Experimental Proof Of Acausal Energy?

David Myatt

°°°°°°°°°

In a recent study published in the New Journal of Physics, {1} Gianmaria Falasco and others from the University of Luxembourg have reported that an analogous property called negative differential response is a widespread phenomenon found in many biochemical reactions that occur in living organisms. They identify the property in several vital biochemical processes, such as enzyme activity, and DNA replication.

We ourselves are inclined to speculate that this may be some initial proof of David Myatt’s conjecture about “acausal energy” and which energy is what makes living organisms “alive” and differentiates their matter from non-living matter.

In the 1990s Myatt conducted what were some rudimentary experiments involving living organisms and electrical resistance. He wrote that

“One field of experimental enquiry I pursued in the late 1990’s concerned trying to ascertain whether it was possible to usefully measure some physical property of a living organism (of a macro or micro type). One such physical property I explored was electrical resistance, and thus involved measuring the resistance of an organism on the macro level (as for example in a growing plant) and on the micro level (as in plant tissue) and then trying to ascertain whether that resistance changed under various conditions, such as when in close proximity to another living organism of the same and of a different type, and if so, how does that resistance vary with respect to the size or type of organism and to the distance between them. Of course, to be scientific each experiment had to replicated, as exactly as possible, many times in order to ascertain if there were any consistent, reproducible, results.

That set of experiments was never fully completed, due to a change in priorities following my arrest – and the seven hour search of my home – in early 1998 by Detectives from Scotland Yard. Which arrest formed part of what turned out to be a three year long international investigation into my political (and alleged paramilitary and terrorist) activities.” {2}

For those interested, Myatt’s acausal theory and its place in O9A esotericism is described in the texts available at Acausal Theory.

TWS Nexion
August 2019 ev

{1} https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab28be
{2} https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/dwm-2014-questions.pdf

°°°°°°°

Article source:
https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/scientific-proof-of-acausal-energy/

°°°°°°°°°


Explaining The Acausal

Order of Nine Angles

O9A

Explaining The Acausal

 

A Metaphysical Theory

The theory of the acausal that is used by the Order of Nine Angles, and which forms one of the foundations of the O9A’s esoteric philosophy as well as The Star Game, was developed by David Myatt around 1972, and concerns metaphysics. That is, it is not – as some have assumed – a scientific theory proposed by Myatt in order to either explain some observed Phainómenon or extend the theoretical frontiers of physics, but rather belongs to that “branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things or reality, including questions about being, substance, time and space, causation, change, and identity.”

In terms of ontology, Myatt suggests that the difference between living things and ordinary matter can be explained by postulating a bifurcation of being – causal and acausal – with living things, in contrast to ordinary matter, possessing both causal and acausal being. In terms of epistemology, Myatt suggests that this acausal being – that is, the nature (or physis, the “identity”) of living beings, including ourselves – can be discovered (known) via developing our faculty of empathy, and that this “acausal knowing” is different from but complementary to the “causal knowing” discovered (known) by observing, in a scientific manner, Phainómenon and then, using denotatum and theoretical models (including mathematical ones), explaining such Phainómenon.

Crucially, Myatt also posits a fundamental difference between “acausal knowing” and “causal knowing” in that acausal knowing is by its nature personal (“subjective”, intuitive) – and cannot be abstracted out from the immediate moment of the personal knowing – while causal knowing is what we now describe by the term scientific (“objective”, observational, impersonal) and, in contrast to acausal knowing, relies on denotatum, abstractions, and theories. Thus, according to Myatt, to “know” – to understand – the physis of living beings, including our own physis as a human being, both acausal and causal knowing are needed.

However, Myatt has also speculated about what the nature of acausal being might be and about “the nature and extent and cause of the acausal connexions between living beings that acausal-knowing reveals” {1}. One of his speculations – which he admits might be fallacious  – is “conceptualizing the acausal as a n-dimensional acausal continuum (where n is > 3 but ≤ ∞) of acausal Space and acausal Time, in contrast to the causal geometrical Space and linear causal Time of the causal and 4-dimensional continuum of Phainómenon familiar to us through sciences such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Acausality And The O9A

The Order of Nine Angles uses Myatt’s “acausal realm” to not only explain “the supernatural”, and sorcery {2}, but also to provide a raison d’etre for the occult, hermetic, quest for gnosis. Thus, and for instance, O9A suppositions include: (i) that archetypes re-present (are types of) “acausal energy” and that our “consciousness” and unconscious are a nexus between the causal and the acausal, a nexus symbolized by The Star Game {3} and the septenary Tree of Wyrd; and (ii) that it is possible to develop our faculty of empathy via various occult techniques, such as rite of internal adept, the camlad rite of the abyss, and by a conscious – a willed – pathei mathos manifest in such things as “insight roles”; and (iii) that such a development of such a faculty is an essential part of attaining “gnosis”: of acquiring a knowledge of Being and beings, and which knowledge includes understanding our own unique physis as an individual.

Thus, one of the principles of the O9A – founded on the wisdom that thousands of years of human living, and occultism, and paganism, has bequeathed to us – is that no amount of “scientific theories” and of “reason/logic” and of “experimental evidence” and “technology” can offset the pathei-mathos – the personal understanding, learning, and knowing – that suffering, grief, empathy, and an individual occult quest for gnosis, so personally provide especially if such pathei-mathos is of months, years, decades. For those who have so endured pathei-mathos know – sans words, sans denotatum, sans theories – that the answers provided by “science” and by “logic alone” and by “experimental evidence” and by “technology” are inadequate, insufficient to explain the nature of being, the nature of beings, and especially human physis. Without such pathei-mathos we simply cannot know – sans words, sans denotatum, sans theories – our own physis, let alone the physis of others.

M.K.
2014

{1} Towards Understanding The Acausal. e-text, 2014. See also Time And The Separation Of Otherness – Part One. e-text, 2011.

{2} See the O9A compilation Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories. pdf, 2014.

{3} The advanced star game was designed by Myatt to encourage “acausal thinking”; that is, to encourage the type of thinking that does not depend on denotatum, abstractions, or theories. It is interesting to note that several of those who worked with Alan Turing at Bletchley Park were good chess players (e.g. Hugh Alexander) who believed that skill in that game enabled them to make connections (and intuitive leaps) that otherwise they might not have done.

 


Article source: The Definitive Guide To The Order of Nine Angles (pdf, 54 Mb)


David Myatt – Time As Emanation of Being

David Myatt

David Myatt – Time As Emanation of Being
(pdf)

Contents

0. Preface
1. Time and The Separation of Otherness – Part One

2. Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal
3. Understanding The Acausal
4. The Star Game – History and Theory

°°°

From the Preface:

{quote}
What I have described as ‘the theory of the acausal’ was first dreamt up by me in 1972 during ‘a holiday at Her Majesty’s pleasure’ to wile away the many hours spent, in Armley jail, sowing mailbags in the then mandatory daylight OCA [Observation, Classification, Allocation] sessions, having spent previous evenings – while ‘banged up’ in a ‘peter’ with two other cons – reading Jung’s Mysterium Coniunctionis and his Psychology and Alchemy.

During those long days – and sometimes longer nights – I gradually refined this theory, postulating an ‘acausal universe’ wherein existed ‘acausal energy’, with living beings as a connexion, a nexion, between our causal phenomenal universe and that acausal universe, and with such acausal energy being what animated ordinary physical matter and thus imparting to such matter the quality we humans observed, and described, as life. On my release from prison in 1973 I wrote the first draft of my Emanations of Urania – Notes Toward A Heuristic Representation of Cliology in which I attempted to describe the theory in an axiomatic way and extend it to explain the metamorphosis of cultures and civilizations as described by Spengler and Toynbee. Despite my intention to revise that first draft, various activities and commitments prevented me from doing so, so it was that typewritten draft which I photocopied and circulated to a few friends the following year just before I left all those various activities and commitments behind to live, for a while, as a ‘Gentleman of the Road’. Now, some forty years later, there is even more of that youthful 1970’s document that I would revise and much I would delete, given how over the decades my apprehension of the acausal has evolved, a newer apprehension evident especially in my fairly recent essay Time and The Separation of Otherness.

It was during another such ‘holiday at Her Majesty’s pleasure’ (1975-1976) – while in another jail and working as the prison library ‘red band’ – that I devised ‘the star game’ in order to try and express, by means of alchemical symbolism, not only the basic acausal theory but also what I then considered were some of its applications (for example, in respect of Jungian individuation).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a somewhat revised version of this acausal theory was incorporated into my much later ‘numinous way’ (2002-2011) and then into that refinement of that ‘numinous way’ that I have, post-2012, termed my philosophy of pathei-mathos. Indeed, the notion of acausality in central to my philosophy of pathei-mathos, derived as that philosophy is from my own pathei-mathos and thus from the rather late development of my own faculty of empathy. For the faculty of empathy provides us with an intuition – a knowing – concerning such acausality, and which acausal knowing is the foundation – the ground – of the numinous. And it is such a personal, vivifying, appreciation of the numinous which predisposes us, as individuals, toward the personal virtues of compassion, humility, and honour. For empathy not only uncovers the a-causal nature of Being, but also uncovers our φύσις as human beings: for we are but emanations of Being, and thus affective (that is, a-causal) connexions to all other living beings, sentient and otherwise, terran and otherwise. Thus, of the two wyrdful threads which run through my outré life, one is this apprehension of the acausal (the other being my apprehension, appreciation, and understanding, of the muliebral).

This compilation – which I have, perhaps somewhat pretentiously, entitled Time As Emanation of Being – comprises some essays of mine in which I have attempted to explain (not always in a satisfactory manner) my theory of acausality. Thus, it may be useful to those few who are not only interested in that theory of acausality but also interested in my philosophy of pathei-mathos.

David Myatt
2013

{/quote}


Article source: http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/time-as-emanation-of-being/

Related article: emanations-of-urania.pdf


Understanding The Supernatural

Order of Nine Angles

O9A

Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories

From the Introduction:

The work brings together, from various sources, essays dealing with the theory – the idea – of acausality proposed by David Myatt in the 1970s, subsequently developed by him as part of his philosophy of pathei-mathos, and which Myattian theory is primarily metaphysical. For it posits a bifurcation of Time, and an ontology of causal and acausal being, such that the cosmos is considered to consist of a (mostly unknown, to us) acausal universe (with acausal energy) and of a known (an observable, to us) causal universe containing an energy familiar to us from sciences such as physics, astronomy, and chemistry.

Myatt’s metaphysical theory of Time and of Space was subsequently adopted by the occult group the Order of Nine Angles (O9A/ONA) and used by them in order to explain both the supernatural and sorcery, where the supernatural is defined (in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary) as:

“belonging to a realm or system that transcends Nature. As that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings. Attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of Nature. Occult, paranormal.”

Thus, for the O9A, the acausal became the supernatural ‘realm of acausal beings’; with ourselves as a living nexion between causal and acausal; with archetypes as manifestations of acausal energy in our psyche; with sorcery understood as ‘the presencing of acausal energy’; and with certain acausal beings – such as the shapeshifter historically named Satan, and entities such as dragons – having manifested themselves to us in the past: as having egressed into (or visited) our causal dimensions.

Part One features essays by Myatt: an extract from his detailed Time and The Separation of Otherness, and his Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal. These provide a recent overview of his metaphysical theory, and thus serve to place into context the other essays, in Part Two, which are concerned with the use of this theory by the O9A. I have also included the text Alchemical Seasons and The Fluxions of Time, which presents, in a modern manner, the pagan insight of the ancient Camlad occult tradition in relation to Time, Nature, and ‘the heavens’; and which esoteric Camlad tradition, although adopted and adapted by the O9A in the 1970s, maintained and still maintains an independent existence through a very small number of reclusive individuals in certain rural parts of England.

Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories
(pdf)

Contents

Introduction
Part One – The Myattian Metaphysical Theory of Time and Space

° Time and The Separation of Otherness
° Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal

Part Two: Acausality And The Order Of Nine Angles

° Debunking The Chaos – Sorcery and the Esoteric Nature of The Acausal
° Acausality, The Dark Gods, and The Order of Nine Angles
° Satan, Acausal Entities, and The Order of Nine Angles
° Alchemical Seasons and The Fluxions of Time


Time and The Separation of Otherness (Part One)

Editorial Note: We publish here an interesting, indeed fascinating (given its mention of such topics as string theory), article by Myatt explaining an outré part of his ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’, aka his ‘numinous way’.

David Myatt

David Myatt

Time and The Separation of Otherness

Part One

Causal Time and Living Beings

In the philosophy of pathei-mathos, Time is considered to be an expression of the φύσις of beings [1], and thus, for living beings, is a variable emanation of ψυχή, differing from being to being and representing how a living being can change or may change or has changed, which such change being a-causal [2].

Thus, Time – as conventionally understood and as measured/represented by a terran-calendar with durations marked hours, days, weeks, and years – is regarded as an abstraction [3], and an abstraction which attempts to interpret living beings as functions of or as limited to a linear cause-and-effect described by separated moments progressing from a past to a present and thence to some future ‘time’. Such conventional measured causal time may therefore be said to contribute to the concealment of the nature of living beings.

This conventional idea of time can be conveniently described as linear or causal-time, and considered as aptly represented by the term duration, a term which is a better translation of the Greek χρόνος than the English word ‘time’, as for example in Oedipus Tyrannus vv. 73-75:

καί μ᾽ ἦμαρ ἤδη ξυμμετρούμενον χρόνῳ
λυπεῖ τί πράσσει: τοῦ γὰρ εἰκότος πέρα
ἄπεστι πλείω τοῦ καθήκοντος χρόνου

But I have already measured the duration
And am concerned: for where is he? He is longer than expected
For his absence is, in duration, greater than is necessary.

Such causal-time is the time of sciences such as physics and astronomy, with the universe, for instance, considered to be an entity ‘expanding’ as such expansion is measured by fixed linear points termed past, present, and future. Similarly, space itself is construed as a causal, dimensional, space-time manifold [4]. Thus and conventionally, to understand matter/energy is to ‘know’ (to observe or to theorize) how causal entities – such as elementary particles, or physical objects such as planets and stars – move and change and relate to each other (and other matter/energy in terms of composition and interactions) in this posited space-time manifold. There is thus a sense of physical order; a hierarchy of sub-atomic » atomic » ‘classical mechanics’ » gravitational » cosmological, with events occurring in the causal sequence past-present-future, and with interactions described in terms of certain fundamental physical forces, be such descriptions based on ‘string theory’, quantum theory [5], relativity theory, classical mechanics, or some theory which attempts to unify current descriptions of the aforementioned causal hierarchy.

This causal time is a quantity; a measurement of the observed or the assumed/posited/predicted movement of ‘things’ according to a given and a fixed pre-determined scale, and which measurement and fixed scale allows comparisons to be made regarding the movement or ‘change’ in position of ‘things’.

While this understanding of time, and of space, has provided a useful understanding of the external world and aided the construction of machines and the development of a modern technology – and thus enabled humans to set foot on the Moon and send spacecraft to photograph the planets in our solar system – it is nonetheless limited in respect of revealing and understanding the φύσις of beings and thus the relation between living beings.


The Error of Causality As Applied to Living Beings

The understanding of Time as a manifestation of the φύσις of beings is derived from the acausal knowing that empathy provides [6]; and a knowing that allows us to make a philosophical distinction, in respect of Time, between an observed or posited movement and ‘a change’; with the former – movement – applicable to observed or posited physical things and the latter – change – to living beings. For example ‘change’ describes how a tree – a living organism – grows and which change includes, but is not limited to, the measured movement (in causal time and causal space) of its branches and its trunk as measured in fixed units such as girth and height and the position and size of branches in relation to other branches and nearby objects.  Such change – of a living being – is an effluvium, a fluxion [7].

That is, living beings possess or manifest a type of Time – a species of change, manifest as a fluxion – that is different from the movement (the time) of things and thus different from the time used in sciences such as physics.

Furthermore, there is not only a distinction between a living being and a thing, but also the distinction regarding the assumed separation of beings. As a finite emanation (or presencing) of ψυχή, a living being is not, according to its φύσις, a separate being; as such, it cannot be ‘known’ – its nature cannot be understood – by external causal observations or by ‘measuring’/describing it (in terms of ‘space’) in relation to other living beings or to ‘things’ and/or by using such observations/observational-classifications/measurements/descriptions to formulate a theory to characterize a ‘type’ (or genus or species) that such a living being is regarded as belonging to. For its φύσις is manifest – known – by its acausal relation to other living beings and by the acausal interconnectivity of such beings. Such a knowing is numinous; that is, an awareness of living (and often dependant) connexions and of the unity of Life beyond the finite, mortal, emanation we, as an individual human being, are.

In personal terms, the error of applying causal time, and the perception derived therefrom, to living beings is most evident in causal abstractions, and in what we may refer to as the dialectic of egoism: of ourselves as one distinct, self-interested, human being contrasted with (or needing to be contrasted with) and often opposed to (or needing to be opposed to or seen to be opposed to) other humans. Thus, for millennia we have manufactured causal abstractions and identified with one or more of them, saught to bring them into being; as we have opposed other abstractions and especially those humans who identify with some abstraction or whom we have assigned to some abstraction, such as some group or some faith or some nation or some ethnicity or some ideology regarded as ‘inferior’ to ‘ours’ or as ‘bad’ compared to ‘ours’. Similarly, we humans have for millennia often felt compelled to place our own self-interest, our welfare, before that of other humans – and before the welfare of Nature [8] – just as we have been often compelled and often are still compelled to strive, competitively or otherwise, against other humans in order to establish or reaffirm our personal identity, our difference from them (or their ‘inferiority’ compared to us). Thus has there been, and thus is there, hubris and suffering. Thus has there been, and thus is there, a lack of appreciation of the numinous and a lack of understanding of our φύσις and that of the φύσις of the other living beings (including other humans) who share this planet with us.

In summary, applying causal time to living beings creates and maintains division and divisiveness; while the perception of acausal time brings an appreciation of the numinous and thus a knowing of the inherent unity behind our ordinary understanding of separate living beings.

David Myatt
November 2012

Notes

[1] While it is convenient to understand φύσις simply as the ‘nature’ of a being, the term, as used in the philosophy of pathei-mathos, implies a revealing of not only the true ‘nature’ of beings but also of the relationship between beings, and between beings and Being.

[2] In respect of the acausal, refer to my texts Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal (2010) and Toward Understanding the Acausal (2011).

Furthermore, it is useful to make a distinction, in terminology, between living beings/existents and non-living beings/existents. Thus, a ‘thing’ is used to describe matter or objects (natural or constructed) which do not possess the quality termed life, and which life is possessed by organisms. Currently, we observe or assume life by the following seven attributes: a living organism respires; it moves or can move without any external force being applied as cause of such movement; it grows or changes; it excretes waste; it is sensitive to, or aware of, its environment; it can reproduce itself, and it can nourish itself.

ψυχή is ‘Life qua being’, with our own being (as a human) understood as a mortal emanation of ψυχή. Thus ψυχή is what ‘animates’ us and what gives us our φύσις, as human beings. ψυχή is also how we can begin to apprehend Being and how we relate to Being.

[3] An abstraction is defined, in the philosophy of pathei-mathos, as:

“A manufactured generalization, a hypothesis, a posited thing, an assumption or assumptions about, an extrapolation of or from some-thing, or some assumed or extrapolated ideal ‘form’ of some-thing. Sometimes, abstractions are generalization based on some sample(s), or on some median (average) value or sets of values, observed, sampled, or assumed.Abstractions can be of some-thing past, in the present, or described as a goal or an ideal which it is assumed could be attained or achieved in the future.

