Throughout all of our technical discussion of the Breeze and its core premises, there is one observation which has arisen countless times, in endless forms: namely, the truth of all formal systems being inherently incomplete, at least in the way many physicalist-reductionist based research paradigms are actively claiming and pursuing.
There is an additional layer of irony to this situation, arising from the scientifically “skeptical” community; or more specifically, those who have taken an active role in calling out the clear inadequacy of modern science’s methods as well as the need for new perspectives, fresh ideas, and novel voices. Many of these skeptics are doing necessary and honorable work by aiming to align our institutional & cultural paradigms around the search for pragmatic truths over elegant formal a priori structures and recursively complex equational systems.
Still, this aforementioned irony arises from the fact that these very “skeptical” communities (which would probably be more respectably (and accurately) labeled ‘critically thinking communities’) are still prone to the very bias which they rightfully accuse the mainstream and institutional scientific communities of engaging in. Put simply, this is the bias of preclusion, or the ignoring/rationalizing of certain perspectives which are not closely aligned to their own foundational assumptions.
This is not to call out any one in particular, as much as it is to demonstrate to inherently recursive nature and recursively predictable behavior of humans in response to paradigm-shifting propositions in general – on the individual, collective, and institutional level. In fact, these reactions are predicted within the theory itself; therefore there will be no blame cast surrounding a slower engagement with the theory, as long as the effort has been made. Still, the impulse to ignore the theory entirely is similarly predicted as a natural reaction to necessarily destabilizing discoveries, especially when they challenge entrenched assumptions.
We can specifically observe this phenomenon through its perpetual occurring within the physics community; a field presently deemed by many respectable and highly influential figures to be in a state of “crisis”. In that, they are correct; however, oftentimes the proposed assumption — rather than a more comprehensive, birds-eye, metaphysical view, if you will — is to stay within their own silos of the physical sciences. This is understandable, and people have their own work, ideas, and careers built into these foundational assumptions and disciplines.
However, if we are to remain true to the pursuit of scientific truth over the sustenance of certain research paradigms, then we must be willing to consider ALL perspectives, including ones that entertain non-linear, outside the box ideas, and even if that means embracing a more interdisciplinary approach to our collective search for scientific/foundational truth.
For all those who claim the need for a new direction in science, and our understanding of reality more broadly, the message is simple and clear: this new direction has arrived, and it is called The Breeze.
Not only does this direction offer novel solutions to longstanding issues across multiple disciplines, but it also provides an infinite basis for the pursuit of both scientific innovation and truth recognition as a whole. The only exception to this inevitable shift is research for the sake of research, or research which does not serve any immediate nor proven productive purpose, or otherwise cost/value inefficient per its intended time frame. Therefore, all practices presently anchored in value-creating research will not suffer, but thrive in light of this discovery, perhaps to an exponential degree.
And for all truth-seekers, regardless of affiliation, know that the door has been opened. The timeline has been established, and the truth has made itself known. It is safe to say that a valiant effort has been made on my part not only to make this truth known within the West’s top academic circles, but the intellectual and scientifically “skeptical” community more broadly; including those who regularly make assertions surrounding the need for new directions and ideas.
Please let it be known, my respect for most of the individuals within these communities is generally great, especially those who actively demonstrate an embrace of truth even when it deviates from their prior informed perspective. However, each day that I continue my efforts around starting a recursive dialogue, and each day those efforts are met with silence, this respect becomes a bit more nuanced. In this way, I find myself increasingly wondering if the actual pursuit of truth is something not as commonly present as my younger, more-easily-inspired-by-intellectual-voices self would have liked to idealize.
To reiterate, these ideas have been presented to the world in a way that leaves little room for a plausible deniability of awareness; no, it is safe to say I have shouted this truth from the rooftops. And ultimately, the self-expressed logic of these ideas is not going anywhere, no matter how the framework is rationalized. Therefore, the matter is explicitly of when, not if, society reconciles with the truth.
Please do not mistake me as attempting to control this truth, or use it for my own agenda. This was not a consensual undertaking, nor was it pursued in any intentional capacity. Understand: at the time of making this discovery, I did not believe such a discovery to be possible.
Far from it; in fact, the existential vertigo which I imagine some of you might be feeling, to the extent you have rigorously engaged with the theory and its implications, is a feeling that I had to come to terms will alone, initially and without validation, and in spite of some rather daunting prospects at the time (and presently still). This recursive axiom is a truth I struggle with every day, but through this struggle I have learned at least one thing to be (near-)certain: the truth is unwavering regardless of my (or anyone’s) perpetual ability to coherently grasp it.
For those who understand this urgency as displayed through my authentic yet rather burdensome efforts, as well as the implications of what I’m saying more broadly, I’m speaking directly to you, and I’m asking you sincerely to join me on this journey. Outright acceptance is not being asked nor expected. The only request, plain and simple, is for a productive academic dialogue to be had, in light of our generational mandate for a deeper understanding of ourselves and shared reality.
Don’t let me convince you. Read the theory. Read it again. Let the truth speak for itself.
Substraeta
Leave a Reply