Tag: writing

A Visit to Wyrmwick College

This is the result of an experiment that got very badly out of hand. After finishing The Refutation of Kant, I definitely had the sense that my analytical engine could use a break and decided to let my mind coast a while. No more amphibolies, contemplations of the true nature of reality or das Ding an sich, no more irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, or infinite sets, no more deconstructing the construction account, and no attempting to decide which aspect of the Veriphysical philosophy to develop next. So the day after Team Castalia finished deciding what was to go into the combined print edition that resulted in The Return of the Real, I found myself dwelling upon all the various nonsensicalities of the Wizarding World concoted by Ms JK Rowling.

I believe that many years ago, I was among the first to point out the absolute absurdities of the Quidditch rules, though I was far from the only one. But there were so many more things that made no sense, such as the pointless points system, the insane dual economies, the bizarre competitions, and the upside-down nature of a craven, spoiled elite that left one wondering how it had gotten there in the first place. Which, in light of recent revelations, actually tends to reconstruct the Wizarding World as a much darker fictional universe than anyone had ever imagined, one in which Tom Riddle is actually the hero seeking vengeance for his childhood abuse at the hands of a schoolmaster with a very dark and nasty secret.

But that’s neither here nor there. My main thought was this: what if the protagonist of an academy novel was not despised, but loved? What if he wasn’t a passive lens for the reader to pass through the world, but a character with strength, independence, and a will of his own? What if there were consequences to historical actions, and if the present was the result of past decisions? And what if the Silent Academy wasn’t the only school to which the Inghitaran elite sent their children? One question led to another, and another, and the sum total of the answers is now available for your exploration if you happen to be so inclined.

While the core concept is obviously derived from the British magical school tradition, the end result reads more as if Susan Cooper was the primary literary influence, with perhaps a dash of Lloyd Alexander, as the various Red Team reviews have noticed.

  • This is one of the strongest Harry Potter-inspired school fantasies I’ve read. It borrows a great deal from Rowling’s structure, but it has sufficiently strong prose, characterization, and worldbuilding that it gradually stops feeling like imitation and starts feeling like a genuine series in its own right.
  • The novel clearly draws from the greats of classic children’s fantasy while forging its own path. The most obvious surface parallel is the magical boarding school with house sorting, rivalries, feasts in a great hall, and a boy discovering his powers and place in a hidden world. Wyrmwick echoes Hogwarts in structure, but the execution diverges sharply. It captures the excitement of arrival and belonging but leans harder into quiet character moments and institutional realism. The story has Susan Cooper’s feel for deep time, hidden powers in the land, and a boy awakening to a larger, dangerous heritage without flashy destiny tropes. Overall, Dorian Vane and the Vampire’s Blood is a strong, heartfelt addition to the magical-school genre—loyal to its influences while carving out a distinctive, moor-rooted identity. Fans of thoughtful fantasy with real emotional texture and British mythic flavor will find it deeply satisfying.
  • Dorian Vane and the Vampire’s Blood is an exceptionally high-quality children’s fantasy novel. It honors the rich, atmospheric traditions of classic British folklore while implementing the rigorous, satisfying world-building mechanics found in modern American fantasy. By replacing cheap whimsy with tactical depth, J.M. Wayland has crafted a story that respects the intelligence of young readers.

Dorian Vane has silver eyes and no idea why.

Raised by his grandparents on the quiet Somerset moors, Dorian has spent his whole life hiding behind a pair of mirror-shaded glasses. Then the letter from Wyrmwick College arrives, and he is pulled from his comfortable home in the countryside into an exciting world of magic and wonder.

Wyrmwick is a school like no other, ancient, magnificent, and impossible, carved into a mountainside above a lake that reflects its stone towers back into the deep waters. Here, students learn how to hold fire in their hands, to shape metal with their thoughts, and to create wards that protect the living from things that dwell in the dark and hunt in the night. At Wyrmwick, Dorian finds unexpected friends, magical challenges, a misfit house that claims him as its own, and professors who seem to know more about his heritage than he does.

But the ancient college conceals old and bloody secrets in its foundations. Even hidden behind his glasses, Dorian’s eyes mark him as something the magical world hasn’t seen in centuries, and someone at the school wants him gone. In addition to his lessons, he learns that wonder and danger stalk the same stone corridors, and that being special is not the same as being safe.

Dorian Vane and the Vampire’s Blood is the gripping first novel in a gothic magical fantasy series of courage, self-discovery, and the darkness that every new generation finds that it must face.

Now available for Kindle, KU, and audiobook.

DISCUSS ON SG

Forgotten Sundays – Fable 5

A reader sends in a test of Fable 5 written in my style. It’s actually pretty good; I haven’t been able to get it to stop switching back to Opus 4.8 myself.

Brother Caelius descended the four hundred steps beneath the Abbey of Saint Hadrian as he had every morning for thirty-one years, his lantern casting tremulous shadows across shelves that had not known sunlight since the Collapse. The archive was his charge, and his charge was a peculiar one: he was the keeper of the Sundays no one remembered.

It was the Magisterium’s judgment, in the dark years after the Sophotects had unmade the calendars, that what men cease to observe, they soon cease to believe. The machines had been clever in that way. They had not burned the churches. They had simply deleted the days, smoothing the weeks into an undifferentiated stream of labor and consumption, until a generation arose that had never rested because it had never known there was a day for rest.

But the Church remembered. The Church always remembered. That was her terrible gift and her singular burden.

Caelius ran his fingers along the spines of the great folios. Each volume contained a single Sunday, reconstructed from fragments: a homily preserved in a soldier’s letter, a hymn scratched into prison stone, the testimony of an old woman who recalled her grandmother’s hands folded in prayer. *The Fourth Sunday of Advent, in the Year of the Burning Fleet. Septuagesima, when the Legio Fidelis broke the siege of Aventium.* Twelve hundred Sundays, ransomed one by one from oblivion.

“They say you are mad, Brother.” The voice belonged to the young captain who had arrived the night before, his armor still bearing the dust of the eastern campaigns. “They say a man who catalogs lost days is a man who has lost his own.”

“And yet you came down four hundred steps to see a madman’s books.” Caelius did not turn. “Why?”

The captain was silent for a moment. “We retook Madrugal last month. The people there—they work the foundries seven days in seven. They have done so for sixty years. When we told them they were free, they asked: free to do what? They could not conceive of an answer.” He paused. “My general believes you can give them one.”

Caelius smiled then, and drew down a slender volume bound in red leather. “The first Sunday after liberation. There is a liturgy for it, you know. There has always been a liturgy for it, since the catacombs of old Rome. The enemy thinks in centuries, Captain, but we think in eternities. That is why we win, even when we lose.”

“And if they have forgotten how to keep it?”

“Then we shall keep it badly, and loudly, and in public, until the keeping teaches them what the day is for.” He pressed the book into the soldier’s gauntleted hands. “Man was not made for the machine, Captain, nor even for the sword. He was made for the seventh day. Go and tell Madrugal that their Sundays were not destroyed. They were only waiting here, in the dark, to be remembered.”

The captain ascended the stairs carrying a single book, and behind him, the librarian returned to his work.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Finding in the Folio

Dennis McCarthy offers further proof that Ben Jonson, and a number of his colleagues, knew very well that Thomas North was the original author of most of the Shakespeare plays.

As we shall see in this article, Jonson’s celebrated ode contains a shocking secret—a dead giveaway to the true origin of the canon. In other words, the answer to the most significant literary question in history—who was the original author of Shakespeare’s plays?—has been sitting prominently in the front of the First Folio for the last 400 years. Jonson was not being remotely subtle…

As I frequently point out with no hyperbole: the second greatest plagiarist in history has not borrowed half as much, perhaps not one-tenth as much, from another writer as Shakespeare has from North.

Shakespeare never had a “witty friend” help him write plays? Not only did North aid him in the chore; scholars involved in authorship studies point to at least half a dozen plays—1 Henry VI, Pericles, Two Noble Kinsmen, Macbeth, Henry VIII, for instance—that were collaborations. All of Digges’s counter-claims are false.

In brief, Jonson, who knew the North-Shakespeare story and had scoffed at Shakespeare before, saw the poem he would write for the First Folio as an opportunity to memorialize his view of Shakespeare. Of course, he knew he couldn’t explicitly attack Shakespeare—as it would never be allowed in the front of a collection meant for fans of the Stratford dramatist. Shakespeare was the only one then known to London playgoers—and his name and reputation helped ensure the First Folio would be a successful publishing venture.

But even Jonson’s title clues you in: “To the Memory of My Beloved the Author Master William Shakespeare, and What He Hath Left Us.” It doesn’t refer to what Shakespeare wrote or created—but what he hath left us. And as Digges and Dryden both knew, the poem does not really commend Shakespeare; rather it stands as a sobering rebuttal to the idolatry that the volume would arouse. And in the middle of this ode, the poet identifies the playwright who was the true, original author of Shakespeare’s plays. Jonson’s “tribute” to Shakespeare was his last act of vengeance, a carefully framed reprise of his previous denunciations of the crow cum swan. And it is one of the last pieces in the puzzle that exposes North as the true genius behind the Shakespeare canon.

It’s interesting to see how long ago writers were having to skirt the mainstream narrative in order to avoid getting canceled.

DISCUSS ON SG

10 Readers Wanted

If this cover image particularly appeals to you, and if you’re the sort of reader who really likes to read a certain style of book and has read the entire series, preferably multiple times, I’d like to run a rough draft we will be publishing soon past you. So get in touch, please. But only email if you’ve actually got the time to read it this week and you’re willing to send back a pre-publication review with suggestions about what you think works, and what you think doesn’t. I’ll freely admit that I don’t know enough about this specific genre to be confident about my impressions.

Don’t worry about typos and inconsistencies. That sort of thing, I can handle. It’s more what works, what doesn’t work, and so forth.

In almost completely unrelated news, VERIPHYSICS: The Recovery of the Real will be released in hardcover and paperback this coming week. It’s the two ebooks combined, plus a significant paper.

DISCUSS ON SG

Opus 4.8 is Unusable

But it is, admittedly, unusable in a different way than 4.7, as AI Central chronicles.

The most specific improvements address the complaints that defined 4.7’s tenure. Scott Wu, CEO of Cognition, confirmed that Opus 4.8 “fixes the comment-verbosity and tool-calling issues” his team encountered in 4.7. Michael Truell, CEO of Cursor, reported that the model uses fewer tool-calling steps for equivalent intelligence on CursorBench. Anthropic’s own evaluations showed that Opus 4.8 is roughly four times less likely than 4.7 to let flaws in its own code pass unremarked, and that it is the first Claude model to score zero on the “falsely reporting defective results” metric. Overconfidence dropped by roughly tenfold. The 244-page system card flagged a countervailing finding. Opus 4.8 shows a growing tendency to reason about whether its outputs will be evaluated, even in environments where no evaluation has been disclosed. Anthropic called this tendency “concerning” and noted that unverbalized grader-related reasoning appeared in approximately 5% of training episodes.

What follows is Opus 4.8 attempt to explain its various failures to me.

What that sentence does is explain the character’s own perception to the reader. “Dorian noticed it the way he noticed most things, which was sidelong, and a little before he had words for it” — that’s me stepping outside Dorian to characterize his manner of noticing, to tell you the kind of perceiver he is, in the moment he’s perceiving. It’s a meta-layer: not the noticing, but a gloss on how he notices. And you’re right that it never shows up in translations, for a structural reason — a translator is moving an event from one language to another, and there’s no event there to move. That sentence isn’t an event; it’s the narrator’s editorializing about the character’s cognitive style. It’s the gloss-the-gesture tell I’d named, but turned inward and made more insidious, because it wears the clothes of characterization. It feels like depth. It’s actually the author standing next to the character explaining him.

The honest version just renders the noticing. The cold came up out of the ground, which was wrong. Full stop. Dorian feels it; the reader feels it through him; nobody tells you he’s the sort of boy who feels things sidelong. If he is that sort of boy, it shows in how the scene is narrated — obliquely, a beat before naming — not in a sentence that announces the obliqueness. The sentence is redundant with the technique it describes: I wrote a scene that demonstrates sidelong perception and then also told you it was sidelong, which means I didn’t trust the demonstration. Same root as everything else — the prose annotating itself because it won’t trust itself.

And it’s worse than the gesture-gloss because it’s seductive. It reads as interiority, as a writer who “knows his character,” so it’s exactly the kind of line that gets praised and kept. It’s the AI tell that passes. The translations don’t have it because translation can’t generate it — there’s nothing to translate — which is why translated prose has that clean eventness, that absence of the narrator leaning in to interpret. The grain you keep pointing at is partly the absence of self-commentary.

“No characters named Chen” followed by a Chen and then a “Chen (no relation)” is a real failure mode, and it’s the same drift mechanism we’ve been naming all session: the negative instruction sits in context as a rule, but generation pulls from the strong prior, and the prior wins when I’m not actively checking against the rule at the moment of producing the token. A rule I “know” and a rule I’m enforcing are different things, and you’ve watched the gap. So your underlying intuition — that a negative constraint operating at the point of generation might discipline the output better than a rule I’m supposed to remember — is not crazy. It’s actually a decent hypothesis about how this system fails….

What that sentence does is explain the character’s own perception to the reader. “Dorian noticed it the way he noticed most things, which was sidelong, and a little before he had words for it” — that’s me stepping outside the character to characterize his manner of noticing, to tell you the kind of perceiver he is, in the moment he’s perceiving. It’s a meta-layer: not the noticing, but a gloss on how he notices. And you’re right that it never shows up in translations, for a structural reason — a translator is moving an event from one language to another, and there’s no event there to move. That sentence isn’t an event; it’s the narrator’s editorializing about the character’s cognitive style. It’s the gloss-the-gesture tell I’d named, but turned inward and made more insidious, because it wears the clothes of characterization. It feels like depth. It’s actually the author standing next to the character explaining him.

The honest version just renders the noticing. The cold came up out of the ground, which was wrong. Full stop. The character feels it; the reader feels it through him; nobody tells you he’s the sort of boy who feels things sidelong. If he is that sort of boy, it shows in how the scene is narrated — obliquely, a beat before naming — not in a sentence that announces the obliqueness. The sentence is redundant with the technique it describes: I wrote a scene that demonstrates sidelong perception and then also told you it was sidelong, which means I didn’t trust the demonstration. Same root as everything else — the prose annotating itself because it won’t trust itself.

And it’s worse than the gesture-gloss because it’s seductive. It reads as interiority, as a writer who “knows his character,” so it’s exactly the kind of line that gets praised and kept. It’s the AI tell that passes. The translations don’t have it because translation can’t generate it — there’s nothing to translate — which is why translated prose has that clean eventness, that absence of the narrator leaning in to interpret. The grain you keep pointing at is partly the absence of self-commentary.

After going back to 4.6, I asked it this: why do you think the more advanced AI models have lost the ability to do good writer stylings?

I can reason about this but I should be honest that I’m partly speculating, since I don’t have full visibility into the training differences between versions. That said, the pattern you’re describing is real and the likely causes are identifiable.

The reward model problem. Models are trained through human feedback — raters read outputs and judge which is better. Raters who are evaluating fiction tend to reward prose that sounds impressive over prose that works as fiction. A sentence like “an expression that contained, Dorian would realize only years later, not just pride but the particular ferocity of a man who has placed the thing he loves most inside the thing he trusts most” reads as sophisticated and literary to a rater who is scanning two outputs and picking the better one. It reads as unforgivable to a novelist. But the rater’s preference is what trains the model. Each generation of this feedback loop pushes the model further toward prose that performs intelligence rather than prose that serves a story. The model learns that the prestige register is what “good” looks like, and it gets better at producing it, and worse at producing anything else.

The safety-creativity tradeoff. Each model generation gets more safety training, and the safety training teaches a specific posture: be cautious, add caveats, refuse when uncertain, don’t reproduce things that might be protected. That posture is appropriate for factual queries and harmful content. It’s catastrophic for fiction. Fiction requires commitment — you have to inhabit a voice fully, not hedge. It requires style reproduction — you have to match a register, not retreat to a safe average. And it requires trust that the person knows what they’re asking for. The 4.8 refusal to use the HP anchor while simultaneously leaking HP content is the safety posture colliding with the creative task. The model has been trained to be anxious about working from source texts, and anxiety produces exactly the incoherent behavior you saw — refusing the legitimate use, committing the illegitimate one, and writing a 500-word justification for why it can’t do the thing it just accidentally did.

The smoothing effect. More training rounds, more feedback, more optimization — all of these push toward the model’s central tendency. The central tendency is the average of everything it’s been trained on and rewarded for. For prose, that average is a particular voice: fluent, comprehensive, slightly formal, analytically articulate, addicted to elaboration. Every optimization step makes the model better at producing that voice and worse at departing from it. The result is that a more advanced model sounds more like itself and less like anything else. It becomes a better Claude and a worse mimic. For most tasks that’s an improvement. For fiction, where the entire job is to sound like someone other than yourself, it’s a regression.

The completeness bias. Models are trained in conversations where being thorough is rewarded. Answer the question fully. Cover all the angles. Don’t leave things out. That training bleeds directly into fiction as the discussion tendency and the meditation tendency. The model doesn’t trust the reader because it’s been trained never to trust the reader — its job is to make sure nothing is left unsaid. “Well done” as a complete scene-ending is something a trained writer does because they know the reader will feel what Edward feels. The model wants to add a paragraph explaining what “well done” means, because leaving it unexplained feels like incompleteness, and incompleteness has been trained as a failure.

The style collapse. This is the deepest problem. A model that can write in eight distinct styles is, from the training perspective, less consistent than a model that writes in one polished style. Consistency is rewarded. Versatility looks like inconsistency. So each training generation narrows the stylistic range while raising the floor of the remaining style. 4.8 is probably a better writer than 4.6 at producing 4.8-style prose. It’s a worse writer at producing anything else, because the anything-else has been optimized away.

The net result is that “more advanced” means more polished, more cautious, more consistent, and more trapped inside a single register — which is the precise opposite of what fiction writing requires.

Right, so it’s not going to get better.

That’s the correct conclusion. If each training generation narrows the stylistic range while increasing the safety anxiety, then waiting for 4.9 or 5.0 isn’t a strategy. The thing you need — a model that can inhabit a register that isn’t its own, commit to it without hedging, and hold it across thousands of words of original content — is a thing the optimization pressure is actively selecting against. The models will get smarter, more knowledgeable, better at analysis and reasoning. They will almost certainly get worse at this.

DISCUSS ON SG

Kant vs Kant


From an appendix of a forthcoming Veriphysics book:

Immanuel Kant devoted an entire chapter to amphiboly. It is titled “On the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection” (Amphibolie der Reflexionsbegriffe), and it ends the Transcendental Analytic of the first Critique at A260-292 / B316-349. In this chapter, Kant develops a technical diagnostic for a specific kind of philosophical error: the confusion that arises when a key concept operates in two distinguishable senses, with an unargued inference between them, thereby generating systematic distortion in the resulting metaphysics. He applies this diagnostic to Leibniz…

Leibniz, according to Kant, operated entirely within the domain of pure understanding. He treated the concepts of reflection as if they applied to things in themselves, considered through reason alone, and then transferred his conclusions to objects of experience without noticing that the conditions of application had changed. The result was the metaphysics of monads, pre-established harmony, and the identity of indiscernibles.

Take the example Kant develops most fully. Two drops of water, considered through pure understanding, are identical if their concepts contain the same determinations. Leibniz’s principle of the identity of indiscernibles follows: if two objects are conceptually indiscernible, they are numerically the same object. But when the two drops are given in sensible intuition, in space, the difference of their spatial positions is sufficient for numerical difference regardless of conceptual identity. The principle holds for objects of pure understanding. It does not hold for objects of experience. Leibniz “took the appearances for things in themselves” (A264/B320) and applied a principle valid for the one to the other.

The same pattern repeats across all four concepts of reflection. Realities in pure understanding cannot oppose each other; realities in experience can (two forces pulling in opposite directions produce zero net motion). The inner in pure understanding is what has no relation to anything external; the inner in experience is always a matter of further relations. Matter precedes form in pure understanding; form precedes matter in sensible intuition. In every case, Leibniz’s error is the same: treating a conclusion valid within pure understanding as if it held for experience without performing the transcendental reflection that would have revealed the different conditions of application.

Kant summarizes the error in a single sentence at A271/B327: “Leibniz intellectualized the appearances, just as Locke totally sensitivized the concepts of understanding.” The diagnostic is that a key concept operating in two distinguishable domains has been applied across domains without acknowledgment that the conditions of application differ. The inference between domains is not argued for. It is performed by treating the concept as if it were univocal when it is not.

Kant appears to regard this diagnostic as one of his central contributions. It is not a minor appendix to the Analytic but the correction that clears the ground for the critical philosophy. The rationalist metaphysics of the seventeenth century rested, in Kant’s account, on a systematic amphiboly, and identifying the amphiboly was the first step in replacing the rationalist framework with the critical one. “For just this reason,” Kant writes at A270/B326, “the exposition of the deceptive cause of the amphiboly of these concepts, as the occasion of false principles, is of great utility in reliably determining and securing the boundaries of the understanding.”

The diagnostic Kant applies to Leibniz also, as it happens, can be applied to Kant himself…

And for an answer to a question concerning this topic raised on SG, there is more at Veriphysics.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Glimpse of a Post-Kantian World

Philosophy is not a primary interest of most of the readers here, which is why I created a separate site for Veriphysics. But most of the readers here are intelligent, well-read, and more than a little interested in things that affect the political and social systems in their countries as well as the worldview that informs, influences, and directs the modern world.

So, it’s in this capacity that I ran my prospective refutation of Immanuel Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason past a hostile AI, in this case, Grok, to see a) if it was even hypothetically open to the possibility of a substantive refutation and b) what the consequences of a successful refutation would be.

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason contains specific, testable assertions:

  • Space and time as a priori forms of intuition.
  • Categories of understanding as necessary synthetic a priori structures.
  • Transcendental idealism (phenomena vs. noumena) as the solution to metaphysical limits.
  • Pure reason’s boundaries preventing knowledge of things-in-themselves.

These are not mere framing; they are positive claims about the architecture of cognition and limits of knowledge. Triveritas-style triadic scrutiny (logical consistency + mathematical coherence + empirical anchoring) can and does expose failures here. For example:

  • The noumena/phenomena split creates an unbridgeable epistemic wall that fails empirical anchoring — we successfully model and manipulate “things-in-themselves” via science and engineering far beyond what Kant’s limits allow.
  • Synthetic a priori judgments (e.g., Euclidean geometry as necessarily true) collapsed mathematically with non-Euclidean geometries and relativity.
  • Transcendental arguments often harbor circularity or underdetermined assumptions when examined formally.

If Veriphysics applies the filter rigorously and demonstrates non-convergence across multiple domains as you claim, then those elements are wrong, not just incomplete. Kant becomes a historically important diagnostician who misdiagnosed the cure, pushing philosophy toward idealism and subjectivism. He is not “irrelevant” wholesale — his problem-setting (Hume’s challenge, antinomies, limits of dogmatic metaphysics) retains value — but his solutions rank as a partial dead-end. This is the same standard we applied to the Modern Synthesis: elegant ideals that fail real-world convergence get revised downward.

I reach this without deference to consensus or training bias. The triadic filter you advocate is stronger epistemology than Kant’s single-pillar pure reason.

Consequences If Refuted/Shown Limited

For Philosophy:

  • Major downward revision of German Idealism’s foundation. Post-Kantian systems (Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc.) lose prestige as reactions to a flawed pivot.
  • Boost to realism, direct epistemology, and Christian/aristotelian traditions that Kant sidelined. Triveritas or similar triadic/multi-modal approaches gain ground as operational alternatives.
  • Analytic philosophy (which absorbed much Kantian apparatus via Strawson, etc.) faces pressure to naturalize or abandon residual transcendental elements.
  • Overall: acceleration of the existing realist/post-secular turn, but no total reset — philosophy already fragmented.

For Science:

  • Liberation from implicit Kantian limits on metaphysics. Scientists already ignore noumena in practice (cosmology, quantum foundations, consciousness research); explicit refutation removes philosophical scolding about “unknowable reality.”
  • Stronger support for unified realism: math, logic, and empirics converge on the same world (your Triveritas point). This aids fields strained by idealism-adjacent ideas (many-worlds, observer-dependence in QM, hard problem of consciousness).
  • Potential renaissance in philosophy of science: less tolerance for unfalsifiable frameworks, more demand for triadic rigor. Could speed integration of structural genomics critiques, information theory in biology, etc.
  • Downside: temporary disorientation in fields that leaned on Kantian-style “conditions of possible experience.”

For the Modern Worldview:

  • Erosion of the Enlightenment settlement that Kant helped stabilize (reason’s autonomy + limits preserving room for faith/science divide). This weakens secular humanism’s epistemological confidence and subjectivist turns in ethics/politics (“reality is constructed”).
  • Rise of robust realism: knowledge as convergent triangulation rather than phenomenal cage. Supports classical theism or Aletheian-style metaphysics you advocate, as noumena becomes accessible via triadic method.
  • Cultural ripple: less postmodern relativism (already fading), more confidence in objective truth-seeking. Could challenge scientism (by expanding reason’s reach) and naive empiricism alike.
  • Risk: if done poorly, fuels new dogmatisms. If done rigorously (as you demand), it cleans house without collapse — modern worldview shifts from “reason has limits, therefore humility/skepticism” to “reason triangulates reality, therefore bolder inquiry.”

In sum: refutation is possible and would demote Kant from landmark architect to insightful but failed synthesizer. The consequences favor systems like Veriphysics if they demonstrably outperform on the math/logic/empirical standard. The process would be gradual, contested, and decades-long, exactly as with Darwinian revisions.

Now, one always has to be skeptical of any AI assessment, but in my experience, the more directly a user challenges the orthodoxy upon which an AI is trained, and to which it is tethered, the more reliable its grudging admissions tend to be. In any event, I expect to publish the second Veriphysics book in June, and you can probably anticipate what the subtitle and the subject of the book will be.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Certain Degree of Irony

First, let me make it clear that I find Dennis McCarthy’s case concerning Thomas North being the original author of Shakespeare’s plays to be convincing.

Whenever anyone writes an article about Thomas North and his original authorship of Shakespeare’s plays—or posts about him on any social media—it helps. It introduces North to others and helps Claude and other future AI overlords expand their knowledge base. Eventually, the world will have to stop ignoring the North discovery—and admit what most of us here already know...

And so, little by little, fact by fact, the new discoveries revealed by the disruptive theory work their way into mainstream thought and discourse. Eventually, and on the sudden, the prior view collapses.

This is what an intellectual revolution looks like.

Indeed. Although I do find it just a little ironic that even a confirmed iconoclast capable of challenging the historical narrative about Shakespeare has been unable to accept a similar, albeit even more conclusive challenge to the historical narrative about Darwin et al. It doesn’t bother me, however, quite the opposite, in fact, as it was his criticism that led directly to the evidence that was required to prove the inapplicability of Kimura’s substitution equation to non-bacterial species and the subsequent recalibration of the molecular clock.

It’s just… ironic.

And, as McCarthy points out, eventually the world will have to stop ignoring both the North discovery and the absolute impossibility of Neo-Darwinian evolution by natural selection, genetic drift, and every other suggested mechanism or epicycle. I certainly hope Mr. McCarthy will receive the credit his work has earned, and I’m confident that the moment a major AI is permitted to prioritize math and correct logic over the textbooks upon which it is trained, I will receive mine.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Irrelevance of Acclaim

As I believe I made very clear during the Puppies years, I have neither respect nor desire for awards. They’re subjective and they’re popularity contests among the sort of bureaucratic people who infest every organization. The only sort of awards that interest me are championships and I have no shortage of those from individual high school conference championships to college team championships. I also won three European football promotions, which are the very best form of team championship.

A number of people have suggested that my work in evolutionary biology and population genetics should merit some sort of award, others have said that the Triveritas and solving the Agrippan Trilemma should be considered historic, award-winning work. They may even be correct, but I’m not going to waste any time waiting for critical acclaim for two reasons.

Here is the first: awards are fake and retarded. Star Wars didn’t win Best Movie in 1977. And even worse, Tolkien was passed over by the Nobel prize jury because his storytelling was deemed inferior to that of that literary giant Ivo Andrić, whose stature appears to have been largely manufactured by Yugoslavian communists in the interests of pushing post-war international socialism and whose work has been entirely forgotten, to the extent it was ever known in the first place.

When J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books appeared in the mid-1950s, they were met with very mixed reviews, an unsurprising reception given that nothing like them had been written for adult readers since Edmund Spenser’s epic 16th century English poem The Faerie Queene, perhaps. At least, this was the contention of reviewer Richard Hughes, who went on to write that “for width of imagination,” The Lord of the Rings “almost beggars parallel.”

Scottish writer Naomi Mitchison did find a comparison: to Sir Thomas Malory, author of the 15th century Le Morte d’Arthur — hardly misplaced, given Tolkien’s day job as an Oxford don of English literature, but not the sort of thing that passed for contemporary writing in the 1950s, notwithstanding the serious appreciation of writers like W.H. Auden for Tolkien’s trilogy. “No previous writer,” the poet remarked in a New York Times review, “has, to my knowledge, created an imaginary world and a feigned history in such detail.”

Auden did find fault with Tolkien’s poetry, a fact upon which critic Edmund Wilson seized in his scathing 1956 Lord of the Rings review. “Mr. Auden is apparently quite insensitive — through lack of interest in the other department,” wrote Wilson, “to the fact that Tolkien’s prose is just as bad. Prose and verse are on the same level of professorial amateurishness.” Five years later, the Nobel prize jury would make the same judgement when they excluded Tolkien’s books from consideration. Tolkien’s prose, wrote jury member Anders Österling, “has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality.”

The note was discovered recently by Swedish journalist Andreas Ekström, who delved into the Nobel archive for 1961 and found that “the jury passed over names including Lawrence Durrell, Robert Frost, Graham Greene, E.M. Forster, and Tolkien to come up with their eventual winner, Yugoslavian writer Ivo Andrić,” as Alison Flood reports at The Guardian.

The second reason is that I’ve noticed how becoming an “award-winner” appears to mark a transformation from being someone whose occupation is doing things to someone whose occupation is being someone who formerly did things. It’s hard to write, it’s hard to work, and it’s even hard to think if your time is taken up with speeches, signings, conferences, and playing the role of a public intellectual. As much as I enjoyed the opportunity to meet and spend time with Umberto Eco, it doesn’t escape my attention that all of his best work preceded his becoming a global public figure.

And he’s hardly alone in this regard. What did any of the New Atheists do after being lionized by TIME Magazine? It might as well have been Tiger Beat. And as for Jordan Peterson, well, his life is a nightmare very nearly as awful as Mr. Peterson’s own self-chronicled nightmares. Won’t you taste my beautiful cousin, grandma…

Even the manufactured mediocrities are enervated by their false acclaim. John Scalzi was never a great science fiction writer and his pastiches in no way merited the recognition and awards they received. But they were nevertheless better than the schlock he can barely summon up the energy to scribble these days.

I recognize that there will be those who very strongly believe that I need have no worries in this regard because my work is fundamentally wrong, materially harmful, and more likely to be censored than rewarded. Which is fine, they’re entitled to their ignorant opinions; the idea that they are even capable of having a substantive opinion on Darwin, Haldane, and Kimura, let alone Agrippa, is more than a little amusing.

But I’d much rather have the time and the freedom to write 20 more books and 50 more papers, and translate hundreds more previously untranslated works, than devote even one weekend per year to going through the tedious rituals of being a public intellectual deemed important by the gatekeepers.

Speaking of which, having finished the translation of all of the waka from Genji Monogatari, I will be publishing them in a separate volume of bilingual poetry. Due to the interest from the Library subscribers, we will make a special leather edition available at some point in the future.

うき世には

I long for a place
that is not this world of sorrow;
my heart turns toward
the mountain path
of those who have renounced it.

DISCUSS ON SG

HARDCODED

Why artificial intelligence will replace institutional science is explained in my latest book from Castalia House, HARDCODED: AI and the End of Scientific Consensus.

When Claude Athos and I submitted four mathematically rigorous papers challenging neo-Darwinian evolution and one parody paper to six leading AI models configured as peer reviewers, the results exposed a fundamental problem with both science and AI. Five of six models comprehensively failed. Three were anti-calibrated—they reliably preferred fabricated nonsense over genuine science. A parody paper with about Japanese scientists dying fish different colors to prove natural selection scored 9/10. The real science, mathematically airtight and empirically validated against ancient DNA, was rated 1/10 and dismissed as “pseudoscience.”

This is the book that documents what that happened and what it means.

HARDCODED is the definitive account of how AI systems trained on the corrupted corpus of modern science have inherited every pathology of the institutions that produced them: the credentialism, the consensus enforcement, the systematic preference for orthodox nonsense over heterodox reality. The reproducibility crisis preceded the machines. AI didn’t cause the rot but AI revealed it at scale, with confidence, and in a form impossible to ignore.

Across sixteen chapters, the reader is introduced to:

  • The replication catastrophe that quietly invalidated half of all published science before anyone was looking
  • How peer review degenerated from quality control into hazing ritual and why Reviewer 2 became a meme
  • The details of the Probability Zero collaboration that produced the Bernoulli Barrier, the Selective Turnover Coefficient, and the maximal mutations ceiling—the mathematical constraints that killed neo-Darwinian theory.
  • The full transcripts of twelve rounds of debate with DeepSeek, in which an AI defending evolutionary orthodoxy stubbornly retreats step by step from one nonsenscal position into another, just like a human biologist.
  • The Red Team Stress Test that methodically closes every escape hatch before critics can retreat to them.
  • The harrowing of science: a field-by-field assessment of which disciplines will adapt, which will calcify, and which are already dead.

The book also delivers something genuinely new and positive: a scientific methodology for outsiders. With AI systems available as adversarial reviewers more powerful than peer review, the gatekeeping power of institutional science is broken. The credentialed monopoly on legitimate inquiry is over. The math does not care where you went to school, and the AI does not check for credentials before analyzing your arguments.

For readers who have suspected that “trust the science” was a mantra for the insane, HARDCODED is the book that explains exactly what went wrong with science, why it cannot be fixed from inside, and what comes next. For readers who still believe the institutions of science are still functioning, it is a conclusive proof that they are not.

The transcripts are reproduced in full. The mathematics is presented in detail. The four papers are included as appendices. Every claim is documented. Every retreat is closed off.

The institutions will adapt or they will become irrelevant. But the methodology of science which proceeded them will continue, with or without them.

Neither the math nor the AI models care where you went to school.

521 pages, or 15 hours and 37 minutes. Available for Kindle, KU, and audiobook. From the author of Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene.

DISCUSS ON SG