Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

April 22, 2025

This follows on from my earlier post about knowledge.

This essay argues that knowledge, truth, and reality are attributes of consciousness, requiring a purposeful, self-aware mind to transform raw data into meaning. Countering realist and Cartesian assumptions, this post adopts an anti-realist framework which emphasizes consciousness’s role, urging epistemic humility and responsible engagement with constructed realities.

Introduction

Consider our famous tree which falls in a forest. The trivial question is whether there is a sound when there is no one to hear? But let us ask instead what is experienced by an intelligent observer who just happens to be around. This question opens up the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality, revealing their dependence on a conscious mind. I argue that these are attributes of consciousness, created when a self-aware, purposeful mind defines and interprets phenomena. Existence—the brute fact of all things being—may stand alone, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, but reality, truth, and knowledge require an observer to define specific things, such as a tree’s fall. Realists claim the universe exists and is real intrinsically, conflating existence with reality, but this begs, “Known by who?”—exposing the need for a conscious knower. Knowledge arises only when consciousness contextualizes defined phenomena, truth appears as consciousness judges their certainty, and reality takes shape as meaning is constructed, all within the mind. The grey amorphous splodge of everything which is in the universe may encompass all existence, but it defines no things; only observers carve out realities. This anti-realist perspective rejects absolute truth and philosophical objectivity, emphasizing diverse perspectives—humans understanding the sun scientifically, crows sensing it instinctively—each defining distinct realities, limited by the unknowable. Through definitions, epistemic limits, and implications, this essay explores how consciousness shapes understanding. Knowledge abides only in a consciousness which has a need to define what is known. The tree-falling analogy anchors this, showing existence to be diffuse and undefined until a mind makes it real, urging us to see knowledge, truth, and reality as products of consciousness.

Definitions

What does it mean to know, to judge true, or to call something real? These terms hinge on a critical and crucial distinction between existence – the universe’s raw, undefined splodge – and the reality, knowledge, and truth, which can only be carved out of existence by a conscious mind.

  • Existence is the brute fact of all things being—particles, waves, space, vibrations, stars, trees, winds, crows—swirling amorphously as the universe’s grey background, unnamed, undefined and needing no observer.
  • Data are discrete slices of existence, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, raw and shapeless until a mind touches them.
  • Information emerges when senses and interpreting brains select and shape data into patterns, such as sound waves rippling through an ear.
  • Knowledge is born when a conscious mind defines these patterns, naming them with certainty: “A tree fell.”
  • Cognition—perception, memory, reasoning—builds the bridge from data to information.
  • Consciousness is cognition with self-awareness, the spark that defines things and weaves knowledge.
  • Purpose is the drive, whether deliberate study or survival’s instinct, pushing a mind to define and learn.
  • Truth is a judgment, a mind declaring a defined thing certain, like “a tree fell is true,” meaningless without someone to say it.
  • Objectivity is minds agreeing, as in science’s shared truths, not a reality beyond them—else, “Intrinsic to what?”
  • Reality is meaning carved from existence, a defined thing like a forest event, not a universal fact.

This anti-realist view clarifies how knowledge, truth, and reality can only spring from a mind which contemplates and tries to define the bits and pieces of existence’s diffuse mass. The brute fact of all that is, just is and does not need to name or identify its own bits and pieces or make judgements about them. Realists conflate existence with reality, but pressure vibrations in the air do not sing until a conscious observer judges them to be a sensation called sound.

The Limits of Knowing: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable

Picture the universe as a vast, amorphous, undefined sea of existence. What can we know from it? Knowledge splits into three realms: the known, the knowable, and the unknowable. The known holds what we’ve defined—gravity’s pull, a tree’s fall—crafted by observation. The knowable waits to be defined, like distant stars or hidden creatures, reachable with better tools or sharper minds. The unknowable is existence undefined—quantum flickers, the universe’s deep nature—forever beyond our grasp. This divide shows knowledge and truth need a mind to carve specific things from existence’s splodge. Realists proclaim a universe real in itself, but “Known by who?, Real to who?” Defining the sun reveals this: humans name it a star, blazing with fusion; crows sense a warm light, guiding flight. Each reality is partial, missing existence’s undefined depths, like quantum secrets. The unknowable allows no mind to be able to capture all, shattering realism’s dream of one true reality. Knowledge lives in what we define, shaped by consciousness, not floating in existence. A tree’s vibrations are just there until an observer calls them a sound or a fall, crafting a reality. This anti-realist lens, seeing reality as it is defined, not as a given, leads us to explore how consciousness transforms bits of existence into knowledge.

From Data to Knowledge: The Conscious Process

Consider again our tree, crashing in the forest. What does an intelligent observer experience? Vibrations ripple through the air—existence’s brute fact, undefined and silent. These are data, raw scraps of the universe’s meaningless, lonely splodge. The eye perceives nothing but an ear catches them, cognition spins them into information—sound waves with rhythm and pitch. Then consciousness, purposeful and self-aware, defines them: “A cracking sound”, “A tree fell.” This is knowledge, born when a mind carves a specific thing from existence. Realists insist the fall is real in itself, but that cannot be. “What is a tree?, What is air? Known by who?” Vibrations aren’t a tree’s fall until defined—else, “Intrinsic to what?” A human observer might name it a forest event, mapping its cause; a crow, hearing danger, defines it as a threat. Each reality springs from defining selected bits and pieces of existence, both enlightened and limited by senses and constrained by the unknowable, like the molecular dance triggered by the tree which fell. What the human selects of the data available and what the crow selects are different. Knowledge isn’t in the universe’s raw being but in a mind’s act of definition. Animals or AI might process information, but only a conscious mind, driven by purpose—curiosity or survival—defines knowledge as humans do. No book or computer ever contained knowledge. A crow’s instinct doesn’t name the fall; AI’s outputs don’t reflect knowledge. Only consciousness, shaping existence into defined things, creates meaning, setting the stage for judgments of truth value.

Knowledge and Truth: A Mind-Dependent Relationship

What makes a belief knowledge, and what makes it true? Observe that belief – no matter how enhanced (justified, true, etc.) – can never achieve a truth value of 1. That requires it no longer be a belief. Knowledge is a belief held with a subjective confidence, defined and justified, like “The sun rises” seen daily. Truth is the mind’s judgment that a defined thing aligns with reality—but reality itself is carved from existence by consciousness. To call “a tree fell” true, an observer hears vibrations (existence), defines them as sound, and judges the event’s certainty. Realists claim truth lives in the universe, saying “the sun is real” or “gravity is true.” But “sun” or “gravity” are defined things, needing a mind—“Intrinsic to what?” Consciousness can deal with partial truths and almost certainties. Claiming “existence is true” is a tautology; existence just is, undefined. Humans define the sun as a star, fusing atoms; crows, as a light, guiding paths. Both truths are real, yet partial, blind to existence’s undefined depths, like quantum waves. “Known by who?” Truth applies to things that a mind names, not existence’s splodge. Truth falters, too: geocentrism once reigned, toppled by heliocentrism’s evidence. This shows consciousness, purposeful and fluid, redefining truths as knowledge shifts. Anti-realism sees truth as subjective, sometimes shared through science’s agreed definitions, but never absolute. Existence’s undefined vastness limits all truths—no mind defines it all. Knowledge and truth, born from defining bits of existence, are consciousness’s craft, driven by purpose, as we’ll see next.

