Theoretical Metaphysics
Logbook
March 23, 2005
For several years now, reading my own website has become increasingly disheartening. It all started with an investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. Like many people, I initially assumed these were simply terrorist attacks carried out by a bunch of despicable Islamic extremists. But upon examining the available data, another hypothesis emerged: that of a “self-inflicted attack” orchestrated by the new leaders of the United States (or those who manipulate them).
I then turned my attention to the sinking of the Kursk and launched an investigation into it. Again, I encountered horror—the idea that this submarine was deliberately sunk by the Americans, while the crew was left to perish in agony by the Russians themselves, for reasons of state.
Today, it’s about electronic chips implanted in humans. I belong to those who believe this is a plan on a global scale, of which very few people are truly aware; it will unfold over the next three years.
I could go on listing such examples almost indefinitely. Worldwide, things get worse every year, every month, every day. No improvement is in sight; no stabilization, no “plateau” seems to be emerging on the horizon. We now know that our leaders lie to us—either out of Machiavellianism or sheer incompetence. We know we’re being “ruled” by idiots and paranoids. We know our media stays silent and lulls us to sleep, either because they’re accomplices or because they steer toward topics like “hit-and-run accidents”; our journalists become just like us: stupid sheep.
We know that most actions taken by current rulers everywhere do not aim to improve humanity’s condition but rather to destroy everything painstakingly built over centuries. In France, outsourcing will increase misery. The rising power of China and India will heavily impact our standard of living. The prospects for younger generations are ever more dismal; meanwhile, all we hear are speeches from demagogic, corrupt, and incompetent leaders.
A great power, the United States, has decided to become the world’s policeman and force “subservient states” into line. Unfortunately, this policeman is itself corrupt and stupid. Those in power line their pockets. Condoleezza Rice, to name just one, was formerly a top executive at Exxon oil company. All the others come from the same mold. Moreover, their actions reveal their utter incompetence. Even if their invasion of Iraq had been justified (though we saw leaders lied and there were no “weapons of mass destruction”), it was carried out against all common sense. Nothing was planned after American troops “liberated Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.” Overnight, people found themselves without police, with a country open to looting, without water or medical care; a sensible invader would have dispatched doctors, nurses, field hospitals, and systems to supply drinking water and food. An air bridge should have been set up immediately. Yet nothing of the sort was planned. The only thing these Americans did was secure “the Ministry of Oil.” Conclusion: not only do we deal with people capable of making grave strategic errors, but they’re also simply... idiots.
Such behavior fuels global paranoia, seemingly leading us back to a situation akin to the Middle Ages and its Jacquerie uprisings. The UN is sidelined. Nowhere is there any effort to tackle real problems; it seems today’s lords envision only one strategy: ruling through terror, conducting punitive operations, torturing, imprisoning, making people disappear. A grotesque vision. Recall Father Ubu’s words: “I’ll kill everybody and then leave.”
It doesn’t work. It never has. Such raids and seizures only sow despair and hatred. On a small scale, we’ve experienced this ourselves, notably during the Algerian War. Vast groups of people rally around religious leaders who also serve as warlords; we see how this siege-like state threatening to engulf the entire planet takes on a religious character! We’re back to the era... of religious wars!
The weak and technologically impoverished have developed a “poor man’s weapon” whose full potential remains untapped: suicide terrorism, where victims are convinced their act will earn them a coveted place in paradise. Modern technology makes it extremely easy to render life impossible for anyone—just bury remotely detonated landmines using a modified mobile phone. Powder magazines are everywhere.
And now, plans are underway to realize Orwell’s world: implanting chips in people on a massive scale. The Verichip, which appeared publicly just weeks ago, is merely the vanguard of technologies; compared to them, marking prisoners with tattoos in concentration camps seems like a harmless joke.
Meanwhile, there’s incredible passivity among the vast majority of people. Why? Because it’s all too horrifying. The truth no longer seems believable; lies have taken its place. We can’t be ruled by people akin to mental patients. Our technology, of which we’re so proud, suddenly can’t turn into a tool of stupification and subjugation. Perhaps this is what’s most extraordinary.
Many people now live like sleepwalkers, in a state of complete lethargy. Our media resemble ancient Rome at its nadir: “bread and circuses.” That’s exactly what we get: “You, who can eat your fill, gorge yourselves, become obese, and participate in the idiotic games we offer you.” It might be seen as a sign of the times that the character Fogiel paired up with in his show “You Can’t Please Everyone” is precisely an... obese man.
Worse still, there’s total emptiness among our intellectuals and scientists. None have any ideas to propose. While technology develops exponentially and wildly on a fundamental level, this deficit becomes ever greater. Social crisis, moral crisis, but also crisis in knowledge and research; creative imagination lies dormant, while the unimaginative enforce flawless censorship.
I can summarize this by quoting philosopher Marc Arondel, over twenty years ago:
“At a time when metaphysics is in crisis, it’s reassuring to see that ‘philosophy of the tavern’ thrives.”
I’ll go even further, fearlessly using the word: our era resembles the onset of the Apocalypse.
“Fine,” many readers say, “but what should we do? What do you suggest?” This is all extremely distressing.
Exactly. We must try to gain perspective, look from above, and consider what might be possible.
“Classical” solutions seem ineffective. Some attempt them with sometimes touching naivety. Think of those advocating “degrowth,” driving less, saving paper, turning on headlights during the day despite warnings—since this saves tons of oil yearly (though if we followed that logic we’d have to ban air conditioning in cars!). Try discussing degrowth and pollution with a... Chinese or Indian person; they’ll laugh in your face.
Why not organize massive rallies where people march holding signs saying “No to War, Yes to Peace”?
Small local efforts are admirable, pathetic, and praiseworthy, but won’t solve fundamental problems. It’s honorable to do “humanitarian work,” feed the starving in soup kitchens, send books, notebooks, medicine to African countries. It’s heroic to openly preach peace in regions where war is daily fare.
But true solutions, which could only stem from an organization like the United Nations, seem increasingly utopian. The great humanist dream, the message “love one another,” seems fading each year in favor of “realpolitik.”
What to do?
Where lies the root of the evil we suffer?
Whether we like it or not, we all harbor religious-type beliefs deep in our minds. They form an extremely varied palette. Some, centered on strict monotheism, believe they’re a chosen, privileged people. And I’m not just talking about Jews. “Holy War” isn’t a recent concept. In Ancient Orient, among the Assyrians, it wasn’t the king who decided on warfare but “the gods” or “God.” The king led troops who killed, slaughtered, skinned alive “by divine order.” When Islam arose, it brought about a wholly militaristic expansion campaign that ended only at Africa’s west coast, facing the Atlantic. Later, the Crusaders likewise mobilized to obey other divine commands issued by other “Mullahs.” And so on...
“Today, George W. Bush believes he’s... inspired by God.”
We’ve seen it all: vast groups trying to apply some kind of Darwinism to humanity, deciding to give power “to the strongest.” But these good Aryans turned into good-for-nothing types.
If anything must be done, it’s to examine the “metaphysical solutions” proposed by various parties. A week ago I dined with a Buddhist (of Chilean origin) who told me:
“- In the land of Buddhism, where I come from, high religious dignitaries and oracles predict imminent major natural disasters and widespread suffering. There’ll be many deaths. - And what do they suggest? - They urge us to meditate to influence our future. - In what way? - Personally, I think if we’re doomed to perish, we shall. But at least those who meditate may enjoy better reincarnation conditions in their next lives.”
I must clarify this is her stance, not necessarily that of the Dalai Lama. But this example shows how diverse human behavior is regarding our condition and destiny.
Listen to folks like Bush: they claim there are good guys and bad guys, like in soap operas. The good guys side with J.R. Ewing, wild liberalism, and clearly with the United States and its interests. The bad guys make up the Axis of Evil. Previously this role belonged to those calling themselves communists; now it’s shifted.
The Pope continues railing against abortion, clinging to life, even parading in an armored aquarium; one wonders whether panic over death ultimately guides his actions.
Chinese, Japanese, Indians all have their own somewhat structured ideas, but as Belgians say, “overall, none of it really holds water.” I agree.
So, what do I think?
Good question, unavoidable.
In Search of the Lost Paradigm
I believe we must revisit our beliefs in all areas, contemplate a shift in human paradigm. What is a paradigm? It’s the set of thoughts, concepts arising from a certain vocabulary, a language reflecting a particular mode of thought.
This applies to all systems of thought, which are merely organized systems of beliefs.
Including science.
We must engage in serious reflection, asking many questions about our beliefs.
“- Why did life arise on our planet? - What’s its ‘sufficient reason,’ as Master Pangloss would say? Is it, as some scientists think or wish to believe, merely a product of chance? - Does the phenomenon of life, evolution, pursue a purpose, or is it just the result of what scientists call ‘statistical determinism’? - Is there an afterlife? (Desproges extended this: ‘Is there life before death?’) At least we humans share one thing: we’re destined to die. - Incidentally, what is the phenomenon of a human being coming into existence? Is it creation ‘ex nihilo’? - Does life operate on its own via mechanisms that are just... physical laws, or is it ‘piloted,’ and if so, by whom, how, for what purpose? - Is the world we perceive through our senses the only one? - What happens when we dream? Why do we dream? - Why do we experience emotions? - Why are we endowed with consciousness? I’m not speaking of mere awareness of existence, but what we might call ‘consciousness of good and evil,’ the ability to foresee short- and long-term consequences of our acts—a totally subjective trait. Does this consciousness of good and evil naturally derive from Maxwell’s and Schrödinger’s equations, or is it of a different essence?”
The scary thing is interrogating a scientist. If he declares himself atheist, we discover his atheism rests on a host of naive beliefs no different from those of a peasant performing four daily prostrations toward Mecca. Unwittingly, subconsciously, scientists pay silent homage to... the Academy of Sciences (as a symbol; it’s long since become an empty shell devoid of genuine thought).
If he renounces atheism, he keeps his religious commitment discreet, admitting it’s strictly personal and private, like toothbrushes, as Hubert Reeves does.
Modesty of thought.
I believe we must confront all aforementioned issues head-on. I’m a scientist; thus I think and express myself using the language of my socio-professional group and Western cultural mold. I believe we possess tools allowing us to tackle the “metaphysical problem,” to build what we might call “an embryo of theoretical metaphysics.” Plain and simple.
It’s no crazier than biology. Not long ago, before urea could be synthesized from components of “mineral chemistry” (“as opposed to ‘organic chemistry’”), many “scientists” believed all matters related to life fell under “God’s domain.” We’ve made progress since. That doesn’t mean we’ve reduced life to a sequence of enzymatic reactions and molecular recombinations. A bridge has simply been built between two worlds, two universes; a bridge between two ways of thinking, two conceptions of reality. For now, neither can claim to hold the sole key to phenomena.
Thus I announce the creation of a “project aimed at the emergence of theoretical metaphysics.” Call it a Workshop of Theoretical Metaphysics. I act based on the thinking tools at my disposal, those of the “science” tribe. And I say this because we do have a few tricks up our sleeve, a few cards to play.
I recall a scientist, warned of this project, who asked:
“- In that case, what experiment, what phenomenon would result from this new worldview?”
I replied:
“- Consciousness, for instance.”
An “object” on which contemporary science has absolutely no grip, despite Edelman, Nobel laureate in neuroscience, famously declaring:
“- I’m convinced we’ll one day create thinking, conscious robots.”
This sentence reveals scientists’ fantastic ability to speak of things they can’t even define; it prompts one to cry out:
Is there a philosopher in the room?
Our goal isn’t to string together words or sentences, to practice... philosophy, but to write equations, manipulate matrices, tensors, partial differential equations. To do so we’ll need all possible help from mathematicians, geometers, physicists, chemists, biologists.
Why such a project?
Apocalypse has two meanings: catastrophe and revelation. We may have something to understand, and quickly. At the very least, we must finally realize we’re far from alone in the universe and are probably visited for ages by neighbors. If we don’t grasp life’s meaning, our purpose, the goals we must pursue, we’re lost. That’s my view.
If we understand, our religions may appear not as delusions but as extremely varied manifestations of a physical-metaphysical reality—a game between two universes in coevolution. Our religions, and beyond them our ideologies, social organizations, currently seem little more than a patchwork of antagonistic anarchies.
By issuing this manifesto, we appeal to “well-intentioned scientists,” not fanatics, conformists, ostriches, the overbusy, careerists of all sorts, those who docilely serve ideologies and interests, who contribute to works of death rather than life.
Seek out world citizens, high-level scientific adventurers.
That’s the plan, “Phase II.” Online launch soon after initial experiments by the working group.
To be continued
There are people who’d like to participate, or at least follow what will be presented and expanded. To do so they must read, absorb, and master:
Introduction to the use of groups in physics
and also master work such as:
geometrisation_antimatiere.pdf
Technically, this is accessible to a motivated senior high school student. Yes... we start with simple matrices. Then we move to complex ones. Thus, anyone possessing this background or acquiring it could contribute their own ideas, possibly more relevant and operational than ours. We’re venturing into virgin territory.
Input from mathematicians and geometers well-versed in concepts like groups, symplectic spaces, the coadjoint action of a group on its phase space would obviously be useful and welcome.
**Please, unless you have something particularly relevant to say, avoid sending me lengthy emails describing your views, ideas, or trying to steer me toward such-and-such book. I receive 150 emails daily and must spend hours “processing” news information sent to me. If you have ideas to share, be concise and precise; don’t send me links to “this or that site where there might be stuff potentially interesting to me.” **If documents are in English or other languages, send me French translations.
Next steps are as follows: – I’ll try to survey the various and principal beliefs existing on Earth, including... scientific beliefs. Religions (including science) will be approached and described as organized systems of beliefs. I’ll then need input, comments, remarks, criticism from people knowledgeable about Judaism, Islam, Buddhist philosophy, Hinduism, animism, the world of esotericists, etc. I may make mistakes; under no circumstances should believers assume my attitude is mocking. It’ll be purely analytical.
Subsequently I’ll present the results of our work.
The general line is that two “universes” coexist: one consists of a pair with masses +m and –m (the twin), where matter-antimatter duality exists; the other constitutes an extension into the realm of imaginaries. Initially we consider four types of matter: +m, –m, +im, –im.
The real universe, our physics, would then consist of real masses, while the “meta-universe” would contain imaginary masses, positive and negative (it too would be twinned). This work has already been accomplished.
Then, extension to a reformulation of existing entities within a complex space, where masses and objects have both a real and a pure imaginary component. This work has also been completed.
etc...
Number of visits since March 23, 2005: