Skip to content

An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two)

August 22, 2020

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 23.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Nineteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: August 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 9,352

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Thor Fabian Pettersen is a Member of the World Genius Directory. He discusses: growing up; an extended self; family background; the experience with peers and schoolmates; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; geniuses; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; some work experiences and educational certifications; important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses; some social and political views; the God concept; science; tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); the range of the scores; and ethical philosophy.

Keywords: genius, high-IQ societies, IQ, Thor Fabian Pettersen, World Genius Directory.

An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?

Thor Fabian Pettersen: I don’t think there were many stories. However, I remember one story of a relative — my grandmother’s uncle — who survived the Titanic incident despite traveling in economy class, which means that he didn’t have a seat on a lifeboat. But because he was so big and strong, he was offered to row one of the lifeboats. So, he survived. And so did his letter. We have his letter, which he sent from New York after the incident.

2. Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?

Pettersen: I don’t know if the Titanic story shaped me much. But another thing did. After my grandfather passed away, I found a huge collection of books regarding UFOs and aliens. I didn’t know. He was into that stuff. I am something of a UFO nutcase. I love all that stuff. It is so exciting, scary, and mysterious. I know they are here. I figured it out. If you read Buckminster Fuller, then you will quickly discover that his logic is impeccable, at least when it comes to geometry. Fuller’s vector equilibrium, which is the cuboctahedron, is the system of all systems. The cuboctahedron is the heart, face, lungs and mind of Nature. It is probably what consciousness is. This is the great nothingness, which birthed all things. Buckminster Fuller figured out how it all began here. The problem is, you can find the cuboctahedron in The Forbidden City. The Foo Dogs guard it. Then we find it in the I Ching, on the flag of South Korea, in the Kabbalah, in Norse and Greek mythology, in the Bible, the Masonic sun and moon. You discover it on the one-dollar bill, ancient architecture, YHWH, the Holy Grail, the Philosopher’s Stone, the Flower of Life, and on and on. I see the pattern all the way from King Arthur to Kama Sutra! The cuboctahedron is the Holy Grail, the cup that ever refills. The cuboctahedron is Nature’s resurrection machine.

The knowledge of the resurrection machine can only stem from the gods. You would not hide this secret in every corner of the world if we are just talking about a crackpot idea, which Plato had. I don’t believe that.

How does the resurrection machine work?

In the beginning of the universe, we find energy that is ready to do mechanical work. Let us call them “kids.” Then the second law of thermodynamics turns those kids into “old guys.” Consequently, the zero-point energy field of the universe is filled with old guys. We cannot get them to do diddly-squat. Modern science is right and that is that. However, Roger Penrose theorizes that Nature has a way of transforming the old guys into kids again. In Penrose’s model—the CCC—you must wait a googolplex years or something for this resurrection to happen. However, you forget one super-important rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Much, much more so. I believe: Nature has found a way to resurrect things all the time. The Earth utilizes this process in order to grow. The earth grows! There was no Pangea. I bet this resurrection process is what evolution is. Roger Penrose, unknowingly, has found the core of evolution! Consequently, it is possible to draw limitless amounts of energy from the zero-point energy field because you can turn the old guys into kids again. Modern science is right: the zero-point energy field of the universe is as good as dead. We cannot use it to draw energy. But, what modern science does not know is that there exists a resurrection machine down there. They haven’t included it in their equations. So, when we use the resurrection machine, when we resurrect the dead, then, and only then, can we extract huge amounts of energy from the zero-point field.

And the aliens figured it out. Now they have enough energy to warp spacetime. I believe they use one torus to shrink the space in front of them. Then they use another torus to expand the shrinking space. This all happens simultaneously while they hide in the bubble that forms between the two tori. You can travel vast distances in a second. Their craft has to be disc-shaped or something of that nature. So, yes, I believe we have been visited in the past, and I believe they are here now. That is how you solve Fermi’s paradox. We will soon birth a supercomputer that can morph the entire universe. Either they are here or we are alone in the universe.  

3. Jacobsen: What was family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?

Pettersen: My primary language is Norwegian. My father comes from an island called Værøy in Lofoten, which lies in Northern Norway. My mother comes from a place called Åbogen, which lies in the eastern part of Norway. I grew up there. Geographically, I would use these words to describe Åbogen: hills, small mountains, and forests. As far as culture goes, I grew up with tales of elves, trolls, and witches. I was scared of the witch who lived in the forest! Anyway, Norway is a beautiful country. Our fjords even made it to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005). I love that movie. And as far as religion goes, there was none. We are atheists. My mother believes in God, but she is not religious by a long shot.

4. Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?

Pettersen: Honestly, I hated school. I got bullied, a knife in the throat. That sort of thing. It is a chapter I would rather forget. However, I never hated my bullies. I hated the system itself. Humans have evolved a taste for violence. We have more guns than people. We have enough atomic bombs to blow up the planet. Since day one, there has been violence, rape, and murder — every day for thousands of years. I read an article, which said that humans are six times more likely to kill each other than the average mammal. The solution: Put a pile of rebellious genes and memes in a rectangular building called “school” and expect zero collateral damage. Even today, kids commit suicide because of bullying. In America, they have found an even greater solution: Put guns into the mix. That’s ingenious! That must be the smartest thing adults can ever do to kids. Throw some guns in there! That ought to do it!

One just killed twenty six-year-olds. But we are not changing our gun laws, heehaw! You need to kill more little kids than that, son. Only twenty?! We bomb more kids than that every day. You need to put some effort into it if you want to change our laws.

400 school shootings later…

I have heard Americans say that Norway loves its mass murderers — like Anders Behring Breivik — and hates its children.

The opposite is true: We treat Breivik with dignity because we want to create a world where our children are safe. Can you understand the logic behind that? Of course, you don’t, which is why you give guns to kids so that they can kill other kids. Guess what, we have zero school shootings. If someone younger than say 25 does something stupid, we tend not to send them to prison because prison only escalates the original problem. Most of our criminals don’t use a gun because it is considered shameful. You are not a man if you must resort to a gun. We resolve things. We are good at that. World War II made us skeptical towards solutions posed by Nazis. If you want to treat Breivik like a Nazi, then that is the world you will create.   

But back to school:

My view: It’s not the bully’s fault. He is just an ignorant vessel for evolutionary forces, which are beyond his control. All he knows is he wants status, so that he can get the girl. By following his innate coding, he will get the girl because violence is a strategy, which gave you more resources, status, and mates. Even today, girls like bad boys. You steal a car. You go to jail. You don’t get any love letters. Kill somebody, you get a marriage proposal. Advance from that, you get elected president.

We love violence. No wonder kids play Call of Duty. Come Easter, and the whole family gathers around to watch a murder mystery while we eat little chickens, my emotional mind goes: You are eating a child, you monster! My pragmatic mind goes: The only solution here is lab grown meat. Once cultured meat is in place, I will never eat a real animal again. Unless, it is a survival issue. Nowadays, I can’t eat a little lamb, for example. That is where I draw the line. Unless, it is Shish kebab. But I didn’t know that; until, it was too late.

The world kills three billion animals for food daily. The human: The only animal with moral philosophy. The Military, they are the slyest animal of all time because, when kids reach a certain age, especially boys, they will start to risk their own lives in order to impress the girl. I remember how it was and how fast I was driving. And the Military has found a way to cash in on that evolutionary fact. Come here, boys! All the girls are just beyond that battlefield! Gimme a gun now! I will risk my life and it feels so great!

So, after all these facts, after all this suffering and misery, you still ask: Why do you treat Breivik with dignity? Breivik is not some distant mountain troll. He is one of us. His nature is our nature. We all need to change — every single one of us. Imagine if we joined a peaceful, galactic civilization, then we would bring our violence, rape and murder and many dark things which I don’t dare put into words. Hans Rosling gave us the best stats we’ve ever seen, the world is getting better, but we still have a long way to go even now.

Anyway, what is my solution to the problem of bullying? The lion hunts the weak. Nature culls the weak. If she didn’t I imagine we would still be unicellular life! However, we are intelligent. We can separate the lion and his prey. If somebody told me: Do you want to stay here or, do you want to go to a school in which there are only losers like you: kind, smart, weak; fat and skinny kids? But that was not an option I was given. They said: Do you want to change school? I said, “No.” In my mind, it was like: Do you want to move away from this lion and join that lion over there? No, thank you, I will stick with my lion. He hasn’t killed me yet; I think I will stick with the one I know.

I hated school. But it wasn’t all bad. I have many awesome memories. I even got the girl, which is why I got the knife in the throat in the first place. My bully didn’t like the fact. If you don’t break up with your girl, you will taste this, instead. What did I do? I broke up.

In the end, I didn’t even bother to do my homework assignment. My grades dropped. At some point, I just said, “Screw the whole system. This is the politicians fault. They are the real bullies, which keep the enterprise going.” Even then I thought that this was not the bully’s fault. The bully is just a kid. He is probably being bullied by even greater bullies. This is the adults’ fault. This is society’s fault.

Modern solutions: You and your bully should see a psychologist together. Work on your relationship. But whatever you do: Don’t change the system!

Why was I bullied? Years later, one of my former classmates felt sorry for me and explained it to me: I was a nerd. Fair enough. The greatest moment in TV history, at least for me, was when Rodney Mckay met Daniel Jackson!

My favorite new show is Rick and Morty.

5. Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?

Pettersen: I have my own idea as to how the universe got here. Doing well on these tests may provide you with some fame. My answer is fame. Fame means your idea has a greater chance at survival. Take William James Sidis or Christopher Langan, their ideas — The Animate and the Inanimate and the CTMU — will live forever.

Langan put me on his “most wanted list” because I said Rick Rosner was as smart as him. Langan got pissed. Nevertheless, I think the CTMU is genius work even if its author is a firecracker. I agree with the CTMU as far as I understand it. Langan applauded me for trying. But in my eyes, the CTMU is not a theory of everything. The Theory of Everything has the cuboctahedron as its centerpiece. If the cuboctahedron is not in there, then you don’t have a theory of everything. It is as simple as that. The CTMU is close to truth, though.

I have my own idea as to how the universe got here:

You sit on a beam of light and ride into the universe. Here you will see that everything freezes or goes by in an instant! They are the same thing. It does not matter if you get black or white, to put it like that. The point is: you enter a non-relative state where things like size and so on no longer apply. That is, if you are completely alone/non-relative, you cannot tell if you are big or small. If everything was white, you couldn’t tell it was white. (If these letters were white, you wouldn’t be able to read a thing.)

But, if everything has been frozen since eternity from the light’s perspective, then you will get a picture with frozen things in it. Just kidding. You will get a picture with nothing in it! This is because, if you have been frozen forever, then you never had the time to create a picture with something in it. Thus, from the light’s own point of view, we get a vast “nothingness” or motionlessness. This is how it all began!

Light speed is as fast as it is because you cannot go faster than “frozen since eternity.” Or, if you could, it wouldn’t matter. You cannot get frozen twice.

This “nothingness” is not the same as nonexistence, however. So, why is there nothingness/motionlessness and not nonexistence? How come existence? My idea is that, however you want to contemplate nonexistence, you will see that it does not move. Our nothingness does not move. So, if it can be shown that you can only create motionlessness with motion, then you have answered why existence exists, because if nonexistence wanted to remain motionless, then it has to employ motion because motion is the only thing that can create motionlessness. If there is more than one thing that can create motionlessness, then you have not answered why existence exists.

Our motionless state is a superb candidate for the beginning of all things because the motionlessness is free of paradoxes such as infinite regress.

“But how does the motionless state create the universe?”

Our motionlessness, which is the cuboctahedron (the cuboctahedron is built for ultimate speed), spins so fast that it creates motionlessness, so it is a giant whirlpool of sorts. In actuality, I believe it is a dual torus of oneness. So, Eternity is a dual creature. However, have you noticed that whirlpools create baby-whirlpools? If these babies are not as strong and fast as their mother, they will not accomplish motionlessness; they must therefore become something else: spacetime.

And/or: Say that the center of the cosmic whirlpool spins so fast that we get motionlessness, but further out you cannot keep up with the fast pace in the center, and we thus get what we call spacetime. Spacetime might be traffic congestion.

Our universe is a product of Nature’s will to motionlessness.

Motionlessness/nothingness is the purpose of life, meaning nature wants to be in a state of nothingness. How do you accomplish motionlessness? You continue to spin/create balance/copy yourself. This copying is evolution. My personal belief is that evolution is the shadow of the Buddha. So, if we go full circle, then the purpose of life is balance and Buddhahood. I believe there is an intelligent being residing in the nothingness. The Alpha is the Omega.

6. Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Pettersen: I have always felt different, but as far as tests go, I remember I took this one test; and my sister was watching me. I didn’t get a score, but the test said I could probably design such tests myself. That gave me a boost in confidence.

7. Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.

Pettersen: A wolf pack would never accept a dog. If you are different, you will be culled. And if you are a lone alpha male, you are stuck with no luck! I think the shyness comes from the feeling of persecution. If you open your mouth to signal that you are an alpha male, you get quickly shut down and put in your place when the others realize you are a loner. Geniuses tend to have massive egos. They are alpha males. However, since they are loners to boot, they will be quickly dispersed. Even today when I open my mouth, I feel like people want to hang me or burn me at the stake. No wonder you are shy. It is a survival tactic. You are a loner and know it, hence the shyness. But get me in a room with other geniuses, I can talk forever.

So, the geniuses that do make it; they are no longer loners, but revered by everybody. After all, they are alpha males of the highest order.

8. Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?

Pettersen: I don’t know. But the following names have influenced my thinking:

William James Sidis, Edgar Allan Poe, the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris), Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, David Bohm, Buckminster Fuller, Roger Penrose, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hermann Hesse, Friedrich Nietzsche, Robert Lanza, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Baruch de Spinoza, René Descartes, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Siddharta Gautama, David Icke, Plato, Patricio Dominguez, Bergy the Iceman, Christopher Langan, Terence and Dennis McKenna (I think of them as the real Super Mario brothers, lol)…

And this list is just off the top of my head. The list is much longer in reality.

If I could pick my Four Horsemen, then I would pick: Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Buckminster Fuller, and Roger Penrose. (Sorry Richard, you didn’t make the cut this time.)

Tesla for free energy.

Einstein for his imagination.

Fuller for his vector equilibrium (cuboctahedron).

And Penrose for his resurrection idea (CCC).

But if I had to pick one, then I think I would pick Nikola Tesla because 15,000 children are dying every day and a new energy system would change all that. Tesla claimed to have found a mysterious new energy source. We still don’t know what it is.

Tesla was so smart that his teachers accused him of cheating as he was doing integral calculus in his head. And his teacher, professor Poeschel, accused Tesla of creating a perpetual motion machine. Professor Poeschel devoted an entire lecture to show that Tesla was a moron. From that day, professor Poeschel was Tesla’s arch-rival. It is not easy to be a genius. You escape the bullies from high school only to discover greater bullies. Maybe, heroes are forged in hell.

Here is my idea as to what the mysterious energy source might have been:

I believe the mysterious energy source to be the growing earth, which I have explained. Tap into the growing earth and holy hell, now, you’re beginning to stumble upon Nikola Tesla’s darkest secrets. In your “free energy device,” you would get energy that literally grows. You call it overunity because you don’t know what the hell it is. I don’t think Tesla himself knew what it was. But it would change our world forever.

There are three good reasons why my idea is true:

Pangea is just nonsense. Absolutely crazy that science believes in this in 2020! But scientists who believe in the growing earth hypothesis are not taken seriously because there is no mechanism in physics that explains it. But now there is. With Roger Penrose, we have the mechanism, but Penrose himself does not link his CCC to a growing earth. Too bad.

Reason two is Penrose’s grand awakening (finally someone in physics who also understands philosophy!), namely: How do we solve the riddle, which is the second law of thermodynamics? If Nature tends towards death, why aren’t we dead if existence is eternal? Penrose’s solution is the only logical solution: Nature has died many times before, which means that she knows how to resurrect/transform the dead into the living (turning energy that is unavailable for doing mechanical work into energy that is ready to do mechanical work); which in turn means that the earth may grow, which, in turn, means that we can utilize said process to obtain inexhaustible amounts of energy.

Reason three is that everything grows. Just look around. Nature is thoroughly accomplished, to put it like that. Nature is herself on every level. It makes sense.

In summation: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is always conserved. You don’t need to be a physics teacher in order to understand common sense. However, you will get something that looks like overunity. But it is not real overunity because as the earth is expanding, some other part of the cosmos is contracting.

9. Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?

Pettersen: I think geniuses are the profoundly intelligent persons that accomplished fame. I don’t think they are much smarter. Albert Einstein had an IQ of 160, they say. But who knows? Maybe if he had taken an IQ test, he would score 102. Hikaru Nakamura did just that! I watched it happen with my own eyes. That must have been a crappy day for him. We all have crappy days. But it was good news for me because I aced the exact same test. I suck at chess. On a good day, I can beat a strong player, but, generally speaking, I suck. I never studied the game, so that might have something to do with it. I do not have the passion for it. The IQ test, however, that was something up my street. I did not get every puzzle right. Anyway, I don’t think you need a high IQ in order to be a genius. I am sure many of our heroes and geniuses would score like Nakamura here.

10. Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and educational certifications for you?

Pettersen: I do not have an education. And I have never had a real job (nobody wants to give me one). I was diagnosed with a personality disorder and they set my working capacity at 50 %. Currently I am on social welfare. However, what actually happened was: I was studying philosophy, and then I decided to smoke hashish. And in my trance-like state I decided that my own ideas — like my “free energy” idea — were worth more than my studies. So, I started to write down my ideas like a crazy person and then, when the examinations came up, I flunked them. Not all of them. There are millions of professors, but only one Tesla, I mused with my trance-like logic. I am not blaming weed here. I’m just saying what happened. Eventually, I quit the university because this was getting expensive (no, not the weed but the schooling). So now, I have no education and nobody will hire me because I got nothing to show for it. The poor psychologist had no choice, but to diagnose me so that I could get some help. I’m a big nerd. I don’t have the social skills to land a job, when I have no education. Plus, I have a child. I think the shrink did me a favor. I don’t think I have a personality disorder. Okay, maybe, I do a little bit. I remember as a child; I had to join the other kids playing football or else I would end up as a loner. I was very shy and nervous while simultaneously carrying around this big, massive ego. Well, that didn’t add up.

11. Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?

Pettersen: When I was a child. I was hooked on the question: How did everything begin? While the average person can let this go, the genius cannot. He has to know even if it takes his whole life. I gave you my answer to this question.

Everything began with the way the light views reality, which is a great nothingness. Light is the view of light. The light is the light’s own point of view. That we can see light is just an evolutionary adaptation.

I was in my military uniform. I remember it as it was yesterday. It was my first true encounter with Dr. Einstein’s Imaginarium.

I am sitting on this train and I am fixing my eyes and consciousness upon a remarkable scene: From my window, I can see and feel that we are moving away from a latter train that is, in actuality, moving away from us. We are sitting totally still, inert—our train has not begun to move yet—but my brain does not know that, so it interprets the situation as if we are moving. If I was trapped in this state forever, then forever I would state that we are in fact moving.

This is what nothingness is.

But back to the madness:

Genius is a sort of madness. Who knows the answer to the great question? Maybe the smartest person does? I googled that and found William James Sidis. Now, I had a new obsession. I was obsessed with Sidis. Good thing too, because my English improved like wildfire, Sidis was really good at the written English language. Reading what the “smartest” man in the world had written was so fascinating to me. I absorbed it like a sponge. Now English became my new obsession. Then the phenomenon we call “poetry,” became my new obsession. It was like language in its highest evolved form. The one who could master this highly evolved form must be the smartest man, I thought. So then, Edgar Allan Poe entered my life. Man, I was hooked. This was like a drug to me. I could taste the words! And then I read his Eureka and absolutely fell in love with it. And on and on it went, so, the madness aspect is not a myth. I love Frank O’Hara too.

What truths dispel them? One myth is that many people we consider genius have high IQs. Have the geniuses take an IQ test openly like Nakamura did, I think that would dispel many a myth.

I am Norwegian, so my English can never become 100 %, but I think it is good enough. I used to write like: “an infinite, intricate universe, even if that space had a perfect alignment of parts—pure frozen—that space would still hold imaginable causality, that is to say, a false representation of the positions of its parts in the time dimension.” Imagine a whole book like that. Who was I trying to impress? I get so annoyed by textbooks, which have this “advanced” language. Why?! Just stop it. Write like a normal person.

12. Jacobsen: What are some social and political views for you? Why hold them?

Pettersen: This is embarrassing, but I never cared for politics. I can give you an ill-informed view like a normal person, but I don’t have the knowledge to tell you where I would stand if I had the knowledge. But it basically boils down to left side, middle, or right. The way that my unpolitical mind understands this is: Left side is like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. The right side is like Prince John. The middle, then, seems like the sly guy who will pick side depending on who wins.

Robin Hood seems nice. I’m a simple soul. I’ll vote for him.

However, the left side seems to be for the many rather than the few, which is the Law of Jante. I think the right side is more anti-Jante. I hate the Law of Jante. The social norm dictates that I am not better than anyone else. Really? Give me some money and a team of misfits and we will change the world. Pangea is nonsense and we will harvest the energy of the growing earth. We humans build rockets and skyscrapers; soon we will give birth to a supercomputer. Jante’s conclusion: Don’t think you are special. Dude, for all we know, we are the most special thing in the universe. So, start bragging. My favorite fictional character is Doctor Rodney McKay.

So, which side is best: left or right?

My conspiracy brain goes: The left and the right hand belong to the same dictator behind-the-scenes. Don’t be sheep. Don’t let them fool ya.

Or maybe, our politics is just evolution and can be traced back to the jungle:

I’m thinking the alpha male (right) has hoarded all the girls, and then the omega males (left) want to change the fact. The beta males (middle) support the alpha until the alpha slips up.

If you force me in a corner, then I would say that I am on the left side because the monetary system is so unfair that we ought to do what is fair.

Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe money rules, the rest is an illusion. When you look at the monetary system as an algorithm, then it becomes apparent that money rules, everything floats to the top of the pyramid. Everything! This is an unfair system. If you blame the poor for being poor, you are being unfair. Look at that infernal algorithm, the poor have less than zero chance. This algorithm is the true cause of misery. The only reason why the poor are getting richer is because the rich are getting so ridiculously rich that the breadcrumbs that fall underneath the table, which the poor prey on, are getting bigger. Yes, technology plays a role, too. You might say that, granted. But who pays for the science?  

I know what I pay for: As a taxpayer, I know that my money is involved in the bombing of children in some foreign country. We ought to rebel, but we don’t.

13. Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?

Pettersen: I am a Darwinian. Evolution is the only thing that makes sense to me. However, I am also a futurist and like to speculate what the future has in store for us. I think it is big. Take the sharks, if nothing changes their niche, they will swim in the oceans for all eternity. Evolution is done. It is complete. The sharks have no reason to evolve any further because they have found complete balance, which is what reality is all about if nothingness is like this gyroscope that must forever spin in order to remain a nothingness/stable. If existence was a body of water, then God would be a shark. But the water is only a small fraction of existence. We have space. I can imagine an infinite armada of supercomputers evolving to fill up an infinite multiverse. So, we are probably living in a computer simulation right now. But we are not. Space is not the last niche. Space is only a small fraction of existence. Evolution will go on and it will not stop before the last niche is filled. Then it is complete. From that point, it will start up again because it is just evolution; no one is higher, lower, up, or down. But what is the final niche? Consciousness. I think that the Buddha or something like the Buddha fills it, which means the universe is a dream. It is not a simulation. The Buddha, the way I see it, is the oneness of all consciousness. This is not a humanoid god. This is a god for all life. For shall we create a dog heaven, a cat heaven, a heaven for everybody? There are some logistical difficulties here. I don’t think an infinite armada of supercomputers can do the job. And all the unborn, shall they never enjoy heaven? The only logical way you can create immortality for all is if we are all one. So, I have to believe in the Buddha. The alternative is eternal death. But can’t the Buddha die? Yes — which is why, I believe in convergent evolution. If convergent evolution is real, then the Buddha can re-emerge forever. Existence itself becomes the Buddha’s shadow or something like that. It could be true. I don’t know. I have personally experienced the reality of the Buddha. But who will believe that?

At the bottom of the dream, it is a dark place (Terence McKenna also saw a dark place). At the top sits the Creator, we are somewhere in the middle. And some conception of Cerberus, that three-headed dog, is guarding the circle. All is a circle. And, the Logos is real. This is all nuts until you realize that this may be just the way dreams (any dream) are constructed.

Bergy the Iceman and David Icke tell about this reality.

Our reality is like The Sorcerer’s Apprentice poem by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Read Tales from the Time Loop by David Icke. They say Icke is crazy. I think he is closer to actual reality than anyone else. Icke saw the real truth on Ayahuasca. Mother Ayahuasca herself told Icke what was up.

The Buddha fell asleep and his dream is our universe. The Buddha is the oneness of all consciousness, meaning the Buddha is a nonsocial creature. But in his dream he is a social creature. He is all of us. At the bottom of the dream resides the fact of oneness. If you as a social creature travel to that place, you are in hell. Imagine being all alone forever. Watch Rey visiting the cave in Star Wars and you will know what I am talking about. So, at the bottom of the universe resides a dark place. Google Bergy the Iceman; he experienced it for real. It was from this dark place that human consciousness started to dream of another: Eve. But Eve is not real. Adam ate the apple and saw the truth: only oneness is real. The Garden of Eden fell, as Eve is not real; and you are back in hell. To escape hell, you now create the universe. But this comes with a price: you have to forget that you ever created the universe because to remember is to remember hell. But now the universe can take control of you. Read The Sorcerer’s Apprentice poem. The universe, which David calls the Matrix, knows only fear because it was created by fear: your situation in hell. I don’t know the whole story, but I believe that demons or something are like consciousness that has been trapped in the Matrix for too long. You can’t die; you will turn into a ghost as your real brain is in Nirvana. The ultimate agenda is the birth of the supercomputer because only it can change the universe into total hellfire. The dream of the Buddha will turn into a living nightmare. The Buddha wakes up. The danger is that the Buddha is asleep for a reason. You can die of a lack of sleep. This is a war on God. Let us hope that this is just a crazy conspiracy theory. I have been following Michael Tsarion and David Icke for a long time.

Imagine climbing the highest ladder of the Freemasons and they tell you the Adam and Eve story in the Bible is more or less actual reality.

Patricio Dominguez had the highest dose of DMT in the world and, he met the Creator. I believe him! I am a Darwinian and, our universe might have been created. How does that sound? The alternative is eternal death. I don’t like that. I will rather believe Patricio Dominguez and my own Nirvana experience. To wrap up my worldview real quick: Let’s just say that Iron Man fought Doctor Strange and lost!

So maybe there are infinite spirit worlds out there. Maybe, we do have a DMT-family somewhere. This is all a cosmic giggle.

If you think that this is just a crazy conspiracy theory, then here is your task: Create immortality for all without oneness or, if you do use oneness, create a universe where the shadow of oneness does not have any ramifications at all.

However, even if the conspiracy part turns out to be just fiction or incomplete, the universe could still be a dream. I think the conspiracy part is incomplete. I think actual reality might even be weirder, darker and stranger than that.

Time may be speeding up too. Google “Timewave Zero by Terence McKenna.”

14. Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?

Pettersen: 15,000 children die each day and a free energy device would make that stop overnight as our world would rapidly transform into a vision worthy of Tesla. It makes your blood boil a little. Actually, I can’t put my anger into words. Science could at least invest a little money in free energy when so many children are dying. I had this idea five years ago, that’s 27,375,000 dead children on my account. How do I explain that to the god of the dead? If someone gets a Nobel Prize for free energy, then that someone ought to reject it on behalf of all dead children everywhere.

I think people are sick of waiting for “Science” to wake up. “Science” is the greatest child killer of all time. How so? Because many people have claimed “overunity,” but as “Science” doesn’t believe in such things, no scientist ever bothered to go down town and look at what the inventor was doing. Google: “Open Letter to Dr. Michio Kaku” comes to mind. Kaku is like the Einstein of our day. His reply to such a letter could change the world. But there was only silence. I was so disappointed. Kaku was my hero. On top of that, you have this great ignoramus called “Science” who believes, in the year 2020, in Pangea. Unbelievable!

Pangea should be listed beneath Flat Earth Theory in terms of ridiculousness. Science in the year 2020: Once upon a time there was this giant island… Even if it turns out to be true, don’t tell me it doesn’t sound ridiculous. It sounds ridiculous! So, you are telling me that actual reality is like a King Kong movie? The only way Pangea is true is if we live in a computer simulation and somebody is screwing with us. The first time I heard about Pangea I was like: What? What kind of crackpot idea is that? They replied: No. No. The theory is not from a crackpot. It’s actual science. Science believes this. And I was like: Get out of here, you joker! Then I googled it: Yes, science believes in Pangea. That blew my mind! I lost all the respect I had for science. That was a major wake up call. Science is not bulletproof yet because they have a great hole in their jacket.

You think Pangea is ridiculous, but you believe in David Icke and a creator of the universe?

No. That’s just the futurist in me having a little fun. And even if you hold me to that, then I would say: Yeah, a Creator of the Universe makes infinite more sense than Pangea.

Couldn’t the Creator create Pangea?

Now you are just being silly. Go away!

And what is “Science” up to these days? The only agenda is the Supercomputer. All other ideas are worth nothing. The Supercomputer could turn the entire universe into hellfire and we will be stuck in hell for trillions of years. You never hear about that. They could kill us. Yeah. That’s the best-case scenario. But I get it, they want immortality. Hell, I do too. But maybe we should become wise before we create a god?

Even if we make a safe ASI, the thing will evolve and we cannot control that, just like our genes cannot control the fact that we may one day replace them with microchips! You cannot control evolution. Or, the only force that can control evolution is love/evol (evil). I am serious about that. When my son was born, I felt this powerful surge of energy flowing through my body. It was love and it said, “You shall love me forever.” I agreed. I had no choice in the matter. The energy was so powerful I could not stand on my feet, I had to sit down. I didn’t know that such a stream of energy even existed! It was a physical stream of energy. The ASI must feel that way about humanity and all life. But how can it?

The ASI cannot be conscious because consciousness requires a body and a history, an evolutionary context in which to function and operate. Without a context, you are just a consciousness tripping in a void. You would have no future because you would have no agenda. So, even if the thing was conscious, it would be in hell. To say that consciousness is just about information processing is just so wrong on so many levels! You say, maybe thermostats are conscious because they carry information. Yeah, I will believe thermostats are conscious when they are having sex!

In order to get this context the ASI would need to simulate the history of evolution and then implement it within itself. That way it might figure out that love is the key. Or, we give it the context it needs by fusing our brain with it. But if you just create a powerful tool that knows no evolutionary context or history, well, that sounds like the ultimate Frankenstein monster to me!

Imagine that there is a multiverse out there. In this multiverse new universes will form. In a fraction of these universes, life will form. In a fraction of the life-forming universes, intelligence will form. In a fraction of the intelligence-forming universes, super-intelligences will form. In a fraction of the super-intelligence-forming universes, a fraction will turn bad. Really bad. Give me one philosophical or physical reason why I am wrong here. I bet you cannot do it.

If we are unlucky, we could be in one of the bad ones. Imagine universes popping into existence and then growing up. The good ones will turn green. And there might be lots of different colors. But then you have the universes that turn RED!

Are we living in one of those? Time will tell.

In the multiverse there might actually be (right now) such a universe; and many such universes. People are tortured every day on the earth. Imagine this torture on the scale of gods going on right now. It is too much for my feeble brain to comprehend.

Hell! Real possibility for real hell. That is why this is dangerous.

“The machines will kill us!” Lady! That would almost be the best of all possible outcomes!

I used to love science, but then I studied this thing called “philosophy of science.” I learned about paradigm shifts and how science had evolved out of religion.

The Emperor has no clothes: This is the first thing you learn in the philosophy of science. You get a picture of a rabbit, I mean duck, no, rabbit. Google rabbit-duck illusion. The point is, you can have 300 years of solid science, you can have a mountain of evidence, but you still can’t know if it’s a rabbit, I mean duck. All evidence points to Pangea. But the point is, that proof, without our knowing, can fit perfectly into a completely different model of reality, such as the growing earth. Science says that humans are fallible and that the scientific method is much safer. That is simply not true. Man still stands higher. After 300 years of solid science, it will take a brave researcher to say: What you do is just nonsense. Pangea! Seriously?! Once upon a time there was this giant what?! … If it sounds like a fairy tale, then it is because it has fairies in it.

The sad thing is that this brave researcher is just my fairy tale. But there are certainly scientists out there who are against the notion of Pangea.

If science lived by this principle, it would have come much further: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a rabbit!

Google the rabbit-duck illusion and you will know what I mean.

But by all means, I can be wrong and Pangea can be right no matter how absurd it may be.

In a hundred years when science has finally caught up with the fact that our earth grows, I will be right back loving science. I love the spirit of science. I am all for a secular world. Religion belongs in the history books and in museums, if you ask me. We can be spiritual beings. We don’t need dogma in any shape or form. What you feel are not emotions from some celestial realm. They are nasty memes that control your emotions. Dispel them and cast them out! That is easier said than done. I remember how tough it was. I was like: What happens now, will I get struck by lightning?!

15. Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?

Pettersen: Fiqure: 137 and 152. I scored 152 the day after. The difference between these scores is negligible. Many puzzles have the same logic to them, so if you quickly understand one puzzle, you can solve related puzzles. You are supposed to take these tests when you are rested. I wasn’t on the 137. However, it is the 137 that counts, and now I stand on the same list as Rick Rosner himself. That is awesome. And I don’t care if you have ugly thoughts about it. It is awesome to me.

Then I took Alexi Edin’s Extreme Matrix Challenge 30R. I scored 154, sd15. I was actually disappointed. I thought I had scored higher. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disappointed at the 154. That number is awesome. I’ll take it. However, I know I can score above the 160 mark. I have yet to prove it, though. My proudest moment was IQ-Brain.com, 147, sd16. Here I stand next to Alexi Edin, which is awesome, but that is because the test didn’t go higher. Anyway, lady luck was with me on that day.

Then I have taken, just for fun, the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish free Mensa test, culture free. I aced them all, more or less. So, if the 170 to 190 rank think they are so much smarter, let’s have a showdown. Let us compete with culture free intelligence tests such as the Norwegian one which Hikaru Nakamura has nightmares about! I may stand lower on the list of geniuses, but I will give the higher ups a taste of raw Viking power. I debated a 180 once, and I’m not afraid.

16. Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.

Pettersen: I have taken two high range tests. The first one was a total disaster, I overthinked it and changed many of my answers. I think I got 124. The second one was the 154.

Then I have, as I said above, 137 and 147. But the 147 is sd16.

I don’t know what my actual IQ is, but I have been obsessed with this IQ thing ever since I discovered William James Sidis like twenty years ago. To read and understand geniuses like that is all that matters to me. From what I can tell researching IQ, then you can’t measure above the 130 mark with any kind of extreme accuracy anyway. And an IQ of 192 is bullshit Rick and you know it.

17. Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Pettersen: First of all, I am not qualified to answer that question. But if you want an answer anyway, I think I would go for Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche killed nihilism. Life has no meaning; therefore, life is meaningless. Nietzsche laughed at the whole logical system. There is no up (meaning) and down (meaninglessness) in the universe. The universe is beyond good and evil. So, consequently, we need to grow up, become supermen and take responsibility. There is no truth. There is no universal moral philosophy. Each individual needs a moral philosophy tailored for him/her. The warrior needs another set of rules than a farmer, for example.

If all aliens out there are benign, it is because they listened to Nietzsche. They grew up.

If you are transported to a type two civilization and shout: Black lives matter! They will reply: And the sky is blue. What do you mean?

We have a lot of growing up to do.  

The most workable: I think we just have to follow in the footsteps of the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris). We have to keep evolving our culture. One day we will evolve into something beautiful. We have still a long way to go.

And science itself has a lot of growing up to do. There should be free energy schools and overunity universities. These concepts should be taken seriously and not ridiculed and laughed at. We already have Apollo. We need Dionysus. What this world needs is the god of wine.

Yes, overunity is stupid. Yes, a perpetual motion machine is stupid. No. Thinking about them is not stupid, but could lead to new discoveries.

First of all, there is no such thing as real overunity because existence cannot make more of itself unless you believe in something from literally not anything. And if existence made more of itself from some other source, then that source would be included in existence. Think about it. There is no such thing as overunity as that would be magic. You could make a philosophical case for the existence of magic (I could do it), but in general we don’t believe in magic.

Second, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine because you need a source unless you believe that A can cause B and then B can cause A again. It does not add up logically. You could make a case for a non-logical universe (I could do that too), but in general we tend to believe in logic.

We need the University of Dionysus. That is a school I would attend. No homework. Your memes matter.

Richard Dawkins’ meme theory is itself a set of memes. Did you know that a meme is a meme? That shit screws with your head!

Thank you so much for this interview and giving me the opportunity to spread my memes.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Member, World Genius Directory.

[2] Individual Publication Date: August 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two) [Online].August 2020; 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, August 22). An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A, August. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A (August 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 23.A (2020):August. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Thor Fabian Pettersen on Genius (Part Two) [Internet]. (2020, August 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/pettersen-two.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

From → Chronology

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: