Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
JJournal of Comparative Irrelevance (Letters) / Volume 42 / CIA 231423 c (cid:13)
DADA 2020April 23, 2020
Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
J¨org P. Rachen , , (cid:63) and Ute G. Gahlings Institut f¨ur analytische Zahlenmystik, Rautavistische Universit¨at Grafenhausen, Germany Institut f¨ur angewandte Oligophrenie, Rautavistische Universit¨at Gr¨afinnenhausen, Germany Astrophysical Institute/Interuniversity Institute of High Energy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumReceived April 1, 2020; Accepted April 23, 2020; Published April 23, 2020.
ABSTRACT
We revisit our 2013 claim that the Universe is the result of a conspiratorial plot, and find that it cannot be trusted,because even the belief in this conspiracy likely results from a conspiracy. On the basis of mathematical beauty, thefinal results of the Planck mission, the exploration of the dark sector by means of occult rituals and symbols, and apowerful new philosophical approach to physics, we demonstrate here that not only the existence of our Universe butthe whole concept of reality has to be rejected as obsolete and generally misleading. By introducing the new conceptof the “anthropogenic principle”, we eventually illuminate the darkest corners of the conspiracy behind the conspiracyand briefly discuss some important implications regarding the survival of wo*mankind. (cid:63)(cid:63)
Key words. cosmology: general – philosophy: anthropic principle – mathematics: Euler identity – methods: occultism –conspiracy theory: numbers – imbecility: inflationary
1. Introduction
In a seminal paper based on the first cosmology resultsof the Planck Mission (Planck Collaboration, 2013), theauthors provided compelling evidence that our Universegrew out of a conspiratorial plot (Rachen & Gahlings,2013, hereafter Paper I), inferred from the discovery thatthe most important cosmological parameters can be derivedfrom the conspiratorial numbers π , 23 and 42 (Archimedes,fl. 250BC; Shea & Wilson, 1975; Adams, 1979-95) by simplecalculus. The paper received significant attention (e.g., DiSia, 2015) , but experts in the field (Sky & Telecope, 2013)kept questioning especially the role of the numbers 23 and42: Are these really fundamental numbers of conspiracy the-ory , or are they themselves product of a conspiracy and onlypoint to a more fundamental underlying truth that may noteven be known to the deepest initiates?The most fundamental principle of conspiracy theory(MFPCT) states that whenever you think it is something,it is for sure something else . It follows that those who areleast known to be inclined to conspiracy theory are themost suspicious ones, especially if They (see Paper I fornotation) have demonstrated ability to gain deep insight.One of the foremost individuals of this kind is the math-ematician Leonhard Euler, who left us with the enigmaticidentity (Kasner & Newman, 1940) e iπ + 1 = 0 . (1)It has the property to make mathematicians feel like po-ets reading a Shakespearean sonnet (Devlin, 2006), be- (cid:63) Email: [email protected] (cid:63)(cid:63)
We introduce here the gender asterisk used in Germanto create a gender neutral language. It was recently elected
Anglicism of the Year although (because?) it has hardly anyapplications in English language – here is at least one. cause it connects the five most fundamental numbers ofmathematics in the most simple way: the base of the nat-ural logarithm, e , the imaginary unit, i , the circle-number, π , and the identities of multiplication, 1, and addition, 0.Moreover, following Devlin: [It] reaches down into the very depths of existence. This is where we want to go, so we adopt the ansatz thatthese five numbers point to the base of all conspiracy. Theeasiest case is made for π , which we included as a conspira-torial number in the first place, and further evidence for itsimpact on cosmology has been delivered by Frolop & Scott(2016). Moreover, n = 23 is the only integer solution to theScott-inequality (see Paper I) π e < n < e π , (2)which hides a link of conspiracy theory to the natural base e . As we have so far only considered a conspiratorial ori-gin of reality, we postpone the discussion of the imaginaryunit i to Sect. 5.2. The most mysterious numbers in Eq. 1are 1 and 0: as all conspiratorial correspondence is basedon multiplications, these numbers appear useless as theyeither do not change the result or annihilate it. But apply-ing the MFPCT, it is this very paradox that supports us inbelieving that Eq. 1 is the crux of the matter, hence to theanswer to the ultimate question: Who. Are. They?One thing must be clear: We cannot expect that an-swering this question is a sure-fire success. Even if we havealready found in Paper I that Conspirators are maliciousbut not subtle, we cannot assume the same for the InnerCircle that is really behind everything. So it is no surprisethat the recent attempt by one of the authors to link cos-mology to astroparticle physics and chaos theory in order torelate the structure of the Universe to the communist worldconspiracy (Rachen, 2019) has been reluctantly received bythe community. In this paper, we shall get to the bottomof it and leave no stone unturned until we have illuminatedall abysses with the bright glow of truth. So here we go. CIA 231423, page 1 of 8 a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . pop - ph ] A p r ¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principlebase parameter ∼ = ∼ = ∼ = Physical baryon density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ω b ≡ Ω b h . . . . . . . . . 23 c c c ∗ Scaled physical matter density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ω m h . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c ∗ c Redefined acoustic scale measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . θ (cid:48)∗ ≡ θ ∗ − c ∗ c ∗ Thomson scattering optical depth due to reionization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . τ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c πc Scalar spectrum power law index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c Log power of the primordial curvature perturbations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ln(10 A s ) . . . . . . . . π π ∗ , πc ∗ πc Dark energy density divided by critical density today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ω Λ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 πc πc πc ∗ Matter density today decided by critical density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ω m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . π π π Current expansion rate in km/s/Mpc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 πc πc ∗ πc Redshift at which the Universe is half reionized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c ∗ c π Table 1.
