T.Mckenna's Novelty Theory

So TM basically states that the universe is trying to attain a state of absolute novelty where every possible outcome for everything has been achieved. This seems a possibility to me seeing that it would make every life important and equal gaining experiences to contribute to the universes novelty. What are your arguments for or against this theory?

 

I believe he made a claim that the Dec. 21st 2012 date was going to create a escalation of novelty and as point has come to pass, I haven't seen or felt any dramatic shift in novelty of which I believe he was claiming. So based on that and my own view of the topic, I don't think that the universe is attempting to obtain absolute novelty. I think extinctions (e.g. dinosaurs) and miscarriages are examples of the universe not viewing all life as equal.

With that said, There is probably a fluidity to the universe which breeds a degree of novelty in which components of the universe push and adjust in novel expressions and don't remain static.

 

what is this "universe" that's "trying"?

how can it try? where's the volition? i don't think this universal energy (some people call it God) does any trying- it sustains effortlessly, there's no plan (as if it's a self-conscious body like the human creature?)

and every possible outcome? outcome of what? does he think that we can make moments stretch to infinity? because a moment only gives so much, even at every center point in the universe, as soon as that moments passed, a possible outcome is lost. they're constantly getting lost, every moment.

i don't buy this idea so far

 

Why would the universe try to attain some something?
Why would we give human traits to the universe?

Doesn't make much sense to me, seems like just another kind of "religion".

 

he also admitted his claim could be off by a year or 500 years.. but that either is a fraction of the time that earth has existed and that the change will happen. extinction of species and miscarriages are the opposite of evolution and healthy birth, just an example of some outcomes that have been achieved. the universe is clearly trying to attain something, our existence should be enough to back that idea.

 

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. We're just along for the ride , most of us constantly hypothesizing regarding our purpose and fate ,knowing subjectively how to put one foot in front of the other and objectively knowing nothing other than what science has shown us. Relax. Have a beer. Smoke a bowl. It's an interesting ride.

 

I've seen a video of him explain the theory illustrated on a computer. He uses other specific 'novel' events in history as evidence to prove his claim of where we were supposedly headed in 2012 in terms of novelty. Therefore, if he did indeed give such a margin of 500 years it negates his evidence.

Yes, not absolute

 

Whether or not the universe can try to do anything depends upon the nature of mind, and there are some schools of thought that believe all is mind. So if this is the case, the will of mind could be to create novelties. I'm not saying it would necessarily think this all out, but it could be its will to do so.

 

I don't think a theory anthropomorphizing the universe neccesitates that it be comparable to a religious or spiritual concept.

I've heard Mainstream scientists use human traits to describe the cosmos:

Stars 'create' energy
Black holes 'feed' on planets and stars.


I think it serves as a technique to give a more relatable understanding of the topic and not bog the concept down in advanced jargon.

 

I think TM thought that there is something called telos. An anathema, as he said, to reductionist science.

That novelty and connectedness are increasing seems rather obvious to me.