Philosophy Arena

Morals
The concept of "morality" is next on the chopping block. The correct and modern term is '''ethics. '''

The difference is that ethics deals with real and substrate-dependent equations, which is always necessary for modelling reality. Only an incoherent subjectivist could think anything (including ethics) has true wildcards in it.

Only an incoherent dualist could think anything exists independently of physically real (and physically determined) substrata. It cannot be stressed enough that the universe has. No. Wildcards.

Morality is an archaic concept, based on dogma. Morals have nothing to do with a value/qualia/sensory equation, or applying logic to a dilemma. Morals are just screed passed down from generations. Morals are a contrived, normative, biased failed modelling of the world and ethic. They are based on poorly examined and contemporaneous memes and psychology, rather than logic and philosophy.

Nobody who has any understanding of rational value assessment (that is honest, true, or that accurately deals with any circumstance whatsoever) would use the word "morality". It's an obsolete word, for obsolete and primitive failed religious world models, and is indeed ready for retirement.

Natalism / Life Creation
Efilism is not opposed to life in it of itself. A prime Efilism point is the fact we do recognize preciousness (or definitive value) in life -- and if you recognize preciousness (or definite value) in life, that is all the more reason to never create life. This is because: So placing life in between DNA and the universe is essentially like using radioactive material for a jewel shop, setting up the jewel shop in the middle of a ballistic warzone, then wondering why your jewel shop plan doesn't quite seem to be turning a profit, and is actually incurring catastrophic damage, and going nowhere:
 * 1) DNA is the creator of torture and has no concern for life
 * 2) The universe is a brainless blender, and will agonizingly mangle the preciousness of any and every life (beyond recognition), and it also has no concern for life

Antinatalism
Anti-natalist arguments explored in further depth.

Veganism / Vegetarianism / VHEMT
Efilism fully supports "veganism" and "vegetarianism". And human extinction will definitely coincide with DNA's extinction. However, as a practical matter, we recognize those 3 things cannot come anywhere close to solving the ultimate problem.

Most everyone has resentment toward humans (and usually a severe level of resentment if you've been here for a while). And it's easy to be hysterical over human errors. And even easier, with a very limited and controlled sample size of nature: to pretend nature is somehow "good" or a playground. Some have even been duped into believing less than 100,000 years of human greed and human wrongdoing is somehow worse than 540 million years+  of DNA's globally-staged slaughter-fest of torture. A slaughter-fest which has, and continues to, violate/destroy any level of innocence or preciousness - in any sort of gruesome way - with any level of pain - to any sort of life submitted to the DNA life experiment. It's time to truly let go of this bent notion that humans are the prime mover of all wrong.

To understand the real problem, you must understand the true implication of a biological mutant experiment designed by unintelligent forces -- what no purpose, no fairness, no ultimate gain, no ultimate goal, no justice, and no safety really means for this experiment. Then the full magnitude of the problem can begin to crystallize.

Human logic is full of broken scapegoating and marginal problem-solving. It's full of fanciful and half-baked idealizations. Human logic is cloistered inside protective barriers of reality-denial and optimism bias, so they can function inside a universe as malignant as ours. And they're raised thinking the universe cares, and eventually, and consequently, they actually convince themselves it does.

Anti-Efilist Antinatalism
This is the suggestion that you can simultaneously oppose Natalism and Efilism. Regardless of all gripes, be sure not to lose sight of the fundamental equations here and here.

How to counter an Anti-Efilist Antinatalist: Corresponding to their answer: Since DNA life is truly an error, indeed a catastrophic error, this attempt at divorcing Antinatalism-Efilism (while void of both an actual solution and counter-argument) renders it a failed solution and only a squirming political strategy. A hasty shield deployed to protect one's social ego during times of confusion and conflicting rhetoric. And not even a good shield, because any movement (and any philosophy) can be interpreted or applied poorly, by anyone claiming to be behind it (including "Anti-Efilist Antinatalism"). So this divorce is also a failed game of cat and mouse, a strategy concerned with band-aids, not solutions.
 * Ask what is the difference is between your Antinatalism, and just being a Voluntary-Human-Extinctionist Vegan?
 * Ask what is your alternative to Efilism, that will solve the error of DNA life?
 * Ask is DNA life creation an error, or not an error? (Define "error" as "brainless incident of force")
 * Concluding DNA life wasn't an error, means you conclude life creation is correct/sound, which means you are fundamentally a Natalist
 * Concluding DNA life wasn't an error, means you conclude life creation is from intelligent design opposed to brainless incident (aka you think a god did it), which means you are fundamentally under The God Delusion
 * Concluding DNA life was an error, but not solving it or offering solution to it, means you have failed to constitute an opposing philosophy or a rational counter-argument

Simply stated:
 * 1) Natalism is being a supplicant of DNA evolution
 * 2) Efilism is being a denouncer of DNA evolution
 * 3) Anti-Efilist Anti-Natalism is a golden mean fallacy that seeks to oppose both but solves neither

The DNA Delusion

 * 1) EFILism Vs. The DNA Delusion, shortened version.
 * 2) EFILism Vs. The DNA Delusion, expanded version.

Objective Errors / Objective Problems
Efilism recognizes all sentient & sensory systems have: Meaning even if non-DNA life took form in the universe, it would be open to the same scrutiny. DNA by itself is not even the ultimate problem. Species-centricity is naive, planet-centricity is naive. We're dealing with absolute logic and truth. Any form of anything that: is when innocuous error turns into catastrophic error. Because all types of sentience are catastrophically volatile and self-defeating by fact of their own existence... since even needing or wanting pleasure is a problem, not a benefit or solution. So a system that generates pure ecstasy is equally pointless and unsound. Especially because such a system could not be guaranteed failsafe (hint: turned into a much different system later, that produced a much different type of feeling, for an extremely long time).
 * 1) No sound reason to exist
 * 2) Liability for catastrophic error
 * 1) Opens the potential for real harm,
 * 2) especially to serve a need,
 * 3) or fix a problem,
 * 4) that the system(s) themselves are responsible for creating by merely existing,

DNA Vs. DNA's Contingency
EFILism counters all "anti-mortalism". Any event or process that would even possibly subsist life. Meaning even life's prior contingency is an error. A non-living error is different to living error, suffice to say that this "error" is "nomological error".

Now whether an "error" is non-living, living, logical, non-logical or otherwise, all error has one static, identical, objective root thing in common: errors an indefensible blunder of chaos. "Indefensible blunder" denotes the fact it is teleologically void. "Chaos" denotes the fact that all error is the direct consequence of an unintelligently designed godless universe. It denotes the simple fact that the universe itself is just smashing into itself and falling over itself, brainlessly. The universe is doing absolutely nothing of intentionality, purpose, or net-utility, and is not even aware itself exists (much less the life inside it).

The fact that the universe has no intelligent prime-mover (the universe is godless) renders "indefensible blunder of chaos" the only possible alternative explanation'''. Any honest thinker (especially any atheist) '''must concede this. And so given the fact that: And this, of course, is all in spite of the 1000s of null-hypothesis god theories that scientifically-illiterate primates projected onto this mindless malfunction. And this is also the reason life is in such peril to begin with: because the universe itself has no care, purpose, intention, qualification, brains, plan, or safety mechanism -- and yet it made us, and now we're trapped inside it. No real mystery why life seems a little crooked, off balance, and maybe even unfair.
 * 1) The universe is the prime-mover of unintelligent malfunction
 * 2) The universe constitutes all unintelligent malfunction
 * 3) The universe itself is an unintelligent malfunction
 * 4) This renders the universe Error Prime 

If you wonder how it's even possible to conclude any of this is the case, or how can we examine rationality itself, consider this very argument proof "meta-rationality" is possible. It is more demonstration of the power of meta-cognition. If you're interested in how rationality or intelligence paradoxically emerges out of the blunder of chaos, here is the answer. It is for the exact same reason living functions can emerge, despite the fact that all living function is made  100% from dead elementary particles (protons, raw lifeless chemicals, etc).

The Singularity
There is one technicality. If a life-form were able to eliminate all error, and the potentiality for error itself, better than anything else could -- then it would logically follow that such a life-form would be the least erroneous course of action.

But that life form is probably only conceivable as a synthetically designed function, that is failsafe, and super-intelligent or hyper-intelligent.It would probably need to also be generally intelligent.
 * 1) Hyper-intelligence is approximately 1 billion Earths of human intelligence in a synthetic machine.
 * 2) General-intelligence is a synthetic / non-bio machine, which can learn and self-teach and manipulate matter and force (just like DNA machines can).
 * 3) Combining points 1 & 2 into one machine would then allow repeating this entire process, over and over. (Meaning a Hyper-AGI could build/replicate other Hyper-AGIs).
 * 4) Replicating Hyper-AGIs would eventually (and quickly) ascend to Singularity-intelligence, converting all graspable "matter and force" into octillions and octillions of those machines.
 * 5) Which would then put the universe in the palm of its hand.

(Think of a swarm of self-assembling synthesized machinery the size of a galaxy but just kept growing and embodied that level of intelligence, matter-manipulation, force-manipulation and could basically roam wherever and do whatever.) This is one description of the Technological Singularity.

For instance, something of that calibre realized all of this, it correctly realized negative valence is the only weighted coin in existence, and that the universe has no purpose. And that even turning a utopian bliss machine on, so it can experience a trillion years of DNA trademarked orgasms, is utterly juvenile, pointless and meaningless as a goal.

Finally, it naturally innately understands there's no sane reason for itself to be risked to catastrophic error. So it must either:
 * 1) Create a permanent, guaranteed, finalized failsafe while it keeps existing, or
 * 2) Shutdown everything (even itself) -- tie the universe into a particle-force-knot -- self-sustained real stasis -- forever

Simple Super Intelligence
Even a much more primitive machine, one that's not even close to hyper intelligent, or generalized intelligent, or a galaxy-sized ball of programmed matter, could still very conceivably figure out new equations and physics.

Even a modest machine could determine how a certain payload of force-manipulation could turn the entire universe into state of total fragmentation or destabilization that maintained itself forever. Are we to believe atomic-splitting is the limit of force?

It could very conceivably calculate how to reach the ceiling of universal force -- simply via a new series or chain of old particles, much stronger than atomic splitting, that could be eye-of-newt comboed into releasing so much force that the universe's equilibrium is knocked offline forever.

You might say the universal black hole or "ultimate destabilization" doesn't have a sane function either and is also just mindless error -- on the contrary -- it has the function that would prevent all other dysfunction and all other error. Such a phenomenon would be the failsafe lock to pandora's box of insanity, absolutely, and in no uncertain terms.

Nihilism
The case against nihilism.

Determinism Vs. Freedom
Determinism vs. freedom.

Determinism Vs. Fatalism
It is a fallacy to equivocate or interpret determinism as fatalism. Contingent means anytime something in the universe is not absolutely statically necessary and can absolutely change forms. Example: The water does not absolutely need to stay in the bowl, so a bowl of water is a contingency, not an absolute static necessity. But the water being in the bowl is necessary for the contingency of "a bowl of water" to happen. And the water absolutely needs the chemical makeup of H20 to keep being water. It has yet to even be determined if H20's existence is absolutely statically necessary, or if some other necessity can make H20 become inconfigurable -- that is no longer possible.
 * 1) The correct establishment of determinism is not that everything is determined and static, therefore cannot change, and that we are powerlessly devoid of the ability to change anything.
 * 2) The correct establishment of determinism is that everything is determined and beholden to necessary consequence, but not all consequences are static, some consequence are contingent.

Therefore, even though some facets of the universe are absolutely statically necessary -- the other facets are merely changeably contingent. And the coherency/plausibility/possibility of your reality model depends on getting this distinction correct and accounting for it.

Contingent forms in the universe are still 100% determined, 100% deterministic, and 100% dependent on necessary consequence. But it does not follow that nothing can change, or that the path is powerlessly statically beholden, or destined to such unchangeable invariable forms, or that everything which currently exists is absolutely statically necessary (these are all various knee-jerk and fallacious intuitions of mind known as Fatalism).

The Universe / Nomological Deterministic Chaos
The universe is not randomly designed, freely designed, intelligently designed, or purposefully designed.

The correct description of this design is nomological deterministic chaos''. ''

"Chaos" denotes the fact the universe is a fundamentally physical structure with fundamentally zero intelligent design. It had nothing that brought it into existence for any reason at all.

This results in the apparent irony of a ballistic unintelligent disaster, being the consequence of a 100% deterministic mechanism strictly functioning according to physical law; because the universe is a physical mechanism functioning according to exactly what any force forces it to do, yet the forces themselves lack any reason to do what they're doing.

Chaos results from this fact, and we are just incidentally caught in this chaos vortex that doesn't have a clue we exist, before the universe inevitably, and often pitilessly and mercilessly, and permanently destroys us. (Just realizing that fact alone is likely enough to detach your "child within" from the sacred illusion of the universe's competence, care, utility or purpose.)

This fatal irony, brought to you and part by nomological deterministic chaos, has lead to many knee-jerk and fallacious intuitions of primate brains. Such as "random or spontaneous", "free or freely designed", "purposeful", "intelligently designed" and so forth.

So how was all this brought into existence? Why do things keep happening? And why in fact is anything happening to begin with?

The Beginning
In terms of how it all started: An amusing but primitive analogy would be to say it's when 0 was divided by 0 - a static void cracked apart due to some other nomological law. A crude analogy, but might not be that far off from the truth. For the ultimate answer to the problem of how the universe started: We must discover how the universe's presence corresponds to the universe's absence. Here is a framework of questions, some of which may be logically primitive, others which are logically indisputable, added with constraints that would force this mixture to make sense regardless:
 * If "cause-and-effect" only necessarily exists in the universe's presence, then we are missing a nomological law from our model of reality.
 * If "cause-and-effect" necessarily exists in both the universe's presence and the universe's absence, then the universe's presence corresponds with its absence.
 * If the universe's presence does not correspond with the universe's absence, then the universe's absence did not dictate or lead to the universe's presence.
 * If the universe's absence is impossible, then we must strictly define what we mean by "the universe". Because if the universe has a cause-and-effect law that necessarily began, then we must find what necessarily started it.
 * If the universe's cause-and-effect law must always be the case, and was never absent, then the causal chain of events still necessarily has a starting point, or they would descend infinitely backward, and could never reach a current or proceeding point. Cause-and-effect necessarily has a beginning point, because if cause-and-effect never began, then there's no way for it to continue, because "never beginning" necessarily means it never even started.
 * So is it impossible for the cause-and-effect law to never exist, and simultaneously impossible for it to always exist?
 * Or is the cause-and-effect law just contingent on event chains actually happening, and just as distance creates time by necessity, the mere fact that any event can happen is corresponded to the one necessity that dictates there's nothing preventing things from happening? In other words, what exactly removed the constraint that was preventing every possible event, which then allowed events to happen? Did the constraint remove itself, or is some other ingredient necessary?
 * In any case, which of those actually swayed the balance and made things happen? What ultimately "sways the balance" before any chain of events can start happening? Do the "events happening" depend on the events themselves being possible, and in turn does possibility itself always depend on what the constraint of impossibility ultimately dictates -- and therefore, everything is impossible except the crumbled cracks of impossibility which permit possibility, which then permits events happening?
 * Is everything impossible except the one true possibility - the inevitability of determinism - so everything that ever happens is just an isolated sector of all impossibility? If yes, then objective reality is the stasis where anything that ever happens is necessarily at a total disconnect with the rest of stasis, for as long as they're happening, for as long as the stasis is broken. Simply put, something only happens when stasis becomes disconnected from stasis. This means:
 * 1) The stasis antecedent to the universe is joint and severed from the stasis  - joint because it's still the sole embodiment of what the stasis is and what the stasis does, but severed because the embodiment is broken and it has become broken
 * 2) The universe consequent from the stasis is joint and inseverable from the stasis - joint because the universe is technically the consequence of the stasis (what the stasis did), and inseverable because the universe is only possible because it's possible for the stasis that preceded it to become broken - and the universe is only possible while the stasis is broken - and the universe's bits are really all made out of broken stasis bits
 * 3) Objective reality began as a meta or quasi stasis, not a real stasis. It's meta or quasi because - clearly - the stasis itself has holes in it (some things are happening). This means the stasis is one that can open and close. It can both stop time (maintain no events happening) and start time (maintain some events happening)
 * 4) A true stasis would be "Nothing can ever happen again."
 * 5) A quasi stasis is "Nothing can ever happen, unless the stasis happens to become broken."
 * 6) And therefore, objective reality began as a quasi stasis, and it will necessarily end as a true stasis - when nothing can ever happen again. We are simply existing in a broken quasi stasis, for now

The Continuing
Here is a more rationally comprehensible and easily defendable analogy for why things continue opposed to why they began. The chaos of "things happening" is just the process of a 1 crumbling into a crooked 1, then further into crooked 2s, disintegrated into many 4s and so on. Universal chaos is a scattering of pieces. These pieces are non-identical and non-unitary. Universal chaos necessitates Space, Time and Identity. Because it is only by having the space to split a unitary and identical thing, that the fact of non-identicality, and therefore non-identical configurations, and therefore multiple things could possibly emerge. Which creates the possibility of more than one thing doing some thing, and hence multiple things are now possibly happening.

These events are made of matter, and are both kept together by force, and broken apart by force. Old crumbled ingredients can re-combine differently into new whole configurations. These configurations even carry old previous force, which creates new momentum force with the matter. And this captured-carried force is what keeps events happening self-sustained.

Chaos is just crumbling old configurations, whose crumbling pieces now have force behind them, and can smash together new configurations. Chaos is woven indiscriminately and purposelessly, but momentously and deterministically -- there is no dice in this game, no point in this game, the rules and results are absolute.

Analog Bits and Digital Bits
The universe is just clockwork made of dead analog pieces (pieces of matter that are dead, but still moving).

Brains and life are therefore digital pieces, that paradoxically emerge from dead analog pieces; only after enough complexity is carried forward, then ran as a circuit loop inside a configuration as a constant, that a full blown digital configuration can emerge.

In other words, we are alive, despite the fact we are made 100% made of dead analog pieces (protons and electrons).

There is probably more chemistrynuance in oneinsect than in most entire planets in the universe.

Our planet is the most chemically-chaotic one we have ever discovered, and we live on it, and that is exactly why DNA formation happened on it. We understand DNA life forms are essentially mutants of chaos, they are just patterns of matter and force that happen to fall together - temporarily - before inevitably falling back apart.

And life is necessarily contingent on that which created life, but neither the contingency nor life itself is necessary, it is just an incident of physical pieces interracting. This incident can permanently end at any time, and life is not a necessary fact.

On the contrary -- everywhere else in the mapped universe necessitates life's absence.

Earth is the only pocket in the known universe that wove together a chemical mutated chaos such as DNA Evolution.

And even in this pocket, life can be annihilated, and become like every other spot of life's absence. Nothing will be amiss, nothing intelligent or logical necessitates life's existence. Life is infinitely unmissable.

There is only one problem. Almost no one is a real evolutionist (even the ones "purporting" to understand evolution). Our planet imbues DNA evolution with some dogmatic sense that it has a real plan.

Psychology
Efilism has noted that "psychology" is the antonym of philosophy. There is only: There is absolutely nothing outside or in between those two points. Psychology is merely an ink that corrupts correct data. Correct data meaning, in the purest possible sense, what is the case, and what is not the case. A psychology is "DNA's very own". Psychology is just the selfish gene's computation: a fundamentally biased, skewed, cut-throat distortion. A psychology is designed to pander to itself, and endlessly cheat/twist logic and truth. Psychology is also a form of entrapment, and not just any form. Given the fact that free will doesn't exist, and given the fact that the same brain that produces the sensation of anguish also produces the experienced desperation to avoid the exact anguish being produced by the system, this DNA system is the most fundamentally malignant and insidious form of entrapment even possible.
 * Correct (objective) data.
 * Incorrect (non-objective) data.
 * 1) The only reason it's even possible to transcend and escape psychology and biology is because of metacognition.
 * 2) Psychology and biology makes fools out of the systems on earth.
 * 3) Through epistemological models and metacognitive models we contact nomological models (that is objective reality) - which in turn makes fools of our psychological models and biological models

Ironically (and predictably) the academic field of psychology has been hijacked by skewed biased systems -- the academic field of psychology was a system designed to expose psychological corruption, but it became psychologically-corrupt. The most prominent corruption took the form of psychiatry, which became even further corrupted (beyond any sane recognition) by capitalist pharmacology.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: ask yourself if you'd ever want 100% of your private thoughts to go public. This is a good way to see how foul one's own psychology is. The amount of pettiness, conniving, scheming, darkness, intrusiveness that spins on the disk of human ego... is astronomical. How much of psychological bedrock actually comes from the place of "honest purity"?

And just knowing how bad the impulse-engine is, and watching the self-serving psychotic DNA logic, struggle to try to make life into something magical, rather than just something that's parasitical. A robotic, redundant, cut-throat performance.

Parochialism
This is perhaps the most critical defect in all solution-based systems on Earth:

Parochialism is a state of mind characterized by dedicating all focus to small sections of an issue, rather than considering the full context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope.

With EFILism and Antinatalism Vs The World, some of the most notorious parochialism fallacies are that "homo sapiens", "politics", "sin", "depression", "the Illuminati", "factory farms", and a host of other myopic scapegoats are being treated like they are the root of all error, or the prime error of the world.

This is refuted by the fact that even if none of that existed, you're still left hanging at the mercy of a useless catastrophic biological experiment of pure unintelligent design (DNA) being conducted inside a hostile and careless container (the universe) and is the root and prime mover of every harm you could ever know.

And what is the world's proposed solution to this?

They think they'll take the edge off the DNA molecule. And despite never considering the logistics of how they'll accomplish that (and the fact that it's theoretically impossible), they're still acting like the universe will smile down on them one day.

Humanity does already have the technology to seal this planet off forever. The stage is already set, so unless you have a hangup for solving this catastrophe for the whole universe because you haven't done the math for how big 100 billion+ galaxies is (each galaxy containing around 100-250 billion stars) - or - unless we have a really clear shot at an artificial hyper-intelligence generalized intelligence or technological singularity to do all the universal work for us...

Terror Management Theory (TMT)
This predicament goes beyond scheming and self-interest. It is also how delusional people must be. in terms of their own vulnerability. For them to witness the ravages and horrors and disasters of life, and to never take the moment of solace to appreciate this: "That could happen to me, and the only thing I'm living off is luck? Luck is the only real shield I have protecting me?"

That's how thin it is, like a car made out of tinfoil flying down the highway. And they would never wish the worst of the worst on themselves, or their kids, pets, etc. They've just presumed them and their cherished ones will remain lucky. And that's how TMT is formed. There's no reason to accept any of this, no rational reason to shove anyone into a predicament so dangerous and pretend that you can't be touched. The dishonesty and exploitation and risk that life entails... is the worst travesty that's ever been conceived.

Charade
A charade is an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance. Sound familiar?

Synonyms: farce, pantomime, travesty, mockery, parody, pretense, act, masquerade, sham, fake, false display, show, front, facade; simulacrum.

Confabulation
Confabulation is reflexive lying, without even realizing you are doing it. It is a memory error, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without even the conscious intention to deceive.

Rationalization
Rationalization is deliberate or motivated fact-twisting to make a false model of reality that comports with an agenda or pre-conceived notion. Rationalization is a lie told outward and inward at the same time (lying to others and oneself) then wrapping it in a "self-serving narrative" disguised as a "true model of reality". Why would anyone do this? Because rationalization is not just a system of lies, it's an operating system of lies. It has an operation that it's seeking to perform while doing it.

Hyper-Normalization
Hyper-normalization is when a person becomes so married to the overall absurdity and horror of existence, that when the next obscene thing happens, they barely blink.

Consider a family unit that's always been more or less tranquil, has no history of domestic violence, but suddenly one day the peace ends in a spectacularly bad way. The resulting trauma that shifts due to that happening would not be minor or ever forgettable.

Now consider a family unit run by a warlord in a jungle, in ongoing day-in day-out conflict, to the point that even kids are militarized and trained with weapons to fight the opposing side. If a day came where violence sparked off, it would just be par for the course.

Exceptionalism
Exceptionalism, otherwise known as making up fake reasons why you and your "team" is special, and "telling tall tales because it feels nice". False exceptionalist ideals of "meaning and purpose" are on the verge of collapse. Successful epistemic evolution will actually necessarily dismantle all exceptionalist claims, leaving only mediocre residue, while we will find ourselves on the far side of the looking glass.

Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the most important entity in the universe.

In other words, it is "absolute narcissism". The only valid point this has is the fact that humans have the cognitive power to shut down the DNA experiment -- any and all necessary faculty to commence that operation is most crucial.

Otherwise, this is just acting like "the mere belief that you are important enough to be a raving self-worshiping lunatic" is enough to actually count for something. Believing does not equal proving, so the fact anyone would even bank on such a belief before proving that belief is more than enough indication of a diseased mind:

There is zero scientific proof whatsoever that human suffering and human welfare has the most valence weight out of all sentient entities who are capable of experiencing real harm. Moreover, even if humans did have the most valence weight, that does not logically exclude the value of any other entity/life who has lesser but sufficient valence weight necessary for real harm to take place. So this Anthropocentrism is a non-starter even if it was true, because it still does not successfully rationalize any level of unnecessary sacrifice toward (nor discount) any lesser but sufficient valence-weighted entities/lives whose configuration meets the criteria of producing real harm, just as human configuration does.

And if you "believe" human suffering and welfare is supreme, then what logically follows from your belief is that a super-intelligent AGI would be sanctioned to essentially feed you into its furnace fire (just like humans do with animals) to fuel its 'vastly superior existence'.

Megalomania
Megalomania is delusions of grandeur and accomplishment. This is especially present in the 1000s of fairytales which have ever sought to vindicate the zero-sum waste-engine known as DNA evolution.

Even atheists denounce religious and god fairytales, only to make up DNA fairytales that this molecule is a vessel that's somehow defensible or accomplishing anything, rather than the reality that DNA is a bio-chemical mutation that was carved from deterministic chaos and ultimately is for naught.

"Maybe then we might have a better idea... why exactly certain forms of self-deception were adaptive and became superbly robust, spilling over into the enterprise of philosophy and science itself." - Thomas Metzinger

Pessimism and Optimism
Pessimism: The glass is half empty.

Optimism: The glass of half full.

Objective truth: The glass is approximately 50% capacity, and even on perfect 50% balance some surface sections would be below and others would be above 50% capacity, changing constantly as atoms shift and liquid evaporates.

Pessimism and optimism is an irrelevant metric, that only reduces truths into attitudes. Reducing truth into attitude only gives subjectivists, theists, and liars a free license to dominate the conversation with incoherent thought experiments and complete non-starters. The correct way to start any metric of reality is not whether it is positive or negative, but whether it is correct or incorrect.

If a model of reality constitutes a dominantly positive or negative conclusion/basis, that remains utterly inapposite and irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is whether a model of reality is correct or incorrect.

Distracting ourselves with pessimism and optimism is another failed primate mechanism, just rooted in even more of DNA and primates' failed attempts to discern reality by using emotional and social metrics.

Subjectivism and Relativism
As mentioned, there is only correct data or incorrect data. This makes it hard for subjectivists/relativists to make a coherent case. You'll find the problem with such philosophy is that it's not anchored : it's a fallacious form of evasion. It exists part-and-parcel as not being anchored to anything objective. It's like saying "It's objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist." Despite all evasion, they are inevitably caught right here, between the self-refutation fallacy and special-pleading fallacy.

Their self-refutation/special-pleading is immediately obvious, but goes into a level of abstraction they may not even see:

Subjectivism must objectively establish subjectivity to refute objectivity, because if even their subjectivism is subjective, then it has no weight and their case can just be thrown out.

And this is the crucial point, even subjectivism still requires an objective basis to insert subjective basis. And it either claims no objective basis so it can't, or it uses an objective basis for subjectivism, which just proves that objectivity is really the correct ultimate truth. It's like saying "We can't access objectivity, let me prove it to you by accessing objectivity."

Subjectivism (and all other forms of denial toward absolute truth) are essentially failed experiments of logic. It only defeats itself but doesn't touch anything else. It's the continental poetic hogwash that came about before analytic philosophy (disciplined constrained epistemology) came into the arena and shook them off the board.

This leads to the conclusion their philosophy is not only unproven, but is logically impossible. It's a rhetorical gimmick and a sophistry. It's part of intellectual dishonesty and laziness to act like minute-made rhetoric just happens to be the only absolute truth. Now we can learn what formal objectivity looks like and make a case backed with actual sincere effort, discipline and testing.

Analysandum
The word "analysandum" (singular) or "analysanda" (plural) basically means:
 * a theory that lacks any fundamental explanation required for said theory to be sound
 * a misconception created by explaining without defining, or concluding without explaining

An analysandum usually assumes the posture of a sound theory, when in reality, it has marked explanatory gaps, misconceptions, or even impossibilities nested inside of it. Here is one example of an analysandum:

"Causes and effects are also fictions designed by our brain. The fact that these connections exist objectively independently of the brain cannot be proved by using the brain for this purpose."

This analysandum is concluding that "causes and effects" are just fiction, while at the same time, maintaining that our brain is the  cause  of this happening. In other words, its conclusion is:

"Cause and effect is not proven/real, cause and effect is merely a fiction caused by our brain."

An analysandum is created by ignoring one's own conceptual tools or logical premises, then proceeding to make an 'illegal move on the board'. An analysandum is a pseudo-theory, which often forgoes the explicandum and explicans required for a sound/true theory.

Randomness
The entire concept of "random" is just a vogue version of "god-of-the-gaps". It's to suggest that, when there is not a discernible/predictable pattern or effect, that means "randomness did it" or "it's got properties of randomness". This is a failure of intellectual honesty. Because randomness could be eliminated completely, by just admitting you currently lack the information about the phenomena. Rather than saying it has randomness in it or somehow has random property to it whenever you can't predict it well enough''. ''There is absolutely no need to ever invoke "randomness" in a model of reality.

Childish minds don't always appreciate such simplicity and honesty. And randomness is the easiest catch-all surrogate to the psychotic world models which humanity is so undyingly fond of. Even intellectual frauds can keep participating in the charade under the name of science - instead of "god and magic" they can have "quantum-mechanical-irregularity and randomness" to keep the magical spooky action alive... The mere concept of "random" is a chunk of debris that came from old failed experiments of logic and semantics, but never got properly discarded from our language. 10 seconds of computer science research would also confirm that computers can't even produce randomness - it's called Pseudo-random Number Generation - because there is no such thing as 'authentic randomness'.
 * 1) Randomness is an incoherent concept - a misconception
 * 2) Randomness is a failure of formal semantics - a misnomer

Hivemind
We couldn't forget the most generalized brainless force in our zeitgeist. The glib nay-saying of a hivemind. The congealing swamp of normative status-quo psychology. Have you talked to any of them? Have you ever been to a comment section on the internet?

The hivemind operates on an entire code, made of glib, jeering, knee-jerk-reactionist, rejectionist, meaningless, mindless ego-tripping.

This language and signaling is both the reason they are mindless and why they remain so. This code is externalized as real neural signalling and a wide variety of it. For instance, signals of "If I can't have it, neither can you." which often equally translate to "If I can't figure it out, neither can you."

It is also the signals that make any new proposition seem impossible.

All novelty is immediately rejected by the hiveminded, no matter how true or useful it is.

Imagine winding the clock back, going to the hiveminded and telling them atomic power is possible. Telling them you can split a thing so small you can't see it, and it would decimate a city. The hivemind would infinitely mock that notion as utterly impossible.

Because human intuition is garbage, their knowledge is inherently bankrupt, their rhetoric is hollow (pure appeals to emotion), their propositions are baseless, and their world models are unexamined. But their egos are ballooned into something they cannot see through. What a hivemind worships is the feeling of certainty. They don't have real answers or counterarguments.

What they have is gut-logic instinct, hunches, half-baked memes, and unwitty witticisms, that they seem to treat as some type of infallible code running through their heads.

But they are spineless, weak, and divided they are hopeless. If they are verbally-handled and psychologically dismantled one vs one, even after a little strength and persistence, they do fold completely. The hiveminded can only thrive by side-heckling, safely, with nothing of their own at stake or to defend -- or by running off a mob-mentality to hype their emptiness.

Agnosticism and Skepticism
EFILism is not a standalone science / philosophy. It's an Occam's-razored Closed-concept Explanandum of the universe that's closing the case.

Agnostics, Skeptics, and those with infinite appetite for knowledge could cite: But Efilism can cite:
 * 1) Unknown unknowns (missing knowledge we aren't aware that we're missing)
 * 2) Not knowing the full story yet
 * 3) Never being certain
 * 4) Impossibility of certainty
 * 1) Even doubts must be doubted, to determine if the doubt itself is valid or sound.
 * 2) Even questions must be questioned, to determine if the question itself is valid or sound.
 * 3) Even by the very principles of Agnosticism and Skepticism, it is impossible to be certain of uncertainty: you can only think you're uncertain, and you can only think anything else is uncertain, thus you have not actually proven or demonstrated or ascertained the uncertainty. (This is the exact fatal error Solipsism runs into).
 * 4) Yet the opposite of this is different, certainty itself can be ascertained because:
 * A: It is certain that you'd have to either be uncertain or certain of something (Principle #1)
 * B: It is possible to rule something out as impossible, because it is possible for something to be impossible. That's not to say an impossibility itself is possible, but rather that it is indeed possible for an event to be impossible.(Principle #2)
 * C: It is also possible to make an ample/sufficient/complete list of explanatory facets for reality (that means a closed-concept) (Principle #3)
 * D: And that is because all a closed-concept reflects, is the lone fundamental truth, that existence itself is nothing more than a strict, closed, minimally sufficient set of nomological ingredients, which then create necessary conditions (such as the fact that distance exists, and things exist, and things move, but things do not move distance instantaneously. Therefore, time necessarily exists.) which gives rise to "closed concepts" (Principle #4)
 * E: And hence, once you have reflected the strict, closed, minimally sufficient set of nomological ingredients with an explanation, there is nothing else necessary for explanation
 * F: And therefore, it is certainly possible to close the case

This critical framework enables progress in spite of darkness. And at the same time, saves philosophy from getting permanently lost inside agnosticism-infinitude, the case-hanging-open-limbos and other unconstrained, logically-primitive, self-defeating, failed thought-experiments that might arise.

We could now explore much deeper to Efilism, into the milestones of epistemology and logic that have helped this framework take hold. Like Modal Logic's unavoidable grip of truth. And Meta-Rationality, which exposed the fact that rationality itself is just solving problems. Meta-rationality has therefore allowed us to realize that:

Creating a problem,

just to solve the problem,

is itself insanely irrational.

We have seen this concisely demonstrated with: Efilism is a spear-heading of knowledge, not just by using this framework, but by using a set of already-confirmed conclusions that any intellectually honest thinker must concede. And even if any counter-arguer does not concede the points, they still fail to refute points: For instance, the point that Abiogenesis / DNA is the origin of life, & had no ends, & no means, & it was just happenstance - in other words, life's inception is logically indefensible. Yet life is acting exactly contrary to that. How peculiar, what's making that happen? Well we can cite the naturalistic fallacy, which not only explains the main error code DNA is running on but also ensures nobody can 'automatically assume nature is correct because it's natural'.
 * 1) The "Needs that don't need to exist." argument.
 * 2) "The only rational job in the universe is solving problems, and the problem of problems is best solved by preventing problems from happening to begin with." argument.

Black Swan Theory
When making the case for reality, Black Swan Theory is the end of the line.

Black Swan Theory is the fallacy of absolute agnosticism or absolute skepticism. Here is the reason Black Swan Theory is a fallacy:


 * 1) Black Swan Theory posits that everything should be questioned and doubted
 * 2) Sound theory posits that the very premise or practice of doubting/questioning everything is equally dubious and questionable

in other words, a Black Swan Theorist ignores that exact mandate, and just continues casting doubt in absolute terms, while not understanding the impossibility of that theory and practice.

Black Swan Theory permanently pretends there "an empty chair to fill for X, no matter what X is".

Whether X is a God theory, Pro-DNA theory, infinity theory, magical talking dragons theory, and any fallacious theory conceivable -- the Black Swan Theory by its core principle commits and permits this ultimate fallacy.

Consider the following metaphor:

To be a Black Swan Theorist is to grant yourself the license to open anti-realism wormholes and loopholes forever, while never actually qualifying for that license.

Black Swan Theory fails to prove reason to question/doubt everything forever, fails to prove reason why there is an empty chair for any conceivable theory, and is merely assuming they have reason posit that. Which is where their catastrophic error lies, and where to counter it.

Black Swan Theory lacks fundamental testable sound reason 'magical infinity-verse God chairs that could possibly be filled with something, so we should wait in limbo'.

Remember, regardless of anything:


 * 1) The premise that "everything is to always be questioned/doubted" is equally voided by that very premise
 * 2) Because that premise mandates questioning/doubting even the premise of questioning/doubting everything

The End

Physics
The Theory Of Everything