debugging, and testing. This process has even developed algorithms that can learn and evolve, mimicking the processes of evolution it self, without the computer being able to comprehend or assign real meaning to any of it, a strictly subconscious artificial intelligence. It is no stretch of logic or the imagination, to suspect that natural evolution has done the same to us over the hundreds of thousands of years of our existence, in service to the necessities of the survival of we poor shadows, within the cave of shadows.

If our own subconscious algorithms are evolved to serve similar purposes, then what do these algorithms tell us about the unavoidable patterns of causality that necessitated them? What is the functional purpose of love and fear, hope and dread, or faith and doubt? What is it about the causality of the shadows around us that necessitates the existence of these relatively mindless functions? What is the language of these subconscious algorithms, if any? According to the likes of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, it would seem to be the language of symbolism and imagery, often taking the appearance of Jungian personality archetypes, resonant reflections of ourselves distorted to represent aspects of the supposedly divine ultimate causality of our existence.

It is only natural and unavoidable for zealots and charlatans alike to be effected by this, and to use it themselves against others. But does that necessarily mean that we can just rationally dismiss this out of hand? These subconscious algorithms evolved because they served a purpose by necessity. Just because they may serve that purpose imperfectly, or even inadequately, does not mean that we can be so careless and arrogant in our disregard of what evolution has wrought upon our own consciousness, and for the sake of our own survival.

Over the millennia of human existence, we have had multiple polytheistic systems of belief, with pantheons of multiple divine beings. Given the previous discussion about the nature of absolutes, any pantheon of multiple divine beings automatically precludes any possibility of all them being truly absolute. ‘There can be only one!’ If only one of them is absolute, then how can the others be considered truly divine? If none of them are truly absolute, then how can any of them be divine? If none of them are divine, then what is, if anything?

As with the previous discussion of the nature of absolutes, if there be any absolute, then there must be only one, or otherwise it is not absolute. What relevant meaning is there to the word divine if it does not mean of or pertaining to the sole absolute determinant of our existence, the ultimate supreme driver of all things? To what extent can anything be truly ‘of the divine’ without being the ultimate absolute in divinity it self? Why did polytheistic belief systems even exist if there is but one and only one true absolute driving our evolution?

Something in these polytheistic beliefs must resonate with the feelings of the divine within human consciousness, hardwired into our consciousness by an evolutionary process driven solely by a single ultimate absolute. If this process is driven by a single ultimate absolute, then why does the iconography and symbology of polytheism resonate with us so much? Even under monotheistic belief systems, often there are some degree of polycentric iconography in the form of prophets, patron saints, and angels, fallen or otherwise, as well as an ultimate supreme being.

The empirical recognition of resonant archetypes need not be justified, only explained and understood. The empirical recognition of any pattern of any kind, needn’t be justified at all, only observed and documented, if not speculated and hypothesized about. If we know, for the sake of argument, that there is only a single ultimate absolute, and we must recognize the resonance of polycentric divinity as a phenomenon, then how can we reconcile this observed behavior with the hypothetical knowledge of the ultimate absolute? The multitude of divine personalities, as depicted in polytheistic belief systems, seem to represent Jungian archetypes, as resonant reflections of the inhuman divine, symbolically put into human form, by simpleminded humans, a subconscious attempt to grasp the infinite, the absolute, and the eternal, and mold them into comprehensible form of the relatively finite, the relatively conditional, and the relatively transient humanity.

A single ultimate absolute supreme being may seem simpler, but the polycentic divinity of a pantheon of sub-specialists is easier to comprehend for us simpleminded humans, because it is more accessible and relatable. It can be much more manageable for the primitive mind to have a myriad of divine specialists to beseech for favoritism for whatever particular issue they may be faced with, with a god for this, a god for that, and a god for all of your major concerns in life. It is also easier for simpleminded humans to grasp and resonate with the concept of a more familiar and relatively more humanist version of the divine, as compared to a humanly incomprehensible sole ultimate divine of infinite complexity, mysterious, unfathomable, and humanly unrelatable. Even within the monotheism of Catholic Christianity, there are the patron saints and the various angels, fallen and otherwise, not to mention the holy trinity.

If we understand polytheism as Jungian archetypal subconscious interpretation of the sole ultimate divine absolute, then these archetypes are essentially patterns of divine causality. The recognition of which is clearly hardwired into our brains to some extent by evolution itself, driven by the necessity to conform and harmonize with that very same absolute causality, for the sake of our survival. The same can be said to some extent for any other animal subject to the processes of evolution. Even if they cannot consciously comprehend even so much as the question of the divine, they no doubt feel it nonetheless, and act according to the instincts hardwired into them by the very same ultimate causality.

In fact, no hypothetical intelligent alien life can ever come into existence without being touched the very same processes of evolution and causality, even with drastically different circumstances for their environment, that are universal and absolute, and conforming to which is an absolute necessity for any hypothetical life to exist, let alone propagate itself. We may not be able to recognize this if the alien life form is significantly alien enough. But beneath the surface appearance of things, there must be a deeper resonant core in common nonetheless. They might even believe in some sort of polytheism, no matter how advanced they may be otherwise. But just as with the human version, a deeper resonant core will still resonate in common to some extent with monotheistic understandings of an ultimate absolute, by the necessities of evolution.

However, if both monotheism and polytheism resonate more or less equally, which should be the rational choice, if any? Okay, that was a trick question. Sensations of resonance are largely a feature of the subconscious, whereas reason is a process of the conscious thinking mind. Whatever we may feel about it, reason is about what we can know and understand, not necessarily about what we feel the resonance of. Reason cannot ignore resonance however, or it is in denial of empirical reality, and therefore is not reason. But logically speaking, there can be only one true absolute, and no consistency to science and the physical laws without it.

Beduh Beduh Beduh Beduh Beduh Beduh Beduh…

That’s All For Now Folks!

Feel Free To Make Noise Among Yourselves!

And May The Best Noise Win!