The Black Sun Organism
The idea of the black sun as an organism could be argued from the Templist doctrine. As with my previous post, I consider this schizo-thought to be "beneath the Canon" and so worthy of posting here.

The "black sun" is Sagittarius A*, a supermassive black hole. Black holes pull in, through their massive gravitational pull, anything that passes beyond their event horizon.

This means that, for everything that Sagittarius A* pulls in, it must eject a commensurate amount of space. For, the world is made up of atoms and empty space.

The Templist believes that it is space that is responsible for the movement of atoms. For, no explanation can be given to the laws of physics. These "forces" and "energies" that physicists discuss are not scientifically observed properties, just words used to describe the movement of atoms. The thing which actually moves the atoms is space. For example, collision is the result of space exiting the distance between object A and object B, and entering the distance outside of them. Since no atoms are truly connected, space is indivisible, and therefore has the capacity to control everything.

Sagittarius A* therefore has a great capacity to manipulate reality.

But this is not sufficient to establish that it is an organism, that it manipulates reality according to a purposeful survival mechanism. To establish this, it is necessary to say: that a black hole's gravitational pull can weaken over time due to Hawking radiation: a small amount of matter escapes from the hole over time. Consequently, if it does not "feed itself" with new mass, it will die.

It was said in my retard-draft of this idea, that perhaps this being, and other black holes, manipulate your reality, and even your own actions, perhaps by sometimes appearing in reality or in your mind as a "god". Its motives would never be entirely clear to you, except that you know it wishes to continue living. Perhaps it intends to use your race as an intergalactic "cell" to transport matter from foreign galaxies into its own orbit, so that it may eventually be consumed. Perhaps it, having some kind of kin-loyalty, intends to use your race as an intergalactic "cell" to distribute matter among its brethren, to sustain some kind of intergalactic superorganism.

The Templist Canon, by the way, can now be downloaded here:

Or here:

And I allow anyone to sell, print, publish, etc, these works, so as to have a financial incentive in the ascendance of the faith, whether it is a true faith or a retard-faith notwithstanding.
(12-27-2022, 02:11 AM)BillyONare Wrote: [Video:]

Did anybody ever track this guy down since his last upload? His video titles had the same kind of trajectory one sees in those of guys who die in shootouts with the police.
(12-26-2022, 09:30 PM)Decebal Wrote: How is an understanding of mechanics centered around "space" rather than "forces" superior? Both ways of understanding are ultimately just words. A new model supersedes an old one if it has greater explanatory power and can made predictions regarding heretofore mysterious phenomena, but if the motives of the Black Sun organism can never be clear to minds like our own then greater understanding is out of the question and there is no most useful way to speak about motion.

That said, theological systematization took hundreds of years for other faiths, so why rush things?

The Black Sun organism schizo theory is not a replacement for the forces theory of physics. The replacement for the forces theory of physics is the space theory of physics upon which the Black Sun Organism Schizo Theory is built.

I don't care what "explanatory power" means. I care about "truths". The Space Theory is more true because it references an actual property, space, whereas the Forces Theory references nonexistent properties, forces.
(12-27-2022, 05:00 PM)Tiferhil Wrote:
(12-27-2022, 02:47 AM)anthony Wrote:
(12-27-2022, 02:11 AM)BillyONare Wrote: [Video:]

Did anybody ever track this guy down since his last upload? His video titles had the same kind of trajectory one sees in those of guys who die in shootouts with the police.

He is here now:

Man, he was looking pretty good if a bit kooky before, now he's...
(12-27-2022, 06:56 PM)Decebal Wrote: If all you want is to be able to explain phenomena conceptually without regard to whether or not your model of the world is useful then everyone after Aristotle has been wasting their time.

Utility is one thing and truth another. You are allowed to continue using force based physics models, using words, and calculations, that spit out a predictive result even if you do not know why it does so.

If you want to know why, you do not rely on the heuristic but on the precise truth. Historically, finding out why, not being satisfied with "useful heuristics", has led to even more useful heuristics or even useful pure truths. The forces model is most certainly not such a pure truth because it references forces that are not observable, do not exist spatially, and are not any sort of entities.

A predictive model gives you a true prediction. There is no assurance that therefore the model is true. I'm sure I could predict mechanics just as well using a theory of invisible turtles.
(12-28-2022, 10:59 PM)Decebal Wrote: What would you consider to be a pure truth?

From the Templist Canon: "Humans can possess one of two types of wisdom: phenomenological, and heuristical. Phenomenological wisdom is knowledge of a sense experience, or in other words the way the world appears, as it directly appears. Heuristical wisdom is knowledge that is actually false, because it does not correspond precisely to a sense experience, but either corresponds approximately to a sense experience, or generates similar or acceptable practical effects as knowledge of a sense experience ... The highest form of human wisdom is phenomenological. Phenomenological wisdom is also more practical than heuristical wisdom, when it is attainable, because it allows knowledge of and therefore action in relation to the real world. Human wisdom has generally progressed from more heuristical to more phenomenological."

To be content with heuristical knowledge is ok. It is safer than innovating. But utility is advanced with each correct innovation toward phenomenological knowledge, notwithstanding if Aristotle or any particular philosopher reckons new ideas that are entirely false.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)