We recently announced 45 scientific discoveries from our Curiosity and Discovery unit including the origins of Human Consciousness. Naturally nobody reacted because we're meant to be talking about D&I. But they ignore that these steps were needed to tackle hatred (our mission) and we have proven time and again our authenticity. While we work with our academic partners to properly announce our discoveries, here we explain how we did it for the curious.
What is a discovery?
A Scientific Discovery is an announcement that someone has surpassed the current academic understanding of reality, with new compelling knowledge that is typically also verifiable, retestable, reviewable and publishable.
Scientific discoveries are a highly effective way of creating and driving change. Because unlike just talking sense - as we've been trying to - you cannot ignore science. But they are also the hardest to undo. Because you cannot undiscover science too. Or can we?
Discoveries are great way to create change
Ushering in 7 world records for change despite only setting out to change one institution, Deilight’s origins in Project Speak Up (2021) gave us a singular insight into Human Identity, Perception and Choice. We learnt some Humans have abilities not sufficiently explained in current Science. Specifically, some exhibit the power to create Change (‘True Leadership’) with confidence, whilst others appear unable to even comprehend Change or True Leadership.
So we took my method and deconstructed the individual parts, then reconciled them against current research to identify any gaps. We then scaled up the concept using Ambition and Higher Purpose. Seemingly absent of any demand amongst corporates for authentic D&I, and in order not to impact world events, we opted to pilot our expanded Sapient Change Engine in a scientific context through our Curiosity & Discovery unit - one of four Sapient Change service groups we offer clients. Given our mission - to protect Humanity from hatred – we selected the Clarke Paradox for Sapient-driven discovery: ‘What is hatred, where does it come from, how do we tackle it?’.
The test was beyond successful, yielding a batch of 45 discrete scientific discoveries across 7 academic disciplines. When pieced together into a singular contiguous hypothesis, they answer the research question and resolve The Clarke Paradox plus a number of others in known science (notably Fermi and Olbers, only this time without the shrapnel) while also integrating holistically into current science. Extraordinarily they have also shown the potential to unite leading experts from across Science, Philosophy and Theology under an aligned narrative with common interests.
If validated through peer review, this will confirm the viability and near-limitlessness of our Sapient Change Engine as Humanity’s first proven incidence of a Clarketech.
What is Sloppy Sapience?
I see discoveries differently. All sciences are in fact branches of Philosophy. Thus a PhD is a ‘Doctor of Philosophy’. But like all forms of Change, titles don’t make discoveries. Only Human Being's do that.
Paradoxes are the product of a lack of sufficient authenticity in the scientist (or scientists) who performed that particular Change event. Good Change Makers will create new science that resolves Paradoxes - not creates them. Sloppy Sapience, I say.
For example, Olbers Paradox is the quandary of why we see black in the deadness of space when black isn't in fact a colour that occurs in science or nature (See our article Humans and Choice: Why nothing is ever black and white). In an infinite universe governed by the Standard Model, where scattering does not occur in vacuum, you would expect to see a background entirely of light from distant stars in all directions. We are clearly looking at something.
Olbers Paradox is resolved with the assumption that the universe is finite in size and age - an assumption that underpins the very notion of the Big Bang. But that's a lot of binary assumptions in a universe where time is entirely a Social Construct. And it's created a minefield of other problems across Astrophysics that now need to be changed.
Fixing Sloppy Sapience
A far simpler solution is that nothing artificial can ever be infinite. There was always, and will always be Light. But in the beginning, there was Consciousness, Choice and Free Will, which appears from our interior perspective as if it were a Big Bang. It seems clear to me that we are looking at a barrier of the simulated construct that is our universe - either artificially from beyond or pseudo-simulated from within.
Consider that some paradoxes are no paradox at all. For example, Einstein Rosen & Podolksy correctly identified the nature of our construct as a simulation - the product of the 12 Quantum Fields currently known to science:
"Our very notion of reality is at fault, in that the mere act of perception alters the state of all things, by converting them from waves [real] to particles [simulated]."
