Preface: Sorry guys but you will actually need a philosophy degree to even begin to understand this debate. Wikipedia won’t help you here.
The most essential question in the global ethics is: what can unify world opinion? Throughout the field of ethics there are various opposing view points from racism to euthanasia and it has become clear that values, theories, and opinions are different and relative to cultures and traditions worldwide. That is, however, not to say that truth is relative, just that there is a diversity of theories. It is from this observation of diversity in what I call the “cognitive sphere of human activity” that I discovered a remarkable theorem that, in combination with spiritual sources, can predict a pattern of logic that will unify world opinion. The implications of this discovery are vast as the many questions that arise from it. Hereafter, I will highlight and explain every step of the axiomatic logic that finally arrives at the discovery of “the global theorem.”
Before I begin to talk about the actual logic, it is important to make a philosophical distinction between substantial realities and those purely based on consensus and belief. A substantial reality is something that exists independently of what people believe to be the case and can be considered true sub specie aeternitatis. Said realities often become what we call laws and theorems that can predict phenomena and are considered universal constants by the principle of homogeneity. These laws and theorems are not subject to disagreement (such as the earth is round) by any rational account because they are axiomatic. In other words, these laws can only be discovered because they exist independently of human thought, and often in the form of some symbolic language like mathematics or logic.
In contrast, theories and beliefs can only be imagined and sustained through the imagination of the people who subscribe to them. Thus, the informal theories create a consensus reality and its truth-value dependent on who has the power to impose them. Examples such as child rearing practices and theories of National Socialism come to mind as realities that lack substance. However, that doesn’t make them less real in the practical sense (consequences), but, it is their truth-value that is being questioned.
Our universally constant laws can also be timed because reality is the ultimate sanity check of any theory. One such timed constant is the matrix in the global theorem which I will show will have relative properties that follow a logical pattern. Despite this fact that some constants can be considered timed. It’s not any less paradoxical than Protagoras relativism which states that we are both free and determined as human beings. Thus, I am advocating a bottom-up epistemology in which truth is derived from reality and the discovery of the global theorem is exactly that.
II. The Theorem – Matrix and Bonds
So, in the global ethics course it became clear there were many equally powerful theories and viewpoints to explain and suggest problems and amendments in various global issues. Any view can be considered (t1) or theory 1. Any view in opposition of a view can be considered (~t) or not-theory 1. This was first formulated in John Worrall’s UTD-thesis or Underdetermination-of-Theory-by-Data-thesis which depicted how data always inundated its theories. Ergo, t1 and ~t1 are empirically equivalent but logically inconsistent which causes a problem for those who do not accept the limits of Western Logic.
A proposed solution has been that a greater theory will eventually emerge which would unify t1 and ~t1 called t2. As Doctor Trundle points out (from class lecture) there will emerge an empirically equal and logically inconsistent greater counter-theory (~t2). My work is derived from the UTD-thesis which serves as a basis for the matrix and the cognitive sphere of human activity conceptualized here:
X = ([t1 ^ ~t1] + [t2 ^ ~t2] ∞ )
X symbolizes the actual matrix and the first parameters are the borders of the cognitive sphere in which human views and counter-views emerge. Within these parameters endless possible clusters of viewpoints become reality by the people who imagine them. In my journey to complete this senior thesis I have also come to realize from an existential and ontological standpoint that the sphere is not only limited to cognitive activities but can also include our daily interactions and transactions. The transaction of struggle between groups in society is a human plague which has caused and is continuing to cause wars and suffering. Hence, there is a need for ethics to mitigate and lessen the intensity of the bonds between clusters in the matrix.
An in-depth analysis of the matrix reveals two properties of any theory (t): it is both repellent and attractive. Take the theory of National Socialism, a political theory. This theory will naturally attract other similar theories in the fascist tradition whereas it will repel socialist theories such as Stalinism, Leninism, etc. The dual property of any singular theory creates bonds with others both positive and negative which can be recast into a web of interconnected bonds of theories and viewpoints. The strength of each bond is determined by the property of the singular theory (t) in its relationship to any other theory (~t1, t2, etc).
The following sentence is crucial: no single theory of ethics can unify world opinion or mitigate global suffering. Any single theory of ethics that cannot be shown as a universal constant (theorem or a law) will fall into the category of consensus reality. Thus, it will be lost in the vast web of interconnectedness of theories and people will be quick to imagine an alternative theory as shown in the matrix above.
III. The Theorem: Bimodality and Psychology
In the past section I made it clear that no theory of ethics that cannot be shown as a universal constant will ever unify world opinion. What if it could be shown through modal logic that some ethical views are actually laws that admit of no rational disagreement? Take the Ten Commandments as a starter for laws that are universal and constant, how can they be shown to be more than consensus reality? In Dr. Trundle’s excellent book From Physics to Politics, modal logic is championed as the formula for God or the first cause of cosmos, and consequently links theology to science and logic. Succinctly put, Dr. Trundle discovers an axiom for naturalistic ethics which nullifies the naturalistic principle.
Despite what can be considered incontrovertible proof of God, there is still controversy and vehement disagreement. In a bimodal university, the laws of freedom and the laws of determinism constitute the modus operandi of human existence. Because we are free as well as determined, we are still free to disagree even with the most cogent axioms. Dr. Trundle’s struggle against the waves of protests is one that begs for sympathy. However, it is also easy to see that his interpretation of modal logic can be transposed into an individual theory of ethics (t1) that attracts conservatives but repels liberals (~t1). What then can unify world opinion if irrational disagreement plagues the efforts of axiomatic discoveries such as my own?
In psychology, experience is more powerful as a mean of persuasion than reason. Would Saul have been converted by dialogue from the Christians if he had not had a revelation on the road to Damascus? Would Newton have discovered the law of gravity if he had not sat under the apple tree? Experience is stronger than reason because experience is the cause of reason. In order to fully illustrate the theorem I will highlight the values which make up the foundation of the theorem.
Fundamentally: experience is the root of human consciousness and human consciousness is the root of thinking. While there can be consciousness without thinking, there can be no thinking without consciousness.
e = c ^ c = t
Before a human being becomes conscious or self-aware that person experiences life in the womb. During the person’s upbringing, His consciousness is formed by the experiences around him. Such is the origin of values and views which all originate from experience. Although being born at a certain place on earth usually means one is predestined to certain values (e.g. family and cultural traditions) a person is still free to roam the world in order to be conscious of existence from a plethora of experience. Because each individual experiences a psychological separation of the ego from the rest of existence, all consciousnesses can be termed as singular in the form: c1, c2, c3, etc. Why? Because experience is different around the world which gives rise to the form: e1 = c1. Thus, all individual theories and views stem from that individual experience which gives rise to the individual consciousness:
e1 = c1 = t1
Ergo, the values are the substratum for X which is the matrix of the cognitive sphere of human activity. Conflict can be logically symbolized as the power struggle to reduce ~t1 and advance t1 (which is variable to any theory): cf: [(t1) ^ (~t1 - ~t1) = t1]
IV. The Theorem: Global Ethics of Preservation
From the past section, I made it clear that individual experience causes individual consciousnesses and individual theories. It also became clear that conflict can be logically represented as a struggle of power to reduce or eliminate the opposing views which naturally arise in the matrix. Because any (t) consists of consensus reality to which people subscribe, the way to eliminate or reduce any non-t is to eliminate the people behind it. What better way for the Nazi’s to reduce and eliminate Judaism and communism by killing the communists and the Jews? Because the diversity of theories within the cognitive sphere have different causes (e1, e2, etc) they may also have different truth values. In the Camusian sense, any two theories derived from reality may be equally true if that is the way reality is. To reduce theories by conflict involves human suffering and it denies the fundamental principles of ethics which can be inferred implicitly from the matrix.
X = ([t1 ^ ~t1] + [t2 ^ ~t2] ∞ )
From the matrix, the sphere of human activity implies human rights. In order for the sphere to continue to exist peacefully and without the endless emergence of strife conceptualized previously, there must be an ethics of preservation. The logical matrix assumes nothing about the truth value of t1 and ~t1 other than it exists modally. In order for it to exist humans must exist. Thus, humans have a right to be alive and humans have a right to be free to express their own individual being (e1 = c1 = t1). In particular, the right to be also implies a right to be at peace and free from stressors such as war and not only the right to food and shelter. The right to freedom is epitomized in the American constitution which guarantees civil liberties and freedom of speech.
In sum, the matrix assumes a neutrality of each view and this neutrality implies basic principles of ethics which are theoretically neutral and cannot be conceptualized as t or ~t to avoid being consensus reality. I assume there will be irrational disagreement from those that oppose human rights (name any dictator) but that ought not to be confused with consensus reality. In fact, it has been shown logically and necessarily that without people there can be no sphere of human activity. The denial of one group’s right to human rights is a fundamental denial of all people’s rights which is irrational. To make it clear, this is because the matrix is prima facie neutral towards to the truth value of any t or ~t. All it shows is the modal existence of human cognitive activities and how they arise through the basic transformative form e1 = c1 = t1. Ergo, any group’s claim to superiority cannot be justified by the macrocosm of views transposed into the matrix formula: X = ([t1 ^ ~t1] + [t2 ^ ~t2] ∞ )
V. The Theorem: The Great Plan
In the previous section, I outlined and inferred theoretically neutral yet logically necessary principles of ethics which included broadly the right to live, the right to peace, and the right to freedom of expression. I have also anticipated an irrational denial of these rights by those who oppose human rights which is why I don’t advocate one set of rules as having unifying properties. Instead, I subscribe to a divine plan which is where the disagreement enters. Although I titled this section “The Great Plan” in my religious views, it is the “Divine Plan” or “God’s Logic.”
We are once back to the question: what can unify world opinion? Recall as I showed that experience is stronger than reason in the form: e1 = c1 = t1 which is the form of an individual experience. What if human beings could be united by experience and not reason? An experience (e) on a global scale (ge) would necessarily translate into: ge = gc = gt. Thus, there would be no distinction between the “I” and the “We” because our consciousness would be unified by a shared experience.
From history, tragic events have always unified people but only on a limited scale. For example, 9/11 unified the American people but at the same time turned the American people against the Arab people. Although the previous example is simplified, global disasters tend to bring people together which increases the amount of money received by charities such as the Red Cross. The tsunami disaster in 2005 had this global effect because it tended to focus our consciousnesses on the affected areas. However, the disasters we have experienced in our past have been more or less local and not so global. Other disasters considered man-made or man-caused such as World War II left only more conflicts and confrontations. Thus, only a global natural disaster can unify mankind by bringing our consciousnesses into full unity in which the boarders of the “I” and the “We” become intertwined.
By plugging in the new values, the matrix would inevitably change which is why I call it a global theorem:
ge = gc = gt
∴
X = [(gt)]
Now all t1-and ~t1 clusters and bonds have disappeared because they cease to arise from individual consciousnesses. What is then this new global theory or global view? It’s not only a global consciousness but it is as believe the realization of God. Ergo, Christianity and other religions including sects and other established religious beliefs will merge into this one global theory which is the common ground on which the so called “Golden Age” will be ushered in.
The Golden Age has been prophesized for centuries as the second coming of Christ, one thousand years of peace, earthly paradise, inter alia. The biggest questions remain: what is the cataclysm and when does it occur? It seems likely that the prophesized year 2012 is the de facto starting date for this global disaster and it appears by all accounts to be the shifting of the poles.
There are basically two predominant theories about 2012 and the coming of the pole shifts. The first view states it will be an instant global disaster which will annihilate the majority of the world population presumably close to or around 2012. The other view is a gradual theory which states that the disasters will be incremental and will happen over a time of as long as a hundred years. Thus, the Golden Age will not be instantly realized but will officially start its progression in 2012.
Regardless of which theory one subscribes, the theorem is compatible with both and is a symbolic and logical map of the evolution of the global consciousness. Because there is great scholarship on the subject of 2012 by various authors I have chosen only to summarize the topic and not go in-depth because my theorem is only based on a necessary cataclysm. It’s equally possible that a comet or asteroid could serve as the cataclysm as long as it’s on a massive scale of human experience. However, I find it overly contingent that the mysterious date predicted by the Mayans several thousand years ago would surface in conjunction with famous prophet predictions about the future pole shift (Edgar Cayce comes to mind).
In the end, the theorem is incontrovertible proof of the logic of unification which will happen when mankind shares one gargantuan experience. It is also a map of the evolution of human consciousness with the integration of individuality and plurality which leads to the expression “we are one.”
Any questions?