Proof of Figmentalism V3    Aug 15, 2009    I. D. 2245

Naturally there is really no proof of anything in the strictest sense of philosophy. One can only be convinced that there is a proof since all things can be waged with conjecture but with that said try to argue with this simple sentence; "We exist". That statement is what we at INTS have dubbed ’The Fundamental Absolute’ and it is supported by the consideration that if you argue with it’s validity then you are just proving it by your ability to do so and thus; be.

Absolutes are generally not found in philosophy or in education and they should be because they spawn the understanding that it is not required to use theory. Both theory and theology are derivatives of the word thought and no theory throughout the history of science has ever been proved and never will be. It is likewise actually impossible to communicate a theory and this has already been mentioned but it will be expanded here because this is the latest in the articles about the proof of both the laws of reality and figmentalism and there have been plenty. We start this one off with the understanding; that all, and I stress that, ALL theories cannot be proved or even written and I will cite only one. Evolution, unfortunately is the grandaddy of all explanations of the cause of our existence and again as I have mentioned before leads to the conclusion that matter created us. We begin with the Big Bang and Science alters it to the ’The reciprocal universe’ in which all matter compresses every few billions of years into a point mass, and this is just the way it is worded by mainstream society or rather science and education. This point undergoes a cataclysmic change that rebegins all time and I may have this a bit off so I will return to the Wikipedia (middle of the stream) definition which is as follows:

The oscillating universe theory is a cosmological model investigated briefly by Albert Einstein in 1930 and critiqued by Richard Tolman in 1934, in which the universe undergoes a series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

Scientific Issues

In the simple cases studied by Friedman, containing just homogeneous matter and possibly a negative cosmological constant, each "bounce" is a gravitational singularity with infinite density and zero size. It is then a matter of taste whether to extend the solution through the singularities, giving an infinitely oscillating model, or to assume that only one cycle exists. The oscillating model was once popular among cosmologists who thought that the singularities could be avoided and so each big bang would be connected to an earlier big crunch: the mathematical singularities seen in calculations were supposed to be the result of over-idealizations (e.g. assuming too much symmetry or neglecting some force), and would be resolved by a more careful treatment, or by an alternative theory of gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory. In this case, as pointed out by Tolman, entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation; according to Tolman this would cause each oscillation to last longer and reach a larger size than the one before, in some sense tending towards a condition of heat death. However, in the 1960s, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis showed that singularities were a universal feature of cosmologies with a big bang and that no feature of general relativity could prevent them. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused most cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model.

John Archibald Wheeler, who believed that a oscillating universe was necessary on general principles, speculated that the fundamental physical constants could be re-processed to new values at each bounce, providing a mechanism for anthropic selection.

The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of the arguments leveled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model, and because all inflationary models, including models in higher dimensions, are past-incomplete.

Now ask yourself: Does that really sound like a coherent theory? It sounds more like a continuously changing guess based solely on who is spouting the drivel and the main weaknesses are both the space required for this recurring event to occur and the material needed for it’s creation. Actually they get around the material problem with the singularity proposal which has infinite density and zero size. Is that really a theory? Infinite density means nothing at all (not finite) and zero size means nothing either. Neither question is addressed here by these famous scientists. Clearly this is not really a theory and yet is supposed to pass for our best guess as to our origin or cause. Closest to this theory if it can be called that, is the ’Alien Theory’ in which our creation or origin on earth is the result of Alien influence and causality. Again there is a problem. Who created the Aliens? All problems must be addressed before there can be a consummate description of reality and how life began here on earth but the foregoing theories are woefully lacking. One thread that is most apparent throughout modern scientific history is the total lack of a theory of gravitation. Einstein didn’t even have a shred of one and he died still trying to get a handle on it. Now, quantum physics devotees will try to snow the average citizen with a blackboard full of math jargon equations that are supposed to mean something but try to get them to put the explanation of gravity in a single sentence in plain english and you won’t get any answer from anyone on this earth, save the enlightened ones of the ancient religions and of course, figmentalists. We know exactly what gravity is and how it relates to all other forces.

Enter Theology. Since we are first poo pooing all the available guesses we will just say that a belief in a male God that created us for no particular reason in the middle of a space that he did not create since he would have needed such a space for his own existence, out of material that he may or may not have created needs little comment. Who created this God? If God created himself or some other force created Him the point is still the same. There is no complete theology and as such all of it must be abandoned. If you are one that insists on the theocracy of God or Gods, you need only know that ’We are the Spirit’ and if you persist in another influence by creating a deity you are fixated on, you are perpetrating a fraud. Religions and all of the scriptures associated were created by man and there is not one shred of evidence for any superior being other than collectively us. In Abrahamic religions, the more recent world religions, the God was a male, JC was a male, Adam was a male and the poor lowly female was only the raw beginnings of sin. This smacks of male insecurity since femininity is at least half of the world of humanity and ALL men were directly and obviously created by women. These modern religions were selectively manipulated to control population, especially Catholicism and many known scriptures are not included because they empower the individual and connect them directly to one deity, namely themselves collectively. I won’t even mention Judaism because it’s still illegal to say anything about them, even in this modern world. It’s pretty well the same with Islam since you could be targeted for a fatwä as was the writer Salman Rushdie so I won’t say anything about them either. Lately there have been more and more anti-religious views expressed (Atheistic and Agnostic) and it’s becoming somewhat popular. It’s interesting to note at this juncture that no person of the three religions mentioned is actually religious or even believes their own religion if they spend their lifetime profiting monetarily by spreading mistruths and cheating everyone they meet. The same goes for those that go to war because these two morals, i.e., not killing and not lying are an intrinsic part of all religions worldwide and are the basis of the guidance that faith is supposed to inspire.

In the oldest known mass religion, the scriptures are the Hindu Vedas and Brahman is the God figure known as ’The One without another’ meaning in the strictest terms; non-dualistic. Atman is the individual spirit of each of us and the Vedas teach that Atman is Brahman which is a fancy way of saying what figmentalism teaches, that WE are the spirit. Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Daoism and Zoroastrianism to mention only a few of the oldest teachings were all influenced by Advaita Vedanta and the Vedas. All adhere to the same principle that figmentalism holds true about God and the people of this earth; We are collectively one, and the only spirit of the entire Universe. How’s that for proof? Aren’t you sorry that your schooling didn’t mention this at all and kept you in the dark?

So with Religion out of the way, we will similarly disassemble the so-called science you were taught in school. True science does not ignore things like the environment in which a theoretical process will take place, nor does it ignore the prerequisites that are required for the theory to be completed. The idea that rocks became a planet called Earth that eventually spawned animals and later humans is interesting enough but any kid could ask "Where did these rocks come from?" and blow the whole theory of evolution into dust.

One of the main scientific proofs that is used here at INTS requires that you actually use the principles of reason and this has been mentioned several times in a variety of ways but we will go over it one more time. Physicists have been trying in the last 100 years to find what they call the building blocks of matter and everything including many kitchen sinks have been employed, not to mention multi-million dollar cyclotrons or atom smashers that are still being built today like the one know as CERN on the Franco-Swiss border, just recently opened, costing 664 million Euros and will never discover anything at all, just like all the others. True Science would employ reason and say, "Well we can’t seem to get matter separated from energy so perhaps they are the same thing?" but highly paid physicists aren’t going to sacrifice their cushy jobs by using reason, are they? It’s a very simple process and does not require any math at all. Either matter exists or it does not and there is no middle ground. If energy and matter cannot be separated then they are the same thing and could be referred to as either matter or energy. Now here’s where the common sense comes in. One of the considerations is a theory and the other is fact, since there are only two possibilities. The theory is that matter exists in and of itself. Now here’s were reason comes in; There are only two possibilities, therefore one is fact and the other is theory and incorrect. Mainstream, itself calls it the theory of matter.

Matter does NOT exist. This also means that our present understanding of energy has the same problem, it doesn’t exist either. Further, whatever matter and energy are in this new combined state as we now understand it, we have no known model for how the universe can be created out of it unless you open your mind to the difficult realization that it’s an illusion, just like gravity. Now everything makes perfect sense and no questions are left unanswered save one. What the heck is thought? We have some other coincidental proofs such as the fact that everything seems be by design and not born of happenstance. And another; the amazing coincidence known as ’Celestial’ and found in a separate article on our navigation page in which it is pointed out that the apparent size of the moon, earth and sun are all exactly the same revealed in eclipses, very convenient for a happenstance edition of a random planetary system and oddswise very unlikely.

A new proof found only here is this; Take a computer and consider it very carefully. How come no one understands how they actually work? How can they be so incredibly complex and yet so reliable if they are just built in a material way? In the real world you can’t even put your shoes on without something unforseen happening, like a shoelace getting caught under your foot. If everything just created itself from evolution of matter how could the complexity of the computer be solid as a rock and work like all electronics.. almost flawlessly? The only reason things like that work so well is because their internals are just products of our imagination. If your computer doesn’t work very well then it’s because you don’t believe it will. Mine works fine until I think there is a possibility that it might screw up.. and then it does.

Laws of Reality    Plus ES Law and Nes Law

INTS    The Institute of Non-Theoretical Science

General Interest Galleries    Real Rufus

Namron Soar Mail    Nsoar@tbaytel.net

Drugs and the Mind    http://www.acidprogram.com

©