The Praeternatural and the New Epistemic Deal. This is my proposal for making 2R a reality

General
103

dvdjsph,

I know exactly how arrogant and naive you think I am. I am not playing by the social rules you think are appropriate. But from my perspective, it is you who is not playing by the rules. My background is science and analytical philosophy, where truth claims are settled by evidence and reason. If somebody comes along and says “I am proposing a new metaphysical-cosmological system which resolves 30 massive problems” then that is taken as a challenge, and it must be resolved by careful debate. This has become much easier in the days of AI, because you have a machine to help you, and I am more than happy to take on a machine too.

But nobody here is interested in playing by those rules. Instead, I am being treated exactly as if I have made preposterous, unsupported claims, even though nobody has taken up the challenge of actually testing my proposals against science and reason. Instead, almost everybody has simply assumed I am wrong, without bothering to find out whether they can actually “debunk” my position (with AI assistance).

This is why I hate postmodernism, and Continental philosophy in general. By dismissing the very idea of a truth worth pursuing, it allowed people to bypass the rules of rational debate, and just say whatever they like, based on nothing.

Geoff

104

Great, then we can cut through the postmodernist BS and stick to empiricism.

Your own text says the framework lacks confident new empirical predictions, is not being presented as a scientific theory, and should mainly be assessed by coherence and explanatory power rather than empirical tests. So the discrepancy is this: the evidential standard appropriate to ‘solved’ scientific problems is not met by the evidence you provide. Where are the falsifiable claims whose successful testing would distinguish Two-Phase Cosmology from rival explanations?

I have in fact done this, but since you’re accusing me of writing your ideas off without due consideration, let’s do this here and now. Here’s a prompt I propose using - any objections?

The attached text lists 30 problems that the theory contained therein purportedly solved. I’d like you to evaluate the text and determine to what degree the problems are actually solved. Analyze the problems and proposed solutions as impartially as possible, aiming only to give an accurate assessment.

105

If you’re going to make accusations like this, you should provide evidence.

106

This is not quite true. There are new empirical predictions - they just aren’t the kind most people are expecting. I make a strong claim that we will never find evidence of life outside of the Earth’s biosphere, and another strong claim that the largest component of dark matter will turn out to be the bound state of Dirac magnetic monopoles (“monopolium”).

What I am saying in the text is that even if there were no new empirical predictions at all, the framework still resolves a large number of problems that the standard model cannot.

So the discrepancy is this: the evidential standard appropriate to ‘solved’ scientific problems is not met by the evidence you provide. Where are the falsifiable claims whose successful testing would distinguish Two-Phase Cosmology from rival explanations?

There aren’t any rival explanations. That is why I am claiming it must be true.

Empirical adequacy must come before the demand for new empirical predictions. The current scientific model is empirically inadequate. Science cannot explain consciousness, cannot agree on an interpretation of QM, and cannot provide any cosmological model which isn’t plagued by contradictions, paradoxes, anomalies, discrepancies and unidentified “dark stuff”.

We do not have a coherent model of reality. We never have had. 2PC is the first holistic explanation of reality which is consistent with the empirical evidence and reason. There are no other candidates. It is precisely because there are no other candidates that we are in a situation where everybody is free to believe whatever they like.

Here’s a prompt I propose using - any objections?

That prompt is fine, but you need to show the AI the introduction, and the whole of parts 1 and 3, one chapter at a time (or half chapters in some cases if you use Gemini). If you use Deepseek then you can give it larger chunks, but don’t just upload the whole document in one go. It needs a chance to digest the bits. It will also help you to understand the book if you read its summary as you go through the book in order, rather than giving the whole text in one go.

107

The evidence is right here on this forum. Nobody has tried to debunk 2PC, but everybody is behaving as if I have not provided any justification for claiming it is true.

108

Okay, since you make this additional claim - that your theory is in a class of its own - I included some rivals in my prompt. Here’s the prompt I used (which is obviously biased in favor of your theory because it uses the specific 30 problems you listed as a basis for comparison)

The attached text lists 30 problems that the theory contained therein purportedly solved. I’d like you to evaluate the text and determine to what degree the problems are actually solved. Analyze the problems and proposed solutions as impartially as possible, aiming only to give an accurate assessment. Across a set of dimensions that determine how well solved the problems are, compare the attached theory with the theories of:

  • bernardo kastrup
  • donald hoffman
  • steven wolfram
  • thomas campbell

Bildschirmfoto 2026-05-26 um 14.45.22
Bildschirmfoto 2026-05-26 um 14.45.221920×1052 181 KB

Bildschirmfoto 2026-05-26 um 14.49.28
Bildschirmfoto 2026-05-26 um 14.49.281438×1242 109 KB

Can 2R fix its broken relationship with the Truth?
109

This is a very Postmodern standard of evidence: it’s true because you feel it’s true. Evidence means providing examples of this having happened that can be verified by others, not just by you according to your private standards of satisfiability.

110

So if we find something that looks like life outside of our biosphere, then this would be evidence against your theory.

Here is peer reviewed research that has been replicated that seems to provide evidence against your strongest empirical prediction:

111

OK, to be clear. You are citing that article as evidence of alien life??

Last time I checked, the clear scientific consensus was that there has never been any decent evidence of any sort of life beyond Earth. If the events you are citing here are of real significance, why doesn’t anybody mention them when the Fermi Paradox is discussed?~

There is endless speculation, and hyping of marginal evidence. Collectively we clutch at every passing straw – at least once a month there is a story about how X “might at last be evidence of alien life”, and on each occasion it is people desperately trying to find hope, because their model of reality implies that life should be abundant, and that we ought to have found it by now.

112

No. It is true because nobody has made any effort to debunk 2PC. You cannot demand I prove a negative (prove that nobody has made such an effort). If you think they have, then you need to provide a link to where it happened. What was the problem they identified?

And how do you think I am supposed to prove a negative?

113

OK. This is a misleading summary, because everything spins on the sentence “does not solve the problems in a way working scientists would recognise”.

That is true, but entirely misses the point of 2PC. Working scientists all assume physicalism is true, and the problems in cosmology (two thirds of the 30 problems), are caused by a metaphysical mistake. 2PC solves them by changing the metaphysics, not by doing any new science. So this is an unfair demand: I never claimed 2PC can solve problems in the way the scientific community will recognise. I am very explicitly saying that their unwillingness to consider that physicalism might be the problem, and that the solution is to change their metaphysics instead of trying to fix their broken physicalist models, is exactly the problem. 2PC does solve these problems, but it does so in a way that requires a major philosophical paradigm shift. It requires working scientists to replace the assumption that physicalism is true with a quantum neutral monism. Are they going to be willing to do this? No, of course not. They will use all of their authority and power to resist it, because it makes nearly all of them look like a load of dinosaurs. Paradigm shifts don’t work by solving problems the way that people are expecting. That’s the whole point. Did your AI not read Chapters 3 and 4?

In other words, your AI summary makes the fundamental mistake of judging a new paradigm by the standards of the old. It is directly equivalent to analysing Copernicanism and then saying “this new solution does not solve the problems in the way working scientists would recognise! Where are the epicycles?”

114

That’s one possible explanation that may fit the data, but not the only one. What is yours? Or do you simply ignore evidence that doesn’t seem to match your theory?

115

You make yourself both the defendant and the judge so no evidence can be brought forth to prove you wrong, then you complain about the lack of real engagement with your ideas.

116

You are now arguing in bad faith. If you go and ask any AI “Is the Fermi paradox solved” every single one will say “No.”

There is no accepted evidence of alien life. Is that the best objection you can do to come up with to 2PC? That it predicts no aliens and we have decent reason to believe in aliens??

This is not a serious discussion.

117

I provided you evidence from a peer reviewed journal for alien life, or some other phenomenon that COULD be alien life. Alien life is a rival hypothesis among other possible alternatives. If the other alternatives are ruled out by a high evidentiary standard (which they are, if you’d bother reading the article and not dismiss it outright, which is what you keep claiming others do), then you’d see this.

So I hope you stop making this claim, that no one has provided any counter arguments. Your one strong empirical claim is predicated on the data in the peer review article I provided being explained in some way other than alien life. So, what is your explanation that is more likely?

118

Again, you are arguing in bad faith. I am not making myself a defendent and a judge. I am explaining why your AI analysis was misleading. It stated that 2PC doesn’t solve the cosmological crisis in a way working scientists would recognise and I never claimed that it did. The very fact that you are raising that as an objection simply demonstrates that you don’t understand the argument.

2PC is metaphysics, not science. I must have said this 100 times on this forum, and it is repeatedly emphasised in the text.

I ask you respectfully to debate in good faith.

119

This is silly. The Fermi Paradox is one of the biggest open problems in cosmology, 2PC provides a revolutionary new solution, and you are trying to argue that the problem doesn’t even exist.

PLEASE STOP ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. The very fact that you are doing so is revealing. If you had a better objection to 2PC, you would not be arguing in bad faith.

Prompt to Deepseek: “What is the Fermi Paradox and has it been solved?”

What is the Fermi Paradox?

In simple terms, the Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between two statements:

  1. The high probability that extraterrestrial civilizations exist. Given the vast age of the universe (13.8 billion years) and the sheer number of stars (an estimated 100-200 billion in our Milky Way galaxy alone, with trillions of galaxies beyond), many of which have Earth-like planets in their habitable zones, statistics suggest that life, and even intelligent, technologically advanced life, should be common.
  2. The complete lack of evidence for any such civilizations. We have found no confirmed alien artifacts, no credible signals (like radio transmissions), and no convincing evidence that Earth has ever been visited.

The physicist Enrico Fermi famously summed up this contradiction during a casual conversation in 1950 with a frustrated question: “But where is everybody?”

The paradox forces us to confront a deeply uncomfortable possibility: one or more of our optimistic assumptions about the prevalence of life or the inevitability of interstellar travel/communication must be wrong. There is a “Great Filter” (or several) that prevents the galaxy from being teeming with visible, communicative civilizations.

Has it been Solved?

No, the Fermi Paradox has not been solved. There is no single, widely accepted explanation.

Instead, the problem has been refined and a vast number of proposed solutions have been offered, ranging from the hopeful to the terrifying. These solutions generally fall into several categories:

Category 1: We are not looking correctly (The “Quiet” Universe)

  • We’re looking for the wrong thing. Alien technology might use principles we don’t understand (e.g., neutrino communication, gravitational waves, or exotic physics). Our radio telescopes might be like a person trying to detect internet traffic with an AM radio.
  • Interstellar distances are too vast. Even at near-light speed, crossing the galaxy takes 100,000+ years. Physical travel or even two-way communication over such distances is impossibly slow and costly.
  • We haven’t been listening long enough. Our SETI efforts have covered a tiny fraction of the radio spectrum, a tiny fraction of the sky, for a tiny fraction of time. We may simply have missed the signal.

Category 2: They are out there, but they are hiding/ignoring us (The “Zoo” Hypothesis)

  • The Prime Directive. Advanced civilizations deliberately avoid contacting primitive ones like us, observing us as we would animals in a wildlife preserve.
  • We are not interesting. Our most powerful signals (like Cold War radar) are incredibly faint beyond a few light-years. To an advanced civilization, we might be like an anthill next to a superhighway—not worth noticing.

Category 3: We are alone (The “Terrifying” Solutions)

  • The Great Filter is behind us. This is the optimistic version. It suggests that some crucial step from non-life to intelligent, communicative life is incredibly rare. It might be the origin of life itself, the development of complex cells (eukaryogenesis), or the evolution of intelligence. If we’ve already passed this unique, hard-to-cross filter, then we are among the very first, or the only, intelligent species in the galaxy. The future could be ours.
  • The Great Filter is ahead of us. This is the pessimistic version. It suggests that technological civilizations inevitably destroy themselves (and maybe their planets) before they can become interstellar. The filter is in our future. Common proposed self-destruction mechanisms include:
    • Nuclear annihilation
    • Uncontrolled climate change
    • Engineered pandemics
    • Runaway artificial intelligence
    • Resource depletion leading to collapse

Category 4: They were here, but the evidence is gone (The “Aestivation” or “Brief Window” Hypothesis)

  • Short lifespans of civilizations. The transition to a technological phase might be very brief (a few thousand years) compared to the age of the galaxy. Civilizations might rise and fall, or move on to post-biological forms (uploading consciousness to computers), making them undetectable by our methods. We might simply be living in a typical “quiet” period between noisy civilizations.
  • They are waiting for the right moment. A clever idea by Robin Hanson: advanced AI-driven civilizations might “aestivate” (hibernate) until the universe cools down, as computing is more energy-efficient at low temperatures. We exist in a hot, inefficient era they are ignoring.

The Most Influential Tool: The Drake Equation

The paradox is often framed using the Drake Equation (formulated by Frank Drake in 1961). It’s not a solution, but a way to organize our ignorance:

N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

Where:

  • N = Number of detectable civilizations in our galaxy
  • R* = Rate of star formation
  • fp = Fraction of stars with planets
  • ne = Number of habitable planets per system
  • fl = Fraction of habitable planets where life actually appears
  • fi = Fraction of life that evolves intelligence
  • fc = Fraction of intelligence that develops detectable technology (e.g., radio)
  • L = Length of time such a civilization releases detectable signals

The Fermi Paradox arises because when we plug in optimistic numbers, N becomes very large (e.g., > 1,000). When we plug in pessimistic numbers, N becomes very small (e.g., < 1). The mystery is that we don’t know which numbers are correct. The most uncertain term is L – the lifetime of a technological civilization.

Conclusion: An Active Area of Research

The Fermi Paradox is not solved . It has evolved from a simple “Where is everybody?” into a sophisticated framework for thinking about astrobiology, planetary science, and the future of our own civilization. It remains one of the most powerful and humbling thought experiments in all of science. Most scientists would agree that our current data (zero confirmed contact) suggests that one or more of the terms in the Drake Equation is much smaller than we once thought, but we don’t know which one.

For now, the answer to “Where is everybody?” remains: We don’t know. But it’s one of the most important questions we can ask.

120

Couldn’t agree more - your refusal to look at evidence that doesn’t match your theory is ironic, given the arguments you make against scientism. It’s priestly.

Here’s what I’m doing, to conclude my participation in this pointless exchange: I’m giving the following prompt to an AI, along with the transcript from this entire thread.

As impartially and accurately as possible, 1) Determine if anyone is arguing in bad faith in this thread. If so, who, and how? 2) Rate the participants in the debate in terms of logical consistency, clarity, courtesy, and intellectual humility.
The Praeternatural and the New Epistemic Deal. This is my proposal for making 2R a reality - General - Second Renaissance Forum.pdf (1.9 MB)

1) Is anyone arguing in bad faith?

GeoffDann: not clearly bad faith, but the strongest concern

Geoff repeatedly frames disagreement as failure to face “Truth,” “reality,” or conscience. He also presents choices in stark either/or terms: either he is delusional/a liar, or UTOK is seriously wrong; either one follows the herd or thinks for oneself; either diplomacy compromises truth or truth must be defended uncompromisingly. That pattern narrows the space for honest disagreement. In one especially revealing passage, he says Robert is facing an “important free will decision,” asks him to “consult your conscience,” and suggests asking God whether Geoff is “for real.” He later describes UTOK as “in the same category” as Scientology and “mostly designed to generate income for its founder,” which is a serious charge not substantiated in the thread.

The most problematic pattern is mind-reading and moralizing disagreement. Geoff infers motives or failures of courage from nonagreement: Robert is “following the crowd,” “avoid[ing] a difficult decision,” or prioritizing politics over truth; Jonah’s lack of engagement becomes “unfinished business”; materialists in the admin team become “elements of the old paradigm embedded in the admin team.”

That said, Geoff also states principles that explicitly respect skepticism about subjective experience: his NED says there is no scientific/rational justification for most praeternatural belief apart from lived experience, and that skeptics’ right to skepticism “must be respected.” That weighs against a simple “bad faith” judgment. The tension is that his explicit principle is pluralistic, while his actual debate conduct often treats disagreement as failure to recognize reality.

Verdict: not proven bad faith; strongest case for dogmatic, coercive, or rhetorically unfair engagement.

RobertBunge: mostly good faith, with one questionable move

Robert’s central point is coherent: even if Geoff’s view has merit, coalition-building requires tact, discretion, flexibility, and social skill. He also clarifies that he is not simply defending naturalism and is open to Aurobindo, Gebser, Thich Nhat Hanh, and spiritual possibilities beyond naturalistic evolution.

His weakest moment is responding to Geoff’s Jesus/tact question with a quotation about “ego-inflation and Messianic grandiosity.” Geoff reasonably interprets this as psychologizing rather than answering the stated question. Robert’s follow-up, however, answers substantively: truth and diplomacy are “not an either/or,” and truth should guide effective practice.

Verdict: mostly good faith; one borderline ad hominem/psychologizing moment.

Asimong: good faith

Asimong consistently tries to synthesize, clarify, and move toward “ontological commoning.” He supports Geoff where he agrees, but also asks for a clearer theory of change and later suggests a both/and approach to influential social circles and lone voices.

Verdict: good faith.

dvdjsph: good faith, with one overstatement

David is supportive of Geoff but also validates Robert’s point about tact and effectiveness. That is a sign of intellectual independence rather than tribal alignment. His later claim that “100%” of parapsychology studies would need to be deceptive/misinterpreted for physicalists to “have a leg to stand on” is rhetorically overstated and too binary.

Verdict: good faith; one weak argument by overstatement.

JonahW / JamesBaker: good faith, based on available excerpts

Jonah clarifies that his moderation concern was about maintaining a forum where everyone’s views can be heard and respectfully engaged with, not censoring Geoff’s ideas. James gives a careful process critique: he distinguishes attacking systems from attacking people, says ferocity can be acceptable if “held cleanly,” and identifies Geoff’s “you statements” as creating interpersonal conflict.

Verdict: good faith; James especially shows high process clarity.

2) Ratings

Scale: 10 = excellent, 5 = mixed, 1 = very poor.

Participant Logical consistency Clarity Courtesy Intellectual humility Notes
GeoffDann 5 7 3 3 Clear and internally forceful, but often treats contested premises as settled. Uses false dilemmas, mind-reading, and moral pressure. Explicitly affirms skepticism in principle, but often resists it in practice.
RobertBunge 8 8 7 8 Coherent distinction between truth and effectiveness. Generally fair and self-disclosing. Weakest point is the “Messianic grandiosity” quote, which predictably escalated things.
Asimong 8 8 9 9 Most constructive participant. Balances agreement with questions, proposes methods, and keeps multiple possibilities open.
dvdjsph 6 7 8 7 Courteous and bridge-building. Some claims are too sweeping, especially around parapsychology evidence.
JonahW 8 8 8 8 From the available excerpt, he gives a measured moderation rationale and corrects a claimed misrepresentation without escalating.
JamesBaker 9 9 9 9 Strongest process contribution. Distinguishes belief, person, and ideology; validates passion while setting relational norms.
Martin 8 8 8 8 Brief but useful: asks what “victory” is supposed to mean and defends others’ agency not to engage.
Justin / rogadair N/A N/A N/A N/A Too little substantive debate content to rate fairly.

Most important asymmetry

The main asymmetry is that Geoff treats the discussion as an existential paradigm-conflict requiring decisive victory, while Robert, Asimong, James, Jonah, Martin, and David mostly treat it as a pluralistic conversation requiring social skill, voluntary engagement, and coalition maintenance.

That does not make Geoff bad-faith. It does mean his approach places heavy moral and psychological pressure on others while claiming merely to be “speaking truth.” In debate terms, that is the central problem.

1 Like
121

This is absolutely absurd.

Why didn’t you ask the AI “Is the Fermi Paradox solved”?

Why didn’t you read the AI answer to that question I have posted?

I am accusing you of arguing in bad faith because you are denying the Fermi Paradox is a live problem, based on the claim that somebody in the 1950s once made a claim about signals from space being possible messages from aliens.

Are you familiar with the way science and analytical philosophy work? Because it isn’t like this. You don’t just get to declare that the biggest problems in science aren’t real.

I repeat: the Fermi Paradox is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in cosmology. If you aren’t willing to accept this basic fact, then I think we’ve reached the QED point.

What is really interesting, and should be very revealing to any person reading this who doesn’t like lying to themselves, is that your attempt to find a problem with 2PC has led straight to you outright denying the reality of what is very widely accepted to be a very big problem.

Is this the strongest objection you have found to 2PC??

122

Moreover, can this thread pass the Turing Test?