STREAM : Delta Theory : Chapter 7 : Intermission

In the previous editions of “Delta Theory”, chapter seven “Delta Theory, and the Inconsistent Metaphysics”, consisted of two, somewhat humoristic dialogs, one between yours truly, and an imaginary hostile audience, and the other between god and men, where this alleged “god”, attempted to convey “Delta theory” to our ancestors, with little success. Next, in chapter eight, which I named “Epilogue”, I mentioned several social developments, which at the time, I found disturbing. While admittingly, I still share some of these convictions, while rewriting this text, different insights came to my attention, and hence, I decided to alter the manner this text ends altogether. Actually, considering that the name of this text is “Delta Theory”, and considering that the semantic meaning of the word “Delta” is difference, arguably, there is no wrong in such alteration.
Still, the truth is, this edition by far exceeds being yet another edition of its previous incarnations. In many ways, this edition deems its predecessors, nothing but drafts, sketches I completed, years after their first conception. When I first wrote “Delta Theory”, I was a fresh graduate of computer sciences, and a multidisciplinary program in arts, and therefore, in many ways, you could claim I was under the “spell” of the academic establishment. While this establishment left me unsatisfied with much of the knowledge it taught me, at the same time, it left me dazzled by some of its more charismatic professors, which could every week inflame my imagination, with knowledge I had yet to attain, and make me burst with laughter, with their sophisticated humor. For some time, these professors were my role models, as I coveted the “spells” they left on my mind.
In many ways, the previous editions of “Delta Theory” reflected my past admirations. During lessons, I used to think how simple my beloved professors could describe such complex ideas, and hence, I tried to do the same. While I had ideas of my own, to which none of these charismatic professors agreed to address, I cared more for format than content, attempting to mimic their humorous oratorical style, claiming the notions I proposed were trivial, while as you probably noticed, in actuality, they are far from trivial. Moreover, due to the style in which I attempted to write, I reclined from analyzing my claims to the full, and hence, I left great explanatory gaps in my theory. I did not bother with such gaps at the time, as neither did my professors, and just as I accepted their lack of argumentative robustness, I accepted my own.
While I wrote the original version of “Delta Theory” in Hebrew, as I broadened my horizons beyond the walls of the university, I decided, I should translate “Delta Theory” into English, a more tangible language by far. Still, it was after I finished my studies, and at the time, I directed most of my attention to my musical endeavors, and therefore, I did not put much attention to this translation. Later, when I tried to read it, I found it very hard to understand, and I understood, the two languages, meaning, Hebrew and English, are hardly interchangeable. While indeed, I translated the original Hebrew version word for word, such translations hardly captured my true intents. Actually, considering our conclusions from the previous chapters, this is not surprising, because as we suggested, the terms of human language are generalizations, whose semantic meanings by far exceed their dictionary definitions.
The incompleteness of my effort, with regards to the English translation of “Delta Theory”, bothered me a lot. I knew I had to correct it, at least in style, to convert it into a text of the English language, rather than merely a confused translation. Still, the general lack of response from anyone, with regards to the notions I proposed in these prior editions, demotivated me from the effort. I figured, “Why bother? The content is already there, yet no one cares.” Indeed, in retrospect, these previous editions were incomplete, and hence, arguably, the cold shoulder, by which others received them, was justified. Nevertheless, the truth is, no one even bothered to find my mistakes. My theory was simply overlooked.
Eventually, seven years after its original inception, I put my mind to the effort. Again, at first, I merely wanted to correct my style, and therefore, I used a text to speech computer application (the same application to which you listen now), to be able to hear my theory, spoken in proper English, so not to repeat its previous flaws. Still, in the process, I did more than merely refine my style. I rediscovered my theory altogether. Again, the truth is, the previous versions of “Delta theory” suffered from more than merely deficiencies of style. As the common phrase goes, the “devil”, was in the details. The further I attempted to correct my style, the more I discovered flaws in my original thoughts, flaws, which originally, I found insignificant, but in practice, revealed more than merely explanatory gaps. They revealed new understandings, such as the exact essence of the dimension of life, our dimension of consciousness, gravity, velocity, and many more concepts, which as of yet, humanity failed to understand to the full.