Purpose in the Generation of Knowledge

Why do we know? Purpose lights the spark. Whether chasing curiosity or surviving danger, purpose drives a mind to define existence’s grey splodge. Picture our tree’s fall: an observer, keen to understand, hears vibrations and defines them as “a tree fell,” forging knowledge and truth. Without purpose, existence stays undefined. Realists claim gravity’s pull is knowledge itself, but “Known by who?” Gravity is another  indistinguishable part of existence until a mind defines it as a force or as the curvature of spacetime. Saying “existence is real” is empty—existence doesn’t define things. Purpose shapes what we carve: humans define a forest to study its life; crows, a fall as danger to flee. Each knowledge, each reality, is a slice of existence, limited by the undefinable, like unseen molecules. A book holds data, but only a purposeful reader defines its words as knowledge. Crows sense light, but without human-like purpose, they don’t define it as a star. AI crunches numbers, lacking the self-aware drive to name things. Realist intrinsic reality crumbles—“Intrinsic to what?”—as existence needs a mind to become real. Purpose makes knowledge, truth, and reality conscious acts, defining the universe’s raw being, a theme echoed in how perspectives shape reality.

Perspectives on Reality: The Role of Perception

Is reality one, or many? It depends on the mind defining it. The sun burns in existence’s splodge, undefined. Humans, through science, give it a boundary, define it as a star, fusing hydrogen; crows, through instinct, see a light, guiding their flight. Each carves a reality—knowledge and truth—from existence, yet each misses the undefinable, like quantum flickers. Realists insist the sun is real in itself, but “Intrinsic to what?” The sun isn’t a “star” without a mind to first carve it out of existence and name it—“Known by who?” The sound of our tree’s fall is just air pressure vibrations until defined: by humans as a forest event, by crows as danger. These realities, though valid, are partial, shaped by perception’s lens and existence’s hidden depths. The universe holds the splodge of existence but defines no things; minds do that. Even science’s objectivity is minds agreeing on defined truths, not a truth beyond them. But a subjective untruth even if shared 8 billion times remains a subjective untruth. Realist claims of a real universe blur existence with reality, ignoring that things need defining. No perspective holds all—humans, crows, or others—because the undefinable bits of existence will always escape us. Some existence is unknowable. Reality is consciousness’s craft, a mosaic of defined things, not a universal slab. This anti-realist view, seeing reality as what we define, faces challenges we’ll tackle next.

Counterarguments: Where Does Knowledge Reside?

Could knowledge live outside a mind—in the universe, nature, books, or AI? Realists say yes, claiming gravity’s law is knowledge, real in itself. But gravity is existence’s hum, undefined until a mind calls it a force or spacetime—“Known by who?” Saying “existence is real” is a tautology, blurring brute fact with defined reality—“Intrinsic to what?” Descartes’ Cogito, ergo sum stumbles here, its loop (I exist, so I exist) assuming a self, like realism’s assumed reality, defining nothing. Trees grow, crows fly by light, but their “knowledge” is instinct, not defined belief. Crows sense the sun but don’t name it a star, lacking human purpose. Books store words, yet only a reader defines their meaning. AI processes data, programmed but not purposeful, outputting results, not knowledge. These claims mistake existence or information for knowledge, ignoring the mind’s role in defining things. Science’s truths, though shared, are minds defining existence, not existence defining itself. Our tree’s vibrations are existence’s pulse, undefined until an observer names them a sound or a fall. Realists conflate existence’s being with reality’s meaning, but only consciousness, purposefully carving things from the universe’s splodge, creates knowledge, truth, and reality, as we’ll reflect on next.

Implications and Reflections

What happens if knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s creations? We must tread humbly. Truths shift—geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism—as minds redefine the bits and pieces of existence. Undefined existence, the unknowable, looms beyond, like quantum shadows, reminding us no truth is final. Realists’ intrinsic reality—“Intrinsic to what?”—ignores this, conflating existence’s splodge with defined things. Humans define ecosystems, crows dangers, each reality a fragment, urging care in the truths we craft. Descartes’ Cogito’s tautology, looping on existence, fades beside this view of reality as defined, not given. Anti-realism sparks curiosity, urging us to define the knowable while bowing to the undefinable. Science’s shared truths are precious, yet human, not universal. For non-specialists, this reveals knowledge as our act of naming existence—trees, stars, laws—not a cosmic gift. Philosophically, it dances with idealism and constructivism, spurning realism’s blend of existence and reality. Existence may hum unheard, but without a mind to define it, it is silent. This calls us to question, redefine, and own the realities we shape, as we’ll now conclude.

Conclusion

Our tree falls, vibrations pulsing in existence’s grey splodge. Is it real? Only if a mind defines it. Knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s gifts, carved from the universe’s raw being. An observer names vibrations a forest event, crafting reality; crows sense danger, defining another. Realists call the universe real, blending existence with meaning—“Known by who?” Existence just is; things, however, need to be first imagined and then defined by a mind. Humans weave scientific truths, crows instinctual ones, each partial, constrained by undefinable existence. Purpose fuels this, setting conscious minds apart. Truths evolve—fallible, human—rejecting absolute reality. Saying “existence is real” or leaning on Descartes’ Cogito’s loop dodges the truth: only defined things are real or true. The universe holds existence, not things, until we name them. This anti-realist view demands the humility imposed by the unknowable—our truths are ours—and imposes responsibility, as defined realities shape our world. We can study and explore what we can define, and question what we cannot. Consciousness is our tool to extract meaning and comprehension from the grey cosmic background of existence and to assess the quality – truth, reality – of the knowledge we have created.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

April 16, 2025
This is the second in the essay series which began with

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

 
The Fallacy of Universalism

The 20th century’s obsession with universalism – the notion that humanity can be bound by shared values, laws, or moral standards – was a profound misstep, rooted in shaky philosophical foundations and doomed by practical realities. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 to global institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court (ICC), universalism promised a unified moral order to transcend cultural and national divides. Yet this pursuit was not just misguided; it was built on false premises that ignored the inherent diversity of humans and their societies. Far from fostering harmony, universalism sought to suppress the biological and social variety that ensures humanity’s resilience and vitality. Driven partly by European guilt after World War II and cloaked in virtue-signaling, it misunderstood human nature and curbed the freedoms it claimed to champion. This post argues that universalism lacks any coherent philosophical grounding – relying on fictions like Natural Law – and fails practically by imposing unworkable frameworks that stifle diversity’s strength. Societies thrive when free to forge their own values, provided they do no harm to others, rendering universalism both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Shaky Foundations

Universalism’s most glaring flaw is its lack of a sound philosophical basis. Proponents often invoke Natural Law – the idea that universal moral truths are inherent in human nature or discoverable through reason – as a cornerstone. This concept, tracing back to thinkers like Aquinas and Locke, assumes a shared essence that dictates right and wrong across all societies. Yet Natural Law is a fiction, a construct that crumbles under scrutiny. As argued in my earlier post, it presupposes a uniformity of human values that history and anthropology disprove. If moral truths were truly universal, why do societies differ so starkly on fundamental questions – life, justice, freedom? The Aztec practice of human sacrifice was as rational to them as modern human rights are to the West; both reflect context, not eternal truths. Natural Law’s claim to universality ignores that reason itself is shaped by culture, environment, and survival needs, yielding no singular moral code.

The contradiction is evident in universalism’s own failures. If values like “do not kill” were innate, as Natural Law suggests, atrocities like the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust would not have mobilized thousands of perpetrators acting with conviction. That thousands of Islamic fundamentalists believe that killing infidels is the right and proper thing to do makes a mockery of ideas of universal morality. Universalist institutions like the ICC assert that crimes such as genocide “shock the conscience of humanity,” implying a shared moral compass. Yet the very occurrence of these acts – often justified as cultural or political imperatives – exposes the absence of such a compass. All the most heinous, inhuman acts in the world – as considered by some – are all committed by other humans who have quite different values. Values are not universal; they are contingent, forged in the crucible of specific societies. To claim otherwise is to project one’s own biases as truth, a philosophical sleight-of-hand that Natural Law enables but cannot sustain.

Other philosophical defenses of universalism fare no better. Kant’s categorical imperative – act only according to maxims you would have as universal law – assumes a rational consensus that doesn’t exist. Societies prioritize different ends: Japan values collective harmony, while the US exalts individual liberty. Neither can universalize its maxim without negating the other. Human rights, another universalist pillar, rest on the same shaky ground. The UDHR’s assertion of inalienable rights – life, equality – sounds noble but lacks grounding in any objective reality. Rights are not discovered; they are invented, reflecting the priorities of their creators (post-war Western elites). When Saudi Arabia or China rejects aspects of the UDHR, they’re not defying reason but asserting their own rational frameworks. Universalism’s philosophical poverty lies in its refusal to admit this pluralism, insisting instead on a unity that suppresses the diversity of human thought.

Over the past three centuries, universalism has masked control as moral duty. Colonial powers invoked civilization to plunder India and Africa, erasing diverse traditions under a universalist banner. The ICC’s African focus continues this, imposing Western justice while sparing Western crimes, proving universalism’s selectivity. Such interventions violate the principle of ‘do no harm,’ curbing societies’ freedom to differ unless they tangibly harm others.

This suppression is not just academic – it’s a curb on freedom. Diversity in values allows societies to experiment, adapt, and thrive in unique ways. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness metric defies Western materialism yet fosters stability. Indigenous Australian kinship laws prioritize community over individualism, sustaining cultures for millennia. Forcing these societies to align with a universal standard – whether Natural Law or human rights – erases their agency, imposing conformity under the guise of morality. Philosophically, universalism fails because it denies the reality of human variation, mistaking difference for defect.

Why Universalism

The 20th-century love affair with universalism was more emotional than philosophical, driven by European guilt after World War II. The Holocaust, colonial atrocities, and global wars left Europe’s moral credibility in tatters. Once-proud imperial powers faced a reckoning, with their Enlightenment ideals exposed as hollow, by gas chambers, induced famines and bombed cities. The UDHR, drafted under UN auspices, was less a global consensus than a European attempt to reclaim moral ground. Its language – steeped in Western liberalism – framed rights as universal truths, ignoring dissenting voices from post-colonial or non-Western states. Ratification was pushed as necessary evidence of a country being part of the new civilised world order. Countries like India or Saudi Arabia ratified it with caveats, revealing the myth of unity. This virtue-signaling extended to institutions like the UN and ICC, which promised a new world order while sidestepping Europe’s complicity in creating the old one.

Universalism’s roots lie in ancient dreams of unity – Stoic cosmopolitanism, Christian salvation – but these were aspirational, not coercive. The Enlightenment and colonial eras turned universalism into a tool of control, with Natural Law as a flimsy excuse. But these fictions fail to bridge the diversity of human values.

This guilt-driven push was not about understanding humanity but about control by retaking the moral high ground. By proclaiming universal values, Europe (and later the West) sought to redefine the global moral landscape in its image. The ICC’s focus on African states – over 80% of its cases – while sparing Western actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, echoes colonial “civilizing” missions. Universalism became a tool to judge and intervene, not to unite. Its philosophical weakness – lacking a basis beyond Western dogma – made it ripe for such misuse, cloaking power in moral rhetoric.

Universalism is unworkable

Beyond its philosophical flaws, universalism fails practically by imposing frameworks that ignore the diversity of human societies. The complexity of aligning multiple nations under one standard grows exponentially with each participant, as vetoes and competing interests stall progress. The UN Security Council exemplifies this: a single veto from the US, France, the UK, Russia or China can paralyze action, as seen in Syria’s decade-long crisis. The WTO’s Doha Round, launched in 2001, remains deadlocked after 24 years, with 164 members unable to reconcile their priorities. The ICC’s record is equally dismal – 10 convictions in over two decades, none involving major powers like the US or India, who opt out entirely. These failures stem from a simple truth: the more diverse the players, the harder it is to find, let alone enforce, a universal rule.

Contrast this with bilateral agreements, which are exponentially simpler. A nation negotiates with one partner at a time, tailoring terms to mutual benefit without navigating a global gauntlet. Since the 1990s, bilateral trade deals have surged – over 300 globally by 2025 – while multilateral talks languish. The USMCA replaced NAFTA precisely because three nations could align faster than 34 under earlier pan-American proposals. Even security pacts, like India-Japan defense agreements, thrive on bilateral trust, not universal ideals. The math is clear: for “N” countries, managing “N-1” bilateral relationships is far less chaotic than wrestling with “N!” (N factorial) potential interactions in a multilateral arena. Like Rome’s Pax Romana, modern universalism falters when imposed, breeding resistance not unity. Bilateral cooperation, rooted in mutual respect, proves more viable

Universalism’s practical flaw is its denial of sovereignty. Societies function best when free to set their own rules, as long as they do no harm to others. Iceland’s secular egalitarianism and Saudi Arabia’s religious conservatism coexist peacefully because neither imposes its values across borders. When harm occurs—say, overfishing causing dwindling fish stocks, bilateral and/or multilateral cooperation among the parties involved can address it far better than by demanding ideological conformity. Universalist institutions, by contrast, breed resentment by judging internal practices. The UN’s human rights sanctions on Iran or the ICC’s warrants against African leaders provoke defiance, not compliance, as societies reject external moralizing.

The Strength of Difference

Individuals being different is humanity’s greatest asset, biologically and socially. Genetically, variation ensures survival (of the species though not of the unfit individual), allowing species adaptation to environmental shifts – a too narrow genetic spread would go extinct. Socially, this diversity manifests in the myriad ways societies organize themselves. The Maasai’s nomadic communalism sustains them in arid lands, while Singapore’s meritocratic discipline drives its prosperity. These systems, often at odds with universalist ideals, prove that cohesion requires no global standard. The “do no harm” principle respects this, allowing societies to be “unusual” so long as they avoid cross-border damage. When Japan’s whaling sparks debate, the issue is ecological impact, not moral offense. This approach fosters peace through mutual restraint, not forced unity.

Universalism’s attempt to erase the “we/them” dichotomy is both futile and destructive. Group identity – cultural, national – fuels cohesion and innovation. The “brotherhood of man” sounds noble but ignores that brotherhood privileges some over others. To eliminate “we/them” is to strip societies of their freedom to differ, demanding a homogeneity that negates diversity’s strength. The backlash – rising nationalism, skepticism of global bodies – reflects a reclaiming of this freedom.

Conclusion: Beyond Universalism

The 20th-century chase for universalism was a flawed response to a troubled era, rooted in European guilt and philosophical fiction. Natural Law and its offspring – human rights, global justice – lack grounding in the reality of human diversity. Practically, universalism’s complex frameworks collapse under the weight of competing sovereignties, while bilateral solutions prove nimbler and more respectful of difference. Societies thrive when free to forge their own paths, bound only by the duty to do no harm. Humanity’s strength lies not in sameness but in variation – genetic, cultural, ideological. By embracing this, we can foster a world of cooperation without conformity, where diversity, not universalism, ensures our resilience and freedom.

In order of difficulty in organising any field of activity, national is simpler than bilateral which is, in turn, simpler than multi-lateral and international –  in that sequence. It seems the world was bitten by the international bug during the 20th century, but has now realised it has gone too far and is now gingerly drawing back because international bodies have largely proven ineffective, bureaucratic, or politically manipulated.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Law, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

April 16, 2025

The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

Humanity’s pursuit of understanding is shaped by enduring questions – the Great Mysteries of existence, time, space, causality, life, consciousness, matter, energy, fields, infinity, purpose, nothingness, and free will. These enigmas, debated from ancient myths to modern laboratories, persist because of the inescapable limits of our cognition and perception. Our brains, with their finite 86 billion neurons, grapple with a universe of unfathomable complexity. Our senses – sight, hearing, touch – perceive only a sliver of reality, blind to ultraviolet light, infrasound, or phenomena beyond our evolutionary design. We cannot know what senses we lack, what dimensions or forces remain invisible to our biology. The universe, spanning an observable 93 billion light-years and 13.8 billion years, appears boundless, hiding truths beyond our reach. Together, these constraints – finite brain, limited senses, unknown missing senses, and an apparently boundless universe – render the unknowable a fundamental fact, not a mere obstacle but a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry.

Knowing itself is subjective, an attribute of consciousness, not a separate mystery. To know – the sky is blue, 2+2=4 – requires a conscious mind to perceive, interpret, and understand. How we know we know is contentious, as reflection on knowledge (am I certain?) loops back to consciousness’s mystery, fraught with doubt and debate. This ties knowing to the unknowable: if consciousness limits what and how we know, some truths remain beyond us. Philosophy’s task is to acknowledge this, setting initial and boundary conditions – assumptions – for endeavors like science or ethics. The unknowable is the philosophy of philosophy, preventing us from chasing mirages or clutching at straws. The mysteries intertwine – existence needs time’s flow, space grounds physical being, causality falters at its first cause, consciousness shapes knowing – luring us with connections that reveal little. We classify knowledge as known (grasped), knowable (graspable), and unknowable (ungraspable), rooted in consciousness’s limits. Ignoring this, philosophers and physicists pursue futile absolutes, misled by the mysteries’ web. This essay explores these enigmas, their links, and the necessity of grounding philosophy in the unknowable.

I. The Tripartite Classification of Knowledge

Knowledge, an expression of consciousness, divides into known, knowable, and unknowable, a framework that reveals the Great Mysteries’ nature. The known includes verified truths – facts like gravity’s pull or DNA’s structure – established through observation and reason. These are humanity’s achievements, from Euclid’s axioms to quantum theory. The knowable encompasses questions within potential reach, given new tools or paradigms. The origin of life or dark energy’s nature may yield to inquiry, though they challenge us now. The unknowable marks where our finite nature – biological, sensory, existential – sets impassable limits.

The unknowable stems from our constraints. Our brains struggle with infinite regress or absolute absence, bound by their finite capacity. Our senses capture visible light, not gamma rays; audible sound, not cosmic vibrations. We lack senses for extra dimensions or unseen forces, ignorant of what we miss. The universe, vast and expanding, hides realms beyond our cosmic horizon or before the Big Bang’s earliest moments (~10^-43 seconds). This reality – finite cognition, limited perception, unknown sensory gaps, boundless cosmos – makes it inevitable that some truths are inaccessible to us. We are embedded in time, space, and existence, unable to view them externally. Philosophy’s task is to recognize these limits, setting assumptions that ground endeavors. Ignoring the unknowable risks mirages – false promises of answers where none exist – leaving us clutching at straws instead of building knowledge.

II. The Great Mysteries: A Catalog of the Unknowable

The Great Mysteries resist resolution, their unknowability shaping the assumptions we must make. Below, I outline each, situating them in the tripartite framework, then explore their interconnected web, which lures yet confounds us.

Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Existence’s origin, from Leibniz to Heidegger, remains a foundational enigma. The known includes observable reality – stars, particles, laws – but why anything exists is unclear. Reason tells us that existence must be because it is compelled to be so, but what those compulsions might be defies our comprehension. There must have been some prior condition which made it “easier” for there to be existence than not. The knowable might include quantum fluctuations sparking the Big Bang, yet these assume causality and time. The unknowable is the ultimate “why,” demanding a perspective outside existence, impossible for us. Metaphysicians chasing a final cause risk mirages, assuming an answer lies within reach, when philosophy must set existence as an unprovable starting point.

Time: What Is Its True Nature?

Time governs not only life, but the existence of anything. Yet its essence eludes us. We observe some of its effects – clocks, seasons – and the knowable includes relativity’s spacetime or quantum time’s emergence. But is time linear, cyclic, or illusory? Its subjective “flow” defies capture. To know time, we’d need to transcend it, beyond temporal beings. Ancient eternal gods and block-time models falter, pursuing clarity where philosophy must assume time’s presence, not its essence. The unidirectional arrow of time just is. Brute fact which neither allows nor permits any further penetration.

Space: What Is Its Fundamental Reality?

Space, reality’s stage, seems familiar but confounds. We know its measures – distances, volumes – and the knowable includes curved spacetime or extra dimensions. But what space is – substance, relation, emergent – remains unknowable. Why three dimensions, enabling physical existence (stars, bodies), not two or four? We cannot exit space to see its nature, and Planck-scale probes (~10^-35 meters) elude us. Cosmologies from Aristotle to multiverses assume space’s knowability, risking straw-clutching when philosophy must posit space as a given.

Causality: Does Every Effect Have a Cause?

Causality drives science, yet its scope is unproven. We know cause-effect patterns – stones fall, reactions occur – and the knowable might clarify quantum indeterminacy. But is causality universal or constructed? The first cause – what sparked existence – remains sidestepped, with science starting a little after the Big Bang and philosophy offering untestable gods or regresses. To know causality’s reach, we’d need to observe all events, which is impossible. Thinkers like Hume assume its solvability, ignoring that philosophy must treat causality as an assumption, not a truth.

Life: What Sparks Its Emergence?

Life’s mechanisms – DNA, evolution – are known, and abiogenesis may be knowable via synthetic biology. We search for where the spark of life may have first struck but we don’t know what the spark consists of. Why matter becomes “alive,” or life’s purpose, is unknowable. And as long as we don’t know, those who wish to can speculate about souls. Animists saw spirits, biologists study chemistry, yet both chase a threshold beyond perception. Assuming life’s knowability risks mirages; philosophy grounds biology by positing life as an empirical phenomenon, not explaining its essence.

Consciousness: Why Do We Experience?

Consciousness, where knowing resides, is our core mystery. We know neural correlates; the knowable includes mapping them. But why processes yield experience – the hard problem – is unknowable, as consciousness cannot access others’ qualia or exit itself. How we know we know – certainty, doubt – is contentious, from Plato’s beliefs to Gettier’s challenges, tying knowing’s subjectivity to consciousness’s limits. Seeking universal theories risks mirages; philosophy assumes consciousness as given.

Matter, Energy, Fields: What Are They Fundamentally?

Matter, energy, and fields are known via models—atoms, quanta, waves. Every model uses initial and boundary conditions which, themselves, can not be addressed. The knowable includes quantum gravity. But their essence—what they are—may be unknowable. What is the stuff of the fundamental particles. Are fields real or fictions? Atomists to string theorists chase answers, but Planck-scale realities defy us. Assuming a final ontology risks mirages; philosophy sets these as frameworks, not truths.

Infinity: Can We Grasp the Boundless?

Infinity, the uncountable, defies intuition. It is a placeholder for the incomprehensible. We know mathematical infinities (Cantor’s sets) and use them; the knowable might clarify physical infinity (space’s extent). But infinity’s reality or role is unknowable—our finite minds falter at boundlessness, paradoxes (Zeno’s) persist. Mathematicians seeking proofs assume too much; philosophy posits infinity as a tool, not a fact.

Purpose: Does Existence Have Meaning?

Purpose shapes ethics and religion, yet is unproven. We know human meanings (values); the knowable might include evolutionary drives. But cosmic purpose – existence’s “for” – is unknowable, needing intent we cannot access. Existentialists and theologians project meaning, risking straws; philosophy assumes purpose as human, not universal. What compelled the Big Bang? or the existence of the universe? Was that some deeper Law of Nature? A Law of the Super-Nature?

Nothingness: What Is Absolute Absence?

Nothingness probes “nothing.” We know quantum vacuums fluctuate; the knowable might explore pre-Big Bang states. But true nothingness – absence of all – is unknowable, as we exist in “something.” To have something the framework of existence must be present and if then something is removed do we get to nothingness or are we left with the space of existence? With numbers we cannot derive zero except by subtracting one from one. But without something how do we even conceptualise nothing? Can nothingness only be defined by first having something? Parmenides and physicists assume answers, but philosophy must posit somethingness as our starting point.

Free Will: Are We Truly Free?

Free will grounds morality, yet is unclear. We know brain processes; the knowable includes mapping agency. But freedom versus determinism is unknowable – we cannot isolate uncaused acts or escape causality. Augustine to Dennett chase clarity, but philosophy assumes will as a practical condition, not a truth.

Perplexing Connections: A Web of Mirages

The mysteries intertwine, with knowing, as consciousness’s attribute, weaving through their links luring us toward insight yet leading nowhere. Existence and time are inseparable – being requires change which in turn needs time to flow. But what is the time and what does it flow through? Physical existence demands three-dimensional space – real things (quarks, trees) occupy it, unlike abstractions – yet why three dimensions, not two or four, baffles us. Causality binds these, an empirical fact – events follow causes – but the first cause, existence’s spark, is dodged, leaving a void.

  • Existence and Time: Existence implies dynamism; a timeless “something” feels unreal. Heraclitus tied being to flux, physics links time to entropy. But why existence exists loops to when it began, and time’s flow loops to existence’s cause. Our finite brains grasp sequences, not sources; senses see motion, not time’s essence; the boundless universe hides time’s start, if any. Philosophers like Kant (time as intuition) chase answers, but the link reveals only our limits, demanding we assume both as givens.
  • Space and Existence: Physical things require 3D space – a stone needs place, a star volume. Two dimensions lack depth for matter, four defy perception (a 4D “shadow” needs unimaginable light). Why 3D? Our embeddedness in space blocks an external view, senses miss other dimensions, and the cosmos may conceal alternatives. Descartes (space as extension) assumes knowability, but philosophy must posit 3D space as a condition, not explain it.
  • Causality’s Role: Causality stitches existence, time, space—events unfold in spacetime, caused by priors. Yet, the first cause – what began it? – is sidestepped. Science can only go back to a little after the Big Bang, philosophy offers gods or regresses, neither testable. Our observations halt at Planck scales, logic breaks at uncaused causes. Russell (“universe just is”) assumes closure, but causality’s origin remains an assumption, not a truth. Referring to a brute fact is the sure sign of having reached the unknowable.
  • Consciousness and Knowing: Knowing is consciousness’s act – perceiving, understanding, reflecting. How we know we know – certainty’s test – is debated, as consciousness doubts itself (Gettier, skeptics). This links all mysteries: existence’s why, time’s flow, space’s form depend on conscious knowing, subjective and limited, making their truths elusive.

These connections form a circular web – knowing needs consciousness, existence needs time, time needs space, space needs causality, causality needs existence – each leaning on others without a base we can reach. They tantalize, suggesting unity, but lead to mirages, as our finite minds cannot break the loop, our senses see only 3D, temporal projections, and the universe hides broader contexts. Ignoring this, thinkers pursue the web’s threads, clutching at straws when philosophy’s role is to set boundaries, not chase illusions.

III. The Futility of Overreaching

The Great Mysteries, interwoven, persist as unknowable, yet many refuse to see this. Philosophers debate existence or space’s nature, assuming logic captures them, blind to unprovable foundations. Neuroscientists claim consciousness will yield to scans, ignoring qualia’s gap. Physicists seek a Theory of Everything, presuming space, causality, matter have final forms, despite unreachable scales. The mysteries’ web fuels this folly—links like existence-time or causality-space suggest a solvable puzzle. But chasing these leads to mirages, as circularity traps us—time explains existence, space grounds causality, none stand alone.

This stems from assuming all is knowable. Science’s successes—vaccines, satellites—imply every question yields. Yet, the unknowable is philosophy’s guardrail. Without it, endeavors falter, like metaphysicians seeking existence’s cause or physicists probing causality’s origin, grasping at straws. Ancient skeptics like Pyrrho saw uncertainty’s value, grounding thought in limits, while modern thinkers often reject it, misled by the web’s false promise.

IV. Grounding Philosophy in the Unknowable

Acknowledging the unknowable is philosophy’s practical task, setting assumptions for science, ethics, art. It prevents chasing mirages, ensuring endeavors rest on firm ground:

  • Science: Assume space’s 3D frame, time’s flow, causality’s patterns, pursuing testable models (spacetime’s curve, life’s origin), not essences (space’s being, first causes).
  • Philosophy: Posit consciousness, free will as conditions for ethics, not truths to prove, avoiding loops to existence or causality.
  • Culture: Embrace mysteries in art, myth, as ancients did, using their web – time’s flow, space’s stage –  to inspire, not solve.

For example, DNA’s structure (known) and abiogenesis (knowable) advance biology, while life’s purpose is assumed, not chased. Space’s measures aid cosmology, its 3D necessity a starting point, not an answer.

V. Conclusion

The Great Mysteries – existence, time, space, causality, life, consciousness, matter, energy, fields, infinity, purpose, nothingness, free will – endure because our finite brains, limited senses, unknown missing senses, and boundless universe make the unknowable a fact. Their web – existence flowing with time, space enabling reality, causality faltering at its origin – lures but leads to mirages, circular and unresolvable. Ignoring this, philosophers and physicists chase straws, misled by false clarity. The unknowable is philosophy’s foundation, setting assumptions that ground endeavors. By embracing it, we avoid futile quests, building on the known and knowable while marveling at the mysteries’ depth, our place within their vast, unanswerable weave.

Related:

Knowledge is not finite and some of it is unknowable

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/17/physicists-must-accept-that-some-things-are-unknowable/#6d2c5834ae1a

https://ktwop.com/2018/08/21/when-the-waves-of-determinism-break-against-the-rocks-of-the-unknowable/

https://ktwop.com/2017/10/17/the-liar-paradox-can-be-resolved-by-the-unknowable/

Physics cannot deal with nothingness

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Science | Comments Off on The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

March 19, 2025

For many years I have struggled with finding the words to express my instinctive feelings against attempts to apply “universal” principles across all humans and which suppress human individuality. I have often tried  – usually without much success – to explain my dislike for concepts such as universal morality, Natural law, universal rights, unearned rights as entitlements and entitlements independent of behaviour. I am coming to the conclusion that my objections to, and dislike of, these concepts are essentially philosophical. Explanations of my objections need, I think, to be couched in philosophical terms.

I try to address these (again) in this series of essays.

Natural Law is often presented as a foundational principle governing human morality, law, and rights, claiming to be a universal standard of justice inherent in human nature. However, a closer examination reveals that Natural Law is not an empirical reality but a constructed ideological tool. It emerges only when different societies with distinct laws interact, and its purpose has historically been to justify the imposition of one society’s norms over another. The absence of empirical evidence for Natural Law, combined with its theological underpinnings and political motivations, renders it an unconvincing framework for understanding human morality and governance. Instead, morality is best understood as an emergent property of individual human values, varying across cultures, historical periods, and personal experiences. Here I try to explore the philosophical, historical, and empirical reasons why Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept and why morality must be recognized as subjective rather than universal.

The Absence of Empirical Evidence for Natural Law

If Natural Law were a genuine feature of human existence, we would expect to observe universal moral principles across all societies and cultures. However, anthropological and historical research reveals no such universality. While there are commonalities in human behavior – such as cooperation and conflict resolution – these vary significantly in their expression. For example, concepts of justice, property, and individual rights differ widely between societies. The idea that certain rights are inherent to all human beings is not supported by empirical observation but rather by ideological assertions.

Human history is filled with examples of societies that have organized themselves around vastly different moral and legal systems. From the caste-based hierarchy of ancient India to the communal property arrangements of indigenous tribes, moral codes are deeply context-dependent. Even within the same society, moral norms evolve over time, reflecting changes in economic conditions, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. This variability directly contradicts the claim that a singular, natural moral order governs human behavior.

The lack of empirical confirmation for Natural Law relegates it to the realm of metaphysical speculation. If Natural Law cannot be observed or tested, then it is indistinguishable from theological doctrine. It becomes a belief system rather than a demonstrable reality, making it no different from religious faith. This reliance on unprovable assertions undermines its credibility as a foundation for legal or moral theory.

Natural Law as a Tool of Domination

Natural Law does not emerge in isolated societies but only when different societies with conflicting rules interact. Historically, it has been invoked to justify the imposition of one society’s rules over another, often under the guise of a higher moral authority. Colonialism, religious expansion, and political domination have frequently relied on claims of Natural Law to legitimize conquest and control.

For instance, European colonial powers used the rhetoric of Natural Law to justify the subjugation of indigenous populations. They framed their legal and moral systems as “civilized” and based on universal principles, while dismissing native customs as inferior or unnatural. This ideological framework provided moral cover for coercion, exploitation, and cultural erasure. Of course religious institutions across the world have been quick to confer the halo of Natural Law on their own dogma. Religious institutions from have often used Natural Law arguments to enforce moral conformity, punishing deviations from dogmatic norms under the pretense of upholding their universal truths.

Natural Law’s historical role as an instrument of domination raises serious ethical concerns. If its primary function has been to serve the interests of those in power, then its legitimacy as a moral guide is highly suspect. Rather than being an impartial standard of justice, it appears to be a rhetorical device used to consolidate control over others.

The Fallacy of Universal Morality

The assumption that a universal morality exists contradicts the reality of human individuality. Every human being is genetically unique, behaves in distinct ways, and forms personal values based on their own experiences. Given this diversity, it is absurd to claim that a single moral code applies equally to all people. What is “good” for one person may be harmful or undesirable for another. What is “good” for me here and now is certain to be “bad” for some one of the other 8 billion people alive.

The idea of universal morality is, at best, an abstraction with no real-world grounding. At worst, it is an imbecilic construct used to justify coercion. The imposition of a supposedly universal moral order disregards the fact that morality is fundamentally a product of individual cognition. Each person’s moral framework emerges from their subjective values, which they use to navigate life’s complexities. The attempt to enforce a single moral standard on diverse populations is not only impractical but also a form of ideological tyranny.

Furthermore, moral codes are often shaped by historical circumstances rather than any intrinsic natural order. Concepts of justice, equality, and rights have changed dramatically over time, reflecting societal needs rather than adherence to some eternal truth. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable in many civilizations, and its eventual abolition was not the result of a discovery of Natural Law but of shifting economic and political forces. The same can be said for religious freedoms or freedom of expression and numerous other moral issues. This historical fluidity further undermines the idea that moral principles are fixed or inherent.

The Political Function of Universal Morality

If morality is not universal but instead emerges from subjective values, why does the myth of Natural Law persist? The answer lies in its political utility. The concept of a universal moral order provides a convenient justification for those in power to enforce their will on others. By claiming that certain moral rules are “self-evident” or “natural,” political and religious leaders can sidestep debate and impose their norms without question.

Universal morality is, in effect, a political construct. It serves as a tool for suppressing dissent and legitimizing authority. Governments, religious institutions, and international bodies all invoke the language of universal morality to assert control over populations. For example, international human rights laws claim to be based on fundamental moral principles, yet they often reflect the political interests of dominant nations. The selective enforcement of these laws—where powerful countries violate them with impunity while weaker nations face harsh penalties—reveals their true function as mechanisms of control rather than genuine moral imperatives.

By recognizing morality as inherently subjective, we expose the coercive nature of universal moral claims. A society that acknowledges the diversity of moral perspectives is better equipped to foster genuine dialogue and coexistence. Instead of imposing artificial moral absolutes, ethical and legal systems should be constructed with an understanding of human individuality and the necessity of negotiated social agreements.

Conclusion

Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept because it lacks empirical evidence, serves as a tool of domination, and falsely assumes a universal morality that does not exist. The historical and political record demonstrates that claims to Natural Law have been used primarily to justify coercion and control, rather than to uncover any genuine moral truth. Morality, rather than being an objective reality, emerges from individual values and experiences. Recognizing this subjectivity allows for a more honest and flexible approach to ethical and legal systems, one that respects human diversity rather than imposing ideological uniformity.

By rejecting Natural Law, we free ourselves from the illusion of universal morality and open the door to a more nuanced understanding of ethics—one that acknowledges the complexities of human existence rather than imposing rigid, arbitrary norms. The path to justice and social harmony lies not in fabricated moral absolutes but in the recognition of individual agency and the negotiated agreements that allow diverse societies to coexist.

Natural Law is, in fact, nothing more than a political invention for use as a tool for oppression.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

January 23, 2025

Let’s be clear about one thing. In my opinion Kamala Harris was just a DEI hire. She was fundamentally incompetent but selected and appointed to demonstrate diversity, equity and inclusion as VP. Apart from her remarkable ability to generate meaningless word salad about anything (and everything), she had no redeeming characteristics which would have allowed her to be of value as President – either for the US or for the world. Even as a token woman she would have been a disaster. (I listened to her talk about the LA fires yesterday and it was an embarrassment).

So my reaction to the results of the US Presidential election was first of immense relief that the world would avoid four miserable, wishy washy years of Biden being followed by an even worse four years of Harris. I am not sufficiently opposed to, or disturbed by, Donald Trump as a person or his behaviour to object to him as President. I think he is pompous and crude and vulgar but he has felt the pulse of the working people of the country much more than any one among the Democrats. He is also the appropriate, abrasive personality needed at this time to clean-up after years of mess. A Ronald Reagan would have been far too laid back and would not have suited the needs of the times. The effete Democrats and their intellectual pretensions bring to mind a degenerate Berlin of the late 20s or even the degenerate and dissolute Western Roman Empire before it fell. I am constantly amazed at how closed and petty the minds of “learned liberals” are. I now associate arrogance and nasty intolerance with the Liberal label. Trump, for all his petty faults, does know how to make a deal and he has a gut feeling for the right political direction for the country. He understands, I think, that it is making real things which others want, which is what lies at the core of a country’s prosperity. I think he has an intuitive understanding of what a deal really is. He knows in his bones – even if he does not articulate it very well – that a deal in a conflict situation always involves the minimisation of the total pain. It is only deals made in times of peace and growth where the art of the deal is looking for a maximisation of the total joy. Win/win does not apply to conflict situations. So, I was quite pleased at the election results.

The US – and the world which follows the lead of the US – desperately needs much more than just a course correction. It needs a sharp change of direction away from the elitism of the self proclaimed intelligentsia and the insidious woke virus which has been corrupting and eating away at the body politic. I was not, and am not, even mildly sympathetic to the promotion of sanctimonious wokery, the glorification of freaks, the canonisation of pretend victimhood and the stifling of entrepreneurship. So, I was first enormously relieved to see Harris lose, but I am an optimist at bottom and was also quite pleased to see Trump win.

Unlike many, I am quite hopeful that under a Trump Presidency, there is a much greater probability for resolutions of conflict in the world, for a stimulation of global economic growth, and above all for eradicating the wokery disease now endemic in the US and which has spread across the globe. More bilateralism and less internationalism is badly needed. At least 5 of the UN’s 15 specialist agencies ought to be scrapped. (The EU also needs much dismantling but Trump can only affect this indirectly). A Trump Presidency is needed I believe not only for a change of course in the US, but also for the change that needs to follow in the rest of the world. Europe and Canada and parts of S America and Asia also desperately need to correct course. Mucking out the  stables of “social academia” globally is not going to be easy or quick. Under the vacillations of Obama and the utter incompetence of Biden, the Mid East conflagration had become inevitable. Under EU arrogance and Biden’s support of NATO and EU expansion, the Russia / Ukraine conflagration became inevitable. (That Biden was senile and not responsible for what was done in his name for the last 2-3 years is moot).

The cease-fire in Gaza may not last very long but it is a start. It is pretty impressive that it got put in place before he had even assumed office. Biden and his now-pardoned-guilty team got nowhere since the Hamas atrocities of October 7th. The first rule of negotiation I was taught when seeking funding for contract research, and later when I worked in sales, was that the first bid or offer you make should be outrageously positioned to shift the playing field towards you. It is also the first rule when going into an arbitration. Make your claim as extreme as possible. Every arbitrator – of necessity – seeks the middle ground. Now even before he assumed office, Trump started his outrageous positioning. Ultra-woke Trudeau came running and then resigned. Greenland is already on the table even if indignant Danish voices are being heard. Denmark has not done very much for Greenlanders over the years and is no longer the principal in the discussion. It is the Greenlanders who now suddenly find that their citizenship is carrying a growing value tag. Greenlanders are calculating what their windfall could be worth, whether as a part of Denmark or of the US or of both! And so also with the Panama Canal. One outrageous statement by Trump has changed the playing field and even the game being played. In fact some of Trump’s protagonists thought they were playing basketball are now scrambling as they find that Trump has started by playing soccer. I see that on his first day as President the Indian government assured the US that some 18,000 Indians illegally in the US would be taken back by India. Trump has already put BRICS on notice that putting forward alternative currencies to displace the US Dollar would be frowned upon. The BRICS countries are now back-tracking on some of their rhetoric. What were effective threats from foreign countries for Biden are seen as provocations to be avoided with Trump. And so it goes. Trump 2.0 is quite a different beast to Trump 1.0.

The size and inefficiencies of governments around the world have kept on increasing for the last 70 years (not least due to the examples set by international agencies). In a little way, Argentina recently started demonstrating that many government civil servants are really not necessary at all. Trump and his DOGE ar likely to take it very much further. I only hope that some of the good housekeeping gets exported to the profligate and bloated bureaucracy that is the EU. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency “has vowed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 50 percent, reduce federal spending by US$1 trillion over the next four years, and re-engineer the function of government by providing real-time budget tracking to the US public”. We shall see.

And of course common sense needs to return to immigration and the misuse of applications for “asylum”. The self-righteous sanctimony of the liberal left has to be stopped and the high priests of the religion of multiculturalism need to be defrocked – in public.

Mercator: 

…. Much to the chagrin of his critics, Trump’s mass deportation plan is remarkably popular — not just among his supporters, but American voters generally, and Hispanics in particular. And Trump already appears to be living up to his pledges — with the controversial CBP One app shut down, a suite of Biden executive orders rescinded, a border emergency declared, and the Laken Riley Act about to be signed into law. …..

Nevertheless, if the contrast between Trump’s first and second presidential portraits is any indication, Trump 2.0 emerges energised, defiant, sharper to the strategies of his adversaries, and determined to complete the mission he was sent to accomplish in Washington.

I am looking to see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict be resolved, not to anybody’s liking, and not perhaps in 100 days, but with the lowest total pain, in around 12 – 18 months. I have no doubt that a workable solution is going to include ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia and some form of restraints on NATO expansion. I look to a focus on growth and an abandonment of virtue signalling – especially by industry. Companies need to get back to providing the best product and abandon advertising how woke they are. I have no objection to an America First policy by Trump’s government. That is actually the duty of any national government in any country. Their primary obligation is to take care of their own citizens first.

Maybe my optimism will be unfounded.

But I think not. The legacy of both Bushes and of Obama look fairly lacklustre in hindsight. Obama’s foreign policy was a disaster and he was particularly bad in many domestic areas. (I was very taken with Obama to begin with, but it didn’t last. He was a nice guy, like Jimmy Carter, but ….). It could be that Trump’s Presidency may turn out to be the next most successful after Reagan.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

January 20, 2025

If you need to give me “your pronouns”:

  1. You are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst,
  2. You are cognitively disadvantaged and do not know what you are,
  3. You believe you will not be perceived as you wish to be perceived,
  4. You are either male or female but wish to be perceived as what you are not,
  5. There are no other genders no matter what delusion you are suffering from,
  6. I have no use for any of your desired pronouns,
  7. If I communicate directly with you I shall use “I” and “You”,
  8. If I refer to you it will be as “he” or “she” depending upon how I perceive you,
  9. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is a consequence of your appearance and your behaviour and not on your desires,
  10. You can pretend to be whatever you wish to be, and your skill determines if my perception matches your pretense,
  11. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is your responsibility, not mine,
  12. Your identity is fixed at conception when your DNA is established which remains unchanged during your lifetime,
  13. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment or therapy can change your DNA,
  14. Your identity cannot be chosen by you nor is it subject to change.

If you need to give me your pronouns you are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst. And it serves no purpose.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

“Dark oxygen” discovery probably more junk science

January 19, 2025

Well! Well!

Another scientific myth bites the dust. But never believe anything which feels compelled to use the word “dark”.

BBC

Scientists who recently discovered that metal lumps on the dark seabed make oxygen, have announced plans to study the deepest parts of Earth’s oceans in order to understand the strange phenomenon. Their mission could “change the way we look at the possibility of life on other planets too,” the researchers say. The initial discovery confounded marine scientists. It was previously accepted that oxygen could only be produced in sunlight by plants – in a process called photosynthesis.

But I am extremely sceptical of all “dark” things. Dark energy and dark matter are fudge factors and were never even claimed to be real things. Now, even the need for the fudge factor is vanishing. I suspect dark oxygen may also turn out to be just another example of junk science.

Evidence of dark oxygen production at the abyssal seafloor

Abstract
Deep-seafloor organisms consume oxygen, which can be measured by in situ benthic chamber experiments. Here we report such experiments at the polymetallic nodule-covered abyssal seafloor in the Pacific Ocean in which oxygen increased over two days to more than three times the background concentration, which from ex situ incubations we attribute to the polymetallic nodules. Given high voltage potentials (up to 0.95 V) on nodule surfaces, we hypothesize that seawater electrolysis may contribute to this dark oxygen production.

Of course there are many who claim this is a nonsense discovery. If photosynthesis is not the only way of producing oxygen and it can actually be produced in the depths of the ocean, then microbial life is not just possible but likely on the deep ocean floor. That could allow fanatic environmentalists (like the ones who caused the LA fires) to disturb the potential mining of metals (rare metals especially).

BBC

The initial discovery triggered a global scientific row – there was criticism of the findings from some scientists and from deep sea mining companies that plan to harvest the precious metals in the seabed nodules. If oxygen is produced at these extreme depths, in total darkness, that calls into question what life could survive and thrive on the seafloor, and what impact mining activities could have on that marine life. That means that seabed mining companies and environmental organisations – some of which claimed that the findings provided evidence that seafloor mining plans should be halted – will be watching this new investigation closely.

I find the criticisms of dark oxygen much more credible than the discovery paper by Sweetman.

Critical Review of the Article: “Evidence of Dark Oxygen Production at the Abyssal Seafloor” by Sweetman et al. in Nat. Geosci. 1–3 (2024)

This review examines the findings and methodologies presented in Sweetman et al. (2024) (hereafter referred to as ‘the paper’). The paper presents findings contrasting those of all previous comparable work and has stirred international debate pertaining to deep-sea minerals. We identify significant issues in data collection, validation, and interpretation including unvalidated data collection methods, the omission of crucial observations relevant for electrolysis processes, and unsupported voltage measurements which undermine the study’s conclusions. These issues, coupled with unfounded hypotheses about early Earth oxygen production, call into question the authors’ interpretation of the observations and warrant re-examining the validity of this work. 

Dark oxygen sounds more like junk science and funding hype than any real discovery.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Science | Comments Off on “Dark oxygen” discovery probably more junk science

Idiocy (or terrorism)

January 16, 2025

There is no such thing as Islamophobia.

The fear of radical Muslims is entirely rational.

Now fundamentalist Pakistan is threatening Paris

(or they are imbeciles).

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Trivia | Comments Off on Idiocy (or terrorism)

And he’s not even in office yet ……

January 16, 2025

Unlike many of my friends and acquaintances (and not to mention my religiously liberal relatives), I have rather high expectations of a Trump Presidency. The reversal of some of the obscene wokery that has spread around the world has started. Whether the world can be inoculated against the woke virus remains to be seen. I was expecting the Middle East to get quieter and the NATO expansion to be curbed. I expected some solution – no matter how unpleasant – of the Russia/ Ukraine – NATO-EU conflict. I am expecting a new growth surge to break the EU engendered economic slumber that currently prevails. I am expecting / hoping for a rollback of some of the intellectual prostitution and multilateral excesses that have become globally endemic.

Well, we shall see. He will not take office till Monday, but the signs are promising

HT:

Israel and Hamas have agreed to pause the devastating war in the Gaza Strip that was going on since October 7, 2023.

Netanyahu also called Trump to thank him.

The US State Department on Wednesday said the involvement of President-elect Donald Trump’s team was critical in getting the truce deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza over the line.

President-elect Donald Trump was in the centre of news after Israel, Hamas deal.(AP)

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also thanked Donald Trump and his team for working with the Joe Biden administration and said it was important that they were on the table.

“When it comes to the involvement of President-Elect Trump’s team, it has been absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line. It’s been critical because obviously, as I stand here today, this administration’s term in office will expire in five days…We, of course, thank the Trump team for working with us on this cease-fire agreement. We think it’s important that they were at the table,” he said in a press conference after the deal was announced.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on And he’s not even in office yet ……

Diversity perils

January 10, 2025

LA has it tough.

Not only the Sierra Club, an incompetent mayor and a dilettante Governor – and now this.

Presumably the arsonists are all illegals as well.

Amid Palisades fire, Los Angeles’ first LGBTQ+ fire chief is proving lesbians get it done

Firefighters are currently trying to stop the Pacific Palisades area fire, led by lesbian Fire Chief Kristen Crowley.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Diversity perils

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »