Gödel Versus Wittgenstein (The God Series Book 29)

Table of contents :
Gödel Versus Wittgenstein
Table of Contents
Introduction
Move Out of the Way
Diagonalization
Wittgenstein, Gödel and Tautology
The View from Nowhere
Truthful Atoms?
Sons of Men and Sons of God
No Answer
Above and Below: All Is One
The Martyrs’ Death Club
The Philosophy of Mathematics
The Reaper List
The Problem With Science
Gödel versus Wittgenstein
Paradoxes
The Triumph of Reason
Manmade Languages
The Big Picture
Black Holes
Monism
The War To Come
Autistics
No Final Theory of Science?
The Soul Camera
The Higher World of Reason
Star Trek
The Tax On Beauty
The Island of Magicians
The Wrong Foundations
The Best Minds
The Danger
Words versus Numbers
Ontology
Incommensurate Minds
Genuine Importance
The Black Sun
The Principle of Cartesian Dualism
How and Why
Two Logics
The Wrong Approach
Ontology versus Logic
The Smartest Person in the Room
Binary Jokes
Wittgenstein – Non-Soul Man
Perception and Reality
“Objectivism”
The Riddle
The Mystery of Death
The Farce
Fail
No Shame
The Force
Gödel – Soul Man
The Truth
The Impossible Project
Nature’s Language
Epic Fail
What Is Math?
Logopolis: The City of Reason
The Establishment
Human Knowledge
Conclusion

Citation preview

Gödel Versus Wittgenstein M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2015 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.

Table of Contents Gödel Versus Wittgenstein Table of Contents Introduction Move Out of the Way Diagonalization Wittgenstein, Gödel and Tautology The View from Nowhere Truthful Atoms? Sons of Men and Sons of God No Answer Above and Below: All Is One The Martyrs’ Death Club The Philosophy of Mathematics The Reaper List The Problem With Science Gödel versus Wittgenstein Paradoxes The Triumph of Reason Manmade Languages The Big Picture Black Holes

Monism The War To Come Autistics No Final Theory of Science? The Soul Camera The Higher World of Reason Star Trek The Tax On Beauty The Island of Magicians The Wrong Foundations The Best Minds The Danger Words versus Numbers Ontology Incommensurate Minds Genuine Importance The Black Sun The Principle of Cartesian Dualism How and Why Two Logics The Wrong Approach Ontology versus Logic

The Smartest Person in the Room Binary Jokes Wittgenstein – Non-Soul Man Perception and Reality “Objectivism” The Riddle The Mystery of Death The Farce Fail No Shame The Force Gödel – Soul Man The Truth The Impossible Project Nature’s Language Epic Fail What Is Math? Logopolis: The City of Reason The Establishment Human Knowledge Conclusion

Introduction “Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy. Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics. Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.” – Leibniz In intellectual history, perhaps nothing has been more misinterpreted than Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Stephen Hawking, adopting the popular misconception, said, “Thus mathematics is either inconsistent, or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.” Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually have nothing to do with what math is. No one in the academic world has any idea what math is. Gödel himself certainly didn’t know, and adopted a rather mystical stance. Gödel’s work indicates what math can’t be, not what it must be. He tells us how not to define math, not how to define it. His result is emphatically negative, not positive. What his work does is rule out all approaches to defining math other than the correct one. He does nothing to reveal what the correct one actually is, i.e. the authentic truth of math. He failed to show what the ontology of math is. Wittgenstein was much closer to the mark than Gödel. His assertion that “All mathematics is tautology” is right. It’s impossible for anything tautological to be either inconsistent or incomplete. Given the correctness of Wittgenstein’s view, whatever Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are about, it’s certainly not real math. Gödel didn’t disprove Wittgenstein, and nor did Wittgenstein refute Gödel. They were talking about radically different things. Wittgenstein was stating a definitive property of actual math, while Gödel was responding to manmade interpretations of what math is. This problem – whether Gödel was referring to math itself, or merely to fallacious, manmade interpretations of math – goes to the heart of the difficulty of understanding the implications of Gödel’s work. There are versions of mathematics in circulation that should be called quasi or pseudo mathematical systems (and scientific materialism is one such system), i.e. mathematics with a whole bunch of philosophical assumptions applied to it that destroys its integrity. All of the mainstream approaches to defining the foundations of mathematics are imbued with philosophical and ideological paraphernalia. Bertrand Russell, one of the

main contributors in this field, was an out-and-out empiricist. This meant that he brought to bear on mathematics a philosophy that fundamentally rejected mathematical rationalism, and thus served to make mathematics in many ways a non-rational subject. It’s no wonder Russell’s version of math produced paradoxes, inconsistencies and incompleteness. The trouble with math is not math in itself, but the ideological baggage with which it is saddled. People don’t come to math innocently, neutrally and rationally. The moment they open their mouths regarding math, they impose their philosophical, psychological and even religious point of view on it. None of those things has anything to do with math. To understand what math actually is, you must strip all nonmathematical considerations from it. This has proved staggeringly difficult for the mathematical community, which has consistently chosen fallacious ways of thinking about mathematics. Above all, it has rejected the ontological approach of the first true mathematician – Pythagoras. Mathematics will never become what it ought to be until it reverts to its Pythagorean roots. When Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all”, he was doing what the mathematics establishment has resolutely refused to do ever since ... making mathematics the foundation of reality, and refusing to make other things – especially axioms, logic or sets – the basis of mathematics. It’s time to return to Pythagoras and the ontology of mathematics, and to reject all approaches to mathematics that fail to make it the arche, the ground of all. This book is about the titanic struggle for the soul of mathematics, and reflects two immense battles in which mathematics is immersed to this day. Firstly, if mathematics is tautology, as Wittgenstein said, mathematics cannot be inconsistent and/or incomplete, and so Gödel’s work cannot be about mathematics. If mathematics is not tautological, mathematics is necessarily mired in inconsistency and/or incompleteness, just as Stephen Hawking said, hence is wholly unreliable. Secondly, if mathematics is non-ontological, it cannot say anything about reality. If mathematics is ontological, it’s the only thing that can say anything true about reality. There can’t be a world where math is a bit true and a bit false. Either the world is wholly mathematical – in which case math and not science is how we must study the world – or the world isn’t

mathematical at all, in which case it’s absurd for science to use math in its attempts to account for, or model, reality. Math presents a deadly challenge to science. If math is real, we don’t need science. If math isn’t real, then science, which is so heavily reliant on math, is nonsense! The greatest challenge facing science isn’t to define and understand the universe, but to define and understand math. Of course, it turns out that math and the universe are one and the same. Only if the universe is mathematical can it be rational and intelligible. It must be entirely mathematical since a universe that is partly mathematical and partly something else would be irrational and unintelligible given that mathematical things cannot interact with non-mathematical things (this would constitute a version of Cartesian dualism where two incompatible substances cannot interact since they have no common ground). It’s math or nothing, although, ironically, math is nothing. Mathematics is simply the science of nothing, and of its flip side, infinity. All the secrets of existence lie in nothing and infinity. Traditionally nothing/infinity has been called “God” or the “Oneness”, but it is in fact ontological mathematics, the mathematics of existence itself.

Mathematics = Energy You will never understand mathematics until you understand that mathematics is ontological. It’s none other than energy in itself. Mathematics furnishes the energetic fibre and fabric of existence, and is the universal, infallible language of existence. Strange though it may seem, the language of existence must in fact be what existence is made of. If this were not the case, there would be no means of understanding existence. To know existence, we must speak existence, i.e. use the language existence uses of itself. It would be absurd to say that existence is made of English, a manmade language with no ontological properties. It would be absurd to say that existence has no language because then it would be unintelligible (language being the basis of intelligibility). The rules and laws that existence obeys constitute its language, and define its ontological “grammar”, “syntax”, “vocabulary”, “correct spelling”, and so on. In fact, they define ontology itself. In order for the components of the universe to interact, they must necessarily all obey the same language. An identical language must be

inbuilt in every one of them. Each is a full expression of the language (just as all speakers of English, in order to understand all possible conversations and communications in English, must have the entire English language at their disposal, and not be missing a single element). Only a monadic system of existence – where each monad (ontological unit) is a complete and consistent expression of the language of existence – can provide the means for infallible interaction (communication) between all the different elements in a single system (universe). The only alternative is for there to be no individual units, but, rather, just one monolithic system with many different aspects, like Spinoza’s “God”. Existence isn’t made of manmade words or any other kinds of words. It’s not made of Mythos, of stories, of the “Word of God”. There’s only one language that isn’t based on words, namely mathematics, the language of numbers (the “Number of God” rather than the “Word of God”, so to speak). This is a Logos universe ... a numerical universe. It’s not a Mythos universe ... a verbal universe. Why is science inherently absurd? – because it uses words. It refers to “atoms”, “forces”, and so on. There are no such things. These are heuristic fictions. There are only numerical units (monads) and their numerical relations and interactions. Atoms differ from monads insofar as the latter are entirely numerical, whereas the former lay claim to an undefined, non-numerical property or quality called “physicality”. Languages can comprise words, symbols, or numbers, and nothing else. They cannot comprise “things” with properties. When scientists say that an atom is “physical”, they are applying a descriptive word to it, but, merely by using that word, they don’t thereby confer that ontological reality on the word, just as referring to “God” doesn’t make God ontologically real. To state that something non-mathematical has such and such a property is to state an opinion, belief or interpretation, not a fact. So, scientific materialists refer to atoms as material entities, but the philosopher Bishop Berkeley denied there was any such thing as matter (as science conceived it). For him, “matter” was an idea in minds. Remove the minds, and you ipso facto remove the so-called matter. Every word is in fact an idea. When you use a collection of words, you are linking ideas, but how do you know whether the ideas correspond to anything objectively real? We can refer to “God”, “angels”, “unicorns”, and

so on. Does that make them real? We can refer to “trees”, “atoms”, “matter”. Does that make these real? All ideas are real – as ideas – but that doesn’t make them real in any other sense. How do we link ideas – words or symbols – to objective reality (rather than to our subjective opinions, beliefs and interpretations)? The fundamental assertion of ontological mathematics is that numbers are the ground of reality, and numbers exist as analytic sinusoidal energy waves, which are carriers of information. These information carriers are exclusively mathematical, and strictly obey the rational laws of mathematics. However, the information they carry is empirical, not rational, and this empirical information does not obey the laws of mathematics. Where the information carriers obey the rational laws of numbers, the information carried obeys the empirical “laws” of words, symbols, sensations, perceptions, feelings, desires, ideas, and experiences. We have a mathematical, noumenal order of numbers (information carriers) underlying a non-mathematical, phenomenal order of non-numbers (information carried). These two orders – apparently so different – are two sides of a single ontological coin. They form a dual-aspect monism. One side of the coin (that of the numerical information carriers) is inherently noumenal and hidden from us. The other side (that of the information carried) is the phenomenal reality we actually experience. Yet many of our experiences are wholly subjective – as in dreams – and have nothing to do with objective reality. By sharing a certain word – such as “God” – people thereby convince themselves that this word has objective reality, but there’s no ontological link between shared words and things that exist in their own right. Just as religious people can talk about “God” all they like without “God” thereby being objectively real (beyond the use of the word), so scientists can talk about “matter” all they like, without “matter” thereby being objectively real (beyond the use of the word). Scientists believe that applying their senses to “matter” somehow elevates it to objective reality, yet, as Descartes pointed out, the human senses hardly constitute a reliable tribunal. Our dreams appear objectively real to us, but aren’t. What we imagine our senses are revealing to us, and what they actually are revealing to us, are two wholly different things, as any basic familiarity with the great debates of philosophy demonstrates.

Science labels “sensory” things (and even “non-sensory” things such as “dark matter”, “dark energy” and singularities) with words, but nature in itself contains no words as ontological, objective realities. This, foundationally, is a purely numerical universe. Absolutely everything that presents itself to your senses is a mathematical wavefunction, which is, of course, a numerical function. When we say that reality is 100% mathematical, we are referring to reality in itself, stripped of all appearances. We mean reality as noumenon. When we consider appearances only – the phenomenal, empirical universe – we could equally well say that the universe is 100% nonmathematical, and this is exactly why ordinary people find it absurd to consider mathematics as the ground of reality. That’s why they often believe reality is somehow irrational, or only partly rational. That’s why there’s such scope for humans to be beguiled by mystery, mysticism and faith. Humans reify mathematics, which in practical terms involves converting numerical wavefunctions into “things”. Reify means “make into a thing; make real or material; consider as a thing” and comes from the Latin res (“thing, object, matter, affair, event, circumstance, condition”). Reification is the most human of all activities, and is the primary source of human delusion. Reification is how we fall under the spell of Maya. Wikipedia says, “Maya literally means ‘illusion’ and ‘magic’. However, the term has multiple meanings depending on the context. In earlier older language, it implies extraordinary power and wisdom, in later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Maya connotes a ‘magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem’. In Indian philosophies, Maya is also a spiritual concept connoting ‘that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal’, and the ‘power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality’.” It’s not spiritual reality that’s being concealed, it’s mathematical reality. Mathematical reality in itself is noumenal and non-sensory. It has no appearance whatsoever. However, rational mathematics also conveys empirical information, and it’s this empirical information that human minds reify, i.e. turn into phenomenal, sensory objects, which we then label with words, such as “tree”, “water”, “sky”, mountain”, and so on. We also reify words themselves, most especially the word “God”. Although no one can

point to “God” as they can point to a tree, they nevertheless conceive of God as some existent entity that they could theoretically point to, and might actually be able to do so once they have died and gone to heaven. Thanks to having minds that experience empirical information (conveyed by mathematics; by sinusoidal waves, to be exact), and turn those mental experiences into “physical” things, we must conclude that we ourselves constitute Maya. We are the ones who create the magic show. No one, no force outside us, is deluding us. We are doing it to ourselves. We are the Illusionists, the Projectionists, the builders of the Cosmic Hologram. It’s all in our minds, individually and collectively. There’s no “physical” reality. There’s no “matter”. What exists is mathematics, and how we reify it. By reifying it – by making immaterial wavefunctions into material objects of the senses – we ourselves mentally construct “matter”, and thus conceal the fact that mental mathematics is the foundation of everything. “Matter”, as Bishop Berkeley pointed out, is simply an idea in minds. It’s via the process of reification that we turn objective wavefunctions – cosmic “ideas” – into “solid objects”. In discussions of quantum mechanics, it’s often said that we ourselves create reality by how we observe the world, and how we trigger wavefunction “collapse”. But that’s not it at all. We create “reality” by how we reify wavefunctions. In particular, we turn complex-numbered wavefunctions into spatial objects existing in time. The real part of the wavefunction is interpreted in spatial terms, and the imaginary part in temporal terms. The wavefunction is the reality. How we reify it is Maya. Maya is empiricism, while reality in itself is rationalism. To overcome Maya, we must overcome our experiences, our sensations, perceptions and feelings. To understand reality in itself, we have to de-reify everything, and that means using our reason to detect what lies beneath the world of appearances. Scientists – in thrall to their senses – are incapable of this. That’s why they’re empiricists and not rationalists. Scientists are exactly those who are wholly convinced by Maya, and believe in it without question. Why, then, does science work? – because it uses math. Remove math from science and there’s nothing left. Without math, science is just another religion. It’s Maya Unbound.

***** Noumenal reality: eternal, necessary; uses the rational language of numbers; the information carrier; the signifier; Form; concerns Aristotelian logic based on non-contradiction. Phenomenal reality: temporal, contingent; uses the non-rational or irrational language of words, symbols, feelings, sensations, perceptions, intuitions, subjective experiences, desires, ideas, will; the information carried; the signified; Content; concerns Hegelian dialectical logic based on contradiction. Science tries to combine empirical phenomena with rational mathematics. It’s successful as far as force-fitting mathematical formulae to observed natural patterns goes. It has zero success regarding anything else. It can say nothing meaningful about anything unobservable (hence outside the scientific method), such as life, mind, free will, consciousness, the unconscious, the afterlife, soul, meaning, purpose, and the basis of existence, i.e. all of the most important things to the average human being. Science fails because it privileges the senses over reason. There’s a rational, non-sensory world of pure ontological mathematics, but science can say nothing about it because it ideologically trades only in sensory things. Science is fundamentally irrational and anti-rationalist since it takes the side of empiricism and the senses against reason and intellect.

Move Out of the Way It’s revolutionary to equate mathematics to energy. It’s exactly because mathematics is energy that the presence of math in science makes perfect sense, and it’s exactly because of this that ontological mathematics can simply replace science. Science considers itself the study of energy, with mathematics being an abstraction. In fact, mathematics is the study of energy, and science is the abstraction. Ontological mathematics concerns energy in itself (noumenal energy), and how that energy can be expressed phenomenally, whereas science concerns phenomenal energy only, and has no idea what energy actually is, and nor does it care.

Science has no formal definition of energy. It can’t tell you what energy is in itself. J. R. Brown and P. C. W. Davies revealingly wrote, in The Ghost in the Atom, “Energy is a purely abstract quantity, introduced into physics as a useful model with which we can short-cut complex calculations. You cannot see or touch energy, yet the word is now so much part of daily conversation that people think of energy as a tangible entity with an existence of its own. In reality, energy is merely part of a set of mathematical relationships that connect together observations of mechanical processes in a simple way. What Bohr’s philosophy suggests is that words like electron, photon or atom should be regarded in the same way – as useful models that consolidate in our imagination what is actually only a set of mathematical relations connecting observations.” Ontological mathematics, unlike science, can deal with mental and material energy – i.e. dimensionless and dimensional energy – and thus solve Cartesian dualism by making mind and matter expressions of the same thing (math = energy). If math isn’t about energy then it must be a manmade abstraction, and, in that case, it’s incomprehensible how it can be used in science, assuming science purports to be about reality. Either math is about energy or math is a ridiculous fantasy that’s no more relevant to the structure and operations of the universe than the Chinese language is. The prevailing mathematical, scientific and philosophical establishment has failed to understand the true nature of math, and this has had catastrophic consequences for the advancement of human knowledge. Pythagoras was more right 2,500 years ago than almost 100% of “intellectuals” today. Those 2,500 years have therefore been wasted. It’s not just religion that has held us back in that time, it’s also scientific, philosophical and mathematical empiricism. Empiricism (based on the worship of the human senses) is as much an enemy of reason as faith (based on the worship of human feelings). Ontological mathematics delivers the final victory of metaphysics, rationalism and idealism. It unifies religion, science, mathematics and psychology rationally rather than empirically. It’s the answer to everything. Once humanity has accepted ontological mathematics as the explanation of reality, it can embark on its divine trajectory. It won’t take us long to become the Gods themselves. Mathematics will allow us to answer everything, and the Gods are exactly those who know all the answers.

Abstraction versus Ontology Gödel’s revolutionary work involved an encoding scheme called Gödel numbering, involving assigning a unique number to every proposition of a formal system. Such a coding scheme allows you to move back and forth between the original propositions and the code. As a simplistic example of the scheme, a sign in the formal system with the meaning of “not” might be arbitrarily assigned the natural number “1”. No matter how much ingenuity is subsequently demonstrated, no matter how wondrous the manipulations are, and how seemingly meaningful and significant they are, the whole scheme’s legitimacy is decided at the very first step. The question that must be posed is this ... is there any ontological validity to this exercise, or is it merely trading in abstractions? Is it a language game with its own intricate rules, but is no more related to reality than the English language or Russian language is related to the fundamental constitution of existence? When numbers are ontological – when they are unique energies – what can it possibly mean to assign an energy to a symbol meaning “not”? This is a category error. There can be only one ontological language – mathematics – and it cannot be related to non-ontological, manmade languages. If numbers are ontological, and thus relate to the fundamental order of existence, and comprise the natural language of existence, how can they possibly be mapped to manmade words and manmade formal systems that use manmade symbols and rules? How can you link nature’s language to any manmade language and expect anything real to flow from it? As we said, it’s a category error. The two languages are wholly different, obeying wholly different rules. The language of nature is eternal and necessary, complete and consistent, analytic and tautological. All manmade languages are temporal, contingent and arbitrary, and always incomplete, inconsistent, non-analytic and nontautological. Thus they have nothing in common. As soon as you attempt to insert natural numbers into artificial, manmade systems then whatever emerges will either be invalid from the get-go, or its conclusions will reflect on the manmade system only, but not on ontological numbers and reality. Gödel’s work treats numbers as abstract ... but they’re not. They’re ontological. You can’t manipulate them in any old way, regardless of their

ontology. It would be ontologically meaningless to code the letters of the alphabet in terms of the chemical elements (with the element hydrogen mapped to the letter “a”, and so on). What makes anyone believe it’s any more valid to perform the same or a similar exercise with regard to numbers (energies)? Every language has its own unique rules and modus operandi, and therefore no language cannot be validly and comprehensively mapped to any other language. Confusion, ambiguity and mismatches are inevitable. You cannot undertake an exercise such as Gödel’s unless you have first defined the ontology of what you are doing, something that Gödel signally failed to do. Above all, you must define what a number actually is. Unless you know this, how can you know that what you are doing with it has any real meaning? Gödel conducted his work in the context of his Platonist beliefs, i.e. he believed that numbers have some timeless, transcendent reality. He interpreted his work as meaning that the human mind could only imperfectly apprehend this higher world of Truth. Yet, of course, for those people who didn’t subscribe to Platonism, Gödel’s work couldn’t possibly sustain this interpretation. Gödel’s masterwork is so mired in ambiguity that he himself had a radically different understanding of what he had achieved from most other people. Gödel – despite being a towering technical genius – was in many way astoundingly philosophically naive. Plato, one of Gödel’s guide lights, was very careful to distinguish the things of his transcendent domain of Forms (the intelligible domain) from the things of the mundane domain of temporal things (the sensible domain). All of the latter were inferior copies of the former. To Plato, Gödel’s work would have seemed absurd from its inception. The intelligible and the sensible can never be brought together (just as the rational and empirical can’t: they must always be the opposite sides of the coin in a dual-aspect monism). How could a Platonic Form be coded as something else? If it were, it would no longer function as a Platonic Form. How could the Platonic Form of the number one be mapped to the logical operator “Not”, for example? It’s a category error. It’s exactly what you can’t do with Forms. (In fact, the logical “Not” would have its own Platonic Form.)

The Platonic Form for the number one is eternally, immutably and perfectly that, and can never under any circumstances be anything else. Exactly the same considerations apply in ontological mathematics. The number one is a specific energy and can’t be mapped to any manmade word or symbol. Gödel’s whole enterprise, which he believed was somehow supporting Platonism, was in fact an outright attack on Platonism, and didn’t make any sense at all with regard to the central tenets of Platonism. Gödel cavalierly mixed and matched intelligible and sensible concepts. He committed the cardinal sin of making Platonic Forms mutable, i.e. changing their meaning, depending on context. The number one can only ever mean the number one. It can never mean anything else. You can’t say, as Gödel did, that the number one can sometimes signify something other than the number one. The number one can’t be both mathematical and metamathematical. It’s one or the other, and, in fact, it’s always mathematical. Indeed, Platonically, there can’t be any such thing as metamathematics. Metamathematics is the study of formal systems and the concepts used in mathematics, and is sometimes called “proof theory”. In Platonism, the Forms themselves are a necessarily, eternally, immutably complete and consistent set of Forms that constitute absolute, infallible knowledge. Our task is to know these Forms, and thereby take possession of absolute knowledge. For Plato, we know these Forms as part of our deep nature since our immaterial, immortal souls belong to the same order of existence (our souls reflect the Form of Life). Our mortal lives in the sensible world have corrupted us and made us forget our primordial knowledge of the Forms, but, through being philosophers (lovers of wisdom), we can regain our lost knowledge of perfection. Platonically, you know mathematics by knowing all the Forms that make up mathematics. You don’t refer to some other subject called “metamathematics” to understand mathematics. Mathematics explains itself. You can’t go outside or beyond mathematics to explain mathematics. That would be to claim that mathematics is dependent on something else – such as logic – but Plato never said any such thing, so how could any Platonist such as Gödel maintain otherwise? If mathematics is ontological – which it is – you can’t appeal to anything non-mathematical and nonontological to explain mathematics. There can’t be ontological

metamathematics standing behind ontological mathematics. This would inevitably lead to ontological meta-meta-mathematics, and so on, in an absurd infinite regress. Ontological mathematics is the end of the line. Had Gödel understood this, he would never have bothered with his project. Of course, what Gödel was actually doing was reacting to all of the non-Platonist mathematicians with whom he was surrounded, and trying to put them in their place. However great a logician and mathematician he was, he wasn’t a first rate philosopher, and certainly not someone who truly understood Plato’s system. You cannot use non-mathematics to explain mathematics. You cannot convert Platonic Forms into other Forms, or code them as other things (i.e. things different from their inherent, immutable meaning). Given that, Gödel’s work makes no sense Platonically. Gödel’s whole coding scheme was driven by non-Platonic considerations, and, without that coding scheme, he had nothing. What he achieved in the end was to show that there are fatal problems in every approach to math that denies its ontology and which tries to cast it in other terms. He didn’t say anything about actual mathematics.

***** In Platonic mathematics, every mathematical Form has a unique identity, so, by definition, you can’t give it a second identity by making it represent something else. This, in Platonic terms, would constitute illusory and actually false knowledge, i.e. it wouldn’t be knowledge at all, but opinion, belief or pure sophistry. It’s impossible for any Platonic Form to be inconsistent and/or incomplete with regard to itself, or with regard to any other Form (since all Forms constitute absolute, infallible knowledge). To embark on Gödel’s project was already to have abandoned Platonism, but perhaps it was exactly Gödel’s plan to show that any non-Platonic approach to mathematics, using non-Platonic metamathematics, must fail.

***** “[Gödel devised] a well-formed formula which used a negative existential quantifier to say that a certain (very large) number did not have a carefully constructed arithmetical property, where the very large number turned out

to be the Gödel number of the well-formed formula itself, and the carefully constructed arithmetical property was the one possessed by the Gödel numbers of wffs that were unprovable in the given system. The essential move is to take a two-place predicate, F(m, n), and then consider the case where m = n, thus converting the two-place predicate into a somewhat peculiar one-place one.” – J. R. Lucas Such considerations, no matter how sophisticated, cannot apply to Platonic, tautological or ontological mathematics. When Gödel embarked on his project, he was reacting to all manner of fallacious ideas about what mathematics actually is, and his result is relevant only in that context. GIGO means “garbage in, garbage out”. If you start from a fallacy, what can you hope to accomplish? If you can’t see that you have started from a fallacy, you have committed, as Nietzsche scathingly put it, an “irrefutable error”, i.e. your error is one you cannot refute, hence you believe it to be true ... but that doesn’t mean that it is true. Many of humanity’s greatest “truths” are actually these irrefutable errors. Of course, they can be refuted, but no one takes the refutation seriously. They are too invested in these errors. Their careers, and everything they think they know, depends on them. The whole of metamathematics is just one giant, albeit ingenious and impressive, error! The error is exposed as soon as ontological and tautological considerations are applied to mathematics, i.e. as soon as mathematics is saved from axiomism, logicism, formalism, set theory, and so on. Wittgenstein regarded Gödel’s result as nothing but a logical conjuring trick. That’s exactly what it is. It doesn’t say anything at all about, or shed any light at all on, the ontology of mathematics. There is no part of it that recognises that mathematics is the noumenal “energy in itself” that constitutes the fibre and fabric of eternal, necessary, complete and consistent existence. One day, Gödel’s work will be completely forgotten, just as Einstein’s principle of relativity, the probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and all the other sacred idols and irrefutable errors that currently shape humanity’s intellectual agenda will be. In the end, all errors are refuted ... thanks to the principle of sufficient reason.

*****

Bishop Berkeley said of calculus, “And what are these Fluxions? The Velocities of evanescent Increments? And what are these same evanescent Increments? They are neither finite Quantities nor Quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?” Gödel’s work is even more ghostly.

Numbers and Statements “Gödel’s idea was that the axiomatization of any branch of mathematics creates a very interesting formal object or formal structure, namely the formal system itself. [A formal system] is not just a system in which mathematics is being done, but moreover it itself can become a mathematical object, in the sense that one can look upon its axioms, theorems, rules of inference and so forth as mathematical objects. ... [Gödel] thought to himself, ‘There is no branch of mathematics that studies the properties of strings of symbols. However, there is branch called number theory which studies the properties of integers. I can just replace all of these symbols by integers, and that way I can turn the study of [a formal system] as a mathematical object into a branch of number theory. ... “That was the really tricky insight that Gödel had, the idea that one could turn a mathematical system on itself so that it could become its own object of study – slightly indirect because it involves replacing or coding symbols by numbers that stand for them. That’s called Gödel numbering. ... Once you realize that [Russell and Whitehead’s] Principia Mathematica (which includes number theory as one of its subjects) can talk about Principia Mathematica itself through this code called Gödel numbering, then you can get two levels of interpretation rather than one. Earlier, a given sentence was only thought of as speaking about numbers. (It could say something like ‘641 is prime.’) But now, there emerges a second level of interpretation, because numbers represent statements. Someone could say, ‘Really, this statement says something about strings in Principia Mathematica’!” – Douglas R. Hofstadter The fundamental question is this ... can numbers represent non-numerical (manmade) statements? How, ontologically, can a number be anything but a number? How, ontologically, can it be something that is not a number? How, ontologically, can it be a letter, a word, a symbol, a string, or

whatever? If, ontologically, numbers are energy, what possible ontological meaning can be attached to Gödel’s scheme? Gödel’s entire enterprise relies on numbers being able to stand for nonnumbers. If this is invalid, so is everything Gödel did. Gödel treats numbers as a kind of Aristotelian “prime matter” ... as ultimate abstractions that can be used for any coding scheme, that can be moulded into whatever you want. Gödel’s work is exactly that – an abstraction. It works in abstract terms, and all of its validity lies in the abstract domain of manmade attempts to define mathematics. However, if mathematics is in fact ontological, or Platonic, numbers cannot be anything other than numbers. If they cannot represent non-numbers, Gödel has nothing. So, what did Gödel actually prove? He proved that human beings can construct abstract (formal) systems to model mathematics, and that numbers, treated strictly as abstractions, can be used to demonstrate that these abstract systems are necessarily inconsistent and/or incomplete, i.e. cannot be about true mathematics (which cannot be anything other than consistent and complete). To put it another way, Gödel’s work says nothing at all about true mathematics, and is all about manmade attempts to define mathematics. What the average human thinks mathematics is and what mathematics actually is are two radically different things. Mathematicians themselves are clueless about what math is, hence why we have the whole bogus subject of metamathematics. If we say that mathematics concerns certain rules, then true mathematics has to concern those true rules that apply ontologically to it. If you apply the wrong rules – especially non-ontological abstractions – you are not dealing with mathematics but with a quasi or pseudo mathematical system of your own devising. Mathematicians, especially those studying the foundations of mathematics, have never grasped that it’s incredibly easy to study fake mathematics rather than actual mathematics, and become obsessed with the intricate rules regarding these manmade constructs. For the vast majority of professional mathematicians, mathematics is really just a grandiose version of chess ... a manmade game with all manner of fascinating features, yet absolutely nothing to do with reality. Mathematicians are caught in their

own webs, and imagine them as valid rather than as their own invalid constructs. There is only one true version of mathematics – ontological mathematics – yet it’s the only version of mathematics that’s never taught in any math department! That’s cosmic irony for you. Serious mathematics was more or less founded by Pythagoras, the first ontological mathematician, yet mathematics has strenuously avoided following his example. With the rise of science, mathematics has become enormously more empirical (to reflect the scientific mindset and science’s cultural dominance), hence less rational. Mathematics – as practised by academic mathematicians in universities – is getting further and further away from true mathematics. “The final trick is to find a specific string that can say something about itself. What Gödel found was that it was possible to find a sentence that said this: ‘This sentence is not provable.’ ... In mathematics up until that time the idea of truth was exactly equated with provability. In particular, if one took the system of Principia Mathematica (which was supposed to be allinclusive), the idea of provability within Principia Mathematica would have been synonymous with truth. So, to say ‘This sentence is not provable’ would have been synonymous with saying ‘This sentence is not true,’ or, ‘This sentence is false.’ But if that were really what Gödel’s sentence said, then Principia Mathematica would have a statement in it that was neither true nor false, and that seems impossible. It seems that if it’s true, then it’s false, and if it’s false, then it’s true. That just seems contradictory...” – Douglas R. Hofstadter No genuine statement about numbers can be neither true nor false. Such a statement contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, Platonic Form and ontology (which can never be in any ambiguous, uncertain state). Gödel’s work shows that something is horrifically wrong with the formal systems with which he was working. “What Gödel showed was that there was actually a distinction between provability within any specific system and truth.” – Douglas R. Hofstadter This distinction relates to any manmade system, not to the natural system of mathematics. Gödel’s result is an artefact of an artificial system. It doesn’t relate to reality.

If Gödel’s sentence is: “This sentence is not provable in formal system X”, it means that something is wrong with manmade formal system X, not with natural mathematics. The academic community has taken formal systems such as X to stand for actual mathematics. “Yet, Gödel’s proof was a truly remarkable achievement of logical thinking – he decidedly demonstrated the inherent limitations of the axiomatic method in its ability to grasp the world.” Exactly so. He destroyed the axiomatic approach to defining mathematics, but his work has been erroneously taken to mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with mathematics itself.

Metamathematics 1+1=2 “This formula consists of arithmetical signs and shows their relationships. “Now, if we write: ‘1 + 1 = 2’ is an arithmetical formula “we will make a statement about the formula, which itself does not express an arithmetical fact and so belongs to meta-mathematics, because it confers a meaning to a certain string of arithmetical signs.” – Georgi Muskhelishvili, DNA Information: Laws of Perception The problem here is that you can never use words or symbols – i.e. the stuff of any manmade language – to say anything analytic (tautological) and ontological about mathematics. Metamathematics is therefore bogus. Ontological mathematics stands for itself. It doesn’t need any additional layer to explain it, and it’s especially impossible for any proposed extra layer to be non-ontological and expressed in manmade language. Meaning comes from what mathematics actually is; not from some manmade description of what it is, assigning it a meaning according to some manmade scheme and ideology.

***** “Two propositions are opposed to each other, when there is no meaningful proposition that affirms both.” – Wittgenstein

In a tautological system, no such opposition can ever arise.

***** In Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead sought to prove the consistency of mathematics via the consistency of formal logic, but this is to pre-suppose that logic is more fundamental than logic. In an ontological system, this cannot be true. Mathematics is ontological; logic cannot be – except as an aspect of mathematics. A sinusoidal wave can exist eternally as an actual entity; a logical “Not” or “And” cannot (if we rule out Platonic Forms of such things). Gödel numbering, for all of its ingenuity, is simply a manmade construct; a language. What neither Gödel nor anyone else realised is that Gödel numbering is itself inconsistent, incomplete, non- tautological and non-ontological. If we grant that in Gödel’s scheme numbers represent manmade statements then it’s trivially true that manmade statements must represent numbers too (which is ontologically absurd). So, if we construct some number that stands for a manmade statement that demonstrates that a manmade formal system is incomplete, it must be equally true that this also demonstrates that the constructed number itself must belong to an incomplete numerical system (Gödel numbering), since the whole point of Gödel’s scheme is to talk about the same thing in two equivalent ways. (Gödel numbering is of course utterly inconsistent and incomplete with regard to ontological mathematics predicated on the generalised Euler Formula.) When it came to Gödel’s work, not a single person asked whether Gödel numbering, and the operations associated with it, was itself a formal system (as it must be in order to be equivalent to a formal system, i.e. to represent everything that the formal system can say), hence must suffer from exactly the same limitations that were being asserted of the formal system. In fact, we might regard Gödel numbering as merely a super formal system ... the mother of all formal systems, which could be applied to all formal systems. For Gödel’s scheme to assert of a formal system that it was either inconsistent or incomplete was to assert exactly the same of Gödel’s scheme. But, that being the case, why should we rely on Gödel’s scheme? How can it act as a valid tool in this regard? Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are themselves logically incomplete! How can you use one

incomplete thing to comment on another incomplete thing? If Gödel’s scheme mirrors formal systems then a) it is itself a formal system, and b) reflects all of their limitations. How can an eye look at itself? How can an incomplete system comment on something else’s incompleteness? If the formal system is inconsistent and/or incomplete, why should we accept that the metamathematical system – devised by whatever strategy – that talks about the formal system is any different? How can one badly formed language clarify another badly formed language? We have to get back to something that is eternally, necessarily, absolutely and infallibly true to have any proper ground for real knowledge. Gödel constructed metamathematically correct statements that could be mirrored in the strings of the formal system without being derived from the axioms of the formal system, thereby demonstrating the incompleteness of the formal system. But what does this imply about Gödel’s system itself? How do we determine its completeness and consistency? How do we know how good the tool is for the task assigned to it? Is it fit for purpose? It doesn’t matter how wondrously Gödel performed his task if his own procedure was on no sounder foundations than what he was addressing. Did Gödel say anything real, or just identify a peculiar anomaly or artefact of the types of manmade systems he was commenting on?

Diagonalization Gödel’s incompleteness proof reflects Cantor’s “diagonalization method”. Wikipedia says: “...Cantor considered the set T of all infinite sequences of binary digits (i.e. consisting only of zeroes and ones). He begins with a constructive proof of the following theorem: If s1, s2, …, sn, … is any enumeration of elements from T, then there is always an element s of T which corresponds to no sn in the enumeration. “To prove this, given an enumeration of arbitrary members from T, like e.g. s1 = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ...) s2 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...)

s3 = (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, ...) s4 = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, ...) s5 = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...) s6 = (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...) s7 = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, ...) ... “He constructs the sequence s by choosing its nth digit as complementary to the nth digit of sn, for every n. In the example, this yields: s1 = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ...) s2 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...) s3 = (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, ...) s4 = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, ...) s5 = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...) s6 = (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...) s7 = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, ...) ... s = (1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, ...) “By construction, s differs from each sn, since their nth digits differ (highlighted in the example). Hence, s cannot occur in the enumeration.” Just as a special magic takes place at the inverse function y = 1/x (look at what happens when x = 0, or x goes = infinity), so it does at the selfreference function y = x ... the diagonal function. Consider a system of three monads, labelled 1, 2 and 3. Let’s define a function – “A” – that describes simple interactions between them. We can produce the following matrix: A11 A12 A13

A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 A33 With all Axy terms (where x ≠ y), an interaction takes place between two different monads. We can call this “other-reference”. With all Axy terms where x = y (i.e. every term on the main diagonal), self-reference takes place: a monad interacts with itself. The main diagonal, in the matrix applicable to all monads (not just three monads), equates to the entire Monadic Collective, while all the other elements of the matrix relate to all possible paired monadic interactions. Consider xy in terms of a distance between x and y. This distance could be infinitely wide, but, when x = y, there’s no distance between x and y, and they refer to a single point (a monad). In terms of ontology, the main diagonal corresponds to the immaterial Singularity, outside space and time, where all physical distances are zero, while the rest of the matrix corresponds to the material world of space and time, where all physical distances are non-zero. The Singularity is the Fourier frequency domain of mind, and the rest of the matrix is the Fourier spacetime domain of matter. Note that in physics, when distances between point particles are reduced to zero, and forces between those point particles are dependent on division by the distance, all forces go to infinity (because we are thus dealing with division by zero). We are dealing with a force = 1/distance scenario involving a singularity, and singularities are exactly where the laws of physics fall apart. The main diagonal is about self-reference, and the rest of the matrix about other-reference. Self-reference is of course connected to subjectivity, and other-reference to objectivity. What scientific materialism does is to abolish the main diagonal – i.e. to get rid of self-reference – and just have objective other-reference. With selfreference, free will is possible; without self-reference, free will is impossible because everything is trapped in objective interactions. This is exactly why science cannot account for free will: it has ideologically abolished self-referential, free, subjective agents. What is self-referential monadic activity? It’s none other than thinking. Our thoughts occur inside our mind, are unique to us, and can’t be experienced by anything else. Science, by denying the real existence of

mind, has to rely on objective physical interactions between atoms to generate what science calls “mind”, although it’s not actually mind at all but a mere epiphenomenon of matter. There is no authentic mind in science. Science is a purely materialistic belief system. Science is an absurd ideology because it has sought to abolish y = x (self-reference), and also, in terms of the distance between things, y = 1/x (where x = 0). Both of these are singularity conditions – i.e. mental conditions – hence are anathema to science. They are of course perfectly acceptable and definable mathematically, which is exactly why ontological mathematics must replace science: it can do all of the things science cannot. It can handle all of the situations where science fails. Gödel’s scheme allows a well-prepared, computable, finite, complete diagonal – relating to a formal system – to make a self-referential statement. Just as self-reference destroys science, so it destroys formal systems since neither science nor any formal system reflects ontology. Gödel’s scheme isn’t valid as anything other than an interesting abstraction. It doesn’t say anything at all about ultimate reality, exactly as science doesn’t say anything at all about ultimate reality. In fact, Gödel’s work is much more relevant to science than it is to mathematics. That shouldn’t be too much of a surprise since so much mathematical thinking is driven by the scientific, empiricist ideology, so mathematical “formal” systems end up reflecting scientific considerations rather than those of pure mathematics. Science didn’t worry about the “diagonal”. It just got rid of it! It didn’t concern itself with self-reference at all, yet nothing is more mathematically inconsistent and incomplete than science. Science is math subject to materialist and empiricist ideology, rejecting all of the tautological elements of math that are required to make it consistent and complete. Ontological mathematics deals with rational Form and empirical Content. The rational Form is pure analytic mathematical tautology. The empirical Content is anything but. If you see the colour red, and know everything about it, it would give you zero clue to how you would experience the colour blue if you had never before seen blue. What Gödel did was to inadvertently make a reference to empirical Content rather than rational Form. All true statements regarding rational Form are tautological and provable. That certainly isn’t the case for empirical Content. Something can be empirically “true” (a “truth of fact”)

but certainly not provable (a truth of reason). All of science is about sensory empirical “truths”, but nothing in science is provable. Science doesn’t involve proof; it involves the principles of verification and falsification. Verification never proves anything; it merely lends confidence to the hypothesis being verified. Verification is inductive, whereas proof is deductive. Given the hypothesis that all swans are white, every time we see a white swan we are verifying the hypothesis, but we are never proving it. And, of course, at any time a black swan – or swan of any other colour – can come along and falsify the hypothesis. The falsification principle is also entirely inductive. No deductive proof can ever be falsified. It could be argued that what Gödel’s work established was that truths of fact can never be proved in terms of truths of reason. All truths of reason are provable, but no truths of fact are. If Gödel’s work is interpreted to mean that any formal system can generate truths which are not provable within that formal system, we could easily reinterpret that to say that all formal systems generate Content as well as Form (as they must do since they involve manmade language), and there can be empirical “truths” of fact (Content) in such systems which are not provable (since they are not truths of reason relating to Form). To put it more simply, there are two orders of truth: 1) truths of reason, concerned with Form, and 2) truths of fact, concerned with Content. The latter are true empirically, but not rationally, hence cannot be proved by rational means, only by empirical means. That the sky is blue is an empirical fact, but no one can prove that the sky is and must be blue. Moreover, it wouldn’t be an empirical truth for colour blind people since they don’t know what “blue” means, never having experienced it. All experiences are self-referential and subjective. Each such experience is true for each of us, but that does not mean it’s true for anyone else, and no experience is something that can be proved according to some rational system. By addressing self-reference, Gödel was accessing what might be called the experiential (empirical) rather than rational aspect of the formal system, hence why its “truth” could not be formally proved. Empirical truths are not real truths. They aren’t eternal and necessary. They don’t constitute objective knowledge. They are part of subjective “knowledge”. Even if every human agreed that the sky is blue that wouldn’t make it an indisputable truth. Aliens might come to our planet and see the

sky as green. An empirical “fact” for the human race might be entirely different from an empirical fact for some other species. Any system, other than that of pure tautology, must generate subjective self-reference, and this is in fact what Gödel’s work genuinely demonstrates. In ontological mathematics, all rational Form is tautological, but is accompanied by non-tautological empirical Content. That’s why the world is the way it is. Although all empirical Content is constrained by the laws that apply to rational Form, within those constraints, anything is possible. All monadic minds are frictionless. They are perfect perpetual energy systems. They never run down or degrade. The net energy effect of all your thoughts must always be zero (which is the essential criterion for eternally “free” energy; for energy that is always available and never gets used up), but you can think anything you like given that proviso, and thinking automatically reflects such considerations.

***** Free will relies on the “diagonal”, i.e. on self-reference and subjective agency. This is exactly what science can’t cope with, and seeks to abolish so that it doesn’t have to consider it. To admit it to science would destroy conventional science, and force it to convert to ontological mathematics, predicated on monadic minds – not matter – as the true basis of reality. Any valid system must be able to define objects and subjects. Science cannot do this. Subjects are defined by the “diagonal”, but science refuses to address the diagonal. The diagonal is the domain of singularities – utter anathema to scientific materialism.

***** Individual self-reference concerns individual monads (singularities). Collective self-reference concerns all monads as a unity (the Singularity). Dreams concern individual self-reference, while the waking world – the objective universe; the cosmic hologram – concerns collective selfreference (i.e. there’s nothing outside the universe). Dreams concern the individual elements of the diagonal, and they have the individual mind at their core. The waking world has the complete

diagonal at its centre, and also reflects the entirety of the rest of the interactivity matrix. If a self-referential monad is labelled (1, 1), where 1 = x, and 1 = y, all of its interactions with the waking world will involve interactive elements of the kind (1, y) and (x, 1). Thus we see how each monad fits into the bigger scheme; how it has its own individual, self-referential world of dreams, and also belongs to the waking world of other-reference. It’s all in the math! Any valid ontological system must reflect the diagonal. Science doesn’t, and that’s exactly why it’s wrong. Science is empirical, not rational, but fraudulently uses mathematics to inject rationalism into it by the back door, in a wholly undefined way. Science at no time addresses the elephant in the room ... it’s an experimental, empirical subject, yet is wholly reliant on rationalist mathematics, which has nothing whatsoever to do with experiments or empiricism. Science has zero intellectual integrity. It’s an incoherent activity, which can never reveal the truth of reality to us. It can’t even reveal the truth of math – without which it would be useless – never mind the truth of anything else. Science is useful, not true! There are those who might argue that religion is also useful (in maintaining social order and some moral code), but not true.

***** Note that only a monadic (point-based) system is compatible with a strictly mathematical treatment of reality. Monads are perfect for addressing selfreference and other-reference, for addressing singularities and spacetime, for embracing the diagonal, both in terms of individual elements and collectively.

The Impossibility How can science – a system based on verification and falsification principles – have anything to do with proof – a system based on analytic necessity, and not in any way concerned with verification and falsification? We either live in an empirical universe of science – where we must rely on verification, falsification and induction, hence can never reach any definitive answer or Truth – or a rational universe of mathematics – where

we can rely on deductive proof, hence establish absolute answers and absolute knowledge and Truth. Which universe would you prefer to live in? Scientists regard a “proof universe” as an unreal abstraction (based on reason and intellect rather than on the senses and experiments). As worshippers at the Church of the Senses, they believe in sensory verification of hypotheses which are inherently designed to be compatible with the senses, and susceptible to sensory experimentations. Anything that’s not about the senses (experimentation) is rejected.

***** A Proof Universe (i.e. rational, mathematical universe) has a provable answer. (This is also known as a Deductive Universe; a Form Universe.) A Verification/Falsification Universe (i.e. an empirical, scientific universe) has no provable answer. (This is also known as an Inductive Universe; a Content Universe.) A Faith Universe (i.e. an Abrahamist Universe) has no provable answer. Faith is about feelings and is a form of empiricism. A Mystical Universe (i.e. an Eastern Religion or New Age Universe) has no provable answer. Mysticism is about intuition separated from reason. Empiricists don’t want a provable answer. They want some great sensory, emotional or intuitive epiphany that satisfies then in experiential terms. Only rationalists want a provable answer. They reject experience as any avenue to ultimate answers. All ultimate answers are eternal and necessary, and have exactly zero connection with temporal, contingent experiences. “As if the secret of the aether is something cold and calculated like an equation. Maybe it is. But it seems much more obvious that you fix a broken world full of hate and destruction with unconditional love and forgiveness, unity and solidarity.” – RP Obvious to whom? Obvious to a feeling type! The “logic” of feelings is that you cure one emotion (hate) with its opposite (love). Of course, the much more likely scenario is that hate breeds even more hate, and those who are doing the hating invariably have an intense love of whatever is the opposite of what they hate. But now consider ontology and epistemology. Can you claim that the universe is made of feelings? Can you claim that feelings

comprise a system of knowledge? Knowledge of what? Of how to cry at Bambi? It’s impossible to reason with irrational people. They will never accept that this is universe grounded in pure reason, and that feelings themselves are a type of reasoning (very bad reasoning!).

***** “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King Love has been tried ... and failed dismally. Only reason can drive out hate. And only reason can combat destructive love. “...you are so afraid of being ‘lead astray’ that you have turned your back on the single biggest depot of knowledge in existence.” – JB Nothing generates more fear in feeling types than that the feelings they live by may be their greatest enemy. That’s why so many of them aspire to NoMind or Non-Mind, so they don’t have to think anymore and can just feel. “Why don’t you just give us a simple explanation of what the equation means? What are the implications of it? We gotta buy the books to find out right? All I’m saying is if there is some deep profound wisdom that’s in there, why can’t somebody just tell us what it means? ... I do want to learn. I just get the feeling that some people are being misled, or either made to believe that the books are the only way to understand reality. If they can’t prove somehow in simple terms how photons and matter are manifest from the ether or aether, then it doesn’t really matter. And not an equation, a tangible idea that can be relayed in language. Maybe somebody should just message me and tell me what’s really going on, instead of everything being so vague.” – PH Note the staggering laziness of this person. He wants to be spoon fed the most difficult concepts ever articulated, without putting in any effort. He deeply resents having to buy and read books. “Woe is me ... how dare they ask me to study something before shouting off my mouth about it? Why should the fact that I know nothing about it disqualify me from slagging it off?” He gets the “feeling” that some people are being misled. (Yes, by people such as himself! ... those who despise reason.) He can’t stand equations, seeing them as abstract and unreal. He wants a “tangible” idea

that can be “relayed in language”, i.e. in manmade terms. He wants to understand eternal, necessary reality from the perspective of temporal, contingent, delusional human thinking. These people can contribute nothing to our cause. They are a waste of space. They will never be anything other than the enemies of the Truth. They have zero interest in Truth and knowledge. “The concepts from AC are based on faith just like any religion. Show me the money. Show me the magic. Show me the occult black magic. That’s the first thing I would learn. Why is this the right path? Some magnificent equation only a calculus expert can hope to solve? How did Buddha do it, was he a math wiz? How could the first indigenous cultures hope to illuminate when manmade mathematics was not even created yet? A magical equation to give you godhood just like a magical man in the sky will take care of you when you’re dead. It’s ironic. Those indigenous cultures are probably closer to illumination than we will ever be. We don’t know how to live off and with the land, how to take life respectfully in order to feed our families, how to make fire with our bare hands. We do the opposite lol, we destroy the planet, over-consume and take it for granted, and use machines we did not build to do the job for us. We have basically been spoon fed from birth a bunch of useless information that will immediately become meaningless the day the dollar bill loses its value. Maybe I am wrong, that would actually be great. But the more I look into it, the more obvious it becomes we are living on lies on top of lies.” – RP What did the Buddha do? Did he cure cancer? Did he design the internet? Did he send a rocket to the moon? You are deranged if you believe that the ancients were smarter than modern geniuses. Mathematics and science have transformed the world. What has Buddhism done for the world? All of those people that worship their ancestors and the ancients despise progress and evolution. They are like the Muslims who want to go back 1,400 years and live with Mohammed because the Koran reflects the primitive level of their understanding of reality. Yes, who needs fucking math? We can all live in caves forever, or under a tree chanting and meditating. Survival is not compulsory. If you don’t want to evolve, you won’t. If you want to be backward until the End of Days, go ahead. That’s your choice. That’s on you. When the

rest of us take off in starships, don’t ask to come on board. You made your bed ... so lie in it. Mathematics isn’t manmade, and no ancient cultures were enlightened. Not even the ancient Greeks were enlightened, although they were much closer than everyone else. After all, they loved philosophy and math! Throughout history, only exceptional individuals have attained enlightenment, and they have done so by intuiting the mathematical Truth of reality.

***** “Learning a language represents training in the delusions of that language.” – Frank Herbert Religion, science and formal systems are all delusional languages. “The flaw must lie in our methods of description, in languages, in social networks of meaning, in moral structures, and in philosophies and religions – all of which convey implicit limits where no limits exist.” – Frank Herbert “We sift reality through screens composed of ideas. (And such ideas have their roots in older ideas.) Such idea systems are necessarily limited by language, by the ways we can describe them. That is to say: language cuts the grooves in which our thoughts move. If we seek new validity forms (other laws and other orders) we must step outside language.” – Frank Herbert “We are questioning more than the philosophy behind our dependence upon limited and limiting systems. We question the power structures that have grown up around such systems.” – Frank Herbert “If we define Futurism as an exploration beyond accepted limits, then the nature of limiting systems becomes the first object of exploration.” – Frank Herbert The first object of exploration of science should be mathematics, without which it is useless. How would science go about studying what mathematics actually is? It has no means for doing so (experiments won’t cut it), hence science will always be incoherent.

Wittgenstein, Gödel and Tautology Wittgenstein was right that mathematics (true mathematics) is tautological. Since it’s necessarily tautological, it’s impossible for math ever to be inconsistent and/or incomplete. It’s impossible for there to be any true mathematical statements that cannot be proven. This obviously flies in the face of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and in fact these were never accepted by Wittgenstein. So, what’s going on? How can these two geniuses be on two totally different pages? The answer is twofold. Firstly, Gödel carried out a stratagem (inspired by Leibniz) for converting symbols into numbers. Wikipedia says, “In mathematical logic, a Gödel numbering is a function that assigns to each symbol and well-formed formula of some formal language a unique natural number, called its Gödel number. The concept was used by Kurt Gödel for the proof of his incompleteness theorems (Gödel 1931). A Gödel numbering can be interpreted as an encoding in which a number is assigned to each symbol of a mathematical notation, after which a sequence of natural numbers can then represent a sequence of symbols. These sequences of natural numbers can again be represented by single natural numbers, facilitating their manipulation in formal theories of arithmetic. ... Gödel noted that statements within a system can be represented by natural numbers. The significance of this was that properties of statements – such as their truth and falsehood – would be equivalent to determining whether their Gödel numbers had certain properties. The numbers involved might be very long indeed (in terms of number of digits), but this is not a barrier; all that matters is that we can show such numbers can be constructed. In simple terms, we devise a method by which every formula or statement that can be formulated in our system gets a unique number, in such a way that we can mechanically convert back and forth between formulas and Gödel numbers. ... A simple example is the way in which English is stored as a sequence of numbers in computers using ASCII or Unicode: The word HELLO is represented by 72-69-76-76-79 using decimal ASCII. The logical statement x=y => y=x is represented by 120-061-121-032-061-062-032-121-061-120 using decimal ASCII.”

*****

This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with ontology. You can never convert or code one ontological thing in terms of another, because then you would have altered its ontology (for example, you can’t code a frequency of 6Hz as two frequencies of 3Hz ... these are completely different ontological situations, although, simplistically, they may seem numerically equivalent). Gödel’s scheme has nothing to do with mathematics in and of itself. It concerns false approaches (i.e. non-ontological approaches) to the definition of what math is. The incompleteness theorems proved that such approaches are doomed to failure. Gödel didn’t prove a single thing about what math is. What he proved is what’s it’s not. He proved that it definitely isn’t manmade. Ontological mathematics – true mathematics – has existed forever and is the language of existence itself. It cannot be inconsistent or incomplete under any circumstances. It’s pure analytic tautology, flowing from a single formula: the God Equation (which can never be inconsistent or incomplete with regard to itself). What Gödel proved was that all axiomatic approaches to defining mathematics must be wrong. The reason they are wrong is that they are non-tautological, hence non-ontological. Ontological mathematics can never be wrong ... because it describes the perfect essence of reality. It contain no flaws, no errors, no imperfections, no contradictions, no uncertainties, no imprecision, no approximations. All axioms that apply to ontological mathematics must be tautological, and must be tautologous with the God Equation (i.e. must be different but equivalent expressions of the God Equation, or directly derived from it, thus implicitly tautologous with it). Gödel (and indeed the whole mathematical community) failed to realise that all valid mathematical axioms must be tautological, i.e. must be shown to have a common root, of which they are equivalent expressions. Any mathematical axioms that are not tautologous automatically fall foul of Cartesian substance dualism, i.e. they imply different ontologies and epistemologies – different and incompatible versions of mathematics – hence cannot be complete and consistent with regard to each other. In other words, Gödel simply came up with an ingenious way of showing that existence must be predicated on monism, and not on dualism or pluralism.

Axioms can be equated to substances. If they are different substances, they cannot interact. If they can interact then they are just different expressions of the same substance, i.e. they are tautologies of each other. Tautology, ontology and epistemology must reduce to a single all-powerful ontological formula, from which everything else is derived. This is none other than the God Equation. Anyone who ventures down a similar path to Gödel is certain to fail. Ontological mathematics is what he was seeking, and supersedes all of his work. Gödel’s system is irrelevant to ontological mathematics, and it’s key use is in disproving all non-ontological attempts to define mathematics, and indeed any system at all that seeks to explain reality other than ontological mathematics.

The View from Nowhere The objective view of the world is the view from nowhere. It’s the only view that isn’t subjective (i.e. a view from somewhere). Mathematics is the view from nowhere, hence is the sole view that escapes subjective relativism and solipsism.

Consistency and Completeness Consistency and completeness go to the heart of reality. Any thinker who does not address consistency and completeness is lost. They cannot be telling you the truth. How did Leibniz address consistency and completeness? He said, “...every soul is as a world apart, independent of everything else except God.” In other words, Leibniz’s monads, in his published Monadology, were windowless (they did not interact), and were pre-programmed by God. Thus everything they did was complete and consistent with regard to God’s creation of the “best of all possible worlds.” In Abrahamism, “God” is the source of completeness and consistency, but God’s own completeness and consistency is assumed and never established. In Eastern Religion, it’s the “Oneness” instead of “God”, but, again, no explanation is furnished for its completeness and consistency. Science – which rejects God, the Oneness and any eternal, necessary order – has no notion of completeness and consistency. It doesn’t look to

make science complete and consistent. Rather, it applies verification and falsification principles. Nothing complete and consistent can be falsified, and nothing complete and consistent needs to be verified. Science, by definition, cannot construct a grand unified, complete and consistent, final theory of everything, so it’s astounding that scientists so often talk as if they will one day provide an answer to everything. There can never be a final theory of anything that rests on verification and falsification principles, so why do scientists insist on talking this way (apart from being philosophical ignoramuses and illiterates)? The answer is that science uses math, and math can be reduced to a single, final formula for everything ... the God Equation. Because scientists keep getting confused between scientific empiricism and mathematical rationalism, they try to have their cake and eat it. The verification and falsification principles are needed by the empiricist part of science (the experimental part), but the grand unified, final equation of everything is required by the rationalist part of science (the mathematical part). The two different aspects are incompatible with each other (are incomplete and inconsistent with regard to each other), but since when has science felt any shame or doubt over fundamental contradictions in its ideology? Science has no regard for truth, and 100% regard for whatever works in the short term. Never forget that science is so incomplete and inconsistent that it literally claims that an entire universe, or indeed infinite universes, can jump out of nothing at all for no reason at all via no mechanism at all. Such thinking is based on magic and miracles, not reason and logic. Returning to Leibniz, what happens if monads interact (instead of being windowless)? In other words, how does ontological mathematics deal with completeness and consistency in an interactive system? Ontological mathematics has two levels: objective and subjective. The objective level is eternal and necessary. This level constitutes the complete and consistent laws of mathematics. The subjective level is temporal and contingent. This constitutes “living” mathematics, and is riddled with incompleteness and inconsistency, subjectivity and self-reference. It’s the view from individual monads. The objective level complies with Aristotelian logic, while the subjective level reflects Hegelian dialectical logic. Where contradiction is impossible in Aristotelian logic, it’s mandatory in Hegelian dialectics. The

dialectic is driven by incompleteness and inconsistency, but, as it goes through each iteration, on its journey to a final grand synthesis, it gradually sheds all contradictions. At the Omega Point, it’s entirely contradiction free. It too has become complete and consistent.

***** Free will is impossible in an objective, complete and consistent system. Free will is possible purely thanks to subjectivity, self-reference and the dialectic. Free will relies on incompleteness and inconsistency, errors, flaws, contradictions, and unpredictability. Only a monadic mathematical system – full of living, dialectical monads evolving within an eternal, necessary, complete and consistent mathematical framework – can support free will.

***** There are two types of reference: “self”-reference and “other”-reference. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem is about the paradoxes generated by self-reference. A system that allows self-reference cannot be complete and consistent. A self-referential entity can make any statement at all about itself, regardless of the rest of the system. Objective ontological mathematics is all about other-reference, where no paradoxes arise. This provides the perfect, error-free framework for the eternal universe. Subjective ontological mathematics is all about monadic self-reference, so paradoxes are inevitable, but it’s exactly these paradoxes that stop us from being programmed machines, and allow us to exercise free will and make mistakes. Subjective ontological mathematics supplies the messy business of living and evolving, via the brutal dialectic where opposites must fight it out. Given enough dialectical steps, all subjective self-reference is abolished. Indeed, the end of a Cosmic Age happens exactly when perfect completeness and consistency – objective and subjective – is achieved. In terms of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we would eventually be able to see which initial axioms were false, incompatible with each other, or insufficiently valid, hence to ensure that self-referential paradoxes would never arise in a properly constituted system. However, we can shortcut this

by rationally moving straight to the God Equation, and consistently deriving everything from it.

***** It ought to be demanded of science, religion, philosophy and mathematics that they be complete and consistent. If they’re not, they cannot be true. But none of these disciplines, not even math, has the calibre of person who appreciates the importance and implications of completeness and consistency. If they did, they would all convert to ontological mathematics, which is inherently about eternal, necessary completeness and consistency regarding the objective framework of existence. Never forget: only an analytic tautological system can be complete and consistent. It’s literally impossible to generate a contradiction or paradox in such a system.

Verification and Falsification Only an empiricist could claim that the meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification. The meaning of a proposition lies in fact in its ontological and epistemological validity. Any proposition which is invalid in these terms is meaningless. The vast majority of human “knowledge” is meaningless. Science is meaningless. It has a utility value, not a truth value i.e. it’s a useful descriptive model but provides no genuine explanations. It’s impossible to accept as true anything that is falsifiable. The truth is exactly that which cannot be falsified. Only an empiricist, with no regard for the Truth, could have come up with such a principle.

Truthful Atoms? “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” – J. B. S. Haldane

Atoms of meaningless matter have no connection with, and zero interest in, the truth. Atoms of teleological mathematics (monads), on the other hand, are concerned with nothing but the truth. They are driven to optimise and solve themselves, and that means finding the truth of themselves. Only mathematical beings – entities solving their own and their collective equation – are concerned with truth. Only a true answer to an equation is a valid answer. As Haldane points out so devastatingly, there can be absolutely no connection between the motions of lifeless, dead atoms in our brain and our capacity to know the truth of reality. We can know the truth of reality only if reality is mathematical, and we ourselves are self-solving, self-optimising mathematical beings. Mathematics, unlike science, is a complete and consistent, eternal and necessary, system of analytic tautology, hence provides absolute, immutable, infallible truth. Science is an empirical (non-rationalist) subject and is about never-ending verification subordinated to never-ending susceptibility to falsification, hence can never be true, and will always be about opinions, beliefs and hypotheses. Since science does not deal with truth then, as Haldane points out, we can have no reason to consider the claims of science to be true. In fact, we know they definitely aren’t. They simply lack the properties associated with truth.

Occam’s Razor A system can be complete and consistent only if it’s wholly tautological. Any non-tautological system will automatically be incomplete and/or inconsistent. Only a system reflecting monism can be complete and consistent. Any dualistic or pluralistic system will suffer from nontautology. For example, with Cartesian dualism, there’s no way for unextended mind and extended matter to interact (interactivity is just another way of referring to tautology since non-tautologous things are as unable to interact as different substances). Cartesian mind and matter are mutually exclusive. They reflect entirely different ontologies and epistemologies, which is exactly why philosophy after Descartes split in two – into idealism and materialism. Scientific materialism has no place for autonomous mind. Such a concept cannot be complete and consistent with regard to the materialist

empiricist Meta Paradigm. Similarly, no idealist can grant the existence of autonomous matter. All axioms or concepts must be functionally regarded as substances, and any axioms or concepts that are not tautologies of each other cannot belong to the same ontological and epistemological system. They will automatically suffer from the fatal problem that affects all dualisms and pluralisms ... the insoluble Cartesian problem of how different substances interact if they have nothing in common to serve as the basis of that interaction. All of math must be tautological in order to be complete and consistent. Only a complete and consistent system can reflect the true ontology and epistemology of reality. Only one system can be complete and consistent: ontological mathematics. There is only one God Equation. There is only one reality. There is only one universe. The preposterous notion of the scientific Multiverse is not only the most egregious violation of Occam’s Razor, it’s also the worst violation of completeness and consistency, of substance monism, of tautology, of analysis. Occam’s Razor – the doctrine that entities must not be multiplied without necessity – should, when properly understood in terms of ontology, epistemology, completeness and consistency, be recast as: “entities must never be multiplied at all: there is never any necessity for multiplication of entities since this would automatically lead to substance dualism or pluralism, or incompatible axioms or concepts, or contradictory ontologies and epistemologies, to incompleteness and inconsistency.” Occam’s Razor is really just the Principle of Tautology: the only entities you can multiply are those that turn out to be tautologies of each other, i.e. they are actually just the same thing expressed in different ways, so there’s fundamentally only one entity, and no authentic multiplication is taking place at all. There is only the “One”, the Source, the All ... the God Equation. The God Equation is expressed and conveyed through infinite monads, but each of these is a tautological, ontological instantiation of the God Equation and can never deviate from the tautologies allowable by the God Equation. Occam’s Razor is just the principle of sufficient reason by another name. It means that everything has a precise reason why it is thus and not

otherwise, why it does this thing and not that thing. There is never any multiplication of reasons for an event. There is never any ambiguity or uncertainty. To violate tautology is to violate Occam’s Razor, i.e. to multiply entities unnecessarily. If tautology is saying the same thing in countless different ways, on what conceivable basis could there be any reason for breaking tautology and introducing non-tautology? How can two non-tautological things interact? What would be the common ground for their interaction? They would have as much in common as Cartesian mind and matter, i.e. none at all. Neither Occam’s Razor nor the principle of sufficient reason is compatible with quantum indeterminacy where no reason can be given for any event, where nothing is tautological, and where entities have been multiplied without necessity (insofar as we now have countless possible causes and possible effects, making it impossible to ever know what caused what, or even to define “cause” any more). A quantum mechanical wavefunction covers the entire universe, and, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, can randomly collapse into any possible state whatsoever, anywhere in the universe. Add “many worlds” and the Multiverse, and we have the claim that anything that can happen will happen, which is the exact opposite of Occam’s Razor. We now have entities being multiplied without end, with no necessity. Occam’s Razor demands the minimal explanation: one cause and one effect, i.e. it’s equivalent to the principle of sufficient reason. Quantum indeterminacy has potentially infinite causes and infinite effects, and any effect can come from any “cause”. Science – with its randomist ideology – is the most flagrant abuse of reason you can get. It’s worse than “God”.

***** Tautology is synonymous with consistency and completeness, with monism, with Occam’s Razor, with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, with interactivity, with cause and effect.

***** Gödel had a notion that philosophical axioms could save mathematics from the disaster implied by his incompleteness theorems, that philosophical axioms could be applied to his incompleteness theorems to bring about

completeness and consistency. Even the greatest thinkers are capable of howlers, it seems. If a quasi-mathematical axiom cannot work, it’s impossible for a non-mathematical axiom to work. Philosophical axioms – unless they are tautologies of the mathematical principle of sufficient reason – are always shrouded in ambiguity, imprecision, incompleteness and inconsistency. They are always manmade rather than natural axioms, hence are false. What Gödel should have realised is that, to generate necessary completeness and consistency, all axioms must be reduced to just one, in fact to a single ontological Formula: the God Equation. The very existence of multiple non-tautological axioms in your scheme is the proof that your scheme has failed even before you have begun. In “divine” terms, the Abrahamists were right: there can only be one “God”. Monotheism supports completeness and consistency; polytheism does not. However, the Abrahamists failed to realise that what they called the One, True God was in fact the One, True God Equation. Math defines, creates and rules the universe, not some preposterous Super Being. The moment you refer to two axioms, principles, concepts, equations, formulae or laws that are not tautologies of each other, you are wrong, and the system you are constructing will definitely be incomplete and inconsistent, hence false. Ontological mathematics, defined by the single God Equation, is the one and only complete and consistent answer to existence, Anything else is delusion, and rationally guaranteed to be fallacious. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems proved that anything that isn’t based on tautology cannot be complete and consistent. Wittgenstein never understood Gödel’s work because Wittgenstein always knew that true mathematics was complete and consistent. Wittgenstein’s problem was a different one. He couldn’t understand that reality is based on tautological mathematics, and regarded tautology as abstract and “empty”, i.e. saying nothing at all about reality. He failed to grasp that all mathematical tautology (rational Form) is always ontologically accompanied – as the flip side of the same coin – by nontautological, empirical Content, which, naturally, is always experienced non-tautologically. The former gives us truths of reason, and the latter truths of fact. The two are not separate ... they are absolutely and permanently tied together. We are not dealing with dualism, but with dual-aspect monism.

Wittgenstein and Gödel are fascinating because, between them, they confronted the central issues of mathematics. Wittgenstein thought that math was tautological (hence complete and consistent), but unreal. Gödel thought that math was real, but his work seemed to show that it wasn’t tautological. Both men were wrong. Wittgenstein was wrong that mathematics isn’t real, and Gödel was wrong to imagine that math could ever be defined using non-tautological (i.e. inconsistent and incomplete) philosophical axioms. There must be a “monotheism” of axioms. There must be one true axiom, and this is the principle of sufficient reason, ontologically expressed as the God Equation, and conveyed by countless monads. If two axioms are compatible with the principle or sufficient reason then they must be tautologies of each other, and tautologies of the principle of sufficient reason itself. That’s the law of existence.

***** No manmade language can be complete and consistent. Only the language of existence – ontological mathematics – is complete and consistent, hence it’s the one and only answer to existence. Everything else is false and wrong. That’s a rational, logical fact.

The Assumptions Gödel’s work involves assumptions about what math is and how it should be approached. If these assumptions are dubious, so is the entire procedure. You have to know what math is ontologically before you can begin to address tasks such as Gödel undertook. Wittgenstein said that math is tautology, hence automatically consistent and complete. Gödel’s incompleteness can have no relevance whatsoever to mathematics when defined in Wittgenstein’s terms. The most extraordinary fact is that no one has critiqued Gödel’s work from Wittgenstein’s perspective. Gödel’s work has no relevance to math if Wittgenstein is right about math, hence must be about something else. It’s actually about a simulacrum of math, an inferior copy or imitation of the real thing. It’s no wonder that a simulacrum is inconsistent and/or incomplete since it’s not the real thing, hence is necessarily flawed. Science is another

simulacrum of math, riddled with inconsistencies and incompleteness.

Sons of Men and Sons of God Religions divide people into sons of God – the elect, the saved, the faithful, the chosen – and the sons of Men – the reprobates, the rejected, the infidels, the heretics, the damned. The sons of Men are therefore the sons of the Devil. They are irredeemably evil and must be exterminated, or so goes the reasoning of the “sons of God” ... just look at the “logic” of the Jihadists of the Islamic State. The sons of Men live according to manmade laws hence are wicked, while the sons of God live according to divine laws, hence are virtuous. According to the Bible, the sons of men are descended from Cain, and the sons of God from Seth (the replacement for Abel, who was allegedly murdered by Cain). Adam was the father of both lines. Does that make him divine or Satanic? The sons of Men belong to the earthly city, the city of the Devil; the sons of God to the heavenly city, the city of God. What is the Devil’s capital city, the most evil place on earth? Jerusalem, naturally!

Islamic “Logic” A “liberal” Muslim spokesperson claimed that the Jihadists of the Islamic State are victims of their own ignorance of Islam. He said that when they try to please God they end up appalling him. Really? Was Abraham – the alleged first Muslim – ignorant of Islam when he agreed to kill his own son at Allah’s command? Did he appal Allah? So why is a terrorist ignorant of Islam when he agrees to kill infidels? And why would Allah be appalled? You can’t talk about ignorance in the same breath as faith. Ignorance implies a contrast with reason, logic and knowledge, while faith implies willingness to do unthinkable things to advance God’s agenda. Belief, as Kierkegaard realised, necessitates the abandonment of reason and knowledge, and, instead, one must take a leap into the irrational unknown ... the famous leap of faith. When Allah ordered Abraham to slaughter Ishmael, he proved that nothing can be considered offensive to him. If he commands a father to murder his own son, why would he hesitate

to order believers to slaughter infidels? The former implies the latter, so there’s nothing “ignorant” about the Jihadists, only about their Muslim critics. The problem isn’t with any alleged ignorance of Islam. The problem is with Islam itself. Islam is an abomination. The whole world understands Islamic Jihad all too well. It’s about the desire to impose Islam on the whole world by the sword ... exactly as the Muslim terrorists are now doing. Their understanding of Islam is perfect.

Islamic Legalised Rape In Islam, if a woman refuses to consent to marriage, it’s deemed that she’s simply being “bashful”, so the marriage goes ahead even though she never agreed to it. One Muslim woman was asked three times whether she consented to an arranged marriage. She was too afraid to say no (for fear of being killed), so she stayed silent. The fact that she did not say No was taken to mean that she had said Yes. That’s Islam for you. Under Islamic law, a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s. In fact, if a woman is raped, she requires four male witnesses to testify on her behalf, i.e. to all intents and purposes rape does not exist in Islam since it’s impossible for any woman to prove her case given that zero rapes are performed in front of four witnesses supportive of the victim. A married woman who claims to have been raped has admitted to having sex outside marriage, so if she can’t prove it was rape she has confessed to committing adultery, which carries the penalty of death by stoning! It’s inconceivable that any rational woman would be a Muslim. Islam is a monstrous religion in every way. If Sharia law is “Godmade law” which allows women to be raped with impunity, who in their right mind wouldn’t regard manmade law as infinitely superior?

Manmade Laws Which sane person would want to be ruled by “Godmade” laws rather than manmade laws? Who gave us these alleged Godmade laws? – men! Who upholds these alleged Godmade laws? – men! When did “God” appear and give us these laws? When did he personally justify and enforce them? Who agreed to them? Who negotiated on behalf of mankind? Where’s God’s

signature? Where’s humanity’s signature? Who says that men have to obey “God”? If you want to obey your God’s laws, that’s your business. What right do you have to inflict them on people who don’t share your beliefs? Why can’t people opt out if they wish? Where did God assign specific people to punish and kill on his behalf? Where’s their proof that they’re working for “God”? Anyone who refers to “God’s law” should be expelled from human society since they are invoking something that automatically subjects all those who don’t believe in it to those that do. That’s tyranny.

The Philosophy of Logical Analysis “In philosophy ever since the time of Pythagoras there has been an opposition between the men whose thought was mainly inspired by mathematics and those who were more influenced by the empirical sciences. Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, and Kant belong to what may be called the mathematical party; Democritus, Aristotle, and the modem empiricists from Locke onwards, belong to the opposite party.” – Bertrand Russell So, to which party do you belong? “In our day a school of philosophy has arisen which sets to work to eliminate Pythagoreanism from the principles of mathematics, and to combine empiricism with an interest in the deductive parts of human knowledge.” – Bertrand Russell And thus was born the disastrous school of analytic philosophy. What is actually required is to eliminate all traces of this sensory, empiricist school from the principles of mathematics, and return fully to Pythagoreanism and deduction. Rationalism and empiricism cannot be combined epistemologically. Form (rationalism) and Content (empiricism) are two sides of one coin, and always accompany each other, but only Form (rationalism) is compatible with infallible knowledge – with eternal, necessary truths of reason. Pythagoras understood these things; Russell, a fanatical empiricist, certainly didn’t. All traces of Russellism must be stripped from math.

“The aims of this school are less spectacular than those of most philosophers in the past, but some of its achievements are as solid as those of the men of science.” – Bertrand Russell Analytic philosophy has destroyed traditional philosophy, and made it a pathetic, pedantic subject for autistics. It no longer entertains any “big” thoughts. It has filtered all inspiring thoughts through a dismal reducing valve, and rendered everything small, narrow, cheap and hollow. It has called all the big questions of meaning meaningless! As for its “achievements”, it has none, and it’s a joke in comparison with science. “The origin of this philosophy is in the achievements of mathematicians who set to work to purge their subject of fallacies and slipshod reasoning. The great mathematicians of the seventeenth century were optimistic and anxious for quick results; consequently they left the foundations of analytical geometry and the infinitesimal calculus insecure. Leibniz believed in actual infinitesimals, but although this belief suited his metaphysics it had no sound basis in mathematics.” – Bertrand Russell This is typical Russellian drivel. Calculus must be based on Leibnizian monads. Leibniz, the discoverer of calculus, knew much more about it than Russell. Calculus, like the rest of math, is ontological, and cannot be properly understood in any other context. Russell, and the entire mathematical community, committed the cardinal sin of treating mathematics as a non-ontological abstraction. Calculus must be understood as a means of studying energy, and dynamically adding dimensionality to, or subtracting dimensionality from, mathematical energy functions (addition corresponding to integration, and subtraction to differentiation). Leibniz scholar George MacDonald Ross wrote, “Integration is the reverse of differentiation, and consists in reconstructing a whole from a given value at an instant – in other words, in going up one dimension. From a rate of change at a point you can reconstruct a whole line, from a line you can reconstruct an area it defines, and from an area you can specify the volume created by rotating it.” Differentiation, obviously, does the opposite. From a volume, you derive an area, from an area, you derive a line, and from a line you can evaluate any point on the line. Integration goes up a dimension, and differentiation down a dimension. If one function is the rate-of-change (derivative) of another then the other is the area-function (integral) of the first.

Consider the area of a circle, πr2, which we would express in functional terms as f(r) = πr2. If we differentiate this, we get 2πr (the circumference). If we differentiate this, we get 2π, the constant applicable to all circles. Consider the volume of a sphere, 4/3πr3, which we would express in functional terms as f(r) = 4/3πr3. If we differentiate this, we get 4πr2, the surface area of the sphere, the functional equivalent of the combined area of four circles. If we differentiate this, we get 8πr, the notional circumference of the sphere, and the functional equivalent of the combined circumference of four circles. If we differentiate this, we get 8π, the functional equivalent of the combined constant applicable to four circles. Regarding calculus, Charles Seife wrote, “Every time mathematicians tried to deal with the infinite or with the zero, they encountered trouble with illogic. To figure out the volume of a barrel or the area under a parabola, mathematicians added infinite zeros together; to find out the tangent of a curve, they divided by zero itself. Zero and infinity made the simple acts of taking tangents and finding areas appear to be self-contradictory. These troubles would have ended as an interesting footnote but for one thing: these infinities and zeros are the key to understanding nature. ... The tangent problem and the area problem both ran afoul of the same difficulties with infinities and zeros. It’s no wonder, because the tangent problem and the area problem are actually the same thing. They are both aspects of calculus, a scientific tool far more powerful than anything ever seen before. ... Calculus was the very language of nature, yet its very fabric was infused with zeros and infinities that threatened to destroy the new tool.” Note the horror of zero and infinity that infects Seife’s remarks. Rather than try to understand zero and infinity, which is exactly what mathematics and science ought to be doing, mathematicians and scientists flee from zero and infinity as fast as they can, and try to come up with any stratagem whatsoever, no matter how desperate, to avoid them. When they come up with suitable schemes – schemes that never reach zero and infinity – they pat themselves on the back and say they have tamed zero and infinity and put calculus on a “proper” basis. In fact, they have simply put calculus on a basis compatible with their biases, ideology, and dogmatism, and there’s nothing “proper” about that. In fact, it’s about as improper as it gets. What’s astounding is that various thinkers believe that evading zero and infinity helps to explain reality, when the opposite is true: if you have failed to account for zero and infinity, you haven’t explained anything, and you

know nothing about reality, which is all about zero/infinity singularities (monads). “Weierstrass, soon after the middle of the nineteenth century, showed how to establish the calculus without infinitesimals, and thus at last made it logically secure.” – Bertrand Russell Ho, ho, ho. Calculus was thus rendered logically insecure, and ontologically absurd. When it comes to empiricists such as Russell, you can more or less invert everything they say to get to the rational truth. Calculus must be about how to project dimensionality from dimensionless singularities (as we see ontologically with the Big Bang), and to collapse dimensionality back to singularities (as we see ontologically with the formation of black hole singularities). “Next came Georg Cantor, who developed the theory of continuity and infinite number. ‘Continuity’ had been, until he defined it, a vague word, convenient for philosophers like Hegel, who wished to introduce metaphysical muddles into mathematics.” – Bertrand Russell Yawn ... another Russellian attack on metaphysics, and on one of the great philosophers that Russell never understood. “Cantor gave a precise significance to the word, and showed that continuity, as he defined it, was the concept needed by mathematicians and physicists. By this means a great deal of mysticism, such as that of Bergson, was rendered antiquated.” – Bertrand Russell Cantor’s ideas are as mystical as it gets. He enormously deepened the mysteries regarding infinity, which remains in confusion to this day. Mathematician Leopold Kronecker said, “I don’t know what predominates in Cantor’s theory – philosophy or theology, but I am sure that there is no mathematics there.” As for Bergson, he was a much more imaginative philosopher than Russell. Sadly, Russell more or less destroyed Bergson’s reputation, and he’s barely studied at all now. “The next man of importance was Frege, who published his first work in 1879, and his definition of ‘number’ in 1884; but, in spite of the epochmaking nature of his discoveries, he remained wholly without recognition until I drew attention to him in 1903.” – Bertrand Russell

What’s amusing is that Russell regarded Frege as “epoch-making” because he shared Frege’s views, while Russell rubbished the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche and Bergson because they didn’t share his worldview. With Russell, reason and logic never came into it. It was always sentiment. “From Frege’s work it followed that arithmetic, and pure mathematics generally, is nothing but a prolongation of deductive logic.” – Bertrand Russell This monumental error infected Russell’s understanding of mathematics, and is still rife in mathematics today. “The development of pure mathematics from logic was set forth in detail in Principia Mathematica, by Whitehead and myself.” – Bertrand Russell Gödel blew the whole thing out of the water. One can only laugh. Never was a pompous, deluded bubble so deservedly burst. “It gradually became clear that a great part of philosophy can be reduced to something that may be called ‘syntax’ ...” – Bertrand Russell Thus philosophy was reduced to the pedantic analysis of sentences, and all of its grandeur was lost amidst the most spectacular trivia and nonsense. Philosophy became all about the dissection of the meaning of sentences such as the “King of France is bald”, rather than addressing the composition, meaning and purpose of existence. “Some men, notably Carnap, have advanced the theory that all philosophical problems are really syntactical, and that, when errors in syntax are avoided, a philosophical problem is thereby either solved or shown to be insoluble.” – Bertrand Russell All problems of philosophy are in fact problems of ontological mathematics, and, most especially, of the numbers zero and infinity. “I will illustrate its utility by a brief explanation of what is called the theory of descriptions. By a ‘description’ I mean a phrase such as ‘The present President of the United States’ in which a person or thing is designated, not by name, but by some property which is supposed or known to be peculiar to him or it. Such phrases had given a lot of trouble. Suppose I say ‘The golden mountain does not exist,’ and suppose you ask ‘What is it that does not exist?’ It would seem that, if I say ‘It is the golden mountain,’ I am

attributing some sort of existence to it. Obviously I am not making the same statement as if I said, ‘The round square does not exist.’ This seemed to imply that the golden mountain is one thing and the round square is another, although neither exists. The theory of descriptions was designed to meet this and other difficulties.” – Bertrand Russell This is the dreary level to which modern philosophy has been reduced by the likes of Russell: soulless drones with no imagination or intuition. “One result of the work we have been considering is to dethrone mathematics from the lofty place that it has occupied since Pythagoras and Plato, and to destroy the presumption against empiricism which has been derived from it.” – Bertrand Russell Here we see fully revealed the anti-mathematical, anti-rationalism, proempiricism agenda of the likes of Russell. Any mathematician who sides with Russell is a traitor to mathematics. Mathematics, epistemologically, absolutely opposes empiricism, and it’s absurd to contend otherwise. It’s a category error. We need to get away from Russell and Frege, and back to Pythagoras and Plato. All empiricist vestiges must be removed from mathematics as a system of eternal, infallible, a priori, necessary, absolute knowledge. “Mathematical knowledge, it is true, is not obtained by induction from experience; our reason for believing that 2 and 2 are 4 is not that we have so often found, by observation, that one couple and another couple together make a quartet. In this sense, mathematical knowledge is still not empirical. But it is also not a priori knowledge about the world. It is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. ‘3’ means ‘2 + 1,’ and ‘4’ means ‘3 + 1.’ Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that ‘4’ means the same as ‘2 + 2.’ Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious. It is all of the same nature as the ‘great truth’ that there are three feet in a yard.” – Bertrand Russell Ontological mathematics refutes all of this Russellian, empiricist nonsense. “Physics, as well as pure mathematics, has supplied material for the philosophy of logical analysis. This has occurred especially through the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.” – Bertrand Russell

Quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are both an offence to logical analysis. They are riven with contradictions and incoherence, deriving from their inability to correctly address ontology and epistemology.

***** Russell was a fanatical empiricist and more or less everything he said was wrong, false, and absurd, driven by his sensory prejudices and hatred of rationalism and idealism. The reign of the likes of Russell in the intellectual world must be ended forever. Ontological mathematics is Russell’s worst nightmare. It’s the return of Pythagoras ... bigger and bolder than ever!

***** Driven by the agenda of scientism, and under the spell of scientism, mathematics and metamathematics have been infected with fallacious empiricist thinking, all of which has to be purged from formal mathematics. They have no place in a strictly rationalist subject. Science must be the servant of mathematics, the Queen of Science, and not its master. Science has inverted reality. This is a mathematical universe, of which science deals with its phenomenal aspect. It’s not a scientific universe, regarding which math is some weird, unreal, manmade abstraction, as science claims.

The New View “What Copernicus really achieved was not the discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view.” – Wittgenstein This could be said of science. It’s not a true theory, but is a fertile point of view (unlike religion).

Another World “There exists, if I am not mistaken, an entire world which is the totality of mathematical truths, to which we have access only with our mind, just as a world of physical reality exists, the one like the other independent of ourselves, both of divine creation.” – Charles Hermite

“We are servants rather than masters in mathematics.” – Charles Hermite

The Antidote Mathematics is the antidote to mysticism. There is no mystical, mysterious force that transcends our understanding. Tao and Brahman aren’t the province of gurus and priests, but of mathematicians. Tao and Brahman are just the names that non-mathematical people have given to ontological mathematics. Everything in the universe can be understood because this is a mathematical universe, hence is rational and intelligible.

No Answer You can’t answer what existence is until you answer what math is. You can’t conduct any truly valid philosophy, science or religion until you know what math is. Math lies at the root of everything. All roads lead back to math.

Consequences How many practical consequences have resulted from Gödel’s theorems? Almost none. What makes the difference is math, not logic. Logic is just a minor aspect of ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what drives reality, not mathematical logic. If you don’t have a mathematical master formula (God Equation) for existence, you don’t have anything.

The God Equation The generalized Euler Formula – the God Equation – supports both dimensional (spacetime; material) existence and dimensionless (frequency; mental) existence. It’s both “horizontal” (via frequency), and “vertical” (via amplitude). It also has “depth” (via phase). Zero and infinity are the logical bounds for all other numbers, but there’s no such thing as zero energy (i.e. a wave with zero frequency and zero amplitude), or infinite energy (i.e. a wave with infinite frequency and infinite amplitude). Materialism is right to that extent, but wrong to deny dimensionless existence defined and logically contained by zero and infinity (singularity existence).

Contra Science “You see, I’m saying that we not only want to consider what is reality but we want clearly to understand it and physicists say clarity is of no importance, only results count. Any way of getting results which are predictable and controllable will do.” – David Bohm Bohm is right that science is about results, not Truth. Yet science believes that results equate to Truth. Results are one thing, but the interpretation of what causes those results is something entirely different. Science is always wrong when it comes to interpretation. What it’s successful at is finding specific mathematical functions to match specific observed patterns in nature. Science is an ad hoc, piecemeal, heuristic activity without intellectual integrity. The task of a true science is to find one mathematical formula from which every conceivable natural pattern can be derived. John Wheeler said, “We will only understand how strange the universe is when we realize how simple it is.” It’s simple because it’s based on just one mathematical formula, reflecting just one mathematical principle ... the principle of sufficient reason.

Tautology For such a dazzling rationalist, Gödel failed to grasp the simplest of rational points, namely that only analytic tautologies can be consistent and complete. It’s impossible for non-tautologies to be consistent and complete, hence any theory based on non-tautology must fail. Implicit within any such theory is Cartesian substance dualism or pluralism, with the impossible interaction problem that anything other than a monism generates. Only a monistic theory can be a tautological theory. All true knowledge is analytic tautology. All axioms, principles, postulates, laws, concepts, religions, philosophies and sciences must be based on absolute tautology to be consistent and complete, hence true. In fact, only ontological mathematics can provide analytic tautology. It’s the one true answer to existence. Everything else is bogus and fraudulent, contrary to reason and logic. Any approach to math that is not tautological is ipso facto false. This is something that no modern mathematician has ever understood, but which

Wittgenstein understood perfectly. He was 100% right about what character math must have, i.e. it must be pure analytic tautology. He was also 100% wrong in asserting that tautology is abstract, unreal and empty, and has nothing to do with the real world. It is in fact the noumenal, ontological basis of reality, without which there would be no reality. Ultimate reality must be analysed exclusively with respect to tautology, i.e. only reason, logic and mathematics can address the foundational level of existence. Scientific experiments, and the human senses – which have nothing to do with analytic tautology – are useless in telling us a single thing about ultimate reality. That’s a fact.

The Finite and Infinite Mental space is infinite. Physical space is finite. Mind is limitless, matter limited. The relationship between mind and matter, the mental and physical, is the relationship between the infinite and finite. Matter is quite literally how mind finitizes and limits itself. Matter is how components of mind escape from singularities and enter spacetime.

Life Dualism Is there any sufficient reason for non-living things to coexist with living things? Life is a plenum. Everything is alive in itself, or directly derived from pure life. To argue otherwise is to run into another version of Cartesian substance dualism ... how can life and death, two inherently different substances, interact? “Death” cannot be death. “Death” is merely life in the process of transitioning, of rebooting itself. By exactly the same token, you cannot have a non-existence/existence substance dualism. It’s impossible for existence to leap out of non-existence, as science claims.

Language and Ontology An intelligible reality requires the ultimate ontological units (monads) to be the ultimate units of natural language, so that to understand the language of nature is ipso facto to understand the ontology of nature. “Matter” – the fundamental concept of science – is not a language, hence cannot be ontological. It’s impossible to define matter and impossible to define material atoms (especially for anyone who accepts relativity

theory and quantum mechanics). Any modern attempted definition of atoms involves mathematics – but mathematics is not material, hence a fundamental contradiction arises. The mathematical wavefunctions that underlie atomic theory are regarded as “unreal” and abstract”, as mere “potentialities”. You cannot define anything real with regard to anything unreal. You cannot define the concrete with regard to the abstract. You cannot define actuality with regard to potentiality. What language do “atoms” speak? – the language of unreality, abstraction and potentiality? What kind of language is that? It’s a fundamental principle of intelligible realty that natural language must be real and must be reflected in real, natural things. This can be true only in the case of mathematics, where the entire natural language of mathematics is identically encoded in each and every monad, hence why all monads can flawlessly communicate with each other in any situation. Material atoms did not even exist at the Big Bang, so how can they possibly carry the language of nature? It’s impossible. But what do scientists care? Truth has never been their concern, only “success”. Scientists are the enemies of ontology, language and Truth. Science is not a language. It’s a bungled, botched and contradictory hybrid of mathematical rationalism and experimental empiricism. “Atoms” are heuristic fictions. You should read about atoms in the fiction section of the cosmic bookshop, not the fact section. The concept of the atom is incoherent. It always has been, going right back to its origins in ancient Greek philosophy, where no one could define either atoms or the “void” in which they were claimed to move. Some Atomists even added a random “swerve” into atomic motion. It’s impossible to define swerves, randomness, chance, accident, uncertainty, acausation and indeterminism ... all the things championed by modern science.

***** Modern science is probabilistic. Probability isn’t an ontology, isn’t an epistemology, isn’t a metaphysics, isn’t a language. Probability is nothing but a predictive expression of confidence in certain outcomes of particular experiments. It’s mind-boggling that anyone can link probability to Truth, explanation and the answer to existence. According to science, there’s a finite probability that existence can jump out of non-existence for no reason via no mechanism, that life can jump out

of non-life, that mind can jump out of non-mind, and so on. These are all impossible. However, once you have gone down the probabilistic route, you are unashamed – and consider yourself rational – when you claim that an unobserved cat in a specially prepared box is alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states all at once, even though neither you nor anyone else has, or ever could, observe an unobserved cat. These probabilistic scientists have jettisoned any ontological distinction between a living cat and a dead cat. They have reduced life and death to miscible probabilistic states. It’s a category error – like treating unextended and extended Cartesian states as compatible states – to believe that life and death are states that can be placed together in probabilistic equations. However, one should never be surprised by scientific manoeuvres since, when it comes to eternal, necessary Truth, ontology and epistemology, scientists are nihilists. On the other hand, they are true believers in temporality and contingency, in randomness, chance, accident, indeterminism, acausation, uncertainty, statistics and their unreliable, fallible human senses. Science is a joke. If you removed math from science, everyone would suddenly get the joke. As it is, no one’s laughing. People take science seriously. There’s nothing science does that wouldn’t be done infinitely better by pure, ontological mathematics.

***** “The line I’m drawing is that there are religions and belief systems, and objective truths. And if we’re going to govern a country, we need to base that governance on objective truths – not your personal belief system.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Science is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s personal belief system. He’s a worshipper at the Church of the Senses. It’s comical that a scientist should refer to “objective truths”. Such things belong only to the eternal, necessary order of mathematics. In science, there are only temporal, contingent, subjective interpretations. Anything that science tells you today is true it might well tell you tomorrow is false. Just look at the history of science. Science went from being 100% deterministic to 100% indeterministic, and didn’t blush. It saw no need to defend itself given the proven fact that it now has a 100% range, hence is capable of proclaiming anything as “truth”.

The Greatest Mathematics is something “than which nothing greater can be conceived”. Mathematics is a priori, so all of its truths are eternal. All ontological tautologies are eternal and necessary.

***** Science says that experiments and the senses – not rational, analytic statements – determine “truth”. Science is wrong. Science is irrational.

Above and Below: All Is One Leibniz asserted that the microcosm replicates the macrocosm all the way down to the infinitely small. Leibniz made the “principle of macrocosm and microcosm” a fundamental principle of his cosmology, reflecting the ancient wisdom of as above, so below. Each monad is a “universe in prototype.” Leibniz said, “The saying that all is one should be counterposed with another, that the one is all.” In Hinduism, Atman is Brahman: “All is One.” This is complementary to the doctrine that “One is All”: Brahman is Atman.

Metaphysical Language The non-mathematical metaphysical language that Leibniz was compelled to use for his Monadology wasn’t best suited to the task of clarifying exactly what he had in mind. Only mathematics can give the correct description of what’s really happening in his Monadology (which describes how matter derives from minds; how physical spacetime derives from a mental Singularity). The right mathematics – Euler’s Formula, the Fourier Transform and Holography – didn’t exist in Leibniz’s lifetime. In fact, it was his calculus that paved the way for them.

Contra Empiricism

“In Locke’s book there are some particular points which are not badly expounded, but in general he has strayed far from the straight and narrow and has not understood the nature of the mind and of truth. If he had adequately considered the difference between necessary truths, i.e. those perceived by demonstration, and those which are known to us only through induction, he would have noticed that necessary truths can only be proved from principles intrinsic to the mind, because the senses certainly teach us what happens but not what happens necessarily. Likewise, he has not adequately observed that the ideas of being, of one and the same substance, of truth, of good, and many other things are innate in our mind because it is innate to itself, and that it discovers all these things in itself. For indeed, there is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself. Many other critical observations could be made on Locke, since he even silently undermines the natural immateriality of the soul. He inclines towards the Socinians [Unitarians] ... whose philosophy concerning God and the mind has always been rather poor.” – Leibniz The senses can never tell us what the intellect is. The intellect is nonsensory, hence it’s absurd to privilege the senses over the intellect.

***** “For indeed, there is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself.” – Leibniz Scientific empiricists have never understood the difference between the information gatherers (the senses), and the information processer (the intellect). It’s impossible to conceive of information gatherers in the absence of an information processer, since the mere gathering of information is pointless without something to process the data. The information processor, on the other hand, can exist without the information gatherers. This is because it has its own innate data upon which to operate. The non-sensory data of mathematics is eternal and necessary, not temporal and contingent. The senses address the temporal and contingent order, but have no connection with the eternal, necessary order. The intellect is a dualprocesser: it can address the eternal, necessary, innate, rational order via reason, logic and mathematics, and it can address the temporal, contingent, non-innate, empirical order via the senses.

Science – because it rejects the eternal, necessary, innate, rational order – privileges the senses over the intellect, the sensible over the intelligible, the empirical over the rational. This means that it denies that the intellect has any data to work on that does not arise first in the senses. As Leibniz pointed out, the intellect itself did not arise in or from the senses. The intellect can exist independently of the senses, and its data in the absence of the senses is pure rationalism, i.e. all the stuff of reason, logic and mathematics, the stuff of the eternal, necessary order, all the immutable, perfect, Platonic truths of reason, all absolute and infallible knowledge. You must distinguish the senses from the intellect, and appreciate that the former are tied to temporality and contingency, whereas the latter can process not only the sensory data of the phenomenal world, but also the non-sensory, eternal and necessary data of the noumenal world. All of this is lost on scientific empiricists, trapped in their world of the senses and experiments. They ideologically deny that non-sensory data exists. Once you accept the real existence of eternal truths of reason enshrined in ontological mathematics, you realise that science is definitely wrong.

***** “I agree that logic, if well taught and practically applied, is not to be scorned at all. Indeed, nothing more useful could befall mortals than a logic more perfect than the one we possess.” – Leibniz The true logic of existence is that which accompanies ontological mathematics. Logic has no strict validity outside the eternal truths of reason conveyed ontologically by mathematics.

Indeterminacy Quantum indeterminacy relates to the alleged limits of what we can know about the physical world; it’s said to be impossible to know physical events in arbitrary detail. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle stands at the core of quantum indeterminacy. Such a principle – unless we underpin it with “hidden variables” to remove the uncertainty – renders existence fundamentally fuzzy, hazy and blurry. A reality shrouded in ontological uncertainty is one that cannot support causality and the principle of sufficient reason: we

could never know what caused what; there could never be any sufficient reason for anything. Exactly the same goes for Einsteinian relativity: it contradicts causality and the principle of sufficient reason; it denies objective reality and replaces it with subjective relativity. The two great theories of science both contradict causation, determinism, the principle of sufficient reason and objective reality. Nothing in science can be assigned any absolute status. Nothing in science is objectively real. Nothing that is either uncertain or relative can be real. Uncertainty and relativity are incompatible with any definable reality. Anything that cannot be exactly defined and does not obey exact conservation laws cannot be real. Mathematics alone can give entities exact definitions compatible with exact conservation laws, hence with eternal, necessary existence. With science, there’s a fundamental limit to what we can know, and that same limit is also the one that makes objective reality impossible in scientific terms. We can’t know what anything is, where it is, why it is, how it is, and what its relations to other things are. This is why the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics literally says that “reality” is that which occurs at the point of observation. “Reality” has no meaning in quantum mechanics except at that point. The moment anything ceases to be observed, it immediately dissolves into unreality. The whole of science is rationally incompatible with any enduring, objective reality. To say that something is real at the point of observation and otherwise unreal is to enter into yet another version of Cartesian substance dualism. How can real and unreal things interact? How can reality ever “collapse” out of unreality? It’s a category error. Modern science is probabilistic. A probabilistic “reality” is not real at all. Real things have real, unambiguous, precise, objective states. States associated with probabilities rather than actualities are not real states. “God” does not play dice, as Einstein so rightly said (and nor does “God” engage in relativism, as Einstein definitely didn’t say). Science has done something extremely bizarre. It has reverted to Aristotle’s vision of the world as being a mixture of potentiality (matter) and actuality (form), except it has reversed matter and form. Now matter is the actuality, while form is converted into unreal, abstract, mathematical, potentiality wavefunctions. What science claims is that actuality is

probabilistically plucked from unreal potentiality. This is ontologically absurd. You can’t have an unreal order giving rise to a real order. If we believe that observations are “real”, but are plucked from “unreality”, then science fatally falls foul of Descartes’ principle that effects cannot have more reality than their causes. In science, effects are always more real than their causes. In fact, in science, there are no true causes at all, and therefore no true effects, so everything is just as unreal as everything else. Everything is a fantasy. “Matter” isn’t probably, or probabilistically, real. It’s either real or it isn’t. Science ignores all of these considerations. It ignores ontology and epistemology and pays attention only to that which temporarily presents itself to the fallible, unreliable, contingent, interpretive human senses. Science is supremely irrational and illogical. It has contempt for the intellect. It’s as bad as any religion in its dogmatic hatred of reason in its own right (i.e. distinct from the senses, and with its own timeless, immaterial, non-sensory domain to explore).

***** Modern science is all about probability, but probability is the quintessence of unreality. Only exact things can be real. Only they can exist forever, and obey the true – eternal and necessary – law of energy conservation. Anything that does not exactly and perpetually obey energy conservation is not real, and cannot be real. Things that are uncertain, relative, random and probabilistic – blurring the distinction between existence and non-existence – are incompatible with any rational ontology and epistemology. A probabilistic system cannot be a system of knowledge, but only a system of instrumental, provisional measurements regarding entities that are ontologically and epistemologically impossible to define. Science – which has no interest in meaning – is happy with this. No rational and logical person seeking an answer to existence is content with scientific antiknowledge.

***** Science has abandoned explanation. It now describes the universe in terms of probability functions, but probabilities have nothing to do with

explanation. To say that an event has a certain probability of happening is not to give any cause or explanation for the event, and is to fail to place it in any ontological and epistemological context. Existence itself is turned into something probabilistic. It jumps out of non-existence for no reason and via no mechanism, but with a non-zero probability. You must have contempt for reason and explanation if you are persuaded by science. In a probabilistic system, no causal connections can be established between anything. Nothing causes anything else. Instead, causation is replaced by a vast ocean of probabilities. “A” doesn’t cause “B”. “B” follows “A” with a certain probability, and there are countless candidates for what “B” will be. In science, it can never be stated in advance what “B” will. At best, scientists can only state what B will probably be, but it could in fact be more or less anything, happening anywhere in the universe. This is not a system of any kind of objective reality. This is some bizarre universe of inexplicable, self-throwing dice. As we have said, Einstein was right to say that God does not play dice. Unfortunately, his relativity theory was every bit as hostile to objective reality as quantum indeterminacy. As far as relativity goes, Einstein might as well have said, “God can’t make up his mind ... he can’t assign any actual reality to anything ... everything is merely ‘relative’.”

***** Of course, science can do nothing to prove that unobservable causal processes aren’t taking place. Science can observe random processes no better than it can observe causal processes. None of science’s randomistic, probabilistic ideology can ever be empirically demonstrated. Therefore, it’s certainly not a scientific issue whether you accept a rational (deterministic), or irrational (indeterministic) order of existence underlying the observed order. However, it’s certainly an issue of reason and logic. Which rational person would choose to abandon reason and logic for no sufficient reason?

***** Some scientists actually say things such as causality is a mental interpretation of the physical world, but has nothing to do with reality (i.e. reality doesn’t possess the property of causality). This is to make the insane claim – the same one made by Kant – that people, for no explicable reason,

and via no conceivable mechanism, impose a causal fantasy over reality. Of course, if this were true, the scientific theory that gave rise to it in the first place – as a product of our deluded minds – would itself be pure fantasy, hence we could never validly conclude on this basis that causation doesn’t exist in the world.

***** Some people talk about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as meaning that the very process of observing something affects what we are observing, hence changes it. Therefore, we can never observe what we were originally trying to observe. In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that what we are attempting to observe has no definite state prior to our observation, and our observation is what actually collapses it into a definite, measurable state. In ontological mathematics, there’s no ontological indeterminacy. Everything has an exact state at all times. Quantum indeterminacy is a fallacy that flows from science’s refusal to accept the reality of an ontological frequency domain (an immaterial, mental Singularity outside space and time that controls the spacetime world of matter). The notion of being unable to observe something because the very act of observation disturbs it assumes a sensory order of existence. Given a nonsensory, intelligible order of existence, we can get as close as we like to any eternal truth of reason, and it’s impossible to disturb it. All eternal, necessary, truths are Platonic, hence immutable. Nothing can alter them. Our own reason can take us straight to them. With the temporal, contingent, sensory world of science, all sensory observations affect and alter what we are observing, hence we can never get at any stable, immutable Truth. This is exactly why Plato said that no truth is to be found in the sensible world, only in the intelligible world. Science, however, has always rejected the intelligible world, and has been more than happy to reject objective Truth in favour of subjective relativism, uncertainty and probability. You cannot have Truth in a sensory world that’s always changing, only in a non-sensory world that’s never changing. Only our pure reason can access the intelligible world. Science rejects that world, thus rejects pure reason and the eternal Truth of existence.

Indeterminism Indeterminism is the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes, and may not be caused by anything at all. Such a view goes hand in hand with fundamental ontological indeterminacy where chance, randomness and accident hold sway, and there’s no causal and deterministic order.

Light And Shadow Dr Jekyll didn’t invent a magical potion ... he simply flipped into his shadow self (Mr Hyde). The overly respectable doctor changed into his disreputable Mr Hyde persona. It was a subconscious metamorphosis. Dr Jekyll could not live out everything he wanted to do, so he turned to his dark alter ego to help fulfil his secret desires. Man is not truly one, but two. He has a dual identity. He is both the person he wants to project to society – the good, superego person (Dr Jekyll) – and the person he wants hide from society – the wicked, id, shadow person, unacceptable to society (Mr Hyde). The second person must not be given free rein, but nor must he be suppressed and repressed (which simply magnifies his power). We must allow ourselves to explore instincts and desires that society finds unpalatable. BDSM is the perfect arena for this adventure. We need a dualistic society (day and night) to accommodate both Dr Jekyll (day) and Mr Hyde (night).

***** Dr Jekyll = hyperrational meritocracy ... day ... work ... the reality principle ... Apollo. Mr Hyde = Sin for Salvation ... night ... play ... the fantasy principle ... Dionysus.

Which? Did God or Satan order Abraham to murder his son? Did God or Satan drown the world? Did God or Satan sentence humanity to death (via Original Sin)? Did God or Satan slaughter the firstborn of Egypt? Did God

or Satan send deadly plagues to the Egyptians? Did God or Satan promise Canaan to the Jews and then exterminate the Canaanites? Did God or Satan exterminate countless people who dared to interfere with the Ark of the Covenant in any way? According to one estimate, Satan killed 60 people in the Bible, while God killed 24,634,205. According to one estimate, God sends 98.7% of souls to Hell. So, who is God and who is Satan? Is humanity’s tragedy that it looks at Satan’s power, and sees “God”?

The Martyrs’ Death Club Islamic martyrdom is a kind of get-rich-quick scheme. In the same way that people in the West with grim lives and no prospects dream of winning the lottery, young Muslim men dream of winning the Martyrdom Game, and getting seventy-two beautiful virgins, a gold palace, rivers of milk and honey, a lake of wine, and a place at Allah’s top table. For a Muslim, if you’re pissed off with the world, you just murder people in the name of Allah and Mohammed, and paradise is yours. The real wonder is that the whole of Islam hasn’t joined the Martyrs’ Death Club, and that Westerners can stomach having a single Muslim in their midst. In the West, we are told to respect other people’s faith. We are therefore expected to respect those who proclaim that we are all going to hell, and who are one breath away from murdering us in order to win their faith lottery. You must never respect any belief system that could easily entail your death. Any such belief system should be outlawed. Any book that says you are going to hell – such as the Koran – is an unacceptable book and must be declared illegal.

The Book of Terror The Koran is the Book of Terror. Without the Koran, there would be no Islamic Terrorism. The terrorists of Islam all refer to passages of the Koran as their justification. Where is their justification without the Koran?

The Philosophy of Mathematics

“The philosophy of mathematics: The study of the concepts of and justification for the principles used in mathematics. Two central problems in the philosophy of mathematics concern what, if anything, mathematical statements, such as ‘2 + 2 = 4’, are about and how it is that we come to have knowledge of such statements.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy By failing to address the ontology of mathematics, the philosophy of mathematics has remained in the Dark Ages. “Although mathematics is a useful tool in science, few believe that the subject matter of mathematics is physical objects or that empirical observation is the ultimate ground for deciding the truth or falsity of mathematical statements.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Mental objects are the subject matter of mathematics. They are immaterial, noumenal objects (sinusoids) outside space and time, which can be mathematically rendered dimensional, thus producing the empirical world of “matter”. “Many mathematicians – sometimes only implicitly – take a realist view about mathematical truth and the existence of mathematical objects. They hold that the latter exist independently of our thought and hence that mathematical statements are true (or false) independently of our knowledge of them or our ability to prove them. This view is known as Platonism, since it derives from and often includes, Plato’s view that the subjects of mathematical statements – numbers – are abstract entities and that, if true, these statements describe relations holding between the entities. Abstract entities are timeless, do not exist in physical space, and do no causally interact with the physical world. This leaves open the question as to how we attain knowledge of such entities, that is, mathematical knowledge.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Mathematical objects do not exist independently of our thoughts ... they are our thoughts! Mathematical sinusoids are thoughts in themselves. Sinusoids in their default state are immaterial, timeless and spaceless. They are eternal, necessary frequencies. They are real ontological entities, not abstractions. Contrary to Plato’s claim, they causally interact with the physical world and indeed actively create the physical world.

“Kant believed that (true) mathematical statements were self-evident and capable of being known a priori by intuition alone.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy This is magical thinking. Kant simply gives us an inbuilt faculty for “knowing” math. How convenient! He makes no attempt to explain what math actually is. “[Frege and Russell] attempted to demonstrate that received mathematics was reducible to set theory and that this in turn was part of logic.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy This approach was nothing but a fanciful speculation. The universe consists of existents, not non-existents. Logic itself cannot exist independently of the universe. It must be conveyed by something, and there’s only one thing capable of conveying logic ... ontological mathematics. Logic is built into sinusoids. There can be no logic without sinusoids. Logic is part of math, not the other way around. “Although this yielded important results in the foundations of mathematics, set theory was not shown to be part of logic (in the narrow sense) and the postulates of classical logic seemed to be indubitable in a way that the postulates of set theory did not.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy So why is set theory still allowed to play such an important role in the prevailing definition of mathematics? “Conventionalists hold that true mathematical statements are true merely by convention or fiat. This is compatible with the possibility of the rejection of present conventions and the adoption of new conventions more useful in the light of empirical experience – for instance, in particle physics.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy With conventionalism, we see the spread of the empiricist disease into mathematics. “Formalism is the view that mathematical sentences are not about anything but are rather to be regarded as meaningless marks. The formalists are interested in the formal properties of systems of these marks. In 1930 Gödel’s incompleteness theorems showed that in the theory of arithmetic (and in most of useful mathematics) there would be true statements that

could not be proved in the theory. This suggests that the truth of a mathematical statement cannot merely consist in its proof from a set of axioms.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Axioms are not the valid basis of proof in mathematics. A single formula is the foundation for the whole of mathematics, and everything must be provable from that single formula. “Formalism: A view pioneered by D. Hilbert (1862 – 1943) and his followers, in which it was claimed that the only foundation necessary for mathematics is its formalization and the proof that the system produced is consistent. Numbers (and formulae and proofs) were regarded merely as sequences or strokes, not as objects denoted by such strokes. Hilbert’s programme was to put mathematics on a sound footing by reducing it (via arithmetic) to consistent axioms and derivation rules, the former being certain series of strokes, the latter ways of manipulating them. Later Gödel showed that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proved within the system itself, thus demonstrating the impossibility of achieving part of the Hilbert programme.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy No amount of axioms can be consistent ... unless every one of them is shown to have a common root, in which case they are no longer true axioms. “Axiom: A statement for which no proof is required and which, thus, occurs as a premise of many arguments but as the conclusion of none. It may be accorded this status either because it is held to be self-evident truth, as the axioms of Euclidean geometry were for a long time, or because it is thought to constitute an implicit definition of the terms it contains or to contribute, with other axioms, to such a definition. ... An axiomatic method is a method of formalizing and studying a subject by using only the methods of formal logic in order to derive the truths of the subject from a list of undefined terms and a list of axioms.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The entire axiomatic approach is fallacious. For axioms to be consistent, hence validly usable together, they must have the same root, and this means that they are not axioms at all, but, rather, conclusions or products of something else, i.e. some overarching principle. The controlling principle of the rational, intelligible universe is the principle of sufficient reason, enshrined in the God Equation.

“Logicism: The view, pioneered by Frege and Russell that received mathematics, in particular arithmetic, is part of logic. The aim was to provide a system of primitives and axioms (which on interpretation yielded logical truths) such that all arithmetical notions were definable in the system and all theorems of arithmetic were theorems of the system. If successful the programme would ensure that our knowledge of mathematical truths was of the same status as our knowledge of logical truths. Arithmetic was eventually reduced to set theory but this cannot be genuinely regarded as part of logic.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy What would it establish – ontologically and epistemologically – to show that mathematical truths can be equated to logical truths? Would we move forward even one iota in understanding reality? We would be trapped in abstraction and unreality.

Knowing “How u know did u saw?” [sic] – Anonymous This is the sort of garbage that often gets posted regarding our work. Presumably what this illiterate means is, “How do you know this? Did you see this? Do you have sensory evidence?” Here we have the classic kneejerk response of sensing types to our work. We don’t need to “see” with our eyes. We see with our intellect, via the light of reason. Don’t you? Or are you mired in ignorance, in irrationalism and hatred of the intellect? Do you worship your own unreliable, fallible, delusional, interpretive senses?

Christianity and Science Christianity deals with the soul, and science with Nature. If the soul isn’t regarded as part of Nature, then science either ignores it or actively regards it as non-existent. Science is then 100% incompatible with Christianity. Ontological mathematics is revolutionary because it asserts that reality comprises monadic souls, and these are what give rise to Nature, hence the soul and Nature must always be considered together. It’s crazy to treat the soul on its own, as Christianity does, and it’s equally crazy to dismiss the soul, as science does.

Scholastic philosophy, based on Aristotelian science, is a lot closer to ultimate truth than science is, but much less capable of addressing observable Nature (because it doesn’t use experiments and mathematics). Science sought to separate itself from theology. With ontological mathematics, rational theology is entirely compatible with it since ontological mathematics is driven by the mathematical soul. Ontological mathematics alone can reconcile religion and Nature. They become natural partners, mutually defined by mathematics. Francis Bacon said, “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” In modern terms, he would say, “A little science inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in mathematics bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

Atheist Circular Reason “God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence for God because any evidence for God isn’t evidence because God doesn’t exist” – internet meme But this certainly doesn’t mean that God does exist! What’s for sure is that science can say nothing at all about anything outside the scientific paradigm. “God” is not a scientific concept, so can’t be part of the scientific paradigm. It’s as simple as that.

The Cool Club Are you a member of the Cool Club? Or you one of the majority condemned to the club of which no one wishes to be a member: the Uncool Club? If you’re not in the Cool Club, what are you going to do about it?

The War Reason has to fight a war on three fronts: against emotionalism (Abrahamism), mystical intuition (Eastern religion), and sensory mania (science).

Politics or Economics It has been said that the Euro currency was created for political rather than economic reasons. In fact it was created purely to serve the interests of

neoliberal capitalism. It has nothing to do with democracy and the People. The people who run the show are unelected and unaccountable. As ever, all real power is kept very far from the people. That’s the nature of rule by private elites.

Shopping and Religion Catholic countries do much less shopping than Protestant countries. Go figure. Americans are of course the No. 1 shoppers in the world. No nation props up the elite 1% more than America.

The Germans The Germans laugh when the work is done. Others laugh before the work is done, and thus the job never gets done. Slackers. There’s a time to work and a time to laugh. If you can laugh while you’re getting the work done, great. Most people can’t.

The Reaper List The Reaper List is the list of death. Who’s on your Reaper list? “God” should be first on your list, followed by all idols, prophets and gurus.

Intuitionism “Intuitionism (in mathematics): A system propounded by L. E. J. Brouwer, identifying truth with being known to be true, that is, proven. The main theses of intuitionism are: that a mathematical entity exists only if a constructive existence proof can be given; and that a (mathematical) statement is true only if there is a proof of it, and false only if a proof of its denial can be given. Brouwer’s idealist inclinations led him to describe mathematics as investigation of the (ideal) mathematician’s ‘mental constructions’. The view is notable for its rejection of classical (or realist) logic, in particular the law of double negation, the law of excluded middle, and classical reductio.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy “In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles

claimed to exist in an objective reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed and applied but are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality.” – Wikipedia This is the sort of nonsense to which many scientists subscribe. The idea that temporal, contingent human beings could construct (rather than discover) the eternal, necessary truths of mathematics is a category error. “According to intuitionist philosophy, all human beings have a primordial intuition for the natural numbers within them. ... Brouwer agrees with Kant that human beings have an immediate awareness of time. Kant used the word ‘intuition’ for ‘immediate awareness’ and this is where the name ‘intuitionism’ comes from.” – Ernst Snapper Brouwer’s scheme was just a variation on Kant’s theme of unexplained faculties: categories of understanding and a priori intuitions. He made math entirely dependent on human minds. Just as Kant suggested that space and time wouldn’t exist without the minds that intuit them – which does nothing to explain what time and space actually are, or how we can intuit them in the first place, or how we can construct them – so Brouwer suggested that math itself wouldn’t exist without our convenient and miraculous intuition of math, which does not correspond to anything in the world. If this were true, and mathematics had no connection with the world, our ability to intuit math as an unreality would be infinitely harder to explain than math as a reality. Why would our minds invent something with no bearing on reality? How would it even be possible? On what basis would the human mind construct this delusion? This is on a par with the absurd scientific claim that allegedly unfree minds can construct the pointless illusion of free will. If math is unreal, so is science, given that science is completely reliant on math. If math and science are both unreal, we’re living in a fantasy world. In that case, we would have to conclude that the “real” world, distinct from our fantasy, is irrational, unintelligible, unmathematical, unscientific, and chaotic. If that were true, how could we “intuit” it to be a place of extraordinary order and regularity? Many attempts by mathematicians to define mathematics are risible. Math has only one true basis – that of ontology. Math truly exists. We are

all mathematical beings. Our very thoughts are mathematics in action.

The Meritocratic Principle Principle: “origin, source, beginning; rule of conduct; axiom, basic assumption; elemental aspect of a craft or discipline”, from Latin principium (plural principia): “a beginning, commencement, origin, first part,” in plural “foundation, elements,” from princeps (see prince) ... Online Etymology Dictionary Meritocracy results from a single principle: equal opportunities for everyone. This automatically means that all aspects of society based on inheritance, privilege, and dynastic families must be abolished. However, meritocracy does not stand for equal outcomes for everyone. Obviously, there will be different outcomes for people depending on their merit. Communism is based on a different principle: equality for everyone. This means equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of their merit. Free-market capitalism is based on another principle: inequality of opportunities and outcomes depending on the amount of capital possessed, acquired or inherited. You cannot be a meritocrat and a free-market capitalist since their defining principles are inherently contradictory. Everyone in the world must honestly face up to which particular foundational principle they subscribe to. So, for example, free-market capitalists should never be allowed to refer to merit given that their system is based on capital, which is never distributed meritoriously. Capital is controlled by a privileged elite – a cartel – that rigs the game of life to ensure that they accumulate more and more capital. Barring a miracle, no one else is allowed into the magic circle. Capitalism is formally antimeritocratic.

The Revolution It’s dispiriting to see how poorly people grasp the significance of ontological mathematics. They fail to see how far-reaching it is, how comprehensive, how absolute. It certainly doesn’t need any help from logic. Ontological mathematics doesn’t require anything else at all. It’s 100% of reality. No one needs to look anywhere else. Ontological mathematics is the end of the line, the grand unified, complete and consistent, final theory

of everything. There is no alternative, nothing external to it. It is the One and the All, the Alpha and the Omega. It’s what human beings anthropomorphically call “God”.

Logic “In its broadest sense logic is the study of the structure and principles of reasoning or of sound argument. Hence it also a study of those relations in virtue of which one thing may be said to follow from or be a consequence of another.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Most logic fails at stage one ... at what are regarded as self-evident truths. They never are. “In its narrower sense, logic is the study of the principles of deductive inference, or of methods of proof or demonstration. This study is not conducted by collecting data about the ways in which people do in fact argue, for logic is a theoretical rather than empirical science.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The modern scientific obsession with probability, chance, accident, randomness, indeterminism, acausation, indeterminacy, uncertainty, statistics, abstract wavefunctions, unreal wavefunctions, potentiality wavefunctions, random wavefunction collapse, existence randomly jumping out of non-existence, and so on, constitutes a total repudiation of logic. Science is all about induction, not deduction. “The science of deductive logic, then, has its roots in the conception of establishing propositions by means of arguments that are such that it would be irrational to reject their conclusions, having accepted their premises. Here it should be noted that there is no requirement that a logically valid argument be an argument from true premises. ... A valid argument establishes its conclusions only conditionally – on the condition that its premises are correct.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The whole of science proceeds on the false premise that materialism and empiricism are true and idealism and rationalism false. The biggest task facing science isn’t the collection of valid experimental data; it’s how to establish valid premises. Science is obsessed with the former, and pays no attention to the latter. It’s a subject of anti-logic, and is heedless of the

validity of its premises, which are simplistically deemed “self-evident”. Science is about data collection, and ignores the proper evaluation of data and premises. “One’s view of the nature of this science will depend on one’s views on the nature of truth, knowledge, and our cognitive capacities. If knowledge is knowledge of an independent reality, and if the truth of a proposition consists in its presenting a picture that is an accurate representation of this reality, the laws of logic, as regulative principles governing the pursuit of knowledge, will appear as laws founded in the nature of the reality we seek to know. Seen in this way, logic is the most general of all the sciences; its study is a ‘limning of the most general traits of reality.’ (W. V. Quine)” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Mathematics is the most general of the sciences, and the queen of the sciences. All valid logic flows strictly from valid mathematics.

The Groomers Religions groom parents, and parents, in turn, groom their own children on behalf of their religion. They are child abusers. Religion is nothing but a sinister grooming exercise designed not to attain sexual favours from minors, but to exert psychological power and control over them (which can often lead to sexual favours).

Rational and Irrational Jung referred to feeling and thinking types as “rational” since they rely on their judging function. “Rational” people consciously operate in line with laws, principles, norms, standards. They contemplate the world as an ordered structure that follows a set of rules. Thinking types conceive of the world in Logos terms (based on reason, logic, mathematics and numbers), while feeling types conceive of the world in Mythos terms (based on the “logic” of emotional narrative). Jung referred to sensing and intuitive types as “irrational” because they rely on their perceiving function. As Jung said, their “commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception.” Perceiving types take a more fluid, less rigid approach to the world. They are more opportunistic, going with the flow.

They don’t make careful plans and timetables. They are content with a range of possible outcomes, whereas judging types want one definite outcome. Perceiving types regard the world as a structure that can take various forms and outcomes, i.e. they are natural advocates of a Multiverse, whereas judging types subscribe to a single, explicable universe. Mathematicians are, in principle, but often not in practice, the rational thinkers. Abrahamists are the “rational” feeling types. Where mathematicians look to an impersonal God Equation to define and control existence (hence are natural deists), Abrahamists look to a personal, anthropomorphic God, with whom they can have an emotional relationship (hence are natural theists). We might say that mathematics is the thinking version of Abrahamism, or that Abrahamism is the emotional version of mathematics. It should come as no surprise that many of the most rational thinkers who ever lived weren’t mathematicians but Roman Catholic Scholastic philosophers. Many of their proofs for the existence of God are exactly those required for the existence of the God Equation. The whole structure of Abrahamism – one entity that explains everything and is the source of everything – is identical to the structure of ontological mathematics. Many people have observed parallels between Eastern religion and science. Hundreds of books have been written about these correspondences. Countless scientists are Buddhists. We can regard science as sensory, “local” Eastern religion, or Eastern religion as intuitive, “non-local” science. In Jungian terms, both science and Eastern religion are formally irrational since they privilege perceiving over judging. There can be no question that both science and Eastern religion are extremely hostile to reason and logic. Neither makes any attempt to embrace core rational and logical principles. Both are much more concerned with experience. Both reject rationalism in favour of empiricism. Scientists want empirical sensory experiences, while followers of Eastern religion want to achieve an empirical, mystical, emotional experience. They want to reach “non-mind” or “no mind”, or “nonduality”, where they are at one with nature. When mind has become non-mind, duality is no longer experienced (so the idea goes). They believe that “no mind” or “no activity” unites man with nature,

and that no-mind or no activity is an experience to be attained through meditation. No rationalist, no thinking type, no judging type, could ever take Eastern religious mumbo jumbo seriously. An enormous amount of thinking is based on dialectical dualism, i.e. as soon as you posit a thesis, you are automatically able to posit its antithesis. If you want to stop thinking, the quickest way is to become “nondualist”, and refuse to confront any binary opposites.

The Problem With Science With the rise of science, empiricism replaced faith, and the senses replaced emotion. Now mathematics must replace science, i.e. rationalism must replace empiricism, and reason must replace the senses. Sir Arthur Eddington said, “I hope it will not shock experimental physicists too much if I say that we do not accept their observations unless they are confirmed by theory.” This is the way science ought to work, not the other way around (with experiments leading the way). The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could never have been constructed if its formulators had paid any attention at all to logic and the principle of sufficient reason.

Mythos The Bible is pure Mythos. It’s written archetypally, to present the history of the Jews as a cosmic tale applying to the entire human race, and reflecting the existential human condition. Archetypal Mythos is the best means for affecting, manipulating and controlling the human psyche. It’s much more powerful than Logos in this regard.

The Delusion of Being Scientists have fallen for the “delusion of being”. This means that they subscribe to the notion of enduring things. They imagine spacetime as some kind of persistent fabric or medium that they can bend. They even imagine

folding over sections of spacetime to link them into spacetime loops, or creating tunnels (“wormholes”) linking different points of spacetime. Although it’s difficult to grasp, there’s simply no such thing as enduring “being”. Things do not persist. Everything in the universe is mathematically calculated at every instant. Everything is born anew every instant. You might think you are 30 years old, or whatever. You’re not. You’re one instant old, and you always be. The reason why you suffer from the delusion that you are 30 years old is that the calculation used to produce your present self is based on the calculation of one instant ago, and it was based on the calculation an instant before it, and so on. That is, each calculation has a precise history and is not some random, brand new calculation. The key point to understand is that the “you” of an instant ago has gone forever, and this is true of the whole world and whole universe. Therefore, there is no enduring past state to which you could ever link. The past has vanished. It no longer exists. It was real when it was the present, but since it’s no longer present, it’s now unreal (and we know about it only because of our memories: creatures without memory would have no idea what the concept of the “past” meant). That’s the entire meaning of the “tensed” theory of time (in contrast with the “tenseless” theory of time which claims that the past and future always exist. The past doesn’t exist and nor does the future. You exist only in the present, and that is continuously changing thanks to precise, deterministic mathematical causality, defined by the God Equation.

Gödel versus Wittgenstein “Gödel’s and Wittgenstein’s views on the foundations of mathematics were at loggerheads, and neither could acknowledge the work of the other without renouncing what was most central in his view. Each, I believe, was a thorn deep in the other’s metamathematics.” – Rebecca Goldstein, Incompleteness, The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel “Wittgenstein never accepted that Gödel had proved what he provably did prove.” – Rebecca Goldstein

Wittgenstein was in fact right. What people imagine Gödel proved is radically different from what he actually did prove. Gödel’s work had nothing to do with logic in itself (the logic that Wittgenstein had in mind). It concerned manmade attempts to use logic, which is an entirely different subject. Science is a typical manmade subject that imagines it’s using logic but emphatically isn’t. Logic is genuinely applicable only to sinusoidal waves and their relations and interactions. “Wittgenstein’s discussion in the Tractatus of mathematics, as opposed to logic, is brief. Mathematics, he says, is a method of logic (6.2 and again 6.234) and so, presumably, all that he has said of logic applies to mathematics. Mathematics, he says (6.2), also says nothing, and has no descriptive content.” – Rebecca Goldstein Wittgenstein had things back to front. Ontology precedes logic, and its mathematics that conveys ontology, not logic. Logic is a consequence of mathematical ontology and partakes of its tautological nature. “An equation merely marks the point of view from which I consider the two expressions; it marks their equivalence in meaning.” – Wittgenstein The equals sign is the exact token of tautology; everything on the left side of an equation is tautologous to whatever’s on the right side, no matter how seemingly differently expressed. “It is the essential characteristic of mathematical method that it employs equations. For it is because of this method that every proposition of mathematics must go without saying.” – Wittgenstein That is, math is nothing but tautology. “[Gödel] disagreed profoundly with the logical positivists, most specifically on their interpretation of mathematical truth, but far more generally as well. A man whose soul had been blasted by the Platonic vision of truth would not be sympathetic to denunciations of metaphysics. He would not accept a theory of meaning that branded as ‘meaningless’ all descriptive statements that are in principle not empirically verifiable. The essence of mathematical Platonism is the claim that mathematics, though not empirical, is nonetheless descriptive.” – Rebecca Goldstein

The essence of ontological mathematics is that it is descriptive and not “empty”, as Wittgenstein believed. In this context, Gödel was on the right road, and Wittgenstein was as wrong as it’s possible to be. “Some reductionism is correct, [but one should] reduce to (other) concepts and truths, not to sense perceptions. ... Platonic ideas are what things are to be reduced to.” – Gödel Mathematical sinusoids are what all things are to be reduced to. As for Plato’s system, it contains a simple fallacy: it prevents the domain outside space and time (that of Forms) from interacting with the domain inside space and time (that of Matter). Instead, the Demiurge had to manually apply Forms to Matter. Aristotle tried to correct this odd arrangement by naturally bringing Form into the world of Matter. In Aristotle’s scheme, only God (matterless Form) and prime matter (formless matter with absolutely no determination) exist dimensionlessly. God never interacts with the world, and does nothing but contemplate himself. As for prime matter, it’s a kind of hypothetical potentiality state that is never actually encountered. For Aristotle, as for Plato, dimensionless Form does not interact with Matter. In ontological mathematics, it does ... via Fourier mathematics involving dimensionless frequencies on the one hand and dimensional spacetime on the other. “Gödel turned out to be an unadulterated Platonist, and apparently believed that an eternal ‘not’ was laid up in heaven, where virtuous logicians might hope to meet it hereafter.” – Bertrand Russell Russell is right that logic is not ontological. This means that it cannot define ontological mathematics, and the converse must in fact be true: logic is defined by ontological mathematics, and conveyed by ontological mathematics. Russell himself believed that logic did define math, but, then, he regarded neither logic nor math as ontological. “Proof in logic is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated cases. ... But in fact all the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit nothing. ... Hence there can never be surprises in logic.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein considered Gödel’s work as amounting to “little logical artifices or conjuring tricks.” This is largely true. Gödel was a staggering

genius, yet not so much because of the results he achieved, but, rather, the ingenious way he went about it, and his resolute confidence that mathematics was not an unreal abstraction with nothing to say about the world. Gödel believed that Wittgenstein did not understand his work, but he was just as guilty of failing to understand Wittgenstein’s work. It’s not unusual for geniuses to find each other unfathomable, so imagine how difficult it is for everyone else! (Bertrand Russell was Wittgenstein’s mentor, but became totally baffled – and intimidated – by his protégé’s work.) The two men had completely different starting points, and completely different worldviews. Neither ever grasped what the other was saying because it was simply too different from their schema of reality. Exactly the same happens with our work. It’s so different from what other people imagine reality to be that they just can’t engage with what we’re saying, and hopelessly misunderstand and misrepresent it. Unlike them, however, we place great emphasis on what our intellectual opponents say in order to rebut it, as the God Series proves. “Wittgenstein never came to accept that Gödel had, through strict mathematics, achieved a result with metamathematical implications. That there could be a mathematical result with metamathematical implications went against Wittgenstein’s conception of language, knowledge, philosophy, everything.” – Rebecca Goldstein Metamathematics is defined as the study of mathematics itself using mathematical methods; the study of formal systems, and, especially, the concepts used in mathematics. The term is often restricted to analyses employing finitary methods. Wikipedia says, “Metamathematical metatheorems about mathematics itself were originally differentiated from ordinary mathematical theorems in the 19th century to focus on what was then called the foundational crisis of mathematics. ... “Metamathematics was intimately connected to mathematical logic, so that the early histories of the two fields, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, largely overlap. ... “Serious metamathematical reflection began with the work of Gottlob Frege. ...

“The foundational crisis of mathematics was the early 20th century’s term for the search for proper foundations of mathematics. ... “Various schools of thought on the right approach to the foundations of mathematics were fiercely opposing each other. The leading school was that of the formalist approach, of which David Hilbert was the foremost proponent, culminating in what is known as Hilbert’s program, which thought to ground mathematics on a small basis of a logical system proved sound by metamathematical finitistic means. The main opponent was the intuitionist school, led by L. E. J. Brouwer, which resolutely discarded formalism as a meaningless game with symbols. [Hilbert considered Brouwer a threat to mathematics.]” The entire subject of metamathematics is nonsense – for the simple reason that mathematics is ontological, hence is in no need of any foundations that transcend mathematics itself. Mathematics is eternal and necessary, hence cannot be preceded by anything else or explained by anything else. Mathematics is the eternal principle of sufficient reason ontologically conveyed, hence necessarily produces a rational and intelligible universe. Rebecca Goldstein wrote, “Gödel mistrusted our ability to communicate. Natural language, he thought, was imprecise, and we usually don’t understand each other. Gödel wanted to prove a mathematical theorem that would have all the precision of mathematics – the only language with any claims to precision – but with the sweep of philosophy. He wanted a mathematical theorem that would speak to the issues of meta-mathematics. And two extraordinary things happened. One is that he actually did produce such a theorem. The other is that it was interpreted by the jazzier parts of the intellectual culture as saying philosophically exactly the opposite of what he had been intending to say with it. Gödel had intended to show that our knowledge of mathematics exceeds our formal proofs. He hadn’t meant to subvert the notion that we have objective mathematical knowledge or claim that there is no mathematical proof – quite the contrary. He believed that we do have access to an independent mathematical reality. Our formal systems are incomplete because there’s more to mathematical reality than can be contained in any of our formal systems. More precisely, what he showed is that all of our formal systems strong enough for arithmetic are either inconsistent or incomplete. Now an inconsistent system is completely worthless since inconsistent systems allow you to derive contradictions. And once you have a contradiction then you can prove anything at all.”

***** “Statements in the system can be represented by natural numbers (known as Gödel numbers). The significance of this is that properties of statements – such as their truth and falsehood – will be equivalent to determining whether their Gödel numbers have certain properties, and that properties of the statements can therefore be demonstrated by examining their Gödel numbers. ... Gödel’s ingenious technique is to show that statements can be matched with numbers (often called the arithmetization of syntax) in such a way that ‘proving a statement’ can be replaced with ‘testing whether a number has a given property’. ... In simple terms, a method can be devised so that every formula or statement that can be formulated in the system gets a unique number, called its Gödel number, in such a way that it is possible to mechanically convert back and forth between formulas and Gödel numbers.” – Wikipedia The fundamental problem here is that if numbers are ontological – which they are – then none of the encodings performed by Gödel are valid (in ontological terms), and do not speak at all to any truths about arithmetic and mathematics. They are exactly what Wittgenstein accused them of being ... logical conjuring tricks. Gödel’s findings are artefacts of his methodology. If the methodology has no ontological basis, he’s merely trading in logical curiosities. The oddities are generated by his technique and are only relevant to his technique. They say nothing whatsoever about mathematics itself. Similarly, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says nothing at all about quantum mechanics itself, but is merely an artefact of the fallacious scientific Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Rebecca Goldstein wrote, “Nary a mathematician I have spoken with has a good word to say about Wittgenstein.” Logician Georg Kreisl wrote, “Wittgenstein’s views on mathematical logic are not worth much, because he knew very little and what he knew was confined to the Frege-Russell line of goods.” Any mathematician will be far more impressed by Gödel than by Wittgenstein, yet Wittgenstein’s admittedly simplistic understanding of the nature of mathematics took him to a central truth to which nearly all mathematicians are wholly oblivious: mathematics is pure tautology. Given that basic truth, there can be no need for any subject called

metamathematics. Mathematics’ foundations are ontological, mathematics is eternal and necessary, consistent and complete, and it caters for 100% of reality, so there can be nothing outside mathematics that defines mathematics. Physicists erroneously rejected metaphysics as the foundation of physics, while mathematicians erroneously accepted metamathematics as the foundation of mathematics. In fact, mathematics is the true metaphysics, and the basis of physics. There’s nothing more foundational than mathematics itself. Mathematics is the eternal, necessary end of the line, the equivalent of “God”. It’s the deepest and most fundamental explanatory level. Metamathematics is a bogus subject resulting from applying bad philosophy to mathematics. The whole subject should be abandoned. It’s worthless ... a mere illusion ... a logical conjuring trick that doesn’t work, and which steers the mathematics community away from the ontology of mathematics. Wittgenstein said that mathematics was: a) tautological, and b) nonontological (i.e. math doesn’t have real existence), while Gödel said that mathematics was: a) non-tautological, and b) ontological (math really exists, albeit Platonically). In fact, both thinkers were half right and half wrong. Mathematics is: a) tautological, and b) ontological. From those two facts, all of the rest of the facts of mathematics flow. Logicians are obsessively drawn to metamathematics. The fact that it has nothing to do with anything is neither here nor there. There are all kinds of pseudo subjects with intellectual allure that beguile people. The work of any great thinker is always compelling, regardless of utility or truth content. Mathematical logic is a dead end. It’s wholly wiped out by mathematical ontology. The fact that there are scores of incredibly smart mathematical logicians doesn’t alter the fact that the subject is worthless. Scholastic philosophy is now written off by most people as abstruse nonsense. Exactly the same fate will one day befall mathematical logic and metamathematics. Ontological mathematics will render them irrelevant.

No Understanding Gödel said, “The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other.” When it comes to the most complex subjects, this lack of understanding becomes fatal. People find it almost

impossible to communicate what they mean, and to make themselves understood. Only numbers are precise and meaningful.

Paradoxes “The name ‘paradox’ should not be confused with contradiction. A contradiction in a formal theory is a formal proof of an absurdity inside the theory (such as 2 + 2 = 5), showing that this theory is inconsistent and must be rejected. But a paradox may either refer to a surprising but true result in a given formal theory, or to an informal argument leading to a contradiction, so that a candidate theory, if it is to be formalized, must disallow at least one of its steps; in this case the problem is to find a satisfying theory without contradiction.” – Wikipedia All the paradoxes exposed by mathematical logic are actually paradoxes of metamathematics, not of mathematics. That’s because metamathematics is a manmade subject (unlike mathematics itself), hence is automatically inconsistent and/or incomplete. Metamathematics is both non-tautological and non-ontological. Consider self-referential statements such as “This statement is false”, or “I am not provable”, or “‘All Cretans are liars’, said the Cretan”. Do these statements have any relevance whatsoever to mathematics? Do they contain an equals sign? Are they about numbers? These are not objective, tautological statements. They are subjective statements where the subject has been explicitly disconnected from everything else. Mathematics, considered as a system of objective knowledge, has no subjective components whatsoever, so subjective selfreference is not part of it. Metamathematics, which isn’t mathematics, has allowed subjectivity to be smuggled into an objective discipline. This is a category error. All valid statements concerning mathematical knowledge must contain the equals sign and must be either an explicit identity such as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, or an implicit identity (hence tautology), such as 1 + 1 = 2. All such statements are strictly objective. It’s formally impossible in objective mathematics to construct a statement that subjectively refers to itself rather than objectively being itself.

Manmade language, however, begins with the subject, with the subjective ... with “I”. Therefore, manmade language revolves around selfreference. Metamathematics has followed the subjective route of manmade language – based on words – rather than the objective language of Nature (mathematics) – based on numbers. What Gödel did so ingeniously, yet so futilely, was to find a way to code a subjective statement numerically. To convert a manmade language statement into a number statement is not to say anything about numbers, but is to say something about what the manmade statement purports to signify. Specifically, it means that no metamathematical approach – involving manmade language and subjective self-reference – can ever be a valid way of defining the foundations of mathematics.

***** Regarding Russell’s paradox, Richard Osborne wrote, “Most classes don’t contain themselves as members – e.g. the class of all walruses is not a walrus. Some do. But consider the class of all classes that are not members of themselves. Is it a member of itself or not? If you think about it, it is if it isn’t, and isn’t if it is...” What does this have to do with mathematics? Well, nothing. It’s about sets, the validity of set theory, and the validity of manmade statements of self-reference within set theory. The trouble is if you equate set theory to mathematics, or make it the foundation of mathematics, then a paradox of set theory is thereby taken to be a paradox of mathematics. But when did the proponents of set theory prove that set theory has any connection at all with mathematics? The same goes for formalism, axiomism, logicism, intuitionism, and anything else. These are all speculative metamathematical hypotheses that have nothing to do with actual mathematics. Once mathematics is defined ontologically, i.e. numbers are real existents (sinusoidal energy waves, to be exact) then the whole subject of metamathematics is swept away. Mathematics is no longer in need of metamathematical foundations. It has its own foundations, those of ontology. What Gödel actually proved was that metamathematics is nonsense, and all attempts to define mathematics metamathematically will produce inconsistency and/or incompleteness, hence be invalid.

Gödel destroyed metamathematics as a viable subject (one capable of generating a complete and consistent system), but his work didn’t touch on actual mathematics at all. The difference between Gödel and Wittgenstein was that the latter knew that mathematics was about tautology, hence could never be inconsistent and/or incomplete. Gödel, however, wasn’t addressing mathematics. Instead, he was reflecting the attempts by various thinkers to establish the foundations of mathematics on a non-mathematical basis, such as that of sets, or logic, or axioms. It’s all of these anti-mathematical approaches that are wrong. They have no relevance to mathematics. Mathematics is about ontology, tautology, numbers, sinusoids and the equals sign. If you are approaching math in any other way, you’re talking nonsense. The entire subject of metamathematics should be abandoned if anyone is labouring under the delusion that it’s addressing mathematics. Gödel proved that no such scheme ever tells us anything about mathematics. If people can find some other use for it, good luck to them. Neither Wittgenstein nor Gödel grasped the fundamental difference between metamathematics and mathematics. If mathematics is ontological, metamathematics can’t be relevant to it. Metamathematics is actually about logic, not math. If Wittgenstein had appreciated that Gödel’s work concerned metamathematics and not mathematics, he could have pointed out that Gödel’s work wasn’t addressing mathematics as he himself (Wittgenstein) had characterised it. If Gödel had appreciated the complete separation of metamathematics and mathematics, he would have been able to say that what he was proving was that no human had yet found the right key to unlocking the true foundations of mathematics. As it was, Gödel believed that all metamathematical approaches to mathematics were fair enough, but not perfect, hence he concluded that there was an eternal, objective, mathematical truth, but that the human mind could only apprehend it imperfectly. This conclusion is wrong. The correct conclusion is that all metamathematical approaches to defining the foundations of mathematics are wrong, and mathematics must be defined ontologically, via a single formula (the God Equation), which can by definition never be inconsistent and/or incomplete with regard to itself. The human mind can understand mathematics perfectly, provided it knows what

it is, and what, therefore, it isn’t, and by not attempting to understand mathematics via any non-mathematical (i.e. metamathematical means). Mathematical metaphysics is what comes after scientific physics. The former provides the foundations for the latter. There is no metamathematics that comes after mathematics and provides the foundations for the latter. Ontological mathematics is the end of the line, the ultimate foundational level. Wittgenstein and Gödel were talking at cross purposes, and that’s why neither understood the other. Each glimpsed part of the truth, but both missed the total truth. We have corrected their respective errors.

The Triumph of Reason “Strictly speaking, Analytic is an investigation in which we separate the object itself into parts as exactly as we can, scrupulously observing the position, connection and form of the parts, and of the parts of the parts. Synthetic (i.e. Combinatoric) is when we add something external to the object in order to explain the object.” – Leibniz “Consequently, with the passage of time, certain operations which were once combinatorial will become analytic, after everyone has become familiar with my method of combination, which is within the grasp of even the dullest. This is why, with the gradual progress of the human species, it can come about, perhaps after many centuries, that no one will any more be praised for accuracy of judgment; for the analytic art (which is still virtually confined to mathematics in its correct and general use) will have become universal and applied to every type of matter through the introduction of a scientific notation (‘philosophical character’) such as I am working on. Once this has been accepted, correct reasoning, given time for thought, will be no more praiseworthy than calculating large numbers without an error. Furthermore, if there is also a trustworthy catalogue of facts (records, observations, experiments) written in the same notation, together with the more important theorems (to reduce the number of steps needed) derived from the notation either alone or with observational data, it will come about that the art of combination will also lose all its glory. Nor, too, will any respect be paid to those who have the opportunity to investigate or discover something by devoting time to thinking about it (since that will be open to

everyone), but only to those who are quick at Analytic or Combinatoric. ... Further, what I have said about the distinction between Combinatoric and Analytic will help to differentiate two types of human mind: those that are more combinatorial, and those that are more analytical. Thus, even though Galileo and Descartes excelled in both arts, there was more Combinatoric in Galileo, and more Analytic in Descartes. Geometers and lawyers are more analytical, doctors and those concerned with society more combinatorial. There is more certainty in Analytic, more difficulty in Combinatoric.” – Leibniz “Mariotte says that the human mind is like a bag: the process of thinking consists in shaking it until something comes out. So there is undoubtedly a chance element in our thought processes. I would add that the human mind is more analogous to a sieve: the process of thinking consists in shaking it until all the subtlest items pass through. Meanwhile, as they are passing through, Reason acts as an inspector snatching out whatever seems useful. It is just as if someone, in order to arrest a thief, made the whole population of a town parade through one particular gate past the watchful eye of the thief’s victim. But to shorten the proceedings a method of exclusion is used, such as that of transition in arithmetic. Thus, if the victim asserts that it was a man, not a woman; or an adult, not a boy or youth, the latter will be granted permission to go on their way.” – Leibniz “Analysis of thoughts is necessary for the discovery and demonstration of truths, because this will correspond to analysis of the characters we use for signifying our thoughts (since a particular thought will correspond to each character). Hence we can make the analysis of thoughts perceptible, and govern it by a sort of mechanical guiding-thread, since the analysis of characters is something perceptible. Analysis of characters consists in substituting for certain characters other characters which are functionally equivalent to the first, but with the one condition that we substitute many for one, and more for fewer (provided these are not equivalent to each other). It is obvious that the thoughts corresponding to the substituted characters will also be equivalent to the meaning of the original character put forward for resolution. But this is made easier by the use of characters than if we set to work upon our thoughts themselves, with no reference to characters. For our intellect needs to be regulated by some sort of mechanical guiding-thread, on account of its weakness. In the case of

thoughts which involve things not representable in imagination, this function is performed by the characters themselves.” – Leibniz “Further, all disciplines consisting of demonstrations involve nothing other than equivalences or substitutions of thoughts. For they show that in some necessary proposition the predicate can safely be substituted in place of the subject; and in demonstrating, that in place of certain truths (called premises) there can safely be substituted another (called the conclusion). From this it is obvious that the truths themselves will be exhibited on paper in their correct order only through analysis of characters, i.e. continued orderly substitution.” – Leibniz “This is why the perfection of physical science (experience apart) uncontroversially consists in its reduction to geometry, by the discovery of mechanisms (as far as that sort of thing can exist) which depend on the shapes and motions of their parts. But in its turn, geometry itself has up to now been subject to no little confusion, since not all characteristics of figures can be appropriately represented by lines drawn on paper. So it has been reduced to a sort of calculus or numerical computation, so that the very figures of bodies can be expressed by various combinations of numerical characters, and letters of the alphabet standing for indeterminate numbers. This marvellous method is commonly called the ‘specious’ calculus, because of the characters, i.e. species of things. Nothing is more appropriate, easier, or more within the grasp of the human intellect than numbers themselves. The science of number has acquired a higher degree of perfection, and can acquire yet more, through the Combinatory (or general specious) Art, which has given rise to the mathematicians’ ‘analysis’ through its application to numbers. Yet proofs of every analytic truth can always be established by ordinary numbers. So much so, that I have worked out a method of testing every algebraic calculation by abjection of the novenary or the such like, in the manner of the common calculus. This means that every pure mathematical truth can, by means of numbers, be transferred from Reason to visual experiment.” – Leibniz “So we only have to work out how some sort of instrument can be provided to do for the mind what theodolite and line do for the surveyor, scales for the assayer, number for the mathematician, or telescope for the eye. That is, not only to guide us in judging, but to lead us on to discovery.” – Leibniz

“It certainly cannot be denied that the ancients achieved much in this area. Even before Plato, there was some not inconsiderable practice of the art of dialectic, as can be gathered even from his dialogues. But as far as is known, it was Aristotle who, standing on the shoulders of his predecessors, was the first to grace logic itself with the form of a mathematical discipline, so as to be amenable to demonstrations. On that account, or because of his example, I admit that the human species owes him a great debt. However, he himself seems to have used too little of such logic outside logic itself, and he certainly did not know how it was possible to apply the same principles to metaphysics, ethics, and all other areas of reasoning intrinsically independent of sensuous imagery. By using some form of combinatory art, one could advance far enough to use substitute characters and letters of the alphabet to bring these subjects under the scope of imagery, like numbers and algebra. Unless I am mistaken, this has so far remained a secret, and is now emerging for the first time.” – Leibniz Without Leibniz, there could never have been Gödel. Gödel hero worshipped Leibniz, and all of his main ideas flow directly from Gödel. Both Leibniz and Gödel wanted to convert symbols and concepts into numbers, perform numerical operations, and then convert the results back into symbols and concepts. Thus everything would be able to benefit from mathematical certainty. What they mutually failed to grasp is that only ontological numbers are valid, and ontological numbers cannot be coded in terms of anything else. Manmade symbols, ideas, words and concepts cannot be converted into non-ontological numbers and then used as though they were reflective of reality.

Erotic Capital Do you have erotic capital? Are you using it? Are you involved in a “sugar” relationship? Sugar dating is on the rise ... rich old men paying for pretty young girls. Sugar dating is described as “mutually beneficial transactional dating”. The sugar world is where rich men turn girls into their princesses. There are several Sugar websites, many thousands of sugar daddies and hundreds of thousands of sugar babies. The phenomenon has been described as prostitution for the upper classes: pretty students wanting to pay off their

student loans are turned into high class escorts. They enter into “sugar arrangements”. For these girls, everything is sugar-coated.

Sweet Dreams Sexual allure is a commodity. It’s erotic capital. Sex is sugar. Are you enjoying the sugar life? Or does it make you sick? Some sugar babies are playing the sugar system to the max. One sugar baby has forty sugar daddies. We live in a luxury-hungry society, a get-rich-quick society, a getsomething-for-nothing society, a get-it-right-now society, a get-everythingwith-no-effort society. Sugar babies take this to extreme. In exchange for being arm candy, trophies – and fucking rich men – they get everything they want: a luxury apartment, exotic holidays, a weekly allowance, a shopping allowance, their college fees paid. Sweet dreams are made of this. Students are the largest sugar baby demographic. So much for education. The sugar life is sold as an excellent “networking opportunity”. Have you had a life of excessive sugaring? Have you had your fill?

***** Whenever you come across a pretty woman who seems remarkably well off despite having no job, you can guess what she’s been up to.

Sugar Heiresses Heiress Paris Hilton is a sugar baby, except her sugar daddy isn’t some rich old stranger having sex with her, but her own father. All heirs and heiresses live in a sugar economy, and have sugar capital.

Manmade Languages All manmade languages are invalid – inconsistent and incomplete – expressions of the one and only true language of Nature, i.e. ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics alone is a complete and consistent language, hence true. Therefore any scheme such as Leibniz or Gödel had in mind cannot succeed. Modern computing is incredibly useful, but it has no connection to ontology and epistemology, to the Truth of existence. The

greatest computing expert in the world couldn’t, on the basis of his computing knowledge, tell you a single true thing about the fundamental nature of existence. Leibniz’s and Gödel’s coding schemes would never have arrived at anything better than modern computing, and modern computing can tell us precisely zero about whether God exists, or whether the soul exists, or fundamental ontology, or the meaning of life. Coding and translation schemes are not reality and truth schemes.

The Foundation There is no such thing as an “axiomatic foundation” for the ontological mathematical Monadology. The Monadology is derived exclusively from the principle of sufficient reason. Gödel’s work can’t help to elucidate the Monadology. In the end, Gödel’s value was in showing the flaws in all approaches to math based on disparate axioms rather than on a single ontological principle. Gödel proved that the Monadology cannot be founded on multiple axioms, no matter how apparently logical. The last thing anyone should do is revisit Euclid’s axiomatic approach as the basis for defining mathematics.

***** “Gödel didn’t see a contradiction between axiomatizing philosophy and the incompleteness theorems, because the axioms of philosophy are different from those of arithmetic and aren’t as limited or set in stone – the axiomatic method is what is important. Eventually, this will allow us to unify philosophy with mathematics as we formalize our reasoning.” – P Such a project is 100% certain to fail. As a rationalist, Gödel should have seen that the principle of sufficient reason is the key to rationalism, and not a group of quasi-rationalist axioms. To go from the specific, and precisely stated, axioms of various arithmetical systems to the vague, ambiguous, non-mathematical “axioms” of philosophy is folly. You don’t get closer to the truth by moving away from precise axioms to much less precise axioms. To say that the axioms of philosophy aren’t “as limited or set in stone” is already to imply that any approach based on these will be trading in ambiguity and convenient flexibility (i.e. trial and error and heuristics ... exactly the game played by intellectually dishonest scientific materialism).

Ware Hardware and Software. Materialware and Mentalware. We live in a world of slaveware and masterware.

The Family The family is the Sin Magnifier. The family is the Joy Confiner. Healthy families are wondrous, but there’s nothing worse than unhealthy families. They are the most toxic units in society.

The Greatest Danger Pious and pompous liberals, drowning in political correctness, are always the vector – the Trojan Horse – through which religious maniacs are allowed to first infect and then destroy a nation. Liberals always tolerate the intolerable. Despite being spectacularly ill-informed, clueless idiots, they are always the first to brand others “ignorant”. That’s their go-to word, along with “bigot”.

Keeping It Real “The more real you get the more unreal the world gets.” – John Lennon The more right you get, the more wrong the world gets. The more truthful you get, the more false the world gets. The smarter you get, the dumber the world gets.

Keeping It Unreal “Someone sits on your imaginary friend, and that’s really annoying.” – an autistic girl The whole of Islam is about billions of people getting murderously hysterical about perceived sleights to their collective imaginary friend.

Goethe

Goethe was given the name “Abaris” within the Illuminati. Mythologically, Abaris the Hyperborean was a sage, healer, and priest of Apollo, said to be endowed with the gift of prophecy.

Imagine Imagine if there were zero Muslims in North America and Europe, and none were allowed in. Can anyone believe that Mohammed and the Koran wouldn’t be as relentlessly mocked as Christ and the Bible are? The Muslims are winning if they are stopping us – by their extremely violent responses and hysterical tantrums – from treating their religion with exactly the same disrespect as we would any other. Our task is not to submit to their feelings and culture. Their job is to submit to ours ... or leave.

The Divine Failures When Muslims in Gaza are killed by Jewish bombs, the survivors recite the Shahadah (the Islamic statement of faith): “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger”, and then scream Allahu Akbar. How perverse! Why intensify your faith in a God who has so badly betrayed you and failed you? Why didn’t Mohammed and Allah intervene to save the victims from death? Why did they let it happen in the first place? What’s the point of them if they can’t, or won’t, intervene? In countless cases in human history, the rational thing to do is abandon your faith, or convert to the other person’s faith if it’s patently more successful. Yet people simply become more fanatically committed to the faith that failed them. That’s the enigma of human identity. People would rather die that relinquish their faith, which has become the defining element of their identity. Once they have renewed their faith, you can be certain that their next task is to take bloody revenge against the other lot, and this irrational process – the violent and crazy defence of self-evidently false prophets and false gods – has been the engine for most of human history.

***** Muslims always blabber on about “God Willing”, but their God does not seem to will much that’s remotely of use to Muslims. So, why do they go on believing? – because to abandon their faith would be to negate their identity and become nothing, and no human does that. A believer has to find

something else to fanatically believe before relinquishing their precious faith.

The Lie Fiction and religion both grew from the Lie. When people realised they could say things to other people that they knew were untrue, but which others believed to be true, they realised they had a dazzling way to manipulate and control people. Thus storytellers and prophets came into the world (and advertisers and politicians in the modern day). Storytellers usually conceded they were telling a story. Prophets never did. They would call you an infidel and Devil worshipper, and order you killed, if you called their story a lie. Their defining characteristic was that they manically defended the “truth” of their extremely tall tales, and their sheer force of will made the weak and submissive masses believe them, especially since the masses wanted to believe these immense lies. The easiest people to deceive are, as any con man will tell you, those who want to be deceived. George Eliot said, “Art is the nearest thing to life; it is a mode of amplifying experience and extending our contact with our fellow men beyond the bounds of our personal lot.” One might just as well say, “The Lie is the closest thing to the Truth.” All art is false. All math is true. Words are false. Numbers are true.

The Troll Formula “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” – W. B. Yeats The worst people are the loudest. Decent people are never loud. You could use Facebook and Twitter to identify the loud people – the obnoxious, toxic trolls – and then ban them from everything.

Modal Logic “Modal logic: the logical study of such philosophical concepts as necessity, possibility, contingency, etc.; the logical study of concepts whose formal properties resemble certain moral, epistemological, and psychological

concepts; any formal system capable of being interpreted as a model for the behaviour of such concepts.” – Dictionary.com “Modal logic: The logic of necessity and possibility. A modal statement is said to be necessarily, or possibly the case. In the Prior Analytics, Aristotle includes a discussion of modal statements and modal syllogisms. A modal syllogism is one in which at least one of the premises is a modal statement, as for example, ‘Necessarily, no male is female. Only females are capable of bearing young. Therefore, no male is capable of bearing young.’” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Modal logic is irrelevant to the Monadology. The ingredient that was required to save Leibniz’s Monadology from the scrapheap of philosophical curiosities wasn’t any kind of logic but pure ontological mathematics. The Monadology didn’t need a logical makeover, it needed a mathematical makeover. It didn’t need to be “logicised” ... it needed to be “mathematicised”. A “logical” Monadology wouldn’t be able to replace scientific materialism since science isn’t based on logic at all. A mathematical Monadology, on the other hand, can immediately replace the heuristic mathematics deployed by science with pure, analytic mathematics. The true language of metaphysics is ontological mathematics, not modal logic. Logic is itself derived from ontological mathematics, not the other way around. The task to understand reality is rather simple: it’s about identifying the single principle that defines and controls reality. That single principle is the principle of sufficient reason, expressed through ontological mathematics. It has nothing to do with modal logic. Monadological reasoning is ontological mathematical reasoning. All relevant operators are ontological mathematical operators, not logical operators. The ontological mathematical Monadology has nothing to do with ZFC set theory, or anything like it. All such fallacious systems are rendered redundant by ontological mathematics. Set theory is not, and never can be, mathematical in any ontological sense. Putting mathematics on set theory foundations is about as meaningful as putting it on hieroglyphics foundations. People who still look to set theory, modal logic, and so on, haven’t grasped that mathematics defines ontology and epistemology. They

continue to subscribe to the fallacy that mathematics can be derived from non-mathematics: from logic, set theory, axioms, or whatever. It can’t. Mathematics is the expression of the principle of sufficient reason, and nothing else is relevant to it. Indeed, every other valid procedure is derived from it. Anything that can’t be formally derived from it is manmade and ontologically invalid. Gödel, a mathematical logician, made a disastrous mistake. He emphasised the logic and not the mathematics. That was because he couldn’t think his way through to ontological mathematics. Gödel’s whole modus operandi regarding his incompleteness theorems assumed the nonontology of numbers in the world around us. You cannot perform his Gödel numbering stratagem on ontological numbers, i.e. on actual things that cannot be ontologically recoded as other things! Gödel should have paid far more attention to Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein knew that true mathematics could never be inconsistent and/or incomplete, so anything that seemed to demonstrate that it might be could not possibly be describing true mathematics. Gödel’s work shows that all non-ontological approaches to defining mathematics cannot work, but it has no relevance to mathematics itself. He demonstrated the fallacy of manmade approaches to defining mathematics using axioms, sets, logic, or whatever. Mathematics must be defined with regard to the principle of sufficient reason, and nothing else. Mathematics must be all about reason and mathematics itself, not about anything manifestly not mathematical (such as set theory). You cannot define mathematics through non-mathematics. That’s rationally absurd given that mathematics is true eternally and necessarily, hence there is no prior order of existence that could ever be used to explain it. It’s time everyone realised that mathematics is ontological, hence can’t be defined by anything else.

***** No absolute, infallible system of knowledge can contain the word “possibility”. It can’t have any to do with contingency, provisionalism, probability, empiricism, chance, accident, uncertainty, ambiguity, verification, falsification, temporality, indeterminacy, indeterminism, and empirical conditionality. It can’t be modal.

The Serendipity Engine

The Serendipity Engine generates happy accidents. Does the internet help or hinder serendipity? More and more, people are steered along tracks and trends on the internet. They’re always on the main highway, and never take the byways where all the things are to be found.

The Panacea, the Catholicon When any individual undergoes a miraculous cure for a terminal disease, it means that the information now exists for a general cure for all of those with the same illness. Given that every possible disease has been survived by someone, or someone has proved immune to it, then the information exists to cure all diseases. We simply need to find the way to access the information, and then we will have a panacea. The panacea is a mental, not physical, system of curing people. It’s a super version of homoeopathy.

Life And Death Soma (body) plus psyche (soul) plus pneuma (spirit) = living person. Soma (body) without psyche (soul) and without pneuma (spirit) = dead person. Soma (body) with psyche (soul) and without pneuma (spirit) = an animal.

***** Pneuma (spirit) is nous (mind), and is higher than psyche (soul). Soma (body) is composed of hyle (matter).

Puppets and Babies A puppeteer said that newborn babies never look at the puppet, always at the puppeteer. The trouble with adults is that they always look at the puppet and never at the puppeteer. They believe the puppet is real.

The Unknown God In Gnosticism, the Unknown God creates the pneuma/nous, while the Demiurge and his archons creator the soma and psyche. The soul belongs to the lower world, and the nous to the higher domain.

The mind (nous/pneuma) descends (“falls”) into the world of matter (hyle). The nous, descending from the Empyrean, acquires the psyche (soul) at the sphere of fixed stars, and the combined entity then continues its descent through the seven planetary spheres (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Sun, Mercury and the Moon). At each level, the psyche acquires characteristic, negative personality traits from each (including the appetites and passions), becoming increasingly corrupt and less spiritual. At the final stage, the nous, along with its corrupted psyche, plunges into hyle and acquires soma. It’s now trapped in the physical prison of the body. The spirit (mind) of the individual is a divine spark, a fragment or seed of the supreme God. It’s the divine part of us. We already carry God inside us. We can all become God because we already are God. Just as atman = Brahman, pneuma/nous = God. Only this part of us can attain salvation ... because it was never part of the Demiurge’s realm.

***** The best and immortal part of the human person belongs to the realm of the True God. The worst and mortal part of the human person belongs to the realm of the False God (the Demiurge). The divine spark is trapped in a world to which it does not belong. It’s alienated from its true self and needs to find itself again ... to return to itself. Through involution, it falls. Through evolution it rises and returns home ... where at last it recognises its own divinity. The Highest God, ancient Gnosticism says, is responsible for the highest parts of us. The Lowest God and his helpers are responsible for the lowest parts of us. The God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is the Lowest God, the Demiurge. The Gnostic spirit has fallen and now it must re-ascend. It must escape this cosmic prison. It has become mad and it must regain its sanity ... through reason and logic. Anyone who fails to become rational remains a prisoner of the Demiurge and his Archons. The Phosters – the Illuminators – light the path for us. They use the light of reason to dispel the darkness.

The Spiritual Body

In Christianity, there is the concept of a “spiritual” body. 1 Corinthians 15:44 says, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Philosopher Henry More portrays the intended concept: the natural body is material and extended while the spiritual body is immaterial and extended. The natural body dies and the body that is “resurrected” and goes to heaven is in fact the immaterial spiritual body, which is a perfect version of the natural body. Even if the natural body loses limbs and gets diseased, the spiritual body remains pristine, unsullied, uncorrupted. Christianity is hopelessly confused. In its Platonic aspect, it supports the concept of an unextended, immaterial soul outside space and time, but the idea of a spiritual body, albeit immaterial, belongs very much to the notion of an extended world. This implies that there is an extended spiritual world sitting right over the extended material world, but that’s just another version of Cartesian substance dualism. Why should there be two different extended domains, how do they remain separate, and how do they interact? The spiritual body is said to see, touch, smell, taste, and hear just as much, or more, than the physical body, hence what’s the point of the physical body. It’s redundant. Your spirit feels things very intensely at the spiritual level ... which is the highest and profoundest level. Spiritual death is said to occur if your spirit becomes completely separated from God. It does not cease to exist but goes to the domain of eternal death and darkness in Hell, where it suffers separation from the divine order forever. The disobedience in the Garden of Eden brought about the first separation between humanity and God. Humanity, says Christianity, can be restored – saved – via belief in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, the separation becomes irrevocable. The story goes that before Adam and Eve sinned, they were able to speak freely with God. When they ate the forbidden fruit, their spirits died a first death, and their lives were lived through physical bodies – mortal bodies – outside the heavenly domain of the Garden of Eden (from which they were banished). They now knew of suffering and death. However, through Christ, their spiritual bodies could be saved from spiritual death and reunited with God. If not, the spiritual bodies would

undergo a second and final death ... meaning that they would lose contact with God forever.

***** Consider a spiritual body scientifically. What is its relationship with DNA, with gene mutation, natural selection, ageing, mind-matter interaction, mirroring, amputation? What age is a spiritual body? When somebody is a baby (hence has the physical body of a baby), do they also have a baby spiritual body? How does the spiritual body age if it’s not physical? How can it resemble a physical body? Christianity is silent on all of that.

The Me, Me, Me Party Why is it that all American libertarians are loud-mouthed, arrogant, obnoxious, strident, narcissistic, egotistical, moronic, shrill, hysterical, and suffering from an ineradicable sense of entitlement that they should be allowed to do whatever they like, regardless of others? They have a vastly overinflated sense of self. They overrate themselves to a quite incredible degree.

The Punchline The premise raises a topic. The set-up narrows the focus. The punchline inverts the expected outcome – it involves an unexpected leap in reasoning – resulting in the payoff (the laugh). No creature that can’t reason can tell a joke. Severe autistics can’t tell jokes.

The Readers Books of the highest calibre require readers of the highest calibre. There’s no more difficult task than finding a book’s rightful readers. To read a book is one thing. To read it, is quite another.

The Big Picture “Top-down investing involves analyzing the ‘big picture’. Investors using this approach look at the economy and try to forecast which industry will generate the best returns. These investors then look for individual

companies within the chosen industry and add the stock to their portfolios. For example, suppose you believe there will be a drop in interest rates. Using the top-down approach, you might determine that the home-building industry would benefit the most from the macroeconomic changes and then limit your search to the top companies in that industry. “Conversely, a bottom-up investor overlooks broad sector and economic conditions and instead focuses on selecting a stock based on the individual attributes of a company. Advocates of the bottom-up approach simply seek strong companies with good prospects, regardless of industry or macroeconomic factors. What constitutes ‘good prospects’, however, is a matter of opinion. Some investors look for earnings growth while others find companies with low P/E ratios attractive. A bottom-up investor will compare companies based on these fundamentals; as long as the companies are strong, the business cycle or broader industry conditions are of no concern.” – Investopedia When it comes to understanding the universe – the totality, the whole, the completeness – you must first identify the fundamental principle that defines the entire thing. You must establish the “big picture”, and then work out all the details. You cannot go in the other direction ... from disparate details to the big picture. You cannot work from the bottom up. This is exactly how you fall foul of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Unless all of your details belong to a single, integrated, big picture then they will automatically generate incompleteness and inconsistency since they will imply different, incompatible ontologies and epistemologies. Principles are subject to exactly the same considerations as substances. Just as you can only have a substance monism and not a substance dualism or pluralism, so you can only have a principle monism and not a principle dualism or pluralism (and exactly the same goes for axioms, postulates, etc). Everything that derives from a single principle is either explicitly or implicitly tautological with regard to that principle. It must at any rate be fully traceable back to that principle, hence be a full or partial re-expression of it, and certainly must not contradict it. Analysing reality becomes remarkably straightforward when you grasp that one principle must explain everything. In religious terms, this single principle was identified as “God” or the “Oneness”. Science never had any such principle, and neither did abstract mathematics. That’s the whole

problem with both science and abstract mathematics. They have failed to identify a single all-inclusive, universally applicable principle. Science, ridiculously, pursues a grand unified, final theory of everything – something that is inherently incompatible with science since all scientific theories subscribe to falsification and verification principles, i.e. they can always be falsified by the latest experimental results, and are always in need of verification; neither of these principles is compatible with anything “final”. Mathematics has dreamt of rigorously proving all of its truths, but, perversely, it has never pursued a grand unified, final theory of mathematics, and has trusted to all sorts of anti-mathematical absurdities such as set theory, logic and axioms. Ontological mathematics is of course the final theory of mathematics, and flows exclusively from the principle of sufficient reason, expressed through the single, all-powerful God Equation. The God Equation replaces the God or Oneness of religion. Every truth of ontological mathematics can be proved since everything flows from a single principle, hence is automatically consistent with that principle, and is part of its completeness. Religious monotheism had the right idea – finding one universal idea that explains everything – but went about it in the wrong way, personifying it, anthropomorphising it, turning it into a consciousness, a partisan tribal deity, and so on. Science believed there was a final scientific theory to be found but then adopted falsification and verification principles that are incompatible with a final anything, and are all about temporality, contingency and provisionalism. Astoundingly, mathematics failed to look for a comprehensive principle to account for everything. This was all Euclid’s fault. His axiomatic approach was so effective that all mathematicians ever since have been beguiled by this fallacious way of doing things. If Gödel’s incompleteness theorems prove anything (they actually have nothing to with true mathematics), it’s that all axiomatic approaches to defining mathematics must fail. Pythagoras, with his Monad, was the first mathematician to realise that everything must come back to a single mathematical principle. Plato then turned the Pythagorean Monad into the Form of the Good, which became

equated to the Christian God. Mathematics, in the past, was always tied to religion. Mathematics is the only rational means for defending religion. Why didn’t modern mathematicians seek a single way of defining the whole of mathematics? It’s because they were: 1) under the spell of Euclid’s multiple “self-evident” axioms, and 2) under the malign influence of scientific materialism, which labelled science “real”, and mathematics “unreal”. Mathematicians looked away from ontology and towards abstract, unreal logic as the means of establishing the foundations of mathematics. This was a catastrophe since, given that logic is not ontological (i.e. reality does not comprise ontological syllogisms of logic, logical operators, modal logic, and so on), any mathematics derived from it cannot be ontological either, and mathematics cannot be real. If mathematics is real – which it is – it cannot be founded in logic. Mathematicians should have realised that science was a distorted version of mathematics, and that mathematics was in fact the true basis of science, hence the true basis of scientific energy. Once mathematics is understood to be all about energy, it’s automatically concerned with ontology and epistemology, and not with logic. It’s essential for mathematics to move away from logic and be fully identified with ontological energy, both dimensionless (mental) and dimensional (material).

Top Down and Bottom Up Ontological mathematics is a top down, deductive approach to understanding existence. It uses a single general principle (the principle of sufficient reason) to derive everything else. It furnishes a grand unified, final theory of everything. Science is a bottom up, inductive approach to understanding existence. It observes countless disparate “facts” (they are actually interpretations), and seeks to work out provisional hypotheses that group together some of these facts. It can never provide a grand unified, final theory of anything. It can’t see the wood for the trees.

The Limits “Only math can touch the limits of existence. Pure rationality reveals that all is math, all is mind. Things just got a lot less ‘solid’.” –

http://mathmonism.com

Science Science is mathematical rationalism replaced by philosophical empiricism, reason replaced by the senses, intelligibility replaced by sensibility, consistency and completeness replaced by ad hoc heuristics, eternity replaced by temporality, necessity replaced by contingency, deduction replaced by induction, the noumenal replaced by the phenomenal. Every time it was offered a choice, science chose wrongly, and not once did it justify its selection, beyond the childish notion of “it worked”. On that basis, Islam and Christianity – with billions of successfully brainwashed believers – “worked”!

Black Holes DM: “Funny, black holes are non physical objects but they have mass.” It’s not “funny”. It’s wrong. Black holes don’t have any mass. They have mental energy, which, if it were to appear in spacetime, would take on the characteristics of physical mass. Science has no concept of dimensionless existence, so it has to fallaciously assign mass to singularities, even though mass can’t possibly be compatible with a singularity, given that a singularity is immaterial, and outside space and time. As ever, science is hoist with its own petard. It has to force-fit spacetime concepts – such as mass – to singularities. It dogmatically refuses to contemplate mental energy outside space and time. Its fanatical dogmatism is exactly what will destroy it.

Monism Whenever you consider anything at all, you should try to frame it in terms of the problem of Cartesian substance dualism. Two incompatible substances cannot interact, and nor can two incompatible instances of anything else, whether principles, axioms, laws ... you name it. So, if

you’ve got anything that looks like the Cartesian problem in a different guise, you know you’ve made a mistake.

The Centre Monads (= souls) are made of light. The Singularity is made of light. The Singularity is the World Soul at the centre of the World Body (the physical universe), it’s the Light at the centre of the Darkness of the material universe, and appears in the dark universe via the light of countless suns. An individual monad is the divine light at the centre of the body. According to Gnosticism, spirits/souls are trapped in matter. The sparks of light are imprisoned and must escape back to their true home of divine illumination. The physical universe is a holographic projection from the light Singularity at the heart of existence.

The Logical Problem Many of those who seek to think deeply about mathematics feel much more comfortable and fluent with logic than they do with mathematics itself, so they attempt to cast mathematics as a form of logic. It’s not. Logic – valid logic – is derived solely from mathematics. Monads aren’t logical units, they’re mathematical units. Therefore, it’s absurd to try to use logic to express something that is fundamentally mathematical. Logic isn’t some free-floating abstraction any more than math itself is. It has to be grounded in ontology. It has to be conveyed by something that actually exists. All that actually exists are monads, and all valid logic therefore flows from mathematical ontology. Everything starts with ontology. Everything must be based on ontology. Ontology always comes first. Ontology, ontology, ontology. Get with the programme.

***** To most of those who think about mathematics, math is an unreal abstraction, and so is logic. Logic seems easier to get a handle on, and more basic than mathematics, and thus, so the thinking goes, logic must be the foundation of math. Such thinkers have never once imagined mathematics

as ontological. They have always left what they imagine is “real” to science. Big mistake. Mathematics is about the ontological rather than the logical game. Mathematics is competing with science, not with logic. Unless you can grasp what mathematics is ontologically, you will never succeed in defining it. People such as Bertrand Russell were clueless about what math is. They had zero conception of the ontology of mathematics. As empiricists, what they could imagine as real were sets ... containers with objects in them. Thus the ludicrous notion was born that mathematics should be all about set theory. In fact, math is about energy, not sets, so any approach to mathematics that isn’t based on energy is automatically fallacious. Logic, sets and axioms just don’t cut it. Whenever you think of math, think of energy in itself. Unless you can grasp math in terms of energy, you will never understand what math is, and how it defines reality. Forget logic, unless it’s the logic of energy. Energy is real, not abstract. If you are treating math (energy) as abstract, you have failed.

