Free Will and Will to Power (The God Series Book 17)

Table of contents :
Free Will and Will to Power
Quotations
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Turing Test
Schopenhauer
Confirmation Bias
Autistic Scientists
The Astonishingly Bad Hypothesis
The Definitional Crisis
The Confederacy of Dunces
Quantum Entanglement
Hypotheses Non Fingo
The Mind
Aseity
Networked Causation
Psychopaths
Why Monads Are Inherently Free
The Neuroscience Fallacy
The Start of the Chain
New Mysterianism
Fatalism
How Things Start
Pre-Socratic Panpsychics
Quantum Incompatibilism?
The Intelligible World
The Death Equation
Slapstick
Rewinding the Universe
Causal Closure
Don’t Listen To Your Professor
Causal Closure II
The Neuroscience Blind Spot
The Matrix
Exterior People
Dante and Catholicism
The Gospel According to Schopenhauer
The Inner World
Tautology
The Unexpected!
Waiting to be Reincarnated
The Horror, the Horror
Mathematical Destiny
The God Point
The Alienation of God
The Darwinist Fallacy
Sisyphus and the Unending Task
The Demon of Eternal Recurrence
Jim Morrison and Freedom
The Singularity and “Creation”
The Koranic Moon Landing?

Citation preview

Free Will and Will to Power M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2014 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Quotations “Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.” – Jawaharlal Nehru “We must believe in free will, we have no choice.” – Isaac Bashevis Singer “Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven.” – Charles Spurgeon “Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.” – Scott Adams “As far as I can see, it’s not important that we have free will, just as long as we have the illusion of free will to stop us going mad.” – Alan Moore “God, our genes, our environment, or some stupid programmer keying in code at an ancient terminal – there’s no way free will can ever exist if we as individuals are the result of some external cause.” – Orson Scott Card “Man is a masterpiece of creation if for no other reason than that, all the weight of evidence for determinism notwithstanding, he believes he has free will.” – Georg C. Lichtenberg “You say: I am not free. But I have raised and lowered my arm. Everyone understands that this illogical answer is an irrefutable proof of freedom.” – Leo Tolstoy

Table of Contents Free Will and Will to Power Quotations Table of Contents Introduction The Turing Test Schopenhauer Confirmation Bias Autistic Scientists The Astonishingly Bad Hypothesis The Definitional Crisis The Confederacy of Dunces Quantum Entanglement Hypotheses Non Fingo The Mind Aseity Networked Causation Psychopaths Why Monads Are Inherently Free The Neuroscience Fallacy The Start of the Chain New Mysterianism

Fatalism How Things Start Pre-Socratic Panpsychics Quantum Incompatibilism? The Intelligible World The Death Equation Slapstick Rewinding the Universe Causal Closure Don’t Listen To Your Professor Causal Closure II The Neuroscience Blind Spot The Matrix Exterior People Dante and Catholicism The Gospel According to Schopenhauer The Inner World Tautology The Unexpected! Waiting to be Reincarnated The Horror, the Horror Mathematical Destiny

The God Point The Alienation of God The Darwinist Fallacy Sisyphus and the Unending Task The Demon of Eternal Recurrence Jim Morrison and Freedom The Singularity and “Creation” The Koranic Moon Landing?

Introduction Is the most self-evident fact of your life also the greatest illusion of your life? You might think you are free, but you will find a host of intellectuals telling you it’s impossible. You are a marionette, they say. You have never once performed a free action. You only imagine you have. What an imagination you have! Not that you have any choice over what you imagine. You’re just a machine, after all. Are you controlled by the will of God? Are you the helpless puppet of scientific forces over which you have no control? Do the Fates stand over your shoulder, dictating everything you do? Do you have a destiny that no power can alter? Were you predestined for heaven or hell before you were even born? How, exactly, can you be free? What does freedom even mean? What on earth is free will? Do you really know that you have it, or do you just delude yourself that you do, while always doing what you were inevitably going to do? If you are made of nothing but atoms obeying inexorable scientific laws how can you possibly be free? How can unfree atoms produce free human beings? Isn’t that a simple impossibility? There is only one way in which you can be free. You must be as old as existence itself, i.e. eternal. That means that nothing caused you and nothing created you. It means that you are an autonomous agent, equipped with your own causation. You yourself cause things to happen. As poet William Ernest Henley famously said, you are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul. For you to be free, it must be false that you live in a scientific materialist world. Only then can it be true that you are not merely imagining that you are free. This book explains how you really are free, and you are emphatically not experiencing the most bizarre fantasy of all time, constructed by mindless, dead atoms that have never once fantasised. You are free because you have no master, because you have existed forever, because you are an infinite soul with infinite power. What is an immortal, indestructible soul? It’s a mathematical mind – a monad. It’s an immaterial singularity, outside space and time. It’s a frequency domain, defined not by God, but by the God Equation.

You yourself are a soul. And that’s exactly why you are free. No machine can ever be free. Nothing born in time can be free. You may think that you yourself were born in time, but you weren’t. Your body was created at a specific time, but not your soul. Your soul was never created at all and doesn’t exist in time. It’s eternal.

Free Will by Galen Strawson The question of free will remains one of the most fiercely debated in the whole of philosophy. Galen Strawson provides an excellent introduction to the main positions that philosophers have adopted: ***** ‘Free will’ is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. It is a topic in metaphysics and ethics as much as in the philosophy of mind. Its central questions are ‘What is it to act (or choose) freely?’, and ‘What is it to be morally responsible for one’s actions (or choices)?’ These two questions are closely connected, for it seems clear that freedom of action is a necessary condition of moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient. Philosophers give very different answers to these questions. Consequently they give very different answers to two more specific questions, which are questions about ourselves: (1) Are we free agents? and (2) Can we be morally responsible for what we do? Answers to (1) and (2) range from ‘Yes, Yes’, to ‘No, No’ – via ‘Yes, No’ and various degrees of ‘Perhaps’, ‘Possibly’, and ‘In a sense’. (The fourth pair of outright answers, ‘No, Yes’, is rare, but it has a kind of existentialist panache, and appears to be embraced by Wintergreen in Joseph Heller’s novel Closing Time, as well as by some Protestants). Prominent among the ‘Yes, Yes’ sayers are the compatibilists. They have this name because they hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Briefly, determinism is the view that the history of the universe is fixed: everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does. According to compatibilists, freedom is compatible with determinism because freedom is essentially just a matter of not being constrained or hindered in certain ways when one acts or chooses. Suppose one is a normal adult human being in

normal circumstances. Then one is able to act and choose freely. No one is holding a gun to one’s head. One is not being threatened or manhandled. One is not drugged, or in chains, or subject to a psychological compulsion like kleptomania, or a post-hypnotic command. One is therefore wholly free to choose and act even if one’s whole physical and psychological makeup is entirely determined by things for which one is in no way ultimately responsible – starting with one’s genetic inheritance and early upbringing. Compatibilism has many sophisticated variants, but this is its core, and to state it is to see what motivates its opponents, the incompatibilists. The incompatibilists hold that freedom is not compatible with determinism. They point out that if determinism is true, then every one of one’s actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born. They hold that one can’t be held to be truly free and finally morally responsible for one’s actions in this case. Compatibilism is a ‘wretched subterfuge..., a petty word-jugglery’, as Kant put it. It entirely fails to satisfy our natural convictions about the nature of moral responsibility. The incompatibilists have a good point, and may be divided into two groups. First, there are the libertarians, who wish to answer ‘Yes, Yes’ to questions (1) and (2). Libertarians hold that we are indeed free and fully morally responsible agents, and that determinism must therefore be false. Their great difficulty is to explain why the falsity of determinism is any better than determinism, when it comes to establishing our free agency and moral responsibility. For suppose that not every event is determined, and that some events occur randomly, or as a matter of chance. How can this help with free will? How can our claim to moral responsibility be improved by the supposition that it is partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are? This is a very difficult question for libertarians. The second group of incompatibilists are less sanguine. They answer ‘No, No’ to questions (1) and (2). They agree with the libertarians that determinism rules out genuine moral responsibility, but argue that the falsity of determinism can’t help. Accordingly, they conclude that we are not genuinely free agents or genuinely morally responsible, whether determinism is true or false. One of their arguments can be summarized as follows. When one acts, one acts in the way that one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa

sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui – nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible. Suitably developed, this argument against moral responsibility seems very strong. But in many human societies belief in ultimate moral responsibility continues unabated. In many human beings, the experience of choice gives rise to a conviction of absolute responsibility that is untouched by philosophical arguments that put it in question. This conviction is the deep and inexhaustible source of the free will problem: there are powerful arguments that seem to show that we cannot be morally responsible in the ultimate way that we suppose. But these arguments keep coming up against equally powerful psychological and cultural reasons why we continue to believe that we are ultimately morally responsible. ***** While Strawson’s article expertly sets out how most philosophers view the free will debate, it is in fact full of fallacies, most especially regarding compatibilism. Strawson writes, “Briefly, determinism is the view that the history of the universe is fixed: everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does.” This is emphatically not what determinism means. Determinism means that everything that happens is determined by prior causation, i.e. it has a sufficient reason. This does not mean that everything must unfold in a particular, set, fixed way, cast in stone since the Big Bang. To endorse Strawson’s claim is already to buy into the scientific materialist understanding of determinism whereby there are no genuinely causal agents in the world, only non-causal objects to which causality simply happens, and over which they have zero control, zero say and zero influence. As soon as you accept the existence of a myriad of uncreated, uncaused causal agents (monads) that are free to determine their actions rather than having them determined for them by causal forces imposed on them from outside, Strawson’s definition of determinism is rendered untenable, hence all of his arguments concerning compatibilism fail.

What has gone before informs and influences what happens next, but does not determine it, because what’s going to happen next depends on decisions taken by inherently free agents acting for their own reasons. We cannot know in advance what these decisions are going to be. Consider your schedule for the rest of today. Is everything you are going to do already set like concrete? Are you simply an actor performing a role already written for you, about which you can change nothing? Or are you going to interact with your environment and decide what to do next on the basis of what happens to you (regarding which you do not yet have any knowledge because nothing has happened yet), and on the basis of your views, reactions and decisions regarding those things? Self-evidently, the latter is true. You are not a programmed machine and you are not going to behave today like a robot. Nevertheless, no matter what you do, you will certainly have a reason for everything you do. You will not act randomly. You will not do things for no reason. Everything you do will be determined – self-determined! According to Strawson’s version of determinism (a view shared by most philosophers), you are nothing but a set of atoms subject to scientific laws, and your environment is nothing but a set of atoms subject to scientific laws. Therefore, when you interact with your environment, everything you proceed to do, could, in principle, be calculated in advance by anyone with a sufficient understanding of atoms and the scientific laws that apply to them. There are no self-sufficient causal agents present in this system, nothing that can inject its own causation into the environment using criteria that belong to it and cannot be calculated in advance by anyone else. As soon as you accept the existence of causal agents (i.e. autonomous minds; subjects; eternal souls; monads), Strawson’s entire argument becomes unmitigated nonsense that does not reflect reality in any way. What’s truly remarkable is that our own behaviour each and every day spectacularly contradicts Strawson’s view of determinism, and yet his model of determinism continues to be the one to which most philosopher subscribe. Quite simply, Strawson’s claim that “everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before” is entirely wrong. Everything that happens is a reaction and response to what has already gone before. It’s not necessitated by it. Our next action is not necessitated by what has just happened to us in terms of atoms moving around, i.e. the atoms in our body,

our brain and our environment. Our next action is not determined by atoms at all. It’s determined by our mind, and our mind isn’t physical and isn’t made of atoms! Our mind is an autonomous causal agent that takes its own decisions, regardless of the rest of the world. In fact, our mind must be conceived in the same sort of terms that apply to the Abrahamic God. Does anyone say that “God” is made of atoms and is causally determined by scientific forces? “God” is an uncreated, uncaused, eternal causal agent who decides what to do next according to his own decisions – and exactly the same is true of all of us. Strawson is in fact talking about physicalist determinism but has unpardonably dropped the physicalist qualifier because he has simply taken it for granted. He has assumed it and then applied it as if it’s incontestable. Everything changes as soon as you have a system of physicalist and mentalist determinism, linked by Fourier mathematics, which allows the physical and mental domains to interact, and permits subjective causal agency. Strawson writes, “One is therefore wholly free to choose and act even if one’s whole physical and psychological makeup is entirely determined by things for which one is in no way ultimately responsible – starting with one’s genetic inheritance and early upbringing.” Here, Strawson applies 1) an ultra-physicalist notion of our behaviour being determined by our genetic inheritance, i.e. by atoms subject to the inescapable laws of science (by “nature”), and 2) an ill-defined notion of our “early upbringing” (i.e. “nurture”). Does it even make any sense to refer to nurture if the people bringing us up are genetically determined machines that had no choice about how to raise us up since they were simply carrying out the fixed laws of science? At no stage does Strawson reflect any notion that we are eternal souls that have a history that, of necessity, precedes our genes and precedes our upbringing. If there’s an eternal component to us, then, plainly, it’s absurd to claim that the “nature and nurture” arguments that apply to our current incarnation are the whole of us, i.e. are all that we are. Strawson’s argument is destroyed as soon it’s conceded that we existed prior to our current physicalization in this world. We therefore have a core character independent of our genes and independent of how we have been raised. Our genes and environment will certainly influence and inform us, but, crucially, they will not determine us, which is the factor that Strawson

requires to be true for his argument to be tenable. Again, he has relentlessly applied a physicalist set of arguments and once again ignored mental agency independent of matter and of our current bodily physicalization. Philosophy is full of unstated assumptions. It’s full of people reflecting undeclared Meta Paradigms and schemas, all of which simply beg the question. Strawson writes, “The incompatibilists hold that freedom is not compatible with determinism. They point out that if determinism is true, then every one of one’s actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born.” Once again, this reflects a physicalist understanding of reality. Our soul was never born. It’s eternal. It didn’t have any parents. Nothing caused it and nothing created it. It’s influenced and informed by things outside itself, but is not their puppet. It has its own internal agency. It can do things for its own reasons. Strawson writes, “So to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui – nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible.” Yet again, we have a blatant and invalid physicalist assumption being applied. We are causa sui, in the sense that we are eternal, uncreated and uncaused by anything else – just like the Abrahamic God! If we exist but are not caused by anything else then we can say either that we are the cause of ourselves or that we are simply uncaused. Either way, we are responsible for ourselves and can’t blame any other cause for the way we are. So, Strawson’s article really serves to illustrate how full of unwarranted and unstated assumptions the philosophical debate regarding free will is. It’s the assumptions themselves that have to be clarified before any progress can be made in the definitions that erroneously flow from them, thus miring the whole debate in confusion.

***** “Do we have free will? It depends what you mean by the word ‘free’. More than 200 senses of the word have been distinguished; the history of the discussion of free will is rich and remarkable. David Hume called the

problem of free will ‘the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science’.” – Galen Strawson Remember, it’s all in the definition. Make sure you sign up to the correct one! If you don’t, you’ll turn yourself into a machine or a random behaviour generator. The free will debate isn’t so much about free will itself as about definitions of free will, interpretations of free will and speculations about free will. The question of what free will is must be framed within a welldefined ontological and epistemological theory – such as that of ontological mathematics.

Self-Causing Either you are caused by another thing or other things or you are not caused by another thing or other things. If the latter, shall we say that you are uncaused or that you are the cause of yourself? Does uncaused = causa sui? In a strictly causal system, everything caused must have a first cause, but what of the first cause itself? Nothing caused it. Hence, it is uncaused or its own cause, depending on how we wish to define it. In a causal system, if you are not caused by anything else, you are your own cause, i.e. your essence ensures your existence. Your essence is eternal and so is your existence. Your essence necessitates your existence and does so forever. We might say that your essence is the cause of your existence. This argument applies solely to monads. Nothing else qualifies. In Abrahamism, such an argument would be applied to a single Creator God. In ontological mathematics, it’s applied to myriad monads. All of them are thus would-be Gods.

The Turing Test “The phrase ‘The Turing Test’ is most properly used to refer to a proposal made by Turing (1950) as a way of dealing with the question whether machines can think. According to Turing, the question whether machines can think is itself ‘too meaningless’ to deserve discussion. However, if we consider the more precise – and somehow related – question whether a digital computer can do well in a certain kind of game that Turing describes

(‘The Imitation Game’), then – at least in Turing’s eyes – we do have a question that admits of precise discussion. Moreover, as we shall see, Turing himself thought that it would not be too long before we did have digital computers that could ‘do well’ in the Imitation Game.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Mathematician Alan Turing envisaged a sophisticated computer that could be programmed to generate responses that would be indistinguishable from those of a human (or convincing enough to fool a human). A huge amount of deterministic thinking is predicated on humans being essentially nothing but Turing machines, programmed by nature rather than by a designer. In fact, Turing’s test is ludicrous. No machine could ever be invented to simulate a human. Why not? Because humans are controlled by eternal monadic souls, and this necessary condition could never apply to any machine. To support Turing’s contention is already to have assumed a physicalist understanding of reality.

***** According to the physicalists, programmed biological machines (humans) can program mechanical machines. Indeed, it’s inevitable that they will do so since, from the dawn of time, it was deterministically decreed that this would happen. No programmer has any choice since each programmer was in turn programmed. In the physicalist worldview, there’s no fundamental reason why programmed biological machines made of atoms and obeying the laws of science should be distinguishable from programmed mechanical machines made of atoms and obeying the laws of science. However, there’s all the difference in the world in the mentalist worldview. Humans have souls and machines don’t. It’s a category error to claim that the Turing test could ever be valid.

***** Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing computer, defeated World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in a famous match in 1997. Did this computer pass the Turing test, at least as far as chess is concerned? Clearly, it did

since it beat the greatest human chess player of all time. Yet would anyone consider Deep Blue in any way human and in any way conscious? Even if you produced a perfect Deep Blue for every aspect of human existence, it still wouldn’t be human, and still wouldn’t be conscious. It would remain exactly what it is: a programmed machine, a simulation of a human, a simulacrum. It has no soul (no eternal monadic essence), and no one can program a soul – something eternal – into a temporal machine. In nature, souls take possession of biological bodies via a Fourier “docking” process that accompanies conception. The only way to get a machine to become alive would be to set it up so that a soul could likewise “dock” with it. If a programmer could set up a sufficiently rich and complex AI environment, they could conceivably lure a soul into it, but they could never program a living soul into it. The Turing test is simply a test of the quality of an AI simulation of a human. It doesn’t establish any equivalence between human thinking and machine thinking. It simply demonstrates that, in certain situations, machines can be effective imitators of humans. That doesn’t make them human any more than a parrot is human when it repeats what someone said. Imitation/simulation isn’t correspondence. Science itself is a kind of “reality Turing test”. Scientific theories, in specific situations, successfully imitate reality to a good approximation. Scientists then fallaciously conclude that their theories are authentic statements about reality. They’re not. They’re never anything more than synthetic attempts to describe analytic reality. The sole reason they work is that they use mathematics, the language of analytic reality.

The Compatibilism Fallacy? “As its name declares, [compatibilism] is compatible with determinism. It is compatible with determinism even though it follows from determinism that every aspect of your character, and everything you will ever do, was already inevitable before you were born.” – Galen Strawson Wrong! Determinism means that every effect has a cause; everything is determined, everything has a sufficient reason. It does not mean that these reasons existed before you were born, which is to make an absolutely extraordinary claim, rendering life 100% pointless, meaningless and incomprehensible, in no way reactive to the events of the world, and wholly

devoid of any genuine evolution (Darwinian evolution involves natural selection, but nothing is selected if every “selection” was fully determined at the Big Bang before anything was even available to be selected!). Strawson’s definition of determinism is fallacious, which automatically leads to his understanding of compatibilism being fallacious. Of course, he is by no means alone – virtually the entire philosophical community argues in like fashion.

***** “Suppose tomorrow is a national holiday. You are considering what to do. You can climb a mountain or read Lao Tzu. You can mend your bicycle or go to the zoo. At this moment, you are reading the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. You are free to go on reading or stop now. You have started on this sentence, but you don’t have to ... finish it. “In this situation, as so often in life, you have a number of options. Nothing forces your hand. It seems natural to say that you are entirely free to choose what to do. And, given that nothing hinders you, it seems natural to say that you act entirely freely when you actually do (or try to do) what you have decided to do. ... “‘What more could free agency possibly be?’, compatibilists like to ask (backed by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, among others). And this is a very powerful question.” – Galen Strawson Exactly. If free agency isn’t free will, what on earth is it?

Monadic Freedom Only monads exist. There are two types of monadic causation: intramonadic and inter-monadic: 1) Intra-monadic causation corresponds to subjective, selfgenerated behaviour. This is internal determinism. When the individual is the cause of his own actions, he acts freely. This is “free determinism”, meaning that the monadic subject freely determines what it does. 2) Inter-monadic causation corresponds to objective, othergenerated behaviour. This is external determinism. When the

individual is not the cause of his actions, he does not act freely. This is constrained determinism. Compatibilism in Illuminism is the position that free will (= free determinism; internal determinism) is absolutely compatible with constrained will (= constrained determinism; external determinism), i.e. the existence of constrained determinism in no way precludes free determinism, but free determinism constitutes a different character of determinism from constrained determinism, being subjective rather than objective, yet equally mathematical. Incompatibilism is the fallacy that determinism and free will fundamentally contradict each other. One strain of incompatibilism is “hard determinism”. This is the fallacy that only constrained determinism exists, hence free will is impossible. This is the scientific materialist view. The opposite strain of incompatibilism is “metaphysical libertarianism”. This is the fallacy that free will exists, but has nothing to do with determinism, and indeed there is no determinism at all. This is an uncompromisingly indeterministic stance. “Hard incompatibilism” is the fallacy that determinism (which may or may not be true in this view) and indeterminism (which may or may not be true) are both incompatible with free will. Either way, free will is false. All of these incompatibilist positions are fallacies that fail to understand what free will actually is. Free will is causal agency by entities that are uncaused causes. Free will cannot be associated with any agent that is created, caused, contingent or temporal (i.e. in time, hence not eternal). The human body, for example, is all of these: created, caused, contingent and temporal. The human body itself can never be free. It belongs to the domain of constrained determinism. However, it has to be understood that it’s subject to two radically different types of constraint: internal and external, subjective and objective, mental and physical. Its actions are determined from the inside by the mind and from the outside by the physical environment. It’s precisely because of this that internal and external, subjective and objective determinism, must be compatible – because otherwise the human body would be a mad, incomprehensible thing, beset by two contradictory and incompatible forces. When they attempt to understand the human body, scientists invariably approach the question entirely from the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. This means that they conceive of the body being made

exclusively of material atoms, each of which is part of the external, objective determinism schema alone. They imagine the mind as being something that is produced solely from the brain, with the brain, like the rest of the body, being made of atoms and nothing else. In these terms, hard determinism is the only rational conclusion. There’s no compatibilism issue here because no other type of determinism is possible in this model. What so many people fail to understand is that scientific materialism is just a philosophy, stating a philosophical position. It’s not a set of incontestable facts and truths. It’s an interpretation of evidence, not an explanation of that evidence. Compatibilism becomes a necessary position as soon as it’s concluded that scientific materialism is radically false in its ideology that bodies are all about atoms and nothing else. In ontological mathematics, there’s a whole category of existence denied by science, namely, that of immaterial, dimensionless Fourier frequency domains outside space and time: monadic singularities. These are mental, not physical, atoms, and they do not operate in the same domain. They are, however, fully compatible with physical atoms since they obey exactly the same mathematics: Fourier mathematics. The critical difference is that Fourier mathematics is defined with regard to two distinct domains – a dimensionless frequency domain and a dimensional spacetime domain. Both of these domains are mathematically compatible but they are absolutely different in the sense that an entity must be in one domain or the other, and can’t be in both. So, a monad, a mental atom, is always in the frequency domain outside space and time, while a physical atom is always in the spacetime domain. A human body is entirely in the spacetime domain, surrounded by other spacetime entities that can deterministically interact with it. However, the body is also linked to a monad (a soul), which is not in the spacetime domain at all but in the frequency domain outside space and time. The human body is therefore subject to two deterministic sources: 1) its spacetime environment, and 2) the frequency environment, outside space and time, via its controlling monad (an immaterial singularity). The spacetime domain is the product of all monads – the Monadic Collective – hence all entities within it are collective, not individual. A soul is an individual entity that links to a collective body. We can understand the whole of reality in terms of monads operating individually or collectively. When they operate collectively, they generate

the objective spacetime world of matter that we live in. When they operate individually, they constitute the individual souls that can link to collective bodies in the spacetime environment. The following scheme applies in terms of determinism: 1) Collective/collective determinism = “scientific”, objective determinism; spacetime objects interact with each other. 2) Collective/individual determinism = spacetime objects (bodies) transmit information to individual souls via Fourier transform functions that convert spacetime representations into frequency representations. All sensory information that we experience results from the spacetime information impinging on our bodies being mathematically transformed into frequency representations (which are, of course, mental, not physical, representations). All “secondary” properties – colours, smells, tastes, and so on, are added at this stage, i.e. they are subjective interpretations of objective spacetime functions. 3) Individual/collective determinism = a soul transmits information to the physical body it controls via inverse Fourier transforms (= the human will). We can think of an action without actually making it happen (the action exists only in our mind). It happens for real only when we will it to happen, which means specifically sending a Fourier command to our body. 4) Individual/individual determinism = a soul having one thought after another, each thought causing the next. This all happens in the frequency domain, outside space and time. A dream takes place in the frequency domain, outside space, time and matter, hence why it does not obey the same rules of causal objectivity as the waking world. In our dreams, we are subject to our own will alone. In the waking world, we are subject to the objective will of the whole Monadic Collective, which provides the resistance we all encounter in our day-to-day lives. It must be understood that the scheme we have outlined is the only possible way to explain the human condition and our experience of manifesting free will, experiencing qualia, and having dreams. It’s impossible to understand the human condition in terms of scientific materialism. If that ideology

were correct, we would be unfree machines, we would never experience qualia and we would never dream. We have shown exactly why the doctrine of compatibilism is necessary: to explain how our body can be affected by things happening to it in the external, spacetime environment (objective, scientific determinism) and be affected by things happening to it in the internal, frequency domain of the soul, which can then transmit Fourier commands to the body to make things happen in the physical world (e.g. we decide to go for a walk and thus we will our body to commence walking in the spacetime world). Our body is determined by things coming from outside it and things coming from inside it. We thus have a deterministic competition going on, and the strongest determinism at any one time wins. If we want to go for a walk and there is nothing in the physical environment to provide a sufficient resistance, then we will go ahead and do so. However, if we are chained to a wall, or trying to walk into a hurricane, then the physical environment will win and thwart our will. We will not be having our walk after all. External and internal determinism are compatible in the sense that they can mathematically co-exist without any rational contradiction, but they can also be incompatible in the sense that they may be in direct competition with each other, and one or the other must prove victorious. Normally, we can control our environment and exercise our free will, but we cannot do so when Nature flexes its muscles. We are all helpless if caught up in an earthquake, tsunami, forest fire, hurricane, volcano, tornado, car accident, terrorist bomb, flu epidemic, freezing weather, or whatever. In such circumstances, we are the victims of the external world and our inner will is overwhelmed. However, whenever our environment is benign, we can do exactly as we will. The very fact that deterministic competition takes place between external and internal factors shows that the future cannot be predicted, and we are in a radically free world. No one can ever know the future, and that includes “God”, because the future is dictated by feedback loops between the internal and external, and the effects of these cannot be known in advance. The scheme we have outlined provides, effectively, rational proof that you have an immortal, indestructible soul since this is the only possible way in which free will, qualia, the unconscious, consciousness, dreams and subjectivity can all be explained. This, it cannot be stressed enough, is a

purely mathematical explanation, based on Fourier mathematics and the God Equation, and nothing else. It has no woo woo elements and no connection with faith. It requires no God, no Creator, no cosmic Master, no heaven and no hell. The unconscious, consciousness, free will, qualia, dreams and subjectivity are the rocks on which scientific materialism catastrophically founders. It cannot explain any of these. It can’t even formulate a meaningful way to discuss them. It can’t define what they are and equally can’t define what they are not. No part of its Meta Paradigm can accommodate them. It simply talks of them miraculously “emerging” from things in which they have no conceivable rational ground. Mind cannot come from non-mind (matter), life cannot come from non-life, free will cannot come from scientific determinism, subjectivity cannot come from objectivity, the unconscious and consciousness can’t come from nonconscious things, and dreams cannot be produced by atomic and molecular entities that don’t and can’t dream. Dreaming is a core activity of mind. We dream all the time. In fact, we do nothing but dream. When we go to sleep, we largely suppress all sensory input from the objective, external world. Our mind is then free to explore the subjective frequency domain rather than the objective spacetime domain. Most of our dreaming occurs unconsciously, so we have no chance of consciously experiencing it and hence of remembering it. REM sleep is where our consciousness interacts with the unconscious mind: our consciousness watches material being projected at us from the unconscious mind rather than from the external world. Because our consciousness is engaged, we have some chance of remembering these dreams. No part of dreaming makes any senses in terms of the human body being made from nothing but the mindless, lifeless, material, non-conscious, nondreaming atoms of scientific materialism.

***** It’s impossible for free will not to be deterministic. Free will cannot be random, acausal or indeterministic. All actions must have a sufficient reason. If a freely chosen action had no reason for, it would not be free but an insane, random action, and no one who behaved without sufficient

reasons could function in any human manner. They would instead be “random behaviour generators”. The compatibilist position is that there are two types of determinism: internal and external, subjective and objective. The incompatibilist position denies that there are two types of determinism. Hard determinism asserts that only external, objective determinism is possible and there’s no such thing as internal, subjective determinism. (The latter can be true only if autonomous, immaterial minds exist outside space and time, and these are precisely what are denied by scientific determinism). Libertarianism denies that there is any determinism at all (while completing failing to explain what free will actually is and what mechanism it operates by). Hard incompatibilism asserts that either there is only external, objective determinism or pure indeterminism (i.e. libertarianism, which is scientifically unexplained and inexplicable), and neither is compatible with free will. What is free will? To act according to free will requires the ability to: a) defer action in order to generate alternative courses of action (i.e. to resist a single, automatic or instinctual course of action), b) generate multiple possible courses of action (i.e. to conceive of multiple different futures), c) evaluate, using various criteria, the likely consequences of each potential course of action (i.e. to perform a cost-benefit analysis, not according to any absolute standards but according to a person’s own feelings, opinions, standards, beliefs, tastes, interpretations, conjectures, hypotheses, character, and personality, i.e. subjective rather than objective criteria, unique to each person), d) remember similar situations from the past and learn from them, e) act teleologically (i.e. have aims, goals, purposes, targets, desired futures that draw a person towards them), f) calculate, according to the person’s own standards, how to achieve their ends, g) have at least some element or glimmer of consciousness and not act through programmed instinct alone, h) problem-solve. In short, your free will involves the ability to stop, to imagine two or more possible futures depending on what actions you might take, evaluate these possible futures using your own subjective criteria, and plan how to make your desired, teleological future happen. To make this happen rather than that. A crucial aspect of free will is that it must generate alternative courses of action that are more or less equally possible and realistic, For example,

someone with free will can easily change his mind, and decide to reject a course of action that he had preciously imagined was the best. Imagine that you were choosing between going on holiday to Italy or France. Today, you might settle on Italy. Tomorrow, you decide that France would be better. Or you might have your hand hovering chocolate bar A and chocolate bar B. You initially reach for A then change your mind and take B. Philosophical illiterates and ignoramuses often make the bizarre claim that all choices available to free will and generated by free will are actually illusory and that all along there was only one thing you were ever going to do (i.e. you were driven inexorably by scientific determinism and could never have acted differently from how you did act). How and why does scientific materialism make people with “illusory” free will defer action, generate meaningless alternative courses of action when one course is inevitable (and is being pointlessly delayed for some unknown and inexplicable reason), and even change their mind, or admit afterwards that they made a mistake and should have chosen one of the other options. To have free will means to be capable of exhibiting free determinism (acting for your own reasons), not free indeterminism (acting randomly, for no reason). You must have an open-ended future available to you, have the ability to deterministically assess various potential courses of action available to you, each of which will result in a different future, whose costs and benefits are able to be determined by you using your subjective criteria, and then finally determine which, in your opinion, is the best course of action available to you, which is the one you then actually carry out. Having free will means having the ability to deterministically evaluate several possible futures open to you, depending on which of several courses of action you choose, and then deterministically going ahead and choosing one of those courses of action. You always have a sufficient reason for what you decide to do, i.e. your course of action is fully determined and not in any way random, acausal, accidental, indeterministic, contrary to your own reason and nature, or absolutely inevitable because of a prior causal chain entirely external to you, which you are compelled to obey (as science claims). So, free will comes down to the difference between automatic external, objective determinism (scientific determinism), in which you have no choice at all about what comes next, and non-automatic, internal, subjective determinism in which a subject can deterministically weigh up alternative

courses of action rather than being constrained to follow one, inevitable course of action. Free will is all about determinism, but of a singular nature – subjective determinism. Only subjective determinism can involve choice. Only subjective determinism can be free of constraint. If someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to do something or he will shoot you, you still have a choice, but it’s now a massively constrained choice because of external factors. Your free will can certainly be affected and influenced by external factors, but is not determined by them. All discussions of free will in the current academic environment have failed to distinguish between non-automatic, subjective, internal determinism and automatic, objective, external determinism. Plainly, the debate about free will is radically different if subjective determinism is denied. You then have no choice but to accept external determinism (which makes free will impossible), or internal indeterminism (which makes free will about randomness). Materialism is all about external determinism being the sole reality. i.e. you are a material being acted upon by inevitable and inexorable material, mechanical forces that allow no scope whatsoever for alternative courses of action. Most materialists are “hard determinists”, although some will prefer to call themselves “hard incompatibilists”, whereby they deny that meaningful free will can coexist with indeterminism, never mind determinism. People who despise the very notion of free will, mind and subjectivity are hard incompatibilists. They are extremist materialists who want to remove any mention or possibility of free will from consideration. Metaphysical libertarianism is a position often attributed to extremist idealists. Here, physical determinism is denied and all actions are said to flow from undetermined mental choices (free will), although it’s never clear in this scheme how a choice can be made without a determination. Compatibilism is the position that 1) subjective and objective, 2) internal and external, 3) automatic and non-automatic, types of determinism can, do and must co-exist. It’s absurd to deny subjective, internal determinism (free will), as the hard determinists and hard incompatibilists do. It’s absurd to deny objective, external determinism, and subjective, internal determinism, as the metaphysical libertarians do. The only logical, rational position is compatibilism. Compatibilism is the simple position that the world comprises internal and external causality, which have a different character,

the latter being automatic and inflexible, the former non-automatic and flexible, driven by internal reasons (causes) rather than external reasons (causes). Compatibilism does not comprise external causality alone, or internal causality alone, and it explicitly rules out the possibility that the world is fundamentally indeterministic – as quantum science claims. Anyone who opposes compatibilism doesn’t know what they’re talking about. They haven’t understood the nature of free will at all. Free will, to repeat, is subjective determinism and involves subjectively determining a set of multiple potential courses of action, and then determining which of these is the best for you (in your own subjective opinion). Non-free will is objective determinism and involves an action being forced on you by external factors over which you have no control. You cannot, for example, defy a hurricane. Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” This is a crucial point. You are ultimately determined by your will and you cannot will to have a different will (because then you would become a different person making different choices and behaving entirely differently, and there is any in case no mechanism for becoming a person who wills according to different wills: you are your will and what you will). All realistic potential courses of action a free agent generates are consistent with his will. He can certainly intellectually conceive of other courses of action inconsistent with his will, but these would never be chosen because he would never will them. For example, you might imagine running into your office stark naked, but you never actually will. What a willing being wishes to do is will the best outcome, as he imagines it, for himself. He wants to maximise his power, hence is exercising his Will to Power, as Nietzsche proposed. However, the option that maximises your power is not self-evident, hence requires analysis – deterministic analysis, based on your own understanding of the world. It certainly does not require choosing randomly. Free will has no connection with willing any old thing at all, for no reason. That’s not free will; that’s madness. “Free” means being free to choose between several options that you have freely generated. It does not mean being free to do anything at all, contrary to your reason, your personality, your nature, your character, and your will. You wouldn’t be “you” if you were “free” in that sense. You are free to determine your future. You are not free not to. You are a

deterministic, not indeterministic being. Your determinism comes from inside, not outside, and totally reflects you. Why are we all rather regular in our habits? Because our behaviour is patterned, not random. It’s characteristic of us, not of anyone else. What is it that the enemies of free will and compatibilism despise so much? It’s the notion that causality can come from within as well as from without. Internal causality means that subjects exist, minds exist, teleology exists and meaning exists. The Materialist Fundamentalists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris cannot abide any idea that the universe is quintessentially full of meaning. Meaning is, above all, what all atheistic scientists loathe. All of them, without exception, describe the universe as meaningless and purposeless, an accidental machine that randomly sprang out of nothing for no reason. As soon as free will is admitted, scientific materialism falls apart, which is why science is so opposed to free will and compatibilism. People like Sam Harris have made a lucrative career out of their Fundamentalist Materialism. They’re not suddenly going to “see the light”. Illuminism is all about monads. Monads are mathematical minds that generate their own causal chains. However, they are also influenced (but not determined) by the causal chains generated by other individual monads and by the causal chain generated by all monads together (the Monadic Collective), this latter chain being the objective, causal chain of scientific materialism. We are influenced but not determined by the causality of other individual monads – unless they kill us, in which case they have determined our current status. We are influenced but not necessarily, and we are not usually determined, by the causal chain of the Monadic Collective. If it rains, we can choose to go indoors, put on a hat or raise an umbrella. But if we are caught in a hurricane, we are helpless in the face of this overwhelming external causality. We are all initiators of causality but we are also informed, influenced and sometimes determined by the causal chains produced by other individual monads, or by the whole Monadic Collective (via the material world which is the objective expression of the collective causal action of monads). Free will (internal) determinism and scientific (external) determinism are fully explained by Illuminism. We are all monadic subjects that can

determine our future as we become more and more conscious. Yet we are surrounded by other monads, acting both individually and collectively, and these have an enormous influence on us.

The Will to Power and Free Will The Materialist Fundamentalists do not want to acknowledge authentic will or mind because both of these imply meaning and purpose, which the Fundamentalists reject (since it would destroy their quasi-religious faith in science and materialism). For meaning and purpose to be true, choice must be true – and choice is what free will is all about. Free will is not about indeterminism. It’s not about being free to do anything, including, or especially, acting randomly (without any sufficient reason). It’s all about determinism, but our own determinism, horribly flawed and error-prone though that is. The Monadic Collective operates automatically via scientific determinism (all subjective elements are removed from the Collective, leaving only what all monads have in common – objective mathematics, the mathematics of the non-singularity numbers, i.e. excluding zero and infinity). So, we have collective, automatic determinism without subjective purpose versus individual, non-automatic determinism with subjective purpose. The latter is based on subjective minds trying to work out how best to maximise their power, but not being sure how to do so (which is where the Hegelian dialectic comes in, and the great dialectical bloodbath of nature and history). The Monadic Collective is objective and acts without explicit purpose. It generates scientific determinism. Individual monads are subjective and act with purpose. They generate free will (their own attempts to optimise their power, using their own criteria and decision-making). That’s what compatibilism is all about: objective determinism without purpose and subjective determinism with purpose coexisting in an interactive system. Never forget that all arguments advanced by atheists, scientific materialists and their fellow-travelling philosophers are designed to repudiate mind, will, purpose and meaning. Since free will is the ultimate expression of mind (and thus the formal refutation of scientific materialism and atheism), these people are determined to show that it’s false and impossible. The irony is that these people are themselves exhibiting will,

mind and purpose, and would not be meaningfully able to formulate an argument in the first place were it not for their free will! According to them, they have no choice over what they think, hence they are not stating a considered case at all but merely typing (like the infinite monkeys randomly producing the works of Shakespeare!).

Compatibilism Compatibilism means nothing more than that there are two types of determinism, and they are fully compatible and work together in complete harmony. Simple! Where’s the drama? Compatibilism is the inevitable consequence of the God Equation. You haven’t understood a single thing about ontological mathematics if you oppose compatibilism. Someone messaged us to tell us that his “professors” sneered at compatibilism and that he was fully on their side. All they’ve done is demonstrate that they are brainwashed materialists, unable to think. As Al Pacino said in Glengarry Glen Ross, “You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.” No one comes to an issue innocently, with a genuinely open mind. Everyone comes with the Meta Paradigm – the schema with which they “understand” reality – fully locked and loaded. Abrahamists look through Abrahamic eyes, Karmists through Karmist eyes, New Agers through New Age eyes, and scientific materialists through scientific materialist eyes. “Hard” determinists reject free will because their schema does not allow them to conceive of anything beyond scientific determinism, and there is of course no freedom at all in scientific determinism. Hard incompatibilists – Materialist Fundamentalists such as Sam Harris – go even further and say that free will wouldn’t even make sense in terms of indeterminism, which simply goes to show that they don’t have the vaguest idea what free will is since no rational person would ever claim that free will is indeterministic. They concede that it has nothing to do with randomness, but nor can they see how it can have anything to do with nonrandomness, so they conclude it’s impossible. As for metaphysical libertarians, they are certain that free will exists, but can’t see how it can be compatible with determinism, so they reject determinism.

All of these people cannot think beyond their schema. They can’t imagine mathematical monadic minds that are totally determined by the God Equation (i.e. these monads can’t do anything that is inconsistent with the God Equation), yet have a dual character: subjective and objective. They have a within and a without. They can subjectively experience information as well as objectively processing and reacting to it. Music is the classic example of an objective information pattern that’s experienced subjectively. No scientist has ever explained the way music makes us feel. They have never explained how mindless, lifeless, objective material atoms can feel at all simply by being arranged into bodies, brains and sense organs. It’s precisely the fact that we can all be differently affected by, and all experience and react differently to, the same mathematical information that allows free will to exist. It’s all about a subjective response to something objective. Materialist atoms are objects, not subjects, and they cannot do anything other than respond objectively to external mathematical information (“forces”). They react automatically without any possibility of choice. If you are a materialist and believe that human minds are made of these objective material atoms, and are subject to inescapable mechanical forces, then there is of course zero chance of free will (and it also makes it impossible to understand how and why unfree atoms have created minds that suffer from a pointless and impossible delusion that they are somehow free). Free will is the supreme battleground between materialists and empiricists on the one hand, and rationalists and idealists on the other. You are definitely an empiricist materialist if you reject compatibilism. And that also means that, if you’re a scientific determinist, you believe yourself to be a machine that has never once freely chosen to do anything at all. Which makes you a sad, mad and irrational cunt! Remember, according to you (the scientific materialist), the author had no choice over writing that last word – it was inevitable, or random, depending on whether you are a hard determinist or hard indeterminist! The author, on the other hand, is certain he chose the word deliberately and carefully, using his free will, to show his contempt for all you crazy, autistic, machine-people who deny your own freedom.

What kind of slave imagines himself inherently incapable of making up his own mind? That’s scientists, atheists and empiricist philosophers for you! They have chosen to label themselves as subhuman, incapable of determining their own actions, incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives, incapable of accepting moral or intellectual agency, incapable of displaying creativity (since there’s no creativity in a world without free will). These morons argue against free will while self-evidently using their own free will. What a world! No wonder reason has yet to triumph in this benighted world of ours. Remember compatibilism is about how determinism has a dual aspect. It’s one coin with two sides – subjective and objective, the within and the without. This is true because of the dimensionless and dimensional nature of the monad. The monad has an immaterial, Fourier frequency aspect outside space and time, and a Fourier material aspect (projection) in space and time. Each monad is a subject to itself (source of internal causation) and object to other monads (source of external causation). This is not difficult to understand if you have a rational mind. It’s impossible to understand if you don’t, and, in that case, you will definitely reject and resist ontological mathematics. Illuminism is the only way to rationally explain both compatibilism and free will. If you deny compatibilism, you are denying that reality is based on subject-objects called monads.

***** “Determinism may be considered only in terms of physical causes necessitating their effects. But it is also possible to speak of conduct determined by the agent’s motives; and to say this is not so is clearly to imply that there was no alternative.” – Pan Dictionary of Philosophy Monads – mental atoms – are agents. They can cause things to happen through their own agency. Material atoms have no agency. Where mental atoms are active in causal chains, material atoms are wholly passive. Enemies of free will often make the absurd claim that people do not have any alternatives, but only imagine they do. How and why they would imagine pointless choices is never explained by these idiotic materialists.

“But to deny that actions fall into the realm of causality as ordinarily understood creates problems. In what sense can we be said to cause our own actions (and hence be responsible for them, as the concept of free will is said to imply) rather than have them accidentally happen to us? Compatibilists believe that the concept of free will must involve causality.” – Pan Dictionary of Philosophy Enemies of free will and compatibilism deny that people are responsible for anything at all because, without free will and compatibilism, no one ever chooses their conduct and simply has it imposed on them by external causes or by chance. It really is astounding that so many “intellectuals” are so keen to use their free will to deny that they have free will. Why are they so anxious to get their point across if, as they claim, they are merely the agents of determinism, or indeterminism, wholly outside their control or choice? They seem remarkably passionate it, but when have you ever seen a machine being passionate? Only the irrational oppose compatibilism. There’s only one way to explain our experience of being free within a world of scientific determinism and that’s by attributing a dual-aspect character to determinism, a subjective and objective nature. In its objective aspect, determinism involves no choice, no free will. Only one thing can happen and it’s inevitable and inescapable. In its subjective character, determinism is all about choice, about free will. Many things are possible and we ourselves, using our own criteria, decide what will happen. In objective determinism, the only criterion is that of objective science and this provides only one outcome. In subjective determinism, the criteria are our own and we have many options to consider before making our choice. Subjective determinism is dialectical while objective determinism is Aristotelian. Free will is intimately connected with consciousness and rationalism. The more conscious and the more rational you are, the more you can conceive different futures, and the more you can study and analyse each possible future and how well you might fare in it. The less conscious and the less rational you are, the more you are likely to act spontaneously, from instinct, with usually disastrous consequences. The famous marshmallow test – where children are offered one marshmallow immediately or two if they wait for a certain period – is one of the most important experiments

ever devised. The kid who immediately gobbles the one marshmallow in front of him has no self-control, is committed to instant gratification, has no discipline, no patience, and no ability to conceive of a future where he has resisted temptation for a brief period and thus doubled his prize. He’s more like an animal. The children who wait are planners and calculators. They are highly teleological, able to control their instincts. A conscious, rational person is able to overcome external determinism, and rely on his internal determinism. He can override external determinism, with its total lack of options (it obeys only one criterion – that of machinelike objective science), and substitute his own, complex, conflicting criteria as to what action to take. “Scientific” determinism always happens immediately because there’s no choice to be made, no conflict to be pondered, no ramifications or choices to be studied in terms of costs and benefits. Subjective determinism, on the other hand, can be incredibly slow because so many factors have to be considered and weighed against each other. Not a single opponent of free will has ever explained why, if free will is an illusion, decisions take so long. What’s causing the delay if the outcome is inevitable and fully externally determined? As ever, the opponents of free will simply don’t think at all. They can’t explain why determinism is instantaneous until it applies to creatures with alleged free will, and then seems to slow down to an incredible degree. At the same time, they say, a wholly pointless illusion is generated that a different outcome is possible from the one mandated by external determinism.

Schopenhauer According to Schopenhauer, true reality consists of nothing but a single, unconscious Will that does nothing but ceaselessly strive. Schopenhauer designated it as evil because it generated a huge amount of pain, suffering and distress and only fleeting moments of pleasure, happiness and contentment, that were soon enough overtaken by fresh horrors. Eduard von Hartmann attempted to reconcile Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy with Hegel’s optimistic philosophy. For Hegel,

reality consists of dialectically evolving Geist (Mind/Spirit) and it’s heading towards an Omega Point – the Absolute point of perfection. According to Hartmann, Will and Intellect are locked in a primordial embrace, with, initially, Will as the dominant partner. Will acts instantaneously, without reflection. As dialectical evolution unfolds, the power of Intellect steadily increases and is eventually the dominant partner when consciousness is attained. Intellect can then rationally work to thwart the evils of the Will. The Will is somewhat akin to scientific determinism. It doesn’t think. It just acts. Intellect does think and it takes care over its actions. It converts the Will from being automatic to being free, i.e. it releases it from the constraint of acting immediately, instead allowing it to calculate, study, compare and plan alternative futures, and determine which is the best. We exhibit free will only when we act according to our own will, and not the will of anyone else, unless it was our will that we should obey another will. We cannot will the will itself, i.e. we cannot have a will different from the one we have evolved. Schopenhauer drew a distinction between necessity and chance. If an act depends on another thing, it is necessitated by that other thing (i.e. determined by it). If no sufficient cause is present, an event or action is random. Such an act or event that does not depend on anything happens, Schopenhauer says, by chance. (He failed to consider that it could happen through its own agency, i.e. it depends on itself.) For Schopenhauer, everything in the phenomenal world had a sufficient reason, hence, in his view, could not be free. For him, “freedom” meant a lack of necessity, a lack of any sufficient cause. He did not believe that there was any freedom at all in this sense in the phenomenal world. Schopenhauer is wrong here. Freedom does not mean lack of necessity. It means that you yourself supply your sufficient reason for your actions, rather than having it imposed on you from an external source. So, there are two radically different ways of understanding the word “freedom”: 1) as indeterminism (randomness), and 2) as determinism but with causes coming from within the causal agent rather than from without. The first meaning is essentially incoherent. Having a desire to act randomly, to act by chance and accident, is not to wish to be free at all, but to wish to be blown wherever the wind takes you. You don’t want to determine your own actions, but to have them determined for you. You

don’t want a prior causal chain to determine your actions, but simple randomness. However, since you want to be controlled by a force outside yourself (a random rather deterministic force, but an external force all the same), you are certainly not on the side of freedom, and you are certainly not free. Nietzsche, typically, rejected both free will and non-free will. In his opinion, what was important about will was whether it was strong or weak, i.e. how much power it expressed. He wrote, “In the end the question is whether we acknowledge the will as something really efficient, whether we believe in the causal properties of the will. If we do – and basically our faith in this is simply our faith in causality itself – then we must make the attempt to set up hypothetically the causality of the will as the single causality. Of course, ‘will’ can work only on ‘will’ – and not on ‘stuff’ (not, for example, on ‘nerves’). Briefly put, we must venture the hypothesis whether in general, wherever we recognize ‘effects,’ will is not working on will – and whether every mechanical event, to the extent that a force is active in it, is not force of will, an effect of the will. Suppose finally that we were to succeed in explaining our entire instinctual life as a development and branching off of a single fundamental form of the will – that is, of the will to power, as my principle asserts – and suppose we could trace back all organic functions to this will to power and also locate in it the solution to the problem of reproduction and nourishment – that is one problem – then in so doing we would have earned the right to designate all efficient force unambiguously as will to power. Seen from inside, the world defined and described according to its ‘intelligible character’ would be simply ‘will to power’ and nothing else.” Nietzsche regarded everything as boiling down to the Will to Power. Everything was engaged in a great contest for power, with the strong wills defeating the weak wills.

***** “The terms ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’ are frequently so defined that one explicitly excludes the other.” – Pan Dictionary of Philosophy People aren’t used to considering freedom as deterministic. But, of course, it is. Your actions are determined by your decisions, which have a sufficient reason. No one ever says, “My free will consists of behaving

randomly for no reason at all.” What they mean by free will is that they take the decision and not someone else; they determine their future and not factors external to them. It’s all about subjective agency.

***** It’s important to grasp that free will goes hand in hand with teleology since free will is all about imagining different futures and having the aim of bringing about the best possible of those, and avoiding the worst possible, i.e. this is wholly purposeful behaviour. Given that science rejects autonomous mind and teleology (and any suggestion that existence has any meaning), it’s not at all surprising to find scientific materialists queuing up to deny free will. After all, that’s central to their quasi-religion! What can no mindless, lifeless atom ever do? It cannot anticipate the future and it cannot plan for the future. It cannot assign different meanings to different choices. According to science, collections of mindless, lifeless, non-teleological atoms can, nevertheless, gather together, spring to life (!) and possess minds totally directed towards teleology. If you believe science, you really will believe anything. You might as well believe in God.

Fast and Slow Thinking Psychologists talk of humans having two systems of thinking: System 1 = fast and System 2 = slow. System 1 is automatic and effortless but often rather stupid ... and wrong. System 1 is our autopilot and is used by the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time. System 2 is clever and deliberative, but lazy. It requires a lot of tiring effort. The people who engage System 2 are the philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, and the like. System 1 is all about short cuts, and system 2 about taking the long route. System 2 rationalizes the decisions of System 1. It often provides retrospective reasons that were not the actual reasons used by System 1. System 2 is the agent of both Mythos and Logos. System 2 is the “I”, the centre of our 24/7 narrative. It mostly operates in Mythos mode, telling a continuous story, making sense of our System 1 actions, and only rarely steps into Logos mode, which is all about difficult problem solving. Free will is not a System 1 quality. It belongs to System 2. With System 1, we respond immediately, without analytical thought. We use “gut

feelings”, “intuitions”, instant assessments, and, worryingly, often the last pieces of information we received before being asked to make a decision. It has been proved that the System 1 thinking can be primed. If you mention the number 10 to people before asking them a question related to quantity, the answer they give for a totally unrelated question will show a powerful correlation with 10, i.e. the people will scatter their answers around 10. It sets the “ballpark” figure that they use to answer a question that has no connection at all with 10. If you prime them with “50”, they will then use that as their ballpark figure for the subsequent question! Free will is all about System 2. If we regard determinism (and indeed System 1 thinking) as being about a fast, single answer, the point of free will is to slow everything down and present a range of answers, each of which has to be evaluated. We imagine, in detail, several different futures and we think about them carefully because we are teleological beings, seeking the optimal outcome. Free will is totally teleological; scientific determinism is not telelogical at all. Determinism exists on a continuum. At one end, we have scientific determinism which involves no choices and no teleology. At the other end we have “God”, who has total free choice and total teleology. He can calculate the best possible world and plan its actualisation. Scientists are the opposite of Gods because they entirely reject mind, free will, teleology, the principle of sufficient reason and meaning. It’s the search for meaning that changes “other-determinism” (scientific determinism) into “selfdeterminism” (free will).

Confirmation Bias The smartest people in the world are able to transcend the problem of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias involves people doing their utmost to confirm what they already believe and want to believe. Religious believers seek out evidence for their God (but not for other Gods!), and do not expose themselves to critics of their beliefs. Conspiracy theorists seek every “fact” that confirms their theory, and reject every “fact” that does not (and these will typically be treated as disinformation generated by the conspirators!). Scientists never look for any evidence that refutes their empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. They actually regard absence of evidence as

evidence of absence, even though there’s no reason for such a conclusion. It’s pure bias. Why do many philosophers reject compatibilism? It’s because they are strongly invested in alternative worldviews and have no interest at all in finding reasons to support a stance they reject. Their motivation lies in entirely the opposite direction: trying to devise arguments to refute compatibilism. They take it for granted that compatibilism is wrong. They don’t even put any real effort into understanding it, which is why their arguments against it are so feeble. Similarly, many critics launch into attacks on Illuminism while knowing virtually nothing about it. They don’t study all of Illuminism and then attack it. They get a quick impression of it, and then attack that impression. No one can say that in the God Series we haven’t gone to a lot of trouble to refute our enemies in great detail. We haven’t just rubbished them after a cursory glance. We have rubbished them after a deep, rational analysis of their claims. The same courtesy is not extended to us. We regard most academics – “professors” – as a joke. They simply can’t get beyond their own biases in order to properly consider theories they don’t like.

Autistic Scientists Autistics see the detail but not the big picture. In tests involving pictures full of incredible detail, subjects were asked to pick out a specific detail from the overwhelming amount of information. Autistics succeeded rapidly while “normals” took an age. Autistics are extremely sensory-oriented. They can process a vast amount of sensory data in ways inaccessible to normals. Autism reflects the extreme scientific brain. Autistics are the least likely people on earth to accept dimensionless existence, i.e. non-sensory existence. They are those most likely to accept scientific determinism, a meaningless universe, a universe with no purpose, without mind. Autistics can’t lie, can’t love, can’t empathise, and have poor communication skills. They have no imagination or intuition. Autistics behave rather like machines. Their behaviour is approaching that which would be expected of human beings without free will.

Scientists reflect many of these same traits. Anyone who can’t conceive of an existence beyond the apparent one in front of him is definitely on the autistic spectrum. Autistics suffer from a lack of theory of mind. They can’t imagine people having separate minds with separate thoughts, beliefs and knowledge. They think everyone knows the same as they do, so become frustrated when others haven’t the vaguest idea what they’re talking about. If you think about it, scientists don’t have any theory of mind either. They deny that the universe has life, purpose and meaning (i.e. mental qualities). They make no attempt to establish any model of the mind not grounded in matter, in brains and brain-cell interactions. Since they deny free will, they are claiming that minds are deterministic in the scientific sense, i.e. subject to automatic, inescapable, mechanical determinism. Therefore, people don’t actually possess minds that have different thoughts, beliefs and knowledge. Rather, they possess these things only as illusions, epiphenomena and phantasms. These things have no effect at all on what is truly in the mind (which is merely the outcome of atomic and molecular interactions). In fact, given the denial of free will, it’s impossible to even define what the deniers mean by “knowledge”, “beliefs”, and “thoughts” since these, apparently, are just meaningless illusions or epiphenomena. So, scientists have established a body of knowledge (science) that they actually reject, since, in a scientifically deterministic universe, “knowledge” is simply what unthinking atomic and molecular processes have produced, but that constitutes knowledge no more than a data download from a computer does. To have knowledge, you must be able to consider what does not constitute knowledge, but that requires free will, and that’s exactly what is denied. What do the deniers of free will say of errors, flaws, irrationality, illogic, illusions, delusions and changes of mind? How can a scientifically deterministic system change its mind? How can it have a delusion? How can it lie? How can it love? How can it be wrong? How can scientific determinism ever produce errors? As ever, the deniers are silent. They ignore the legion of problems with their view, and concentrate only on what they see as the “obvious” errors of the free will theory.

The Astonishingly Bad Hypothesis “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: ‘you’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’ This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can be truly called astonishing.” – Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul Of course, Crick and his ilk have no intention of searching for the soul, and wouldn’t know where to begin since it’s immaterial and outside space and time, hence beyond the reach of the scientific method. Scientific materialists claim that the soul is purely an illusion perpetuated only by people’s belief in it. The true search for the soul belongs to mathematics alone. Mathematics is the only way to defend the existence of the soul and, happily, it furnishes the perfect defence. The soul, as we have said so many times, is a singularity, a Fourier frequency domain. Scientists such as Crick have simply never begun to understand Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics is science’s worst nightmare because: a) it entirely refutes the whole ideology of scientific materialism, and b) furnishes the noumenal reality underlying the whole of scientific materialism.

The Definitional Crisis It’s astonishing that the rival parties in the free will debate – the compatibilists and the incompatibilists – use contradictory, and mutually exclusive, definitions of freedom. Therefore, they’re not actually debating at all. They’re just shouting at each other. Incompatibilists define free will in terms of being free from determinism. Hard determinist incompatibilists deny that anything is free from determinism, hence there’s no free will (hence compatibilism is false). Metaphysical libertarian incompatibilists deny determinism, hence say that everything is free (indeterministic), but not determined (hence compatibilism is false). Hard incompatibilists say that whether or not reality

is determinist or indeterministic, free will is incompatible with it in either case (hence compatibilism is false). Compatibilists define free will in terms of being free from external determinism, but reflecting internal determinism (i.e. self-determinism). Free will, being deterministic, is compatible with scientific determinism, but invokes an element outside the scientific Meta Paradigm, namely subjective rather than objective determinism. Scientific materialism – which denies the existence of immaterial, autonomous mind – is all about external determinism only. Compatibilism, when properly understood and defined, accepts the existence of immaterial, autonomous mind, and assigns a different but compatible type of determinism to mind as compared with matter. Matter can reflect only external, objective determinism, while mind can reflect internal, subjective determinism, and both types of determinism can co-exist and work together (i.e. they are compatible), via Fourier mathematics. The incompatibilist definition of free will denies the very possibility that freedom can be considered deterministically. The compatibilist definition denies that free will can be considered in anything other than deterministic terms, namely those of internal, subjective, self determinism. Freedom is all about determinism providing it’s your own determinism, and not that of anything outside you. Any indeterministic conception of free will is false. It’s just randomness and chaos, not directed towards any freely chosen and determined ends.

***** Incompatibilists talk of being free from determinism in order for free will to be meaningful. Compatibilists talk of being free for determining your own future in order for free will to be meaningful, i.e. it’s not about being from determinism, but being free from the determinism of anything external to you, but not from your own self-determinism (the determinism internal to you that reflects who you are).

Free Will Free will: humans are able to act according to the dictates of their own will. Thomas Hobbes said that to be free is to act as we will, and to be un-free is to be coerced by others. This is a perfectly good starting point for what free

will is and is a compatibilist position. Most people believe that humans have free will; hard determinists, however, claim that each of our actions and choices is caused by prior events over which we have no say or control. This claim arises entirely from the denial of autonomous, immaterial minds. Without such minds, free will is indeed impossible. If there were only physical atoms, and not mental atoms too (monads), the hard determinists would be absolutely correct.

The Compatibilists Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza Leibniz and Hume were all prominent compatibilists.

David Hume In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argued that free will (or “liberty”, to use his term) is the “power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will: that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.… This hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains.” Hume argued that if we observe nature, it seems to be full of necessity. One thing necessarily seems to follow from another. Likewise, people have a nature, and their actions necessarily follow from their nature. If people weren’t predictable, if their motives weren’t understandable, if their behaviour wasn’t characteristic, we wouldn’t be able to have a society. It’s only because people behave deterministically according to their natures that our world is as it is. If people were machines (hard determinism) or indeterministic (libertarianism), our world would be unrecognizable. Compatibilism is about reconciling the necessity of physical nature with the necessity of human nature. Incompatibilists believe that no reconciliation can be effected. This debate is just the Cartesian problem of substance dualism in a new guise. How can matter and mind interact if they are mutually exclusive substances? Materialists consequently denied that mind exists and idealists that matter exists. To ask if free will and scientific determinism can be compatible is exactly the same as asking if Cartesian mind and matter can be compatible. The answer remains the one that the whole of ontological

mathematics is predicated on – of course they’re compatible if mind is understood to be a Fourier frequency domain and matter is understood to be a Fourier spacetime domain, and they are linked by Fourier mathematics. This is the only way to reconcile mind and matter, free will and scientific determinism, subjectivity and objectivity. All other attempts to explain mind and matter, free will and scientific determinism are incoherent, irrational and impossible. Anyone who denies the truth of compatibilism is equally denying that mind and matter can be compatible, hence is committing to extremist materialism like that of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, or extremist idealism like that of Bishop Berkeley. For Hume and other compatibilists, liberty means being free to act as we will. It does not mean that our actions are random, that they come from nowhere, without any reason. We always have a motive, a reason, a cause, for what we do. Human existence is inconceivable otherwise. If liberty were taken to mean acting without a motive, that wouldn’t even constitute madness (because even the mad have motives), it would simply be chaos, in which all humans would die since there would be nothing to stop them jumping off cliffs, drowning themselves, stabbing each other, and so on. It has been argued that a compatibilist would have to accept that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cyborg Terminator is free, but plainly he isn’t since he is acting under the constraint of his programmer and is not exercising his own will (which he fundamentally lacks anyway, being a machine and not a living being). It is then argued that he is no more programmed than we are by our genes or by an all-knowing Creator God. But we are not programmed by our genes. That’s a totally materialist argument, and materialism is false. Not even genetically identical twins are identical in their behaviour. Nor are we programmed by any Creator since there’s no such being. We are eternal, uncaused, uncreated beings who existed before bodies or genes or Gods existed. We are uncaused causes, first causes, causal agents, Prime Movers. The arguments that are used against compatibilism already assume the falsehood of compatibilism and come from a perspective opposed to compatibilism, which is like a Muslim arguing that science is false because it contradicts the Koran. We are not caused beings, and our free actions are not caused by anything outside us. We would not be “free” beings if that meant acting

without motives, reasons or causes. We are free in the sense that we are uncaused causes that can initiate our own causal chains, but we initiate causal chains for teleological reasons, not for no reason at all. Compatibilism alone is consistent with ontological mathematics and the world we experience.

Hume and Causality Hume, an empiricist and skeptic, poured radical doubt on the notion that there is true necessity (determinism) in physical processes. Our ideas of necessary connection and causation, Hume claimed, result only from the observation of constant conjunction between events and how this constant conjunction is interpreted by our minds. We infer the idea of necessary connection based on the events we observe, but nowhere do we directly observe necessary connection and causation in nature. People, in Hume’s view, have mistaken observations of constant conjunction for causation, just as many people continue to mistake correlation for causation. Moreover, our inferences regarding human nature are also based solely on the observation of constant conjunction (and not on any perception of causality), and most people strongly deny that any kind of necessity governs their actions. So, we look at constant conjunction in nature and conclude that causation is at work, and we look at constant conjunction in human nature and conclude that causation is not at work: a total contradiction. Hume’s ingenious arguments allowed him to deny determinism (causation) and propose, therefore, that there is no incompatibilism between determinism and free will because: a) we don’t know what determinism is and if it exists at all, and we don’t know what free will is and whether it exists at all, but there’s no reason why we can’t suppose that nature and humans work in the same way (i.e. compatibly). Hume’s version of compatibilism is radically different from Illuminism’s because his is not based on determinism at all, and nor is it based on indeterminism. Rather, he argues that humans and Nature act in the same way, but the human intellect is not powerful enough, or lacks the evidence, to establish definitively what that way is. Hume’s position, therefore, is a kind of “mystery” position.

In essence, Hume said that since we observe no necessary connections (causes) governing either physical phenomena or human behaviour, our predictions regarding both can reduce to a similar set of observations. We cannot say that the causation is found in matter or in human behaviour, but we can certainly say it’s found in the imagination of the observer. This then allows us to focus on our perceptions regarding why we think we do things. In particular, we can focus on whether we are obeying our own will (in which case we are free), or whether we are not (in which case we perceive that we are acting under constraint). Hume’s position relies on “constant conjunction” being different from necessary connection (causality). We can perceive two events, but we can’t perceive any causal connection between them. All we can ever observe is the conjunction between the two events. For Hume, determinism isn’t about events being causally necessitated, but our perception of them as causally necessitated, which is radically different and cannot be proved. Thus Hume redefines the traditional notion of determinism in order to escape from it. Likewise, Hume redefines free will. He does not contrast it with determinism but instead with constraint (that which prevents us from acting in accordance with our own will). An action is free not if it could have been otherwise (i.e. not determined) but if it was performed in accordance with our will, i.e. we can say, “I chose to do it.” Hume’s version of compatibilism, which radically undermines causality, is therefore different from other versions of compatibilism which accept causality. If there is only constant conjunction and not causation between physical events then physical events are on the same level as human behaviour, and the classical incompatibilist arguments cannot be deployed.

***** The essence of free will concerns whether we could have behaved differently from how we did, and of course we could. People often change their minds. How is that possible if they are driven by relentless, inescapable causality? But it’s certainly possible if they ponder an issue in greater depth than before, and decide to change their original decision.

***** “Compatibilists often define an instance of ‘free will’ as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to his own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said ‘Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.’ “In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one’s own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.” – Wikipedia Hume’s empiricist, skeptical compatibilist position is one that does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. The rationalist, idealist Illuminist compatibilist position, on the other hand, absolutely demands the truth of Causal Determinism, with causality originating in eternal, autonomous mathematical minds (monads). With Hume’s definition, “compatibilism” is no longer the assertion that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, but, rather, that whatever process Nature employs is compatible with whatever process humans use, and can be said to truly reflect human “liberty”. The nature of this process is however undefined (because it’s empirically unobservable). If Hume’s attack on causation is rejected, and ontological mathematical causation accepted, Hume’s position on compatibilism becomes identical to Illuminist compatibilism.

“Soft” Determinism William James pejoratively described compatibilism as “soft” determinism: “A distinction between soft determinism and hard determinism is drawn by William James. By soft determinism, he means all those theories, like those of Hobbes, Hume, and Mill, that affirm that determinism is true, but deny that determinism has the implication that people are not morally responsible. These theories, then, seek somehow to reconcile determinism with morals. By hard determinism, on the other hand, he means those theories holding that people are completely governed by natural laws and

are therefore not responsible for what they are or for what they do. On this view, freedom is only an illusion. Representatives of hard determinism are philosophers such as Baron D’Holbach, Schopenhauer, and Hospers. In short, while hard determinism contrasts determinism with free will, soft determinism thinks that they are compatible. Hard determinism belongs to incompatibilism, and soft determinism to compatibilism. Currently most defenders of determinism argue for soft determinism. ‘Old-fashioned determinism was what we may call hard determinism … Nowadays we have a soft determinism which abhors harsh words, and repudiating fatality, necessity, and even predetermination, says that its real name is freedom.’ (W. James, Essays in Pragmatism)” – Blackwell Reference Online Anyone who uses the term “soft determinism” is immediately signalling that they reject compatibilism. William James was of course 100% wrong. His problem was that he had no conception of the difference between mind and matter. When he referred to the problem of reconciling determinism with morals, what he should have been talking about was reconciling matter (scientific determinism) with morals (mental determinism). So, the real task is to specify how minds differ from matter and how they are fully deterministic but in a radically different, yet not incompatible, manner. As ever in the God Series, we come back to Fourier mathematics and how it can allow the same information to be represented in two completely different ways: one in terms of frequency functions and one in terms of spacetime functions. Although, ultimately, only the frequency functions are ontologically real (and the spacetime functions are just a mathematical “illusion” they generate by packaging the same information in a different form), we can nevertheless usefully talk of two ontological domains linked by Fourier mathematics: 1) the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time (comprising countless autonomous frequency singularities known as monads), and 2) the material domain inside space and time. What is the essence of spacetime, of the material world? It’s all about individuation, about things being separated from each other and events happening sequentially and unambiguously. It’s all about localism, and things in one part of spacetime being more or less totally unaffected at any instant by anything else far away in spacetime.

In terms of spacetime determinism, we can imagine snooker or pool balls colliding with each other. We observe only a single outcome, not multiple outcomes. This automatically gives rise to the notion of “monodeterminism”, of things happening inevitably in a single causal chain, with no scope at all for anything to do anything other than what it is caused to do by the causal chain in which it is inescapably bound. This is the classic picture of “hard determinism”. Plainly, if this were true, free will would indeed be totally impossible. The issue of determinism being compatible with free will would never arise since there could be no such thing as free will, unless we allow the totally bizarre suggestion that causality can somehow create a pointless and redundant epiphenomenal illusion of free will. Well, then, how is hard determinism to be refuted? The answer lies in the autonomous, immaterial frequency domains (monads) outside space and time. A monadic frequency domain is a singularity, and all of its countless internal frequencies sit right on top of each other. A frequency monad is non-local, totally internally entangled and totally internally interconnected. There is no internal, sequential, localist determinism of the type we perceive in spacetime. We are now dealing with multi-determinism, with networked determinism. Imagine the frequency monad from the inside. Imagine it as something like the internet, with every internet user active at once, and all furiously interacting with each other and socially networking. Now, everyone can potentially contact anyone else on the internet, but, in fact, people only actually make contact with a tiny subset of the total internet user population. If we viewed internet activity from a Godlike perspective, we would not see one big hopelessly entangled jumble and chaotic confusion. Rather, we would see all sorts of discrete patterns occurring within the ocean of overall activity. Let’s regard this ocean as the mind itself, and all of the discrete patterns within it as discrete “thoughts”. The question now becomes – where is the mono-determinism? Spacetime sequentiality and localism have vanished within the monad. There are multi-deterministic processes going on, without any centre. Just as with the internet, we can’t identify where one deterministic process begins and another ends. We are dealing with multi-node, networked determinism. Where “matter” acts sequentially and locally, following mono-determinism (e.g. in the classical model of the “clockwork universe”,

you would know exactly what was going on everywhere in the world at all times), the modus operandi of the monadic mind is totally different. When it comes to the mind, you don’t have discrete material atoms, you don’t have space, you don’t have time, you don’t have sequential monodeterminism. You have a vast flux of processes all melding into each other, all entangled and interconnected, all fully networked. The internet is, so to speak, humanity unwittingly modelling its own mind. The essence of the internet is, naturally, the “network”. The essence of the mind is to operate via networked and parallel processing rather than sequential processing. When a light bulb goes out in a sequential set of Christmas lights, the circuit is broken and all the lights go out. In a parallel set of Christmas lights, one light goes out, but the rest remain active. When a person suffers a brain injury, processing just gets rerouted around the damaged area, enormously reducing the impact of the injury. What is human “death”? It’s the equivalent of a light going out in a nonsequential circuit, inactivating one part of the overall circuit, but not affecting any of the rest, and soon enough a new light will be lit via reincarnation, and a new part of the circuit will come online (a baby will be born). The problem a mind has is how to control, how to filter, how to make sense of all the disparate processes occurring within it. The mind eventually evolves a Selector Function that constantly assesses all of the mental processing taking place within the mind and chooses the most interesting threads of activity, the most active and networked, the brightest lights, so to speak. We might even talk of an internal Darwinian natural selection of ideas: we turn our attention to the best adapted, the “fittest”, idea. In terms of the internet, the Selector Function would be equivalent to an algorithm that selects what is “trending” and then focuses on these items and ignores everything else (but everything else goes on regardless). The Selector Function is the root of consciousness, of “I”. The Selector Function determines what we are paying attention to, where our intentionality lies. It’s easy for a mind to consider multiple things at once and then choose one and discard or ignore the others. In fact, that’s all that a mind ever does. What is “free will”? It’s precisely this ability to be aware of different potential courses of action and then choose one, namely the outcome that is deemed to serve our interests most effectively. Once we have selected one option, we then actively will it and it becomes the behaviour we actually

execute in the spacetime world. In terms of Fourier mathematics we convert a chosen frequency function (thought) into a spacetime action via an inverse Fourier transform. The physical action is a spacetime representation of the frequency thought. So, do you see, do you understand, do you get it? It’s impossible to understand how reality works until you identify its core ontology. People like William James and all enemies of compatibilism are clueless. They have never understood what a mind is and how it operates. All they have ever done is apply their fallacious schema to it. How can a materialist, for example, hope to understand mind when he denies that it exists in its own right, but is somehow miraculously assembled from mindless atoms? As soon as you posit a mind made of non-mind atoms, you have cut yourself off from any understanding of the immaterial mind outside space and time. It’s the nature of matter to do things one at a time – sequentially – like snooker balls colliding. It’s the nature of mind to do many things at once – in parallel, networked. Scientific determinism is sequential determinism; mental determinism is parallel, networked determinism, of which sequential determinism is its minimal, simplest output. William James simply didn’t have the intellect, imagination or intuition to grasp compatibilism. The only “soft” thing in relation to compatibilism is the intelligence of its critics, the intelligence of people like James. They are weak-minded fools. It’s not as if James didn’t have ample philosophical ammunition for grasping compatibilism. After all, Neoplatonism shows exactly what is required in its concept of Nous versus Psyche: Nous: “Intelligence (Nous) is the level of intuition, where discursive thought is bypassed and the mind attains a direct and instantaneous vision of truth. Discursive thought means reasoning from premise to conclusion, or being aware of first one thing, then another. With the Soul there is the beginning of time, and therefore of Creation (because Creation by its very nature requires a sequence in which to occur). Whereas the Nous embraces the whole of the Noetic world in one timeless vision, the Soul’s contemplation is forced to change from one thing to another. The distinction between Soul (Psyche) and Intelligence (Nous) corresponds to the difference between discursive and intuitive thought.” – Wikipedia

Psyche: “The Soul (Psyche) thus constitutes the Nous projected into Time [or Spacetime]. Although still creative and spiritual, it’s no longer eternal, or perfect in its consciousness. It cannot see things in a holistic and allembracing way, but only successively, imperfectly, moment by moment, in terms of past and future. The Soul is the lowest hypostasis, the lowest irradiation of the Divine. Deficient as it is, it still retains a trace of the original ontological authenticity or Spiritual-Being-ness of the higher principles.” – Wikipedia “Meaning of Life: The Soul is considered to be an exact replica and spark of the Divine which emanates from The One, symbolized by the Monad. The purpose of life is to realize one’s True Self as Soul/Ego/Psyche (SelfRealization), True Essence as Nous (Spirit-Realization) and True Divinity (God-Realization) while living in the physical body.” – Wikipedia “For the Father of Gods and men placed the Mind (Nous) in the Soul (Psyche); and placed both in the (human) body.” – Oracles of Zoroaster Clearly, Nous “determinism” is very different from Psyche “determinism”, and yet both are subsumed within the unitary Logos that binds together all levels of existence and makes it a single, coherent, compatibilist system.

Series Circuit versus Parallel Circuit In a series circuit, if any one bulb goes out, the rest will go out too. The current flow in a series circuit is common to the whole circuit, and any problem causes the entire circuit to fail. In a parallel circuit, when one bulb goes out, only its local part of the circuit fails while the rest goes on as before. The current flow has multiple different routes through the overall circuit. Conventional determinism works in the manner of a series circuit. “Free will” determinism works in the manner of a parallel circuit (or, even better, internet architecture). There are multiple active circuits – none of which has any deterministic priority or privilege over any others – but only one can be chosen by the mind in order to be enacted in the world. “Free will” is simply the selection of one of a range of deterministic options (active deterministic circuits). “Matter” cannot select one option from many, only mind can. That’s one of the fundamental differences between the two. Conventional determinism

is conceived purely in terms of matter while “free will” determinism is predicated on a mental choice being made from a selection of viable alternatives. Minds choose, matter doesn’t. Compatibilism is the position that mind and matter can, and naturally do, work in perfect tandem and there’s absolutely no contradiction between material determinism and mental determinism, and no obstacle to their coexistence. Material determinism can be considered the lowest, most basic expression of mental determinism. If we imagine a continuum of determinism, we go from simple “sequential” determinism at the bottom of the scale, to “parallel” determinism, to “internet” determinism at the top of the scale: we go from primitive material determinism to complex mental determinism. It’s a stunning error to conceive of determinism in simplistic, linear terms, where the start and end of causal chains are easily identified, rather than complex networked terms where it’s impossible to identify the start and end of causal chains. Incompatibilism is absurd if you rationally accept that we live in a world that demonstrates mental and material aspects. Incompatibilism inevitably leads to one of the following: 1) the total denial of mind (scientific materialism), 2) the total denial of matter (Berkeleyan Idealism), or 3) the total denial of determinism (quantum indeterminacy). Illuminism is an idealist system but it gives matter a full mathematical reality (which Berkeleyan Idealism doesn’t). Matter is illusory to some extent, but is a well-grounded mathematical illusion and not some bizarre hallucination obeying no objective rules.

Freedom “Actions are free because they are the result of decisions/choices and volitions or acts of will that are freely chosen and formed by you. Your actions are free because they are the result of your free decisions and volitions. [That’s the story from the inside.] ... The story from the outside tells us that each one of us is simply another thing in the world, subject to the same causal forces and processes that produce and control everything else. And a consequence of this is that even if actions were produced by things such as decisions and acts of will, this would not be enough to make those actions free – for the simple reason that we do not have any control over our decisions and acts of will.” – Mark Rowlands, The Philosopher At

The End Of The Universe: Philosophy Explained Through Science Fiction Films One of the arguments used against free will is that we don’t have control of our will (as Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills”), hence, allegedly, we are not free when we act according to our free will because we are not free to change our will. This is as absurd as arguing that we are not free because we are not free to be someone else. There has to be something that is irreducibly what we are, and if we could change this then we would not be anyone at all. Who are you if you are not the person that does what you will? If you could will what you will whenever you like, you would ipso facto not be a person at all since a person is someone who wills characteristically and deterministically, thus establishing a clear, unique, nature and personality. An entity that willed what it willed would never be the same from day to day or even instant to instant, hence would not be a person but a chameleon, an ever-changing process. That’s definitely not what freedom means. That, once more, is to return to the silly idea that freedom consists of indeterminacy, randomness, something ever changing. In order for each of us to be a person at all, we must have a characteristic core – our will, our personality, our nature, our Self. If we could change this then we would no longer be anyone since how would we ever establish a pattern of behaviour that reflects our core Self if we have no core Self given that we are constantly changing it? We must have a centre. As William Butler Yeats wrote, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” If our centre vanished, we would have totally fallen apart and become sheer randomness. Arguably, something of the sort happens to insane people, yet, as Jung recognised, even they have a characteristic way of being mad (!). Another fallacy committed by Rowlands is in assuming that the “view from the inside” and the “view from the outside” necessarily contradict each other (i.e. they can’t both be true). He arrives at that conclusion because he’s tacitly invoking the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science, and refusing to consider that the inside is genuinely different from the outside – i.e. autonomous, immaterial mind genuinely exists – so there are indeed two legitimate, compatible perspectives, not just one. The opponents of free will use a simplistic argument that goes like this (courtesy of Mark Rowlands): Everything that exists or occurs, including

human actions, choices and decisions, has a cause. Therefore, human actions, choices and decisions are not free. The fallacy here is the implication that “cause” necessarily excludes “freedom”. It does not draw any distinction between causes that originate inside us (hence are ours), and those that originate outside us (hence are not ours). As long the causes are ours, they are free. If we are constrained by outside forces and causes then we are of course not free. However, if the forces and causes come from within us then we are free because they are our forces and causes, the reasons why we do things. We are not behaving randomly, causelessly, thus not like a person at all. Opponents of free will fail to distinguish between causes owned by us (internal to us) and causes imposed on us (external to us). They are totally different types of causality. Internal causes are subjective (they are what define us as subjects) and external causes are objective (they are what affect our physical bodies). Or they are the external causes produced by other subjective beings (people talking to us and influencing us with their ideas, for example). The opponents of free will want to argue that we are not free even if we act according to internally generated causes, yet these causes are precisely the reasons why we do what we do and are who we are. We are inherently causal agents, and we can’t do anything other than act causally, according to the reasons we choose. If we didn’t act according to our reasons, we wouldn’t be persons at all, hence would have no freedom since only persons, or would-be persons, can be free. Opponents of free will always think in terms of serial causality, and never in terms of parallel and networked causality. The whole anti-free will argument falls apart as soon as it’s established that causality can be “vertical” as well as “horizontal”, parallel and networked as well as serial, that causes actually compete and it can’t be said in advance which one will triumph. In other words, what does a world of “competitive determinism” look like, one where you don’t know what deterministic force will triumph? In particular, what deterministic force wins when internal determinism (mental, subjective determinism) meets external determinism (material, objective determinism)? Of course, the free will deniers are invariably Materialist Fundamentalists, and they simply reject that there is any such thing as

mental determinism. They say that minds are constructed from matter, hence follow material determinism only. This is why all statements made by materialists about free will are laughable and stupid. Everything changes as soon as minds are recognised as independent of matter, hence all materialist arguments concerning mind are immediately invalidated. All of them! It really is that simple. The truly disturbing thing is that the whole so-called free will debate is nothing to do with free will and is actually all about the nature of mind. You cannot define what free will is until you define what mind is. If you define mind falsely, as materialists do, then you get free will automatically wrong (as materialists always do!). The last person you would ever ask about free will is a materialist. It would be like asking a Muslim to defend the concept of the Christian Holy Trinity, something he fundamentally rejects. Scientific determinism is part of determinism; it’s not the total of determinism. It can be overridden at any time by another, compatible part of determinism – mental determinism. Just go ahead and raise your arm, or stand up, and you have used mental determinism to override scientific determinism, which, by the First Law of Motion, would require you to remain at rest unless acted upon by a force! Where does this force to stand up originate if not in your mind? Mark Rowlands wrote, “We cannot safeguard freedom by trying to locate it in the choice between competing causal lineages, because any choice made between such lineages is itself part of a causal lineage, and so made inevitable by what has gone before it.” This argument assumes that a “causal lineage” is always clear cut, i.e. it takes for granted the materialist conception of “objective” causality. Yet what happens when objective causality meets subjective causality? How do you know in advance what is going to happen? If an identical piece of music (same objective cause) is played to five different people, they will all react differently. One might be bored, one might smile, one might have tears streaming down their face. So, an objective cause is predictively useless in such circumstances and has no guaranteed effect. Cause and effect is infinitely more complex than materialists suggest. And, in any case, we can safeguard freedom if the dominant causal lineage is the one traced back to ourselves! Would anyone suggest that “God” is not free? Would anyone suggest that God acts randomly without causes, without reasons? We ourselves are uncreated, uncaused causes. We

ourselves are prime movers. We ourselves are initiators of causal chains. So, when causal chains are traced back to us – when we are their authors – we can’t be anything other than free. Mark Rowlands wrote, “Indeterminism, like its determinist adversary, is made up of two basic claims, the mirror images of the determinist claims: 1) at least some human actions, choices and decisions do not have causes; 2) those actions, choices and decisions that do not have causes are, therefore free.” The fallacy here is that causeless actions are free. They’re not, they’re random. Randomness is not freedom. It’s ridiculous how the free will debate has become framed in terms of caused actions (allegedly unfree) and uncaused actions (allegedly free). The true debate is between actions caused by us (free) and actions not caused by us, which are imposed on us (unfree). Determinism and indeterminism both assume that causation is incompatible with freedom. Compatibilism assumes that freedom and determinism are compatible. Mark Rowlands wrote of compatibilism: “Actions, choices and decisions whose immediate cause is an internal state are free. Actions, choices and decisions whose immediate cause is an external state are not free.” This is right. We are free when we are the authors of our actions, based on our own desires, wants, will, purposes, intentions, reasons, feelings, personality, nature, character, i.e. based on who we are, based on our own agency, our own self. We are not free when we are subject to the tyrannical will of others, to the tyrannical agency of others, or when we are subject to overpowering physical forces acting on us. Compatibilism, as used in Illuminism, incorporates “Agent Causation Theory”. According to this theory, human actions are free when, and only when, they are caused by the self or person. Agent-Causality asserts that agents can start new causal chains not pre-determined by the events of the immediate or distant past and the physical laws of nature. Aristotle was the first agent-causation theorist. For Aristotle, “God” is the Prime Mover, the uncreated, uncaused cause. In Illuminism, all monads are prime movers and uncreated, uncaused causes.

A curious fact about Agent Causation Theory is that it’s usually formulated as an incompatibilist view, but, in Illuminism it’s a compatibilist view. All monads are causal agents, but they are completely mathematically defined by the God Equation, and are inherently deterministic. They are not libertarian entities that can operate outside the defining equation of existence (the God Equation). They cannot act randomly. They cannot disobey the God Equation. They cannot act against their own nature. As deterministic entities rather than libertarian entities, they come under the compatibilist rather than incompatibilist umbrella.

The Confederacy of Dunces Someone messaged us to say, “As one of my professors said, ‘The only thing “soft” about “soft determinism” is its definitions.’ On any analysis, compatibilism simply reduces to determinism. If Coca Cola were determinism, then compatibilism is Diet Coke.” On any analysis? Really? Time you and your professors went back to school and tried to learn something for once rather than arguing on the basis of your empiricist, materialist prejudices. The definitions of ontological mathematics, from which compatibilism naturally follows, are the “hardest”, not softest, in the whole history of thought. How dare people who have no conception of fundamental mathematical ontology and epistemology attack those that do, and with such sneering arrogance too (while being wholly wrong!). All the time, we get idiots thinking that they are smarter than we are. They never are. The Illuminati stand for the very highest tradition of human thinking. We are the Keepers of the Sacred Flame of Reason, and we have absolutely no rivals. You’re literally insane if you believe you can stand against mathematical rationalism, if you think you’re smarter than math, if you think you know better than 1 + 1 = 2. What the legions of charlatans fail to understand is that we have defined the genuine ontology of the universe, using the supreme and infallible language of ontological mathematics, and they haven’t. We are speaking from a position of knowledge while they are merely ventilating opinions, beliefs, conjectures, interpretations and hypotheses.

You cannot say anything meaningful about ultimate reality until you have defined the eternal, indestructible, mathematical frequency Singularity that stands at the heart of all things (with the “material” world as one of its outputs via Fourier mathematics). To all the fools who attack us, why don’t you actually study ontological mathematics and learn something for once in your lives?

William James “I myself believe that all the magnificent achievements of mathematical and physical science – our doctrines of evolution, of uniformity of law, and the rest – proceed from our indomitable desire to cast the world into a more rational shape in our minds than the shape into which it is thrown there by the crude order of our experience. The world has shown itself, to a great extent, plastic to this demand of ours for rationality. How much further it will show itself plastic no one can say... If a certain formula for expressing the nature of the world violates my moral demand, I shall feel as free to throw it overboard, or at least to doubt it, as if it disappointed my demand of uniformity of sequence... The principle of causality, for example, – what is it but a postulate, an empty name covering a demand that the sequence of events... manifest a deeper kind of belonging of one thing with another than the mere arbitrary juxtaposition which now phenomenally appears?” – William James, The Will to Believe, p. 147 “In an address titled The Dilemma of Determinism in 1884, William James argued, just as did Plutarch, that events fall into two groups: the causally determined and the rest.” – Wikipedia Well, that’s what you call a total evasion of the issue. Where compatibilists attempted to reconcile mind and matter (free will and scientific determinism), James refused to make any attempt to reconcile them and instead introduced a radical, inexplicable Cartesian dualism (the causally determined and the rest). James was a “pragmatist”, with Pragmatism being a bizarre American school of philosophy. “Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists develop their philosophy around the idea that the function of thought is as

an instrument or tool for prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics – such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science – are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes rather than in terms of representative accuracy.” “Pragmatism” is almost the opposite of ontological mathematics, and rather like scientific materialism (which is a pragmatic, instrumental undertaking, which has nothing to do with truth, realism and ontology). Pragmatism has zero interest in ontology and Platonic epistemology and is just a philosophical version of scientific materialism that emphasizes how instrumental science is, and does not countenance scientific “realism”.

Abolishing Compatibilism? Since the frequency Singularity is the ultimate reality, it would be possible to get rid of scientific determinism entirely and have nothing but mental determinism (free will), with what is known as scientific determinism becoming a special case relating to the Monadic Collective rather than individual monads), hence get rid of any need for compatibilism. However, we choose to retain compatibilism because it naturally reflects the mindmatter reality we all experience.

Quantum Entanglement “Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.” – Wikipedia Quantum entanglement isn’t physical at all. It’s a mental phenomenon, and the whole universe is mentally entangled. Quantum entanglement is comprehensible only in terms of a Singularity linking all things (all monadic minds, from which all matter is derived). “There is much confusion about the meaning of entanglement, non-locality and hidden variables and how they relate to each other. As described above, entanglement is an experimentally verified and accepted property of

nature, which has critical implications for the interpretations of quantum mechanics. The question becomes, ‘How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?’ The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact (at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing that changes. Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics. ... Bell’s theorem and related results rule out a local realistic explanation for quantum mechanics (one which obeys the principle of locality while also ascribing definite values to quantum observables).” – Wikipedia How can so many people dare to discuss free will and determinism without invoking quantum entanglement and non-locality? How can they believe they have established viable definitions when they have excluded the entire way the universe operates! Entanglement and non-locality are inexplicable solely in terms of a mathematical, interconnected, dimensionless reality outside space and time – a Singularity of monads. It’s impossible for definite values to be ascribed to quantum variables in a local (material) reality, only in a non-local, mental reality. The Reality Principle demands that reality be grounded in non-local minds. That’s a fact. All talk of indeterminism, determinism and free will is absurd if it does not account for non-locality, entanglement, Fourier mathematics, the Singularity and the God Equation. Only mathematics suffices to define such a system. Nothing else, especially not half-baked philosophical speculation of the type Kant ridiculed in his Critique of Pure Reason, can do so. Any mathematical system is an exclusively deterministic system. An ontological mathematical system based on dimensionless monads is one that is compatible with subjectivity and objectivity, the internal and external, the dimensionless and dimensional, frequency and spacetime, mind and matter, free will and scientific determinism. Indeterminism is absolutely excluded, as is exclusive scientific determinism.

Hypotheses Non Fingo “Hypotheses non fingo (Latin for ‘I feign no hypotheses,’ ‘I frame no hypotheses,’ or ‘I contrive no hypotheses’) is a famous phrase used by Isaac Newton in an essay, General Scholium, which was appended to the second (1713) edition of the Principia.” – Wikipedia “In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism. Regarding the unexplained nature of gravity, Isaac Newton (1642–1727) considered action-at-a-distance ‘so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it’. Quantum nonlocality refers to what Einstein called the ‘spooky action at a distance’ of quantum entanglement.” – Wikipedia The reason Newton refrained from feigning hypotheses was that he knew he could never defend his theory of gravity, which thinkers such as Leibniz asserted belonged to the occult rather than science. Newton himself was fully aware of the conceptual difficulties of his action-at-a-distance theory of gravity. In a letter to Richard Bentley, Newton wrote, “It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation ... be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” When it comes to geniuses, remember that most of them are talking nonsense. They are called geniuses because of the success of their theories, not because of the truth of those theories. All sorts of people – philosophy “professors” and their students in particular – feel qualified to pontificate on free will and determinism without having the vaguest idea of what they’re talking about. You cannot

meaningfully say anything about free will and determinism unless you have first stated your ontology and epistemology. We have, which is exactly why we can defend compatibilism and ridicule those who attack it. Our enemies haven’t, which is why they cling to absurd incompatibilist notions.

***** P: “In The Mathmos you said that Illuminism reflects a compatibilist doctrine, but my professors actually said that compatibilism is a definition that many get wrong, and that the Wikipedia instance you quoted in this case is also confused.” Many do indeed get the definition of compatibilism spectacularly wrong – P’s blustering professors being a case in point. P: “Compatibilism says that you have the illusion of free will...” No it doesn’t. It says that you have free will. How can anyone have an illusion of free will? How can it be coherent and rational to make such an absurd claim? Illusionism, not compatibilism, is the philosophical position that free will does not exist and is merely an illusion. Illusionists are always hard determinists. Yet how can hard determinism produce the illusion of free will when the whole point of the hard determinism stance is that it precludes freedom and free will? Why would it preclude the actuality of freedom and free will while generating the pointless epiphenomenal illusion of freedom and free will? And what conceivable mechanism would be involved? How can hard determinism generate illusions? It’s ridiculous. Moreover, since the advent of quantum mechanics and its claim of irreducible indeterminism, determinism itself has now been called illusory by science. When it comes to the free will debate, every definition used by philosophers is dubious. For example, free will has been described in terms of allowing anyone to say, “I could have chosen (and done) otherwise.” Pretty fundamental, right? Yet this is not the proper claim regarding free will at all since it already frames the issue in indeterministic terms (i.e. it has already reached its indeterministic conclusion in the statement it makes). A deterministic framing of the issue says, “In exactly the same circumstances, I would always have chosen and done the same. However, exactly the same circumstances are never found. So, given a similar

situation, and benefitting from my experience of the original situation and its consequences, I might chose and do otherwise than I did the first time around, i.e. I am capable of learning from my experiences.” Philosophically, the free will debate is as muddled and incoherent as those regarding mind and matter, and also consciousness. The problem is always the same: the total inability of philosophers to specify a rational ontology and epistemology. Ontological mathematics solves all of these problems. P: “Compatibilism says that you have the illusion of free will, and that heredity and psychology will force you to make the choice you always would have made anyways.” So, is it heredity or psychology that “forces” you to do things? What is the relationship between heredity and psychology? Can we have a definition, please? Surely we’re not being told that our actions are determined by our genes – the doctrine of hyper materialism. We are being told, it seems, that we merely imagine that we could act differently but were always in fact forced in a single deterministic direction by heredity and psychology (although, of course, psychology must be entirely dictated by heredity in this scenario). No proponent of this extraordinary view has ever deigned to explain how deterministic, mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms can form into genes that can miraculously generate minds; minds, moreover, that suffer from anti-deterministic delusions, bizarrely imagining themselves free when they’re definitely not. If minds aren’t free and are purely deterministic then it follows that the content of mind is wholly redundant and has no impact on anything at all since, whatever the body was going to do, it would have done it anyway, regardless of the pointless epiphenomenon of mind. It’s impossible to imagine how such minds could ever have evolved in the material, evolutionary world since they can confer no evolutionary advantage at all since they are entirely without effect. If they were simply removed, nothing would change since the whole system is fully materially deterministic and has no reliance on mind or free will whatsoever. P: “Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and Paul Churchland would be ones to say that the illusion of choice is necessary for our evolutionary advantages, or something of the sort.”

So, evolution operates via illusion, does it? Who knew?! Is that what passes as “science” these days? It’s not based on material genetic mutations subjected to natural selection, it seems, but to pointless illusions in pointless, illusory minds. Is the theory of evolution itself therefore just an illusion? How would anyone know? P: “The reason that compatibilism is given its name is not that it is a doctrine of making determinism and free will compatible as concepts, but it’s made as a response to incompatibilism...” Er, so how did incompatibilism get its name if not as a response to compatibilism? How can you refer to incompatibilism without first having a doctrine of compatibilism, which incompatibilism then opposes? In fact, “incompatibilism” was coined in recent times by philosopher Peter van Inwagen to oppose “compatibilism.” It’s “anti-compatibilism”. Compatibilism is totally about making determinism and free will compatible as concepts. P: “... and the response is essentially an altering of the definition of free will (which indeed needs to be acausal or have some semblance of mental causality).” An altering of the definition of free will from what to what? Who, exactly, gave the definitive definition of free will? How can anyone be accused of altering the definition of free will if free will does not have a fixed meaning or definition in philosophy? It’s preposterous to say that the definition of free will must be either “acausal” or have “some semblance of mental causality” (by which P no doubt means randomist, libertarian “causality”). To make such a statement is to have reached the conclusion of what free will “must be” before even making the argument. That’s the irrational way that Abrahamists think. In a 100% deterministic, mathematical universe, free will must be 100% deterministic and mathematical. To oppose this position is to argue against mathematical rationalism, and only irrationalists would ever do that. Free will cannot be acausal. No one has ever argued that to be free means to act randomly, for no reason at all. Freedom is not indeterminacy. Alleged acausal, random quantum fluctuations are not “free”; they are simply random. An eternal, indestructible, uncreated, uncaused cause – a

monad (a soul) is, however, free because it can decide its own future for its own reasons (and not for no reasons at all). It can self-determine. Free will is not about “some semblance of mental causality”. It is entirely defined by precise mathematical, mental causality and cannot be about anything else. P: “Over the course of this entire semester (before you even published The Mathmos), I have had a long conversation with my profs about compatibilism vs. free will...” How wonderful for you. You obviously learned a lot. Not! P: “Any time when you are presented with choices that are genuine, this would be libertarianism.” No, it would be compatibilism, as we have explained here at great length. Libertarianism is mathematically and rationally impossible. P: “Any time when you are presented with choices that are illusory, this would be compatibilism, which is also just a more nuanced determinism.” This statement is total nonsense . There are no such things as “illusory choices” (an illusory choice plainly isn’t a choice but just an illusion), and compatibilism isn’t “nuanced determinism”, it’s outright determinism clarified in terms of its mental and material components, its subjective and objective components, its internal and external components, its frequency and spacetime components. All choices are real, but only one can be actualized – unless you want to argue on behalf of the crazy “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. P: “...and by technicality the doctrine of a monad’s self-contained causality would be considered a form of ‘weak libertarianism’, where there is actual free will, but it is constrained.” WTF! Who is defining “technicality” here? Since when do careerist professors of philosophy define reality, and what is technically right and what is technically wrong? What’s the world coming to when we have philosophy students pontificating to us because of what they have heard from their “professors”?

Monads have no connection at all with ‘weak libertarianism’. Metaphysical libertarianism argues that free will is real and determinism false. Monads are totally defined by the God Equation, hence are absolutely deterministic. The key is that they are deterministic with respect to themselves, i.e. they are self-determining subjects that can act according to their own reasons and not those of anything else. How can you have weak and strong libertarianism? How could the difference ever be defined given that nothing has been defined at all? You either have indeterministic (irrational, random) free will where no free act has a sufficient reason, or you have rational, deterministic free will where all free acts have a sufficient reason. You can’t have intermediate states: weak, moderate and strong versions of libertarianism, mixed with strong, moderate and weak versions of determinism. This is utterly incoherent. It’s total determinism or total indeterminism. There’s nothing in between. No libertarian has ever explained what an idea is, where it is, what it’s made of, in what it resides, how it interacts with mind or how it is produced by mind. How can a monad have “constrained” free will when free will isn’t even coherently defined in the libertarian view? In Illuminism, ideas are literally made of analytic sinusoidal waves. They therefore can’t be anything other than 100% deterministic. Monads have no connection at all with metaphysical libertarianism. Technically, they’re the exact opposite. How can monads be fundamentally “constrained” in their free will when they are uncreated, uncaused, eternal, indestructible causal agents? Causal agents generate causes. That’s what they do. Permanently. Monadic causal agents are continuously generating potential causative options, but only one of these causes can ever be actualised at once. Only a single cause can enter from the mental domain of free will into the domain of spacetime.

***** We often get idiotic messages sent to us that reflect no understanding of Illuminism whatsoever. Don’t bother sending us any message unless you know and understand the foundational truth of Illuminism: everything is made of math; everything is defined by the God Equation, which is the mathematical equivalent of God.

So, if there’s any other philosophy student like P who wants to make a fool of himself by sneering at our position and calling it “Diet Coke”, why don’t you try studying Fourier mathematics before opening your mouth? Philosophy – true philosophy – has moved on. Academic philosophy is stuck in the Stone Age. It has never recovered from being beaten to a pulp by science, and hasn’t even recognized that science is itself just a poorly thought-out, irrational, empiricist philosophy.

Deterministic Free Will Free Will is totally deterministic. It’s based on parallel and networked, not linear, thinking, so inherently has the capacity to generate multiple thoughts at once, but only one of these thoughts can be actualised, so minds have evolved a capacity to evaluate and filter these thoughts, and select the “best”. In the animal world, thoughts are actualised instinctively. In the human world, they are actualised using System 1 thinking (fast, instinctive) or System 2 thinking (slow, considered). That’s the way the world works. All animals, and most humans, are stuck in System 1 thinking. Free will is arguably the second most misunderstood subject in the world, the first being mind itself. Everyone has fallen under the spell of science and can’t think in any terms other than those of classical physics. Nearly everything said in modern philosophy is false and reflects pre quantum mechanical thinking, or, just as bad, the fallacious Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics. Not once is mathematics ever mentioned with respect to free will. What a joke.

Metaphysical Libertarianism “Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.” – Wikipedia Networked mental thinking deterministically generates multiple possibilities at all times, the most viable of which have to be evaluated before a choice can be made. It’s vital to note that all thoughts are ongoing processes. They are continuously morphing and interacting with other thoughts, so the whole

activity of mind generates a matrix of partially-finished thoughts, and the task then is to select one of these to pursue teleologically. The libertarian notion that, given a replay of exactly the same circumstances, an agent with free will would sometimes choose option A, sometimes option B, and sometimes option C, is of course preposterous. This would formally mean that we are no better than dice throwers. In free will, as in true quantum physics, God does not play dice! “Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.” – Wikipedia Events in the brain have a mathematical, not physical, explanation. The world is indeed not closed under physics. It is, however, closed under dimensional and dimensionless ontological mathematics! Physical and mental causality are both grounded in Fourier mathematics. “Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behaviour – theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will.” – Wikipedia Indeterminism cannot be the basis of ordered thought, only of random nonsense (“noise”). Then again, most philosophers and scientists seem to deploy irrational, randomly generated ideas! “Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will.” – Wikipedia Mental, not physical, determinism is inherently about multiple possible futures, each to be evaluated teleologically. “Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities.” – Wikipedia

Absolutely right, but panpsychism is all about ontological mathematical determinism and nothing to do with indeterministic libertarianism! “Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the ‘elbow room’ believed to be necessary by libertarians.” – Wikipedia Free will is a fundamental constituent of the universe, but it’s 100% deterministic. To appeal to randomness is ridiculous. Epicurus tried that thousands of years ago by claiming that deterministic atoms could randomly “swerve”. Swerving atoms do nothing to explain the sort of extremely ordered thinking necessary to arrive at Illuminism, the least random system of thinking you could possibly have!

***** It’s necessary for any credible theory of free will to explain what goes on within an agent when an agent performs an act of free will. We have explained exactly what happens. We have even given a mathematical equation for it. No one else has.

The Centre A mind is by default unconscious and has no unique centre. There is no “I”. “I” is that which is evolves, and its evolution is necessary because a conscious “I” with a single centre is much more powerful that an unconscious mind with countless different, competing centres of activity and nothing to select, evaluate order and execute the best option. Physical atoms may be said to have a single centre, and monodeterminism is based on single centres. But mental atoms inherently have multiple centres. Multi-determinism is based on multi-centres. Free will involves a “master centre” (the basis of “I”) evolving in a mind and then marshalling and controlling all of the sub-centres. The mental centre, unlike the physical centre, has many sub-centres to organise. Free will involves the selection of only one of the inputs from these many sub-centres.

The Compatibilist Movement

Ontological mathematics is necessarily compatibilist and reflects an integrated compatibilist approach to mind and matter, to subjectivity and objectivity, and to the spacetime (material) and frequency (mental) domains. “Compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are not logically incompatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers.” – Wikipedia Anyone who opposes compatibilism is defying logic and the plain evidence of our everyday experience. We self-evidently have free will and this seamlessly works within the context of the external world, which selfevidently obeys scientific determinism. The apparent difficulty that encourages all of the incompatibilists arises solely from the old Cartesian problem of how to reconcile mind and matter. As we have so often stated, there’s only one answer to Cartesian dualism: Fourier mathematics, allowing the same information to be presented in two different mathematical domains. If you don’t understand Fourier mathematics, you will never understand reality. Philosophy, science, and even professional mathematics, are full of people who don’t understand Fourier mathematics and especially don’t understand its ontology. Once you do, all of the traditional problems of philosophy are resolved.

Simplification It’s much easier to understand one substance rather than two. Two seemingly mutually exclusive substances, such as Cartesian mind and matter, immediately raise the problem of how they can interact given that they have nothing in common. Yet we are all natural Cartesians. Virtually everyone, whether they like it or not, conceives of themselves in terms of a body with a separate, distinct mind. By eliminating either mind or matter, the problem of interaction is resolved, but only at the expense of generating new problems. For example, if mind is eliminated as an entity in its own right, and is instead said to be something produced by a material brain operating according to inexorable mechanical laws, then free will immediately becomes impossible.

We can draw up a simple triadic scheme flowing from the basic concept of Cartesian mind and matter: 1) Dualism: mind and matter are separate substances. This generates the “interaction problem” – how can two incompatible substances interact – which has never been solved in mainstream philosophy, and never can be solved in that system. (Cartesian dualism is in fact resolved by making mind and matter Fourier transforms of each other, rather than different substances.) 2) Materialism: only matter exists, and mind is something it generates: the “free will” problem (how can entities in a scientific determinist system be free) is raised, which has never been solved in mainstream philosophy. 3) Idealism (Mentalism): only mind exists, and matter is something it generates: the “scientific determinism” problem (how can free minds generate a physical world that seems to have no freedom) is raised, which has never been solved in mainstream philosophy. Compatibilism is the claim that mind and matter are not in fact incompatible (when they are understood in terms of Fourier mathematics), hence free will and scientific materialism are also not incompatible. Incompatibilism is the claim that mind and matter are inherently incompatible, leading to two clear incompatibilist positions: A) Hard Determinism (flowing from materialism): only matter is real and it obeys scientific determinism. Free will is therefore impossible, and so our impression that it exists must be an illusion (although no hard determinist has ever explained how scientific determinism produces: a) minds, and b) minds that suffer from pointless illusions and delusions. B) Metaphysical Libertarianism (flowing from mentalism): only mind is real and is inherently free. Scientific determinism must therefore be an illusion. (This position is usually linked to the notion of fundamental indeterminism, and has received an unexpected boost from the indeterminist Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.)

A third incompatibilist position has been proposed called “hard incompatibilism”, which ignores whether reality is deterministic or indeterministic, asserting that free will is incompatible with either (so it doesn’t matter which is true), rendering free will doubly impossible. These philosophical positions all revolve around the original Cartesian issue of the relationship between mind and matter. Only one system – ontological mathematics – has ever given a rational explanation of this relationship. Minds are immaterial frequency singularities outside space and time. Matter exists inside space and time. This, at first sight, seems to bring us no closer to resolving the Cartesian problem until it’s realised that there’s an extremely well-known mathematical technique that’s all about relating mathematical information in the two totally different domains of frequency and spacetime. Fourier mathematics shows us how to convert frequency functions in an immaterial domain outside space and time into materialist functions in the spacetime domain. At one stroke, Cartesian dualism falls and is replaced by dualdomain, dual-aspect Fourier mathematics. When we analyse ontological Fourier mathematics in greater detail, what we discover is that ultimate reality is grounded in the frequency domain (the mental domain), and the spacetime domain (the material) domain is simply an alternative way of presenting frequency information. It’s not a different reality: it’s the same reality represented in different, welldefined mathematical terms. In other words, mind and matter are inherently compatible because matter is just a specific mathematical representation of mental information. It’s not something different from mind, it’s mind represented differently, mind transformed. There is no ontological difference between mind and matter, but there is a precise representational difference, completely dictated by Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics resolves Cartesian dualism by showing that the mental reality (frequency reality) is the only true reality, but, as soon as you have a mental reality, you have the Fourier mathematical capability of generating a spacetime, material reality that appears very different, but is actually just the same reality differently mathematically represented. All of the flaws in the philosophical analysis of the Cartesian problem flow from the same fundamental issue – the inability of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians to grasp that two things that appear radically

different are not ipso facto different (because they can just be transforms – different representations – of each other). The materialists could not conceive how Cartesian mind, which was so radically different from Cartesian matter, could co-exist and interact with Cartesian matter, hence they abolished Cartesian mind. The mentalists (idealists) came from the opposite stance. They could not conceive how Cartesian matter, which was so radically different from Cartesian mind, could co-exist and interact with Cartesian mind, hence they abolished Cartesian matter. In other words, the materialists and mentalists were both driven by the notion that Cartesian mind and matter were fundamentally incompatible, and one or the other must therefore be ontologically impossible. Either mind had to go or matter had to go. This same thinking is exactly that which drives the incompatibilist stance on free will. Compatibilists are those who try to reconcile Cartesian mind and matter, and they fall into error whenever they regard mind and matter as two distinct substances. It never occurred to anyone outside the Illuminati that mind and matter are actually the same, with matter simply being mind expressed – represented – in a certain, well-grounded mathematical way. Illuminism might seem to be pure idealism since it rejects matter as something that can exist in its own right, yet it’s not quite that simple. Illuminism doesn’t so much make mind the primary reality as ontological mathematics, which is 100% deterministic. In traditional idealism, scientific determinism is rejected. In Illuminist idealism, scientific determinism is something that flows consequentially from ontological mathematical determinism. Mind and matter are totally deterministic, not totally indeterministic as many (but not all) idealists claim. The ultimate reality comprises ontological sinusoidal waves, and these can be expressed, thanks to Fourier mathematics, in two different but related ways: as deterministic minds or deterministic matter. Neither mid nor matter could exist without sinusoidal waves. This means, technically, that Illuminism is not a form of idealism per se, but is actually a form of “neutral monism”. Wikipedia describes this as follows: “Neutral monism, in philosophy, is the metaphysical view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves ‘neutral’, that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the

physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical; these neutral elements might have the properties of colour and shape, just as we experience those properties, but these shaped and coloured elements do not exist in a mind (considered as a substantial entity, whether dualistically or physicalistically); they exist on their own.” Sinusoidal waves are the neutral element which are themselves neither physical nor mental (they are mathematical!). Matter and mind are fundamentally compatible because they have the same root in mathematics. Mind is sinusoidal waves expressed in the frequency domain, and matter is sinusoidal waves expressed in the spacetime domain. Simple! Incompatibilism is absurd and reflects a total, catastrophic failure to understand the true nature of things. Anyone who opposes compatibilism is a fool. Compatibilism is a direct consequence of neutral monism. To say that free will is incompatible with scientific determinism is just to state in different words that mind is incompatible with matter. If you are opposed to compatibilism you are committed to denying the existence of mind or matter. Is that really what you wish to do? Are you a Materialist Fundamentalist like Sam Harris, or an Idealist Fundamentalist like Bishop Berkeley? The degree of philosophical, scientific and mathematical ignorance exhibited by those who oppose compatibilism is simply staggering, and embarrassing.

The Mind The nature of mind is to think. That’s the activity that defines mind. Mind doesn’t think one thought at a time in a neat sequence. Mind is nothing but thinking: countless thoughts all being thought at once, all mathematically determined. The problem for mind is how to filter all of these thoughts (each suggesting a potential action) into just one thought that is actualised. Not all thoughts can be actualised, only one. We can only act on one thing at a time in spacetime. We can’t do many things at once. The mind must choose its course of actual action from all the possible courses of action available to it.

This is what free will is: the mental function of actualising one thought from all the other thoughts with their alternative, potential courses of action. Mind exhibits an inherent Many-to-One relationship (many thoughts to one mind). Free will is all about converting the many potential actions implied by each different thought into one action (associated with a thought chosen from the total collection of thoughts). Individual mind, in its relation with the material world, actualises one thought, one action. Free will is about deterministically actualising one thought and its corresponding action from the many deterministic thoughts and potential actions that inherently exist in the mind. There is nothing at all that is mysterious, random, indeterministic, or acausal about how the mind works. Classical scientific determinism is all about One-to-One relations. There is one net cause and one net effect. Simplistic philosophers and scientists seem to be incapable of associating determinism with anything other than One-to-One processes – linear, sequential, inevitable and inexorable. They can’t imagine determinism as fundamentally Many-to-One, with many possible deterministic futures available, but with only one actually being selected. This inability is all the more bizarre given that something like Many-toOne determinism is the basis of Darwinian evolution, which all Materialist Fundamentalists slavishly and mindlessly accept! What is Darwinism? It’s conceived as a process by which many microscopic, random genetic mutations, implying different macroscopic deterministic futures, are subjected to “natural selection”, leading to many mutations being eliminated and only one mutation, or a small number, going forward to deterministically affect the future. We can easily imagine a mind as a quasi-Darwinian system with many mutating thoughts constantly in conflict with each other and demanding to be selected by the mental Selector Function, and thus actualised in the material world. Moreover, “Many Histories” interpretations of quantum mechanics propose that particles somehow explore all possible paths from A to B. When all of these potential paths are summed together, the potential paths almost entirely cancel each other out, leaving just one net path, which is the actual path taken by the particle. Isn’t this rather like how the mind works? Many potential paths forward are explored by the mind, but they mostly

cancel each other out, leaving just the actual path forward that the mind actualises. Both quantum mechanics and minds are entirely defined by ontological mathematics, which makes them 100% deterministic. All incompatibilist arguments are absurd, incoherent and totally without a rational basis. Deterministic processes are not linear, serial, sequential processes. They are non-linear, parallel and networked processes involving a form of natural selection. Minds are teleological, and teleology is all about selection: choosing the way forward deemed best able to attain the desired goal.

Science Incompatibilism Science was once 100% deterministic, but, since the dawn of quantum physics and its Copenhagen Interpretation, it has promoted a 100% indeterministic view of the core level of existence. Materialist Fundamentalist Sam Harris spends a great deal of time scoffing at mind and free will, and saying how incompatible they are with science. Has Harris ever addressed the inherent incompatibilism of science? Science has a 100% range. Yesterday it said we live in a deterministic, clockwork universe. Today it says we live in an indeterministic, random universe. What will it say tomorrow? Who knows?! Therefore, how can science be called a rational subject?

***** Sam Harris, one of the High Priests of Materialist Fundamentalism, spends all of his time trying to rubbish the existence of mind and free will, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is using his mind and free will to do so! How much time does Sam Harris spend on studying the incompatibilism of classical and modern physics, or of quantum mechanics and relativity theory? Well, er, none, because he has zero interest in, and motivation for, sneering at and finding myriad logical holes in his materialist belief system. He’s the equivalent of a religious fanatic, or conspiracy theorist, eagerly scouring the world for every argument that supports his belief system, and scrupulously ignoring all of the problems with his own belief system. We suggest to Harris that, instead of rubbishing the existence of free will, he considers the following two scientific problems: the Complementarity problem and the Correspondence Problem.

The Complementarity principle is Niels Bohr’s attempt to explain the apparent wave-particle duality revealed by quantum physics. This principle holds that complete knowledge of phenomena on the atomic scale requires a description based on both wave and particle properties, even though these are wholly contradictory and incompatible in classical terms. Depending on the experimental arrangement, particles such as light and photons can sometimes display wavelike properties and sometimes particle-like properties. It’s impossible to observe both the wave and particle aspects simultaneously. Together, however, these aspects present a fuller description than either of the two taken alone. The scientific community happily goes along with this. So, using exactly the logic and form of this argument in relation to free will and determinism, we would say that although free will and determinism are contradictory and incompatible in classical terms, reality sometimes behaves in a free will (mental) way, and sometimes in a deterministic (materialist) way. It’s impossible to observe both the free will and deterministic aspects simultaneously. Together, however, they present a fuller description than either of the two taken alone! Sam Harris would never accept this argument in relation to free will and determinism, yet have you heard him even once rubbish the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics? Talk about having your cake and eating it! Harris displays an all-too-familiar trait of scientific materialists: that of total intellectual dishonesty. The very arguments they reject in relation to the things they don’t like are exactly the same arguments they accept in terms of what they do like! If compatibilism is absurd then so is the Complementarity principle, which is a wholly compatibilist principle. To say that waves and particles can be embraced in a single wave-particle duality, despite their wholly opposed definitions, is to adopt a compatibilist approach. Why doesn’t a hard incompatibilist such as Sam Harris rage against wave-particle duality – the whole basis of science’s interpretation of quantum mechanics – and denounce it as crazy and irrational? Why doesn’t he subject it to exactly the same incompatibilist attack that he inflicts on free will? – because he’s a believer in scientism and would never dream of doubting his own God. He’s an out-and-out careerist who knows his reputation would be fatally damaged if he ever spoke out against Copenhagen quantum mechanics. He’s no different from a Muslim, and every bit as irrational.

Next we have the Correspondence Principle, which states, in its most general form, that a new theory should reproduce the results of older, wellestablished theories in those domains where the old theories work. So, the old theories of physics are totally deterministic while the new theories of physics are totally indeterministic. Not a single scientist has every rationally explained how the fundamental randomness of the new physics generates the fundamental causality of the old physics. Of course, you won’t find Sam Harris trashing this scientific “logic”. He fundamentally believes in science and it never occurs to him the challenge the total absurdities it spews out, including cats that exist in living, dead and dead-alive superposition states (!). No, that’s all fine for Harris, but he will become apoplectic if he sees anyone defending free will or mind. There’s absolutely nothing in the doctrines of free will and mind that could ever be more intellectually ridiculous and offensive than the claims of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Why do scientists put so much effort into attacking what they perceive as non-scientific absurdities and none at all into attacking the myriad absurdities of science itself? Is it because they are all shameless careerists and wage slaves who know who pays their salaries? Or are they all brainwashed, quasi-religious fanatics who can’t conceive of challenging their own dogmas and irrational ideology?

Aseity “Aseity (from Latin a “from” and se “self”, plus -ity) refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself. The word is often used to refer to the Christian belief that God contains within himself the cause of himself, is the first cause, or rather is simply uncaused... Notions of aseity as the highest principle go back at least to Plato and have been in wide circulation since Augustine, though the use of the word ‘aseity’ began only in the Middle Ages. “Aseity has two aspects, one positive and one negative: absolute independence and self-existence. In its negative meaning, which emerged first in the history of thought, it affirms that God is uncaused, depending on no other being for the source of His existence. In its positive meaning, it affirms that God is completely self-sufficient, having within Himself the

sufficient reason for His own existence. The first concept derives from ‘the God of philosophers’, while the second one derives from ‘the living God of Revelation’ (I am who I am). “Often, as a part of this belief God is said to be incapable of changing. Changing implies development. Since God was and is and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no further need to change... “Many (St. Thomas, for instance) have also thought that aseity implies divine simplicity: that God has no parts of any kind (whether spatial, temporal, or abstract), since complexes depend on their individual parts, with none of which they are identical. A further implication often drawn among classical theists has been that God is without emotion or is ‘impassible’ for, it is said, emotion implies standing as patient (pass-) to some agent – i.e., dependence. This is so because although God has created everything, He is not in dependence on His creation. “Whether or not this being should be described as God turns on whether the label ‘Creator’ is a rigid designator of God. Given that most theists understand all that is not God to be brought about by God, and that many (for example, St. Aquinas) argue from the non-aseity of the universe to the existence of God, this problem is somewhat theoretical.” – Wikipedia

***** “It would be a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words ‘God’ and ‘existence’ were very definitely separated.” – Paul Tillich “God is being-itself, not a being.” – Paul Tillich Christian theologian Paul Tillich infamously denied that God exists, or that God is a being, identifying God with being-itself. He did so, in his own estimation, to preserve the notion of God’s aseity. Traditionally, for God to be “a se” means that he is neither derived from anything nor dependent on anything. Tillich seeks to argue that if you take this idea seriously, no aspect of finite reality and no human category of finite thought can be applied literally to God [the infinite]. He is always beyond. Of course, this is just mystical, anti-rationalist baloney. Zero and infinity are no more inaccessible to reason than anything since they are an integral feature of mathematics. It’s emphatically not the Christian God that is “being-itself” but ontological

mathematics. To believe that an eternal, conscious person is ultimate reality is infantile – like a child believing his dad is God. Tillich’s whole argument flows from the perversion of reason when it’s sundered from mathematics. Invariably, reason, unrestrained by mathematics, zooms off into fantasy and mysticism. Mathematical concepts such as zero and infinity are turned into bogus notions such as Void, Nirvana, the Unmanifest, the Unlimited, the “beyond words”, the “finite mind of man is unable to comprehend the infinite mind of God”, and so on, onto which any old drivel can be projected, usually to defend some absurd Mythos such as that of the Christian God. How does it help anyone to say that God “works in mysterious ways”? The whole point of that statement is to avoid confronting the total irrationalism of the concept of God and how the allegedly perfect God’s creation is so mind-bogglingly evil, perverted and self-evidently imperfect.

Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aseity) Aseity is self-existence. In Abrahamism, aseity describes God as a purely self-existent being. He has always existed as an unchanging, fully actualized being. God is neither created by another god nor does he create himself into existence (out of nothing). For Thomas Aquinas, God is his own existence as well as his own essence. God is said to have his Being of himself and to himself, such that he is Absolute being and the definition of existence. If God’s essence is his nature and God’s existence is identical to his essence, it follows that God’ nature is to exist, and to be existence. If God is Absolute Being, it’s a logical corollary that he contains in himself all perfections of being. In ontological mathematics, essence and existence coincide in monads, not in God. They are objectively (form), but not subjectively (content), perfect. Subjectively, they must dialectically evolve to the state of perfection.

***** No theist would worship a God incapable of love, incapable of feelings, yet feelings are exactly what make God not God, because they make him dependent on others (since they provide the objects of his emotions). The

Aristotelian God of Reason, who contemplates only his own rational perfection, is of no use to any Abrahamist.

***** The God Equation = The Principle of Sufficient Reason. The God Equation = God. God is a mathematical formula concerning existence, not a person.

Philosophical Proof of Aseity from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Primary Argument: Proposition 1. Whatever a thing has, besides its essence, must be caused by the constituent principles of that essence or by some exterior agent. Proposition 2. Consider a created thing. It’s impossible for a created thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles because nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence if its existence is caused. Conclusion 1. Therefore, a created thing has its existence different from its essence. No created thing reflects aseity. Proposition 3. God is the first efficient cause. Conclusion 2. As the first efficient cause, anything God has cannot be due to an exterior agent. Conclusion 3. God’s essence is identical to his existence.

***** This is in fact a proof for the aseity of monads, not of “God”. Monads’ essence is identical to their existence. Anything with the properties of monads necessarily and automatically exists. Secondary Argument:

Proposition 1. Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual. Existence is actuality as opposed to potentiality. Proposition 2. There is no potentiality in God; only actuality. Proposition 3. God is his essence. Conclusion 1. Since God is actuality his essence is existence.

***** The fallacy here lies in the definition of God as actuality, not potentiality. This is an Abrahamic, Creationist definition. An Evolutionary definition maintains that objective existence is actuality, but subjective existence is potentiality, which must dialectically strive to become actual. Abrahamism confuses objective perfection with subjective perfection and makes them coincide in God (considered as a conscious being) for all eternity. In fact, objective perfection is eternal but subjectivity is not. Subjectivity is unconscious and imperfect (it’s pure potential – a blank slate). It must become conscious and perfect. A person’s whole understanding of reality necessarily changes when he grasps that he is objectively eternal and indestructible, that he is not caused by anything and not created by anything, hence has no master that he must serve and obey. He is existentially free. His task is to optimise himself, to convert all of his potential into actualisation through an immense evolutionary process across countless lifetimes within a Cosmic Age. We are becomings, not beings. Subjectively, we are inherently imperfect, but perfection (divinity) is available to all of us at the Omega Point of the Dialectic. Some of us will achieve it much sooner than others. Others will achieve it only at the end of time (the end of a cyclical Age of the cosmos). They will resist the Truth until the very last moment – when the forces of inexorable mathematical symmetry will compel them to stand with the Truth. The “Devil” – the God of Abrahamism – will be the last to be “saved”. The God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is the soul furthest from salvation, the furthest from the Truth and Light. That’s why he’s the Prince of Darkness, and Lord of Matter, Time and Space (of the scientific universe!). That’s why he’s the Demiurge.

*****

Copenhagen quantum mechanics agrees with Aquinas that existence is actuality as opposed to potentiality. For the Copenhagen school, the quantum mechanical wavefunction is potentiality, and, when it “collapses”, it generates an observable, actual state. Of course, if the wavefunction doesn’t actually exist but is mere potentiality, how can we refer to it all? There’s nothing there! The Copenhagen school have replaced actuality not with potentiality but with an unreal abstraction. In Illuminism, monads are objectively actual in form but their contents are subjectively in a state of potentiality, and are in need of dialectical actualisation. In other words, monads really are there, and so are their contents, but those contents start off as a blank slate (like a brand new computer), and need to self-optimise – to become “full” = divine, i.e. the living computer must transform itself into God. It must fill its hard drive with divine content.

Ontology If God’s essence and existence are the same, then God is being in general, which implies pantheism. In ontological mathematics, monads are “being” in form and “becoming” in content. There isn’t anything else. Abrahamists regard God as existence in and to its fullest and simplest extent, with all other beings (created beings) participating in his existence on a contingent basis. They do not possess the nature of God or share a part in Godhead. They are contingent, not necessary. God’s essence absolutely precludes any external addition. In ontological mathematics, there aren’t any created beings at all. All beings are eternal, hence uncreated. Each monad is simple, bare existence. Abrahamism claims that God created “prime matter” (of which all material things are composed), out of nothing. (God himself is not material: he is pure matterless form; pure actuality.) Prime matter has a nature requiring nothing to be added to it, but it is not absolute. It always remains contingent, not necessary, and God could, if he chose, return it to nothing. Prime matter, but not God, is predicated of all material things, i.e. although all material things are made by God (and matter is one of their fundamental properties), they do not partake of God (neither God nor anything divine is one of their fundamental properties). In ontological mathematics, monads

are all that exist. There’s no “prime matter”. Monads have absolute existence. Abrahamism contends that we can know that God exists, but we cannot understand his nature. However, it has been argued that if God’s nature is the same as his existence then, if we know that he exists, it follows that we must know his nature too. Otherwise, his nature and existence could not possibly be the same thing. In ontological mathematics, we know that monads exist and ipso facto we know their nature, since that nature is pure mathematics. To know one is automatically to know the other. Their essence, existence, nature and definition are all mathematical and all fully available to mathematical reason.

***** Abrahamism proclaims the perfection of God, the unity of God, and the simplicity of God. In ontological mathematics, each monad is objectively, but not subjectively, perfect, each is a unity, and each is as simple as can possibly exist. Each monad is a point – a singularity. Virtually the whole of Catholic theology, especially that of Thomas Aquinas (which, being Aristotelian, influenced Leibniz), could be applied to monads rather than “God”. Catholicism is ultimately ridiculous because it’s about a theistic, emotional, conscious, eternal “God”. If you removed that being and instead applied Catholic theology to rational monads, much of Catholic philosophy would then become valid. Protestantism – with its rejection of reason, its detestation of the pagan philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, and its devotion to irrational faith – is the height of stupidity and could never be saved under any circumstances. It simply has nothing to contribute to the Truth. Protestantism, like Islam and Judaism, should be annihilated. And it will be! Catholicism should declare mathematics God. The Pope, in future, should be the world’s leading mathematician, and the College of Cardinals who elect him should be the most meritocratic mathematicians in the world. Catholics should “worship” Reason, not Jesus Christ. All churches should be rebranded as Temples of Reason, as happened during the French Revolution. The cross should be replaced by the symbol of pi.

Monads and Aseity Aseity means that an existent cannot fail to exist, or cease to exist. It’s not dependent upon anything else for its existence. It needs nothing and nothing can prevent it. It’s pure, self-sufficient existence. It’s ontologically necessary. It’s that in which existence must be grounded. It alone constitutes and defines fundamental existence. Monads alone have aseity.

Latin Monads Causa sui: Latin, meaning “cause of itself”. All monads are causa sui. They are caused by nothing else. They are eternal, not created. Actus purus: Latin, meaning “pure act.” When a monad reaches its Omega Point, it’s actus purus, fully actualised. It’s pure act, nothing has been left unexplored. All potential has been harnessed and expressed. Sui generis: Latin, meaning “of its own kind”. Anything that is sui generis is in a class by itself. It’s unique. There’s nothing else like it. At the Omega Point of the Universe itself, when existence achieves perfect symmetry, all monads become identical. However, as soon as the symmetry breaks, causing the Big Bang, every monad becomes sui generis: a unique individual. In Abrahamism, created beings have potentiality that is not actuality. They are imperfect. God, however, is pure actuality and complete perfection. He has no potential (nothing unexpressed), and he has no imperfections. God is all that he can be: infinitely real and infinitely perfect: “I am who I am.” (Exodus 3:14). It’s said that his attributes, his operations, are identical with his essence, and his essence necessitates his existence. He can’t not exist. With God, according to Abrahamists, he is always fully actualised. He at no stage existed in a state of potentiality. With created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality. God makes things imperfect and unactualised. They are full of potential waiting to be actualised. God’s actuality precedes all potentiality (of his creations).

Networked Causation

Scientists have never come to terms with networked causation, i.e. with causation being ubiquitous: with every point being a causal agent (node) in a cosmic network. Imagine a Singularity made of nothing but causal agents (souls). Where does causation begin in such a system? What determines what? By definition, every node in such a system is interacting with every other node. There are feedback loops everywhere. Everything is reacting and responding to everything else. All conventional deterministic ideas go out of the window because it’s impossible to establish what is causing what since everything is connected with everything else. It’s absolutely impossible to claim that everything was determined from the beginning of time, given that everything is dynamically coupled to everything else and can’t determine what to do on its own. A needs to know what B is doing in order to act, and B needs to know what A is doing. This dance, this intricate coupling, cannot be defined in advance. Networked causation is reactive causation, not monolithic, clockwork, sequential causation.

Big Bang Causation The Big Bang is described not as an explosion of matter into space, but as an explosion of space itself (or rather of spacetime since space and time are interconnected). Now imagine the Big Bang as an explosion of causation itself: causation leaving the immaterial frequency Singularity and entering the material, spacetime domain. Just as spacetime is everywhere, so is causation everywhere.

***** It wasn’t a case of there being no causation before the Big Bang. Rather, all causation was confined within the Singularity. The Singularity is eternal. Thus there’s no point when there’s no causation. There is no beginning to causation. Causation has simply always been. Moreover, it has always existed as networked, cyclical causation. According to science, there’s no causation in any fundamental sense. Rather, things miraculously, inexplicably, randomly and irrationally appear out of nothing, for no reason. Science, frankly, is an intellectual embarrassment. All scientists are ignoramuses, incapable of thinking properly. They’re all in need of a crash

course in logic, reason, philosophy, metaphysics and mathematics. They must be deprogrammed in relation to their Cult of Empiricism (antirationalism).

Psychopaths “It seems that a creature could conceive of itself as radically selfdetermining without having any conception of moral right or wrong at all – and so without being any sort of moral agent.” – Galen Strawson That’s exactly what a psychopath is.

Are We Free? We are free to be what we are. We are not free to be what we are not. We are free to do what we choose. We are not free to choose what we are. We are not “free to be free”.

Smartness You have to be really smart to understand Illuminism. It’s not for ordinary mortals with pedestrian minds. It’s not for scientific drudges and philosophical drones. It’s for all those who have it within them to be HyperHumans. Forget about Illuminism if you are given to listening to your “professors”, or respected authorities, or the mob, or your neighbours, or consensus. You have to be able to think for yourself and recognise the truth when you see it. That seems to be the most difficult thing of all for human beings. Are you high-minded or low-minded? Only the high-minded, those looking to higher things, can be admitted to the Illuminati, to ranks of the Enlightened Ones.

True Incompatibilism Scientific materialism is incompatible with reason. You can be a scientist or a rationalist. You can’t be both. One precludes the other. Modern science

makes the absurd claims that: 1) existence springs randomly from nonexistence, 2) that all of quantum reality is grounded in indeterminism (randomness), 3) that existence, being random, is totally meaningless, purposeless and accidental, 4) that chaos (randomness) can produce order, 5) that life and mind can be generated by suitably arranging lifeless, mindless atoms, 6) that evolution is grounded in random genetic mutations, 7) that reality is random, accidental, indeterministic, acausal, and does not obey the principle of sufficient reason, 8) that classical, deterministic physics “emerges” from indeterministic quantum physics, 9) that free will is impossible and we are all subject to an astounding, miraculous and scientifically inexplicable illusion that we are free to choose our next action, 10) that reality is based on unreal wavefunctions that randomly collapse into real states, 11) that observers are required to trigger random collapse, and 12) that life, death, and mixed living-dead states can co-exist in a superposition state (!). The number of absurd claims made by science is legion and yet people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Brian Cox ferociously defend this nonsense while proclaiming as nonsense anything that exposes the brainwashing, irrational Cult of Scientific Materialism. Science is a salutary lesson in the total perversion and corruption of reason, when reason is dragged into the service of formally irrationalist empiricism and materialism. Rationalism alone is grounded in true reason, and rationalism is all about ontological mathematics, not science.

The Root Is the root of existence Love? Is it God? Is it Mystery? Is it Consciousness? Is it the Unconscious? It is a physical object? Is it Good? Is it Evil? Is it Hate? Is it randomness? Is it Meaning? Is it Meaninglessness? Is it Void? Is existence a total accident? Existence has an answer solely if it is rooted in one thing: Reason. And reason, ontologically, is ontological mathematics.

The Debate

It’s obvious to all thinking people that the debate concerning quantum mechanics (with its supposed indeterministic roots), and classical deterministic physics, is just a new guise of the debate concerning free will (with its supposed indeterministic roots), and classical scientific determinism. The bizarre situation has arisen where irrationalists such as Harris and Dawkins eagerly highlight the supposed incompatibility between free will and determinism, while rejecting any incompatibility between indeterministic quantum physics and macroscopic scientific determinism. Is sauce for the goose no longer sauce for the gander? But there is in fact no legitimate incompatibilism debate. The universe is either 100% deterministic (hence completely rational) or 100% indeterministic (hence completely irrational). It can’t be a bit of both! Plainly, we don’t live in an irrational cosmos of pure chaos, so indeterminism is false. Either quantum mechanical indeterminism is a totally false doctrine (which it is!), or classical scientific determinism is totally false. Well, Sam Harris, since you are the self-proclaimed champion of incompatibilism, you must repudiate either quantum mechanics, or scientific determinism. So, which is it? Forget your silly attacks on free will and turn your attention to indeterministic quantum mechanics. The universe is either 100% rational or 100% irrational. It can’t be a bit rational and a bit irrational. Either the universe obeys the principle of sufficient reason, hence is 100% ontologically mathematical, or it doesn’t and is 100% irrational and incomprehensible. Well, Sam Harris, which is it? Aren’t you the expert on these matters (well, according to your own irrational propaganda)? We have a warning for all those who challenge our position. When you do so, you are setting yourself against the principle of sufficient reason. And why would we, as rationalists, ever listen to the irrational ramblings of the mad? Only lunatics hoist their flag against the cause of Reason. Reason is the source of light, and all of its enemies are the unenlightened.

By the Way

Fuck the “Light Workers”, fuck the New Age bullshitters, fuck the Eastern mystics, fuck the “love and light” brigade, fuck the hippies, fuck the meditators, fuck the “unconditional lovers”, fuck the “cosmic consciousness” gang. Reason is the answer to everything, the root of all, the source of all light, meaning and purpose. The universe is intelligible solely because it’s grounded in reason, and could not be intelligible otherwise. You will never understand reality through love, faith, your feelings, your senses, your God, your mystical intuitions, or anything other than reason.

The Hard Determinism Fallacy All of the claims of hard determinism regarding free will can be reduced to just one: that all deterministic chains can be traced back to a materialist point (such as the Big Bang) outside you, hence you are not free because you are externally determined. In ontological mathematics, this argument is absolutely false. All monadic minds are eternal, uncaused, uncreated first causes, so everything that is quintessentially you can be fully traced back to you and you alone. Thus you are determined by yourself and not by anything external to you. Freedom does not mean not being determined, it means being determined by yourself alone and not by things that are not you. Freedom = self-determinism, not non-determinism. We are all engaged in a great dialectical struggle with other monadic minds, which want to impose their will on us, and we on them. The greater our will to power, and the power we have acquired, the freer we are.

Why Monads Are Inherently Free Monads are uncreated (you cannot be free if you have a Creator). Monads are uncaused (you cannot be free if you are caused). Monads are eternal (you cannot be free if you are temporal). Monads are indestructible (you cannot be free if you can be annihilated). Monads are necessary (you cannot be free if you are contingent).

Monads are a priori (you cannot be free if you are a posteriori). Monads are uncaused causes. They are causal agents. You cannot be free if you are a caused cause, or not a causal agent. Monads are immaterial singularities, outside space and time (you cannot be free if you are made of perishable matter, and you cannot be free if you are inherently in spacetime and subject to inescapable spacetime causality). Monads are inherently thinking creatures. All they do is think. It’s their sole activity, the single activity that defines them. (“I think therefore I am.” – Descartes.) However, monadic thinking is by default unconscious, not conscious. Moreover, monadic thinking is not linear, sequential, in series, proceeding one thought at a time. Monads think in parallel, in networks. The whole monad is thinking, i.e. every part of what is actually a vast and even infinite thinking, information system. Monads quintessentially think countless thoughts at once, each of which has different potential consequences if it’s the one enacted. The monad, in order to be effective and teleological, has to evaluate and filter all of its thoughts. It inherently has to choose between all of its thoughts. It can’t pay attention to all of its thoughts at once, it can’t actualise all of its thoughts at once, it can’t show infinite intentionality, it can’t pursue countless different purposes. It will choose according to its nature, character, and personality. This is the essence of free will: choosing, from all the many thoughts you are having, the one that best reflects who you are and what your intentions and purposes are.

Why Monads are Deterministic All monads are defined by the God Equation – a totally deterministic, causal mathematical equation, reflecting the principle of sufficient reason (every fact has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise). All monads are 100% mathematical, hence deterministic, and exist in a 100% mathematical, hence deterministic, universe. It’s impossible for anything not to be deterministic. It’s impossible for anything not to obey the principle of sufficient reason. All monads comprise analytic sinusoidal waves. Monads are ontological Fourier frequency domains. The essence of thinking (and of life) is the

uniform flow of structured information. All sinusoidal waves are nothing but permanently flowing structured information systems. Basis thoughts – individual sinusoidal waves – can combine mathematically to produce “molecular” thoughts, and produce more and more complex thinking. All of this happens mathematically, hence deterministically. So, monads are both inherently free and inherently deterministic, and these two positions are inherently compatible, hence compatibilism is true and all incompatibilist views are false. Monads inherently generate countless thoughts deterministically and then, using their own internal nature, character or personality, they deterministically select which of these thoughts they will bring into the spacetime world to determine their observed behaviour, characteristic of who they are. In other words, they are deterministic entities that deterministically generate thoughts and then deterministically choose between these thoughts, the Selector Function being their core Self i.e. the deterministic set of criteria that they use to filter thoughts. These criteria are unique to them. Every other monad will use different criteria. Monads are free because they chose what they want to do using their own criteria, and not those of any other monads. They have their own reasons for their choices, but most assuredly every choice has a deterministic reason and is definitely not random, indeterministic, acausal or accidental, as libertarians would argue. All incompatibilist philosophies are “soft”, i.e. acutely poorly defined. William James accused compatibilism of being “soft” determinism. In fact, it was his own views that were “soft”. His understanding of compatibilism was “soft”. When he pondered compatibilism, he certainly wasn’t responding to the compatibilist monadic scheme we have set out above. It’s a general point regarding philosophy that a huge amount of hot air is generated regarding extremely badly defined systems. It’s only because everything is so badly defined that there’s so much scope for argument, debate and bullshit. You don’t get any of this in math. Every philosopher who dares to speak about free will should first of all offer his ontological definition of reality. If he cannot do so then he’s just talking rubbish and his opinions should be ignored. The whole of libertarian incompatibilism could easily be dismissed since no libertarian has ever proposed an ontology and epistemology.

As for the hard determinism version of incompatibilism, this too is totally incoherent since it’s based on a materialist ontology, yet admits that all matter randomly sprang from nothing at the Big Bang, an event that cannot be considered material in any way since it didn’t involve matter, and it occurred outside space and time. What we have described is the only worthwhile framework in which to debate free will. Everything else is literal nonsense.

The True God? The True God has no father. Jesus Christ has a father. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God. No monad has a father. Therefore, all monads are more Godly than Jesus Christ!

Perfection and Imperfection Perfection does not evolve. Only imperfection evolves, and what it evolves towards is perfection. Abrahamism invokes a perfect, non-evolutionary God who needs nothing and is dependent on nothing. It’s impossible to see how such a God could love imperfection (his Creation) since this would imply a relationship with imperfection, an affection for imperfection and even a neediness towards imperfection, all of which are incompatible with a perfect God who needs absolutely nothing and can stand completely alone. Moreover, how could a perfect being even create imperfection in the first place? It’s impossible. Pantheistic conceptions of God usually involve the notion of an evolving (hence imperfect) God – anathema to Abrahamists. This Evolving God is seeking to become perfect, to realize himself fully (implying that he was not fully realised initially: he was potential rather than actualisation). In ontological mathematics, the laws of ontological mathematics are immutable, eternal, Platonic and perfect. However the living beings (monadic minds) defined by those perfect laws are pure potential (i.e. imperfect), and need to dialectically evolve to become perfect. They achieve this at the Omega Point, which, mathematically, is the point of perfect cosmic symmetry – where the Mind of God is fully actualised. God’s Mind, at the Omega Point is perfect objectively and subjectively, and this is reflected in perfect objective and subjective symmetry.

The Neuroscience Fallacy “Even though it’s common knowledge these days, it never ceases to amaze me that all the richness of our mental life – all our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts, our ambitions, our love life, our religious sentiments and even what each of us regards us his own intimate private self – is simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in your head, in your brain. There is nothing else.” – V.S. Ramachandran, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers Thus speaks one of the prophets of materialism. It never ceases to amaze us that scientists believe that tiny blobs of matter that they have never once experienced and that they “know” only through their minds (whose autonomous existence they deny) are all there is. “How can a three-pound mass of jelly that you can hold in your palm imagine angels, contemplate the meaning of infinity, and even question its own place in the cosmos? Especially awe-inspiring is the fact that any single brain, including yours, is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless, far-flung stars billions of years ago. These particles drifted for eons and light-years until gravity and change brought them together here, now. These atoms now form a conglomerate – your brain – that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans, it has been said, the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, it the greatest mystery of all.” – V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human Er, yes, how can blobs of lifeless, mindless matter come together to imagine angels?!! That’s more than a miracle ... it’s totally, rationally impossible. However, there’s nothing mysterious about infinitely old, dimensionless monads contemplating infinity and “nothing”. We are not three-pound masses of jelly. We are immortal, indestructible singularities outside space and time. “The human brain, it has been said, is the most complexly organised structure in the universe and to appreciate this you just have to look at

some numbers. The brain is made up of one hundred billion nerve cells or ‘neurons’ which is the basic structural and functional units of the nervous system. Each neuron makes something like a thousand to ten thousand contacts with other neurons and these points of contact are called synapses where exchange of information occurs. And based on this information, someone has calculated that the number of possible permutations and combinations of brain activity, in other words the numbers of brain states, exceeds the number of elementary particles in the known universe.” – V.S. Ramachandran And all so that we can deny our own self-evident freedom? WTF! Anyway, if you want big numbers, they are far more impressive in relation to monads since these contain every number in existence! “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data, which is often fragmentary and fleeting. Both hallucinations and real perceptions emerge from the same set of processes. The crucial difference is that when we are perceiving, the stability of external objects and events helps anchor them. When we hallucinate, as when we dream or float in a sensory deprivation tank, objects and events wander off in any direction.” – V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human Are scientists hallucinating when they imagine they are machines without free will? “Self-awareness is a trait that not only makes us human but also paradoxically makes us want to be more than merely human. As I said in my BBC Reith Lectures, ‘Science tells us we are merely beasts, but we don’t feel like that. We feel like angels trapped inside the bodies of beasts, forever craving transcendence’.” – V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human Step 1 of seeking transcendence ... deny that you are free; declare yourself a machine in a meaningless universe. Er, surely some mistake!!!

“Yet as human beings we have to accept – with humility – that the question of ultimate origins will always remain with us, no matter how deeply we understand the brain and the cosmos that it creates.” –V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human Machines could never work out ultimate origins. After all, no one programmed them to. And they have no freedom to pursue the answer. Immortal mathematical minds (monads), however, can easily work out ultimate origins. After all, they were there right from the “beginning”! “What do we mean by ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’? And how do billions of neurons achieve them? These are complete mysteries. Admittedly, cognitive neuroscientists are still very vague about the exact meaning of words like ‘understand,’ ‘think,’ and indeed the word ‘meaning’ itself.” – V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: Unlocking the Mystery of Human Nature Science actually denies that there’s any meaning at all. No wonder it struggles to define “meaning”. How can anyone have “knowledge” of randomness, purposelessness and meaninglessness? “The common denominator of all jokes is a path of expectation that is diverted by an unexpected twist necessitating a complete reinterpretation of all the previous facts – the punch-line… Reinterpretation alone is insufficient. The new model must be inconsequential. For example, a portly gentleman walking toward his car slips on a banana peel and falls. If he breaks his head and blood spills out, obviously you are not going to laugh. You are going to rush to the telephone and call an ambulance. But if he simply wipes off the goo from his face, looks around him, and then gets up, you start laughing. The reason is, I suggest, because now you know it’s inconsequential, no real harm has been done. I would argue that laughter is nature’s way of signalling that ‘it’s a false alarm.’ Why is this useful from an evolutionary standpoint? I suggest that the rhythmic staccato sound of laughter evolved to inform our kin who share our genes; don’t waste your precious resources on this situation; it’s a false alarm. Laughter is nature’s OK signal.” – V.S. Ramachandran, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers It’s a neat trick getting machines to laugh!

“Any ape can reach for a banana, but only humans can reach for the stars.” – V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human But can machines?

***** Physicalist neuroscientists say, “There’s no one in there – in the brain – so free will must be an illusion.” But there is someone in there – an autonomous monad: an eternal soul. Of course, it’s non-physical, so dismissed without a second thought by physicalists. As ever, for these irrationalists, absence of physical evidence is evidence of ontological absence. Unfortunately for these people, ultimate reality is mathematical and mental, not physical. Studying physical blobs doesn’t tell you anything at all about how things really are. Ultimate reality is intelligible, not sensible; rational, not empirical. Given the physicalist model of reality, there’s no reason at all why a body should not be a lumbering zombie with no mind whatsoever, with absolutely no qualia. As David Chalmers put it, “Computers are getting better and better. And maybe one of these days they’re going to be able to do all the things that we can do. But then the question is why do you need consciousness? I don’t think the hard problem of consciousness can be solved purely in terms of neuroscience. Because neurons and neuroscience is all about objective mechanisms that perform functions that ultimately issue in behaviour. The hard problem is why is all that processing accompanied by conscious experience? Why does it feel like something from the inside? Why do we have this amazing inner movie going on? Neural circuits and computational mechanisms just leave that question out.” This is exactly right. There is absolutely no point in physical machines having consciousness, having feelings, having an identity, having the alleged illusion of free will, and so on. All of these could be removed from the physicalist model without affecting anything. So, the mere fact of their existence is sufficient to conclusively refute scientific materialism and all the tiresome views of neuroscientists. It’s formally impossible for mindless, lifeless atoms to produce mind and life. Unfree things could never generate free will, nor even the illusion

of free will (what would be the point, and the mechanism?). Non-conscious things without minds can never be the source of consciousness and qualia. There is no means by which entities that are wholly redundant in the physicalist model could ever be the outcomes of the physicalist model. There is only one way out of this paradox: everything has an inside as well as an outside. Mind is the inside of matter; frequency is the inside of spacetime; singularities are the insides of black holes and Big Bangs. Even sinusoidal waves have an inside and an outside. The inside is experienced by the monad that the waves constitute. A monad is a selfreferential, self-reflecting, self-reinforcing, self-mirroring strange loop. Being a sinusoidal wave is both objective and subjective. The wave has certain mathematical properties, and those properties can be felt, sensed and experienced from the inside. All the physicalists should understand that physicalism is no longer scientifically tenable. In quantum mechanics, there’s formally no such thing as matter. The quantum mechanical wavefunction is depicted as an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction. It randomly, and inexplicably, collapses, to generate empirical observables, which vanish back into the “ether” as soon they are no longer being observed, and which never have a simultaneously definable position and momentum (the minimum requirement for “matter”). So, the brain is not a material object at all. It’s not a physical blob. It’s a mathematical function, full of imaginary and negative numbers, zero and infinity. Neuroscience hasn’t even reached first base in comprehending what the brain is, and all of its theories about the brain are essentially ludicrous.

Sum and Substance Electrical impulses in the brain and the secretion and absorption of chemicals ... is that all the “mind” is? Is there really nothing else? Is that it? That’s the scientific materialist view, not the mathematical view. The mathematical view is a mentalist view that celebrates an infinite mind, the greatest wonder of existence. The mathematical view is based on minds so powerful they can become Gods!

*****

The brain is not the mind. It is not identical with it. Scientific materialism is the claim that it is. Perhaps the most fanatical of all materialists are the neuroscientists, the people who study the brain and find it impossible to find any trace of the mind. Not that they know where to look. After all, by their own account, they don’t have minds! How can physicalists locate the brain? It’s not an object, it’s an agent – a subject. There’s no such thing as a subject in the materialist view. It’s about objects only. Physicalists say brain and mind are physical (or, rather, mind is the product of the physical brain). Dualists say brain and mind are separate substances, but can’t explain how they interact. Mind, in this Cartesian view, is independent of brain. It’s not physical. There are no Cartesians in neuroscience. There are no non-physicalists. It’s a closed shop. Mind, say the neuroscientists, arises from the activity of the brain, and nothing else. There’s no part of the mind that’s not generated by the brain. Thoughts and behaviour are the result of biological processes driven by the inescapable laws of science, which render “freedom” impossible”. There’s no “ghost in the machine”. Or, rather, the machine generates the ghost, the illusion of the ghost, the epiphenomenon of the ghost, the ghost that defines us and yet serves no function whatsoever since lifeless, mindless atoms take all the decisions.

***** Why can’t neuroscientists see thoughts when they look at the brain, given that it’s full of thoughts? It’s because thoughts are the insides, and experiments, probes and scanners – all the tools of the neuroscientist – can only reveal the outside. It’s impossible to understand the functions of the mind through the biological functions of the brain. It’s impossible to get to mind from mindless matter. Isn’t that self-evident? How does the brain understand itself? Well, the brain can’t. It’s the mind that thinks. Science has catastrophically failed to grasp that there are two aspects, a fundamental duality, to the brain-mind complex. There’s an inner and outer aspect, subjective and objective, within and without, the noumenal and phenomenal.

The mind is the inside of the brain. The mind is frequency, and the brain is spacetime. The mind is dimensionless, the brain dimensional. Neuroscientists are the last people on earth who could tell you anything about the mind.

Free Will and God What is free will? It’s the capacity of a subject to act according to the dictates of its own will; to formulate possible courses of action and choose one or none, or change its mind. Free will only makes sense in the context of an autonomous, self-contained, independent, eternal causal agent; an uncreated, uncaused cause; a prime mover. Imagine a universe that consists of just one subject and nothing else, something akin to the Abrahamic God. Nothing is constraining this subject. This subject isn’t subject to any external compulsion. There are no external causal forces acting on this subject. The question is this: is there any contradiction between this subject exhibiting free will and this subject acting deterministically? What does it mean to exhibit free will? It means, as we have said, the capacity to generate different courses of action and then to determine which of these courses to choose, to choose without any compulsion, bar the diktats of the subject’s own nature/character/personality/ taste/rationality, i.e. what makes him uniquely him (and, as “God”, he is absolutely constrained to act morally perfectly at all time, and without error, hence is overwhelmingly determined in his behaviour by these inescapable criteria that define him). He absolutely does not act randomly, indeterministically, or acausally. He has a sufficient reason for what he does. It may not be a good reason, but it is his reason. God is a deterministic subject, not indeterministic. He doesn’t do things accidentally, by chance, by rolling dice (like Dice Man). He determines a course of action and executes his determination. This subject, this God, which constitutes the whole universe in Abrahamism, is absolutely deterministic and also reflects a universe of absolute free will, i.e. he can do whatever he wills that is compatible with his “perfect” nature. In that framework, he is able to pursue any course of action he wants. He is totally free. He is free to do what he is determined to do, and what he has determined to do. This is the basic compatibilist

paradigm. There is no conceivable contradiction between free will and determinism. Consider the counter-positions to compatibilism: Hard Determinism. The claim here is that everything is caused by inexorable prior conditions, making another inexorable outcome inevitable, hence excluding any possibility of a free action. There are several fallacies here. Firstly, this position inherently denies the existence of uncaused first causes: causal agents that are not themselves caused. (These agents cause things to happen through their own actions. They are the initiators of casual chains.) Secondly, it denies such agents, if they could exist, the ability to make choices, i.e. to ponder multiple courses of action. In a world of matter, matter does not have subjective, causal agency. Matter does only one thing: the thing it is caused to do. If this were true of human beings, we would act immediately at all times, and do one thing only. We would never stop to ponder. We would never take any time to decide a course of action. We would never generate multiple potential courses of actions. We would never reflect on these different options and we would never consider these various options from multiple angles. The actual behaviour of human beings is the self-evident total repudiation of hard determinism. It’s impossible to explain human behaviour via the causal chains of hard determinism. In this scenario, humans could no more contemplate various courses of action than a hurricane could. Hard Determinism invariably flows from materialist fundamentalism and concludes that free will is simply a pointless illusion. If materialism is false, which it is, so is hard determinist incompatibilism. Metaphysical Libertarianism. This denies that determinism exists at all, thus implying that it’s scientific determinism, not free will, that’s a bizarre illusion. This stance flows from an idealist fundamentalist position, one that admits the possibility of miracles, and minds and bodies that routinely defy scientific determinism. Hard Incompatibilism does not so much side with determinism or indeterminism as argue that free will is incompatible with either, hence is impossible.

*****

Compatibilism = The position that free will and determinism are logically compatible. Incompatibilism = The position that free will and determinism are logically incompatible. Within incompatibilism there are three positions: Hard Determinism = Acceptance of Determinism; Rejection of Free Will; Rejection of indeterminism. Metaphysical Libertarianism = Acceptance of Free Will; Denial of Determinism; Acceptance that indeterminism is true. Hard Incompatibilism = The Denial that Free Will is compatible with either determinism or indeterminism.

***** Hard Determinism: Physical Determinism is true; free will is impossible; subjectivity is denied. Hard Incompatibilism: Even if Physical Determinism is false, free will is still impossible. Metaphysical Libertarianism: Physical Determinism is false, and free will therefore exists.

The Start of the Chain Hard determinists typically claim that it’s possible to trace back any causal chain to a point definitively outside of us, hence that chains determines us and exclude the possibility of our having free will. This is automatically refuted if we are uncreated, uncaused causes, i.e. if there is no point in a causal chain, relating to our behaviour and choices, that is definitively outside us. On the contrary, we are the ultimate origins of the causal chains that determine our behaviour.

The Freedom Conundrum “Total” libertarian incompatibilists demand that humans be free of all deterministic constraints, external and internal.

Compatibilists insist that you are free if you are free from external deterministic constraints, but not from internal deterministic constraints (which are what define your essential self). Our bodies, being in spacetime, are subject to external, spacetime determinism, but, being powered by our own minds, are also subject to internal, frequency determinism. Our minds obey their own self-contained, autonomous, free will. They are free to be what their inner nature determines they should be. They are not of course free to choose their own inner nature. They are not free to be anything other than monadic mathematical minds defined by the God Equation. Hard determinist incompatibilists, given that they deny autonomous, subjective minds, deny that there’s any such thing as internal determinism. For them, there’s only external, materialist constraint, hence free will is impossible. So, it all comes down to internal, subjective determinism versus external, objective determinism. Libertarians deny both types of determinism, hard determinists deny internal, subjective determinism, and compatibilists accept both types of determinism, and insist they are fully compatible mathematically (via Fourier mathematics). Libertarians say that freedom is about being free from all determinism, compatibilists say that freedom is about being free of oppressive external determinism, and hard determinists deny that there is any such thing as freedom. It’s all in the definition. It’s all in the math!

Aristotle Aristotle said, “Our dispositions are not voluntary in the same sense that our actions are.” He argued that humans have free will because they are free to choose their actions within the confines of their natures. That’s right. We freely choose actions consistent with our nature. It would be absurd if we routinely chose actions inconsistent with our nature, and indeed we wouldn’t have a “nature” if we didn’t operate in a consistent way. No one would have any idea what we might do next, and the world would be full of unpredictable, irrational people behaving randomly. Some people (the libertarians) seem to find it a contradiction of freedom for us to be free to act only with respect to our nature. They seem to want us to be able to change our nature too, but then there would be no “us”. We are

our nature. If we change that, we are nothing. We’re just random behaviour. To be free, we want to be able to do as we please, not to please as we please. If the latter were true, we would have no Self, no centre, and it would be impossible to associate free will with a chameleon being that changes its values, tastes, standards and behaviour continuously. You must have a nature before you can be free. If you don’t have a nature, there is no you, hence you are never free. However, our nature is in no way cast in stone. It doesn’t undergo abrupt transitions and discontinuities, but it does steadily evolve as we learn, as we know more, as we get more experience, as we mature, as we have new experiences, as we try new things, as we experiment, as we adapt to our environment, as we become more rational, and so on. Therefore, even though our nature limits the range of actions we can perform, our nature changes over our time and so allows us to change our behaviour. Over a lifetime, each of us might behave quite differently at the end from how we did at the beginning, but not in some unrecognisable, bizarre, random way. A clear trajectory will be discernible, with key turning points (the important events of our lives). All natures are flexible and undergo dialectical evolution, which is exactly why we are able to become gods. Moreover, we undergo reincarnation, which allows us to explore totally different environments, experience totally different things, and have totally different lives. A nature isn’t a rigid computer program, it’s a living, growing, developing, learning, evolving thing. It has a dialectical trajectory, not a random trajectory. Humans therefore have two aspects to their freedom: 1) they can freely act according to their nature, and, 2) as a result of their experiences, their nature can freely change, allowing them to act differently at a later time. It’s essential for our natures to evolve, or otherwise we would be stuck forever as screaming babies! (Rather like Abrahamists!)

The Question There’s only one conceivable rational challenge to compatibilism. If we are uncaused causes – the initiators of causal chains – does that place us outside of causality or does it means that we define causality? Are we free of causality or the essence of causality? Are we outside of causality or the

beginning of causality? Depending on how you choose to answer these questions, you could adopt a compatibilist or libertarian attitude to uncaused causes. If uncaused causes are libertarian does that mean there is in fact no real determinism at all? Yet, even though they are uncaused, they are causes, and causes inevitably lead to determinism, so therefore they are inherently deterministic. Here we find the true kernel of the free will debate. We are free because we are uncaused, and yet we are deterministic because all we ever do is initiate and participate in deterministic processes. Since freedom and determinism are, in these terms, so closely intertwined, “compatibilism” seems the right and inevitable word to choose to describe them. Libertarianism would suggest a total lack of determinism, which we definitely don’t find. Does something exist in humans that is outside the causal order? That translates into the question of whether the first cause is or is not part of the causal order. Is the start of a process outside that process? Surely not. What’s for certain is that all parts of a linear, deterministic chain have a prior cause and subsequent effect (which then acts as the cause for the next effect, and so on), except the start of the chain and the end. Where ontological mathematics asserts that mathematical monads initiate deterministic chains, science claims that random events, springing out of nothing at all, do so. In ontological mathematics, a mathematical entity – the monad, the defining unit of ontology – starts mathematical deterministic processes, which therefore belong to the same category of mathematical existence. In science, a random, indeterministic fluctuation in nothing starts deterministic scientific processes, which therefore belong to a different category of existence. Effects do not resemble their causes, and have more “reality” than their causes, an absurdity that Descartes explicitly refuted, arguing the precise opposite: a cause must have at least the same “reality” as its effect. If an uncaused cause belongs to the same category of existence of those things that are caused, it’s a compatibilist position. If an uncaused cause belongs to a different category of existence from those things that are caused, it’s a libertarian and even mysterian position.

Given that a mathematical monad is defined by the God Equation, and so is the whole universe, and so are all interactions taking place within it, we have a complete, consistent and compatible system. The same certainly isn’t true of science. In science, random fluctuations in nothing are undefined and inexplicable, and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the ordered, deterministic processes they are then alleged to trigger. David Hume denied causation entirely and described it as a phenomenon that humans project onto the world, but which the world doesn’t actually possess (although this then raises the issue of how and why minds should operate in this bizarre, illusory way, and how such minds came to be in the first place). For Hume (the ultimate skeptic), to say that one thing (A) is the cause of another thing (B) is just to say that, in experience, things like A have been constantly conjoined with things like B, thus an observation of another thing like A inevitably brings to mind the idea or expectation of another thing like B. It’s correlation rather than causation. According to Hume, nothing in nature corresponds to the “necessary connection” said to exist between two things that are causally linked. In the human sphere, exactly the same kind of regularity (constant conjoining) exists, and exactly the same lack of necessity, hence it follows that human actions follow from human choices, and this is all that’s needed for free will. Hume wrote, “By liberty we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will.” This is what all compatibilists would agree with. John Stuart Mill, another compatibilist, said that a person is free when “his habits or his temptations are not his masters, but he theirs.” This is a more problematic statement since we could replace it with a libertarian formula: “a person is free when his nature is not his master, but he the master of his nature”. This would imply that we could change our nature at will, a total impossibility. Hard determinism precludes free will because it implies that humans are never the ultimate originators of their actions, while indeterminism says that human decisions are taken at random.

Starts and Ends

Every linear causal chain has a start. And every linear causal chain has an end. But all eternal causal chains are cyclical, not linear. Otherwise, we would have an open-ended universe that never completes itself and doesn’t obey the fundamental mathematical process of symmetry, symmetry breaking and restoration of symmetry. Causal closure must apply, not causal openness. Causal closure belongs to a necessary universe, and causal openness to a contingent universe.

Free Will and Ontology You must define ontology before you can explain freedom. Every philosopher who wishes to contribute to the free will debate should first of all be required to state the ontological theory on which he relies for making his claims about free will. In the absence of ontology, all speculations concerning free will are just silly, pointless word games with no possible resolution. They are nothing but metaphysical statements of the type that Kant disparaged as “pure reason” that can be neither scientifically tested nor mathematically or logically proved. They are therefore just mental masturbation. This requirement will shut up nearly all philosophers since almost none of them subscribes to a well-defined ontology. And there’s no point looking to science since it doesn’t have an ontology either. Ontological mathematics is the only coherent, complete and consistent ontological theory. No one can deny that ontological mathematics provides an exact system in which all claims can be rationally framed. To all philosophers, put up or shut up. Say something coherent, based on an ontology, or denial thereof, or don’t say anything at all. Go and find something else to do with yourselves rather than wasting everyone’s time over speculative nonsense that can never have an outcome.

New Mysterianism “New mysterianism is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia. Owen Flanagan noted in his 1991 book Science of the Mind that some modern thinkers have suggested that consciousness may never be completely explained. Flanagan

called them ‘the new mysterians’ after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians. ‘But the new mysterianism is a postmodern position designed to drive a railroad spike through the heart of scientism.’ (Flanagan) The term ‘new mysterianism’ has been extended by some writers to encompass the wider philosophical position that humans do not have the intellectual ability to solve (or comprehend the answers to) many hard problems, not just the problem of consciousness, at a scientific level. According to Flanagan, ‘The “old mysterians” were dualists who thought that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically because it operates according to nonnatural principles and possesses nonnatural properties.’” – Wikipedia This mystical, mysterious, irrational nonsense is what happens when you reject ontological mathematics. The fact is, everything is rational and everything has an answer. What is the factor that causes so many difficulties for people when they think about reality? It’s the fact that everything has two aspects: an inside and an outside, a within and a without, a subjective character and objective character. In ontological mathematics, everything can be reduced to sinusoidal waves. Each sinusoidal wave is both subject and object. We can study it as an objective mathematical form, as if on an oscilloscope. What we can’t do is get inside it and experience what it’s like to be a sinusoidal wave – unless it happens to be one of the set of sinusoidal waves that belongs to our own monadic mind, in which case we can and do get the inside view. If you think about it, why is the outside, the exterior, always so obvious to us, and the inside, the interior, so mysterious and unfathomable? Why do we privilege one over the other? Why do we take one for granted and regard the other as so dubious as to probably not exist at all? The answer, of course, is sensory bias. We regard things that we can see, hear, touch, smell or taste as “real”. We regard things that don’t present themselves as sensory as non-existent. Yet how can you ever have anything at all that doesn’t have an inside to go with its outside? What is the inside of a brain? It’s a mind! What is the inside of a body? It’s a soul. Scientists just see a brain or a body. They don’t see anything “inside”. How could they? The inside is always non-sensory. What are qualia? They are defined as qualities or properties as perceived or experienced by a person. But what are they ontologically? They are the

insides of things. The colour red does not exist in the world of the outside aspect of things, but it does in the world of the inside aspect of things. In fact, amazingly, all smells, tastes, sounds, colours and touch sensations aren’t in the outer aspect of the external world at all, only the inner aspect. All the primary properties discussed in philosophy belong to the outer aspect of the external world, and all the secondary properties to the inner aspect of the external world. The outer aspect of things is pure, objective mathematics. When we absorb mathematical information from the external world, we encounter it both objectively and subjectively, both externally and internally, and we combine the two to get a full physical/mental picture: primary (outer) and secondary (inner). Science completely rejects the interior world, the subjective world, and that’s why it can’t explain reality. Everything has two aspects: inside and out. Never forget it. When we privately dream, we do not encounter the external world at all, only our internally generated dreamworld. Again, this internal world has an outer and inner aspect, just like the external world, which it often closely resembles. The world we encounter privately or publicly is about quantity (“how great, how much”) and quality (“of what kind”). Quantity can be measured; quality is experienced but is not measurable. We can assign the colour red a measured frequency (i.e. the quantity associated with it), but we can’t measure how we experience red (i.e. its quality). Quantity is the outside, “primary” aspect. Quality is the inside, “secondary” quality. There are no mysterians and mysteries!

Circles and Sinusoidal Waves Just as Fourier spacetime functions are Fourier frequency functions represented in a different mathematical form, so sinusoidal waves are just circles represented in a different mathematical form. We could say that ontological mathematics is all about Euler circles, but given that sinusoidal waves are better suited to analytic mathematics, we tend to say that ontological mathematics is grounded in sinusoidal waves.

The Difference There’s a fundamental difference between how we measure time, and how we experience it. Here’s another challenge to all philosophers. Before you inflict your speculations about time on the world, state what time is ontologically! Likewise, what, ontologically, is mind, what is matter, what is space, what is energy, what is mass, what is light? If you can’t ontologically define any of these things, what is it that you think you’re talking about beyond your own fantasies, opinions, beliefs and conjectures? What are you hoping to achieve? You’re certainly not clarifying things, just obscuring them. What is philosophy’s greatest problem? – that it’s not ontological mathematics!

The Circle Linear causal chains having beginnings and endings. The start and the end are different from all points in-between. But what about a circle? No point is privileged over any others. All points have a point before them and a point after them. There are no exceptions. There is no beginning and no end. The Buddha said, “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” This is a statement about linear things. The circle has neither a beginning nor an end. The circle is the only proper mathematical basis for eternity. It’s inherently eternal. Anything flowing around a circle does so forever. There’s no way out. No exit road. Circular energy is eternal energy. Circular energy is the energy of perpetual motion, and circles are the perfect perpetual motion “machines”. In “circular determinism”, the deterministic process has no start and no finish. We can’t identify any first cause. We can’t trace everything back to an unmoved mover, such as Aristotle’s God. Such a God belongs to a linear conception of reality, not circular. There is no unmoved mover in circular reality. In circular reality, there is nothing but movement ... forever. Nothing, not even God, can be stationary. Motion is the essence of existence. Motion is energy, eternal energy. Prime movers are monads in constant internal motion. They are physically stationary, but not mentally stationary.

Now imagine heaping infinite circles of all different frequencies (energies) and amplitudes (radii) right on top of each other. In no case do we ever find a start or end. There is no physical prime mover and no physical first cause. Every circle is a perfect example of an uncaused cause – a first cause – but it is not a first cause internally because no start can ever be identified in a circle. Let’s imagine that every circle within a monad corresponds to a unique thought. So, all of these circles superimposed on each other constitute a vast thinking system, yet where is the centre, the core, the Self? What is it that can make sense of all these thoughts, that can filter and evaluate them? There is one point that stands outside the whole set of circles. It’s the centre itself, the point around which the whole circular system revolves. Yet this point is truly extraordinary by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t actually exist! There is no such thing as an ontological circle with zero frequency and zero amplitude. The centre of the system – the core, the Self – simply isn’t there! Or rather it is not present ontologically but logically. It is this that becomes the Selector Function, the evaluator. This is where our nature resides, our character, our personality, the Self, the “I”. It’s a logical function, a rational function, and something that can evolve to reflect the evolving information system all around it. A useful concept in this regard is Douglas Hofstadter’s “strange loop”, which he defines as follows: “And yet when I say ‘strange loop’, I have something else in mind – a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by ‘strange loop’ is – here goes a first stab, anyway – not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling – around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive ‘upward’ shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one’s sense of departing ever further from one’s origin, one winds up, to one’s shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.” The Logical Self might be said to be that which continuously scans every circle within a monad from the lowest to the highest and by doing so it processes every monadic thought. It does so outside space and time. In Illuminism, as explained elsewhere in the God Series, the highest possible circle is not infinitely high but reaches a stage where it undergoes a phase transition (a mathematical “singularity” process), passes through a

logical, not ontological, infinity, and emerges back at the beginning (logical zero), i.e. it’s a Hofstadter strange loop. There’s an ontologically smallest number and an ontologically highest number, but they are bookended by two non-ontological, “logical” numbers: zero and infinity, the two numbers of the mind. During irreversible collapses or expansions, ontological numbers automatically pass through the logical numbers of zero and infinity (which are just the flip sides of each other). These are the two Singularity numbers. Although it’s a very complex idea, Singularities must be understood as logical rather than ontological. They are the net effects of ontological numbers. They are resultants. They don’t exist in their own right. They “exist” as the result of other things. Leibniz originally argued that the only existents are dimensionless monads with no parts. In fact, monads are “logical” existents rather than actual existents, and they are the precise net result of their parts, which are perfectly balanced, via the God Equation, to produce the resultant of zero. In other words, all ontological things are greater than zero and less than infinity, but their total net effect is zero, the flip side of which is infinity. A universe of singularities might seem to be a universe of nothings. In fact it’s a universe of somethings, whose net effect is nothing. The universe of singularities is the logical way in the universe exists. Never forget that we don’t live in a physical universe but in a mathematical universe, and it’s one where mathematical logic reigns.

Fatalism There are some bizarre people out there who want to subscribe to fatalism, to hard determinism, to a block universe where change becomes entirely illusory (as in the ancient argument of Parmenides), and even to predestination. Why do these people hate their own freedom so much? How can they be anything other than mentally ill and autistic?

Epicurus The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus believed that we live in an atomistic, mechanistic universe – with one special feature that permits

liberty, namely, a certain randomness in the motion of atoms: from time to time, they can minutely swerve for no reason! The swerve was said to occur at no determinate time or place. As an idea, it might be described as the forerunner of the modern doctrine of quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse. Epicurus appealed to the swerve to explain free will. “Soul” atoms, due to their fineness, were held to be more susceptible to the effects of these swerves than coarse atoms. A voluntary action would thus be claimed to derive from various swerves of the soul’s atoms. However, while it’s certainly the case that Epicurus introduced a fundamental indeterminacy into the universe, he was no more successful than anyone else in convincingly explaining free will via indeterminacy: why should a random swerve be in any way carrying out our intentional wishes? According to some commentators, the Epicurean “swerve” of atoms is misinterpreted in relation to free will. For Epicurus, “self-determination” a third thing, was opposed to both chance and necessity. Necessity was related to the mechanistic aspect of atoms, and chance to their ability to swerve at random. However, Epicurus believed that human agents possessed an autonomous ability to transcend either the necessity, or chance, of events, hence he believed that we were indeed morally responsible for our actions. He said, “...some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. ...necessity destroys responsibility and chance is uncertain; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.” Epicurean free will was not, then, attributed directly to atomic swerve (chance). Rather, swerve broke the chain of absolute determinism and provided scope for alternative possibilities. Epicurus did not, however, provide any mechanism for this.

Aristotelian Free Will “But if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, and if we are unable to trace our conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us, themselves depend upon us, and are voluntary.” – Aristotle This is the most straightforward statement of free will. As long as our actions are caused by us, and not by others, and not by forces outside us,

then we are indeed “free” in any meaningful sense of the word. If we originate our own actions, how can they not be “free” actions? But our free actions are never random actions: they are actions caused by us, using our own internal determinism. They are not undetermined. They are not free of determinism. They are about our determinism rather than the determinism of anyone or anything else. Libertarians claim that free will can never be associated with determinism, compatibilists say that free will is always associated with our determinism, and hard determinists assert that there is no such thing as selfdeterminism, only other-determinism.

Classic Determinism Chrysippus, a Stoic, furnished the classic deterministic argument: “Everything that happens is followed by something else which depends on it by causal necessity. Likewise, everything that happens is preceded by something with which it is causally connected. For nothing exists or has come into being in the cosmos without a cause. The universe will be disrupted and disintegrate into pieces and cease to be a unity functioning as a single system, if any uncaused movement is introduced into it.” This is certainly not something with which libertarians would agree, but hard determinists and compatibilists could both agree with it, depending on how it’s interpreted. Neither party would disagree that no uncaused movement is possible. However, Chrysippus does not draw the distinction that divides compatibilists and hard determinists: namely, between causes that originate in us and those that originate outside us. Compatibilists accept both types of causality and define freedom with regard to those subjective causes that originate within us, and scientific determinism with regard to those objective causes that originate outside us. Hard determinists, on the other hand, reject any subjective, inner causality and accept only the existence of objective, outer causality, in which case free will is impossible. If causes originate outside us and drive our behaviour, we are not and cannot be free in anyone’s book. If causes originate within us. i.e. they are our causes, then we are free. What are we if not causal beings? Does anyone seriously believe we are random beings who never have any reason or cause for what we do?

***** When Chrysippus said, “The universe will be disrupted and disintegrate into pieces and cease to be a unity functioning as a single system, if any uncaused movement is introduced into it”, he was highlighting a critical point. The universe must be perfect. It cannot have any errors, flaws, imperfections or anomalies. An uncaused movement would indeed be a catastrophic element. Thankfully, it’s impossible. Chrysippus’s argument stands, of course, as a refutation of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, which does nothing but introduce fatal, uncaused movements into the universe. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is absolutely incoherent, irrational and impossible. That’s a fact. No amount of empiricist philosophy will ever save the Copenhagen interpretation. Max Born was awarded a Nobel Prize for this irrational, indeterministic gibberish. What a world!

The Indeterminism Fallacy Regarding incompatibilist indeterminism, P. H. Nowell-Smith astutely noted, “The fallacy of [indeterminism] has often been exposed, and the clearest proof that it is mistaken or at least muddled lies in showing that I could not be free to choose what I do unless determinism is correct. For the simplest actions could not be performed in an indeterministic universe. If I decide, say, to eat a piece of fish, I cannot do so if the fish is liable to turn into a stone or to disintegrate in mid-air or to behave in any other utterly unpredictable manner.” This is an astute point because it highlights that indeterminism would not only affect human beings, but all things. Everything would be behaving randomly, including all atoms and all forces, meaning that everything would fall apart and there would be no ordered world at all. This objection could absolutely be levelled against the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics too. Why doesn’t it lead to total chaos? No scientist has ever, or ever could, rationally explain how classical determinism (a “real” order of existence) could arise from quantum indeterminism (an “unreal” and totally chaotic order of existence). Regarding quantum indeterminism, J. J. C. Smart said, “Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired

if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug.”

The Freest System The freest system is not one where everyone can do whatever they like (libertarianism; incompatibilism between the individual and the collective/society; anarchy); it’s one where each person has the maximum freedom while giving due respect and consideration to everyone else (compatibilism between the collective/society; law and order).

Infinite Causality All causality must be infinite in extent in the sense that it must take into account the whole universe across eternity. This is exactly what GodEquation-causality achieves, and it’s also what true quantum mechanics implies: the wavefunction of every particle is defined with respect to the whole universe, and that also means that every individual wavefunction, so to speak, is defined with respect to every other wavefunction. In other words, there’s only truly a single cosmic wavefunction, and everything is calculated with respect to everything else. Nothing can be calculated in isolation. The cosmic wavefunction concerns a mind-bogglingly enormous calculation involving myriad nodes (monads). Every possibility must be calculated for every node, and the most compossible solution selected. This underlies the so-called “probability” wavefunction that must collapse into “reality”, i.e. the “solid” world.

Hard and Soft Determinism “Hard” determinism: determinism is incompatible with freedom. “Soft” determinism: determinism is compatible with freedom. According to soft determinism, when the individual is the cause of his actions, he acts freely. The idea here is that the individual is a selfdetermining agent and is not compelled by agents and forces over which he has no control (as hard determinism insists). Soft Determinism = Self-Determinism. Self-Determinism comes in two forms: passive self-determinism and active self-determinism. The former is

a weak definition of self-determinism and says that although we might be the product of our genes and/or environment (nature and/or nurture), we are “free” as long as we are acting according to our own choices and not those of others (although it’s not at all clear that the choices are genuinely our own if they are ultimately generated by external factors such as genes or upbringing). This would constitute a kind of illusory or psychological freedom. We feel ourselves free even though all of our conduct could in fact be traced to elements and forces outside ourselves (those that shaped who we are). Passive self-determinism could easily be reinterpreted as just hard determinism. Active self-determinism says that our genes and environment merely influence and inform us, but do not determine us. We have a fundamental inner determinism (our own aims, desires, feelings, purposes and will) that has no connection with anything outside us. St. Augustine said that freedom means freedom to act. An act caused by an agent’s own choice is free. An act caused by forces external to the agent is not free. Hume argued that some actions are preceded by our own voluntary choices, hence these are free, while others things are not preceded by our choices (for example, if we slip on ice and fall, or if someone else holds a gun to our head), and these are therefore involuntary rather than voluntary actions. Morality cannot make sense in any hard deterministic system since no one would be morally accountable for either “good” or “bad” actions. It’s impossible to understand how the issue of morality even occurs to hard deterministic beings since morality implies choice and hard deterministic machines have no choices. The major objection to the passive version of soft determinism is that if ultimately our actions are determined by factors outside our control (genes, or the like) then we cannot be free at all. If we are driven by internal compulsions over which we have no control, we are no freer than if we are driven by external compulsions over which we have no control. The question then becomes one of whether we are internally compelled in a manner that has nothing to do with who we fundamentally are, or are merely internally informed and influenced. We may have many instinctual drives propelling us in certain ways, but do we have to follow any of them. Consider the Freudian model of the psyche. At all times, the Id is promoting selfish conduct, and at all times the Superego is demanding that we obey

morality, laws, our parents, the relevant authorities, our conscience. The Ego sits between the Id and Superego and decides what to do. It’s informed and influenced by both the Id and Ego, but not determined by either of them. The Ego determines its own course of actions based on its own reasons. The Id and Superego are not free to choose; the Ego is. Free will and free choice require an internal, autonomous entity that is not compelled. The Id and Ego are both compulsive. They can’t choose to operate against their nature. The Ego, on the other hand, is much more flexible. It’s not compelled to obey either the Id or the Superego. Sometimes it can side with the one and sometimes with the other. It’s this flexibility, this ability to reflect on different options and ponder their consequences and the possible futures they contain, that constitutes genuine freedom.

Free Will and Teleology Ultimately, free will is directly tied to teleology. Let’s accept Nietzsche’s stance that we live in a universe of nothing but Will to Power. Let’s say that every single one of us is compulsively committed to maximising our Will to Power. Everything we do is determined by our Will to Power. The question of free will then takes on a new complexion. Are we free to pursue our Will to Power according to our own criteria, or according to someone else’s criteria? No Muslims, for example, can be considered free because they have submitted to Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. They are now the slaves of an agenda entirely external to them and defined by others. They have zero autonomy. The same goes for all Jews, all Christians, all Karmists – to all religious people who are not striving to become God. Of course, the Muslims and the rest believe that they are maximising their Will to Power by allying themselves, as they see it, to what they believe is the ultimate source of power in the universe. That is, some people see voluntary submission and enslavement as their best option. There are different grades of free will: weak, moderate and strong. People with weak will – such as Muslims, Jews and Christians – seek out someone with much stronger will, which is why they turn to Mohammed and his God, or Moses and his God, or Jesus Christ and his God (who is also himself God, allegedly!). People of the strongest will do not want to obey any agenda other than their own (i.e. which reflects their particular

will), or the agenda that is absolutely fair to all (i.e. which reflects the General Will). How does free will exist in the world if everyone, weak, moderate or strong, is compulsively pursuing the optimization of their Will to Power? Well, in this case, free will is a kind of illusion after all because not a single person is ever free to will that they should not have more power, that they should adopt a strategy of maximising their Will to UnPower, so to speak. Yet what would come of such a strategy, i.e. to minimise rather than maximise power? Assuming it were possible, anyone who went down this path would end up with no power at all and hence be the uttermost slave with no free will whatsoever. Free will is absolutely tied to Will to Power. The more power you have, the freer you are and the more courses of action you have available to you. So, to feel a compulsion to maximise your power, is exactly the same as feeling a compulsion to maximise your Free Will. Thus we arrive at a genuine paradox: free will must be tied to compulsion. To be exact, it must be tied to the compulsion to maximise power. Any being that did not have a Will to Power, or any interest in optimising its power, could never exhibit free will. Material atoms have no will to power, hence zero free will. A world of scientific determinism is a world without Will to Power, hence without any freedom. It’s absolutely false to define free will as having no connection with compulsion. It must be connected with the compulsion to optimise power, and cannot exist otherwise. Nothing without a Will to Power (i.e. without a mind) can exhibit free will. Free will is not at all about being free from compulsion. On the contrary, it’s about compulsively trying to maximise individual power. Our world is full of variety because no mind knows how best to optimise its power, so every mind is engaged, individually and collectively, in a vast dialectical process of trial and error. The more rationally powerful you become, the more you can rationally plan your path to ultimate power (“becoming God”). Free will, in the end, is about feeling free to pursue the optimisation of our power in the way that seems best to us, and not having other people impose their Will to Power on us. Nietzsche came up with a superb formulation concerning Will to Power:

“What is good? – All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is evil? – All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? – The feeling that power increases – that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moralic acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one should help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? – Active sympathy for the botched and the weak – Christianity....” Free will means freely choosing what strategy seems best to you to maximise your power, not being free not to seek to optimise your power. People choose their strategy based on their intelligence, feelings, beliefs, opinions, intuitions, rationality, character, nature, personality type and psychological profile. Most people, rationally, are hopeless at knowing how to maximise their power, which is why we get endless silly religions and philosophies. We are free as long as we are acting in accordance with our will. It’s ludicrous to say that we can be free only if we are free to act against our will or to change our will. That would negate us as teleological beings, striving to maximise our power. We could will a change in our will only if, with our existing will, we concluded we needed a stronger and better will. But that would not be changing our will at all, merely allowing it to becoming more effective in pursuing our existing objectives.

***** What, mathematically, is Will to Power? It’s the desire of a mathematical system to solve itself, to find the answer to itself, and it can do so only by becoming more and more powerful, more and more knowledgeable and rational. The Will to Find an Answer is the same as Will to Power. What is the meaning of life? It’s finding the answer to life via your internal mathematical operations and your interaction with the

mathematical operations of others (mathematical operations external to you).

Active Self-Determinism We can ultimately choose independently of culture, genes and past conditioning because we are self-aware. We can reflect on our behaviour and its consequences and engage in a critique of ourselves. We can “step outside” ourselves – view ourselves objectively – and conclude that we need to change things. We are thereby free to make new and creative decisions. We are in fact inherently creative, and creativity is incompatible with scientific materialism. No atom can display creativity, and thus no collection of atoms can display creativity. Active Self-Determinism was the view promoted by Aristotle. He argued that we are free by virtue of being authentically responsible for our actions, and we are authentically responsible only for those actions that we have voluntarily chosen. Our habits and dispositions result from the choices we made in the past and their consequences for us. It’s not a case of our habits and dispositions compelling us to behave in a certain way, but of our free, voluntary choices establishing our habits and dispositions. Since our choices created our dispositions, any choices or actions based on our dispositions are not compulsory but voluntary. They are our responsibility. Moreover, since our choices created our dispositions in the first place, they can equally well to continue to modify our dispositions. Our dispositions evolve as a result of our decisions and their consequences for us. We change failing strategies and reinforce successful strategies, and eventually our dispositions evolve significantly. Our dispositions are not fixed, but evolutionary. We are responsible, in Aristotle’s view, for becoming better people, more actualised people, people who make the most of their potential. We are responsible for all of our voluntary, freely chosen actions; we are not responsible for involuntary actions over which we have no control and which result from external force, coercion, or constraint. The opponents of this position claim that the process of reflecting on oneself in order to change one’s dispositions is itself a deterministic

disposition over which we have no control, hence we cannot be authentically free.

Causality Each monad is a source of causality. From the perspective of each monad, it’s a source of causality (subjective causality), but it’s opposed by the causality of all other individual monads (each of which is also exhibiting subjective causality). All monads act subjectively and individually, but they can also act objectively and collectively. Every monad contributes a low-energy part of itself to a collective energy system. Since this is not under the control of any monad, it’s not subjective, not teleological, and does not exhibit Will to Power. It is objective and machinelike, exhibiting nothing but the objective laws of mathematics. This is the unthinking world of scientific materialist determinism. Matter is about collective, objective action, and mind is about individual, subjective action. The idea that you should be free to be purposeless, aimless, random, indeterministic, permanent chameleons is absurd and has no connection with freedom at all. Free will is about pursuing your objectives in your own way. Your supreme objective is to maximise your power. You are not free, and never can be free, to change this objective. Far too many philosophers have defined freedom as indeterminism (randomness) rather than deterministic pursuit of power via many different potential routes, each of which has to be evaluated in terms of how much it maximises power. Free will means being free to pursue your objectives as you see fit. It does not mean being free not to have objectives, to behave indeterministically, to be a random being. Free will is always tied to purpose, to aims, to meaning. In fact, to boil it down further, free will is simply Will to Power by another name, and is absolutely teleological. Our free will grows as our power grows, and shrinks as our power shrinks. Free will is about choosing from alternative possibilities as to how we might enhance our power. No free person seeks to deliberately shrink his power, or to have no power (and all random, indeterministic behaviour is

powerless behaviour since it has no meaning, purpose or aims). We are free to pursue our deterministic aims, not to have no deterministic aims. Aimless freedom is not freedom. Purposeless freedom is not freedom. Meaningless freedom is not freedom. Random freedom is not freedom. Indeterministic freedom is not freedom. Acausal freedom is not freedom. Free will is all about aims, purposes, meaning, choice, evaluation, judgement, causality, determinism. Free will is the means by which subjects choose their various strategies to maximise their power. They are free to ponder any strategies, but they are absolutely constrained to choose the strategy that, after due consideration, is the one they consider will best serve their interests. This is exactly why human behaviour is so extraordinary: people can reach the most bizarre and irrational conclusions about what the best strategies are to pursue. Free will is not about being from determinism. It’s about being free for pursuing the deterministic objective of maximising power. In politics, negative liberty is about being free from intervention and interference from the State, while positive liberty is about people being free for taking part in a great State enterprise to build heaven on earth and maximise human potential. A similar distinction needs to be drawn in the metaphysics of free will. All talk of free will as being free from determinism is about negative free will, but there’s no such thing since indeterministic behaviour is nothing to do with freedom any more than rolling dice or tossing a coin is. The true free will debate must be about positive free will: free will that’s for something rather than against something. So, free will must be about positively achieving personal goals, and that entails a deterministic process, not indeterministic. It’s intentional free will, directed free will, teleological free will, free will concerned with the optimisation of power.

*****

Negative free will = freedom from determinism. This is the position that libertarian “incompatibilist” philosophers have adopted. The hard determinist incompatibilists have argued that it’s impossible to be free from determinism, while the metaphysical libertarians have, in essence, advocated some sort of poorly defined indeterminism, and the “hard incompatibilists” have asserted that even indeterminism doesn’t permit the defence of free will. Positive free will = freedom for pursuing deterministic purposes, for choosing from several deterministic options. This is the essence of the compatibilist philosophical position. When the free will debate is cast in these terms, it becomes clear that the compatibilists and incompatibilists have radically different ideas of what freedom is, and they are talking at cross-purposes. Neither side acknowledges the other’s definition, which rather renders the whole debate absurd. What this points up is that free will has never been unambiguously defined philosophically. What if we agree with Nietzsche that nothing exists other than Will to Power? Illuminism easily accommodates this position by making each monad the ontological unit of Will to Power, and by envisaging a universe where monads either compete with each other or cooperate with each other to gain more power. Savage conflict and competition between monads (to allow some monads to become kings, masters, and elites, ruling over the rest and dominating them) constitutes the right wing view of reality, while rational cooperation between monads for the mutual benefit of all constitutes how left wingers view the path to progress. Right wingers love war (they all have guns), capitalism, competitive markets, inheritance, privilege, nepotism, cronyism, intolerant religions allied to some ultimate authoritarian power (God), and so on. Left wingers love communities, universities, schools, museums, art galleries, culture, merit, reason, enlightenment and rational progress. They usually don’t have guns. They reject monarchs, masters, elites and inherently divisive economic systems such as free-market capitalism. Right wingers always promote particular wills and private wealth. Left wingers always promote the General Will and the Commonwealth.

Right wingers are always selfish, self-interested, narcissistic, egotistic, egoistic, competitive and determined to promote the chosen few over the many. The right wing mind is all about “them and us”, the in-crowd, the magic circle, the despised “other”, the U and non-U. The right wing mentality says, “It’s all about me”; “Me, me, me”; “I’m all right, Jack”; “What’s in it for me?”; “I’m OK and don’t care whether you are or not”, “Because I’m worth it”; “Fuck U!”. Left wingers are always selfless, fair, just, altruistic, cooperative, rational, respectful of others, considerate of others. The left wing mind is all about “All of us together”; “United we stand, divided we fall”; “We’re all in it together”; “If we’re not all OK, none of us is OK”; “We’re a team”; “All for one, and one for all”. Right wingers say it’s all about individual success. Left wingers say it’s all about collective success. Right wingers say that the interests of the world are best served if a few highly successful individuals lead the world (as in free-market capitalism). Left wingers say that the best world is the world where everyone is a success, where everyone’s individual talents have been optimised and put to optimal use. In other words, in the difference between right wingers and left wingers, we see two wholly different, and diametrically and dialectically opposed, strategies about how to achieve greater power. We already see a radical choice being presented to every monad. Every monad chooses to be right wing, left wing or centrist (mid-way between the right and left wings, reflecting elements of both).

Indeterminism The indeterminist ideology asserts that “free” decisions and acts have no prior causes, meaning that they are pure chance events: they have no deterministic lineage; nothing precedes them. Indeterminists claim that the belief that all events in nature are necessarily determined is untenable. Chance events, they say, are essential to account for the diversity of the universe. Modern quantum physics, according to standard interpretations, is indeterministic, yet underlies the whole apparently deterministic order of science. Since quantum events are not predictable and are acausal, determinism, by this account, is false. Quantum indeterminacy appears to

open up the possibility that we really can affect the future through our own undetermined actions. It’s suggested that this allows us to be free and morally responsible. However, if we do things by chance, randomly, unpredictably, without cause or reason how can we be morally responsible in any way at all? What’s absolutely certain is that the view that quantum mechanics is indeterminist totally contradicts hard determinism, which, ironically, is the philosophical position advocated by almost the whole atheistic scientific community. Why are there no scientific papers published on the mechanism of how the hard determinism of the macroscopic world arises from the total indeterminism of the quantum world? Or how quantum indeterminacy and hard determinism are incompatible, and one must be false. Indeterminism repudiates the entire classical scientific effort to explain nature and human beings, and it renders absurd all attempts to account for order, cause, organisation, laws and pattern in the universe, since, ultimately, everything happens for no reason at all, by pure accident. Entire universes can meaninglessly and randomly spring out of nothing, like the greatest magic trick of all. What’s the point of trying to understand a universe devoid of laws, meaning, purpose, causes, laws, regularity, and determinism? We might as well believe whatever we like since no one can ever rationally refute us. Pure chance – which is effectively what indeterminists define as freedom – is not freedom at all since, when chance reigns, no one deliberately chooses one course of action over another for any reason. Would the Dice Man, who “decides” what to do on the basis of what number is randomly produced by his dice, be regarded as a free, morally accountable person? In what way is he free? If anything, such a person is deterministic insofar as his conduct is determined by what randomness generates. An indeterministic universe is inherently meaningless, purposeless and without any conceivable answer. There are four routes to how things can happen: 1) Uncaused first causes, such as the Aristotelian God. Here we linearly trace back a causal chain to a first cause. Such a universe has an answer – “God”. We could equally trace causal chains back to countless first causes (such as monads) rather than just one first cause.

2) Uncaused causes based on infinite regress (we never reach a first cause), which means we can never have an answer to existence. 3) Uncaused causes based on cyclical systems. We can never identify a first cause per se for any circular causal chain, but we nevertheless have a closed, analytic, definable circular system, thus providing an answer to existence. This is the best way to understand ontological mathematics. Monads are uncaused causes and we might also refer to them as first causes in the sense that all causality flows from them (but we can never identify any beginning of any circular causal chain). Aristotle had “God” as the eternal source of causality, but he never defined God in any clear cut way. Ontological mathematics has monads as the eternal source of causality, and each monad is unambiguously defined by the God Equation. If Aristotle had thought hard enough about the nature of his God, he would have realised that only a definition on God based on circles would allow God to be eternal without succumbing to infinite linear regress. 4) Random “causes”: causes that have no precedents, no prior conditions or circumstances, no lawful, definable prior environment, no context. That is, even determinism is indeterministic. The claim which randomness makes is not in fact that determinism is absolutely false but that any deterministic causal chains do not have a root in anything that is itself fundamentally causal and deterministic in nature. The roots are accidental, random, happening by chance. Such roots disobey the fundamental law of not getting something from nothing since things literally spring out of nothing, with no precedent, no cause, no reason and no explanation. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is predicated on randomist “causation”. Although the standard quantum mechanical interpretation is regarded as indeterministic, it isn’t really. What is indeterministic in quantum mechanics is wavefunction collapse, not the wavefunction itself, which is in fact wholly deterministic. The problem with the quantum wavefunction isn’t that it’s non-deterministic but that it isn’t real! Because it contains imaginary numbers, it’s deemed not to be part or empiricist, materialist reality. It’s then impossible to understand where this deterministic wavefunction exists, or if it exists (!), or how it can have any relationship at all with reality, or how it can interact with “reality” in any way at all. All of this is simply ignored by the scientific community. We are just expected to accept it as the mysterious way in which Nature operates – because

scientists told us so. We might as well believe in God who also acts in mysterious, inexplicable, irrational ways! The quantum wavefunction, at one level, provides a totally deterministic context, environment and set of laws for reality. The only thing indeterministic about it is that the manner of its collapse is, allegedly, not definable. So, not only is it not clear what free will means in relation to indeterminism, it’s not even clear what indeterminism means, and if it is indeed completely separate from determinism. The only authentic indeterminism would be total Chaos where there is no order, organisation, law, predictability or pattern at all – where things continuously appear and disappear for no reason. We could not exist in such a universe, never mind exhibit free will. To say that free will is not deterministic but is in fact indeterministic is to make an incoherent statement, unless indeterminism is precisely defined, which it never is. It’s not self-evident that the concept of indeterminism has any conceivable meaning. Much of the free will debate revolves around wholly undefined entities. How can philosophers have this debate without defining their terms, or knowing how to define their terms? That’s why it’s essential to define an ontology, and then everyone knows what’s what. One of the central problems of quantum mechanics is that no one has defined what its ontology is, and how “unreal” wavefunctions can play any part in ontology.

How Things Start How does anything begin? This is one of the profoundest questions of all. Things either never have a beginning (they are eternal), or have a beginning (in which case they are not eternal). Rationalism and eternalism are the same. The rational principles that hold now hold forever and there was never any state prior to them. They did not have a beginning. Ontological mathematics had no beginning. Monads are eternal. Nothing created them, nothing caused them, and they didn’t pop out of nothingness. Rationalism and eternalism are all about necessity.

But what about things with a beginning? What came before? What caused the thing to start? If something had no cause, had no antecedent context, had no sufficient reason, was determined by nothing, then it simply sprang out of non-existence. And that’s impossible! Existence can never come from non-existence. It’s formally forbidden. Anything not forbidden is compulsory, but existence coming from nothing is formally forbidden, so any “explanation” based on it is false. The whole of science is false because it’s predicated on a universe or Multiverse randomly springing out of nonexistence: a formally impossible claim. There is simply no such thing as randomness, hence it can never be used as an explanation for anything at all. Nothing fundamental in the universe has a beginning. If it did have a beginning then it must be grounded in something more fundamental, hence it is not one of the fundamental things of the universe. The only way to avoid this is for a thing with a beginning to appear without precedent, out of nothing at all – to appear randomly. It’s precisely this that is formally forbidden and formally impossible. Modern science – which is wholly predicated on randomness – is therefore formally forbidden and impossible. There is no such thing as random “wavefunction collapse”. There is no such thing as a Big Bang universe springing randomly out of nothing. There are no such things as infinite universes (forming a Multiverse), based on infinite random starting conditions, or infinite random physical constant, or infinite random versions of physics, or infinite random versions of mathematics. The whole of modern scientific indeterminism is false. Science has become ridiculous and absurd with every central claim it makes about ultimate reality. An eternal universe is a universe of absolute rational necessity, of total determinism, of pure, ontological mathematics. There is no alternative. A universe of chaos, which is what a random universe is, has no explanation, no sufficient reason and involves things leaping out of nonexistence for no reason, according to no laws, or any possible context. Such a universe is a magic universe, a miraculous universe, with no connection to order, logic, pattern, reason and mathematics. Such a universe cannot exist. All fundamental things have always existed. Anything that is not fundamental is derived from fundamental things, and cannot exist otherwise. Randomness cannot exist because it is not grounded in anything eternal and fundamental. Randomness is the claim that something can come

from absolute nothingness, from non-existence: a total rational impossibility. We live in a necessary universe insofar as it necessarily exists because it’s grounded in eternal, necessary things. A random universe is a contingent universe. Any such universe could be imagined not to exist, without any logical contradiction. This begs the question of why anything should exist at all, since there would be no inconsistency in nothing existing, ever. No rule, law or truth would have been broken. Such is not the case with eternal, necessary things. Then it’s impossible for the universe not to exist.

Science and Meaning Why does science hate meaning so much that it prefers to appeal to impossible randomness (which is always purposeless, pointless, aimless and meaningless) rather than an eternal rational order of eternal truths of reason? The reason is that science associates eternal reason with “God” or some divine force, and, of course, atheistic science will have none of that. Scientific materialism fundamentally denies the existence of autonomous mind. Its entire paradigm is based on dead, mindless, random, meaningless things – what a totally meaningless subject! You would need to be psychotic, or autistic, to take science seriously. It’s absolutely irrational and anti-mathematical in the most fundamental sense. In fact, no appeal has to be made to “God” or any other such ridiculous and impossible figure. But an appeal must be made to a God Equation and the eternal mathematical universe it defines ontologically. Scientists, by rejecting ontological mathematics, have set themselves against reason. It’s time to abandon meaningless scientific irrationalism and replace science wholesale with hyperrationalist ontological mathematics. If you accept that the universe is eternal and doesn’t spring out of nothing for no reason, then you must exist that science is false and ontological mathematics is true. You don’t have a rational choice to make here. Science is simply irrational. Scientists are not people you would ever turn to if you are interested in the eternal laws of reason. Scientists are randomists (irrationalists), not rationalists. In the name of reason, reject science.

Pragmatism William James, with his philosophy of pragmatism, argued that since we might never know whether we are “free” or determined, we should make a practical choice about what to believe. James believed that free will, implying moral accountability, was preferable to determinism. Pragmatism tells us nothing about reality, and more or less comes down to what lies we should believe. Much of mainstream religion is pragmatic because people don’t know if it’s true. They hope and believe it is, but that does not make it so. Their primary motivation to follow a religion is often that it’s pragmatic to do so: it’s useful to how they undertake their life in the face of not knowing what’s really going on.

Pre-Socratic Panpsychics “According to Thales … the lodestone [magnet] has a soul because it moves iron” – Aristotle “Certain thinkers say that soul is intermingled in the whole universe, and it is perhaps for that reason that Thales came to the opinion that all things are full of gods.” – Aristotle

***** Anaximenes said that pneuma (breath/air) was the ruling principle of the cosmos. It underlay and penetrated all things. As well as “breath” or “air”, pneuma can mean “soul”, “spirit”, or “mind”. So, the universal pneuma is in effect a living mental force that pervades all things. Everything possesses a spiritual or soul-like essence. For Heraclitus, the arche, the first principle, was fire: ever-living fire – eternal life energy. “All things are full of souls and of divine spirits.” – Heraclitus “The thinking faculty is common to all.” – Heraclitus For Anaxagoras, Nous (Mind) was a unifying, cosmic mental force that ordered, moved and regulated all things.

For Empedocles, the four elements of earth, water, fire and air were imbued with life and soul, and their combinations were thus alive and ensouled too. Aristotle wrote, “Empedocles [says that the soul] is composed of all the elements and that each of them actually is a soul.” The ensouled elements were in turn presided over by two, animate forces: Love (attraction) and Strife (repulsion). Everywhere, life operated on life, mind on mind. “All things have the power of thought.” – Empedocles

Plato Plato said that just as the human body is made of the four elements, so is the universe (as above, so below). Just as humans have a soul, so does the universe (the Anima Mundi – the World Soul). Both humanity and the universe posses logos (rationality), which brings order to the universe. “O heavens, can we ever be made to believe that motion [kinesi] and life [zoe] and soul [psyche] and mind [phronesi] are not present with perfect being? Can we imagine that being is devoid of life and mind, and exists in awful unmeaningness an everlasting fixture? – That would be a dreadful thing to admit.” – Plato, describing the Form of Being Given that all things that exist participate in the Form of Being then everything participates in motion, life, mind and soul. The monad itself is the Form of Being. “Now consider all the stars and the moon and the years and the months and all the seasons: what can we do except repeat the same story? A soul or souls … have been shown to be the cause of all these phenomena, and whether it is by their living presence in matter … or by some other means, we shall insist that these souls are gods. Can anybody admit all this and still put up with people who deny that ‘everything is full of gods’?” – Plato

Aristotle Aristotle defined matter [potential] as “such as of its own nature to desire and yearn for [actuality].” In other words, all matter wants to take on form (mind) and thus be transformed from potential into actuality. To fully

actualise the world is to convert all matter into mind. The expansion of the universe – which eliminates all matter – accomplishes exactly this. “For in all things ... nature always strives after the better.” – Aristotle Nature has a desire to evolve, to perfect itself, to become more like its God. “There is something divine, good, and desirable ... [that matter] desires[s] and yearn[s] for...” – Aristotle For Aristotle, being is better than non-being, life better than non-life, soul better than non-soul, form better than matter. The whole universe is therefore imbued with an upward desire and aspiration – upward toward form, life and soul. “All existing things ... seek [their] own special good.” – Aristotle Yet although Aristotle’s conception of the world was somehow reflective of an evolutionary imperative, it had in another sense been completed as far as evolution goes. A great chain of being existed from formless matter (total potential), up to matterless form (total actualisation = God). Everything had its place and there was a place for everything. Aristotle conceived of an eternal universe. Consider what he said about the nature of matter: “Everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. If the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into evidence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. The assumption is thus self-contradictory, and matter must be eternal.” Aristotle believed in the eternity of the physical, spacetime world. He argued that time has no beginning or end since the notion of a beginning of time is illogical. If there was a first moment of time, then before that there would be no time, yet the phrase “before” presupposes that there was an earlier moment. Thus, we are forced into the contradiction of saying that there was and was not a moment of time before the beginning of time. The same dilemma exists with Big Bang theory. Scientists say that time came into being with the Big Bang, and that it’s meaningless to talk about

what came before (although plainly it’s a perfectly valid question because otherwise we are saying that time springs out of nothing – a lunatic proposition and a violation of the fundamental existential principle that something cannot come from nothing)! Aristotle also argued that motion is eternal and continuous. Despite this, he argued that there must exist a first cause of all motion: an “unmoved mover”. Either the world is eternal or it’s not. If it’s not, a first cause must have brought it into being (unless it randomly jumps out of nothing in the supreme act of magic). However, if it is, then its movement, so Aristotle argued, must have a source, and this source could not itself be moving, hence was an unmoved mover, hence was the first cause of motion. Frankly, Thomas Aquinas presented this argument rather better than Aristotle, and it better accords with the notion of a Creator God. In ontological mathematics, all monads are eternal movers. They are prime movers, but not unmoved movers (insofar as they are nothing but movement). Given an eternal universe, if it could possibly have reached a perfect outcome then it would already have done so. So, the universe we see would in fact have to be this perfection. If this were the case, there could be no way in which the universe could evolve from its current state. If it could, it would have done so long ago. It thus becomes difficult to reconcile Aristotle’s statements about everything striving to be better, and there being any scope to actually do so. Genius though Aristotle was, there are severe logical tensions in many of his key positions.

***** The ancient Greek Atomists denied that something could come from nothing. Free will itself could not come from nothing, hence, since everything originated in atoms, free will must also be present in atoms. Thus the idea arose that atoms could “swerve” due to their free will, and this would imply that they had a mind of some kind: they could do random things, be indeterministic.

Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer wrote, “We shall accordingly make further use of [the knowledge of the world as will and idea] as a key to the nature of every phenomenon in nature, and shall judge of all objects which are not our own bodies … according to the analogy of our own bodies, and shall therefore assume that as in one aspect they are idea …so in another aspect, what remains of objects when we set aside their existence as idea of the subject, must in its inner nature be the same as that in us which we call will.” Everything, according to Schopenhauer, has an inner reality, an interior ... what Schopenhauer called will. All forces can be considered manifestations of will: “[G]enerally every original force manifesting itself in physical and chemical appearances, in fact gravity itself – all these in themselves … are absolutely identical with what we find in ourselves as will.” (Schopenhauer) Just as our mind, our will, holds our body together, so the forces of nature hold the physical world together. Our mind is our will, and the forces of nature – electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces – are the physical cosmos’s will. Schopenhauer wrote, “Now if you suppose the existence of a mind in the human head, [...] you are bound to concede a mind to every stone. [...] [A]ll ostensible mind can be attributed to matter, but all matter can likewise be attributed to mind; from which it follows that the antithesis [between mind and matter] is a false one.”

The Universe of Will “A stone, no doubt, does not apprehend us as spiritual beings… But does this amount to saying that it does not apprehend us at all, and takes no note whatever of our existence? Not at all; it is aware of us and affected by us on the plane on which its own existence is passed… It faithfully exercises all the physical functions, and influences us by so doing. It gravitates and resists pressure, and obstructs… vibrations, and so forth, and makes itself respected as such a body. And it treats us as if of a like nature with itself, on the level of its understanding…” – F. S. C. Schiller “...there is nothing dead, or senseless in the universe, [even] Space-Time itself being animated.” – Samuel Alexander

“[T]here is nothing which marks off the plant from the physico-chemical activity of inanimate bodies. The latter also are subject to conditions of disturbed inner equilibrium, which lead to activity in relation to surrounding things, and which terminate after a cycle of changes…” – John Dewey “The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.” – Sir Arthur Eddington “We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe” – J. B. S. Haldane “[M]ind or something of the nature of mind must exist throughout the entire universe. This is, I believe, the truth.” – J. Huxley “...there is necessarily a double aspect to [matter’s] structure… [C]oextensive with their Without, there is a Within to things.” “[W]e are logically forced to assume the existence in rudimentary form… of some sort of psyche in every corpuscle, even in those (the mega-molecules and below) whose complexity is of such a low or modest order as to render it (the psyche) imperceptible…” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “[S]omething must go on in the simplest inanimate things which can be described in the same language as would be used to describe our selfawareness” – C. H. Waddington “The elementary cybernetic system with its messages in circuit is, in fact, the simplest unit of mind; … More complicated systems are perhaps more worthy to be called mental systems, but essentially this is what we are talking about. … We get a picture, then, of mind as synonymous with cybernetic system… [W]e know that within Mind in the widest sense there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of which we can call an individual mind.” – Gregory Bateson “The laws [of physics] leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule… In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind…” – Freeman Dyson

“That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels. … It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics.” – David Bohm

Final Freedom? “There are two ways to go to the gas chamber, free or not free.” – JeanPaul Sartre

The Law of Causality “Schopenhauer argued that the law of causality is the basis of all our intellectual capability. We call X a necessary condition for Y; Y cannot happen without X. And all necessary conditions taken together make a sufficient basis (a cause): if there is no lacking condition for Y, Y must happen. “The law of causality, or ex nihilo nihil [nothing out of nothing], states that everything has a cause. This law (that everything has a basis from which it springs) cannot be negated, because the negation thereof would then be another law: ‘out of nothing something can arise’ (e.g. as a rule of quantum chaos). Thus arises the quandary that the law of causality might exist apart from causation of the whole (i.e. universe), which would effectively negate the entire law. The law of causality must, by definition, refer to all things, without exception, lest it become a self-defeating law.” – Wikipedia This is exactly right. Everything without exception must have a cause, or everything without exception must not have a cause. You cannot have some things with causes and some things without. Everything is determined, or nothing is determined.

***** As long as a cause is generated by a subject, it’s free. The cause is internal to the subject, not external to it.

External causes have effects on us but they do not necessarily determine our actions. External causes (those originating from outside us) can certainly produce effects in us, but they do not force, in most situations, an automatic response from us. We can react to them at our leisure. We can reflect on them, evaluate them, judge how they will affect our future. We can also conceive of all sorts of ways in which we might respond, and evaluate all of these. We are free when we are pursuing our own purposes in our own terms. We are not free when our purposes are being thwarted by external forces, or we are being forced to obey someone else’s purposes.

Free Will Requirements Free will must be causal. Free will must be deterministic. Free will must be teleological. Free will must be positive. Free will must reflect Will to Power. Free will means acting according to your own causes, not those of someone or anything else. It never means acting without causes. Free will means taking time to consider and evaluate possible futures with regard to your core teleology, namely, how to increase your power.

In the Beginning Although the universe is eternal, it’s cyclical, and is totally reset at the end of every cycle, ready to be rebooted, just like a computer. This cosmic “computer” has an operating system reflecting the eternal laws of ontological mathematics. It’s a living computer, a computerised organism, made of unconscious mathematical minds – monads. Each monad is a selfprogramming, self-solving, self-optimising organism. At the end of each cyclical Age, the cosmos is restored to its original pristine purity. It’s as if existence has reset itself and is ready to start all over again. The end of a cyclical Age corresponds to the restoration of perfect mathematical symmetry. Perfect mathematical symmetry means that every

monad is in an identical state, reflecting perfect individual symmetry as part of perfect collective symmetry. The start of the universe – the event that triggers the Big Bang – is a symmetry-breaking event. All that is required for symmetry to break symmetry is any action at all by any monad! As soon as symmetry breaks (and it does so instantly since perfect symmetry can last for only an instant), an asymmetric environment is established in which all monads become unique and subsequently evolve differently. You cannot control how, in the past, your soul (monad) subjectively reacted to things. But the person you now are is determined by that past history. Yet you can now rationally reflect on your nature and change things. You have evolved and will continue to evolve. In what way are you not free? You are free to be yourself. You are free to react how you react. You are determined by yourself, by your own inner responses.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions X is a necessary condition for Y if it is impossible to have Y without X. The absence of X guarantees the absence of Y. A necessary condition is also called “an essential condition”. For example, having four sides is necessary for being a square. To show that X is not a necessary condition for Y, it’s simply required to find a situation where Y is present but X is not, e.g. it’s not necessary to be rich to be happy, since poor people can also be happy. X is a sufficient condition for Y if X guarantees the presence of Y. It’s impossible to have X without Y. If X is present, then Y must also be present. Being a square is sufficient for having four sides (no square does not have four sides). Having four sides is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a square (because all squares have four sides, but other shapes that are not squares can have four sides). To show that X is not sufficient for Y, we simply have to demonstrate cases where X is present but Y is not, e.g. loving a person is not sufficient for being loved by that person. Given condition X and entity Y, there are four possible ways in which they might relate to each other:

1) X is necessary but not sufficient for Y, e.g. having four sides is necessary but not sufficient for being a square. 2) X is sufficient but not necessary for Y, e.g. having a daughter is sufficient but not necessary for being a parent (a parent could have only a son or sons). 3) X is both necessary and sufficient for Y (or “jointly necessary and sufficient”), e.g. being an unmarried man is both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor. 4) X is neither necessary nor sufficient for Y, e.g. being a person of average height is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a successful person. “Mathematically speaking, necessity and sufficiency are dual to one another. For any statements S and N, the assertion that ‘N is necessary for S’ is equivalent to the assertion that ‘S is sufficient for N.’” – Wikipedia

***** “The motion of particles follows probability laws but the probability itself propagates according to the law of causality.” – Max Born In terms of causality, many causes may be necessary but not sufficient for something to happen. In typical discussions of determinism and causality, it’s often implied that causal chains invariably involve causes that are both necessary and sufficient, leading to effects automatically being caused, without any delay. But what happens if most causes are necessary (or potentially necessary) but not sufficient? We might have an ever-increasing accumulation of necessary causes, but not causes that are sufficient to actually make something happen. In other words, there can be a delay, perhaps an extremely long one, between necessary causes acting on someone and the arrival of a sufficient cause that finally triggers an effect, a response, an action. All discussions concerning determinism should distinguish between necessary and sufficient deterministic causes, and thus demonstrate that determinism is not something that happens automatically, instantaneously and continuously.

Effects may take place a long time after causes are applied if those causes are merely necessary but not sufficient to produce a certain effect. We might think in terms of the Copenhagen quantum mechanical wavefunction being all about necessary causality but not sufficient causality. The wavefunction, it might be said, unfolds in the manner of necessary determinism, but not sufficient determinism. Indeterministic wavefunction collapse is essential, in the Copenhagen interpretation, for sufficient determinism, i.e. for concrete events in the real world to take place. Without wavefunction collapse, the Copenhagen quantum world would evolve deterministically, but without any actual effects since nothing would ever be made concrete in the real world. The wavefunction would remain an unreal, abstract mathematical equation involving complex numbers, and would have no real-world outcomes. Although we reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics because of its ontological absurdity, it provides a rather useful model for understanding the way the mind works. Think of your thoughts as a mental wavefunction. All possible thoughts are described by this mental wavefunction, and the thoughts and the wavefunction are evolving deterministically, but in a necessary rather than sufficient fashion, i.e. they are taking place in a space separate from the “real” world and not having any concrete effects. It’s all “virtual”. It’s a virtual reality of necessary but not sufficient determinism. Only when one of these thoughts is actually selected does it become a concrete thought that we can then enact in the real world. For example, your mental wavefunction might contain the following thoughts: scratching your ass, making a cup of coffee, switching on the TV, continuing to read a book, checking your email, texting, and so on. Only when you actually select one of these thoughts does it become something that you will, and which will consequently be enacted in the real world. Your selection of one thought from the many available to you “collapses” the mental wavefunction, so to speak. (Note that it doesn’t collapse randomly.) Of course, no sooner have you made a selection than the mental wavefunction reforms. It’s continuously collapsing and reforming. Each person has many options available to them, but they can only select one to actualise in the real world. It’s this process of actualising one of many possible thoughts and associated actions that we experience as free will. Plainly, we would have no experience of free will if we were simply

presented, automatically, with one inevitable thought at a time, if we had no awareness of any choice. We have presented a model in which the experience of free will is made entirely clear. You have this experience wherever you have many selfgenerated options available to you, and you decide to choose one for your own reasons. In the Copenhagen interpretation, wavefunction collapse happens randomly (indeterministically). So, although the wavefunction itself, depending on how you interpret it, is fully deterministic, it’s subject to an indeterministic collapse. Here, then, determinism and indeterminism are combined. Physicists say that they use the wavefunction to describe physical systems, but, of course, they really don’t since the wavefunction is an unreal mathematical abstraction that has to miraculously and inexplicably collapse in order to have physical consequences, and no scientist has ever explained how something unreal can give rise to something real. The evolution of the wavefunction is said to be deterministic, but, bizarrely, the history of a particle in the observable world is not deterministic and results instead from indeterminacy. In the classical scientific clockwork universe, the laws are deterministic and the history of any particle is equally deterministic. Scientists now regard the apparent determinism of Newtonian physics as the limiting behaviour of phenomena that are inherently indeterministic and probabilistic. We are supposed to regard the macroscopic world as deterministic and the microscopic world that underlies it as indeterministic, which is a category error and absurdity. The strange manoeuvre science performed was to consign determinism to an abstract wavefunction in an unreal mathematical space, then to claim that this wavefunction randomly produced events in the “real world” according to certain probabilities, and that when large numbers of these probabilistic events were aggregated, apparent determinism emerged once again. So, the claim is that determinism in an unreal mathematical domain produces determinism in the macroscopic world via microscopic indeterminacy. That’s quite some trick, and extremely convenient for science while being totally ontologically incoherent.

Quantum Incompatibilism? Compatibilism says that free will and determinism are compatible. Incompatibilism says they’re not. To put it another way, incompatibilism generally conceives of free will in indeterministic terms, and says that indeterminism cannot be compatible with determinism. Many, if not most scientists, hold incompatibilist views of one sort or another. Yet the supreme irony is that these same scientists are perfectly happy to accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is all about indeterminism being compatible with determinism (!). The quantum wavefunction is deterministic; how it collapses is indeterministic. Why is it that people such as Sam Harris spend so much time trashing free will and compatibilism, and none at all trashing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where determinism and indeterminism are combined without any objection?! It is of course a category error – forbidden and impossible – to combine determinism and indeterminism, yet modern science is based on this fallacy!

The Golden Rule Never forget the golden rule: existence is either 100% deterministic or 100% indeterministic. It’s a category error to introduce indeterminism into a deterministic system, or vice versa. It’s just another example of ontologically untenable Cartesian dualism. There are four possibilities: 1) Total Determinism. 2) Total Indeterminism. 3) Determinism that can produce indeterminism (the wavefunction collapse of a deterministic quantum mechanical wavefunction). 4) Indeterminism that can generate determinism (how wavefunction collapse can give rise to classical determinism in the macroscopic world).

Ontological mathematics, being 100% mathematical is entirely deterministic. Total indeterminism is consistent only with absolute chaos, in which order could never appear under any circumstances, and there could be no such thing as free will since free will cannot mean random action. Copenhagen quantum mechanics blends options 3) and 4). It says, invoking 3), that there is a deterministic wavefunction that, bizarrely, is ontologically unreal, and which collapses indeterministically to produce ontologically real things (but they are real only at the instant of observation and then immediately vanish back into unreality). Many instantaneous wavefunction collapses that occur probabilistically rather than deterministically result, science says, in 4): microscopic indeterminism generating macroscopic determinism. Putting 3 and 4 together is known as having your cake and eating it. However, it also serves as a hypothetical means to reconcile determinism and indeterminism and thus defuse the whole debate about compatibilism and incompatibilism. Free will has a deterministic underpinning (thus suggesting compatibilism), but involves indeterministic collapse (when a so-called free decision actually takes place, thus suggesting incompatibilism) and then a free will decision has a deterministic outcome in the real world of scientific determinism, thus ensuring that we have a system that begins and ends with determinism, but has an indeterminist middle layer where “freedom” takes place. Does that sound convincing? Well, it is of course total nonsense. There’s no such thing as indeterminism. Everything has a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise. Our free decisions don’t randomly collapse from deterministic superposition states. Rather, we subject all of our thoughts to filters, assessments, judgments, our tastes, our feelings, our teleology, our will to power, our drives. We subconsciously give every possible outcome a score and then we deterministically choose the one with the highest score. We would never choose an option associated with a lower score over one with a higher score. If that were possible, we would invariably slip into random behaviour. We deterministically score all potential actions available to us, and then we deterministically choose the one with the highest score. That’s all we ever do. There’s nothing random about it. However, our scoring mechanism isn’t fixed for all time, but alters according to our experiences, according to the consequences our previous choices had. So, although we

have a deterministic scorer at the heart of our decision-making processes, this process can itself be deterministically altered depending on the aftermath of our decisions, i.e. our scoring mechanism reflects what we expect the results to be, but if the results are different then our scoring mechanism will then adjust itself to reflect the actual rather than anticipated results, i.e. we obey a reality principle and adjust our behaviour to the world and environment we find ourselves in. People who can’t adapt and adjust will be inflexible and perish, or will subscribe to an unreality principle, i.e. they are insane and will perish that way instead. So, we are driven by causes within ourselves, but also respond to causes outside ourselves, and we adapt to the consequences of our free choices. Our free will is enormously complex but is always deterministic, and can never be anything else. Everything has a sufficient cause, a sufficient reason. We choose one thing over another because we have a reason for doing, not because we have no reason. All of our actions are deterministic, but not in any simplistic, knee-jerk, automatic way. It’s the fact that we can ponder many options and take a long time to establish which one we will actually choose that produces the experience of free will, yet we in fact have no ultimate choice: we select the option to which our internal evaluation system gives the highest score. Yet this can actually change even while we are pondering. A new thought, a new feeling, a new perception, might cause the erstwhile second-best option to be promoted to first. In other words, our evaluation system is dynamic and adaptive, and we can change our mind at any time depending on new information. So, although we don’t have free will in any metaphysical libertarian sense, we certainly have an overwhelming and authentic experience of being able to freely chose between options to which we give very similar evaluation scores, and these scores can alter even as we contemplate them. Only at the point of actual action – the choice itself – do we finally end our internal scoring process and go with the option with the highest score. If our action proves to have bad consequences for us, our evaluation system will respond to the new information, adjust its parameters, and next time, in similar circumstances, we will make a different choice. Again, this will dispel any feeling that we robotically respond to things (as in the hard deterministic model).

Monadic Determinism For every monad, there are three distinct types of causality/determinism: 1) The monad’s own individual, internal causality (selfdeterminism). 2) The causality of other individual monads (other-determinism). 3) The causality of the Monadic Collective (it-determinism). We exhibit free will when we engage in type 1 causality. Our free will diminishes the more we are subject to types 2 and 3 causality. Free will does not mean being free of determinism. It means being free of determinism that’s not our own. Free will is an incoherent concept in relation to indeterminism. Random acts do not constitute freely chosen acts but acts that aren’t chosen at all. We should perhaps abandon the concept of “free will” with all of its baggage and talk instead of self-determinism versus other-determinism (other monads) and it-determinism (Nature). Our goal is to be selfdetermined and not other-determined or it-determined. “Free” can then be used as a comparative term. We are free the more we are self-determined and we are unfree the less we are self determined. Our self-determinism is not based on fixed algorithms but on an adaptive, flexible algorithm. As thinking minds, we inherently produce choices (thoughts). Our own determinism is highly flexible and evolutionary and is directly tied to our environment and the consequences our actions have. In a 100% deterministic universe, there is simply no such thing as randomness, indeterminism or acausality. What do people even mean by indeterminism? What’s the ontology of randomness? Where does it exist? How does it exist? What is its form? Science certainly can’t answer any of these questions and nor can philosophy. In ontological mathematics, 100% of things are ultimately made of sinusoidal waves. Sinusoidal waves are the elementary form of thoughts. Complex thoughts are combinations of simple thoughts. The whole universe is made of simple thoughts and the complex thoughts derived from them. The universe is, therefore, a Mind. Each monad is a separate, autonomous mind.

The universe comprises minds and their thoughts, nothing else. All thoughts are single sinusoidal waves, or combinations thereof. They are wholly mathematical and deterministic. There’s simply no such thing as something random and indeterministic. It’s not even possible to conceive of what form such a thing could have, and, if it had a form, it would ipso facto be deterministic. What is a mind made of? What are thoughts made of? What are ideas made of? Unless you can answer these questions, how can you possibly talk about “free will”? To argue that free will involves indeterminacy is as ridiculous as saying that wavefunctions collapse indeterministically. It’s impossible for mathematical wavefunctions to exhibit indeterminacy. The whole concept of indeterminism is incoherent. The real issue is what the nature of determinism is in a system comprising monads that are subjects with respect to themselves, objects with respect to other monads, and are also part of a deterministic system associated with the Monadic Collective. Monadic determinism is interactive. It involves feedback loops. It’s continuously evolving. A human baby isn’t stuck with a monolithic deterministic algorithm for its whole life. By the time the baby has become an adult and spent years interacting with the world, gaining experience, and learning the consequences of its actions, it has finely honed its deterministic algorithms. They are very sophisticated and nuanced. The more rational someone becomes, the more able they are to plan, anticipate, calculate and predict accurately. Interactive, dynamic determinism is very different from non-interactive, static determinism. The former involves learning and the latter doesn’t. What does it really mean to have “free will”? It means that we learn from our environment and adapt to it. Our subjective feelings, tastes, desires, wants, fantasies, intuitions, perceptions, sensations, rational thoughts all play a part in this process. Do we regard how we feel about something as a deterministic process or indeterministic? Aren’t our perceptions and sensations caused by stimuli? Where exactly is it possible to insert any indeterministic factor into any of this? Everything is determined, but in very complex ways, with most of the determinism coming from inside us, not from outside.

What everyone wants is not to be free of determinism, but for the determinism to be uniquely theirs. We can talk of potential determinism and actual determinism, necessary determinism and sufficient determinism, non-critical and critical determinism. In other words, we are in a sea of deterministic influences, but which deterministic factor proves decisive is by no means obvious.

Will to Power We should not talk of Free Will, or of Schopenhauer’s Will to Exist, but of Nietzsche’s Will to Power. This is the only Will that actually exists. Will to Power is teleological, meaning it has a specific purpose it seeks to accomplish. That purpose is of course the maximisation of power. How would it go about this task? Would it act randomly? How could that possibly help? The Will to Power is all about determining how best to proceed. That does not mean that it will automatically use the best tools for the purpose. It will do the best it can given its own nature, character and understanding. It will in fact use the crude tactics of the dialectic, using simple opposites (thesis and antithesis) and the synthesis that reconciles them. The dialectic is deterministic, not indeterministic. Teleology is all about determinism. Meaning is all about determinism. There is simply no place or scope for indeterminism, for “free will” conceived in anything other the deterministic terms. Remember, you are free if your determinism belongs to you, and are not determined by forces outside you. You are not free because you are not determined. That’s an inconceivable state of affairs, and no one has ever explained what it actually means, and how it can be true ontologically.

Repayment “One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.” – Nietzsche It’s depressing when we come across people asking questions about Illuminism. Why can’t they propose answers? Don’t remain a pupil. You haven’t understood Illuminism at all if you aren’t able to generate your own

answers, if you can’t apply what you have learned and sought to go beyond it. Illuminism is about people who can push the boundaries of knowledge – which means providing answers. It’s not for people who spend their lives asking questions and never answering anything. What good is that to anyone? The greatest geniuses asked questions and also answered them. No one would have heard of them if they just asked questions. From our observations, only a handful of people who take an interest in Illuminism have even the most rudimentary understanding of what it is. The whole of Illuminism is the consequence of the God Equation.

Rational Free Will According to some thinkers, free will can’t apply when we are slaves to our passions and merely satisfying our desires. We are free only when our decisions are rational; when we are exercising our reason. Our freedom grows as our intelligence grows. Stupid people are barely free at all. They are little more than animals acting through instinct.

The Intelligible World If you accept that we exist in an intelligible world then you accept that the universe is 100% deterministic. Only a 100% deterministic has an answer. You are irrational if you deny a 100% deterministic reality. If you do, you have a predilection for faith, mysticism, the occult. You want the world to be fundamentally mysterious. Sorry, it’s not. Reality is as rational as it can possibly get. It’s 100% mathematical, and mathematics is absolute determinism. The naive and simplistic imagine that this somehow implies that the universe is machinelike, or computer-like. It’s nothing of the kind. The concept that so many people struggle with is that mathematics is fundamentally alive. It’s wholly expressed through monads, the basic units of life and mind. What is life? What is mind? At the most basic level of all, life and mind and are exactly the same thing: they are the flow of inherently structured (mathematical) information, with – crucially – this information being

subjectively experienced, felt, sensed, intuited, and thought about (unconsciously initially, until consciousness evolves). All life and mind is teleological. Every monad wants to solve itself, which means to maximise the quality, not quantity, of its information. Not only is the universe comprised solely of living, mathematical minds, these minds are dynamic since they are inherently self-solving and selfoptimising. There’s no such thing as a monad that wants to remain static, to not advance and progress. The inbuilt mathematical drive of every monad to informationally reach its own Omega Point (divinity) can be described non-mathematically using Nietzsche’s term of “Will to Power”. Information and knowledge are power. The supreme power is attained through the maximisation of information and knowledge. Look at the human race. Whether through war, politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and even art and entertainment, it has done nothing but relentlessly lust after power. It can’t do anything else. What is has failed to understand is that this lust is mathematical in origin and its ultimate objective is the total understanding of everything – which means having total knowledge of ontological mathematics. All the non-mathematical expressions of power are just way stations to what monads are truly seeking: to know exactly why they exist and what the precise meaning of their existence is. Expressed non-mathematically, every monad wants to become God, God being the quintessence of existence, power, knowledge, completion, perfection and meaning. When religious people are asked what the meaning of life is, they often reply along the lines of loving and serving God, obeying his commandments and will, doing his bidding and winning his favour. This sounds like exactly the same sort of thing that a slave would say about his master and, indeed, religion is in almost every case just a manifestation of the master-slave dialectic. People imagine “God” – an external God – as the ultimate power in the universe, so their strategy in the power game is to ally themselves with him. What none of these people ever ask is what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything for God? Does God lust after having mindless slaves? Does he find meaning in creating souls then sending 98.7% of them to hell and rewarding 1.3% with heaven? And what do the 1.3% do in heaven anyway? Moreover, how can you create a soul? What does that even mean? Not a single Creationist has

ever explained what a soul is, and if you can’t explain that then you can have no possible idea whether or not it’s possible to create one. In fact, souls are eternal, indestructible monads and nothing immortal and indestructible can be created by anyone. If it’s created, it’s not eternal. If it’s created it can be uncreated, hence isn’t indestructible. There is no Creator, and God is not outside us but inside us. God is the maximum actualisation of our potential. The meaning of life for all things is simply that: the perfect actualisation of their potential. This is exactly why the most meaningful world to live in, and the most meaningful political and economic system to endorse, is the one in which everyone gets the maximum chance to maximise their potential. Only meritocracy is committed to this goal. It’s dialectically inevitable that meritocracy will triumph. Marx thought that communism was dialectically inevitably, but he made a crucial error. Every soul on earth is at a different stage of evolution. Some are far superior to others, on the verge of divinity. Others were dogs and rats in their life immediately prior to this one. This means that even if you give everyone an exactly equal chance, some will make far better use of it than others because they are already far more actualised. Communism wanted to impose an artificial equality on everyone. The real task is to provide equal opportunities, but not equal outcomes. The most actualised, most optimised, human beings must run the world, with the task of providing the environment in which everyone else can flourish too. At the “End of History”, we will have a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine – heaven on earth. This will be Marxist in the sense that everyone will be equal, but it will be a divine equality – the equality of Gods – not the equality of atheist communists.

Subjectivity and Causality People fail to understand how radical the concept of subjectivity is. Let’s imagine the most emotive painting in the world, and let’s show it to everyone on the Earth at exactly the same time. So, we have a single “cause”. How many effects do we have? In fact, we have as many effects as there are people. Every single person has a different response to the painting. No two responses are identical. Every response is unique to the

person having it. At a stroke, we demolish the notion to which many subscribe that causes have the universally same effects. The whole of classical science was predicated on the notion that whenever you apply the same cause, you get the same effect. That is the basis of the predictability and repeatability of science. That is the basis of scientific law. And this is what the simplistic understand by “causality”, which is also why they imagine that a causal, deterministic universe cannot be in any sense “free”. They see it as wholly programmed and inevitable, hence that free will cannot be true. These people always overlook subjectivity. The same cause can have infinite different subjective effects, hence there’s no predictability and repeatability at all when it comes to causality in the subjective sphere. Every subjective response is caused – determined – but every subjective response is different even if the cause is the same for all subjects. You can program a machine or computer with objective instructions. What no one can do is program how to make a machine or computer subjectively experience those instructions. If life and mind are grounded in the flow of structured information, doesn’t that mean that machines or computers are alive at some level? Well, they are alive in the same way as rocks and sand are, i.e. not in any meaningful way. To be meaningfully alive, it’s necessary but not sufficient to be composed of sinusoidal waves (which are the basic units of structured information flow). The sufficient condition to be meaningfully alive is that the sinusoidal waves must be organised in a complete, self-contained, autonomous system: a “strange loop” that permanently reflects back on itself and has a centre that can evolve consciousness. Only sinusoidal waves that are organised monadically can exhibit teleology, which is the essence of meaningful life. No machine or computer can ever be meaningfully alive because it has no controlling monad.

***** A system where causes do not have predictable effects is very different from one where they have exactly predictable effects. Subjective responses change the whole nature of causality.

A universe of subjective causality is completely different from a universe of objective (“scientific”) causality. The universe we inhabit is one of subjective and objective causality, linked by Fourier mathematics. We exist in an interactive universe of subjectivity and objectivity, a subjectiveobjective feedback universe. This is radically different from a “scientific” universe. The objective universe is the universe of predictable scientific determinism. The subjective universe is the universe of unpredictable determinism, which is what is described as “free will”. It’s not a case of its not being deterministic, but of the determinism being so complex and so unique to the individual (the subject) that no one, not even God, could know what the effect was guaranteed to be. This is what produces the effect and experience of free will even in a fully deterministic universe. Since scientific determinism and “free will” determinism are two aspects of an interactive, feedback universe involving two domains (subjective and objective), they are of course fully compatible and thus consistent with the philosophy of compatibilism, and not with that of incompatibilism (which is 100% false).

Frequencies Sinusoidal waves are characterised by frequency and amplitude. These are the basis of all subjective sensory experiences. In other words, all colours, smells, tastes, touches and sounds are based on the core signal (frequency) and its strength (amplitude). We have evolved different sensory organs (eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin) that subjectively interpret frequency information in different ways. We could equally well have different or additional senses such as a night-vision sense, or an infrared (heat) sense, or microwave sense, or radio-wave sense, or magnetic-field sense, or a gamma-ray sense, and all manner of other things. Evolution has given us five fairly mediocre senses. There’s always a trade off between use-value and expensive processing power. Why, for example, would we need a night-vision sense if we are sleeping at night? That would be an expensive luxury. A large part of our brain would have to be devoted to something we rarely used, wasting space and processing power.

Evolution gives us the best tools for the job, not the best tools in a perfect, unlimited world.

***** Sensory experiences are about our subjective, inside experiences of frequencies and amplitudes. Our feelings too are based on sinusoidal frequencies and amplitudes. Think of how we emotionally experience music, which, objectively, is just an arrangement of sound waves. Everything we experience produces an internal feeling, and that dictates how we perceive it. If something causes us pain or distress, we perceive it negatively. If sinusoidal frequencies and amplitudes are (when experienced from the inside), the origin of our colour perception, for example, then they are also connected with how we feel about the colour, and what mood the colour puts us in, and how this affects our decision-making. When all’s said and done, we’re simply creatures that respond to sinusoidal frequencies and amplitudes, and that do nothing but process and interpret sinusoids in various ways. We do so both subjectively and objectively, internally and externally, qualitatively (via qualia) and quantitatively (via quantia). All “primary” properties are quantitative and all “secondary” properties are qualitative. The “outside” of sinusoids is quantitative. The “inside” is qualitative. All of our thoughts are made of sinusoids. We could analyse them – like music – from the outside, in which case they would just look like analytic waves. But we experience them as ideas, images, impressions, thoughts, sensations, intuitions, desires, feelings.

Sinusoids Why is the universe made of nothing but sinusoidal waves? Because only these provide a complete, consistent, full, perfect, analytic system, stable under all transformations and operations. The roots of existence must be perfect since any imperfections would instantly destroy everything. The slightest flaw would shatter the universe since it would introduce a catastrophic and instantaneous ontological chain reaction of instability.

The Debate The philosophical debate regarding free will has been conducted at a shockingly inept level, stemming from the fact that philosophers choose to pontificate on things for which they have proposed no ontology, hence for which they can provide no definitions and no model. Like magpies, they borrow bits and pieces from religion, science, moral philosophy, and metaphysics and then draw absurd conclusions from the mess they have generated. If all the claims science makes about ultimate reality being grounded in randomness are false – and of course they are false – then anyone who cites science in defence of their argument is automatically introducing nothing but falsehood. All hard determinists are scientists, yet modern science, unlike classical science, no longer itself supports determinism, which shows how incoherent it is to rely on science. Science was once 100% deterministic, but is now 100% indeterministic at the fundamental level, yet people continue to treat science as some convincing authority when in fact it’s totally incoherent and has changed its position about determinism in the most extreme way imaginable, adopting the precise reverse of what it once claimed. It did so for philosophical (empiricist) reasons, not genuinely scientific reasons. In fact, science would be radically different as a subject if its core philosophy were rationalism rather than empiricism, and it would reach completely different conclusions from those it has reached. Science, in other words, isn’t science. It’s just philosophy. All worthwhile philosophical debates must stem from ontology, from a definition of the arche, as the ancient Greeks attempted. If they don’t, they’re invariably silly. However, ontology has proved one of the central problems of philosophy, and in fact the defining problem: everything flows from ontology. Ontological mathematics is the only system that has provided an absolutely precise ontology – with everything being viewed in terms of analytic sinusoids alone, and everything having to be explained through these alone. Science, being based on randomness, cannot explain anything since randomness is non-explanation, and isn’t a definable arche. It’s no different from magic and miracles – things happening for no sufficient reason.

The Death Equation Death can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Dead things do not come to life (because, if they did, that would mean they had been destroyed in terms of their essential deadness). And if living things died that would mean that death was created (from non-death), which is impossible. Dead things can only transform into other dead things, never into living things because then they would have ceased to exist as dead things. Exactly the same arguments apply to life. Living things do not die: they are only transformed into other forms of life. Living things are not created from dead things any more than existence springs from non-existence. In fact, all the same arguments about life and death apply to mind-matter dualism and existence/non-existence. In all of these cases, you can have only one or the other, never both. You can have only one substance. Since we are alive, we know that the one substance is life, not death. What we call “death” isn’t death at all. The essential living thing – the soul – hasn’t died. It has stopped using the physical vessel and vehicle it once used, that’s all.

