Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2018

The Limits of Conception


Is the nature of existence finite or infinite?

Speaking as an ardent Wittgenstein and Heidegger fan and a serious student of metaphysical teachings for more than a decade, I am inclined to regard this very question as the most fundamental philosophical query there is.

However daunting at first, by approaching it with the principle of Occam's razor as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics, some convincing deductions - which in my opinion are of unfathomable magnitude - are closer at hand than one might think.

*

Let's assume both scenarios.
(I) Existence is of a linear nature, it has a beginning and shall come to an end.  
(II) All is part of an infinite source, without beginning nor end.  
Of the two possibilities, (I) poses us with a direct problem, namely the follow up question: how does nothing become something?

Theory (II) on the other hand, doesn't contain any apparent fallacies.

**


Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate 

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" is the original rule of simplicity, or if you will, Occam's razor. The principle suggests that out of two competing theories, the simplest one should be favored. 

Thus, if one were to use the principle when considering scenario (I) and (II), the latter one is preferable

***


The 1st law of thermodynamics, which constitute the very foundation on which modern physics rests, says that energy can not be created or destroyed. 

This law falsifies scenario (I) and confirms the infinite nature of existence by proclaiming that energy has always existed.

Assuming the correctness of the law, the conclusion must be made that energy is eternal in nature. Energy therefore can not be finite. 

****


If one was to take mentioned results as evidence for the infinite nature of existence, one could further deduce that there can only be one infinity as many-ness is a finite concept. Nothing can truly be separated from infinity.

We ourselves are evidence that consciousness is part of this one infinity.

Consciousness is a form of energy.

[...]


ohm animated gif



Pictures: 
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#/media/File:William_of_Ockham_-_Logica_1341.jpg
(2) http://bestanimations.com/Signs&Shapes/Worship/chakra-energies-animated-gif-1.gif



If you found this interesting, you might be interested in another post I wrote called Hallmarks of Intelligence.

Samstag, 25. August 2018

Conspiracy Confirmed

conspiracy


[kuh n-spir-uh-see] 

nounplural conspiracies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secretby two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result

Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy

The defintion is very straight forward, yet the term is heavily associated with baseless and often delirious theorizing. It has even reached a point today, where questioning an established explanation can be shot down with the mere proclamation "Here comes the conspiracies ...".

If one studies history, one will find that this is an unfair belittling of the term. As a matter of fact conspiracies are common throughout the ages - our modern times not the least bit excluded.


Exempli gratia


The Russo-Swedish War. In the year 1788, during a time of lacking popularity, the Swedish king Gustav III thought that a war could boost his reputation. However, he was not permitted to declare war without the support of the estates, which, at the time, didn't like the idea. He therefore ordered a tailor in Stockholm to manufacture a handful of Russian military uniforms.

They were worn by Swedish agents who sneaked over the Swedish-Russian border and opened fire at an allied outpost. The incident caused sufficient outrage for Gustav III to declare war against the Russian Empire. Ironically Gustav III self became the victim of a conspiracy when he was assassinated by his own men in 1792. 

King Gustav III and General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (1960-62), 
both keen on staging acts of terrorism on their own citizens.

230 years ago but far from the first or last time a staged attack were put into action. For a similar scenario we do not need to look far. Just a few decades ago, in 1962 to be precise, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff* and the head of CIA put their signature on a plan called Operation Northwoods.

The content (the original document can be found here) propose a series of false flag terrorist attacks on American soil, blamed on Cuban communists in order to provoke a war against the regime. Even though it had green light from both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA, President Kennedy refused to sign it and the plan was rejected.

But alas, not all shady operations had a happy ending. Here's a couple of examples of successful ones: In 1938 a group of German agents posing as polish extremists attacked a German radio station, in what is called the Gleiwitz incident, in order to give Germany an excuse to invade Poland.

In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 1964, a non-happening was falsely reported as an unprovoked attack on American ships. Consequence? A fierce escalation of the Vietnam war.

In 1932, Japanese military detonated a small railway explosion, close to the Chinese city Mukden, just as a Japanese freight train passed. Even though the explosion barely scratched the train, Japan was quick to answer the self-provoked attack with invading troops. Read more about this false flag operation here.


Edward Snowden, internationally wanted for blowing the whistle on NSA's 
global and opaque surveillance program on the citizens of the world.

But a conspiracy can be more than a false-flag operation. Take the Snowden leaks for example: documents that confirmed the existence of a global, autonomous surveillance apparatus.

We also know for a fact that the US and Great Britain have been involved with both overthrowing and bellicose intermingling of foreign governments, the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq are two good examples. The actual number is way higher than two though, as this Washington Post article suggests.

Colin Powell in 2003, manipulating a world-wide audience to get support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. 
Here's a clip from a speech addressed to the UN security council.

Before moving on, here's a few more noteworthy cases of confirmed conspiring:

  • CIA involvement in contra drug trafficking
  • Operation Paperclip: After WW2 the U.S. gave over 1600 Germans, many of which had held top positions in the Nazi party, asylum. The motive was to get an upper hand against the Russians in the coming cold war. 
  • MK-Ultra: CIA's illegal mind control program, involving torture like experiments on innocent, often unknowing citizens. 
  • Thulegate: In contravention of Denmark's nuclear-free zone-policy, the government allowed the U.S. to store nuclear weapons on Greenland for decades. 
  • The 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A staged testimony in front of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which got world wide attention by all major news outlets, and was used by president George H W Bush (among others) to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. 
  • Opreation Mockingbird: CIA's large scale program to infiltrate and manipulate mainstream media, involving as much as 400 bought journalists.

Wait a minute


This article was originally composed in 2015 in my Swedish blog, and when I started to translate it to English a year later it was just before Trump entered the White House. Alas, I wasn't nearly finished with the translation when everything took a very interesting turn. 

Before we knew it the term fake news dominated mainstream media, a term which the media power houses launched in order to undermine both alternative news sources as well as Trumps various proclamations. The plan quickly back fired when Trump started to use it against them.


A news story backed by FBI, CIA, NSA etc. broke in all major channels, claiming that Russian hackers had helped Trump win the presidential election. Trump's response was to call it unsubstantiated propaganda, or if you will fake news. 

No evidence was presented, so what we got was a word against word situation, where at least one of them had to be conspiring. Even if the term conspiracy per se wasn't seen much, the semantics of it had to be accepted by the general public as something happening today, on the grandest of scales.

***

Later it has turned out that Trump got help from the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, who apparently used the data of at least 50 million facebook users to help Trump win the election.


The firm apparently have taken part in manipulating the outcome of elections in e.g. Mexico, India, Malta and Kenya. In the clip, the former CEO mentions both sex workers and fake bribes as methods to influence politicians.

It is still unclear where the Russian hackers fit in.


What remains


History confirms that foul play is far from something unique, but rather that it has been common practice from the very beginning.

You have just been given over 15 major cases.

The question remains: what are they getting away with?


Relaterad bild