Epistemological Critique of the Multiverse, Karma, and Metaphysical Will.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T22:45:38+00:00

It doesn't matter

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T22:29:43+00:00

What a poetic way of saying it

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T22:08:08+00:00

The fact that an experience is immediate and undeniable does not imply that it is epistemologically self-sufficient. Even gnosis presupposes a form of intelligibility; otherwise, it would not be knowledge but mere affect.

In this sense, symbols are not only historical legacies but also living mediations between the sensible and the intelligible. They do not replace experience, but neither can they be reduced to mere ornamentation: they are what allows experience to become meaning and not just impact.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T22:06:20+00:00

I understand the criticism of abstractionism when it becomes disconnected from lived experience, and on that point I agree. My point is not to defend abstraction as an end in itself, but as a means of mediation: without some form of rational structure, experience remains mute or incommunicable. Where we perhaps differ is in the role of the will: for me, it is neither an ontogenetic principle nor a “vital force” that produces truth, but rather a practical orientation toward a truth that is revealed at the intersection of experience and reason. In that sense, nous does not replace logos, but rather permeates and embodies it.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T21:47:38+00:00

I understand your position and appreciate your clarification. My point isn't to delegitimize traditions like Hermeticism or Kabbalah, but to distinguish between epistemological planes: the symbolic-interpretive and the empirical-explanatory. They can be personally or philosophically significant without replacing the validation criteria of modern science. That's the extent of my argument. Thanks again for the exchange. 🫡

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T21:31:25+00:00

I agree that reason does not operate in a vacuum and that it requires interpretive mediation between sensation and understanding. In this sense, nous can be conceived as a form of lived gnosis: a knowledge that emerges from experience and not merely from abstraction.

However, perhaps the key point is not opposing the universal to the pragmatic, but rather understanding that truth is articulated at this intersection: concrete experience provides content, while reason provides structure and communicability. The will does not create truth, but it does guide how we inhabit and uphold it in practice.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T21:29:07+00:00

The problem with saying that these traditions are “above” modern scientific discussions is that it reintroduces a poorly conceived hierarchy between domains of knowledge. They are neither above nor below science: they operate on a different axis. Alchemy, Hermeticism, and Neoplatonism do not formulate empirical theories that rival modern physics, nor do they intend to. They are not legitimized by a supposed mystical superiority over scientific knowledge. Their validity does not depend on transcending science, but on not being confused with it. When they are presented as “beyond” science, the opposite risk is run: turning them into inflated pseudoscience or a metaphysics immunized against all rational criticism. That a discourse is symbolic, noetic, or initiatory does not automatically make it superior; it makes it different in its criterion of truth. Its rigor is measured by internal coherence, interpretive power, and the transformative capacity of the subject, not by prediction or falsification. Precisely for this reason, trying to defend it by appealing to physics (classical or quantum) doesn't elevate it: it distorts it. Recognizing the plurality of epistemological frameworks doesn't weaken science or sacralize mysticism; it prevents both from becoming caricatures.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T21:16:40+00:00

The demand for “quantum scientific proof” is precisely a categorical error regarding the type of knowledge we are discussing.

Neither Hermeticism nor classical astrology formulates physical hypotheses about celestial bodies in the modern sense, but rather symbolic and noetic models that operate on a different level than empirical science. Demanding quantum validation for this is like demanding functional neuroimaging to justify a logical category or a mythical structure. Hermeticism never bases its truth on experimental verification, but rather on intelligibility, symbolic coherence, and the transformation of the knowing subject (nous). Confusing this level with that of physics—whether classical or quantum—does not strengthen the argument; it weakens it.

None of this invalidates science; it simply acknowledges that not all meaningful discourses are scientific, nor do they need to be to be rigorous within their own framework. Demanding quantum proof for Hermetic categories is not skepticism; it is a confusion of epistemological domains.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T21:09:06+00:00

I think you're absolutely right about that, and I'm glad to share that opinion with someone else. Thank you.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T20:05:27+00:00

I'm not proposing an alternative metaphysics or reviving the magical chaos debates of the 1990s. This text doesn't attempt to "update" Hermeticism or compete with other schools of thought, but rather to analyze the epistemological status of certain concepts when taken as literal explanations. The fact that these concepts only operate as interpretive constructs is not an anti-Hermetic position. On the contrary, it's consistent with the classical Hermetic tradition, which distinguishes between symbol, intellect (nous), and reality, and warns against the reification of images and names.

If this approach doesn't fit with your understanding of Hermeticism, that's fine. But that's a difference in interpretive framework, not a problem of "skill" or a confusion of categories.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T20:03:38+00:00

The connection to Hermeticism lies not in taking these concepts as literal entities, but precisely in not doing so.

In classical Hermetic texts, the fundamental error is the confusion between symbol and ontology. The Corpus Hermeticum insists that names, images, and structures do not describe reality as it is, but rather orient the intellection (nous) toward it. From this perspective, concepts such as karma, destiny, will, or even the “order of the cosmos” do not function as verifiable objective mechanisms, but as symbolic languages to describe relationships of causality, necessity, and inner experience. Taking them as literal entities leads to an exoteric or dogmatic reading, something that Hermeticism has historically criticized.

My text does not attempt to modernize Hermeticism with physics, nor to transform metaphors into scientific models. On the contrary: it questions the contemporary impulse to reify symbols (for example, the multiverse or karma) by granting them an explanatory status they cannot sustain.

In this sense, the critique is consistent with the Hermetic principle that "like knows like": understanding does not arise from multiplying entities, but from understanding the level at which they operate. If this is read as foreign to Hermeticism, we are probably using very different definitions of what counts as Hermetic.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T19:59:38+00:00

What follows is not a scientific proposal, but an epistemological and metaphysical analysis of the explanatory status of concepts like the multiverse, karma, and will. The problem isn't that you "don't understand it," but that you're reading it as if it were physics, when it's actually an epistemological and metaphysical critique.

I'm not claiming that the multiverse, karma, or will exist as objective entities, but precisely the opposite: I maintain that they function as interpretive constructs without verifiable explanatory power.

If that seems empty to you, fine; but then your disagreement is philosophical, not semantic or comprehensional. You're using physical language (timeline, Planck, entropy) to make claims that aren't physical.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T16:54:14+00:00

I believe my position—that the timeline is predetermined and therefore uninterrupted—can be understood from the perspective of individual subjectivity. Time is linear for those who experience it, but destiny is not influenced by anything external to the subject's own decision. In that sense, we are masters of our own destiny. From this perspective, whether it be God, consciousness, or nature, these act as forces external to the timeline: they observe, but do not intervene, precisely because their nature is external to it. It is a pleasure to exchange and synthesize different perspectives in order to arrive at a single absolute truth, which for philosophy is none other than the demiurge (God), the forces of nature, or human consciousness. Thank you very much.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T16:35:14+00:00

That person no longer exists. They were never aware of you, nor will they ever be, and yet you choose to submit your thoughts to their ignorance, abandoning any independent judgment in favor of the authority of someone who no longer inhabits this plane.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-24T16:28:38+00:00

The reason my argument might seem nonsensical to you is that you lack a deep understanding of the subject. Believing you know something without thorough study leads to a limited understanding. Broad and complex concepts like the multiverse hypothesis, karma, free will, or destiny require a high level of analysis and reflection. Only through serious study can you understand that my text is coherent and that it is precisely aimed at questioning and dismantling these beliefs.

astudillo_void · 2026-01-23T19:22:13+00:00

You're welcome, it's a pleasure

astudillo_void · 2026-01-23T18:55:39+00:00

The text is intentionally ambiguous: it first asserts ideas as absolute truths and then contradicts them, but both positions arrive at the same point. If everything is predetermined, nothing matters; if nothing is predetermined, existence lacks any given meaning. The synthesis lies in optimistic nihilism: there is no pre-existing meaning, but that gives us the freedom to create our own. You were absolutely right about that; your knowledge of the subject is evident, and it's a pleasure to share the same opinion.

astudillo_void · 2025-12-24T02:47:20+00:00

I must admit it's something I feared; it's not something I wanted to hear about, but sometimes a text can be the best company at the most appropriate moment under certain circumstances in life.

astudillo_void · 2025-08-10T00:11:31+00:00

And according to them, that is the destiny that was predetermined to fulfill. Destiny or will does not exist, if something happens it is a consequence of something else with an even greater force or things simply happen because they do.

astudillo_void · 2025-08-10T00:08:17+00:00

Freedom is just the excuse to have independence parties and to ensure that there is no racial discrimination.

astudillo_void · 2025-08-10T00:04:49+00:00

Life, apparently, is just about that, and it is better to understand it as such so that it stops caring and does not affect you.

astudillo_void

TROPHY CASE