The First Universal Text
Advancing civilzation to end religious conflict
To help & show solidarity toward soldiers...
They´re fighting religious wars where the assumption of a small minority calling themselves muslims is
that God created earth & gave a violent revalation to prophet Muhammed...
If another theory is proposed to explain why Reality was created & how/why humans came to exist,
then the violent revalation & holy war end.
The course which teaches this must be as a universal curriculum designed to maximally convince. It
appeals both of the motivations of helping soldiers and to learning for learning’s sake (being an
intellectual).
It has two starting points:
-
certain truth (agreement on that we think & we exist)
-
Nothing (which “doesn’t exist” or exists a-priori (without previous further necessary
explanation)).
The fastest way to help soldiers using a universal all-convincing course is like listening to rap music: I’ll
connect concepts in a sequence so fast you’ll:
-
miss alot the first time you isten
-
listen to it multiple times to catch something new every time
-
see that I use different ways to present the same set of concept
There are three groups of people:
-
the intellectuals whom learn for learning’s sake
-
those who take the moral argument of having solidarity with soldiers (that it’s more moral to
drive a car after a bottle of vodka than to not save soldiers’ lives by teaching a course)
-
those who have to be schooled by an authority.
Have you asked something about:
-
what God is?
I can tell you everything about God.
First of all: there are two intellectual traditions: the unbound creativity of romanticism & cold
rationality. If I were writing in the romantical tradition I would spend effort writing beautiful confusing
metaphors and sagas – the opposite of which is like PowerPoint bulletpoints with facts & concepts
about God. This is about seeking truth in the rational manner – analysis (thought-through argument)
over spontaneous gambling.
I try to create a true argument that can be pumped out of propaganda-loud speakers at ISIS, Boko
Haram, Al-Shabaan, Al-Qaida, the taliban etc.
If I can tell enough rationality about their God then their fighting-morality, group-loyalty, mission and
cohesion disintegrates.
What I produce is kind of as learning-intensive as the theory of relativity, but if put on loud-speakers on
the religious wars’ front-lines is more powerful than any cannon.
My canon that outperforms any cannon is a theory/understanding that can be taught in limitlessly many
ways – I might have 5000 concepts and you can talk them in any sequence which gives X many courses
that teach my theory/science/world-view.
Instead of teaching the science in a random order, can we derive from logic some starting points for the
course (making the curriculum scientific/universal)? Yes – 2 starting points akin to that it is
scientific/universal to teach history chronologically.
The two starting points are Nothingness and “I think & I am”.
Why is Nothingness a good starting point?
Why is “I think & I am” a good starting point?
The first order of business is defining the starting points along the “Nothingness”-path & the “I think & I
am” path.
Everyone spontaneously believes that he/she exists & that he/she thinks thoughts, but a man figured
this out in the 1600s. He asked: “what in an allmighty demon would be fooling me in everything I can be
fooled at/in?” What remains? Allmighty fooler on a mission to fool completely in everything.
He figured out “I exist” because there is a self necessary for a/that self to be fooled.
As a distinct line of reasoning he figured out that “being fooled is [thinking/a thought-process]”, in other
words that thought exists as certainly as the self.
That is the starting point on the “I think & I exist”-path.
The starting point on the Nothingness-path is a starting point because no prior reason/justification is
possible/necessary. What doesn’t exist need not be explained.
It is said that when the concept 0 was invented the ancients got afraid of it because out [energymass
neurons]/brain cannot properly represent something emptier than neurons/brain. Nothingness is
emptier than we see it as because we are made of and are using somethingness to represent/see/talk
about Nothingness.
The next conclusion – the next step on a logical progression – along the ”I think & I am”-path is that
there is distinction. There is distinction between thinker and thought. We listed two conclusions – right?
– I think AND I exist. Distinction is the separation between thinker & thought. Distinction exists and is a
legitimate word.
The conclusion following along the Nothingness-path is that there are laws of nature i.e. Nothingness is
non-absurd. As an example: Nothingness would be absurd i.e. it is not true that a thing is not itself i.e.
that 1 is not 1 . It’s not like 1=2 now, but now 1=3, and now 1=254. Laws of nature such as 1=1 are stable
over time and do not change. Another law of nature that makes the universe non-absurd is that a
triangle is not a sphere (geometric truths). Another law of nature, necessary for a rational cosmos, is
E=mc2.
The next step along the “think & I am”-path is that the distinction exists in something (or nothing). There
is one “that of which all is part”, called anti-distinction, in which distinction exists. Reality is one.
The next step along the “Nothingness - E=mc2”-path is that there is a law of nature that states, in order
for the universe to be non-absurd, that: “if something, say E=m, is mentioned then it must also [exist/be
summoned]”. It would be absurd for Nothingness to state “E=mc2” forever without E=m (energymass)
ever existing.
Footnote: E=mc2 – the summoning of energymass – is summoned in the smallest spaces simultaneously
resulting in a dense Big Bang.
Sub-footnote: I drop Nobel prizes like they were growing on trees: the rationale for how to get from
Nothingness to Something and the prediction that the Big Bang should be dense is valuable knowledge.
The next step along the “I think & I am”-path is that observation/representation is distinction. This is a
repetition of the step where we said “distinction is a legitimate word i.e. there are both thinker AND
thought”. We, as observers/representers, are in the distinction-realm – as opposed to the antidistinction-realm – when we observe/represent/always. This means that we, due to distinction – antidistinction – opposition, do not see [“that of which all is part”/Reality].
The next step in the Nothingness-path is that there is not just one size. There is a range of sizes – each
with energymasspacetime (E=mc2) – large to small / small to large. Size & time are connected as
spacetime. Everything/anything we know about has a size and a time.
The next step along the I think & I am –path is that, since we do not see Reality (that of which all is part)
there is more to Reality than can be [known/distinctly made sense of/hypothesized]. Based on the
conclusion that everything has a size & time, there must be more sizes & times than can be
hypothesized.
Why is Nothingness a good starting point?
Why is “I think & I am” a good starting point?
I switch between the two in a universal way.
I can’t do more universal than tasking the two starts of a universal course and intertwining the logical
steps step by step.
I would like to show you two synonymous diagrams. The difference between them is in how time is
represented. The difference is the same as between a rolled-out video-tape and a TV.
Imagine ten TV screens stacked in a column. Imagine that the topmost TV shows the largest size, the
lowestmost TV shows the smallest size and there is a continuum of TVs/sizes between them.
The other synonymous diagram has size on the vertical axis, time on the horizontal axis and every
coordinate represents all of the following:
- a size-time (every object has a size and a time)
- a sub-field of science
- a piece of energymasspacetime.
So far we’ve looked at three different concepts – the self, spacetime and anti-distinction – which, if you
see them, look the same. The self can’t be seen because one is it, spacetime can’t be seen because it’s
emptier than neurons can represent it as, and all of Reality (anti-distinction) can’t be seen because
representation is distinction.
These three concepts are inter-connected, though: the self exists as neurons in spacetime, the self and
spacetime exist in Reality. Reality is defined as all of energymasspacetime and the self exists as a
location within a size-time.
Three unseeable concepts with connections between them.
The phrase “God created earth” is parallelled/rivalled by the phrase “an infinite size-range of
energymasspacetime and distinction-anti-distinction-opposition”. Both claim to be the explanation to
why we exist.
The validity of an existential theory (a theory for why there is existence) is tested by whether it can
predict a DNA-strand (and thus the evolution up to humans). If a theory predicts that there ought to be
a DNA-strand (at some coordinate in the infinite size-time-diagram) the theory has the scientific
predictive quality that a theory needs.
Again, keeping with the universal tradition of this text, just like with the “I think & I am” &
“Nothingness” dual paths that I intertwined, the continuation of this book will be written as it is written
by others aiming at writing something that can be derived from science (empty space in front of oneself)
no matter where in our infinite universe one is located.
The two paths that we meet now are that “the ancients wrote about God/Reality” (how to make
religion make sense in a modern context) and “the existential theory”.
If you want to make the ancients’ concepts God and Soul make sense, God is just a synonym for Reality. I
tend to ask religious people:
Is God:
-
a part within “that of which all is part”/Reality,
a synonym for “that of which all is part”/Reality, or
“beyond”/”outside” Reality (which doesn’t have an outside; anything “outside” is unreal)?
Obviously God has to stay real (there is no spacetime for Him to be located in “outside”
energymasspacetime, and I put “outside” in quotes because energymasspacetime has no outside), and
God cannot be smaller than (a part of) “that of which all is part”. Allah akbar / God is all-encompassing
means there is nothing greater than Him, which is true about the word Reality (energymasspacetime /
“that of which all is part”). We already said that “that of which all is part cannot be
observed/represented” (meaning there is more to it than infinitely much hypothesizing/representing)
and this is said about God too. We also know that Reality is one (not 2 or 0.75) and this is the meaning of
the word monotheism. The three things we know about God/Reality – that it is one, that one cannot see
it and that there’s nothing greater – are too many for the Reality-God-connection (as synonyms) to be
coincidence. The ancients had access to the speculation about how we as selves are distinct and
therefore Reality (the most all-encompassing), due to it being anti-distinction, is unobservable. God
comes as infinite (1) size-time-axises of (2) energymasspacetime and (3) distinction-anti-distinctionopposition, because this three-idea theory predicts the dawn of a DNA-strand.
“That the self can’t be seen because one is it” is an analysis the ancients would’ve had access to too
using their civilized survey of what is true about the unavoidable observer in every observation. This
makes science warrant and want the word “soul” as a synonym for the “thinker” we looked at in
“thinker & thought exist”.
This should’ve answered the question: “which parts of religion make sense in a modern context?”. God
and Soul are useful concepts – and we know much more about both thanks to science than the ancients
did. It shouldn’t come as a surprize that the scientific lense’s minimalistic interpretation of religion
makes a lot of ritual and dogma unscientific i.e. not universal. I couldn’t possibly add any ritual to this
book’s curriculum except that the size-time-diagram is a square so tattoo parlors should see a spike in
people wanting that universal diagram tattooed on themselves, along with a triangle (with its tip
originating from the center size/center of the square) representing evolution’s increasing
complexity/fine-tuning and size of the DNA. It’s a 3D diagram – the square and the triangle being in two
different dimensions.
Notice the square (size-time-diagram) and the triangle (evolution) which together are the existential
theory, if you remember that E=mc2 gave us that it is energymasspacetime and the opposition between
distinction and anti-distinction. No matter your location in this infinite space (space of the human size is
infinite because the size-range is infinite) you’d arrive at the same picture and text.
Wearing this on t-shirts is as universal of a ritual as we will get.
Let’s break down the existential theory’s (God’s) three ideas:
-
-
-
an infinite size-range (with infinite time because size and time are connected as spacetime).
Take your body’s size as an example – it is because of the size larger than itself and the sizes
smaller than itself. Sizes are because of one another. If the size-range is infinite then this gives
infinitely many reasons for any size existing, in other words “the first cause” it retreating
infinitely far into the small and large. This explains why a size-range such as our known range
exists at all. This is pillar one of the three-pillar existential theory.
of energymasspacetime. Spacetime is emptier than our neurons can represent it as and human
endevours are for evolutionary reasons meant to deal with energymass (existence). E=mc2 is the
equation where energymass is mentioned in the E=m-part and the speed of light squared (speed
is space (distance) over time) mentions spacetime – in the same equation; they’re connected.
This is a pillar of the existential theory because it explains why there can be something (at every
size): it is intertwined (and exists in) Nothingness. In Nothing, Something.
distinction-anti-distinction-opposition i.e. the opposition between distinction (like separate
observers) and anti-distinction (defined as “that one of which all is part”). We started this book
with two paths: “I think & I am” (and distinction between them) and Nothingness (which is
intertwined with Somethingness/energymass). Both are correct conclusions eventhough we
need “both-and -thinking” to deal with the facts that Reality is both one and has distinction in it.
This three-pillared/three-idea existential theory rivals “God created the universe” and predicts that
the Big Bang ought to begin as dense (because E=mc2 is true in the smallest spaces) and end in dark
energy/accelarating cosmis expansion i.e. that the universe becomes emptier until a region of
Nothingness appears again – the universe hates a vacuum and since E=mc2 is true in that vacuum,
the vacuum cannot remain empty. This three-pillared theory predicts the dense beginning of the
universe and the empty end of the universe – both the dense beginning and emptying future can be
observed with telescopes. The theory also predicts, since it has an infinite size-range, that there
should be a DNA-strand and thus evolution.
God thus can only remain as three possibilities:
-
-
God is a synonym for Reality (and thanks to this book, we know the three-pillared theory which
goes into detail about God); God is “that of which all is part”, energymasspacetime.
God is an unnecessary assumption – the word God can be dropped out of our vocabularies
because the theory works fine stand-alone. We don’t need a synonym for Reality since we do
have the word Reality already, so we deny God because it comes with so much superstitious
baggage.
God is added - just like Santa Claus, elfs, fairies and unicorns can be added – to the theory
eventhough it doesn’t make sense to add it. There is no spacetime “outside”
energymasspacetime and hence to place for a God to be; God cannot be separate/distinct from
Reality without being unreal.
This book, by being universally written:
-
proves that space is infinite (because there is infinitely large) and thus other planets with human
life should write the exact same book,
presents a universal idea in a near-universal way (distinction between the curriculum and the
science itself),
advanced civilization / is the pinnacle of human civilization when it comes to the big questions
like God, Soul and the existential theory,
can cause skisms within religious war-groups i.e. end war for religious reasons,
is a propaganda-weapon to be put on loud-speakers on the current wars’ front-lines.
I thought it fitting, to keep the curriculum universal, to add “what this book can do for humanity”
right after the chapter about the existential theory. The next chapter will deal with evolution
(beginning from a DNA-strand).
Jonatan Matti Alex Mustonen, Sweden