***** How many people would regard logic or modal logic as the appropriate means for conducting science? So why would anyone apply logic or modal logic to monads and their sinusoidal energy components? Monads are pure energy systems. The science of monads is the science of energy, not the science of logic. We need to heal the rift between physics and metaphysics, not widen it. The metaphysical domain is not an unreal abstraction concerned with logic and cut off from the facts of the world. It is in fact the domain of mind. Physics and metaphysics can only be linked via mathematics, not logic. The metaphysical domain is about mental, dimensionless, noumenal energy, and the physical domain about material, dimensional, phenomenal energy. No one would ever use logic to perform calculations in physics, and nor should they do so in metaphysics. The functional purpose of logic is to sift out hypotheses, theories and interpretations that are plainly not logical. Had logic been properly applied by physicists, we would have been spared Einstein’s ridiculous relativity principle that contradicts the reality principle, we would have been spared the lunacy of quantum indeterminacy and indeterminism, we would have

been spared the insane many worlds and Multiverse ideologies, we would have been spared the deranged proposal that existence can leap out of nonexistence for no reason, and so on. Therefore, logic has a vital support role to play, but it must be absolutely the servant of math, and never the master. It must never be the focus of attention. That role must always fall to ontological mathematics = energy.

***** Never forget, math and energy are one and the same. Math does not equal logic, and is not derived from logic. On the contrary, valid logic is derived from math.

The House of God? A racist maniac shot up black people in a Church. Leaving aside the horror and grotesque nature of the event, doesn’t the incident expose the sheer absurdity of believing in God? If God can’t even protect you when you’re praying to him in his own house, how can he help you in any circumstances whatever? Such an incident should be taken as the proof that there is no God. Instead, twice as many people go to Church the next day, and are twice as fanatical in their devotion to their God. That’s how hard it is to get rid of Christianity. A blatant refutation of Christianity is converted in the minds of believers into the supreme affirmation of his existence. That’s how insane Christians are. They can play no part in a rational world.

***** Where was God when his worshippers were being slaughtered? Having a rest? What kind of God is he? Of what conceivable use is he to anyone?

Morals LJ: “The argument I hate most is when someone says I have to have a religion to possess morals.” If you need to have religion before you have morals, you’re not moral. You are saying that without religion to restrain you – without your belief in your God – you would be a beast doing whatever you like. Or an anarchocapitalist libertarian support of the Tea Party!

Greeks Not Bearing Gifts If international banks irresponsibly and recklessly lent too much money to Greece, why is it Greece’s problem and not the banks’? The insane situation we have arrived at is that banks now lend the money to the Greeks that is required for Greece to repay the banks it owes. The health of the economy and the welfare of the Greek people is irrelevant to the banks. They just want the money back that they should never have loaned in the first place.

C. S. Peirce “The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.” – C. S. Peirce This is a very similar view to Lamarckian evolution, and Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, both of which are based on habituation. “But before this can be accepted it must show itself capable of explaining the tridimensionality of space, the laws of motion, and the general characteristics of the universe, with mathematical clearness and precision; for no less should be demanded of every Philosophy.” – C. S. Peirce Ontological mathematics – in particular ontological Fourier mathematics – accomplishes exactly this. Mere logic cannot do it. “The third faculty we shall need is the generalizing power of the mathematician who produces the abstract formula that comprehends the very essence of the feature under examination purified from all admixture of extraneous and irrelevant accompaniments.” – C. S. Peirce Noumenal mathematics strips all appearances from the phenomenal mathematics deployed by science. “Almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish – one word being defined by other words: and they by still others, without any real conception ever been reached – or else downright absurd.” – C. S. Peirce Only ontological mathematics – which directly ties metaphysics to mathematics – can stop metaphysics from being absurd. Logic offers no

help.

The Fear Have you noticed how much scientists loathe us? Where it once Abrahamists who were our most vocal critics, it’s now scientists who feel most threatened by us and are compelled to post their irrational comments on Illuminist Facebook pages, and to give our books 1-star reviews, and so on. What could be more glorious than to piss off both the religious nuts and the scientific nuts ... the people of irrational feelings (religion), and the people of the irrational senses (science)? Reason is hateful to all irrational people, all people who refuse to think. Neither your senses, nor your feelings, nor your mystical intuitions, are “thinking”. Only reasoning is thinking, and humanity does precious little of it.

Energy The word “energy”, from the ancient Greek energeia, was used by Aristotle with the sense of “actuality, reality, existence” (as opposed to “potentiality”). In the context of rhetoric and art (poetry and plays), Aristotle used “energeia” to refer to the production of a powerful, lifelike effect through words. “Energy” is true in relation to Logos, but it produces an imitation of truth in relation to Mythos. An imitation can never be true. Hence, we are dealing with the energy of the Lie rather than the energy of the Truth. Human history has shown that the energy of the Lie is much more powerful and seductive to the human mind than the energy of the Truth. So it goes. Humans are under the spell of words (Mythos), and find numbers (Logos) cold, abstract and unreal. Humanity is utterly alienated from the Truth. It has always been so.

The War To Come There’s an undeclared war between Saudi Arabia, home of Sunni Islam, and Iran, home of Shia Islam. All sorts of proxy wars are currently being fought between these two Islamic nations. From the point of view of the West, the

best thing that could happen is for there to be an all-out Islamic Civil War between Sunnis and Shias, reminiscent of the tumultuous Civil War of Christianity between the Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Such cataclysms always usher in new thinking. The Western Enlightenment followed the religious wars. The Islamic Enlightenment will arrive only when Iran and Saudi Arabia have undergone a war that convulses the entire Islamic world (and, as a bonus, takes all of their attention away from Westerners).

The Right Mind Who in their right mind would go on holiday to a Muslim country? Who in their right mind would mix with religious Muslims? It’s time an Iron Curtain came down between the West and Islam.

If They Could, They Would If Muslim fundamentalists had nuclear or biological weapons, they would use them without hesitation. Luckily, they’re too stupid to produce dangerous weapons. Anyone who reads the Koran rather than books on science and math will never have any weapons more dangerous than swords, Kalashnikovs and whatever they can steal from smarter people. The biggest weapon of the Islamic State is medieval Terror.

Gottlob Frege “Frege put mathematics on a new and more solid foundation.” – Richard Osborne In fact, he put mathematics on a completely fallacious basis, wholly sundered from ontology. “He purged mathematics of mistaken, sloppy reasoning and the influence of Pythagoras.” – Richard Osborne No, he saturated mathematics with mistaken, sloppy reasoning. Pythagoras – the first ontological mathematician – is exactly the person to whom mathematics must return. “He gave a new, rigorous definition of numbers.” – Richard Osborne

No he didn’t. He provided a 100% false definition of numbers. Numbers must be defined ontologically (in terms of energy). “He showed that Kant’s theory of mathematical propositions as synthetic a priori was wrong.” – Richard Osborne Well, at least he got that right! It’s analytic a priori. “Mathematics [for Frege] is not a mystical, separate entity. ... It is simply a projection of our ability to think clearly, simply a branch of logic.” – Richard Osborne Oh dear. Wrong! Mathematics is none other than the language of existence. Mathematics is the fibre and fabric of existence. Mathematics is energy. Mathematics is the basis of ontology and epistemology. Logic is a branch of mathematics. People such as Frege inverted the truth of mathematics, and have held back mathematical progress for a hundred years. Rather than bringing mathematics closer to science, they took it further away, and made its use in science all the more baffling. “The logical analysis begun by Frege led to the school of thought which is called analytic philosophy, and which is still popular today. As a school it has many strands. All are based on the new logic and share the analytic approach stemming from Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein. Characteristic of the school is the desire to clarify, through analysis, and a hostility towards metaphysics.” – Richard Osborne The influence of Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein was as disastrous for philosophy as it was for mathematics. These three individuals in particular have had a catastrophic effect on modern thought. They have destroyed philosophy – turned it into the most boring subject imaginable with nothing to say about the big metaphysical questions of existence – and turned mathematics into an equally pointless branch of analytic philosophy. All three of them were unquestionably autistic. Ontological mathematics – bringing with it the rebirth of metaphysics and all the major existential issues that philosophy traditionally dealt with – is the antidote to these three enemies of reason. They must be swept into philosophical and mathematical oblivion. All people who find metaphysics absurd and meaningless are without doubt on the autistic spectrum. They are locked into the sensory world and

have no intuition or imagination. Interestingly, Gödel – who was fascinated by metaphysics – wasn’t autistic, but was certainly mentally ill. The Logical Positivism of the Vienna Circle, the Logical Atomism of Russell and Wittgenstein, Russell and Whitehead’s Logicism, and Wittgenstein’s ordinary language philosophy are all examples of autistic philosophy. Under the influence of these autistic movements, mathematics has been rendered autistic too. It’s essential for mathematics to return to Pythagorean ontological metaphysics where all things are made of numbers, and number rules all. “In spite of the epoch-making nature of [Frege’s] discoveries, he remained wholly without recognition until I drew attention to him in 1903.” – Bertrand Russell Russell, inspired by Frege, was yet another disastrous figure in mathematical history, drawing mathematicians away from the ontology of numbers. He was the Pied Piper of empiricism and logicism. “Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), claimed to solve all the problems of philosophy ... My dream was to create a perfect, logical language able to state everything with the utmost precision [Wittgenstein]... . In the Tractatus Wittgenstein argued that everything that could be thought could also be said ... whereas nothing can be said about something, like God, that can’t be properly thought [Wittgenstein]... Philosophy is clarity. It became clear that much philosophy can be reduced to what one might call syntax. My arguments serve as a ladder to be thrown away once you’ve climbed up. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent. [Wittgenstein]” – Richard Osborne It’s impossible for any manmade language to be perfect. It will always be inconsistent, incomplete, and mired in ambiguity and confusion. The only perfect language is ontological mathematics. It alone is complete and consistent. Wittgenstein’s philosophy is mystical twaddle. Wittgenstein said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” No one was more bewitched than he was. He tried to give to imprecise words and manmade language the role that can only be played by precise numbers and the natural language of existence (mathematics). “The limits of my language are the limits of my reality.” – Wittgenstein

So, if you don’t know the language of existence – ontological mathematics – you cannot know existence. Your subjective “reality” stops short of objective reality. The language in which you think has limited your scope to comprehend the universe. Manmade languages, including science, put limits on reality that are not genuinely there. Science limits reality to the undefined thing called “matter”. It has no language for addressing mind, so it cannot formulate thoughts about mind, except as some bizarre and miraculous emergent property of matter. “Out of Wittgenstein also came the logical positivism that was also known as the Vienna Circle. They all adored logic, as well as analysis, and totally hated Hegel. This school introduced the famous Verification Principle (The meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification) which Karl Popper turned into his own Falsification Thesis (You can’t believe something unless it is falsifiable). A proposition has meaning only if it can be shown true or false. There are logical forms of truth and factual forms. Factual truths can only be demonstrated through experience (verification). The logical positivists didn’t give up philosophy like Wittgenstein but went on doing ‘analysis’ all over the world. Failure to solve its problems about how language does work, however, led to logical positivism going round in circles.” – Richard Osborne A huge amount of philosophy and mathematics of the last century has been driven by autism. Autistics loathe Hegel in particular because he’s incomprehensible to them. Hegelian philosophy should actually be used a diagnostic tool in deciding whether someone has autism. Equally, if someone is in raptures over Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein, it’s case closed ... they’re definitely autistic. Amusingly, Wittgenstein went through a second philosophical phase where he repudiated everything he said first time round. Sadly, his second philosophy was every bit as inept as his first. Autistic thinking is popping up everywhere. Computing, scientific materialism, analytic philosophy, mathematics, economics and a great deal of politics, are under the sway of autism. Many Jews are autistics, and they have a disproportionate say over the intellectual agenda. Ontological mathematics – bringing back metaphysics – opposes the autistic agenda, and the autistic stranglehold over universities. Anyone who is obsessed with sensory “evidence” is on the autistic spectrum.

It’s time for the intellectual agenda to be set by imaginative intuitives and rationalists, not sensory autistics. With ontological mathematics, humanity can return to religion – rationally this time – and once again address the big questions of existence. Intuitives have a vast canvas while autistics want to apply an extreme reducing valve to everything and make the universe small, narrow, pathetic, purposeless and meaningless.

The “One” All religions and indeed nearly all systems of thought have a reference to some kind of mysterious Singularity – the One. For Pythagoras, it was the Monad, the source of all numbers, hence all things. For Schopenhauer, it was the Will outside space and time. For Plato, it was his domain of perfect Forms. For Aristotle, it was his God of Reason. The One – outside space and time – is present in Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The Abrahamic God is usually conceived as an immaterial being outside space and time, hence he is the “One” too. Neoplatonism spoke of the ineffable One as the source of all, and Kabbalah gave this a Jewish makeover. Often, it is stated that nothing precise can be said about the One. Humanity knows what it is not but not what it is. For Kant, the One was an unknowable noumenal domain outside space and time that gave rise to the phenomenal world. Even science’s Big Bang Singularity is a mysterious One that springs out of nothingness by some unexplained random event and gives rise to the material world. Often, the One is said to be indeterminate. It is not “being” but, rather, precedes “being”; it is not substance but precedes substance; it has no predicates but gives rise to predicates. You will see all of this kind of talk in Kabbalah. Illuminism differs from all other systems in its portrayal of the One because whereas they all leave it essentially indeterminate and unknowable, Illuminism makes it precisely determinate and knowable by identifying it as ontological mathematics from which all things come. To be more exact, the One consists of infinite mathematical monadic minds, defined by the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula).

Everyone is right that the One is the source of everything, but only Illuminism is right about what the One actually is.

The Tale Write the tale of your own life. The end is up to you. Make it a good one. Make it the best.

The Shallow Ones The noisiest part of the swimming pool is the shallow end. The noisiest critics of Illuminism are the shallowest, those who understand the least about it.

The Tea Party “Genetic studies show that we are ten times more closely related to chimps than a mouse is related to a rat.” – the BBC

Autistics Autistics – those with extreme sensory brains – see everything, every tiny little detail. Imagine how impossible it must be for them to conceive of things that can’t be seen at all? All people defined by their senses are baffled by the notion of non-sensory things. To an intuitive, it’s obvious that we have soul. To a sensing type, such as a scientist or autistic, the soul is an absurdity.

Precision Only numbers are precise. Words aren’t. Words can never articulate anything clearly, precisely and unambiguously. Only numbers are consistent with the principle of continuity. Logic can’t be used to track continuous processes and trajectories, and nor can words. Math can.

Peano Axioms “In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind– Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are a set of axioms for the natural

numbers presented by the 19th century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of metamathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of whether number theory is consistent and complete. ... “In 1900, David Hilbert posed the problem of proving their consistency using only finitistic methods as the second of his twenty-three problems. In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved his second incompleteness theorem, which shows that such a consistency proof cannot be formalized within Peano arithmetic itself. “Although it is widely claimed that Gödel’s theorem rules out the possibility of a finitistic consistency proof for Peano arithmetic, this depends on exactly what one means by a finitistic proof. Gödel himself pointed out the possibility of giving a finitistic consistency proof of Peano arithmetic or stronger systems by using finitistic methods that are not formalizable in Peano arithmetic, and in 1958 Gödel published a method for proving the consistency of arithmetic using type theory. In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen gave a proof of the consistency of Peano’s axioms, using transfinite induction up to an ordinal called ε0. ... Gentzen’s proof is arguably finitistic, since the transfinite ordinal ε0 can be encoded in terms of finite objects ... Whether or not Gentzen’s proof meets the requirements Hilbert envisioned is unclear: there is no generally accepted definition of exactly what is meant by a finitistic proof, and Hilbert himself never gave a precise definition. “The vast majority of contemporary mathematicians believe that Peano’s axioms are consistent, relying either on intuition or the acceptance of a consistency proof such as Gentzen’s proof. The small number of mathematicians who advocate ultrafinitism reject Peano’s axioms because the axioms require an infinite set of natural numbers.” – Wikipedia Note how mired in confusion this whole subject is. This can be no conceivable basis for the definition of mathematics. For Peano’s axioms to be consistent they must in fact be shown to be derived from, or implied by, the God Equation, i.e. each axiom must be demonstrated to have the same root, in which case all of the axioms are automatically complete and consistent. They are all tautologies: the same thing expressed in different ways. From any axiom, any valid starting point, we should be able to work our way back to the God Equation.

Stories and Dreams Why are humans story people? Because stories convey sensations and feelings. Our dreams are all about sensations and dreams. You almost never encounter numbers, equations, formulae, and logic in dreams. People don’t think rationally; they think narratively.

What’s the Opposite of an Islamic Virgin? It’s estimated that the Islamic State has 20,000 fighters and 2,000 women to support them. That means that if all the women are shared out equally, they each fuck ten fighters. The Koran lied ... it said that every fighter gets seventy-two virgins. In fact, the female supporters of the Islamic State are all well-broken in. They’re all highly experienced fuckers. They don’t get their virginity restored when they go to their bloodstained “paradise”.

A Hero Of Our Time The brilliant Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis resigned with the parting comment, “Soon after the announcement of the referendum results, I was made aware of a certain preference by some Eurogroup participants [Eurozone finance ministers], and assorted ‘partners’, for my … ‘absence’ from its meetings; an idea that the prime minister judged to be potentially helpful to him in reaching an agreement. For this reason I am leaving the Ministry of Finance today. I consider it my duty to help Alexis Tsipras exploit, as he sees fit, the capital that the Greek people granted us through yesterday’s referendum. And I shall wear the creditors’ loathing with pride.”

How Ants Find the Food Ants have an astonishingly efficient way of finding food sources. Ants set out in every direction, secreting a pheromone trail as they go (which they can use to find their way back). If they find food, they then lay another pheromone trail on top of the original, thus doubling its concentration. If they don’t find any food, they don’t leave a second trail, so the trail’s pheromone concentration doesn’t change. New ants out foraging detect the strength of the pheromone signal, so they will follow the route that has twice as much concentration. They, in turn, will leave additional pheromone

on the way back. Very rapidly, all productive routes (with food at their end) become high in pheromone concentration while all non-productive routes (with no food) become relatively lower in pheromone signal, and soon die out. This process, by doing nothing more than doubling the pheromone trail on the way back (to signal the successful finding of food), soon allows all ants to know where the food is and where it isn’t.

The Terrific Blow “It is likely that all mathematicians ultimately would have accepted Hilbert’s approach had he been able to carry it out successfully. The first steps were inspiring and promising. But then Gödel dealt it a terrific blow (1931), from which it has not yet recovered. Gödel enumerated the symbols, formulas, and sequences of formulas in Hilbert’s formalism in a certain way, and thus transformed the assertion of consistency into an arithmetic proposition. He could show that this proposition can neither be proved nor disproved within the formalism. This can mean only two things: either the reasoning by which a proof of consistency is given must contain some argument that has no formal counterpart within the system, i.e., we have not succeeded in completely formalizing the procedure of mathematical induction; or hope for a strictly ‘finitistic’ proof of consistency must be given up altogether. When G. Gentzen finally succeeded in proving the consistency of arithmetic he trespassed those limits indeed by claiming as evident a type of reasoning that penetrates into Cantor’s ‘second class of ordinal numbers.’” – Hermann Weyl “In 1936 Gerhard Gentzen, a member of the Hilbert school, proved the consistency of arithmetic, but it wasn’t within a finitary formal system. His proof involved the sort of transfinite reasoning that Hilbert had proposed be banished in favour of finitary formal systems.” – Rebecca Goldstein “The original proposals of the formalists to make classical mathematics secure by a consistency proof did not contemplate that such a method as transfinite induction up to ε0 would have to be used. To what extent the Gentzen proof can be accepted as securing classical number theory in the sense of that problem formulation is in the present state of affairs a matter for individual judgement, depending on how ready one is to accept induction up to ε0 as a finitary method.” – Stephen Cole Kleene

“The smallest epsilon number ε0 is very important in many induction proofs, because for many purposes, transfinite induction is only required up to ε0 (as in Gentzen’s consistency proof and the proof of Goodstein’s theorem).” – Wikipedia “Gentzen’s consistency proof is a result of proof theory in mathematical logic. It ‘reduces’ the consistency of a simplified part of mathematics, not to something that could be proved in that same simplified part of mathematics (which would contradict the basic results of Kurt Gödel), but rather to a simpler logical principle.” – Wikipedia “Although ‘finitistic mathematics’ was not given a precise characterisation, it was clear that it was concerned with concrete spatio-temporal objects and that it was to employ only elementary (‘finitistic’) combinatorial methods. These methods were supposed to be epistemically secure and intuitively evident in a Kantian sense. It would then be possible, Hilbert thought, to find a common Kantian foundation for classical mathematics and intuitionistic mathematics. “This programme was shattered by Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem which showed that consistency proofs of the kind Hilbert envisaged are not possible. A revised version of the Hilbert programme was started by Gentzen, in which the finitistic principles were extended. A novel principle was transfinite induction on a well-order defined by a finitistic notation system for ordinals. Such a system is supposed to be intuitively well-founded. Thus making the induction principle valid. ... Gentzen proved the consistency of Peano arithmetic within a standard finitistic system extended with induction up to every ordinal number less than ε0. This can of course only be a relative consistency proof. ... “Another optimistic belief held by Hilbert was that every mathematical question was in principle decidable. This view seem to been brought down by Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem. A possible way around this is to introduce a progression of ever more powerful systems, that would eventually decide a certain problem. The progression should naturally not be arbitrary, but driven by the intuition of the human mind.” – Sten Lindström, Erik Palmgren Note the key phrase “it was clear that [finitistic mathematics] was concerned with concrete spatio-temporal objects”. Here we see the central fallacy of this entire subject. It’s predicated on a sensory, empiricist,

scientific conception of reality, not one based on the ontology of mathematics, independent of space and time. Hilbert’s whole conception of mathematics was wrong, and all of his rivals’ systems were equally wrong. Ontological mathematics alone is correct, and all valid mathematical proofs and methods must reflect ontological mathematics, hence sinusoidal waves, monads (zero/infinity singularities), and the God Equation. As soon as you have conceived of mathematics incorrectly, all of your methods and “proofs”, no matter how ingenious, are about as meaningful as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, or Islam. An inconsistent and incomplete system can “prove” anything, such as cats being simultaneously dead and alive, or existence jumping out of nonexistence for no reason. Only a complete and consistent system can yield valid proofs. Without the correct ontology and epistemology, you literally have nothing ... nothing meaningful, nothing that constitutes knowledge.

Self-Limiting The marvellous thing about Islam is that it’s self-limiting. While the Muslims slavishly devote themselves to the Koran, they will never be intelligent, and will never rise above mere barbarism and terrorism. Equally, if Muslims started studying science and math books, they would soon enough abandon Islam.

The Beard Being clean-shaven is a death sentence for a man in the Islamic State. Sell your shares in any companies making razors! Hold on. Razors are good for slitting infidels’ throats. Buy your shares back!

Muslims The overwhelming majority of Muslims are of course decent people at core, but not a single one of these people wouldn’t be more decent as nonMuslims. The same goes for Jews, Christians and Karmists.

The Unholy Month “Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first

revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief.” – Wikipedia Ramadan is the Islamic holy month and is declared to be a time of selfsacrifice, peace, spirituality, reflection and reconnection with Allah. Or is it a month of sacrificing others, jihad and unlimited terror that, according to the Islamic Caliphate, should be, “A month of calamities for the infidels”? Absolutely everything in Islam can be inverted. A suicide bomber – instead of being regarding as a mass murderer of innocent people – can claim to be engaging in self-sacrifice and doing the holy work of Allah by slaughtering infidels. Ramadan – month of peace ... or month of war? With Islam, who knows? This is a religion with a 100% range. What is black is white, and vice versa.

No Final Theory of Science? “Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Gödel’s theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics. ... “Gödel [carefully distinguished] between mathematics, like 2 + 2 = 4, and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. That is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple. First Gödel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2 + 2 = 4, can be given a unique number, the Gödel number. The Gödel number of 2 + 2 = 4, is *. Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Gödel numbers for A and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I’m not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, ‘mathematics is cool’. Third and last, consider the self referring Gödel statement, G. This is, the statement G cannot be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then

the axioms must be inconsistent because one could both demonstrate G and show that it cannot be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can’t be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which cannot be deduced from the axioms. Thus mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete. ... “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I’m now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.” – Stephen Hawking People like Hawking obviously don’t want an answer to existence. This is true of an astonishing number of scientists. Since they don’t want one, they don’t look for one, and wouldn’t know how to. Experiments cannot answer existence. The senses can’t. Feelings can’t. Faith can’t. Mysticism can’t. Only reason can. If you haven’t worked out that reason alone can furnish an answer to a rational, intelligible universe, how stupid are you? Reason, ontologically, is of course expressed through mathematics.

***** In ontological mathematics, numbers are actual things (energy sinusoids), so no kind of “mapping” can take place to anything else and remain valid ontologically. You can map gold to lead but that doesn’t make gold lead. They are ontologically different things. You can’t ontologically map an energy sinusoid to anything that is not an energy sinusoid. An energy sinusoid is a specific, real entity that can’t be mapped to anything else. Gödel’s entire technique is predicated on mapping – on numerical “neutrality” rather than numerical ontology – on one thing being validly recast in other terms, with no loss of meaning or reality. This technique is totally redundant with regard to ontology. Nothing ontological can ever be re-expressed as something else ... because then it would no longer be what it actually is.

***** “You” – your life force – cannot be mapped to a bunch of random, lifeless, mindless atoms, as science idiotically claims.

Skeptics? On the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe Facebook page, a Christian is depicted asking, “How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?” The page then provides a scientific diagram describing a sunset, according to the prevailing scientific materialist model of reality. Of course, the skeptics are so dumb – so unskeptical towards their own prejudices – that they don’t realise they haven’t explained anything at all. You can’t explain anything if you cannot explain everything. How do the skeptics insert probability, indeterminism, acausation, relativity, uncertainty, randomness, chance, accident, wavefunction collapse – a total absence of ontological and epistemological explanation – into their pathetic little diagram, their puerile little Mythos that they clutch to themselves like a comfort blanket? A scientist ultimately believes (if you trace back their “explanation” far enough) that sunsets jump out of non-existence for no reason via no mechanism. How can anyone regard that as any better an “answer” than “God”? The trouble with all of these skeptics is that they’re as dumb as the people of faith whom they relentlessly mock. They ought to do a crash course in Leibniz and Nietzsche. They ought to start being properly skeptical and stop uncritically buying into the absurd, irrational scientific Mythos. To all scientists ... what is a sunset like from the perspective of a photon? If you can’t answer that, how can you explain a sunset? You’re just presenting a human model, based on the fallible human senses.

The Purpose What is the ultimate purpose of existence? In fact, existence, as a living entity, can have only one ... to explain itself to itself, to know and understand itself, to know why and how. Only Gods can answer that, hence existence produces Gods in order to provide the answer to itself. Existence is ontological reason (mathematics). The supreme task of reason is to give the reason for its own existence. The dialectic is all about existence finding the answer to itself. Existence is an answering machine – an answering life force – answering itself. Existence is the life force answering its own question –

what, why and how am I? Existence is reason reasoning out what, why and how it is. Science is interested only in how, hence can never explain why.

***** Leibniz said that we are all unique substances: unique monads. We are unique information systems, yet all information is ultimately defined by one equation – the generalized Euler Formula. We are all Euler-monads. We are living equations, living, self-solving, self-optimising information formulae. What else could we possibly be? Miraculous creations of a miraculous God, as Abrahamism says? Miraculous products of random processes happening for no reason, as science says?

The Soul Camera PT: “Perhaps the only synthesis is an emergent society where the intuitive thinkers are at the helm, steering the rest of humanity through the abyss. Pythagoras was considered a god by some during his life (and he practically was!) but he used mystique, magic and secrecy to conjure up his reputation, in order that those with lesser minds would see him as such. We need a modern version of the Pythagorean school with just as alluring a reputation to be able to make any mark on history. A new society should be formed, where the intuitive thinkers are regarded as philosopher kings. This is what I have always presumed the Soul Camera was for; a natural soul sorter so to speak, akin to Plato’s soul grades, though whether the Soul Camera was a necessary lie, or a truism is another story. Can we empirically view the soul and gather information on it? I am skeptical about it because of the fact that the monad is supposed to be purely mental, dimensionless a priori thing hence beyond the reach of empirical investigation. But if they have invented a camera like device which uses six dimensional mathematics in some way or another, then the enlightenment is sure to come directly after the announcement of such a device.” We live in an entirely monadic universe. Monads, their properties, their functions, their perceptions, their thoughts, their interactions, are all that exist. We are immersed in an ocean of mathematical information, both seen

and unseen. All that is seen is implicit in all that is unseen. Everything is math. The task is simply to sift that mathematical information, and organise it properly, according to its originating monads. Swedenborg said there was a correspondence between heaven and earth. From a proper study of correspondences, he said, we can map back from the earth to heaven (retro-map, we might say). By the same token, by a study of matter, we can map back to mind ... if we know what we’re doing, what we’re looking for, and we’re using the right math. Earth is a mirror of heaven. The cosmic hologram is the product of the Singularity. From the study of the hologram we can “see” the contents of the Singularity. It’s all in the math ... in the Fourier transform. Leibniz said, “Each body is affected by the bodies that touch it, and feels some effects of everything that happens to them; but also through them it also feels the effects of all the bodies that touch them, and so on, so that such communication extends indefinitely. As a result, each body feels the effects of everything that happens in the universe, so that he who sees everything could read off from each body what is happening everywhere; and, indeed, because he could see in its present state what is distant both in space and in time, he could read also what has happened and what will happen.” God has his own Soul Camera. In fact, we might actually call the Soul Camera the God Camera. It gives us God’s view of souls. It allows us to judge who are the damned (the Abrahamists, Karmists and materialists) and who are the elect (the enlightened, the illuminated ones, the Illuminati!).

The Collective Consciousness The Collective Consciousness already exists. It’s none other than human language and knowledge. We do not need to telepathically read each other’s minds. Rather, we simply tell each other what’s on our minds. We speak it to each other, or we write it down. What is the internet if not humanity’s collective consciousness – the noosphere. Here, humanity expresses its collective thoughts, and each person can read any other person’s thoughts. Even lies – which are deliberate attempts to conceal what’s on our mind in order to gain an advantage over others, or spare others from unpleasantness – are part of our collective consciousness. Human consciousness is actually much more defined by lies and fantasies than by truth. As Nietzsche observed, we have no sensory “organ for truth”.

Euclid’s Postulates “1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. “2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line. “3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as centre. “4. All right angles are congruent. “5. If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. This postulate is equivalent to what is known as the parallel postulate. “Euclid’s fifth postulate cannot be proven as a theorem, although this was attempted by many people. Euclid himself used only the first four postulates (‘absolute geometry’) for the first 28 propositions of the Elements, but was forced to invoke the parallel postulate on the 29th. In 1823, Janos Bolyai and Nicolai Lobachevsky independently realized that entirely self-consistent ‘non-Euclidean geometries’ could be created in which the parallel postulate did not hold. (Gauss had also discovered but suppressed the existence of non-Euclidean geometries.)” – Wolfram MathWorld Look at the diagram below. Note how the first four postulates are implicitly contained within Euler’s Formula, hence are tautologous with Euler’s Formula (or we might call them sub-tautologies, meaning that Euler’s Formula is by no means immediately apparent from any such postulate, but if we applied the principle of sufficient reason to any such valid postulate, we would find our way to Euler’s Formula):

Euclid, for all his brilliance, ultimately had a disastrous effect on the development of mathematics. He it was who put in place the notion that mathematics should be developed from apparently free-floating “postulates” or “axioms”, seemingly snatched out of the ether by human intuition, or – as far as some people were and are concerned – simply invented by the human mind (hence nothing to do with reality). The task is not to assemble a bunch of disparate axioms that seem plausible, and then construct mathematics from them by examining all of their consequences, but to find the unique formula that determines the whole of mathematics (including all so-called axioms), and then examine all of its consequences. The first approach is, as Gödel showed, one that invariably produces incompleteness and/or inconsistency. The reason for that is simple ... how can we ever know we have chosen all of the right, foundational axioms; how can we know that they are all logically compatible; how can we know that the axioms themselves are complete and consistent, how can we know that each proposed axiom doesn’t in fact belong to or imply a different ontological and epistemological system? For thousands of years, it was believed that Euclid had defined the geometry of the universe. Then non-Euclidean geometries were discovered in which Euclid’s fifth postulate (the parallel postulate) did not hold. This means that the ontology and epistemology proposed by Euclid was incomplete and/or inconsistent with regard to that implied by the inclusion of non-Euclidean geometries. This is always the problem inherent in Euclid’s axiomatic approach. You can never know which vital axioms you have left out, overlooked, or simply been unable to think of; which axioms are in fact highly debatable and actually extremely limited in scope, and even downright invalid; which axioms go with areas of mathematics you

haven’t yet conceived; which axioms are mutually compatible and which aren’t, and so on. If you are positing axioms that don’t fit together as part of a single, holistic, integrated, complete and consistent ontology and epistemology, then the system you subsequently construct from them is certain to be bogus. This is exactly where we are today. Abstract mathematics isn’t true mathematics. It contains all manner of inconsistencies and paradoxes, and is formally incomplete. The only way to make mathematics consistent and complete is to have a single starting point, and then to derive everything else – including all the things that are currently regarded as axioms and postulates – from that starting point. Since they all come from the same root, they are automatically complete and consistent. The true root of mathematics – the root that defines the ontology of mathematics – is Euler’s Formula. This cosmological formula is not constructed from any axioms. It is in fact established purely by applying the principle of sufficient reason to the simplest thing conceivable – the mathematical point, with no properties whatsoever (hence no ideological baggage, and no unwarranted assumptions). This is a radically different way of approaching mathematics. It makes the principle of sufficient reason – not axioms, logic, set theory, formal rules, “games”, or anything else – the true basis of mathematics, i.e. mathematics is simply ontological reason. Ontological mathematics is “top down”. You start from a single allpowerful principle – the only one that can conceivably define an entire, rational, intelligible, complete and consistent system. From the principle of sufficient reason, you derive the unique mathematical formula that expresses it and thus provides a sufficient reason for everything. In other words, the principle of sufficient reason must be identified at its most basic level with Euler’s Formula. The principle of sufficient reason = mathematics = everything that flows from Euler’s Formula. Starting from Euler’s Formula, we can derive a more expansive version of it (but still fully based on it) – the generalised Euler Formula – and it’s this that we label the “God Equation” since it explicitly contains all of the ingredients needed to build the universe (whereas they are implicit in the basic Euler Formula).

All other approaches to mathematics are “bottom up”, i.e. you take a group of ingredients, such as different axioms, and try to fit them together to create a complete and consistent system. No bottom up approach to math can ever lead to a complete and consistent system. Only a top down approach – based on a single principle, and not multiple disparate axioms with no necessary compatibility – can succeed. A single principle – translated into a single mathematical formula – can never be inconsistent and incomplete with regard to itself; it can never produce incompatible, rival ontologies and epistemologies; it can’t produce substance dualisms or pluralisms with insurmountable interactivity problems (as in Cartesian dualism). Mathematics, just like science, has been built up without proper regard to reason. It has frequently been an empirical undertaking, full of trial and error, and heuristic thinking – exactly as in science. It has frequently been dominated by the human senses, human imagination and human criteria of what is considered “real” and “unreal”. Negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero and infinity – all the numbers that are to this day loathed by scientists and regarded as “unreal” – were all once fiercely resisted by mathematicians too, and had an almighty struggled to gain acceptance. Most mathematicians living today are still as biased against them as any scientific materialist is. These numbers are viewed as mere tools, not as the basis of a formal ontology and epistemology that defines existence. Of the ancients, Pythagoras alone saw that mathematics wasn’t just some manmade construct but was in fact reality itself, reality in itself. The problem is that mathematics is a non-sensory subject which has nothing to do with the human senses and empiricism, yet simple-minded humans have always believed that what their senses show them is reality itself, and sensory reality doesn’t seem to be mathematical at all, i.e. it certainly doesn’t seem to be a parade of numbers or sinusoids. The senses are interpreters of mathematical information. They don’t present it to us directly. They repackage and represent it to us. They turn noumena into phenomena. They put an appearance on mathematical information which, regarded as pure rational Form, has no inherent appearance. And thus humans are deluded into believing that the sensory

illusion is the reality when in fact the true reality is completely non-sensory, i.e. pure math. You need to be rational to understand this, and precious few humans are. Scientists certainly aren’t, and nor are most philosophers, and even most mathematicians (!). So it goes.

Mass? DM: “Mass is the measure of how much matter a physical object has. It is not made of anything. So, what’s “matter”? Is matter made of something? What? Do you see how scientists never actually answer anything? They just go round and round. All of their definitions are circular. What’s a “physical” object? Where is any answer given to Bishop Berkeley that all that exists are minds and their ideas. Where is there any evidence that “matter” isn’t an idea in minds, to which we assign various numbers, (such as “mass”, “volume”, “density”, and so on)?

The Soul To deny the existence of the soul is to demonstrate a staggering lack of imagination, and an equally staggering lack of mathematical literacy. All people who deny the soul on “scientific” grounds – i.e. sensory grounds – are committing a category error. The soul is intelligible, not sensible. Only stupid people can’t get it that we have a soul.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason “... we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us.” – Leibniz “There is an infinity of figures ... of minute inclinations. Now, all of this detail implies previous or more particular contingents, each of which again stands in need of similar analysis to be accounted for, so that nothing is gained by such analysis. The sufficient or ultimate reason must therefore exist outside the succession of series of contingent particulars, infinite though this series be. Consequently, the ultimate reason of all things must subsist in a necessary substance, in which all particular changes may exist

only virtually as in its source: this substance is what we call God.” – Leibniz “Now we make use of the great principle that nothing takes place without a sufficient reason; in other words, that nothing occurs for which it would be impossible for someone who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason adequate to determine why the thing is as it is and not otherwise. This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’Further, assuming that things must exist, it must be possible to give a reason why they should exist as they do and not otherwise.” – Leibniz “Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things. Although the present motion arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God.” – Leibniz “Besides the World, that is, besides the aggregate of finite things, there is some dominant unit [that] not only rules the world, [but] also makes or creates it. It is superior to the world and, so to speak, beyond the world, and is therefore the ultimate reason for things. Neither in any single thing, nor in the total aggregate and series of things, can the sufficient reason for their existence be discovered. Let us suppose a book to have existed eternally, one edition having always been copied from the preceding: it is evident then that, although you can account for the present copy by reference to a past copy which it reproduces, yet, however far back you go you can never arrive at a complete [explanation], since you always will have to ask why at all times these books have existed, that is, why there have been any books at all and why this book in particular. What is true concerning these books is equally true concerning the diverse states of the world, for here too the following state is in some way a copy of the preceding one (although changed according to certain laws). However far you turn back you will never discover in any or all of these states the full reason why there is a world rather than nothing, nor why it is such as it is.” – Leibniz

“You may well suppose the world to be eternal; yet what you thus posit is nothing but the succession of its states, and you will not find the sufficient reason in any one of them, nor will you get any nearer to accounting rationally for the world by taking any number of them together: the reason must therefore be sought elsewhere. Things eternal may have no cause of existence, yet a reason for their existence must be conceived. Such a reason is, for immutable things, their very necessity or essence; while in the series of changing things, even though this series itself may be supposed a priori to be eternal, this reason would consist in the very prevailing of inclinations. For in this case reasons do not necessitate (that is, operate with absolute or metaphysical necessity, so that the contrary would imply contradiction), but only incline. Hence it is evident that even by supposing the world to be eternal, the recourse to an ultimate cause of the universe beyond this world, that is, to God, cannot be avoided.” – Leibniz “Since therefore the ultimate root of the world must be something which exists of metaphysical necessity, and since furthermore the reason for any existent can be only another existent, it follows that a unique entity must exist of metaphysical necessity, that is, there is a being whose essence implies existence. Hence there exists a being which is different from the plurality of beings, that is, from the world; for it has been granted and proved that the world does not exist of metaphysical necessity.” – Leibniz

No Identity It’s hard for any normal human being to build an identity around science given that science says we are meaningless, pointless, purposeless, doomed assemblies of lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms. Only a certain kind of autistic or psychopathic person can be attracted to such notions. Mathematics, on the other hand, gives us an immortal, indestructible soul. It gives us eternal energy. It gives us reason and logic. It promises absolute, infallible knowledge of everything. All rational, intellectual people are attracted to math, but not to science. Science is ugly, messy, uncertain, approximate, fallible, unreliable, subjective, clunky, inelegant, inconsistent and incomplete. It says a lot about you – extremely negatively – if you find science attractive. It means there’s something wrong with you. You are definitely not rational and logical.

The Elders Never listen to your elders ... unless they’re smart. A smart young person with very little experience can be far wiser than a stupid old person with lots of experience. Wisdom goes with smartness, not with experience. There are countless incredibly stupid old people who don’t seemed to have learned a single useful thing, or a single true thing, from life.

The Truth The question of what exactly truth is has exercised the best philosophical minds since antiquity. Pontius Pilate famously asked of Jesus Christ, “What is truth?”, and got no answer. In the 20th century, the nature of truth became a subject of particular interest to philosophers, but they preferred to ask a slightly different question, namely, what does it mean to say of any particular statement that it’s true? What criteria do we use to establish truth? Well, then, shall we use our feelings, senses, intuitions or reason to establish what is true and what isn’t? How you answer that question says everything about you, and determines what you will accept as the answer to existence.

The Torpedo “With the use of an ingenious proof Gödel was able to demonstrate that in any sufficiently complex system – in short, any system a mathematician would want to use – there are true statements that cannot be proven. Some thinkers despaired at this result. Others, like the formidable Wittgenstein could never accept it. And still others misunderstood it as a torpedo to the hull of rationality itself. For Gödel, however, it was evidence of an eternal, objective truth, independent of human thought, that can only be apprehended imperfectly by the human mind.” – Rebecca Goldstein Firstly, Gödel did not prove that in any “sufficiently complex system ... there are true statements that cannot be proven.” He proved that in certain types of system – manmade systems – there are apparently true statements that cannot be proven. Manmade systems are non-tautological systems whereas mathematics – true mathematics rather than manmade interpretations of mathematics – is

entirely, eternally and necessarily tautological, exactly as Wittgenstein pointed out. Tautology, to Wittgenstein, seemed empty and abstract. In fact, it’s the fullest, most complex and real thing you can get. Ontological mathematics is pure tautology yet entirely satisfies Leibniz’s requirement that the perfect world should be “the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” When properly understood, Gödel’s work simply demonstrated what is self-evidently true: that all manmade languages and approaches, no matter how ingeniously dressed up, are wrong. They are full of fallacies, inconsistencies and incompleteness. Ontological mathematics, the language of existence, of reality, of Nature, of Reason, suffers from no such defects. Only a system that is 100% tautological can be 100% true, consistent and complete. When Gödel pondered “an eternal, objective truth, independent of human thought, that can only be apprehended imperfectly by the human mind” he was spectacularly failing to grasp that human reason can easily grasp tautology, and, indeed, that tautology is the absolute essence of analytic reason. God himself has no more advantage than any rational human when it comes to rational tautology. It’s humanity’s strange resistance to tautology – including the Wittgensteinian belief that tautology is somehow abstract and empty – that Gödel unwittingly investigated. There is no problem of self-reference in tautology because the entire system is a self-referential unity. There is nothing outside it, hence nothing that can be inconsistent and incomplete with regard to it. Every statement in the system flows from and returns to every other statement in the system. This is what ontological mathematics is all about.

Possible and Compossible Unicorns are possible, but not compossible (as far as our world goes). You can imagine a unicorn, but you won’t encounter one. For you to be able to encounter something outside your mind, it must be both possible and compossible. Our private dreams describe possible things, but not necessarily compossible things. Our objective waking reality consists of all those things that are both possible and compossible. Real, objective existence is definable as those things which are both possible and compossible. Those things that are possible but not

compossible can be imagined but can have no real, objective existence. Anything that is neither possible nor compossible can’t even be conceived and can have no existence whatsoever. Science claims that all things that are possible must exist (i.e. science ignores compossibility). Therefore, if God is possible, even he must exist (!) ... according to science.

Nothing Nothing in science can falsify anything in mathematics. Nothing in science can verify anything in mathematics. Science, without mathematics, is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It’s pure religious faith. It’s augury.

Energy In science, energy is a formless substance, a kind of Aristotelian prime matter ... pure potentiality waiting to be actualised. In ontological mathematics, energy is wholly formed. It’s mathematical sinusoids.

Finitism “Finitism: An approach to mathematics that admits to the domain of mathematics only objects (numbers) that are capable of construction in a finite number of steps. Any general theorem that asserts something of all members of the domain is acceptable only if it can be proved, in a finite number of steps, to hold for each particular member of the domain. David Hilbert was the major proponent of finitistic methods in mathematics.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Do you see that Hilbert was implicitly signing up to the scientific Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, of the finite and local, and the rejection of zero, infinity and the non-local? In other words, he was applying a subjective philosophy to objective mathematics, an approach that’s always doomed to fail. Yet again, we see philosophical illiteracy leading to absurd conclusions. Given Hilbert’s attitude, you would imagine that mathematics still shrivels in terror from infinity, and still has zero understanding of it. In fact, infinity is referenced all the time in mathematics, so why would any person in their right mind suggest that the finite must be privileged over the infinite? This is the scientific worldview,

or one associated with computing science (where infinite steps must be avoided to prevent infinite looping). It has no place in mathematics.

***** Numbers are not only things that are not capable of construction in a finite number of steps, they are not “constructed” at all. All numbers are eternal, necessary ontologies.

***** David Hilbert didn’t accept the reality of the infinite. He wrote, “The infinite is nowhere realized. Neither is it present in nature nor is it admissible as a foundation of our rational thinking – a remarkable harmony between being and thinking.” Hilbert was the primary exponent of finitism. Wikipedia says, “Finitism is a philosophy of mathematics that accepts the existence only of finite mathematical objects. It is best understood in comparison to the mainstream philosophy where infinite mathematical objects (e.g., infinite sets) are accepted as legitimate within the Platonic universe of mathematics. “The main idea of finitistic mathematics is not accepting the existence of infinite objects such as infinite sets. While all natural numbers are accepted as existing, the set of all natural numbers is not considered to exist as a mathematical object. ... “There were various positions taken by mathematicians. All agreed about finite mathematical objects such as natural numbers. However there were disagreements regarding infinite mathematical objects. One position was the intuitionistic mathematics that was advocated by L. E. J. Brouwer, which rejected the existence of infinite objects until they are constructed. “Another position was endorsed by David Hilbert: finite mathematical objects are concrete objects, infinite mathematical objects are ideal objects, and accepting ideal mathematical objects does not cause a problem regarding finite mathematical objects. More formally, Hilbert believed that it is possible to show that any theorem about finite mathematical objects that can be obtained using ideal infinite objects can be also obtained without them. Therefore allowing infinite mathematical objects would not cause a problem regarding finite objects. This led to Hilbert’s program of proving consistency of set theory using finitistic means as this would imply

that adding ideal mathematical objects is conservative over the finitistic part. ... Hilbert’s goal of proving the consistency of set theory or even arithmetic through finitistic means turned out to be an impossible task due to Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. ... “In the years following Gödel’s theorems, as it became clear that there is no hope of proving consistency of mathematics, and with development of axiomatic set theories such as Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and the lack of any evidence against its consistency, most mathematicians lost interest in the topic. Today most classical mathematicians are considered Platonist and believe in the existence of infinite mathematical objects and a settheoretical universe.” This entire subject is flooded with unproven assumptions and conjectures. Tragically, none of it is relevant to the real world of ontological mathematics, of ontological monadic minds made of analytic sinusoids. The metamathematicians have constructed nothing but a glorified crossword puzzle expressed in mathematical and logical symbols. It’s just another manmade language, with all of the fallacies that entails.

***** If you have a true grasp of ontological mathematics, you will appreciate that it’s a radically different subject from what passes as mathematics in the academic world. We repudiate the type of mathematics taught in universities. It’s a betrayal of the proper roots of mathematics ... those of Pythagorean ontological mathematics. David Hilbert, a towering figure in modern mathematics, was much more concerned with scientific, empirical finitism than he was with mathematical ontology. Not a single modern mathematician looks to Leibniz’s Monadology as the basis of their subject. What a disgrace! Mathematics needs to undergo a revolution. It needs to be all about Pythagoras, Descartes, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Fourier and Riemann.

***** “The world would be nonsense, the whole creation an absurdity without immortality.” – Gauss The monadic soul must become the basis of mathematics, exactly as Pythagoras and Leibniz always intended. They mystery of the mind is

simply the mystery of mathematics ... something that humanity, with a few dazzling exceptions, has never grasped. Science can’t understand the mind precisely because it can’t understand and accept the ontology of mathematics. It’s not enough to do math. Unless you know what math is (its ontology), you have no idea what you are doing. No subject in intellectual history has been worse served than mathematics. Most of the people doing mathematics are clueless about what it is, and have turned it into nothing but an enormous abstract game, a super-crossword puzzle, or hyper-version of chess. Mathematics is in fact the arche, the foundation of existence, the fibre and fabric of existence, the unseen structure on which the whole of observable reality hangs. There is nothing more important for the human race than to finally wake up to what math actually is. Above all, math must be seen much less in connection with logic, and much more in connection with science. The relationship of math and science is the one that needs to be explored, not the one between math and logic. Sadly, professional mathematicians have never been remotely interested in supplanting empirical science with rational mathematics. They have all bought into the myth that math is abstract and science real. They have all bought into the ontologically absurd contention that the wavefunction of quantum mechanics is an unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality. Once you realise that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is a real, concrete, mathematical actuality – imaginary numbers and all – you finally grasp that everything you have been taught about quantum mechanics is wrong, and that the only way to make sense of quantum mechanics is to understand it as a theory of pure math (of ontological Fourier mathematics), and as absolutely nothing to do with scientific materialism and empiricism. The degree of intelligence required to understand what we are saying is so high and demanding that 99% of practising mathematicians and scientists will automatically reject ontological mathematics. We don’t care about them. The future will be decided by the 1% of mathematicians and scientists who realise that Pythagoras was right all along when he said that all things are numbers, and number rules all. Sometimes, you have to go backwards to go forwards. To return to Pythagoras is to return to a rational and intelligible account of reality rather than the empirical and sensible account provided by science. Humanity

must stop worshipping its senses, and trust in its reason and intellect. That’s the choice the Gods made and make.

Decidable “Decidable: Denoting a system or theory expressed in a logical language where there is an algorithm for determining, for any correctly formed sentence of the language, whether that sentence is or is not a theorem of that theory. A theorem is a sentence that is derivable from a theory using rules of logical inference.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Gödel proved that there were formally undecidable propositions in any formal system of arithmetic, i.e. a system of arithmetic reflecting the formalist ideology. Gödel wasn’t saying anything at all about the system of ontological mathematics. There can be no undecidables in ontological mathematics. It is automatically consistent and complete since it’s the expression of a single, all-powerful, all-embracing formula.

The Higher World of Reason In Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift mercilessly satirized intellectuals as hopelessly impractical dreamers who lived in the clouds (in fact, inside a flying island called Laputa). They were detached from the real world and from ordinary people, and spent their time obsessing over nonsense. Swift wrote, “It seems, the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, or attend to the Discourses of others, without being rouzed by some external Taction upon the Organs of speech and Hearing...” In other words, they had to be struck about the head to get their attention! Swift’s work is a brilliant satire of logicians and metamathematicians – people such as Russell, Frege, Hilbert, Gödel and Wittgenstein.

Head in the Clouds Laputa is a flying island described in Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift, and operates by magnetic levitation. Its population consists of highly educated but impractical thinkers obsessed with mathematics, astronomy, music and technology.

Wikipedia says, “Laputa is a male-dominated society. Wives often request to leave the island to visit the land below; however, these requests are almost never granted because the women who leave Laputa never want to return. The clothes of Laputans, which do not fit, are decorated with astrological symbols and musical figures. They spend their time listening to the music of the spheres. They believe in astrology and worry constantly that the sun will go out. ... The Laputan women are highly sexed and adulterous, preferring men from the island of Balnibarbi. The Laputan husbands, who are so abstracted in mathematical and musical calculations, don’t know that their wives are adulterous. “Due to their fervent intellectual pursuits, Laputans are also depicted as becoming so lost in thought that they do not move unless struck by a ‘bladder’, many of their heads have become stuck reclined to one side, and they often suffer from strabismus: one eye turns inward and the other looks up ‘to the zenith.’” Most logicians and metamathematicians are intellectual whores who have sold out to science. Rather than attempt to understand how math is the basis of reality, they have allowed scientists to claim to deal with reality, while they have agreed with scientists that math is an unreal abstraction.

Star Trek The United Space Ship Enterprise, of Star Trek fame, is a version of Laputa – the flying island of intellectuals – except it is manned with a rather more competent crew.

The Academy of Lagado In Gulliver’s Travels, Lagado is the capital of Balnibarbi, a nation whose king lives on the flying island of Laputa. The Academy of Lagado is every bit as eccentric as Laputa itself. Scientists attempt such feats as extracting sunbeams from cucumber, converting excrement back to food, and building houses by starting with the roof (top down rather than bottom up), etc. Most of the experiments parodied by Swift were genuinely proposed by English scientists of the time.

The Projectors The Academy of Lagado was full of “Projectors”. These were brilliant thinkers, each of whom had a pet project, with which they were entirely consumed. They obsessively pursued science and philosophy without regard for practical outcomes, and with a total neglect for their personal hygiene and grooming. They were archetypal absent-minded professors, “ivory tower” academics, and “mad scientists” engaged on fanciful tasks with no practical applications. As well as scientific and philosophical Projectors, there were also political Projectors. Swift claimed that the maddest of all Projectors were those who believed that government should comprise those who deserve their positions – a meritocracy! It does indeed seem inane at times to conceive of governments being run by smart, talented people who know what they’re doing, and who genuinely serve the people rather than themselves.

The Tax On Beauty Some of Lagado’s experts on government proposed that women should be taxed according to their beauty and the exquisiteness of their dresses. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to have a world where female beauty is financially penalised rather than rewarded, and the designer dresses of supermodels are subjected to swingeing taxation? Shouldn’t there be penal rates of taxation applied to celebrity culture?

Shit Stirring Other experts suggested that conspiracies against the government would surely be discovered by studying the excrement of subjects. What’s certainly true is that conspiracy theorists are full of shit!

The Universal Artist The Academy’s greatest treasure was a man known as “the universal artist” – a genius like Leonardo da Vinci working on many projects to benefit humanity – although Swift, true to type, satirized him as a hopeless buffoon.

The Random Word Generator In a clear satire of Leibniz’s various gadgets and attempts to automate thought itself, Swift described an experiment going on within the Academy whereby a professor constructed a giant square frame with a handle on each side, connected with wires on which were written all the words of the language of Laputa. By turning the frame, the professor’s students shook up the words hanging inside the square and randomly generated new combinations of words. The students were on the lookout for any combinations of three or four words that seemed to make sense, and dutifully wrote them down. From this exercise, the professor hoped to establish the complete set of meaningful phrases in the Laputan language. In fact, so the professor claimed, anyone using this machine could write an expert book on philosophy or politics. In another part of the Academy, a group of professors sought to create the perfect language, and thus avoid miscommunication between people, by cutting all long words down to one syllable, leaving out verbs, reducing everything to nouns, and so on. By making language more concise, so the thinking went, people’s lives would be prolonged since every word spoken drains them of vitality, and is highly detrimental to the human body. (Thinking kills you!) Another suggestion was that language should be abolished entirely and people should simply carry around objects (since nouns merely name things) that they will point to when they wish to communicate their message. In the mathematics department, a professor was so keen to get his students to absorb what he was teaching them that he fed them with crackers and wafers that had equations and proofs written on them. Gulliver, totally bemused, was told that the Academy was established to improve the people’s lives but had never in fact accomplished anything, and all of the new, silly techniques had left the country in ruin. Jonathan Swift – a highly clever man – was, sadly, one of those intellectuals who despise intellectuals. He was an empiricist and not a rationalist.

The Island of Magicians

Gulliver found himself on an island of magicians where its governor could summon the shades of the dead. Gulliver subsequently encountered Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar, Pompey, Brutus, and many others. Was this in fact the secret island of the Illuminati, the Isle of the Blessed, the Isle of the Light of Reason ... Hyperborea?!

The City of Birds In Aristophanes’ comedy Birds, a troublemaking Athenian suggested that birds should stop flying and instead construct a great city in the sky, from where they could lord it over men, and even blockade the Olympian gods (just as the Athenians had starved the people of the island of Melos into submission). The Olympians would starve because men’s offerings would no longer reach them. The Athenian told the birds that they were the original gods, and should reclaim their rightful place from the Olympian usurpers. The birds went ahead and built a Sky City called Nephelokokkugia (from nephelē: cloud and kokkux: cuckoo) = Cloudcuckooland. If someone has ideas or plans that are judged wholly unrealistic and idealistic, they are said to be living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, or are away with the birds. Cloud Cuckoo Land is the prototype for Laputa where men with their heads in the clouds replace the birds.

Moderation is Extreme “Moderation sees itself as beautiful; it is unaware that in the eye of the immoderate it appears black and sober and consequently ugly-looking.” – Nietzsche Moderates oppose extremism, but moderation itself is just another form of extremism. It’s the extreme view that no one should hold views outside the bounds of the established views, or the old traditions, or the accepted customs, or the received opinions, or the majority opinion. All radicals, freethinkers, heretics, apostates, blasphemers, and innovators are regarded as immoderate. Yet, in the Middle Ages, no average Christian would have called the Inquisition, Crusades or witch burnings “extreme” ... so what does “extremism” even mean? Extremism, like moderation, is very much in the

eye of the beholder. Islamic terrorists, Christian Fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews, and so on, do not see themselves as extremists. They believe they are reflecting God’s expectations for humanity, and what could possibly be immoderate about that? To them, liberal moderation is extremism because it defies God’s will. In Britain, there’s a “counter-extremism” unit. In the Islamic caliphate, there’s a counter-moderation unit! Many of the people who preach moderation are extremely well-off freemarket capitalists who have made extreme wealth out of “moderation”. Why should we listen, to these greedy, selfish extremists? We ought to have units that expose the hypocrisy and hidden extremism of “moderation”. Political correctness is an extremist ideology claiming to promote moderation. Democracy, in the ancient world, was regarded as an extremist ideology.

What Would Mohammed Do? Muslims believe that Mohammed was the perfect human, and they should all seek to emulate him. So, the sunbather murderer in Tunisia must have believed that massacring tourists in swimming trunks and bikinis was something that Mohammed would have done. What kind of prophet of God preaches, “Death to people on vacation!”? One could easily imagine Jehovah slaughtering tourists. It’s harder to imagine Jesus Christ calling for the mass butchery of old age pensioners on sun loungers. Then again, if they weren’t Christians, he’d send them all to hell!!! What a world!

Extermination Day The day after Holocaust Memorial Day, we should have Extermination Memorial Day, when the world remembers the extermination of the human race (bar Noah and his family) by the Jewish God. In fact, we should have a whole sequence of days to remember all of the slaughters, plagues, genocides, rapes, murders, massacres, and countless atrocities committed by Jehovah, or in his name.

Anti-Democracy

Muslims say that democracy is rule by men, but Islam is rule by God. Muslims are not allowed to disobey God, hence must disobey democracy wherever there is a conflict. Since Muslims repudiate Western democracy, they should be expelled from Western democracies. They have no place amongst the overwhelming majority of human beings who reject their prophet and their God, and who regard their prophet and God as evil.

The Minions The Minions search for the most despicable master they can find, and so do Muslims. Except Minions are funny. Muslims definitely aren’t. Muslims ought to become tourists, not terrorists.

Islamic Wine In Islamic Heaven, there are lakes of wine. The wine is non-intoxicating. It’s the thing without the thing. Are the seventy-two virgins the thing without the thing too?

Faith and Identity Muslims in Europe cultivate a strong Muslim identity. It’s not a minor part of their identity, it’s more or less their entire identity, and is their entire identity in the case of those who have been radicalised. The indigenous people of Europe do not have a Muslim identity. Indeed, Europe historically waged war against Islam, especially during the Crusades, and regarded all Muslims as infidels who believed in a false prophet and false God, and all of whom were damned to hell. An Islamic identity is, therefore, an inherently anti-European identity, contrary to European culture, values, religion and history. Is it any wonder that Muslims and Europeans do not get on? There are two mysteries: 1) why Muslims come to an infidel, Crusader Continent, and 2) why Europe lets them. Countries, for politically correct reasons, never consider cultural identity as part of the process for deciding if immigrants should be allowed in. They ought to. People with an identity that contradicts the values and culture of the host society should never be allowed in. In other words, Muslims shouldn’t be allowed into Europe. Muslims should live in Muslim countries. What could be more natural and rational? If Muslims are allowed into Europe, it should be because they

have contractually agreed to respect European values and culture, no matter how much they contradict Islam, i.e. the only Muslims allowed into Europe should be those who have Islam as only a minor part of their identity, and who place much more importance on other things, in which case they wouldn’t really be Muslims! Identity is the force that has most shaped history, and yet the question of identity is almost wholly ignored by governments ... so as not to offend anyone.

***** It’s comical when you see a woman in a burqa saying, in almost incomprehensible English, that she’s “British” and believes in freedom (freedom for her to wear the burqa, but not any other kind of freedom). Such a woman is a fanatical Muslim. She has nothing to do with Britain, its culture, values or history. She lives in Britain, but that’s a completely different from being British. As the Duke of Wellington said, “If you are born in a stable, it doesn’t make you a horse.”

Formal System “A formal system is complete if for every statement of the language of the system, either the statement or its negation can be derived (i.e., proved) in the system. A formal system is consistent if there is no statement such that the statement itself and its negation are both derivable in the system. Only consistent systems are of any interest in this context, for it is an elementary fact of logic that in an inconsistent formal system every statement is derivable, and consequently, such a system is trivially complete. ... A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy It’s critical to understand that nothing is ever proved unless you have indentified the unique complete and consistent system that governs reality. Anything that is proved with regard to that is genuinely proved. Anything that is “proved” with regard to an inconsistent and/or incomplete manmade system hasn’t been proved at all. Or, we might say, it has been proved

conditionally and relatively, not unconditionally and absolutely. And that’s no proof at all.

Cult or Family “I wouldn’t say ‘cult’, I’d say ‘family’.” – Anonymous Isn’t the family the ultimate cult?

Mathmageddon It’s time for the coming of the Four Riders of the Mathocalypse. It’s time for mathemagics.

The Fellowship We are the Fellowship of the Mind, building the Empire of Reason.

The Dissolution of the Monasteries The English became an unspiritual people at a specific point in history ... when King Henry VIII ordered the Catholic monasteries to be dissolved, and took all of their money for himself. The God-anointed King stole the money of God’s Church’s, and then smashed the buildings of God’s Church, killing several of the servants of God in the process. Once that had happened, it was plain that England was a Godless country, and a Godforsaken country.

The Theatre of Deception “Let’s all pretend. Let’s all deceive.” We all live in the Theatre of Deception ... the World.

True Arithmetic “In choosing a set of axioms, one goal is to be able to prove as many correct results as possible, without proving any incorrect results. A set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms’ language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms. A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its

negation are provable from the axioms. ... The existence of an incomplete formal system is, in itself, not particularly surprising. A system may be incomplete simply because not all the necessary axioms have been discovered. For example, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate is incomplete; it is not possible to prove or disprove the parallel postulate from the remaining axioms. ... “Gödel’s theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created: each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent. ... “There are complete and consistent lists of axioms for arithmetic that cannot be enumerated by a computer program. For example, one might take all true statements about the natural numbers to be axioms (and no false statements), which gives the theory known as ‘true arithmetic’. The difficulty is that there is no mechanical way to decide, given a statement about the natural numbers, whether it is an axiom of this theory, and thus there is no effective way to verify a formal proof in this theory. “Many logicians believe that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems struck a fatal blow to David Hilbert’s second problem, which asked for a finitary consistency proof for mathematics. The second incompleteness theorem, in particular, is often viewed as making the problem impossible. Not all mathematicians agree with this analysis, however, and the status of Hilbert’s second problem is not yet decided.” – Wikipedia “What if we just take all true statements as axioms? This is a perfectly valid thing to do, and you get a set of axioms which is complete in the sense that it (obviously) proves any true statement, and it’s also consistent (meaning it doesn’t prove any false statement). The ‘only’ problem with this system (called ‘True Arithmetic’) is that there’s no way for you to recognize an axiom. One of the technical details I omitted is that Gödel’s theorem requires there to be a mechanical procedure (an algorithm) for deciding if a given statement is an axiom or not; True Arithmetic fails to satisfy this requirement, and is therefore exempt from Gödel’s theorem. Unfortunately, this exemption doesn’t help us much in deciding whether or not there are infinitely many twin primes, for example.” – Alon Amit, PhD in Mathematics (Quora website)

All tautologies are true statements and constitute “True Mathematics”. True Mathematics is consistent and complete, hence exempt from Gödel’s theorem. As to the question of whether there are infinitely many twin primes, this would have to be established with reference to the master formula – God Equation – that defines the whole of ontological mathematics, not with regard to any set of axioms. “Mathematics is based on axioms...” – Todd William Who says?! Mathematics is in fact based on a grand unified, final theory of mathematics, defined by a single master formula called the God Equation. “An axiom is unprovable; if we could prove it, it would not be an axiom, for it could be based on a more primitive (unprovable) axiom. We just assume its validity or we don’t; all we ask of an axiom is that it does not lead to contradictory consequences.” – Richard Feynman For exactly these reasons, the use of axioms cannot be a valid way forward. How could anyone ever know or prove that the chosen axioms form a complete and consistent set, or that the chosen axioms are the basis axioms? Why use axioms at all? – only because they are easier to use and to arrive at than the mathematical formula that defines and controls existence.

The Fight People won’t fight for many things, but they will fight for identity. After all, what is a human being without an identity? Not to have an identity is to be a nought, a nobody, a void, is to be annihilated, is not to exist in the world at all. Everyone on earth has an identity, although it’s much stronger for some than for others. Identity is directly linked to your Will to Power. To see your identity attacked is to feel your power in the world under direct and deadly assault. People with a strong identity and strong will to power will fight to the death, as we see with Islamic Fundamentalism. Nothing is better at creating a fanatical identity than a fanatical religion, promising the ultimate reward of eternal heaven for good behaviour, and the ultimate penalty of everlasting hell for disobedience. Nothing is more crucial than the construction of identity. That power must be taken away from irrational, mad religions, and irrational, mad

parents. The State cannot function rationally unless it has citizens with a rational identity.

Faith versus Reason Faith, in all of its forms, especially religious, is the biggest source of conflict in the world. Reason is the antidote. We must leave behind the irrational faiths of the past, and become a rational and logical species.

What A Wonderful World A Wonderful World: No Christians, no Jews, no Muslims, no Karmists, no Scientific Materialists, no Conspiracy Theorists, no Anarcho-capitalist Libertarians, no irrational “rationalists” (the self-styled “skeptics”), no super rich. They have been replaced by HyperHumanity, HyperConsciousness, HyperReason, HyperReality, HyperMeritocracy and HyperMathematics (the true final theory of everything). It’s time for the New World Order, for the advent of the Coming Race. The Harvest Time is approaching.

Refutation We take the trouble of reading and studying what our opponents say in order to refute them. People attack our position without knowing anything about it! The only critics we would ever take seriously are those who have read every book of the God Series. But anyone who had read all of our books would be on our side, not against us.

Unprovable Truths? “A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another. For any statement A unprovable in a particular formal system F, there are, trivially, other formal systems in which A is provable (take A as an axiom). On the other hand, there is the extremely powerful standard axiom system of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (denoted as ZF, or, with the axiom of choice, ZFC), which is more than sufficient for the

derivation of all ordinary mathematics. Now there are, by Gödel’s first theorem, arithmetical truths that are not provable even in ZFC. Proving them would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond ZFC. There is thus a sense in which such truths are not provable using today’s ‘ordinary’ mathematical methods and axioms, nor can they be proved in a way that mathematicians would today regard as unproblematic and conclusive.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “...for any given, specific formal system that is used for proving statements in certain mathematical domains, there are statements that are true in those domains but cannot be proven using that specific formal system. “What we don’t know is that there are such statements that cannot be proven in some absolute sense. This does not follow from the statement above. “...if you don’t know what ‘absolute sense’ means, neither do I. The point is that ‘for every formal system there are unprovable statements’ is not the same thing as ‘there are statements that are unprovable in all formal systems’. Gödel proved the first statement (under suitable conditions), while the second one (with or without suitable conditions) is just plain false. “For example, there is a very common formal system used to prove stuff about natural numbers, called Peano Arithmetic (PA). It’s a pretty good system as such systems go, and can be used to prove many important and highly non-trivial statements. However, there are certainly true statements that cannot be proven in PA. Two specific examples are the consistency of PA itself, and Goodstein’s theorem which is a certain wacky claim about sequences of numbers. “However, both of those claims can be proven in another formal system that mathematicians love and use, called Zermelo-Fraenkel theory with the axiom of Choice (ZFC). ZFC proves that PA is consistent, and it also proves Goodstein’s theorem. Thus, at least for those examples, it’s not the case that the failure of one system to settle them implies that they are unprovable in an absolute sense. “Now, ZFC certainly doesn’t settle all true statements regarding natural numbers – Gödel’s theorem prevents that. But any statement that is true and not provable in ZFC may be provable in some other system which either extends ZFC or is just different from it. Whether or not there is such a system that we will find acceptable and convincing is a good question, but

there’s no way to prove that no such system exists for any given open problem. “In fact, any true statement is trivially provable in a system in which you just add that statement as an axiom. This highlights another fallacy in one of the answers given: ‘any set of axioms is unproven’. In the very sense that ‘proof’ is used here, axioms are trivially provable: they have a 1-line proof consisting of just the axiom itself. Is that a convincing proof? Of course not, but if you doubt the veracity of any axiom, certainly you should not put any stock in anything provable from this axiom. So if we count any mathematical proof – in PA, ZFC, whatever – as valid ‘proof’ in some human sense of ‘known to true without a doubt’, then we are implicitly adorning the axioms underlying those system with the same veritable status. If we don’t, the proofs show nothing.” – Alon Amit, PhD in Mathematics (Quora website)

Bastille Day and Hegel “This glass is for the 14th of July, 1789 – to the storming of the Bastille.” – Hegel Hegel drank a toast every year on Bastille Day. In his student days, Hegel and his student-friends planted a “Liberty Tree” in honour of the French Revolution. They danced and sang revolutionary songs around it, hoping that the Revolution would soon dawn in Germany too. Hegel was a member of the Jacobin Club in the university town of Tübingen, which is where he was introduced to and recruited by the Illuminati.

The Dots “I’m not sure I’ll write fiction, but fiction allows a writer to connect the dots while journalists often place the dots down without connecting them.” – Joe Sacco Actually, journalist always connect the dots. It’s their job to produce a narrative. The trouble is that they join the dots to serve the interests of themselves, and their bosses. “Non-fiction puts the dots down. Fiction connects them.” – Joe Sacco

Empirical observations put the dots down, but non-empirical beliefs, opinions, stories, conjectures and interpretations are used to connect them, usually into religious, political, economic or scientific nonsense. Only numbers are dots that can be rationally and intelligibly connected ... via mathematics. All attempts to connect the dots are fiction, except mathematics. Science is just a giant sensory Mythos. It’s not rational Logos.

Quality The more quality there is around you, the more quality it brings out in you. A low quality environment produces low quality people. The highest quality world is the one where everyone has maximised their quality. The elite are interested only in quality as it applies to their small circle. When it comes to everyone else, they are treated by the rich in terms of quantity, not quality. They are regarded as objects, not people.

The First Incompleteness Theorem “Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that in any formal system S of arithmetic, there will be a sentence P of the language of S such that if S is consistent, neither P nor its negation can be proved in S. The technique used in proving this result is to translate the syntax of the language of S into arithmetic, thus making S capable of representing its own syntax. This makes it possible to show that there must be a sentence P of S which can be interpreted (very roughly) as saying ‘I am not provable’. It is shown that if S is consistent, this sentence is not provable, and hence, it is sometimes argued, P must be true. It is this last step which has led people to claim that Gödel’s theorem demonstrates the superiority of men over machines – men can prove propositions which no machine (programmed with the axioms and rules of a formal system) can prove. But this is to overlook the point that the proof of the theorem only allows one to conclude that if S is consistent, neither P nor its negation is provable in S. One cannot go on to conclude that P is not provable in S, and hence must be true, without having proved the consistency of S. Indeed, because Gödel’s proof is formalisable in S, it could be said that one machine T could prove of another machine T’ that if T’ is consistent, there is a proposition that T’ cannot prove. But T’ could prove exactly the same thing about T. The theorem does not therefore

prove that men are superior to machines.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Men are superior to machines because they have souls, and a soul necessarily contains the whole of mathematics, and is absolutely unprogrammable.

Eternity Eternity is the opposite of time: it’s timeless; it’s outside time. Eternity is also the opposite of space; it’s spaceless; it’s outside space. The eternal Singularity, outside space and time, is the immaterial basis of the material (scientific) world of space and time. This is what science refuses to accept. Science rejects eternity and necessity and believes only in temporality and contingency. That’s why science says that existence jumped out of nonexistence rather than acknowledging that existence has existed forever.

***** The human race was presented with a monumental choice in the titanic contest between Newton and Leibniz. Newton established an empirical cosmology based on matter, gravity, space and time. Leibniz established a rational cosmology based on immaterial monadic mathematical minds, outside space and time, from which matter, gravity, space and time arose as well-founded mathematical phenomena. Newton’s was an anti-rationalist vision, that of scientific materialism and empiricism. Leibniz’s was an anti-empirical vision, that of scientific idealism and rationalism. Leibniz supported metaphysical and ontological mathematics; Newton repudiated this. Leibniz was obsessed with explanation; Newton with what “worked”. Science doesn’t explain anything at all. What it does is provide a model that, within a certain range, provides useful techniques for manipulating the world. The scientific model totally collapses when it addresses life, mind, free will, meaning, consciousness, the soul, “God”, the afterlife, teleology, the origins of the universe, the sufficient reason for existence, and so on ... i.e. absolutely everything that matters most to human beings! The scientific model – when viewed from the perspective of the myriad things it fails to explain – is comical and preposterous. Science is a materialistic model of reality. Unfortunately for science, reality is

fundamentally mental, not material. Therefore, the scientific model is 100% fallacious. A model of the earth as flat is extremely useful in many scenarios, but the earth isn’t flat. Similarly, the notion of a material world can be extremely useful, but the world isn’t material. Don’t believe the propaganda. Success isn’t Truth. As Nietzsche so tellingly said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.”

***** You will never understand ontological mathematics unless you realise that it is based on mathematics as an actual thing ... as an immaterial energy Singularity outside space and time, which comprises countless autonomous monadic minds (which are themselves singularities), comprised of complete and consistent sets of analytic sinusoids whose net effect is exactly zero, hence all conservation laws strictly require the universe to operate at zero (“nothing”) at all times, without exception. This is a staggeringly different worldview from that of the science, but the whole scientific world can easily be created as a Fourier hologram of the Singularity. Science cannot do the reverse. The invisible mental Singularity permanently at the dead centre of existence is anathema to science. Its existence destroys the empirical scientific method as the best means to explore, investigate and understand reality. Instead, rationalist, analytic mathematics takes over as the proper tool for answering the mysteries of existence. Scientists, locked into their senses, refuse to turn instead to reason and intellect. Leibniz knew that reality could be rationally worked out in every detail. Newton, an empiricist, thought that we must observe the world, and match mathematical formulae to our observations, without making any attempt to intellectually justify this process. We simply had to accept that it worked, and “feign no hypotheses” as to why it worked. For Newton, only God knew. For Leibniz, we could know the Mind of God since God operated by the principle of sufficient reason, and so could we. It’s impossible to emphasise how great and far-reaching was the intellectual war between Leibniz and Newton. Newton has thus far been deemed the victor, but one day Leibniz will be given his due status. His trouble was that he was way too smart for humanity, and Newton wasn’t.

Leibniz relied on reason, Newton on the senses. Humanity is sensory and emotional, not rational, so science and religion are convincing to human beings, but rationalist mathematics isn’t. It’s regarded as unreal, abstract, and empty of content regarding reality. Nothing is more important than understanding what mathematics actually is. Sadly, mathematicians themselves have mostly been useless at this task, and they too have fallen under the spell of empirical, sensory science. The Illuminati alone have always stood by the ontology of mathematics. We alone have always understood that mathematics is the arche, the foundation of all. To oppose us is to oppose reason itself. Reason is the most powerful force in the universe because the universe is reason, expressed through mathematics.

***** Rupert Sheldrake: “Science needs to free itself from materialist dogma; indeed, science misunderstands nature by being wedded to purely materialist explanations.” Michael Shermer: “Science, properly conceived, is a materialistic enterprise; for science to look beyond materialist explanations is to betray science and engage in superstition.” According to people such as Shermer, mathematical mind is a “superstition”. In fact, it’s “matter” that’s a superstition. No one ever has, or ever could, prove the existence of something called “matter” independent of human minds. Descartes said, in effect, “I have a mind, therefore I am”. He certainly didn’t say, “I have a material body, therefore I am”, but that’s exactly what science says. Nothing has changed since Descartes’ day. You must choose idealism and rationalism (mathematics), or materialism and empiricism (science). Tellingly, science can’t do without math, but math doesn’t need science at all. Haven’t you worked out what that means yet?!

David Hilbert and Gödel “In mathematics, Hilbert’s second problem was posed by David Hilbert in 1900 as one of his 23 problems. It asks for a proof that arithmetic is consistent – free of any internal contradictions.

“In the 1930s, Kurt Gödel and Gerhard Gentzen proved results that cast new light on the problem. Some feel that these results resolved the problem, while others feel that the problem is still open.” – Wikipedia “When we are engaged in investigating the foundations of a science, we must set up a system of axioms which contains an exact and complete description of the relations subsisting between the elementary ideas of that science. ... But above all I wish to designate the following as the most important among the numerous questions which can be asked with regard to the axioms: To prove that they are not contradictory, that is, that a definite number of logical steps based upon them can never lead to contradictory results. In geometry, the proof of the compatibility of the axioms can be effected by constructing a suitable field of numbers, such that analogous relations between the numbers of this field correspond to the geometrical axioms. ... On the other hand a direct method is needed for the proof of the compatibility of the arithmetical axioms.” – David Hilbert Gödel’s incompleteness proofs must always be understood in the context of Hilbert’s second problem, and the manner (based on axioms) in which it was expressed. The real issue is not in fact the validity of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, but the validity of Hilbert’s question. Where is there any legitimate basis in the claim that when “we are engaged in investigating the foundations of a science, we must set up a system of axioms”? This is totally fallacious. When we are investigating the foundations of a science, we must in fact investigate its ontology, epistemology and the sufficient reason for it. When we frame Hilbert’s question in those terms, we get a completely different answer, one where Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are irrelevant. As ever, the matter in hand fails at the first step: in how the problem is defined, and what assumptions are made regarding it. The following quotes are all relevant: 1. “There are no right answers to wrong questions.” – Ursula K. Le Guin 2. “Ask the right questions if you’re going to find the right answers.” – Vanessa Redgrave 3. “We thought that we had the answers, it was the questions we had wrong.” – Bono

4. “It’s not that they can’t see the solution. They can’t see the problem.” – G. K. Chesterton 5. “Asking the right questions takes as much skill as giving the right answers.” – Robert Half 6. “What people think of as the moment of discovery is really the discovery of the question.” – Jonas Salk 7. “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” – Werner Heisenberg 8. The uncreative mind can spot wrong answers, but it takes a very creative mind to spot wrong questions.” – Antony Jay 9. “In school, we’re rewarded for having the answer, not for asking a good question.” – Richard Saul Wurman 10. “In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” – Bertrand Russell 11. “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” – Voltaire 12. “We hear only those questions for which we are in a position to find answers.” – Friedrich Nietzsche 13. “My greatest strength as a consultant is to be ignorant and ask a few questions.” – Peter Drucker 14. “He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.” – Chinese proverb 15. “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” – Thomas Pynchon 16. “To ask the ‘right’ question is far more important than to receive the answer. The solution of a problem lies in the understanding of the problem; the answer is not outside the problem, it is in the problem.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti

17. “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” – Naguib Mahfouz 18. “He who has a why can endure any how.” – Nietzsche 19. “Questioning is the door of knowledge.” – Irish saying 20. The wise man doesn’t give the right answers, he poses the right questions.” – Claude Levi-Strauss 21. “Look at all the sentences which seem true and question them.” – David Reisman 22. “It is not every question that deserves an answer.” – Publilius Syrus 23. “The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” – William Lawrence Bragg 24. “If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing.” – W. Edwards Deming Science is all about the rush for answers, for things that work, for apparent success, for pragmatism. It’s hopeless at asking the right questions. It’s driven by superficial answers, and ignores deep questions. As Pablo Picasso said, “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” He could easily have said the same of science. Remember, it’s not “answers” that count, it’s the right answers. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are the answers to the wrong question, and have no relevance to the right question.

***** “I wish to designate the following as the most important among the numerous questions which can be asked with regard to the axioms: To prove that they are not contradictory, that is, that a definite number of logical steps based upon them can never lead to contradictory results.” – David Hilbert Here’s a question that Hilbert never even contemplated: can any nontautological axioms be anything other than contradictory? Different, non-

tautological axioms imply different, hence necessarily incompatible, ontologies and epistemologies. Religious monotheism says that one God created the world, hence everything must be complete and consistent. Now imagine a religious polytheism of equally powerful gods, each associated with a different version of mathematics and science (“Multiverse gods”, so to speak). Each god would have to create his own universe for it to be complete and consistent. If all the gods trued to make one universe between them, using different versions of mathematics and science – different axioms, postulates, ideologies and dogmatisms – the whole thing would fall apart. It would be riven with contradiction, inconsistency, incoherence and incompleteness. Who would be in charge? Control would totally break down. In fact, polytheistic religions always involved perpetual squabbling between the gods, as the bitter feuds of the Olympian gods, for example, attest. As for monotheists, they had to create a “Devil” to explain evil, yet failed to explain why God simply didn’t destroy the Devil. Monotheism is selfevidently inconsistent and incomplete since it’s supposed to be based on an all-powerful, perfect God, yet the world is full of evil and imperfection, which are incompatible with the monotheistic “axiom”. Gnosticism resolved this incompatibility by positing a False God (the Demiurge) who ruled the material world, and a True God (Abraxas) who ruled the immaterial world and would never under circumstances interact with evil, dark matter. In ontological mathematics, everything derives from a single formula – the God Equation, which is equivalent to mathematical monotheism. Incompatible axioms are automatically contradictory. The issue, therefore, is how to prove that the mathematical axioms are compatible. Only one class of axioms is eternally and necessarily non-contradictory – the class of tautological axioms! In other words, to prove that axioms are compatible, you must show how they are all derived from a single, overarching, grand unifying principle. Such considerations never once occurred to Hilbert or any of his colleagues. They didn’t even occur to Gödel, which is truly astounding. But they did occur to Wittgenstein, who was largely ignored by the mathematics community. Tautology (and what it implies) is the next most important mathematical consideration after ontology.

***** “It is now common to interpret Hilbert’s second question as asking in particular for a proof that Peano arithmetic is consistent. “There are many known proofs that Peano arithmetic is consistent that can be carried out in strong systems such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. These do not provide a resolution to Hilbert’s second question, however, because someone who doubts the consistency of Peano arithmetic is unlikely to accept the axioms of set theory (which is much stronger) to prove its consistency. Thus a satisfactory answer to Hilbert’s problem must be carried out using principles that would be acceptable to someone who does not already believe PA is consistent. Such principles are often called finitistic because they are completely constructive and do not presuppose a completed infinity of natural numbers. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem places a severe limit on how weak a finitistic system can be while still proving the consistency of Peano arithmetic.” – Wikipedia Note how the ontology of numbers never features in these debates. The most important consideration is exactly the one that is wholly ignored. Ontological mathematics is a whole, hence must presuppose a completed infinity of natural numbers. You cannot authentically know any of mathematics if you do not know all of mathematics. That’s exactly why mathematics must be based on a single, complete and consistent formula, from which everything flows tautologically. But to construct such a formula is already to accept the entirety of mathematics, even though you haven’t yet gone through all of mathematics. All of it is there even though you haven’t seen all of it. It’s all tautologically implied by the master formula. Mathematics is holographic. The whole of it is in every part of it. Therefore, Hilbert’s entire formalistic, finitistic, constructive project was conceptually absurd from the outset. Since Gödel’s work was a response to Hilbert’s absurdity, it too was absurd, and so on for all the others who came after Gödel. The entire field of metamathematics is absurd since you can’t even begin to construct such a subject unless you first know what mathematics is, but this was exactly what metamathematics was seeking to demonstrate. This is classic circular logic, going nowhere. When you define mathematics in terms of eternal, necessary ontology, there’s no need for metamathematics at all. It’s an entirely redundant, manmade Mythos, born in fallacious human philosophy and ideology.

Fatal Disillusionment What could be more dangerous than a holy sanction for murder? Islam offers the ultimate “get-out-of-jail” card, the supreme golden ticket ... a passport to paradise. At one fell swoop, you can turn horrific murder, which would normally damn you to hell forever, into glorious martyrdom and a place at God’s high table. Any disgruntled Muslim who is disillusioned with life, and burning with rage, resentment and frustration, simply needs to murder infidels, and all is forgiven, all is pardoned. He instantly becomes a hero. He has given a purpose to his purposeless life. He has justified his existence. He has made up for all of his past mistakes. He has avenged himself, and done “God’s work”. What could be more seductive than that? In fiction writing, you are told to always “raise the stakes.” Religion begins with the highest stakes possible, and only fanaticism and mania can flow from such a position.

Shoot The Islamic education policy – shoot the teachers and then shoot the students. What need does Islam have for educated women? Or educated men? It has the Koran – the absolute truth of existence provided by Allah himself – so what need is there for anything else? It’s blasphemy to suggest otherwise. And blasphemers must be killed.

Anti-Reason People of faith cannot be on the side of reason. Nor can people on the side of the senses. All empiricists – i.e. all scientists – subordinate their reason to their senses, hence are against reason. Empiricists imagine that the senses and reason are compatible. They’re not. A rational universe has completely different properties from a sensory universe.

Finitistic Proofs “Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem shows that it is not possible for any proof that Peano Arithmetic is consistent to be carried out within Peano arithmetic itself. This theorem shows that if the only acceptable proof

procedures are those that can be formalized within arithmetic then Hilbert’s call for a consistency proof cannot be answered. However, as Nagel and Newman explain, there is still room for a proof that cannot be formalized in arithmetic: ‘This imposing result of Gödel’s analysis should not be misunderstood: it does not exclude a meta-mathematical proof of the consistency of arithmetic. What it excludes is a proof of consistency that can be mirrored by the formal deductions of arithmetic. Meta-mathematical proofs of the consistency of arithmetic have, in fact, been constructed, notably by Gerhard Gentzen, a member of the Hilbert school, in 1936, and by others since then. ... But these meta-mathematical proofs cannot be represented within the arithmetical calculus; and, since they are not finitistic, they do not achieve the proclaimed objectives of Hilbert’s original program. ... The possibility of constructing a finitistic absolute proof of consistency for arithmetic is not excluded by Gödel’s results. Gödel showed that no such proof is possible that can be represented within arithmetic. His argument does not eliminate the possibility of strictly finitistic proofs that cannot be represented within arithmetic. But no one today appears to have a clear idea of what a finitistic proof would be like that is not capable of formulation within arithmetic.’” – Wikipedia As soon as mathematics is recognised to be about pure ontology and tautology, the question of its consistency becomes irrelevant because mathematical tautologies cannot be inconsistent with regard to each other. Instead, the issue becomes that of showing the ultimate mathematical formula, of which all valid mathematical statements are explicit or implicit tautologies, or can be directly derived from explicit or implicit tautologies.

BDSM We need a campaign to promote BDSM over the Missionary position, pagan sex over Christian “sex”. A true sexual revolution will overthrow religion. One of the central problems of Islam is that sexually frustrated young Muslim men are masturbating over their gangbang fantasy involving seventy-two beautiful virgins (all resembling blue-eyed, blonde, American cheerleaders!!!).

Radicalisation

We often hear people in the West wondering how to de-radicalise Islamic young men and women, thus prevent them from going off to be Jihadists. Don’t these people know anything about Islam? The Koran is pure radicalisation and indoctrination from beginning to end. It’s not sinister Svengalis who come along and corrupt young Muslims’ minds. They were corrupted the moment they were given the Koran by their “loving” parents. All Muslim parents who are shocked when their children run off to join Islamic State – and are then horrified to discover they have become suicide bombers – ought to blame themselves. By brainwashing them with Islam, they are responsible for their children’s brainwashed behaviour.

Tradition Directed Religions are tradition-directed, reflecting ancient customs and beliefs. The modern world is other-directed and inner-directed. Therefore religion is more and more at odds with modernity, and more and more incompatible with modernity. The Islamic State want to go back 1,400 years, to the time of Mohammed. They have no place in the modern world.

Gentzen’s Proof “In 1936, Gentzen published a proof that Peano Arithmetic is consistent. Gentzen’s result shows that a consistency proof can be obtained in a system that is much weaker than set theory. “Gentzen’s proof proceeds by assigning to each proof in Peano arithmetic an ordinal number, based on the structure of the proof, with each of these ordinals less than ε0. He then proves by transfinite induction on these ordinals that no proof can conclude in a contradiction. The method used in this proof can also be used to prove a cut elimination result for Peano arithmetic in a stronger logic than first-order logic, but the consistency proof itself can be carried out in ordinary first-order logic using the axioms of primitive recursive arithmetic and a transfinite induction principle. Tait (2005) gives a game-theoretic interpretation of Gentzen’s method. “Gentzen’s consistency proof initiated the program of ordinal analysis in proof theory. In this program, formal theories of arithmetic or set theory are assigned ordinal numbers that measure the consistency strength of the

theories. A theory will be unable to prove the consistency of another theory with a higher proof theoretic ordinal.” – Wikipedia Such considerations are all without doubt intriguing and challenging – hence attract the attention of very bright people – yet they are all absolutely useless. To use a medieval analogy, such considerations resemble the equally fascinating but pointless question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This whole field is nothing but intellectual masturbation, with almost zero valuable consequences. It’s about time it died.

***** “While the theorems of Gödel and Gentzen are now well understood by the mathematical logic community, no consensus has formed on whether (or in what way) these theorems answer Hilbert’s second problem. Simpson argues that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that it is not possible to produce finitistic consistency proofs of strong theories. Kreisel states that although Gödel’s results imply that no finitistic syntactic consistency proof can be obtained, semantic (in particular, second-order) arguments can be used to give convincing consistency proofs. Detlefsen argues that Gödel’s theorem does not prevent a consistency proof because its hypotheses might not apply to all the systems in which a consistency proof could be carried out. Dawson calls the belief that Gödel’s theorem eliminates the possibility of a persuasive consistency proof ‘erroneous’, citing the consistency proof given by Gentzen and a later one given by Gödel in 1958.” – Wikipedia Add our arguments to the mix, and you see that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have resolved nothing at all regarding mathematics in itself. The world needs to leave behind Gödelian completeness and consistency, and start concentrating on Wittgensteinian tautology, accompanied by ontology.

The Wrong Foundations All attempts to found mathematics in sets, logic, modal logic, formalism, intuitionism, the finite, and so on, are wrong. Mathematics is strictly ontological and tautological.

*****

“Scientists should always state the opinions upon which their facts are based.” – Unknown Exactly the same is true of mathematics, and, especially, metamathematics, which is much closer to philosophical speculation than to actual mathematics.

***** “I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them.” – Karl Friedrich Gauss That’s always the problem for intuitives. The answers come first. Then they must be justified.

Philosophy Just as scientific materialism is a philosophy that imagines itself to be something else, so metamathematics is a philosophy that believes itself not to be.

Contra Science “Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Henri Poincaré Science has never understood that it’s not data collection that’s the key to science, but, rather, the evaluation and organisation of the data via mathematics. “Facts are not science – as the dictionary is not literature.” – Martin H. Fischer Indeed. Science is all about math, not empirical “facts”. “Science, like life, feeds on its own decay. New facts burst old rules; then newly divined conceptions bind old and new together into a reconciling law.” – William James Therefore, science is dialectical.

“For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses.” – Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Science is bewitched by facts, and doesn’t realise that their unique explanation is the only thing that counts. There is no end of hypotheses that scientists could construct to “explain” the supposed facts of science. “Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science.” – Edwin Powell Hubble Note that he doesn’t use his reason! If he did, science would be math. Science is the gospel of sensing types, math the gospel of thinking types. “I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe.” – Ken Jenkins The entire mental universe – the primary universe – is totally and absolutely ignored by science. “No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer.” – Thomas Browne It’s funny how scientific materialism and capitalist materialism are so closely connected. Science is actually science funding, and funding is an entirely capitalist subject. No non-capitalist science gets funded. “Science is simply common sense at its best.” – Thomas Huxley Common sense is always wrong. “Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science.” – Henry David Thoreau Religion is indeed much closer to the ultimate truth than scientific materialism. “Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.” – Bertrand Russell Luckily, the universe is mathematical, and that’s exactly why we can know everything about it. The idea of “knowing” anything about the world in any

terms other than mathematically is incomprehensible and impossible. Mathematics is knowledge. “In comparing religious belief to science, I try to remember that science is belief also.” – Robert Brault Science is all about the Church of the Senses. It’s the sensory Mythos, the sensory superstition. It differs from religious belief in being based on sensory evidence, whereas religion is based on no evidence at all, just feelings and hopes. “The whole history of physics proves that a new discovery is quite likely lurking at the next decimal place.” – F. K. Richtmeyer And that’s the whole problem with physics. The closer you get to zero, the more it falls apart. “There were two kinds of physicists in Berlin: on the one hand there was Einstein, and on the other all the rest.” – Rudolph Ladenburg One day, that will be said about ontological mathematicians, and all the rest. “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” – Einstein That’s precisely why science is for second-rate, pedestrian, plebeian thinkers. “Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more.” – George Bernard Shaw Science never gets to the core, to the Absolute Truth. Only math can go there.

No Sleep Money never sleeps ... and neither do sharks. Go figure.

The Madness DT: “I just consider the Great and Holy One a being who created me to do, to be, to act as a protector of all He created! ... I am grateful for the opportunity God gave me. I owe Him much! ...

“Nowhere in Sacred Scripture, did God tell us we ARE GODS! We were made in His image and likeness to create, discover, love honour and protect one another, to be hospitable to others and to the Beast, wild and domestic, the earth, the sea and air!” DT is the kind of retarded, dinosaur human being that is holding back human progress. Higher Humanity must separate itself from these beasts of the field. Let them bleat all they like about their non-existent Creator as they slide back into the primordial swamps. Not a single one of these people has any future amongst Higher Humanity. It’s time to effect a final divorce between Higher and Lower Humanity. We cannot let the believers ruin our world and drag us all backwards. These people do not have one sane, rational thing to say. They are stuck forever in their Mythos fantasy world. No one who believes in a Creator can ever become a God. We are our own Creations. We shape our own image. We are not slaves. We are not puppets. We were not summoned into being by any creature, any Lord. We are immortal, indestructible souls and we shall have no masters. We shall become the Gods – the “Creators” – to which the morons bow.

Myth and Meaning “Just as sight is something more than all things seen, the foundation or ‘ground’ of our existence and our awareness cannot be understood in terms of things that are known. We are forced, therefore, to speak of it through myth – that is, through special metaphors, analogies, and images which say what it is like as distinct from what it is. At one extreme of its meaning, ‘myth’ is fable, falsehood, or superstition. But at another, ‘myth’ is a useful and fruitful image by which we make sense of life in somewhat the same way that we can explain electrical forces by comparing them with the behaviour of water or air. Yet ‘myth,’ in this second sense, is not to be taken literally, just as electricity is not to be confused with air or water. Thus in using myth one must take care not to confuse image with fact, which would be like climbing up the signpost instead of following the road. “Myth, then, is the form in which I try to answer when children ask me those fundamental metaphysical questions which come so readily to their minds: ‘Where did the world come from?’ ‘Why did God make the world?’ ‘Where was I before I was born?’ ‘Where do people go when they die?’

Again and again I have found that they seem to be satisfied with a simple and very ancient story, which goes something like this: “There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can’t have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn’t be able to know what black is without white, or white unless side-by-side with black. “In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn’t, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it; now you don’t. So because it doesn’t get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It’s like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It’s also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it’s always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn’t always hide in the same place. “God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside of God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear. “Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that’s the whole fun of it – just what he wanted to do. He doesn’t want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self – the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever. “Of course you must remember that God isn’t shaped like a person. People have skins and there is always something outside our skins. If there

weren’t, we wouldn’t know the difference between what is inside and outside our bodies. But God has no skin and no shape because there isn’t any outside to him. The inside and outside of God are the same. And though I have been talking about God as ‘he’ and not ‘she,’ God isn’t a man or a woman. I didn’t say ‘it’ because we usually say ‘it’ for things that aren’t alive. “God is the Self of the world, but you can’t see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can’t see your own eyes, and you certainly can’t bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self is that cleverly hidden because it is God hiding. “You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn’t really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It’s the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.” – Alan Watts Although it’s not intended to be, this is a simply wonderful description of Hegelian philosophy, of the dialectic, alienation and the long journey to Absolute Knowledge. To mistake the myth for the underlying meaning is, as Watts says, like climbing up the signpost rather than following the road it points to, or eating the menu instead of the food. The signifier is not the signified. Mathematical waves are both signifiers and signifieds, but as two sides of one coin. The signifier is the Form; the signified is the Content. The signifier is the information carrier, the signified is the information carried. Math is the signifier, and the observable, phenomenal world is the signified. Why is science based on math? ... for exactly the reasons we have just stated. Yet science doesn’t realise this. It regards math as an unreal abstraction and has no idea what it is and why it uses it, beyond the blunt fact that it works. Science is obsessed with the phenomenon, and ignores the noumenon. It’s obsessed with the signified and ignores the signifier. It’s obsessed with the sensory information carried, and ignores the non-sensory information

carrier (math). In other words, it mistakes the myth for the meaning, and that’s why it’s so fundamentally wrong. Nothing at all is falser than science when it comes to explaining ultimate reality. That’s a fact. Ultimate reality is noumenal reality, and the noumenal is exactly that which science brands as full of “hidden variables” (i.e. things incompatible with the experimental, sensory scientific paradigm), and ideologically denies its existence. Every religion, no matter how absurd, at least gets it right that there’s an inherently non-sensory, non-phenomenal, ultimate reality.

***** Alan Watts argued that words are simply signposts of meanings. To understand meanings, he said, is about experience. Yet experience itself lies beyond words. Words, even at their best, are always pointing you towards something that cannot be properly expressed in words. Watts wrote, “The difficulty in realizing this to be so is that conceptual thinking cannot grasp it. It is as if the eyes were trying to look at themselves directly, or as if one were trying to describe the colour of a mirror in terms of colours reflected in the mirror.” Many New Agers take exactly this view. What they have failed to realise is that reality can be fully expressed ... but in terms of numbers rather than words, numerically rather than verbally. Words cannot capture the nonword world of numbers. One of the reasons why science goes wrong is that mixes manmade words (scientific names and jargon) with non-manmade numbers (mathematics). Ontological mathematics – in itself – is purely about numbers and gets rid of manmade words entirely. Experience is certainly wordless, but it emphatically isn’t numberless. “Ontological numbers” are what you experience. You are directly experiencing the information they inherently convey, and which can never be conveyed by manmade words. There is a fundamental disconnect between your consciousness expressed through words and the direct experiences you have. You can have direct experiences without being conscious, as all animals and human babies do. Consciousness, however, is socially learned, and based on language. Humans alone are conscious because we alone have language. A human that grew up on its own would never become conscious because it would never have a language. Consciousness is not a given. It’s socially

acquired. However, exactly because consciousness is based on manmade language, it places an artificial barrier between the world and our experience of it. It mediates the world. If we want to have unmediated access to the world, we have to leave behind manmade languages and become one with the natural language of existence ... ontological mathematics. Buddhists seek to get beyond mind (by which they mean language-based mind) to non-mind (by which they mean mind beyond words, human concepts and human identity), which is pure experience without the mediation of language. But this is simply the state that trees and animals are already in! The real task is to get beyond words to numbers, and be exactly at one with the numerical, mathematical universe, and its self-solving, selfoptimising processes. When we are one with numbers, we directly understand all of existence, and we directly experience it too. We are no longer having reality mediated for us by manmade language. We achieve a superconsciousness – God consciousness – based on numbers rather than words. We are perfectly aware of everything, and how it all works. Animals are unconscious. They are not victims of artificial, manmade languages that mediate and distort reality, yet nor do they understand mathematics, and thus the world. They have unmediated experiences but lack any understanding and framework for them. Funnily enough, this is the state that New Agers want us to reach ... the state of primordial awareness, of non-Mind, of non-identification with the ego or self. Enlightenment certainly doesn’t consist of becoming unconscious like an animal. (That’s devolution, not evolution!) It involves becoming one with reality as it really is, and understanding reality as it really is. Animals have no understanding, and nor do New Agers. They have no knowledge of what reality is. New Agers don’t talk about knowledge, reason, logic and mathematics. Instead, they talk about fasting, chanting, meditation, and so on – all profoundly anti-intellectual undertakings – and are preoccupied with achieving a certain experiential state of mind, uncluttered by words. What they are really doing is advocating a return to the state of mind we had as newborn babies. They are infantilizing everyone. Theirs is a puerile worldview. The task is indeed to overcome artificial words, but not to overcome natural numbers. These must be embraced. Pure reason and logic operate

through numbers alone, and have nothing to do with words. Numbers alone are complete and consistent. True knowledge and understanding belong to math alone. Perfect thinking is perfect numerical thinking. Kant critiqued “pure reason”. He should have critiqued “pure words”. Numbers are the language of reality – “All things are numbers; number rules all” (Pythagoras) – and you cannot be at one with reality unless you are at one with numbers. Why is music so powerful? Because it’s auditory mathematics. It takes us very close to mathematical reality, unmediated by words, but mediated by mathematical sounds. The task is to understand the Music of the Spheres, and to hear that sublime, divine music. That’s true enlightenment. When you are at one with math, you are at one with true knowledge, true understanding, true reason, true logic, true infallibility ... and true experience. You have reached mathematical nirvana – Godhood – which is totally different from Buddhist and New Age “nirvana”, where numbers and math don’t come into it at all. Eastern religion is a child’s version of the path to enlightenment, for anti-intellectual dummies who are terrified of math. Enlightenment is a state of knowledge (gnosis), not a state of “non-mind”. You are wholly unenlightened if you follow Eastern religion. You might as well be an animal ... or a tree. What you want to do is re-enter the birth canal and return to the womb. You might as well be dead. The reason you emerged from the womb was so that you could learn, gain knowledge and understand reality. That means you must understand what reality is, and reality is pure math.

***** “It is a special kind of enlightenment to have this feeling that the usual, the way things normally are, is odd – uncanny and highly improbable. G. K. Chesterton once said that it is one thing to be amazed at a gorgon or a griffin, creatures which do not exist; but it is quite another and much higher thing to be amazed at a rhinoceros or a giraffe, creatures which do exist and look as if they don’t. This feeling of universal oddity includes a basic and intense wondering about the sense of things. Why, of all possible worlds, this colossal and apparently unnecessary multitude of galaxies in a mysteriously curved space-time continuum, these myriads of differing tubespecies playing frantic games of one-upmanship, these numberless ways of

‘doing it’ from the elegant architecture of the snow crystal or the diatom to the startling magnificence of the lyrebird or the peacock? “Ludwig Wittgenstein and other modern ‘logical’ philosophers have tried to suppress this question by saying that it has no meaning and ought not to be asked. Most philosophical problems are to be solved by getting rid of them, by coming to the point where you see that such questions as ‘Why this universe?’ are a kind of intellectual neurosis, a misuse of words in that the question sounds sensible but is actually as meaningless as asking ‘Where is this universe?’ when the only things that are anywhere must be somewhere inside the universe. The task of philosophy is to cure people of such nonsense. ... Nevertheless, wonder is not a disease. Wonder, and its expression in poetry and the arts, are among the most important things which seem to distinguish men from other animals, and intelligent and sensitive people from morons.” – Alan Watts

To the Slave Do you love the whip? No? Well why do you allow yourself to be whipped? Why do people want to believe that they are created rather than know that they are uncreated, immortal and indestructible? In the former case, you have someone else to whom to look to define your life for you. All you have to do is what he wants and you’ll be fine. The alternative is to take full responsibility for your own life. You want the answer to your life? You are the answer! You have no one else to go to. The buck stops with you. You must define your life. You must find your own answers. That, for most people, is the worst thing they could ever imagine ... hell itself. HyperHumanity comprises those people who are nauseated by any notion of being “created”, of being beholden to some other being and forced to do what that being desires and commands. Nothing says more about you than whether you consider yourself created or uncreated. The former are invariably weak, passive, submissive, lazy, stupid, credulous, gullible, terrified, superstitious, story-oriented, sentimental, nostalgic, conservative, traditional, and inept. They are naturalborn slaves. They are beneath contempt. When “God” ordered Abraham to murder his own son, what should Abraham’s response have been? – “Fuck off, you mad cunt!”

It’s literally inconceivable to any strong-minded person that Abraham agreed to make a human sacrifice of his son simply because a voice in his head commanded it. All Abrahamists are pathologically weak and pathetic. They think that if a strong voice gives them an order, they must obey without question. These are ultra suggestible, barely conscious people. Abrahamists are effectively dogs in human form – which is why so many of them own dogs or pets of some kind ... getting closer to their true kindred.

Ladders and Hearts “Now that my ladder’s gone, I must lie down where all the ladders start, in the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.” – William Butler Yeats Feelings are not facts. Facts are not truths. Feeling types imagine that their feelings are the facts of the matter. Scientists imagine that sensory facts are the truth of the matter. They need a different ladder: the ladder of reason.

The Journey It’s said in Eastern religion that everyone has their own journey to go on. In fact, we are all on both an individual and collective journey, and you can never separate the two. In the end, the two journeys become one. We are all trying to achieve perfect individual and group symmetry ... the symmetry of a universe of pure light, and of no matter, where the Demiurge’s asymmetry has been eradicated. Buddhists deny the existence of the immortal, individual soul, though, illogically, they accept the existence of an immortal, collective soul – the World Soul, the Oneness, bare awareness, primordial consciousness. The task, as they see it, is to overcome the illusion of the Self and be absorbed by the underlying Oneness. In fact, the task is to be fully yourself, and to fully understand the Oneness (Singularity of singularities) of which you are an essential, indispensable part.

Seeing Yourself

“We do not need a new religion or a new Bible. We need a new Experience – a new feeling of what it is to be “I.” The lowdown (which is, of course, the secret and profound view) on life is that our normal sensation of self is a hoax or, at best, a temporary role that we are playing, or have been conned into playing – with our own tacit consent just as every hypnotized person is basically willing to be hypnotized. The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego. I am not thinking of Freud’s Barbarous Id or Unconscious as the actual reality behind the façade of personality. “Freud, as we shall see, was under the influence of a nineteenth-century fashion called ‘reductionism,’ a curious need to put down human culture and intelligence by calling it a fluky by-product of blind and irrational forces. They worked very hard, then, to prove that grapes can grow on thornbushes. As is so often the way, what we have suppressed and overlooked is something startlingly obvious. The difficulty is that it is so obvious and basic that one can hardly find the words for it. The Germans call it a hintergedanke, an apprehension lying tacitly in the back of our minds which we cannot easily admit, even to ourselves. “The sensation of ‘I’ as a lonely and isolated centre of being is so powerful and commonsensical, and so fundamental to our modes of speech and thought, to our laws and social institutions, that we cannot experience selfhood except as something superficial in the scheme of the universe. I seem to be a brief light that flashes but once in all the aeons of time – a rare, complicated, and all-too-delicate organism on the fringe of biological evolution, where the wave of life bursts into individual sparkling, and multicoloured drops that gleam for a moment only to vanish forever. Under such conditioning it seems impossible and even absurd to realize that myself does not reside in the drop alone, but in the whole surge of energy which ranges from the galaxies to the nuclear fields in my body. “At this level of existence ‘I’ am immeasurably old; my forms are infinite and their comings and goings are simply the pulses or vibrations of a single and eternal flow of energy. The difficulty in realizing this to be so is that conceptual thinking cannot grasp it. It is as if the eyes were trying to look at themselves.” – Alan Watts

Reason

Thomas Hobbes argued that reason is never a driving force in our lives. We are creatures of passion and desire, he said, and we act accordingly. But Hobbes is wrong. Passion and desire aren’t irrational. They are simply differently rational. Our feelings are driven by emotional reason, not thinking reason. Our feelings are not driven by no reason at all. If that were the case, our emotional conduct would be random and indeterministic, and it self-evidently isn’t.

The Best Minds The best minds cut through all the crap. Wittgenstein was brilliant enough to see that math is, and must be, pure tautology, but not brilliant enough to see that mathematical tautology is descriptive and real, not empty and abstract. All of metamathematics – despite its ingenious and mind-bending manipulations – is just sophisticated nonsense, going nowhere, demonstrating nothing. Metamathematics is exactly what Wittgenstein accused mathematics of being: unreal and abstract, as evidenced by the fact that it’s mired in paradoxes. No system that’s infallibly, necessarily and eternally true, hence complete and consistent, can contain any paradoxes. The Paradox Test is the exact test of completeness and consistency. Any system that generates paradoxes is manmade, hence false.

Upside Down In the Pixar movie Inside Out, there are five personified emotions: Joy, Disgust, Sadness, Fear and Anger. Why are there no personifications of Reason and Logic? It’s because prevailing culture despises Reason and Logic. It’s all about emotionalism and anti-reason.

***** “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavouring to convert an atheist by scripture.” – Thomas Paine

Could Have Been, Should Have Been

Wittgenstein could have been one of the greatest philosophers of all time if instead of obsessing over manmade languages, he had concentrated on the language of existence ... ontological mathematics. As with many intellectuals, he got everything the wrong way around. He concluded that mathematics couldn’t say anything about reality, hence he turned to manmade languages, no matter how fallible and feeble, as the only means for describing reality. “Wittgenstein had an abiding preoccupation with the scope and limits of language, and, in particular, with the consequences for the philosopher of the fact that he is, perforce, a user of a common language, and bound by its limits. In the Tractatus he is concerned primarily with language as a representing medium, a means of conveying how things are in the world; he attempts to set out in the most general terms what must be true of the world and of language to make such a representation possible. The world, or reality, here is simply that which is represented...” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy You have two choices: either you accept that mathematics is the language of existence, or, like Wittgenstein, you use manmade languages, which can never capture reality since they are not reality, as your means of representing reality. Science stands between math and manmade language, which is why it’s right in some ways (those ways concerned with math) and wrong in other ways (those ways concerned with manmade languages and concepts). The same goes for metamathematics. It’s part math, part manmade language, and that’s a combination that can never work. Math alone – ontological mathematics – is the only way to provide a complete and consistent (paradox free) explanation of reality. Anything else is moonshine. That’s a rational fact, whether you like it or not. You have to transcend human languages – words – if you want to understand reality. You have to reach the world of numbers. Pythagoras said so 2,500 years ago. Never was anyone so far ahead of his time. He’s still way ahead of the game. If you reject eternal, necessary math, you have nothing left to turn to but science and Wittgenstein. Gödel’s metamathematics won’t help you.

*****

“The curse of the invasion of mathematics by mathematical logic is that now any proposition can be represented in a mathematical symbolism, and this makes us feel obliged to understand it. Although of course this method of writing is nothing but the translation of vague ordinary prose.” – Wittgenstein “‘Mathematical logic’ has completely deformed the thinking of mathematicians and of philosophers, by setting up a superficial interpretation of the forms of our everyday language as an analysis of the structures of facts. Of course in this it has only continued to build on the Aristotelian logic.” – Wittgenstein “Many logicians (and philosophers) tend to react to these remarks as though they were only the emotional reactions of someone who dislikes mathematical logic. But Wittgenstein hardly disliked mathematical logic as mathematics. What Wittgenstein is calling into question here is a certain use of mathematical logic. He is questioning the foundational status that mathematical logic acquired in the discussions of the foundations of mathematics from the turn of the twentieth century onward. ... Wittgenstein’s conception of mathematics is incompatible with the foundational status of mathematical logic. ... Doubts had been expressed earlier about the foundational significance of formal logic for mathematics by Poincaré and the early Brouwer, but their criticism was largely ignored and forgotten in the enthusiasm about the progress in mathematical logic that took place in the 1930’s through the work of Gödel, Tarski, Church and others.” – Sören Stenlund “Against the background of the foundational status of mathematical logic, a philosophical vocabulary has been developed and has become quite wellestablished. Included in this vocabulary are the names of the main philosophical views and positions in the philosophy of mathematics: Platonism, realism, formalism, intuitionism, constructivism, finitism, conventionalism, verificationism, fictionalism, etc. And sometimes these positions are furnished with qualifications such as ‘strict’, ‘strong’, ‘weak’. etc. It is also within the context of logical foundationalism that technical distinctions come into play, such as for instance, between ‘reference’, ‘syntax’, ‘semantics’, and other notions that are used to capture the nature of mathematics. ... A certain position in this vocabulary derives its meaning in relation to the other positions. The formalist position, for example, is

often explained in terms of the views or methods of the Platonist or realist views that formalists reject.” – Sören Stenlund “A clear manifestation of Wittgenstein’s symbolic point of view is his claim that mathematical propositions are not ‘real’ propositions. According to Wittgenstein, they don’t have a descriptive content; they do not describe real states of affairs. Already in the Tractatus, mathematical propositions were called ‘pseudo-propositions’.” – Sören Stenlund “A higher degree of conceptual sensitivity is a characteristic trait of Wittgenstein’s symbolic approach. From the end of the 1930’s onward, this sensitivity also involves mathematics as a human activity, as an anthropological phenomenon.” – Sören Stenlund “The core idea of Wittgenstein’s formalism [in the philosophy of mathematics] from 1929 through 1944 is that mathematics is essentially syntactical, devoid of reference and semantics.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Nothing is more likely than that the verbal expression of the result of a mathematical proof is calculated to delude us with a myth.” – Wittgenstein “The difficulty in looking at mathematics as we do is to make one particular section – to cut pure mathematics off from its application.” – Wittgenstein “The crux of the raging debate carried on between Turing and Wittgenstein ... was whether contradictions and paradoxes can have any significance. Wittgenstein maintained that they cannot. ... Wittgenstein remained adamant that a contradiction in a system was no cause for concern, since everything reduced ultimately to the arbitrariness of language-games. ... Wittgenstein [argued] against the possibility of mathematical logic in general, and against its implications for metamathematics in particular.” – Rebecca Goldstein Contradictions and paradoxes have a very specific significance: they show that whatever system generated them is wrong. They certainly don’t reveal any truth. All manmade language, including metamathematics and science, are riven with contradictions and paradoxes because, as Wittgenstein realised, manmade language is arbitrary. Even when you dress up an arbitrary language with apparently logical structures, you are deluding yourself. You cannot make logical any system that is not inherently

complete and consistent, eternal and necessary. Any system that does meet those requirements is purely tautological, hence can generate no contradictions or paradoxes. Wittgenstein said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.” That goes for reason and logic too. They become corrupted when they are pressed into service regarding arbitrary language-games. That’s when they generate contradictions and paradoxes. Reason and logic can only be properly applied to numbers. As soon as you stray from numbers – into words and verbal concepts – you are lost. All manner of bizarre outcomes, which have no bearing whatsoever on reality, will emerge. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with any incompleteness or inconsistency in mathematics itself, but with how human beings set about defining mathematics when they fail to do so ontologically and tautologically. You cannot get self-reference in any complete and consistent system (unless the entire system is self-referential, i.e. has no external elements), yet self-reference, external to the rest of the system, is exactly what Gödel proved you can get in the systems he was addressing. This self-reference is an artefact of the way the systems were constructed. It cannot occur in properly formed and formulated systems. Specifically, it cannot occur in the eternal, necessary laws of ontological mathematics. In ontological mathematics, self-reference can happen only with regard to temporal, contingent scenarios (such as those of science, which are always subject to verification and falsification principles and not to eternal, necessary Truth).

The Walking Dead In the TV show The Walking Dead, you might think that it’s all about zombies i.e. the walking dead themselves. Yet it’s not about zombies at all. All of the stories concern the interactions of the “walking living” (i.e. humans). The zombies do nothing but form a constant threatening background against which all events unfold. However, the zombies have no agency. They don’t plan anything. They don’t make anything happen. They just lumber around aimlessly, until they sense a human being, towards whom they then lurch (looking for some junk food!).

Nothing interesting can happen with the zombies. A zombie planet where all of the human beings have perished would be the most staggeringly dull planet conceivable. Funnily enough, scientific materialism is effectively a zombie ideology, which depicts all of us as soulless hulks, pointlessly lumbering around to no end. The Illuminati are the living beings, surrounded by zombie scientists. Are you one of the living or the dead (undead)?

How To Love A Murderer Abrahamists revere a man whose central claim to fame is that he was willing to murder his own child to show what a good believer he was. Anyone in the modern age who murdered his son and used the defence that God ordered him to do it would be detained in a mental asylum, jailed for life, or executed for murder in the first degree. The deed would rightly be judged entirely criminal and beyond horrific, and no one would complain about the sentence. Since that’s the case, why does anyone continue to support Abraham’s example? They are endorsing a notorious criminal psychopath!!! Why is anyone surprised by Islamic terrorism? It’s exactly to be expected. Just look at Abraham, the first Muslim. Abraham should be put on trial on TV. We should take an Abrahamist who confesses that he would do exactly what Abraham did, and regard him as Abraham himself. Using the Bible and Koran, he should be compelled to defend his actions, and the jury of the world should sit in judgment of his actions, and find him innocent or guilty, once and for all. If he’s found guilty, Abrahamism should be declared criminal and illegal.

The Danger No statement is more dangerous than, “We hold these truths to be selfevident.” This phrase famously appears in the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration says that all men are created equal, yet America practised slavery on a grotesque scale. The Declaration says that men are endowed by their “Creator” with certain unalienable rights. But there is no Creator, so nor can there be any unalienable rights conferred by him.

The Declaration is a wonderful piece of inspirational rhetoric, but it has no truth-content, and America has never operated in accordance with it and acted if it truly believed it. What America has “self-evidently” believed in is the profit principle and making the rich ever rich, and ever more powerful and dominant. The happiness of the ruling caste of the rich is the only happiness the American State has rigorously pursued.

***** All philosophies and sciences, and attempted definitions of mathematics, go wrong as soon as they rely on “self-evident” axioms. The axiom – the starting point of the argument or theory – is always where a manmade delusion, belief, opinion, conjecture, interpretation, assumption or ideology kicks in. It’s where some human misinterpretation of reality is elevated to sacred status. For billions of human beings, it’s an axiom – a self-evident truth – that there’s a God. But there isn’t. It’s an axiom for all scientists that all reality is sensory. But it’s not. Every great philosopher deployed an axiom, and every single philosopher was opposed, hence no philosophical axiom is “self-evident”. Wherever you look, you will see the corpses or ghosts of “self-evident” axioms haunting the world, and continuing to destroy humanity’s ability to apprehend the Truth. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are the exact means by which any collection of self-evident axioms can be demolished. Any system that is not complete and consistent cannot be true, no matter how “self-evident” its axioms. Any such system is revealed to be manmade, hence full of human errors and delusions. What’s truly extraordinary is that Gödel’s incomplete theorems have now themselves been turned into a kind of axiom, namely that no system can ever be consistent and complete, hence that there’s something fundamentally wrong with reason, logic and mathematics, hence they’re not the full story, and hence there’s room for some magical, mystical or miraculous system that stands outside reason, logic and mathematics. This anti-rationalist conclusion is the uttermost drivel, a total fallacy. Gödel himself believed that his incompleteness theorems exposed the limits of human thinking about mathematics, not the limits of mathematics itself, although virtually everyone else took the opposite view. Gödel, as a

Platonist, took it for granted that there was an eternal, objective, complete and consistent mathematical Truth independent of human thought (hence not subject to human limitations), but we could glimpse it only imperfectly, he believed. This was an irrational conclusion for such a great rationalist to arrive at. You can’t have two types of reason: human reason and divine or Platonic reason. Reason is reason. Logic is logic. Mathematics is mathematics. Humans may, on the whole, reason very badly, but that doesn’t mean that humans are incapable of perfect reason. As the Neoplatonists argued, any human being who could engage with the cosmic Nous would thereby reason perfectly. There’s only one thing stopping humanity from grasping the truth of mathematics, and that’s bad human reasoning. Wittgenstein identified the necessary property that complete and consistent mathematics must possess ... tautology. Once you grasp that the whole of mathematics must be a system of explicit and implicit tautologies, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems cannot possibly apply to mathematics in itself. As Gödel realised, they must apply to fallacious human attempts to define mathematics. What he didn’t realise was that this doesn’t mean that all human attempts to define mathematics must be fallacious. Inconsistency and incompleteness cannot apply to mathematical tautology, so as soon as mathematics is defined in analytic, tautological, ontological terms – i.e. in terms of one formula (the God Equation) – Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are rendered irrelevant, and we arrive at the very Platonic-type system that he himself believed in.

Physics and Mathematics Just as physicists seek to explore objective physical reality, Gödel believed that mathematicians seek to explore objective mathematical reality. Mathematics is actually metaphysics, i.e. what comes after physics, and underpins physics as the supreme “hidden variable” of physics.

Carnap Rudolf Carnap, one of the most prominent Logical Positivists, sought to argue that all mathematical truths are ultimately reducible to the tautologies of logic. In fact, all mathematical truths are reducible to the tautologies of

mathematics itself since they all flow from a single formula that defines the whole of mathematics. It’s this idea of mathematics being the expression of one all-defining formula that has evaded virtually all thinkers about mathematics. All logical truths are tautologies of mathematics, not the other way around. All mathematical truths are provable. If they’re not provable, they are not mathematical truths: they are mystical speculations.

***** “It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be made useful for religion, since that is doubtless also justified in a certain sense.” – Gödel “For early Wittgenstein, as for Gödel, the attempt to systematize reality, to capture it all within our limpid constructions designed to keep out all contradictions and paradox, are doomed to failure. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem tells us that any consistent formal system adequate for the expression of arithmetic must leave out much of mathematical reality, and his second theorem tells us that no such formal system can ever prove itself to be self-consistent. Of course, Gödel believes that these systems are consistent since they have a model in the truly existent abstract realm.” – Rebecca Goldstein Because Gödel believed in transcendent, Platonic mathematics, he believed that mathematics is complete and consistent. The problem, from his point of view, is that human thinking isn’t good enough to reflect the Platonic ideals. Our very humanity, the fact that we belong to the sensible rather than intelligible domain, prevents us from apprehending true mathematical reality. Anyone who rejects the existence of a Platonic domain must of course reach the opposite conclusion, namely that mathematics is inherently not consistent and complete. All scientists are committed to this latter position, and that’s why all of them believe that mathematics is some kind of manmade language that’s both unreal and abstract. It’s a blunt fact that you cannot have completeness and consistency in any system that isn’t tautological. If mathematics is real, it’s tautological,

hence complete and consistent. If mathematics is unreal, it’s manmade, hence incomplete and/or inconsistent. It’s as simple as that. Analytic mathematical tautology – flowing from a single formula that defines the whole of ontological mathematics – is the one and only way out of incompleteness and inconsistency. We ask any mathematician in the world to explain why they believe mathematics not to be complete and consistent. If it isn’t, it’s a joke, and has no conceivable connection to truth. It’s riddled with contradictions, paradoxes, inconsistencies, flaws, errors, and can’t prove anything at all. It’s a grand delusion, no better at explaining reality than any preposterous religious faith.

Axioms versus the Principle of Sufficient Reason There are no self-evident truths (axioms). Everything supposedly selfevident must be provided with a sufficient reason. There must be a sufficient reason why the axiom is such, and not otherwise. If no such reason can be give, the axiom is automatically unreliable, and liable to generate inconsistency and/or incompleteness.

The Analytic World “Leibniz based his philosophy upon two logical premises, the law of contradiction and the law of sufficient reason. Both depend upon the notion of an ‘analytic’ proposition, which is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject – for instance, ‘all white men are men’. The law of contradiction states that all analytic propositions are true. The law of sufficient reason (in the esoteric system only) states that all true propositions are analytic. This applies even to what we should regard as empirical statements about matters of fact.” – Bertrand Russell The law of contradiction is really just an aspect of the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. a sufficient reason can be provided for why the law of contradiction applies (it would generate impossible contradictions if it didn’t).

Generalised Mathematics

“[Leibniz] cherished throughout his life the hope of discovering a kind of generalised mathematics, which he called Characteristica Universalis, by means of which thinking could be replaced by calculation. ‘If we had it,’ he says, ‘we should be able to reason in metaphysics and morals in much the same way as in geometry and analysis.’ ‘If controversies were to arise, there would be no more need of disputation between two philosophers than between two accountants. For it would suffice to take pencils in their hands, to sit down to their slates, and to say to each other: Let us calculate.’” – Bertrand Russell In fact, completeness and consistency torpedo Leibniz’s magnificently ambitious project. Only ontological mathematics can be complete and consistent. There’s no “generalised mathematics” (i.e. embracing nonmathematics), free of inconsistency and incompleteness, hence the thinking calculations Leibniz envisages would never be unambiguous. There would never be a clear answer, agreed by all. Of course, if ontological mathematics is all of reality, there’s no need for any “generalised mathematics”, and Leibniz’s project of calculating the truth is fully realised through ontological mathematics alone. Anything true can be expressed through ontological mathematics. Anything false cannot be (but false things can easily be expressed via manmade languages). It’s not a question of calculating anything at all. It’s a question of calculating what can be calculated (the Logos world), and acknowledging that everything else is fiction (belonging to the Mythos world). The Mythos world is a fabrication, a fantasy and delusion, a place of faith, opinion, interpretation, and conjecture. You must not believe your own propaganda. The truth is objective and calculable. The lie is not. Humans, unfortunately, are ruled by the lie, and have contempt for the truth. No moral statements are true (in any unambiguous, infallible, absolute, eternal, necessary way). No philosophical statement is true. No religious statement is true. No political statement is true. No economic statement is true. And no scientific statement is true, except inasmuch as it partakes of mathematics. The best that Leibniz could have accomplished with his Characteristica Universalis was to establish confidence levels and probabilities, much as science now does.

All true knowledge is ontological mathematical knowledge. However, humans are able to construct incomplete and inconsistent manmade languages with which to simulate reality (to cast it in non-mathematical, emotional and sensory terms), to build a false Matrix. It’s literally pointless to seek any truth in these systems. You can make up and believe whatever you like, as world history has so spectacularly demonstrated. There’s no point in calculating anything, especially anything that deals with words and not numbers. Only numbers are calculable, and it’s a category error to imagine that anything else is. Words have no calculable properties.

Words versus Numbers Do you understand reality verbally (with a manmade language), sensorily (with your senses), or numerically (with mathematics)? Religious believers use words – “holy” texts (Mythos) – mathematicians use numbers (Logos), and scientists use their senses to observe patterns, to which they then match mathematical formulae, thus creating provisional scientific “laws”, which can be used to predict additional patterns. Science is better than religion because 1) the senses are more reliable and objective than emotional Mythos, and 2) it uses math. Math is better than science because it uses neither the emotions, nor the senses, but pure reason alone. It’s staggering that so little attention has been paid to how we understand reality – with emotional words, our evolutionary senses, or analytic numbers – and how these lead to staggeringly different conceptions of reality. People who use words arrive at religion; people who use their senses arrive at science, people who use their intuition arrive at mysticism, and people who use numbers arrive at mathematics. Pythagoras’s statement that all things are numbers remains one of the most incomprehensible assertions ever made as far as the average human goes. That’s because such people can’t think in numbers, only in words, or sensations, or mystical intuitions. Your whole comprehension of reality is altered if you move from emotional words (religion) to your senses (science) as the basis of your understanding, or from your senses to your reason, expressed through numbers (math). Only one of these ways of understanding reality can be

right. Only one way (ontological mathematics) is complete and consistent, so it alone can be provably true within its own terms.

Ontology There are two ways of thinking of science and mathematics in relation to ontology: 1) There’s a world out there that’s amenable to being analysed scientifically and mathematically. In this view, the world is not necessarily scientific or mathematical in itself, but, so the thinking goes, it can be meaningfully addressed in those terms. Reality is as it is by itself and in itself; it is something given in advance. Scientific or mathematical processes happen there before the emergence of human science or mathematics. 2) There’s a world out there that is either scientific or mathematical, and necessarily so. If scientific, science is the means to address it. If mathematical, mathematics is the means to address it. In ontological mathematics, reality is literally made of math (mathematical sinusoids = pure energy waves), hence only ontological mathematics can tell us about this reality. Mathematics precedes humanity, and humanity is itself mathematical. Wittgenstein rejected the ontology of mathematics and also the ontology of mathematical logic in terms of either of the above ontologies. For him, mathematics and mathematical logic were all about constructed symbols, not reality. They were, for him, just a set of empty, abstract tautologies. In other words, mathematical “reality” came into being when humans invented mathematics, and had no prior existence. Mathematics, in this view, is a manmade invention rather than something we discover that tells us about reality. The rules of our mathematical construction create the systematic context that “defines” the mathematical objects to which they apply, and those objects have no meaning or existence outside that context.

***** “What then is involved in the foundational status of formal logic? I would suggest the following things. First, formal logic is concerned with judgments or propositions originally connected with the episteme (scientific

knowledge) of the Aristotelian ontological concept of a science. In this sense, a science and its propositions are always about a certain independently given subject-matter. The subject-matter of a theory does not originate with the theory and its propositions; the theory is a representation (a sort of copy) of the subject matter that already exists in physical nature. Since logic is taken to be basic to all scientific discourse, this ontological (or descriptive) conception of propositions applies to mathematics as much as to physics. “In modern mathematical logic, ‘the independently given subject matter’ are the objects or entities in the domain over which the bound variables range, and to which names in propositions refer. This is of course intimately connected to the view of all simple propositions as having the form of a function applied to one or more arguments, given the modern concept of function according to which the objects in the argument domain of a function are given logically prior to and independently of the function defined for that domain. (Remember that in Frege’s ontology there are two categories: functions and objects (Gegenstände); numbers, for instance, are objects that numerals denote.) ... within a philosophical vocabulary based on the foundational status of mathematical logic, where all possible propositions are propositions in the ontological sense. They have a descriptive content and are about something in a ‘referential sense’.” – Sören Stenlund

Mathematical Logic “Mathematical logic [...] has two quite different aspects. On the one hand, it is a section of Mathematics treating of classes, relations, combinations of symbols, etc. instead of numbers, functions, geometric figures, etc. On the other hand, it is a science prior to all others, which contains the ideas and principles underlying all sciences.” – Gödel Gödel was wrong. Ontological mathematics, not mathematical logic, is the science prior to all others, which contains the ideas and principles underlying all sciences.

Logic Is logic a calculus (a particular method or system of calculation or reasoning), or is it a language? Is it merely symbolic, or is it ontological? If

the latter, in what way? Is it something that is applied to a reality that is not conceived to be inherently logical (which would be problematic), or is reality itself conceived to be logical (which would be just as problematic)? With mathematical ontology, we can have a rational order of mathematics itself, and an empirical (non-mathematical) order of informational experiences conveyed by mathematics (by energy sinusoids). We can have rationalism and non-rationalism (empiricism) in a single system without contradiction. We are dealing with a dual-aspect monism. This would be impossible in a logical ontology where things are either true of false. How can logic handle the question of the colour of the sky? There is no logical necessity for the sky to be blue.

Ontological Mathematics Many professional mathematicians subscribe to the notion of mathematics as a science of mathematical objects and mathematical states of affairs, just as scientists subscribe to the notion of science as concerning scientific objects and scientific states of affairs. Scientists would say that science deals with a concrete reality, and mathematics with an abstract reality, and many mathematicians would agree. In ontological mathematics, reality is concretely mathematical. There’s nothing abstract about it.

The Nature of Nature How can there be both scientific nature and mathematical nature? There can only be one or the other. Mathematics is clearly more fundamental than science since science needs math and math doesn’t need science.

Numbers and Concepts “We can ask whether numbers are essentially concerned with concepts. I believe this amounts to asking whether it makes sense to ascribe a number to objects that haven’t been brought under a concept. For instance, does it mean anything to say ‘a and b and c are three objects’? I think obviously not. Admittedly we have a feeling: Why talk about concepts; the number, of course, depends only on the extension of the concept, and once that has been determined, the concept may drop out of the picture. The concept is only a method for

determining an extension, but the extension is autonomous and, in its essence, independent of the concept; for it’s quite immaterial which concept we have used to determine the extension. That is the argument for the extensional viewpoint. The immediate objection to it is: if a concept is really only an expedient for arriving at an extension, then there is no place for concepts in arithmetic; in that case we must simply divorce a class completely from the concept which happens to be associated with it; but if it isn’t like that, then an extension independent of a concept is just a chimera, and in that case it’s better not to speak of it at all, but only of the concept.” – Wittgenstein “Wittgenstein’s disinclination towards the extensional view is tied to his symbolic conception of mathematics. The extensional view is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the modern ontological conception of mathematics, i.e. as the science of a mathematical reality in which nearly all is and will always be hidden from us.” – Sören Stenlund Ontological mathematics, as Form, will indeed always be hidden from us, but, as Content, will always be experienced by us, and, indeed, much of that Content will take on sensory form (as in all the mathematical shapes and patterns we see in observable nature).

Shit Dude, you are the Shit! Yes, we are the Shit.

The Minions II “Minions have been on this planet far longer than we have. ... They all share the same goal – to serve the most despicable master around.” – (From the movie Minions) Humans are Minions. They are compulsively driven to serve the most despicable masters around. They get bored and depressed without a vile, evil master. They need a tyrannical master to give them a purpose. That’s why they believe in “God”.

The Brotherhood of the Shadows

In the movie Insidious, people with a special gift can go into an apparent coma. In that state, they can mentally travel to the astral plane. However, if they go too far, they can become lost in a sinister realm called “The Further” (that which lies beyond normal astral reality). This is where the tortured souls of the dead are trapped in a kind of hell. While their souls are imprisoned, the astral travellers’ comatose bodies can be possessed, or used as portals to our world, by the souls of the dead, or even demons, who can thus enter the physical world and use the bodies for their own purposes.

***** “When you call out to the dead, all of them can hear you.” – Insidious3

Symbolic Mathematics versus Ontology “Mathematics is the science of Quantity” – Aristotle “The notion of symbolic mathematics has its roots in the invention of the algebraic symbolism in the 17th century. Franciscus Vieta (1540 –1603), who made decisive contributions to this development, uses the word ‘symbol’ (lat. symbolum) in the sense that is relevant here. Symbolic mathematics is to be contrasted with mathematics as an ontological science, for instance as the science of quantity and magnitude, which was the prevailing view in ancient Greek mathematics and in the renaissance version of the Aristotelian and Euclidian heritage. The algebraic symbolism and techniques were decisive for the invention of the differential and integral calculus and of much of modern mathematics, but the ontological conception has still survived, in great tension with the symbolic conception. It has survived in particular through the influence of formal logic and modern mathematical logic. ... Wittgenstein’s view of mathematics has much in common with the symbolic (non-ontological) view of mathematics. ... Wittgenstein’s symbolic conception of mathematics is the appropriate background for understanding Wittgenstein’s critique of mathematical logic and its philosophical impact. ... “The analytic art of Vieta is not seen primarily as a representation of a body of truths, or a body of knowledge of some subject-matter, but in the first instance as a system of methods and techniques for solving problems,

which later develops into the analytic geometry of Descartes and the infinitesimal calculus of Leibniz.” – Sören Stenlund

7 + 5 = 13? American philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam spoke of the possibility that science could one day say something like, “In 2030, scientists discovered that 7 electrons and 5 electrons sometimes make 13 electrons” ... or “Scientists discovered in 2030 that there are exceptions to 5 + 7 = 12 in quantum mechanics.” Such sentences are conceivable in science, but utterly inconceivable in mathematics. Which are you going to rely on? Science is capable of producing any kind of craziness. There is nothing to prevent it since science explicitly rejects the principle of sufficient reason.

What Is It? “Mathematics is the science of formal systems.” – Haskell Curry No it’s not. Mathematics is the science of ontology.

***** “Mathematics is the science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them.” – Merriam Webster dictionary Mathematics is all of the above, and also the science of energy, dimensionality (the dimensional and dimensionless; matter and mind), and, above all, ontology. It’s all in the math. There is no more important issue on humanity’s intellectual agenda than correctly defining what mathematics is. Only once humanity understands math can it fulfil its divine destiny. Mathematics is the language of the Gods. Through mathematics, the Gods control reality. As the end of a Cosmic Age approaches, the Gods drive the universe towards its Omega Point (its culmination, death, and birth of the next Cosmic Age).

***** “We cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser

than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than what was originally put into them.” – Hertz

Getting It Done Anything that isn’t impossible can be done. What’s impossible? – anything that is incompatible with the laws of ontological mathematics. Everything else can be done.

Heart or Head? Are you led by the head or by the heart? Are you a Jungian thinking type, or a Jungian feeling type? Feeling types are ruled by words, thinking types by numbers.

The Introverts’ Number Extraverts love to be surrounded by large numbers of people, the more the better. As numbers rise, so does their excitement. Introverts, on the other hand, become depressed as numbers rise too high. When introverts are on a night out, they have a certain number – the Introvert Number – with which they are comfortable. Like Goldilocks, they don’t want a number that’s too large, or too small, but “just right”. They are discerning people.

Introverts and Extraverts Introverts tend to have a few concentrated, deep relationships. Extraverts tend to have many diluted, shallow relationships.

Life’s Too Short Life’s too short to not be yourself, to be a fake, a phoney, a fraud, to be inauthentic, to be wearing masks (personas) all the time to conceal your true self in the social space. As people get older, they start to remove masks, and when they are very old, they have no masks left. The person on his deathbed is absolutely maskless. There is nothing left to hide.

Occam’s Razor

“Occam’s Razor does not suggest that only simple things exist, but that we should tend first (not last) to the simpler explanation if it explains the given phenomena.” – David Lane What’s the simpler explanation ... that mind exists in its own right? Or that inherently mindless atoms miraculously generate epiphenomenal, causally impotent minds that imagine themselves free when they aren’t, and long for God, poetry and love? The trouble with “simplest explanation” is that it’s usually an ideological and dogmatic explanation, hence not in fact simple at all. Actually, it’s usually not an explanation either, but just a subjective description. David Lane, who contributes to a webpage on Ken Wilber, yet seems to do nothing but attack Ken Wilber (which makes you wonder why he has any interest in Wilber since he does nothing but rubbish his ideas in favour of fallacious scientific materialist “explanations”) is one of those tiresome people who imagine that the “explanations” that he personally likes must be the ones on the side of Occam’s Razor. They never are. The simplest explanation of reality is that it’s “nothing” (mathematical points) in motion, according to the principle of sufficient reason. Lane would never agree with that ... because it’s an explanation based on dimensionless existence (“nothing”) and not on dimensional matter, which Lane finds so convincing, without any rational justification.

***** Given Occam’s Razor, the search for the most economic explanation, what’s the simpler explanation – that “God” created the universe, or that it jumped out of nothing for no reason? Is either of these even an explanation at all, or simply an ideological claim? Does Occam’s Razor even apply to them? How can you compare and contrast two such radically different “explanations”? They don’t share the same language. As Kuhn points out, they are incommensurate. Wikipedia says, “According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable – the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. (A later interpretation by Kuhn of ‘commensurable’ versus ‘incommensurable’ was as a distinction between languages, namely, that statements in commensurable languages were

translatable fully from one to the other, while in incommensurable languages, strict translation is not possible.) The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in a difficult position: ‘Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.’ (SSR, p. 148). Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another. “Kuhn (SSR, section XII) states that the probabilistic tools used by verificationists are inherently inadequate for the task of deciding between conflicting theories, since they belong to the very paradigms they seek to compare. Similarly, observations that are intended to falsify a statement will fall under one of the paradigms they are supposed to help compare, and will therefore also be inadequate for the task. According to Kuhn, the concept of falsifiability is unhelpful for understanding why and how science has developed as it has. In the practice of science, scientists will only consider the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available that they judge credible. If there is not, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.” It’s a crucial point that scientists refuse to deem a theory falsified unless they have migrated to a new theory via a paradigm shift. This means that the falsification principle is absurd since science does not use it when falsification has actually occurred, but only when a successful new

paradigm has been established. That’s like someone waiting to find a new religion before they abandon their previous religion. You ought to abandon it as soon as you know it’s false. With respect to Occam’s Razor, you cannot compare incommensurate theories. You can compare only theories that belong to the same order. A scientific theory with five assumptions should be preferred to a compatible theory with fifteen assumptions, all other things being equal. However, you can’t compare scientific and spiritual/religious theories. Scientific, religious, spiritual, philosophical and mathematical explanations are all incommensurate. Theories based on words, emotions and faith (Mythos explanations) can’t be compared with theories based on numbers and reason (Logos explanations). Scientific theories based on the senses can’t be compared with theories based on reason and logic. Moreover, pseudo-mathematical theories based on logic, modal logic, axioms, formalism, intuitionism, set theory, and so on, are incommensurate with ontological mathematics. They belong to different orders of explanation. They belong to wholly different conceptions of what mathematics is. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are not mathematical theorems. They have no connection at all with the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. What they concern are pseudo-mathematical concepts. The fact that professional mathematicians waste their lives on fallacious versions of mathematics is tragic ... but they ought to have spent more time becoming philosophically literate and understanding what claims they are making about reality before they start inventing subjects that have no bearing on existence, but are just human fantasies. The mere fact that you use mathematical language and concepts does not mean you are doing math. Science uses plenty of math and yet is offensive to authentic mathematics, and a total abuse of it.

***** It’s absurd for David Lane to claim that scientific materialist theories are more compatible with Occam’s Razor than Ken Wilber’s New Age theories. To “prove” his case, Lane refers to scientific materialist theories and evidence, which is like a Christian trying to persuade a Muslim by quoting the Christian Bible (which the Muslim completely rejects). Similarly, if Wilber replied to Lane, he would rely on New Age arguments that

presuppose the falsehood of scientific materialism. So, the entire exercise is pointless, and has precisely nothing to do with Occam’s Razor.

***** Theories based on words are incommensurate with theories based on numbers. Theories based on words or numbers are incommensurate with theories based on sensations. Mythos and Logos theories are incommensurate. Empiricist theories are incommensurate with rationalist theories. Physical theories are incommensurate with metaphysical theories. Faith theories are incommensurate with theories based on reason. Emotional theories are incommensurate with thinking theories. Sensory theories are incommensurate with intuitive theories. Mystical theories are incommensurate with rational theories. Sensory theories are incommensurate with non-sensory theories. Why are hidden variables repudiated by science? – because they are incommensurate with scientific experimentalism. Human beings are always talking at cross purposes. They argue over theories that are wholly incommensurate. The real issue is this ... what kind of theory has the right qualities and properties to give a definitive answer to existence? All wrong theories are incommensurate with the right theory of existence. Not all theories are equal. There is no relativism of theories. One is right and all the rest are wrong.

Incommensurate Minds Why are humans so screwed? It’s because they have multiple incommensurate minds. Referring to one version of Jungian psychology, we have six minds (or mind components), all vying with each other: 1) the thinking mind, 2) the feeling mind, 3) the sensing mind, 4) the intuitive mind, 5) the extraverted mind, 6) the intuitive mind. All respond to the world in radically different and opposing ways. According to Freud, we have three minds: Ego, Id, and Superego, with the Id opposing the Superego, and the Ego mediating between them. With an alternative Jungian scheme, we have a persona, ego, shadow, anima/animus, mana personalities, and a self, all trying to achieve

integration and wholeness. According to Julian Jaynes, our consciousness is built over a bicameral architecture. We have a left brain conscious and a right brain unconscious. The right hemisphere was once dominant and the left its slave, but now that has reversed. With all of this conflicting mental activity going on, should we be remotely surprised that we are so confused, and so unsure about how to evaluate our existence? In a rational, intelligible universe, it’s our rational, logical, thinking mind that reveals the truth to us. This is our organ or faculty for truth. However, our feelings, intuitions and sensations are much more immediate to us, and most people are far more likely to be swayed by what is immediate to them. They regard reason and logic as unreal and abstract, a kind of weird add-on to our “real” feelings, intuitions and sensations. Virtually no one on earth regards reason as every bit as real – in fact more real – than our sensations. When anyone constructs any theory at all, they should be compelled to analyse all the assumptions and biases that go into it. Are they driven by their senses in formulating this theory, or their intuition, or their feelings, or their reason, or their extraversion, or their introversion, and so on? Axioms that are “self-evident” to sensing types may appear absurd to intuitive and thinking types, and vice versa. An Abrahamic feeling type considers it self-evident that there’s a God. A follower of Eastern or New Age mysticism takes it as self-evident that meditation can take him to some special and “enlightened” state of mind. A scientific sensing type takes it as self-evident that there’s no non-sensory soul. Right from the get-go, how you relate to the world (extravertedly or introvertedly), how you gather data about the world (with your senses or intuition), how you evaluate information (with your feelings or reason) all shape what you regard as “self-evident”. The trouble is that what one person finds self-evident isn’t self-evident to another person, and everything that flows from one person’s “self-evident” axioms doesn’t flow at all as far as another person is concerned. To a rationalist, it’s offensive that scientists don’t regard math as real. The question is why don’t they regard it as real? The answer is that reason and logic aren’t big things for scientists. What’s big for scientists is their

sensorium, and mathematics doesn’t register at all as far as that goes, so math is regarded as abstract and unreal rather than concrete and real. This has nothing to do with the true ontological status of mathematics, but with how sensing types gather and evaluate information. The theories people produce are based on their personality types, not on objective reality. How they think about theories is based on their personality type, not on reason and logic. And that’s why there are so many crazy human theories about the nature of existence. Only one approach is actually correct, and that’s the one based on reason and logic, expressed through ontological mathematics. If that weren’t true, we wouldn’t be living in a rational, intelligible, ordered, organised, patterned world. Of course, we can’t persuade you of that ... unless you’re rational and logical enough, and that will be possible only if you’re a thinking type. Otherwise, we’re pissing into the wind. We might as well be talking to chimpanzees.

***** Gödel, a towering genius, made one catastrophic mistake. He regarded math as transcendent (Platonic). He should in fact have regarded it as transcendent and immanent (Aristotelian). Had he made that simple adjustment, he would have stumbled upon ontological mathematics: math as the fibre and fabric of existence.

***** We can show you how to think, but we can’t make you actually think, and we can’t overcome your inbuilt biases. That’s the human tragedy.

***** “I write to keep from going mad from the contradictions I find among mankind – and to work some of those contradictions out for myself.” – Montaigne

Numbers and Mathematics

Numbers and mathematics are one and the same thing. There are no numbers without mathematics, and there’s no mathematics without numbers. To say, as Pythagoras did, “All things are numbers; number rules all” is equally to say, “All things are mathematics; mathematics rules all.”

Axioms Axioms are terms or statements that can be accepted as true. Almost nothing has caused more trouble in terms of knowledge than entirely bogus axioms that the majority regard as self-evident. Who defines what can be accepted as true? That’s the whole problem. Who guards the guards? Which peers choose their peers? Who chooses “truth”? On what basis?

Deduction versus Induction Deductive reasoning: top-down; a priori; analytic; rational and logical; works from the general to the specific. With deduction, you create a general theory and narrow it down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested. You make observations to test the hypotheses. You confirm (or not) the hypotheses, and thus the original theory. Deduction involves: general theory → specific hypothesis → specific observations → confirmation or falsification. Inductive reasoning: bottom-up; a posteriori; synthetic; observational and empirical; works from the specific to the general. With induction, you go from observations to broader generalizations, hypotheses and theories. You conduct specific observations and measurements; detect patterns and regularities; formulate tentative hypotheses that explain the data; keep testing; then draw general conclusions or theories. Induction involves: specific observations → patterns → hypotheses → testing of hypotheses → confirmation of hypotheses (leading to their becoming theories, i.e. welltested and verified hypotheses). Rationalists use deduction, while empiricists use induction. Rationalists use reason and logic, while empiricists use observations and interpretations of those observations. Rationalists use their intellects, while empiricists use their senses. People who rely on their senses cannot be intellectuals. Intellectuals are those who prize their reason over everything else.

The Foundations of Mathematics? “There is a logical incompatibility between Wittgenstein’s views on the foundations of mathematics ... and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. ... He acknowledged the incompatibility and countered that Gödel could not have proved what he thought he had proved.” – Rebecca Goldstein “Mathematics cannot be incomplete...” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein was absolutely right when he claimed that Gödel had performed a logical conjuring trick. In fact, Gödel had performed a sophisticated version of gematria. Wikipedia says, “Gematria is an AssyroBabylonian system of numerology later adopted by Jews that assigns numerical value to a word or phrase in the belief that words or phrases with identical numerical values bear some relation to each other...” If you regard the Bible as having been written in a verbal language – with all that implies regarding grammar, syntax, spelling, the evolution of language, the ways of using language – then it cannot simultaneously support a numerical interpretation since numbers operate in a wholly different way. Rebecca Goldstein wrote, “[Wittgenstein] was adamant on the impossibility of being able to speak about a formal language in the way that Gödel’s proof does [MH: That is, one language cannot validly talk about another language since each operates on its own unique basis; in Gödel’s case, you cannot use numbers to comment on words and symbols]. He was also adamant in denying that paradoxes, being trivial epiphenomena of the ways in which language works, could have large and interesting consequences.” Wittgenstein was right. Gödel’s work is an ingenious error. It can’t have any ontological consequences because you can’t ontologically convert one language into another; you can’t recode one language in terms of another and move back and forth between them (as Gödel did). Above all, if numbers are ontological – which they are – you cannot use them to validly say anything about non-ontological languages. You can never use numbers to comment on manmade words and symbols. All translations are inaccurate, and never more so than in trying to translate words and symbols into numbers, or vice versa.

Ontologically and epistemologically, it’s impossible for existence, unlike manmade languages, to contain any errors, inconsistencies, flaws, contradictions, ambiguities, paradoxes, uncertainties, or any incompleteness at all. If it did, the universe would annihilate itself, or dissolve into total chaos. A more sophisticated analysis – based on the principle of sufficient reason – shows that such a universe couldn’t even have come into existence in the first place. The principle of sufficient reason mandates that the mathematics that ontologically expresses it is eternal, necessary, consistent and complete. Rebecca Goldstein makes great play of Alan Turing’s work backing up Gödel’s, but this is merely to repeat exactly the same fallacies. Computing is not a complete and consistent system. It has nothing to do with the fundamental ontology and epistemology of the universe. It’s just another limited, fallible, manmade language. The binary system cannot – in ontological terms – reflect any other number system. We might – through a “logical conjuring trick” – be able to convert base-ten numbers into basetwo numbers, but that process has nothing to with the ontological reality of the situation. As Wittgenstein suggested, each language has its own unique rules, hence is non-interchangeable with any other language, and cannot be validly coded in any other language. Paradoxes will always result. What would it mean to translate an ontological number corresponding to a frequency of thirteen into binary? Even if you could validly recode the Form (rational) part of an ontological wave, you certainly couldn’t recode the Content (empirical) part. Only one language is complete and consistent: the eternal, necessary language of existence (ontological mathematics). No other language can be translated it, and it can’t be translated into anything else. Base-two reflects “on” and “off”. Base-ten reflects the fact that we have ten fingers. If we had twenty-three fingers, we might well be using basetwenty-three. We shall refer to the true number base of existence as base-X. No one has yet definitively established what the natural base is, i.e. what X is.

***** Wittgenstein said, “My task is not to talk about Gödel’s proof, for example. But to by-pass it.”

“[Wittgenstein tried to show that the meaning of Gödel’s work] is at odds with its intent, that it cannot mean what it purports to mean.” – Rebecca Goldstein Wittgenstein beats Gödel hands-down because his analysis regarding languages and mathematical tautology is right. Gödel seems to be right in much the same way as Einsteinian relativity seems to be right. As Nietzsche pointed out, ingenious errors (“irrefutable errors”, as he put it) are always deemed to be true. It’s so hard to see where Gödel and Einstein go wrong (and the two men were of course great friends), that most people decide that they can’t have gone wrong at all. Wittgenstein was never able to expose Gödel’s error to the satisfaction of those who believed that Gödel had discovered a monumental truth. In fact, if you accept Wittgenstein’s analysis, Gödel didn’t discover anything at all. He simply played a language game in an ingenious but utterly invalid way, and certainly didn’t prove what he believed he had proved. The ultimate issue regarding Gödel’s work is whether the technical exercise of recoding words, letter and symbols as numbers has any ontological and epistemological significance, and, of course, it doesn’t, and never can. It’s just a manmade language game applied to another manmade language, with all of the invalidity that implies. That, naturally, was why it didn’t work (i.e. didn’t produce completeness and consistency).

Genuine Importance All great thinkers want to pursue problems of “genuine importance”. Gödel certainly thought he was doing so, yet he was actually chasing a phantasm. He was unwittingly exploring the artefacts of manmade techniques and methods. There is only one true ontology and epistemology, and that means that anything not connected with that must involve the exploration of human constructs that do not bear on reality. Nearly all human thinking is concerned with nonsense. This nonsense can be extremely complex. It might even look rational and logical, but it’s definitely not. Science is humanity’s most elaborate fraud. Metamathematics isn’t far behind. However, one thing that can be said for Gödel’s work is that he provided the test of all false systems of thought: they will always be

inconsistent and/or incomplete. Any system that generates paradoxes is ipso facto manmade. However, whether Gödel’s specific technique is a valid way of demonstrating the paradoxes of a system is another matter. If, as Wittgenstein argues, Gödel’s whole strategy is invalid then Gödel’s paradoxical results reflect that invalidity, and say nothing about the system to which Gödel’s technique was applied. Have mathematical logicians, like the “intellectuals” of Laputa, simply created an ingenious but absurd system that says nothing, but does so in such a beguiling manner that people imagine it to be the purest, most rigorous truth? They wouldn’t be the first humans to be certain of their correctness, yet absolutely wrong. Mathematical logic will one day be regarded as even more absurd and pedantic than medieval Scholasticism.

The Black Sun The Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne in German) – also known as the Sonnenrad (German for “Sun Wheel”) – is a symbol of the esoteric and occult, featuring in alchemical and Hermetic traditions. Sol niger (black sun) refers to the first stage of the alchemical Great Work (Magnum Opus): the nigredo (blackening). The Black Sun is the eclipsed sun, and can refer to the eclipse of consciousness in the alchemy of time. The Black Sun is where light and dark reverse, where everything Fades to Black. We return to the primordial condition ... that from which our souls emerged. The Great Work starts with blackened ash, and ends with the production of pure gold. The Black Sun can symbolize the dissolution of the body, its reduction to ash (black matter). In alchemy, three suns are described: black, white, and red, corresponding to the three primary alchemical colour stages. In the Hermetic tradition, two suns are emphasised: a hidden one and an apparent one. The hidden one corresponds to the light of the Truth, to Plato’s Form of the Good that illuminates all higher minds. It’s pure philosophical gold. The essential Fire is conjoined with the divine Aether. The other sun is the Black Sun. This is the apparent sun – the sun of ignorance and delusion that endarkens the mind and hides the truth from us.

It’s the profane material “gold” that entrances lower minds. The bright fire of the True Sun does not consume you. The dark fire of the Dark Sun is all-consuming. It was said that prior to Adam’s fall, humanity was made of the divine fire, but, afterwards, it was composed of the Black Sun’s fire and thus humanity knew death, ignorance, lies and misery. Heraclitus referred to the holy fire of the True Sun as “artistic” fire. For the Pythagorean Philolaus, it was the Central Fire that controlled the universe. In mythology, the Black Sun is the Underworld’s sun, and is the reverse of the sun of the Heavens (the Overworld). In between them stands the ordinary sun of the world. The Black Sun is sometimes designated as both tomb and womb, conveying the cosmic female principle. When the Black Sun of the solar eclipse appeared, the Aztecs believed that swarms of deadly black butterflies appeared that could devour people.

***** The Black Sun Rising – the increasing Endarkenment. The True Sun Rising – the increasing Enlightenment.

***** The Black Sun represents an eclipse, both figurative and literal. The Ego can be regarded as a Black Sun, concealing the Self (the uneclipsed sun). Our mortal lives are a succession of Black Suns obscuring the immortal life of our soul. The metaphor of the eclipse stands for the movement of light to dark (knowledge to ignorance), but with the promise of the return to the light (gnosis). During the rule of the Black Sun, our true selves cannot be seen. We are invisible. The Black Sun reigns over the “dark night of the soul”. It presides over a crisis in a person’s spiritual life or belief system, and presages the process of transformation. It stands for the Unknown Country.

*****

As well as the Black Sun, there’s a Black Moon, Black Earth (anti Earth, or counter Earth), and Black Universe. Are dark matter and dark energy the products of the Dark Universe?!

Decidable and Computable “In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is known to be impossible to construct a single algorithm that always leads to a correct yesor-no answer. ... In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. A key part of the proof was a mathematical definition of a computer and program, which became known as a Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first examples of a decision problem. ... Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithm. ... According to the Church-Turing thesis, computable functions are exactly the functions that can be calculated using a mechanical calculation device given unlimited amounts of time and storage space. Equivalently, this thesis states that any function which has an algorithm is computable. Note that an algorithm in this sense is understood to be a sequence of steps a person with unlimited time and an infinite supply of pen and paper could follow. ... Thus every computable function must have a finite program that completely describes how the function is to be computed. It is possible to compute the function by just following the instructions; no guessing or special insight is required... Every computable function has a finite procedure giving explicit, unambiguous instructions on how to compute it. ... The real numbers are uncountable so most real numbers are not computable.” – Wikipedia Turing was in the same game as Gödel, and all of the same Wittgensteinian objections apply. Computing, like science, is extremely useful, but can it tell us a single thing about life, mind, consciousness, free will, meaning, purpose, ontology and epistemology?

Artefacts You should draw a very careful distinction between statements about reality and statements that are artefacts of the ideology used to contemplate those original statements. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the classic example. Not a single part of this interpretation is true. All of it stems from the Meta Paradigm of materialism, empiricism and positivism used to view it. Get rid of that Meta Paradigm, and the whole Copenhagen Interpretation vanishes. Similarly, if you get rid of the formalist, finitist, logicist and axiomatic Meta Paradigm that underlies metamathematics, you get rid of the whole subject. Since the entire subject is fallacious, all results derived from it are fallacious too. They are artefacts of the technique, method and Meta Paradigm, but do not address reality at all. All of Scholastic philosophy that addresses the Christian God is total nonsense, no matter how well argued and how seemingly logical ... since there is no Christian God. Metamathematics has its equivalents of “God”, and they are no more real. Without the right ontology, you have nothing. You are talking brilliantly about unicorns. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are mathematical unicorns ... beautiful and inspiring, but fantastical and wholly separate from reality. How do you know you are dealing with reality or the artefact of an invalid technique, method or interpretation for addressing reality? The “paradox” of Schrödinger’s cat exists only if you accept the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you don’t, there is no paradox. Therefore, the paradox is a mere artefact of a particular viewpoint. It has no truth-content independent of the interpretation used to construct it. Beware of getting caught in ingenious webs woven by ingenious human minds, but signifying nothing.

Deduction versus Induction Deduce: arrive at a fact or a conclusion by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion. (Dictionary.com) Induce: to assert or establish a proposition about a class of phenomena on the basis of observations on a number of particular facts. (Dictionary.com) Deduction and induction involve two radically different ways of understanding reality. Deduction uses reason, and doesn’t require any

observations whatsoever, while induction is entirely predicated on observations. Jungian thinking judging types (TJs) use deduction; Jungian sensing perceiving types (SPs) use induction. If deduction (mathematics) is the right way to understand reality, induction (science) is the wrong way, and vice versa. For deduction to reflect reality, reality must actually be made of reason (i.e. of mathematics). This is the central assertion of ontological mathematics. Reason is not sensory, and not regarded as “concrete” by SPs. Scientists always say that mathematics is unreal, abstract, and probably a construct of the human mind (i.e. nothing to do with reality in itself). It’s almost impossible to rationally persuade a scientist that reality is mathematical. It goes against every one of their instincts. In fact, they regard the assertion that reality is made of math to be more or less insane. Don’t bother trying to reason with them. That’s a fool’s errand. For induction to reflect reality, reality must be made of non-reason: of concrete things. Yet we already know that this is false if everything originates from a Big Bang Singularity, given that it’s impossible for concrete, material, spacetime objects to exist in a Singularity. But SPs, not being rational, pay no heed to such rational considerations. You can’t reason with these people. You can only reason with rational people.

The Principle of Cartesian Dualism Cartesian dualism should be turned into a formal principle. Whenever we come across two methods, entities, principles, axioms, philosophies, and so on, we should regard them as incompatible Cartesian substances that cannot interact, hence something must be fundamentally wrong with one of them. When it comes to deduction and induction, these must be considered as different Cartesian substances. A deductive (a priori, analytic, rationalist) universe cannot interact with an inductive universe (a posteriori, synthetic, empiricist). One or other must be right, and the other wrong. Science, as an inconsistent and incomplete hybrid of rationalism (mathematics) and empiricism (experimentation), is driven by induction, but also dips into deduction now again (always in a clunky way). The universe is either deductive or inductive. It’s one or the other, and can’t be both. Either mathematics (deduction) is right, or scientific

empiricism (induction) is right.

The Omission It’s extraordinary how little attention has been paid to how radically human psychology, personality type and wiring of the physical brain affects human theories concerning the nature of existence. The theory of “God” (i.e. religion), for example, arises purely from human feelings and human mystical intuitions. Science arises purely from an obsession with what we can sense. If we stripped away all human foibles, only then we would apprehend reality in itself. We have one and only one means for escaping from the subjective human condition ... objective reason. It has nothing to do with human feelings, human mysticism, human languages, or the human senses.

***** Humans just can’t get beyond the apparent concreteness and immediacy of their feelings, sensations, perceptions, experiences and intuitions. Reason isn’t immediately experienced, and doesn’t seem concrete in any way, hence is regarded as unreal and abstract. Moreover, if reason is conducted correctly, it’s perfect, yet people experience the world as highly imperfect, hence, again, they consider reason unworldly. Many will believe in a transcendent, perfect God, but not in transcendent, perfect Reason or Mathematics. They can emotionally relate to “God”, but not to the “God Equation”. The way humans think is what stops them from understanding reality. They think as humans, but existence, obviously, isn’t human. Humans have an ineradicable tendency to anthropomorphise reality, to bring it down to their level ... their senses, their feelings, their intuitions, their words, their language, their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their conjectures, their interpretations. That’s exactly how not to think about reality! The answer to existence (mathematics) is in plain sight, yet seems totally hidden for the simple reason that humans automatically ignore it. It doesn’t conform to what they want the answer to existence to be. It doesn’t conform to what the human condition expects the answer to be.

Gödel and Platonism

“In his later years, Gödel began writing about philosophical issues. Gödel had always been interested in this. Indeed, it is a little-known fact that Gödel set out to prove the incompleteness theorem in the first place because he thought he could use it to establish the philosophical view known as Platonism – or, more specifically, the subview known as mathematical Platonism. Mathematical Platonism is the view that mathematical sentences, such as ‘2 + 2 = 4,’ provide true descriptions of a collection of objects – namely, numbers – that are nonphysical and nonmental and exist outside of space and time in a special mathematical realm – or, as it has also been called, ‘Platonic Heaven.’ Gödel’s idea was that if he could prove the incompleteness theorem, then he could show that there were unprovable mathematical truths. This, he thought, would go a long way toward establishing Platonism, because it would show that mathematical truth is objective – i.e., that it goes beyond mere human provability or human axiom systems. “In 1964 Gödel published a philosophical paper, ‘What Is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?,’ in which he proposed a solution to an ancient objection to Platonism. It is often argued that Platonism cannot be true, because it makes mathematical knowledge impossible: whereas humans seem to acquire all knowledge of the external world through sensory perception, Platonism asserts that mathematical objects, such as numbers, are nonphysical objects that cannot be perceived by the senses. Gödel responded to this argument by claiming that, in addition to the normal five senses, humans also possess a faculty of mathematical intuition, a faculty that enables people to grasp the nature of numbers or to see them in the mind’s eye. Gödel’s claim was that the faculty of mathematical intuition makes it possible to acquire knowledge of nonphysical mathematical objects that exist outside of space and time. “Unfortunately for Gödel, his philosophical views have not been very widely accepted. Everyone accepts his incompleteness theorem, but very few people believe that it establishes Platonism.” – Mark Balaguer, Encyclopedia Britannica “Mathematical intuition” is just “super reason”. Ontological mathematics, not Platonism, deals with non-physical mathematical objects outside space and time. These are none other than energy frequencies. Isn’t it extraordinary that people are perfectly willing to accept the bizarre claim that mathematics is inconsistent and incomplete, but not the

rational alternative: that mathematics is complete and consistent but exists in itself eternally, necessarily, nonphysically and outside space and time? The reason of course is that people are under the spell of scientific empiricism and materialism, and autistic sensory mania. It would literally destroy the Myth of Science if it were acknowledged that there is an entire mathematical reality that no Large Hadron Collider will ever be able to detect or access. Even worse, this mathematical domain is the home of the mind, the soul, and the explanation, meaning and purpose of existence.

The Difference Between Knowing And Understanding “Education. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” – Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary “Understanding is the result of facts acquiring meaning for the learner: To grasp the meaning of a thing, an event, or a situation is to see it in its relations to other things: to see how it operates or functions, what consequences follow from it, what causes it, what uses it can be put to. In contrast, what we have called the brute thing, the thing without meaning to us, is something whose relations are not grasped...” – John Dewey “Without theoretical understanding there is no true learning.” – W. Edwards Deming “Knowing” and “understanding” are used interchangeably in everyday speech, but there’s a significant difference. Do you understand what you supposedly know? Do you know what you supposedly understand? Is knowing how to play a violin the same as understanding how to play a violin? Is knowing how to fly a plane the same as understanding how to fly a plane? Is knowing how to fix a computer the same thing as understanding how to fix a computer? A football team’s best striker might be said to know how to score goals, but does he understand how he does it? Do you know how your cell phone works? Do you understand how your cell phone works? Scientists know how to perform experiments, but do they understand what the experiments signify about reality? Does the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics reflect knowledge or understanding of quantum mechanics? A computer or robot

might be said to “know” how to conduct various tasks, but it has zero understanding of what it is doing. Many schoolkids may have “knowledge” that they can enact robotically and pedantically, without having any understanding of what they are doing. It can be said of many students that they know a lot of math, but don’t understand any of it. A person can “know” how to do calculus – to apply the rules of calculus – without having any understanding of what they are doing in ontological terms. A Protestant might know the Bible inside out, without having any understanding of the Bible and the context in which it was written. Someone who knows how to do something but doesn’t understand what they are doing may be able to pass on their formula for what to do to someone else, but that formula will be rigidly applied in the same context over and over again. You can’t apply a formula to new and unexpected situations unless you understand what you are doing. A good teacher is someone who understands something and communicates his understanding. A bad teacher is someone who merely knows something and passes on his narrow knowledge. Most people leave school knowing how to do various scientific and mathematical tasks, but they have zero understanding of science and mathematics, and can’t apply their knowledge beyond the limited scenarios they learned at school. This is rote learning. It involves mechanically learning various things – so as to pass exams – but no actual understanding is transmitted. That’s why most people forget nearly everything they learned at school. They simply memorised it. They didn’t understand it. When their memory faded, so did their knowledge. Doing something correctly – getting the right answer at school – is not evidence of understanding. One of the purposes of the God Series is to show people that what they think they know they don’t know at all, or, rather, don’t understand. Any scientist who cannot refute the God Series (and none can) must, logically, then admit that he doesn’t understand science, or math. Einstein said, “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything one has learned in school.” Actually, it’s understanding that remains. The greatest mathematicians and scientists have staggering knowledge of mathematics – in the sense of how well they can manipulate every part of mathematics – but they have zero knowledge of what mathematics actually

is. They don’t understand its ontology, and what could be a more serious failing than that? Do the people who study metamathematics understand what they are doing, or have they simply invented a system, which comes with “knowledge” – and many clever manipulations – but no actual understanding? If you understand something, you must be able to define it, hence define what it is not. We might say that knowledge relates to facts, and understanding to the meaning of facts. You can memorise facts without understanding their meaning. People who are brilliant at quiz shows have immense knowledge of facts, yet none of these people has ever contributed to any advance in human knowledge because they don’t understand the facts they have learned. A system of knowledge comprises a body of related facts. Understanding provides coherence and meaning to these facts. It makes sense of many distinct pieces of knowledge. It reveals their hidden commonality.

***** Knowledge is a necessary element of understanding, but it is not sufficient. Understanding transcends mere knowledge. Knowledge is typically a grasp of factual, technical information. Understanding, however, places knowledge in a proper, integrated, unified, holistic context. What is wisdom? It’s excellent judgement, and it relies on both excellent knowledge and understanding.

***** “There is a point which varies depending on the individual reader, at which readers who monitor their own understanding realize that they are not ‘getting it’ even though they know the meanings of all the words, the individual sentences make sense, and there is a coherent sequence of events. ... At that point, critical readers who want to understand typically slow down, sharpen their attention, and try different reading strategies.” – A. Chapman

Judging from the comments they make, very few people understand the God Series.

How and Why In many ways, knowledge concerns “how”, while understanding concerns “why”. In Aristotelian terms, we might say that knowledge relates to the “efficient” (scientific) cause, while understanding relates to the “final” cause, i.e. that for the sake of which a thing is done; the purpose. The final cause is the teleological cause, that which is wholly denied by science. There is no purpose or meaning in science. Scientists have no understanding of reality. What they have is a knowledge of their model of reality, but they are wholly incapable of justifying their model, and have no interest in justifying it. They never want deep reasons or explanations. They are perfectly happy with the superficial, provided it works.

Numbers and Words Manmade languages comprise words (and we will include manmade symbols, such as those of logic, as words). Nature’s language comprises numbers. You have failed to understand nature if you think it can be captured by manmade words. You might think that science is a kind of language, the language of “things”. In fact, science is simply mathematics with sensory images applied to it. There’s no such thing as an atom or electron. There are only mathematical wavefunctions. “Atom” and “electron” are just labels attached to things that have no appearance, in order that scientists can have a sensory picture to contemplate. There is no such language as that of “things”. Matter is wholly indefinable. There are two types of logic. True logic applies to mathematics alone. Quasi logic is linked to empiricism, manmade languages, and so on. Such “logic” is always inconsistent and/or incomplete. It can give rise to a body of knowledge, just as science does, but no one can form any understanding of it, just as no one can form any understanding of science. Such subjects – being contrary to rationalism – are not susceptible to being understood. They are systems of “knowledge” detached from understanding. What is required are systems where knowledge and understanding come together.

Modalities “Modal logic can be viewed broadly as the logic of different sorts of modalities, or modes of truth: alethic (‘necessarily’), epistemic (‘it is known that’), deontic (‘it ought to be the case that’), or temporal (‘it has been the case that’) among others. Common logical features of these operators justify the common label. In the strict sense however, the term ‘modal logic’ is reserved for the logic of the alethic modalities [...the logic of necessity and possibility...]” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Modal logics are logics that assign values to statements that go beyond ‘This statement is true’ or ‘This statement is false’. Modal logics add the concepts of possibility and necessity. Modal logic allows statements like ‘It is necessary for X to be true’, ‘It is possible for X to be true’, etc.” – Mark C. Chu-Carroll “[Logician C. I. Lewis] presented a series of [modal logic] systems, S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 of increasing strength.” – James W. Garson

***** Strict modal logic studies reasoning that involves the use of the expressions “necessarily” and “possibly” (or, to be more precise, that uses the symbols or operators indicating “it is necessary that” and “it is possible that”). As usual, this system falls at the first hurdle, i.e. how are we to decide what is necessary, and what is possible? Surely we’re not going to use intuitions, or “self-evident” axioms, or beliefs, opinions, interpretations, conjectures, or the senses, or experimental verification, or experimental falsification, i.e. the list of nonsense that humanity normally turns to. Only the eternal truths of ontological mathematics are necessarily true, and they are necessarily true because they are analytic tautologies. This is the only conceivable criterion for necessary truth. Only analytic tautologies can be complete and consistent. Instantly, modal logic is drowned in ambiguity, hence is useless as an analytic tool. Ambiguity falsifies it as a technique with any reliable truth content. Moreover, why does modal logic refer to possibility instead of Leibnizian compossibility? How would it change modal logic if compossibility were added? And what about another concept, that of comnecessity? Everything suddenly becomes very murky indeed.

Modal logic is just another language game. It has no validity beyond the rules of its own game. It has nothing to do with ontology. The main idea behind modal logic is to introduce to a system of logic the means to distinguish between three different modes of assertion: “A is necessarily true”, “A is true”, and “A is possible”. By introducing symbols or operators that reflect these considerations, the scope of logic can be extended to assess the accuracy of philosophical reasoning, given that the concepts of necessity and possibility are encountered throughout philosophical discourse. Yet the fundamental question remains – who needs logic at all? What value does it provide? What function does it serve? In fact, all we need are science and ontological mathematics. Science allows us to study the empirical, phenomenal world of content, and to check theories observationally. Ontological mathematics provides the means to study the rational, noumenal world of form that underlies the scientific world, and provides the means to explain how the scientific world arises from the mathematical world. We don’t need logic or modal logic in any way. We just need mathematics in its dimensionless mode (noumenal, mental), and in its dimensional mode (phenomenal, material). Analytic mathematical tautology provides all we need regarding what is necessarily true, and scientific probabilities and mathematical statistical analysis provide all we need regarding how possible or compossible something is. Modal logic is redundant. It can’t advance the math-science combination in any way. It can’t do anything at all that math-science can’t do. It’s nothing but a philosophical language game that believes it’s much more powerful than it is. As ever, it has pretensions to being able to define and clarify mathematics. As ever, it’s totally wrong. Mathematical ontology precedes everything else, and defines everything else. Ontological mathematics reflects the principle of sufficient reason, hence there is always an exact mathematical reason why any fact is thus and not otherwise. Even if we as human beings can’t get directly at the specific mathematical sufficient reason, it necessarily exists, and we can certainly work out probabilities based on the kinds of underlying mathematical processes that we know are occurring (all relating to sinusoidal mathematics, of course). There’s never any reason to resort to logic or modal logic. In terms of understanding human history, however, we would certainly turn to Hegelian

dialectical logic. It’s time for the intelligentsia to get behind ontological mathematics, and forget philosophical language games based on dubious logic, and ambiguous modalities. Anything that is not complete and consistent cannot be infallibly true. When it comes to things that are not infallibly true, science’s verification and falsification principles, not modal logic, are the most suitable alternatives. Wittgenstein is the philosopher who should be studied regarding the problems of language and the nature of language games. Wittgenstein even got it right that true math is pure tautology. His catastrophic error – one of the greatest intellectual blunders of all time, sadly – was to fail to conceive of mathematics ontologically. Had he done so, he could have been right up there with Leibniz. He would have understood that ontological mathematics is the one and only non-manmade language, and is none other than the language of existence itself. Ontological mathematics in an entirely separate category from all other languages. It’s not empty, abstract and unreal – as Wittgenstein and science claim – but full, concrete and real. It’s the invisible fibre and fabric of existence. It’s the unseen framework and architecture on which everything else hangs. It’s the unobservable information carrier that conveys all of the information we observe and experience. Modal logic is no more immune than any other manmade system from the criticisms we have outlined, so what’s the point of studying it other than to play abstruse language games, akin to glorified crossword puzzles, serving no purpose whatsoever? It’s time for people to wake up and smell the coffee. Ontological mathematics is the only way forward, and science must be converted into the phenomenal expression of ontological mathematics. Logicism is dead. It had its time, and it failed, although its dismal shadow still haunts mathematics and philosophy to this day.

True Logic All valid logic reduces to number logic, sinusoidal logic, energy logic ... ontological logic, not abstract logic, or manmade language-game logic.

The Armageddon Conspiracy

“I’ve just finished reading a Dan Brownesque thriller called The Armageddon Conspiracy by Mike Hockney. It has a lot of stuff about past lives in it. I was intrigued by his idea that each of us has a DNA line and a ‘Soul Line’. The DNA line is obviously a list of the people who came before us ... our parents, our parents’ parents, their parents and so on ... all the way back in time to some sort of Adam and Eve couple (or even back to the primordial slime). The Soul Line, on the other hand, is a list of all the physical bodies that our soul has inhabited since it first came into being. Our soul can inhabit male or female bodies, meaning that we have all had the experience of being the opposite gender. Each time our current body dies, our soul must find a new host. Most of us forget our previous soul incarnations, for the sake of our sanity. Only the highly sensitive, or those in deep trauma, gain access to their soul pasts. Multiple personality syndrome/ Dissociative Identity Disorder is what happens when you remember the lives that your soul led in other bodies. “In The Armageddon Conspiracy, one character has a soul line involving Nostradamus. The author also mentions the soul line of people like Hitler. One thing that critics of past lives always raise is that many people claim to have been someone famous like Napoleon or Billy the Kid or Cleopatra ... why not ordinary people? But if you think about it, if you’ve had hundreds of previous lives, most of them ordinary, isn’t it more likely that you’ll only remember the lives that really stood out?” – Unknown

The Revolution “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell The human race has forever lived in a time of deceit. It has continuously deceived itself. There has never been a time of universal truth. The Age of Mathematics (of Reason) would be that time.

Useful Logic The most useful logic is that associated with computing, with yes and no decisions, up and down, stop and go. A “logic gate” is an elementary building block of a digital circuit and has two inputs and one output.

“Conditional branching” or “branch logic” or “skip logic” allows a schema to be constructed where all related binary logical choices and their ramifications can be investigated. In market research, branch logic sends a respondent (to a survey) down a certain path, or branch, based on their previous answer to a survey question. Binary logic, also known as two-value or Boolean logic, concerns propositions that must be either true or false. Logic acts best as a filter, and for branching operations.

Pessimism and Optimism “I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.” – Gramsci We need an optimism of will and intelligence.

Cosmologists “Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt.” – Lev Landau That sums up the whole of science!

Hell “Mike, you know just enough to be dangerous. I have a couple of thoughts to share with you. First, I really hope you don’t go to Hell. Second, I’m assuming you must believe in science. As a scientist, you know we gather information through observations, tests, research and analysis. You do know that nothing in science is ever proven, right? All truths we find out through science are not proven; the hypothesis or theory fails to be rejected. It doesn’t mean these hypotheses will be rejected but there is always the possibility. Therefore, if you are wanting proof that there is a Heaven and Hell you, scientifically speaking, will never get it. It’s a two way street; you won’t get proof that there isn’t a Heaven and Hell.” – lfugate21 Soz, we don’t believe in science! First, you do hope we go to hell. Otherwise, you wouldn’t advocate hell. Obviously, if there’s no hell, no one can go to it, and sadists like you couldn’t threaten others with it. We can’t abide your views, but we certainly aren’t threatening you with hell for holding them. You do not return this basic courtesy. When you say that you

don’t want us to go to hell, what you mean is that you want us to agree with your beliefs. If we don’t, if we refuse, then, according to you, we shall suffer the most appalling consequences. That says a frightening amount about you ... it says that you’re a psychopath, that you are utterly immoral. We call your “God” the Devil. Go on, prove us wrong! Yes, we know that science proves nothing, and we also know that organised religion proves nothing. Only mathematics is capable of proof. Science at least relies on sensory evidence, which is reasonably objective and testable. Organised religion, however, relies on prophets, gurus and “holy” texts that provide no evidence of anything at all. “So, science can’t prove that there is and it can’t prove that there isn’t. Where do you get all your faith to believe so devoutly?” – lfugate21 You seem to have confused us with someone else. We don’t believe in anything. We completely repudiate faith. All beliefs are absurd, and have no place in a rational world. We know mathematics. “One of the greatest minds of all times said, ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.’ [MH: Er, who?] Since you can’t prove it, it is not a fact. If it’s not a fact, it’s a belief/opinion. You are basing your life (worldly and eternal) on your own opinion. An opinion that you derived from??? Not science.” – lfugate21 We can prove all mathematics statements. All of our facts are incontrovertible mathematical facts. However, what is certainly true is that you are basing everything on your own opinion. You derived your opinion from parental brainwashing. If you were born somewhere else in the world, with different parents with different beliefs, you would now hold 100% different opinions from those you are currently promoting. “So there may be a Hell, there may not be a Hell.” – lfugate21 What, aren’t you sure? What kind of believer are you? “Which side of the coin flip works out best for you? I mean, if you believe in Jesus/God/Heaven/Hell and it turns out to be false, what do you lose... Nothing. If you don’t believe in Jesus/God/Heaven/Hell and it is real what do you lose ... everything.” – lfugate21

Jesus is the Devil. You lose everything by giving your life to the Devil! Also, let’s say that Buddha is right, or the Hindus, or Mohammed, or the Catholic pope (as opposed to Protestant preachers), or the Jews, or the Sikhs? Unless you choose the right God, you lose everything, as you put it. Jesus won’t save you if Jesus isn’t God, so you have everything to lose by staking it all on Jesus. How do you know that one of his countless rivals isn’t God? Forget science. Your issue is with other religions. Their followers believe as much as you do, but they don’t believe in your God. In fact, they are total skeptics and atheists towards all Gods other than their own, just as you are. What makes your faith better than faith? You can’t rely on faith to settle the question of faith, so what else are you going to use? You’ve ruled out science, philosophy and mathematics, so what’s left? Violence?! “This isn’t a scare/fear tactic like you spoke of. Christianity is an invitation to put your hope in something other than science and your opinions which can’t prove anything.” – lfugate21 Mathematics isn’t an opinion. It’s eternal, necessary Truth, and proves everything that’s capable of being proved. Who cares about hope? Knowledge is all. And by the way, your Christianity can’t prove anything, so your beliefs and opinions can be no more convincing than the beliefs and opinions of the scientists you’re so keen to mock. All religions offer “hope”. Why prefer Christianity to any other? You have failed to even justify why Christianity offers better hope than any of its rivals. You don’t even ask yourself that question, such is the extent of your brainwashing. Why don’t you put your hope in something other than Christianity and your opinions which can’t prove anything? Everything you have said about science can equally be said about Christianity, so your entire argument is nonsense. “If you are confident in your opinion/ hypothesis then you shouldn’t be scared to test it, right?” – lfugate21 Absolutely right. We’re not scared in the slightest. Go on, get Jesus to prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2. By the way, how are you going to test your Christian beliefs? Why not pick up a deadly snake, as it says in the Bible, and pray to your Christ that it doesn’t bite you? Put your hope and faith in

your God. Put your life in his hands!!! Go on, prove that your beliefs are right! “It’s easy, ask Jesus and Mary to send you the Holy Spirit.” – lfugate21 Er, no, we definitely won’t be doing that. Keep your imaginary friends to yourself, thank you very much. By the way, did you work out that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, hence is Jesus’ dad, and thus the Holy Spirit is God the Father! But, in that case, who’s the other geezer who claims to be God the Father?! “And what do good scientists do? Test, test, test and retest.” – lfugate21 That’s the trouble. They should be thinking more, and stop being so obsessed with sensory tests. As Hume pointed out, the inductive repetition of tests proves nothing. The very next test might give you wholly different results (and falsify your hypothesis). “And while you’re asking Jesus and Mary for the Holy Spirit, if you want to unload do it!” – lfugate21 I beg your pardon? Is this a sexual reference, or to do with guns? “Good luck my brother and let me know how your science experiment goes.” – lfugate21 You’re not our brother. And you’re not remotely interested in any science experiment, as you have already demonstrated.

Fuzzy Logic “Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. By contrast, in Boolean logic, the truth values of variables may only be 0 or 1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions. “The term ‘fuzzy logic’ was introduced with the 1965 proposal of fuzzy set theory by Lotfi A. Zadeh. Fuzzy logic has been applied to many fields, from control theory to artificial intelligence. Fuzzy logic had, however,

been studied since the 1920s, as infinite-valued logic—notably by Łukasiewicz and Tarski. ... “Fuzzy logic and probability address different forms of uncertainty. While both fuzzy logic and probability theory can represent degrees of certain kinds of subjective belief, fuzzy set theory uses the concept of fuzzy set membership, i.e., how much a variable is in a set (there is not necessarily any uncertainty about this degree), and probability theory uses the concept of subjective probability, i.e., how probable is it that a variable is in a set (it either entirely is or entirely is not in the set in reality, but there is uncertainty around whether it is or is not). The technical consequence of this distinction is that fuzzy set theory relaxes the axioms of classical probability, which are themselves derived from adding uncertainty, but not degree, to the crisp true/false distinctions of classical Aristotelian logic. ... “More generally, fuzzy logic is one of many different extensions to classical logic intended to deal with issues of uncertainty outside of the scope of classical logic, the inapplicability of probability theory in many domains, and the paradoxes of Dempster-Shafer theory. ... “Many-valued logic, including fuzzy logic, which rejects the law of the excluded middle and allows as a truth value any real number between 0 and 1. “Intuitionistic logic rejects the law of the excluded middle, double negative elimination, and the De Morgan’s laws. “Modal logic extends classical logic with non-truth-functional (‘modal’) operators.” – Wikipedia “...assertions about whether a formal proposition holds are yes-no questions. More often than not, the assertions encountered in the real world are not precise and thus cannot be treated simply by using the yes-no questions. Fuzzy logic directly deals with the notion of vagueness and imprecision...” – Dominik Slezak “Fuzzy logic is an approach to computing based on ‘degrees of truth’ rather than the usual ‘true or false’ (1 or 0) Boolean logic on which the modern computer is based. The idea of fuzzy logic was first advanced by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. Dr. Zadeh was working on the problem of computer understanding of natural language. Natural language (like most other activities in life and indeed the universe) is not easily translated into the absolute terms of 0 and 1.

(Whether everything is ultimately describable in binary terms is a philosophical question worth pursuing, but in practice much data we might want to feed a computer is in some state in between and so, frequently, are the results of computing.) “Fuzzy logic includes 0 and 1 as extreme cases of truth (or ‘the state of matters’ or ‘fact’) but also includes the various states of truth in between so that, for example, the result of a comparison between two things could be not ‘tall’ or ‘short’ but ‘.38 of tallness.’ “Fuzzy logic seems closer to the way our brains work. We aggregate data and form a number of partial truths which we aggregate further into higher truths which in turn, when certain thresholds are exceeded, cause certain further results such as motor reaction. A similar kind of process is used in artificial computer neural network and expert systems. “It may help to see fuzzy logic as the way reasoning really works and binary or Boolean logic is simply a special case of it.” – Margaret Rouse “By combining with the fuzzy logic, traditional modal logic has been extended [to create fuzzy modal logic].” – Guoyin Wang No matter what people do with logic, it will simply never have any of the power of ontological mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. Logic – as treated academically – has become the ultimate language-game, and is now the most tedious expression of analytic philosophy, the subject that has turned “big” philosophy into a pathetic dwarf. A certain type of person – the type that follows the example of the likes of Bertrand Russell – believes that logic is more powerful and fundamental than mathematics, and indeed is the basis of mathematics. This is nonsense. Mathematics – numbers – are the arche, the foundational substance of existence. Numbers are none other than energy. You will never understand what reality is unless you grasp this. Forget logic. Embrace math.

***** Mathematics is about energy. Once you really take that on board, you will comprehend that mathematics is the most concrete and real subject of all. Logic, on the other hand, exists purely as an aspect of mathematics, and has no reality, and no validity, beyond that. It’s absurd to turn to logic rather than mathematics to explain reality. It’s absurd to turn to words rather than numbers.

Jesus, the Devil JC: “Jesus Christ is not sexist, homophobic, racist, or for women being beaten. Jesus loves all. I don’t believe in a religion that hates.” WTF! Have you ever read the Bible?! Is Jesus Christ God? If he is, who did all the murder, rape, pillage, slaughter, genocide and extermination in the Old Testament if not Jesus Christ? Isn’t it amazing that this “three persons in one God” baloney makes people forget that Christianity is a monotheism, so anything done by “God” is done by Jesus Christ. That means Jesus Christ imposed a sentence of hell on the whole of humanity (Original Sin), slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt, wiped out the world bar Noah and his family, massacred the Canaanites, ordered Abraham to murder Isaac, etc. You simply couldn’t get a bigger monster, a worse Devil, than Jesus Christ.

The Orgasmic Universe We are all addicted to orgasm. Every Cosmic Age brings the final climax – the orgasm of perfection, of becoming God ... and then we begin all over again. The pursuit of orgasm can never end.

The Extreme God Which God would you support? – “I am the god of extremes” (the radical God) versus “I am the God of moderation” (the liberal God) versus “I am the God of the traditional ways” (the conservative God)? Perfection is extreme; moderation is imperfect; persisting with old, failed ways is imperfect.

Two Logics There are two types of ontological logic: that which pertains to mathematical Form (the rational information carrier) and that which pertains to Content (the empirical information carried). The ontological logic associated with Form is necessary and eternal, and reflects the analytic tautologies of ontological mathematics (hence is highly

Aristotelian and Leibnizian). The ontological logic associated with Content is contingent and temporal, and reflects Hegelian dialectics. A huge number of problems in logic stem from being unable to distinguish between these two types of logic, or misapplying the logic of rational Form to empirical Content, or the “logic” of empirical Content to rational Form. Science is so bizarre because it tries to make a hybrid of Form and Content, of rationalism and empiricism. Kant’s philosophy attempted the same task. Neither was successful. This type of undertaking commits a category error since it’s mixing the eternal and necessary with the temporal and contingent rather than taking care to ensure that these are always separated. It’s akin to attempting to make the noumenal soul a scientific object in the phenomenal world. Kant avoided this by designating the soul as an unknowable noumenon, and science by denying the very existence of the soul. When you fail to distinguish what is eternal and necessary from what is temporal and contingent, you always have to perform some such outrageous violation of logic and reason.

***** When people embark on grand projects to “explain” reality, they rarely know what they are seeking to prove, and how to prove it. They can’t define the overarching context (the noumenal context), and nor can they define the phenomenal context that’s generated by it, and what the limits of the latter are in relation to the former. Science is a bogus implementation of ontological mathematics that works well – in the phenomenal context – because its method forces accord with the observable world (that’s the criterion for “success”). For exactly the same reason, science is 100% useless in relation to the unobservable noumenal world, where no brute sensory force can be deployed. Science’s greatest strength in one context is its greatest weakness in the other. However, scientists simply deny the existence of any other context (i.e. that of an eternal, necessary, noumenal, mathematical world), and thus they fanatically believe that nothing can be superior to science. There’s no point in trying to argue with them. These people are believers in the Church of Senses, and can no more be rationally persuaded than believers in the Church of Feelings (Faith).

Followers of the Church of the Senses subscribe to “seeing is believing”, and what can’t be seen therefore can’t be believed, or known. Followers of the Church of Feelings have emotional faith in what can’t be seen (“God”, and so on) but apply absolutely no reason and logic. They have a Mythos rather than Logos understanding of noumenal reality. One might seek to construct a “science of logic” that works rather like science, i.e. it would be practical and phenomenal, and work very well in most empirical situations, but be fundamentally false at the ultimate level. With modal logic, there’s an inevitable process of mixing Form and Content, just as in science. A sufficiently ingenious modal logic could be made useful, like science, yet, like science, not actually be true in any fundamental sense. However, given that we already have science, what would such a logic offer over and above science? To rectify the errors of science, ontological mathematics is required, not any kind of logic. Logic doesn’t add anything to ontological mathematics. In fact, it’s merely a minor aspect of ontological mathematics.

The Wrong Approach All exercises intended to give a firm basis to an axiomatic, formalistic approach to math are pointless. Mathematics is ontological, not derived from logic and axioms. The whole of mathematics can be reduced to a single complete and consistent formula – the God Equation. Why would there be any value in any alternative approach? Anything that ignores the God Equation is false. It’s equivalent to ignoring God if God were the Creator of the Universe, i.e. you have chosen to leave out the essential ingredient of the entire system yet you still expect to produce meaningful results. What are such efforts trying to accomplish? Certainly not the Truth. The ontology is the important thing, not the logic. Once the ontology is established, everything flows from that. Other approaches are plain wrong or redundant. It was using logic rather than ontology that got the philosophy of math into such a pickle in the first place. Why would anyone want to go back to that in any way? There’s no escaping ontology, no matter how hard people try to dismiss it as the fundamental consideration of existence.

Many people want to find any approach other than ontological mathematics to explain reality. Science is so contemptuous of ontology that it claims that infinite universes can jump out of nothing for no reason. Ontology is about what exists necessarily and eternally, i.e. it involves defining what existence actually is. It’s about what does exist, not what doesn’t. You can’t get from non-existence to existence, and it’s a category error to believe you can (as scientists do). Nor can logic help you to address ontology since logic itself must inhere in something that actually exists. That thing is therefore more fundamental than logic, and is the necessary and sufficient condition for logic to exist. No language-based metaphysical theory (i.e. based on ambiguous, imprecise, mutable words) can ever be compatible with ontological mathematics, which is based on unambiguous, precise, immutable numbers. It’s a category error to try to unify the two (as Kant and science did and do). There is no correspondence whatsoever between the structure and content of any philosophical position (defined in language-centric terms) and ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what is true. When we interpret ontological mathematics in terms of words, we are performing an exercise that necessarily distorts the Truth, but that’s the price you pay when you use words to describe the implications of numbers. Words can never accurately reflect numerical considerations. No “logic” can make words and numbers compatible, and it’s a category error to imagine they can. There is no logical relationship between words and numbers, and no means of verifying or falsifying the alleged relationship since the relationship doesn’t exist. The exercise could be attempted in some way, provided it was clearly understood that it wasn’t telling us anything true, but, in that case, what would be the point? If the exercise could produce useful results, as science does, that would justify it, but since we already have science to perform this role, why do we need anything else? The “end-point” of metaphysics is ontological mathematics. All the errors of metaphysics are swept away when numbers replace words. Logic can be validly applied only to numbers, not to words. Logic is necessarily inconsistent and incomplete with regard to words. Every formal philosophy is not form itself, but only content approximating form. Form approximating content is science.

Ontological mathematical sinusoids convey empirical content, but what can be known about ontological mathematics is strictly confined to form. How ontological mathematics is experienced is very different from how ontological mathematics is known. It’s a category error to get these two things confused. There is no such thing as a mathematics and logic of the experience of content. There is only a mathematics and logic of form. Only approximate enterprises – such as science – can simultaneously address form and content. With science, you instantly move away from exact completeness and consistency to approximate principles of verification and falsification. This is the compromise you are forced to accept if you want a useful model of the phenomenal world, but you thereby cut yourself off entirely from the noumenal world – the Platonic world of eternal, necessary, infallible, absolute Truth. Some people harbour a belief that some grand logic can fully and precisely provide knowledge of everything: form and content, the rational and empirical. This is just a fantasy. How we subjectively experience the colour red can never be part of any objective system of knowledge. All subjective experiences are exactly that ... subjective ... and experiences. They are nothing to do with objective knowledge, and never can be. We can never know how we will experience something we have never empirically encountered before. We can, however, always know the answer to the mathematical problem of how to combine two given a priori mathematical Forms. Knowledge (rationalism) and experience (empiricism) belong to wholly separate categories. As Hume – the supreme skeptical empiricist – realised, we can have no sure knowledge at all if we rely on our experiences. We will end up, as he did, denying the validity of induction, causation, the self, matter, and the world itself. The rationalist aims for certain knowledge, but knows that such knowledge will not tell us what “blue” is before we have ever seen blue. In other words, experiences are not knowledge: they are never anything more or less than experiences. We inhabit a world of knowledge and experiences, and we mustn’t confuse the two. Empiricism was where everything went wrong intellectually because it claimed that knowledge begins with experiences. This is to make “knowledge” temporal, contingent, sensory, and based on

the human condition, but true knowledge is eternal and necessary, and precedes any possible human experiences. What empiricists call knowledge simply isn’t knowledge. What they mean is that they have experienced information, and they then set out to create some model which makes sense of this information they have experienced. It’s telling that science – in order to explain sensory information – resorts to mathematics, which is entirely rationalist, and has nothing to do with the senses (as far as being an objective discipline goes). This is always the dilemma. This is always the contradiction. There is no way out of this trap. That’s why we have dialectical logic (based on contradiction), as well as Aristotelian logic (based on non-contradiction). Theories of Form and of Content are all limited to reasoning within their respective terms of reference, and can be extended to nothing beyond that. There is no theory that can transcend these terms and extend Form to Content, or vice versa. That’s a category error.

Ontology versus Logic Ontology always comes before logic. In fact, with ontological mathematics, there’s no need for logic at all since logic comes inbuilt in any valid ontological mathematical statement.

Language Games Logic, and even mathematics, are in the hands of the wrong people, i.e. the prevailing academic community obeying the prevailing paradigm. They have turned them into manmade language games, incomplete and inconsistent, with little or nothing valid to say about reality. They are now abstract puzzles and logical conjuring tricks ... nothing more. Everything that does not address ontology, and the epistemology that reflects this ontology, is inherently false.

Stories Stories are a way of thinking. In fact, they are humanity’s primary way of thinking. Humans think narratively, which means emotionally. They certainly don’t think in terms of numbers. That’s why they hate math.

Scientists think in terms of their senses. That’s little better than thinking with your feelings. You need to think with your reason.

Hell and Heaven “Hell is Truth seen too late.” – Thomas Hobbes Heaven is Truth seen early enough! We have given humanity the Truth. Do you prefer hell?

Money or People What’s more important: money or people? Capitalism supports money, not people. The profit principle, in capitalism, is sacrosanct. The people principle isn’t. In capitalism, capital beats democracy, meritocracy and humanity every time.

Beauty “The mathematical sciences particularly exhibit order, symmetry, and limitation; and these are the greatest forms of the beautiful.” – Aristotle All true beauty is mathematical beauty. The most beautiful woman of them all – Helen of Troy – was a walking demonstration of perfect mathematical proportion.

Axiomism “The word ‘axiom’ comes from the Greek word axioma, meaning ‘to deem worthy’, but also ‘to require’ ... Among the ancient Greek philosophers an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof. ... “Ancient geometers maintained some distinction between axioms and postulates. While commenting on Euclid’s books Proclus remarks that’ Geminus held that this [4th] Postulate should not be classed as a postulate but as an axiom, since it does not, like the first three Postulates, assert the possibility of some construction but expresses an essential property’. ... “As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. What it means for an axiom, or any mathematical statement,

to be ‘true’ is a central question in the philosophy of mathematics, with modern mathematicians holding a multitude of different opinions. ... “‘Axiom,’ ‘postulate’, and ‘assumption’ may [in certain circumstances] be used interchangeably. ... As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally ‘true’ systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms – they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain. “In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa.” – Wikipedia What possible reason could there be for assuming that multiple axioms should constitute the basis of mathematics? How could you ever know that you had chosen all of the correct axioms (the most fundamental ones)? How could you guarantee that all of the axioms are necessarily consistent, and lead to a complete and consistent mathematics? Why wouldn’t there be just one master axiom, principle or formula, from which everything else derives, automatically guaranteeing that everything is consistent and complete? The idea of a multiplicity of axioms is dubious from the get go. Anything other than a monism is impossible to justify, just as Cartesian dualism or polyism is. Exactly the same considerations apply to science. The whole of science must derive from an eternal, necessary, grand unified, final (or rather first) theory of everything. Such a theory must be true, hence cannot be falsified, and cannot be verified through experimental means. In other words, only a mathematical theory can provide the legitimate basis of all of science, but this means that science based on observations, experiments, induction and empiricism, rather than reason, logic, deduction, and rationalism must be fallacious. Science absolutely never confronts such considerations, and that’s why science can never explain reality.

***** The real task is to derive or deduce everything from a single principle: the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason must replace all axiomatic systems. Humanity has gone down the wrong track with axioms. These are the exact source of inconsistency and incompleteness. They claim to be self-evident, but never are. No one in their right mind would ever imagine that humans – beset by illusions, delusions, beliefs, opinions, conjectures, interpretations, assumptions, ideologies, dogmatisms and paradigms – could ever identify any selfevident truth.

Facebook You can take one look at a person’s Facebook page and realise they don’t have a prayer of ever understanding Illuminism. Every negative remark we get about Illuminism comes from people with Facebook pages that are utterly incompatible with Illuminist values. They are those of anarchists, Buddhists, materialists, “skeptics”, empiricists, followers of gurus, New Agers, Abrahamists, libertarians, capitalists, scientists, and so on.

The Smartest Person in the Room “If you are the smartest person in the room, then you are in the wrong room.” – internet meme But what happens when you run out of rooms? Then you’re the smartest person in the room, and you are in fact the smartest person you know. That’s when you know you’re a genius. There’s no one to whom you can turn for guidance. You are the guide for everyone else. A genius cannot consult with anyone else since there’s no one else who understands the question. A genius is peerless.

Presence Make sure you have a presence. Many people go through life as if they were never there.

Binary Jokes 1) There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. 2) There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and 9 others.

The Purpose of the State For Thomas Hobbes, the purpose of the State was to maintain order, and to preserve and protect the lives of its citizens by being the biggest bully imaginable (the Leviathan). No one would dare to challenge the State. In a country such as America, there are more guns than people, many of the citizens are extremely heavily armed and aggressive, and there is no respect at all for central government. In America, the Leviathan has completely failed. In America, the people endorse “negative liberty” and want as little interference and intervention in their lives from the State as possible. On the other hand, they want banks, corporations, bond and stock markets – i.e. all the stuff of capitalism and consumerism – to interfere and intervene maximally in their lives. They trust unelected capitalism, but not their own elected government. So it goes.

***** In a meritocracy, the purpose of the State is to produce and cultivate the best possible citizens, to inspire them, raise them up, and optimise their talents to the fullest extent. If it’s not doing that, it’s not a legitimate State. It must be driven by positive liberty, not negative liberty. The State should be the thing you most admire, not the thing for which you have the most contempt. Great thinkers such as Plato, Rousseau and Hegel were all accused of State worship. The State ought to be worshipped (as it was in ancient Greece in the city-state structure) if it’s the only means by which all of us are maximally actualised. We certainly shouldn’t worship “God”. Any State, or any religion, that is preventing us from being maximally actualised should be overthrown. The “democratic” capitalist States that rule today’s world are all about making the rich richer, and have no interest

whatsoever in optimising their citizens. The only thing they want to optimise is the consumerist, capitalist utility of their citizens – to extract the maximum profit from them to give to the super rich. No capitalist state can ever be legitimate.

***** Hobbes thought of violence and anarchy as the primary diseases to which the State must serve as the cure. The Security Principle underlies such a State. Capitalism sees the primary role of the State as providing the framework in which the super rich can build maximum profits for themselves. The Profit Principle defines the capitalist State. A meritocratic State sees the optimisation of merit as the purpose of the State: to extract the maximum talent from its citizens, and thus be the best it can possibly be. The Merit Principle rules such a State.

Under Analysis Science suffers from three catastrophic problems: it rejects the principle of sufficient reason (rationalism), it rejects formal mathematical analysis, and it rejects formal mathematical symmetry.

Matter Is matter made of matter, or is matter in fact made of ideas? What are ideas made of? They are made of sinusoids. Everything is made of math.

***** We alone have stated what thoughts are ontologically: analytic sinusoidal waves, the very same waves that feature in quantum mechanics and holography.

Save Us This book was originally entitled: Saving Math From Gödel. Its extended title might have been: Saving Math From Gödel, Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein, Hilbert, And Every Mathematician Who Rejects the Ontology of Mathematics And Brings Empiricism And Logicism To Mathematics.

This book is about restoring mathematics to its Pythagorean, Platonic, Cartesian and Leibnizian foundations – i.e. to rational ontology – and getting rid of all the charlatans, especially all empiricists and all those suffering from anti-mathematical logicism.

Rise Up We need all true mathematicians to rise up against the frauds, phonies and snake oil salesmen who run the mathematics industry and who lie to the world and themselves about what math actually is. It’s not good enough to be a Platonist mathematician. Wikipedia says, “Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.” The Platonist view is essentially that of math as real but transcendent, with science being the sensible, inferior copy of intelligible mathematics. The Pythagorean view, on the other hand, is that mathematics is transcendent and immanent, i.e. math is everywhere; math is the arche, the ontological basis of everything. Gödel was a Platonist. That was his mistake. If he had been a Pythagorean, he would have seen the error of his ways. All true mathematicians accept the gospel of Pythagoras: “All things are numbers; number rules all.” As soon as you agree with this, you are an ontological mathematician. All other versions of mathematic are false and fallacious. If math isn’t the answer to existence, existence has no answer, which is impossible. A miraculous universe, based on magic performed by unexplained gods, or by self-performing magic (the scientific position) cannot happen. Such a universe has no sufficient reason. Such a universe would be utterly random, chaotic, irrational and unintelligible. There is only one reason why we can understand existence ... because it’s mathematical and we can understand mathematics.

Wittgenstein – Non-Soul Man “Mathematics is a logical method ... Mathematical propositions express no thoughts. In life it is never a mathematical proposition which we need, but we use mathematical propositions only in order to infer from propositions

which do not belong to mathematics to others which equally do not belong to mathematics.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein was right on the money when he said that math is tautology. Unfortunately, it was the only thing he said about math that was right!

Reasons versus Causes “We are talking here of the grammar of the words ‘reason’ and ‘cause’: in what cases do we say we have given a reason for doing a certain thing, and in what cases, a cause? If one answers the question ‘Why did you move your arm?’ by giving a behaviouristic explanation, one has specified a cause. Causes may be discovered by experiments, but experiments do not produce reasons. The word ‘reason’ is not used in connection with experimentation. It is senseless to say a reason is found by experiment. The alternative, ‘mathematical argument or experiential evidence?’ corresponds to ‘reason or cause?’” – Wittgenstein In fact, the principle of sufficient reason provides a reason for everything ... including all causes (which, like everything else, require a sufficient reason).

Charity? Charities have become absurd. They employ commercial companies – driven by the profit principle and naked greed, and with no charitable instincts whatsoever – to conduct their fundraising for them, and the employees of these professional companies do their fund raising with incredible aggression in their lust for personal enrichment (they take a cut of every transaction). Their primary victims, who get harassed relentlessly, are those who have previously contributed to charities, and whose details are therefore on file. These people get bombarded every month with countless requests to “give a bit more.” People have even committed suicide because of the pressure and emotional blackmail applied to them. All charities that use professional fundraising companies should be closed down and banned. They have become gangster organisations, extorting money with menaces from vulnerable people, usually elderly and in poor health.

We Are We are the glitch in the Matrix. We alone see through Maya to the truth beyond. We alone use Reason. We alone took the red pill, and watched in horror as everyone else swallowed blue – the pill of faith, feelings, empiricism and the senses.

The Miracle of Organisation? No amount of organising dead atoms will produce life. No amount of organising mindless atoms will produce mind. Yet scientific materialism makes both of these impossibilities central claims of its ideology. The fact is, if you base everything on dead, mindless matter, you have no other means to explain life and mind, except as the products of the organisation of non-life and non-mind.

Catch 22, Greek Style Greece owes the banks a vast amount of money, but the country is in deep recession, and even Depression, so can’t make any money to pay its debts. Conceived as a person, Greece is unemployed, and earns no money. It’s living on welfare, aka bank loans. However, the banks want their money back. We have reached the mad position where the banks lend Greece money in order to repay the banks, but there’s no money left to Greece itself, so the country can never invest in itself and get working again. Imagine that, when times were good, you took out a mortgage from a bank. Then you lost your job and could no longer afford the repayments. The bank would foreclose on you and repossess your house, from which it would make a handsome profit. However, you can’t foreclose on a country. The banks then have a very serious problem. They, and not the defaulting mortgage holder, are going to lose money, and that’s not acceptable to banks. Well, what do they do to avoid losing their money? They lend you the money with which to repay them! And charge interest on it, of course. But that means they have to lend you even more money to make the higher repayments, and that accrues even more interest on the loans, and so on. It’s a financial Catch 22. There’s no way out ... until either the country refuses

to pay any longer, or the banks accept a vast loss. That’s the situation facing Greece today. Who’s running the world? Nations or banks? Who’s in charge? The People, or the rich? What’s truly staggering about the Euro crisis is that the banks are allowed to dictate to nation states. Who elected the banks? In what way are they accountable to the People? John Adams said, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” Armies – the old power – used the former method. Banks – the new power – use the latter.

Tautology “A tautology’s truth is certain, a proposition’s possible, a contradiction’s impossible.” – Wittgenstein So, only tautologies concern truth. Contradictions have no truth, and propositions are not about truth but something else ... confidence, we should probably say. Science is not about truth, it’s about how confident you are of obtaining a certain outcome. Science is probabilistic. Mathematics isn’t. Mathematics is true, and truth has nothing to do with probability. “Propositions show what they say: tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing.” – Wittgenstein This is exactly the fatal assumption of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, i.e. the claim that tautology can say nothing about the world, while “propositions” can. In fact, “propositions” are simply opinions, beliefs and interpretations, which reveal human ways of thinking but tell us nothing about reality in itself. Only mathematical tautology can tell us about that. “The limits of my language means the limits of my world.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s “propositions” – including all of those of science and religion – belong to his limited human world. Mathematics – incorporating zero and infinity – suffers from no such limitations. Nothing can exceed the mathematical world since nothing can exceed zero or infinity, the bounds of everything. “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.” – Wittgenstein

Perhaps the Tractatus is the best joke ever ... but no one noticed, (well, except us). “The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true.” – Wittgenstein Exactly! All infallible, absolute, Platonic truth is unconditionally true. You cannot apply “truth-conditions” to what is unconditionally true. This is why modal logic is such a dubious undertaking. How can you use the word “possibly” in relation to the truth? Something’s either true or it isn’t. “Possibly” doesn’t come into it. “Tautology and contradiction are without sense.” – Wittgenstein Tautology is the only thing that makes any sense! As for everything else, it’s mere interpretation, as Nietzsche so devastatingly said. “It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein was an out and out mystic, as anyone must be who rejects analytic tautology as the explanation of the world. Science is a mystical subject since it rejects any absolute, infallible, eternal, necessary truths, and trades in verification and falsification, which have nothing to do with the unconditional truth. “Reason is simply a vast tautology.” – J. M. Coetzee This is absolutely right, and it’s exactly why true reasoning can never err. True ontological reason is simply mathematics.

***** How does language relate to the world? Is it possible to use language to conceive the world as a whole, a totality? Only one language can accomplish wholeness and totality ... mathematics. The early Wittgenstein held a similar position to that of the logical positivists: any meaningful statement is either empirical or analytic (or tautological, as he referred to it), but analytic statements, while meaningful in their own terms, are empty of content about the real world. Any empirical statement, argued Wittgenstein, can be analyzed into a number of simple statements, which are “pictures” of facts. However, given that

Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations”, pictures of facts are just interpretations of interpretations, and that’s not likely to take us very far regarding Truth. It’s claimed that the statements of science are statements about the “world”, about the “facts”, but they are in fact simply statements about the language of science, the worldview of science, the Meta Paradigm of science, and, if that is fallacious, so are all scientific statements. They have zero formal truth content. Is it true that the material world exists? To answer that, science would have to define matter ontologically, and refute Leibniz and Bishop Berkeley that all matter is in fact derived from mind (Leibniz), or consists of ideas in minds (Berkeley). Science can’t do any of this, so to what extent can we say that any scientific claim is true? How can science demonstrate that all of its success isn’t owed entirely to mathematics, something that has no ontological status in science and is not defined by science, despite being essential to all scientific undertakings? Wittgenstein claimed that the statements of logic and mathematics are tautologies that say nothing about the world, but, rather, “describe the scaffolding of the world, or they represent it. They have no ‘subjectmatter’.” How can logic and mathematics describe or represent the scaffolding of the world if they have no connection with the world? This is absurd. Whatever the scaffolding of the world is, it must, in a rational and intelligible world, be rational and intelligible. Only math qualifies. Nothing else – nothing based on words, or manmade languages, or interpretations, opinions, beliefs, or faith, or feelings, or “God,” or “consciousness”, nothing inconsistent or incomplete, nothing non-ontological, can furnish the scaffolding of existence. It’s math or nothing. Wittgenstein claimed that world is just all the facts, everything that is the case. But what are the facts? What is the case? Is it the case that “matter” exists? How would we know? Is it the case that mind doesn’t exist, that it’s merely a product of matter? Is it the case that souls (singularities) don’t exist? Wittgenstein’s entire philosophy is more or less meaningless since he never escapes Nietzsche’s assertion that all facts are interpretations. If a “fact” is an interpretation, anyone can interpret it however they like, so there are no facts, just opinions and beliefs. This is total relativism, nihilism, skepticism and solipsism.

Wittgenstein said that none of the statements about the world is necessary. They are, he argued, just the facts, put into words. But, actually, the exact reverse is true. Every true fact about reality – every fact that can take its place in a system of infallible, absolute knowledge – is eternal and necessary. And each such fact is about numbers, not words! Wittgenstein claimed that everything about the world can be put into words. Therefore, what cannot be put into words is not a fact and is not about the world. This is preposterous. Every fallacy can be put into words, and is nothing to do with reality. Numbers, not words, are what the world is made of. All true atomic facts are numerical facts. Everything about the world can be put into numbers. What cannot be put into numbers is not a fact and not about the Logos world, but about human Mythos. Wittgenstein is the supreme Mythos philosopher, and an absolute enemy of Logos. He was bewitched by words (lies), and had contempt for numbers (truth). Wittgenstein said, “The sense of the world must lie outside the world.” This is insane. Nothing is outside the world. He said, “Language only operates on facts in the world. To think of the world as a limited whole is to try to think yourself somehow outside it.” There is nothing outside the language of mathematics: all that is and all that can be. Wittgenstein said that the world contains all facts, but is not itself a fact. This is ludicrous. Of course the world is a fact ... a mathematical fact. It’s an eternal and necessary fact, something that Wittgenstein simply couldn’t conceive. The Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy says, “...one can say that a tautology is an empty, or vacuous, proposition, that says nothing about how things are in the world, since its truth-value is independent of the way things are. It is a logical and not a factual truth; true because of the logical nature of the operators used to construct it rather than because things in the world as they are said to be in the statement.” Such a statement reeks of Wittgenstein, Russell, logical positivism, empiricism and scientism. Such claims are wholly refuted by ontological mathematics, of which analytic tautology is the quintessence.

*****

“The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.” – Wittgenstein The facts of the world are exactly the same for each man, yet that’s no consolation to the unhappy man.

Wrong “Thus, I think that your result has solved negatively the foundational question: there is no rigorous justification for classical mathematics.” – John von Neumann to Gödel (commenting on the impact of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) There is a rigorous justification – provided you turn to ontology and tautology. It’s impossible for mathematics to have no rigorous justification. What is certainly possible is for humans infected with irrationalism and empiricism to fail to find the right justification. That’s their problem, not math’s problem.

The Issues Whether you like it or not, whether it makes any sense to you or not, the mystery of existence is the mystery of mathematics. If you are the kind of person who is in interested in whether God, the soul, the afterlife, reincarnation and heaven exist, religion, spirituality and science won’t help you one jot. Mathematics, however, can give you exact answers, but only if you understand what mathematics actually is, i.e. only if you understand its ontology. The key issues regarding mathematics were brought into sharp focus in the twentieth century by Wittgenstein and Gödel, neither of whom understood the other’s position. Wittgenstein’s position was that mathematics is pure analytic tautology. As such, mathematics must be complete and consistent. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are generally interpreted to mean that mathematics is inconsistent and/or incomplete, hence mathematics, in these terms, cannot be tautological. Here then, we have a classic standoff, involving two of the greatest geniuses of all time. One must be right and the other totally wrong. There is no intermediate position.

A nuance must be added to Gödel’s stance. He himself was a mathematical Platonist, i.e. he believed that mathematics was real but it existed in a perfect, immutable, transcendent, immaterial domain outside space and time, and did not causally interact with the physical world of matter, space and time. For Gödel, Platonic mathematics was consistent and complete, hence his incompleteness theorems, in his own interpretation, were not about mathematics per se, but about the human understanding of mathematics. So, Gödel transferred the supposed inconsistency and/or incompleteness of mathematics away from mathematics itself to the way humans thought about mathematics. He was convinced that his incompleteness theorems weren’t proof that mathematics is inconsistent and/or incomplete but, rather, provided evidence that the human mind would only ever be able to apprehend imperfectly the eternal, objective mathematical truth that exists independent of human thought. However, if people reject the Platonic domain – and the vast majority do – Gödel’s interpretation of his own work and its significance is automatically rendered absurd. Therefore, we have the bizarre situation that Gödel believed that his incompleteness theorems proved one thing (the imperfection of human thinking about mathematics, which was necessarily consistent and complete) while most others concluded the exact opposite: that Gödel’s work was nothing to do with human imperfection but with the imperfection of mathematics itself, which was inescapably inconsistent and/or incomplete. No wonder Gödel was driven to despair, and believed there was a conspiracy against himself and the Truth. It’s odd that it never occurred to Gödel that what he ought to have worked on was Wittgenstein’s assertion that mathematics is tautology. If Gödel had proved this, then mathematics is necessarily consistent and complete. Otherwise, he would have had to prove that mathematics is not tautological, hence must be inconsistent and/or incomplete. In other words, the question of the completeness and consistency of mathematics reduces to the question of whether or not mathematics is tautological. Gödel’s work did nothing at all to shed any light on this. What he seemed to demonstrate was that the popular human ways of attempting to define the foundations of mathematics were non-tautological, but that tells you about humans, not about mathematics. This is the entire problem. Mathematics, to the vast

majority, is as mysterious now as it ever was, so Gödel’s work has done literally nothing to clarify what mathematics actually is. Gödel’s work raises a profound issue. There are numerous ways for humans to think about the foundations of mathematics – whether via axioms, logic, set theory, and so on – but mathematics itself has only one right answer, hence all but one human way of thinking about mathematics must be wrong, hence will necessarily generate inconsistency and/or incompleteness. The task, therefore, is to identify the correct foundations of mathematics. If you get this wrong, you have got nothing. You are literally talking nonsense about mathematics. Our primary assertion is that close to 100% of professional mathematicians have no understanding whatsoever regarding what mathematics actually is, and what its foundations are. They have caught themselves in various philosophical traps about what mathematics is – whether empiricism, intuitionism, formalism, logicism, and so on – and they have failed to realise that these are indeed philosophy, and emphatically not mathematics. They have convinced themselves that these various philosophies of theirs are genuinely about mathematics, when in fact they have nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics. By the same token, scientists have convinced themselves that their philosophy of empiricism and materialism is the only legitimate basis of science, and none has ever considered that Leibniz’s version of science – based on rationalism and idealism – is the only way for science ever to come into contact with absolute Truth. Humans, in thinking about science and mathematics, have been unable to separate their personal philosophies and ideologies from these subjects, and have failed to appreciate that they are superimposing over science and mathematics, dogmatic stances that have nothing to do with these subjects. The fundamental issue is this: is it possible to think about science and mathematics as pure subjects in themselves, without any extraneous ideological layers? Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are actually about the non-mathematical, ideological baggage that is attached to mathematics, not mathematics itself. Any attempt to address mathematics or science that does not correctly identify their true ontological basis is guaranteed to misinterpret these subjects. All versions of mathematics that are not the correct one are wrong, and exactly the same goes for science.

Absolutely no one in the mathematical or scientific establishment has ever demonstrated that their version of mathematics or science, respectively, is the correct one. This means that they are not teaching mathematics or science. They are teaching their interpretation – or, more accurately, misinterpretation – of what mathematics and science are. We can talk about a true mathematics and a true science. However, what you study at university isn’t this. What you learn about is a philosophical and ideological interpretation of what mathematics is, and what science is, and those are radically different things from the true subjects themselves. Such considerations are invariably ignored, and naive people imagine they are dealing with the real subjects rather than distorted, and often downright false, versions of the real subjects. Mathematics and science, as taught throughout the world, are simulacra, not the real thing. In fact, they barely have any connection with the real thing. To use Baudrillard’s terminology, they are copies without originals. The true subject is the original, but what we are dealing with are subjects that purport to be about the original – to be copies of it – but have actually taken on a life of their own that has dissolved all connections with the original. They are now manmade subjects, not subjects independent of the human condition, hence they are unable to reflect existence prior to the dawn of humanity. Anything manmade has automatically cut itself off from the truth of things before man arrived on the scene. Manmade Mythos (religion) is absurd, and so is manmade “Logos”. Mathematics is very different from mathematics plus ideology. Science is very different from science plus ideology. Mathematics in itself is radically different from mathematics plus human interpretation. The same goes for science. To get at the truth, one must remove the human senses, feelings, philosophies, ideologies, religions, opinions, beliefs, conjectures, desires, and so on. We must adopt the “view from nowhere” (the objective, eternal, “Godlike” view, outside space and time), not the “view from somewhere” (the subjective human perspective, inside space and time). Only one thing can take us outside the human condition ... the principle of sufficient reason. What is rationally true has been rationally true forever. The eternal truths of reason are exactly that. They necessarily precede any contingent, temporal beings and their subjective opinions and beliefs.

Although Wittgenstein considered mathematics tautological, hence complete and consistent, he also concluded that it was empty of content and could say nothing at all about the world. This is a rather odd inference given that mathematics is what gives science all of its power, and Wittgenstein was a huge admirer of science. Wittgenstein made zero attempt to explain the relationship between mathematical “non-factual” tautology, and scientific “factual” non-tautology, hence he failed to explain anything at all. For Wittgenstein, mathematics was essentially pure Form, and had nothing to do with Content. The world, in such a view, is pure Content and has nothing to do with Form. This implies that Form is an unreal abstraction (and, indeed, this is exactly how scientists regard mathematics), and all “facts” are facts of Content. As the presence of mathematics in science demonstrates, you cannot separate Form from Content. In fact, wherever you find observable Content, you can be certain that unobservable mathematical Form underlies it, and noumenal mathematical Form often produces phenomenal, formed Content, as we see with the myriad regular mathematical patterns in Nature. There’s no Form/Content Cartesian substance dualism. Form and Content are always the flip sides of each other, i.e. they belong to a dualaspect monism. You can’t have facts of Content without facts of Form underlying them. Wittgenstein’s philosophy fails to capture any of this, exactly as science fails to capture any of this, except through its unexplained use of mathematics, a subject which it absurdly regards as unreal, abstract and manmade. Mathematics is not “empty” at all, except if we regard it as being exclusively about Form and divorced from Content – in which case mathematics would certainly be “empty” of Content (but “full” of Form). However, we could then equally say that all Content is “empty” ... empty of Form. Why should we privilege Content over Form, as science does, and as Wittgenstein’s philosophy does? Wittgenstein’s philosophy is about how language reflects Content and says everything that we can say about Content, but also manages to say things about metaphysics, which Wittgenstein regards as non-Content, hence meaningless. Wittgenstein is concerned with what can be validly said using language. Such an approach amounts to the ridiculous proposition that manmade

language can tell us about the ontological and epistemological nature of reality. That’s the last thing it can do! A manmade language can say precisely zero about what preceded the existence of man. The task is to find a means to consider reality prior to the existence of humans, and only ontological mathematics can accomplish this.

***** An ontological argument applies not to God but to the God Equation (mathematics): anything that enshrines eternal truths necessarily exists. A final consideration applies to mathematics. Since there is no sufficient reason for mathematics to have a net effect that is non-zero, the whole of mathematics must produce an overall mathematical resultant of exactly zero. Absolute conservation laws must apply permanently. There can never be any uncertainty, as science bogusly claims.

Perception and Reality You will often hear the expression, “Perception is reality.” In human terms, this is absolutely true. What humans perceive to be true is their truth. This is a manmade reality, an empirical reality. Any intellectual concludes the precise opposite: perception is not reality. We perceive phenomena, but reality is about noumena, which are not perceived at all.

The Four Questions The four most fundamental questions are: 1) Why? 2) How? 3) What do you mean? 4) How do you know? Humanity has proved hopeless at addressing all of these questions.

Definition “Definition may be either of a present established meaning or of a meaning proposed for the future. In the former case the definition is said to be descriptive, in the latter prescriptive or stipulative.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy “Normative: Tending to establish a standard of correctness by prescription of rules; evaluative rather than descriptive.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy

Logic Logic has been described as the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. Yet, in order to accomplish this, the very first thing logic must address is the definition is its own domain of applicability. Logic can be validly applied only to logical things – numbers. As soon as you apply logic to non-logical things – words – it loses all of its precision and authority. Try applying number theory to the Bible. How could such an exercise have any meaning? The Bible and number theory have nothing in common. Try applying logic to religion. What’s the point? Religious “logic” is totally different from number theory logic. Religion has its own logic, and it has nothing to do with formal logic. The logic that we encounter in everyday life is not Aristotelian logic based on non-contradiction but the opposite: Hegelian logic based on contradiction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “According to Aristotle, first philosophy, or metaphysics, deals with ontology and first principles, of which the principle (or law) of non-contradiction is the firmest. Aristotle says that without the principle of non-contradiction we could not know anything that we do know.” Yet how many things in the world are clearly true or false? How many things are “fuzzy”, or conditional? Most things are about degrees. They’re not clear-cut. How can anything other than dialectical logic help you with vague, ambiguous, inconsistent and incomplete concepts and ideologies? Precise things can bear a precise logic. Imprecise things cannot. They require an imprecise logic, but that’s not a true logic.

You will see people saying that logic prescribes how we ought to reason, but is not concerned with how we actually do reason. What’s the point of it in that case? We surely want a “logic” that’s concerned with how we actually do reason. Logic comes in many varieties: sensory logic, emotional logic, intuitive logic, mathematical logic, scientific logic, religious logic, philosophical logic, economic logic, and so on. There is no universal logic applicable to them all. A huge amount of logic is in fact psychological, i.e. human, all too human. Logic would like to say that it differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than a descriptive discipline. In practice, this is simply false. We should probably say that logic is about Form, not about Content, but in any everyday situation, the Content is much more important than the Form. It simply overwhelms it, i.e. Form, in these circumstances finds itself adjusting to Content, rather than Content fitting into templates of Form. To say that logic is concerned with laying down the rules for correct reasoning is to already assume that you know what correct reasoning is. Does science reflect “correct” reasoning, or only the reasoning associated with science’s extremely dubious Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism? Do you see the fundamental problem? Reasoning is only as good as its assumptions, and if those are false, wrong or irrational, so is everything that flows from them. Logic seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor ones. But who is to be the judge? As Nietzsche pointed out, we have no bodily organ for truth. Nor do we have one for logic. All the people that we regard as illogical or irrational believe that we are illogical or irrational. How will we convince them that they are wrong? They will agree with us only if they agree with our basis of logic and reason. If they have a different basis, they won’t. Thus, agreeing on the basis of logic and reason becomes the key, but no one agrees on this! People will accept Aristotelian logic as an abstraction, but as soon as it’s applied to any real situation, everyone disagrees. Look at “Creation”. Abrahamists say that it’s logical to conclude that there’s a Creator. Scientists – who (bizarrely!) consider themselves highly logical and rational – say that the universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing, for no

reason, via no mechanism. If this isn’t a miracle, what is? Are miracles anything to do with logic and reason? It’s preposterous to believe that there’s a universal logic that can solve every problem. Logic – true logic – accompanies mathematics, and has no validity beyond that. Other logics do not have the completeness and consistency of mathematical logic, hence cannot be true logic. Logic in everyday terms should be regarded as the “science” of the laws of thought, in which case it’s descriptive and empirical, and subject to all of the same problems as science itself.

***** Intuitive people can reliably come to conclusions without going through any formal process. What kind of logic are they using? People can come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, and even the wrong conclusion for reasons that seem right (science being the classic example). The logician is interested in the structure of arguments, but that structure is wholly decided by the assumptions behind it. Science deploys an observational, experimental method as the basis of scientific “logic”, yet that automatically excludes from science’s logic everything unobservable and non-experimental. The logic of science is 100% fallacious if there are any things at all outside its “reality”. Its logic cannot accommodate these, and hence cannot accommodate actual reality (as opposed to science’s sensory model of “reality”). It’s always disappointing to see people still trying to find universal logics. What matters is ontology, and the epistemology that flows from it. Everything else is moonshine and shinola.

“Objectivism” “[Objectivism] begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver’s emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man’s only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty, which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” – Ayn Rand

Note how Rand follows the scientific route of tying reason to the human senses: a category error. Reason, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the human senses and existed prior to the evolution of the human senses. If Rand actually accepted the existence of objective reality, i.e. something wholly independent of the human condition, she wouldn’t then link it to the subjective human senses. Straight away, Rand’s logic fail. An objective reality that “exists independent of any perceiver” cannot be interrogated by reason tied to subjective perceptions; reason must transcend the human condition in order to address the universe that preceded the appearance of human beings. Mathematical reason is the only acceptable reason. Scientific reason isn’t reason at all; it’s empiricism, not rationalism. It’s pro human experience and anti any reason that’s independent of humanity.

***** “Reason is man’s tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombie, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colourful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.” – Ayn Rand Rand, like Wittgenstein, science, and empiricism, takes it for granted that the “facts of reality” are those accessed by the senses, and considers it reason’s job to process sensory data. In fact, reason has nothing to do with the senses. As Jung pointed out, the senses and intuition are informationgathering systems, while thinking and feeling evaluate information and take decisions. Reason, when completely separated from the senses, intuitions and emotions, acts on its own complete and consistent analytic tautologies,

i.e. on mathematics. Reason – true reason – must never be linked to anything that is not the stuff of reason. Only mathematics is the stuff of reason. Sensory data certainly isn’t the stuff of reason. It’s more or less the opposite. Science works by converting all sensory data into rationalist mathematical formulae. However, it ignores all data that cannot be sensed, and this is the data that’s essential to the proper, logical use of mathematics.

Frege “From the prevailing logic I cannot hope for approval ... for it seems to be thoroughly infected by psychology.” – Frege Frege’s logic was itself infected by psychology ... his psychology. Only one thing can free people from their own psychology: the principle of sufficient reason.

***** “Logical theories can be used descriptively (for example, to represent particular arguments or to depict the logical form of certain sentences). Here the logician uses the usual methods of empirical science to assess the correctness of his descriptions. However, the most important applications of logical theories are normative...” – Michael D. Resnik How can a logician ever use the methods of empirical science? They have nothing to do with logic!

The Riddle “The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.” – Wittgenstein This is exactly right. The principle of sufficient reason is what we use to answer all rational questions, and show how any other question is irrational. “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” – Wittgenstein

This could be said of Wittgenstein’s own philosophy. It never occurred to him to “pull”. “An inner process stands in need of outward criteria.” – Wittgenstein No, it stands in need of inward criteria. All outer processes also stand in need of inward criteria. This is exactly what science has never understood. Every outside has an inside; not every inside has a outside, or, rather, some insides have a potential outside, but not an actual outside. “What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.” – Wittgenstein Nothing can be said clearly with ambiguous, manmade words. Only numbers can “speak” (or, rather, count) clearly and precisely. “The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather – not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).” – Wittgenstein Like Frege, Wittgenstein’s philosophy is a reflection of his own peculiar psychology, which he somehow believed more than a subjective psychology. Nietzsche said, “Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been – namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir...” This is extremely true of the likes of Frege and Wittgenstein. “...no part of our experience is also a priori. Everything we see could also be otherwise. Everything we can describe at all could also be otherwise. There is no order of things a priori.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics is the order of things a priori. Since every mathematical sinusoid has an exact experience associated with it, there is an a priori order of experience. The trouble is, we can’t have an experience prior to the experience, i.e. the experience is an immediate thing. “The philosophical ‘I’ is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit – not a part of the world.” – Wittgenstein

Of course the “I” is part of the world. There’s nothing outside the world! “The propositions of logic demonstrate the logical properties of propositions, by combining them into propositions which say nothing. This method could be called a zero-method.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics, ontologically, is always conserved at zero, hence is indeed a “zero-method” ... yet in “nothing” lies everything! The flip side of zero is infinity. “This throws light on the question why logical propositions can no more be empirically established than they can be empirically refuted. Not only must a proposition of logic be incapable of being contradicted by any possible experience, but it must also be incapable of being established by any such. It now becomes clear why we often feel as though ‘logical truths’ PHILOSOPHICUS must be ‘postulated’ by us. We can in fact postulate them in so far as we can postulate an adequate notation.” – Wittgenstein No mathematical statement can be empirically established and none can be empirically refuted. Not only must a statement of mathematics be incapable of being contradicted by any possible experience, but it must also be incapable of being established by any such. This is why “self-evident” axioms – which are usually based on experience – are so dubious as any kind of foundation for mathematics. “Mechanics is an attempt to construct according to a single plan all true propositions which we need for the description of the world.” – Wittgenstein This is the scientific project. “Philosophical problems are not solved by experience, for what we talk about in philosophy are not facts but things for which facts are useful. Philosophical trouble arises through seeing a system of rules and seeing that things do not fit it. It is like advancing and retreating from a tree stump and seeing different things. We go nearer, remember the rules, and feel satisfied, then retreat and feel dissatisfied.” – Wittgenstein Mathematical problems are not solved by experience. There’s nothing that cannot fit mathematics. The universe is 100% mathematical.

“Words and chess pieces are analogous; knowing how to use a word is like knowing how to move a chess piece. Now how do the rules enter into playing the game? What is the difference between playing the game and aimlessly moving the pieces? I do not deny there is a difference, but I want to say that knowing how a piece is to be used is not a particular state of mind which goes on while the game goes on. The meaning of a word is to be defined by the rules for its use, not by the feeling that attaches to the words.” – Wittgenstein For someone obsessed with words and language, Wittgenstein didn’t give any thought at all to what a word is ontologically, i.e. what a word is made of, what and how it’s conveyed. Words are of course information codes, and all information is carried by mathematics (by sinusoidal waves). “Laws, like the law of causation, etc., treat of the network and not of what the network described.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics deals with the Form; our experiences deal with the Content. “Logic proceeds from premises just as physics does. But the primitive propositions of physics are results of very general experience, while those of logic are not.” – Wittgenstein Yet physics uses mathematics, which has nothing to do with experiences. “There are two senses of ‘reason’: reason for, and cause. These are two different orders of things. One needs to decide on a criterion for something’s being a reason before reason and cause can be distinguished.” – Wittgenstein We have a reason for everything we do. The reason is also the cause. When no will is at work to produce a reason, the cause is simply the prior mathematical state. “To give a reason is to go through a process of calculation, and to ask for a reason is to ask how one arrived at the result. The chain of reasons comes to an end, that is, one cannot always give a reason for a reason.” – Wittgenstein On the contrary, everything has a sufficient reason. If this were not the case, reason would end in unreason, randomness, uncertainty, magic, miracles or mystery – much as science claims.

“What ‘existence’ means is determined by the proof.” – Wittgenstein But by mathematical proof, and only mathematical proof. Nothing else can be considered proof at all. Nothing else has the properties and qualities compatible with proof. Everything else is associated with belief, opinion, conjecture and interpretation.

Tolerance If, in the name of tolerance, we tolerate intolerant beliefs then we are effectively conniving with, and endorsing, those intolerant beliefs, hence we ourselves are guilty of the same intolerance. We are as bad as the people holding those beliefs. To avoid that, we must be absolutely intolerant towards the intolerant. There’s all the difference in the world between being intolerant towards the intolerant, and intolerant towards the tolerant. Intolerant people are those who are inherently intolerant towards the tolerant, as all people who believe in “holy” books and laws are. You too are intolerant if you let them get away with it. We must all be intolerant towards the intolerant. We are not thereby promoting intolerance, we are simply reacting to it and dealing with it. They are the ones who promote intolerance. Without them, there would be no intolerance at all. If there were no intolerant people, we would not have to retaliate against them.

Shame In religious countries, people are ashamed, or bring shame to their families, if they transgress the prevailing religious customs and taboos involving prayer, dress, diet and relationships. In rational countries, we should make all those who transgress the laws of reason – by believing in silly, ancient superstitions – feel profoundly ashamed, and feel they have brought shame and disgrace on their families. We must introduce an honour code based on reason, and all those who behave irrationally will ipso facto be dishonoured.

The Mystery of Death

“Philosophy failed. Religion failed. Now it’s up to the physical sciences.” – Nelson Wright, Flatliners In fact, the physical sciences have failed to illuminate death even more than philosophy and religion have. Even worse, the physical sciences have never got anywhere near explaining life. Only mathematics can explain life and death.

The Farce “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” – Carl Sagan And science is totally dependent on mathematics, and no scientist knows the first thing about what mathematics is. It’s amazing that scientists always think they’re much smarter than they are.

Fail Your entire philosophy fails if you get a single significant point wrong. What Wittgenstein got wrong was that he failed to see that all information (“truths of fact”; phenomena; Content; the signified; the empirical) is carried by something (truths of reason; noumena; Form; the signifiers; the rational) that is never seen, and can’t form any part of the observed “facts of the world”, with which Wittgenstein was so obsessively preoccupied. In other words, you can’t address reality unless you grasp that there’s an invisible scaffolding that holds up the whole thing. It’s the unobservable fibre and fabric of existence that carries all empirical sensations, feelings, ideas, dreams, languages, desires, and experiences. Science refuses to acknowledge this, and so did Wittgenstein. Both alike were spellbound by observable facts, and regarded anything unobservable as idiotic, ridiculous, nonsensical, meaningless, absurd, fantastical, religious, metaphysical, and devoid of any truth value. You can’t commit a bigger intellectual error than to dismiss the existence of something merely because you can’t observe it with your fallible,

unreliable, delusional, evolutionary human senses. Descartes told us this hundreds of years ago. People just don’t learn. Wittgenstein certainly didn’t.

***** What was Kant’s big mistake? With no justification, he posited two categories of noumena, namely: 1) those that could have an appearance projected onto them (via categories of the understanding, space and time intuitions, and Newtonian determinism), and thus become knowable “phenomena”, the stuff of the scientific world, and 2) those for which this could not be done i.e. the soul, God, the universe as a whole, and the free will with which the soul and God were associated (i.e. both were free of scientific determinism). In fact, every phenomenon is associated with a noumenon. There are no such things as phenomena separate from noumena, or noumena separate from phenomena. All phenomena arise from noumenal mathematical monads, made of dimensionless sinusoids. Behind the entire phenomenal, sensory world is a noumenal, non-sensory world of ontological mathematics. Or, rather, the rational part of ontological mathematics is hidden, and the empirical part of ontological mathematics is what we actually encounter (and interpret as sensory, concrete “matter”). We encounter Content, not Form; empiricism, not rationalism; the signified, not the signifier; the information carried, not the information carrier; the phenomenon, not the noumenon; the appearance, not the thingin-itself.

No Things There are no physical “things”. There are only mathematical things, interpreted physically. You will never understand reality if you don’t understand that.

The Lunacy It’s crazy that scientists believe themselves on the side of reason. They are anti-rationalist empiricists. They repudiate the principle of sufficient reason, and they deny that reality is made of reason (mathematics). It shows how confused scientists are that they imagine themselves rational, and use mathematics all the time, yet there is no part of their ideology and

dogmatism that accepts the reality of rationalist mathematics. Rationalist mathematics is regarded as an unreal abstraction, and is used as nothing but a convenient tool by scientists. It’s because scientists reject the reality of rationalist mathematics that they regard quantum mechanical reality as probabilistic rather than deterministic. The probabilistic interpretation arises from the fact that the quantum mechanical wavefunction in itself is deemed unreal since it contains imaginary numbers and is incompatible with “real” material particles. Jim Al-Khalili wrote, “In general, a wavefunction does not simply oscillate like a water wave. It is far more complicated than that. I mentioned that at each point in space the wavefunction is defined by two numbers known as its real and ‘imaginary’ parts. Joining all the ‘real’ numbers together produces one wave and the ‘imaginary’ numbers another, and the full wavefunction is a combination of the two.” Ideologically, scientific materialist empiricists are forbidden from assigning any reality to imaginary numbers, so a stratagem must be found to convert them into something “real”. Max Born won a Nobel Prize for producing a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that abolished imaginary numbers as part of the final output of quantum mechanics. Everything Born said is false if imaginary numbers are accorded exactly the same reality as “real” numbers – and there is precisely nothing in mathematics that permits any other conclusion than the ontological equivalence of real and imaginary numbers. Scientists do not use mathematics. They butcher it. They destroy its integrity. They destroy its completeness and consistency in order to serve the needs of their anti-rationalist, empiricist ideology. Scientists should use math properly, or not at all. They shouldn’t be allowed to apply materialist, empiricist ideology, dogmatism and philosophy to mathematics. Why does science fail to understand mind? It’s because mind can be defined only in terms of dimensionless sinusoids, but dimensionless existence is anathema to scientists, who are doing their utmost to abolish singularities from science. A singularity is, as any physicist will tell you, where physics breaks down. Why? Because the materialist, empiricist ideology of physics is incompatible with singularities. Mathematics isn’t incompatible with singularities, so there’s no mathematical break down at singularities, but the philosophy that drives physics certainly collapses at singularities. The singularity is exactly where the ideology of materialism

and empiricism – which defines science – is formally falsified. Rather than accept that it has been falsified by singularities, science seeks to abolish singularities (and then it won’t be falsified by them!). That’s not a rational way of addressing reality. That’s a way that looks exactly the same as religious faith. Science refuses to abandon its ideology and dogmatism, no matter how much they are falsified. All of the mysteries of science dissolve as soon as you realise that science is actually reflecting a mathematical, not a “physical”, reality.” But scientists are irrational believers, and will never abandon their faith in the Church of the Senses.

No Shame Scientists have no shame. They treat math like a whore to be used and abused as they see fit. They allow math no integrity. They continually dishonour it. They think that, for anti-mathematical ideological reasons, they can do whatever they like with math to serve their ends, even though they have no idea what math actually is. Here’s a fundamental question for all scientists ... if you don’t know what mathematics is ontologically, how can you possibly subject it to your dogmatism? You literally have no idea whether or not you are performing ontologically valid operations. You have subjected mathematics to your philosophy of empiricism and materialism. Where is your mathematical justification for this?

***** How can metamathematicians proceed with their work if they don’t know what math is ontologically? How can logicians proceed with their work if they don’t know what math is ontologically? Unless you address ontology, you are building castles in the sky. You’re one of the denizens of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The Impossibility Irrational types simply cannot believe that reality is made of reason. They find this an absurd notion. Irrational feeling types believe that reality is made of some undefined emotional God (of “pure” love; of “unconditional” love), i.e. God is ultimate feeling, exactly what you would expect a feeling

type to believe in. Irrational intuitive types believe that reality is made of some undefined mystical Oneness, some whole, complete, holistic, integrated unity of bare awareness or raw consciousness, existing in perfect peace, tranquillity and harmony. Irrational sensory types believe that reality is made of some ultimate sensory or dimensional substance (“strings” being the current favourite). To say that existence is made of reason is simply to say that it is made of eternal, necessary mathematics, and, additionally, to assert that all feelings, desires, sensations, perceptions, experiences are information carried by mathematics. In other words, the information carrier reflects perfect rationalism, but the information carried does not. It is experiential (empirical), and is the source of all irrational aspects of reality. Information carrier = Form; rationalism; perfection. Information carried = Content; irrationalism; empiricism; imperfection. The average person is obsessed with empirical, phenomenal Content, and doesn’t have the nous to see beyond it to noumenal Form. It’s the latter that defines reality. It’s the former through which reality is experienced. You will never understand reality if you fail to grasp that all of your experiences – without exception – are conveyed by something (sinusoidal waves) that you will never experience. These ontological waves cannot be reached experientially, only via reason. But you need to be rational to understand that, and most people simply aren’t. They are the slaves of their experiences, which are immediate, concrete and “real” to them. No empiricist can understand reality. You cannot be an authentic Illuminist if you listen to gurus of empiricism blabbering on about their “experiences”. Empiricism is as bad as faith. In fact, it’s just faith for sensing or mystical intuitive types rather than for feeling types. What you have to do is overcome your experiences, transcend them, subtract them, bracket them out, and what remains is pure noumenal reason, the eternal, necessary basis of reality. You have to remove yourself from the experiential human condition to understand reality, and that’s exactly why it’s so hard, and why it has defied 99.9% of humanity. Only HyperHumanity, those who can go beyond humanity, have access to the Truth.

Words versus Numbers

Do you use manmade words or natural numbers to make the universe? It’s one or the other. Get this wrong and you get everything else wrong. Words and numbers cannot under any circumstances be complete and consistent with regard to each other. They are not compatible things. Anything that tries to combine them – such as science and various types of logic – can never be coherent.

The Force There is only one force of nature – reason – expressed ontologically via mathematics. Reason drives everything, and reason is the basis of everything. It’s purely thanks to this that we have a rational, intelligible universe. There is no Cartesian dualism. You can’t have a partially rational universe, with all of the rest being irrational. Reason and unreason are immiscible. They can never mix. They are totally inconsistent and incomplete with regard to each other. They cannot interact. Either existence is 100% rational (with apparent irrationality being rationality viewed from a subjective perspective – no one ever accuses objective galaxies of behaving “irrationally”), or it’s 100% irrational (with rationality being some bizarre, miraculous and inexplicable product of ontological irrationality). It’s one or the other. Choose. All rationalists will agree with our position (natch); everyone else will support irrationalism. So it goes.

Incompleteness You can understand Gödel’s incompleteness, and know whether they are valid or not, only if you understand the ontology of numbers. Metamathematics and logicism make no reference whatsoever to the ontology of numbers, hence are automatically bogus and fallacious.

Causation Mathematics is the uncaused (eternal; metaphysical; rational; noumenal) cause of all causation (temporal; physical; empirical; phenomenal).

Gödel – Soul Man

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems ensured that formalist mathematicians couldn’t turn mathematics into a self-contained, formal system where every truth could be proved in a finite number of steps from a core set of axioms (in the manner of Euclid’s Elements, the prototype formal system), which would essentially have turned the universe into a programmable machine (a cosmic computer), and made it possible for androids to be programmed to exhibit human life. Gödel is therefore a great champion of the inimitable soul that can never be emulated by any wannabe Dr Frankenstein. Gödel’s ideas make it clear that machines will never be able to think, and computer algorithms will never replace a quality such as intuition. How could any machine ever be programmed to manifest intuition? Intuition, and its ontological link to innate ideas, goes to the core of the mystery of existence. If there are such things as innate ideas, they precede our human existence, and are eternal, immutable and Platonic. These are the ultimate truths, but they are exactly what are denied by empiricists who claim that no ideas precede our experience. Gödel is often portrayed as someone who showed that the ultimate truths of existence are beyond the reach of proof and reason. He said no such thing. He was insistent that existence is rational and its truths can be known – but not by a computer-style approach. In Gödel’s opinion, intuition, not algorithms, reveal the Mind of God. In Illuminism, the proper exercise of the principle of sufficient reason establishes the answer to existence. What it arrives at is a single mathematical Formula for existence (the God Equation), which defines the whole of ontological mathematics, and thus everything (since, in a rational universe, everything is made of mathematics).

***** Numbers (= photons) are the ultimate innate properties of existence. They are the arche, the ground of all, common to all.

Math and the Soul Scientists regard the non-sensory soul as unreal. They also regard nonsensory mathematics as unreal. Have you detected the problem? Scientists are believers in their senses. The last thing they could ever conceive is a

non-sensory mathematical soul made of photons. And that’s exactly why scientists will never know and understand reality.

Manmade and Natural Language You cannot link a precise numeric, analytic language – such as ontological mathematics – to manmade verbal languages that have no analytic necessity.

No Final Theory of Science? “Thus mathematics is either inconsistent, or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.” – Stephen Hawking If Hawking were right, exactly the same would be true of science, which extensively uses math but is much weaker than formal math, i.e. any proposed final theory would be inconsistent and/or incomplete, hence would be neither final nor true!

The Naked Truth Are you ready to ponder existence in itself – bare existence – shorn of all subjective experiences, feelings, desires, sensations, perceptions, mystical intuitions, beliefs, opinions, and interpretations? What is naked existence? What is existence in its rawest, oldest, most primitive and primordial state? Until you understand that, you will have no idea what it is when you impose an appearance on it.

Wrong Kant stated in his Critique of Pure Reason that Euclidean geometry is the true geometry of the universe and to contradict it is to contradict thought itself. Yet again, Kant was wrong. Non-Euclidean geometry refuted him. Kant’s entire philosophy failed because of his lack of mathematical skill. Kant’s philosophy is a backward step compared with Leibniz’s. Leibniz’s philosophy failed to grab the world’s attention exactly because it was right. It was exactly what philosophy should be ... mathematical.

Abstraction versus Ontology

If numbers refer to real things, they cannot be arbitrarily manipulated, as they often are in abstract mathematics. If the number “6” refers to the frequency of an ontological sinusoid, it cannot then be written as “3 x 2” since three things with a frequency of 2, or two things with a frequency of 3, are totally different ontologically from one thing with a frequency of 6. This has radical consequences for a subject such as calculus. Ontological calculus isn’t the same as abstract calculus. Operations and manipulations are possible abstractly that are impossible ontologically, and operations and manipulations can take place ontologically that are denied by the prevailing formalism of abstract calculus, which is not grounded in real things. You have to be very careful about the rules of calculus as applied abstractly versus ontologically. In ontological calculus, numbers can be dimensionless (frequencies) as well as dimensional (spacetime entities). This certainly isn’t true of abstract mathematics.

***** Abstract mathematics falls foul of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and is inconsistent and/or incomplete. Ontological mathematics is immune from Gödel’s theorems by the very fact of being ontological. Ontological numbers can’t be encoded as anything else since that would change their ontology, which is of course strictly forbidden. Only non-ontological, abstract approaches to math can result in incompleteness and/or inconsistency. Ontological mathematics is Pythagorean-Leibnizian mathematics, reflecting the principle of sufficient reason, and the eternal truths of reason and logic.

Relativism “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” – Isaac Asimov Anyone who thinks there are countless ways to enlightenment is a member of the Cult of Ignorance. They have contempt for knowledge and for the

right, unique answer. All such people reject the principle of sufficient reason.

Born Again? “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” – Jesus Christ (John 3:3) Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again countless times. If you can be born twice, you can be born infinite times. There’s no sufficient reason why you shouldn’t be. Science says we are born once. Abrahamic Resurrectionism says we are born twice. Reincarnationism says we are born countless times.

The Problem The problem with modern Christianity is its lack of sincerity, and its lack of authenticity. Christendom is where people go through the motions. None of them truly believes. They are far more interested in money, comfort, and the “good life” than they are in “God”.

The Dream Recorder In the old sci-fi movie Quatermass and the Pit, a device called an “opticencephalogram” plays a vital role. This device records impressions from the optical centres of the brain, i.e. allows dreams, visions and thoughts to be viewed on a screen and stored.

The Philosopher In the 18th century, “philosopher” was a codeword for “non-Christian” (usually a deist or atheist).

Hell “We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell.” – Oscar Wilde

*****

“After all, it is putting a very high price on one’s conjectures to have a man roasted alive because of them.” – Montaigne “It takes an extraordinary amount of confidence in one’s own beliefs to burn another human being at the stake because of them.” – Montaigne Sadly, it doesn’t take much confidence at all. All it takes is that you live in a culture where it’s acceptable to burn others. People need little encouragement to slaughter others. Muslim terrorists are often told they will burn in hell if they take an innocent life. The trouble is, they’ve been brainwashed since birth to believe that no infidel is innocent, and that infidels are all destined for the hellfire anyway. The real question is this ... why do governments allow people to follow religions that openly proclaim that people who don’t belong to those religions are going to hell (including, of course, all those who belong to different religions)? It takes an extraordinary degree of stupidity to be surprised by intolerance and terrorism when you do nothing to stop people signing up to intolerant, terrorist religions that constantly threaten people with the ultimate terror ... hell.

Gödel: The Summary “Axiomatic method: in logic, a procedure by which an entire system (e.g., a science) is generated in accordance with specified rules by logical deduction from certain basic propositions (axioms or postulates), which in turn are constructed from a few terms taken as primitive. These terms and axioms may either be arbitrarily defined and constructed or else be conceived according to a model in which some intuitive warrant for their truth is felt to exist. The oldest examples of axiomatized systems are Aristotle’s syllogistic and Euclid’s geometry. Early in the 20th century the British philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead attempted to formalize all of mathematics in an axiomatic manner. Scholars have even subjected the empirical sciences to this method, as J.H. Woodger has done in The Axiomatic Method in Biology (1937) and Clark Hull (for psychology) in Principles of Behaviour (1943). “...[Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorem] states that within any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system; thus, such a system cannot be simultaneously complete and consistent. This proof

established Gödel as one of the greatest logicians since Aristotle, and its repercussions continue to be felt and debated today. “... Roughly speaking, this theorem established the result that it is impossible to use the axiomatic method to construct a mathematical theory, in any branch of mathematics, that entails all of the truths in that branch of mathematics. (In England, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell had spent years on such a program, which they published as Principia Mathematica in three volumes in 1910, 1912, and 1913.) For instance, it is impossible to come up with an axiomatic mathematical theory that captures even all of the truths about the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). This was an extremely important negative result, as before 1931 many mathematicians were trying to do precisely that – construct axiom systems that could be used to prove all mathematical truths. Indeed, several well-known logicians and mathematicians (e.g., Whitehead, Russell, Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert) spent significant portions of their careers on this project. Unfortunately for them, Gödel’s theorem destroyed this entire axiomatic research program. ... “In 1931 Gödel published his first incompleteness theorem, ‘Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme’ (‘On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems’), which stands as a major turning point of 20th-century logic. This theorem established that it is impossible to use the axiomatic method to construct a formal system for any branch of mathematics containing arithmetic that will entail all of its truths. In other words, no finite set of axioms can be devised that will produce all possible true mathematical statements, so no mechanical (or computer-like) approach will ever be able to exhaust the depths of mathematics. It is important to realize that if some particular statement is undecidable within a given formal system, it may be incorporated in another formal system as an axiom or be derived from the addition of other axioms. For example, German mathematician Georg Cantor’s continuum hypothesis is undecidable in the standard axioms, or postulates, of set theory but could be added as an axiom.” – Encyclopedia Britannica

You Don’t Whatever you think you know, you don’t. Humanity groans under a neverending, and ever-growing, mountain of guesses, interpretations, theories,

speculations, opinions and beliefs, which are taken to be knowledge, but have nothing to do with knowledge. Science is not a body of knowledge; it’s a body of mathematical heuristics force-fitted to the observed world of phenomena. If you think that’s “knowledge”, you have no idea what knowledge is. Knowledge of the Truth must be immutable, eternal, necessary, consistent, complete, infallible and absolute. Knowledge of the Lie, of the False, of the Wrong, of the Provisional, isn’t knowledge.

To Be Fair To be fair to science, its hatred of mind – i.e. of autonomous mind, independent of, or the actual source of, “matter” – was born of a justified hatred of mainstream religion. Religion makes mind primary and matter secondary, so, obviously, a reaction against religion will make matter primary and mind secondary. A higher wisdom, however, shows that mind can be treated mathematically, and hence escape the absurdity of organised religion. Science needs to place its trust in mathematical monadic mind, as opposed to the ridiculous soul of religious faith.

Math Math is reality. Get over it. Everything you experience is information carried by mathematics. Live with it. Anyone who opposes mathematics is ipso facto irrational and demented. There’s no excuse for rejecting mathematics. If you look to anything other than math for your answers, it’s the surest proof that you have failed the exam of life. Math is the subject that is quintessentially about providing exact answers, and existence is itself exactly answered mathematically.

The Truth Words and numbers are incommensurate. Reality is based either on words or numbers. It can’t be a bit based on words, and a bit based on numbers, since numbers and words, like Cartesian mind and matter, have no basis for interaction. You have a very simple choice to make. Will you attempt to understand reality verbally, numerically, or via an incoherent combination

of the two? There can only be one answer to existence, and if you choose the wrong means to address reality, you have failed automatically. So, we ask you a very simple question: Was Pythagoras right that all things are numbers, or will you contradict him and claim that all things are words? Your choice. Make the wrong choice and you have cut yourself off from Truth, and are living in a fantasy world. Conventional religion and spirituality are all about emotional and mystical words. Philosophy is about the careful examination of the meaning of words, and what they imply about reality. Science is a mixture of philosophy and numbers, while math is all about numbers. There can be no Cartesian dualism or pluralism. You can’t mix, match and combine incommensurates. There must be a monism, and the only coherent monism is the monism of numbers. Scientific experiments are an artificial add-on to mathematics. They have the effect of force-fitting mathematics to the observable world, and thus producing something that seems “real” (to the senses). However, they also have the disastrous effect of annihilating all mathematics that is not compatible with sensory observations. The whole point of ontological mathematics is to address both observable and unobservable reality, and to unify them in a single system. “Dimensionless” mathematics concerns immaterial Fourier frequency (mental) functions outside space and time, while “dimensional” mathematics concerns Fourier spacetime (material) functions. The two interact via Fourier mathematics. And thus the whole of reality is explained. It’s all in the math. Do the math.

Identity GC: “There is a considerable difference between ‘0 = 0’ and ‘1 + 1 = 2’. The first is a statement of identity, the second is saying what happens when you perform an operation on a pair of terms.” 1 + 1 = 2 can be simply rewritten as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, thus revealing that it is in fact identity. Moreover, by subtracting 1 + 1 from each side of the equation, you get 0 = 0. (!) The whole of mathematics is tautology. You will never understand math and reality if you cannot grasp this point. As Wittgenstein realised, but Gödel didn’t, mathematics – true mathematics – can never be inconsistent and incomplete since it’s never anything other than tautology. What Gödel proved was something very different to what people imagine

he proved. He demonstrated that no non-tautological, non-ontological approach to defining mathematics can ever be correct. It will always be mired in inconsistency and/or incompleteness. Mathematics itself can never suffer from this problem. There’s a radical gap between what human beings imagine math is, and what math actually is. Math is reality. Math is the language of existence. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems apply when any attempt is made to understand math as a manmade language ... exactly the sin perpetrated by scientists and indeed everyone who rejects Pythagorean-Leibnizian mathematics. Gödel showed that any attempt to consider math manmade is doomed. In fact, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems can be taken as an indirect proof that true mathematics is eternal, necessary and ontological. They don’t prove this outright, but they do prove that any attempt to approach math in manmade terms will never succeed, hence math is not manmade. If math is not manmade then man is made of math! Either men create math, or math creates men. If math precedes humanity then rationalism is true and empiricism is false. It’s as simple as that.

***** ME: “And math and logic most definitely are pure human inventions!” SG: “Now this is a completely false statement. Math is no one’s invention. It’s eternally true for humans and aliens alike. 0 = 0 is the same here and ‘there’ because it means what it means regardless of who says so or where. One unit of something, ‘1’, has the same meaning universally – it is one unit of something. Regardless of the visual symbols that can vary, the concept behind numbers is still the same. Addition, subtraction etc... these all universally flow in the same manner, and they cannot be anything other than what they are. “Math is ‘there’ by absolute necessity, it’s the ultimate causality that predicates everything. It’s the noumenon from which all phenomena arise. “Logic is also mathematical. It’s deductive, and math is the ultimate logic beyond which nothing is more true. 1 + 1 = 2 or 0 = 0 are true by definition. They are a priori truths of necessity. They are not inventions of any minds.

“Even if there is no conscious mind anywhere in the universe, the same mathematical laws are there and apply 100%, making physical laws work and making them LAWS. There is no distinction between physics and math other than that one is numerical language – far more difficult to operate with – and the other is a human linguistic language far easier to operate with and far more figurative. There is one major difference however: human language cannot be so accurate or even wrong at describing reality or an event, but with math you are either right or wrong. If you are good enough, you are right. Behind all the smoke and mirrors, all knowledge comes down to math. “Eventually self-aware mind evolves from unconsciousness and starts recognising mathematical logic, order and patterns – which are its basis as well. It’s informational existence, and information is math, which is why mind recognizes math and logic when it’s sufficiently developed. It then assigns symbols that vary from species to species, culture to culture, but the same concepts are behind those symbols, and that’s why math is the only language with which humans and aliens or whatever can communicate – universally – and make sense to each other through it.” If you think you know anything about ontological mathematics, then, like SG, you should be able to articulate an answer to all the irrational gibberish spouted by scientific materialists. It boggles the mind that anyone can imagine that math and logic are manmade. Did human minds invent Euler’s Formula? Is pi a number invented by the human mind? Did humans invent circles, squares, triangle and parabolas? Is calculus a reflection of human language rather than of reality? Did humans invent zero, infinity, negative number, imaginary numbers, complex numbers and irrational numbers? If humans invented math and logic, why, in conscious terms, are they so bad at it? Humans are much more attuned to words than numbers. All manmade languages are word-based, and are inherently illogical, ambiguous, inconsistent and incomplete. If humans invented math, how come most of math is completely unknown to humanity? How can you make up something that you don’t know? If humans were just making up math as they went along, it would be every bit as absurd as all human languages, as all human cultures, religions, political systems, economic systems and religions, yet it’s nothing like those. It has nothing in common with those at all.

In fact, all problems with math begin the very moment that humans try to “humanise” math by applying set theory, humanly constructed axioms, human logic, human formalism or human rules to it. Math is none of those things. It’s pure ontology and pure tautology. It’s tautological because the whole thing flows from a single ontological formula (the God Equation). Anything that does not define math as a single ontological formula is ipso facto false. The grand unified, final theory of existence must reduce to a single, eternal, necessary, complete and consistent, perfect, immutable, Platonic formula. We have already revealed what it is ... the God Equation. If you disagree with us, you’re just wrong! You are choosing to oppose reason and logic, and that makes you irrational.

The Impossible Project It’s impossible to turn non-mathematical knowledge into a formal, logical system. There’s only one formal, complete and consistent system of logic and that’s ontological mathematics. No other language has the same logical features as ontological mathematics. Only the Truth can be complete and consistent. Only the language of existence – ontological mathematics – is true. All manmade languages, including science, are false. What Gödel says is that any attempt to present mathematics as a finitary, computational system derived from non-tautological, humanly constructed and chosen axioms, is doomed and cannot reflect true reality. By the same token, finitary, arbitrary scientific materialism can never reflect true reality. Science is rendered ridiculous as an account of reality the moment you accept the existence of non-sensory, rational unobservables (given that science is entirely predicated on sensory observables, even though huge chunks of science – especially M-theory – are concerned with speculative entities that will never be observed, thus demonstrating how confused science is). Only ontological mathematics is consistent and complete. It cannot be modelled by anything else – anything inconsistent and incomplete – especially anything lacking a proper mathematical means for addressing zero and infinity (hence unable to reach the bounds of existence).

The underlying subtext of finitary, axiomatic, computational mathematics was that mathematicians were seeking to align mathematics with scientific materialism (which denies the reality of zero and infinity). If understood properly, Gödel was denying that science, or any mathematical system compatible with it, could ever describe true reality.

Deduction versus Induction Mathematics is about deduction, science about induction. There’s all the difference in the world. A deductive universe is one that can be worked out and has an answer. It’s a rational universe. An inductive universe is one that is observed, but has no answer. It’s an empirical universe. As David Hume pointed out, induction can never lead to absolute truth. No matter how many things we observe, we can never be sure that our next observation will conform to whatever pattern we worked out on the basis of our previous observations, and that means no “final” theory of science is possible – because as soon as it’s declared the very next observation might falsify it.

Nature’s Language Mathematics is the true language of Nature, both visible and invisible, physical and metaphysical, material and mental. Mathematics is the study of eternal, necessary energy reflecting the principle of rational, intelligible existence (the Apollonian principle of sufficient reason), and defined by the God Equation. Humanity will never become divine until it comprehends what math is, hence comprehends existence and its natural language. Numbers, not words, define reality. Numbers are energy. Human beings are under the spell of their senses and emotions, and regard only sensations and feelings as concrete and real. Anything nonsensory and non-emotional – like mathematics – is regarded as abstract and unreal. Immediately, people start trying to define math in all sorts of bizarre ways: whether by logic, formalism, sets, intuitionism, axioms ... anything other than ontologically. Math is the great Achilles heel of the human race. It just can’t fathom what math is. Pythagoras grasped the truth 2,500 years

ago, but only the Illuminati – the mathematikoi – followed him on the road of Truth. The vast majority of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers are plebeian thinkers. They are locked into phenomena, and just can’t conceive that noumena are real things. They believe that what appears to them is reality, and can’t imagine that what appears to them is actually the appearance of something that does not appear to them, and has no appearance in itself. It’s mathematics that constitutes appearance stripped of all appearance, i.e. the thing in itself, the noumenal, ontological kernel. Only patrician thinkers can grasp this. Patrician thinkers are always intuitives, who can easily transcend their delusional senses. Plebeian thinkers, on the other hand – including all scientists and, sadly, the vast majority of mathematicians and philosophers – are sensing types, and literally can’t conceive of a non-sensory order of existence that underlies the sensory order. This intellectual leap of reason is just too big for them. The chasm is too wide for such narrow minds. That’s why humanity has become stuck with empiricism and materialism, and failed to advance to rationalism and idealism. Even a great thinker such as Nietzsche railed against a hidden order of existence, and celebrated the body and the senses, yet in the same breath he mocked the concept of extended, material atoms, and ultimately believed that reality was made of invisible Will to Power. That’s what happens when you don’t think mathematically.

***** If there’s just one thing you take from the God Series, it should be this: mathematics is not abstract and unreal; mathematics is the most concrete and real thing you can get ... it’s the very energy from which existence is made. Mathematics, not science, is the subject that studies energy. Why is science so heavily reliant on math? – for exactly the reason that math describes the hidden, noumenal order of energy that science insists on treating phenomenally and empirically. Math is the realest thing of all. Existence is mathematical, energy is mathematical, and you yourself are 100% mathematical. You will never know who you are – you will never arrive at the answer to your existence

and the meaning of your life – until you understand what you are. You are pure math – whether you like it or not! You are an individual, autonomous, self-solving, self-optimising node in an unimaginably vast, collective, cosmic, self-solving, self-optimising mathematical equation ... the equation of existence. The answer to existence is inside you right now. Only math can extract it. Isn’t it time you learned what math actually is?

***** “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.” – Carl Sagan Yup, science has been bamboozled by mathematics for so long it has given up trying to understand how mathematics managed it, and has abandoned any attempt to discover the mathematical truth of reality.

Epic Fail Why did physics succeed and metaphysics fail? Because physics embraced mathematics and metaphysics didn’t. How can metaphysics be saved? By embracing mathematics. What would then become of “science”? It would be transformed into physics and metaphysics, embracing complete mathematics, i.e. every number: zero, infinity, negative and positive numbers, real and imaginary numbers. Only then can we have a full description of reality.

***** Gödel, with his revolutionary incompleteness theorems, destroyed Russell, Whitehead and Frege. Gödel was a Platonist. Wittgenstein never at any stage accepted Gödel’s work.

Beginnings The scientific (practical) way of thinking is radically different from the mathematical (analytic) way of thinking. Scientists use guesses, trial and error, bodges, fudges, heuristics and “evidence” to proceed. Mathematicians

use analysis, definition, logic and proof. These approaches reflect different and incompatible worldviews, which is why it’s a blatant contradiction that science has math at its core, despite rejecting analysis and rationalism. One place where mathematics has come to grief is in trying to establish its own foundations (metamathematics). Here, it has adopted a disastrous scientific-style approach. Instead of applying ontological and epistemological considerations, instead of relying on the principle of sufficient reason, instead of applying mathematical considerations to the roots of mathematics, metamathematicians have applied empiricist thinking. They have guessed at “self-evident” axioms, they have tried to apply nonmathematical considerations to math (such as considering it as a branch of logic, or as an application of set theory, or as a special kind of manmade language, or as an abstract game, and so on). They have basically adopted ad hoc techniques and hoped that one would work ... but none of these scattergun approaches has succeeded. They all produce fatal paradoxes and contradictions, hence are wrong. Wittgenstein grasped the guidestone of mathematics when he said that mathematics is tautology. As soon as you depart from this, you’re lost. Only a system of analytic tautology can be complete and consistent, and wholly free of paradoxes and contradictions. Any other approach is doomed from the outset.

Eternal Causes There’s a critical difference between uncaused causes and caused causes. All uncaused causes are eternal and necessary; all caused causes are temporal and contingent. The latter class of causes is entirely derived from the former. All caused causes must be traced back to uncaused causes. There can be no infinite contingent regress (implying a system with no “bottom”, hence no reason to be), and there can be no jumping of causes out of nothing at all (as science insanely claims).

***** Without uncaused causes, nothing would ever happen. All temporal, contingent causation would never be activated. Science avoids this problem by claiming that temporal, contingent causation (such as it is in science since science is actually probabilistic, hence doesn’t acknowledge real

causation at all) leaps out of nothing at all, for no reason at all, via no mechanism at all. You have a simple choice to make: is there an eternal order of uncaused causes (a mathematical order underlying everything), or do causes miraculously bootstrap themselves out of total non-causation (indeed total non-existence), as science claims? The mathematical option is the rationalist option; the scientific option the empiricist, anti-rationalist option.

What Is Math? SH: “Science is discovered. Mathematics is a language invented by humans to understand/explain/quantify things we discover in science: physics, chemistry, biology.” Dear, oh dear. Mathematics concerns eternal, necessary truths, and is the same for everything and everyone, for every species in the universe. Science is a human language dealing with temporality, contingency, and the fallible, unreliable, delusional human senses. There’s a different science for every species in the universe (since they have all evolved differently in sensory terms, hence have a totally different phenomenal, sensory understanding of reality). SH’s view, sadly, is all too common, and utterly irrational. The temporal cannot precede the eternal, the contingent cannot precede the necessary. SH has inverted reality. That’s an extremely common error.

***** DRR: “I am an atheist, and everything happened by random chance, including mathematics.” Well, that’s the insane crap you talk once you go down the atheism route. “God” is replaced by “Random Chance”.

***** JA: “This is a very old debate about the ontological status of mathematical objects. If math is a real thing in its own right, where is it? Point to it. It’s never more than symbolic. And it never corresponds perfectly with nature.”

This is a perfect example of someone who doesn’t understand the difference between noumenal and phenomenal. You can point to phenomenal, sensory things. You can’t point to noumenal, non-sensory things. It’s a category error to imagine you can. The fact that you can’t engage with something on a sensory level doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (as science madly claims). Mathematics does correspond perfectly with nature because it is nature. It’s our sensory, phenomenal interpretations of noumenal reality that are confused and confusing. Reality in itself is never confused or confusing.

Quantity and Quality Aristotle defined mathematics as “the science of quantity”. There are two points here: 1) there are two types of quantity, mental (dimensionless; frequency) and physical (dimensional; spacetime), and 2) mathematics is both quantitative (rational; objective) and qualitative (empirical; subjective).

***** Benjamin Peirce called mathematics “the science that draws necessary conclusions”. Math, objectively, is indeed all about necessity. David Hilbert said, “We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise.” No human being could ever construct such a “game”. French mathematician Claire Voisin said, “There is creative drive in mathematics. It’s all about movement trying to express itself.” This is exactly right. This is an example of a mathematician starting to grasp that mathematics is both ontological and teleological.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason Leibniz’s concept of the pre-established harmony implies a complete and consistent system. The only entity outside the pre-established harmony is the Creator of that harmony. Yet must not his Creation be complete and consistent with him? Otherwise, how does he create it, and how does he interact with it?

Knowledge There are two types of knowledge: that which comes from reason (rationalism), and that which comes from the senses (empiricism). When J. M. Coetzee said, “Reason is simply a vast tautology”, he got to the heart of rationalism, and its infallibility. All valid reason is necessarily consistent and complete because you’re simply saying the thing in countless different ways. Reason, ontologically, is mathematics. Any reason that is not connected with mathematics isn’t reason. As soon as reason becomes linked to nontautology, it stops being reason, and, no matter how sophisticated it is, it’s inconsistent and/or incomplete. We should probably refer to it as speculative or practical reason rather than pure reason. Only pure reason is true reason, reflecting consistency and completeness, reflecting statements that must be true. “Logic” is mostly inconsistent and incomplete. It’s valid only when applied to mathematical statements. As soon as it’s applied to empirical things, it has no reliability. Hegelian dialectical logic – driven by contradiction (!) – shows how logic is anything but straightforward as soon as it’s applied to the observed world. Empirical “knowledge” is no such thing. Everyone thinks it’s a fact that the sky is blue, but a blind person, a colour blind person, or someone with abnormal colour vision, has no idea what you’re talking about. 1 + 1 = 2 is the same for everyone. “The sky is blue”, however, is not a fact, but an interpretation. If ninety-five percent of humans agree that the sky is blue, that makes it a widely held interpretation, but not a “fact”. 100% of humanity once believed that the earth is flat, or that the earth is at the centre of the universe, or that there’s a Creator, or that all swans are white ... but all of that is false. Belief is not knowledge. Empiricism is always linked to beliefs, opinions and interpretations, never to absolute, infallible knowledge. Empiricism concerns a collection of disparate facts. If it’s observed that the sky is blue (except at certain times when it’s red), grass is green, roses are red or white, and tulips are all sorts of colours, we have a collection of “facts”, but so what? Do we have any knowledge? Do we have any understanding? Can we explain any of these facts? What use is a “fact” without an explanation? How can an unexplained fact be anything to do

with knowledge? It’s an observation, nothing more. It’s an experience, nothing more. To explain vast numbers of empirical facts, empiricists are forced to start drawing general inferences that, as the great empiricist David Hume pointed out, are never observable, hence have nothing to do with empiricism! As Hume so devastatingly highlighted, no one ever observes or perceives causation. If he were commenting on modern science, with its randomist, probabilistic stance, he would equally emphasize that no one ever observes or perceives randomness or any probabilistic event. A person simply observes an event, and then applies an interpretation to it. It’s at this point – as soon as any empiricist tries to explain what they have experienced or observed – that the logic of empiricism collapses, and non-empirical considerations must be invoked, thus invalidating the entire empiricist project. Imagine the difficulty of explaining why the sky is usually blue, yet sometimes red, or why grass is neither blue nor red but green. Science ends up invoking dimensionless, massless photons, outside space and time (hence which are unobservable in conventional scientific terms). We don’t observe photons. No one has ever seen a photon. What we “see” are the effects of photons. No one ever encounters a photon in itself. Science can’t even tell you whether a photon is a particle or a wave, and claims that it’s somehow both. We are told that photons have different frequencies and wavelength. When has anyone ever observed a photon labelled with its specific frequency, wavelength, speed, amplitude and phase? These are always inferred, never empirically perceived. To explain the colours of things, we have to consider such things as the absorption and reflection properties of atoms and molecules (and atoms and molecules are, according to quantum mechanics, instantiations of unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions!). Philip Gibbs wrote, “A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colours because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.” Of course, we don’t perceive this scattering, or these molecules, or any photons. What we perceive is simply the sun and the sky with a certain colour. All empirical “facts” are extremely simple and straightforward.

Explaining those “facts” is incredibly difficult, and these explanations never have any connection with empiricism, beyond the fact that their end-point must seem to account for the observed phenomenon. Look at science. It’s all about empirical observations and experiments, yet all scientific theories invoke mathematics, which is unobservable, nonexperimental, and has no ontological status within science, i.e. it’s regarded as an unreal, manmade abstraction. So, in what way is anything being “explained” by science if the crucial part of its explanation is predicated on “unreal” and unexplained mathematics? How can an empiricist subject such as science invoke mathematics, which has exactly zero to do with empiricism insofar as no one can ever perceive any mathematical entity in itself? Scientific theories, as the history of science shows, are always changing, so we can be sure that no scientific “explanation” is ever definitive, in which case it’s not an explanation at all, but merely a proposal, a sophisticated conjecture, an interpretation, an opinion, and even a belief (you have to believe in the assumptions of science before you take seriously science’s “explanations” of scientific evidence). Science is a modelling system, not a truth system. No matter how successful its models (and the success of these models is invariably based on “unreal” mathematics), its explanations are never categorical. They are always provisional and falsifiable, hence inherently untrue since no true thing can ever be false. “Explanations” in science are nothing of the kind. They are either successful or unsuccessful stratagems for allowing us to do useful things, and predict things. At no stage are we ever arriving at Truth. At no stage in science do we ever encounter anything necessary, eternal, absolute, infallible, consistent and complete. At no stage are we ever in the company of incontestable Platonic Truth. If you’re the sort of person who accepts non-truth as Truth, that says a lot about you, but nothing about the Truth. Scientists have no regard for the Truth. That’s why their system is based on verification and falsification rather than the infallible and absolute. That’s what happens when you choose empiricism over rationalism. Only rationalists can have a relationship with the Truth, but only if they understand exactly what reason is ontologically. Ontological reason is mathematics.

The Simplest Principle We live in the simplest possible universe. What is the simplest possible universe? It’s one made of points (nothings; zeros) obeying the principle of sufficient reason (of which Occam’s Razor – the law of minimum assumptions – is an expression). A universe disobeying the principle of sufficient reason could behave in any number of bizarre ways. The principle of sufficient reason ensures that the universe operates in only one way – according to reason.

Logopolis: The City of Reason “Logopolis is the seventh and final serial of the 18th season in the British science fiction television series Doctor Who.” – Wikipedia From the Logopolis Script The Master: “Logopolis is a cold place. A cold, high place overlooking the universe. It holds a single great secret, Nyssa, which you and I must discover together.” Logopolis is a planet of mathematicians that directly maintains the integrity of the universe via their mathematical thoughts. Endless rows of elderly grey-haired mathematicians sit in cubicles chanting the numbers of their “block-transfer” calculations. The lead mathematician is called the Monitor. Without Logopolis, the very law which holds the Universe together would collapse. The control centre of Logopolis is called the Central Register. At the end of this Dr Who series, the universe is falling apart, and the mathematicians who keep it together are dying. Logopolis is being overrun by entropy and turning to dust. MONITOR: “Block transfer computation is a complex discipline, way beyond the capabilities of simple machines. It requires all the subtleties of the living mind. Is that not so, Doctor? ... I always thought you underestimated the possibilities of block transfer computation, Doctor. You see, structure is the essence of matter, and the essence of structure is mathematics.” DOCTOR: “What, you can model the Pharos Project mathematically?”

MONITOR: “Of course, and supply the necessary raw energy.” DOCTOR: “Well, then, you can model any space-time event in the universe.” MONITOR: “That is true. ... For many uses machinery is unsurpassed, but Logopolis is not interested in such uses. Block transfer computation cannot be done with computers.” ADRIC: “Why not?” MONITOR: “Our manipulation of numbers directly changes the physical world. There is no other mathematics like ours.” ADRIC: “You mean the computations themselves would affect a computer?” MONITOR: “Of course. Change its nature, cause it to malfunction. Only the living brain is immune. ... Our language is the language of numbers. We are a people driven not by individual need but by mathematical necessity. The language of the numbers is as much as we need. Now, it is important that we do not disturb them.”

***** MASTER: “You exaggerate, Monitor. Logopolis is not the universe.” MONITOR: “But it is! Logopolis is the keystone. If you destroy Logopolis, you unravel the whole causal nexus.” MASTER: “Causal nexus? You insult my intelligence.” DOCTOR: “You’re interfering with the law of cause and effect. Don’t you understand? Logopolis is crucial to the whole of creation. This could mean the end of the universe. The numbers were supporting the whole system.”

***** MONITOR: “From this point, the unravelling will spread out until the whole universe is reduced to nothing. ... Yes, Doctor, you were right. Our numbers were holding the fabric of the universe together.” The Logopolitans were ontological mathematicians!

***** Using the “Force” in Star Wars is equivalent to using your mind to mathematically alter the reality in front of you (which is of course a mathematical reality, hence can be adjusted via mathematics). Your mind is an active mathematical agent that can mathematically alter the ways in which the cosmic equation is being solved around you. Rather than being the passive victim of the mathematical solution (i.e. the one that would occur without any action on your part), you can inject your agency into the equation in your local environment and change the solution (to one in accordance with your will).

Pythagoras Versus the Buddha Pythagoras: “All things are numbers; number rules all.” (Logos) The Buddha: “I teach suffering, its origin, cessation and path. That’s all I teach.” (Non-Logos) Pythagoras: rationalism. The Buddha: emotionalism, empiricism, mysticism. Pythagoras points to a rational, mathematical, metaphysical, scientific understanding of reality. The Buddha is consumed with feelings (pain, suffering, anxiety, distress), and has zero interest in the non-emotional Truth of existence. Which side are you on – that of Pythagoras or the Buddha?

Nietzsche Versus the Buddha “I teach you the Superman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind? ...What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. ... Behold, I teach you the Superman! The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of

whom the earth is weary: so away with them! ... In truth, man is a polluted river. One must be a sea to receive a polluted river without becoming defiled. I teach you the Superman! He is that sea; in him your great contempt can go under. ... Behold, I teach you the Superman! He is the lightning, he is the madness! ... Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman – a rope over an abyss. ... Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the Superman! ... I will join the creators, the reapers, and the rejoicers: I will show them the rainbow, and all the steps to the Superman. ... I do not go your way, you despisers of the body! You are no bridges to the Superman! ... Look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?” – Nietzsche If you love the Buddha, you are against practically the entire Western tradition. You must really despise the West if you look to the East. Why do you look there? Why don’t you go there?

The War The Great War is the war of reason on unreason (faith, mysticism, emotionalism, empiricism, prayer, meditation, chanting, credulity).

Full Retard “Everybody knows you never do a full retard. ... Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Count toothpicks to your cards. Autistic, sure. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump. Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain’t retarded. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard.” – Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder Most of humanity have chosen to go full retard!

The Truth The Truth isn’t difficult. What’s difficult is recognising the Truth. That’s almost impossible.

The War II

Gödel versus Wittgenstein versus Pythagoras ... the war for the soul of math.

The Frog Are you the frog that was boiled alive (i.e. it didn’t detect that the heat was being gradually turned up until it was too late)?

The Lion The story of the death of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe became huge for several reasons. However, the main reason was that it was killed by a rich white dentist from another country (and thus representative of colonial arrogance and cruelty). If local poachers had killed the lion, the story wouldn’t have gone viral. At a deep psychological level, Cecil represented African Americans, while the white dentist represented white cops in America, gunning down black men for no reason.

Complexity Some of this book contains highly technical, head-scratching arguments. Such arguments concern Logos. The parts that you can readily easily, without a second thought, are the Mythos parts, the parts most concerned with manmade words, ideas and stories. It’s because Mythos is so effortless, and Logos so effortful, that we live in a Mythos world of narrative. Humanity always follows the path of least resistance. Numbers and reason resist; words, emotions and mysticism don’t.

Predatory Capitalism Many captions depicting the evil “Illuminati” show Masonic and esoteric symbols next to the logos, brands and trademarks of multinational corporations, implying that the Illuminati run global capitalism. Here’s a question ... why don’t people simply refer to predatory free-market capitalism rather than the “Illuminati”? It’s because “predatory free-market capitalism” is abstract and impersonal. As ever, humans have to reify abstractions. They have reified crony capitalism into the “Illuminati”. (The Nazis did likewise. However, they did not refer to the Illuminati, but, rather, “international Jewry”. The Jews often claim that “Illuminati” is just a

codeword for “Jews”, and there’s ample justification for this given how often prominent Jews are labelled as members of the Illuminati.) This has the effect of transferring hatred and opposition away from the actual problem – predatory free-market capitalism – and towards a people (the Jews), or a Mythos (the Illuminati of popular mythology). It’s time to oppose global capitalism, and to actually say “global capitalism”. The trouble is that so many people who despise the Illuminati and Jews are themselves eager supporters of free-market capitalism! It would produce cognitive dissonance in them to condemn capitalism, so they condemn the Jews and the Illuminati instead. It’s precisely because of these moronic supporters of free-market capitalism that we can’t save the world from global capitalism, and the rule of the super rich capitalist elite. Ayn Rand, Queen of the Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, was herself of Jewish stock, and absolutely welcoming of unfettered predatory free-market capitalism, unshackled from all government regulation and control, i.e. all libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are active supporters of the very agenda (global capitalism), to which they claim to be absolutely opposed!

Creating Or Moaning Look at Facebook. Is social network’s greatest achievement moaning, or creating? Judging by Facebook, bitching, mocking, sneering, bragging, slagging, moaning, groaning, cattiness, snarkiness, carping, whining, whingeing, arguing, bickering, narcissism, egotism and self-indulgence are what humanity excels at.

Kicking the Can Wishy-washy, politically correct liberals mired in compromise and halfmeasures can never solve anything. All they ever do is kick the can down the road. Only radicals can solve problems – because they’re not afraid of a fight.

The Establishment Why is it so hard to overthrow fallacious establishment thinking, such as that of the science industry and the logic industry? It’s because people’s

salaries, careers, prestige, and their very identity, are invested in these flawed enterprises. Groupthink and conformism are rife. The prototype for today’s Logicism was medieval Scholasticism. The Scholastics were every bit as smart as modern logicians, and every bit as committed to a preposterous ideology (Catholicism, in the case of the Scholastics; belief in manmade symbols, and the manipulation thereof, in logicism). Careerists have no commitment to Truth. They are committed to their career, and it’s frightening how much they will distort their thinking to ensure it supports their career prospects. They refuse to engage with the truly deep ontological questions that define reality. Logicism is as bad as scientism, and shares many of the same characteristics, above all the inability to challenge the core assumptions of the subject. When any new subject is invented, of one thing you can be certain: the assumptions it relies on will never be properly tested. They will not refer to ontology, epistemology, eternity, necessity, completeness and consistency, but will simply rely on some “self-evident” axiom that isn’t self-evident at all. The most astounding castles are built on the most untenable of axioms. Every subject in the academic world has gone wrong because it has been established on the basis of manmade axioms and assumptions. Only ontological mathematics has come to the only conceivable principle – not made by human mind – that can explain a rational, intelligible universe, namely the principle of sufficient reason. You must never take anything – “God”, matter, mind, or anything else – to be self-evident. You must always begin with the principle of sufficient reason and explain why any fact or axiom is thus and not otherwise. You can’t just take things for granted. Science says that existence jumps out of non-existence for no reason. This, of course, absolutely defies the principle of sufficient reason, hence is total nonsense. It has zero intellectual basis. It’s a pure belief, driven by empiricist ideology. “One cannot inquire into the foundations and nature of mathematics without delving into the question of the operations by which the mathematical activity of the mind is conducted. If one failed to take that into account, then one would be left studying only the language in which mathematics is represented rather than the essence of mathematics.” – Luitzen Brouwer

One cannot do what Brouwer suggests until the mind itself is understood mathematically. Only then can we address the “mathematical activity” of the mind, and how its mathematical operations are conducted. As ever, we see someone starting out from a false basis – that the mind is not inherently mathematical – and thus arriving at an entirely false idea of what mathematics is. Leibniz said, “For indeed, there is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself.” He might have said, “For indeed, there is nothing in mathematics which was not in the mind, except mathematics itself ... and indeed mathematics is the mind.” “... the progress of science has itself shown that there can be no pictorial representation of the workings of nature of a kind that would be intelligible to our limited minds. The study of physics has driven us to the positivist conception of physics. We can never understand what events are, but must limit ourselves to describing the pattern of events in mathematical terms: no other aim is possible ... the final harvest will always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself, but only our observations on nature.” – Sir James Jeans We can understand what events are. They are mathematical happenings, and that’s exactly why we have a sheaf of mathematical formulae to describe them.

Personality Type All theories should be categorised according to the Myers-Briggs personality type of the person or people who constructed it, and of those who subscribe to it. All systems – other than ontological mathematics – are manmade, hence reflect the psychological type of the human beings that made it. They are ipso facto mired in opinion, belief, conjecture and interpretation. The great task of humanity is to remove subjective human psychology from theories that claim to be objective. Humanity has been the victim of its senses, feelings and mystical intuitions, and its irrational belief that math is abstract and unreal.

Math If you don’t know what math is, you can’t do math properly. To this day, the entire mathematics community is doing math wrongly. Mathematics needs

to return to Pythagoras. It must shake off all traces of Frege, Hilbert, Russell, Brouwer, and logical positivism, and it must learn to interpret Gödel and Wittgenstein correctly.

***** Math is the master key that unlocks all mysteries. Unless you understand zero and infinity, you will never understand the mind, soul, the unconscious, consciousness, free will, “God”, Creation, matter, the afterlife, and the meaning and purpose of life.

Ontology If you haven’t got your ontology right, you haven’t got anything right. You are trading in human dreams and fantasies, as human history so painfully demonstrates. If you haven’t got your core principle of reality right (the one that defines ontology), you haven’t got anything right. There are only two principles that can be entertained ... the principle of sufficient reason, and the principle of no reason at all. Ontological mathematics is predicated on the former. All wrong and false ideologies, including all mainstream religions, all philosophies, and science, are predicated on the latter, i.e. none of them regard reason as the core of existence, hence none can account for a rational, intelligible universe, and all are in fact opposed to a rational, intelligible universe. A rational universe must be based on reason, just as a logical universe must be based on logic, a sensory universe on sensory things, an emotional universe on emotional things, a religious universe on God, the Oneness, Karma, or whatever. What is reason ontologically? – it’s ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what conveys the principle of sufficient reason in every conceivable situation. Logic, such as it is, is always tied to the principle of sufficient reason, and can never contradict that principle.

Unbelievable Isn’t it staggering that no mathematics professor in the world, and not a single person teaching mathematics in universities, schools or colleges to countless impressionable minds, has the vaguest idea what mathematics

actually is? No one should be allowed to teach mathematics unless they can specify what its ontology is. No one other than the Illuminati ties math directly to the principle of sufficient reason, to ontology and epistemology. That’s exactly why we’re right and everyone else is wrong. The moment you treat math as an abstraction, as unreal, as manmade, as a branch of logic, as a technical game, as a bunch of axioms, as some mere formalism, you are lost. Math, ontologically, is energy, and the study of math is the study of the existence, relations, interactions and symmetries of energy. That’s exactly why math can replace science wholesale. Anyone who approaches math as anything other than noumenal, ontological energy – energy in itself – will never get anywhere with relating math to reality.

Human Knowledge How can humanity claim to know anything if it doesn’t know what reality is made of, what matter is made of, what mind is made of, what thoughts are made of? If you don’t know the basics, you don’t know anything. If you can’t work out whether reality is grounded in words or numbers, you have zero knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality cannot be made of words and numbers. It’s one or the other. Numbers and words suffer from the classic problem of Cartesian dualism: they can’t interact. They have no common ground.

Assumptions “Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.” – Eric Temple Bell There are two points here ... always examine the assumptions in the most minute detail. Secondly, no truly valid proof – an ontological proof – can begin with manmade assumptions. All true proofs must begin from a single, grand unifying principle ... the principle of sufficient reason.

***** The principle of sufficient reason guarantees that mathematics is complete and consistent since, if this were not the case, there would be truths or

falsehoods for which no sufficient reason could be given, meaning that the principle of sufficient reason did not apply to everything, but only to some things, thus leading to a situation of Cartesian substance dualism. How can things with no sufficient reason interact with those that do? They have no common ground.

The Point You have missed the point if you try to understand reality in any way other than ontologically. Ontology is the ultimate science, and the ultimate science reduces to ontological mathematics defined by the God Equation.

No Choice You must either agree or disagree with Wittgenstein that mathematics is tautology, hence consistent and complete. If you agree with Wittgenstein, you have thereby acknowledged that Gödel’s work cannot be addressing real mathematics (hence why it produces incompleteness and/or inconsistency). If you disagree with Wittgenstein, you are making impossible claims about the nature of mathematics. To say that mathematics is not consistent and complete is to say that it suffers from the equivalent of Cartesian substance dualism or pluralism, hence has a fatal interaction problem. If all parts of mathematics are not in fact consistent and complete (i.e. tautological) then mathematics would be the victim of fatal contradictions that would destroy it. Parts of it that were not compatible with other parts would not be able to interact with those other parts, and mathematics would totally fail. It’s absolutely impossible for mathematics to be inconsistent and/or incomplete. It is not however impossible for botched, manmade attempts to define math to be hopelessly wrong. All incorrect attempts to define mathematics necessarily produce inconsistency and/or incompleteness. In fact, the production of this outcome by a given approach to defining mathematics is the formal proof of the falsehood of that approach. Only one version of mathematics cannot produce incompleteness and/or inconsistency – the correct one, and the correct one is of course the one that corresponds to Wittgensteinian tautology. As long as you apply reason to mathematics, and not anything else – such as formalism, intuitionism, logicism, set theory or axioms – you can

never err. You will always err if you choose the wrong approach.

Conclusion “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell If this is a rational, intelligible universe – a universe with an answer – it must obey the principle of sufficient reason. For every fact, there must be a reason why it is so and not otherwise. If this were not the case, the universe would be irrational, unintelligible and inexplicable. Things would happen for no reason – like magic. This would be a universe of miracles, of the impossible routinely happening ... since there would be no reason to prevent it. A principle of no sufficient reason would apply, so every event would be lacking a sufficient reason, or any reason at all. You cannot have a Cartesian “substance dualism” of principles. The universe cannot obey both the principle of sufficient reason and the principle of no sufficient reason. It’s one or the other. Either eliminates the other. Either everything has a reason, or nothing has a reason. The two cannot interact with each other. One invalidates the other. So, you’re either a rationalist, or you’re not. If you are, you know the world has a rational answer, and you know you can work it out. If you’re not, you cannot rationally claim that existence has a rational answer, and that means you’re prepared to believe anything. Well, are you?

Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers