The 'Narrative Redshift' or Principle of Diminishing Scientific Returns

The pace of human discovery within a scientific discipline is inversely and exponentially proportional to the body of discovery already accomplished inside that discipline

The pace of human discovery within a scientific discipline is inversely and exponentially proportional to the body of discovery already accomplished inside that discipline.

Science under such a burden cannot suffer disruption for centuries to come—mandating multi-agency bureaucratic approval and peer-review for every new effort and at every new doorstep of research.

Cognitive Load Theory suggests that a person engaged in the act of lying must process more streams of logic than a person relating a simple fact or observation. Due to our limited capacity for processing information, lying requires more time as the liar must assemble a more complicated calculus of contention. The liar needs to reconcile multiple streams of consistency: the fabricated story itself, the truth they are seeking to deflect, the perceptions and responses of the audience, and the consistency of the liar’s tale with the their previous statements or established prior art on the topic.

Lying involves continuous ‘strategic monitoring,’ where the liar constantly checks their responses against past statements to maintain consistency. This continuous monitoring increases cognitive load and slows down response times. Finally, lying can be viewed as a kind of multi-tasking: managing the lie and managing the interaction. This results in an increasing game of rhetorical deflection along with the necessity of placing the liar on a pedestal of virtue or non-assailability.

This understanding is supported by several studies and reviews, which highlight the cognitive demands and complexities involved in deception. Neuroimaging studies have shown that areas of the brain associated with cognitive control are more active when lying compared to telling the truth, indicating the higher cognitive load involved in deception​.¹ Such studies provide comprehensive insights into the cognitive demands of lying and the methods used to detect deception by increasing cognitive load.

Diminishing Systemic Returns Under Large Audience Demand

Fast Radio Burst Congery 121101 – dual differential dispersion arrivals reflecting Schwarzschild but not Shapiro effect.

This principle is not simply a principle of human psychology; rather, it applies to large systems and organizations as well. It is a fundamental law within computation and complex systems (this is my professional domain) that system load functions in inverse proportion with its performance.

Of course, we all understand the impact bureaucracy has on the response times of medical and governmental organizations. This is a given. However, an expanded application of this theory I have developed posits that the computational load on a universe increases as the independent observer load within that universe also increases. In our universe, the result is that the Planck interval of time (t_p​ = 5.39×10⁻⁴⁴ seconds at present) dilates as outside observers are introduced into its deterministic fabric. In other words, both the deterministic-monist and the observer-dualist are correct, with some entities being trapped in this monist fabric and others merely visiting and observing-dilating. Consequently, Planck time begins to slow over time, resulting in several physical phenomena we document in our observable universe.

This theoretical framework suggests that as more observers (or observational events) are introduced, the universe’s computational demands increase inside its finite Bekenstein bound, or the maximum amount of information that can be stored within a given information-derived volume of spacetime. When an observer interacts with or measures the system, they are trying to determine its exact state among many possible states and past states. This process requires computation and information processing on the part of the Universe being observed. The act of observation or measurement converts potential information (high Shannon entropy, many possible states) into actual information (the specific state of the system), which involves computational effort. This leads to a necessary dilation of fundamental time intervals to compensate for the increased computational demand.

In other words, the observer does not witness the past evolving into the present. Instead he witnesses an extant factor which the universe offers up in response to his query. However the universe must first check to ensure that what it offers up, is in accord with what it has offered up in the past for this same frame of reference and query subject posed by the observer. In other words, as observers and observational events increase, the Universe must ‘tell its story’ to a progressively larger audience.² As that audience gazes further and further into the past, the story is forced to further and further simplify, leading to an inevitable singularity in its tale.

Under this construct, the interference that should not exist in the context of a single photon transiting the double slit experiment, yet still does nonetheless, is a case of the universe inadvertently oversharing. By making the lie too perfect, it betrays its own illusion.² This is akin to a suspect in a murder accidentally mentioning the weapon used in the crime, when they otherwise should not have had any knowledge of it. The universe spoke too much. Such experimental observation constitutes a rare Truman Show moment.

This principle could potentially explain cosmological phenomena such as the galactic redshift or path-dependent Fast Radio Burst dispersion (see image above right, extracted from our FRB study), wherein the light from distant sources begins to exhibit exotic effects as it traverses spacetime itself. Perhaps it is not space influencing this per se, but rather the audience of observers which places load on computational time-flow inside the universe—an expansion of the cosmological observer effect in quantum theory.

Diminishing Narrative Returns

I postulate that such duality is analogous to syndicates and bureaucracies as well. It is not simply the cognitive load of the lie itself, nor merely its consistency with past lies, but also the necessity to accommodate all this to the audience of observers.

Ethical Skeptic’s Principle of Diminishing Scientific Returns, or 'Narrative Redshift,' combines elements of both Cognitive Load Theory and Diminishing Systemic Returns Under Large Audience Demand into a single bureaucratic phenomenon. As the complexity and volume of a narrative increase, whether in scientific discovery, bureaucratic systems, or deceptive practices, the rate of meaningful or coherent additions to the narrative diminishes. This is due not only to the poor fit of new discoveries but also to the increasing cognitive load required to maintain consistency, address growing scrutiny, and manage the demands of a larger audience.

Ethical Skeptic’s Principle of Diminishing Scientific Returns (or ‘Narrative Redshift’)

The pace of human discovery within a scientific discipline is inversely and exponentially proportional to the body of discovery already accomplished inside that discipline.

A Narrative must answer questions progressively more slowly over time, resulting from efforts to ensure that discovery both conforms to The Narrative Line and is consistent with past established elements of narrative.

As the tangled web begins to become obvious to outsiders, a shroud of rhetoric and virtue must be established to protect The Narrative Line.

Exhibit A – The Narrative Redshift or Principle of Diminishing Scientific Returns – as the lies increase, in an effort to protect The Narrative, the pace of scientific discovery decreases exponentially as a result—while the pace of rhetoric and virtue-shielding must increase non-linearly as an outside audience begins to perceive the oncoming shortfall in ethics and value. This is a form of syndicate hand-waving.

A Critical Example in Official Pseudoscience

Penguin carving found at Göbekli Tepe. Nothing to see here folks, let’s seal it up!

A decade ago, I attended and presented at a conference in Houston, where I had the opportunity to converse after hours with one of the other conference presenters, who happened to be an archaeologist. Since this is one area of personal fascination, I raised the issue of Göbekli Tepe with her. She looked off to the side and offered a slight, disconcerted expression.

“It’s being shut down and reconstructed for tourism now. The latest findings are, let us say, existentially upsetting to various groups, and I will leave it at that.”

The discovery of a penguin carving at the Göbekli Tepe World Heritage Site (referenced in the finding registry at right) should have propelled the site into the spotlight of funding and research activity. Where are the excited archaeologists? At the very least, this finding should have elevated Göbekli Tepe’s status as a potential hub of pre-pottery Neolithic global intellectual exchange. Yet, we somehow changed our mind mid-excavation and now choose to principally ignore it, despite both its paradigm shattering history and ongoing potential.

To wit, in 2017 the International Council on Monuments and Sites raised objection to the principal cessation of archaeological excavation at Göbekli Tepe in their ‘Interim Report and Technical Evaluation’.⁴

The ICOMOS panel considers that there is an imbalance between the scientific research requirements and prospects as indicated in the nomination dossier, and the proposed management plan. The ICOMOS Panel would appreciate if the State Party could provide reassurances regarding the continuing medium-and long-term funding of fundamental, independent, scientifically motivated and managed research programmes.

~ ICOMOS Evaluation Unit letter to UNESCO, 22 Dec 2017

These are no mere tales, as evidenced by concerns on the part of discipline scientists and the re-adaptation of the site for ‘prolonged’ inactivity—it’s removal from the archaeological landscape and burial inside the lost annals of bureaucratic history. An erstwhile crate containing the Ark of the Covenant, from cinematic Indian Jones lore.

Thus, archaeological hand-waving becomes a necessity, with no better example than The Narrative Line expressed by John Hoopes, Harvard PhD in Anthropology, who stated, “I think it would be okay to rebury Göbekli Tepe and seal the entire site with concrete. After thirty years of archaeological research at the site, there is plenty to keep archaeologists busy for a long time.”⁴ The fact that this site is neither the property nor the propriety of archaeology/anthropology reveals this statement for what it really is: oppressive virtue-rhetoric employed to protect The Narrative Line (the green curve asymptotic to the red line in Exhibit A above).

Another key example of the incompetent virtue, rhetorical, and ‘why would’ hypothetical deflection to bolster The Narrative Line can be found in this piece of accusatory and unprofessional propaganda by photographer Rupert Soskin. If you insist upon calling persons who attempt to hold archaeology accountable “die-hard conspiracy theorists,” then I am going to insist upon calling you a ‘condescending fraud.’ The fact that this pejorative is your first-recourse and strongest argument, casts nothing but shame on you and your claim to professional authority.

The doorway to fraud typically opens when an accountant begins to subconsciously believe that the money they administer is their property. This also applies to science, government, and religion.

Except in this instance, the archaeological site is being interred beneath a more robust barrier than simply Hoopes’ metaphorical concrete; rather, more tantalizingly, “elements and forms of past landscapes inside a motif of use, option, and existential values” according to an example dissertation justifying such actions.⁶ This is code-speak on the part of the wayward discipline and the presiding Şanlıurfa Council for Conservation of Cultural Properties for ‘planting regionally-endangered olive trees,’ trees that cannot be cut down by law in Turkey,⁷ in an environment which is not natural forest, but semi-arid Mediterranean plateau. In other words, they are not innocently ‘planting trees’, but rather creating a barrier of perpetually fragile and re-establishing woodlands.

ChatGPT-4o: As olive trees can live for centuries, their root systems become extensive and complex over time. In dry, elevated, or arid conditions, olive trees develop deeper taproots to reach water. Their roots can penetrate to depths of 20 feet (6 meters) or more in search of moisture. Olive tree roots can spread horizontally two to three times the width of the canopy. In rocky or shallow soils, their roots will spread widely to anchor the tree. Olive tree roots pose significantly more complication at an archaeological site compared to the average tree, primarily due to their unique growth characteristics and the long lifespans of olive trees. While their downward growth is typically moderate compared to their horizontal spread, olive tree roots are strong and persistent. They can penetrate through small cracks in rock or masonry, potentially damaging, defacing, or displacing buried structures, pottery, or other archaeological materials. Olive trees thrive in rocky, poor soils where their roots often entwine around each other or penetrate through hard substrates. This adaptability means they can disturb even compacted layers of soil or buried features more aggressively than many other tree species. Olive trees can live for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. Over such long periods, their roots may repeatedly alter the stratigraphy of a site, blending or displacing archaeological layers and making it more difficult to interpret the timeline of human activity. The organic material from olive tree roots, including decayed remnants, can introduce chemical changes in the soil, potentially affecting the preservation of artifacts and especially organic dating residues. Finally, ancient or endangered-species olive trees are sometimes culturally or historically significant themselves, complicating decisions about their removal or disturbance.

For example, in the ‘conspiracy theory’ polemic by Rupert Soskin linked above, he asserts that the planted olive trees were used to improve the property value of the land on behalf of the owners. Ergo, these trees can never be removed because of the entailed damage to real property value. Without realizing it, Rupert falsified his own claim in an effort to justify it (autoauhfeben appeal). However, the obfuscation scheme remains diabolically clever nonetheless.

Incompetence is neither a conspiracy nor a theory.

This is part of the protection and management of Göbekli Tepe, carried out under a UNESCO World Heritage Centre management plan that was finalized in 2017, under funding by the World Economic Forum.⁷ All this enacted, fully cognizant that a nascent and fragile ‘re-establishing ancient landscape’ will not be allowed disruption for centuries to come—mandating multi-agency bureaucratic approval for every new initiative and at every new step of research.

Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe – “It’s an ancient temple.” (Sighs of Pollyannish recognition ensue…) Therefore, our enlightened syndicate ‘science’ can ignore the fact that the stone is attempting to communicate an event from 14,800 BCE, as mere religious babble – relegated to the bin of ‘ignore this.’

A mere 5% of Göbekli Tepe has been unearthed over the decades. In contrast, 66% of Pompeii and Herculaneum have been excavated and fully documented to the public at large during that same time.⁸ We’ve invested copious amounts of time and advanced technology to recover wooden artifacts from Herculaneum, simply to marvel at their dazzling decorative inlays and designs.

The only distinction resides in what is being unearthed and the disruptive potential with regard to The Narrative Line.

I find it ironic that archaeology will gladly process voiceless finds in an agnostic assembly line of typology, but artifacts with actual content and expression on them, messages to future generations – “we’ll get to that later.” …It is so transparently dishonest.

Once an archaeological site has established that its purpose was to communicate messages to future generations, as is unequivocally the case with Göbekli Tepe, and does not reside in the context of mere mundane human habitation, the ethical responsibility of such a site passes from the hands of one sect of science into the domain of humanity’s intellectual property. As such, its excavation and transparency become the duty of those who administer the site on behalf of humanity. Claiming a need for ‘better technology’ simply to unearth and interpret these artifacts is disingenuous.

The only hesitation I have on this may stem from concerns that these artifacts will conveniently disappear, as has so often occurred throughout the history of this form of liberal arts pseudoscience called archaeology. In other words, we await spiritual maturity, not technological advancement.

As a result, the “existentially upsetting” artifacts which lay buried under the ground at Göbekli Tepe, will be forever and ironically entombed by our very fanatical veneration of them. The astute ethical skeptic should note that this is how our most prominent religions ply their craft as well. What better way to conceal something, than make it an object of obsession.

Fanatical obsession is after all, the most sincere form of disbelief or dishonor.

Fully

Exhibit B – Göbekli Tepe 100% Interred Under Tourism Rhetoric and Trees – decades ago at the beginning of its research, versus today being completely shut down by ironic veneration—offering critical time to figure out how to reconcile the findings therein, with the lies of The Narrative crafted for our past bedazzlement.

There exists a curious poetry to the fact that someone deliberately buried the complex and destroyed all the human-shaped depictions in antiquity—and yet are now deliberately burying and concealing its messages once again.⁹ It is clear that an erasure is going on here, and that this erasure constitutes vital archaeological evidence. Evidence which we will Nelsonianly ignore, ironically in the very name of science itself.

Finally, perhaps, and this is a stretch, we are not allowed to further investigate the complex because it is not “under the domain of humanity’s intellectual property” after all? We are allowed to investigate our heritage, but not others’ who were “still on the Earth in those days.” Nah …who would believe such a ridiculous notion.

Regardless, this is how darkness applies its craft, fully conscious of appearances and aware of its audience, shrouded in virtue—fully cognizant as well that the pace of scientific discovery is grinding to a time-dilating and redshifted, halt.

Ethical skepticism, involves becoming a student of this particular form of tradecraft inside ponerology.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Principle of Diminishing Narrative Returns”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 13 Jun 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=89300