***** SA: “So in other words, the flesh is always death while the soul is always life?” The soul is always life and the flesh is always life, but a different mode and expression of life. The flesh (the body) is a product of the Monadic Collective, hence is not an individual, striving, subjective, teleological entity. All material stuff derives from living, mental monads, and, ipso facto, is alive too, but is alive in a different way from monads themselves. Monads are individual, living subjects. Material things are products of the Monadic Collective acting objectively, not subjectively, collectively, not individually. Monads are subjects. Things made by the Monadic Collective are objects. They therefore belong to a different category of life from monads, i.e. monads must be distinguished from the products of monads. Monads are living subjects while their products are living objects, but the latter would traditionally be regarded as “dead” (since they have no will of their own, don’t strive and are inert and passive).

An impregnated woman eats and drinks “dead” things (food and water), and these, during the course of her pregnancy, are incorporated into an organised body, controlled by a living monad (soul). Of course, if they were genuinely dead, they could play no part in life since they would be totally incompatible with it. When the soul’s control of the body eventually breaks down, the stuff of the body reverts to its previous, inert, passive state, while the soul seeks a new body via reincarnation. Before the body’s “death”, each atom of the body was objective life (not subjective life), and it remains an expression of objective life after too. Nothing dies at “death”. What is lost is control: the control of a living, striving, active subject (monadic soul) over a collection of living, nonstriving, passive objects (atoms produced by the Monadic Collective). Irreversible transformation has taken place, but not genuine death (which is impossible). Yet, psychologically, we can’t help but regard irreversible transformation as “death”. We apply this label because we can’t perceive the monadic soul continuing on as before. If we could actually see the soul after bodily death and communicate with it, we would never refer to “death” and would definitely talk of transformation or metamorphosis. Equally, if we could perceive that all atoms are rooted in living monads, and could not exist otherwise, we would not regard them as “dead”. People do so because they have been brainwashed by the claims of scientific materialism and believe that matter exists independently of mind. It doesn’t! Once you grasp that everything comes from monadic minds, you see that there is no such thing as “death”, only different expressions of life. A body comes to “life”, as we would see it, only when it links to an individual subjective soul. When that relationship ceases, the stuff of the body returns to what it was before – zombie life with no aims. The Monadic Collective produces zombie entities: subatomic particles, atoms, molecules. We might very well call these the living dead since they are alive (being rooted in monads) but have no subjectivity, no teleology, no aims, no will, hence are “dead” in all of these respects. Matter is objective life produced by the Monadic Collective, but mind itself is subjective life pertaining to individual monads and their will, thoughts and aims. Matter, we might say, is “zombie mind”.

***** SA: “‘...if living things died that would mean that death was created, which is impossible.’ ... So then we are the living dead.” No, we are the living living (!) – since nothing, including our body, is “dead” – but our spacetime life is expressed via a succession of different bodies through reincarnation. If we regard atoms as zombie minds (passive minds) rather than active minds, then a body is a vast collection of zombie minds brought under the control of a single active mind. When the active mind detaches from the body, the passive minds (atoms) go back to what they were before. They are aimless, passive, non-striving “things”, waiting for something to happen to them. They have no internal drive, so must way for external forces to operate on them. They belong to the world of hard determinism where things have no subjective causation. Remember, active mind = mental atoms (monads), passive mind = matter = “physical” atoms = zombie things with no subjectivity, no inner drive. Everything is made of mind, one way or another. And all mind is alive, not dead. There is no such thing as true death. Mental atoms have an atomic number of zero/infinity, while material atoms have an atomic number greater than zero. Mental atoms are unextended, dimensionless, and outside space and time, while material atoms are extended, dimensional and inside space and time.

***** DS: “Yes, very confusing. Take a recently deceased animal (including a human being), for example. While the cells in the soft tissues (including the blood) are still alive, does that mean that the whole organism still has life? Maybe dis-incarnate rather than dead is a better word.” EG: “‘Living things do not die: they are only transformed into other forms of life. Living things are not created from dead things any more than existence springs from non-existence.’” Did you guys miss this part? It’s really not that confusing. They explain their point quite clearly.

DS: “Sure, clear as... mud!! Living things are not created from dead things? That just demonstrates the ‘round & round the garden’ nature of this topic. Define ‘dead!’ Is a carbon atom ‘dead?’ Is a nitrogen atom? Understanding about mind at these (atomic) levels helps, as explained in the God Series of books, but ‘death’ isn’t explained, only presence of ‘mind.’ Is absence of mind what constitutes ‘dead?’ This is impossible, as every physical dimensional particle apparently possesses mind.” Life, in its purest expression, means the activity of individual monads (mathematical) souls. A body is meaningfully alive when it’s under the control of an individual monad. (Yet, of course, we are continuously shedding “body” through sweating, exhaling, urinating, defecating, skin shedding, and so on: there is not a single atom in our body that is necessary to our body. Any of them can be replaced, and, during the course of a lifetime, nearly all of them will be replaced, so none of them are essential to us. Only the body pattern is vital, not the components that make up the pattern, any of which can be replaced while leaving the pattern unchanged. The tale of Theseus’ ship is relevant in this regard. Wikipedia says: “The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus’ paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the late 1st century. Plutarch asked whether a ship which was restored by replacing each and every one of its wooden parts remained the same ship.” It’s not the parts that define the ship: after all, any of them can be replaced. It’s their pattern, their order, their organisation, their relationships that count, and exactly the same is true of a human body. The soul is the indispensable part of the body, not any part of the body. If you remove the soul, the body disintegrates back into its passive, inert, non-striving parts. Only the soul holds the body together and renders it an active entity. Things that are controlled by the Monadic Collective (by all souls rather than just one soul) are rooted in life (monads) but belong to a radically different category (collective rather than individual, objective rather than subjective, passive rather than active, non-striving rather than striving). “Death” is the label used to describe the instant at which an individual monad ceases to control a collection (body) of atoms produced by the Monadic Collective. The atoms, in themselves, are the same as they ever were. What has changed is their relationship with a specific controlling

monad. This monad hasn’t died (and nor have the atoms), and it will link to a new collection of atoms in due course via reincarnation. “Death” is the severing of a specific relationship between one monad and a collection of monads produced by the Monadic Collective. Death is not the ending of life as an absolute condition; it is the breaking of the link between the soul and its current body. The soul hasn’t died and the atoms haven’t died. What has “died” is their transient relationship. Life in itself cannot die, but the contingent relationships, through which life is most typically expressed, are forever starting (being “born”), growing (maturing) and ending (“dying”). We exist in a world of ever-changing living relationships, and, when one relationship (that between a specific soul and specific body) permanently ends, we call that “death”. There can be no return to that relationship (there’s no Abrahamic resurrection!). It’s the relationship that has died, not the soul or the atoms of the body. A relationship is a contingent, not necessary, expression of life. Because its contingent, it can “die”. If it were necessary, it could not die. Everything, ontologically, is alive – being either a living monad or a product of living monads. There aren’t any other elements in this system. However, all living things are continuously evolving, and entering into, and ending, relationships with other living things. It’s the irreversible, permanent end of any such relationship that we refer to as death. Death, in these terms, is an inevitable accompaniment of life. Relationships are derived from life but are not life itself. Relationships have a lifecycle. They are born, grow, reach a highest point, then decay and finally die. But the living things involved in the relationships do not die. Life is absolute and necessary. Relationships are relative and contingent. Relationships are transient phases of life, not life itself. Life itself cannot perish, but the phases of life certainly come to an inevitable end. There are only two things in the universe: thinkers and their thoughts. Thinkers can think individually or collectively. The latter produces the material world – the collective world that we all share, and which none of us can control. Although some – the elite – control it much more than others!

*****

“Death” occurs when the Fourier link between body and soul decisively breaks. However, what constitutes a decisive break isn’t entirely clear-cut. Near-death experiences demonstrate that a person might seem to have died, but can re-establish control following a “life-saving” medical intervention on the body. We might think of the link fading rather than snapping, and some processes have a certain momentum and continue for a time even when the brain and heart have ceased to function. These are just echoes of the former life, not that life itself. They are no longer being driven by a soul, and will come to an end soon enough. After the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington, the victorious British general, commented about the tactics of the French army whom he had fought over many years, “They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way.” When a body “dies”, everything doesn’t stop instantly. Some processes go on in “the same old way” until all of their remaining energy and momentum have been used up, and then they stop. For a while, they have the appearance of their old life, but they are no longer alive in that old way. They are no longer under the control of a soul. The “cells in the soft tissues (including the blood)” are not still alive in their former manner. They are in the process of reverting to their old state when they when they were not under the control of a single, active soul. That does not happen instantly; it takes a certain amount of time for their existing processes and energy to run down. Their status during that finite time should not be confused with their former status when a soul was still in charge of the body. The organism no longer has any “life” in the previous sense of being linked to a soul, since the link isn’t there anymore. The atoms of the body are reverting to their default “living” status, i.e. under the exclusive control of the Monadic Collective rather than under that control plus the control of a single monad. A soul is either incarnated (has a body to control) or it isn’t incarnated (it presently has no body to control). A soul without a body is disincarnated, but certainly isn’t “dead”.

***** Leibniz once believed that everything was literally made of monads, hence was alive all the way through. In this view, bodies had a “queen monad”, or

active soul, which was the guiding principle of all the monads which made up the body (which were all passive to varying degrees). The absence of this queen monad would leave the body as still alive, but no longer with any centre or form, no organising principle, hence would in time simply disintegrate into separate monads. Leibniz’s mature view, however, was that things are not made from monads, but, rather, result from monads, which is a radically different concept. In today’s Illuminism, all material things (the stuff of bodies) are not made of monads themselves, but from the contents of monads. All monads, of course, comprise an enormous, consistent, complete collection of sinusoids that balance to exactly zero (they have no net parts, a fundamental Leibnizian requirement). Each monad contributes a lowenergy band of sinusoids to a shared spacetime arena (the material world!): the domain of bodies rather than of souls. So, one monad – a queen monad, so to speak – now no longer controls a collection of other, lesser monads but, rather, controls a body made from the low-energy sinusoidal contents of monads rather than from monads themselves. The sinusoidal contents are, naturally, extremely mathematical, scientific and objective. They lack the subjectivity of monads themselves. They are machinelike – which is why our minds are deceived into believing that we exist in a material, mechanical universe rather than a universe of minds and their contents and outputs.

***** When we say that existence cannot come from non-existence, or life from non-life, these are eternal principles of sufficient reason. There’s absolutely no point in debating them, unless you are irrationally contesting the principle of sufficient reason and arguing, like irrational scientists, that existence can randomly and magically spring from non-existence, or life can miraculously emerge from non-life just by arranging non-life a bit differently. You simply cannot challenge eternal rational principles. If you find an example that you believe contradicts such a principle, you can be sure that it’s your interpretation of the example that’s wrong, not the principle. Unfortunately, many people are so arrogant that they believe that their

perceptions and beliefs are right and reason wrong. That’s why modern science has ended up making so many absurd claims. Scientists have chosen to believe in their empiricist, materialist religion rather than accept the eternal truths of reason. That’s why science is now an irrational enterprise.

***** EG: “This is their definition of death: ‘Living things do not die: they are only transformed into other forms of life.’ So, there is no true death, only varying levels of mind from potential to fully actualized, i.e. particles have low mind presence and beings have higher levels of mind, thus seem more alive than particles, which than seem dead in contrast but really are not dead. And, yes, you’re right that death is absence of mind, but the Illuminists state that this is a rational impossibility because all there is is mind and nothing can exist outside of it, thus death is not possible, only less minded thing. And I didn’t mean to offend you. I was merely stating it’s not too difficult to grasp the concept given the logical definitions.” This is a well-made point. However, just to clarify, particles do not have minds per se, i.e. they do not have an individual, controlling mind. A “body” is an enormous collection of particles, controlled by a single soul. Individual particles are not controlled by individual minds. They don’t have souls. Particles are in fact under the control of the Cosmic Mind (the Monadic Collective), i.e. they are one step removed from active mind, rendering them passive (“less minded”). The Collective Mind (the Mind made of minds) is very different from the individual minds of which it’s constituted. All individual minds are subjects. The Collective Mind is not a subject. In terms of Rousseau’s philosophy, it reflects the General Will of all minds rather than the particular will of each mind. This makes it objective rather than subjective. All of its subjective elements are subtracted, leaving just what every monad has in common: objective ontological mathematics.

***** Illuminism is as reductive as it gets. Everything is about sinusoids, and nothing else. Sinusoids, their organisation, their relations, how they are

interpreted and experienced, are all that exist. As soon as you encounter any problem at all, you should forget all the Mythos bullshit you’ve learned from Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age thinking, Abrahamism and scientific materialism, and just analyse the problem in terms of sinusoids. There are no other ingredients, no extraneous elements, no magic and no mystery, no “God”, no miracles, no randomness, no mysterian arguments. It’s all about sinusoids, and nothing besides. Everything about Illuminism can be deduced from the properties of sinusoids alone. It’s the ultimate analytic solution to existence.

***** The arguments presented in this book could have been worked out by anyone who has understood the God Series. Those people who aren’t able to defend ontological mathematics but instead start quoting their professors’ opinions haven’t understood Illuminism and probably never will. Only the most intelligent people in the world can grasp the significance and importance of Illuminism, and are able to apply it to all of the big problems of religion, science and philosophy. Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger and Bohm all believed that quantum mechanics wasn’t a fundamental theory and that there had to something deeper. They were all correct: ontological mathematics is that deeper theory.

***** It has been reported that an inverse correlation has been found between religiosity and intelligence in numerous studies performed since 1927. However, if studies were performed on scientific materialists and ontological mathematicians, the former would be found to be markedly less intelligent than the latter.

Meritocracy Meritocracy is all about best expressing the General Will, i.e. the Will that accommodates all, is fair to all, and is objective. Our current world of capitalist democracy is all about favouring those with the strongest particular wills and those with the most inherited resources – the “elite”. Our current world is ruled by subjective rather than objective laws. Laws

are designed to favour the ruling elites, hence are not proper and legitimate laws at all. They are partisan laws, serving the agenda of elite factions. 100% inheritance tax is a General Will requirement. Anyone who opposes it is on the side of particular wills, i.e. they take the side of the individual against Society and Community. Anarchists, libertarians and free-market capitalists all oppose the General Will, hence are enemies of the people.

Causal Law Causal law is a priori. Causal law is analytic, deductive, necessary, intelligible. Causal law is Platonic, immutable, eternal. Causal law is teleological. Causal law is mathematical. Causal law is noumenal. Science, insanely, has repudiated causality – because it is not perceivable, hence not amenable to the scientific method – and appealed instead to randomness, which is no different from magic and miracles where things happen for no sufficient reason. Science has become an intellectual embarrassment.

Defence How well you would be able to defend Illuminism in the face of a meretricious attack by a pseudo-philosopher who believes himself much smarter than he is? If you can’t do a good job, don’t bother with Illuminism. Go and try something else. Illuminism will never be for you. Illuminism is a meritocracy and we want only the smartest people on our side. The world will change only when all of the most intelligent people in the world stand united under the banner of Illuminism. Anyone who’s not up to putting down the silly attacks by our critics isn’t meritorious enough for Illuminism. Maybe in another lifetime you might make the grade, but not in this one. Stop asking questions. Start providing answers. That’s how you demonstrate that you’ve actually understood something. If you’re a questioning person, but not an answering person, you’re very far from enlightenment. All that you are required to do in Illuminism is exercise your reason correctly. You are not required to believe a single thing, and, indeed, Illuminism totally rejects all people of faith. Illuminism roots out all bullshit.

Direction All will is directed towards specific ends. All will is intentional. All will is teleological. Any concept of “free will” that separates it from intentions, purposes, ends, causes, motivations and reasons is simply incoherent, irrational and impossible. A willing being never wills nothingness and never wills randomness. He always wills that which he believes will increase his power. He never wills that which will reduce his power.

Humour Humour relies on the ambiguity of language. Humour is about misdirection. Humour is simply the difference between what the comic has led us to believe he is about to say and what he then does say (the punchline).

Slapstick Slapstick is based on the misdirection of another person’s expectations. Slapstick is the difference between what the victim clearly intends to do and what he actually does do (slips on the banana skin).

A Magic Illusion A magic illusion relies on the ambiguity of our perception; our inability to pay attention to two different things at once. A magic illusion is the difference between what the comic has led us to believe he is about to show us and what he then does show us (the prestige, the trick).

The Freedom of Free Will? Free will is never free in any absolute sense. It’s not free to be random, to be purposeless, to pursue no aims, to be unconcerned with the pursuit of the increase of power, to be devoid of reasons for action, to be empty of meaning, to be indeterministic, to be outside ontological mathematics. The notion of untrammelled, unconstrained freedom to which libertarians subscribe is incoherent and impossible to define. Even random events

actually presuppose some order of existence that permits random events to take place!

Intolerance “Don’t impose your politically correct intolerance on us.” – the religious “Don’t impose your religious intolerance on us.” – the politically correct

Cause and Effect as a Continuum; The Flux of Events “We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ ... We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces – how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception! It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanising of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions; just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken, would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche never grasped the true nature of mathematics. He’s certainly right that there are countless processes going on at any one time, but wrong that these cannot all ultimately be reduced to cause and effect, albeit in a staggeringly complex, interactive, interconnected way. The whole of reality is about the unfolding of the God Equation through countless interacting monads, each defined by the God Equation. There’s nothing else going on.

The ocean is full of countless water molecules, all interacting. That interaction is immensely complex but there’s nothing non-watery going on, nothing mysterious and magical, nothing random, nothing separate from relentless cause and effect.

***** “There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses...” – Nietzsche This, believe it or not, is the hard determinist, scientific materialist view! Shame on Nietzsche. Incredibly, he has refuted his own philosophy – his entire worldview of Will to Power. If everything happens with absolute necessity, nothing has any will to power, and there is no contest for power. Will must be expressed through minds, and minds must be free: free to command, free to obey, free to trespass, free to fight, free to cooperate, free to strive, free to take their own decisions.

Linear Causality Imagine the letters of the alphabet as a causal chain. We begin with the letter “A” (the first cause) and proceed all the way to “Z” (the final effect). Much of scientific determinism revolves around the notion of linear causality. Scientists isolate a part of the world, introduce a cause then observe and measure what happens next. Their conclusions are then extrapolated to the whole universe, but, of course, the universe isn’t an isolated part of the system. It is the system, and it is fully interconnected.

Cyclical Causality Take the linear alphabet A to Z and this time join Z to A in a circle. How does this change causality? In linear causality, A was clearly the beginning, the initiating cause, and Z the end, the final effect. Now, in circular causality, A can be viewed as an effect of Z, yet Z was previously A’s final effect. Well, what causes what? It’s no longer a clear-cut matter. We have a fully deterministic system without it being obvious what’s doing the determining.

With cyclical causality, events are connected in a circle. One event makes a second event happen but the second event then makes the first event happen again, which then makes the second event happen again, and so on. In cyclical causality, a “first” cause can also be an effect. If you convert cyclical causality into a line, you totally change the dynamic and the way the system works, and vice versa. With cyclical causality, there’s no beginning and no end. So, what’s the first cause? What’s the first effect? What’s the last effect?

Hume’s “Causality” For David Hume, there was no causality at all, just the habitual conjunction of events, which was interpreted causally, i.e. people projected causality (or rather beliefs of causality) onto mere conjunction.

No Causality When things happen indeterministically, randomly, for no reason at all, they cannot be said to have been caused. This is equivalent to something coming from nothing, existence from non-existence. Bizarrely, modern science champions this irrational view. It’s an ideology associated with total meaninglessness and purposelessness.

Dialectical Causality With a dialectical process, a thesis causes an antithesis, the antithesis causes a conflict with the thesis, which causes a synthesis to emerge. This then becomes a new thesis (an effect becomes a cause), and a new iteration begins at a higher level.

Networked Causality Who causes what on the internet? Who causes what in social networking? Everyone is reacting to everyone else. Countless deterministic processes are taking place, yet it’s more or less impossible to identify clear causes and clear effects. (This was somewhat the point Nietzsche was making in his skeptical comments on cause and effect. He rejected them entirely, rather

than accepting that they were there, but in an incredibly complex, interconnected way.) Now consider an eternal internet. Where does causality begin? What causes what? What is cause and what is effect? The monad itself is best characterised in terms of networked causality and dialectical causality.

Feedback “Feedback is a process in which information about the past or the present influences the same phenomenon in the present or future. As part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop, the event is said to ‘feed back’ into itself. ... ‘feedback’ exists between two parts when each affects the other... There has been over the years some dispute as to the best definition of feedback. According to Ashby (1956), mathematicians and theorists interested in the principles of feedback mechanisms prefer the definition of circularity of action, which keeps the theory simple and consistent.” – Wikipedia Feedback can be described in terms of positive and negative, selfreinforcing and self-correcting, reinforcing and balancing, discrepancyenhancing and discrepancy-reducing, regenerative and degenerative, positive reinforcement (reward) and negative reinforcement (punishment). Feedback can be both qualitative and quantitative. “Quantitative feedback tells us how much and how many. Qualitative feedback tells us how good, bad or indifferent.” – Connellan and Zemke “Positive feed-back increases the gain of the amplifier, negative feed-back reduces it.” – Harold Stephen Black Stock markets, with their bull and bear investors, provide a good illustration of feedback: “When stocks are rising (a bull market), the belief that further rises are probable gives investors an incentive to buy (positive feedback –reinforcing the rise, see also stock market bubble); but the increased price of the shares, and the knowledge that there must be a peak after which the market falls, ends up deterring buyers (negative feedback – stabilizing the rise).

“Once the market begins to fall regularly (a bear market), some investors may expect further losing days and refrain from buying (positive feedback – reinforcing the fall), but others may buy because stocks become more and more of a bargain (negative feedback – stabilizing the fall).” – Wikipedia While the stock market provides a fairly stable environment most of the time, boom or bust surges are possible, causing mayhem. Many biological systems engage in self-regulating feedback loops. As Wikipedia says, “In biological systems such as organisms, ecosystems, or the biosphere, most parameters must stay under control within a narrow range around a certain optimal level under certain environmental conditions. ... Biological systems contain many types of regulatory circuits, both positive and negative. As in other contexts, positive and negative do not imply consequences of the feedback have good or bad final effect. A negative feedback loop is one that tends to slow down a process, whereas the positive feedback loop tends to accelerate it. ... The climate system is characterized by strong positive and negative feedback loops between processes that affect the state of the atmosphere, ocean, and land [MH: see Gaia theory].”

Negative Feedback “Negative feedback occurs when the result of a process influences the operation of the process itself in such a way as to reduce changes. “Negative feedback tends to make a system self-regulating; it can produce stability and reduce the effect of fluctuations. Negative feedback loops in which just the right amount of correction is applied in the most timely manner can be very stable, accurate, and responsive. “In systems controlled by a negative feedback loop, a measurement of some variable is compared with a required value to estimate the current error, which is then used to reduce the gap between the measurement and the required value, as well as to counter the effects of unpredictable influences from the system’s environment. “Negative feedback is widely used in mechanical and electronic engineering, but it also occurs naturally within living organisms, and can be seen in many other fields from chemistry and economics to social behaviour and the climate.” – Wikipedia

Positive Feedback “Positive feedback is a process in which the effects of a small disturbance on a system include an increase in the magnitude of the perturbation. That is, A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A. In contrast, a system in which the results of a change act to reduce or counteract it has negative feedback. “Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a feedback loop. That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger. Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations or divergences from equilibrium. System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. ... Positive feedback in economic systems can cause boom-then-bust cycles. A familiar example of positive feedback is the loud squealing or howling sound produced by audio feedback in public address systems: the microphone picks up sound from its own loudspeakers, amplifies it, and sends it through the speakers again.” – Wikipedia Natural feedback systems imply mind and life. No machine would ever generate a feedback system since it doesn’t care about maintaining any particular condition. It doesn’t care about anything. It has no interest in processes that are out of control. Natural feedback systems are a formal refutation of scientific materialism.

Causality and Determinism “Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, exist conditions that could cause no other event.” – Wikipedia In view of all the considerations discussed above, it’s easy to see that although indeterminism is, in principle (but not in practice), simple to define (i.e. in terms of random events), it’s much harder to define causal

determinism because we can’t clearly distinguish what is causing what. We can’t be clear about whether events are causes, effects, or both. We could no more predict the outcome of a typical deterministic event than we could predict the next event on the internet (which is itself an entirely deterministic environment). Ironically, then, deterministic events, other than those that involve an extremely artificial scientific process of isolation and precise control, are not predictable in many if not most situations.

Self-Determination “Self-determination is the idea of a positive freedom, a freedom for actions that we originate, and that actions are ‘up to us.’ Such acts constitute the essence of free will. This is Mortimer Adler’s term, translating ideas from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. It was adopted also by Robert Kane for his theory of Ultimate Responsibility. “The technical terms Determination and Adequate Determinism have been proposed as preferable to determinism to describe actions that are adequately determined by an agent’s current reasons, motives, and desires, as opposed to the strict predeterminism by a causal chain of events going back before the agent’s birth.” – Wikipedia

Freedom of Action People are free as long as they have “freedom of action”. “[Compatibilist philosophers] argue that the will may be pre-determined by antecedent causes in an unbroken chain that goes back to the origin of the universe, but humans are free as long as they are not physically or mentally constrained. ... “The idea that at least some of our actions are self-determined and ‘up to us,’ that we can be the ‘authors of our own actions,’ and that they are not caused by external events is perhaps the most ancient concept of free will. Although the Romans had in Latin the same complex combination of free and will in their term (liberum arbitrium or libera voluntas) as there is in English, the Greeks had no such combination. “For the Greeks, and particularly for Aristotle, the term closest to the modern complex idea of free will was – ‘on us’ or ‘depends on us.’ In the

Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle said, ‘But if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, and if we are unable to trace our conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us, themselves depend upon us, and are voluntary.’” – Wikipedia Only totally inept compatibilist philosophers, who don’t understand compatibilism at all, would argue that “the will may be pre-determined by antecedent causes in an unbroken chain that goes back to the origin of the universe.” Logically, this can’t be anything other than a hard-determinist view. Compatibilism must be associated with eternalism, not a temporal beginning to the universe. No “first cause” could ever be identified outside ourselves.

Rewinding the Universe Libertarian Peter van Inwagen performed a thought experiment in which he imagined God rewinding the universe to exactly the same starting point a thousand times, and imagined each such universe unfolding probabilistically rather than deterministically: “Now let us suppose that God a thousand times caused the universe to revert to exactly the state it was in at t1 (and let us suppose that we are somehow suitably placed, metaphysically speaking, to observe the whole sequence of ‘replays’). What would have happened? What should we expect to observe? Well, again, we can’t say what would have happened, but we can say what would probably have happened: sometimes Alice would have lied and sometimes she would have told the truth. As the number of ‘replays’ increases, we observers shall – almost certainly – observe the ratio of the outcome ‘truth’ to the outcome ‘lie’ settling down to, converging on, some value. We may, for example, observe that, after a fairly large number of replays, Alice lies in thirty percent of the replays and tells the truth in seventy percent of them – and that the figures ‘thirty percent’ and ‘seventy percent’ become more and more accurate as the number of replays increases. But let us imagine the simplest case: we observe that Alice tells the truth in about half the replays and lies in about half the replays. If, after one hundred replays, Alice has told the truth fifty-

three times and has lied forty-eight times, we’d begin strongly to suspect that the figures after a thousand replays would look something like this: Alice has told the truth four hundred and ninety-three times and has lied five hundred and eight times. Let us suppose that these are indeed the figures after a thousand replays. Is it not true that as we watch the number of replays increase we shall become convinced that what will happen in the next replay is a matter of chance.” This view denies that you are a person at all and makes you a random decision generator, who never has a sufficient reason for anything you do. To put it bluntly, you are not “you” if you would do a different thing in identical circumstances. Your decision has to be determined or it means that you might do anything, without rhyme or reason. Why does Alice sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth? It doesn’t matter because she’s not a person at all. She doesn’t do anything for a reason. She does everything by chance. She doesn’t even have to think about anything. She’s a Dice Woman, not a human being. And no doubt she worships the diceplaying God of quantum mechanics! In Illuminism, if the starting conditions were identical, the universe would unfold in exactly the same way every time (as in Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence). However, in Illuminism, the starting conditions involve a perfectly symmetrical state in which any action by any monad can break the symmetry. The universe is entirely dependent on exactly how the symmetry breaks, and every new cyclical universe will be different because the original monadic symmetry will always break in a different way. We can never exactly rewind the universe. “There are many determinisms, depending upon what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event.” – Bob Doyle “Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested with ideas from physics and its philosophy. Opposing determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will and moral responsibility. “Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a

given paradigm are so causally bound that prior states of any object or event completely determine its later states. “Other debates often concern the scope of determined systems, with some maintaining that the entire universe is a single determinate system and others identifying other more limited determinate systems (or multiverse). Numerous historical debates involve many philosophical positions and varieties of determinism, some concerning determinism and free will, technically denoted as compatibilistic (allowing the two to coexist) and incompatibilistic (denying their coexistence is a possibility).” – Wikipedia Wikipedia also says, “Determinism should not be confused with selfdetermination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.” Regarding the first point, self-determination is entirely valid in the context of determinism. Regarding the second point, this is certainly true.

***** If indeterminism is no answer then determinism is the answer. If determinism is the answer then free will must be compatible with it or we are nothing but externally caused machines suffering from an impossible delusion that we choose our actions.

Ontological Mathematics What’s the problem with abstract mathematics? It’s the fact that it has no ontology. No abstract mathematician says what mathematics is, where it comes from, where it exists, how it exists, if and how it interacts with the “real” world, why science is so dependent on it, whether it’s just another “language” like English or Spanish, and so on. Why do people refuse to accept math as a real thing? Because they are terrified of the implications!

Live-Giving Sinusoids Sinusoids are the basic elements of life and mind, the sine qua non. Sinusoids are permanently flowing structured information. They have an unobservable “inside” as well as an observable “outside”. The inside is subjective, the outside objective. The outside presents the primary

properties of the sinusoid, and the inside presents the secondary properties. The outside defines the “scientific” world, while the inside defines the sensory world, the world we actually perceive. So, for example, the colour red is not an “outside” property of a sinusoid but is an “inside” property. When we see “red” we are experiencing the inside of the sinusoid, not its outside. To put it another way, all “matter” (the outside of things) has “mind” (the inside of things). Every monad (mathematical mind) is a contributor to the material world (which is an expression of the Monadic Collective), and each monad can link to matter (via a body) and become the “inside” of the body. However, because the body is made of matter from all monads rather than just one, it’s inherently difficult for any monad to control, and eventually the monad irreversibly loses control (which is what we know as “death”). All waves, whether electromagnetic waves, water waves or sound waves, have frequencies and amplitudes. We might infer that all sensory experiences are based on partitioning the full ontological frequency range into different sensory segments. For example, we “see” only the colour frequencies of the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, we detect the infrared portion as heat, we hear sound waves. If smells and tastes were fully analysed, they would be established to be wave phenomena occurring within certain frequency ranges. John Locke argued that the primary properties of things produce, in our perception, ideas which resemble their causes. As for secondary properties, Locke said that things have “powers” to produce ideas in our perception which do not resemble their causes. This is a very mysterious argument until we cast it in a new form: primary properties are produced by the “outside” of the thing, and secondary properties by the “inside”. So, from the outside, no sinusoid has the colour red, but sinusoids within a specific frequency range do have this colour from the inside. (Colour blind people, because of their defective genes, can’t sufficiently isolate different sinusoids in order to experience their different, distinct colours.) We inhabit two domains: the domain of primary properties and the domain of secondary properties. The first is the intelligible domain, and the second is the sensible domain. When we look at the external world, we do not in fact “see” primary properties since they have no sensory qualities whatsoever. Imagine you removed all colours and all shades from the

world, what would you “see”? The world would be either totally transparent (hence nothing but white light), or totally black (like a black hole). You wouldn’t see a thing. Locke thought that some sensory properties were primary and some secondary. In fact, they’re all secondary. All primary properties are intelligible, not sensible. They are all noumenal, not phenomenal. They are all quantitative, not qualitative. Empiricism has taken the secondary, sensible domain as reality itself, whereas rationalism has attempted to define the primary, intelligible domain. In fact, both domains can’t help but co-exist since everything has an outside (primary properties) and inside (secondary properties); everything has quantity and quality. Rationalism can tell us exactly what reality is in primary, intelligible terms, and empiricism can tell us about how we experience it in secondary, sensible terms. Materialists have failed to grasp that matter is something with an “inside”, with a quality that can be mentally experienced. Incredibly, it’s actually the inside that materialists perceive with their senses, and not the outside (which is intelligible, not sensible).

***** A monadic mind is nothing but a vast collection of sinusoids: flowing, structured information. A monad is alive because it’s a centre for eternal, flowing, structured information. “Death” would correspond to nothing at all or to absolute chaos – unstructured, acausal, statistical, probabilistic, irrational, indeterministic things. Even Copenhagen quantum mechanics does not invoke chaos since, with total illogicality, it grounds its indeterministic worldview in “unreal”, deterministic, mathematical wavefunctions. You simply cannot escape from structured information flow if you are to have an ordered world. To put it another way, quantum mechanics tacitly acknowledges a primary mathematical underpinning of existence, but, bizarrely, calls it “unreal”, and then defines “reality” as the events where the primary reality inexplicably “collapses” to produce secondary experiences (i.e. “observations”). This is quite literally the inverse path to understanding reality. It’s the primary wavefunction that is reality, and our “observations” are when we

bring it into our secondary domain of experience and perception.

No Definition “...the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of ‘metaphysically free will’, which compatibilists claim has never been coherently defined.” – Wikipedia Indeed. The incompatibilist position is essentially anti-compatibilism (i.e. simply opposed to compatibilism), but is unable to make any coherent statement about how it actually works. “Compatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of ‘free will’ as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to his own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said. ‘Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.’ “In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one’s own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination. ... “Hume adds that the compatibilist’s free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says, ‘I may visit tomorrow, or I may not’, he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be. ... “The Compatibilist might argue that determinism is not just compatible with any good definition of free will, but actually necessary. If one’s actions are not determined by one’s beliefs, desires, and character, then how could one possibly be held morally responsible for those actions? “...many compatibilists choose determinism so that their actions are adequately determined by their reasons, motives, and desires.” – Wikipedia

Criticism of Compatibilism “Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition(s) of free will: incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something ought not to be called ‘free will’. Incompatibilists might accept the ‘freedom to act’ as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of ‘free will’. The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.” – Wikipedia It’s certainly the case that “free will” is a highly problematic term, and in fact should be abandoned in favour of “will to power”. We always act according to will to power and never according to free will. Free will seems to imply, especially to libertarians, that we could do perverse, random things, but this is simply impossible. Even madness is structured and obeys reasons. The mad aren’t randomly mad; they are systematically, deterministically mad. Their madness always has causes and always operates in relation to those causes. The causes may not be evident even to the best psychiatrists but it’s clear that people don’t become mad for no reason and nor do they behave randomly in their madness. “Compatibilists are sometimes called “soft determinists” pejoratively (William James’s term). James accused them of creating a ‘quagmire of evasion’ by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. Immanuel Kant called it a ‘wretched subterfuge’ and ‘word jugglery.’” – Wikipedia Yet, what is incompatibilism if not a “quagmire of evasion”? No incompatibilist has ever explained how incompatibilism works. It’s every bit as unfathomable as Cartesian dualism. Incompatibilists have a 100% range, going from hard determinism to its opposite, hard libertarianism. How can anyone regard that as a coherent stance? It’s simply an opposition to compatibilism, not a coherent view in its own right. Hard determinists can’t explain why we are not machines, and hard libertarians can’t explain why we don’t behave totally randomly. The former deny freedom in its entirety and the latter render it absurd by equating it to incomprehensible

indeterminism. Incompatibilism is therefore a “wretched subterfuge” and “word jugglery”!!! “Kant’s argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature – the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can ‘spontaneously’ originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists. It is on this basis that Kant argues against a version of compatibilism in which, for instance, the actions of the criminal are comprehended as a blend of determining forces and free choice, which Kant regards as misusing the word ‘free’. Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to rethink an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.” – Wikipedia Kant introduces a fatal Cartesian dualism into his philosophy. He makes the empirical, phenomenal world obey scientific determinism and then claims there’s a radically different noumenal world where scientific determinism is wholly absent. He cannot account for how the noumenal and phenomenal domains interact, and even makes the ridiculous claim that the noumenal domain is “unknowable” – so how does he know it’s not deterministic?!!! Ontological mathematics places Kant’s entire philosophy in a proper, knowable, mathematical framework, where all his arguments against compatibilism are automatically invalidated. Contrary to what Kant says, the compatibilist view does not deny “the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen”. On the contrary, it’s all about that! To say that compatibilism is all about reconciling free will and determinism is just to say that compatibilism is all about reconciling subjectivity and objectivity. As ever, poor definitions of what compatibilism is lead to catastrophic misunderstandings and misrepresentations, even by geniuses such as Kant. Kant’s “unknowable” noumena are simply monads and they are fully rational and knowable, and are the mathematical origin of all phenomena.

Noumena and phenomena are fully compatible, with the latter being the origin and cause of the latter. “Ted Honderich explains his view that the mistake of compatibilism is to assert that nothing changes as a consequence of determinism, when clearly we have lost the life-hope of origination.” – Wikipedia This is just nonsense. We absolutely have “origination”. We ourselves are the primary sources of our own behaviour, although we are also impacted and influenced by external causality. External causality does not determine us. It’s blended with internal causality and one or the other will triumph in each situation. We will either obey ourselves or obey the “not-us”. “Hopes for large things can be given the name of life-hopes. Such a hope gives to an individual’s life a good deal of its inside nature. Different such hopes mark the stages of a life. ... So I do have or can have this kind of life-hope with respect to my future. It also has in it an image of my future actions as being initiated in a certain way: they will be something like originated. ... Does anyone really doubt having or being able to have this kind of very natural hope? If so, they can stop doubting by contemplating what it would be like really not to have it. What it would be like not to have this hope would be to feel that you were in something which William James, the brother of the novelist, called the iron-block universe. That is, the universe of which universal determinism is true. This determinism, James wrote, ‘Professes that those parts of the universe already laid down appoint and decree what other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb; the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.’” – Ted Honderich This entire way of thinking is predicated on an entirely false understanding of causality. It presupposes a world of scientific materialist external causality and totally discounts that we are ourselves are causal originators. Incompatibilists talk of compatibilists not properly understanding “freedom”. What’s for sure is that incompatibilists definitely don’t understand determinism and causality. Above all they don’t understand that causality actually originates from inside monads, and not from anywhere

else. Ultimately, there is no such thing as external, machinelike causality of the type that would lead to a clockwork universe or “iron-block” cosmos. Much of the incompatibilist/compatibilist debate involves the two groups talking at cross-purposes and having no idea what the other lot are banging on about. This is because they are not starting out from a common ontology, or even any ontology at all. The four fundamental questions are these: 1) how can freedom be compatible with determinism? 2) how can freedom not be compatible with determinism? 3) how can freedom be indeterministic? 4) how can indeterminism be compatible with scientific determinism? The only way to make sense of all of these paradoxes is to change the definition of either “freedom”, “determinism”, or both. Freedom, if defined as indeterminism clearly cannot be reconciled with its opposite: determinism. But how can indeterministic freedom be free given that it’s pure randomness and no free person claims to act randomly? Determinism, if defined as hard determinists define it (as in external, mindless scientific determinism), plainly cannot support freedom in any way at all. What eventually becomes obvious is that the standard definitions of both determinism and freedom used in the compatibilism/ incompatibilism debate are untenable and reflect impossible ontologies. Only ontological mathematics provides the correct ontology in which the subject can be meaningfully discussed. Causality and determinism must be understood in terms of countless competing sources of causality and determinism (monads), not one monolithic system of scientific determinism. Freedom must be understood in relation to the origin of causality. If we are acting according to our own causality, we are free. If we are acting according to causality outside ourselves, we are not free Freedom does not mean being free of causality and determinism (i.e. indeterminism). It means being free of the causality and determinism of other, competing sources of causality and determinism. It’s time to redefine the whole debate.

“Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. Factors of historical concern have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism), physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).” – Wikipedia We have free will if we can make choices that originate within ourselves. We have free will if we are capable of a) generating multiple options, and b) then deliberately, not randomly, selecting one of these. We have free will if we are self-determining, if our choices determine our future. If other things determine us, or their choices or actions determine us, then we are without free will. Incompatibilists are those who define free will as “freedom from determinism”. This automatically means that they have defined freedom as indeterministic (metaphysical libertarianism), or they have denied that freedom is possible at all (hard determinism). A third position – hard incompatibilism – asserts that hard determinism and indeterminism are equally incompatible with free will, hence free will is impossible either way. The incompatibilists challenge compatibilists to demonstrate how free will and determinism can possibly go together. However, they duck the issue that their own stance generates: how can free will have anything to do with indeterminism (libertarianism), or how can we imagine we have free will if it’s impossible (as in hard determinism and hard incompatibilism). How can strict determinism or strict indeterminism have any capacity to produce pointless human delusions of freedom that cannot affect the world in any way (free will would be nothing but an incomprehensible, meaningless and purposeless epiphenomenon). Compatibilists not only say that determinism is compatible with free will but is actually necessary for free will since a choice involves evaluating one possible course of action over another and establishing a preference, i.e. we must use a deterministic process to arrive at our decision. We don’t toss a coin or roll dice. We calculate, and calculation is deterministic. “Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will versus determinism a false dilemma.” –

Wikipedia Exactly so. Incompatibilism is ridiculous. The only thing incompatible about it is the incompatibility of its logic. Free will is about whether we have control over our actions. It’s the most self-evident fact of our experience that we do. If we didn’t, how could we ever imagine that we do? It’s said that we might simply be mistaken that we have free will. However, if this were true, we would ipso facto be just as mistaken about everything else, which would reduce everything to total relativism or nihilism. “It is difficult to reconcile the intuitive evidence that conscious decisions are causally effective with the scientific view that the physical world can be explained to operate perfectly by physical law.” – Wikipedia It’s impossible. If conscious decisions are causally effective, the scientific view is false, and vice versa. This is exactly why ontological mathematics, expressed through autonomous mathematical minds (monads), is the truth of existence. We live in a mathematical universe, not a scientific universe, and mathematics alone can make mind and matter compatible – via Fourier mathematics. There’s simply no alternative.

Causal Closure “The conflict between intuitively felt freedom and natural law arises when either causal closure or physical determinism (nomological determinism) is asserted. With causal closure, no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain, and with physical determinism, the future is determined entirely by preceding events (cause and effect). The need to reconcile freedom of will with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism.” – Wikipedia “Causal closure”, as defined in the physicalist terms above, is false because there’s an immaterial Fourier frequency domain outside space and time, not just the material spacetime domain of science. Physical determinism is false

because it does not consider mental determinism originating in the frequency domain. Reconciling freedom of will with a scientific deterministic universe is the same as reconciling a mental (frequency) domain with a material (spacetime) domain. This can be done in only one way – via ontological Fourier mathematics.

Don’t Listen To Your Professor P: “My professors actually said that compatibilism is a definition that many get wrong...” Yes, especially them! P: “The Wikipedia instance you quoted in this case is also confused.” You mean in the opinion of your professors because it does not agree with their opinions! When did your professors become the world authorities on compatibilism, people of such genius and so rigorous in their arguments that their statements cannot be questioned? P: “Compatibilism says that you have the illusion of free will.” According to whom? Can you even define what the “illusion of free will” means? Go on, explain how you can be suffering from an illusion of having free will rather than actually having free will. Did you write your message because you were exercising your free will or because you were experiencing the illusion of free will but were in fact completely causally determined in your actions? If the latter, you were not making any philosophical statement but merely typing a set of words over which you had no choice – hence your message is 100% devoid of philosophical content. You might as well have hit the keyboard at random and it would be as meaningful as what you have written. You and your professors have actually argued that you are robots without free will, hence nothing you say is the product of thinking but of deterministic processes over which you had no control. We are supposed to believe that “philosophy” consists of human machines spewing out deterministic statements (which can’t, by definition,

have involved any freely chosen thoughts), which makes philosophy and indeed everything else both worthless and meaningless. It means that knowledge is impossible because knowledge requires the ability to distinguish between knowledge and non-knowledge and this is impossible if you have no choice about what you think, and no choice between different thoughts. Anyone who takes seriously the notion of non-free will has categorically rejected knowledge and reason since there cannot be any knowledge and reason in a non-free-will world. The statement that 1 + 1 = 3 is as true (or false) as 1 + 1 = 2 because, in either case, we are simply writing down what we have been made to write down by causal inevitability, so how can we know which is right and which is wrong? We can’t know anything. Everything is either inevitable, or an illusion. Either way, we have no say in it, and no ability to actually decide whether it’s true or not. We have no freedom to judge. Any philosopher who argues against compatibilism should be fired on the spot since they have thereby denied that philosophy can have any possible meaning, worth or value! P: “Heredity and psychology will force you to make the choice you always would have made anyways.” Are you saying there’s a “you” that takes decisions entirely deterministically, yet experiences some sort of psychological illusion that it has a choice? How is this illusory psychology generated if not by deterministic processes? How can hard determinism generate the illusion of freedom? Are you saying that genes dictate your choices? How does that happen? What’s the mechanism? The implication of your message is that you had no free will when you wrote it, and we had no free will in replying to it. If you don’t find that ridiculous, and impossible, you’re in serious trouble. Compatibilism is the only way to have a world of scientific materialism coexisting with people taking decisions free of external deterministic constraint and also free of indeterministic absurdities. You and your professors need to go back to school and start learning how to think rationally. People who oppose compatibilism are, if taken seriously in their views, mentally ill, or on the autistic spectrum. Of course, most people who champion the incompatibilist cause don’t for one second

behave as though they actually do. They say they do, but don’t act as if they do. P: “Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and Paul Churchland would be ones to say that the illusion of choice is necessary for our evolutionary advantages, or something of the sort.” Illusions are epiphenomena in any deterministic system. They serve no purpose at all, hence are redundant and cannot be evolutionary-generated traits since they confer no conceivable advantages over zombies that have no illusion of free will. P: “And the response is essentially an altering of the definition of free will (which indeed needs to be acausal or have some semblance of mental causality).” Well, which is it? Acausal or causal? You have given yourself a 100% range, which means you are saying nothing at all. How can there be a “semblance” of mental causality? There’s either real mental causality or there isn’t. You can’t have pretend causality, illusory causality. P: “As one of my professors said, ‘The only thing “soft” about “soft determinism” is its definitions.” They’re surely not softer than his understanding of compatibilism. P: “On any analysis, compatibilism simply reduces to determinism.” You haven’t even understood the basic point. Compatibilism generally, and certainly in Illuminism, does not say that free will is not deterministic. It says that there is no contradiction between free will and determinism; that they are entirely compatible (since both are deterministic!). The problem that compatibilism is addressing is how we can exhibit free will in a system of apparent scientific determinism. We have gone over this ground many times in the God Series. P: “If Coca Cola were determinism, then compatibilism is Diet Coke.” Geniuses such as Hume and Leibniz were compatibilists. But, of course, you and your professors are so much smarter than Hume and Leibniz. Hume and Leibniz are obviously “Diet Coke” philosophers, while the world really needs to be listening to you and your professors – the “Real Coke”

guys. How come we’ve never heard of you if you’re so much more brilliant than Hume and Leibniz? Most philosophers are compatibilists and yet here we have compatibilism being dismissed as some “soft” rubbish. Yet who’s making this claim? Are they towering geniuses, overshadowing the world? Well, no, they’re just smug blowhards who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. P: “Any time when you are presented with choices that are genuine, this would be libertarianism.” According to whom? This is just a statement, not an argument. It already assumes its libertarian conclusion. “Any time when you are presented with choices that are illusory, this would be compatibilism.” According to whom? Again, no argument has been advanced. Again, this already assumes the desired conclusion that compatibilism is false. P: “Compatibilism is also just a more nuanced determinism.” That, of course, depends on how determinism has been defined in the first place. Compatibilism is definitely “nuanced” in relation to scientific determinism, but scientific determinism is not what Illuminists define as determinism. All determinism reflects ontological mathematics. In Illuminism, compatibilism is total determinism!

***** “Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that people have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will where philosophers must choose one or the other. This view is pursued in at least three ways: libertarians deny that the universe is deterministic, the hard determinists deny that any free will exists, and pessimistic incompatibilists (hard indeterminists) deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists. ... Incompatibilism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.” – Wikipedia

“Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. ... Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, exist conditions that could cause no other event. ... The dilemma of determinism or standard argument against free will is an argument that there exists a dilemma between determinism and its negation, indeterminism, in that both are purported to undermine the possibility of free will. The argument for the dilemma combines two arguments about the relationship between the concepts of free will and determinism. One argument claims that strict determination of our actions would mean they were completely necessitated by past events beyond our present control, and that this would be logically incompatible with the concept of free will. The other argument claims that any indetermination of our actions would merely mean they were at least partly random, offering no more control, and that this would also be logically incompatible with the concept of free will.” – Wikipedia

Living Inside the Mind of God Dante said that the universe exists in God’s Mind. Beyond the universe, we leave space, time and matter and encounter God’s mind alone. For Bishop Berkeley, we are ideas in the Mind of God. There is no matter, space or time, except as ideas of God. In Illuminism, we replace “God” with the Singularity = the Monadic Collective. Everything exists inside the Monadic Collective. You haven’t understood existence unless you grasp that matter is inside mind.

Outside the Law Incompatibilist libertarianism tends towards the view that free will is a supernatural phenomenon that does not obey the laws of nature.

***** Compatibilism: there is no determinism/free will contradiction. Incompatibilism: there is a determinism/free will contradiction.

“Pessimistic incompatibilists” deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists.

***** Compatibilism: free will is real (true) and determinism is real (true). Metaphysical Libertarianism (incompatibilism): free will is real (true) and determinism is unreal (false). Hard Determinism (incompatibilism): free will is unreal (false) and determinism is real (true). Hard Indeterminism (incompatibilism): free will is unreal (false), determinism is unreal (false).

***** William James claimed that philosophers and scientists have an “antipathy to chance”. Well, not since the advent of quantum mechanics, they don’t. Now they positively revel in chance, accident, indeterminism, randomness, and have an extreme aversion to fundamental causality and sufficient reason. “Another argument for incompatibilism is that of the ‘causal chain.’ Incompatibilism is key to the idealist theory of free will. Most incompatibilists reject the idea that freedom of action consists simply in ‘voluntary’ behaviour. They insist, rather, that free will means that man must be the ‘ultimate’ or ‘originating’ cause of his actions.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, mathematical minds (monads) are the ultimate or originating cause of actions. They are souls. Being mathematical, they are also 100% deterministic. There’s no contradiction whatsoever between idealism and determinism. It’s ontological mathematical determinism, not scientific determinism. They are very different things. Ontological mathematics is all about mind while science is all about matter. The arguments against compatibilism would dissolve if compatibilism’s opponents accepted ontological mathematical determinism rather than scientific determinism.

“Being responsible for one’s choices is the first cause of those choices, where first cause means that there is no antecedent cause of that cause.” – Wikipedia Monads are the first cause of their choices. There are no antecedent, external causes. “The argument, then, is that if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions. If determinism is true, then all of man’s choices are caused by events and facts outside his control.” – Wikipedia Monads have free will and are the ultimate cause of their actions. It’s entirely false to say that determinism means that man’s choices are caused by event and facts outside his control. This would be the case only if scientific determinism were true. Ontological mathematics is radically different because it begins with mathematical minds, not with mindless scientific atoms, or random fluctuations in nothingness. It’s amazing how often definitions of determinism blindly assume that only materialistic scientific determinism is possible. What an appalling error! “Compatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define ‘free will’ in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism (in the same way that incompatibilists define ‘free will’ such that it cannot).” – Wikipedia It is indeed all a question of definition, and any valid definitions must be grounded in ontology, not in free-floating philosophical concepts. “Ted Honderich maintains that determinism is true because quantum phenomena are not events or things that can be located in space and time, but are abstract entities. Further, even if they were micro-level events, they do not seem to have any relevance to how the world is at the macroscopic level.” – Wikipedia Why doesn’t Honderich attack the absurdity of the claim that quantum phenomena are abstractions rather than ontologically real? What has gone wrong with philosophy? Why do no philosophers challenge the absurd interpretations of quantum mechanics produced by philosophically illiterate scientists? It’s because the philosophers are, in turn, scientifically illiterate. The world has reached the dangerous stage of experts in various fields being wholly illiterate in other, related fields. Where Leibniz was an

expert in science, mathematics, theology and philosophy, such a skills set is almost unknown today, leading to a total breakdown in the ability to tie science, mathematics, theology and philosophy together. “Honderich maintains that incompatibilism is false because, even if indeterminism is true, incompatibilists have not provided, and cannot provide, an adequate account of origination.” – Wikipedia True. “Honderich rejects compatibilism because it, like incompatibilism, assumes a single, fundamental notion of freedom. There are really two notions of freedom: voluntary action and origination. Both notions are required to explain freedom of will and responsibility. Both determinism and indeterminism are threats to such freedom. To abandon these notions of freedom would be to abandon moral responsibility. On the one side, we have our intuitions; on the other, the scientific facts. The “new” problem is how to resolve this conflict.” – Wikipedia Monads are fully consistent with both voluntary actions and origination, hence fully meet Honderich’s requirements. “Near the end of his 1944 essay titled What Is Life? Erwin Schrödinger, a Nobel laureate in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics, says that there is ‘incontrovertible direct experience’ that humans have free will. He also states that the human body is wholly or at least partially determined, leading him to conclude that ‘... “I” am the person, if any, who controls the “motion of the atoms” according to the Laws of Nature.’” Wikipedia Monads are the origins of atoms and the controllers of atoms. “The scientific mode of explanation cannot accommodate the notion of uncaused causation that underlies the will...” – Steven Pinker But the ontological mathematical mode of explanation can. “...if indeterminism is true, then, though things could have happened otherwise, it is not the case that we could have chosen otherwise, since a merely random event is no kind of free choice. That some events occur causelessly, or are not subject to law, or only to probabilistic law, is not sufficient for those events to be free choices.” – Colin McGinn

Exactly right. “Some determinists argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe, because while it can describe determinate interactions among material things, it ignores the minds or souls of conscious beings. A number of positions can be delineated: 1. Immaterial souls are all that exist (Idealism). 2. Immaterial souls exist and exert a non-deterministic causal influence on bodies. (Traditional free-will, interactionist dualism). 3. Immaterial souls exist, but are part of a deterministic framework. 4. Immaterial souls exist, but exert no causal influence, free or determined (epiphenomenalism, occasionalism). 5. Immaterial souls do not exist – there is no mind-body dichotomy, and there is a Materialistic explanation for intuitions to the contrary.” – Wikipedia Statements 1) and 3) are true: immaterial souls are all that ultimately exist, and they are absolutely deterministic because they are wholly mathematical. “The equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This is an example of the butterfly effect, which is one of the subjects of chaos theory. The idea is that something even as small as a butterfly could cause a chain reaction leading to a hurricane years later. Consequently, even a very small error in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behaviour. Chaos theory thus explains why it may be practically impossible to predict real life, whether determinism is true or false. On the other hand, the issue may not be so much about human abilities to predict or attain certainty as much as it is the nature of reality itself. For that, a closer, scientific look at nature is necessary.” – Wikipedia True. For free will to be true, the following must apply: 1) There can be no predestination.

2) There can be no God with foreknowledge. 3) There can be no Creator God (if souls are created, they are caused, hence God is ultimately responsible for what they do). 4) There can be no block universe (where time does not pass). 5) There can be no quantum indeterminacy. 6) There can be no universal scientific determinism. 7) Reality must be grounded in autonomous, uncreated, uncaused, eternal mathematical minds (monads). It’s said that God grants free will to the human soul. This is impossible. A created, caused soul can never be free, especially if its Creator is said to have foreknowledge of what it will do, and has even condemned many to hell and a few to heaven, via predestination, even before any soul has done a single thing. God is the absolute enemy and antithesis of freedom and free will. He’s the supreme Master and Tyrant, fully in control of everyone’s fate. For humanity to be free, every thought of a Creator God must be abolished, expunged and obliterated.

Causal Closure II “Causal closure is a metaphysical theory about the nature of causation in the physical realm with significant ramifications in the study of metaphysics and the mind. Roughly, the causal closure thesis says that ‘All physical effects have only physical causes.’ (Agustin Vincente) ... Those who accept the causal closure thesis tend to think that all entities that exist are physical entities (physicalists)” – Wikipedia “The physicalist principle of closedness of the physical ... is of decisive importance and I take it as the characteristic principle of physicalism or materialism.” – Karl Popper Causal closure asserts, “No physical event has a cause outside the physical domain” (Jaegwon Kim); “Every physical event has a physical cause” (Barbara Montero); “Every physical effect (that is, caused event) has

physical sufficient causes” (Agustin Vincente); “If we trace the causal ancestry of a physical event we need never go outside the physical domain” (Jaegwon Kim). Clearly, the task of causal closure, characterised in these terms, is to rule out mental or mysterious causes for physical events. Ontological mathematics obeys causal closure, but mathematically rather than scientifically, hence is able to reconcile physical and mental causality. Mental causality is associated with the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, physical causality with the spacetime domain, and both domains are fully interactive given the forward (spacetime to frequency) and inverse (frequency to spacetime) versions of the Fourier transform. Ironically, it’s by no means obvious that modern science any longer adheres to causal closure. Quantum mechanics is taken to say that events happen acausally and indeterministically, according to an unreal mathematical abstraction known as the wavefunction. How can an unreal abstraction causally close with “reality”? How can acausality possibly causally close with causality? It’s a contradiction in terms, a category error. Causal closure does not in fact rule out a mental domain or mental causes. If such a domain and such causes existed, they could form a mental rather than physical system of causal closure, but neither system would have any effect on the other: mind could not effect matter, or vice versa. This would be Cartesian substance dualism that allows for no interaction between the substances. There’s a weaker version of causal closure which says that every physical effect that has a sufficient cause has a sufficient physical cause. This allows for mental causes that are necessary but not sufficient for physical events. As ever, the debate about causal closure and causal completeness cannot be properly conducted in the absence of clear-cut ontologies, and only ontological mathematics provides a precisely defined, unambiguous ontology.

***** The physicalist statement that no physical event can have a cause outside the physical domain reflects the Cartesian assertion that every cause must

be at least as real as its effect. This little-acknowledged Cartesian principle is one of the most important of all. It’s particularly valuable in exposing the irrationality of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, where unreal mathematical abstractions give rise to real, observable things via a deterministic wavefunction collapsing indeterministically – incoherent gibberish (!).

The Fallacy “...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signalling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells..” – Eric R. Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind Er, no, consciousness is fully explained in terms of ontological mathematics alone. Science, as Nietzsche observed, produces descriptions, not explanations. Everything that Kandel refers to can be further reduced to ontological mathematical functions. All he has done is tell a scientific Mythos. He has failed to reach the level of mathematical Logos. “Epistemically, the mind is determined by mental states, which are accessible in First-Person Perspective. In contrast, the brain, as characterized by neuronal states, can be accessed in Third-Person Perspective... Either the First-Person Perspective, referring to mental states, is distinguished (and thus dissociated) from the Third-Person Perspective, which rather refers to neuronal states. Or the First-Person Perspective is reduced, subordinated, or eliminated in favour of the Third-Person Perspective... If the First-Person Perspective is reduced to the Third-Person Perspective, it should refer to neuronal states. This however is not the case...” – Goerg Northoff, “The Brain Problem” This is an excellent point, but it still fails to get down to the level of the ultimate constituents of reality: mathematical minds (minds). “I argue that the bond between the mind and the brain is a deep mystery. Moreover, it is an ultimate mystery, a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel. Consciousness indubitably exists, and is connected to the brain in some intelligible way, but the nature of this connection necessarily

eludes us.” – Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds In A Material World This simply shows a lack of imagination, intuition and knowledge. The whole debate about mind and matter is transformed when it’s understood that mind relates to subjectivity and matter to objectivity, that every objective thing has a subjective aspect, and vice versa. Every “outside” has an “inside”, and vice versa. The monad – the mathematical mind – is the ultimate subject, the ultimate “inside”, the ultimate “within”, yet it’s actually made of countless objective things (sinusoids), which perfectly balance to zero. Yet each of these objective things has, in its turn, an inside, a subjective aspect! The whole catastrophe of the matter versus mind debate stems from a disastrous failure to understand Descartes’ decisive definition of extended substance (matter) and unextended substance (mind). Even he failed to understand his definition! Descartes produced two different orders of existence, one defined by zero (mind) and one defined by non-zero (matter). Since no one could work out how zero and non-zero could interact, the idealists decided that zero alone (mind) existed, and matter was its mental construct, while the materialists decided that non-zero alone (matter) existed, and mind was a material construct. Neither school understood that zero is the inside of nonzero, the within of non-zero. Zero is mind, the subject, the inside, while non-zero is matter, the object, the outside. In terms of ontological mathematics, the immaterial Fourier frequency domain is “inside” the material Fourier spacetime domain, and each domain is the Fourier transform of the other. Fourier frequencies are the origin of mental perceptions (qualia). The so-called “hard problem” of how mental perceptions arise from neural activity is not insoluble. Qualia relate to how we experience the “inside” of material things. Qualia reflect the dimensionless, frequency perspective. Self-evidently, you can’t perceive qualia from the outside. You can’t measure them, only experience them.

Madness A Muslim “artist” in Syria was appalled that every morning at school he had to swear an oath to give, if needed, his blood and life for the dictator of Syria. The man’s objection was only to the fact that he had to make this

oath to a man. He would have been perfectly happy to make the same oath to an imaginary Sky Being – God (Allah). What a slave! How can any such person ever be an artist? The first function of any true artist is to rebel against “God”.

Math “Nature did not create math, man did.” – BF Jr Er, nature is math! To all those who deny that nature is math, we simply say, “What is nature, then?” And if they can’t say – and they never can – we then say, “Fuck off, you ignorant wanker!” It’s incredible that people can dismiss in a sentence millennia of the greatest thinking by the finest minds of the human race, and yet not have the vaguest notion of what they’re talking about. If you have no idea what something is, how can you possibly say, with any credibility, what it is not? You have already admitted your own ignorance in the matter. Sadly, that does not prevent sad sacks like BF Jr from running off at the mouth.

Arrogance “Why I Am So Wise.” – Nietzsche “Why I Am So Clever.” – Nietzsche “Why I Write Such Good Books.” – Nietzsche “Why I Am a Destiny.” – Nietzsche “I am not a Man, I am Dynamite!” – Nietzsche Many people accuse us of being arrogant and dogmatic. Well, so what? There’s nothing wrong with being arrogant and dogmatic ... provided you’re right. And we are. Anyone who stands with the principle of sufficient reason must be right. That’s an indisputable rational fact. We are not “cuddly”. We are not “fluffy”. We are not your friends. We are not your lovers. We are not your family. We are Reason. We are Hyperreason. And in that sign we shall surely conquer. We are interested only in people who can make a difference – the strongest, the smartest, the finest, the fittest, the best. Only world-historic

figures can make a difference. They are the ones who shape the dialectic. What do all the rest matter? We want our ideas to actively repel many people – so that they fuck off and leave our movement purely in the hands of those who can get off their asses and actually do something in this world rather than bleating all the time: “Poor little me. Big nasty world.” Legions of people think they are great and important while doing absolutely nothing other than “treating” the world to their feeble, half-baked opinions on Facebook. Finding anyone who can do anything at all, more than lazily typing a sneering remark, is staggeringly hard.

Delusion “The power of people is much greater than the people of power.” – Anonymous Is it? Just take one look at the world. Who’s in charge? Why don’t all the hippie tree huggers just fuck off?! We want Nietzschean Supermen. We want hard bastards. We want cunts. We want Cartman. We want Stewie. We want people who, as Nietzsche said, are dynamite. On Game of Thrones, one character asked, “When have the lions ever been interested in the opinions of the sheep?” Indeed! The elite are never going to be toppled by the weak. Only the strong can take them on. Only the smartest can alter the course of history and take power from the rich. No weak person should be happy to be weak. Every weak person should long to be strong. The weak and the meek will never inherit the Earth! Left wing ideology is about abolishing slaves and slavery, not endorsing and celebrating slaves and slavery.

How Do They Get Away With It? Cartman: “Es Ist Zeit zu säubern.” (“It’s time to clean.”) The crowd: “Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!” (“We must exterminate the Jews!”) Cartman: “Es ist Zeit für Rache!” (“It is time for revenge.”)

The crowd: “Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!” (“We must exterminate the Jews!”) From South Park: The Passion of the Jew

No Betrayal Once you have chosen, you should not betray your acts and deeds. Be equal to what you strive for. “The ‘bite’ of conscience: a sign that the character is no match for the deed.” – Nietzsche “Not to perpetrate cowardice against one’s own acts! Not to leave them in the lurch afterward! The bite of conscience is indecent.” – Nietzsche

Peter van Inwagen Philosopher Peter van Inwagen introduced the term incompatibilism concerning free will and determinism, to oppose compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism. He was the president of the Society of Christian Philosophers from 2010 to 2013, which immediately destroys his credibility and establishes his agenda. In the modern day, any scientist, philosopher or mathematician who espouses Christianity cannot be taken seriously. In the past, many great thinkers were forced to play the Christian game, but there’s no longer any need for any intellectual to pay lip service to Christianity. Anyone who does so is an authentic believer, hence an enemy of reason. It’s staggering that anyone who subscribes to the absurdities of Christianity can be bare-faced enough to claim that anything else is illogical! The greatest “incompatibility” of all is that between Abrahamism and reason. “Van Inwagen’s central argument (the Consequence Argument) [to defend metaphysical libertarianism] ... says that ‘If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of those things (including our present acts) are not up to us.’” – Wikipedia

It’s bizarre that Van Inwagen, a Christian, doesn’t denounce “God” (and Christianity) in exactly these terms. If God is our creator, we are the puppets of an all-powerful being who has existed forever, and imposed his divine laws forever, and created us according to those inflexible laws. It is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what God’s laws are. “God” himself simply replaces “determinism”! He apparently has complete foreknowledge of our acts, and many believe that he predetermines our fate (predestination) – how can freedom possibly be compatible with such a God? The truth is that we ourselves are eternal and indestructible, so there never was a time before we were born. Moreover, we are the laws of nature: they are fully encoded in us. We are all defined by the God Equation, and that makes us God! “Van Inwagen also added what he called the Mind Argument (after the philosophical journal Mind where such arguments often appeared). ‘The Mind argument proceeds by identifying indeterminism with chance and by arguing that an act that occurs by chance, if an event that occurs by chance can be called an act, cannot be under the control of its alleged agent and hence cannot have been performed freely. Proponents of [this argument] conclude, therefore, that free will is not only compatible with determinism but entails determinism.’” Correct! Van Inwagen wants to, and does, conclude, that “Free Will Remains a Mystery” since this allows him scope to maintain his Christian beliefs. “In a paper submitted to The Journal of Ethics entitled ‘How to Think about the Problem of Free Will,’ van Inwagen worries that the concept ‘free will’ may be incoherent. He says, ‘There are seemingly unanswerable arguments that (if they are indeed unanswerable) demonstrate that free will is incompatible with determinism. And there are seemingly unanswerable arguments that ... demonstrate that free will is incompatible with indeterminism. But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept “free will” is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.” – Wikipedia It’s certainly the case that the concept of free will may be incoherent (we prefer “will to power” to “free will”), or the debate concerning free will is

incoherent since multiple, inconsistent definitions of free will are used by the different sides of the debate. All indeterministic accounts of free will are incoherent. All hard deterministic accounts of free will that involve causality exclusively external to the supposed agent of free will are incoherent. Free will can be true only if a) it is deterministic and b) the agent of free will is uncreated, uncaused and the source of its own determinism (i.e. it’s self-determined). Compatibilism cannot work in the absence of eternal causal agents (monads), and incompatibilism cannot work in the presence of external causal agents. Any debate not grounded in eternal causal agents is incoherent. “In his book Material Beings, van Inwagen argues that all material objects are either elementary particles or living organisms. Every composite material object is made up of elementary particles, and the only such composite objects are living organisms. A consequence of this view is that everyday objects such as tables, chairs, cars, buildings, and clouds do not exist. While there seem to be such things, this is only because there are elementary particles arranged in specific ways. For example, where it seems that there is a chair, van Inwagen says that there are only elementary particles arranged chairwise. These particles do not compose an object, any more than a swarm of bees composes an object. Like a swarm of bees, the particles we call a chair maintain a more or less stable arrangement for a while, which gives the impression of a single object. An individual bee, by contrast, has parts that are unified in the right way to constitute a single object (namely, a bee).” – Wikipedia This whole argument is destroyed when it is realised that all “material” objects are produced by minds (monads). Nearly all philosophical arguments fall apart in the presence of a proper ontological system. Science does not furnish a proper ontology, so the whole concept of “particle” is incoherent. According to quantum mechanics, particles cannot, simultaneously, have a position and momentum; they can be everywhere at once; they can take all possible routes between A and B at once; they exhibit wave-particle duality, and are rooted in unreal mathematical abstractions called wavefunctions. Anyone who imagines that any coherent arguments can be advanced on the basis of such incoherent entities is deluded.

A huge amount of modern philosophy is predicated on incoherent concepts, mostly stolen from science, which is not a subject that deals with ontology, epistemology, or the truth. Science is an instrumental, practical subject, unconcerned with true reality. Science is perfectly happy to deal with appearances (phenomena) and ignore ontology (noumena). “In recent years, Van Inwagen has shown an interest in the afterlife debate, particularly in relation to resurrection of the body. In his unpublished article, ‘I Look for the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life of the World to Come,’ Van Inwagen concludes that Christians must account for some sort of physical continuity in their account of existence of the same soul after death. In particular, Van Inwagen notes, this is a problem for the Christian materialist, one who believes that human beings are physical substances.” – Wikipedia The concept of “resurrection” certainly does rely on some sort of physical continuity. The concept of reincarnation certainly doesn’t. It’s impossible for resurrection, hence Abrahamism, to be true since it’s impossible for dead bodies ever to be reconstituted (well, except by a divine miracle, which presupposes the existence of the Abrahamic God and is absolutely anti-scientific).

The Task The task of the compatibilist is to reconcile free will with determinism. The task of the metaphysical libertarian is to reconcile free will with indeterminism, or invoke some mysterian aspect to existence that can never be defined. The task of the hard determinist is to repudiate free will by showing how it’s incompatible with determinism. The task of the hard incompatibilist is to repudiate free will by showing how it is incompatible with either determinism or indeterminism. A hard determinist is concerned with showing how hard determinism is true (hence free will false). A hard incompatibilist does not care whether determinism or indeterminism is true. He is concerned with showing that free will is false, that free will is impossible. In practice, most hard

incompatibilists are actually hard determinists who want to force advocates of free will to see that not even indeterminism offers them any escape route. Some of them are willing to advocate quantum indeterminacy, but certainly not in order to find room for free will. “Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behaviour – theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the ‘elbow room’ believed to be necessary by libertarians. “Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane, where he hypothesises that, ‘In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposes – a hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort. “At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles, quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality.” – Wikipedia All that is required for free will is that agents of free will should be uncreated, uncaused, eternal and indestructible, that they should be able to conceive of multiple possible futures dependent on what actions they choose, and then go ahead and choose one of these. At an unconscious level, monads can choose what to do on the basis of feelings, and without any reflection, i.e. they will persevere with actions that give them pleasure, and desist with any actions that cause them pain. Through experience and intuition, they can then anticipate what actions will

bring pleasure and which will bring pain. Most people in the world pursue this same strategy: seeking to find pleasure and avoid pain at an incredibly simplistic and immediate level (that of instant gratification).

The Neuroscience Blind Spot Why are there are no Cartesian neuroscientists? Because it would be career suicide. Neuroscientists have only one thing to work with – the physical brain. They can’t perform experiments on an unextended, dimensionless, immaterial, unobservable entity that’s not in space and time. You contemplate and analyse the mind via rationalism, not via empiricist experiments. Science isn’t rationalism. It’s anything but. Therefore, by definition, neuroscientists are physicalists slavishly reflecting the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. They are about as objective in their opinions as Muslim imams. More or less everything they say about ultimate reality is false since no part of their Meta Paradigm caters for the eternal soul that defines each and every one of us.

***** “Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” – Karl Marx Neuroscience is also the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.

The Atheist Spot Many neuroscientists seek a “God spot”, a physical part of the brain where, they claim, the religious experience arises. That is, they wish to dismiss religion as a byproduct of some part of the brain. If this brain part were absent, then everyone, presumably, would be an atheist. Remarkably, these same neuroscientists never seek an “Atheist Spot”, a putative physical part of the brain that makes people deny the religious experience, or a “Scientific Materialist Spot” that makes people believe in science. It’s very obvious why some people are atheists and scientists – they have an extreme sensory brain (on the autistic spectrum) – and cannot conceive

of anything immaterial and non-sensory. Clearly, you cannot have any religious inklings if you can’t see beyond your own physicality. Atheists and scientists actually suffer from a brain disorder: a brain disorder, moreover, that causes sufferers to believe they are right, and everyone else wrong. It’s the physicalist mirror image of religious faith, and every bit as pernicious.

Finding the Soul You can never find the soul in the domain in which the soul does not exist – the material, spacetime domain. No materialist will ever find the soul. The soul exists in the immaterial frequency domain, outside space and time, i.e. beyond the scientific method.

Change We are changing all the time. Our body is never the same from instant to instant, and alters radically over the years. So, why do we think we remain the same person? It’s because our monadic Form remains the same, i.e. we remain under the control of the immaterial, immortal, indestructible mental entity that defines us. When our body is disconnected from the soul at death, the body disintegrates. It has lost its Form.

Surface and Depth Science is surface; ontological mathematics is depth. Matter is surface; mind is depth. Physicalism is all about the superficial, the shallow, the surface, the appearance. Mentalism is all about the deep, the profound, the interior, the hidden, the thing in itself.

The Pessimists The philosophical “pessimists” claim that if determinism is true then we cannot be moral agents. We have no choice over what we do, and therefore we can’t be held accountable for it and shouldn’t be punished for it (although, of course, those doing the punishing have no more choice than those being punished – they are all just machines playing their part).

Libertarian incompatibilism says free will is not compatible with determinism, but might be compatible with indeterminism (although it’s hard to see how). Pessimistic incompatibilism (hard indeterminism) says that free will can’t be compatible with indeterminism either. The pessimists are those who doubt or deny the existence of free will and generally regard the absence of free will as a bad thing, primarily because humans then have no moral agency. Hard incompatibilism differs from hard determinism in that it does not commit to the truth of determinism. Hard indeterminism explicitly denies the truth of determinism. All pessimists agree with the libertarians that free will is not possible if determinism is true. However, unlike libertarians, they deny that indeterminism helps to defend free will. In fact, they claim it actively undermines it. In order to preserve any concept of moral responsibility, pessimists are faced with the difficult task of denying that free will is a necessary condition for moral responsibility (since they deny the existence of free will but want to hold on to moral agency). Sometimes, hard indeterminism (neither determinism nor free will is true) is called pessimistic incompatibilism. Others say that hard incompatibilism is pessimistic incompatibilism. The difference is that, with the latter, the pessimists don’t care whether determinism or indeterminism is true or false. Both are equally incompatible with free will. With hard indeterminism, determinism is explicitly denied, but so is free will. If hard determinism is true, free will is an illusion. If hard indeterminism is true, free will is an illusion. If either is true (hard incompatibilism), free will is an illusion. So, whatever way you cut it, incompatibilists (apart from libertarian incompatibilists) pessimistically deny free will and thus any easy account of moral responsibility. Compatibilists have no such problem since, of course, they regard free will and determinism as fully consistent. Compatibilists are therefore “optimists”, and the same might be said of libertarian incompatibilists (although the latter would certainly say that, if determinism is true, moral responsibility is impossible).

Hard Incompatibilism

1) Hard determinism: determinism is true and incompatible with free will. 2) Metaphysical libertarianism (soft indeterminism): indeterminism is true and compatible with free will. 3) Hard indeterminism: indeterminism is true and incompatible with free will. 4) Hard incompatibilism: neither determinism nor indeterminism (regardless of which is true) is compatible with free will. Incompatibilism is the position that determinism is incompatible with human freedom. Hard Incompatibilism is the position that determinism and indeterminism are both incompatible with human freedom. Hard incompatibilism rejects both compatibilism and libertarianism. Hard incompatibilism differs from hard determinism in that it does not commit to the truth of determinism (or of indeterminism). Supporters of hard incompatibilism are therefore in a position to accept hard determinist, hard indeterminist and libertarian critiques of compatibilism and also compatibilist, hard determinist, and hard indeterminist critiques of libertarianism. By arguing that free will is compatible with neither determinism nor indeterminism, hard incompatibilists deny that free will can exist in any circumstances. For them, free will is simply impossible, so all notions that we have free will must, accordingly, be pure delusion. Well, are you deluded? Or are you authentically free?

More or Less “I want more of you, God.” – Anonymous No, I want less of God, unless I am God, in which case I want as much as I can get.

The Science Fallacy Science, whether in its classical deterministic form, or its quantum mechanical indeterministic form, is incompatible with free will. Free will is true only if subjective determinism (self-determinism) is true, and that’s true only if we have autonomous minds that are linked to, but not

determined by, scientific materialism. In other words, free will is true only if the mind is primary and matter is secondary – a construct of mind. If that’s true, the whole Meta Paradigm of science is false, and science must be replaced with ontological mathematics. The issue of free will has at its core nothing less than the truth or falsehood of scientific materialism. The free will debate is usually cast in terms of free will being in want of justification. On the contrary, it’s the validity of scientific determinism that must be questioned. It’s undermined twofold: by quantum indeterminacy and by mental free will. True free will implies teleology, i.e. we do things strictly for purposes (we invest meaning in the world), but science denies that reality serves any purpose or has any meaning. Free will also implies that there are sources of energy, motion and causation outside the scientific materialist paradigm. Science, again, wholly rejects this. What’s finally at stake is fundamental ontology. Is reality grounded in eternal mathematical minds (monads) or in extremely poorly defined random events (linked to unreal, mathematical abstractions called wavefunctions), and extremely poorly defined “nothingness” (which can allegedly spawn whole universes through the power of “nothing”), as scientific materialism claims? Why do scientific materialists such as Sam Harris have such an instinctive, ferocious, irrational and self-defeating desire to deny free will? It’s because they intuit what’s at stake. If free will is true, mind is true, and if mind is true, materialism is false, and if materialism is false, science is false. Science is the quasi-religion of the likes of Harris and they will defend it as passionately as Muslims defend the Koran – against all reason, facts, evidence, logic and proof. Their identity and understanding of reality is totally invested in it. Science sets itself up in competition with mathematics, and that’s a fight it can never win. Only irrational fools believe they can defeat math. This is the great intellectual war. Choose your side! Never forget, you can have all the benefits of determinism and free will just by accepting ontological mathematics and a universe inherently grounded in mathematical minds. The question of free will cannot be

resolved until the ontology of mind is resolved, which it is by ontological mathematics. We don’t need any Diet Coke professors of philosophy, or their students, to explain reality. Given that academic philosophers are supposed to be professional thinkers, they are spectacularly bad at it. They are locked into paradigms and careerism. All great thinkers are outsiders.

Meaninglessness Science is predicated on life and existence being meaningless, a bizarre accident with no aims. If free will is true, life is all about meaning and purpose. A universe without mind is ipso facto a universe without meaning or purpose. A universe with mind is a universe with meaning and purpose. The stakes simply couldn’t be any higher. Who but someone on the autistic spectrum, a “machine person”, a biological program (not a person), would want to deny free will, mind, meaning and purpose? There’s no need for any of this. Ontological mathematics provides a rational universe with no need for faith, Creators, prophets, holy texts, or nihilistic claims that we live in a pointless universe. What is the meaning of existence? We are! What is the purpose of existence? It’s to convert all potential into actuality. It’s for all souls to march across the cosmic chessboard, reach the other side and be converted into Queens (the most powerful chess pieces of them all). Being elevated from pawn to Queen is the same as going from mortal man to immortal God!

Cake What’s it to be? – cake or no cake. As Marie Antoinette didn’t quite say.

Liberals Who needs liberals? They’re pointless. What function do they serve? They’re bloodless, enfeebled last men. They subscribe to the negative

liberty doctrine of laissez-faire (“let them do”, “let it be”, “let sleeping dogs lie,” “leave it alone”, “let them do as they will”). All they do in practice is tolerate the intolerable and perpetuate the status quo. Only positive liberty radicals can make a difference. The Illuminati seek extreme people – outliers, outsiders – not complacent, centrist liberals who want to be nice to everything, and let everyone muddle along together (which invariably means permitting the super rich to ruthlessly dominate everyone else). We are Jacobins: righteous retaliators against psychopathic hawks. We are not doves. Doves are slaves. They are the prey of hawks. Supermen, not Last Men – in that sign we shall conquer.

Teleology “A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that – analogous to purposes found in human actions – nature inherently tends toward definite ends. “Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment and by Carl Jung. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel. “A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality. “A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality. “A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that. “Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge. Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, continue to use language that appears teleological when they

describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions. While some argue that these arguments can be rephrased in non-teleological forms, others hold that teleological language is inexpungable from descriptions in the life sciences.” – Wikipedia One of science’s greatest errors was to abolish teleology. It was inevitable that it would do so since it rejects religion, autonomous mind, purpose and meaning. Science is a wholly false and pointless ideology. It should be replaced wholesale with ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is entirely consistent with Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Each mathematical monad is an autonomous centre of power, and it’s faced with a choice of competing with, or cooperating with, other monads in order to attain more power. All monads have exactly the same teleology – to maximise their power. Some monads see selfishness and elitism as the route to more power. They espouse systems such as anarchism, libertarianism, free-market capitalism, monarchy, military dictatorship, racism, sexism, nationalism, patriotism, religious fundamentalism, negative liberty, the small State, minimal government, and so on. They oppose communism (absolute equality), meritocracy (absolutely equal opportunities predicated on 100% inheritance tax), altruism, community, cooperation, the Big State, Society, Government, positive liberty, etc. Will to Power follows a dialectical trajectory in its subjective mode. Yet, in its objective mode, it’s just mathematical dynamics and looks exactly like scientific determinism. That’s the only reason why science works. Will to Power is finally grounded in mathematical symmetry, with perfect symmetry constituting the ultimate point of cosmic, divine power – the point at which the Cosmic Mind becomes perfect. It thinks infinitely fast, perfectly, and understands everything. It’s the Mind of God.

Will “Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed. Actions made according to a person’s will are called ‘willing’ or ‘voluntary’ and sometimes pejoratively ‘wilful’ or ‘at will’. In general, ‘will’ does not refer to one particular or most preferred desire but rather to the general capacity to have such desires and act

decisively based on them, according to whatever criteria the willing agent applies. The will is in turn important within philosophy because a person’s will is one of the most distinct parts of their mind, along with reason and understanding. Will is especially important in ethics because it must be present for people to act deliberately. “One of the recurring questions discussed in the Western philosophical tradition since Christianization is the question of ‘free will’, and the related but more general notion of fate, which asks how will can be truly free if the actions of people have natural or divine causes which determine them, but which are not really under the control of people. The question is directly connected to discussions of what Freedom is, and also the ‘problem of evil’, because it brings into question whether people really cause their own acts. ... “Jean-Jacques Rousseau added a new type of will to those discussed by philosophers, which he called the ‘General will’ (volonté générale). This concept developed from Rousseau’s considerations on the social contract theory of Hobbes, and describes the shared will of a whole citizenry, whose agreement is understood to exist in discussions about the legitimacy of governments and laws. ... “Kant’s Transcendental Idealism claimed that ‘all objects are mere appearances [phenomena].’ He asserted that ‘nothing whatsoever can ever be said about the thing in itself that may be the basis of these appearances.’ Kant’s critics responded by saying that Kant had no right, therefore, to assume the existence of a thing in itself. “Schopenhauer disagreed with Kant’s critics and stated that it is absurd to assume that phenomena have no basis. Schopenhauer proposed that we cannot know the thing in itself as though it is a cause of phenomena. ... “When we become conscious of ourself, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics of that which we call our will. Schopenhauer affirmed that we can legitimately think that all other phenomena are also essentially and basically will. According to him, will ‘is the innermost essence, the kernel, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of man….’ Schopenhauer said that his predecessors mistakenly thought the will depends on knowledge. According to him, though, the will is primary and uses knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy its craving. That

which, in us, we call will is Kant’s ‘thing in itself’, according to Schopenhauer. “Arthur Schopenhauer put the puzzle of free will and moral responsibility in these terms: ‘Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life. ... But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...’ “In his On the Freedom of the Will, Schopenhauer stated, ‘You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.’ “Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer when younger, but later felt him to be wrong. However, he maintained a modified focus upon will, making the term ‘will to power’ famous as an explanation of human aims and actions.” – Wikipedia Will is the inherent property of all ontological mathematical systems to “solve themselves”, which means self-optimising themselves (and, ultimately, achieving perfect symmetry). Everything that has ultimate existence (all monads) has a Will to Power, which in human terms means the Will to Become God (Illuminism) or the Will to Ally Oneself with God (Abrahamism), or the Will to Be Absorbed by God (Eastern Religion). Only scientists – nihilists, atheists, skeptics, cynics, those that deny that existence has any meaning, purpose or point – have a questionable will to power. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that all of these people suffer from the delusion that they are on the side of the Truth, and, as they see it, are heroically not being fooled by the lies believed by the religious and spiritual. They see themselves as maximising their power through boldly confronting “reality”. What they have failed to grasp is that they have simply told themselves a different type of story from that of the religious and spiritual types, one based on the senses rather than emotions, but it’s no more rational. Reason = mathematics, and mathematics, as it actually exists (ontological mathematics), is all about self-solving, self-optimising

mathematical minds, which are none other than immortal, indestructible, immaterial, unobservable souls. Souls are totally rational, yet totally unempirical. All those who reject the existence of the soul do so because they place an irrational emphasis on their senses rather than on their intelligence. They simply cannot conceive of non-sensory ontological entities. That’s a failure of reason and intellect, and it’s nothing to brag about. It’s as embarrassing as believing in a Creator, another spectacularly silly idea. Emotions and the senses can never reveal truth. Only intuition and reason have this capability.

The Matrix Minds in their basic mode, unattached to any body, do not have anything that we would recognise as physical sensory perception, given that they are not linked to any physical sense organs. However, minds are made of an ocean of sinusoidal waves of every different amplitude, frequency and phase, and they are surrounded by countless other monads, which are also vast sinusoidal oceans. Ultimately, there’s nothing other than a cosmic ocean of vibrations, a perfect mathematical universe. Every mind does nothing but process sinusoids, and every sinusoid has an “inside” that produces the rudimentary versions of sounds, smells, tastes, touches, feelings, colours, shades, heat, coldness, and so on. The movie The Matrix provides one way of thinking about what happens. The Resistance fighters in the film regularly looked at screens filled with machine code showing what was going on in the Matrix world. However, they didn’t see the machine code itself. Rather, they saw what the code translated into in visual terms. They saw the “woman in the red dress”, and so on. If the machine code is the noumenon (the information in itself), the image of the woman in the red dress is the phenomenon (the level of appearance; the code presented in a new, different way: represented). In the “real” world, we simply don’t see the noumenal information – the sinusoids themselves – but their phenomenal representation (the things of the sensory world). If we could see the noumena directly, we would all know for sure that we live in a purely mathematical world. But we never do and we never will.

Our senses are stuck in the phenomenal world. Only our reason can give us access to noumenal, mathematical reality.

***** The “machine code” of existence is nothing but sinusoids. There’s nothing else. Thoughts are made of sinusoids. Sinusoids themselves are the basic thoughts of existence, from which all complex thoughts are assembled.

The Drawback What’s the greatest drawback of Logos – of mathematics, science and philosophy? It’s that it can’t tell an engaging story (Mythos). It’s difficult, abstract, and requires a huge amount of intellectual effort, of which the average human being simply isn’t capable. Human thinking has been classified according to two categories: fast and slow. The first is known as System 1 and provides our instant response to any situation. For most people, this is all they will ever use. It’s generally effective but not accurate. It gives you a reasonable big picture, but no detail, and it can sometimes be spectacularly wrong. The second system is known as System 2 and provides our considered response to a situation. It adds accuracy and detail to System 1 thinking, but, like System 1, can also go badly wrong. System 2 is Logos thinking and System 1 is Mythos thinking. Most people are stuck in System 1. Only mathematicians, scientists and philosophers regularly engage System 2 thinking. Nearly all religion and spirituality involves System 1 thinking, which is primarily emotional. System 1 thinking largely asks, “How do I feel about this?”; “What’s my gut feeling about this?”; “What does my intuition tell me about this?”; “How does this look to me?”; “What do I believe?” System 2 thinking largely asks, “Why are things like this?”; “Why aren’t they different from this?”; “Can I prove this?”; “Is there evidence for this?”; “Is this rational?”; “Is this logical?”; “Can I order, organize, arrange these?”; “Can I find a unifying pattern to explain diverse phenomena?”; “Can I discover an underlying explanatory law?” System 1 thinking is instant and easy. System 2 thinking is slow and hard. So, naturally, most people – wedded to the lazy, easy path of least resistance – stick with System 1.

If you want to succeed and be popular, you have to be able to use Mythos. Only ten percent of humanity are equipped for Logos in any way.

***** The most important questions of philosophy and religion are those about which the most nonsense has been written. Questions such as mind versus matter, free will versus scientific determinism, life after death, and a Creator God versus Evolution, have attracted staggering amounts of absurd commentary. Philosophy departments poison their students’ minds with incoherent arguments. In many debates, those who hold opposite opinions are deploying wholly different definitions and are tacitly invoking radically different worldviews, meaning that they are often talking at complete crosspurposes and failing to understand and address the stance of the opposing side. Questions become impossible to answer if they aren’t framed correctly. Above all, no question can be coherently posed and answered if it’s not grounded in ontology, the subject which is concerned with the study of existence itself. Central issues of ontology concern matters such as whether there are two categories of existence, i.e. real existence (as it is in itself = noumenon) and “appearance” (existence as it seems = phenomenon). Is everything we see when we look at the world “real”, or are we repackaging, in sensory terms, something else that we never actually perceive directly? Is the whole of existence based on a single universal substance from which everything else is made? Are there two or more fundamental substances? If so, how do they interact? If there’s a single substance, are there many instances of it (many “atoms” of it, so to speak), or just one? Can things exists outside space and time or are space and time central to existence? What are space and time? Are they separate substances? If so, how do the interact with each other; how do they coexist? Can something come from nothing? Is nothing the ultimate substance from which everything else derives? Does everything obey causality? Does everything have a sufficient reason for its existence? Or do things spring randomly out of nothing for no reason at all? How can nothing be nothing if somethings can spring from it at any instant (indeed whole universes according to scientists!).

All arguments ultimately reflect a particular worldview and philosophy that is never clearly and unambiguously stated and defined. In ontological terms, it’s impossible to get anything more dubious and ambiguous than science. It’s impossible to establish what science considers ultimate reality to be. The goalposts are always moving. Science was once based on a totally deterministic worldview, and now quantum mechanics promotes the opposite worldview and asserts that reality is in fact grounded in indeterminism, with observable things jumping out of either nothing at all, or out of an unobservable, ontologically unreal wavefunction that nevertheless interacts with reality. Why is it proving impossible for science to reconcile relativity theory and quantum mechanics despite the longest and most intensive effort scientific effort in history, involving the largest number of, most expensive and best educated, scientists of all time? The answer is simple. Science is now addressing ultimate ontology, but science has no idea what ontology is, and relativity theory and quantum mechanics imply two totally incompatible ontologies. It’s impossible to merge these two theories. They are as diametrically opposed as Cartesian mind (unextended) and Cartesian matter (extended). Determining “what there is” and “what there is not” is the most important task of all. Every philosophical debate should involve all of its parties stating what ontology they are relying on. Clearly, anyone who starts from an ontology that is false cannot be making any coherent, substantive point. For example, no one in mainstream philosophy has ever plausibly explained the Cartesian mind-body problem. Therefore, anyone who relies on this model to make an argument has already started talking rubbish because they are building on foundations that are themselves in need of foundations. A vast amount of philosophy involves bigger and bigger edifices built on less and less stable foundations until, eventually, no foundations can be identified at all and philosophical arguments have degenerated into freefloating, fantastical nonsense. Philosophy has never established an agreed ontology. Nor has religion. Nor has science. One of the areas where philosophy, religion and science collide head on is in the question of free will versus scientific determinism. Since this debate is conducted in the total absence of any agreed ontology, or indeed any ontology at all, all that emerges is a plethora of ingeniously

argued nonsense. It’s impossible to answer this question without first answering what existence actually comprises. The most ferocious enemies of free will are scientists, those who claim that something can spring from nothing for no reason – a position much closer to magic than any rational, realistic possibility. They rubbish free will from a stance that’s so absurd as to be more or less laughable, and yet they believe that theirs is the rational default position. Their position, in case you didn’t know, is that we live in a pointless, meaningless, purposeless universe that sprang out of nothing by total accident, with no cause and no sufficient reason; that autonomous mind does not exist (mind, they say, is a material phenomenon or epiphenomenon); that we have no free will and are ruled by inescapable scientific determinism (which is grounded in quantum indeterminism, based on an unreal mathematical abstraction called a “wavefunction”!); that “free will” is an illusion, and we in fact have no choice about anything. No one chose to write this book: the mechanical forces of the universe going back to the Big Bang caused it to be written. Equally, you did not choose to read this book. A chain of forces equally traceable back to the Big Bang compelled you to read it. You had no say whatsoever in the matter. You are just a machine. You had no say in whether you enjoyed it or hated it, understood it or were baffled by it. Is that what you actually believe about yourself? This book is about demonstrating that the existence of free will can be understood only in the context of ontological mathematics – mathematics as the fundamental substance of existence. It would in fact be much better to talk about will to power rather than free will. The meaning of the universe can be invested in only one thing: power. Total power is total meaning. “God” – the all-powerful – is regarded by many as that which defines the meaning of existence. But it’s not God that defines meaning, but power. God defines meaning not because he is God but because he is all-powerful. The pursuit of maximum power is the great dialectical quest of existence. The Holy Grail is the Omega Point of Power: Absolute Power. Knowledge is power and Absolute Knowledge is Absolute Power.

*****

What sort of person goes out of his way to deny that his life has meaning? Only a nihilist. There’s no actual, rational reason to be scientist. That’s something these people choose for themselves (despite their insistence that they have no choice and no free will).

***** Descartes said what mind isn’t (it isn’t extended). He didn’t say what mind is, other than that it can “think”, without explaining ontologically what thinking is, and what thoughts are made of. This is the whole problem with his ontology. He simply hasn’t defined it properly. Ontological mathematics says that unextended Cartesian minds are in fact mathematical monads defined by the God Equation. Simple thoughts are made of simple sinusoidal waves and complex thoughts involve many sinusoidal waves added together. A monad, being made of nothing but sinusoidal waves, does nothing but think. “Thinking” is precisely the activity of structured information flow, and a sinusoidal wave is the fundamental unit of structured information flow. Thinking is also living: “I think therefore I am”; “I think therefore I exist”; “I think therefore I am alive”; “I think therefore I am a mathematical monad that does nothing but think”. Sinusoidal waves are frequencies and, via Fourier mathematics, can be transformed into spacetime functions, which characterise the material world. In other words, from sinusoidal waves, we can generate all minds and all matter, and explain exactly how they interact (mathematically). Descartes was a genius and saw the big picture, but couldn’t put together all of the vital details. Leibniz got even closer but the mathematics of his time simply wasn’t advanced enough to complete the task. Only with the work of Euler and Fourier did it become possible to complete the work of Descartes and Leibniz. Tragically, the intellectual world, bedazzled by Newton, shot off in a totally different direction – that of empiricist materialist science – and has lost sight of mind ever since. Since mind is reality, anti-mind science is therefore utterly sundered from the Truth. It has invented a model that’s superb at describing the phenomenal world from a certain limited perspective, and it has become so intoxicated by its success as to cause scientists to delude themselves that they have discovered reality itself.

Can scientists program a computer to say, “I am fully programmed and have no ability to ever disobey my programming, yet I experience a delusion that I am totally free and can override my programming at any time?” It’s impossible, isn’t it? Yet scientists claim that this is what Nature has done to them. It has totally programmed them (meaning they have no freedom), and then a submodule of this program, which serves no useful function whatsoever, has in turn programmed them to believe that they are not in fact programmed?! Isn’t this the most bizarre program of all time? It’s a program that asserts, “I am not a program!” It, of course, falls foul of Gödelian incompleteness, as does the whole of science.

***** Why is life so mysterious? It’s because we can’t perceive causality. If we could, there would be no mystery at all about why reality is the way it is. We have no sensory way of getting at causality, but we can reason our way to a full understanding of causality. We have the perfect tool for the task – mathematics. Causality is mathematics. Mathematical causation is precisely that which we can’t perceive, but which must exist in order for the world to be intelligible.

Contra Free Will The people who rant against free will are those who despise meaning and purpose, and want us to be mere machines in an accidental, pointless universe. It’s perverse to an extreme degree to be a “scientist”. Scientists are always having their cake and eating it. They have switched from classical determinism to quantum indeterminism and yet believe they have remained completely consistent and rational throughout. They deny that, on the contrary, they have become totally inconsistent and irrational. Scientists are machine people. They can be barely regarded as human. They are without question on the autistic spectrum. They are more “it” than “I”. They are machine parts, computer programs, not people. No person doubts his own free will and seeks means to deny it. Scientists regard the “external world” – the sensory world – as selfevident. They are sensory obsessives. They do not regard their own free

will as self-evident. Isn’t that bizarre? Why don’t they? Because free will is mental, not physical and sensory, and scientists can only comprehend the physical and sensory. Scientists spend a vast amount of their time rubbishing everything that isn’t physical and sensory, usually denying that it exists at all. They will even deny that they are free beings, such is their detestation of the nonphysical and non-sensory. Is this not insanity itself? Are these not lunatics? They pick and choose between what is self-evident and what is not, and they always show unshakable faith in their own senses, and never in their own reason. Sensory things are self-evident to them; non-sensory things they regard as automatically false and illusory. They reject their own minds, their own souls, their own freedom. Scientists are nihilists. They reject all meaning, all-purpose, all reason, all causality, all determinism. all mind, all life, all freedom. They see existence as a stupendous accident and they attribute no significance to it at all. It’s a wonder they don’t all commit suicide since that’s the logic of their position. Of course, they would need to be free to choose death and we know from their own mouths that they are not free but mere machines that continue until they break down (“die”). Scientists consider the existence of matter self-evident even though it’s experienced only through mind, hence is not self-evident at all. It’s the opposite of self-evident. Mind, logically, is the primary reality and matter the secondary reality. Illogically, scientists have concluded that the secondary reality creates the primary reality rather than the other way around. They say matter is real and mind its construct rather than that mind is real and matter its construct. It’s impossible for any human to experience matter directly. Matter is never anything other than an idea in minds. There is no evidence whatsoever that matter exists in its right. Its existence is an inference. Matter, like causality, is never perceived in itself, and never can be. Anything perceived is ipso facto mentalised, not physicalised. The reason why we perceive everything mentally is simple: we are eternal minds, and we can’t do anything other than experience the world mentally. Why does science hate free will? It’s precisely because free will is connected with mind and the whole point of free will is that mental agents

have choices, hence it’s impossible to predict in advance what they will do. Yet, if you think about, even though humans have free will, the behaviour of the human race is highly predictable. Individual humans may behave eccentrically but large numbers of humans average out all of the oddities and behave uniformly. In fact, exactly the same logic is applied in quantum mechanics. Individual quantum particles are said to be indeterministic, but vast aggregates of them are deemed to behave deterministically. Accordingly, there would be nothing incoherent in scientific terms about asserting that quantum particles exhibit free will, and that humans exhibit free will. Scientists would much rather contemplate indeterminism than free will because then they can continue to avoid any notion of mind existing in its own right. The entire way scientists think is predicated on ensuring that meaning, purpose, mind, teleology, and free will never enter their thoughts or theories. It’s literally verboten to allow these to enter science. Science is an ideology. It’s utterly dogmatic. It has an absolutely rigid and wrong worldview that it refuses to alter. It’s as bad as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Karmism. The way Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris and Brian Cox contemplate the world is from the primary assumption that mind, teleology and free will are false. So, it’s no surprise whatsoever to find these people arguing against mind, teleology and free will. They have to in order to cling to their quasi-religious faith in scientific materialism.

Pro Free Will Many people who argue on behalf of free will are highly religious. Their motivation is to ensure that people are moral agents who can be held accountable for their actions. Plainly, if no will has free will, no one is responsible for what they do and all talk of good and evil, crime and punishment, and judging people for their conduct is ridiculous. Ironically, no one can be free if they have been created by God, especially if he is said to have foreknowledge of what everyone will do. In Illuminism, free will isn’t about being moral but about being rational. The more rational we are, the more we can plan a better future. Without free will, we can’t plan anything: we are the victims of our atoms, of the forces acting on us, and we have no say in anything. Without free will, there is no

meaning, no purpose and no reason in the universe. And that, self-evidently, is false and absurd.

Exterior People Scientists are exterior people – people oriented towards the external, sensory world. Ontological mathematicians are interior people – oriented towards the inner, mental world. There’s an enormous difference between extraverts and introverts. The former are sensory and the latter intuitive. The latter are much more religious, and much more receptive to a noumenal reality beyond this one. It’s almost impossible for extraverts to be genuinely religious or spiritual. That’s why so many of them are people of “faith”. To be a person of faith means, in effect, that you have no authentic contact with the noumenal domain, but you fervently hope it’s there because you’re terrified of death.

What Do People Want? 1) To be Loved. 2) To be Admired/Respected. 3) To be Feared. 4) If you can’t be any of the above, you want to be hated.

Too Much The rich can never have too much. For them, it’s never enough.

Friends It’s said that strangers are friends you haven’t met you. Of course, strangers are more likely to be enemies you haven’t made yet.

Dante and Catholicism

The Roman Catholic Church should abandon as its primary texts the Jewish Old Testament and the Jewish New Testament (Jesus Christ was of course a Jewish rabbi claiming to be the Jewish Messiah – he was a 100% Jewish religious figure and anyone who follows him is ipso facto a Jew too). It should turn instead to Dante’s Divine Comedy and the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Imagine a Catholic Church in which silly Bible stories were never mentioned and Catholics were instead exposed to the extremely sophisticated philosophy of Aquinas (Logos) and Dante’s wondrous poem (Divine Comedy), describing the ultimate spiritual journey from Hell and the Devil to Heaven and God, via Purgatory (Mythos). All old religions must undergo a makeover or perish. They are simply no longer relevant to the world as they stand. It’s easy now to imagine a world where there are no Christians, and where every church lies in ruins, just like the pagan temples of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. If religions cannot update themselves, they are doomed. Illuminism has always remained relevant because it’s a dialectical religion and changes to accommodate any new ontological mathematical breakthroughs.

The Ignoramus PS: “Free will is a myth. We are matter. We behave according to the laws of physics. We are made from atoms. If we are so free, why can we not control our emotions? We can’t help falling in love: cause and effect. We can do what we want, yes, but our choices are not free. They are influenced by everything.” WTF! So, atoms fall in love, do they? The laws of physics are the laws of love, apparently. Who knew? Physicists – the last of the romantics! Er, we can help falling in love. We very easily don’t fall in love. We don’t fall in love with 99.99999% of the people we meet. Why not? We seem to be remarkably selective when it comes to our lovers. We seem to make a very careful choice from a multitude of potential candidates. In atomic terms, that would be equivalent to atoms choosing not to take part in 99.99999% of the reactions and interactions offered to them. If physics were actually like that, it wouldn’t be physics at all.

It’s totally bizarre that any science wannabe should use emotions to argue science’s case. If science is right, we no more have emotions than we have free will. Emotions, like free will, are wholly illusory and serve no function whatsoever since the laws of physics will dictate what we do regardless of what our “emotions” are. Is it actually impossible to find any scientist who makes any sense? They are forever pontificating, yet they have as much connection with reason as Muslims so, and that’s zero! “Falling in love – cause and effect.” – PS You heard it here first. WTF! “We can do what we want, yes, but our choices are not free.” – PS Er, that means we can’t do what we want! WTF! “They are influenced by everything.” – PS Cosmic, man – you hippie cunt. Why can’t scientists be rational for once?!

Dogs Dogs are like children that never grow up. They remain the slave of their master forever. Little children idolise their parents and look to them to provide for them and protect them. But all children eventually rebel against their parents. They become adults when they can provide for themselves and protect themselves. Dogs never rebel and never become “adults”. This is why their masters “love” them so much; this is why masters claim that their dogs unconditionally love them. All children would be lovable if they stayed as children forever, but who on earth would want that? It’s essential to grow up. It’s essential to become an adult. People who remain in the same religion all of their lives are like dogs that never grow up. They forever look to their cosmic master (“God”) to provide for them and protect them. Most Abrahamists were dogs in their previous lives and are human dogs now. For their own sake, they must be forced to be free – to grow up and become adults.

***** People who love dogs want consistent, unchanging, “unconditional”, pure love, the sort that young children provide. But children grow up. Dog don’t. Dogs provide childish love forever. Dog owners are emotionally stunted, and childlike. They seek from dumb brutes the simple love that complex human beings can’t give them. You’re in real trouble when you seek out the company of creatures below you in the evolutionary scale for love.

Slavery That which must be eradicated is the Creator God of Abrahamism, the absolute enemy of freedom. All Jews, Christians and Muslims are slaves of their Lord and Master, their “God”, but there is no such being, so they are all irrational, dangerous and evil fantasists. They are enemies of the Truth. The creature that most approximates their deity is the False God – the Demiurge, Satan, the cosmic tyrant and Torture God with his brutal will to enslave all things.

Revelation The mystery of existence is solved when it’s realised that God (perfection) is not a person but an equation (the God Equation). A person can’t be inherently perfect, but an equation can. What is perfection? Perfection is ontological mathematics. It’s the only thing that can be. Religiously minded people were right to see perfection at the root of everything. They were wrong to see perfection as a person. Perfection is math. Religious people have anthropomorphised ontological mathematics and called it “God”. They have given it a personality. They have projected all of their own thoughts and feelings onto it. What they have not done is project reason onto it. Reason is the authentic language of math and the true language of perfection. The religious world has substituted feelings for reason. The scientific world has substituted the senses for reason. That’s humanity’s tragedy.

The Gospel According to Schopenhauer Schopenhauer’s defining book was The World as Will and Representation (German: Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), aka The World as Will and Idea. Other names might have been: The World as Noumenon and Phenomenon. The World as Mental and Physical. The World As It Is and How It Appears To Be. The World as Reality and How Reality is Represented To Us. The World of Ontological Mathematics and Physical Mathematics.

***** Ontological mathematics is the ultimate substrate, the essence of the world. Everything is ultimately ontological mathematics.

***** Schopenhauer argued that Will itself is not within the principle of sufficient reason, which, in his view, applied only to the world as representation (the phenomenal world). The noumenal Will is outside the scope of all necessity. It’s inherently free. Freedom of the Will is freedom from all necessity (here Schopenhauer is following Kant and using a non-deterministic approach to free will). Freedom is transcendental. It’s not found in the world as representation. The Will has aseity (“of oneself”; denoting that it exists in and of itself; it’s independent of anything else; it’s self-existent). The Will is as it expresses itself.

***** Schopenhauer’s view of free will, coming directly from Kant, is rather illogical. Wikipedia provides an effective summary of his view:

“On the Freedom of the Will (German: Über die Freiheit des menschlichen Willens) is an essay presented to the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences in 1839 by Arthur Schopenhauer as a response to the academic question that they had posed: ‘Is it possible to demonstrate human free will from self-consciousness?’ ... “Essentially, Schopenhauer claimed that as phenomenal objects appearing to a viewer, humans have absolutely no free will. They are completely determined by the way that their bodies react to stimuli and causes, and their characters react to motives. As things that exist apart from being appearances to observers, however, humans have free will. “Schopenhauer began by analyzing the basic concepts of freedom and self-consciousness. He asserted that there are three types of freedom, namely, physical, intellectual, and moral. “Physical freedom is the absence of physical obstacles to actions. This is commonly thought to constitute freedom of the will. “Intellectual freedom results when the mind has a clear knowledge of the abstract or concrete motives to action. This occurs when the mind is not affected by, for example, extreme passion or mind-altering substances. “Moral freedom is the absence of the influence of motives on a person’s actions. “Self-consciousness is a person’s awareness of his or her own willing, including emotions and passions. “According to Schopenhauer, when a person inspects his or her selfconsciousness, he or she finds the feeling ‘I can do whatever I will as long as I am not hindered.’ But, Schopenhauer claimed that this is merely physical freedom. He asserted ‘You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.’ Therefore, the Royal Society’s question has been answered ‘No.’ “On the other hand, when a person observes the external world, he or she finds that any change in a thing was immediately preceded by a change in some other thing. This sequence is experienced as a necessary effect and its cause. Humans experience three types of causes. “Cause in the narrowest sense of the word relates to mechanical, physical, and chemical changes in an inorganic object. Newton’s laws of motion describe these changes.

“Stimulus is a change that produces a reaction in an organism that is devoid of knowledge, such as vegetation. It requires physical contact. The effect is related to the duration and intensity of the stimulus. “Motivation is causality that passes through a knowing mind. The motive needs only to be perceived, no matter how long, how close, or how distinct it appears. For animals, the motive must be immediately present. Humans, however, can also respond to motives that are abstract concepts and mere thoughts. Therefore, humans are capable of deliberation in which a stronger abstract motive outweighs other motives and necessarily determines the will to act. This is a relative freedom in which humans are not determined by objects that are immediately present. “I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself – if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.” – Schopenhauer “[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string.” – Schopenhauer “Every human has a unique way of reacting to motives. This is called a character. It is the nature of the individual will. Human character has four attributes. “Individual – Like intellectual capacity, each person’s character is different. Acts can’t be predicted by knowledge of motives alone. Knowledge of individual character is also required in order to predict how a person will act. “Empirical – The character of other people or oneself can only be known through experience. Only by seeing actual behaviour in a situation can character be known. “Constant – Character does not change. It remains the same throughout life. This is presupposed whenever a person is evaluated as a result of their

past actions. Given the same circumstances, what was done once will be done again. Behaviour, however, can change when a character learns how to attain its goal through a different way of acting. The means change, but not the ends. This is the result of improved cognition or education. “Inborn – Characters are determined by nature, not by the environment. Two people who have been raised in exactly the same environment will exhibit different characters. “Virtue cannot be taught. The tendency toward good or evil is the result of inborn character. “Are two actions possible to a given person under given circumstances? No. Only one action is possible. “Since a person’s character remains unchanged, if the circumstances of his life were unchanged, could his life have been different? No. “Everything that happens, happens necessarily. “Through that which we do, we find out what we are. “To wish that some event had not taken place is a silly self-torture, for this means to wish something absolutely impossible. “It is an error to think that abstract motives do not have necessary effects because they are mere thoughts. This error results in the delusion that we can be conscious of having free will. In reality, the most powerful abstract motive necessarily determines concrete action. [L]et us imagine a man who, while standing on the street, would say to himself: ‘It is six o’clock in the evening, the work day is over. Now I can go for a walk, or I can go to the club; I can also climb up the tower to see the sun set; I can go to the theatre; I can visit this friend or that one; indeed, I also can run out of the gate, into the wide world, and never return. All of this is strictly up to me, in this I have complete freedom. But still I shall do none of these things now, but with just as free a will I shall go home to my wife.’” – Schopenhauer “After explaining how acts follow with strict necessity from a given character and its response to different motives, Schopenhauer addressed the question of moral freedom and responsibility. Everyone has a feeling of the responsibility for what they do. They feel accountable for their actions. They are certain that they themselves have done their deeds. In order to have acted differently, a person would have had to be entirely different. Schopenhauer claimed that the necessity of our actions can coexist with the

feeling of freedom and responsibility in a way that was explained by Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason (A533-558) and Critique of Practical Reason (Ch. III), Kant explained this coexistence. When a person has a mental picture of himself as a phenomenon existing in the experienced world, his acts appear to be strictly determined by motives that affect his character. This is empirical necessity. But when that person feels his inner being as a thing-in-itself, not phenomenon, he feels free. According to Schopenhauer, this is because the inner being or thing-in-itself is called will. This word ‘will’ designates the closest analogy to that which is felt as the inner being and essence of a person. When we feel our freedom, we are feeling our inner essence and being, which is a transcendentally free will. The will is free, but only in itself and other than as its appearance in an observer’s mind. When it appears in an observer’s mind, as the experienced world, the will does not appear free. But because of this transcendental freedom, as opposed to empirical necessity, every act and deed is a person’s own responsibility. We have responsibility for our acts because what we are is a result of our inner essence and being, which is a transcendentally free will. We are what our own transcendental will has made us.” Schopenhauer’s position can be summed up in this quotation: “[M]an does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is because he already is what he wills.” The central idea seems to be something like this: Once I have freely willed, my willed action becomes concrete, i.e. necessary and determined. My body in the world is deterministic because it is the result of my willing hence cannot be other than it is.

***** There’s a huge tension in Schopenhauer’s philosophy between noumenal will and phenomenal will, between the unitary, Collective Will, outside space and time, and the myriad individual wills that exist in space and time. How can one be free – because its noumenal –and the other unfree – because it’s phenomenal? This is a Cartesian “substance dualism” of wills. The logic of Schopenhauer’s position collapses in the tension between the Single Will outside space and time, and all the individual wills in space and

time, which are now phenomenal rather than noumenal will, hence do not have free will because they are part of the causal order!

***** Schopenhauer used the terms “will” and “will to life” interchangeably. The world, he held, is the affirmation of the will to life, yet life is not “good” in his view. It’s the basis of the misery of existence, and salvation lies in the denial of the will to life (which results in his version of “nirvana” – extinction of the will). The world is as it is, with all of its horrors, because the “will so wills”. The world itself results from the will affirming itself, from objectifying itself. The phenomenal world is the noumenal world of Will made solid (physical). Everything we see in the world is an objectification of the will and an affirmation of the will. Will is, however, not expressed equally through objects. Some objects affirm the will more completely or clearly than others (just as, for Leibniz, some monads were clearer and more distinct than others). Humans, for Schopenhauer, are the most complete expression of the will (hence the most evil things, spreading misery everywhere!). The affirmation of the will is, naturally, most manifest in the drive to procreate – to produce a clearer and clearer, a more and more complete, expression of the will.

***** Subject of cognition = an immaterial substance = frequency function. Object of cognition = a material substance = spacetime function = a representation of a frequency function.

***** “My entire philosophy can be summarised in the one expression: the world is self-knowledge of the will.” – Schopenhauer “The double-sided world [as both will and representation] is the striving of the will to become conscious of itself so that, recoiling in horror of its inner, self-divisive nature, it may annul itself and thereby its selfaffirmation, and then reach salvation.” – John E. Atwell

What is the world? It’s both Will and its representation. Mathematically, its frequency functions and their spacetime representation.

***** Schopenhauer’s philosophy has two aspects: the affirmation of the will (evil!) versus the denial of the will (good). The unitary noumenal Will wants, it seems, to divide itself, to individuate itself, then for all the parts to fight amongst themselves, causing all of the horrors of existence.

***** The external world: a world of spatio-temporal objects standing in causal relationships. The internal world: Will, outside causality.

***** Schopenhauer said that there are two types of consciousness: consciousness of other things and self-consciousness. The former is the awareness of the willing of other things. The latter is the awareness of one’s own willing.

***** Kant and Schopenhauer both agreed that the category of causality applies only within the phenomenal, empirical world. Kant was accused of illicitly using his category of causality by viewing things in themselves as the cause of our experience of things. Schopenhauer said that Kant employed the category of causality transcendentally, extending the principle of causality beyond the scope of all possible experiences. For Kant, noumena are unknowable and phenomena are knowable, but noumena are somehow the cause of phenomena in some unfathomable way. For Schopenhauer, the Will is what the noumenon is, and the phenomenal world is its spacetime expression, hence we can now see how noumenon causes phenomenon. The big difficulty for Schopenhauer’s philosophy lay in the noumenal Will itself being outside space and time, and being a single thing. For it to be

converted into individuated wills, it was necessary for the Will to be splintered by spacetime, thus bringing it, via its “fragments”, into the phenomenal domain.

***** Kant believed in a universe of noumenal minds and noumenal “matter”. Noumenal matter is the mysterious cause of phenomenal matter. Noumenal minds are mysteriously equipped with conceptual apparatus (what we might refer to as spacetime, materialistic, causation goggles) that allows them to see noumenal unknowable matter (unknowable in itself) in intelligible, phenomenal terms. Schopenhauer and others believed that Kant had no right to make noumena the causes of phenomena, given the parameters of his scheme. This, they said, was a category error. Schopenhauer insisted that all noumena are in fact mental Will. There are no “material” noumena. Will itself dons the spacetime, materialistic, causation goggles and looks at itself. Objectified will is mostly “unclear” and behaves like conventional matter. Where it’s clearer, it behaves like human beings. In scientific materialism, Schopenhauer’s Will is replaced by an “unreal”, abstract mathematical wavefunction on a cosmic scale, which randomly collapses to produce the things of the observable world. In ontological mathematics, Schopenhauer’s Will is subdivided into countless autonomous monads, each with its own causal agency. The Monadic Collective gives rise to the material world via Fourier mathematics, and individual monads then take control of organised groups of atoms (bodies) via the Fourier DNA code. It’s all in the math! What Illuminism achieves is remarkable. It has mathematicised German rationalism and idealism, the great enemy of British empiricism and materialism, which, mostly thanks to Englishman Isaac Newton, became the basis of “science”. Science was all about mathematics; idealism wasn’t. Science could measure things and predict things; idealism couldn’t. So science went from strength to strength and now dominates the intellectual discourse, while idealism has faded into oblivion. Yet idealism, like Scholasticism before it, actually had amazing things to say that truly reveal the fundamental nature of existence. What it didn’t

have was mathematics, and that’s exactly what Illuminism has given it. Now idealism can be merged with science to provide the full picture of existence, mental and physical. Thanks to the Illuminati, humanity is on the verge of its Golden Age, the Age of Reason, the Age of Divinity.

***** Science became the dominant intellectual subject thanks to mathematics. Before Newton, science was nothing like the giant it was to become. If theology and philosophy want to get back in the game, they must embrace mathematics too. Everything that cannot be made compatible with mathematics must be abandoned as meaningless. As for the mathematics of theology and philosophy, this must be the mathematics of the areas where the prejudices of science have prevented it from going: singularities, zero, infinity, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, negative numbers, dimensionless, immaterial frequencies outside space and time, cosmic holography.

***** Leibniz said this is the best of all possible worlds while Schopenhauer denounced it as the worst of all possible worlds: it would be better for humans not to exist than to exist. “There is an old legend that king Midas for a long time hunted the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, in the forests, without catching him. When Silenus finally fell into the king’s hands, the king asked what was the best thing of all for men, the very finest. The daemon remained silent, motionless and inflexible, until, compelled by the king, he finally broke out into shrill laughter and said these words, ‘Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this – to die soon.’” – Nietzsche

Causation

Causation is not empirical, it’s transcendental, beyond any possible experience. We can never perceive causation. Causation is entirely noumenal, not phenomenal. Causation is intelligible, not sensible. We can’t sense causation, but we can know it through reason. Causation is mathematical, not scientific. Hume, the great empiricist, was absolutely right to attack causation since causation can play no part in empiricism – which is why empiricist science, predicated on the empiricist scientific method, has absolutely no right to deploy rationalist, noumenal mathematics, which has no connection whatsoever with the scientific method. Science is a huge con. What it does is match contingent, mathematical, rationalist hypotheses (but they’re not true mathematical hypotheses since they invoke non-mathematical, synthetic, “scientific” concepts) to empiricist observations and measurements. It’s a wholly incoherent, irrational attempt to marry rationalism and empiricism. Kant played the same game, but he did so within his philosophy of transcendental idealism. Quantum mechanics is interpreted so badly because the only way to make rational sense of it is to accept mathematics as the true ground of reality, but science refuses to do so because this would contradict the empiricist scientific method. Science, in other words, is hoist with its own petard. Illuminism recasts all contingent, synthetic scientific concepts in terms of necessary, analytic, mathematical sinusoids, the basis of ontological mathematics. Only Illuminism has any right to causation and determinism. Illuminism is what science aspires to be, but can’t be because of its slavish devotion to the anti-rationalist scientific method. Illuminism replaces the empiricist scientific method with the rationalist mathematical method. Only the latter provides definitive, closed, analytic answers.

Outside Space and Time Schopenhauer believed that there was a reality outside space and time and that it must be a unity. He called it the Will, which we might describe as the Cosmic Mind, or something like Brahman in Hinduism. It’s the Cosmic Oneness that underlies all things.

It never occurred to Schopenhauer that you could get countless things outside space and time, provided that each one was itself inherently outside space and time. The only things that qualify are monads, i.e. singularities. It’s vital to understand that if you accept that the observed, dimensional world is underlaid by dimensionless existence, this dimensionless reality is either a Unity, as eastern religion (Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism) conceives – a Singularity with no parts – or it’s a Multiplicity, as Illuminism asserts – a Singularity comprising countless singularities (souls), which become “One” only at a specific stage, namely that of the perfect symmetry of the Monadic Collective. You have no other choices. Either there’s a single Cosmic Soul (“God” or a divine force), or there are countless individual souls, each of which can “become God”. Scientific materialism posits an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction outside space and time, which, miraculously, “collapses” to produce the things of the observable world (which instantly vanish into unreality again as soon as they are no longer being observed). It’s wholly unclear what roles space and time play in science since these actually belong to the unreal wavefunction, not to observed reality! The ontology of space and time remains a complete mystery in science. In idealist philosophy, space and time are projected by mind. In Illuminism, space and time result from an inverse Fourier transform applied to a frequency Singularity.

Ultimate String Theory Illuminism is the ultimate version of scientific string theory: the analytic, necessary version (rather than synthetic and contingent). Sinusoids are just vibrating string systems. Where science has arbitrary 1D strings vibrating in an arbitrary 11D spacetime, Illuminism has analytic 0D strings (sinusoids) vibrating in an analytic 0D Singularity, and generating, via Fourier mathematics, a 6D complex spacetime (comprising three real and three imaginary dimensions). Go on, then, prove that we are wrong and science is right. Good luck with that. Ours is an analytic, necessary, a priori, deductive, mathematical, rationalist, idealist, metaphysical, noumenal view. Theirs is a synthetic,

contingent, a posteriori, inductive, scientific, empiricist, materialist, physical, phenomenal view. Who are you going to believe? Your choice.

The Law of the Conservation of Perspective Each of us has a unique perspective. If, at “death”, we perished forever, this would mean that perspectives were irreversibly and irretrievably lost from existence, contradicting the Law of the Conservation of Perspectives. Perspectives are just energies and, like energy, they can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The total number of perspectives is fixed.

The Scholastics Can anyone argue that the Medieval Catholic Scholastic philosophers, using reason alone, were inferior at explaining reality than the modern empiricist scientists (“natural philosophers”) using the scientific method? The fact is that the Scholastics were addressing the noumenal domain of metaphysics (beyond the reach of the scientific method), while the scientists were addressing the phenomenal domain of physics. Only those obsessed with their senses could say that the scientists have outgunned the Scholastics. As regards ultimate reality, the Scholastics were infinitely superior. However, they were useless at accounting for and controlling the immediate, observable world. But that was never their “thing” anyway. They were always looking to the world beyond, and the fate of their soul. The only real mistake they made was to conceive of “God” in Christian terms – as a person – instead of in mathematical terms, as a perfect cosmic, ontological Formula. We need a rebirth of Scholasticism, this time directed at the God Equation rather than at the Christian God; at the monad rather than the Christian soul; at Fourier reincarnation rather than Christian resurrection. It’s about time all scientists were made to study the Scholastics before embarking on their science courses. They might learn how to think.

***** Science had a disastrous effect on philosophy. Philosophers became increasingly dragged into the orbit of scientists (i.e. away from

metaphysics, where they were the kings, into physics, where they were paupers). Metaphysics, rationalism and idealism gave way to physics, empiricism and materialism. Philosophy eventually couldn’t compete with science at all and left the stage, splitting into self-mocking, cynical, skeptical, sociological and psychological postmodernist philosophy on the one hand, and pedantic analytic philosophy that became fixated on whether or not the king of France was bald (! ... yes, really). Science literally killed philosophy. We live in a post-philosophical Age. We have witnessed the Death of Philosophy. Yet it’s time for philosophy to be resurrected, and it has a most unlikely saviour – mathematics. It turns out that ontological mathematics is the perfect and true language of philosophy. Physics became so successful because it turned to “dimensional”, phenomenal mathematics. Now metaphysics can reclaim its position at the top of the intellectual pyramid by turning to “dimensionless”, noumenal mathematics. It’s time for Philosophy to be reborn, but this time strictly in terms of Pythagorean ontological mathematics – “All things are numbers; number rules all.” Mathematics, we now see, is the key to both physics and metaphysics, phenomena and noumena, empiricism and rationalism, materialism and idealism, and is the means to reconcile them in a single language and system. Humanity now stands on the verge of divinity – if we have the courage to seize our destiny.

The “Professionals” Professional, academic philosophers are as hopeless as professional, academic scientists and professional, academic mathematicians. They are all locked into careerism, conformism and groupthink. They have all ceased to be able to think beyond the narrow walls of their respective disciplines. They have totally lost the ability to think big, to see the big picture. The whole academic world needs to be overhauled. Everyone currently in charge needs to be fired, and complete outsiders – heretics, rebels, apostates, infidels, radicals and freethinkers – put in their place.

*****

What’s for sure is that there is no longer a place in science or philosophy for non-mathematicians. You’re fucked if you’re mathematically illiterate. The mathematicians will inherit the Earth. They are the Divine Ones, the Chosen People, the Master Race, the Angels! Mathematicians will be the new High Priests, Prophets and Gods.

Essence of Mind According to Buddhists, the soul = “an essence of mind”. It’s not really a soul at all, of course, since it’s not autonomous, immortal and indestructible. It’s this “essence of mind” that is released from the body at death and goes forward to the next life. As ever, given than Schopenhauer’s philosophy is “Buddhism for Smart People”, it’s better to study Buddhist claims from Schopenhauer’s perspective. For Schopenhauer, there’s a unitary, noumenal Will outside space and time – the Cosmic Oneness, from which, so Schopenhauer says, everything comes. On death, in Schopenhauer’s system, our individuated spacetime will is reabsorbed into the single Will. We are not reincarnated. Rather, the Will simply creates a new spacetime outlet, which has no continuity with our former life. To all intents and purposes, we are simply a transient phenomenon that is projected into space for a time from the Oneness and then will be reabsorbed by the Oneness in due course. At “death”, a particular spacetime projection of the will perishes, but not the Will itself, which can never die. There is no Buddhist-style transmission of a coherent bundle of mental essence from one body to the next. Buddhism is an irrational position standing between Hinduism and Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Where Hinduism refers to the atman (the individual self or soul), Buddhism refers to the anatman (the non-self), while Schopenhauer’s philosophy refers to the individuated will in spacetime, and the unitary Will outside space and time. There is no atman in Schopenhauer’s philosophy, and no anatman either. The anatman would correspond in Schopenhauer’s philosophy to a specific spacetime bundle of energy (will) that persisted after death. But this is impossible in Schopenhauer’s philosophy because the body is simply the

spacetime expression of the individuated will. If the will persisted, so would the body! It’s easy to see how a specific soul (atman) can have bodily continuity through reincarnation. It’s impossible to see how a “free-floating” energy bundle (anatman) can have any bodily continuity. How does the bundle hold itself together as a unity if it isn’t a unity? Why doesn’t it just disperse to the winds? There’s nothing at all binding it together. Only a unity can persist through time, not a mere aggregation.

Will versus Nirvana In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, nirvana is essentially the opposite of the Will. Where Will is an evil, ceaseless, tormented striving, nirvana is the state of non-willing, which, in Schopenhauer’s philosophy, means nonexistence, extinction, absolute nothingness. If we adopt Hartmann’s philosophy that Will and Intellect are harnessed together, but Intellect is trying to escape from Will, we could say that Nirvana occurs when Intellect finally frees itself from Will, and enters a state of pure, peaceful, eternal contemplation.

The Monster Ayn Rand argued that the only function of the State was to protect the lives and assets of the rich from the poor. But why should the State bother? Consider this scenario. A very poor but highly aggressive person attacks and kills a rich person and takes all his money. The poor person is now rich. So, should the State now protect him? Ayn Rand said that selfishness is virtuous. That being the case, why should the State take any action against any selfish person, including those who selfishly take what they want by force? If Rand wants to support the “hard-working” and smart, why not the lazy and violent too? Are they not just as selfish, hence just as virtuous? In Rand’s system, why should people with a talent for violence and theft be oppressed by the State? Why should they be prevented from exercising their natural, God-given talents? Liberty demands that they be free to exercise their natural talents, as they would in the jungle. Since there is absolutely no moral code in Rand’s system, and no social contract, she doesn’t have any right at all to condemn killers and thieves.

They’re exercising their natural talents just as surely as entrepreneurs. In fact, haven’t entrepreneurs always been crooks, robber barons and carpetbaggers anyway? They would screw you over without a second thought. Why should anyone weep when they in turn get screwed over? If you live by the sword...

The Inner World The noumenal domain is the inside of the world. It’s not something transcending the world and separate from the world. It’s the mind of the world. Mind (frequency) is always immaterial, unextended and dimensionless. Matter (spacetime) is always material, extended and dimensional. We need both – inside and outside – to provide a full account of reality. Science idiotically tries to explain reality only from the outside view, a completely impossible task. Science refuses to accept the existence of an inside to reality, and this is exactly why it will never provide a final explanation of existence. It has appealed to irrational, inexplicable, miraculous randomness as the ultimate “explanation”, but, of course, randomness is non-explanation, the failure of explanation, the avoidance of explanation. Randomness explains nothing at all. You might as well appeal to magic.

***** Schopenhauer’s philosophy does something very remarkable. It highlights that we all know of a physical thing that has an inside. That physical thing is of course our own body. We know our body directly from inside. If this is true of us, why shouldn’t it be true of every other physical object? All matter has an inside as well as an outside, but only the outside is observable (“scientific”), while the inside is mental and can only be experienced. We have matter (the outside = the body) and we have mind (the inside). They are the two sides of one coin. However, science has totally rejected the inside – the mind – and regards only the outside as real. Science claims that mind is constructed from matter rather than that mind is the inside of matter. Of course, science is unable to explain how mindless matter makes mind, and has made literally zero progress accounting for qualia and consciousness. The whole problem simply

disappears if mind is accepted as the flip side of matter, the necessary inside. The outside is quantity, the inside is quality. The outside can be measured, the inside experienced and felt. The Singularity is the inside of the physical cosmos, its origin and source, akin to the Neoplatonic One. The inside of matter belongs to a different category of existence from the outside. The inside is noumenal and the outside phenomenal. We can’t perceive the inside. The inside is a frequency domain, the outside a spacetime domain. However, these two categories are not two different, irreconcilable substances (the mind-matter substance dualism of Descartes), but, rather the same substance with two complementary aspects: inside and outside, related by a mathematical transform (the Fourier transform). It’s essential to grasp that causation – which, as Hume so rightly emphasised, is something that cannot be observed, only inferred, belongs exclusively to the inside domain. Causation is simply not part of empirical, phenomenal, physical reality. Causation is mental!

***** “For Schopenhauer, one’s bodily movements are expressions of desire or impulse or of some drive. He used ‘will’ as a general term, though ‘force’ or ‘energy’ might have been preferable. Anyway, though one may sometimes refer to willed movement (willing to move my arm, for example), in Schopenhauer’s opinion, as later in Wittgenstein’s, it is a mistake to postulate a volition, an act of the will, which precedes and causes a given bodily movement. The volition, the willing, is the inside, as it were, of the physical movement. Schopenhauer does not claim that there is only the physical movement, as distinct from any psychical aspect. There is one process in which we can distinguish, by abstraction, two aspects.” – Frederick Copleston Illuminism has a clear difference from Schopenhauer’s scheme. Illuminism asserts that the material world is the product of the Monadic Collective, but then individual, autonomous minds (monads) link to this world (and specifically to bodies in this world). Matter, the product of the Monadic Collective, has a mental inside, but is not under any individual control. It objectively reflects all monads equally. There’s no subjectivity. Subjectivity is introduced when individual minds link to the collective matter, through

the bodies they control. Thus, in Illuminism, willing does take place separately from physical action. For Schopenhauer, the physical action is the external aspect of the act of mental will: they are one and the same process. In Illuminism, the monadic mind wills the action and the body then carries out what has been willed. That’s why we can think of an action without actually performing it. In Schopenhauer’s scheme, merely to think it would seem to also make it automatically happen. Schopenhauer is unable to adopt an Illuminist approach because, of course, he denies, at the ultimate level, the existence of individual minds (souls). Schopenhauer’s scheme makes it extraordinarily difficult to explain paralysis, for example. If body is just the objectified will then paralysis is not a physical problem but a mental problem. In Illuminism, paralysis is easy to explain because the mind/soul is not matter itself (which is produced by the Monadic Collective), hence a failure of matter is not a failure of mind. In Schopenhauer’s scheme, matter is mind (objectified mind); in Illuminism matter is the product of the Monadic Collective, and then individual minds control individual material bodies, thus individual mind is linked to body (and controls body) but is not body itself (as it would be for Schopenhauer). In similar fashion, it’s extremely difficult for Schopenhauer to explain dreams. What’s the difference between waking reality and dreaming “reality” if body is just objectified mind? In Illuminism, mind is distinguishable from body, and, during sleep, detaches itself from body to a significant degree and starts having its own internal experiences (dreams). Death also poses immense problems for Schopenhauer. Why do things need to died at all if bodies are objectified minds? If the mind is eternal, so should the body be. With Illuminism, death occurs because the body is actually alien to the mind, and can only be controlled for a certain time before it degenerates too much through the ravages of the physical world. In scientific materialism, “bodies” and the actions of bodies are the products of inexplicable, random collapses of unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions – which is the most ridiculous “explanation” ever advanced, even more laughable and irrational than religious explanations.

*****

Fred Copleston was right to suggest that “will” might have been better described as “force” or “energy”. In Illuminism, everything is ultimately about analytic sinusoidal waves – which constitute the true ontology of “energy”. Specific collections of sinusoids make up monads, which are selfreferential, self-reflecting “strange loops”, capable of taking on a personal identity, an “I”.

***** “And [Schopenhauer] followed Kant in arguing that what is ultimate in the phenomenal world must be energy, that in principle all matter must be transmutable into energy, and that a material object is space filled with force. In this, of course, twentieth-century physics has borne out Kant and Schopenhauer in the most extraordinary way; but the philosophers reached their conclusions by epistemological analysis a hundred years before scientists got there.” – Bryan Magee Magee makes an excellent point. If scientists had paid more attention to philosophy, they would have reached their answers much sooner. If philosophy can be made mathematical – which is exactly what Illuminism accomplishes – then it becomes the proper basis for science. Science should always begin with mathematical philosophy, not with empiricist experiments. The whole basis of science must change. It must become Leibnizian rather than Newtonian. “...what is ultimate in the phenomenal world is energy. In that case the hidden, unknowable noumenon must be something all of whose phenomenal manifestations are expressed in terms of, or in terms which can be reduced to, energy.” – Bryan Magee In Illuminism, everything is energy (i.e. mathematical sinusoids). The noumenal domain comprises dimensionless energy (Fourier frequency energy), and the phenomenal domain comprises dimensional energy (Fourier spacetime energy). What could be more straightforward? It’s all in the math! “[Schopenhauer] is not saying that the noumenon is energy. He is saying that the noumenon manifests itself in this phenomenal world of ours as energy. His point is that this world of our experience, of common sense, of

science, ultimately is energy, and that whatever the noumenon is is therefore something that manifests itself as that. So here is something about the noumenon which we can know, even though we have no direct access to it: it is something which manifests itself in the phenomenal world as energy.” – Bryan Magee Here we see the central disaster of traditional metaphysics. Rather than say that the noumenon is energy and is mathematical (as Illuminism does), hence is completely analytic and definable, Magee, on behalf of Schopenhauer, says that we have no idea what the noumenon is, only that it manifests itself as energy. He thus makes the noumenon mysterious, inexplicable, and of no use whatsoever in any scientific view of reality. This type of mystical, mumbo jumbo metaphysics must be annihilated, and ontological mathematics is exactly what accomplishes that. Metaphysics must become ontological mathematics in order to have a valid place in explaining ultimate reality. Mathematics explains both the noumenon and the phenomenon. It’s absurd to say, as Kant did, that it only explains the phenomenal and has nothing to do with the noumenal. (Kant claimed that mathematics was synthetic a priori when it is fact analytic a priori.) There’s simply no point in saying what the noumenon isn’t and how it’s ultimately unknowable. We must say what it is and how it’s fully knowable, and that’s possible only if its ontological mathematics. There’s simply no rational alternative. You have four options: 1) ultimate reality is mystical (religion); 2) ultimate reality is random (science); 3) ultimate reality is unknowable (Kantian philosophy), or, 4) ultimate reality is mathematical (Illuminist rationalism). Well, what’s your choice?

Will and Intellect Leibniz: Intellect (Reason) is superior to Will (Desire, Emotion); optimist. Schopenhauer: Will is superior to Intellect; pessimist. Nietzsche: Will is superior to Intellect; will to power drives everything. Hegel: Intellect is superior to Will; optimist.

Hartmann: Intellect starts off subordinate to Will and must separate itself from Will and then dominate Will. Abrahamism: Our Intellect and Will make us oppose God; we must rely on God’s grace to allow us to obey God’s Will. Reason is the Devil’s whore. We must be justified by faith.

***** The great struggle is between man’s animal nature (Will) and his divine nature (Intellect). We must master the former with the latter. Dr Jekyll (Intellect) is not required to destroy Mr Hyde (Will), but to be the master, not the servant. As things stand, our word is ruled by Mr Hydes – psychopaths.

***** Many “spiritual” people talk of getting in touch with “God”, Love, Being or “Source”, these all being effectively synonymous. They never talk about getting in touch with Reason, Logic or Mathematics. They are all people of Will, not of Intellect. They are doomed ... like the dinosaurs.

Affirmation Should you affirm life (Nietzsche), deny life (Buddhism), reject life (Schopenhauer), or submit to the life of another (as Abrahamists submit to God)?

The Mind in Itself “[Schopenhauer] makes the point that the knowledge which we have of our bodies from inside is not knowledge of a Kantian thing-as-it-is-in-itself. And he gives more than one good reason why not. First, such knowledge inhabits the dimension of time, even if not of space. Time is the very form of inner essence. And time can be a feature only of the phenomenal world. So inner knowledge is still phenomenal knowledge. Second, we have only partial knowledge of our inner selves – and the greater part is hidden from us. Decades before Freud, Schopenhauer argued specifically and at length that the greater part of our own inner life and motivation is unknown to us,

and therefore our lives, our decisions our actions and our speech are for the most part unconsciously motivated. Here again, then, our knowledge of ourselves from inside is a knowledge of appearances only and not of reality as it is in itself. And there was yet a third reason. Schopenhauer argued that all knowledge must exhibit a subject-object structure. For there to be any knowledge at all, of anything at all, there must be something that is grasped and something that grasps it; there must be a known and a knower, an observed and an observer. This duality seemed to Schopenhauer inherent in the very nature of knowledge as such, and therefore it seemed to him that wherever there was knowledge there must be differentiation – and therefore that knowledge as such could exist only in the phenomenal world. Reality as it is in itself must be knowledgeless. So there are three reasons, each of which alone would be decisive, why our knowledge of ourselves from inside is not knowledge of a thing as it is in itself.” – Bryan Magee For Schopenhauer, there are “two” insides. The outside is the phenomenal world, and the “first” inside is the individual will, the empirical self, aligned with spacetime. The second is the noumenal Will itself, outside spacetime. The second inside is the inside of the first inside. In Illuminism, all matter has an inside, and it’s this inside that gives rise to qualia, all of our internally experienced sensory information about the world. We perceive the external world, in its outside aspect, barely at all. Without colour and shade, which are not possessed by the outside aspect but only by the inside aspect, we wouldn’t see anything at all. In Illuminism, there’s no unitary Will outside space and time, just monads outside space and time. Yet a double layer of “insideness” is established between body and soul (monad). First is monadic consciousness (the empirical self, the Lower Self) – which is aligned with spacetime. This is the inside of our spacetime body. Second is the monadic unconscious (the transcendental self, the Higher Self) – which is aligned with the cosmic frequency domain. It’s the inside of our consciousness. This can learn consciousness from the empirical self, and, when it has done so fully, it achieves God consciousness – gnosis; enlightenment.

*****

If, as Schopenhauer believed, knowledge requires differentiation, but there is no differentiation in the unitary Will outside space and time then reality as it is in itself – as noumenon – must be devoid of knowledge. This, unfortunately, is the sort of mumbo jumbo championed by gurus and mystics. It has no place in a rational world. And it’s totally false. For one thing, thanks to monads, there’s endless differentiation in the noumenal domain. Secondly, the noumenal domain is purely mathematical, so we can have total knowledge of it. Mathematics is the bullshit destroyer. It ends the careers of all the gurus who claim we can never know the answer to existence, that it’s a permanent mystery, beyond human knowledge. No, it’s not. Nothing is. We can know everything. Because we are the mathematikoi, the Coming Race of Gods.

***** Consciousness resides in the left hemisphere of the bicameral human brain. The left hemisphere performs inverse Fourier transforms (converting frequency functions into spacetime functions). The unconscious resides in the right hemisphere. It performs forward Fourier transforms (converting the spacetime functions generated by the left hemisphere back into frequency functions). Alternatively, both hemispheres can perform forward and inverse Fourier transforms (thus maximising ease of communication and interactivity between the hemispheres), but the left hemisphere is defined with regard to inverse Fourier transforms (spacetime), while the right is defined with regard to forward Fourier transforms (frequency). The brain is bicameral precisely because it needs a hemisphere for consciousness and one for the unconscious, a hemisphere that is defined by inverse Fourier transforms and one that is defined by forward Fourier transforms. Otherwise, we would expect the brain to be monocameral. Kant and Schopenhauer were both faced with how the mind could produce space and time given that they denied that these existed in the world itself, i.e. space and time, they said, do not exist as objective, physical properties of some objective, external, material world, but are projections of the mind, and would not exist without the mind. This contradicts the Newtonian notion of absolute space and absolute time, which would exist regardless of whether human minds existed.

Scientists continue to believe in the external reality of space and time, just as they believe in the external reality of matter and atoms, and indeed claim that mind is constructed from atoms in space and time (materialism), rather than atoms in space and time being constructed by minds (idealism). The “ether” was eventually deemed inconceivable in terms of external, objective physicality, and was formally abolished by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet, mentally, there is no objection at all to the ether, i.e. if the ether is conceived in idealist rather than materialist terms, it can be immediately resurrected as the entity that provides the absolute reference frame for everything (without which you are compelled to embrace the crazy Einsteinian principle of relativity which abandons objective reality). More bizarrely, with his general theory of relativity, Einstein invoked warpable spacetime, which, since spacetime is not regarded as a physical substance that you could collect, put in a test tube and perform experiments on, can only rationally be understood as a mental, not physical entity, defined by mathematics, Kant, Schopenhauer and Einstein’s difficulties are all resolved by understanding the universe purely in terms of monadic minds (frequency domains), performing inverse Fourier transforms in order to create the illusion of spacetime. Space, time and matter do not exist in their own right: they are well-defined mathematical constructs of minds, and, without minds to generate them, they would simply not exist at all. Fourier mathematics permits idealism to replace materialism, and to provide a coherent account of everything, physical and mental. Materialism, on the other hand, has spectacularly failed to explain mind, and simply never will. Mind can explain matter; matter cannot explain mind. That’s a fact. For Fourier mathematics to be deployed ontologically, the existence of immaterial, dimensionless singularities (Fourier frequency domains) must be accepted, yet science dogmatically refuses to acknowledge the existence of anything unobservable (as singularities most certainly are since they are totally outside matter, space and time). All of the bizarre, and absurd, interpretations of quantum mechanics flow from trying to understand this subject physically rather than mentally, i.e. without any recourse to ontologically real frequency singularities outside space and time. Quantum mechanics is, if truth be told, the proof that materialism is false, and that idealism is true. It’s all in the math!

***** How do physicalists explain our ability to construct totally made-up-worlds (dreams) in our minds that can often strongly resemble the “real” world? Surely, if space, time and matter are strictly objective, external entities, we should have no awareness of them when we are fast asleep, and no ability to construct our own internal versions of space, time and matter. The reason we can have dreams is that our minds are the true reality, and they can perform inverse Fourier transforms just as easily sleeping as they can waking. The only difference is that, in sleep, we generate our own private inverse Fourier transforms, while, when we are waking, we link to a collective, public inverse Fourier transform (the so-called material world). You are deluding yourself if you cannot grasp that mathematics explains everything, and is the only thing that possibly can. We live in a mathematical world that’s best conceived as mental. We definitely do not live in a physical world. Physics is false and metaphysics is true. Physics can be true only when it’s treated as what it properly is: a branch of metaphysics, the branch that deals with empirical phenomena (but which has nothing at all to say about rational noumena).

Nothing The only thing that can exist is nothing because nothing requires nothing, nothing and can stop it and it’s the necessary, compulsory ground state of existence. But nothing can’t exist because it’s not anything, right? However, there is one way, and one way only, that nothing can exist while being something. If existence is mathematical then something can exist as nothing providing the something has an inherent, necessary, net result of nothing. That is true in only one situation – the one provided by the God Equation – which precisely results in a value of zero, which guarantees a universe of nothing that is also everything. And that, you can be 100% certain, is the ultimate secret of existence. We exist because we are nothing. We are just mathematically organised nothingness. Ontology and epistemology must revolve around this single rational, indisputable, immutable, eternal, Platonic fact.

The Ruler

We are not ruled by astrology. We are ruled by our will. We are not free to will what we will. If we were, we would not be ruled by our will. We would be ruled by something else.

The Free Will Fallacies “As far as I can see, it’s not important that we have free will, just as long as we have the illusion of free will to stop us going mad.” – Alan Moore How can anyone go “mad” in a system of nothing but material atoms obeying the laws of physics? That’s equivalent to claiming that the laws of physics can go mad (impossible) or atoms can go mad (impossible). How can atoms and their laws produce an illusion of sanity, or, indeed, any illusions at all? How are we to distinguish the illusion of sanity from the illusion of insanity? How can they possibly differ if there are only atoms and their laws? “We must believe in free will, we have no choice.” – Isaac Bashevis Singer How do atoms obeying laws create beliefs, and, especially, the belief that they are free of laws, and free of matter? “Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.” – Scott Adams In fact, people always choose the perceived path of greatest power, and everything that is associated with an increase in power is experienced as pleasurable. “Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.” – Jawaharlal Nehru Objective mathematics (form) is determinism; subjective mathematics (content) is free will ... but, in the end, form and content must align in a state of perfect symmetry. “Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven.” – Charles Spurgeon In religion, obeying God is the invariable route to heaven, while exercising one’s free will invariably leads to disobeying God, resulting in going to hell. In other words, God gives us free will and then demands that we

never use it if we want to go to heaven. What could be more perverse than that? If God didn’t give us free will, 100% of souls would go to heaven. God did give us free will, and close to 100% of souls go to hell. So, God gave us free will in order to inflict eternal pain and punishment on almost all of us – which makes him not God, but the Devil. He’s the Torture “God”. The only freedom God grants us is the freedom to go to hell, and what kind of freedom is that?! Only souls that reject their own free will and slavishly obey the will of God at all times, obeying every one of his laws, decrees, rules and Commandments, can get to heaven. Religiously, heaven is all about determinism (about being fully determined by God’s laws), while hell is all about free will (determining your own actions for your own reasons, not those of God). There are no free souls in heaven. Every soul in heaven is God’s slave that never once acted freely. These souls are not the best of souls, they are the worst. They should be held in absolute contempt. All free people want to go to hell, to avoid the tyranny of “God” = the Devil. The notion of a Creator God is the most evil idea ever devised by the human race. Anyone who believes in a Creator is perverse, perverted and evil. “God, our genes, our environment, or some stupid programmer keying in code at an ancient terminal – there’s no way free will can ever exist if we as individuals are the result of some external cause.” – Orson Scott Card It’s absolutely true that if we are the result of an external cause, we can never be free. However, it automatically follows that we can be free if we are the result of an internal cause! “You say: I am not free. But I have raised and lowered my arm. Everyone understands that this illogical answer is an irrefutable proof of freedom.” – Leo Tolstoy Tolstoy has provided the archetypal demonstration of freedom. Simply to move our arm at a time of our choosing is to prove that scientific materialism is false. When you freely move your arm, is it because you choose to do so, or because the inexorable unfolding of the laws of physics going back to the Big Bang – when matter, space and time were born – mandates that you do so? The latter is the insane claim of science. “Man is a masterpiece of creation if for no other reason than that, all the weight of evidence for determinism notwithstanding, he believes he has

free will.” – Georg C. Lichtenberg If souls have a Creator, they can never be free. They are fully determined by their Creator. Imagine you were the greatest ever genius in the field of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and could make a wondrous android simulation of a human being. How would you programme free will into your creation? Exactly the same problem would have faced any alleged Creator of the soul. By what means could he make a soul (according to some program, design, system) and then introduce “free will” into it that allowed it to disobey its program, design or predetermined system? He could no more succeed than an AI expert could. Throw in the concept of predestination – where our fate is sealed the moment our soul is created (to be more precise, God foreordains every event from eternity; the Saved and the Damned are decided even before he makes Adam’s soul!) – and it’s plain that “God” is the uttermost enemy of freedom. If you accept your own freedom as an absolute, incontestable fact, then not only is scientific materialism totally false, but so is the notion of a Creator God.

Completeness Science can be complete only when it’s physics (empiricism) plus metaphysics (rationalism), with mathematics as the glue that joins them. Newton was all about empiricism and Leibniz all about empiricism and rationalism. Leibniz was right and Newton wrong. The experimental method, the cornerstone of science, is actually the cornerstone of empiricism, hence the enemy of rationalism. Mathematics is the method of rationalism. Science can no longer be defined by experiments. Henceforth it must be defined by mathematics. The next evolutionary leap forward for humanity requires humanity to abandon its over-attachment to feelings (faith) and to the senses (science). Humanity must turn to reason, and that means to mathematics. It’s the only way.

The Choices Compatibilism: free will is true, determinism is true.

Hard Determinism: free will is false, determinism is true. Libertarianism: free will is true, determinism is false. Hard Indeterminism: free will is false, determinism is false. (Hard Indeterminism is sometimes called Pessimistic Incompatibilism.) Soft Incompatibilism: free will and determinism are incompatible. Hard Incompatibilism: free will and determinism are incompatible and free will and indeterminism are incompatible (i.e. free will is incompatible in an indeterministic as well as a deterministic universe). It’s sometimes said that hard incompatibilists deny both determinism and free will. In fact, it’s hard indeterminists who hold this view. Hard incompatibilists hold the view that whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, free will still wouldn’t have any part to play. Hard incompatibilism states that 1) incompatibilism is true, and 2) we lack free will. Hard incompatibilists – such as Sam Harris – are actually just hard determinists who want to deny any bolthole in indeterminism for supporters of free will, thus encouraging all such people to shrug their shoulders and accept hard determinism.

Reality Subjective/Objective Reality comprises six aspects: 1) the subjective, 2) the objective, 3) the inter-subjective (between subjects), 4) the inter-objective (between objects), 5) the subjective-objective and 6) the objective-subjective. Individual/Collective Reality comprises six aspects: 1) individual (the single monad), 2) the collective (all monads; the Monadic Collective), 3) the inter-individual (between individuals), 4) the inter-collective (between the entities defined by the collective), 5) the individual-collective (between individual monads and the Monadic Collective) and the collective-individual (between the Monadic Collective and individual monads). Inner/Outer

Reality comprises six aspects: 1) the inner, 2) the outer, 3) the inter-inner, 4) the inter-outer, 5) the inner-outer, and 6) the outer-inner. Mental/Material Reality comprises six aspects: 1) the mental), 2) the material, 3) the intermental, 4) the inter-material, 5) the mental-material, and 6) the materialmental.

***** Why is science wrong? Because it denies the subjective, the inner, the mental, the individual agent with its own causation. Science has tried to describe reality using only half of reality, which is why it’s totally unreal at the ultimate level, and can’t tell us anything about the fundamental truths of existence.

Tautology Physical mathematics (science) and ontological mathematics are both tautological. The latter is based on necessary, immutable, analytic tautologies (eternal truths of reason), while the former is based on contingent, mutable, synthetic, instrumental tautologies (“truths” of fact). Only the latter can deliver the absolute truth of existence. The former can be continuously tweaked to reflect the latest experimental results, but such a process has no terminus. No one can ever say, “That’s it, we’ve reached the end.” Instrumentalism is highly pragmatic, and can produce remarkable “success”, but it certainly isn’t true.

Unconditional Freedom? We are not free in any absolute, unconditional sense. However, we are free to work out how the universe works – to abandon delusion, error, opinion, and belief – and align ourselves with cosmic inevitability (the restoration of perfect mathematical symmetry across the universe). The winners are those who go with the universe rather than opposing and resisting it. The bonus is that if we side the universe we get to be Gods, billions of years before the

slaves wake up to reality. Heaven is for the smart, not for the stupid. Don’t be on the wrong side of history.

Schelling “Nature is visible Spirit; Spirit is invisible Nature.” – Schelling Nature is spacetime Fourier mathematics; frequency Fourier mathematics is invisible Nature. “History as a whole is a progressive, gradually self-disclosing revelation of the Absolute.” – Schelling History as a whole is a progressive unfolding of Fourier mathematics. “Now if the appearance of freedom is necessarily infinite, the total evolution of the Absolute is also an infinite process, and history itself a never wholly completed revelation of that Absolute which, for the sake of consciousness, and thus merely for the sake of appearance, separates itself into conscious and unconscious, the free and the intuitant; but which itself, however, in the inaccessible light wherein it dwells, is Eternal Identity and the everlasting ground of harmony between the two.” – Schelling The Fourier Singularity is evolving from perfect subjective potential, to perfect subjective actualisation. “Has creation a final goal? And if so, why was it not reached at once? Why was the consummation not realized from the beginning? To these questions there is but one answer: Because God is Life, and not merely Being.” – Schelling If the universe had a final goal, it would certainly have reached it. It hasn’t, so it doesn’t. It’s a cyclical system that goes on forever. “Only he who has tasted freedom can feel the desire to make over everything in its image, to spread it throughout the whole universe.” – Schelling Freedom is relentlessly increasing in the universe. The more intelligent you are, the freer you are.

“As there is nothing before or outside of God he must contain within himself the ground of his existence. All philosophies say this, but they speak of this ground as a mere concept without making it something real and actual.” – Schelling “God” is the Singularity, defined by the God Equation. “[The Godhead] is not divine nature or substance, but the devouring ferocity of purity that a person is able to approach only with an equal purity. Since all Being goes up in it as if in flames, it is necessarily unapproachable to anyone still embroiled in Being.” – Schelling We are all becomings, not beings. “God then has no beginning only insofar as there is no beginning of his beginning. The beginning in God is eternal beginning, that is, such a one as was beginning from all eternity, and still is, and also never ceases to be beginning.” – Schelling “God” = eternal, indestructible, ontological mathematics.

Evolution There’s nothing wrong with causation as long as it’s your own causation. You exhibit free will when you are the cause of your own actions. Free will = self-causation = self-determinism. “Scientific” causation = other-causation = other-determinism. In the “scientific” world, nothing is free because all things are caused by things other than themselves. In the ontological mathematical world, everything is ultimately free because all that ultimately exists are monads and they are all self-causing and self-determining. However, in ontological mathematics, a distinction must be drawn between individual monads and the Monadic Collective. Monads acting individually are free: they are the cause of their own actions. Monads acting collectively are not free: they operate as in scientific causation: they obey “other” causation, the causation of the collective. The mental, free world is the world of the individual monad. The “material”, unfree, scientific deterministic world is that of the Monadic Collective.

“Matter” – obeying external, objective, causal laws – is the output of the Monadic Collective rather than of individual monads. Mind – obeying internal, subjective, causal laws – is the output of individual monads rather than that of the Monadic Collective. Mind is individual thinking, and matter is collective thinking. Material things are the “thoughts” of the Monadic Collective. What is evolution all about? It’s about freeing monads from the Monadic Collective (materialism) and making them individual (idealism). The more conscious you are the more individual you are and the freer you are. Ultimately, you are “God”, the quintessence of freedom. But you are not God alone. All other monads can become Gods too – producing a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine, residing in heaven itself.

Form Aristotle defined substances as mixtures of matter and form. Science denies the existence of form and says that substances are matter only. What is “form”? We can think of it as the substance’s mind, giving it eternal purpose and causal agency. Science, by denying form, denies subjectivity. It denies that anything has any internal purpose or causal agency. Everything comes down to whether or not substances have inner form and causal agency. No debate about determinism can be complete if no reference is made to inner determinism.

Clarity Monads become perfectly clear and fully actualised when they become symmetric. Will is subject to two forces: 1) Symmetry – the drive to unite, and 2) Antisymmetry & Asymmetry – the drive to divide. What is the history of the world if not the history of unity and division, love and hate, harmony and discord, peace and strife? And all those things are just different ways of analysing symmetry.

Free Math “The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” – Georg Cantor

The Unexpected! “I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will.” – Richard Dawkins WTF! In one loose remark, Dawkins destroys his credibility as a scientific materialist. Next, he’ll be saying that he’s comfortable with God overriding biology. “Genetics play a huge part in who we are. But we also have free will.” – Aidan Quinn “I think there’s great potential for autonomy, but we have to remember that we live in a world where people may have free will but have not invented their circumstances.” – Thomas Frank “The intuition of free will gives us the truth.” – Corliss Lamont “But I don’t actually adopt the point of view that our subjective impression of free will, which is a kind of indeterminacy behaviour, comes from quantum mechanical indeterminacy.” – Murray Gell-Mann “One of the things that all religions have is a narrative of doomsday. There has to be some kind of overarching fear of the future. If there wasn’t, none of the religions could invoke this important thing – that science has no evidence of, by the way – called free will.” – Greg Graffin “Humans like to think of themselves as unusual. We’ve got big brains that make it possible for us to think, and we think that we have free will and that our behaviour can’t be described by some mechanistic set of theorems or ideas. But even in terms of much of our behaviour, we really aren’t very different from other animals.” – Mark Pagel

Fichte Johann Gottlieb Fichte made the principle of freedom central to his philosophy, and took the stance that the ego – the self – is a free, selfdetermining activity. The ego is a creative, free principle. There’s no lifeless matter in Fichte’s system. Everything is mind/spirit.

Freedom, for Fichte, is meaningful only if there are obstacles to freedom. If ego is the principle of freedom then “non-ego” is the resistance to freedom. The non-ego is the world, the resistance, the obstacle, the limit to freedom (to the ego). The ego struggles in this world of opposition and through this struggle becomes conscious. The non-ego world is a world of law, of set rules, of scientific determinism. If freedom implies deliverance from obstacles, there must be obstacles of which to be free. A world of freedom without obstacles would be absurd. We would have no choices to make, no morality to exercise, no judgement to deploy. We would simply be random processes, devoid of meaning and purpose. For Fichte, the intelligible world is where freedom resides, and the sensible world serves as the opposition. By this account, you could never understand freedom by addressing the sensory, empirical, phenomenal world of science. Hegel, who was highly influenced by Fichte, argued that the universe evolves from nature (or God in himself, God hidden), to God himself (God manifest, God revealed), and this happens via us! If you mathematicise Fichte’s work – if you define it in terms of monads made of sinusoidal waves conforming to the God Equation, you more or less get modern Illuminism. Hegel’s Illuminism is strongly Fichtean.

Three Types of Causation? Causation is either deterministic or indeterministic (random). The first does not seem to involve freedom, and nor does the second (since if you do things for no reason, you are being random, not exercising a free, meaningful choice). Is it possible to conceive of any other type of causation? If not, then free will is either deterministic or indeterministic, and since it can’t be the latter, it must be the former. Causation is free as long as it’s your causation, and does not come from outside you and is not imposed on you. This is the only way in which free will can be meaningful. In the philosophy of Fichte, each person is an “ego” and everything else is the “non-ego”. Each of us can regard all matter and even all other minds as “non-ego”. We have free will when our ego acts upon itself or upon the non-ego (when we choose); we have no free will when the non-ego acts upon us. We either determine our own actions (“self-determinism”) or have

them determined for us (“other-determinism”). Either way, it’s always about determinism.

Quantum Indeterminism Imagine quantum indeterminism as resulting from the countless free choices made by monadic minds, according to their own, self-determined reason. How, empirically, would you distinguish between random events with a certain probability and free choices with a certain probability? The laws of society arise from countless free decisions by people within a deterministic framework. Do the laws of science arise from countless monadic choices within a deterministic framework?

The Antinomies “Immanuel Kant’s Antinomies, from the Critique of Pure Reason, are contradictions which he believed follow necessarily from our attempts to conceive the nature of transcendent reality. “Kant thought that certain of his Antinomies (God and Freedom) could be resolved as ‘Postulates of Practical Reason’. He used them to describe the equally rational-but-contradictory results of applying the universe of pure thought to the categories or criteria, i.e. applying reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. “These antinomies are four: two ‘mathematical’ and two ‘dynamical’. They are connected with (1) the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time, (2) the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist), (3) the problem of free will in relation to universal causality, and (4) the existence of a necessary being. “The first two antinomies are dubbed ‘mathematical’ antinomies, presumably because in each case we are concerned with the relation between what are alleged to be sensible objects (either the world itself, or objects in it) and space and time. The second two are dubbed ‘dynamical’ antinomies, presumably because the proponents of the thesis are not committing themselves solely to claims about spatio-temporal objects.

The Mathematical Antinomies The First Antinomy (of Space and Time) “Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space. Anti-thesis: The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space. The Second Antinomy (of Atomism) Thesis: Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts, and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple. Anti-thesis: No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, and there nowhere exists in the world anything simple. The Dynamical Antinomies The Third Antinomy (of Freedom) “Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another causality, that of freedom. Anti-thesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature. The Fourth Antinomy (of God) Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary. Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.” – Wikipedia Kant, with his antinomies, reveals many of the problems that exist when non-mathematical reason is applied to the “big questions” of existence. Everything about the antinomies can be fully clarified against a proper ontology and epistemology: against a background of ontological mathematics predicated on an eternal Singularity (Monadic Collective)

defined by the God Equation, comprising countless singularities, each individually defined by the God Equation, and reflecting Fourier mathematics based on the God Equation. Kant’s antimonies simply reflect what happens when a philosopher does not have a definable ontology and epistemology to which to appeal. As soon as Kant declared noumena “unknowable”, he was finished as a serious philosopher, and his antimonies arise from his inability to define noumena mathematically, via the universal God Equation. The only things that exist are monads, comprised of sinusoids, defined by the God Equation. Monads can act individually and collectively via the God Equations. Monads can interact with each other via the God Equation, and with the Monadic Collective via the God Equation. There are seven situations: 1) Monads acting by themselves. 2) Monads acting collectively. 3) The Monadic Collective interacting with itself (via collective “thoughts”). 4) The Monadic Collective interacting with individual monads. 5) Individual monads interacting with the Monadic Collective. 6) Monads interacting with each other individually. 7) Individual monads interacting with themselves (via individual thoughts). Nothing else is happening in the universe. That’s it. Finito. And the God Equation defines it all. Nothing else is required.

No Reason To act with free will does not mean acting randomly, for no reason, making no determined choice between similar alternatives. Therefore, indeterminism is eliminated as the root of free will, as the basis of free will. For free will to be compatible with scientific determinism means that both must have the same deterministic source. In ontological mathematics, the God Equation is the common, universal source of determinism, for mind

and matter. The difference between scientific determinism and free will is that the former involves the monads collectively and the latter the monads individually. It really is that simple. There’s nothing complicated about it, no great mystery or paradox.

Will and Intentionality “Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed.” – Wikipedia A world of will, of will to power, is a mental world, a world of intentions and purposes, a teleological world. It’s a world of mind and form. What does it mean to have “free” will? It means that several plausible courses of action will normally be available to a willing agent at any one time, and the agent can freely choose between them by evaluating each in turn and choosing the one it evaluates most highly (no willing agent would ever deliberately choose a sub-optimal option). It would be absurd to talk about intentionality in a machine universe where everything is deterministically programmed in such a way as to make one course of action inevitable and fully predictable at all times. Intentionality and teleology go hand in hand. Science claims that we live in an accidental, random universe, devoid of purposes, intentions and meanings. You yourself, every time you carry out an act of free will, are proof that this is not so, hence that science is false.

***** “We believe in free will because we know about our behaviour but not about its causes.” – Jonathan Edwards Why should inescapable causes produce any notion of free will? We “believe” in free will because we are permanently faced with choices, and we have to evaluate each one in order to determine what we will do. We do not do so automatically, reflexive, as the hard determinists claim. We pause, we ponder, we choose. Our choices are the causes of our actions. So, in fact, we know about our behaviour and we know about its causes.

Objective versus Subjective Causality

If there were nothing but objective, scientific determinism then every time you created the same objective situation, you would get exactly the same outcome. Nothing could possibly be different. However, what happens if you introduce subjectivity into any such situation? A subject can remember the previous situation, what the outcome was, and what the consequences were. As a telelogical being, the subject can decide whether it liked or disliked the consequences. If it disliked what happened first time round, it can change what will happen this time round via its own causal agency (something that science declares impossible). In other words, objective causality leads to objective effects only, and the same outcome every time for a given objective situation. When subjective causality is introduced into this picture, there’s no longer any guarantee that the outcome is identical for any given objective situation. The subject is not the same. The subject has learned from the previous situation and wants a better outcome this time. So, if you have subjects, then identical objective situations do not lead to identical objective outcomes. The presence of subjects changes everything because subjects are never the same. They never stay stuck in one state. There’s no such thing as will not directed towards a specific end. “Free” will is impossible if it means acting without any intended end. Free will simply means that we choose (determine) what we will do rather than having it chosen (determined) for us, i.e. forced on us against our will. Free will means acting in accordance with our own will. We are not free when we act in any other way. Will is free when it’s your own and serving your ends, and is not being imposed on you by anyone or anything else to serve their or its ends. The whole debate about free will is transformed by the knowledge that there are two types of causality – subjective and objective – leading to four scenarios of cause and effect: 1) Objective cause, objective effect (traditional, scientific causation). 2) Objective cause, subjective effect (the world impinges on the mind of the individual). 3) Subjective cause, objective effect (the mind of the individual impinges on the world; he wills a physical action, performed by his body).

4) Subjective cause, subjective effect (the mind causes new thoughts within itself). Free will means that we act according to subjective cause and objective effect, and subjective cause, subjective effect (options 3 and 4). When objective cause, subjective effect (the world affects our mind), and objective cause, objective effect (the world affects our body) apply, we have no free will (options 1 and 2). Compatibilism simply means that options 3 and 4 are deterministic processes rather than indeterministic, and are fully compatible with, and interactive with, options 3 and 4. It’s very straightforward. It’s not rocket science! The Hard Determinism version of Incompatibilism asserts that determinism involves category 1) only, and that no other determinism is possible. The Libertarian version of Incompatibilism asserts that all four categories are invalid. There’s nothing but indeterminism. There are no rational causes and no rational effects. There is only “indeterministic closure”: indefinable, indeterministic “causes”, leading to indefinable, indeterministic “effects”. The Hard Incompatibilism position asserts that determinism is category 1 exclusively (and that free will is incompatible with it), indeterminism is none of the four categories, and free will is incompatible with any of the four deterministic categories.

***** Traditional determinism, hard determinism, is about “one-way” valves. Everything flows in one way only. Compatibilist determinism is about twoway valves. Subjects can affect objects, and objects subjects, rather than just objects affecting objects, as science posits. Compatibilist determinism is networked, subjective and objective, and engaged in feedback loops. That makes it immensely complex, and also creates the scope for free will (which is all about the subjective part of the system: doing things for our own reasons).

Inner Compulsion

You are free if you are driven by an inner necessity and not by outward compulsion, and if your inner necessity involves choosing between relatively equal possible actions in order to maximise, as you see it, your power. No one is ever free not to maximise their power in their own terms. People may make horrendous mistakes about how to maximise their power, but at least they are their mistakes. Compatibilism has no definitional problem. It confuses people because of the problem of perspective that it raises. Incompatibilists can’t cope with the notion of subjective determinism being different from, but compatible with, objective determinism. In order to have a world of free subjects existing within an existing objective world, compatibilism is absolutely essential. Anyone who opposes compatibilism is an irrational fool. Without it, you have a machine universe of total objective determinism, or a random universe of total subjective chaos and indeterminism. The answer to life must be predicated on subject and object, the inside and outside, the within and without.

Compatibilism and Fourier Mathematics To say that free will and scientific determinism are compatible is actually just to say that a Singularity made of autonomous, immaterial Fourier frequency domains is compatible with a material Fourier spacetime domain (“the world”), or that mind is compatible with matter. It’s all in the math. Anyone who thinks that compatibilism isn’t well-defined is mathematically and philosophically illiterate.

The Nut Job An internet troll calling himself “Anthony Bruno” regularly claims to know the authors of the AC site, then promptly dismisses the site as garbage, while also claiming to have written some of the articles himself (!). Of course, the self-evident truth is that this person has no connection whatsoever with the AC site. What’s curious about such people is that they hang around a site that they do nothing but bad mouth. Think of how sad, pathetic and weak you would have to be to lay claim to work that isn’t yours, to then claim that you hate the said work, and then to keep popping up as often as you can to tell everyone else how shit it is. A word to the

unwise – get a life, buddy. Anyone who can’t move on from something he openly hates is mentally ill. And never forget the golden rule – anyone who says they have anything to do with the AC site or the God Series definitely doesn’t.

***** To all trolls such as Anthony Bruno, you should bear in mind what Abraham Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

Waiting to be Reincarnated When we “die”, we enter a pure dreaming state until we are reincarnated. We are not subject to any external causation and determinism whatsoever during that phase. We are ourselves alone. We have entered a purely solipsistic state. We are our entire universe.

***** In simplistic terms, being free means doing what you want. Being unfree means doing what others want, or doing what Nature (the world; scientific determinism) wants. Politically, “libertarians” want to be able to do whatever they want, regardless of others, regardless of the world. But all rational people accept that others have rights that must be respected, and, consequently, they engage in self-constraint and they respect and obey sensible, fair laws. Libertarians are anarchists who want to overthrow all laws. They see any laws at all as an unacceptable constraint on their freedom. Libertarians are driven by the Id. They are little better than animals. And they should be put down like wild dogs.

The Horror, the Horror MA: “A common theme encountered in your works is ‘Being versus Becoming.’ Another is the concept of free will. The two, as presented by

Illuminism, cannot be reconciled. “If it is humanity’s ‘destiny’ to achieve Godhood, that immediately calls free will into question. Destiny implies something that is going to be achieved, regardless of free will or conscious choice. “Secondly, if everything is constantly dialectically evolving, and every Monad innately striving for perfection, doesn’t that counter free will? What if a Monad wants to remain where it is in its development, consciously incomplete? “And yet, taking away free will in either of these cases isn’t so bad, because achieving Godhood. What could be greater? “The worst part is the Omega Point. Divinity attained. Perfection reached. Light for the entire Universe. Godhood achieved. “But only for a moment. “Then because, apparently, nothing can be in a state of ‘being’ (it must always be ‘becoming’), Divine Suicide takes places and the process starts all over again. What kind of a shitty view is this? “At least Abrahamism, as despicable as it is, offers eternal happiness. It’s easy to see why it’s the biggest scam in human history – it offers the greatest imaginable reward. “Illuminism offers about as much comfort as Atheism – None. In fact, at least with Atheism, you can lead a completely free existence and not worry about a thing. You’ll be dead permanently in the end, after all. “Illuminism tells you that after all you’ve been through, countless incarnations, countless struggles and countless lives, it ends for but a moment. And then you have to do it all over again. Ad infinitum. “Worse, since there is no escape from the universe, as it is eternal, and no escape from the concept of ‘becoming,’ a Monad is permanently playing this game. It is trapped. It can’t actually transcend beyond this nonsense. It has no free will just to stop. It can only become God for a moment (or for however long it takes for other Monads to catch up if it achieves Godhood faster than they did), but not for infinity. It can apparently never make the conscious decision to stop when it has reached Omega Point and remain that way. “It is forced, by necessity, to commit Divine Suicide and do it all over again and again and again. Forever and ever. Thus, completely and permanently doing away with any real free will.

“If becoming a God cannot overcome this, then truly nothing can. Only a sado-masochist would find this sort of absurdity appealing. It is as bad as being on your knees to a creator. Perhaps worse, since that creator at least gives you an eternal reward for your servitude. “Illuminism is essentially saying that God longs to know what it’s like to be an ant. And when he struggles, achieves perfection over countless antlives and becomes God once more, he desires to know anthood all over again. “If we are evoking the Law of Sufficient Reason for this, there is none. There is no reason why God would want to attain the same knowledge countless times. Or achieve perfection countless times. There is no reason why God would spend a lot more time being not-God than being God. If the material world is hell, there is no reason God would wish to spend more time in hell, and only a moment being God. That would make him the ultimate cosmic torturer and sadist. To experience hell on repeat forever. To permanently plunge existence into a darkness he will inevitably find his way out of – only to do it again. You can argue that being perfect is a form of stasis – boring and unchanging. But then, repeating the same shit endlessly is boring too. The upside with the former is – at least you are bored in pure bliss – and can that truly be considered boredom anyway? The universe’s scheme cannot possibly be to be on repeat ad infinitum. As I’ve enjoyed the rest of your material, it truly is ironic that the only thing I can’t agree with is the end game – the part that’s really important.” Well, this message raises an number of interesting points, so let’s go through them one by one: “If it is humanity’s ‘destiny’ to achieve Godhood, that immediately calls free will into question. Destiny implies something that is going to be achieved, regardless of free will or conscious choice.” Indeed. This is why it’s better to talk of will to power rather than free will. We are being inexorably drawn in by a Final cause – the Omega Point – divinity. Divinity = perfect symmetry = the total, flawless alignment of every monad in the Singularity, which equates to the resetting of every monad and the end of a cosmic cycle. This is the moment of Divine Suicide – when all the Gods die. This is Ragnarok. This is Götterdammerung. All the gods must perish. Each cyclical universe must die. Scientists talk of the

Heat Death brought about by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There’s simply no way out. Will to Power drives us all, and we must all reach maximum power. None of us has any choice in this. We are not free to pursue the minimisation of power. Ultimate power is attained at a precise mathematical point: perfect monadic symmetry. The whole universe is being driven towards this point. The dialectic is relentlessly taking us there. The point is that some of us have worked this out. We are the ones in tune with the dialectic. We are the agents of the dialectic. It is we, in fact, who are destined to become the Gods who will draw everything towards its final conclusion. It’s freedom for some, but not freedom for all. In the end, everyone gets drawn into the conclusion of the universe just as if they were being drawn into a black hole. The game is to be on the active side, on the winning side, making it happen. Not to be passive, not to resist, not to struggle against the inevitable. There’s no way out. We are in a mathematical cyclical universe. We are mathematical beings. We are subject to the laws of mathematics. Our subjective mathematical nature must, at the end, be perfectly aligned with our objective mathematical nature. Every circle returns to the beginning. Every cycle reaches the end and starts again. That’s the law of existence. No one’s free to change that. Remember, “free will” is deterministic and subject to ultimate cosmic determinism. As we have always said, freedom doesn’t exist in a vacuum. No one is free to disobey the laws of existence. Our freedom is the freedom to pursue our will to power as we see fit. Yet will to power is actually – when viewed from the outside rather than inside – a mathematical drive to establish perfect symmetry, to restore the symmetry that was broken by the Big Bang. So, there comes a freedom cut-off point. People have a lot of freedom right now. As the universe progresses, that freedom shrinks and shrinks. At the end, those who oppose the General Will are subject to overwhelming, irresistible, external, mathematical, cosmic force. They will be “forced to be free”, as Rousseau put it. That phrase “forced to be free” sums up the conflict at the heart of the concept of “freedom”. Free for what? Free from what? Free to do what? Free to do what to others? Freedom is dialectical. The Confederacy fought to be free to enslave Africans. What kind of freedom is that? Freedom for one person can often be slavery for another. Is free-market capitalism

bringing freedom or slavery to the majority? Is religious freedom producing religious fanatics who want to kill every infidel and destroy all freedom contrary to their religious strictures? Freedom is one of the most complex and multi-faceted notions of all. Freedom, as we have said, is always about power, and power has its own laws. Power is, finally, mathematical. The maximum power of the universe – the God Point – is the point at which every monad is arranged perfectly symmetrically and energy flows perfectly through the whole system, reflecting perfect thinking, perfect reason, the full understanding of existence. Everything is understood at once. This is the end of a cosmic cycle. There’s nowhere left to go. All that’s left is to start again. Nothing is more perfect than the God Point, and every cosmic cycle generates it. What could be better than that? “Secondly, if everything is constantly dialectically evolving, and every Monad innately striving for perfection, doesn’t that counter free will? What if a Monad wants to remain where it is in its development, consciously incomplete?” It’s impossible for any free creature to act against its inner drive to increase its power. Stasis is not an option. It would lead to extermination ... followed by reincarnation so that you can try all over again (!). Striving for perfection counters free will only if free will is conceived in perverse terms whereby creatures choose to inflict massive injury on themselves by striving not to evolve – a catastrophic and retarded choice if everything else around you is evolving. “And yet, taking away free will in either of these cases isn’t so bad, because achieving Godhood. What could be greater?” Indeed. “The worst part is the Omega Point. Divinity attained. Perfection reached. Light for the entire Universe. Godhood achieved. But only for a moment.” But you don’t need any more than a moment. You think perfectly at that moment and understand everything perfectly. You have attained Absolute Knowledge. There’s nothing else to learn, nothing else to experience. At the God Point, every monadic mind is infinitely powerful, infinitely perfect,

infinitely actualised in every way. Such a state is infinitely pleasurable, but it would become infinitely horrific if it were extended for even an instant because it would be transformed into infinite tedium. If you know everything at the God-Point, there’s nothing to know at the next instant. You’re done. Luckily, the properties of ontological mathematics ensure that the God Point is immediately replaced by the Big Bang. Let there be light. The universe creates God as its culmination then kills him to start again. “Then because, apparently, nothing can be in a state of ‘being’ (it must always be ‘becoming’), Divine Suicide takes places and the process starts all over again. What kind of a shitty view is this?” It’s mathematics. It’s ontology. It’s the law of life, the law of divinity, the law of an eternal, cyclical universe. You cannot switch over from becoming to being. It’s one or the other. It’s evolution or stasis. It’s the Heraclitean dialectic (there is nothing permanent except change) or Parmenidean frozen eternity (change is impossible). What kind of shitty view is it to worship stasis, to want to be frozen forever in a single state? “At least Abrahamism, as despicable as it is, offers eternal happiness. It’s easy to see why it’s the biggest scam in human history – it offers the greatest imaginable reward.” The fallacy here is to imagine that there’s such a thing as eternal happiness. Try reading Schopenhauer. Maybe you’ll learn something about the true nature of happiness. It’s tragic that so many people have the most naive and childish notions of happiness. Happiness doesn’t last! Abrahamism offers “the greatest imaginable reward” only to the people with the most puerile fantasies and the most simplistic understanding of happiness. “Illuminism offers about as much comfort as Atheism – None. In fact, at least with Atheism, you can lead a completely free existence and not worry about a thing. You’ll be dead permanently in the end, after all.” Atheism offers nothing. Illuminism offers you the chance to become God an infinite number of times. If you don’t get the difference, that’s on you. As for the idea that an atheist can lead a completely free existence and worry about nothing, what planet are you living on?! Certainly not this one.

“Illuminism tells you that after all you’ve been through, countless incarnations, countless struggles and countless lives, it ends for but a moment. And then you have to do it all over again. Ad infinitum.” That’s the beauty of it! It couldn’t be more exquisite. It couldn’t be more perfect. It’s perfection multiplied by infinity! But maybe you need to be a rationalist, maybe you need to be a mathematician, to appreciate true beauty. People driven by feelings alone will never “get it”. The alternative to not doing it all over again ad infinitum is eternal stasis and that’s ugly, tedious, pointless, lifeless and grotesque. It’s for those who don’t have the nerve and balls for life, it’s for the lazy, the frightened, the soft, the weak, the pathetic. “Worse, since there is no escape from the universe, as it is eternal, and no escape from the concept of ‘becoming,’ a Monad is permanently playing this game. It is trapped. It can’t actually transcend beyond this nonsense. It has no free will to just stop. It can only become God for a moment (or for however long it takes for other Monads to catch up if it achieves Godhood faster than they did), but not for infinity. It can apparently never make the conscious decision to stop when it has reached Omega Point and remain that way.” It wouldn’t want to. An enlightened mind understands reality. It doesn’t aspire to the impossible. It does not want to “transcend” perfection (and it can’t be transcended anyway). Existence is mathematical and there is indeed no escape from it. All the more reason to get on board with it. What kind of person says “It has no free will to just stop” other than someone totally beaten down by life, totally exhausted, totally lazy, someone who has lost all will to fight and to live. Life must be lived. And lived to the fullest extent. As Nietzsche said, “For believe me! – the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due: – it will want to rule and possess, and you with it!”

Life will not turn out well for “shy dear” who want to be left alone by the hard demands of life. Life is not for pussies. It’s for the tough. If you’re not hard enough for life, fuck off. We have no sympathy. “It is forced, by necessity, to commit Divine Suicide and do it all over again and again and again. Forever and ever. Thus, completely and permanently doing away with any real free will.” The idea keeps being repeated here that free will should involve being able to defying the laws of existence. Well, that’s simply not an option. Even God must obey the law. We don’t live in a magic universe, a universe of miracles. We live in a mathematical universe. You will adopt the most bizarre beliefs if you fail to accept the truth of existence. “If becoming a God cannot overcome this, then truly nothing can. Only a sado-masochist would find this sort of absurdity appealing. It is as bad as being on your knees to a creator. Perhaps worse, since that creator at least gives you an eternal reward for your servitude.” The author of this message clearly has a real hankering for a Creator, for someone to sort out all of his problems for him, for a cosmic father Figure to make everything OK for him. There’s no such thing as “eternal reward”. It’s a totally infantile concept and ambition. God cannot overcome mathematics. Better mathematics any day than a cosmic Master. Talk about sado-masochism! Who but a slave would ever suggest that there could ever be anything good about the universe having a Creator? Thankfully, it’s impossible. Nothing could be more absurd than listening to the rantings and ravings of a tormented soul railing against the real nature of existence, wishing for a different Truth. There isn’t one. The universe doesn’t give a fuck whether you like the Truth or not. 99.99% of humanity doesn’t like it. As Nietzsche asked, “How much truth can you bear, how much truth can your dare?!” We are interested in the Daring Ones, not the weaklings. “Illuminism is essentially saying that God longs to know what it’s like to be an ant. And when he struggles, achieves perfection over countless ant-lives and becomes God once more, he desires to know anthood all over again.” God was an ant! God has been everything. And what could be more Godly than that?

God doesn’t desire to know anthood all over again. Every time a cosmic Age begins, all of our memories of the previous Age are erased. All monads are perfectly mathematically restored to their pristine condition. We are infinitely old. Don’t you get it? We have all been around forever. The only one to make that a bearable fate is to keep resetting us after we have achieved cosmic climax – after we have become God. It’s absolutely necessary for God to die. You haven’t understood anything of life if you haven’t understood that. “If we are evoking the Law of Sufficient Reason for this, there is none. There is no reason why God would want to attain the same knowledge countless times. Or achieve perfection countless times. There is no reason why God would spend a lot more time being not-God than being God. If the material world is hell, there is no reason God would wish to spend more time in hell, and only a moment being God. That would make him the ultimate cosmic torturer and sadist. To experience hell on repeat forever. To permanently plunge existence into a darkness he will inevitably find his way out of – only to do it again.” God doesn’t want to attain the same knowledge countless times. He does attain the same knowledge countless times, but he also forgets countless times because he is reset countless times. This isn’t like Groundhog Day. The protagonist has no memory of each new “day”. Every new age is pristine. God gets to rediscover everything over and over again. Everyone has their virginity returned to them. Everyone gets the chance to explore and discover all over again, as if they hadn’t been through it all infinite times before (which they have, of course). Isn’t it the greatest of all pleasures to be able to repeat your most exquisite pleasures – such as first love – infinite times? The author of the message is totally locked into an Abrahamic conception of God. He simply hasn’t grasped that an Evolutionary God is an entirely different creature, with entirely different requirements and desires. The author of the message longs to be the Abrahamic God, or the slave of the Abrahamic God, and what could be sadder and more pathetic than that? No fate could be worse than that of the Abrahamic God. But existence has spared any being that dismal destiny. The author has a great horror of hell, yet what could be greater than surviving hell, overcoming hell, transcending hell, escaping hell? That was

the whole point of ancient Gnosticism. Hell is what makes us. Hell, in particular, is what makes us ready for heaven. “You can argue that being perfect is a form of stasis – boring and unchanging. But then, repeating the same shit endlessly is boring too. The upside with the former is – at least you are bored in pure bliss – and can that truly be considered boredom anyway?” Illuminism, like Nietzsche’s philosophy, promotes an ideology of strength, not weakness. No strong person could ever tolerate not testing himself in hell. How else do you come to know yourself? We are not about running away from life. We are about running towards it and embracing it. Everything the message’s author says reeks of exhaustion and fear, of a great disgust and horror of life, and desperate desire to have no more of the struggle. His vision of what God should want is utterly nauseating and pathetic. It’s an insult to any True God. “The universe’s scheme cannot possibly be to be on repeat ad infinitum.” Try contemplating eternity, really contemplating it. Try contemplating a circle. Try contemplating a sine wave. There is no beginning and no end. The cycle is repeated ad infinitum, and it can’t be otherwise. The only alternative – one that is mathematically impossible, fortunately – is that of eternal stasis. Imagine being in nirvana forever. What could be worse? Imagine being in heaven forever? Could there be a greater hell? Imagine being the Abrahamic God. Could there be a worse fate? We can tell you what’s true and what’s false. What we can’t do is make you like it. However, we can tell you that if you resist the Truth, it will one day crush you. Nobody can defy reality. This is a rational universe, a mathematical universe. Feeling types will always struggle with it. They will always fantasise about an outcome that makes them feel better, without thinking through the rational consequences of what they propose. They simply aren’t capable of deploying the principle of sufficient reason correctly. Anyway, as it happens, we regard the cyclical universe as the best of all possible worlds. The universe is perfectly configured. It delivers perfection infinite times – fresh and new every time – and that’s all that any sane person could ever want.

We are eternal monads. We are not eternal “persons”. Every time the universe begins again, we are blank slates. We are perfect potential waiting to be dialectically transformed into perfect actualisation. Each time the universe is reborn we become a different “person”. It’s not personhood that’s eternal, it’s mathematics. Reincarnation radically resets you. The reincarnation of the universe radically resets everything. “As I’ve enjoyed the rest of your material, it truly is ironic that the only thing I can’t agree with is the end game – the part that’s really important.” The part that’s really important about our material is the Truth, the rational Truth. What we can’t provide is emotional truth since the emotional truth isn’t true at all. It’s pure wishful thinking and fantasy. What the message’s author craves is something that makes him feel good emotionally. He has zero interest in the truth. That, in fact, is why the world is so full of Abrahamists and Karmists. These silly religions provide emotional cripples with emotional satisfaction. We’re simply not in that game – the game of delusion, falsehood, irrationalism and faith.

***** “A common theme encountered in your works is ‘Being versus Becoming.’ Another is the concept of free will. The two, as presented by Illuminism, cannot be reconciled.” They certainly can be, and are, reconciled. What you mean, of course, is that they can’t be reconciled with what you would like free will to be: an impossible thing hard-wired to fantasy, magic and miracles that can defy and overturn the laws of existence themselves.

***** AI: “Try and look at it from God’s perspective instead of from your individual ego/’sense of I’. It should make more sense. In between each divine suicide is an eternity as God. But after an eternity you probably say,

hey remember that other thing I did an eternity ago? Let’s try that again, only this time everything will be different...” The condition of being God in all his infinite perfection can be endured only for an instant, yet since infinity itself is fully explored in that instant, it’s a condition that, to each divine monad, can be subjectively experienced as something akin to eternity.

Mathematical Destiny Illuminism is the rational exploration of the properties of mathematical monads. These are what constitute reality. We are simply mapping those objective properties (the “outside” view) to the subjective feelings, thoughts and perceptions experienced by these mathematical entities. Why is it that people have “oceanic” feelings of limitlessness, as Freud put it? Why do people talk of universal love, of unconditional love, of indissoluble bonds to others, of cosmic oneness, of total harmony, of absolute interconnectedness, of perfection? These are all intuitions about the mathematical destination to which we are all heading – perfect monadic symmetry. Personhood is a key property of evolving monads, which transforms into consciousness and culminates in God consciousness. But you are not an eternal “I”, you are an eternal monad. You have not existed as “you” forever. You have existed as an extraordinary mathematical system forever. Hinduism talks of the self (atman) and Buddhism talks of the not-self, the illusion of self (anatman). In fact, the monad is both. It has no fixed, eternal personhood, and is in this sense anatman. However, it is a fixed, eternal, autonomous, indestructible mathematical entity and in this sense is atman. You are an atman and person for each cyclical Age. But you are not the same person each time round. In the next cyclical Age, it’s all up for grabs what you will be. Your experiences will be entirely different, your environment will be entirely different, the people you meet will be entirely different and you yourself will be entirely different. The same cosmic pattern will be repeated, but not the details, and not the details of you yourself. In this sense, you are radically free.

The God Point At the God Point, the Monadic Collective is perfectly internally aligned and becomes a single unit – a Monad rather than countless disparate monads – truly God. It’s the God of pure Reason, of pure, perfect, flawless thinking. It’s the Aristotelian God that contemplates only itself and its own rational perfection. The Many have become One. Perfect alignment has taken place. The Monadic Collective becomes a perfect unity, a perfect single, allpowerful organism – an individual, perfect being, God himself, the True God, incapable of error. Remember, the universe creates God out of itself (the Big Crunch), and God creates the universe out of himself (the Big Bang).

The Alienation of God Hegel spoke of the Absolute Idea (God in himself, God hidden) alienating himself in Nature (the spacetime material world) and then dialectically returning to himself as Absolute Mind (God as himself, God revealed), with Absolute Knowledge. God needs to lose himself in order to find himself (at an infinitely higher level). We would say that, with the Big Bang, God hides himself (his perfect symmetry is broken, and he is hidden in all of the shattered fragments – the individual monads). He goes from one Monad to many monads. These monads then go on a vast cosmic journey to make themselves One again, Whole again, Complete again, reflecting perfect, divine symmetry. At the Big Crunch, this task is complete. God has restored himself. And the universe is then ready to begin all over again. Monads are mirrors of God, and they are broken mirrors when the divine symmetry breaks. The universe is driven by a very simple force – symmetry. The universe goes from perfect symmetry to broken symmetry and back to perfect symmetry again. It does this forever. We can put it in other terms: God becomes non-God (alienated from God) and then God again, following an immense, cosmic dialectical process through which he becomes conscious of who and what he is. We are all agents of God’s rediscovery. We are all becoming God.

***** The Singularity at the end of a cyclical Age is a perfect frequency domain. This is God – perfect symmetry, perfect reason. The Singularity’s symmetry then shatters and it automatically generates an inverse Fourier transform on a cosmic scale, producing the spacetime material world. It then has to find its way back to its perfect origin, back to itself. Matter must become mind. The inverse Fourier transform must itself be perfectly inverted so that everything returns to the frequency domain alone, back to perfect basis frequencies. Symmetry breaking = involution; Symmetry restoration = evolution. God dies, God searches for himself, God is reborn. That’s the cosmic process. All the stuff of physics – the law of gravity, the expanding universe, the accelerating universe, the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics, entropy, heat death, black holes, white holes, the Big Bang, the Big Crunch, and so on, these are all just aspects (from the outside) of the mathematical symmetry laws of existence. We, as subjective minds, are on the inside of all of this. Our subjective experiences must align, from the inside, with the cosmic processes on the outside. Each is a reflection of the other. The increasing entropy of the universe is an external aspect of the universe, but when viewed internally, the precise opposite is taking place: decreasing entropy. God is the point of zero entropy, the lowest entropy state possible. Similarly, the universe is said to be expanding, but when you view this process from the internal perspective, it is in fact shrinking. Eventually, the whole physical spacetime universe will shrink to a single point – an immaterial, frequency Singularity that’s not in space and time at all. Science fails to understand that all of its physical (spacetime) laws are matched by mental (frequency) laws that have the same relationship as that of the Fourier transform to the inverse Fourier transform. The famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is nothing but pure Fourier mathematics. If you know exactly where something is (position), you have no idea what its momentum (energy; frequency) is, and vice versa. By the same token, an infinitely expanded spacetime is the same as an infinitely shrunk frequency domain (Singularity). An infinitely entropic physical universe (heat death universe; perfect disorder; incapable of doing anything; “noise”) is exactly

the same as an infinitely negentropic mental universe (“God”; perfect order; capable of doing everything; “signal”). So, if you accept the laws of physical science, you must also accept the laws of mental science (ontological mathematics). On the physical side, the outside aspect, the universe is doing one thing: expanding, accelerating, getting more disordered (more chaotic). On the mental side, the inside aspect, the universe is shrinking, decelerating, getting more ordered (more rational). Look at the expanding internet – shrinking the world, joining everyone together, massively expanding the knowledge base. The laws of the dialectic are the frequency equivalents of the laws of spacetime, but of course working in the opposite direction. Just as Marx said, they are inevitable laws, with an inevitable conclusion. Not, however, a communism of men, as Marx believed – but of Gods! We are all free up to a point. We are free within this mathematical/ scientific framework, but not to defy it. Part of our mental make-up is to be intuitively driven by these cosmic forces. The most enlightened of us are those most in tune with these cosmic forces, and aligning ourselves subconsciously and eventually consciously with them. We – the first to become Gods – then bring everyone else to divinity. It’s our sacred and inevitable task. Free will goes out of the window eventually. Will to power is all that matters, and power must be maximised. The universe demands it. We ourselves are the agents of the laws of science and mathematics. Every time you study science and mathematics, you are studying yourself! Their laws are expressed through us. We are the laws. Yet what part we play is entirely up to us. Anyone can choose to align themselves with the way the universe is going and be the thesis. Anyone can oppose it and be the antithesis. However, those who do the latter are guaranteed to lose. Destiny has only one direction. The Gods will go willingly to meet their inevitable destiny. The Devils will resist to the bitter end, and then be crushed in a final Apocalypse that can end in only one way. You cannot beat mathematics. You cannot wish it away. So get on board with the forces shaping the cosmos and be one of the Gods that engineers its final fate. Don’t be one of the slaves, one of the victims, passively awaiting the inevitable. Be active! Be a God!

It’s your choice. You’re entirely free to decide. Exercise your free will, your will to power.

The Darwinist Fallacy Why is Darwinism false? Because, like all of science, it considers only half of reality – the observable, material, spacetime aspect. Science rejects the unobservable, mental, frequency aspect, and that’s why it has reached the end of the road and can’t produce a final theory of science. As for Darwinism, in order to become “complete”, it must admit an inner, mental, teleological aspect to genetic mutation and natural selection. In other words, it must no longer be a purely materialist theory but must take on a mentalist aspect, which will make it Lamarckian rather than Darwinian!

Over Identification People invariably over identify with their current self, their current consciousness, their current ego (“I”). In fact, you are a cosmic self and it is this with which you should identify if you wish to be enlightened. Those, such as MA, who are terrified of an eternity of becoming and want an eternity of being instead, are really confessing that what they long for is to be themselves, as they are right now, but with a vastly more powerful mind. That, for them, is the ideal, yet it’s an impossible fantasy. If you were infinitely smarter than you are right now, you wouldn’t be “you”. There’s a very simple truth about existence. Either it’s eternal becoming (change) or it’s eternal being (stasis). It can’t be a bit of becoming and a bit of being. It can’t be an evolutionary process of becoming, succeeded by a static eternity of perfect being. You can’t mix and match becoming and being to suit your own beliefs and feelings. If you analyse MA’s message from a mathematical perspective, you can see that everything he says is mathematical nonsense. He’s begging to be able to mix becoming and being, but this can never happen. There’s no point in resisting the truth. You ought to get onside and abandon all of your childish fantasies. No one has a fixed identity for eternity. Abrahamism is the most infantile system of thought you can possibly get. It says that “God” – a being with a permanent fixed identity – creates

each individual soul in its own image, so that it too has a fixed identity from then on. An Abrahamist lives for three score years and ten, then “dies”. At the Last Judgement, the Abrahamist is resurrected from the grave, with his old body. So, not only does he have a fixed soul identity, he also has a fixed body identity. This reflects an absolute horror of being someone else, or of being the same person in a different body, or of being a mind that can totally transform itself beyond recognition. If you want to become “God”, you won’t be God as you (i.e. who you are right now), but God as the very highest expression of everything you are. You will be your Higher Self, not your lower self, and you will not even recognise your former lowly self! Get used to it. Abandon your fixation with your current spatiotemporal self. It’s just a phase you’re going through. Literally.

***** “Knowledge is the food of the soul.” – Plato “Know Thyself.” – the wisdom of Apollo Don’t believe your own propaganda. Don’t believe your fantasises. Don’t believe your transient feelings. Don’t have faith. Reason alone will save you.

Sisyphus and the Unending Task “Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness. ‘I conclude that all is well,’ says Oedipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men. “All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up.

Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one that he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling. “I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” – Albert Camus For Camus, Sisyphus is the archetypal absurd hero, both in how he behaves on earth and how he responds to, and endures, his punishment in the Underworld. Sisyphus shows scorn for the gods, and aren’t they so richly serving to be treated thus? Sisyphus has a fierce hatred of death, and an even fiercer passion for life. He rejoices in all the things of life. The gods punish him for his crimes against them with an eternity of hopeless struggle. Yet even faced with such a fate, Camus says, Sisyphus can transcend it. He can find the best in it, and even come to relish it. Most people are horrified by the notion of infinite repetition, but is it so horrifying? Is it worse than the alternatives? For Nietzsche, as we shall see in the next section, he wanted not just repetition of pattern, but repetition of the exact details, and still he saw how, for the right person, it could be the source of eternal ecstasy.

The Demon of Eternal Recurrence

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’ ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’” – Nietzsche This is the most powerful existential test ever devised. If you knew for a fact that you were condemned to repeat this exact life forever, you would make sure you threw everything into it, every last drop of sweat and energy. Not a moment would be lost. You would savour everything. You would never be the slave of others. You would never do anything of which you were ashamed. You would lead the fullest life you possibly could, the life with the least possible regret. You would try, as far as possible, to live like a God, and then you would have the opportunity to experience your divinity over and over again for eternity. Is that a horrific thought to you, or glorious? What reply would you give to the demon?

The Cycle of Ages The Cyclic Time Concept of the Vedas (by Raja Vidya Das) Linear Versus Cyclic Time “The modern historical scientists’ linear concept of time strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept, and it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians. The cosmological ideas of several prominent Greek thinkers included a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Vedic literature of India. “For example, we find in Hesiod’s Works and Days a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron) similar to the Indian yugas (ages). In both systems the quality of human life becomes progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature, Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato’s dialogues, there are descriptions of revolving time and recurring catastrophes destroying or nearly destroying human civilization. Aristotle

said often in his works that the arts and sciences had been discovered many times in the past. In the teachings of Plato, Pythagoras, and Empedocles on the transmigration of the soul, the cyclical pattern extends to individual psycho-physical existence. “When Judaeo-Christian civilization arose in Europe, another understanding of time became prominent – time going forward in a straight line. Broadly speaking, this concept of time involves a unique act of cosmic creation, a unique appearance of human beings, and a unique history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement, the last judgment. The drama occurs only once. Individually, the life of a human being mirrors this process; so, with some exceptions, orthodox Christian theologians rejected transmigration of the soul. “Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence: Humans arose once on this planet; the history of our ancestors followed a unique though unpredestined evolutionary pathway; and the collapse of the ‘Big Bang’ universe will bring everything to a close. “One is tempted to propose that the modern account of human evolution is a Judaeo-Christian heresy that covertly retains fundamental structures of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, eschatology, and salvation history while overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in the origin of species, including our own.” – http://www.hknet.org.nz/cycleOages.html

***** Raja Vidya Das is right that Darwinian evolution (and science in general) is an Abrahamic heresy, totally infected by Abrahamic concepts. Scientific materialism is simply sensory Abrahamism, Abrahamism stripped of faith in an immaterial God. It retains the classic Abrahamic notion of a Creation event out of nothing, of linear time, and an end of the universe (in a “Heat Death” – Apocalypse – resulting from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is, so to speak, rationalist Eastern Religion, and accepts the doctrines of an eternal universe, cyclical time and reincarnation.

***** MA’s message reveals that he too is an instinctive Abrahamist. He despises the notion of repetition, of eternal becoming. He longs to reach the end, to rest his weary bones and be rewarded, by his Creator and Master, with eternal paradise (eternal being). He longs to be himself forever, with the same consciousness and same body (via resurrection). He conceives of existence as a reward system. One has to endure a brief lifetime of becoming, then be removed from the struggle into a state of eternal blissful being. Oh dear, what a deluded notion. Such an outcome is both mathematically impossible (thank God!) and not even desirable anyway. Who in their right mind would want everything to be perfect forever? As Schopenhauer said so witheringly, “If every desire were satisfied as soon as it arose how would men occupy their lives, how would they pass the time? Imagine this race transported to a Utopia where everything grows of its own accord and turkeys fly around ready-roasted, where lovers find one another without any delay and keep one another without any difficulty; in such a place some men would die of boredom or hang themselves, some would fight and kill one another, and thus they would create for themselves more suffering than nature inflicts on them as it is.” You haven’t grasped anything about reality if you can’t see that Schopenhauer has nailed it. An eternity of perfect being in perfect paradise would be the ultimate hell! No rational, sane person could possibly aspire to such a dismal, shitty fate. You’d need to be a mental case to aspire to that.

***** “Empedocles assumed a cyclical universe whereby the elements return and prepare the formation of the sphere for the next period of the universe.” – Wikipedia Empedocles believed that the universe oscillates between extremes of unity and diversity. Sometimes Love (Unity) is dominant, and a state of perfect symmetry (perfect love) can be attained. At other times, Strife dominates, and a state of absolute asymmetry (perfect hate) can be attained. The Big Crunch is cosmic love = cosmic reason. The Big Bang = cosmic hate = cosmic irrationalism. The True God rules the Big Crunch universe, and the

False God, the Demiurge (the Abrahamic Creator), rules the Big Bang (material) universe. The task of the universe is to find the True God again by overcoming hate and irrationalism. “Pythagoras declared that the soul is immortal, then that it changes into other kinds of animals. In addition, the things that happen recur at certain intervals, and nothing is absolutely new. Also, all things that come to be alive must be thought akin. Pythagoras seems to have been the first to introduce these opinions into Greece.” – Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras “There are two cyclical aspects of the cosmos alluded to in the above. The first is what we now call reincarnation: upon the death of my body, my soul lives on by migrating to the body of a newborn baby, and when that body dies I move on to another. The second is that the events in the cosmos itself repeat after certain periods of time. Both of these are ideas found in Hindu thought, which Pythagoras might have come in contact with during his travels. “Among his most notable pieces of wisdom is his comparison of life to what takes place at Olympic games. There are, he argues, three types of lives that we see among people at the games. The lowest is the merchant who seeks to make money by selling to the swarm of visitors. Next is the athlete who participates in the games to win a prize. The highest, though, is the spectator who observes the events, which is a metaphor for the philosopher who surveys the world and reflects on it.” – http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/1-presocratics.htm Pythagorean thinking in relation to cyclical time comes in two flavours. One is exact eternal recurrence: history literally repeats itself after a certain time. This is eternal recurrence of form and content. Nietzsche, a keen scholar of ancient Greece, adopted this view. The second is eternal recurrence of form, but not content, i.e. the pattern of the universe eternally recurs, but not the events within it. This is the view of modern Illuminism.

The Great Year In Pythagorean cosmology, the Great Year was when all planets returned to the same relative positions they held initially.

In the system of the Rotation of the Spheres, one cycle of the Precession takes 25,920 years. Where one Sun Cycle is just a Year, one Great Year is a Cosmic Age, and then we begin again. Since the universe is eternal, an infinite number of years and Great Years have already passed. The Stoics based their cyclical system on the Great Year. In their view, the universe underwent periodic destruction and reconstruction. It was destroyed at the end of the Great Year, then reborn at the start of the next Great Year. They believed, like some of the Pythagoreans that the Grand Cycle included historical events, i.e. history literally repeated itself (eternal recurrence). “The Stoics say that the planets, returning to the same point of longitude and latitude which each occupied when first the universe arose, at fixed periods of time bring about a conflagration and destruction of things ... Socrates, they say, and Plato, will again exist.” – Nemesius The rebirth of the universe is coincident with the conjunction of all planets at 0 degrees of the ecliptic: the ecliptic coordinate system is a celestial coordinate system commonly used for representing the positions and orbits of Solar System objects. The Stoic conception did not, however, involve a static universe, but an expanding and contacting universe: “Assuming the physical world to be placed in an infinite non-physical void, the Stoics conceived the cosmos as a gigantic sphere oscillating through cycles of expansion and contraction in the void surrounding it. The agent responsible for the cyclic changes was ultimately the fire element. According to a Stoic source, ‘the material world preserves itself by an immense force, alternately contracting and expanding into a void following its physical transmutations, at one time consumed by fire, at another beginning again the creation of the cosmos’ (Sambursky 1963, p. 203). For the idea of cosmic conflagration Zeno of Citium and later Stoic philosophers used the term ekpyrosis, meaning ‘out of fire.’ According to Plutarch, ‘When ekpyrosis takes place, [Chrysippus] says that the universe is totally alive and is a living being, but thereafter, as it is quenched and becomes concentrated, it turns into water and earth and things substantial’ (Lapidge 1978, p. 183).” – http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy108.html

Here we find an idea akin to the Divine Suicide. The universe is pure life at the moment of cosmic conflagration: it has become God. The quenching of the fire corresponds to the material world being made from the dead God, but he will be reborn again in due course. For the Stoics, the Great Year was the period between one worldconflagration and the next. God becomes fully alive at the end of the Great Year. Then the material universe is slowly born from him as his fiery life (energy) is converted into the heavier elements of air, water and earth, bringing about a contraction of the universe. God partially dies, so to speak. Some of his divine fire is quenched and made into matter: the material universe arises from the stuff (fire) of his being. The material world will be fully transformed back into the living fire of God by the end of the Great Year. “Astronomers calculated that approximately every 36,000 years the planets return to the same configuration, and this period was known as the Great Year – a recreation of the ‘Brahma Day’ on a different temporal scale. The Great Year had seasons like a normal year. It had a Great Summer when the earth became so hot that devastating fires raged, and it had a Great Winter when catastrophic floods swept across the land. “This theory of the Great Year was elaborated by the Stoics and Neoplatonists. The most extreme version was developed by the Stoics, who held that all activity on earth, including the events of human history, was precisely repeated in each cycle. Socrates had drunk the hemlock cup at the same moment in every Great Year and would do so throughout endlessly recurring cycles in the future. In fact every event, no matter how small, is infinitely repeated.” – Louise B. Young, The Unfinished Universe “According to a variety of Stoic thinkers, there is an eternal cosmic cycle of expansion and contraction, conflagration and regeneration. In the expansive phase, the world dissolves into fire; in the contractive phase, fire yields again to the other elements, and the world as we know it is regenerated. This cycle is repeated eternally, producing an everlasting sequence of identical worlds.” – David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science Here we find the major apocalyptic themes of Fire and Flood. In relation to Norse mythology’s version of the death and rebirth of the universe, Wikipedia says, “Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great

battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters [MH: in particular, the world is consumed in flames], and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors.”

***** “And yet there is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfils the perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together and attain their completion at the same time, measured by the rotation of the same and equally moving. After this manner, and for these reasons, came into being such of the stars as in their heavenly progress received reversals of motion, to the end that the created heaven might imitate the eternal nature, and be as like as possible to the perfect and intelligible animal [God].” – Plato, Timaeus “But in that time, I see the march of destiny, so to call it, hesitating between two ways. For, when your life has completed seven times eight full cycles of the sun; and these two numbers, each of which for a different reason is held to be a perfect number, in the revolution of nature has fulfilled your destined sum for you; to you alone and to your name the whole community will turn together: the Senate, all right-thinking citizens, the allies and the Latins will fix their eyes on you; you will be the one man on whom the community can lean for safety; and, in short, as Dictator you must reform the constitution, if only you can escape from the unnatural violence of your relations.” –Cicero, The Dream of Scipio “Men, to be sure, commonly measure the year by the return of the sun, that is of a single heavenly body: but when all the constellations together shall have returned to the same point from which they once started; and after long intervals shall have restored the order of the whole heaven as it was before, then can that really be called the year of revolution: in which I hardly dare to say how many generations of men are comprehended. For as at that time, when the soul of Romulus made its way into these heavenly regions, the sun appeared to men to disappear and to be darkened, so

whenever, in the same quarter and at the same time, the sun is again eclipsed, then, all the constellations and stars having been restored to their original position, you can say that a year has been fulfilled. But of this year know that as yet not a twentieth part has come round.” – Cicero, The Dream of Scipio It was commonly believed that great cosmic and divine events coincided with the end and beginning of a Cosmic Age.

***** Even some versions of scientific materialism invoke a bouncing or oscillating universe, rebounding between Big Crunch and Big Bang. There’s no point in allowing your feelings to get in the way of your reason. Whether you like it or not, we live in a periodic universe, like a periodic wave, like an ever-turning circle. There’s no linear time. That’s an illusion born of a limited, mortal perspective of existence. We live in a universe of eternal becoming. There’s no escape route. There’s no “heaven of being”. There’s no great, long rest waiting for you. Keep moving or be crushed. As Nietzsche said, “Illness is a sort of resentment in itself. Against it the invalid has only one great remedy – I call it Russian fatalism, that unrebellious fatalism with which the Russian soldier, when a campaign becomes unbearable, finally lies down in the snow. To accept nothing more – to cease entirely from reacting. The high sagacity of this fatalism, which is not always mere courage in the face of death, but which in the most dangerous circumstances may work toward self-preservation, is tantamount to a reduction of activity in the vital functions, the slowing down of which is like a sort of will to hibernate.” Don’t be a despairing Russian soldier. Never give up. Never lie down in the snow and wait for the end. Understand this – you are a perpetual motion machine. You will go on forever. You will never stop. There is no rest. You are a permanent becoming. You are trapped in Groundhog Day and you had better learn to love it since there’s no alternative. Once you fully understand that the purpose of Groundhog Day is to turn you into God an infinite number of times, how could you not find that the greatest news of all? No God could have whispered gladder tidings to you.

This is the true heaven. This is the best of all possible worlds. If there were an eternal God, this is exactly the same as he would have devised! Love it! Or be crushed by it. Your choice.

Will to Power What do you regard as the greatest expression of power? 1) The Abrahamic God is all-powerful and eternal. Wouldn’t his existence be the most boring and pointless imaginable? No wonder he had to create the world! 2) Souls are created by God and are his slaves that must do his bidding. If you pass his obedience test, you are admitted to heaven where you exist in a state of “bliss” forever. As above, this would be cripplingly boring and pointless. If you failed God’s test, you would be sent to hell – which would be extremely painful! 3) You become God an infinite number of time, via an infinite number of wondrous adventures in different universes (different instances of the cyclical, eternal universe). 4) You live a meaningless life in a meaningless universe and die and become nothing – as science says. Well? Make your choice! MA says he prefers 1, 2 or 4. We think 3 is the only choice consistent with the exercise of sufficient reason.

***** Anyone who wants to resign from life, to give up, to be the slave of a Creator, to be embraced by nothingness, to be absorbed by nothingness, to renounce life (like Buddha), to escape from becoming and achieving a state of permanent being, has low will to power. Such a person is weak, snivelling and very much a Last Man. Those with a strong will to power want to be immersed in life forever, to be tested by life, and made battle hardened. They long to be Gods, over and over again. They are Supermen, and the earth trembles when they walk abroad.

The Best Version The best version of you is the one that is produced by the dialectic. The dialectic makes you perfect. It makes you God. What could be better than that?

The Outsider “[F]or the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. ... For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” – Albert Camus, The Outsider Here is the ultimate statement of the outsider. Not only is Meursault (Camus’ absurdist anti-hero), longing to be put to death by the “world”, he even wants them to jeer, hate and curse him. He is content being an outsider. He is content with his fate. He has truly lived on his own terms.

Jim Morrison and Freedom “The most important kind of freedom is to be what you really are. You trade in your reality for a role. You trade in your sense for an act. You give up your ability to feel, and in exchange, put on a mask. There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on and individual level. It’s got to happen inside first. You can take away a man’s political freedom and you won’t hurt him- unless you take away his freedom to feel. That can destroy him. That kind of freedom can’t be granted. Nobody can win it for you.” – Jim Morrison What greater mask could there be than the one you don when you claim you are not free at all? What kind of act is that? What kind of psychosis? How can there be a revolution in a world that’s not free, that’s full of machines that don’t yearn for freedom? Atheistic scientists have taken away their own freedom to feel, and they want to impose that on the rest of us too. Cui bono? – the leaders of the society, the members of the rich, privileged elites. Scientists that deny free will are a right wing cabal saying

that it’s pointless to struggle against the way things are. We should let our masters rule us without a word of objection. We’re only machines, after all. “People are afraid of themselves, of their own reality; their feelings most of all. People talk about how great love is, but that’s bullshit. Love hurts. Feelings are disturbing. People are taught that pain is evil and dangerous. How can they deal with love if they’re afraid to feel? Pain is meant to wake us up. People try to hide their pain. But they’re wrong. Pain is something to carry, like a radio. You feel your strength in the experience of pain. It’s all in how you carry it. That’s what matters. Pain is a feeling. Your feelings are a part of you. Your own reality. If you feel ashamed of them, and hide them, you’re letting society destroy your reality. You should stand up for your right to feel your pain.” – Jim Morrison Scientists are afraid of their reality. What easier way to confront your own failure than to claim that you were a machine that had no choice? What better way to abdicate responsibility for your life than to refuse to accept personal accountability for your actions? After all, they’re not your actions if the laws of science mandated them. “That’s what real love amounts to – letting a person be what he really is. Most people love you for who you pretend to be. To keep their love, you keep pretending, performing. You get to love your pretence. It’s true, we’re locked in an image, an act” – Jim Morrison Are scientists locked into their pretence of denying their own self-evident freedom? If you can’t accept your own freedom – something you experience continuously – how can you accept anything at all? How, specifically, can you accept science, matter and determinism? Why are they any more convincing and empirical than your own freedom? Descartes didn’t say, “I think therefore I must be deluding myself that I am.” “People fear death even more than pain. It’s strange that they fear death. Life hurts a lot more than death. At the point of death, the pain is over. Yeah, I guess it is a friend...” – Jim Morrison “Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free.” – Jim Morrison “Real loss only occurs when you lose something that you love more than yourself” – Edu

“I believe in a long, prolonged, derangement of the senses in order to obtain the unknown.” – Jim Morrison

Mathematical Freedom Are you free, or are you a machine that suffers from a delusion that it’s free? Free will is perhaps the most important subject of all because if we are authentically free, scientific materialism is ipso facto false, and the world is in urgent need of a revolutionary paradigm shift. Free will has a most unexpected advocate – mathematics. Only in a mathematical universe can we be free. Only in a mathematical universe can we have a soul. And in a mathematical universe, free will is much better understood as will to power, and to have an intimate connection with cosmic symmetry and “God”. It’s all in the math!

God’s Foreknowledge? Religious people claim that God knows what you are going to do, but does not cause you to do it. He knows, apparently, what you are going to do of your own free will! How can God know what you’re going to do before you yourself have chosen what to do? If that were possible, you could not possibly be free – since you are constrained to act so as satisfy God’s foreknowledge. These religious people argue that God’s having foreknowledge of what you are going to freely do (via your own free will) does not contradict that you are free, and does not involve causation, i.e. God’s foreknowledge does not cause you to behave in accordance with his foreknowledge. He knows it but does not cause it. The usual way to substantiate this argument is to argue that God is outside space and time, hence can see all of space and time. In other words, God’s foreknowledge, which does not involve causation, is actually a metaphysical statement about the nature of space and time. A claim is being made that if you are outside space and time, you can observe everything that has ever happened, or could ever happen, in spacetime. So, God’s foreknowledge simply flows from the fact that he has seen it all, but he did not make any of it happen. He observed it but did not cause it. This is to entirely misunderstand what being outside space and time means. Being outside space and time means that you inhabit the

dimensionless, immaterial Fourier frequency domain. The frequency domain continuously interacts with the material spacetime domain in a feedback loop. It is hardwired to it via Fourier mathematics. It’s not some abstract, disconnected, independent, privileged observer position that allows spacetime to be seen like an astronaut looking down on the earth. Abrahamists think in terms of an eternal God outside space and time, and his material Creation inside space and time. They believe that these are entirely separate, i.e. God makes Creation, but Creation in no way makes him. In terms of ontological Fourier mathematics, God is replaced with the frequency Singularity, and Creation with the spacetime domain. These two domains are fully interactive. In religious terms, this would means that God influences the world, and the world influences God. It’s this latter conclusion that Abrahamists fundamentally deny. They claim that God’s Creation can never affect God. However, if God is in fact being influenced by the world then he can have no foreknowledge of what happens in the world. He can’t even have any foreknowledge regarding himself, never mind anyone else. If we were to say that the material world is simply a representation in different (spacetime) terms of the information contained in the frequency domain, i.e. exactly the same information exists in both domains, then it’s formally impossible to have any position outside space and time that gives foreknowledge of space and time. At every point, the spacetime representation corresponds to the frequency representation. The two information sets are identical; only the manner of their presentation differs. If someone has knowledge of what you are going to do before you do, you cannot in any sense be free. You must act so as to satisfy what he knows you are going to do, hence you have only an illusion of choice but no actual choice. You have no free will.

The Singularity and “Creation” In Abrahamism, God is said to make the world out of “nothing” and to stand completely independently of it, viewing his spacetime Creation from outside space and time. He chooses to destroy the world at the time of his choosing, and he already knows what time he has chosen (the Apocalypse).

God, in this scheme, is, mathematically, a Singularity that does not interact with its Creation. In ontological mathematics, the God Equation defines a Fourier Singularity, and from this Singularity the spacetime world comes. The spacetime world and the Singularity interact at all times, and the spacetime world perishes by being reabsorbed into the Singularity, at which point a new spacetime is ready to be made in a cycle that goes on forever. God and his Creation are one and the same. “God” has no viewpoint outside his Creation. He has no foreknowledge. He himself does not know what he is going to do in the future, because his actions will be determined by the precise details of his interaction with the world. Every religion, philosophy, economic system and science should be reduced to a set of mathematical statements. Then we will all be able to see exactly what claims are being made, and we can compare and contrast at our leisure, from a common ground.

***** There is no view from outside the universe. There is no “God’s-eye” view. There is no privileged perspective. The ontological frequency domain and the ontological spacetime domain are linked, not separate. “God” does not stand outside the universe. It’s impossible to be outside the universe since the universe is all there is. That’s why the idea that “God” can create the universe out of “nothing” is one of the most pernicious of all time. It separates existence into Creator and his Creation, Master and Slave. It establishes two categories of existence, the second entirely dependent on the first, and created out of nothing by the first. It generates a fundamental and unbridgeable existential chasm, an impossible substance dualism.

No Limits Freedom is always constrained freedom. The notion of freedom without limits – “libertarian” freedom – is absurd. We are not free to change the laws of mathematics and existence. We are not free to be someone else. We are not free to enter someone else’s mind and experience their qualia. We are not free to disobey our monadic essence. We are not free to break out of our eternal monadic “prison”. We are not free to disobey the God Equation.

Free will has to operate within all sorts of constraints. It isn’t unlimited freedom. There’s simply no such thing.

The Definitive Statement of Free Will “[Schopenhauer holds] that the essence or inmost being of nature is blind Will, not accompanied or directed in any of its lower stages by any form of Intellect. Hartmann maintains on the contrary, that Will as such, in order to express itself in determinate volitions, must be inseparably united with cognition: that it could not act at all except in cooperation with mind. The very nature of volition is a felt dissatisfaction with an existing state of things, and an attempt to bring about a different state of them; that is to produce a change. It necessarily implies one condition which is present and which alone is real, as the starting point, and another condition, which, because it is willed, must exist in the future, and therefore can be now present only in idea. In other words, we cannot will without knowing what we will. Then there must be an end or aim for every volition; and this can be present only in thought, for if it were also present in reality, we should already possess all that we desire, and there should be no occasion to will. Hence, without thought, without an idea of what is still future, in other words, without a purpose or Final Cause, Will would not be Will, as it could not be definitely expressed in any determinate volition, or aim at any one thing more than another. A volition without any definite aim or content is inconceivable; for there is no such thing as Will in general, that wills nothing in particular.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Eduard von Hartmann’s philosophy Hartmann provides the definitive analysis of the question of free will. There can be no willing without aim or content. There can be no will that wills nothing in particular. All will is directed. All will is intentional. This means that will can never be random and indeterministic, i.e. it can never involve doing things for no reason at all. Will is always deterministic. Will is always teleological. The will to which Hartmann refers isn’t really “free will” at all, but “will to power”. All willing has an aim, all willing has content, all willing concerns a “felt dissatisfaction with an existing state of things, and an attempt to bring about a different state of them; that is to produce a change”, i.e. all willing is directed towards increasing one’s power because

this is always felt to be satisfying. The idea that you could freely will to decrease your power is ridiculous. No one ever does, no one is ever free in this sense, and no one would ever want to be free in this sense. All of our relations are power relations. Everything that every human being does is invariably concerned with trying to increase power. The whole of history has been a battlefield for power. Religion, politics, economics, philosophy, science, war, even art – everything that has defined the human story – has never been about anything other than a naked struggle for power. Humanity has been driven by the master-slave dialectic, which is purely concerned with the fight for power. Even more than “social animals”, we are “power animals”, and indeed the social sphere is entirely dominated by the power sphere ... by status (i.e. your position on the ladder of power). All free will concerns willing towards gaining more power. The most simplistic tactic is to believe in “God”. Why? Because he is defined as allpowerful. Who would ever worship a God who was powerless?! Even Jesus Christ, the so-called Lamb of God, offered up for humiliating sacrifice, has another aspect: he is also (since Christianity is a monotheism and not a tritheism) Jehovah, the supreme monster and Torture God who lusts after power and domination, and orders the world to get on its knees to him and slavishly worship him. If Jesus Christ did not identify with Jehovah and agree with everything he did, he would not have called himself Jehovah’s “Son” and demanded that everyone worship Jehovah. “Often we are not aware what we will, or even that we will. But the determinate nature of the volition, the fact that we will this rather that that, proves that the guiding idea is always there, though it may not rise into consciousness.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy Is it not absolutely true that we always will this rather than that? We don’t do so for no reason but for an exact reason. We always have a reason and this always determines what we do. When we act for our own reasons, we do so freely. Even if someone holds a gun to our head, we are still in fact free. We are free not to obey the command of the man with the gun. If we die as a result, we still die freely, in command of our fate. If we slavishly do what the man with the gun says then we have freely chosen to be his slave because we freely preferred that option to the alternative. Many people go on being the slaves of the super rich because, deep down, they

accept that they have freely chosen this fate. If they didn’t, they would fight back. The reason they don’t is that the master-slave dialectic applies to them, and they have chosen the role of slave rather than master. “The attractive force of each atom, Hartmann argues, has a definite end and aim, before the result is produced by it, of bringing another atom nearer; it must therefore, be conceived as a striving...” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy The whole of science could easily be reinterpreted in these teleological, mental terms. Scientists choose to understand reality non-teleologically for ideological reasons (concerned with opposition to autonomous mind and God), not for scientific reasons. Science cannot disprove the existence of mind and God. It simply assumes, as part of its empiricist, materialist philosophical dogmatism, that they don’t exist.

Thelema “The word thelema is rare in classical Greek, where it ‘signifies the appetitive will: desire, sometimes even sexual’ [Max Gauna, The Rabelaisian Mythologies], but it is frequent in the Septuagint. Early Christian writings occasionally use the word to refer to the human will, and even the will of God’s opponent, the Devil, but it usually refers to the will of God. One well-known example is in the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ (Matthew 6:10), ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.’ “In the Renaissance, a character named ‘Thelemia’ represents will or desire in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili of the Dominican monk Francesco Colonna. The protagonist Poliphilo has two allegorical guides, Logistica (reason) and Thelemia (will or desire). When forced to choose, he chooses fulfilment of his sexual will over logic. Colonna’s work was a great influence on the Franciscan monk François Rabelais, who in the 16th century, used Thélème, the French form of the word, as the name of a fictional abbey in his novels, Gargantua and Pantagruel. The only rule of this Abbey was ‘fay çe que vouldras’ (‘Fais ce que tu veux’, or, ‘Do what thou wilt’). In the mid-18th century, Sir Francis Dashwood inscribed the adage on a doorway of his abbey at Medmenham, where it served as the motto of The Hellfire Club. Rabelais’ Abbey of Thelema has been referred to by later writers Sir Walter Besant and James Rice, in their novel The

Monks of Thelema (1878), and C.R. Ashbee in his utopian romance The Building of Thelema (1910). ... “In his first book (ch. 52-57), Rabelais writes of this Abbey of Thélème, built by the giant Gargantua. It is a classical utopia presented in order to critique and assess the state of the society of Rabelais’ day, as opposed to a modern utopian text that seeks to create the scenario in practice. It is a utopia where people’s desires are more fulfilled. Satirical, it also epitomises the ideals considered in Rabelais’ fiction. The inhabitants of the abbey were governed only by their own free will and pleasure, the only rule being “Do What Thou Wilt”. Rabelais believed that men who are free, well born and bred have honour, which intrinsically leads to virtuous actions. When constrained, their noble natures turn instead to remove their servitude, because men desire what they are denied. “Some modern Thelemites consider [Aleister] Crowley’s work to build upon Rabelais’ summary of the instinctively honourable nature of the Thelemite. Rabelais has been variously credited with the creation of the philosophy of Thelema, as one of the earliest people to refer to it, or with being ‘the first Thelemite’... “Sir Francis Dashwood adopted some of the ideas of Rabelais and invoked the same rule in French, when he founded a group called the Monks of Medmenham (better known as The Hellfire Club). An abbey was established at Medmenham, in a property which incorporated the ruins of a Cistercian abbey founded in 1201. The group were known as the Franciscans, not after Saint Francis of Assisi, but after its founder, Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron le Despencer. John Wilkes, George Dodington and other politicians were members. There is little direct evidence of what Dashwood’s Hellfire Club practised or believed. The one direct testimonial comes from John Wilkes, a member who never got into the chapter-room of the inner circle. He describes the group as hedonists who met to ‘celebrate woman in wine’, and added ideas from the ancients just to make the experience more decadent. “In the opinion of Lt. Col. Towers, the group derived more from Rabelais than the inscription over the door. He believes that they used caves as a Dionysian oracular temple, based upon Dashwood’s reading of the relevant chapters of Rabelais. Sir Nathaniel Wraxall in his Historical Memoires (1815) accused the Monks of performing Satanic rituals, but these claims have been dismissed as hearsay. Gerald Gardner and others

such as Mike Howard say the Monks worshipped ‘the Goddess’. Daniel Willens argued that the group likely practised Freemasonry, but also suggests Dashwood may have held secret Roman Catholic sacraments. He asks if Wilkes would have recognized a genuine Catholic Mass, even if he saw it himself and even if the underground version followed its public model precisely.” – Wikipedia

***** The war inside the human soul, and inside human society, is always between Logistica (reason) and Thelemia (will, desire and feelings). Reason must, and will, win in the end. Animals are ruled by Thelemia, the True Gods by Logistica.

True Will “According to Aleister Crowley, every individual has a True Will, to be distinguished from the ordinary wants and desires of the ego. The True Will is essentially one’s ‘calling’ or ‘purpose’ in life. Some later magicians have taken this to include the goal of attaining self-realization by one’s own efforts, without the aid of God or other divine authority. This brings them close to the position that Crowley held just prior to 1904. Others follow later works such as Liber II, saying that one’s own will in pure form is nothing other than the divine will. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law for Crowley refers not to hedonism, fulfilling everyday desires, but to acting in response to that calling. The Thelemite is a mystic. According to Lon Milo Duquette, a Thelemite is anyone who bases their actions on striving to discover and accomplish their true will, when a person does their True Will, it is like an orbit, their niche in the universal order, and the universe assists them. In order for the individual to be able to follow their True Will, the everyday self’s socially-instilled inhibitions may have to be overcome via deconditioning. Crowley believed that in order to discover the True Will, one had to free the desires of the subconscious mind from the control of the conscious mind, especially the restrictions placed on sexual expression, which he associated with the power of divine creation. He identified the True Will of each individual with the Holy Guardian Angel, a daimon unique to each individual. The spiritual quest to

find what you are meant to do and do it is also known in Thelema as the Great Work.”

***** The True Will is Will to Power, and it’s mathematical, reflecting the symmetry forces acting on the universe.

The Peculiar Correspondence Hard determinists believe in a peculiar correspondence between our alleged illusion of free will (in their view) and what actually happens, i.e. our illusion of freedom always concludes with exactly the same outcome: we always do what we would have done anyway, without the illusion of free will. Therefore, what conceivable point could this illusion serve? How could it ever have evolved given that it’s entirely redundant? Hard determinism is destroyed by the self-evident fact that we experience free will, and we could have this experience only if it actually existed and was meaningful. If it were a meaningless illusion, it could never have come into being in the first place since it can have no possible effects.

***** How can we be free if we are exclusively made of things (atoms) that are not free? Whence freedom? Even more impossible to understand is the claim that we can imagine we are free, we can create the illusion that we are free, despite being exclusively made of atoms that are never free under any circumstances. How could unfree atoms ever create such an illusion? By what conceivable mechanism?

***** Anything that is a consequence of a pre-existing causal chain can never be free. Therefore things can be free only if they are not part of causal chains, but are in fact initiators of those causal chains, i.e. they are autonomous, uncaused causes, first causes. Only monads – mathematical minds – meet this requirement. Free will is therefore proof of the existence of the soul. If you accept that you have free will, you accept that you are an immortal,

indestructible soul. It’s precisely to avoid this conclusion that scientific materialists fight so hard to deny their own freedom. Their atheism compels them to claim that they are nothing but meaningless, purposeless, accidental machines, inhabiting a world of pure randomness.

***** “God, our genes, our environment, or some stupid programmer keying in code at an ancient terminal – there’s no way free will can ever exist if we as individuals are the result of some external cause.” – Orson Scott Card This is exactly right. You cannot be free if you are the result of an external cause. You can be free only if you have no external cause, i.e. you are eternal. Free will goes hand in hand with eternalism. “I have free will, but not of my own choice. I have never freely chosen to have free will. I have to have free will, whether I like it or not!” – Raymond Smullyan Indeed! As Sartre put it more succinctly, “Man is condemned to be free.” (And “Hell is other people.”) “An unexamined faith is not worth having, for fundamentalism and uncritical certitude entail the rejection of one of the great human gifts: that of free will, of the liberty to make up our own minds based on evidence and tradition and reason.” – Jon Meacham Exactly so. Any slavish belief system is anathema. “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” – Søren Kierkegaard As freedom of speech rises, the quality of speech declines! People do not take care over their words. Words are too cheap. They have not been earned. Social networking may prove the perfect tool for dumbing down humanity to an incredible degree. That is the great danger. “Experts in ancient Greek culture say that people back then didn’t see their thoughts as belonging to them. When ancient Greeks had a thought, it occurred to them as a god or goddess giving an order. Apollo was telling them to be brave. Athena was telling them to fall in love. Now people hear

a commercial for sour cream potato chips and rush out to buy, but now they call this free will. At least the ancient Greeks were being honest.” – Chuck Palahniuk Did Abraham have free will? Or were his thoughts merely given to him, in which case he made no choice at all! God and science are the great enemies of freedom. “But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers (e.g., the scientists participating with me in the Sean Carroll workshop on the future of naturalism) that they lean the other way: free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don’t have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what? It has nothing to do with morality or the meaning of life. Their advice to me at the symposium was simple: recast my pressing question as whether naturalism (materialism, determinism, science...) has any implications for what we may call moral competence. For instance, does neuroscience show that we cannot be responsible for our choices, cannot justifiably be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished? Abandon the term ‘free will’ to the libertarians and other incompatibilists, who can pursue their fantasies untroubled. Note that this is not a dismissal of the important issues; it’s a proposal about which camp gets to use, and define, the term. I am beginning to appreciate the benefits of discarding the term ‘free will’ altogether, but that course too involves a lot of heavy lifting, if one is to avoid being misunderstood.” – Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained The free will debate is indeed all about the definition. If the definition can’t be agreed, the debate is just a lot of hot air. It’s akin to people of different religious faiths all screaming at each other that they are right and the others wrong. It’s all belief, opinion and interpretation. Truth doesn’t come into it.

Fourier Compatibilism Compatibilism, as defined in Illuminism, is a statement about Fourier mathematics. It couldn’t be more precise since nothing can be more precise than mathematical definitions. The idiotic philosophy professors and their puppet students who claim that compatibilism is ill-defined are simply

demonstrating that they are mathematically illiterate and ignorant. A word to the unwise. Before you start mouthing off about something being illdefined, make sure that you yourself are using air-tight definitions. If you aren’t, you literally don’t know what you’re talking about. When you ridicule compatibilism, you’re simply showing that you do not know anything about Fourier mathematics, and that you don’t know anything at all about free will and how to define it. It’s not compatibilism that’s ill-defined, it’s all the silly attacks on compatibilism! Compatibilism is simply about unextended mind being compatible with extended matter. If you don’t think mind and matter are compatible, you’re in real intellectual trouble. They can be compatible in only one way – as mathematical transforms of each other. Mathematics is the only answer to the mind-body problem, to the problems of free will, qualia and consciousness. That’s a fact.

Unstoppable Reality We do not have free will in any absolute, libertarian sense. We have free will as Will to Power. Will to Power, viewed from the inside, subjectively, is the will to become God. Viewed from the outside, objectively, however, it’s a mathematical force to produce perfect symmetry. None of us can oppose it. We enjoy a certain kind of freedom, but we are not free in any unlimited, unconstrained way. Our fate is in fact already sealed. We will become God, whether anyone wants to or not. It’s better to go there actively, as one of the Gods that brings all the rest to divinity, rather than being dragged along kicking and squealing. We are subject to inescapable cosmic forces. Indeed, we are those forces! We are those forces made conscious. We are those forces subjectively. We are those forces from the inside. We know what they demand and it’s we ourselves who implement them. To pursue power, as all of us do, is to carry out the mathematical will of the universe. If you accept the dialectic, you ipso facto accept that the universe will reach a conclusion (it’s the Omega Point) and thus your fate is determined. The precise details of how we get there aren’t fixed but the destination is.

The whole point of the theory of the dialectic is that history has a definite trajectory, just as surely as scientific laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, do. That’s why “world-historic” figures aren’t just acting on their own behalf. They are actually agents of cosmic forces. They are people who tune into the dialectic (into either the thesis, antithesis or synthesis phase) and play the part the dialectic demands in order to advance to its inevitable culmination. Marx said that, thanks to the dialectic, we would inevitably all become communists. In fact, humans aren’t dialectically capable of embracing communism – but Gods are. The End of History involves a perfect communism of Gods! It involves perfect cosmic symmetry, perfect equality, and the perfect termination of the master-slave dialectic. Your choice is simple. Will you be on the side of where the dialectic is inevitably going, or against it? Will you assist the dialectic, or oppose it? Will you be the thesis, or the opposition (antithesis)? Will you resist and obstruct the inevitable? Will you be on the right or wrong side of history? The enlightened are those who grasp the truth of the dialectic, and align themselves with it. The endarkened are those stand against the dialectic. It’s very easy to identify who is who. The dialectic is moving in a left wing direction, towards the Communism of the Gods. The selfish, individualistic, psychopathic right wingers are the antithesis that must, and will, be overcome. History has spoken, The Future has called. Destiny cannot be thwarted. It’s all in the math!

Duty “Duty [by Crowley] is described as ‘A note on the chief rules of practical conduct to be observed by those who accept the Law of Thelema.’ ... There are four sections: A. Your Duty to Self: describes the self as the centre of the universe, with a call to learn about one’s inner nature. Admonishes the reader to develop every faculty in a balanced way, establish one’s autonomy, and to devote oneself to the service of one’s own True Will. B. Your Duty to Others: An admonishment to eliminate the illusion of separateness between oneself and all others, to fight when necessary, to

avoid interfering with the Wills of others, to enlighten others when needed, and to worship the divine nature of all other beings. C. Your Duty to Mankind: States that the Law of Thelema should be the sole basis of conduct. That the laws of the land should have the aim of securing the greatest liberty for all individuals. Crime is described as being a violation of one’s True Will. D. Your Duty to All Other Beings and Things: States that the Law of Thelema should be applied to all problems and used to decide every ethical question. It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to use any animal or object for a purpose for which it is unfit, or to ruin things so that they are useless for their purpose. Natural resources can be used by man, but this should not be done wantonly, or the breach of the law will be avenged.” – Wikipedia

***** Libertarians, anarchists, free-market capitalists, WASPs, psychopaths and all right wingers are essentially those who believe they have a duty only to themselves and, maybe, their families. They worship Ayn Rand who talked of the “virtue of selfishness” – the mantra of all psychopaths and narcissists. They recognise no duty to others, no duty to Mankind, no duty to all other beings and things. They are the ones who are destined to be annihilated by the Dialectic. They are on the wrong side of history ... the losing side. They are too stupid and self-obsessed to understand the trajectory of history.

The Koranic Moon Landing? How many men has the Koran landed on the moon? Er, none. If you read the Koran from cover to cover, would even one word of it be able to help you land men on the moon? Er, no. So, what’s the point of the Koran? It doesn’t have one. It’s a silly story from ancient times, with no relevance to the modern world. If you waste your time reading the Koran, other than to be appalled by it and want to change the world so that people stop reading it, you are simply a human dinosaur, waiting to become extinct. People who read the Koran and believe it are simply too stupid for modernity. Today’s

world is all about science, technology, engineering and mathematics. And there’s absolutely none of that in the Koran. People who believe the Koran and waste their time on it have already signed their own death warrant. Survival in this world is not compulsory. If you choose stupidity over intelligence, you are against the dialectic, and you will assuredly be crushed by the dialectic, just as if by “God” (or the God Equation, to be precise). If you believe in the Abrahamic God, you will be on the losing side at the Battle of Armageddon. That’s for certain. The opposing army will have weapons that only the Gods could have made. You don’t have a prayer. Apocalypse is coming for you. The only way out is to abandon Abrahamism and embrace the Light and Truth. It’s not too late.

Battle Tested “Out of life’s school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.” – Nietzsche We are immortal souls. We cannot be destroyed. The dialectical struggle makes us stronger, infinitely stronger – strong enough to be Gods.

The Whole Law “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law.” – Aleister Crowley No scientist, no hard determinist, no hard indeterminist, could ever make such a statement! They deny their own free will. They aspire to be meaningless machines, or random behaviour generators, and that makes them mentally ill.

Conclusion Don’t let anyone tell you you’re not free. Of course you are. It’s the most self-evident fact of your existence (after the Cartesian fact that you know you exist because of the very fact that you’re thinking). Free will is the supreme rock on which scientific materialism founders. Free will is absolutely incompatible with scientific materialism. If you regard yourself as free, you must reject science. Only ontological

mathematics can save free will, just as only ontological mathematics can save the soul.

Free Will = Will to Power