Metaphysics of the ER (Be done with broken records -"wish I could murder you")

Correa&Correa (
Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:14:33 -0500

Et voilá, ladies and gentleporkers, a little repetition of the same, so
much desired.

The cretin kitten wrote

> Actually, there is a book that was published in 94 by a physicist that
> mathematically proves the ER, but I forgot the title and author at
> present. A prof. of mine showed it to me.

The Newcastle man responded-

> _The Physics of Immortality_, Frank J. Tipler. New York, New
York: Doubleday, 1994.

All that Teiger of the taiga to get (again!) to Tipler!!

Oh horror of horrors, vacuity of thought! Tipler mathematically proving
the ER?? Joke of jokes! All that Tipler ever proved is the profusion of
mathematics devoid of any interest, gratuitous intellectual exercises
that non-Physics (or, really, anti-Physics) mathematicians indulge on,
greased by corporate handouts. The ER? Tipler threw in a little
crypto-nietzscheanism to sprinkle the neo-relativist theory of
bang/crunch as sublimated Chardinism! Tipler would not begin to know how
to decipher the basic aspects, let alone the esoteric aspects of
Nietzsche's ER!

Here is what Tipler proves: what Poincaré already used to say about many
mathematical theories: it is not that they are false, or contain
erroneous premises, etc. No, no, it is like the business of the
womb-envy: labels to sell substitutes: it is much worse than being
false: it is that they are STUPID and ASSNINE. They are void of
interest. Richie you are a little punaise.

Chew then on this:


"Yet, in their hearts,
all those Einstein-drug-addicted theoreticians
must know that they have draped the universe
in a web so fine that it cannot
be seen or felt or serve any useful purpose"
H. Aspden, 1996

The more recent appropriation of Nietzsche by ill-disguised Chardinists
and neo-Relativists witnesses the extent to which Nietzsche is
misunderstood, as much as it illustrates the fundamental duality of
modern scientists: mechanists in their social figure and mystics in
their private figure.

The epitome of this tendency is found in Tipler, with his aleph (oh
ox!...) state and his Omega point (Chardin used to say: Christ as Alpha
and Omega at the limit of the spiritualization of the stuff of the
universe...) At bottom, this is simply the pestilent theology of lame
Relativists like Hawking: a Big Crunch must be coming, and eternity is
the succession of molar palingenic cycles punctuated by the
"singularities" adjectified with "Big": bang and crunch, bang and
crunch, alpha and omega...That is all that remains of Nietzsche's
eternal recurrence, a parody of cloacal proportions.

The essential tenet of these mental midgets is that energy tends towards
maximum entropy following a bang, and this tendency towards stability
will entail an expansion of the vacuous space between grains of matter,
until matter itself will again collapse into a crunch. Subvariations on
this theme have been raging for the past four decades, with more media
attention in the last one.

Much can be objected against these theological hypotheses, which are
more akin to mental pollution. To summarize just some of the most

First off, a miscomprehension of the real cyclic palingenesis, which is
intrinsic to time, as the very clock of all energy flows, and is
therefore first and foremost submicroscopic and molecular (The Moment as
the open circle).

Secondly, there is the very nature of space: it is not just a question
of ascribing to it a virtuality of energy on the basis of the
uncertainty of mutual determination of momentum and position, while
keeping space devoid of matter as empty, as pure geometrical form of
nothingness (the vacuum...). The energy immanent to space is actual and
has the property of self-organization. There is sufficient experimental
evidence to take this theoretical model seriously: it is only inert mass
that might be said to be virtual, exactly because the stuff of space is
massfree: space is full of energy even when devoid of matter. Inert
mass is solely a resistance to the kinetic energy that fills space, a
resistance to motion.

Thirdly, there is the question of the so-called Third Law (by those who
want to exalt the Second Law and its corollary): for bang and crunch to
be possible, the Second Law must be the dominant Law. But this credo
and dogma of the running down of the universe, based upon a strict
equalitarian and utilitarian vision of nature, cannot explain thereby
the organization of the visible and invisible universes. It can only
invoke the arbitrary of statistical chance or a personal, omni-etc god,
to explain (its own) existence. Indeed, in the last analysis, as
Jaspers puts it, "if a final equilibrium had existed for only one
moment, then this state would have continued" ("Nietzsche, II, p. 354),
thereby proving that the running down hypothesis is simply fallacious.
As Nietzsche concluded: "that a state of equilibrium has never been
reached proves that one is not possible". Yes, no Bang, no Crunch, no
Alpha, no Omega. The aether is always in between...

Singularities? What do Hawking or Tipler know about them? Their
attention is fixated on the imaginary universal macromind catastrophe
that shakes their lobules: they would not know how the aether, by
spinning in a phase locked condition (as Aspden has proposed), weaves
the very fabric of space in an irreversible order of time; they would
not know the singularity of every passing Moment, nor the deep meaning
of the recurring cycle. At bottom, their gratuitous mysticism is but a
dissimulation of their mechanistic belief. Not one shred of a real
machine anywhere in their theorizing! What these Chardinists and
crypto-Nietzscheans hang on to, is the repugnant idea that only the Same
repeats. We live in the age of those who cannot read nor understand,
yet have the courage to write and speak. Advertisers, be they the
propagandists of the self, now are the owners of the concept. Well, we
have news for them, peddlers of old fishwife tales: the eternal
recurrence is the recurrence of the other, the recurrence of the
difference: "is not the existence of *any difference at all*, rather
than perfect repetitiveness, in the surrounding world, enough to impugn
the idea of a uniform cycle of existence?" When Nietzsche objected with
these very words to the mechanistic view of cycles within the world, he
was already elaborating the eternal return as a machine of desire: not
the Same as mechanical repetition, but the Other as difference in

And he warned us against these physicists addicted to Relativity and
useless mathematical fictions. He warned us against the ruination of
science, the legacy of these higher men of learning:

"*Future of Science* - (...) If this demand of higher culture is not
met, then the future course of human evolution can be foretold almost
with certainty: interest in truth will cease the less pleasure it gives:
because they are associated with pleasure, illusion, error and fantasy
will regain step by step the ground they formerly held: ruination of
science, a sinking back into barbarism, will be the immediate
consequence (...)" (HATH, "Tokens of higher and lower culture", #251).

Lambda C

c'mon peoploid of spectators, die a little faster!!!!

--- from list ---