STREAM : inconsistent : introduction

The idea of writing this text came to me, while attempting to blog my thoughts, with respect to popular notions of gods (or god, whatever you prefer). I began typing it on an i-Pad, during one of my daily bus rides to work. Originally, I thought I would be finished by the time I reach my station, as it is a long and tedious ride, which every day feels as if it takes forever.
Well, I did not. The more I attempted to summarize my thoughts, the more I found myself contemplating on things I still needed to address. Initially, I thought a few pages would do, but as I write these words, I seriously do not know how long it will be.
It is hard to say. I have a hunch, it will be the size of a book. Perhaps it will not be a big book. Again, I simply do not know. Therefore, for the time being, I will simply call it a "text". If by the time you listen to it, it will seem more like a book, well, then I guess it was a good idea, not to attempt to summarize it, on a single blog post.
Still, I am sure of one thing. This text is a continuation of my previous book “Delta Theory”. If you did not read or listen to "Delta Theory", and more importantly, if you did not understand it at all, I can assure you, listening or reading this text, will be but a waste of your time.
But why? Well, because I will borrow my terminology from “Delta Theory”, without a conceptual translation, you will fail to understand this text. To clarify, I am sorry, but I will not, and cannot, summarize “Delta Theory” for you, just to save you the effort. I have more pressing matters to address. Moreover, honestly, I am not sure I can summarize “Delta Theory”, as it is a condensed text. Because "Delta Theory" forms its arguments incrementally, with each argument relying on its predecessors as means of assertion, it is hard to determine which parts are either redundant, or too complex.
Still, why am I so cautious? Why not allow you the benefit of the doubt? To clarify, surely, I will not reinvent the English language, and therefore, just as you can understand this introduction, you could understand the chapters ahead, could you not? Well, naturally, currently, you have no reason to doubt your wits, as you do not know what we are to discuss. However, considering the thoughts running through my head, while only starting to write them, I can see how easily you could dismiss this entire discussion as “too speculative”.
To clarify, empirically, it is nearly impossible to prove any of the issues we are to discuss. Moreover, arguably, the only perspective, from which one could take our future discussion seriously, is from that which considers the argumentative core “Delta Theory” suggests, is in fact, “the truth”. While indeed, at the end of “Delta Theory”, I explicitly confessed, I did not believe the notions "Delta Theory" suggested, were necessarily "the truth". Still, my doubt was as partial as my confidence, and after I finished writing it, as I continued contemplating on the notions I suggested, repeatedly, I found “Delta Theory” was much more robust, than any other scientific or metaphysical theory I heard of, and for a good reason. The humble axiomatic basis of “Delta Theory”, consisting of nothing but rational consistency, and the self-evident nature of the existence of our consciousness, is simply too trivial, to argue against, effectively.
Still, similarly to Zack, my imaginary postmodern antagonist, appearing in the introduction chapter of "Delta Theory", whenever I discussed these notions with others, they argued against them. Nevertheless, no one rejected "Delta Theory", on the basis of contradictive proof. People would say, “And what if we have not discovered such proof yet?”, or “Perhaps you are right, and perhaps you are wrong, who knows?” (or more precisely, "Who cares?"), or “I hear you, but there are other, different theories out there as well, you know (even if they discuss other notions and issues, but then again, seriously, who cares?)"
At first, I attempted to counter these arguments, but then I realized the pointlessness of the effort. I mean, can we not claim such arguments against every idea we can think of? To clarify, we can doubt everything, be it your motivation to listen to this text, up to your choice in décor. Furthermore, again, the explanations “Delta Theory” suggested were incremental. "Delta Theory" began from a minimal metaphysical foundation, and rigorously argued its way up to its moral implications, using consistent rational justifications, with as little explanatory gaps as possible. It is a construct of ideas, radically unlike the rogue thoughts that attempted to undermine its validity. In short, considering the argumentative strength of “Delta Theory”, I felt the arguments against it, were not motivated by real thought, but rather from a lazy desire to avoid thinking about it at all, or perhaps, simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Therefore, I continued thinking about these ideas. In fact, as I confessed at the end of "Delta Theory", I even attempted to explore them formally in the University, trying to implement my suggestions regarding contingent dimensions, by uncovering and designing the principles and technologies, with which we could build hyper-computation machines, meaning, machines that can perform calculations of infinite complexity, in constant time. Perhaps I will mention this technology later, if I will find the subject relevant to this text.
Still, again, as I confessed at the end of "Delta Theory", eventually, I gave up. I gave up the attempt, just as you, dear listener, should give up listening to this text, if you cannot find it in your heart, to move your lazy ass, and confront “Delta Theory”, before confronting the issues, which we will discuss in this text. I say this from experience, as arguably, the inacquaintance with "Delta Theory" was the root of the problem, which eventually, led to my retirement from academic pursue. Without first understanding the metaphysical justification for the feasibility of the technology I attempted to realize, no one in their right minds could think of a reason why such machines should ever work, and the same applies to the issues we will discuss in this text. In fact, this text will be much worse. Again, you have not yet confronted this text, and therefore, you cannot know why I am so cautious. Still, you can be sure, I have an idea what this text will discuss. It will discuss elements, which cannot exist by their very definition, and yet, possibly, are more powerful and potent than anything you can imagine. It will discuss the real gods, angels, demons, and many other notions, which usually, we would consider as nothing more than primitive superstitions. We will discuss issues, which never in my right mind would I suggest outspokenly, without the argumentative justification of “Delta Theory”.
The perspective, from which you should confront this text, is exactly the opposite of attempting to confront it, without first confronting “Delta Theory”. To clarify, while reviewing it, the type of questions you should ask yourself, should be of the likes of “How can this be, if Delta Theory is correct?”, rather than “I never understood Delta Theory, but I think I got this one”. It is only by possessing the prior knowledge “Delta Theory” suggests, that this text may truly provoke your mind, rather than provoke you to think, I have simply lost my marbles.
Therefore, I will try to remain strict to the same methodology I followed in “Delta Theory”. Ideas will evolve systematically from the place “Delta Theory” ended. I will not confront existing ideas regarding god, gods, religion, and the likes, without a consistent and rational argumentative basis. I will attempt to avoid expressing my personal persuasions and preferences, as I wish to explore these thoughts, rather than express my emotions. Had I wanted to express my emotions, I would do it in art, in songs, with music and rhyme.
Still, admittingly, it will be hard to follow this methodology. To clarify, I write this text after experiencing rather unusual events, which left me puzzled. These events persuaded me, there are several issues, I still need to understand. These experiences motivated me to think about the issues I will discuss in this text, and therefore, neglecting these events, might seem wrong.
Still, currently, I think it is for the better. To clarify, while the my experiences served as motivation for the thoughts I will express in this text, I am not writing this text to solve my unresolved personal issues. I am not writing this text, thinking understanding these experiences, will change things for the better. I am not writing for the sake of writing either, as honestly, despite the fact I wrote one book already, I do not consider myself a “writer”. My language is simple, and hardly do I consider the esthetic quality of my writing. Nevertheless, we should not conceal our ideas, just because currently, they serve us no use, as they might prove useful later, to someone else. Who knows?
Furthermore, I am unsure, if the ideas I will suggest in this text, are original. Possibly, past philosophers in theology and metaphysics, already expressed all the notions I will suggest. Still, even if so, I find it important to express these ideas again, exactly because I base them on “Delta Theory”. While others may have expressed them before, did they validate them with the support of robust metaphysical arguments? Did they explain the emergence of our consciousness, consistently? Did they confront physics, in a manner that links all aspects of reality, into a single consistent conceptual construct?
My future suggestions cannot be repetitions of existing ideas, as I will deduce them from “Delta Theory”. Therefore, even if they may appear similar to past suggestions, they are different. While our conclusions and terminology may be similar, such similarities are superficial. These similarities merely reflect conceptual milestones, on a road I began seven years ago, while writing the first edition of “Delta Theory”, a road beginning from an axiomatic vacuum, and ending with elements, which may not exist, and yet, encapsulate everything.
Yes.
I mean it.
Everything.
Gods included.
Thoughts are running through my head. Am I being too ambitious? Am I being arrogant? Is it out of line to confront the nature of things such as gods, using consistent argumentation? Why can I not settle with less?
Well, no. If anything, I am correcting my past arrogance, thinking I can explain the essence of the world, while leaving inconsistency "out of the picture". Simply put, as I suggested in the closing chapter of “Delta Theory”, "Delta Theory" is incomplete. I stopped my analysis prematurely. I stopped at the point, after which I am calling this text. While currently, I do not plan to share the personal events that have transpired since, these events shook me from my previous confidence, that indeed, I confronted every aspect of existence. I had not done a full sweep.
Honestly, I did not follow my own rules. I was so convinced we can explain "everything" consistently, I looked the other way, when it came to issues we cannot explain rationally. I said inconsistency cannot exist, and the truth is, it cannot. Nevertheless, I failed to see the flaw in my own argument, a simple flaw that will take us out of the introduction, and into the first chapter of this text.