I allowed myself to overlook these deficiencies, due to admiration of my past professors. However, retrospectively, apart from charisma, none of them showed me true ingenuity. Essentially, these early lessons consisted of nothing but repetitions of that which they have learned from others, and of which many more agreed already. None of them were pioneers. While indeed, they pioneered my thoughts, at the same time, they limited my horizons, to the academic jargon. It took me seven years, to forget this pedagogic baggage, and so, be able to reevaluate my ideas.
Moreover, during these seven years, my thoughts were hardly on idle. Persistently, I attempted to discover more, find justification and proof for my original assertions. In fact, I attempted to do so formally, in the university. Admittingly, my attempt was rather short, due to many reasons, of which none are of a concern to this text. Still, my short reacquaintance with the academic establishment left its impression. While on the one hand, it provided me with an arguably superficial acquaintance with neuroscience, on the other hand, it reinforced my understandings that academic establishments are not a place for my persuasions. Academic establishments demand empirical proof, while the core of my ideas lies beyond such type of discourse.
The professors at the university rejected my notions with haste, claiming they reside in the field of metaphysics, and honestly, I am quite sure you, my dear listener, feel the same. Still, is “Delta Theory” really a theory in metaphysics? Have we claimed anything throughout this text with certainty, other than the obvious? Again, to remind you, within the context of this text, our only axioms were that either out consciousness, or our illusion of harboring a consciousness, exists, and that our world is consistent. None of my professors cared to refute any of these. They simply reclined from considering such broad perspectives. Moreover, because the goal of our journey was not to compile a single metaphysical theory, but rather to conceive a meta-model, from which we could deduce specific metaphysical theories, arguably, we did not deal with metaphysics at all. Our journey passed through a new conceptual terrain, one to which I can think of no better name than meta-metaphysics, or alternatively, the study of what metaphysical theories can tell us, considering the obvious.
Still, nothing is obvious. As we mentioned in the introduction chapter, we can never know the essence of the world-in-itself, and therefore, nothing is beyond doubt. Regardless if our initial axioms appear straightforward, we may one day conceive different perspectives, ones that will undermine, that which we now perceive as obvious. Moreover, as I confessed in the previous chapter, while I rewrote this text, new discoveries in physics came to my attention, which potentially, could challenge the validity of some of the notions we claimed in the previous chapters. Considering that at the time, I did not yet finish rewriting this text, at first, I thought of rewriting the chapters relevant to this discovery, but soon understood the pointlessness of it. I cannot chase time forever, while forever we will discover new facts about our world, facts which will sway us from any previous convictions, that we understood "everything". Just as this edition of “Delta Theory” differs from the editions before it, so may editions in the future, deem this one obsolete.
Therefore, just as I confessed in the previous editions, I shall repeat, I do not believe the things I have written in this text, are necessarily correct. Still, the value of this text is not in its possible correctness. No. The value of this text lies in its ambition. To clarify, ever since Aristotle initiated the division between academic disciplines, an inerrability fracture opened in our knowledge. While indeed, this division allowed us to progress in different fields of research and contemplation independently, and achieve great technological and cultural feats in the process, the terminological and methodological differences, between these different disciplines, rendered their reunification, impossible. For example, our academic efforts lack the conceptual means, with which we can merge our knowledge in exact sciences, with many of our findings in biology, our understanding of psychology, or our sensibilities in arts. As a result, regardless of the knowledge we attained through different academic disciplines, we lost the ability to explain why anything is true. We only know what our empirical knowledge reveals us. Moreover, due to our lack of understanding, we do not even know what questions to ask, and hence, arguably, we deem our academic advancement, to be determined by little more than chance, the chance of discovering that which we could not even guess.
“Delta Theory” begs to differ. Throughout this text, we managed to reassemble all the different aspects of our existence and knowledge, be it metaphysics, cosmology, physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, religion, ethics, esthetics, and possibly, many more. This is the true significance of this text. “Delta Theory” manages to close the fracture, or alternatively, the “delta”, which Aristotle opened in ancient times. It does not matter if some of our conclusions and deductions are incorrect, as arguably, none of our mistakes undermine this unifying conceptual construct in its entirety. Moreover, because of the minimal axiomatic basis of “Delta Theory”, little can argue against it. Indeed, as I suggested in chapter five, you might not agree with the explanations we provided, and as i just confessed, they might be incorrect. However, again, ask yourself, how far can they be from the truth? How far will different explanations from the ones this text provides, cause our understandings to stray from the conceptual construct “Delta Theory” provides as a whole?
It is hard to tell. Still, to the best of my knowledge, sadly, there are no other contenders for the title, other than "Delta Theory". No other theory is as ambitious or pretentious, to attempt to unite all our knowledge, into a single conceptual corpus. The reason for this is unclear. Am I the only one to think so broadly, or am I so narrow-minded, to overlook the existence of other such unifying theories? Am I so arrogant or bold to conceive it, or are others too shy to suggest it? Am I the only one to think the entire corpus of human discovery, can reflect a single consistent truth?
Naturally, I cannot answer these questions. Nevertheless, if indeed “Delta Theory” has no competition, its conceptual significance, may exceed any other theory or notion we currently can think of, or have been thinking of, over the last three thousand years. If this is indeed the case, then in many ways, it lives up to its title, being the “delta” theory, meaning a theory, that brings forth difference, or alternatively, change, after thousands of years of conceptual stagnation.
To clarify, by combining our current knowledge, from as many academic disciplines as possible, we can learn things, we cannot learn otherwise, a methodological imperative, which for some reason, contemporary science fails to apply. Maybe it is because of the overall collapse of positivism, due to the atrocities of the two world wars, which showed how monstrous we can become, once we surrender to our rationality. Maybe it is because of the discovery of physical randomness, which suggests the existence of measurable physical inconsistencies, meaning, the ability to measure physical events, occurring without cause. Maybe it is a remnant of the emergence of postmodern philosophies. Still, regardless, this methodological deficiency, is undeniable. There must be a limit to doubt, beyond which, we simply cannot progress scientifically. To clarify, for science to progress, it must not doubt the metaphysical consistency of our world, as if it does, it discredits any attempt science may take to learn anything. However, considering quantum physics, it appears science neglects this fact. While quantum physics does not explicitly suggest our world is inconsistent, there is simply no other way to interpret its claims. Nevertheless, due to its consistency with empirical findings, quantum physics became the mainstream paradigm in physics.
While we cannot refute the validity of empirical findings, by rigorously obeying rational thought and analysis, "Delta Theory" managed to reinterpret them, in a manner far less nonsensical. Still, as a result, it opened a door to understandings, which arguably, are equivalent to a metaphysical earthquake, deeming almost all of our current technologies obsolete. To clarify, if we will find that the notions we proposed in chapter four, with regards to contingent dimensions, are correct, it implies every particle in our world, is a self-powered machine, of an infinite computational strength. Such technology is infinitely more potent, than our contemporary technology, as well as our contemporary suggestions regarding nano-technologies. Had we been able to manipulate this technology to our needs, we would never need energy again, as the metaphysical essence of our world, would power our “machines” by default. We would no longer need vehicles to travel from one point to the other, as particles, or alternatively, life forms, which we will “program” could lift us off the ground, and take us to our ports of call.
This goes far beyond genetics. It is a technology, which “hacks” into the metaphysical essence of the world in which we exist. Moreover, considering the “technology” we used, to discover this technology, meaning, a text, which arguably, anyone could write on a piece of paper, then if it is indeed feasible, we should expect any other intelligent life form in the universe, could have discovered it as well. Considering this, when we look at the stars, seeking for intelligent life forms, we should reconsider what we attempt to find. Should we really search for technologies similar to ours, dominated by electromagnetism and chemistry, or should we search for contingent dimensional technologies, which by their very nature, consist of little more than particles? Moreover, considering our ancient past, and our bafflement regarding the achievements of ancient civilizations, is the reason we do not find sophisticated ancient machines, is that there were none, or is it our ancestors were so advanced, they utilized contingent dimensional technologies, or alternatively, life forms, and hence, all their relics decayed through organic decomposition? Honestly, currently, we simply cannot tell.
Still, we should not taunt ourselves too much. The truth is, I based this text on many empirical findings, which have become widespread knowledge, only in the last one hundred years, and therefore, considering the technological stagnation we suffered throughout the Middle Ages, we are “catching up” at a reasonable rate. While admittingly, I am puzzled why I have not heard of contingent dimensions before, the fact is, currently, I have no clue how we can manipulate them, if we can manipulate them at all. Moreover, considering that the academic establishment, with which we entrust our technological progress, is a remnant of the Middle Ages, if not before, then arguably, we should not expect things to occur any differently. All things will come in due time, when necessity will demand it. Nevertheless, if indeed, as our contemporary reality shows us, capital governs our civilization, and considering the technological leap, which contingent dimensional technologies offer, once this technology will be within our reach, we will surely harness it. While naturally, at first, sources of economic power, will attempt to claim monopoly over it, similarly to other technologies humanity developed throughout the last one hundred years, inevitably, such technologies will infiltrate every corner of our reality.
Still, we should not expect, such technological advancement will change our disposition as consciousnesses. To clarify, as we suggested throughout this text, and as we have shown in the previous chapter, we gain little from the knowledge we attain, and we should not expect the knowledge we attain from such technologies, would be any different. No. The purpose of this text remained as it had been from its very beginning, to help our existence as consciousnesses.
To clarify, the further we progress, the more we understand our design, the less relevant existing moralities become. As we gradually learn the mechanics of our world and our psyche, implicitly, we deduce that similarly to all machines, we can neither be good or evil. At best, we can be beneficial for some, while a burden for others. Our religions repeat the mantras, as they did for thousands of years, but as we gain empirical knowledge of our world, gradually, they fail to persuade us, as facts continuously discredit their claims. Our only morality is that which democracy inherits us, a morality dictating we are all equal, regardless of merit. Still, this is not a morality. Democracy fails to yield a moral hierarchy. Apart from its own persistence and dominance, democracy favors nothing. It is yet but another incarnation of nihilism, the same nihilism that troubles us all.
In our minds, we seek "more", but we fail to grasp what "more" could be. More capital? More “likes” on Facebook? Somehow, none of these suffice. “Delta Theory” attempts to fill this ethical gap. To clarify, this text does not wish to engage in argument, against existing persuasions. It does not wish to favor our hearts, and does not “fight” for its conceptual survival. Our technological advancement forced “Delta Theory” upon us, regardless how we name it. It is a response to that which we discovered, the extent of that we already know. Science progressed, while blindly disregarding consequences. “Delta Theory” is its reflection, nothing more.
Still, we are not done. To clarify, I named this chapter “intermission”, for a reason, the same reason that motivated me to revisit my thoughts. This text is but the first of two counterparts, each radically different, and yet, somehow, each completing the other. While writing the first edition of “Delta Theory”, I did not know this. I was consumed by the abundance of discovery, thinking I have discovered it all. Well, I have not. By limiting my discussion to consistency, I overlooked significant logical imperatives. For my defense, I can attest, at the end of the last chapter of the previous editions of "Delta Theory", I added two claims, with respect to inconsistency, one, stating the dimension of consistency separates consistent existence from the existence of inconsistency, while the second, determining that metaphysically, no dimension can limit inconsistent existence. Still, these were but broad suggestions. They hardly scratched the surface, of what I was to discover.
Nevertheless, these statements allow the coexistence of “Delta Theory”, and other inconsistent metaphysical theories, within the same metaphysical meta-model. To clarify, nothing demands consistency. It is simply that according to our experience, the world in which we exist, as well as our capabilities as consciousnesses, suggest our consistent limitations. Still, we can always claim that elements, different from ourselves, and different from the physical elements our world hosts, are of a different metaphysical essence. Therefore, these claims allow us to believe there is “more”, without challenging the validity of this text. Moreover, this metaphysical tolerance increases the robustness of our metaphysical meta-model, as it prevents it from collapsing, when facing metaphysical inconsistency, as it segments such inconsistency, outside the scope of our previous discussion.
Nevertheless, it opens a new course of discussion, along with new conclusions, which admittingly, may shake the confidence this text may have inspired you with. Similarly to this text, it is available for listening. Nevertheless, I cannot, and do not, wish to force it upon you, and therefore, it is time to say farewell. I hoped you enjoyed our journey, and even more so, that you found it inspiring. Do not take it too seriously, or too lightly.

Think for yourself.

Find your own truth.