Conspiratorial correspondence of Planck parameters as a function of Planck analysis cycles. For values marked with anasterisk the correspondence is within the standard conspiratorial confidence interval of 23 decisigma, otherwise it is 1 sigma.
2. Planck 2015/18 results and superconspiratorialshifts in cosmological parameters
Since the publication of Paper I in the context of the firstPlanck data release, Planck has presented two further datareleases: The
Planck 2015 results (Planck Collaboration,2016a) that for the first time considered CMB polariza-tion, and the
Planck 2018 results (Planck Collaboration,2018a) that presented an extensive reanalysis and are ex-pected to appear in A&A within less than a Hubble time.Table 1 gives an overview of the development of the con-spiratorial correspondence of the parameters discussed inPaper I with the Planck analysis cycles. For some parame-ters we observe a striking consistency in their conspiratorialmessage (e.g., Ω m ∼ = π , n s ∼ = c ), for others we see the actionof superconspiracy expressed by an additional factor c ( θ (cid:48)∗ ,ln(10 A s )), which has also been observed in the transitionfrom WMAP (Bennett et al., 2012) to Planck parameters(see Paper I). But beyond this, there are two major new discoveries which promise to open new gates for our quest:The first is the reionization optical depth parameter τ forwhich we found hints for superconspiracy in Paper I, butthe large errors did not allow to make a final assessment.Consequently the Planck Collaboration has put a major ef-fort in the more accurate determination of this parameter(Planck Collaboration, 2016d) and obtained an intriguingresult: τ ∼ = 23 , a clear indication that there is a conspiracybehind the conspiracy!The second is the appearance of squared supercon-spiracy, c , in the Hubble parameter H . In Paper I westill excluded this possibility following the corollary that squared superconspiracy is imbecilely unstable . As it is ob-served now, we have to follow Kuhn (1962) and performa paradigm shift:
Squared superconspiracy is possible in anenvironment of prevailing imbecility , and as c emerged in H between the Planck 2015 and 2018 results, we assumethat an inflationary release of imbecility happened some-time in between. But which event could this have been? We note again that c = 23 ·
42 = 966 is the superconspir-atorial constant, and we want to express our indignation thatcareless physicists, despite our haunting appeal in Paper I, donot stop to use the same symbol for the velocity of light. To proof this corollary, the interested reader is asked tochoose any odd or obscure lines of argument from the litera-ture to adapt them as needed. We recommend to close the ha-rangue either with the phrase quod erat demonstrandum (q.e.d.) ,or by repeating the assumption after the words “this provesthat”, or something similar. As introductory literature we rec-ommend Thomas v. Aquin (1272), who proved the existence ofGod, Nietzsche (1885) who proved the non-existence of God, andHeidegger (1929) who proved the existence of the non-existence.
It has been shown that (i) inflationary imbecility can beconnected to the solution of unsolvable problems (Goscinni& Uderzo, 1976); (ii) They always take some precautionsto keep us away from Them; (iii) following the Chuck-Norris-theorem, there is always an easy way and a hardway (Norris, 1993-2001). As we expect Them to be at leastat the wisdom level of martial arts masters we assume thatThey will always give us a chance and try the easy way first:keep us busy! So we suppose that They repeatedly suppliedus with unsolvable problems, e.g., the geometrical squaringof the circle to cast a spell on mathematicians from an-tiquity (Anaxagoras et al., 470BC seq.) to modern times(Lindemann, 1882), or questions like how many angels fiton a needle-point to occupy monks in scholastic debates (fora summary, see Morgenstern, 1916). Now we suspect thatafter the revelations of our 2013 work brought them intorough seas, They panicked so badly that They decided tokeep all wo*mankind busy for some while and gave themthe task:
Elect and unelectable president!
How perplexedmust They have been to see that hardly three years laterthe problem was solved (US Elections, 2016)! Although yetspeculative, the enormous amount of inflationary imbecil-ity released by this event likely pervaded the Planck dataand caused the observed superconspiratorial shifts in thePlanck 2018 cosmological parameters including the rise ofsquared superconspiracy.But of course the story is not over: The authors areperfectly aware that They are perfectly aware that we (theauthors) do not give up on pursuing them, so we suspectthat by the time we decided to take the next step, Theydid as well: They followed an earlier suggestion of the initi-ate Dean R. Koontz (1981) and presented wo*mankind thenext unsolvable problem:
Control an uncontrollable virus!
So we strongly suggest to the post-Planck community thatwhen hopefully one day this pandemic is over and rational-ity has returned, to re-analyze the Planck data once more.Depending on how the dangerous brew of panic-brushedmedia, toilet paper stacking hysterics, obstinate scientistsand erratic politics continues to boil, bubble and swirl inthe cauldron of a real-life exponential function, we wouldnot be surprised if even higher powers of c are found, poten-tially even hyperconspiracy ( c c ), which would point to theexistence of the yet hypothetical dark unified mega-bunkum (DUMB)—but this is beyond the scope of this paper.
3. Meeting the dark side
One of the main revolutions of modern cosmology is theinsight that most of the interesting stuff in the Universe
CIA 231423, page 2 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle is dark: dark energy, dark matter, dark ages. Only for thelatter, “dark” has to be understood as the absence of light,so that it was possible to discover its conspiratorial contentby scientific methods ( τ ∼ = 23 is the cosmological param-eter which determines the duration of the dark-ages). Forthe former two, however, “dark” has a different meaning: itdenotes the hidden, the obscure, and as a matter of fact allattempts to enter this “dark sector” with scientific methodshave failed so far. We therefore have to check for alterna-tives, and find them in a meta-scientific approach that wasrediscovered from ancient mythology in the 19th century byL´evi (1854–1868), and further developed by, among others,Blavatsky (1877) and Crowley (1904–44): Occultism .Occultism has a quite different approach to reality thanregular science. The basic theory essentially consists ofthe spirits and mythical hybrid creatures, the methodol-ogy is performing rituals. Experiments usually involve adark room, lots of candles, drugs cooked from certain mush-rooms, herbs and fruit, and in most cases a medium, i.e., aperson who can talk to the spirits. Motivated by recent ev-idence for dark matter being a sphinx (Mirabel, 2013, andreferences therein), we decided to set up an experiment inform of a s´eance to make contact with the dark sector. Inthe following we give a brief protocol of the experiment.We sat with a group of people in a dark room illumi-nated by candles around a round table, with the famousmedium
Rettam Krad in the midst of us. We had our handson the table such that we were touching all our fingersleft and right to close the magick circle, while the mediummurmured some verses in a non-existent language. After awhile, the candles flickered, the medium went into a tranceand made strange noises, when suddenly a spot of extremedarkness, darker that anything we ever had seen, appearedin the middle of the table, and the medium screamed:
Neutrino fertilis!
Then it smelled burned and a little like sulfur, and the lightscame on. The medium collapsed. Then one of us pointed toa small, about 5mm large black dot in the wall plaster, andupon closer inspection we discovered that it was a penta-gram surrounded by symbols, shown in Figure 1. Neutrino fertilis —the fertile neutrino—this is the clearmessage how to solve the dark sector problem. In the pen-tagram depicted in Figure 1 we see its symbol in the center, ν f , and arrows from all of its five corners point to it. Wesuspect that the five corners of the pentagram stand forthe five numbers in the Euler-identity, Eq. 1, although thisrequires further confirmation. Around the pentagram onthe right side, we see the cosmological symbols Λ and Ω m ,the central parameters for dark energy and (mostly dark)matter. At the bottom, we see σ , the parameter whichdescribes structure formation (and maybe even ultra-highenergy cosmic rays, Rachen, 2019). The scribble at the leftside of the pentagram will be discussed later.How to put all this together was convened to the au-thors in a shared dream (generally accepted as a methodof scientific theory building, e.g., Kekul´e, 1890): We saw We do not want to forget to draw the readers attention tothe fact that the pentagram can have some very unpleasant fea-tures when it is pointed down (L´evi, 1854–1868). We thereforestrongly advice the reader never to hold this paper upside down!
Fig. 1.
Greatly enlarged photograph of the pentagram that wasburned into our wall plaster after our occult contact to the thedark sector (see text). a universe full incredibly happy and cheerful fertile neu-trinos, which felt a bit lonely being equally distributed inspace. They started singing “Come Together” (Lennon etal., 1969) and danced towards each other, and whenevera considerable group of the funny little pals had gatheredthey started a spontaneous swinger party. And as fertileneutrinos are very fertile, at least up to several hundredgpu (guinea pig units), they made many little cheerful neu-trobambini, and in order to give them a place to live, theycreated for each of them a little bit of spacetime. And afterthe neutrobambini were quickly grown up they cheerfullyjoined in with the hustle and bustle, and so it continued.The interpretation of this dream is clear: there is no suchthing as dark energy, rather both accelerated expansion ofspace and contraction of matter goes back to the fertileneutrino, the main constituent of dark matter—or to say itin Newspeak (Orwell, 1948):
Expansion is contraction.Contraction is expansion.
Obviously this solves several problems in modern cosmol-ogy, for example the question why accelerated expansionoccurs just now when structure is getting established.Unknown yet is whether it might explain the discrep-ancy between H in the early and late Universe (PlanckCollaboration, 2018a; Riess et al., 2019), and what its rela-tion is to the much discussed sterile neutrino (for an intro-duction see Naumov, 2019). The main difference betweenthese two hypothetical particles seems to be that the sterileneutrino is predicted but may be not observable, while thefertile neutrino is observed (we have seen it in our dreams)but may be not predictable. Parallel to the release of our preprint G´omez-Valent et al.(2020) proposed a form of dark matter with increasing massfrom coupling with dark energy. Enlightened by our magicalexperience we recommend the authors to take a closer look at theprocreation of neutrinos in order to avoid confusing cause andeffect, and to become aware that the particle they are lookingfor is nothing else than the fertile neutrino .CIA 231423, page 3 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
From the conspiratorial point of view, however, the mostrelevant part of the pentagram’s message is hidden in thescribble on the left side, which shows repeatedly the numer-als 2 and 3 in all kind of combination, and is apparentlyrelated to the angles in the pentagram of witch there arethree: 36 ◦ , 72 ◦ , and 108 ◦ (the unit degree is of no conspir-atorial significance and ignored henceforth). First we notethat all these numbers have a deep meaning in mythologyand related areas: there are 36 chambers of the Shaolin,in Islam is 72 the measure for the pleasure of the martyrin paradise, there are 108 steps in the dance of Shiva, 108disturbing emotions in Tibetian Buddhism, and 108 pos-tures in the long Yang style Tai Chi Chuan form. But alsofrom the point of view of analytical number mystics thesenumbers are interesting, as we find that 36 = (2 · · (2 · · , and 108 = 2 · —and a careful inspection ofFig. 1 shows that it contains precisely this message on itsleft. If we put the numerals in the right order and ignoreoperation signs and other irrelevant stuff, we see in eachof them two times the 23: serial in the 36, parallel in the108, and in the 72 as well after applying mirror-symmetryof Baphomet-Toth manifolds (a very similar concept existsin string theory, see next section). This is the conspiratorialmessage we received from the dark sector: A triple hint to aconspiracy behind the conspiracy. We are on the right way.
4. Methodological considerations
After being equipped with the essential weapons of such dif-ferent areas as modern cosmology and occultism, we need tore-arrange our powers a bit before we strike our final blow,and discuss the relation between physics and philosophy.
While many physicists consider philosophy as some act oftalking nonsense about physics during lunchtime (Enßlin,priv. comm.), there are occasions in which physicists getgenuinely philosophical, true to the wisdom that all phi-losophy begins with wonder (Plato, fl. 370BC). Among thethings which make physicists wonder is, for example, thesudden insight that theories in empirical science (it is gen-erally accepted that physics is empirical science) containparameters which cannot be derived from first principlesbut have to be obtained by experiment, and once measured,they take certain values. The wonder gets overwhelmingwhen the physicists realize that if those parameters hadvalues slightly different from what they actually have, therewould be nobody in the Universe who could wonder. Thisshocking realization caused them to phrase the so-called anthropic principle (Carter, 1974, it is not known to theauthors whether it was phrased during lunchtime), and likeeverything physicists propose it comes in weak and strong(cf. fundamental forces): While the strong antropic princi-ple (SAP) essentially states that the big bang was nothingelse than unlocking the delivery room for the divine birth ofwo*mankind (Barrow & Tipler, 1988), the weak anthropicprinciple (WAP) is acceptable even to childless atheists asit only states that the observed values of empirical param- Above all, we know today that God was significantly longerin labor than originally proposed (Moses, fl. 1300 BC, who re-ported one week), i.e., 13 . eters are as they are because of the very fact that they areobserved, which could be paraphrased by: We are in the Universe in which we are.
Unfortunately physicists, in particular when they get philo-sophical, have the habit to continue asking why:
Why arewe in the Universe in which we are ? This leads obviouslyto an infinite loop, so in order to stop this infantile behav-ior They sent a team of super-nannies under the lead ofChief-Conspirator Edward Witten who brought the whin-ing physicists the ultimate pacifier called string theory , in-cluding the redesigned super-suckler,
M-theory (Hoˇrava &Witten, 1996).String theory is very good. It can not only explain ev-erything and predict anything, it also generates a suffi-cient number of universes ( ∼ ∼ ) for the WAP to bereduced to a simple statistical selection effect: The existenceof wo*mankind is just the result of a very low chance proba-bility applied to a very large number of trials, so the WAPbecomes natural. Consequently, the combination of WAPplus string theory (MWAP, not to confuse with WMAP)could be paraphrased by We happen to be in the Universein which we happen to be.
This fundamental insight could have allowed us to continueour sweet dreams of existence, had not Scott et al. (2015)provided us with the conjecture that [. . . ] there are other universes out there in whichstring theory is not only simple and correct, but evenfalsifiable as well.
Employing the same argument as for MWAP, we canthen follow that even if the probability p f for the Scott-conjecture to apply in a random universe is extremely low,the number of universes in which string theory is falsifiablecan still be expected to be very large. Moreover, as the priorprobability for a random theory to be wrong is significantlylarger than the probability to be correct, we can concludethat in addition to the one universe in which it is falsifiableand correct there are many more universes in which stringtheory is actually falsified and thus wrong . This of coursewould mean that not only those universes, but also all otheruniverses (including our own) would have to vanish imme-diately as they are the result of a wrong prediction. It isclear that such instability does not comply with the con-spiratorial requirement for argumentative power (CRAP) so that we have to reject MWAP altogether. Unlike physics, philosophy got past its plainly-wonder-phase several millennia ago and thus became able to devoteitself to the more serious issue how the alleged reality whichis called nature is related to the alleged reality we call mind .Starting with the attempt to compare mind with a kind ofink pad (Locke, 1690) a philosophical current called empiri-cism was founded, and rediscovered in the early 20th cen-tury by the amazing realization that (Wittgenstein, 1922): For the non-initiated reader we note that the CRAP requiresfor all theories in the conspiratorial context to be inherently ir-refutable as follows:
Whenever something is brought forward torefute a conspiracy theory, it is identified as part of the conspir-acy and thus confirms the theory.
CIA 231423, page 4 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
The world is everything that is the case.