All abstractions involve a causal perception, based as they are on the presumption of a linear cause-and-effect (and/or a dialectic) and on a posited or an assumed category or classification which differs in some way from some other assumed or posited categories/classifications, past, present or future. When applied to or used to describe/classify/distinguish/motivate living beings, abstractions involve a causal separation-of-otherness; and when worth/value/identity (and exclusion/inclusion) is or are assigned to such a causal separation-of-otherness then there is or there arises hubris.” Vocabulary of The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos (2012)

The separation-of-otherness is a term used to describe the implied or assumed causal separateness of living beings, a part of which is the distinction we make (instinctive or otherwise) between our self and the others. Another part is assigning our self, and the-others, to (or describing them and us by) some category/categories, and to which category/categories we ascribe (or to which category/categories has/have been ascribed) certain qualities or attributes.

Given that a part of such ascription/denoting is an assumption or assumptions of worth/value/difference and of inclusion/exclusion, the separation-of-otherness is the genesis of hubris; causes and perpetuates conflict and suffering; and is a path away from ἁρμονίη, δίκη, and thus from wisdom.

The separation-of-otherness conceals the nature of Beings and beings; a nature which empathy and pathei-mathos can reveal.

[4] Current exotic theories – such as ‘string theory’ (including M-theory) – are still based on an ideation of space-time that involves a causal-only time (time as a measurable and a separate quantity).

‘String’ theories posit not only transformations of a non-zero ‘string’ or strings in a causal space-time instead of a ‘zero-dimensional point’ (or points) as in a classical three-dimensional Lorentz transformation or a four-dimensional Riemannian space, but also in possible manifolds whose dimensions are > 4 (as in a Hilbert space). Also, while they do not describe space-time as a Riemannian manifold (as general relativity does), such theories posit manifolds or structures – such as H-flux and topological ‘branes’ – which, and whose changes, are described by or come to be described by mathematical equations which involve a causal time – a measured or measurable movement – in relation to other properties (such as extension/space), be those other properties mathematical (as in a topology) or physical (as in a metric, Riemannian or otherwise). Thus, in perturbation theory and in order to consider possible experimental results of the theory, a space-time is posited consisting of a four-dimensional extended Minkowksi space combined with a compact Riemannian manifold; and as in M-theory where an 11-dimensional Minkowksi space has been assumed with the extra seven dimensions being ‘compacted’ or compactable.

All such theories are currently ‘exotic’ because they have not yet [as of 2012] led to any unique predictions that could be experimentally verified.

[5] Like ‘string theory’ and cosmological theories (such as general relativity) quantum mechanics is based on a posited causal space-time. Therefore, a quantum theory cannot be used to describe the φύσις of living beings or acausality.

[6] In respect of acausal knowing, see ‘The Nature and Knowledge of Empathy’ in The Way of Pathei Mathos: A Philosophical Compendium.

[7] The use of the term fluxion dates from the sixteenth century (ce) with the term describing a change that occurs naturally and also one that arises from or because of itself (an effluvium). A description used by John Davies in his 1616 (ce) work Mirum in Modum: “If the fluxion of this instant Now Effect not That, noght wil that Time doth know.”

As used here, fluxion describes how a particular living being not only changes/develops/manifests (that is, in an acausal manner) but also the fact of its (acausal) relation to other living beings and to Being.

[8] Nature is here understood as ‘the creative force’ that is the genesis of, and which maintains the balance of, the life which inhabits the Earth, and which life includes ourselves. This ‘creative force’ (or manifestation/presencing of ψυχή) can be and often has been understood as a particular type of living being, as ‘Nature’ personified.


Article source

http://perceiverations.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/time-and-the-separation-of-otherness/


The Theory of The Acausal

cosmos19

Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal

In respect of the theory of the acausal, [1] the terms acausality and acausal refer to ‘acausal space and acausal time’. That is, and in the context of this theory, both terms refer to a posited continuum different from the causal continuum of observed phenomena; which causal continuum has been described in terms of a four-dimensional space-time; and knowledge of and understanding about which causal continuum can be obtained by means of sciences such as physics, astronomy, and chemistry.

Essentially, therefore, acausality – as part of such a formal theory – is an axiom, a logical assumption, not a belief. This axiom about the nature of the cosmos is one that derives not from the five Aristotelian essentials that determine the scientific method, but from the intuition of empathy [2] and from deductions relating to observations of living beings.

The latter point about life is crucial to understanding both why the axiom has been made and what it may logically imply. That is, a theory is proposed about the nature of known life – about why and how a living being differs from a non-living being. Currently, science cannot explain what makes ordinary matter – the stuff of physics and chemistry – alive, and why for instance a living being, a biological entity, does not obey one of Newton’s laws nor the axiom of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).

A living being, for example, can change –  grow and move – without any external physical (Newtonian) force being applied to it. In short, living beings do not behave in the same way as ordinary physical matter does, be such matter a star, a galaxy, a rock, or a chemical element interacting with another chemical element.

The acausal theory thus proposes that living beings possess what is termed acausal energy – that it is this acausal energy which in some way animates, or which presences in, a biological cell to make that cell behave in a different way than when that cell is dead. That it is such acausal energy – emanating from, or having its genesis in, a posited acausal continuum – which gives to ordinary physical matter the attribute we term life, and which thus enables a living organism (in contradistinction to ordinary matter) to, and for example, reproduce itself, be sensitive to, or aware of, its environment, and move without any external (Newtonian) force being applied to it.

Therefore what it is important to remember is that acausality is only a theory based on certain axioms, and that this theory is posited to explain certain things which are currently unexplainable by other rational theories. The things explained by the theory – which the theory attempts to explain in a logical way – are the nature of living beings, and the nature of empathy (of sympatheia with other living beings).

The theory posits an acausal realm (continuum) as the source of the energy that animates living beings; that this energy differs from the energy observed by sciences such as physics and chemistry; and that all currently known living beings are nexions – regions – where the theorized acausal intersects with, is connected to, or intrudes into, the observed physical (causal) universe known and described by sciences such as physics.

The theory also posits that this acausal realm is a-causal in nature and that it (and thus the acausal energy said to originate there) cannot be described in terms of three spatial dimensions and one dimension of linear time [3], and thus its geometry cannot be described in terms of the current mathematical equations used to describe such a four-dimensional ‘space-time’ continuum (such as the tensorial equations that, for instance, describe the geometry of a Riemannian space-time).

It is therefore posited that the acausal may be described or could be described by an acausal Space of n acausal dimensions, and an acausal, un-linear, Time of n dimensions, where n is currently unknown but is greater than three and less than or equal to infinity. Currently there are no mathematical equations that are capable of re-presenting such a type of un-linear, non-spatial, n-dimensional space.

Were someone to develop such mathematical equations to describe such an acausal geometry it should be possible to explain acausal energy – i.e. acausal waves and their propagation in both the causal and the acausal, in the way that Maxwell’s equations describe the propagation of causal energy/waves in four-dimensional physical space-time.

It is posited that to develop such mathematical equations requires a new type of mathematics since current geometric representations (two, three, and four dimensional) use a differential – the calculus (tensorial, matrical, Euclidean, or otherwise) – of linear (causal) time [4].

As for the nature of the acausal dimensions, they are currently undefined except as extensions to current mathematical concepts: as non-linear and non-spatial in Euclidean terms. That is, acausal space-time could be conceptualized as a new type of mathematical space, and not as a geometric space such as a Euclidean space of three measurable dimensions or a four dimensional space-time manifold as described by certain physical and cosmological theories (such as general relativity). [5]

Thus the new type of mathematics required would describe the new type of (acausal) geometry of this new type of mathematical space possibly having an infinite number of ‘dimensions’, and which geometry does not involve a linear, physically measurable, ‘time’ but rather something akin to a ‘time’ that is both topological [6] and variable (non-linear) in its simultaneity. [7]
To return to acausal energy. If this postulated – and presenced – acausal energy exists, then it should be capable of being detected and such energy measured, and the theory of acausality suggests that it might be possible – even using current scientific means – to detect acausal charges (defined as manifestations of acausal energy in the causal) – by microscopically observing the behaviour of a living cell and its components (such as the nucleus) under certain conditions such as observed physical/chemical/biological changes when placed in the presence of other acausal charges (living cells and their collocations).

The theory also suggests that another way might be to construct some new type of experimental apparatus which can detect acausal charge directly, and makes a comparison with how electrical charges were first discovered, measured, and then machines developed to produce and control their propagation, as in Faraday’s experiments in producing electric currents. Thus such acausal energy might be harnessed in a manner similar to electrical energy.

However, the theory also makes it clear that there are currently no experimental observations to verify the existence of such acausal charges, such acausal energy, so that the whole theory of acausality remains an interesting but speculative theory.

 
David Myatt
2010

 

Notes

[1] The theory of the acausal was tentatively outlined in previous essays such as The Physics of Acausal Energy.

[2] By empathy here is meant the natural (though often undeveloped and little used) human faculty which reveals (dis-covers) a type of individual (personal) knowing – a perception – distinct from the knowing posited by both conventional philosophy and experimental science. One type of this empathic knowing is a sympathy, συμπάθεια, with other living beings.

Empathy supplements our perception of Phainómenon, and thus adds to the five Aristotelian essentials of conventional philosophy and experimental science.

The perception which empathy provides [ συν-πάθοs ] is primarily an intuition of acausality: of the acausal reality underlying the causal division of beings, existents, into separate, causal-separated, objects and the subject-object relationship which is or has been assumed by means of the process of causal ideation to exist between such causally-separate beings. Expressed more conventionally, empathy provides – or can provide – a personal intuition of the connectedness of Life and the connexions which bind all living beings by virtue of such beings having the attribute of life.

This intuition of acausality, which empathy provides, is a wordless apprehension (a knowing) of beings and Being which does not depend on denoting or naming (and thus does not depend on abstractions) and the theory of acausality is a formal attempt to explain this apprehension and this distinct type of knowing.

[3] The term dimension is used here to refer to an aspect, or component, or quality, or arrangement, or an attribute of, a theorized/mathematical form (or space), and/or of an object/entity posited or observed.

One example of a mathematical form is an Euclidean space (geometry) described by three attributes – measurable dimensions – at right angles to each other. Another example is a four-dimensional manifold as used in the theory of general relativity, and one of which dimensions is a measurable (linear) ‘time’. One example of a mathematical space is a Hilbert space of infinite (unmeasurable) dimensions.

Thus the term dimension includes but is not limited to something measurable by physical means.

[4] It should by now be apparent that much of the terminology currently used in an attempt to describe and develope the theory of acausality – and to describe the perception and knowing of empathy on which the theory is based – is inadequate, and that many of the terms which are used need defining and explaining, and even then are open to misinterpretation often as a result of a failure by the author to adequately define and explain them.

However, until a non-verbal – a mathematical – description of the theory is formally developed, such terminology will have to suffice.

[5] Refer to footnote 3 for what the term ‘dimension’ signifies.

[6] Acausal time conceptualized as a transformation described by a topological space. Another alternative is to conceptualize acausal time as topologically variant.

[7] The term simultaneity is used here to express a quality of acausal time; that is, that the n-functions (where n is > 3 but ≤ ∞) which describe this type of time occur throughout the geometry described by the n-functions (dimensions) of acausal space. Or expressed somewhat differently, that not only is acausal time a simultaneous and non-simultaneous function of acausal space – and vice versa – but also that, in living beings, causal space-time is a function (simultaneous or otherwise) of acausal space-time (and vice versa).