Objective Truth

Efilism is a universal, absolute, secular, determinist, materialist philosophy - in other words, a philosophy that directly opposes subjectivist, random, dualist, theist, relativist and metaphysical philosophy.

Efilism does not rely on *human-centricity, subject-centricity, subject-relation, subjective analysanda, or syllogistic propositional logic* to derive or posit conclusions -- it drills deeper than this, with *meta-cognition, explicandum and explicans, closed-concepts, and modal logic* to maintain conclusions that are objectively and necessarily true, regardless of any possible alternative and regardless of the subject. For example:

### Determinism Vs. Freedom

It is not necessary to acquire any more proof that free will doesn't exist - because true freedom *cannot exist:*

1. Suggesting there's free will in a cause-and-effect universe is like saying there's "triangular roundness". (Free will and Determinism are mutually contradictory and incompatible)
2. Suggesting the universe isn't cause-and-effect, requires that a non-cause could "cause something". (How could something happen if it wasn't *caused to happen*?)
3. Suggesting the universe isn't deterministic but random means "randomness" determines the outcome of the universe. Randomness is a completely broken piece of rhetoric, because even granting its veracity still means "randomness" is **determining** outcome, and since that still means outcome is being **determined** then it's still **deterministic)**

An objective thinker must understand what constitutes "broken semantics", "logical incoherence", "closed concepts" and "impossibility". Then the model of reality can always be put together, and eventually completely put together, regardless of all junk data -- the many forms of junk data in the world.

Evidently, here are the most popular junk data conclusions in the world, aside from the *delusion of divinity*:

1. That the case for reality can only be left hanging in uncertainty.
2. That everything boils down to subjective perspective.
3. That nothing ever matters.
4. That the universe, existence and life will continue forever.

## Fundamental Truth

Efilism rests on certain fundamental truth that's overlooked by many.

The fundamental truth allows Efilism's veracity to be confirmed regardless of *all other critique* leveraged against this philosophy. In other words, Efilism could grant you this entire list for free:

1. You successfully refuted Objective Value
2. You successfully refuted the fact that all Life is a pre-programmed puppet to a mutant molecule of unintelligent design with no ends or means
3. You successfully refuted the fact that all Positive Experience is a non-benevolent and non-gratuitous travesty
4. You successfully refuted the fact that Utopia is theoretically impossible
5. You successfully refuted the fact that all Sentient Life is an *inherently negative* **and** *self-defeating malfunction* that is just masquerading as a function
6. You successfully refuted the fact that all life is a **zero-sum game**
7. You successfully refuted the fact that the universe itself is a brainless malignant chaos, and by creating life in it, you're essentially just putting life into a blender and pretending to be surprised when gets inevitably blended

And there is still a fundamental truth, that remains untouched, and leaves Natalism in shambles. And the truth is this:

1. For as long as you fail to validate Natalism with your critique of Efilism, then you have failed to validate natalism despite your critique of Efilism
2. That means any critique you could possibly make toward Efilism which does not validate Natalism in the process, will have ultimately failed to refute Efilism
3. Because your critique of Efilism will just re-affirm Efilism's fundamental truth that *DNA-perpetuation* has never been validated by any of you
4. You just presupposed that Natalism and Nature is correct

Rest assured your "critiquing job" isn't accomplished by hiding on the offense while ultimately failing to redeem Natalism.

### Citation Needed

This is even further corroborated, when armchair-critics demand a citation out of Efilism, while conveniently never demanding citation from Natalism. Natalism being the initial presupposition that life should exist in the first place. Indeed the unproven and inconclusive presupposition that you ever had a rational reason to create or continue life.

Understand that to do honest inquiry or criticism, you are not only to equally attack Natalism with all your standards of logic and whatever else, but you are also to attack Natalism first; as they are necessarily the 1st infringers, the initial aggressors, and the prime-movers of all that constitutes presupposition.

Lest a critic convince themselves and others they are doing honest inquiry and criticism, when in reality:

1. They have never correctly investigated Natalism
2. They have never correctly redeemed Natalism
3. They are on the wrong side of the proof burden

This three-pronged error many aspiring critics have overlooked and been defeated by.

A perfect analogy to this scenario is Natalism's inherently **empty** case also has this many more **holes** in it -- not the least of which are these 5 additional **fatal** **plotholes** of Utopian theory.

## Metacognition

Metacognition is a double-down function of awareness that our brains have. Most people understand they have awareness and self-awareness. Only a true philosopher understands they also have awareness of awareness, thoughts about thoughts, and other ways of ejecting, divorcing, and separating inputs and outputs from one's own inputs and outputs by using other inputs and outputs.

This mechanism opens an entire dimension of objective information to be at our grasp: we are not just pawns to a maze setup. Metacognition, through bizarre circumstance of physics, has granted the ability to assess and decipher and judge mazes themselves.

## Explicandum and Explicans

An Explicandum is that which necessitates explanation, the Explicans is that which necessarily explicates.

#### Example #1

The tree falling in the forest making noise when nobody is around

1. Noise = the Explicandum
2. Vibration of molecules = the Explicans
3. Hearing the noise = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a conscious medium imputing that vibration algorithm into a sensory algorithm output

#### Example #2

Inmendham and David Benatar VS. The DNA Delusion

1. Benatar's Asymmetry - the asymmetry between life's goods & life's bads = the Explicandum
2. Inmendham's Efilism - the fact every "good" is always just the consequence of fixing a bad = the Explicans
3. Fixing a bad = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a subordinate anti-entropic unit having to maintain its function and order, inside a chaotic disintegrating entropic universe

## Modal Logic

Modal Logic is the division of reality into 2 prime nodes:

1. That which is the case
2. That which is not the case.

Those are the only *2* types of node that make this reality, or that could make **any possible reality**.

If you run thought experiments or integrity tests to confirm or deny that, you will find there's no form of reality that can escape this. And that is because this is because this is a **necessary truth**.

Most people understand there are truths and falsehoods. However, there are also **necessary truths** and **necessary falsehoods.**

Necessary truths and necessary falsehoods are different than truths and falsehoods. They are different because they **always** **apply** to all **possible** realities. For example:

Objective reality and objective truth exist, because if objective reality and objective truth did not exist, then it would be **necessarily true** **that objective truth and objective reality does not exist**.

Note there is no way out of this, and no subjectivism theory can ever trump this.

And thus, in modal logic we also reason about what is contingent, necessary, essential, possible, or impossible. Or what is always the case - what can temporarily be the case - or what could never be the case.

## Necessary Truth

Why does necessary truth exist? Because it is impossible for necessary truth to be absent.

If necessary truth were absent, it would just re-create another necessary truth, which would be the truth that necessary truth is indeed absent.

We are caught inside a "if this, then that" mirror, which always ends up reflecting *something being the case in the end.*

Therefore, all possible realities, all equations, and all descriptions of any possible reality, must maintain a necessary truth.

Even if that necessary truth were only the truth of *absolute absence*, an *absolute void*, or even *terminal stasis* (*nothing ever happening ever again*).

### Recursion

Recursion is a logical principle and a *representation* of necessary truth. Recursion is also an *instruction* that matter can follow.

Recursion occurs when a thing is defined in terms of itself. Recursion is used in a variety of disciplines ranging from logic, linguistics, math and science.

Recursion is functionally the same as numbers, in that they are fundamentally a *representation* *of* matter and *instruction* *for* matter.

For instance, the number "2" is both the representation of (and the instruction for) a *unitary configuration of matter* to exist as a pair or be split in half.

## Objective Reality / Nomological Necessity

**Modal Logic** unveils what is the case / what is not the case -- and it is the reason anything can be discovered to be the case or not be the case.

**Necessary Truth** unveils what must take place in order for any thought experiment or reality to take place -- and it is the reason anything can only be **true** **or** **false**.

**Nomological Necessity** mandates what is the case / what is not the case -- and it is the reason anything is the case or not the case.

And now we have arrived at the final task of philosophy. Investigating behind the scenes for why anything is the case, and what is **making** anything be the case and not be. And you cannot solve this through **any** suggestion of multiverses or simulated universes. Meaning you cannot suggest a multiverse, separate universe, or simulated reality can disobey everything or defy our 'simple human primitive understanding', or override all that's been outlined so far. And why not? Because you'd be postulating that *it is the case that something can do that.* You necessarily end up using modal logic to even contrive a theoretical cheat out of this. Your theoretical cheat itself would be obeying modal logic, never mind the much more complex necessary truth and nomological necessity requirements that such an armchair theory would have to somehow answer.

The final task of philosophy can be boiled down as:

1. Determining what constraints / rules exist.
2. Determining how constraints / rules apply.
3. Determining what a constraint / rule is.
4. Having to finally determine what exactly are the constraints for *constraints themselves*. Or what are the *rules for rules themselves.*

Nomological necessity could be conceptualized as "the rule for rules themselves". Or the perennial binary that makes function itself function. It is either a constraint, or absence of a constraint, which ultimately determines what is the case and what is not the case.

We can break reality down to the bedrock fact, that a "fact" can **only** be either **permitted** or **prevented**. So what exactly is **permitting** and **preventing** facts?

We are now pointing to nomological necessity as the final stopping point to that question, and here is how nomological necessity holds up to integrity checks:

Nomological necessity overrides everything. Besides the fact that facts can only be permitted or prevented, there is another way to logically test this. Even if it were possible to take necessity out of existence, then it will necessarily be the case that necessity was taken out of existence.

What this thought-experiment indicates is that it's evidently *impossible* *for nomological necessity to* *not exist.* A perfectly fair reason for its existence and a profound fact to try digesting, and yet the puzzle is not complete. Does this make nomological necessity an **unpreventable** fact? Are there any other facts in reality that could be like this, or is this **Fact Prime**? Do any other Prime Facts exist, or *can* any other Prime Facts exist? Do Prime Facts all have a *uniqueness* that separates them from non-prime facts, a uniqueness which can be investigated and compared to determine exactly what that is? Can other Prime Facts exist **only** when this particular Prime Fact is no longer the case, and would this solve infinity paradoxes? Or is this really the one and only Prime Fact?

The entire history of our species having looked at reality as the dichotomy between something vs. nothing and reality's existence vs. reality's non-existence seems logically primitive. Maybe there was never a point to bother comparing reality to "non-reality", at least not a reality that has ***absolutely zero properties*.**

Because there could **never** be absolutely zero properties: Our universe exists because there was a property that permitted our universe to exist, if there was a property before that, it necessarily had the property to create that property which had the property to create our universe, and so on. This means, that so far, **e**ven the absence of all properties still has the minimum property of **permitting properties eventually**. If there was a void or stasis before our existence, it was never a true stasis or true void, because a true stasis and true void would be: when nothing can ever happen.

So rather than something vs nothing or existence vs non-existence or real vs unreal, what is the latest dichotomy we can use to find out what this fact really is? We will now point to Contingency vs necessity:

### Contingency Vs. Necessity

All possible phenomena, facts, or events that could ever exist are either a contingency that can change, or a necessity that cannot.

Do try testing if that's true or not, it will be apparent there is no outside or in between for "changeable vs unchangeable". Even to suggest that an absolute necessity exists but can change later, only proves it was never absolutely necessary - it was just contingent. But could a contingency later become absolutely necessary, then never change again? Logically that works perfectly. So already we can notice a hard asymmetry while drilling through this.

Another prime rule for why objective reality and this puzzle works is because "*What is done can never be undone.*" Things can happen but can never "unhappen".

So does Nomological Necessity allow a **changeable** **contingency** to evolve into an **unchangeable** **necessity**? If yes, then that is part of the reason existence exists. But what forces a changeable contingency to become an unchangeable necessity? There may also be byproducts or composites to be investigated here: Just as **time** is a byproduct of the fact that momentum does not move distance instantaneously. There may also be a nomological hierarchy of facts, which are arranged in an order where they are either permitting and preventing each other, and are ultimately determining what is actually the **outputted** **reality** that we exist as.

And given the blatant impossibilities of infinity, such as that event chains going backwards forever would mean we could not have reached any single or current point in the events, indicates the entire chain of events that we could ever be connected with (or connected *as*) *is the first and only time something like our paradigm has ever happened, ever could happen, or ever will happen.*

## The Final Answer / Theory of Everything

This (objective necessary reality) is undoubtedly the most remarkable phenomenon. It has been graffitied with dogmatic magical divine fairytales and adorned with the "god mask" for as long as our species has been able to logically sense any of this is the case. It is the first and last piece of the reality equation, the 1 key ingredient. We have yet to answer the necessity problem. To sufficiently anatomize nomological necessity will be the end of all questions. Perhaps a task suited for general artificial intelligence.

That is not to say that we can't *soon* figure out what's going on with this thing. Contrary to the immensely popular appeals to agnosticism, ignorance and subjectivism, we have turned over almost every rock of understanding in the universe. Put it this way, science hasn't found a truly new correct answer since Darwinian evolution despite having exponentially better technology. We have uncovered reality so thoroughly we are at a stalemate of sorts. Physics has reverted to just re-configuring the story, contriving imaginary phenomena to bridge the gaps of their wrong or incomplete answers, like dark-matter, anti-matter, virtual-photons, aether, quantum-mechanical babble like superposition, "the future determines the present", because basically the only thing left to do is to blend together pieces or substitute a made-up placeholder, and hope something sticks. Without any solid new pieces being found, they're stuck taking old solid concepts and making new mush concepts with them. They've gone as far as to try distorting "cause-and-effect" out of a desperate attempt at finding an answer that works. Remember, there can be only 1 correct answer for the whole story, meaning there are functionally unlimited distortions of solid concepts: You could contrive bridge-gap answers, and play around with mush concepts for as long as you possibly wanted to, and every combination of answers you come up with will be *necessarily wrong* regardless, except for the one true combination. The purity/solidity of information matters more than any volume of information ever could. So besides the avalanche of failed attempts at *mixing conceptual ingredients* to make a solid final answer, the rest of the work of *knowledge itself* is applying all the pieces as STEM.

"Humans don't want truth, they want a swirly mystery that carries on forever." - Inmendham / Draftscience (2019)