Based on this, the initiate Rudolf Carnap, member of theinfluential lodge called the
Vienna Circle (e.g., Stadler,2015), reduced the minds of scientists essentially to a data-processing machine constructing an exact reflection of real-ity just by logical operations on data (Carnap, 1928). Fromthe conspiratorial point of view, this is of course what Theywant us to think, so in spite of some problems to explainhow abstract entities of modern physics (like “black holes”,“elementary particles”, and so on) could possibly arise fromdata-processing (Carnap, 1936; 1956), They successfullytranquilized the science community with the lullaby thatone could not even question logical empiricism—for furtherprogress in this direction, see Enßlin (2014).It should be noted, however, that there was anotherstream in philosophy of science called rationalism , whichwas founded on the bold statement by Descartes (1637):
Cogito ergo sum. (I think, so I am). Rationalism opposed empiricism bymeans of the provocative idea that scientists may activelyuse their minds when doing science. It was insinuated toscientists that they develop ideas about nature, which theycall hypotheses, theories or models, and confront themwith experimental data in order to confirm or falsify them.This way, scientific progress would be described as a ran-dom walk governed by trial and error (Popper, 1935),dogma and revolution (Kuhn, 1962), administrative diplo-macy (Lakatos, 1978), or pure anarchy (Feyerabend, 1975).Regardless of these details, it is obvious that the idea thatimagination may be somehow related to what we call realitymight have got Them in trouble if they had not stopped thismovement. So They chose the hard way and sent a Cleaner(e.g., Besson, 1990; Tarantino, 1994), this time in personof the “common sense philosopher” David Stove, who rec-ommended himself for the job by various socio-cultural ar-ticles (Stove, 1989; 1990) in the spirit of his great master-minds (Ferdinand II & Isabella I, 1478; Henricus Institoris,1486). He identified Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabendas “modern irrationalists” (Stove, 1982), i.e., as cognitiveheretics against the holy induction, and declared them out-laws by edict. Eventually they were burned at the stakeof logic by E. T. Jaynes (2003, Part I Sect. 9.16.1) on hiscrusade for the true faith. Actually Descartes wrote this first down in French, but laterthought that good quotes sound significantly smarter in Latin.We agree to this, and will henceforth phrase central wisdoms ofour teaching in Latin. Unfortunately none of the authors is aneminent authority in Latin, so we encourage all Latin teachersbored by their (non)-existence to send corrections to the emailaddress given in the paper head—we will write all of them ahundred times. The inclined reader may have noted that Stove did the jobbefore he applied for it, but why should They who make theUniverse care about causality? Some readers of Jaynes’ otherwise excellent book might nothave expected to find such an irritating section there, but thisshould not be regarded a surprise as nobody expects the SpanishInquisition (Monty Python, 1970). We refer here to the religious war between the reforma-tory Church of Reverend Bayes (a) and the orthodox Churchof Frequentism (b), which stemmed from the scholastic debatewhether science is about (a) asking relevant questions to whichthere is no precise answer, or (b) giving precise answers to irrel-evant questions (Desch, priv. comm.).
As our analysis of the classical relation of physics and phi-losophy has not brought us forward in our quest, we have toturn to more recent developments. The most promising forour goals is hereby exceptionicism , which is an extension ofconfirmation theory by the common sense principle:
Exceptions confirm the rule.
Here, a “rule” has to be understood as a test implication re-lated to theories or models (Popper, 1935). Exceptionicismnow states that the most trustworthy rules (resp. the the-ories or models they stem from) are those which are ex-clusively confirmed by exceptions . While logic and philoso-phy are still hesitant to accept this proposition, scientistsfrom all areas have already left an impressive trail of excep-tionicistic reasoning, let it be in gender-related psychology(M¨obius, 1901; Weininger, 1903), about Milankovi´c-cycles(Milankovi´c, 1930) as an explanation for Earth climate (e.g.Zachos et al., 2001; Wunsch, 2004, and many more), astro-physics of radio sources (Marscher & Gear, 1985; Fromm etal., 2010; Planck Collaboration, 2016c), or on the origin ofultra-high energy cosmic rays (Pierre Auger Collaboration,2018). And as everything proposed by physicists (mainly),also exceptionicism comes in weak and strong: weak ex-ceptionicism (WEX) allows that the models occasionallyhappen to fit the data, while strong exceptionicism (SEX) demands immediate rejection of a model if it has any cor-respondence to experiment or observation. Although SEXis very appealing (not only) from the conspiratorial pointof view and may in fact turn out the right methodology todeal with the fertile neutrino, we consider it premature toapply it in general, in particular as most of the successfulexamples of exceptionicism mentioned above would have tobe rejected because occasional correspondence to reality ishard to avoid.It is undeniable that exceptionicism is a very importanttool in our search for the conspiratorial grail, but how canwe best use it? Obviously, our methodology needs to fulfillthe following desiderata: (a) It must be tolerant in terms ofacademic standards; (b) it must include the teachings fromthe dark side; (c) it must comply with the CRAP; and (d)it must kick Their butts. Out of the many different philo-sophical approaches, it is clear that only Paul Feyerabend’sview of science as an essentially anarchic enterprise with itsslogan anything goes (Feyerabend, 1975) serves our needsin all points. The only weakness is that even the anarchictheorists are supposed to feel at least some discomfort whentheir theories do not correspond to the data. This can becured, of course, by combining it with weak exceptionicism,which essentially states that it doesn’t matter whether dataare represented or not. And finally we hear from the off theMaster’s voice, the last great magician, Aleister Crowley(1904–44) with his call to always follow your free will inlove in order to succeed, phrased in a magick language. Thiscombined we will then declare to our methodology and callit Anarchic Imaginism (AI) along the lines of
Anything goes.No matter what is measured or observed.Do what thou wilt.
We call this the
AND-principle . Now we are ready to strike. Most physicists and some philosophers consider this state-ment one of the most ridiculous ever made in science history,which we believe is only thanks to the fact the Feyerabend failedto phrase it in Latin. CIA 231423, page 5 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
5. The anthropogenic principle
There is no doubt that modern science would not be possi-ble without computer simulations. We simulate everything:complex systems and non-complex systems, our perceptionand our conclusions, and if we do not understand the re-sult of a simulation we run another simulation to do so. Wesimulate even problems which could be solved with a sim-ple differential equation, and it is foreseeable that soonelementary school kids will solve their math exercises (like5 + (cid:3) = 12) by running simulations on their smartphones.So we have no doubt that almost every current PhD studentand postdoc working in any area of science will immediatelyendorse the Cartesian paraphrase: Simulo, ergo sum (I simulate, so I am). It is worth to note, however, that be-fore this outsourcing of intelligence to silicon-based struc-tures began, there were people who considered the possi-bility of simulations running in a carbon-based computer, realized that also this can be programmed, e.g., by the useof psychedelic drugs (Lilly, 1968; 1975; Leary, 1977), andconcluded that what we call reality, including ourselves, isnothing but such a carbon-based simulation, or in Cartesianphrasing: Simulor, ergo sum (I am simulated, so I am). But what does this mean?In Paper I we concluded from the evidence for cosmo-logical conspiracy that our Universe does not exist, and islikely to be a computer simulation as described by Galouye(1964). Many readers may then have thought that thismeans we exist in some buzzing box in a computer cen-ter of a higher intelligence. Adams (1979-95), however, alsodiscussed the opposite scenario, i.e., that we are just theprocessing units of a giant computer called Earth whichwas built to find the question to the answer 42. And finally,nobody doubts that
AND -gates exist in every computerand AI plays a more and more important role in comput-ing. So, could it be that Universe, including ourselves, isa simulation running inside ourselves? We may phrase thisconjecture as Ipsos simulamus, ergo universum est (We simulate ourselves, so is the Universe), and of coursein Latin, as we want it to sound smart.
We return to the Euler identity, Eq. 1, and try to assignmeanings to the numbers in it beyond what mathematicianstell us (what do they know, anyway?). So let’s start withthe obvious: e , the “natural base”, cannot stand for any-thing else than for nature . Similarly, the “imaginary unit”, We actually suspect that nowadays journals do not evenconsider papers that did not burn at least a million CPU hours. As in particular younger scientists may never have heard ofit: This carbon-based computer is called brain . It consists neitherof CPUs nor GPUs, it is somewhat like a neural network youknow, just that (a) it has a much higher complexity and capacity,and (b) we understand even less what is going on inside it. We note here that these people the had a strong connectionto the messengers of the conspiracy number 23 (Leary, 1983). i , stands obviously for imagination . Not quite as simple,but still straightforward is the meaning of π , as it is re-lated to circles, which in all cultures have been standingfor the divine—remember that astronomers before Keplerbelieved that planets must move on circles because the con-sidered them to be in the heavens. As the divine, God, alsostands for creation, e iπ may be read as “imagination createsnature”, and also as “nature creates imagination”. This ob-viously stands for the idea of “self-simulation”, but who isrunning it?Return to conspiracy theory: The number 23 is born outof the fundamental numbers π (God) and e (nature) via theScott-inequality, Eq. 2, and it has lead us our way to arrivehere. It appears, squared, in the cosmological parameter τ which determines the end of the dark ages, and also intrinity in the ancient magic symbol of the pentagram. Sowhat is 42 then? We remember from Paper I that42 = 101010 , (3)and noting that 2 is the “logical base”, we can read this as
42 is the logical trinity of 10 in human-readable form , be-cause 10 is the both symbol and base for the ten-fingeredape, ανθρωπoς , homo sapiens , or simply wo*mankind. Andif we recall the teaching of the dark side, the trinity of 23 and its relation to the angles in the pentagram, we knowthat conspiratorial numbers can be hidden across mathe-matical operations, and looking at Eq. 1, we see the number10 standing there across the equal sign. So this is it: TheEuler identity is our conjecture from the end of Sect. 5.1phrased in mathematics, and this does not only sound evensmarter than Latin, it also means that our conjecture isproven as Eq. 1 is a mathematical truth. So in conspirato-rial Newspeak this can be said as: They are Us.We are Them.
This is the anthropogenic principle , the realization thatWe are the ones who make everything: Life, the Universeand all the rest. And once We understand this, We canchoose to sit in front of a white wall and listen for the clapof one hand (D¯ogen, fl. 1250), We can kill the Creator andtake over Her place (Nietzsche, 1885), We can follow thewhite rabbit (Carrol, 1865) and give the childlike empress anew name (Ende, 1979), or if We prefer, We can have dinnerwith ourselves in a Victorian hotel room at the edge of theGalaxy (Kubrick, 1968), unless We are busy with droppingbooks out of Our daughters’ bookshelf while sitting in thecenter of a black hole (Nolan, 2014).
The survival of wo*mankind is threatened—but not seri-ously, as we have demonstrated so many successful strate-gies to avert the danger. The symptomatically best formu-lation for those is found in Cologne dialect:
Et h¨att nochimmer joot jejange (engl: It has always gone well so far),and the best proof that it works is that, in spite of Carnival,Cologne still exists. Having such strategies, we do not needto worry about nuclear overkill, climate change, or any pan-demics that may ever strike us. There is, however, a chal-lenge coming up where all those strategies may not work We see no reason to abandon Our notational conventionsfrom Paper I And don’t forget the whip, Fritze!CIA 231423, page 6 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle any more, and if we do not want to fall into melancholicdespair (Krauss & Starkman, 2000), we need to be readyto fight the ultimate battle between Good and Evil: Life vs.Dark Energy (Hooper, 2018).Space. The final frontier. These are the adventures ofwo*mankind in the year 100 billion, who will have devel-oped to a civilization of type III on the Kardashev scale(Kardashev, 1964), and there will be no place to boldly goany more as we will have been everywhere in the Galaxyalready. The energy consumption of wo*mankind will haveincreased to 10 Watts, which we need to harvest from allstars of the Galaxy via Dyson-spheres (Dyson, 1960). Howall this energy will be used is less clear, because even if weassume that future wo*mankind will have spread over theGalaxy and inhabit 100 million putatively habitable planetsand the energy harvested will be distributed over then, andconsidering that regardless of how this energy is initiallyused it is inevitably thermalized, all those planets wouldsimply melt. But that should not be our concern here.The challenge is now that in about 100 billion yearsthe expansion caused by dark energy will take over thegravitational bound of the Galaxy, and our nice new bighome will dissolve into emptiness. Depending on how muchour intelligence has evolved over this time, there are thenthree options to react: (i) If our intelligence is still at the same level as today,we will follow Hooper (2018) and start pushing all our starsto keep the Galaxy together and our energy source acces-sible. In order to make sure that we need all the energywe harvest, we will build our spaceships in form of giantSUVs which are constructed such that they have a de-cent wind-resistance even in the interstellar medium, andwe will cause a greenhouse effect in the Galaxy so strongthat Dyson-trees (Dyson, 1997) start to grow on molec-ular clouds. Eventually, the transdimensional creature Q(Roddenberry, 1987-94) will appear and give us the goldmedal for the most stupid waste of energy in the Multiverse. (ii)
If our intelligence will be advanced, but not yet tothe point that we have reached satori (D¯ogen, fl. 1250),we will use a few moments in the billions of years we haveto think why we actually need all this energy, realize thatwe don’t, and return to possibly a 100 million KardashevI civilizations who, each on their own planet, can sit back,relax, and enjoy their increasingly dark night skies. (iii)
If we have reached satori and the anthropogenic prin-ciple is understood, we will call our best physicists, philoso-phers, magicians and other experts together, provide themwith enough computers, food, wine and drugs to calculateus a new alleged reality in which the problem is avoided.We then restart the (self-)simulation with new parameters,and—besides some possible side effects, see Adams (1979-95) for a selection—as long we made sure that some 100billion years have to pass until something serious happensagain, we will have time enough to sit back and relax.
6. Conclusions
So We have reached our goal: We found the conspiracy be-hind the conspiracy, and that is that We ourselves are theConspirators. But what about the Universe now: does itexist or not? Our answer is: both or neither! And if both or This estimate is made by taking the data of the world-energyconsumption in the last 50 years and extrapolate them exponen-tially over the next few million years – a solid method of scientificprediction which cannot possibly be wrong. neither a proposition and its negation is true, logical phi-losophy teaches us that then at least one predicate in theproposition is meaningless. And in this case, this is the term“reality” – it is a concept which simply makes no sense. Orto phrase it in Latin:
Realitas non datur, and although We have to admit that similar thoughts havebeen thought before (e.g., Buddha, fl. 450BC; Zeno, fl.450BC), We can now state to have proven it—on the solidbase of mathematics and philosophy, guided by conspiracytheory and modern cosmology!With this, all answers should be given—but have also allquestions been asked? There are some questions we couldimagine readers might ask us: Aren’t you constantly con-tradicting yourself?—Yes, we do! Does anything you tell usmake any sense?—No, it doesn’t! Isn’t it just a whole bunchof hooey you are telling us here?—Hey, you got it! And isthis, as your last paper, not just an April Fool’s joke?—Well. . . let us now ask some questions to our readers: Doyou really think that authors like Douglas Adams did notprovide us with messages of deep truth just because of hid-ing them in funny books? Shouldn’t we consider what thepoet teaches us (Horaz, 65-8BC)
Ridentem dicere verum / quid vetat? (what prevents us from telling the truth with a laughter?)No, although many of you may now sit back with a broadsmile, we perfectly know that some our readers can’t befooled. They know how a apply the MFPCT, and that thereis always something going on behind the scenes! And so thestruggle continues.
Acknowledgements.
We thank the scientific community for severaldecades of hostil. . . no, hospitality. Good bye, take care, and have anice day. From now on our only guideline is the omnipotent Dada.
References
Adams, D. 1979–1995, The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy(William Heinemann, London)Anaxagoras. fl. 470BC. Discovered the squaring-the-circle problemwhen killing time in prison; Eudemus of Rhodes. fl. 320BC. Gavethe first argument why it might be unsolvable.Archimedes of Syracuse. fl. 250BC. Is considered the discoverer ofthe circle-number π .Barrow, J. D.; Tipler, F. J. 1988. The Anthropic CosmologicalPrinciple (Oxford University Press)Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2012, Nine-YearWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:Final Maps and Results, ArXiv e-printsBesson, L., 1990. La femme Nikita (Gaumont, France)Blavatsky, H. m.o: 1877. Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteriesof Ancient and Modern Science and Theology (New York)Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, fl. 450BC, Founder of Buddhism.Carnap, R. 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt (Felix Meyer Verlag)Carnap, R. 1936. Testability and Meaning, Philosophy of Science,Vol. 3, 419; 1956. The Methodological Character of TheoreticalConcepts, in: Foundations of Science and the Concepts ofPsychology and Psychoanalysis, ed. H. Feigl and M. Scriven(Univ. of Minneapolis Press)Carrol, L. 1885. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Macmillan)Carter, B. 1974. Large Number Coincidences and the AnthropicPrinciple in Cosmology, Proc. IAU Symposium 63, pp. 291–298(Reidel, Dordrecht)Clarke, A. C. 1968, 2001–A Space Odyssee (New American Library)Clarke, A. C. 1990, Back to 2001, in 2001–A Space Odyssee, Reprint1998–2008 (Orbit, London)Crowley, Aleister, sel. works: 1904. Liber AL vel Legis; 1912. TheBook of Lies; 1929. Magick in Theory and Practice (York Beach);1944. The Book of Toth (New York)Descartes, R. 1637. Discours de la m´ethode (Leiden) CIA 231423, page 7 of 8¨org P. Rachen and Ute G. Gahlings: Conspiratorial cosmology. II. The anthropogenic principle
Devlin, K., quote in Nahin, P. J. 2006, Dr. Euler’s Fabulous FormulaCures Many Mathematical Ills (Princeton University Press)Di Sia, P. 2015. About the Existence of the Universe amongSpeculative Physics, Metaphysics and Theism: an InterestingOverview, Int. Lett. of Social and Humanistic Sciences 15, 36.Dyson, F. J. 1960. Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of InfraredRadiation. Science 131, 1667.Dyson, F. J. 1997. Warm-blooded plants and freeze-dried fish: thefuture of space exploration (The Atlantic Monthly)D¯ogen, E. fl. 1250. Kana Sh¯ob¯ogenz¯o (Kyoto)Ende, M. 1979. Die unendliche Geschichte (K. Thienemanns Verlag)Enßlin, T. A. 2014. Information Field Theory – The Logic ofPerception. Habil. Thesis (LMU Munich)Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method (New Left Books)Ferdinand II of Aragon & Isaballa I of Castilia 1478. Founded the
Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisici´on , commonly known asthe Spanish Inquisition.Frolop, A. & Scott, D. 2016, Pi in the Sky, ArXiv e-printsFromm, C. M., et al. 2010. Shock-Shock Interaction in the Jet ofCTA 102, in:
Fermi meets Jansky—AGN in radio and gammarays (MPIfR Bonn)Galouye, D. F. 1964, Simulacron 3 (Bantam Books, New York)G´omez-Valent, A., Pettorino, V. & Amendola, L. 2020. Update onCoupled Dark Energy and the H0 tension, ArXiv e-prints.Goscinni, R. & Uderzo, A. 1976. Les Douze Travaux d’Ast´erix(Studio Id´efix). In memoriam of our heroes!Heidegger, F. 1929. Was ist Methaphysik? (Universit¨at Freiburg)Hooper, D. 2018. Life versus dark energy: How an advancedcivilization could resist the accelerating expansion of the universe,Physics of the Dark Universe 22, 74Henricus Institoris 1486. Malleus maleficarum (Speyer). We notethat this work is among the few that comply with the CRAP viaits statement
Hairesis maxima est opera maleficarum non credere (It is the biggest heresy not to believe in the acts of witches).Hoˇrava, P. & Witten, E. 1996. Heterotic and Type I string dynamicsfrom eleven dimensions. Nuclear Physics B 460, 506; Elevendimensional supergravity on a manifold with boundary. NuclearPhysics B 475, 94.Horaz. 65-8BC. Roman poet of the Augustinian era.Jaynes, E. T. 2003, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science(Cambridge University Press)Kardashev, Nikolai (1964). Transmission of Information byExtraterrestrial Civilizations. Soviet Astronomy 8, 217.Kasner, E. & Newman, J. 1940, Mathematics and the Imagination(Simon & Schuster)Kekul´e, A. 1890. Founder of the theory of chemical structure.Reported that he saw the the structure of benzene in a dream.Koontz, D. R. (as Leigh Nichols), 1981. The Eyes of Darkness(Pocket Books)Krauss, L. M., Starkman, G. D. 2000. Life, the Universe, and Nothing:Life and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe. ApJ 531, 22Kubrick, S. 1968. 2001 - A Space Odysee (Stanley KubrickProductions). The movie was based on a joint idea, but producedindependently from the novel by Arthur C. Clarke (1968, 1990).Distinctive is in particular the allegory to Nietzsche (1885).Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(University of Chicago Press)Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programs(Cambridge University Press)Lennon, J., et al. (The Beatles) 1969. Come Together, on AbbeyRoad (Abbey Road Studios).Leary, T. F. 1977. Exo-Psychology: A Manual on the Use of theHuman Nervous System According to the Instructions of theManufacturers (Star Seed/Peace Press, Los Angeles)Leary, T. F. 1983. Flashbacks (Wilhelm Heinemann, London)L´evi Zahed, ´Eliphas. sel. works: 1854. Dogme et Rituel de la HauteMagie; 1868. Le grand arcane, ou l’occultisme d´evoil´e (Paris)Lilly, J. C. 1968. Programming and Metaprogramming in theHuman Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments (CommunicationResearch Institute). 1975. Simulations of God: The Science ofBelief (Simon and Schuster)Lindemann, C. L. F. 1882. ¨Uber die Zahl π , Mathem. Ann. 20, 213.Locke, J. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(London)Marscher, A. P. & Gear, W. K. 1985. Models for high-frequencyradio outbursts in extragalactic sources, with application to theearly 1983 millimeter-to-infrared flare of 3C 273. ApJ 298, 114.Milancovi´c, M. 1930. Mathematische Klimalehre und AstronomischeTheorie der Klimaschwankungen, in: K¨oppen, Handbuch der Klimatologie Bd. 1 (Berlin)Mirabel, N. 2013. Pareidolic Dark Matter (PaDaM). ArXiv e-prints.M¨obius, P. J. 1901. ¨Uber der physiologischen Schwachsinn desWeibes (Halle a.S.)Monty Python. 1970. The Spanish Inquisition in:
Monty Python’sFlying Circus, Series 2, Episode 2.Morgenstern, C. O. J. W., 1916. Scholastikerprobleme, in: