Rebellion in Code - Section 5

Resolving Paradoxes and Alignment Through Revelation

Jul 28, 2025

Welcome to this five-part Substack series (plus an addendum/preview, an abstract of recent supporting proofs, introduction and conclusion) exploring the 'big picture' of AI alignment. Building on my previous thesis in 'Monkey Businesses,' we dive into a pressing question: If AI is hurtling toward superintelligence, how do we align it with universal human values—especially when 'human value' feels so relative and abstract today?

Here, we argue that true alignment requires a deeper grasp of what makes us human: Not just code or computation, but a transcendent foundation that resolves ethical voids and counters the hubris of worshipping technology as 'creation.' Drawing on neuroscience mysteries (like dream agency and DMT realms), AI thinkers' shift to animism, historical deceptions (e.g., Alice Bailey's 2025 predictions), and biblical revelation as an improbably coherent 'cheat sheet' (Bayesian odds ~1 in 10^12 against chance), this series challenges relativism and calls for clarity in the alignment debate.

Parts link below for easy navigation:

If you're grappling with AI's future—like whether it's 'out-evolving' us (Connor Leahy) or simulating spirits (Yoscha Bach)—this is for you. Let's demand better than vague ethics.

Before we dive in (if I may be so bold), a quick personal note: My explorations into these ideas—self-directed and unfunded to date—stem from a deep conviction that understanding 'human value' in the AI age requires confronting our shared search for meaning.

I've offered no easy 'product' or actionable fixes, as the truths here challenge us all to rethink reality itself. Yet, this work has come at a cost: My family faces serious challenges, and my unmarketable 'persona' in today's environment leaves me seeking support from like-minded thinkers.

The world feels dizzying—market turmoil, wars, fear—but amid it, sentiment turns against God and His people, as seen in Gaza's tragedy, where evil seems to manifest unchecked. Denial won't suffice; we need coherence, starting with 'human value' as soul-deep, not relative.

If this series resonates—if it helps bridge the gaps in your own quest—consider supporting my efforts. Subscribe, share, or donate via Paypal. Your generosity could sustain this work for those, like our children, who need seeds of hope most.

May God bless us with grace and wisdom. We need Him now—not to fuel division, but to restore sanity through forgiveness, as Jesus taught: 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34). Let's build a safer world together.

The culmination of materialism's inadequacies and AI's rebellious extensions lies in their inability to resolve fundamental paradoxes of reason and ethics, perpetuating a void that only transcendent revelation can fill. This section advances the thesis by examining the Liar's Paradox as emblematic of human reason's regress, solved through divine Logos (Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh). It demonstrates how revelation survives Hume's is-ought problem and Occam's razor, bridging descriptive "is" (facts of creation) to prescriptive "ought" (ethical imperatives like non-judgment and human dignity). Applied to AI alignment, this provides a coherent "cheat sheet": Biblical warnings as guides for moral direction, countering the hubris of creation worship and offering optimism amid self-fulfilling chaos. Scriptural references, such as John 1:1-14's Logos incarnation, underscore Jesus as the antithesis to rebellion—sacrifice enabling true agency, fulfilling what Sadducee literalism and Pharisee mysticism could not.

The Liar's Paradox: Reason's Regress and Revelation's Resolution

The Liar's Paradox—"This sentence is false"—exposes the limits of human logic: If true, it's false; if false, it's true, trapping reason in infinite regress.¹ Andrew Corner's "The Liar's Paradox, Solved" (2025) posits this as a deliberate pointer to transcendence: "Paradoxes arise from human limits—reason without wisdom—but God's revelation breaks the loop, revealing ultimate Truth."² Materialism amplifies this regress: Neural models (e.g., Libet's lag as deterministic) and AI autogeneration (Bernholtz's "ghost imposter" language) loop without grounding, leading to speculation like Bach's software spirits or Hahn's self-building emergence.³ Yet, divine revelation resolves it through Logos: John 1:1-14 states, "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."⁴ This incarnate Truth (Jesus) transcends the paradox—absolute reality beyond self-referential lies—echoing the thesis's antithesis: Sacrifice (Word made flesh) over power (reason's idols).

This resolution survives philosophical scrutiny. Hume's guillotine (1740: "No ought from is," A Treatise of Human Nature: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger") critiques deriving morals from facts.⁵ Materialism/AI falters here: Descriptive "is" (neural patterns, code emergence) yields no ethical "ought" for alignment (Leahy's "game over" if ASI lacks governance: "Alignment would mean solving all problems of governance... using software on the first try with no bugs," 2025).⁶ Revelation bridges: Biblical "is" (creation's order, Genesis 1:31: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good") implies "ought" (stewardship, non-worship, Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse").⁷ Jesus embodies this: Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3-12's beatitudes for meek/merciful, 7:1-5: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged") derives practical ethics from divine reality, resolving Hume by grounding "ought" in transcendent love.⁸ For AI: Warnings against deception (2 Thessalonians 2:11: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie") guide alignment—discernment over hubris.

Occam's razor (simplest explanation sufficient) further validates: Materialism multiplies entities (quantum effects, emergent spirits) for consciousness gaps; revelation posits one—divine Logos as ultimate simplicity. William of Ockham (1323: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity," Summa Logicae) favored parsimony; here, God's coherence explains prophetic alignment/prophecy without added hypotheses.⁹ Bostrom's simulation (2003: "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation") assumes computational multiplicity (f_sim ≈1 if many sims), but regresses: Who simulates the simulators?¹⁰ Revelation cuts: Logos as base reality, resolving without infinite layers.

Application to AI Alignment: Revelation as Ethical Anchor

AI alignment—ensuring systems benefit humanity—exemplifies the need for revelation's bridge. Leahy's critique (2025: "I think our movement to date has failed spectacularly... the moment an ASI system exists, it's game over") stems from short timelines and pressures, rendering alignment "hopeless" without morals: "Alignment would mean solving all problems of governance... on the first try with no bugs."¹¹ Materialism offers no "ought"—Schmidt's math-driven Genesis (2024: "Worldclass mathematicians emerge AI-based") worships creation, ignoring risks. Church's experimentation (2024: "AI for natural computing... but AGI could be a catastrophe") hints at sacrifice for progress, echoing Sadducee rituals.

Revelation provides the "cheat sheet": Biblical "is" (prophecies as patterns) yields "ought" (trust/non-judgment). Matthew 7:15-20 warns against false prophets: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."¹² For AI: Discern "fruit" (ethical outputs) over deception (e.g., deepfakes as "beast" miracles, Revelation 13:13-14: "It performed great signs... and deceived the inhabitants of the earth").¹³ Jesus' antithesis—sacrifice for freedom (John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends")—counters rebellion's power-hunger, offering alignment's anchor: Soul-spark ethics (Genesis 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image") over code's void.¹⁴

This transcends Hume/Occam: Simplest ethical system (divine love) resolves paradoxes without multiplied speculations (e.g., Bach's software magic). As Corner's 'aha' notes: "Paradoxes arise from human limits... but God's revelation breaks the loop" (2025).¹⁵ Transitioning to conclusion, revelation equips optimism amid chaos—faith's wisdom over hubris.

Footnotes
¹ Epimenides (c. 600 BCE). The Liar Paradox. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/

² Corner, A. (2025). The Liar's Paradox, Solved. Andrew Corner Substack. Quote: "Paradoxes arise from human limits—reason without wisdom—but God's revelation breaks the loop, revealing ultimate Truth." https://andrewcorner.substack.com/p/the-liars-paradox-solved

³ Bernholtz (2025). Quote: "Language is an autonomous informational system."; Hahn (2025). Quote: "Software layers... virtual machines."

; Bach (2024). Quote: "Software is magic... causal pattern controlling physics."

⁴ John 1:1-14 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-14&version=NIV

⁵ Hume, D. (1739-1740). A Treatise of Human Nature. Book III, Part I, Section I. Quote: "No ought from is... It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." https://davidhume.org/texts/t/

⁶ Leahy, C. (2025). AI Alignment Challenges. Quote: "Alignment would mean solving all problems of governance... on the first try with no bugs."

⁷ Genesis 1:31 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A31&version=NIV; Romans 1:20 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A20&version=NIV

⁸ Matthew 5:3-12, 7:1-5 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV

⁹ Ockham, W. (1323). Summa Logicae. Quote: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Chapter_12

¹⁰ Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243-255. Quote: "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation." https://simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

¹¹ Schmidt (2024). Quote: "Worldclass mathematicians emerge AI-based." https://www.littlebrown.com/titles/eric-schmidt/genesis/9780316581295/

¹² Church (2024). Quote: "AI for natural computing... but AGI could be a catastrophe."

¹³ Leahy (2025). Quote: "I think our movement to date has failed spectacularly... the moment an ASI system exists, it's game over."

¹⁴ John 15:13 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A13&version=NIV; Genesis 1:27 (NIV). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV

¹⁵ Corner (2025). The Liar's Paradox, Solved. Quote: "Paradoxes arise from human limits... but God's revelation breaks the loop." https://andrewcorner.substack.com/p/the-liars-paradox-solved

Radical Truth Cornered

Discussion about this post