Therefore the blackness of space we see could feasibly be the 13th Quantum Field (the Consciousness Field). However there should be no limit to consciousness since it is not artificial. More likely is that this is something insidious, such as an enclosing barrier of dread linked to our own growing hatred and collapse into unconsciousness. How do we even know space appeared as black to our ancestors?
Proving who's best: Science or Sapience?
Scientists recently found the first instance ever of a black hole 'using' light. Among the many strange things about this discovery:
It was only found because the Light is pointing directly at Earth
It exists in a region of space where Light has never been detected before
Yet it is now giving off Light to the tune of 1,000 trillion suns.
The 81 scientists currently attribute the unusual behaviour to a very rare Tidal Disruption Event (TDE) of a single star into a Supermassive black hole, the circumstances or science of which they can neither describe, explain or test. Is that even science? I call Sloppy Sapience. I can do all three. What's more, I claim this multi-record breaking White Hole - the first ever observed, and yet to even be defined as such by our scientists - in the name of Deilight. Entirely consistent with our own hypothesis and predicted by it, the Quantum Mechanics behind our change engine is powering this light. Let me explain.
Among our 45 discoveries, we deduced that we only see Black Holes because Light is being drained from our universe by the prevalence of Hatred and Darkness amongst Humanity. So if more people act in the common good instead of self interest, by fighting hatred with love in order to reverse Humanity's decline into Darkness and Unconsciousness, then we should observe 4 testable cosmic changes as the ever enclosing Darkness gives way to Light:
The universes expansion should reverse
We should see more White Holes than Black Holes
The amount of Dark Energy should reduce while the amount of Dark Matter should remain stable
The overall luminosity of the universe will grow as our cosmic bubble expands
Skeptics will rightly point out that this astronomical event occurred when the universe was only 1/3 the age it is now. But remember that Time is a Social Construct linked to Human Perception, just as particles are too. Consciousness is all there was, is and (hopefully) ever will be. Before I offend too many people, this is just a hypothesis and I wholly accept I may be completely wrong. But what if I'm right?
Is science real and what are its limits?
Consider that it takes 8 minutes for light to reach us here on Earth from Sol, very much like a buffering speed. The natural conclusion is that the Speed of Light is a hardware artifact that, along with other oddities outside of the Standard Model, closely resembles the interaction between software (patchable) and hardware (rigid). If that's the case then nothing can ever surpass it and the likelihood of us being in a Simulated Universe is essentially proven.
Building on Einstein Rosen & Podolksy's non-paradox from physics (simulated) into philosophy (real) gives us our next question: Does science already exist, waiting for us to uncover it? Or could it be that Change Makers create science simply by looking for it? But this isn't just a Philosophical ponderance. It has real implications for the limits of Human endeavour.
This question makes defining the limits of Deilight's scientific capabilities - any meaningful positive change imaginable - challenging to me. Here's where I'm at:
Rule 1: We cannot create something that harms others (like earthquakes or weapons) - check
Rule 2: We cannot create something fake (like money, time or an authentic D&I consultancy) - check
Rule 3: We cannot create something that conflicts with the Laws of Physics (like Star Trek or Flying People) - hmm...
This final rule does not sit well with me. If we are not in a computer simulated universe, but rather a construct of our own conscious creation, then the Speed of Light and Relativity may be a product of Sloppy Sapience - like a riddle to be solved. In that event, we can simply Change it by creating new science to explain it away and realise the Human utopia that is Star Trek, including warp drive, time travel, worm holes, but absolutely no Death Stars.
Tired of Sloppy Sapience?
Create better discoveries through our Curiosity and Discovery unit. Whatever science is giving you a headache, our Sapience stands ready to ease the load and take the weight off your mind. All Human's are equal. Two heads are surely better than one. But only great minds wield Clarketech.
