Hyperreason (The God Series Book 8)

Table of contents :
Hyperreason
Quotations
Table of Contents
The Illuminati
The Ground of Being
TOE: Theory of Everything
Greeks and Romans
The Multiverse according to Max Tegmark
Occam’s Razor and the Multiverse
Eternal Recurrence
Your Clone?
Black Holes and Souls
The Perfect Being
The Singularity
The Love Demon?
The Flying Dutchman
Ether
Living Programs
The Pythagorean Soul
Heaven
Why Science is Absurd
Dreaming
Gödel
The Antidote
The Six Dimensional Universe
Eternal Motion
Night Terrors
The Birth of Consciousness
Holography
Synchronicity
Hypermind
The Dual Hemispheric Gods
Falsification
The End of a Genius
Madness: Catch 22
The Quantum Mind
The Mystery
Gödel’s Revolution
The Madness of Humanity
The Dialectic
The Individual Soul versus the Collective Soul
The Deadly Barber
The Form of Life
Hollywood Values
The Worst Nightmare

Citation preview

Hyperreason M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Quotations “A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.” – Thomas Aquinas “Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.” – Thomas Aquinas “Reason can never be popular. Passions and feelings may become popular, but reason will always remain the sole property of a few eminent individuals.” – Goethe “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.” – Luther “To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual.” – Hegel “Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason.” – Kant “The irrational in the human has something about it altogether repulsive and terrible, as we see in the maniac, the miser, the drunkard or the ape.” – George Santayana “The gods plant reason in mankind, of all good gifts the highest.” – Sophocles “Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others, to persecute those who do reason.” – Voltaire “Everyone has his reasons.” – Jean Renoir

Table of Contents Hyperreason Quotations Table of Contents The Illuminati The Ground of Being TOE: Theory of Everything Greeks and Romans The Multiverse according to Max Tegmark Occam’s Razor and the Multiverse Eternal Recurrence Your Clone? Black Holes and Souls The Perfect Being The Singularity The Love Demon? The Flying Dutchman Ether Living Programs The Pythagorean Soul Heaven Why Science is Absurd

Dreaming Gödel The Antidote The Six Dimensional Universe Eternal Motion Night Terrors The Birth of Consciousness Holography Synchronicity Hypermind The Dual Hemispheric Gods Falsification The End of a Genius Madness: Catch 22 The Quantum Mind The Mystery Gödel’s Revolution The Madness of Humanity The Dialectic The Individual Soul versus the Collective Soul The Deadly Barber The Form of Life

Hollywood Values The Worst Nightmare

The Illuminati THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the cosmology, philosophy, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day.

The Ground of Being Everyone wants to know the answer to existence. Oddly, they don’t all want the same answer. One person’s answer is often impossible or unacceptable as far as another person is concerned. They don’t want that answer, hence they look for something else. People keep looking until they find what they want – an answer that suits them. It’s psychology, not truth, that defines what people regard as the answer to existence. Actually, most people in the world are “believers” and they don’t want an answer per se. Rather, they want a being who knows the answer and, therefore, by believing in that being, they are reassured that the answer to everything exists. However, wanting to know that someone else knows the answer is not the same as wanting to know the answer yourself. The believers have a strange aversion to the answer in its own right. They are right to fear it – because they know it’s not what they want to hear. It won’t give them the comfort they seek and might even destroy them. As Nietzsche said, “And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” Believers cite “God” as the ultimate answer. Their God knows the answer to everything and is the answer to everything. But how do they know that God knows the answer? Will they stand in front of him and demand that he tells them? Plainly, that will never happen. Therefore, they will never find out the actual answer. Moreover, a fatal question always hangs over “God”. If he is the answer to everything then what is the answer to him? Giving “God” as the supreme answer simply kicks the can along the road. It provides a pseudo-answer, satisfying to no thinking person. To those people who genuinely want the answer, “God” is no use unless, a) “God” provides the answer and b) that answer make sense, and accounts for God’s own existence! These seekers of the truth, by applying rational criteria to “God”, show that they do not accept God. As soon as you demand that God’s answers be rational, and that his existence itself be rational, then you have ipso facto denied that he exists and instead you have placed your absolute confidence in reason. If God’s answers were irrational and unreasonable, you would reject them, so God is now subject to a higher force – rationalism. If there is something higher than God then God is not God. If you place constraints, conditions and demands on God, and are

unwilling to accept any old answers he gives, then you plainly don’t believe in him. A “believer” is someone who is duty-bound by his faith to accept whatever God says (even if it’s impossible, unbelievable, irrational gibberish), or not being given any answers at all. Believers DON’T want answers; they want God. They don’t much care what the actual answers are. Non-believers DO want answers, and therefore they want God only if he can give them the right answers. But if anyone else can give the ultimate rational answers then anyone else is as good as God. The answers, not God, are what are important. So, we see that “answers” mean radically different things to different people. A believer thinks of answers in terms of God; a non-believer thinks of answers in terms of reason. A believer isn’t concerned about whether God is rational and whether he used a rational blueprint to create the world. As far as believers are concerned, he could use divine “magic”, which requires no further explanation. A non-believer would never accept “magic”, no matter how divine, as an answer. For them, if God is not 100% rational, he cannot be God. Hence God is not God if he is anything other than Reason itself, conforming to absolute rational necessity. Plato’s “God” was one who had no freedom to disobey reason, hence was controlled by reason and subject to reason. Reason was Plato’s true God, as it was for Aristotle. Isn’t it extraordinary? We all think we understand each other when we say we want the “final answer” to existence, but, in fact, we don’t understand each other at all. Different groups of us are seeking different answers from other groups, and we would never accept their answers. A believer would never accept any answer, no matter how rational, that didn’t involve God. A rationalist would never accept any answer, even from “God” himself, that was irrational. This means that humanity will never agree and never be unified. While believers and rationalists co-exist, there will always be conflict. The end of conflict implies the end of believers or the end of rationalists. Which shall it be?

***** The “explanation” of why God is the ultimate answer is invariably contained in a holy book supposedly authored by a divinely chosen prophet

or guru. The holy book offers both threats and inducements, and features some psychologically manipulative Mythos, which gives incredibly simplistic instructions about how to live life: “Obey the rules presented in this book or the worst fate will befall you”; “Believe in the God in this book and be saved or don’t and be damned”; “Do everything the prophet and his priests say – or else.” Then, a few homilies, parables, analogies, fables and sermons are offered. It suffices for at least 90% of the human race. These people plainly aren’t interested in answers at all. What they want is the illusion of the answer, a child’s comfort blanket. They want a framing device for their life; something that makes sense of everything in one neat package and doesn’t, God forbid, tell them that life is random, chaotic, meaningless, purposeless, pointless and that there are in fact no rules at all, and no one is looking after everything. No one is minding the shop, and, moreover, the shop isn’t a shop. The existentialists were those who argued that we are painfully free in an utterly absurd world. We can do ANYTHING we want. There is no moral order, no punishment for the wicked and reward for the good. Truth doesn’t triumph, and nor do the good and righteous. We all live our lives in our different absurd ways and then die – finito. The only difference between us is that a few of us understand that life is a farce and live freely and authentically while most live inauthentically, in bad faith, with a false consciousness, believing in things, beings and rules that do not exist other than in ridiculous stories we have told ourselves so that we don’t have to face the pain of reality and don’t have to take responsibility for our lives. All those billions of people who believe that they have a Creator have made themselves his slaves. They MUST do what he demands of them because he is their master and, if slaves don’t obey their masters, they can expect the worst possible outcomes. This is a system based on absolute fear and control. When Abraham agreed to obey a voice in his head and murder his own son, he was either a psychopath or the world’s most terrified, abject slave to whom the idea of saying “No” simply never occurred (just as it never occurred to any Nazi to say “No” to his orders). What if the Creator does not exist? Then billions of people have literally enslaved themselves to a fiction, a LIE. When you sign up to a lie, you yourself become a liar. Christian missionaries are not spreading the “good news” but the despicable, life-destroying lie of slavery to a non-existent Creator.

A life that is lived according to a 100% lie is no life at all. In fact, it’s the supreme insult to life. It’s grotesque. All people who live according to lies have abused the gift of life, and should never have had that gift conferred upon them in the first place. It’s evil to deprive the more deserving of life in order to mock life by becoming a slave of a degrading and despicable fantasy. All Muslims submit to Allah, but there is no such God, so Muslims have in fact got on their bellies and prostrated themselves before THE LIE. They have submitted to the lie, they have worshipped it, and they have sought to make others agree to the lie. They have slaughtered countless people in the name of the lie. The Jews, Christians and Muslims have sought to make liars of us all, to turn the earth into the planet of perjury where everyone lies on oath about that which is most sacred – life and FREEDOM. Any free person would rather than die than submit to the lie that this universe has a Creator. Of the countless false statements that humans have made, the claim that there is a Creator is the falsest of all – the most damaging lie ever told that has scarred this world to a staggering degree and made it a hell. The idea of a Creator is one that is intended to offer emotional reassurance. It is simply a child’s idea of “Father” turned into a religious system. The basic package is this: “Don’t worry, everyone. A perfect being made the world and made you. He is you benefactor, your guardian, your provider. He has your back. He wants to help you as much as he possibly can. As long as you place your absolute faith in him, you have nothing to fear. If you obey him, you will be SAVED. If you don’t, you will be punished eternally.” That’s a very clear message. The biggest simpleton on earth can “get it”. It’s the most primitive form of operant conditioning ever devised. It gives a precise meaning to life (obey God, go to heaven and live in paradise forever). It has no ambiguity. Unfortunately, it’s also devoid of reason. It doesn’t make any rational sense at all. That’s not its purpose, of course. It’s designed to be all about feelings: fear on the one hand and desire for bliss and fatherly protection on the other. Only feeling types like this kind of religion. The slave religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all “feelings” religions, based on childish, unbelievable stories that offer “explanations” suitable for five-

year-olds. Their holy books contain zero intellectual content. Why would the “Creator” despise mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy and theology so much as to not provide one word about these subjects? It’s not of course “God” that omits these subjects; it’s the people who read these “holy” books who have no interest in rationality. However, given how unsatisfactory non-feeling types found the answers being presented to them, they inevitably made alternative attempts to explain reality. Eastern religion is intuitive and mystical. It has stories, “wise” sayings and parables (the equivalent of Abrahamic holy books) and it has gurus (the equivalents of Abrahamic prophets) but, crucially, there is no Creator God and no official heaven or hell. This therefore reflects an entirely different worldview. Just as Abrahamism appeals to feeling types, Eastern religions attract intuitives. What about sensing and thinking types? To cater for them, two intellectual movements arose in history, known as empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism is the doctrine of “seeing is believing”. It’s about “evidence”. It’s about the senses because the one thing sensory types don’t doubt is their sensory own apparatus, and they deny the existence of anything that cannot be “proved” to their senses. Therefore, they deny God, they deny the soul, they deny the mind and they deny the afterlife since none of these can be proved to the satisfaction of the senses. This is the scientific position, and is more or less the same as atheism. Nothing is more pathetic than a scientist who believes in God. That’s the ultimate cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. There is, however, a glaring fallacy at the heart of empiricism. Why should everything that is real and true be compulsorily and necessarily available to the human senses? What sufficient reason forces all real and true things to make themselves detectable to the human senses? Why should real and true things have any interest at all in the human senses? Didn’t the human senses evolve through evolutionary natural selection? Where in Darwinism is it stated that evolution must operate in such a way as make all real and true things present themselves to human senses? In fact, the human senses evolved in an entirely ad hoc way, driven by the pressures of survival and reproduction (which have no connection to truth; if anything, lies are much more successful in terms of survival and

reproduction). As Nietzsche pointed out, human beings have no organ of truth, no special eye, so to speak, that infallibly shows us what is true and real. (One wonders why the Abrahamic Creator didn’t provide us with such an organ; isn’t that something of a design flaw? Instead, he gave us the ability NOT to see the truth of his message, and thus to set ourselves up for an eternity of punishment and pain in hell!) Why have scientists deified the human senses when the most cursory analysis of the senses, and how they came into being, demonstrates that senses and truth have nothing at all in common. One can simply do what Descartes did and imagine a dream world created by a malevolent demon which is 100% available to human sensory experience and 100% false. The film The Matrix explores very similar ground. It’s almost crazy that scientists have set so much store by the senses and experiments. Imagine scientists inside the Matrix. Even if they performed perfect experiments and achieved perfect results, they still wouldn’t be learning a single thing about true reality. They would be learning about a simulation of reality, not about reality itself. Our senses are in fact reality simulators. They represent the world; they don’t reflect it. Descartes was, of course, a rationalist and this brings us to the final category involved in the search for the answer to existence: the one suitable for thinkers. Feelings are for Abrahamists, intuition is for Eastern religion, sensing is for science, and thinking is for rationalism. To be more precise, we can arrange the feeling, sensing, intuitive and rational categories into combinations of pairs, giving us: 1) Feeling sensing types: Abrahamism (feelings are paramount). 2) Intuitive feeling types: Eastern religion (intuition is paramount). 3) Sensing thinking types: Science (sensing is paramount). 4) Thinking intuitives: Rationalism (thinking is paramount). Scientists are thinking types who use their reason to validate the evidence of their senses, while Rationalists are thinking types who use their reason to validate their intuitions (which take them beyond the sensory domain). We are all stuck in our psychological patterns – but that does not mean that we are all equally right (or wrong). Some personality types are better at achieving worldly success, some at acquiring sexual partners, some at

holding down a stable job and family life, some at climbing the career ladder, some are smarter than others, and so on. But which types are the closest to the truth? All the different groups we have described imagine they are the truthful ones, but only one group, at best, can be right. Intuitives, whether feeling or thinking types, are the ones who have the closest natural, unmediated link to the truth, but feeling intuitives are much more likely to embrace mysticism and Mythos, which leads them away from the truth. Eastern religion has considerable truth content, but also contains absurd elements such as karma – a wicked doctrine with no truth basis whatsoever. There’s no mysterious force that causes either “good” or “bad” karma from a previous life to visit you in this life. What possible rational or scientific mechanism would ensure that you karmically “get what’s coming to you”? Imagine that you murdered someone in a previous life. Advocates of strict karma would maintain that you will, accordingly, be murdered in this, or a future, life. So, the whole cosmos, all the causal networks in the universe, have now to be harnessed by “karma” to place you in a situation where you can be murdered and to make someone actually do it to you. Now, karmically, your murderer commits a completely neutral act because he was MADE to murder you in order to ensure you got your comeuppance. He had no choice. Here we have an example of a murderer who has acquired no bad karma because he was an instrument of karma. But that now raises an immense problem. If even murder can be karmically neutral then why should anyone imagine that they have ever done anything karmically wrong? How do you know that the “bad” things you have done aren’t in fact things karma made you do in order to punish someone else’s previous bad deeds? The whole thing rapidly degenerates into gibberish. The only reason anyone takes karma seriously is that feeling types can make sense of the idea that bad things they do get punished while good things they do are rewarded. It’s a childish notion. One glance at the world shows the opposite is true: bad people are often rewarded and good people are often punished. Karma, if anything, is designed to help EVIL people!!! The intuitives who can see through irrational fallacies and fantasies are the more thinking types. Thinking intuitives are the closest group to the truth. That’s a rational fact. If people wanted the truth, they would listen to

the thinking intuitives, but, sadly, the truth is about the last thing in which people are actually interested. Does the truth make you richer, more attractive, more successful? Does it hell! So who cares about it? “How terrible is wisdom, when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise.” – Sophocles If science is the doctrine that our best means of understanding reality is through direct evidence (collected via experiments), rationalism is the doctrine that experimental evidence isn’t required at all! Rationalism says that a person can sit alone in a room and work out the entire nature of existence in his head. Why? Because rationalism asserts that existence is grounded in absolutely rational principles and contains no irrational, inconsistent, contradictory, illogical, whimsical, or capricious elements. If that view is right – and how could it not be? – then it’s simply a question of a rational mind figuring out what rational principles existence MUST obey. The greatest expression of rationalism is Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason which states that for every fact there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. There are NO arbitrary, ad hoc, contingent or provisional principles underpinning existence. All foundational principles are present through inescapable, analytic, a priori necessity. They are immutable and eternal. These foundational principles are all consistent and form a complete set, sufficient to explain everything about existence without any gaps or contradictions. If existence – in terms of its foundational principles – contained contradictions, there would be no existence! It’s as simple as that. Any contradiction would instantly create a Doomsday Weapon that would fatally rupture reality. What is rationally certain is that the ad hoc principles of science are inherently incapable of explaining existence. It’s equally certain that no amount of scientific experiments, no matter how well conducted, could ever reveal the innermost secrets of existence. At best, experiments show us the surface layers, the obvious things, but they don’t, by themselves, explain anything at all. In science, experiments are used to validate hypotheses, but hypotheses are simply ad hoc ideas that have no necessary links to the foundational principles of existence. Science is a pragmatic undertaking. Success and utility, not truth, are its primary aims. Science, unfortunately, makes a

secondary claim that success implies truth. In fact, at best, it implies an approximation to truth, but an approximation is not remotely good enough if reality itself is at issue. Scientists, being people of the senses, have no appreciation of analytic precision. Science, aesthetically, is repulsive. It’s like Frankenstein’s monster – a patchwork of ill-fitting bits and pieces that lurches around as a simulacrum and mockery of the truth. Science has no elegance, no precision, no existential beauty. But one subject has all of that – mathematics. If science is a freakish brute, mathematics is the sleekest, most perfectly engineered machine, with every part perfectly interlocking with every other. Ontological mathematics is absolutely consistent and absolutely complete. It does not have a single gap. Science is immensely mathematical, but, incredibly, it defaces mathematics by seeking to extract only that part of mathematics (the mathematics of real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity) that is consistent with the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, i.e. with the sensory world. It’s madness to use a subset of mathematics. You have automatically rendered it inconsistent and incomplete. The entire problem of science is that it rejects zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers as having ontological reality, and it tries to explain the whole of reality through a specific subset of real numbers: an impossible task. Science is driven by ideology – that of materialism and empiricism – and this colours everything science does, especially how it uses mathematics. Science forces mathematics to take on an abnormal shape in order to service the empiricist and materialist dogma of the ruling paradigm. Scientists are blissfully unaware of the catastrophic philosophical assumptions at the centre of their enterprise. Science – while it remains wedded to materialism and empiricism – can never explain reality. What is hyperrationalism? It’s a specific implementation of the rationalist doctrine and asserts that all of the foundational principles of existence are purely mathematical, and, as a rational corollary, that the whole of existence is mathematical. Therefore, a person can indeed sit alone in a room and, simply by thinking about mathematics, understand the entire basis of reality. No experiments are required. The laws of mathematics provide all possible true knowledge.

The most fundamental question of all is Leibniz’s: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Abrahamism expects us to accept the existence of God as somehow logically necessary, but there is no necessity whatsoever in God’s existence. In fact, there is no conceivable sufficient reason for God’s existence. To state that God exists is not to explain why he exists. As for science, it has almost zero interest in the origins of existence, seeing such questions as metaphysical and not amenable to experimental verification. Eastern religion gives a rather brilliant intuitive analysis of the foundations of existence, but lacks precision and rigour. Mathematics alone can answer Leibniz’s question. The answer is the ultimate paradox: something IS nothing! (And nothing is something). Nothing is the ground state of the universe and anything that is above the ground state (such as the Abrahamic God) is impossible. There can be no sufficient reason for something of lower probability to exist when it’s in competition with something of higher probability. A lower energy state is always more probable than a higher energy state, and the most probable state of all is the ground state of zero energy. In fact, the ground state is the necessary state of existence which can never be violated since there can never be any sufficient reason for it to be violated. Mathematics can provide a reality that is both something and nothing simply by counterposing positive numbers and negative numbers. Consider the equation: 2 – 1 – 1 = 0. We can rewrite this as: a) 2 – 1 = 1 b) 2 = 1 + 1 c) 0 = 1 + 1 – 2 = 0 All of these equations are tautologies: they are all saying the same thing in different ways. Moreover, as in equation c), they can all be reduced to the ultimate tautology: 0 = 0 We can always find ways to write nothing as something, while ensuring that something balances in the end to 0 = 0. Mathematics alone gives us the means to maintain the whole of existence permanently in its ground state of “nothing”, while carrying out

endless mathematical operations on it (which constitutes “something”). Something is simply the limitless ways of expressing nothing! In truth, you should never think of nothing as nothing and something as something. The two are indissolubly, dialectically linked, permanently flowing in and out of each other. As Hegel so brilliantly put it, if we have a thesis of being and an antithesis of nothing than their synthesis is BECOMING, which isn’t something and nor is it nothing but somehow both and neither. Becoming is the razor’s edge – a permanently moving “now”, poised between the past (which has ceased to exist) and the future (which does not yet exist).

The Book of Nature One of the greatest tragedies of mathematics is that it too suffers from the infection of materialist empiricism and, historically, it has been plagued by resistance to zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers. Most mathematicians are a disgrace to mathematics and have no comprehension of what mathematics actually is. As Galileo said, “Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.” Any mathematician who does not grasp that when he ponders numbers he is dealing with the fundamental “stuff” of reality, is a fool, and mathematics is wasted on him. In Hyperreason (the exploration of how mathematics IS existence) we will be highlighting the bizarre campaign many mathematicians have waged against mathematics. To this day, the vast majority of professional mathematicians reject mathematics as the language of existence. These people view mathematics as an intellectual game such as chess, worth studying because of its intrinsic fascination and the beautiful patterns it weaves, but essentially useless. They never speculate about why, if it’s nothing but a game and an abstraction, mathematics seems to be embedded in nature everywhere you look and is the main engine of science, without which science would be impotent.

If even mathematicians can’t understand what mathematics is, imagine how difficult it is for everyone else!

The Incarnation Why is the “Incarnation” of “Jesus Christ” so important religiously? What functions does it serve psychologically? Sensing and feeling types NEED the physicalization of their belief system. Sensing types in particular need a physical person or object to make religion concrete for them. Jesus Christ – God in the flesh (allegedly) – brings God into the sensory domain. All sensing types are essentially Doubting Thomases. They need to see the physical wounds in order to believe. A sensing type will never believe in a non-sensory abstraction. He can’t even understand such a thing. If you want to bring sensing types on board religiously, you must tell tales of physical things. Christianity has the ultimate physicalization – Jesus Christ. The Jews have Moses talking to a burning bush (!). Historically, they had the Ark of the Covenant (which contained God in some sense). They also had the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon where the Ark was placed. Today, they have the Wailing Wall that symbolizes Judaism. In fact, the Jews themselves – as the self-described “Chosen People” – are a physicalization of their own religious beliefs. The Muslims have the Koran as a kind of physicalization of God (and they will kill you if you desecrate their holy book). They also have the Kaaba in Mecca, the focus of the Hajj pilgrimage. Feeling types are also well served by people and objects. Christians can pour their love onto the figure of Jesus Christ. Muslims do the same with Mohammed. The Jews can flood the Wailing Wall with their emotions about God, and post messages in the cracks in the wall. (The epithet “Wailing” of course reveals the intensely emotive nature of this object for Jews.) Neither intuitives nor rationalists require these objects of feeling and sensation. Much of Eastern religion is concerned with a highly mystical and abstract vision of a cosmic oneness beyond the ILLUSION of the material world, i.e. it is an anti-sensory depiction of reality. Rationalists have no interest in objects and feelings. They look to the immaterial, non-sensory laws of reason, which are devoid of feelings. Rationalism, when it’s translated into mathematical hyperrationalism, is

entirely removed from the domain of wishful thinking and wish fulfilment. How could anyone ever trust a religion based on feelings? Are feeling types likely to embrace any religion that does not fill them with hope and good feelings? Things don’t become true simply because you want them to be true in order to feel happy. Equally, why should religion be about beings and objects? Who needs them? What would prevent God from being wholly immaterial? And isn’t the soul defined as an immaterial entity? Rationalism is the only true basis for religion. It provides objective laws and proofs. It doesn’t pander to any need for objects. It doesn’t need to serve any agenda concerned with providing good feelings. It doesn’t involve any mystical intuitions. Rationalism, when allied to mathematics, tells it how it is. It provides absolute certainty based on immutable, eternal, perfect Platonic truths. It provides incontestable rational proofs. It eliminates debate. The problem, of course, is that most people are irrational. The truth, therefore, is not for most people. They will invent their own “truth”, which, of course, is a lie. Humanity, as a whole, lives by the Lie and sanctifies the Lie. Logos is about the truth and Mythos is about absurd fantasy. Humanity chooses the latter. The truth has always nauseated the average person. He has no need for it and doesn’t want it. The Lie is so much more attractive and useful.

Save Me The conflict between Western and Eastern religion is often characterized as “salvation” versus “enlightenment”. The Jews, Muslims and Christians seek to be saved. They want Messiahs and prophets. They are the slaves of their Creator who made them and upon whom they are wholly dependent. He completely controls their fate and will pass judgment on them in due course. If “salvation” were about saving yourself, there would be nothing wrong with it. When it’s about being saved by someone else, it’s grotesque. It makes you a slave of your would-be saviour and your whole life is defined with respect to this other being. You have no control over your own life. You always have to look to this other person. “Salvation” is the abandonment of self-respect and autonomy. It’s for the weak, submissive, passive and pathetic. Look at the billions of Muslims on their knees – a

slave people, submitting to their Master in the hope that he won’t punish them. Intuitive enlightenment is enormously superior to salvation, but there is in fact another, better, alternative – knowledge. Science is derived from the Latin word for knowing and Gnosis from the Greek word. Traditionally, gnosis and enlightenment have been closely linked, but gnosis – when it relates to mathematics – is infinitely more robust and certain than sitting under a tree and seeking nirvana. So, what about you? Are you looking for salvation (i.e. you’re a slave in need of a master), do you want to become enlightened (i.e. you’re looking for a wondrous, all-embracing intuitive epiphany), or are you a knowledge worker? If you’re a sensory knowledge worker, you’ll be attracted to science and if you’re an intuitive knowledge worker (an intuitive rationalist), mathematics and metaphysics will send you their summons. Only the latter opens the doors to Plato’s immortal, immutable domain of Absolute Truth. Plato’s transcendent realm is forever closed to Salvationists, mystics and scientists. Only one type of person can pass through the gates of Truth – the hyperrationalist.

TOE: Theory of Everything Only two major scientists in the world would be receptive to Illuminism: Roger Penrose at Oxford University and Max Tegmark, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In each case, they differ from conventional empiricist materialists in their attitude towards mathematics, which they accord a much more important status than a mere tool of science with no reality and use beyond that. Penrose has suggested that reality is triadic, consisting of mind, matter and mathematics. In Illuminism, there is only one reality – infinite mathematics – and mind is its first expression and matter its second, derived from mind, just as mind is derived from mathematics. As for Tegmark, he has proposed the “ultimate ensemble theory” – based on mathematics – as the “theory of everything”. Science writer Marcus Chown said in an interview with Tegmark in New Scientist, “Many physicists have taken [fine-tuning, where we live in a universe astonishingly well-tailored for the development of life] as evidence for an ensemble of universes, with each corresponding to differences in the constants of physics or the initial conditions of the Universe. In proposing that there are universes corresponding to entirely different equations that are subject to different constants, Max Tegmark is taking this concept to its extreme. ‘I call the ensemble the “ultimate ensemble” because it embraces all other ensembles,’ Tegmark says.” In other words, where many “Multiverse” scientists advocate endless universes reflecting every conceivable expression of the laws of physics, involving different physical constants and different initial conditions, Tegmark proposes a mathematical multiverse containing endless different versions of mathematics itself. It’s these different versions of mathematics that in turn lead to all the different versions of physics. Such a view is interesting because it subordinates physics to mathematics, exactly as in Illuminism. In a BBC documentary, Tegmark expressed his mathematical vision in these terms, “For me, math is the window on our universe. It’s the master key to understanding what’s out there. … Why are we discovering more and more mathematical regularities out there? What’s it telling us? I think our universe isn’t just described by math, I think it is math. I think our entire universe is a giant mathematical structure that we’re part of and that’s the

reason why the more we study physics the more mathematical regularities we keep discovering. I think the universe is a mathematical object. It’s just out there existing in a sort of Platonic sense. It’s not that it’s existing inside of space and time but space and time exist inside of it. But that really changes our perspective. That really means that reality is very different from how it seems. If I’m wrong, it means that fundamental physics is eventually going to reach a roadblock beyond which we just can’t understand reality any better. If I’m right then there is no roadblock and everything is in principle understandable to us, and I think that will be wonderful because then we will only be limited by our own imagination.” We agree entirely with these remarks. Mathematics alone can furnish a final answer. Physics must falter because it’s simply a set of arbitrary hypotheses that do not have the property of being necessarily, analytically, immutably, eternally true, in the Platonic sense. You cannot appeal to a provisional, contingent, synthetic a posteriori system to provide absolute, eternal, analytic a priori truths. It’s a logical impossibility. When scientists talk of a “theory of everything”, they mean a “complete” scientific theory, unifying all of the different theories of science in one monumental edifice. This is the culmination of the scientific project. It will not, however, be a final explanation of everything. It will fail to explain life, mind, consciousness and free will. It will not explain WHY we exist. And it will not be true in any absolute sense because science relies on experimental falsification and verification principles, which have no connection with unconditional and absolute truth. If you sign up to induction, empiricism and experiments as your “path to truth” then you will never reach any final destination because experiments and observations have nothing to do with truth: they are simply means of testing the validity of hypotheses. Endless scientific theories, validated by experiments, have been refuted by new theories and new experiments. This process can never end. Any “final” scientific theory will at all times be susceptible to being falsified, or in need of being further verified, hence will never in fact be final. It’s a misnomer, a logical impossibility. What “final” means for scientists is that they will have run out of ways to imagine and create new theories. They will have reached the end of the road of their paradigm. They will not, however, have explained reality, and they never will.

The authentic Grand Unified Theory of Everything must be true A PRIORI. Experimental science can have no say whatsoever in the ultimate truths of existence. Existence is grounded in eternal rational principles, not in human experiments. That’s the simplest and truest fact of all. Science is inherently bogus. It can never be an “answer”. It can only ever be a welltested theory, one which is not equivalent to truth with a capital “T”. Mathematics provides absolute Truths while science merely provides truths with a small “t” – provisional, ad hoc truths, which satisfy no one who wants a final answer to everything. Never forget this – there can be only ONE right answer to existence. A rational person has two choices: mathematics or science. Mathematics yields eternal, immutable truths. Science doesn’t. Mathematics inevitably gives us the world we encounter around us. Science doesn’t. It’s remarkable and wholly irrational that anyone ever believed that science could explain reality. All that science does is bring together ad hoc hypotheses, provisional facts and a “confidence level”. Hypotheses are converted into “theories” the more they are experimentally verified and the more our confidence in them rises. But confidence is not truth. The triumph of science is not the victory of truth but of pragmatism and instrumentalism. Science is for people who want things to “work” but who aren’t much interested in why the world should be configured exactly and necessarily as it is.

Hilbert Space In simple terms, when Euclidean 3D-space (“normal” space) is generalized to spaces with any finite or infinite number of dimensions, it’s known as a Hilbert space, after influential German mathematician David Hilbert. Hilbert spaces are typically used in their maximum, infinite-dimensional form. While Euclidean space is often regarded as “real” (as in Newtonian absolute space), Hilbert space is conventionally regarded as an unreal mathematical abstraction. But why should the mere addition of dimensions make something “unreal”? Again, it’s because of the human obsession with what we can directly visualise in sensory terms. Why do people talk of a 4D world? It’s for no other reason than that they can imagine up and down, back and forth, side to side, and time. After that, imagination and reason fail most people. They simply can’t conceive of unseen, unobservable

dimensions. When scientists attempt to add extra dimensions to reality (as in 11D M-theory), they are forced to consider them as somehow “rolled up” on the most microscopic scale, hence why we don’t notice them. Why can’t they simply be mathematical dimensions that our minds aren’t configured for, just as they aren’t configured to see electromagnetic radiation outside the visible light range? The fact that our senses have evolved in a certain way and revealed “reality” to us in a certain way, does not mean reality is anything like that. Evolution has no connection with truth. If people with minds that perceive the world in completely the “wrong” way are more successful reproductively than those who see in the “right” way then evolution will support the illusionists. That’s the way it functions. It supports whatever works, not whatever is true. Mythos people tend to be more successful reproductively than Logos thinkers. Their simplistic approach to life means that they live more like breeding animals than contemplative human beings. In the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is said to split off into parallel versions of itself every time a measurement is made. These parallel worlds do not exist in the same spatial dimensions as our own. Instead, they inhabit Hilbert space, which, as we have seen, can have infinite spatial dimensions and accommodate infinite universes. Each universe is real, but each one exists in different hermetically sealed compartments of Hilbert space. If scientists are willing to entertain such an idea, why don’t they have a much more flexible approach to the number of dimensions in this universe? Why do dimensions in our universe have to be seen and experienced?

The Ultimate Ensemble Describing his mathematical ultimate ensemble theory, Tegmark wrote, “[With the ‘the ultimate ensemble theory’], not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. The predictions of

the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc.) with what is observed.” Elsewhere, Tegmark said, “I got excited about the idea that the universe is really nothing more than a mathematical object. That got me thinking that every mathematical object is, in a sense, its own universe. … Our universe is just another mathematical structure in a cosmos full of mathematical structures. ... There is only mathematics; that is all that exists.” This is very like the position of the Illuminati, but there’s a critical difference. Tegmark approaches the issue from the conventional perspective of the scientific materialist tradition, while we approach it from the revolutionary scientific rationalist, idealist and metaphysical tradition of Leibniz. Even though Tegmark has stayed in the scientific mainstream, he has admitted how dangerous it is for any scientist to ask big questions: “I learned pretty early that if I focused exclusively on these big questions I’d end up working at McDonald’s. Therefore, I developed this Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde strategy where officially, whenever I applied for jobs, I put forth my mainstream work. And then quietly, on the side, I pursued more philosophical interests.” An older colleague explicitly warned Tegmark that his “crackpot ideas” could damage his reputation. So, scientists regard a mathematical universe as “crackpot”, even though scientists use nothing but mathematics in their equations. Isn’t science much more likely to be crackpot than mathematics? It’s all too revealing about the horrific and stultifying nature of the prevailing scientific paradigm that it’s so actively hostile to addressing the most profound questions. Why is it like that? Because such questions take you, inevitably, into metaphysical territory and the scientific establishment loathes and fears metaphysics (since metaphysics, not religion, is science’s true rival that could overthrow science if presented in the right manner – as in Illuminism, which turns metaphysics into pure mathematics). Is it not astounding that a scientist bold enough to think big fears he will find himself out of a career and flipping burgers in McDonald’s? It’s the modern equivalent of the fate of those that dared to challenge the religious orthodoxy, asked the “big” questions and ended up in the prisons of the

Inquisition. We say this: if science isn’t ALWAYS asking the big questions then it’s valueless in relation to truth and meaning. It becomes equivalent to engineering or technology: it makes our life easier, but is pathetically silent on the human condition. If scientists want to be mere technicians and mechanics, that’s their business, but, in that case, they should keep their mouths shut about religion and metaphysics. If they refuse to confront the question of absolute truth and meaning then no one should listen to their opinions about big issues any further than one would listen to those of a car mechanic. It has been said of Tegmark that thanks to his “well-earned credibility, his audacious ideas are sparking fascination and taking flight.” You see how the game works? You will be listened to in science only if you made sure you sufficiently toed the establishment line. So, any, radical, new ideas – no matter how true – will be automatically rejected if they challenge the establishment position. Aren’t we right back to the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church that refused to listen to anyone who contradicted “scripture”? What an irony it is that the scientific establishment is just a new guise of a priesthood fanatically defending a set position, and declaring as “heretical” and “mad” anyone who opposes it. They silence all debate, all opposition, all heretics, all infidels and apostates. All scientific thinking is squeezed through the sausage machine of the tyrannical, totalitarian scientific paradigm, and comes out with an official, bureaucratic stamp of approval. All “new” ideas are created in the image of “God”: the establishment position of the scientific materialist popes. Describing his position, Tegmark said, “Galileo, Wigner and lots of other scientists would argue that abstract mathematics ‘describes’ reality. Plato would say that mathematics exists somewhere out there as an ideal reality. I am working in between. I have this sort of crazy-sounding idea that the reason why mathematics is so effective at describing reality is that it is reality. That is the mathematical universe hypothesis: Mathematical things actually exist, and they are actually physical reality.” Isn’t it peculiar that an assertion that the universe is mathematical is considered “crazy-sounding” given that science without mathematics is simply soothsaying, alchemy and astrology? Why isn’t the reverse the case? That is, why isn’t the “crazy-sounding” idea the scientific position that the world is somehow non-mathematical despite being so well defined mathematically? Has any scientist ever explained the astonishing success of

mathematics? Isn’t that actually the fundamental question of science? How can there be a scientific world independent of its mathematical description? How can there be a scientific and not a mathematical world? If science can’t answer this then what can it answer? Stephen Hawking posed the question, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” What indeed?! And the answer couldn’t be more self-evident: the equations themselves are alive. The universe is a living, self-solving equation, full of the Fire of Heraclitus. To think of mathematics as a mere abstraction is to cut yourself off forever from the truth of reality. John Wheeler said, “Even if we found equations that describe our universe perfectly, then why these particular equations and not others? The answer is that the other equations govern other, parallel universes, and that our universe has these particular equations because they are just statistically likely, given the distribution of mathematical structures that can support observers like us.” Over and over again, we see this scientific appeal to infinite, unobservable universes to account for why our universe is configured the way it is. Occam’s Razor must take centre stage at this point. Is there one universe full of infinite indistinguishable things, or infinite universes full of infinite different things? The former is one of logical necessity and is completely consistent with Occam’s Razor. The second is statistics gone insane. In Leibniz’s final theory of the universe, there are infinite autonomous instances (monads) of a single mathematical substance that forms a perfect plenum. Nothing else exists. All monads interact with each other. In the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, as the different parallel universes are being created, they exist as a superposition of states in Hilbert space, and all eventualities are realised. Once they have been created, they can no longer interact in any way, or know anything about each other (but will continually be in a superposition of states with brand new parallel universes coming into being as new choices are made). So, every universe is continuously in a “cloud” of new universes, while continuously losing contact with all previous instances of such universes with which it was once briefly linked. This system – gaining increasing acceptance amongst many physicists – represents the ultimate expression of the principle of “Anything that can happen will happen.” This principle can

be applied across infinite time i.e. everything that can happen isn’t necessarily happening now, but will happen in due course or has already happened. In the case of the many-worlds interpretation, this concept is applied continuously to every instant of time i.e. everything that can happen NOW will happen across all of the parallel worlds. A fatal flaw in Tegmark’s mathematical ensemble Multiverse is that it treats all of the different mathematical universes as immiscible: as different substances, in effect. Yet mathematics is a unity; not a multiplicity. Why wouldn’t one mathematical system be able to communicate with another give that they both operate according to mathematics? Why wouldn’t they simply merge with one another? In Cartesian mind-matter dualism, no one could see how two radically different substances (mind and matter) could interact, so they were assigned to different and utterly distinct domains (unextended and extended). Yet, other than by arbitrary decree, there is no reason at all why different mathematical domains would remain separate and non-interactive. Since they all obey mathematics, they would inherently come together in a SINGLE mathematical universe, exactly as described by Leibniz. There can never be multiple versions of mathematics. Mathematics is a single, Platonic, analytic, immutable edifice. It can’t be divided into “objects” such as “integers”, “complex numbers”, “Euclidean geometry”, “Riemannian geometry”, and so on. These aren’t separate systems of mathematics that inhabit different mathematical universes: they are just different aspects of one mathematical system. The universe reflects all of these aspects. We don’t need to go to another universe to find Euclidean geometry. We don’t need to enter a parallel reality to encounter complex numbers. What Tegmark has done is imagine a universe of even numbers, one of odd numbers, one of every second even number and third odd number, one of imaginary numbers, one of complex numbers, one of rational numbers, one of fractions ... versions corresponding to all possible combinations of all of the above, and in fact every conceivable type of mathematical universe. He then imagines each such universe as physical or at any rate ontological. Most of these universes lack sufficient mathematical power to generate anything as complex as “life”, hence are dead, empty universes – ghost universes. Others contain primitive life, and others sophisticated life. (We might even toy with the idea that some are perfect for containing GODS!)

Yet the whole point of mathematics is that it’s a unity. Everything is related to everything else. You can’t have sub-mathematics. It’s the whole or nothing. In Illuminism, there is one mathematics and one universe. In Tegmark’s system, there are infinite versions of mathematics, and infinite universes. Which conforms best with Occam’s Razor? Which is more logical? Which is built on fundamental particles, for which a sufficient reason for their existence can be provided? Which has the full laws of mathematics encoded in every fundamental particle (monad)? Tegmark must be applauded for appreciating the mathematical truth of the universe, but he must also be condemned for trying to bolt his scheme on to existing scientific Multiverse theories. Illuminism provides an infinitely superior vision of a Platonic, mathematical universe – one that is inherently ALIVE! In Multiverse theories based on inflation theory, with different universes occupying, seemingly, the same physical space, there ought to be catastrophic explosions taking place all the time as expanding universes collide with each other. No such apocalypses are ever observed. Maybe they’re always, conveniently, just over the horizon, always just out of sight, like the green teapot behind the moon that moves to a new position every time anyone looks for it. Some Multiverse theorists seek to assign all different new universes to miraculous and highly convenient new “physical spaces” in a mathematical Hilbert space, where they are hermetically sealed and can’t collide with other universes. This, of course, is simply multiplying the difficulties, not reducing them. It’s theoretically unclear whether these universes form a plenum since, logically, there is nothing to prevent gaps between these different universes. To what would the gaps correspond? – nothingness, void, non-existence, oblivion? This view raises more questions than it answers. These Multiverse theories are not productive. They are not even scientific in their own terms since they are unobservable. Illuminism provides a single universe of absolute, necessary mathematical truth. This is the not only the best of all possible worlds – it is the only possible word. Leibniz realised the absolute logical necessity of this universe and this universe alone. There can be no other universes.

If there were a Creator God, there would be nothing to stop him creating bungled mathematical universes such as those envisioned by Tegmark, as many as he liked. But there is no Creator God. There is just one universe. Only this universe has a sufficient reason for its existence. Leibniz’s doctrine of sufficient reason is the antidote to all Multiverse theories. While we can certainly imagine infinite collections of universes, we cannot provide any sufficient reason for their existence. In fact, the whole point of the Multiverse is to avoid having a sufficient reason for anything at all. The Multiverse theory simply states that everything happens. Nothing needs any reason for its existence other than being possible. All possibilities are inevitably realised. Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason states that for every fact there must be a reason why it is so and not otherwise. The Multiverse doctrine states that the reason for anything is merely that it is possible. If it’s possible, it’s guaranteed to happen. Somewhere in the Multiverse, there are unicorns because horses with horns are not impossible. What is at stake here is nothing other than meaning. In a universe where every possibility is realised, there is NO meaning. Meaning is about choices, about non-inevitability, about free will rather than determinism, about the possibility of our being independent causal agents not always subject to other causes and pawns of other causes, about life rather than machinery. The Multiverse is the ultimate Doomsday Machine, the most terrible Death Star – because all it does is exterminate meaning. It relentlessly converts every possibility into actuality at every instant. Absolutely nothing is omitted. All processes occur. All causes and all effects take place, with absolute inevitability. At no point does choice or free will take place. Strange though it may seem, this is the supreme dream of scientific materialists. They despise meaning. All they want is for everything to happen according to inescapable scientific determinism, and the Multiverse is the perfect mechanism for achieving that goal. With the Multiverse, we don’t have to answer any questions, or explain anything – because everything is sure to happen, come what may. Has there ever been a more perverse and inhuman concept than that of the Multiverse? Are scientific materialists all suffering from some dreadful autistic condition where they feel more machine than man? What turns

them on is not truth, answers, or explanation, but process. The ultimate process is that which generates not just some outcomes but ALL outcomes. Hegel dreamt of the Whole, the Totality, the Absolute, but his dream concerned the Mind of God that had dialectically evolved from complete alienation to complete understanding and recognition of itself. The Multiverse is the scientific materialist version of the Absolute. It is the Whole, the Totality, but not of a mind seeking meaning, but of a process seeking infinite expression through the actualisation of everything that is not formally impossible. Everything that can happen at any instant will happen, and that is true of all instants. Nothing is ever missed. This is the perfect plenum of possibility being actualised. Leibniz spoke of the “best of all possible worlds”, indicating that other, worse worlds could be conceived. The Multiverse doctrine gets rid of the word “best” and simply delivers ALL possible worlds, regardless of their merits and qualities. There is no longer any distinction between good and bad. There are no qualitative processes, only quantitative. Isn’t it odd that human beings are obsessed with meaning and yet the Multiverse advocates want to destroy meaning once and for all? Consider the oddities of what they propose. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is probably the most flagrant example of the spectacular, off-the-scale lunacy of Multiverse thinking. The idea is that every time a human being, for example, is confronted with any choices, the universe will spawn as many new universes as are required to accommodate all the possible choices, and this will keep happening in all of the new universes as new choices are offered, and all of their offspring, and all of their offspring, and all of their offspring and so on indefinitely. No possibility is left unexplored and neither are any of its ramifications. However, in this system, there is no reason at all why any human being should act in any coherent, consistent, recognisable way. Since meaning is 100% absent in this system, and no choices are ever made (if all choices are realised than it can’t be said then anything has actually been chosen because the concept of choice involves potential choices being discarded, and none ever are in this system), why should any life appear meaningful? Why aren’t we all behaving perfectly randomly like the perfectly random Multiverse we inhabit? Since, in this system, we are possibility-actualizers rather than choosers, why don’t we actualize any old possibilities in any old way rather than in the way characteristic of a distinct personality and fixed

character? Our own meaningful conduct constitutes the absolute refutation of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The biggest problem for the Multiverse theory is that there is no sufficient reason why the Multiverse should exist at all. Why should there be any possibilities at all? Why not none? Why not have a Nonverse, a Zeroverse? Why shouldn’t there be perfect non-existence? Leibniz’s arche made of infinite nothings (monads) that have infinity energy, evenly split between positive and negative energy, so that their overall energy is nothing (i.e. we have infinite nothings with no net energy) is the perfect and only resolution of the enigma of why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, there is nothing but mathematics. Ontological nothing is inherently full of things (existence). With Leibniz’s monads, something and nothing are made into the same thing. It’s a majestic and infallible solution. The Multiverse advocates cannot match Leibniz’s exquisite logical subtlety. They are the merchants of brute force. They simply declare, “Let’s have everything. Let nothing be excluded. Let all things happen.” They don’t actually explain existence; they just assume it and then express it infinitely, with no possibility left unactualized. Their Multiverse is not based on monads, hence is automatically refuted. The scientific materialist Multiverse doesn’t in fact include ALL possibilities: it excludes the most important number of all, the only number that truly counts – ZERO. The Multiverse denies the independent existence of mind (hence of meaning). The Multiverse commits all the same errors as single-universe-scientific-materialism, but now on an infinite scale across infinite possible universes. It is the same error as ever, multiplied infinitely. It is therefore the worst possible mistake, the biggest conceivable error, the ultimate fallacy.

Greeks and Romans Thinking people can be divided into two types: Greeks and Romans. Greeks are mathematicians and philosophers, obsessed with the eternal truth. Romans are drawn to science and engineering, and are preoccupied with shaping the world and being effective. They have scant regard for philosophy, religion and truth. The Germans from Leibniz to Nietzsche were essentially “Greek”, as were the French. The British and Americans preferred the “Roman” approach and were keen on establishing “empires” of business and commerce. The British and American mentality is empiricist and materialist, the German and French rationalist and idealist. Non-thinking people can be defined either as “Jews” (salvationists; creationists, resurrectionists) or “Hindus” (eternalists, seekers of intuitive enlightenment; reincarnationists). What are you? Greek, Roman, Jew or Hindu?

Anti Free Will Scientific materialists have an almost pathological hatred of the concept of free will and are forever trying to destroy it. The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that we never choose anything. Rather, all possible choices are automatically made (i.e. nothing is excluded; no genuine choice between alternatives ever occurs), and each separate “choice” inhabits a separate universe in Hilbert space. This is a 100% deterministic system. Our “consciousness” – our subjective impression of free will – is nothing other than our feeling that there are other parallel worlds out there where we could have done something else (indeed in those worlds, we DID do something else – since all possible eventualities are explored.) So, who is “I” if there are infinite different versions of “I”, each branching off into infinitely many cloned “I’s” in order to reflect every possible choice we might have made (and remember everyone else’s infinite “I’s” and their infinite choices must be factored in too). Just as Abrahamism represents complete alienation from the soul, and makes the soul an object – a creation – of a super being rather than an eternal, autonomous life force existing in its own right with no master, so

scientific materialism constitutes equally strong alienation from the soul, the self, the “I”. Scientific materialists deny self, soul, mind “I”, free will – absolutely everything that makes us human. The scientific materialists deny humanity itself and want to turn it into some deterministic process, clouded in infinite different versions of itself, associated with a mysterious, powerful delusion that we are genuine “I’s” with authentic free will and choice. No attempt is made to explain how or why such an unlikely delusion is possible in a strictly deterministic system. Why would determinism generate deterministic minds that are certain that they are not deterministic? Scientific materialists are anti-human and indeed inhuman. They are people who would prefer to be calculating machines, computers or androids – mere reductive, determined mechanisms – rather than living breathing, creatures of will, whose unreason can often overwhelm their reason. Ultimately, the views of scientific materialists are driven by an obsession to deny the existence of independent mind, of souls, the afterlife and any possibility of God. They would prefer to be programmed machines rather than free organisms. What does that say about their peculiar psychological make-up? Science, like Abrahamism, is pathological. If free will is taken as the cornerstone of existence, scientific materialism is automatically refuted since it has no room whatsoever for free will. So, do you have free will or not? Is it real or an illusion? How you answer those questions will determine whether you will be an atheist or an Illuminist.

No Baggage “If a reality exists independently of us, it must be free from the language that we use to describe it. There should be no human baggage.” – Max Tegmark This is a critical statement. It’s absolutely the case that no human baggage can be applied to ontological and cosmological thinking, and what is more quintessentially human than the human senses and the way they cause us to perceive the universe? Science worships the human senses and the empirical approach, thus making itself all about “human baggage”. We must escape from the human trap and the human senses.

The solution to existence must be one on which all alien species can agree. It can therefore be in no way driven by the specific and peculiar senses of any species. We have only one tool that allows us to transcend the human condition and human senses – that we share neutrally and equally with all alien species – and that’s reason. We must be rationalists if we want to free ourselves of human baggage. The language of reason, the language of existence, is mathematics. We ourselves are mathematical entities. Only by relying on the analytic, necessary truths of mathematics that care nothing for our human foibles, delusions and senses can we be liberated from the prison of our own human perspective. To understand existence, you must transcend yourself, escape from your own mind. As Plato and Aristotle understood so long ago, reason alone frees us from our world-bound minds and limits.

Different Mathematics? Max Tegmark argues that all logically possible universes exist. He says, “What I have in mind are universes which dance to the tune of entirely different sets of equations.” So, here we have a radical question. Is it possible to have different universes obeying different laws of physics (and different laws of mathematics)? Or is only one universe logically possible? Tegmark is making a claim that there is more than one version of mathematics. Is this a coherent position? The answer is emphatically no. Mathematics is a single, self-supporting edifice of necessary, analytic truth. The whole point of mathematics is that there is only one of it. All truths of mathematics are automatically and immutably present for all eternity, so it’s meaningless to talk of “different sets of equations”. There aren’t any. All equations come as one set – indissolubly linked. There is no logical means by which they can be separated. It’s all or nothing. Someone might say that Euclidean geometry is different from Riemannian geometry, but the latter is just the former with curves rather than straight lines. Does that make it a whole new system or just a variant of the original? If we can’t privilege straight lines over curves (and we can’t), we could equally well say that Euclidean geometry is simply Riemannian geometry with straight rather than curved lines. Each is just a special case of the other. The fact that Euclidean geometry was discovered

long before Riemannian geometry says much more about human mathematical abilities than it does about any critical distinction between the two geometries. And note that the Riemann Sphere equates the complex plane with a point at infinity, to a sphere. Here we have a plane and a sphere being reconciled. Similarly, a straight line with a point at infinity is a circle, showing how interconnected lines and curves are. In exactly the same way, the human struggle with imaginary numbers in no way means that real numbers should be privileged over imaginary (or complex) numbers. Human difficulties with zero and infinity should not imply that these are non-ontological or less privileged in relation to other numbers. We have to get rid of our human biases and prejudices, not invent “new” versions of mathematics that accommodate those biases and prejudices. Science is precisely that: a limited application of mathematics designed to jettison all the mathematical features that scientists can’t grasp. Science is exactly what you get when a species privileges its senses over its reason. When they come to their senses (!), all species turn to mathematics – the language that unites them all in reason. All rational species have their version of 1 + 1 = 2. They don’t all agree on ad hoc scientific concepts such as “atoms”.

The Multiverse according to Max Tegmark In an interview with Adam Frank of Discover Magazine, Tegmark explained his multiverse ideas as follows: “There are four different levels of multiverse. Three of them have been proposed by other people, and I’ve added a fourth—the mathematical universe. The Level I multiverse is simply an infinite space. The space is infinite, but it is not infinitely old—it’s only 14 billion years old, dating to our Big Bang. That’s why we can’t see all of space but only part of it—the part from which light has had time to get here so far. Light hasn’t had time to get here from everywhere. But if space goes on forever, then there must be other regions like ours—in fact, an infinite number of them. No matter how unlikely it is to have another planet just like Earth, we know that in an infinite universe it is bound to happen again. That’s pretty crazy, right? But I’m not even asking you to believe in anything weird yet. I’m not even asking you to believe in any kind of crazy new physics. All you need for a Level I multiverse is an infinite universe—go far enough out and you will find another Earth with another version of yourself. “Level II emerges if the fundamental equations of physics, the ones that govern the behaviour of the universe after the Big Bang, have more than one solution. It’s like water, which can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas. In string theory, there may be 10500 kinds or even infinitely many kinds of universes possible. Of course, string theory might be wrong, but it’s perfectly plausible that whatever you replace it with will also have many solutions. Inflationary cosmology, which is our best theory for what happened right after the Big Bang, says that a tiny chunk of space underwent a period of rapid expansion to become our universe. That became our Level I multiverse. But other chunks could have inflated too, from other Big Bangs. These would be parallel universes with different kinds of physical laws, different solutions to those equations. “This kind of parallel universe is very different from what happens in Level I. Well, in Level I, students in different parallel universes might learn a different history from our own, but their physics would still be the same. Students in Level II parallel universes learn different history and different physics. They might learn that there are 67 stable elements in the periodic table, not the 80 we have. Or they might learn there are four kinds of quarks

rather than the six kinds we have in our world. No, they share the same space, but we could never communicate with them because we are all being swept away from each other as space expands faster than light can travel. “Level III comes from a radical solution to the measurement problem proposed by a physicist named Hugh Everett back in the 1950s. [Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D. at Princeton because of a lacklustre response to his theories.] Everett said that every time a measurement is made, the universe splits off into parallel versions of itself. In one universe, you see result A on the measuring device, but in another universe, a parallel version of you reads off result B. After the measurement, there are going to be two of you. You are made up of quantum particles, so if they can be in two places at once, so can you. It’s a controversial idea, of course, and people love to argue about it, but this ‘many worlds’ interpretation, as it is called, keeps the integrity of the mathematics. In Everett’s view, the wave function doesn’t collapse, and the Schrödinger equation always holds. The parallel universes of Level III exist in an abstract mathematical structure called Hilbert space, which can have infinite spatial dimensions. Each universe is real, but each one exists in different dimensions of this Hilbert space. The parallel universes are like different pages in a book, existing independently, simultaneously, and right next to each other. In a way all these infinite level III universes exist right here, right now.” Tegmark’s Level IV, the one where he departs from the advocates of the scientific Multiverse, invokes an “external reality hypothesis”: the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. Given that Kant argued that our minds invent phenomenal, scientific reality, anyone who wants to defend a non-mind-generated scientific reality must appeal to something that exists independently of us and is free from how we describe it – from our language and senses. An external reality is meaningful only to the extent that is has nothing to do with human minds. Platonic mathematics, involving immutable, eternal truths must PRECEDE any human mind. How can a mortal human mind invent ETERNAL truths? It can’t. It can only stumble across them and be amazed by them. Tegmark said, “The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.’ In that essay he asked why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. The question did not start with him. As far back as Pythagoras in the ancient Greek era, there was the idea that the universe

was built on mathematics. In the 17th century Galileo eloquently wrote that nature is a ‘grand book’ that is ‘written in the language of mathematics.’ Then, of course, there was the great Greek philosopher Plato, who said the objects of mathematics really exist. ... These days mathematicians think of their field as the study of ‘mathematical structures,’ sets of abstract entities and the relations between them. What has happened in physics is that over the years more complicated and sophisticated mathematical structures have proved to be invaluable. The integers 1, 2, 3 are a mathematical structure if you include operations like addition, subtraction, and the like. Of course, the integers are pretty simple. The mathematical structure that must be our universe would be complex enough for creatures like us to exist. Some people think string theory is the ultimate theory of the universe, the socalled theory of everything. If that turns out to be true, then string theory will be a mathematical structure complex enough so that self-awareness can exist within it. ... All mathematical structures are abstract, immutable entities. The integers and their relations to each other, all these things exist outside of time. ... The hypothesis predicts a lot more to reality than we thought, since every mathematical structure is another universe. Just as our sun is not the centre of the galaxy but just another star, so too our universe is just another mathematical structure in a cosmos full of mathematical structures. From that we can make all kinds of predictions. ... If the mathematical universe hypothesis is true, then we aren’t asking which particular mathematical equations describe all of reality anymore. ... Once we distinguish them we can determine whether we have uncovered the true structure of our universe and figure out which corner of the mathematical cosmos is our home.” So, Tegmark’s Level IV ultimate ensemble involves all possible “mathematical structures”, meaning that Tegmark believes that these structures are mathematically independent and can have their own existence in separate, compartmentalized universes. (It’s rather odd that Tegmark refers to string theory as a possible “mathematical” structure since string theory is an arbitrary hypothesis of physics and has no inherent mathematical necessity.) Unfortunately, this defies mathematical reality. Mathematics is a single system. You can’t create firewalls between numbers and geometry, between algebra and statistics. How would mathematical “structures” remain

separate? They would simply blend into one another as a single mathematical continuum. Tegmark is the sort of thinker who intuits the right answer, but can’t break out of the scientific paradigm in which he is trapped. All he has done with his ultimate ensemble theory is to posit a mathematical multiverse underpinning the scientific multiverse and make an appeal to the Platonic properties of mathematics to provide an “absolute” anchor. He should simply reject the scientific multiverse and commit himself to a single, eternal Platonic universe of mathematical immutability.

Initial Conditions “Tegmark points out that the great advantage of the ultimate ensemble theory is that it has no free parameters – for instance, it does not depend on initial conditions in the Big Bang, unlike all other visions of the Theory of Everything.” – Marcus Chown It’s certainly vital that the universe should not be arbitrary; it should have no “free parameters” (i.e. arbitrary, ad hoc parameters with no sufficient reason for their specific values and properties). Science is incapable of specifying initial conditions because it has no means of introducing logical necessity, of determining a sufficient reason for any set of initial conditions over any other.

The Schrödinger Equation “There is this beautiful mathematical equation in quantum theory called the Schrödinger equation. It uses something called the wave function to describe the system you are studying—an atom, an electron, whatever—and all the possible ways that system can evolve. The usual perspective of quantum mechanics is that as soon as you measure something, the wave function literally collapses, going from a state that reflects all potential outcomes to a state that reflects only one: the outcome you see at the moment the measurement is done. It seemed crazy to me. I didn’t get why you were supposed to use the Schrödinger equation before you measured the atom, but then, while you’re measuring it, the equation doesn’t apply. So I got up my courage and knocked on the door of one of the most famous physicists in Sweden, a man on the Nobel committee, but he just blew me

off. It wasn’t until years later that I had this revelation that it wasn’t me who didn’t get it; it was him!” – Max Tegmark In fact, the Schrödinger wave function is continually collapsing, and continually reforming (the reformed function will always resemble the function which has just collapsed, unless something dramatic has happened that will cause the wave function to reform in a radically different way). The “measurement” is simply the instant at which we interfere with the wave function with our experimental apparatus. The idea that the measurement causes the wave function collapse is absurd (if it were true, how would the cosmic Big Bang wave function ever have collapsed since there was no “experiment” or observer available in order to collapse it); the collapse takes place naturally all of the time. The experimental measurement merely prompts the wave function to collapse in a certain way, which wouldn’t have happened that way if the experiment hadn’t taken place.

Physics = Mathematics? Tegmark says that physics is mathematics. If that’s true then physics must become “analytic” and not “synthetic”. Physics would have to undergo a revolution to properly reflect the “truths of reason” that apply to mathematics rather than the “truths of fact” that apply to traditional science.

Fine-Tuning? “Fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes – a ‘Multiverse’.” – Marcus Chown False. There’s a third possibility: the universe is alive and evolving. All of its fine-tuning therefore inherently reflects life. If science ever came up with the “theory of everything”, it would be the answer to nothing. Science, of its nature, does not deliver definitive answers. It produces refutable and verifiable theories in which we can have increasing levels of confidence as we carry out more and more tests consistent with the theories. It never furnishes irrefutable truth and nor does it claim to. Indeed, nor does it want to (or it would be in a different game – that of the eternal, immutable truths of mathematics). Science is about the process of getting closer and closer to credible truths, but there’s no

endpoint. Science slowly converges on the truth, while never reaching it – by definition. Science has no limit. It CANNOT deliver final truths. It’s not within its gift. A scientific theory of everything is not the truth of everything, or even truth at all. It’s simply science’s “best guess” at the nature of reality. To be sure, it will be a well-tested theory with considerable evidence supporting it – but it will be eternally short of the whole truth, eternally lacking, always just one experiment away from being refuted. Science typically defines itself as being “refutable”. The absolute truth is, of course, irrefutable. Hence, absolute truth is not “scientific”. Mathematics, upon which science is founded, is itself not “scientific” since it’s not based on either experimental verification or refutation. A mathematical assertion is either right or wrong mathematically. No experiment has any say in the matter. Is it not an astounding thing that scientific empiricist materialism fundamentally contradicts mathematics and yet is entirely dependent on mathematics? They are based on radically different approaches to truth. Analytic mathematics is always about absolute truth (eternal, immutable, Platonic truth), and science never is. Scientific rationalist idealism is, on the contrary, entirely compatible with mathematics, and is equally about absolute truth. “Science” is under no obligation to play the game it does. It has no need to worship experiment over absolute truth. Experiments should be regarded as aids in uncovering the truth – not as the be all and end all. Scientists must break the spell of empiricism, materialism, experiments, facts, evidence, common sense, and sensory data. Instead, they must turn to eternal, analytic Platonic truths. If science is not about the truth – the absolute truth – then what’s the point of it beyond allowing us to manufacture more efficient plastics? Without truth, it’s just a process and tool, not anything by which any sane person would choose to live their life. Science, in its present form, is devoid of any values. It doesn’t prove anything. It’s about as relevant to the big questions of life as economics (the “dismal science”). No one should be an atheist on the basis of science because science is silent on all significant issues.

Occam’s Razor and the Multiverse All Multiverse theories contradict the key philosophical concept of Occam’s Razor. They are staggeringly wasteful. In fact, they are the opposite of Occam’s Razor. They actively set out to multiply entities unnecessarily (without any sufficient reason). By explaining everything statistically, they explain nothing (just as invoking “God” as the answer to everything explains nothing). To say that all possibilities will occur, come what may, leaves nothing to explain. Whatever happens, it will be thanks to statistics – not to any choices, or any inevitable logical principles that we can rationally uncover. Western mathematics was held back for hundreds of years because Westerners had no “zero” in their number system. Indeed, most Westerners had an aversion to “nothing”. Having belatedly embraced zero, Western mathematics (in Germany and France particularly) was later to enter a mathematical Golden Age and set the mathematical agenda for the world. (British mathematics fell back because Newton’s version of calculus was so inferior to Leibniz’s.) So, what was the first thing that Western, Newtonian scientific empiricist materialism did? IT OUTLAWED ZERO! It’s almost surreal, isn’t it? Will the Western mind never learn? Will it keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again? Western mathematicians took an age to embrace imaginary numbers. Now these numbers appear everywhere in key equations of engineering and science, yet they are regarded as “fairy” numbers, with no ontological reality. They help with producing the right answers through some mysterious fairyland magic. Western mathematicians took an age to accept “infinity” – science bans it! Western mathematicians struggled to accept negative numbers. Science was none too keen – until Paul Dirac dared to introduce ANTIMATTER, and even that has been reinterpreted in terms of positive numbers. When will mathematicians and scientists get with the programme? When will they stop having numerophobia – fear of numbers (aka arithmophobia)? ALL NUMBERS ARE ONTOLOGICAL.

The Big Bang

According to the standard Big Bang narrative, space and time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Therefore, the “cause” of the Big Bang could not have existed within space and time. In that case, it existed outside space and time, hence was dimensionless, hence was immaterial, hence was mental! The very thing that scientific materialism claims cannot exist – independent, causal mind – is the only possible, plausible candidate for explaining the Big Bang. Some Big Bang scientists might like to contend that the Big Bang created itself out of non-existence. Of course, if such a thing were possible there would be no sufficient reason why it shouldn’t be happening all of the time, so the Big Bang must be happening an infinite amount of times every instant. Not exactly probable, is it? All of these different Big Bangs would have to occur in some infinite mathematical Hilbert space so as not to be continually destroying each other in catastrophic collisions and explosions. Apply Occam’s Razor. Which is the simplest explanation? It cannot be sufficiently stressed how important Occam’s Razor is. The final explanation of everything MUST be the simplest possible. Leibniz spoke of the “best of all possible worlds.” One feature of that best world is that it’s the SIMPLEST of all possible worlds. If it weren’t, it would be more complex than necessary, hence not the most efficient and best. It must also be the most ELEGANT, the most BEAUTIFUL and the most ASTOUNDING. Multiverse theories are ridiculous, brute force methods for explaining existence. In fact, they don’t explain it: they simply say that whatever exists is statistically inevitable. To explain something means to demonstrate why it is such and such and not something else. To say that everything is statistical is to explain nothing. You no longer attempt to account for anything. You say it happened simply because it wasn’t impossible, and therefore it was inevitable. Leibniz’s brilliant concept of “compossibles” refutes this kind of thinking. It’s not enough for something to be possible, it must be possible in conjunction with the maximum number of other things. Possibility happens collectively, not individually. Everything that can happen (i.e. is capable of happening) WON’T happen. Everything that can happen compossibly WILL happen. In other words, it’s not enough just to be capable of happening; everything that actually happens must be consistent with the context of the real world and everything that’s happening in it. Unicorns are

certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean they will ever physically exist. Separate universes are possible but not compossible. Only one universe can exist because a universe, by definition, is everything and you can’t have infinite “everythings”. The Multiverse is a bogus concept. It automatically turns “possibility” into actuality. It claims that the mere fact of possibility is enough to make that possibility exist. This is highly reminiscent of the ontological argument that appears in philosophy and attempts to prove that God necessarily exists. However, as Kant said, existence is not a predicate. You cannot make existence one of God’s predicates in order to “prove” that he must exist. Similarly, you cannot assert, as the Multiversists do, that possible existence translates into necessary existence. Multiversists have made a predicate of “possible existence” and then gone on to assert that if it’s not forbidden then it’s compulsory, so possible existence is thereby transformed into actual existence within a Multiverse. This is philosophically fallacious. A unicorn is not forbidden, but that doesn’t make it compulsory. A vast number of things that seem possible are in fact forbidden because they’re not compossible. As soon as you remove the naive notion of all possibles inevitably becoming actual, the logic of the Multiverse unravels.

Eternal Recurrence Multiverse theories are nothing new. All of the key ideas of the Multiverse have already been explored in the concept of “eternal recurrence”, which goes back to ancient times. German poet Heinrich Heine revived the idea in the nineteenth century with the argument that infinite time combined with a finite number of particles constantly rearranging themselves must lead to those particles reforming exactly as they did in the past, bringing back to life the long dead. Eternal recurrence theories can be considered “vertical and sequential” i.e. a future version of this universe will exactly resemble a past version. Multiverse theories, on the other hand, are “horizontal and parallel”: exact copies of our universe and us exist already; an infinite number. Schopenhauer wrote about eternal occurrence – as an image of endless suffering and horror, the most terrible idea conceivable. Nietzsche borrowed Heine’s technical arguments and was fascinated by Schopenhauer’s revulsion for eternal recurrence. Characteristically, Nietzsche spun the idea one hundred and eighty degrees and proclaimed it the greatest idea of all, paradise itself: a proper, rational substitute for the fraudulent Christian heaven. What would it take to love eternal recurrence? What kind of person would embrace it? Nietzsche concluded that only a superman could endure the concept of eternal recurrence, and it would destroy everyone else (to his delight). The superman would be the ultimate life affirmer, the person who said “Yes” to life at all times. The superman, like a god, would create for himself the perfect life. Like the best of all sculptors, he would shape the stuff of a human life into the perfect monument to himself, a thing of dazzling, transcendent beauty and power. Eternal recurrence would then provide him with the vehicle to live his perfect life – the life that gave him such astounding pleasure, satisfaction and joy – infinitely many times. For Nietzsche this was tantamount to being a god. Of course, for those living horrible, grim, disastrous lives – all those Christians who dreamt of heaven precisely because it served as the escape route from the horrors of ordinary life – nothing could be worse than eternal recurrence, just as Schopenhauer said.

Nietzsche wanted to cut off their exit. He wanted them to confront THIS life. For Nietzsche, anyone who cannot celebrate this life, no matter what it throws at you, is unworthy of eternal life. (“What does not kill me makes me stronger.”) He wanted the weak to be crushed by the idea that life would never get any better. The idea of pathetic, passive people – perpetual, whimpering victims – waiting to leave this life and get their “reward” in heaven was abhorrent to him. Nietzsche saw no reason why the common herd, the Ignavi, should get any reward at all. He regarded eternal recurrence as an “anti-breeding agent”. Christianity allows the sheeple to breed because it promises them a future paradise. Eternal Recurrence offers them only infinitely more of their present life, with all of its misery. Nietzsche thought eternal recurrence was so depressing to the sheeple that it would literally stop them from breeding. The whole point of religion is to tell everyone that things will get better – much, much better – if they obey their priests, kings and God in this life, thus earning their reward in the next. Eternal recurrence puts all of the onus on you to make your life as good as possible. There’s no miraculous way out. No Saviour or Messiah is coming to help you. Your life is solely your own responsibility. There’s no God you can appeal to; no one else can help you. For such thinking, Nietzsche is regarded as one of the founding fathers of existentialism where you are “condemned to be free”, as Sartre said. Only the strong take responsibility for their own existence. They don’t look to any saviours, only to themselves. The weak always look to others to save them. That’s the true definition of “strong” and “weak”. If you believe in a Messiah, you are weak. If you believe in yourself, you’re strong. All followers of Messiahs, Saviours and Gods are submissive, slavelike, weak, docile sheep waiting to be led, told what to do, what rules and laws to obey. They are helpless without masters directing them. The strong are dominant and seek no leaders, and will fight anyone who tries to master them. The history of our world is the history of the strong and the weak, the dominant and the submissive, those who look to themselves and those who look to others. To whom do you look?! “Nietzsche wants to differentiate the Superman from what he calls the Last Men, those who believe that happiness lies in personal comfort and material goods. They want an easy life and blindly go along with the herd, accepting

its sham morality and dogma. The supermen are those who reject this and construct their own characters, beliefs and values.” – Travis Elborough

The Finite? Why do people believe in a finite number of energy states? A simple consideration shows that there is always an infinite number of energy states. How many points are there between 1 and 2? – an infinite number. Therefore, energies that depend on the distance between two points can take on an infinite set of values. Even if there were just two particles in the universe, and an infinite time available to them, they have an infinite number of options to explore if they have an infinite space available to them. All questions of infinity have to be considered in terms of good and bad infinities, and very different results are possible depending on which infinities are being compared. For example, if time is considered to be a bad infinity (never-ending) while the number of points between 1 and 2 is a good infinity (since you do actually reach an end) then an infinite number of good infinities can be fitted into bad infinity, meaning that eternal recurrence is possible even in an infinite system. However, if space is also bad infinity (it goes on forever) then eternal recurrence is impossible. Moreover, if Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle leads to a bad infinity of uncertainty then eternal recurrence is impossible. Borges, the famous writer, attacked Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence by using thermodynamic arguments. He pointed out that heat and light are just forms of energy, and light can be converted into heat by projecting it onto a black surface. However, the reverse is not true: heat cannot be returned to light. This irreversible condition, driven by entropy, seemed to Borges to definitively refute Nietzsche, but it’s not the clincher he believed. If the universe oscillates from Big Bang to Big Crunch, to Big Bang to Big Crunch, and so on, then the universe is continually reborn, and any of the reborn universes could, in theory, repeat a previous version of the universe, without contradicting the law of entropy. Heat and light (meaning visible light) are both forms of electromagnetism, with heat waves having lower frequency (less energy content) than light waves. Entropy is really just a statement that higher energy waves have a natural tendency to drop down to lower energy states

and, finally, to the lowest energy states where no useful “work” can be performed, i.e. all useful energy has been expended (been fully “actualised”, we might say). Low energy states never naturally and spontaneously acquire higher energy because it would refute the first law of thermodynamics regarding energy conservation. The second law of thermodynamics regarding entropy is that the universe “runs down”; it gives away all of its useful energy to the various processes of the universe, until all that remains is the universal ground state of energy: a universe that has the same amount of energy as when it began but which can do nothing because it’s now in its lowest state, and nothing – other than the rebirth of the universe – will restore useful, high energy states. Monads go on a journey from perfect potential to perfect actualisation. This is mirrored by the cosmic journey of energy. The Big Bang universe begins in an ultra-compact, highest-possible energy state (maximum potential for doing work) and then, countless billions of years later, the universe is vast beyond imagining (the opposite of compact) and all useful energy has been burned off (complete actualisation of useful energy). The universe has literally gone from its highest possible energy state to its lowest possible energy state, while monads have gone from their lowest possible mental state to their highest mental state (using precisely all of the useful energy of the universe to fuel that subjective transition!). We can think of the increasing DISORDER (entropy) of the objective universe (less and less availability of useful “material” energy) being matched by increasing ORDER (negentropy) of the subjective universe (more and more availability of useful “mental” energy). In other words, while the physical universe is seemingly losing its useful energy, it is in fact converting it into useful mental energy. Increasing physical entropy is actually also a measure of increasing mental negentropy. When the universe reaches maximum physical entropy, it also reaches maximum mental negentropy. The final HEAT DEATH of the universe is none other than the moment at which GOD – the perfection of the mental universe – is fully born!!! And what does God do at that point, having reached his omega point, his culmination, his Absolute realisation and actualisation? He commits divine suicide, and the universe is reborn in a new Big Bang, and the whole process begins again. A new Cosmic Age comes into being, and the universe once again sets out to alchemically transform itself into gold (God).

The loss of useful physical energy is the gain of useful mental energy. What this means is that entropy and negentropy are working in perfect harmony. Entropy acts in the objective, dimensional world and negentropy in the subjective, dimensionless world. An objective world of increasing disorder is precisely matched by a subjective world of increasing order (by which we mean increasing complexity of mind). Pierre Teilhard’s hypothesis of the Noosphere reflects similar ideas: “We shall assume that, essentially, all energy is psychic in nature; but add that in each particular element this fundamental energy is divided into two distinct components: a tangential energy which links the element with all others of the same order (that is to say, of the same complexity and the same centricity) as itself in the universe; and a radial energy which draws it towards ever greater complexity and centricity – in other words forwards.” Tangential energy is the energy understood by scientists, while radial energy relates to the subjective, dimensionless domain. Radial energy is the subjective manifestation of tangential (objective) energy. While tangential energy becomes less useful as the universe evolves (increasing entropy), radial energy becomes more useful (increasing negentropy) and more complex, converging on the final, Absolute State – the Omega Point, the culmination of the evolution of the cosmic Mind, the God Mind.

Your Clone? “But if space goes on forever, then there must be other regions like ours—in fact, an infinite number of them. Go far enough out [in the universe] and you will find another Earth with another version of yourself.” – Max Tegmark This is ridiculous on several levels. Just as, on the number line, no number ever repeats (and there are infinitely many numbers), so you can have an infinite number of regions of space, an infinite number of planets or human beings without any repetition at all. Moreover, in the Leibnizian Monadology, every monad is a unique life force (soul). It’s often asked why the laws that govern the Universe are so finely tuned for life to flourish. There’s an easy answer to that – the Universe is alive. The laws aren’t fine-tuned at all. They’re inevitable.

The Subjective Universe The subjective universe is the one we truly inhabit. The objective universe is the one we inhabit via our senses, and the one upon which scientists perform experiments. We can find out about its true nature only via our reason. Our limited senses will always deceive us. Many Eastern teachers emphasized that thought takes place in time, but they said that “vision” could transcend it. What they meant by vision was intuition. They were making the same point as the Neoplatonists who were aware of the discursive Psyche and the intuitive Nous. The Psyche is in space and time while the Nous is outside space and time.

Forces Physics has traditionally been about two kinds of forces: “action at a distance” (as Newtonian gravity was depicted, and as magnetism is often depicted when you hold a magnet some way above a suitable object and it is “grabbed” by the magnetic field and pulled up) and “action at no distance” (immediate contact, such as snooker balls hitting each other). Magic has a similar set up. You can pass on a magic force by physically handing something to your target (as in the “casting of the runes” where a curse is passed to someone via a piece of paper you give them), or a magic force can be transmitted at a distance (via a voodoo doll, for example).

Arguably, “action at a distance” has now vanished from physics. Everything can be described in terms of the transmission of particles (including virtual particles) from one place to another, so that everything now reflects contact forces: direct collisions and interactions of things. In Newtonian physics, there was originally no ether filling space, meaning that forces were magically transmitted through the void. Ether was then added to the picture and “action at a distance” could be viewed in terms of a contact force rippling through a physical medium. Science and magic have both omitted a radically different force, the most important of all: action via different dimensions – dimensionality and dimensionlessness. This is the basis of Fourier transform “forces”. The frequency domain of Fourier mathematics is outside space and time and the “normal” domain of Fourier mathematics is inside space and time. By changing a function in the frequency domain, changes are instantly effected in the spacetime domain. We have done nothing IN the spacetime domain and yet we have made it alter its behaviour. This is none other than how our mind controls our body. Therefore, it is the most important force of all. Incredibly, scientists ignore this. Fourier mathematics is the basis of quantum mechanics and yet scientists, because of their empiricist materialist prejudices, have never understood either Fourier analysis or quantum mechanics. The key to Fourier mathematics is the frequency domain that is beyond space and time. However, in science, nothing can be outside or beyond space and time. Space and time cannot be transcended – because this would lead to all sorts of “spooky”, magic and religious ideas. It would open the doors to the madhouse, so scientists think. For scientists, there is no unextended, dimensionless domain of eternal, immutable frequencies outside space and time (yet controlling space and time). In fact, nothing could be more repellent to the scientific mind. As Barbara Burke Hubbard said in The World According To Wavelets, “This phenomenon of constant change built from immutable elements is hard to reconcile with our physical experience and intuition; physicist J Ville even called it ‘a distortion of reality.’” Scientists have, like ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand, basically ignored the meaning of Fourier frequencies. Just as scientists use imaginary numbers all the time while denying that they have ontological reality, so they use Fourier frequencies all the time, while similarly denying

their ontological reality. In fact, scientists spend most of their time in one state of denial or another! You cannot have Fourier mathematics, hence you cannot have quantum mechanics, if you don’t have a domain of eternal, immutable frequencies – but no such domain is consistent with the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science in which everything must be contained in space and time. Science just blunders on, ignoring the fatal mathematical flaw in its depiction of reality. Illuminism is based on the interaction of a frequency (mental) domain OUTSIDE space and time and a material domain INSIDE space and time, so has Fourier mathematics built into it. Who are you going to trust – the irrational scientists or hyperrational Illuminists? Science is now based wholly on materialist contact forces. In Illuminism, these contact forces complement the trans-dimensional force of Fourier mathematics that links the dimensionless, independent domain of mind to the material domain of space and time. Science, with its dogmatic and ideological rejection of an eternal dimensionless mental domain, can NEVER explain reality. How can human beings exhibit free will? Science has no answer. It’s struck dumb. In science, everything proceeds by way of contact forces operating according to rigid causality. There is no scope for freedom. In Illuminism, there’s no problem. A mind – operating by way of the Fourier frequency domain – effects a change in its dimensionless domain and then, by the laws of Fourier mathematics, this change is reflected in space and time, e.g. a person’s arm moves in response to the appropriate mental frequency command function being triggered. THERE IS NO CONTACT AT ALL! Yet because, in Fourier analysis, the Fourier frequency function is indissolubly linked to the Fourier spacetime function, any change in one is automatically reflected in the other, and that’s how mind and matter work together. Science has managed to miss the central feature of existence – the interaction of a mental domain outside space and a material domain inside space and time. It’s the absolute hatred towards a mental domain that materialists have that has caused this situation. Materialists want the mind to be a product of matter; not matter to be a product of mind. Science is simply wrong – catastrophically wrong – and because it accords empiricism and materialism the status of a religious faith, it can

never escape from its error. Nietzsche said, “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” Science has now reached exactly that condition of an “irrefutable error”. It cannot refute itself within the terms of its own empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm, and it has no intention of ever abandoning that Meta Paradigm, so now it permanently trades in errors that ARE refutable but will never in fact be refuted because there’s no will or mechanism for refuting them.

The Problem of Quantum Mechanics “On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrödinger waves definite motions of the mass points – and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Max Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected. The de Broglie-Schrödinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system.” (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics) Thus, we see how “physical” reality has been replaced by a so-called mathematical representation. What is the CENTRAL problem of scientists’ interpretation of quantum mechanics? It’s that they’re trying to understand something that involves two domains – one inside space and time and one outside space and time – from the perspective of only the domain inside space and time. Self-evidently, that can’t work, which is why quantum mechanics is baffling to scientists. The wave function is wholly ontological. In empiricist materialism, imaginary numbers have no reality, hence the presence of imaginary numbers in quantum equations renders the wave functions “unreal”. This creates a logical absurdity. If the wave function at the heart of quantum mechanics is unreal then how can it be the basis of a “realist” science based on empiricism and materialism? How can a nonempirical, immaterial wave function stand at the heart of “reality”?

In Illuminism, where imaginary numbers are as real as real numbers, there are no such difficulties. “It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born’s statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one. The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an ‘ensemble of systems’ in the sense of statistical mechanics. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics) “Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics, differs fundamentally from both Newton’s mechanics, and Maxwell’s electromagnetic field. For the quantities which figure in Quantum Mechanic’s laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Mechanics) “I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality – that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty.” (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Theory) “The question of whether the waves are something ‘real’ or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance) Is it not astounding that science’s greatest success – quantum mechanics – is completely incomprehensible to scientists? How can science say anything with a straight face when it can’t even explain itself? How dare scientists pontificate to the world when they can’t answer even the most basic questions about the fundamental nature of science?

Black Holes and Souls When you collapse a sun of sufficient size, it shrinks all the way down to a dimensionless point – to a singularity – to its SOUL! If you collapsed a human body down to a single point, you would similarly arrive at ITS SOUL! The body is a projection of a soul in the material world. Everything about a body can be traced back to a controlling monad, which is its mind and soul.

The Quinque Viae: The Five Ways, or Five Proofs The Quinque Viae are the five arguments proposed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica to prove the existence of God. They are: 1) The Argument of the Unmoved Mover (First Mover; Prime Mover) Aristotle first formulated this argument. It proposes that all of the motion in the universe must have an origin which is itself unmoved. Aquinas said, “Everything which is in motion is moved by something else. But this cannot go on forever: because if it did there would be no First Mover, and consequently no other mover at all, since second movers do not move except when moved by a First Mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. And so we must reach a First Mover which is not moved by anything: and this all men think of as God.” The basic argument is that some things are observed to be in motion; they did not cause themselves to move (supposedly), so something else must be the source of their motion. Since an infinite regress of movers is impossible, there must be an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. This unmoved mover is God. Everything about this argument is fallacious. Why does everything move except one thing? Why can’t things move themselves? Why should that be impossible? In reality, movement is inherent in the universe. Everything is in permanent motion. If something doesn’t move through space, it moves through time. If it doesn’t move through space or time, it moves through the dimensionless domain of thought. One way or another, it always moves. Movement is a primary and fundamental feature of the universe. There is NO unmoved mover.

2) The Argument of the First Cause Aquinas said, “In the observable world we discover an order of efficient causes, but no cause is found or ever could be found, of something efficiently causing itself. ... It is impossible to go on forever in a series of efficient causes ... if the series goes on forever, then there will be no first efficient cause; and so there will be no final effect and no intermediate efficient cause, which is obviously false.” The basic argument is: some things are caused; everything that is caused is caused by something else; an infinite regress of causation is impossible; ergo, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. This is God. The central fallacy here is that there should be only one first cause (or any arbitrary number of first causes for that matter). In fact, there are infinite first causes. Every monad is a first cause. It is not God, but souls, that are first causes. All souls are causal agents. They are all uncaused causes. They are all FREE. You can be free ONLY if you are uncaused and you yourself are a causality initiator (via your free choices and actions). 3) The Argument from Contingency Things in the universe have no necessary existence. They are contingent. But if everything in the universe were contingent, nothing would have necessary existence and there would be no reason for anything to exist at all. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings. This is God. It’s absolutely true that something necessary is essential, but there is no need for that which is necessary to be singular, or indeed any arbitrary finite number. In fact, there are infinite necessary beings (monads). 4) The Argument from Degree Varying degrees of perfection are found throughout the universe. These imply the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. Perfection must have a pinnacle. That pinnacle is God. Degrees of perfection do not prove the existence of something perfect. They do, however, demonstrate that things can become more and more perfect, and they hint that an apex of perfection may eventually be attained. All souls are potential Gods; Gods in the making.

5) The Teleological Argument Everything acts towards ends. Most things are unintelligent. Acting towards ends indicates intelligence. If the intelligence is not in the things then it must be in a supreme being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends. This is God. This argument is also known as the argument from design, since it implies that everything is carefully designed in order to fulfil its teleological purpose. All things have their own inherent intelligence and can strive towards their ends in their own way. Intelligence does not need to be conscious.

***** All Abrahamic theologians strive to use various arguments to prove the existence of their God. As it happens, these same arguments can be used to prove the existence of infinite monads in the process of becoming Gods. There is no sufficient reason for there being one Creator God. After all, what would prevent the existence of a second, a third and any number at all? There is a sufficient reason for an infinite number of monads given that there is no existential obstacle that would prevent it. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins claimed that Aquinas’s first three arguments are more or less the same, and rely upon the idea of a regress, from which God is arbitrarily immune. In Leibniz’s Monadology, there is a sufficient reason for monads being the end of any regress: they are indivisible points (zeros), beyond which it is literally impossible to go. Only monads can stand at the beginning (or end) of a process. Aquinas’s fifth argument proclaims the necessity of a designer. Dawkins believes that evolution via natural selection is sufficient to explain apparent design in nature. In Illuminism, the mathematical nature of monads is the source of ALL design in the universe. Mathematics explains why a snow crystal is shaped that way, or a salt crystal, or a diamond. Evolution via natural selection is wholly irrelevant to all non-organic entities, hence cannot be a universally valid explanation. Mathematics, on the contrary, can be. Dawkins appeals to abiogenesis as the origin of life. Abiogenesis: from Latin abio (“without life”) and genesis (“generation”); biology – the origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; genesis

of life not involving the action of living parents; spontaneous generation. “I shall call the doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis.” – Thomas Huxley Abiogenesis is, in effect, an appeal to magic. The concept that qualities that do not exist in atoms can nevertheless miraculously and magically emerge from them through “random collisions and combinations” is preposterous. It’s every bit as absurd and irrational as Abrahamic “explanations” involving God. Science simply replaces “God” with randomness and its partner in crime “emergence” as the pseudo-explanation of everything. Ask an Abrahamist about ultimate causes and he will answer “God”. Ask a scientist and he will answer “randomness, spontaneity and emergence” – in other words, cosmic magic without any conceivable sufficient reason.

The Perfect Being “I call a perfection every simple quality which is positive and absolute, i.e. which expresses whatever it expresses without any limitations. ... all perfections are compatible with each other, i.e. they can co-exist in the same subject. ... Therefore there is, or can be understood, the subject of all perfections, or a most perfect being. From which it is obvious that he also exists, since existence is included in the number of perfections.” – Leibniz For Leibniz, the perfect being has all, and only, positive predicates. (He can have no negative predicates.) Existence is a positive predicate, therefore the perfect being necessarily exists. Kant said that existence is not a predicate. Leibniz said that, in the specific case of a God defined to have only positive predicates and devoid of any contradictions, it was. If nothing can contradict God’s existence then he must necessarily exist. Contradictions, problems, negatives, difficulties ... these are what prevent necessary existence. Anything free of them must logically exist since there is no sufficient reason to prevent it. (Gödel was highly impressed by Leibniz’s ontological argument and created a modern refinement of it.) Leibniz’s argument is typically ingenious, but he’s wrong in this instance. A thing has necessary existence only if it also has necessary nonexistence! That is, all “somethings” must equal “nothings” if they are to have compulsory reality. The ultimate constituents of reality must be a perfect balance of being and nothing (hence are perfect Hegelian dialectical BECOMINGS). Nothing can prevent something from existing if its existence equates to nothing. Nothing can prevent nothing from existing (or from not existing, as might equally be said). Nothing is the ground state of reality. Anything that is “something” but also “nothing” has complete logical necessity. It MUST have reality since nothing can oppose that outcome (how can you prevent nothing?). “For since the essence of a thing is simply that which constitutes its possibility in particular, it is quite obvious that for a thing to exist by virtue of its essence is for it to exist by virtue of its possibility. And if the being by virtue of itself were defined in even more appropriate terms, by saying that it is the being which must exist because it is possible, it is obvious that the

only thing that could be said against the existence of such a being would be to deny its possibility. A propos of this, one could even construct a modal proposition which would be one of the best fruits of the whole of logic, namely that if the necessary being is possible, it exists. For the necessary being and the being by virtue of its essence are just the same thing. Thus, looked at from this point of view, the argument would seem to have some validity, and those who would have it that one can never infer actual existence from mere notions, ideas, definitions, or possible essences, in fact fall back, as I have just said, onto the denial of the possibility of the being by virtue of itself. But it is worth noticing that this approach itself serves to show that they are wrong, and at last fills the gap in the proof. For if the being by virtue of itself is impossible, all beings in virtue of something else will also be impossible, since they can ultimately exist only through a being in virtue of itself: thus nothing could exist. This argument leads us to another important modal proposition equal to the preceding one, and which completes the proof in conjunction with it. One could formulate it thus: if the necessary being does not exist, no beings at all are possible. It seems that this proof has not hitherto been carried as far as this; however, I have also laboured elsewhere to prove that the perfect being is possible...” – Leibniz This, frankly, is one of the most important, remarkable and ingenious statements of all time. To slightly amend Leibniz’s final comments, if monads (souls) – “necessary beings” – do not exist then no beings at all are possible. Monads ARE possible and MUST exist because, if they didn’t, nothing else could. Monads are zeros and infinities (nothings and somethings, beings and nothings: becomings).

Entelechies = Monads Monads can also be called entelechies. They have in them a certain perfection, a certain striving for perfection, a self-sufficiency, an end in themselves. They are teleological, always progressing towards the final goal of perfection. They are entelechic (goal-oriented). An entelechy is a “becoming-itself” (actualizing its potential; fulfilling what it has it within itself to be). An entelechy has completeness as a potentiality within it and strives to accomplish that completeness.

Entelechy: the becoming actual or achievement of a potential; striving to become actual; to finish or perfect the potential, to realize the complete concept, to unfold itself perfectly as what it is in its entirety. Entelechy (active, striving power) is the quintessence of the monad. It is an eternal striving, an eternal becoming, a ceaseless effort, an unquenchable will. For Leibniz, change is inherent and continuous in all monads. All monads are in perpetual motion. Leibniz was the greatest philosopher of motion and change since Heraclitus, and arguably only Hegel surpassed him in this regard. For Leibniz and Hegel, life is absolutely purposeful, dynamic and goaloriented, with perfection as the supreme end point (omega point).

The Phenomenal World “Matter taken as mass in itself is nothing but a pure phenomenon or wellfounded appearance, as are also space and time. Consequently, extended mass, considered without entelechies and consisting only in these qualities, is not corporeal substance, but a pure phenomenon like a rainbow. Further, philosophers have recognised that it is form which gives determinate being to matter, and those who forget this will never get out of the labyrinth of the composition of the continuum once they have entered it. Only indivisible substances and their different states are absolutely real, as Parmenides, Plato and other ancient philosophers were well aware.” – Leibniz

Leibniz and Mysticism “At the time [when Leibniz was in his prime], there was a strong fashion for what one might call ‘mystical philosophy’, which drew its inspiration from such sources as Neoplatonism, cabalism, natural magic, vitalism, astrology, alchemy, etc. Those who regarded the writings of mystical philosophers as superstitious nonsense were in a small minority at the time. It was not until around 1700 that the mechanistic and materialist Newtonian world-view suddenly became dominant. Leibniz was well read in the mystical literature, and many of its proponents were his personal friends. Its influence clearly shows in many of Leibniz’s writings, and the Monadology is a particularly good example, with its almost mystical vision of universal animism, a form of reincarnation, worlds within worlds, and the special relation between

God and humanity. The Monadology would not have seemed nearly as bizarre to Leibniz’s contemporaries is it does to us now. “There is a similar point to be made about the ancient philosophers. Nowadays we tend to think of the ancient world as having thrown up just two great philosophers in its thousand years of continuous history — namely Plato and Aristotle. But, while for the scholastics Aristotle did have a special status, for those who rejected scholasticism (and despite his respect for it, Leibniz did reject it), there was no presumption that only Plato and Aristotle should be taken seriously. Throughout the Renaissance and early modern period, philosophers saw all ancient philosophers as a potential source of knowledge and inspiration. Although Leibniz took Plato and Aristotle seriously, he also took seriously Pre-Socratic philosophers such as Pythagoras and Heraclitus, and later philosophers such as the Stoics and the Neoplatonists. He was influenced by the Renaissance humanist idea that most of the major insights into the nature of reality had already been obtained by one or other of the ancient philosophers, and he was not ashamed to give credit for his own views to (now unfashionable) thinkers such as Pythagoras. “Finally, we must never lose sight of Leibniz’s own dictum, that philosophers are generally right in what they assert, and wrong in what they deny. It is as if they are all looking at a town on a hill from different points of view. They all have some of the truth, and they only go wrong in failing to recognise the limitations of their own perspective, and in denying the truth of what others see. Leibniz’s ultimate ambition was to reconcile all these differences by adopting a God-like perspective, in which all the different points of view came together into a single, harmonious whole. In short, Leibniz himself made a virtue of eclecticism, and accepted a wide range of influences. If he was right, we shouldn’t bother ourselves with questions like whether he was really a Spinozist, or really a renegade Cartesian, or really a neo-Aristotelian, or really a neo-Platonist. He was all of these, and none.” – George MacDonald Ross (George MacDonald Ross is a consistently excellent commentator on Leibniz’s work, and his analyses are highly recommended.)

The Singularity We are all part of an eternal, indestructible mathematical object: the Singularity. It’s a single point made of infinite points. Each of these points contains positive infinity and negative infinity, leaving a resultant of nothing. The Singularity as a whole is permanently “nothing”, while also reflecting “everything”. The Singularity is necessary, analytic and a priori. It is uncreated and uncaused, yet creates and causes everything. It is, in some sense, GOD. But it is a fundamentally unconscious God, composed of infinite unconscious Gods (monadic souls), all striving to become true Gods: perfect and fully self-aware. The Singularity is outside space and time. It’s wholly mental and it is ALIVE. It is the quintessence of life. What is life? It’s an unquenchable, irrepressible, indestructible mental force. It can never cease thinking. Its thinking takes place primarily unconsciously, but can become conscious. It is driven by what can be called WILL. What is Will? It’s a drive to accomplish something, in particular to accomplish the ultimate: perfection. This restless striving looks exactly like Nietzsche’s Will to Power. The pursuit of perfection is the pursuit of ultimate power. Since all would-be Gods (souls) within the Singularity have exactly the same objective, and since they inevitably see many – and possibly all – of their fellow souls as a resistance (an opposition to their aims), then they are inexorably drawn into a vast, cosmic conflict. Within this war, some might enter into alliances and cooperation with others for their mutual benefit (and might come to like and love each other), some might want to rationally reach an agreed treaty (a social contract of laws), and some might prefer all out war and domination. The whole system will progress dialectically via thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Souls are subjective mathematical objects which EXPERIENCE mathematics from the inside, and mathematics from the inside is comparable to the experience of music where mathematics is the last thing that comes to mind while you’re listening to your favourite song, even though music is nothing but pure mathematics if you analyze it as sound waves, frequencies, amplitudes and phases. Mathematics is not experienced mathematically. The inside of mathematics is about will, power, desire, lust,

yearning, feeling, striving, pleasure, pain, hope, misery, ambition, love, hate, struggle, anger, depression, inspiration, bafflement, rationality, irrationality, sensations, intuitions, and so on: all the things that we ourselves experience every day. Subjective, living mathematical objects create, between them, an objective mathematical world of rigid mathematical laws that looks exactly like a scientific, clockwork machine. Thus, while mathematics from the inside is unmathematical, mathematics from the outside is completely mathematical and has flawless regularity and causality, of the kind studied by scientists. So, reality consists of mathematical subjects (free, eternal, uncreated uncaused causes that do not experience themselves mathematically but as living, thinking creatures of will, desire and reason) inhabiting caused, temporal bodies within an objective mathematical world of relentless cause and effect. We are “ghosts in a machine”, yet there is nothing paradoxical or ironic about this. It couldn’t be any other way. To put it more technically, we are free mathematical subjects, without any extension, locked into an unfree, mathematical extended object (the physical universe). We experience freedom subjectively and yet, objectively, the physical world around us is the opposite of free (it’s causal and predictable). Only when we encounter each other do we observe any freedom outside ourselves. Beings are free; the world they inhabit is not. Scientific materialism has sought to deny that we are free at all, that we are subjects at all, and it wants to portray us as causal products of the objective, inexorable world of laws, i.e. it wants to cast us as programmed machines. Science cannot accept freedom since freedom is outside scientific laws and causality, hence is inexplicable scientifically. Rather than admit its own fallacies and limitations, science arrogantly denies that anything can be “unscientific”. In the name of preserving science, scientists reject freedom! Science represents a form of insanity. Free scientists seek to prove that they are unfree. What could be madder and more perverse than that? Scientists are suffering from such a psychotic lust for objective rationality that they have become irrational. The “hyperrationality” of Illuminism is an altogether different pursuit of rationality because its primary task is to account for freedom, mind, life,

consciousness, will, desire, feelings, rationality and irrationality. The supreme task of hyperrationality is, in one sense, to explain the existence of IRRATIONALITY. Science is revolted by the notion of irrationality, of anything not happening according to strict, inescapable scientific laws. In science, irrationality, like freedom, simply does not exist. Everything is rational to the extent that it reflects deterministic laws (so nothing could happen differently). Freedom destroys the laws of science because it means that things can happen OUTSIDE implacable physical laws. Laws are not in fact implacable if they can be subverted and bypassed. That’s why it’s imperative that mathematics replaces science as our vehicle for understanding reality. Unlike science, mathematics can accommodate SUBJECTIVITY and OBJECTIVITY. It can have freedom within law. Science wants only law and no freedom. Mathematics wants freedom AND law. We are free in our subjective nature; we are lawful insofar as we inhabit an objective world of laws. Yet we can influence this objective world at any instant simply by freely carrying out any action. We are CAUSAL AGENTS. Being mathematical, we can interact seamlessly with the mathematical world of laws. We choose to move our arm and it moves. In science, we do NOT, and never do, choose to move our arm or indeed to do anything else. At all times, any action associated with us is simply the product of unseen causes and effects which programmed us to do what we did; choice did not come into it. The scientific view is, let’s face it, MAD! Science despises and rejects life and humanity. Science is as wrong in its depiction of reality as Abrahamism. It’s wholly false when it comes to life, mind and free will. We must transcend science, and mathematics is the only way out. Mathematics is centred on ZERO, the dimensionless point, associated with infinity. Zero is the quintessence of subjectivity. Science defines itself in terms of real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity, i.e. it explicitly excludes subjectivity. It is for this reason that freedom can play no part in science. Any system without zero cannot possess subjectivity, freedom, mind and life. It was Descartes who introduced the mathematical division between mind (non-extension) and matter (extension). The school of idealism then rejected the material world and said that everything was mental. The school

of materialism (science), on the other hand, rejected the mental world and said that everything was matter. Illuminism declares mind to be subjective mathematics and matter to be objective mathematics, and the two co-exist mathematically (although the objective world is a product of mind rather than the other way around: only uncreated, uncaused things can, without logical contradiction, produce a contingent, created, caused universe). You cannot have life without subjects. Science denies subjects; mathematics does not. Mathematics accounts for reality; science does not. Isn’t it time to abolish science? Mathematics can do everything science does (science’s success is wholly attributable to mathematics) and infinitely more. It’s lunacy for rational people to prefer science to mathematics and to delude themselves that it has greater explanatory power. Science is the supreme insult to life!

***** The Singularity – the Boundless, the One, the apeiron, the infinite, the limitless, the eternal, the unlimited, the indefinite, the without end, the all things, the all that can be, the eternal becoming.

***** Mathesis: learning; especially mathematics. It’s time for MATHESIS.

The Love Demon? In Plato’s Symposium, love is described as a daimon, positioned between gods and men, and tasked with mediating between them. Love interprets and translates the different languages, or meanings and modes of expression, of gods and men, and passes messages from men to the Gods and from the Gods to men. Through love, Gods transmit their commands to humanity. Through love, humanity appeals to the Gods. Sacrifices and heroism are rewarded with favours, gifts and enhanced powers. The exceptional can be elevated to Gods themselves – through divine love. To fall in love is to be possessed by the daimon and thus to be raised closer to divinity. We can all become Gods through love. Lucifer is the supreme God of Love, Satan the God of Hate and Abraxas the God of Absolute Reason.

Are You God’s friend or God’s Slave? “The Symposium is a Platonic dialogue in which several guests compose a speech about the nature of love and its characteristics. In the final part of his speech, Socrates quotes the priestess Diotima, who claims that at the end of his path towards the perfect and pure beauty, man would become theofilos (commonly translated as ‘friend of God’) and maybe immortal. The Greek word theofilos is actually a compound of two words, theos and filos, which mean ‘God’ and ‘friend, beloved’ respectively. This phrase can be interpreted either as ‘friend of God’ or ‘beloved by God’.” – Solange Daini Do you kneel to your friends? Do you get on your belly and grovel to them? Do you prostrate yourself before them? Well, if God is your friend, you wouldn’t do any of that with him either, would you? But if God is in fact your master and you are his abject slave, you would. We must completely eradicate the notion of humans being God’s slaves. If God is not our friend then he is our enemy and we must fight him and oppose him at all times.

***** In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge generates the Gods and then assigns them the task of generating men. The universe is a hierarchy of souls

distinguished by POWER. There are beings who are far more powerful than humans: these are the Phosters, Archons and Gods (good and bad).

The Solar Eclipse The sun’s diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon, but the sun is 400 times further away. Therefore, as seen from Earth, the sun and moon appear nearly the same size. And that’s the basis of a total eclipse of the sun where the moon’s disc completely covers the sun. Who ordered that? Is it not astounding? But it won’t always be the case – the moon was once closer to the earth and is now growing more distant, albeit extremely slowly.

The Price “To be willing to die for an idea is to set a rather high price on conjecture.” – Anatole France Yet if you didn’t set a price on anything – if everything were valueless – what kind of life would that be? Meaning is about assigning value – even to conjectures – and if you never do then you are a nihilist and your life is meaningless.

Planets The word “planet” comes from an ancient Greek word meaning “to wander”. Planets are cosmic wanderers. Imagine a planet becoming detached from its solar system ... (maybe its sun became a black hole and it escaped before being sucked in) ... would it wander the cosmos like the Flying Dutchman, never finding any port? Scientists now think they have discovered a free-floating planet, seven times the mass of Jupiter, which would make it rather like a small sun than a big planet. Imagine suns wandering the universe. Are free floating stars the chariots of the Gods?

The Flying Dutchman A Faustian is someone who never stops under any circumstances, who always pursues the impossible. In Moby Dick, Captain Ahab went unto death itself in his vengeful pursuit of Jehovah in his guise of a great whale. The Flying Dutchman is a spectral ship that haunts the seas, luring other ships to misfortune and destruction. Its captain, a Dutchman, was, it is said, a man who in life persisted in trying to round the Cape of Good Hope despite the appalling violence of the storms. His crew and passengers begged him to turn back, but he would have none of it. At last, the Almighty himself appeared in a vague form on the deck and ordered the captain to go back. The captain cursed and blasphemed then drew his pistol and fired on God! Thus, he brought down on himself and his vessel the most terrible of divine curses. He was condemned to roam the oceans until Judgment Day, being barred from respite in any port, and to be a torment to all ungodly ships and sailors. There are those who say the Flying Dutchman is a skeleton ship, sailed by a skeleton crew and a captain who resembles Death himself. Who but Death would shoot God through the heart?!

Matter In Aristotelian thinking, bare matter is potentiality of form. It is formless matter in want of form, and striving to acquire form. Evolution is about giving things more and more form (actuality rather than potential!), and the ultimate form is “God”, the apex of existence and supreme actualisation (all potential has been converted into actuality, meaning that matter is completely absent from God). God, being pure form and pure actuality, is not subject to change (he is like an immutable, eternal Platonic Form). He is the unmoved mover. In a sense, he resembles an enormous actualizing magnet. He draws all potential towards him and converts it into actualization, but is himself unaffected. Aristotle wasn’t a materialist in the modern scientific sense. He believed in three kinds of living substances: 1) sensible and perishable – like plants and animals (including the human body).

2) sensible but not perishable – the heavenly bodies. 3) not sensible and not perishable – the rational part of the human soul, the soul of celestial bodies, and of God (in fact, the rational human soul and the rational celestial soul both belong to God). Interestingly, the dialectical materialism of Marxism resembles Aristotle’s view. The Marxist idea is that matter can become “better”, more actualized, with mind being the highest expression of matter.

***** God, being perfect, never contemplates imperfection, hence his only object of thought is himself. As Aristotle said, “It must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking.” God is thought thinking about itself; reason reasoning. This yields a fascinating counterpoint with the Abrahamic God. The latter created an imperfect world and then spent his time contemplating all of this imperfection, suggesting an odd obsession with imperfection that’s inconsistent with being perfect. Aristotle’s God would never be so vulgar to think about human beings and their petty little lives. Incredibly, this means that Aristotle’s God isn’t actually aware of anyone other than himself! Men love God, but God doesn’t know men exist! Given that we have, in Aristotle’s thinking, a rational divine spark that belongs to God, this implies that this spark is never thinking about us but always about God. When we exercise our reason, we are operating as if we were God! When we don’t, we are mere animals. Most human beings barely have the divine spark at all, and are much closer to the beasts.

***** Although God is the unmoved mover, Aristotle says that there are either forty-seven or fifty-five unmoved movers, or “gods”, (corresponding to various astronomical bodies). We might think of these as having super versions of the divine sparks in human beings. This also implies that the rational soul in each human being is a god (or god fragment), hence an unmoved mover (and uncaused cause). The rest of our soul (our lower, animal soul) ought to be striving towards the unmoved

mover and becoming more rational. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to work for most people. Our divine spark is, or should be, our “God attractor” drawing us towards divinity. Aristotle’s God is the first cause insofar as all causality flows from him, yet he is also the final cause (teleological cause) in that everything is in a sense striving towards him. He is therefore the true alpha and omega, the first and last cause.

***** Aristotle held that only the divine spark aspect of our soul could understand philosophy and mathematics. This spark is not related to the body or the senses (and in fact belongs to God), hence can survive the body’s death. In Aristotle’s system, it might be concluded that although everyone has a soul, not everyone has a divine spark. In fact, Aristotle more or less believed that most people didn’t have “full” souls. They were little more than animals, and barely capable of rational thought. Only the likes of philosophers and mathematicians discernibly had souls, since they were the only ones clearly manifesting reason. For Aristotle, reason was literally divine. The irrational Protestant faith of Martin Luther would have been incomprehensible to Aristotle. Nothing could be less Godly than calling reason the “Devil’s whore”. It’s no wonder that Protestants reject Greek rational, pagan philosophy since it’s more or less the opposite of irrational Protestantism. Greek philosophy is for highly intelligent people and Protestant faith is for the mentally retarded, for those much closer to animals than rational humans. “Thus the immortality of mind or reason is not a personal immortality of separate men, but a share in God’s immortality. It does not appear that Aristotle believed in personal immortality, in the sense in which it was taught by Plato and afterwards by Christianity. He believed only that, in so far as men are rational, they partake of the divine, which is immortal. It is open to man to increase the element of the divine in his nature, and to do so is the highest virtue. But if he succeeded completely, he would have ceased to exist as a separate person. This is perhaps not the only possible interpretation of Aristotle’s words, but I think it is the most natural.” – Bertrand Russell

Aristotle’s view is akin to a kind of super-rational Buddhism. There’s no permanent soul, but through rational contemplation, we can become enlightened and united with the transcendent, cosmic Godhead, the ultimate rational Oneness.

Body Snatchers Body snatchers were known as Resurrection Men because they brought the dead back from their graves. Is Jesus Christ, in respect of Lazarus (and himself) therefore a Body Snatcher?

Form and Matter Monism is all about explaining reality on the basis of a single substance. Its central problem is how, then, to account for diversity. Dualism relies on two substances but then has to give a sufficient reason why existence produced two substances rather than one, and explain how they can interact with each other if they are completely different. The Cartesian mind-matter dualism is the most famous example. As for monism, even it has the tendency to mutate into a form of dualism. Schopenhauer, for example, said that everything was Will, but this gave rise to two distinct domains: the noumenal and phenomenal. So, although this is a monism, it looks like dualism conducted by other means. Historically, there has always been a tension between body and mind, which has been handled in a variety of ways, mostly unconvincingly. Pythagoras, with his doctrine of numbers being the single, monistic substance of existence, got the right answer, but couldn’t prove it and his view was far too abstract for most people. Plato came up with a triadic system. He said that there was a domain of perfect Forms (the mental domain), a domain of intractable matter (the material world) and a living domain where things that partook of the Form of Life existed. Life, like the Forms, is immaterial, so a living being is a subject that mentally experiences Forms/Ideas. For Plato, the supreme living being was the Demiurge. Like a cosmic sculptor, the Demiurge contemplated the Forms, applied their designs to the clay-like material world and created our physical world: an inferior copy of the perfect domain of Forms. Living beings – souls – were then able to inhabit various suitable material objects (plants, animals, humans and even stars and planets) and animate them. However, life was something wholly

separate from matter, although it could control it. When matter “died”, life didn’t. Life was inherently immortal. Aristotle, Plato’s star pupil, didn’t like this scheme so set about radically revising it. He particularly disliked the seemingly, free-floating, transcendent domain of Forms, and so simply abolished it. The Forms then had to go somewhere else, so he integrated them with LIFE. Whereas life, for Plato, was contained in individual, independent, immortal souls, Aristotle thought in terms of a single cosmic life force. There were no individual souls. (Thus, it was a Buddhist-like understanding of life since Buddhism also denies individual, immortal soul-selves. This division between individual soul-selves versus a collective life force is one that recurs throughout philosophy and religious thinking.) Having retained Plato’s claylike dead matter, Aristotle now had a dualism of life (form) and dead matter. Where Plato had used the Demiurge to bring Forms and matter together, Aristotle brought them together as a natural process. Life simply interpenetrated matter; matter became infused with life. However, there were two extremes where no union took place. Formless matter was matter that had not been penetrated by living Form hence was just dead, shapeless “gloop” or barren rock. At the other end of the scale was matterless Form which could co-exist with matter but not be affected by it. This matterless Form was REASON and living reason was Aristotle’s immortal God. Reason was the only aspect of life that was “immune” to matter. All other aspects of life entered into a union with the matter it inhabited and thus gave rise to living matter (hylozoism). This living matter was teleological and its primary purpose was to try to emulate Reason, to strive towards it and try to make itself more rational. Thus, living matter was always seeking to increase its pure matterless Form component (reason) and thus decrease the ratio of matter to Form. In a sense, living Form had fallen into matter and was now seeking to extricate itself via the exercise of such reason as was available to it. If the process were to continue indefinitely, matter and life would separate entirely and you would have two incompatible substances (dead, formless matter) and living reason (pure matterless form – God). The world we experience is full of collections of matter that might be considered as living programs. Each thing is programmed to complete a specific task that characterizes its nature. Crystals are programmed to keep

extending their structure. An acorn is programmed to become an oak tree. A fertilized human egg is programmed to become an adult human being. Human beings are uniquely equipped with a divine spark of reason, but this doesn’t belong to us but to God. Only this God-spark will survive our death because only it is matterless form, completely independent of matter. Although “irrational life” seems to die with matter, we must presume that it does not die completely and is somehow recycled – because otherwise it would vanish from existence, or be wholly swallowed by dead matter. Thus living matter is programmed to “die” (to reach the end of its program), but not to lose the life it inherently contains. We might imagine that when an oak tree dies, its life returns to the soil and will become associated in due course with a new acorn and new oak tree (this is therefore like a reincarnational system operating within Nature). Stoicism turned Aristotle’s system into something rather more logical and systematic, and Neoplatonism did the same for Platonism. However, Stoicism and Neoplatonism were in turn swallowed by Catholicism, and later ditched by Protestantism. Catholicism, it must be stressed, is, in its truest and highest sense, a philosophy as much as a religion. Protestantism abandoned the philosophical aspect and reduced Christianity to a religion alone, based on scripture and faith. Stupid people flocked to Protestantism, and, to this day, Protestantism is a central vehicle of idiocy in our world. Stupid rightwingers find Protestantism highly attractive. Islamic philosophers discovered Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism and Neoplatonism and tried to incorporate them within Islam. However, their heroic attempts failed and Islam, like Protestantism, wholly rejected philosophy and embraced the Koran and faith alone, just as Protestants accept the Bible and faith alone. Therefore, Protestantism and Islam reflect the same anti-intellectual tendency and are obsessed with a single “holy book” and faith. These are two grotesquely irrational and backward religions. In Dante’s day, Catholics wanted to reconcile religion, science and philosophy. Nowadays, most Catholics have zero understanding of Catholic philosophy and aren’t taught it. Like Protestants, they focus on scripture and faith. Religion has entirely divorced itself from philosophy, science and reason – which is why no intelligent person in the modern world can have anything to do with ANY mainstream religion.

Illuminism is the return to a religion that embraces philosophy and science, and does so through the supreme rational subject – mathematics.

Ether For Aristotle, ether was the eternal, crystal-clear element of the heavens. The celestial spheres were immutable and eternal (like the perfect Forms of Plato). The motion of the etheric crystal spheres was always circular because the circle provided a constant, eternal, perfect orbit. Illuminism is also based on perfect circles – “Euler circles” defined in the complex plane. Illuminism is the religion of the rings and Abraxas is Lord of the Rings.

Bad Wind Aristotle compared the Earth to the human body. Just as “winds” within the body erupt in various ways (!), so winds inside Earth produce tremors, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes because there are no release valves (orifices). The Earth, we might say, is suffering from permanent Delhi Belly and its tummy is always growling and grumbling. Vomiting – or worse – can happen at any moment.

Geometrical Atoms Plato said that the four natural elements (earth, water, air and fire) were composed of geometrical atoms (a Pythagorean-inspired idea). Thus, earth atoms were cubes (like building bricks), water atoms were icosahedrons, air atoms were octahedrons, and light fire atoms were tetrahedrons. The Cosmos “atom” (the whole finite universe) was characterised as a dodecahedron (the regular polyhedral shape closest in volume to a sphere fitted around it), with its twelve sides matching the twelve signs of the zodiac. We might see atoms of ether (the fifth element) in these terms (as beautiful dodecahedrons). Plato remarked, “There still remained a fifth construction, which the god used for embroidering the constellations on the whole heaven.” All of these atoms are transparent. Human vision adds the colour, and without it, the world would be invisible!

The Sphere of Fire For Aristotelians, our planet is a sphere of the element “earth” (the lithosphere), partially covered by a sphere of the element water (the

aquasphere) then surrounded by a sphere of the element air (the atmosphere) and finally a sphere of fire (the thermosphere), above which are the ether crystal spheres of the celestial region. The “sphere of fire” was deemed responsible for the “char marks” on the moon. In Aristotle’s view, the heat of the sun penetrates through to the earth, but warmth also comes from the sphere of fire, which heats the upper air. To some, it was illogical to have two sources of heat (the sphere of fire and the sun), so they asserted that the sun produced light rays alone. As these passed through the sphere of fire, they were heated up by the fire, and thus they delivered warmth to the Earth. Clever! The ideas of the ancients were often rather ingenious, even if many of them now seem quite preposterous. They were not mad beliefs but rational within the terms of the available knowledge. Many religious beliefs were rational two thousand years ago, but are now irrational given what humanity now knows. Modern Abrahamists are much stupider than those of long ago since those earlier ones were not choosing to ignore and reject the enormous amount of knowledge to which we now have access. Abrahamism becomes more and more intellectually unpardonable with every passing day.

Comets Aristotle said that comets originated in the interface between the fiery sphere and air sphere. The air could be set on fire in some places by “shooting stars” and they would burn until they reached cooler air, or plunged into the water sphere. Presumably, comets were assembled from earth that had been swept into the air by winds and all clumped together. “Another [reason why heat reaches our world] is that the fire surrounding the air is often scattered by the motion of the heavens and driven downwards in spite of itself. Shooting-stars further suffix to prove that the celestial sphere is not hot or fiery: for they do not occur in that upper region but below: yet the more and the faster a thing moves, the more apt it is to take fire. Besides, the sun, which most of all the stars is considered to be hot, is really white and not fiery in colour.” – Aristotle The last sentence suggests that Aristotle was none too sure that the sun was the source of the world’s heat and, even if it was, it was not a fiery ball or

any kind of grandiose, orbiting shooting star. Regarding the Aurora Borealis and Milky Way, Aristotle explained these as effects of fire and air interactions.

The Soul Like Plato, Aristotle divided the soul into rational and irrational parts. The irrational part was made up of a vegetative part (found in plants, animals and humans) and an appetitive part (found in animals and humans). The rational part was found only in humans and was what distinguished them from the animals (so irrational humans are essentially animals!). The appetitive part had a degree of reason if it showed an appetite for rational things.

Moderns versus Ancients Modern scientists regard living bodies as elaborate machines. The ancients did the opposite and regarded elaborate machines as alive: thus, suns, planets and moons were all living gods. It’s fascinating that the ancient mind was so attuned to life (and religion) and the modern mind to death (and atheism). Why did death become the ruling paradigm? It was because of empiricist materialist science. Science had no need of anything messy such as life and free will – so it ignored them and treated everything as machinery. This proved so successful that it became holy writ. To this day, science has nothing meaningful to say about life, mind, consciousness or free will, and doesn’t much care. Scientists expect some machine-like answer to present itself in due course. Mind states will, they expect, be shown to be materialist brain states. Consciousness will be shown to be a meaningless epiphenomenon. Free will won’t exist, and life will just be a peculiar mode of death associated with self-propelled motion. Happy with that? Scientific materialism is the ultimate death cult. It exterminates meaning. It constitutes a pathological desire to be a machine rather than human.

The Empiricists Modern empiricism was a British phenomenon. Francis Bacon invented the basic scientific method and the modern notion that all reliable knowledge ought to be available to observation. Robert Boyle, Thomas Hobbes, John

Locke, Bishop Berkeley and David Hume were all champions of empiricism. Newton became the absolute champion and patron saint of scientific empiricism. It must say something about the British character and culture that this tendency arose. In Germany, logic and reason dominated. The Germans were the supreme idealists. They produced Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Hartmann. Marx and Nietzsche, seeming materialists, also had traits that weren’t so different from the idealists. Just as the Greeks were intellectuals and the Romans practical, the Germans were the intellectuals and the British the practical ones. That’s why the British built a vast empire and the Germans didn’t. It’s also why Germany is enormously smarter and more cultured than Britain.

Living Programs For Aristotle, the “soul” wasn’t – as Plato maintained – something detachable from the body and intrinsically separate from it. Rather, it was a kind of living program that executed, via the body, a code called “human life”. The program and body were indissolubly linked. The death of the body meant the program had reached its end. Leibniz took forward this notion of a living program, but made it an eternal program, coded (according to his published Monadology) by God. The soul was what allowed the body to move, organize itself, grow and develop. Without the soul, the body was just dead matter. The soul is what something can do. Just as sight is the “soul” of the eye, all the capacities of a human constitute the human soul.

Aristotle and Science Was Aristotle a modern-style scientist? No, he didn’t have a scientific method. He didn’t subject hypotheses to rigorous experiments. Above all, he invoked verboten teleological explanations. Strangely, although Aristotle rejected Plato’s eternal, immutable domain of Forms, his cosmology seemed intent on constructing something reminiscent of it. Everything above the moon was made of ether that could not be changed or destroyed (it was immutable and eternal). Everything below the moon was subject to decay and transformation, like the world fashioned by Plato’s Demiurge.

God God, according to Aristotle, is pure reason. He is the Prime Mover, the Unmoved Mover. He causes others to change and move but he himself is not changed or moved. He simply thinks, and all he thinks about is himself. Oddly, this inspires overwhelming love in everything else and it is this love which makes them move and change in order to be more like God. Our higher rationality is a spark – a seed – of God. When we contemplate the unchanging, rational universe, we are divine. We are close to God as we will ever be. We are thinking God’s thoughts.

Active and Passive Reason

Aristotle drew a distinction between active and passive reason. The latter is organizational, mechanical and process-oriented. It resembles a computer, doing everything neutrally and mechanically. Active reason is creative, positive, and it makes knowledge rather than simply processing knowledge.

The Brain Oddly, Aristotle thought the brain was a cooling system for overheated blood, as were the lungs. In his opinion, the heart was the body’s key organ, the first to form, and the seat of intelligence, motion, and sensation. It was the master sense organ to which all the other senses sent their messages, and which then rationally pondered them. He described it as a three-chambered organ that was the centre of the body’s vitality. As a hot, dry organ (associated with the subtle fiery element), it needed extensive cooling, which the brains and lungs supplied. Aristotle probably took the notion of the heart’s critical importance from the Egyptians who threw the brain away in the mummification process but preserved the heart with the utmost care. It seems astonishing that anyone could ever have believed that the heart was the centre of intelligence. The intelligence automatically seems like something sitting behind the eyes – where the brain is. However, that is to apply a modern sensibility. Given that death most obviously happened when the heart stopped, or when the life-giving blood it pumped was spilled, it must have seemed to the ancients the logical source of our life force. If the mind, or reason, wasn’t physical then why shouldn’t it be linked to the heart rather than anywhere else? After all, it had to be linked to somewhere. (Descartes was later to choose the pineal gland – a tiny organ in the centre of the brain – as the principal seat of the soul and the place in which all of our thoughts are formed.)

Hylomorphism Hylomorphism (from the ancient Greek hylo- (“wood, matter”) and morphism (from the ancient Greek morphē, “form”) was the name of Aristotle’s philosophical theory whereby substance is defined as a compound of matter and form. If form is associated with life then hylomorphism converges on hylozoism (“living matter”).

For Aristotle, “soul” is that which makes a living thing alive; it is the defining form of living things, but, crucially, it’s still just a form. That is, it is not something of a wholly different category from the form of something inorganic such as a crystal. A soul is to its body as form is to matter, and is simply a special case of that matter-form relation.

The Pythagorean Soul “The soul of man is divided into three parts, intelligence, reason, and passion. Intelligence and passion are possessed by other animals, but reason by man alone.” – Pythagoras Plato retained the Pythagorean tripartite soul but merged reason and intelligence and replaced “passion” with separate categories of spirit and desire. Plato’s refinement is better since it fits naturally with body areas: reason belongs to the head; spirit belongs to the heart and desire to the gut. However, Pythagoras’ distinction between intelligence and reason is intriguing. The irrational – such as Abrahamists and animals – can demonstrate cunning, “common sense” and “street wisdom” without straying anywhere near philosophical reason.

The Wisdom of Pythagoras “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.” – Pythagoras Both Plato and Aristotle agreed with Pythagoras that, ultimately, only reason is divine and immortal. “Friends share all things.” – Pythagoras Pythagoras was a supreme advocate of community living and sharing. Plato’s Republic adopts the community approach for the Guardians, the ruling elite who must live as communists, with no private property. “Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and daemons.” – Pythagoras Here we see Pythagoras’s famous doctrine that mathematics underlies everything, including the gods. Mathematics makes the gods; the gods do not make mathematics. “Number rules the universe.” – Pythagoras This was the central motto of the Pythagoreans. “Man know thyself; then thou shalt know the Universe and God.” – Pythagoras

From this statement are derived such famous expressions as as above, so below and man is a microcosm of the universe. It also reveals the key Pythagorean doctrine that, through self-understanding, we ourselves can become Gods. “Educate the children and it won’t be necessary to punish the men.” – Pythagoras For Pythagoras, as for Freud millennia later, childhood is the key to everything. If children were raised and educated properly, there would be no crime! “Respect yourself above all.” – Pythagoras Self-respect, self-esteem and self-confidence are essential in the Pythagorean philosophy. “None can be free who is a slave to, and ruled by, his passions.” – Pythagoras Reason is the keystone of Pythagoreanism. And we must overcome the animal passions that drag us down, deceive us and render us irrational. “No man is free who cannot command himself.” – Pythagoras Never be a slave. Never subscribe to a system (such as Abrahamism) that enslaves you. “A solitary man is a God, or a beast.” – Pythagoras In fact, even a God would be a beast if left permanently on his own. The Abrahamic “God” could never have been anything other than a mad beast. “None but a Craftsman can judge of a craft.” – Pythagoras Let the meritocrats, the experts, decide. Don’t leave it to the “Protestants” who proclaim themselves experts after the most cursory study of a subject or craft. There would be no such things as conspiracy theories if you had to be the equivalent of an expert on M-theory before you could pontificate on why skyscrapers, for example, shouldn’t collapse when struck by huge, fuel-laden jets travelling at full speed. “Better be mute, than dispute with the Ignorant.” – Pythagoras

Don’t debate with fools!

The Soul – Free or Imprisoned? In Plato’s view, the soul was unhappily imprisoned in the body. In Aristotle’s view, the marriage of soul and body was perfect. The soul wasn’t an alien intruder in a recalcitrant body, but rather the conductor and director of the eager body.

The Dichotomy Plato divided the universe into two: the intelligible (to be understood by reason) versus the sensible (to be detected by the senses). This distinction evolved into rationalism versus empiricism. The rationalists are confident that they can work out everything through the exercise of reason alone. The empiricists assert that any reliable knowledge must be based on our sensory awareness and experience. Mathematics is the archetypal rationalist subject since it requires no sensory input at all (once the basic concepts are defined). Science is the classic empiricist subject. The astounding paradox is that science is so heavily reliant on mathematics. That ought to have alerted the empiricists to a fundamental flaw with their philosophy. How can an empiricist undertaking be underpinned by a hyperrationalist subject that has no requirement of experiments and the senses at all? No scientist has ever explained this. When science is regarded as more “real” than mathematics, surely the tail is wagging the dog.

We Are All Part of God’s Mind Nicholas Malebranche is reported to have said, “God is the place where thinking happens in the same way that space is the place where motion happens.” We can think of the Singularity as God’s Mind, and the extended Cartesian-Gaussian universe as space (including imaginary space from which time is derived). In Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy, all souls are essentially inside God’s mind. The same could be said of Descartes’ philosophy. In essence, ALL mind-based philosophies have all minds/souls brought together outside space and time, hence within a dimensionless point (a

Singularity). As soon as you see the term “outside space and time”, it implies a mental singularity.

No Creator Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” did not create the universe; rather, he merely kept it in motion. If motion is regarded as a primary feature of existence (as it was by Leibniz) then the unmoved mover can be dispensed with.

Causality “Nature does not act without a goal.” – Aristotle Aristotle’s understanding of causality was enormously more sophisticated than that of modern science, and arguably far superior. For Aristotle, any causal event involves four factors, operating simultaneously: 1) The Material Cause describes the material out of which something is made. For example, the material cause of a wooden table is, of course, wood. The material cause is not about action but instead about the material nature of the things involved. 2) The Formal Cause relates to the form of the substances involved in the causal event, i.e. to the particular arrangement of matter, its properties and characteristics. Again, it is not about action. The material and formal causes reflect the fundamental contrast between matter and form but, since matter and form are always found together in nature, they are closely linked. You couldn’t have one without the other. 3) The Efficient Cause is the immediate trigger of a causal event. This is the closest to the modern, scientific definition of a cause. It is about action rather than content. 4) The Final Cause is the purpose for which a causal event takes place in the first place. This is the most controversial because it involves teleology, and implies a universe imbued with meaning, purpose, intentions and intelligence. This type of causality is absolutely denied by scientific materialists who deny that the universe has any purposes whatsoever. Teleology implies that the universe is a living organism; non-teleology implies that it’s a lifeless machine.

Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder up a hill, and see it roll down again as soon as he had reached the summit. Consider the moment when Sisyphus’s divine punisher pushes the boulder down the hill. What are the relevant Aristotelian factors involved, the four causal agents? The nature of the boulder is the “material” cause. The properties of the boulder, taking into account the nature of the lie of the land with regard to the position of the boulder (the Form of the boulder requires it to roll down hills rather than propel itself upwards), is the “formal” cause. The divine push is the “efficient” cause – the immediate causal trigger of the boulder rolling down the hill. There is also a “final” cause, which, in this case, we might describe in physical terms as the “law that everything must strive to reach its lowest energy state” (and in mental terms as the gods’ requirement that the boulder should roll back to its starting position). All things are obeying the ultimate purposes determined by the laws of science (and gods). Laws themselves are archetypally teleological. They reflect intelligence at operation in the universe. If there were no intelligence, why would there be any laws? Why not just chaos and randomness? Of course, science denies all teleological explanations and is interested only in “efficient” causes – the immediate and obvious triggers for events. Yet consider flipping a sugar bowl upside down. The flipping action is the efficient cause of the sugar falling onto the ground. But why does the sugar fall onto the ground in a messy way, rather than as a very neat, cup-shaped heap? The “efficient” cause has nothing to do with the disordered mess the sugar makes, so what’s the efficient cause of that? We now see that scientific causality is incomplete. The efficient cause has to be accompanied by the nature of the sugar (its material cause), the nature of what sugar does and what its properties are (the formal cause) and the nature of what laws all substances obey (the final cause). The sugar makes a mess ultimately because of the “final” cause of having to obey the law of entropy. If it didn’t have to obey that invisible, immaterial law, it wouldn’t have to make a mess! Aristotle’s methodology provides a far more detailed explanation than science does. “Efficient” causes are simplistic and incomplete. They beg endless questions.

David Hume famously pointed out that causality was not something observed but only something inferred (hence mental not physical). Kant provided an answer to Hume, but Kant was an idealist not a materialist. No scientific materialist has EVER responded to Hume’s challenge, or in fact even considered it. Causality is taken for granted by science and yet causality is neither empiricist nor materialist. Scientists observe sequences of physical invents and assign causality, but there is nothing to guarantee that what happens today will happen tomorrow. All the causal attributions you make today could be overturned tomorrow. To claim otherwise is to make an appeal to things – scientific laws – that are not observable things in the material world. You cannot perform experiments on laws themselves. They don’t decay or change, so they are very different from material things. Where are they? What are they? Why are they? They’ll be throwing snowballs in hell before any scientist provides any answers. Science, being pragmatic, simply ignores the myriad tacit, and unverified, assumptions it uses. It has no shame! Kant made causality part of the apparatus of the mind itself. The mind automatically generates causal relations as one of its properties. Science ignores the issue and takes causality for granted, without having any understanding or explanation of it at all. Isn’t it remarkable that causality is the quintessence of science and yet not one scientist has ever lived who could explain what causality is and how it came to be? Why does an upturned sugar bowl produce increased entropy? There is nothing in the nature of turning a bowl upside down that causes entropy. So where does the entropy come from? We can’t see any entropic force at work. Have you noticed what scientists are doing? They’re adding other things to the efficient cause (the overturning of a sugar bowl) to “explain” what then happens to the sugar. They dismiss teleological explanations while freely introducing ad hoc causal explanations and embellishments that have no place within their empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Scientific laws themselves provide no part of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science since laws are not material or observable, are immutable and eternal, and have no known origins. No scientist has ever plausibly explained where laws come from and how they exist at all. Laws are in fact science’s “magic ingredient”. They are an appeal to something outside science, yet no scientist ever comments on that.

Remarkably, science’s greatest challenge isn’t to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, but to explain its own laws! If it can’t explain those then it can’t, ultimately, explain anything at all. Causality is “added on” to the physical world. Because it is contingent and synthetic a posteriori (in terms of the scientific paradigm), and inductive rather than deductive, it could all be different tomorrow. Scientific laws are not anything you can rely on. They suffer from every challenge that Hume posed, and scientists have answered none of them, and shown no interest in answering any of them. Science, you see, is not a proper academic subject. It is about pragmatism and instrumentalism. It is a tool, a method, a results generator. It is not about truth and absolute knowledge. In fact, it has nothing to do with these. When Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations,” he could easily have been talking about science. Since science can’t explain its laws or the ontological nature of causality then, ipso facto, there are no scientific “facts”. The whole of science is just one vast interpretation according to an extremely flawed paradigm that ignores life, mind, consciousness and free will. Science’s only saving grace – the only thing that makes people take it seriously – is that it is EFFECTIVE. But effectiveness is neither truth nor knowledge. Newton’s theory of gravity was effective and experimentally validated, yet wholly false in terms of reality. Absolute space doesn’t exist, absolute time doesn’t exist and gravity isn’t transmitted instantaneously across any distance through a void. And why should we take Einsteinian physics, the replacement of Newtonian physics, any more seriously? It’s more effective than Newtonian physics but it will of course be replaced by something else more effective in due course. Science becomes more effective as time goes by, but not necessarily any truer. The scientific method produces better results and more effective hypotheses over time but the scientific method has ZERO connection with absolute truth and knowledge. It’s a method based on experiments, not on necessary truths. Scientists are clueless about the truth. They are philosophically naïve and illiterate. They use mathematics without having any idea of what it is. They don’t see that science and mathematics belong to radically different and incompatible Meta Paradigms. A scientist is someone who wants results and to produce scientific papers to advance his career, status and pay packet. He is not someone

interested in the truth. If he were, he’d be a philosopher, and we all know that scientists have sheer contempt for philosophy.

***** Aristotelian causality is often depicted as: Change From (the material cause) –> Change Into (the formal cause) –> By (the efficient cause) –> For (the final cause).

***** Final causes – laws, as we might say in scientific terms – operate atemporally, i.e. they are always and immutably present. They are eternal elements guiding temporal evolution. In this sense, causality does not indicate a strict temporal relation between the cause and the effect. It’s much more complicated than that, with eternity having to be factored in.

***** The formal cause – a caterpillar transforms so that it can become a butterfly. That’s its nature. Aristotle characterizes the soul as not only the formal cause of a living body, but as the final and efficient causes as well. Final causes – unmoved movers – have a kind of spiritual gravitational pull. They are attractors, drawing things towards them. Astrologers typically regard the celestial bodies as unmoved movers exerting a spiritual attraction across the cosmos, and the precise configuration of the planets, sun and moon at your birth will determine your character – what you strive towards; what is the dominant cosmic “attractor” influencing you.

***** The efficient cause initiates an event. The final, teleological cause in some sense occurs before and after the event. If you drive to the shops to buy some groceries, the final cause is realized when you collect your groceries, yet it was also the first cause since it was why you set out in the first place.

A scientist thinks only of the car journey itself, and never considers why it is being performed. “The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God.” – Bertrand Russell DF: “I’ve always found a certain fascination and elegance with regards to Aristotle’s symmetric scheme of four causes. Illuminism attempts, and in spite of my incomplete knowledge of it, I would speculate it succeeds, to explain and relate the world and all four types of causes in a unified framework. Proponents of ‘scientific materialism’ only ‘perceive’ the material and efficient causes, and only acknowledge the ‘formal’ and ‘final’ causes at most at an unconscious level (the opposite pattern would result in a form of animism, possibly possessed by primitive people). Under closer examination, through the perspective of the full framework, scientific materialism does seem incredibly bizarre. Any argument for its inconsistency makes implicit appeal to the two unacknowledged causes. Simply put, scientific materialism is superb at describing the ‘how’ (efficient and material causes), but collapses under the scrutiny of ‘why’ (formal and final causes). However, for scientific materialists, there is no ‘why’.” Science is the attempt to work back from observation to how the world must be. Teleology is the attempt to work out why the world is as it is and what it’s trying to actualize. Science is a posteriori and teleology a priori. Since a priori thinking is rationalist, and has no need of experiments, science hates it.

Substance For Aristotle, a specific combination of matter and form constitutes a “substance”. So, take a lump of matter, “inject” a form into it and, voila, you have a substance. That means that a lump of formless matter on its own is not a substance. It also means that God – matterless form – is not a substance. Aristotle’s view of a substance might be compared with “living” computing. A substance is a combination of hardware (matter) and software (Form), and the hardware is programmed by the software to execute a

characteristic program which defines the substance. An acorn program is designed to turn the acorn into an oak tree. Software on its own is not a substance, and nor is hardware on its own. Only the combination is a substance.

Forms Plato’s philosophy is somewhat static. Matter is dead and Forms are eternal, immutable and stuck in a transcendent domain. How, therefore, does Plato account for change? He has to invoke eternal life forces (souls). Only they can cause movement and change. Aristotle, like the Buddhists, denies the existence of permanent soulselves. But he too invokes “life” as the cause of movement and change. Except life is no longer about individual souls but rather a general life force which can be divided into specific “bundles” which are placed inside matter to achieve specific ends. Aristotle characterizes the life force as something that is all about converting potential into actualization. Any substance begins in a state of high potentiality and low actuality, then sets about reducing the potential and increasing the actualization. A perfect “life” for the substance is one in which its potential is perfectly fulfilled and it has expressed itself to the maximum extent. Aristotle removes Forms from their static Platonic domain and makes them dynamic agents. Life is not about immortal souls but a single life force which expresses itself in myriad ways. This is rather like Schopenhauer’s view where life is a single Will that manifests itself in endless individuated ways. Will cannot die, so the end of any specific expression of the Will simply means that the Will it contained is released to appear somewhere else. Aristotle’s view is essentially driven by biology (science) and Plato’s by mathematics. Aristotle’s view is highly teleological because living things are always striving for particular ends. Modern science is a strange hybrid of Plato and Aristotle’s views. It accepts, more or less, the Aristotelian union of matter and form, yet rejects Aristotelian teleology (it dismisses the biological view of existence and replaces it with a machine view). It tacitly embraces transcendent, immortal Platonic mathematical laws while completing repudiating Platonic souls.

Aristotle’s view of existence as a vast biological organism was not overthrown until the rise of modern philosophy. Descartes separated life (Form; mind) and matter (extension) into two distinct domains, and science then promptly got rid of the living domain, leaving just dead matter, which then gave rise to the prevailing scientific machine paradigm.

***** Given that Plato talked of the world soul, planetary souls, and so on, and Aristotle spoke of a perfect rational soul – God (matterless form), it’s not clear how pure matter – that is something that is completely independent of soul/form could ever exist. Doesn’t form, one way or another, exist everywhere and penetrate everything? If matter and form can’t ever be found apart, how can they be considered separate substances or modes of existence with antagonistic properties? How did two such different things come into existence? What sufficient reason is there for two kinds of things to exist, especially two such different things?

Nature The key to Aristotle’s thinking is, “Nature does not act without a goal.” This is the gospel of teleology. Science absolutely denies any meaning or purpose to anything. Science is interested only in how – process – and not why – motivation. Living things have motivation; machines don’t. Science cannot overcome its prejudice against life and free will. Biological entities strive towards ends; physical entities don’t. Plato viewed existence mathematically and religiously, Aristotle viewed it biologically and barely religiously, and modern science views it in terms of physics and atheism. Mathematics, perhaps surprisingly, is the true bedrock and defender of religion while physics is its deadliest enemy. Modern science killed the concept of “final cause”, i.e. of something inexorably drawing everything else towards it. In Illuminism, the final cause is the optimal solution of the cosmic equation. The mathematical universe cannot stop until it solves itself. Mathematics is teleological; physics isn’t. Teleology MUST be returned to humanity’s understanding of reality. A universe without purpose, without meaning, without WHY is a dead and

pointless place. Our own existence, our own teleology, proves that existence cannot be as physics characterizes it.

Heaven Plato’s eternal domain of perfect Forms – which souls can inhabit, and from where they originally came – is a dazzling impression of heaven. Aristotle had no such heaven. However, he did have an immaterial being of perfect rationality (God), and all humans had a spark of this perfection (our active reason). In Aristotle’s scheme, God was the rational soul of existence and everything yearned to be Godlike or closer to God. “Love” of God motivated everything. Things, in a sense, physically moved towards God. Dante’s astounding Paradiso is all about God being a kind of love magnet, and everything happening in the heavens through unconditional love of God. This is the ultimate hippie dream: a God of love drawing all souls into the embrace of his perfect, unconditional love. In the Aristotelian version, however, it is not love of love but love of REASON that provides the engine of change. Here, then, we see the classic division between a thinking type (Aristotle) and feeling types (Christians). Aristotle’s God thinks about existence and in fact about his own rational perfection (the only subject worthy of his consideration). The Christian God doesn’t think at all. He simply loves (allegedly). Strange, then, that Christianity has been the most violent, intolerant and hate-filled religion in history (and also the most successful religion in history! – what does that say about humanity?). It’s no surprise that Christians are irrational and ignorant – their God has no interest in reason and knowledge (and reason and knowledge do not feature at all in the “holy” Bible, except to be condemned as Satanic, as in the tale of the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge). You can’t be part of Aristotle’s “religion” without being smart, but a vegetable can be a Christian!

***** Marxist dialectical materialism strives for a perfect society. It seeks to “immanentize the eschaton” – to try to bring about the eschaton (the final, heaven-like stage of history) in the present world, i.e. to create heaven here on Earth.

Science rejects that the universe is striving towards anything. Physically, it is heading towards heat death, but it does so without any purpose or meaning. In science, nothing has any aims. Things just happen. Processes occur. There is no teleology. Science introduced a radical change in human thinking from life (the universe as an organism) to death (the universe as a machine). Automatically, this switched the attitude of thinking people from a religious sentiment to atheism. It’s almost impossible now for any thinking person to express religious sentiments, yet science has no rational basis for denying life, mind, consciousness, teleology and free will. Human beings themselves (including scientists!) are the ultimate proof of the absurdity of the scientific position. It’s purely for dogmatic, ideological reasons (concerning the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science) that scientists are life deniers. It’s now unquestionable that life is an immaterial, unextended, dimensionless phenomenon, just as Descartes said, and as was already implied by Plato. It’s therefore self-evident that science can say nothing about life since life is inconsistent with the scientific Meta Paradigm. Science can address life only if it abandons empiricism in favour of rationalism, and materialism in favour of idealism. In short, Newton and Einstein must be deposed and Pythagoras, Plato, and Leibniz must reign in their place.

Reason Do we grasp reality through the mind (reason) or the senses? You’re not much of an intellectual if you think the irrational senses outgun reason. People who put mind first are asserting that reality is primarily mental and that a completely different mental existence is possible from the one we are experiencing now. People who put the senses first are asserting that reality is primarily physical, that mind is a product of matter, and there is no “other world” beyond the one we see (hence no afterlife). Mind supports religion (the existence of an immaterial, immortal soul) and implies that the world is a kind of illusion. Matter denies any possibility of religion. This is the only world, and when you die, you’re dead. Full stop. Thinking and feeling intuitives support the primacy of mind. Thinking sensing types support the primacy of matter.

Feeling sensing types are people of faith (i.e. they don’t think at all). Even the empiricist Aristotle recognized that active, creative reason transcended the material world and was immortal.

***** Those who support the primacy of mind refuse to put it IN matter. For Plato, the mind was immaterial and separate from matter, yet forced into an unholy, mad alliance with it. For Aristotle, the empiricist, the mind was matter’s conductor. It was truly inside matter, and the cause of all that it did.

Return to the Stars Plato said that each soul belonged to a star in the firmament. Up there, it was perfectly rational and intuitive. Then something terrible happened to it. It became possessed of an obsession for the world of the senses. It was overwhelmed by lust and desire. And thus it fell. It became ensnared in the sensory domain, trapped in matter – imprisoned. Moreover, it had lost its mind: its reason had succumbed to irrational forces. In the world of the senses, Dionysus always defeats Apollo. The soul tasted Dionysian wine and became drunk. Confusion and disorientation overwhelmed it. This world of ours is a planetary prison and madhouse for fallen souls that have parted company with their reason. Death provides no release: reincarnation simply throws you back into the vortex. There’s only one escape route: reason. You must regain that which you lost: your rational faculty. You must overcome your senses and your desires. What then? Then you return to the glittering star whence you came. There’s no place like home! While you are exiled from your home, you always feel strange, alienated and lost. You’re certain that something is terribly wrong. Reason alone can cure what afflicts you. Apollo (Logos) must conquer Dionysus (Mythos).

***** The easiest way to imagine Plato’s eternal domain of perfect Forms is as the Empyrean that exists outside the finite material sphere of Aristotle’s cosmology. That is, the mental domain everywhere surrounds the material world. Souls, located in their rightful stars, exist in the crystal sphere of the

firmament, and they gaze upwards upon the wondrous Empyrean. As the firmament rotates, the souls get to see all of the Forms, and to understand EVERYTHING. And thus they become the Gods themselves.

Timaeus According to Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge created the universe as a single living creature – a great cosmic sphere of life (the World Soul) – containing within itself all other living things, mortal and immortal. The Demiurge himself made the immortal things (the subordinate gods, his children, so to speak) that inhabited the living sphere. To them, he entrusted the task of creating humans. The gods took an immortal soul, placed it in a skull and added a body. To the immortal soul, they then added a “mortal” soul. This contained: 1) the feeling of pleasure, “the chief incitement to wrong”. 2) the feeling of pain, which scares people away from the good. 3) confidence and fear. 4) two foolish counsellors: obstinate passion and credulous hope. 5) irrational sensation. 6) desire. The immortal soul in the head was kept separate from the mortal soul by the isthmus of the neck. The higher part of the mortal soul (containing courage, passion, spirit and ambition) was located in the heart where it could listen to the commands of reason, and unite with reason to combat the appetites when they refused to obey the “word of command from the citadel”. The lower part of the mortal soul (lust, desire, the appetite for food, drink and the natural needs of the body) was located in the gut. So, reason was the immortal soul located in the head. The “feelings” part of the mortal soul was located in the heart and the “appetites” part in the belly. The mortal part of the soul dies with the body. Only the rational soul (reason) is immortal and survives death. So, if you’re not rational, you’re toast!

Organicism

“Organicism is the philosophical perspective which views the universe and its parts as organic wholes and – either by analogy or literally – as living organisms. It can be synonymous with holism. Organicism is an important tradition within the history of natural philosophy where it has remained as a vital current alongside reductionism and mechanism, the approaches that have dominated science since the seventeenth century. Plato is among the earliest philosophers to have regarded the universe as an intelligent living being (see Timaeus). Organicism flourished for a period during the era of German romanticism during which time the new science of biology was first defined by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. ... Organicism as a doctrine rejects mechanism and reductionism (doctrines that claim that the smallest parts by themselves explain the behaviour of larger organized systems of which they are a part).” – Wikipedia Plato’s Timaeus asserts that the universe is necessarily alive and intelligent. Plato argued that the Demiurge created a living and intelligent universe because life is better than non-life and intelligent life is better than unintelligent life; it was the best of all possible worlds – because the Demiurge necessarily did his best work on it. The universe is the perfect animal. We all live inside this perfect living sphere. The World Soul is located at the direct centre of the sphere, but diffuses throughout it. Plato’s organicism is intermediate between his better-known theory of Forms and Aristotle’s philosophy, which abandoned the transcendent domain of Forms. It provides the intellectual bridge to Aristotle’s new approach, which was itself highly organicist.

***** The ancient Greek worldview was that the cosmos was orderly and alive; Illuminism shares the same view, but with the radical Pythagorean ingredient of mathematics as the source of life and indeed everything else. When Thales said that water was the arche – the fundamental stuff of the universe – he didn’t mean ordinary water but “living” water, with a mind. Similarly, when Anaximenes said that air was the arche, he really meant “breath” (of a living thing), i.e. the universe was breathing as if it had lungs. Pythagoras also regarded the world as a living, breathing being, but of a mathematical nature. Heraclitus asserted that fire, an “ever living” fire,

was the arche. If fire is “energy” and energy is defined mathematically, Heraclitus’s view becomes the same as Pythagoras’s. The ancient Greek word physis, from which “physics” is derived, meant “nature”, but with connotations of mind and life rather than just matter (which is the way modern physicists choose to interpret it).

The Chain of Clarity Aristotle believed that mind was present in matter as its formative principle (its Form, its soul). Mind, when present in the most basic matter, is “unclear”. The closer mind gets to God, the clearer and more rational it becomes. Leibniz used this idea of the ascending “clearness” of minds in his Monadology. God’s mind was of course one of perfect clarity.

Puller versus Pusher Scientific causality is all about “pushing”: something makes something else do something by acting directly on it in some way (a push). Teleology is about “pulling” (attracting). Something makes something else do something by motivating it to move or change (a pull). Evidently, such causality is impossible to directly detect or infer, hence why science dismisses it. Yet when scientists talk about the far distant heat death of the universe, they are in fact citing a teleological explanation. They are asserting that maximum entropy is “pulling” the universe towards that state. If you believe only in direct, “push” causality, you have no right to talk about the future beyond the latest push. You are making all manner of assumptions inconsistent with your beliefs if you talk about the future. You are making an extrapolation that, if this type of pushing continues indefinitely, it will produce such and such a result. But why should you have any expectation that such pushing will continue? You have no basis for that within your paradigm. Moreover, how do you technically distinguish this continual pushing from a continual pulling which triggers the pushing?

Rationalism versus Empiricism Since Plato and Aristotle, thinkers have split into two camps: 1) The Platonists seek hidden truth via reason. They deny that appearances are reality. Mathematics is their ultimate subject. They belong to the rationalist and idealist schools. Leibniz is their supreme champion.

2) The Aristotelians methodically examine the world of appearances and accept this as the only reality. They deny any hidden world available to reason alone and inaccessible to the senses. They belong to the empiricist and materialist schools. Newton is their supreme champion. The empiricists are technically irrationalists because they deny the full power of reason. They insist that reason must be subordinated to the senses. The rationalists deny the reliability of the senses and insist that the senses must be subordinated to reason. Only rationalism offers the possibility of a religious reality: a soul and an afterlife. These are perfectly consistent with the notion of a hidden and truer world. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an empiricist materialist to be religious if he is being true to his stance. Faith is absurd in relation to both positions. Faith is a feeling. It has nothing to do with thinking. It’s intellectually preposterous. It’s unfathomable how scientists can believe in God. It’s unfathomable why mathematicians don’t.

The Practical Soul “If the eye were a living creature, sight would be its soul.” – Aristotle Something’s soul is, for Aristotle, its function. The form/soul of an eye arranges matter into an object that can fulfil the function of seeing. The human soul forms a body into an object that performs the functions exhibited by human beings. A soul is like a living program that seeks to accomplish a variety of tasks. What are forms? – creative forces in matter; living programs. Form is the cause of motion. Matter moves because of form. The “motion” of an acorn is to become an oak tree.

The Centre The Aristotelian God is the centre towards which all things strive. Reason draws all towards it. Reason is the supreme attractive force in the universe, the supreme ordering and organizing force. All possibilities, all forms are fully and finally realized in God. In science, all things are striving towards the final, rational conclusions of the laws of physics.

Active and Passive Reason Passive reason fulfils the role of “matter” in relation to the form of active reason. Every level is the “matter” for the level above it; and the “form” for the level below it. Active reason can contemplate mathematics and philosophy – i.e. eternal things – hence is itself eternal. Given that only a small number of people can understand philosophy and mathematics, only a small number of people have complete souls.

The Supreme End Aristotle believed that the supreme purpose of humanity was the realization of that which was highest and best in it – reason! A person has two choices: to express his reason to the fullest (to strive to become all that it is in him to become), or to become LESS. Most people choose the latter.

Why Science is Absurd Many scientists subscribe to Karl Popper’s claim that a scientific hypothesis must be “falsifiable” in order to be counted as science. The assertion that all swans are white is a falsifiable statement since one black swan will achieve precisely that. Of course, there’s a drastic problem with Popper’s claim. It is not itself falsifiable, hence is not, by its own definition, a scientific hypothesis – so what does it have to do with science? Nothing at all! So why do scientists appeal to a non-scientific hypothesis to justify their scientific beliefs? Atheist scientists scoff at religious scientists since the God of religious faith is not a falsifiable hypothesis. You cannot prove to a person of faith that their God does not exist since they will not accept any of your proofs. That is not to say that the God of faith cannot be rationally disproved. There are endless rational refutations of such a God. However, these proofs fall on deaf ears since the faithful deny that reason proves anything. Revelation and faith, the believers say, are the only determinants of truth. So, it’s not that the existence of the Abrahamic God, with the properties claimed for him by his followers, cannot be disproved. The problem is that people of faith do not accept proof. They are irrationalists. Science claims to be about falsifiable statements and seems very proud of this. Is 2 + 2 = 4 falsifiable? Obviously not. Mathematics is not a subject that has any connection with falsifiable statements. In fact, its whole essence is to eliminate any false mathematical claims in order that what remains is, like 2 + 2, completely unfalsifiable. Science derives all of its power from mathematics. Mathematics has nothing to do with falsifiability and yet science claims to be all about falsifiability. This is absurd. Why don’t scientists see that their own definition of science is untenable? What scientists actually mean is that any statements they make must be capable of being evidentially, experimentally proved or disproved. “God” cannot be disproved in these terms because God is conceived as a being outside the material world of science. Scientists are saying that observation – empiricism – is what science is all about. Mathematics, however, is all about rationalism and requires no observations at all. So, how can scientists reconcile having as the core of their empiricist discipline something (mathematics) that is anti-empiricist!

It’s ridiculous. If scientists reject anti-empiricism then they reject mathematics and if they reject mathematics then they reduce science to soothsaying and alchemy. To become tenable, science must reject empiricism as its defining element and embrace rationalism, as mathematics does. Mathematics is the search for absolute truth. Science has NOTHING to do with truth since the doctrine of falsifiability asserts that a statement is not scientific unless it is potentially FALSE. You cannot make TRUE falsifiable statements since every such statement cannot, by definition, EVER be true. Until Doomsday, its truth content must remain uncertain since, to qualify as science, it can never become 100% true because, like, 2 + 2, 100% truth is not falsifiable. If you’re a scientist, you’re not interested in truth and the final answers to existence. Science is simply a method for enhancing people’s confidence in the meaning of the observations they make. Science is a subject for thinking sensing types to make them feel happy with what their senses are telling them. Thinking intuitives come to hate science because their intuitions tell them things that have no connection with the senses, and science doesn’t address these at all.

***** What is science’s central problem? – mathematics! Why does empirical science have an ultra-rationalist, anti-empiricist core? Why are scientists staggeringly uninterested in this question? What is the point of studying the ontology of the Higgs particle if the ontology of numbers is ignored? What IS a number? Illuminism precisely defines numbers as wave energy (cosines and sines) controlled by the most general form of Euler’s Formula. How does science define numbers and energy? – er, …

Reason Isn’t it that remarkable that Plato and Aristotle were obsessed with reason and yet Catholic Christianity, which, intellectually, is wholly based on their philosophies, is all about revelation and faith? Catholic Christianity systematically removed reason from rational Greek philosophy in one of the greatest acts of intellectual vandalism ever undertaken.

To Plato and Aristotle, faith would have been incomprehensible. Plato would have classed Catholic priests, cardinals and popes alongside Sophists as despicable enemies of the truth! Catholicism is Greek philosophy for dummies, for those of insufficient reason to understand the real thing.

Life What is the ONE THING that ought to be grasped above all else? It’s that LIFE = MIND = SOUL. Let’s call it LMS. Next, LMS is NOT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD IN ANY WAY. Once you understand that LMS it outside the material world, your interpretation of physical reality changes forever. You can no longer look to material explanations of the world. You must move beyond science. Mind is not dependent on matter. Instead, matter is dependent on mind. Matter is a mathematical PROJECTION of mind. Descartes provided the critical distinction when he created two domains of a) thinking (the unextended domain) and b) matter (the extended domain). Empiricist materialist science dismissed the unextended domain as both non-empirical and immaterial. This was the most catastrophic intellectual error in history. Science used the dogmatism of its own Meta Paradigm to reject elements outside that paradigm, just as Catholicism used the dogmatism of its Meta Paradigm (based on faith and scripture) to dismiss the heliocentric view of cosmology. Science has no proof whatsoever that the unextended domain does not exist. Moreover, to this day, it has no ability to explain life and mind. Mathematics contains numerous rational unobservables and these too are dismissed out of hand by scientists (despite the fact that they use unobservable imaginary numbers and unobservable wavefunctions all the time). Science has no capacity to explain free will and must, logically, deny its existence. Scientists will spend billions seeking the Higgs particle yet they won’t spend a cent probing the much greater mystery of free will. Free will CANNOT exist in the physical world. Free will belongs to LMS. What is a soul? It’s an autonomous, unextended, mental agent, dependent on nothing else for its existence. It can therefore generate its own actions without reference to anything else, or being compelled by anything else. Isn’t that exactly what we mean by free will? Nothing obliges us to do

anything. There is no compulsory and inexorable causal chain that renders us mere puppets. If we lived in a purely scientific, physical world, that would NOT be the case. Free will would be impossible. Let’s get this very clear. Free will is the proof of the existence of the soul!!! Only an autonomous, independent, uncreated, uncaused thinking entity, standing outside any network of causal necessity can exhibit free will. If there were only one giant soul – as Buddhism and Schopenhauer’s philosophy implied – we could never individually have free will. For each of us to be free, there must be countless truly individual souls, each a separate causal agent, i.e. generating causality according to its own internal parameters and without reference to the parameters of anything else. In the material world, there is no escape from material causality, so free will is unquestionably false – in which case we ought to act like robots and never once mention free will, which would simply be a meaningless, unobservable hypothesis that would never occur to anyone, just as “blue” would never occur to colour blind people. The fact that we can regard ourselves as free means that we ARE free!!! If we weren’t, we couldn’t think it because it would not be a thinkable concept. Only by having a domain outside the physical domain is free will possible (because then it is inherently shielded from inescapable scientific causality). That immediately proves the existence of Descartes’ thinking domain of non-extension. However, we would then be subjected to inescapable causality in the unextended domain if it were just one vast domain like the material extended domain (i.e. if there was only a single mental domain corresponding to a single soul). The systems of Buddha, Spinoza and Schopenhauer all make free will impossible. Buddha and Schopenhauer denied the existence of individual souls. Spinoza allowed for many modes of a single substance (God or Nature, as he put it), but these modes could never do anything independently of God or Nature, hence were not free agents). Descartes, unlike Spinoza, allowed for countless autonomous thinking subjects (souls). Leibniz later concluded that the number of souls must logically be infinite. Each soul is its own separate mental domain. All souls are singularities, and together they comprise a Super Singularity.

*****

It has been said that Descartes’ famous statement, “I think therefore I am” goes too far and should be restricted to something such as, “There is thinking.” This latter view is actually a disguised way of saying that only one soul exists, as in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. In such a case, no particular instance of this universal soul would ever have any notion of being a free, autonomous agent. It would be subject to a relentless mental rather than physical causal chain. So, to generate free will, it’s not sufficient simply to escape the material world … unless the universe consists of only one mental being interacting with one material world. For there to be multiple free wills in one material world there must be multiple souls, exactly as Descartes and Leibniz described. Thus, “cogito ergo sum” is in fact the supreme and unarguable statement of reason, free will and the soul. All the criticisms of it are false. No entity could make such a statement unless it were: a) alive, b) a thinking entity and c) an independent, autonomous, uncaused, uncreated free agent (subject) that initiated its own actions. Descartes’ cogito is the PROOF that there are souls and free will because, if there were no souls and no free will, such a statement would literally be unsayable and unthinkable. It’s rightly one of the greatest statements in human history, and it ought to stand right beside Pythagoras’s “All things are numbers” at the apex of human insight. Nietzsche was a stern critic of the Cartesian cogito but when his counterarguments are carefully dissected, it becomes apparent that he was arguing from, on the one hand, an empiricist materialist stance and, on the other, from the stance of a single soul such as Schopenhauer’s monist Will, and Nietzsche’s own monist Will to Power. Illuminism accepts Nietzsche’s Will to Power but it denies that it belongs to a SINGLE soul, but rather to INFINITE Leibnizian souls.

The Synthesis Aristotle had a biological, teleological view of science. In ancient times, no one anywhere on earth subscribed to the reductive, machine view of reality held by modern scientists. Is the modern view better and truer, or simply different? If the ancients saw life, mind, spirit and purposes everywhere, the “moderns” don’t see life, mind, spirit and purposes at all. For the moderns, life is just a weird phenomenon that emerges from arrangements of certain types of atoms and molecules. The same goes for mind.

The universe isn’t pursuing any purpose; it’s simply an enormous, deterministic process – a giant mechanism, obeying inescapable laws. The modern view is the dialectical antithesis of the ancient view, and that of course suggests that both are wrong and a synthesis is required in which the best of both are embraced, and the worst of both rejected. ILLUMINISM is the true synthesis of the two views. It succeeds by doing something extraordinary. It invokes machine-like mathematics and then asserts that the fundamental unit of mathematics – the dimensionless point (monad) – is none other than a living, unconscious mind driven by a ferocious Will to Power to optimize itself. It’s a teleological, self-solving equation and the answer it wants is the one that contains the maximum actualization of potential.

Teleology How did modern science start? Its origins lie with astronomy. Astronomy began as the study of the domain of the gods, but gradually became more and more about measurements for their own sake, without reference to any gods. When human beings started to make amazing predictions – such as when eclipses would occur – they began to form a secret belief that they themselves had the power and knowledge of gods, and perhaps there were no gods except themselves! As the success of astronomy grew, physics started to replace biology as the main expression of scientific thinking. When Copernicus’s heliocentric view became prominent, the power of astronomy to override scripture itself was there for all to see, if they dared. When Newton applied Galileo’s laws of terrestrial motion to the solar system, the triumph of physics was complete. Physics, not biology, now defined science and, for all intelligent people, had overthrown God. The universe appeared to be a vast, predictable clockwork mechanism. Who needed God at all, and where was he anyway in this huge machine? Teleology – hence minds, purposes, strivings, spirits, gods, souls – was rejected and only lifeless observations and measurements became important. Ever since, science has been atheistic, materialistic and hostile to life, mind, free will, souls and God. Lamarckian evolution was teleological (things strove to change themselves, to become better adapted: they were ACTIVE agents in change) but when this was replaced by Darwinism (based on natural selection where things were passively subjected to random genetic

mutations and made no contribution to change in their own right, i.e. they were puppets of chance) even biology became atheistic. Life is teleological; machines are not. When science rejected life, it turned existence into an enormous, purposeless, meaningless, machine. Natural selection is random, meaningless and pointless, so Darwinism has been readily embraced by the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. No scientist accepts that mental, teleological forces are continually at play everywhere, including in the arena of genetic mutation. Given that such forces are unobservable, they are simply denied by science, as all unobservables are. That, of course, does not mean that they do not exist. Physics is the primary source of anti-life, anti-mind, anti-soul, atheistic thinking. It’s all about calculations and measurements and has no reference to purpose (which cannot be measured). Physics has therefore proved a catastrophe. Physics will NEVER reveal the mysteries of existence. Who cares about Higgs bosons where there are Leibnizian monads to ponder?! Monads tell us about life, mind, the soul, the afterlife, and God. What does the Higgs boson do for us? But monads are of course mathematical rational unobservables, beyond the reach of physics, which then denies that they exist at all. Science’s greatest triumph is the Periodic Table of Chemistry. Chemistry and materials science have changed our world more than anything else. Higgs bosons don’t transform our reality. New plastics, new medicines, new fertilizers, new drugs, new microchips, etc. do. It’s time for the death cult – physics – to be removed from its pedestal. It’s time for it to be replaced by the subject of life, mind, free will and hyperrationality – MATHEMATICS!

The Strangest Thing You have four choices concerning how to understand life: 1) There is ONE eternal life force. This is the view of Buddhism, Spinoza and Schopenhauer. 2) There is one eternal life force (“God”) that then creates countless immortal souls out of NOTHING AT ALL (in contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics).

3) There is no eternal life force at all. What life there is emerges by an unknown process from matter. This is the scientific materialist view, associated with atheism. 4) There are infinite, uncreated, uncaused eternal life forces. In fact, life is the basic mode of existence. Life is equivalent to mind (i.e. mental activity: thinking, feeling, willing, desiring, reasoning). This is the position of Illuminism, the religion of eternal life. Is it not extraordinary that Abrahamists are willing to accept one eternal life force, but not infinite eternal life forces? What is the sufficient reason for this? – no answer is ever given. Abrahamists are then willing to believe that this “God” of theirs can summon new life (souls) out of thin air, which he then places in individual bodies (a rather time-consuming task one would think). He then condemns most of these souls to hell! No rational person is buying any of that.

One Sentence If you had to describe existence in one sentence, what would you say? 1) The world is rational. 2) The world is irrational. 3) The world is sensory. 4) The world is love (feelings). If the world were irrational, chaotic and random, there would be no solar systems and galaxies, so we know that option is false. To express feelings or love towards the world is not to explain it, but to describe a mode of relating to it. To describe the world as sensory is also to indicate a means of relating to it and interacting with it, but does not explain it. Science is a description of the world, not an explanation of it. So, any thinking person is led to the conclusion that the world is rational. If the world is rational then it can be understood a priori. Not a single experiment, observation or measurement is required. We simply need to think – rationally. The world is not, of course, based on rational statements in English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese or any other language of the world. That

would be absurd. Nor is it based on ad hoc scientific hypotheses. There is only one “natural” language, one “cosmic” language, one way in which rationality is ontologically expressed. That language is mathematics. To be even more precise, it’s numbers. The whole of mathematics is nothing other than numbers and their relations. It’s impossible for it to be anything else. The only things that are ontological are numbers. This may sound perverse. However, as soon as it is understood that every number is an expression of what scientists call energy then the absurdity vanishes. No one rational would contest the statement that the universe is made of energy and nothing besides. Energy = numbers is the most critical of all statements because it establishes the link between the energy that scientists study and the supreme subject of rationalism: mathematics. So, the study of the world is the study of energy, and the study of energy is the study of numbers and the study of numbers is mathematics. Mathematics, and mathematics alone, describes and explains existence. What is mind? – energy. What is matter? – energy. What relates mind and matter? – energy (= numbers). Energy is all there is. Therefore, mathematics is all there is. The statement, “The world is rational”, ought to be replaced by, “The world is mathematical.” The a priori investigation and explanation of existence therefore proceeds purely according to mathematics. Above all, it can be analyzed in terms of one entity – the most mysterious entity of existence: the SINGULARITY. The WHOLE of existence can be understood rationally by studying the properties of the Singularity. Science has nothing at all to say about the Singularity because it is not an object in space and time. It isn’t material. It can’t be observed. No experiments can be performed on it. It is solely an object of rational, mathematical contemplation and it contains all the secrets of existence. It is all about the MONAD – the dimensionless point. The dimensionless point has two extraordinary features: 1) it is the basis of the physical world, and 2) it is the fundamental unit of mind and life – it’s the SOUL. The monad is the critical entity that marries matter and mind. Yet, in truth, there is no matter. Matter is simply minds existing in an “extended” relationship with each other, i.e. separated by distance.

Existence Existence is not about material “things”, but about mental things (monads) and their mathematical relations. These are energy relations, mental energy relations. The whole of existence is about mind. Mind is life. Mind is mathematics. Minds are eternal, self-contained life forces. The only things that actually exist are these life forces. So, what is matter? Matter is produced by mental energy that comes from inside a mind being shared with mental energy coming from inside other minds. A mind’s direct mental activity is always within it (the domain of non-extension), where it is experienced SUBJECTIVELY. A mind’s indirect mental activity is always outside it (mathematically, via extension) and experienced OBJECTIVELY (in material terms). Things happening inside your mind are unique to your mind. Things happening outside your mind are shared with all other minds. It’s that shared mental space that constitutes the objective, material world that we don’t regard as mental at all but as physical. Matter is simply alienated mind; mind outside mind; shared mind; mind that is sluggish, awkward and resistant because it is compelled to obey a complex set of shared rules and relations. Matter is resistance: mental resistance. Matter is the resistance provided by all other minds to the activity of our individual minds. We are free in our dreams because we are unconstrained by anything else, by other minds. We can overcome space, time and causality effortlessly. When we awake, we are bound by the rigid rules of the shared game – the public mental space. There’s no escape, unless we attain such powerful minds (infinitely powerful) where we can locally outmuscle the resistance of other minds and make them do our bidding, as easily as in our dreams. We become like Neo in The Matrix. The rules that bind everyone else no longer bind us.

Dreaming Have you grasped it yet? You are either dreaming on your own or dreaming with everyone else. You are “asleep” when you dream on your own. You are “awake” when you dream with everyone else. One way or another, all you do is dream. The whole of existence is a dream that you will NEVER be leaving. There is no death to free you. You are here for the duration, and the duration is eternity. But that means you have plenty of time to perfect yourself – to become God. You will become the Dream Master. Reality will bow to you. Matter will bend according to your will. Guaranteed. The supreme experience a human being can have is an out-of-body experience (OBE). This is when a person goes to sleep but instead of entering the private dream space, he remains connected to the collective dream space of the waking world. However, his body has been deactivated (it’s asleep), meaning that it’s his bodiless mind that’s in contact with objective reality. It’s now free to roam wherever it likes without the encumbrance of the body. It can fly, pass through walls, enter people’s minds: it can do ANYTHING. An OBE is a GOD EXPERIENCE. Most people are so startled and alarmed by OBEs that they don’t use them meaningfully. What is the primary characteristic of Phosters and archons? It’s that they have close to complete OBE control.

The Euclidean Approach Euclidean geometry, which uses a minimum set of axioms and definitions to systematically build a (more or less) logically impregnable edifice of geometrical truths (in flat space), is the classic demonstration of the eternal, incontestable power of mathematics. The whole of science should be built on similarly unarguable, logical, rational axioms and definitions. Newton’s scientific empiricist materialism does nothing of the kind, hence is always refutable (falsifiable) and provisional. In contrast, Leibniz’s scientific rationalist idealism, based on the ultimate logical units (“atoms”) of mathematics – points, monads – offers absolute, eternal truth, all derived from the analytic necessary truths of mathematics.

Atomic concepts

Just as there is a limited number of letters of the alphabet (of language), and elements of the periodic table (of chemistry), so Leibniz reasoned that there was a finite number of core logical concepts (“atomic” concepts), of which all “higher” concepts were mere compounds or “molecular” expressions. If the entire set of absolutely simple, basic, atomic concepts could be identified then any concept at all could be precisely logically analysed, just as we can analyse any chemical molecule or compound in terms of its atoms or ions, or any word in terms of its letters. If someone wrote down a chemical formula based on no known atomic symbols, it would immediately be identified as non-existent. Similarly, a word made of no known letters is bogus. An absurd logical concept, made of no known atomic concepts, could, in like manner, be exposed as meaningless. “The human mind is analogous to a sieve: the process of thinking consists in shaking it until all the subtlest items pass through. Meanwhile, as they pass through, Reason acts as an inspector snatching whatever seems useful.” – Leibniz “With the passage of time, certain operations which were once combinatorial [synthetic] 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 be any more 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 or ‘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 any error. Furthermore, if there is also a trustworthy catalogue of facts [a ‘Universal Encyclopaedia’] … written in the same notation, together with the most important theorems … derived from the notation either alone or with observational data, it will come about that the art of combination will lose all its glory.” – Leibniz Leibniz’s incredible plan was to put thinking itself on as rigorous basis as mathematics. Thinking would be a series of logical operations and it would simply be a matter of whether it was right or wrong, just like a

mathematical calculation. There would be no ambiguity or imprecision since everything would be based on crystal clear analytic definitions. Bad thinkers, like bad mathematicians, would be swiftly exposed. Prophets and preachers, weaving their webs of charlatanry, would be revealed in their true colours. Eventually, everyone would be rational. This is the ultimate vision of a Logos society. Mythos would be left, where it belongs, in a purely entertainment capacity. The tragedy of our world is that Mythos “thinking” has been permitted to be treated on a par with, or regarded as even more important than, Logos thinking. It is simply nauseating when someone reciting scripture believes he is making an intellectually defensible statement. He’s not. He’s spouting fiction and expecting it to be treated as fact. Leibniz even had the idea of a machine doing the hard work. We would simply input a “thought” (coded in Leibniz’s notation) and a machine would deconstruct it analytically and tell us if it was valid or not (just as we can run grammar checkers to verify if we have written a coherent sentence). In other words, he was contemplating a kind of logic device that would scan all “molecular” logical statements and dismiss those improperly constructed, leaving only logically true statements. All the illogical nonsense would be removed from the world. He wanted to turn all of the components of all complex concepts into symbols as part of his vision of a ‘Universal Characteristic’. His ingenious plan involved giving all atomic concepts a ‘characteristic number’, consisting of a pair of prime numbers, one positive and one negative. The corresponding characteristic number of a molecular concept would be the product of the numbers of its atomic components. In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (unique-primefactorization theorem) states that any integer greater than one can be expressed as a unique product of prime numbers, thus demonstrating the crucial role of prime numbers as the building blocks of integer numbers. Determining the prime factorization of an integer allows derivation of all its divisors, both prime and non-prime. The prime factors act as a unique key for any number, allowing it to be expressed in a different, coded form, of the type that can be used in encryption techniques. However, Leibniz’s scheme suffered from the problem that the numbers would soon become unmanageably large. Leibniz then speculated that the

binary system involving just 1s and 0s would be the perfect approach, a foreshadowing of modern computing (of which he was a pioneer). “Leibniz’s long-term goal for logic involved a merging of the logic of discovery, the logic of judgment, and the rhetorical ideal of a perfect language. Given a binary notation and a set of combinatory rules, all possible thoughts could be generated and validated by purely mechanical means.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz Twentieth century mathematical and logical genius Kurt Gödel, a true kindred spirit of Leibniz, hero worshipped Leibniz and became increasingly certain that Leibniz had solved all of the problems of existence. Gödel was fascinated by Leibniz’s thinking regarding the uniqueness of prime factorization and this plays a key role in his own “Gödel numbering”, which provided the basis of his monumental Incompleteness Theorem, a supreme tribute to Leibniz and also in many ways the completion of the Leibnizian project. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is the final ingredient needed to mathematically demonstrate how a mathematical universe can contain free will, its most important quality. It can never be stressed enough that free will is impossible within scientific materialism, hence that paradigm is manifestly false.

Faith I There are people who argue that “faith” is the primary basis of human existence and say that everything is about faith. So, for example, knowledge, proof, evidence, facts, reason and logic all become aspects of faith. To assert that 2 + 2 = 4 is, according to these people, a statement of faith. How then are we distinguish it from 2 + 2 = 5, which, by such “logic”, is just another statement of faith? We can’t appeal to reason or mathematics to solve the problem for us because these, of course, are matters of faith too. One person of faith talked about “good” faith versus “bad” faith rather than knowledge versus faith. Regarding science, this person said, “To believe that science is real and the only truth is to have faith in science.” The same argument would be deployed against any claimant to truth, including analytic mathematics.

This is an attempt to negate all truth by saying it’s all a matter of faith. So, the assertion that a green teapot exists behind the moon is to be placed on a par with the standard model of physics, or, the eternal, analytic truths of Platonic mathematics: they are all just questions of faith. This is a supreme perversion of the meaning of “faith”. Faith means holding something to be true without any rational, objective or plausible evidence. To believe that God was born of a virgin in a stable is a matter of faith since it contradicts all of humanity’s reason, logic and knowledge. If you can advance evidence, facts, rational arguments and analytic truths then you are not acting through faith. You have an intellectual defence of your position. The whole point of faith is that it explicitly rejects intellectualism, facts, evidence, reason and knowledge. It seeks to mount a defence on the basis of, “This holy book said so; this prophet said so; this voice in my head said so; this angel said so; this guy I met on the street corner said so; my feelings say so.” The believer said, “Faith is reason and reason is faith.” So, presumably, bad reason is bad faith and good reason is good faith. But how do we distinguish between good and bad reason if they are both about faith? How do we know we are reasoning “well”? What possible criterion would we use? We can’t appeal to evidence, proof, facts, logical necessity, sufficient reason, or indeed anything else – because these are all matters of faith too, apparently. You can’t use faith to judge faith because you are of course simply stating an opinion based on faith. You can discriminate between “good” and “bad” faith only by appealing to something outside faith, and no such thing exists in the view of people who believe that faith reveals truth, and faith is the only “truth”. In mathematics, we can judge whether something is true or false, right or wrong, simply by appealing to the laws and rules of mathematics. Anything that is not in accord with the laws and rules of mathematics is false e.g. 2 + 2 = 5. No one “believes” or has “faith” in the laws of mathematics. They are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF FAITH. A system of “faith” has no laws or rules. There are no criteria allowing anything to be distinguished from anything else. “In order to have faith about something one must know it as true. Therefore you can’t know something to be true unless you a have ‘reason’ for it to be so.”

This, sadly, is the statement of an unhinged mind. Faith is about what you don’t know, not what you do know. Faith is exactly what fills the gaps in your knowledge. If you have a tenable reason for something to be true then you have a position based on rationalism, not on faith. Your idea can be subjected to rational scrutiny. The whole point about faith is that no reason, no rational argument, can ever dent a person’s faith. There are “reasons” why Christians believe in Jesus Christ – such as brainwashing, superstition, ignorance, fear, desire to be accepted by the community, and so on. These are not, however, real reasons for believing in Jesus Christ; they are reasons for being a Christian (a quite different thing). Jesus Christ could easily be replaced by something else and the arguments would remain exactly the same. Muslims regard Mohammed with as much reverence as Christians do Jesus Christ. Jews, Christians and Muslims all appeal to “scripture” – but their scriptures all contradict each other, so which, if any, is right, and which wrong? How can anyone decide between different scriptures if faith is their only tool? “Without faith you can never achieve gnosis. Gnosis = knowledge.” In fact, WITH faith you can never achieve Gnosis. Gnosis = knowledge and knowledge is the opposite of faith.

***** Science is about knowledge. That’s what the word means. We attack science on the basis that it rejects rationalism in favour of empiricism and materialism. These assert that anything rational which is not, in principle, subject to sensory observation cannot exist. This is NOT a rational inference.

Faith II “What people don’t understand is that reason and faith are one and the same. If you knew everything about ‘math’ you would thus require no faith to believe it. It would then become reality. So faith becomes learning and knowing. The more ‘reasons’ you discover about something the more faith you have that it is real and true. Evolution of scientific knowledge is actually evolution of faith because now you understand something even more. Knowing things through the universal laws that never change is

perfect reason implied with perfect faith. Bad faith results from bad reason and knowledge. Bad religion results from bad knowledge. “Hence why Abrahamists are so stupid. Faith is not bad. Faith is reason. And when reason has faith in bad knowledge both reason and faith become irrational. Faith is nothing more than being convinced about the reason behind the truth. Reaching ultimate reason is being in union with God’s mind and is to know everything with perfect faith. You cannot have reason without faith. It’s mathematically and universally impossible.” Are these the rantings of a lunatic? Is this a private language involving a completely perverse definition of “faith”? How is faith defined according to the dictionary? 1) strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence. 2) a specific system of religious beliefs, e.g. the Jewish faith. 3) Christian trust in God and in his actions and promises. 4) complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc. 5) any set of firmly held principles or beliefs. 6) allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (especially in the phrases keep faith, break faith). 7) bad faith: insincerity or dishonesty. 8) good faith: honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (especially in the phrase in good faith). 9) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, especially when this is not based on reason. A sure sign of mental illness is when you start applying your own definitions to words then seek to preach to others using these definitions that make sense only to you. “You cannot believe in anything without proof.” This is demented. If you have proof, it’s not a belief.

“A bad belief stems from the roots of poor reasoning and bad understanding.” Ironically, such a statement reflects no reasoning and no understanding. It doesn’t grasp the basic concept of “belief”. “Religious people aren’t without ‘proof’; they’re just without ‘rational’ or reasonable proof.” Religious people have no proof at all. An assertion in a book isn’t proof. Would somebody who has read Lord of the Rings have the right to say that Mordor exists because he has a book which says it does? The whole of Abrahamism is tantamount to Lord of the Rings. It’s a set of fictitious assertions which are then claimed to be true. Proof doesn’t enter into it at any stage. “A 100% rational computer has no will to believe in anything because IT KNOWS ALL.” A computer doesn’t know anything at all. It’s a machine. Earlier, we were told, “So faith becomes learning and knowing”, and “Reason and faith are one and the same.” In other words, the 100% rational computer, by this logic, should be the perfect believer! This person of faith is incapable of writing a single logical sentence. Every statement contradicts every other. It’s gibberish from beginning to end, and yet this person believes himself to be a prophet and genius who has seen what others have failed to see. You can’t argue with people of faith. You can’t reason with the irrational. We are Leibnizian hyperrationalists who want to abolish the word “faith”. There’s no room for it in a rational world. It adds NOTHING of value to anything and quickly leads to people asserting, “I’m right because it’s what I believe and you have no right to tell me what to believe and to tell me I’m wrong.” This is the antithesis of meritocracy. Protestantism is an extremely dangerous religion because every Protestant reads the Bible and then thinks he’s a world authority on its interpretation (which is why there are countless different Protestant sects). Likewise, conspiracy theorists declare themselves “experts” and rubbish everyone who disagrees with them, especially all the real experts who have devoted their careers to their areas

of expertise (unlike the conspiracy theorists who watched a YouTube propaganda video an hour ago!). “Belief” is indistinguishable from insanity. It has no rational basis. Either you have legitimate reasons for the position you are advocating or you don’t. As soon as you say you believe you’re right, you’re admitting that you’re letting what you want to be true rule you. Have you ever heard of any believer reaching a conclusion hostile to his own interests and aspirations? Beliefs are always tied to emotion, desire and wishful thinking. Have you ever heard any believer stating his belief that he is going to hell? No, they always say they’re going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. What conceivable point could be served by a person of faith trying to communicate with us? None at all. There’s no common language. Yet many believers feel a mad compulsion to do so.

***** The beauty of mathematics is that it destroys bullshit. You’re either right or wrong. That’s why mathematics is so pure and beautiful, and why faith religions hate mathematics. They would have nowhere to hide if all of their statements had to hold up to mathematical scrutiny.

Reason “There’s more to the truth than just the facts.” – Unknown “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” – Unknown “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” – Niels Bohr “Everything that is beautiful and noble is the product of reason and calculation.” – Baudelaire “As reason is a rebel to faith, so passion is a rebel to reason.” – Sir Thomas Browne “Reason itself is fallible, and this fallibility must find a place in our logic.” – Nicola Abbagnano

“There are strange flowers of reason to match each error of the senses.” – Louis Aragon “If you follow reason far enough it always leads to conclusions that are contrary to reason.” – Samuel Butler “A person usually has two reasons for doing something: a good reason and the real reason.” – Thomas Carlyle “Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal.” – Alexander Hamilton “As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it.” – Vaclav Havel “What is now reason was formerly impulse or instinct.” – Ovid “Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up reasons for it afterwards.” – Soren F. Petersen “Whenever a person strives, by the help of dialectic, to start in pursuit of every reality by a simple process of reason, independent of all sensuous information – never flinching, until by an act of the pure intelligence he has grasped the real nature of good – he arrives at the very end of the intellectual world.” – Plato “Reason is the historian, but passions are the actors.” – Antoine Rivarol “Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.” – James H Robinson “Reason is a harmonizing, controlling force rather than a creative one.” – Bertrand Russell “Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.” – Sydney Smith “Too much sensibility creates unhappiness and too much insensibility creates crime.” – Charles Maurice De Talleyrand “Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason.” – John Wesley

“When reason is against a man, he will soon turn against reason.” – David Hume “I tried being reasonable, I didn’t like it.” – Clint Eastwood “Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw “Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.” – Morpheus “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” – George Bernard Shaw

Vectors and Scalars A vector quantity simultaneously represents magnitude and direction. Wind, for example, has both a speed and a direction and therefore can be described by vectors. Scalars are quantities that have magnitude only, hence are independent of direction. Examples are speed, temperature, density, mass, energy and volume. They can be thought of as vectors with the directional information removed. In a sense, scalars exist a dimension below vectors. Most, perhaps all, of physics can be described in terms of scalar and vector quantities.

The Wave Generator Euler’s Formula: eix = cos x + i sin x Put an imaginary number into an exponential function and waves come out! Specifically, cosine waves and imaginary sine waves emerge. This is the most important result in the whole of mathematics and ontology because it creates dynamically coupled energy waves from which we can build a world, build a cosmic hologram, and build thoughts themselves – which are just wave patterns. Imaginary numbers inserted into an exponential function generate the basis cosine and sine waves from which the quantum mechanical wavefunction is constructed, and from the wavefunction comes the whole material world!

Quantum Physics In the conventional view of quantum mechanics, particles exist in some twilight zone – an imaginary mathematical world involving imaginary numbers – and have to “collapse” into the real world (i.e. defined by real numbers only). Of course, once imaginary numbers are accepted as ontological, this picture falls apart.

Fourier Joseph Fourier asserted that it was possible to expand any arbitrary function (periodic or otherwise) in the form of a trigonometric series. Any pattern, more or less, can be made by adding, or superposing, sinusoidal waves appropriately. When any wave pattern created in this way is concentrated in a relatively small cloud, it’s called a “wave packet”. How, practically and simply, can you produce a pure, perfect sine wave? Just set a tuning fork vibrating and plot the resulting sound wave. If this there were defined in the frequency domain outside space and time, it would constitute a Fourier basis wave. Fourier mathematics is simply about combining such basis waves, from a potentially infinite set.

Atoms Rather than thinking of individual atoms, we could imagine a huge cosmic network of positively charged nuclei, surrounded by a cosmic, negatively charged electron cloud. This cloud would tend to have a strong local presence in the vicinity of individual nuclei, giving the ILLUSION of atoms, but the atoms don’t actually exist at all! There’s a cosmic set of nuclei and a cosmic set of electrons interacting with them – that’s all. The WHOLE COLLECTION is the important thing, not any individual atoms. All of the electrons and all of the nuclei are subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. None of them can be in the same quantum state. This, ipso facto, refutes Max Tegmark’s position regarding an infinitely repeating universe. There’s no such thing as a repeating set of atoms because, firstly, atoms don’t truly exist, and, secondly, no two things can have the same quantum state. There are no isolated particles when the cosmos is viewed from the “God perspective”. Everything is linked.

Uncertainty Scientific materialists believe that, like the Abrahamic God, they can summon whole universes out of absolutely nothing at all, out of nonexistence. They often cite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which apparently acts as God’s magic wand. Anything can be explained away with this deus ex machina device of the Uncertainty Principle, which literally hides an infinity of faults and illogic. Existence is NOT underpinned by any uncertainty whatsoever. It is not random. It is not chaotic. Things don’t pop into existence out of thin air. Energy isn’t “borrowed” from the future and then quickly paid back, or any of the rest of the absurd nonsense that scientific materialists desperately deploy to “explain” reality. The “Uncertainty Principle” is a misnomer. It’s nothing of the kind. In fact, it’s the opposite. It’s the absolute expression of precision and certainty. It’s so good, so accurate, that it can reconcile zero and infinity. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle involves uncertainty only in the context of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. This paradigm denies any immaterial, dimensionless domain of infinite, eternal frequencies. Without such a domain – full of well-defined but rationally unobservable mathematical existents – then, naturally, it will seem as if some weird and wonderful process is taking place. It will be as if some mystical, probabilistic force is at work. However, with such a domain (a mental domain!), all of this woo woo, mumbo jumbo and scientific “magic” vanishes. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is in fact doing an extremely well defined task: it’s relating a signal in an eternal frequency domain outside space and time with a corresponding signal inside space and time. That process is must be managed down to the finest mathematical domain. So, when viewed across the TWO domains – the one outside space and time and the one inside space and time – then there’s no uncertainty at all. It’s only when you dogmatically reject part of the dualistic system that you end up with grotesque uncertainty. There are, of course, no gaps, no uncertainties and no mysteries in objective reality. Mathematics, unlike scientific materialism, removes all uncertainty and establishes the fullest and securest possible foundations of reality. Everything has a sufficient reason. Nothing happens randomly in the

quantum domain, for no reason at all, as scientists maintain. Everything in fact happens through impeccable mathematics. Einstein and others desperately sought “hidden variables” in order to make quantum mechanics a rational underpinning of reality. They loathed the idea that reality was probabilistic, indeterminate, anti-deterministic. (“God does not play dice.” – Einstein). They failed and they were mocked by the scientific establishment who deemed that they were dinosaurs who had no understanding of the new paradigm of quantum mechanics. In fact, they were right all along. The “hidden variables” are simply Fourier basis waves in a non-local frequency domain outside the empiricist, materialist world of space and time. Einstein, as an empiricist and materialist, would have been horrified, but that’s the ONLY way to save objective, rational reality.

***** The absolutely critical difference between the scientific and mathematical views of the world is that the latter permits dimensionless existence and the former doesn’t. Every key question of existence ultimately comes down to whether or not there is an undetectable domain of rational, mathematical unobservables. If you place your rational confidence in mathematics, you are guaranteed eternal life – because you are a dimensionless, indestructible mathematical life force. If you reject mathematics, the only other intellectually plausible alternative is scientific materialism and that guarantees that your life is meaningless and your death permanent. So, what’s it to be – science or mathematics? Mathematics is about life, and scientific materialism is about death. The mathematical universe is an organism, based on the subject (the monad); the scientific materialist universe is a machine, and has no subjectivity. In truth, scientific materialism actually denies the possibility of life. What’s the difference between a human and a crystal? Both are completely driven by inescapable causal processes, so what could possibly distinguish them? Are crystals alive? If they’re not, then neither are we! Life, to be meaningful, is about being able to exhibit FREE WILL, and that means you are an uncaused causal agent outside any inexorable causal network. The universe is alive, but only conscious beings that make choices are meaningfully alive.

M-Theory M-theory is the most complex scientific-mathematical theory ever constructed. It’s astoundingly difficult, which is one reason why it’s not generating any answers despite decades of effort and the contributions of many of the brightest minds on the planet. Yet the irony of M-theory is that, philosophically, it represents almost total retardation. It’s a monumental waste of time and will never deliver the truth. That’s what happens when bright people are let loose without being guided by clear philosophical logic. M-theory is how stupid “intellectuals” waste their time. Abrahamism is how stupid non-intellectuals waste their time.

Gödel The world’s most important intellectual battle is almost wholly unknown to the general public. Most educated people have heard of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem but have only a vague grasp of what it is. In fact, even people who consider themselves expert in it, don’t understand its proper significance. Gödel himself believed that his own theorem had been radically misunderstood and misrepresented, almost to the extent of an actual conspiracy against him. Almost the opposite of his conclusion was being trumpeted as the “truth” of his discovery. Gödel was a great friend of Einstein and, just as science turned its back on Einstein and mocked him as an out-of-touch old man, so much the same accusation was levelled against Gödel by the grandees of mathematics. Gödel’s battle with the establishment is of paramount importance because it goes to the heart of the most important issue of all: what is the status and significance of mathematics? There are only two ways to think of mathematics. Either it’s an ingenious construct of human minds, or it exists externally to human minds and our minds discover it rather than invent it. So, is mathematics manmade or natural? Science is regarded as naturalistic – revealing the true nature of the world around us – yet is nothing but a collection of manifestly manmade, ad hoc hypotheses, which are continually changing. We can be absolutely certain that science has no necessary connection with the truth of nature and is merely a manmade construct: an attempt to describe nature in terms meaningful to human minds and especially to the human senses. It would be easy to imagine a rational alien species with radically different senses from human beings having their version of science that had nothing in common at all with our version. But would the same be true of the aliens’ approach to mathematics? Mathematics doesn’t rely on ANY experiments or ANY sensory data. It is solely reliant on logical thinking – on rationalism. So, there is no reason at all to expect aliens to have a different version of mathematic. Logic and rationalism would lead them to exactly the same conclusions as humans. Therefore, mathematics must be common to ALL intelligent species in the universe, but each species will have its own ad hoc collection of scientific hypotheses. There is nothing necessarily true about any scientific

theory, so there is no reason to think that alien species would arrive at exactly the same scientific conclusions as we have. Mathematics, not science, is the only conceivable universal language and this, ipso facto, points to mathematics having an immutable, transcendent, Platonic nature. Yet, almost the opposite view prevails in our world. Science is regarded as some real and reliable means of probing reality and mathematics is commonly held, even by most mathematicians, to be a weird, abstract construct of the mind that has no necessary connection with reality, and in fact sheds light on reality only through the medium of science. Without science, so the belief goes, mathematics wouldn’t intersect with reality at all. Mathematicians can sit in darkened rooms with paper and pencil and create all manner of theorems that would appear not to have the vaguest connection to the real world. Fascinatingly, because science is an extraverted subject (in the sense that it is all about the external material world rather than the inner world of mind) and involves experiments performed on the real world, it is invariably associated with “reality”. Mathematics, which is a profoundly introverted subject, and which does not require looking at the world at all, or performing any experiments on it, is considered some elaborate mental game we play, with no significance beyond that. Illuminism is, of course, based on mathematical monads (which carry within them the full laws of ontological mathematics) being the arche, the fundamental stuff of existence, with science being a feeble, manmade imitation of mathematics, just as Plato’s Demiurge created an inferior copy of the perfect domain of eternal Forms. Illuminism is the assertion that Plato’s domain of Forms is 100% mathematical and science is a distorted, arbitrary simulacrum of mathematics driven by the needs of the human senses rather than reason. Science, on the other hand, dismisses the existence of the Platonic domain of Forms and considers itself the only show in town as far as revealing reality goes. Thus, we are back in the familiar territory of empiricist materialism (science) versus rationalist idealism (Platonic mathematics). We are back to Aristotle versus Plato and Newton versus Leibniz. Now, science does not have to be empiricist and materialist. Those form the Meta Paradigm which science has chosen to adopt, but it could equally have chosen a different Meta Paradigm. Leibniz, for example, subscribed to

a wholly different scientific Meta Paradigm from Newton. Leibniz was a rationalist idealist scientist. His version of science was hardwired with logic, mathematics and mathematical metaphysics. Leibniz asserted that the universe must be grounded in absolute rationalism, the nature of which would be revealed to us via our own rational contemplation of the core principles of existence. For Leibniz, to claim that existence was anything other than 100% rational would, be to make the contrary claim that existence is IRRATIONAL (because any trace of irrationality in a rational system would render it incoherent, inconsistent and useless), in which case, how could we know anything about it at all, and why, in that case, is the cosmos so regular, clockwork, predictable and ordered? If existence is irrational then we wouldn’t be here to rationally ponder it, and existence would consist of nothing other than irrational chaos. Strangely, this logical view is ignored by science. Science asserts that experiments, not reason, reveal the nature of reality, thus implying that existence is without a rational underpinning. If existence is based on wholly rational principles, what need is there for experiments? We can simply work out what existence is rationally – and that’s precisely what Leibniz did. Leibniz’s system is based on rational, mathematical unobservables (dimensionless, immaterial monads), hence collides in the biggest possible way with empiricist materialist science, which is all about material observables. We now have an incredible standoff. Science makes no claim that existence is irrational but it does make a claim that existence must be rationally grounded in dimensional, material things, even though it has no sufficient reason for such a claim, i.e. there is no necessary reason why rational unobservables should not exist just because they are incompatible with the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. Modern science is based on numerous absurdities. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as objective reality where things have a definite, unambiguous size and mass, regardless of their speed. Quantum mechanics has at its core an unobservable wavefunction (!), even though science claims to be about observability. Many quantum theorists now subscribe to the view that to be is to be perceived and, therefore, that’s it’s meaningless to talk about the existence of the moon when you’re not observing it. According to the Copenhagen

Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger’s cat can be both dead and alive (!). This is manifestly absurd – and defies the reality principle. (Note that if Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg – the main authors of the Copenhagen Interpretation – were being consistent then they would have asserted that it was meaningless to ask about the ontological condition of the cat since, formally, within their paradigm, nothing at all can be said about anything unobserved. If the moon doesn’t exist when no one is looking at it, nor does Schrödinger’s cat!) The only reason why this interpretation is taken seriously is that scientists refuse to consider alternative interpretations, which do not have any requirement for ghostly cats. The other interpretations are rejected because they are incompatible with empiricism and materialism. Empiricist materialist science is now a fanatical ideology that constitutes a quasi-religious faith. Science asserts that existence must NOT be based on rational unobservables. Rationalism asserts that existence MUST be based on rational unobservables if these are more rational than observable alternatives. Rational thoughts are of course themselves rational unobservables. (And scientists deny their existence even while they are using them!) “The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae, which were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations, which were often very badly wrong.” – Sir James Jeans

Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem “In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently strong to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system.” – http://www.bioreference.net/encyclopedia/wikipedia/g/go/goedel_s_incomp leteness_theorem.html

Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem “No consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency.” – http://www.bioreference.net/encyclopedia/wikipedia/g/go/goedel_s_incomp leteness_theorem.html

Hilbert’s Program “This result [Gödel’s] was devastating to a philosophical approach to mathematics known as Hilbert’s program. David Hilbert proposed that the consistency of more complicated systems, such as real analysis, could be proven in terms of simpler systems. Ultimately, the consistency of all of mathematics could be reduced to basic arithmetic. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem shows that basic arithmetic cannot be used to prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger.” – http://www.bioreference.net/encyclopedia/wikipedia/g/go/goedel_s_incomp leteness_theorem.html

***** Wikipedia says of the first Incompleteness Theorem: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).” “The true but unprovable statement referred to by the theorem is often referred to as ‘the Gödel sentence’ for the theory. The proof constructs a specific Gödel sentence for each effectively generated theory, but there are infinitely many statements in the language of the theory that share the property of being true but unprovable. For example, the conjunction of the Gödel sentence and any logically valid sentence will have this property.” .... “To prove the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel represented statements by numbers. Then the theory at hand, which is assumed to prove certain facts about numbers, also proves facts about its own statements, provided that it is effectively generated. Questions about the provability of statements are represented as questions about the properties of numbers, which would be decidable by the theory if it were complete. In these terms, the Gödel sentence states that no natural number exists with a certain, strange property. A number with this property would encode a proof of the

inconsistency of the theory. If there were such a number then the theory would be inconsistent, contrary to the consistency hypothesis. So, under the assumption that the theory is consistent, there is no such number.” “For each consistent formal theory T having the required small amount of number theory, the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: ‘G cannot be proved within the theory T’.”

The Second Incompleteness Theorem “For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.” – Wikipedia “This strengthens the first incompleteness theorem, because the statement constructed in the first incompleteness theorem does not directly express the consistency of the theory. The proof of the second incompleteness theorem is obtained by formalizing the proof of the first incompleteness theorem within the theory itself.” – Wikipedia

Metamathematics “Metamathematics is the study of mathematics itself using mathematical methods. This study produces metatheories, which are mathematical theories about other mathematical theories.” – Wikipedia “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. More recently, mathematical logic has often included the study of new pure mathematics, such as set theory, recursion theory and pure model theory, which is not directly related to metamathematics. “Serious metamathematical reflection began with the work of Gottlob Frege. “David Hilbert was the first to invoke the term ‘metamathematics’ with regularity. In his hands, it meant something akin to contemporary proof theory, in which finitary methods are used to study various axiomatized mathematical theorems. “Other prominent figures in the field include Bertrand Russell, Thoralf Skolem, Emil Post, Alonzo Church, Stephen Kleene, Willard Quine, Paul

Benacerraf, Hilary Putnam, Gregory Chaitin, Alfred Tarski and Kurt Gödel. In particular, arguably the greatest achievement of metamathematics and the philosophy of mathematics to date is Gödel’s incompleteness theorem: proof that given any finite number of axioms for Peano arithmetic, there will be true statements about that arithmetic that cannot be proved from those axioms.” – Wikipedia Metamathematics helps to reveal the true nature of mathematics. As things stand, Gödel is its most important figure, and his metamathematical theories are the best guide to mathematics. Gödel was an extreme Platonist. Oddly, Gödel’s Platonist views have been more or less completely rejected by the mainstream mathematical community. The subject of metamathematics is enormously important, and just as important is metascience. These are the philosophical subjects that provide a check on mathematics and science, respectively. Sadly, they are not ascribed much significance and are rarely studied by practising mathematicians or scientists. If they were compulsory, mathematics and science would be far more productive. Disasters occur if it isn’t understood what mathematics and science actually are. Why, for example, should science be based on a Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism? Think of all the assumptions involved in that choice, and all the elements that are thereby excluded. Who makes these decisions? Why do so many people unthinkingly accept the Meta Paradigm? Why is there no debate? All sorts of contradictions and anomalies arise if the subject and the meta subject are at odds. Why is science unable to produce a final theory of quantum gravity? It’s because science and metascience are incompatible. Mathematics and metamathematics are also in disagreement. It’s essential that philosophers – the experts in clear thinking and in thinking about thinking (metathinking) – get involved with mathematics and science and sort them out once and for all.

The One and Only Mathematics There is only ONE mathematics: ontological mathematics based on numbers. Historically, the notion that mathematics is independent of humans is called Platonism.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy provides the following definition: “Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical Platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.” Platonism, in terms of Illuminism, is actually the Pythagorean doctrine that all things are numbers. Numbers are the arche, the fundamental substance of existence. Numbers are the only ontological reality. Numbers rule all. The laws of mathematics take on the character of eternal, immutable Platonic Forms. Numbers, hence ontological mathematics, are everywhere, hence the laws of mathematics are also everywhere and inescapable. Platonism, in essence, is about the REALITY of mathematics. It contends that the phenomenal, visible world conceals the noumenal, invisible true reality of mathematics. Platonists assert that mathematical knowledge is the only kind we can ever have about the world which is true. Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel are the chief proponents of this view. (Spinoza and Hegel can also be placed in this camp.) Platonists think that all human problems will eventually be mathematized. To a large extent, science and computing have already accomplished this. Illuminism, by extending mathematics to religion, metaphysics and psychology, completes the task. Platonism is rationalist and idealist and asserts that all the truths of existence are to be revealed by mathematical reason and mathematical intuition. Platonism is radically different from science because it asserts that all the truths of science are ultimately mathematical, hence can be revealed by reason. Science places experiments (and evidence satisfactory to the senses) at its core. Platonism denies that experiments are capable of revealing the real truths of existence. Experiments simply lend credence to hypotheses. They do not definitively prove hypotheses. The scientific graveyard is full

of experimentally verified hypotheses. No one could believe that experiments reveal absolute truth. They manifestly don’t. Platonism asserts that the universe is mathematically ordered, patterned and organized. Existence is rational and its rationality flows from its inherent mathematical nature. We ourselves are mathematical beings. Platonists can also be described as Cartesians. However, just as scientists are opposed to Platonism, so in fact are most mathematicians! There are several different views of what mathematics is and all except Platonism declare that mathematics is about humans, and not anything “out there”. There are three non-Platonist mathematical paradigms or schools to which professional mathematicians subscribe. These are human constructs or models of what mathematics is. They are not mathematics itself. If mathematics is NOT ontological then it’s whatever human beings want it to be, and different groups will advocate different approaches. If mathematics IS ontological then there cannot be multiple competing versions of what it is. It is only one thing – reality itself, and it’s our task to uncover that reality, not to invent our own human version of it. The three main “human” versions of what mathematics is are: Logicism, Formalism and Intuitionism. They are defined below:

Logicism “Logicism is one of the schools of thought in the philosophy of mathematics, putting forth the theory that mathematics is an extension of logic and therefore some or all mathematics is reducible to logic. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead championed this theory fathered by Richard Dedekind and Gottlob Frege.” – Wikipedia

Formalism “The guiding idea behind formalism is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Intuitionism

“Intuitionism is a philosophy of mathematics that was introduced by the Dutch mathematician L.E.J. Brouwer (1881–1966). Intuitionism is based on the idea that mathematics is a creation of the mind. The truth of a mathematical statement can only be conceived via a mental construction that proves it to be true, and the communication between mathematicians only serves as a means to create the same mental process in different minds.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy It would be better if this were called CONSTRUCTIONISM to emphasize that it has nothing to do with the type of intuition that apprehends reality external to the mind.

Wittgenstein’s View It’s also worth considering Wittgenstein’s position. He said, “But in fact all the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit nothing.” This reflected his belief that tautology cannot describe reality. Since he also believed that mathematics was merely a method of logic, his position on mathematics was that it was empty tautology (of course, he failed to explain why natural science, which he revered, was miraculously untautological despite being so heavily dependent on mathematics).

***** In terms of ontological mathematics, all of these other versions are false. They may reflect valid aspects of mathematics but each is, ultimately, inconsistent, incomplete, or both. The great dream of all the non-Platonic schemes is to produce a finite, complete and consistent set of axioms, via which every statement of mathematics can be proved true. Gödel proved that this is impossible, so all of these notions ought to have died. They haven’t. Interestingly, Gödel showed that a complete and consistent arithmetic was possible if framed in non-finitary terms. (Finitary formal systems are those with a finite or countable number of elements, symbols or rules.) Gödel’s result was largely ignored, precisely because it escaped from the empiricist materialist requirement for the finite. Mathematics, considered in terms of infinite axioms, gives a complete and consistent system. Loosely speaking, we might say that given an

infinite number of axioms and time, everything is proved true or false in the end. Wittgenstein was, however, right that mathematics is about infinite tautology. He was wholly wrong that tautology is empty, contentless and unable to describe reality. Absolute truth and knowledge are all about tautology. In fact, everything that is objectively true reduces to the ultimate tautology: 0 = 0.

Set Theory “Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of object can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics. The language of set theory can be used in the definitions of nearly all mathematical objects. “The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s. After the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory, numerous axiom systems were proposed in the early twentieth century, of which the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, with the axiom of choice, are the best known. “Set theory is the study of sets, which are abstract collections of objects. Many of the basic notions, such as ordinal and cardinal numbers, were developed informally by Cantor before formal axiomatizations of set theory were developed. The first axiomatization, due to Zermelo, was extended slightly to become Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF), which is now the most widely-used foundational theory for mathematics. “Other formalizations of set theory have been proposed, include von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory (NBG), Morse-Kelley set theory (MK), and New Foundations (NF). Of these, ZF, NBG, and MK are similar in describing a cumulative hierarchy of sets. New Foundations takes a different approach; it allows objects such as the set of all sets at the cost of restrictions on its set-existence axioms.” – Wikipedia “Sets” are not primary mathematical entities – numbers are. Therefore, set theory is an invalid approach to mathematics. Number theory – in its broadest sense (i.e. every possible way of studying numbers, their properties and relations) is the true basis of mathematics.

Sets are the kind of concept that empiricist materialists devise. They are mostly about grouping and counting observable THINGS. They have an inherent bias against rational unobservables.

Intuition Intuition is one of the most mysterious phenomena of all. How can someone take possession of ideas “out of thin air”? To understand intuition, it’s first necessary to explain the senses, with which intuition is typically contrasted (as in Jung’s personality types). The senses use inverse Fourier transform mathematics and their task is to provide representations in the space and time domain of functions from the frequency domain (outside space and time). The senses are all about LOCALISM – being aware of our immediate environment. They are vital to our survival and to our existence as individuals inhabiting our own “space”. However, if nature has local features, the possibility immediately arises that it also has non-local features. To deny this, a skeptic would have to present a sufficient reason why non-local features are impossible. Typically, scientists dismiss all non-local phenomena, yet non-localism is built into science’s greatest triumph: quantum mechanics. To this day, over a century after its discovery, quantum mechanics remains unfathomable to the scientific mind (which is based on the senses and localism). Given the existence of non-local features, there must be an aspect of the mind that has evolved to give us access to this domain since, otherwise, we would be wasting a supremely valuable resource. Evolution would not be so “blind”: it always finds ways to make use of everything, especially where any competitive advantage is conferred. Intuition is in fact the mental attribute that has evolved to give us access to the interconnected domain of non-localism that exists OUTSIDE space and time. Intuition deals with Fourier transforms themselves (functions in the frequency domain), while the senses deal with inverse Fourier transforms (representations of frequency functions in the space and time domain). Intuition and the senses are a natural and complementary pair, yet they are inversely related. The more sensory you are, the less intuitive you are, and vice versa. That’s why Jung has them an opposing pair. One is the “shadow” of the other. Physics is all about the local environment, the one we detect with our senses. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is about the non-local environment, invisible to the senses, but “visible” to reason and intuition. “Thinking” lies

between the senses and intuition, and can ally itself with one or the other. When a rational mind is tied to the senses, it produces scientists (and also most mathematicians and empiricist, materialist and pragmatist philosophers). When a rational mind is tied to intuition, it produces metaphysicians, rationalists, idealists and Platonist mathematicians. The history of intellectualism has involved the struggle between those ruled by their senses and those by their intuition. The empiricists, materialists and scientists are the sensory proponents – inclined to atheism. The rationalists, idealists and metaphysicians are those on the side of intuition – and inclined to religion. The sensing types gained an enormous advantage by invoking mathematics to measure the observable world and predict various phenomena. Through science, the world has been transformed, and this success has been used to vindicate the empiricist materialist paradigm. What metaphysics has to do is embrace mathematics too, and indeed much more comprehensively. That’s exactly what Illuminism does. Illuminism is ontological mathematics, defined by rational unobservables available to reason and intuition, but not to the senses. Intuition will be vindicated as soon as an experiment is performed that is incompatible with materialism. In fact, the experiments used to prove Bell’s Inequality Theorem are already formally incompatible with the scientific bedrock of localism. But something much more spectacular is required, something that leaves no wriggle room whatsoever for materialists. Many scientists accept non-localism in an abstract sense but argue that it can’t be used for “signalling”, hence does not refute Einstein’s special theory of relativity in any practical sense: in other words, they now rely on pragmatism rather than facts to defend Einstein, and don’t seem remotely concerned by this.

***** People talk about a sixth sense, extra-sensory perception, the third eye, the inner eye, and so on. In fact, these have nothing to do with the senses. The senses are all about LOCALISM and consciousness. Intuition is all about NON-LOCALISM and the unconscious. When people talk about ideas coming to them out of “nothing”, what they mean is that their unconscious mind has detected something highly

meaningful and managed to smuggle it through to consciousness. Intuition is inherently much less predictable than sensory perception and can’t be made to perform to order. This is why intuition is regarded by many materialists as woo woo and mumbo jumbo. Above all, the scientific method cannot be applied to it. To accept the existence of intuition is to accept non-local effects: “spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein put it. It automatically implies a domain of mind independent of matter – anathema to all materialists. Human beings were once enormously more intuitive than they are now. When humans had bicameral minds, they were dominated by the righthemisphere – the hemisphere that specializes in intuition. Human beings were essentially attuned to non-local effects, and they were remote controlled by voices in their heads, which were interpreted as the voices of the gods. Indeed, that’s exactly what they were! Gods once directed humanity, as is depicted in Homer’s epics the Iliad and the Odyssey. This is discussed by Julian Jaynes, the forgotten genius who first proposed the bicameral hypothesis, though he thought the voices were invented by the mind itself and had no external source. The rise of left hemisphere consciousness and increasing sensory capability sabotaged our intuition. We became local, sensory, conscious beings rather than intuitive, bicameral beings attuned to non-local effects and in touch with the divine voices. The question of where humanity’s religious inclinations come from is one of the most important and fascinating of all. If we accept the scientific materialism doctrine of dead, mindless atoms miraculously coming together to create meaningless and purposeless life and mind, the idea that these collections of dead, lifeless atoms should create a fantasy whereby they strive for immortality, is bizarre and improbable in the extreme. In fact, given that science denies that human beings have genuine free will, consciousness itself is inexplicable in materialist terms since it’s wholly superfluous and can’t alter any of the causality nets in which we are allegedly trapped. Humans became religious for the simple reason that many experienced religion directly. Religion arose for three primary reasons: 1) people saw another world in their dreams where the dead were still alive (and dreams were accorded much more significance than they are now, and were not clearly separated from the waking state) , 2) they directly heard the voices

of the gods in their own heads (via bicameralism), and 3) they were much more intuitive than they are now and experienced reality in a radically different way from humans today. Why is religion now dying? Because we no longer have the hyperrealistic dreams we once had, the voices of the gods are silent and intuition in the vast majority of people is a shadow of its former self. Once dominant, it’s now secondary. Those people who are highly intuitive (on a par with the Oracles of Delphi who flourished for many hundreds of years) are now regarded as INSANE. People struggle with non-localism and intuition and keep slipping back to materialist, empiricist thinking. Many people have a horrendous struggle grasping that at this very moment every mind in the universe is connected to theirs, and theirs to every mind in the universe. Left-hemisphere people – thinking sensing types (scientists) – are almost wholly devoid of any religious sensibilities, which is of course why most scientists are atheists. They literally cannot conceive of a religious dimension to existence. Religion is a right-hemisphere phenomenon. The most religious people are feeling intuitives. The next most religious are thinking intuitives. Next come the feeling sensing types, and the thinking sensing types are not religious at all (they’re locked into the empiricist materialist paradigm – which has no place for God, souls, the afterlife and any non-local effects). Intellectually, our world has fallen under the spell of the atheist scientists. Religiously, the feeling sensing types (the Abrahamists) are in charge, and they are wholly irrational. Thus, the enlightened intuitives are engaged in a war on two fronts: against the atheist scientists and the irrational Abrahamists. We need the feeling and thinking intuitives to be in charge of the world, delivering a paradise of rational religion and spirituality and escaping from the curse of materialism, consumerism and irrational faith. All the major figures of the world’s religious history were bicameral feeling intuitives. All of them were highly susceptible to “voices” and, tragically, all of the Abrahamic prophets were susceptible to the Devil’s voice! The illiterate Mohammed dictated the SATANIC VERSES (i.e. the Koran) to his scribes.

*****

The Oracle at Delphi: what was she? – a classic bicameral feeling intuitive, wired to the Gods. What are genius mathematicians? They are oracles too, subject to astounding mathematical intuitions. Intuition is to the great mathematicians what sensory observations are to the great scientists.

The Singularity Mind = Singularity = Dimensionless, immaterial point with infinite information and energy capacity. Mind is indestructible and eternal. Mind = zero/infinity = mathematics.

***** MIND = SINGULARITY MIND = SINGULARITY MIND = SINGULARITY THE BIG BANG (SINGULARITY) IS A MENTAL EVENT. BLACK HOLE FORMATION (SINGULARITY) IS A MENTAL EVENT. Any mention of a singularity is a mention of the mind, hence why it causes materialists such dismay. The Singularity (with a capital “S”) comprises infinite singularities (with a small “s”). All individual singularities are individual souls (eternal, indestructible, infinite-energy, infinite-information life forces of a wholly mathematical nature). The mathematics of singularities is the mathematics of pure mind, divested of all material considerations. The Singularity and all of its component singularities are outside space and time. The Singularity gives rise to space, time and the material world via a particular “antisymmetry” operation that arranges singularities (monads; mathematical points) into a Cartesian-Gaussian grid based on real and imaginary orthogonal axes. Thus, matter is the product of mind and expresses Cartesian “extended” relations between minds.

The Singularity is a FREQUENCY DOMAIN. The Singularity is eternal. All of our souls are present in the Singularity right now. The basis of the mathematics of the Singularity is Euler’s Formula, and the Fourier mathematics to which it gives rise. Existence is 100% mathematical. There is nothing other than mathematics. The singularity is the fundamental unit of existence and the supreme mathematical object. All of the laws of mathematics are encoded within it, which is why the laws of mathematics are inescapable and embedded in everything. At all times, everything “knows” what to do mathematically since everything has complete access to the full laws of ontological mathematics.

Parts Monads have no resultant parts. There is nothing that can fall apart. Extended compounds in the material world do have resultant parts, hence can be dismantled. Anything that can be broken down (i.e. is extended) is mortal. Anything that cannot be broken down (i.e. is not extended) is immortal. Only monads are immortal. Monads are, of course, souls. Is it not remarkable? Instead of the soul being the weirdest and most unfathomable entity in existence, it is the actual foundation of existence – the sine qua non. Everything is ultimately about the soul, which is why scientific materialism will never explain reality.

What is Free Will? It’s an internal principle of a monad, immune from being affected by anything else. We are causal agents precisely because we are uncreated, uncaused beings, outside material causal necessity.

Causality In order for causality to exist, uncaused things must exist. After all, how do causal chains get started? They must have a “first cause” which itself has no cause. This has been used as an argument to prove the existence of God, but all it actually does is prove the existence of uncaused first causes (which are not in any way required to be God). Since there is no sufficient reason why there should be only one first cause (that causes everything else), the Principle of Sufficient Reason states that there must be INFINITE first causes, i.e. infinite entities capable of originating causality. Monads, of

which there are infinitely many, are the true “first cause”. Each is a first cause and thus, in that sense, a GOD. It’s actually possible to define a substance in these terms. An autonomous substance MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE. Any substance which is caused, e.g. all the substances, elements, molecules and compounds of science, are secondary, derived substances, hence not true substances at all. Science currently has no first causes, although the hypothetical 1D strings of M-theory are straying into that territory. They cause all the phenomena of science, but what causes them? Science, as ever, is silent. Science has no ability to explain first causes. It is never mentioned, but FREE WILL is identical to first cause. A freely chosen action commences a causal chain, but a genuinely free choice has no cause other than the nature of the entity doing the choosing, which is unique to it and not dependent on anything else or caused by anything else. The existence of free will proves the existence of entities outside causal chains, hence outside scientific causality! To state it more forcefully, one of the most important questions of all (because of what it implies) is the status of free will. Science DENIES free will since it talks only of relentless causality: nothing happens without a cause (even if “cause” ends up being quantum mechanical probability). Science, equally, denies formal first causes. It does so by invoking RANDOMNESS. The Big Bang was allegedly caused by a random quantum fluctuation. Science is of course entirely unable to account for why such fluctuations should occur. They just do, apparently – which is no explanation at all and constitutes an appeal to magic, something which science does surprisingly frequently. What laws cause these fluctuations? Where are those laws? How do they exist? In what context does a quantum fluctuation exist? How can that context be explained? Science is silent. Quantum fluctuations, to put it bluntly, are science’s equivalent of MAGIC! Things pop out of thin air for no reason at all, with no logical necessity. When science makes such statements, it’s no longer science. It’s religious faith in magical randomness – all to avoid Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason, which is the opposite of randomness. Randomness replaces “God” as the cosmic magician, and is every bit as absurd. Like God, randomness explains nothing. CAUSES MUST HAVE UNCAUSED ENTITIES AS THEIR SOURCE, THEIR ORIGIN, THEIR TRIGGER.

FREE WILL IS AN UNCAUSED CAUSE. FREELY CHOSEN ACTIONS INITITIATE CAUSAL CHAINS. ONLY SOULS ARE ETERNAL UNCAUSED CAUSES. ONLY SOULS HAVE FREE WILL. FREE WILL = UNCAUSED CAUSAL INITIATION. Monads are the FIRST CAUSES, THE UNCAUSED CAUSES. You cannot have existence, you cannot have causality, without existential uncaused causes. Monads are causal agents with free will. They are logically necessary for the existence and functioning of the world. Free will is a prerequisite for existence. Causality cannot be explained without reference to first causes that are themselves uncaused (hence belong to wholly different category of existence: primary rather than secondary existence; simple and autonomous rather than compounded and derived). Uncaused causes are by definition FREE. Since they are not caused by anything else, they are the source of free will. Why can an artificial intelligence never be human? Because it will always be a creation, and only uncreated things can be alive, with free will. Free will is the quintessence of life. Free will proves that there are eternal, independent, indestructible, uncaused causes, i.e. potential Gods – SOULS. Free will has no cause outside itself. In order for free will to exist, there must be uncaused causes. Free will and uncaused causes go together. They are one and the same thing. Since an uncaused cause can have no cause, this means that it’s ETERNAL. It can be neither created nor destroyed. That means it’s a SOUL. Souls – free, uncaused causes – are the basis of existence. Without them, nothing can exist or happen. Existence cannot be explained without freedom. Freedom is life and mind. The universe is fundamentally free and alive, and the opposite of the kind of causal, deterministic, clockwork mechanism envisaged by science. As soon as you consider uncaused causes – how causality gets started – you enter the domain of freedom, life and mind. Science refuses to enter this domain and instead cites inexplicable, magical randomness. If

randomness is the basis of existence, why aren’t completely bizarre, random things happening all the time? How can existence be so ordered and organized if its fundamental substrate is pure randomness where things happen for no reason at all? Surely such a system would give rise to permanent CHAOS! The traditional Cosmological Argument of philosophy and religion appeals to a single Prime Mover or First Cause (hence God). This is wholly false. There are INFINITE prime movers. All souls are prime movers, and souls are the only things that truly exist. All causal, compounded things are derived from prime movers, from souls. All secondary movers are the results of prime movers. There must always be a foundational level of existence, and then a level derived from it. We can use the term “noumenal” to describe the primary reality and “phenomenal” for the secondary reality. Science is a study of the secondary, phenomenal, unfree, causal, machinelike, deterministic world; it has NOTHING to say about noumena (souls), which are primary, uncreated, uncaused, free, eternal and ALIVE. The noumenal domain is a living organism. The phenomenal domain is a machine derived from that living organism which serves as a predictable, objective “body”, or vehicle, for subjective life. Scientists have committed the catastrophic error of mistaking appearances (machinelike phenomena) for reality (living noumena). It’s a mistake on a par with Abrahamism.

***** All uncaused things are, by definition, ETERNAL. All caused things are temporal and are caused by the uncaused things. All temporal things are grounded in eternal things. You cannot have a temporal, material world that is not founded in an eternal, immaterial world (a mental world). Uncaused things are by definition outside space, time, extension, dimensionality and contingency. All contingent things are grounded in necessary things. All a posteriori things are grounded in a priori things. All synthetic things are grounded in analytic things. All truths of fact are grounded in truths of reason.

All corruptible things are grounded in incorruptible things. All compounded, divisible things are grounded in simple, indivisible things. A fundamental, eternal existent cannot require anything for its existence; it cannot be dependent on anything, caused by anything, created by anything. It must be absolutely self sufficient, self-ruling, unique and free. Only one entity can rationally fit the bill – NOTHING, i.e. zero. And zero, of course, is always accompanied by INFINITY. Zero/infinity is the double-headed existential coin that is wholly self-sufficient. Zero/infinity is the Leibnizian MONAD – the SOUL. The explanation of a contingent universe cannot lie within that contingent universe. The contingent Big Bang universe cannot be explained by anything within it (so there goes science!). The contingent universe must have an explanation outside itself (in a necessary universe). You cannot look to contingency to explain contingency; you cannot look to compounds to explain compounds; you cannot look to temporality to explain eternity; you cannot look to the material to explain the immaterial; you cannot look to non-life to explain life; you cannot look to mind to explain non-mind; you cannot look to causality to explain freedom; in other words, you cannot look to science to explain existence (or even to explain science!). You must go outside science to explain science – to the domain of necessary, eternal, Platonic things. The basis of the Ontological Argument is that the essence of a certain entity (God) must include its existence. This argument must be right for some entity for the simple fact that the universe exists. The fundamental unit of existence must have existence as its quintessence. There is only one thing that has necessary existence. It is a thing that is permanently poised between being and nothing and thus is an eternal becoming (as per Hegel’s dialectical philosophy). There is only one candidate: the Leibnizian monad – the double-headed coin of zero (nothing) and infinity (everything), in eternal motion (becoming). The monad is the perfect expression of existence and non-existence (something equals nothing). The sufficient reason for the monad’s existence is that it can’t not exist (or, rather, it already incorporates non-existence – nothing – as part of its definition). The only thing which can fundamentally exist is that which, in another sense, fundamentally does not exist. Zero/infinity is the only resolution of that paradox. When we refer to

“infinity”, we are always referring to an infinity that necessarily cancels to zero because its “positive” infinite nature is exactly matched by its “negative” infinite nature. So, even infinity is just a special kind of nothing. We might state the ontological argument alongside its opposite: the nonontological argument. That is, if existence is held to be the fundamental essence of something, what sufficient reason is there to prevent nonexistence equally being part of its fundamental essence? How could existence ever be privileged over non-existence? If “something” equals “nothing” then we arrive at a new understanding of existence. As Hegel pointed out, being and nothing might seem to be dialectical opposites, but if you think about each in its purest, barest form then they are in a sense synonymous; opposite perspectives of the same thing. BECOMING is the perfect reconciliation of existence and nonexistence. We should probably not talk about ontology at all. “Becoming” is both existence and non-existence, so becoming is the primary reality and existence and non-existence are two dialectically opposite perspectives of that fundamental essence: BECOMING. Becoming is of course all about movement and we might actually say BECOMING = MOVEMENT. The fundamental units of the universe are in perpetual motion. The fundamental units of the universe have infinite energy that can never run out. MOTION/ENERGY/BECOMING are the true reality of our mysterious universe. Astoundingly, “existence” is a misnomer because existence can never truly be distinguished from non-existence. Mathematically, and only mathematically, being and nothing can be shown to be the same thing. We are alive solely because of this peculiar paradox. Souls are therefore eternal becomings, permanently striving to become MORE. The only thing a “becoming” can rationally strive for in a purposeful universe is MORE, i.e. to become more: better, more powerful, more fulfilled, more perfect, more GODLIKE.

The Contingent World Science is extremely good at describing our contingent world, and this misleads us into thinking it explains reality. But reality is eternal and science is contingent. Science doesn’t explain reality in any way at all!

Science has no connection with true reality (the noumenal domain); it is all about the contingent, phenomenal universe.

The Antidote What is the antidote to all of the falsehoods of science? – Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, the bedrock of hyperrationalism. In many ways, empiricist, materialist science is simply a futile and preposterous attempt to prove the Principle of Sufficient Reason false. While Leibniz’s principle is about explaining why everything is such and not otherwise (i.e., it seeks to precisely account for our world), science invokes randomness, statistics and Multiverses in order, ultimately, to demonstrate that nothing has any explanation at all: everything that can happen will happen, so mere statistical possibility becomes the driver of everything. Nothing is ever ruled out. No choices are ever made. Nothing is “explained” beyond the fact that it had a finite probability associated with it, which is not an explanation at all but simply a statement. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is the most important idea in the whole of history. It operates through the agency of infallible, eternal mathematics.

Existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? There ISN’T! Something = nothing. Being = Nothing. The mystery of reality boils down to something as simple as: 6 – 2 – 3 – 1 = 0. Here we see that “existents” (the entities on the left) equate to non-existence (nothing; the entity on the right). All of ontological mathematics can be boiled down to endless tautological expressions of 0 = 0. In truth, existence and non-existence can never be formally separated. Becoming is the true reality. We will continue to refer to existence, of course, because it’s ingrained in language and philosophy, but neither existence nor non-existence has any true reality. REALITY IS BECOMING – that which is always on the razor’s edge of existence and non-existence, being and nothing, something and nothing.

The present instant – NOW – is what best captures the universe of becoming. Nothing is more elusive than “now”. It goes as soon as it arrives! You can never pin it down. You can never freeze frame now. In “now”, existence and non-existence perpetually collide. At the present instant, the future does not exist (but will) and nor does the past (but did), and “now” is neither existence nor non-existence, but both. There you have profound the mystery of reality. Aristotle pondered if time really existed – and time in that sense might be regarded is a proxy for becoming. It neither exists nor doesn’t exist! It simply becomes. It’s always in motion, always changing.

Artificial Intelligence An uncaused cause is, precisely because it’s uncaused, FREE. That’s what being free is – being uncaused by any factor outside yourself and your own nature. Moreover, an uncaused cause never at any time becomes caused. It remains free eternally. This means that your own free will – which you surely don’t question for an instant – is the PROOF that you are an uncreated, indestructible uncaused cause, for now and forever. Your freedom is the proof that you have an immortal soul and that you cannot die!!! Your freedom proves that you are an eternal uncaused cause. Any unfree thing is caused. You are not. A machine could never be free because it could never have a soul. It will have always been a constructed, created, CAUSED thing. There is only one way in which a machine could live and that is if we could design it in such an ingenious way that a soul could bind to it (just as souls bind to biological bodies via the DNA binding system). In other words, while a machine could never be alive in its own right, it could become a host for an immortal, free soul, in which case it would be just as alive as any of us. Without that binding to living souls, machines will always be dead, clockwork mechanisms.

The Big Bang The Big Bang was not a single causal event but an infinite causal event. Each monad acted as its own individual causal Big Bang within the collective monadic Super Big Bang – which is why the Big Bang is not described as an explosion IN space but OF SPACE: every point (monad) of

space. That’s why the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (i.e. appears to be uniform, the same in every direction and to have no apparent centre). In terms of Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, there is no sufficient reason why the Big Point should have happened “somewhere” and therefore it happened “everywhere”. By the same token, there is no sufficient reason why it should have happened at just one point and must therefore have happened at ALL points. There is no sufficient reason why it should have begun anywhere sooner than anywhere else, so it happened simultaneously everywhere. This means that the Big Bang involved an infinitely-nodal Singularity creating an infinite universe INSTANTLY. The scientific materialist idea that a point “inflated” into non-space is about as illogical and absurd as you can possibly get. The only reason it is taken seriously is that it seems to “explain” the expansion of space. However, when you realize that an infinite space can expand thanks to the mind-boggling mathematics of “Hotel Infinity”, you see that the traditional scientific depiction is ludicrous. There is no “inflation”. The universe instantly goes from a point (a Singularity) to an infinite grid, and the grid then keeps expanding because the force of Hotel Infinity, so-called “dark energy”, is inflating it. Since the Illuminati have explained the mystery of dark energy, we now ought to be awarded the Nobel Prize!

The Conspiracy against Leibniz Gödel, whose admiration of Leibniz knew no bounds, believed that a secret group had conspired against Leibniz, and this group was active to the present day, seeking to ensure that Leibniz’s dazzling work failed to gain the audience it deserved. It’s quite apparent that Gödel projected himself onto Leibniz (thus he became Leibniz’s proxy) and he believed that the modern version of the anti-Leibniz conspiracy was directed against him too. Gödel saw his work as being a triumphant vindication of Platonism. Almost no one else has interpreted it this way. In fact, the opposite is true. Gödel’s work is now routinely used to scoff at all rationalist projects and show that they can’t possibly work or be true. Can you imagine how galling it must have been for Gödel when the world used (rather, misused) his ingenious theorems to prove the inverse of what he intended with his infinitely precise rationalist labours?

One of our tasks is not only to elevate Leibniz to the apex of the pantheon of geniuses, but also to have Gödel’s revolutionary work used for its true purpose – to prove the existence of a Platonic realm of mathematics that finitary, formalist, empiricist materialist methods will never capture. They will never tame it. They will never remove its face of the infinite (objectivity) and its obverse face of nothing (subjectivity). Gödel believed, rightly, that the world would have to appreciate Leibniz before it could appreciate him.

***** Gödel believed he was uncovering the existence of a worldwide conspiracy to make men less intelligent. (Kurt, it’s called capitalist democracy!) He insisted that Leibniz had completed the universal language of thought (the characteristica universalis), which was able to answer all questions capable of a rational solution. However, sinister forces, he believed, had then ensured it was never made public because these forces did not want a rational world where their own power would be lost. It didn’t occur to Gödel that perhaps Leibniz was appalled by the notion of his work being misinterpreted and abused (exactly as happened to Gödel’s work) and wanted it to be preserved by people capable of understanding and treasuring it, who would release it when the world was ready. The group protecting Leibniz’s work is of course the Illuminati, of which Leibniz ranks as perhaps the greatest of all of its Grand Masters. Gödel was right that there was a conspiracy regarding Leibniz in which some of Leibniz’s work was publicly suppressed but he was wrong about its nature. The conspiracy was to protect Leibniz’s work, not to damage it.

***** Leibniz, the über-rationalist, was Gödel’s hero and the only man with whom he truly identified. He believed that the supreme rationalists – thinkers such as himself and Leibniz – were marked men whose work was systematically concealed or distorted to prevent the masses from becoming rationally enlightened. In fact, the work of rationalists is simply ignored.

Monads versus Strings Monads: logical, necessary, mathematical atoms.

Strings: ad hoc, contingent, scientific “atoms”.

Calculus “Every time mathematicians tried to deal with the infinite or with 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 zero by itself. Zero and infinity made the simple acts of tangents 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 gave scientists a way to express the laws that govern the motion of the celestial bodies – and laws that would eventually tell scientists how the moons and stars had formed. Calculus was the very language of nature, yet its very fabric was infused with zeros and infinities that threatened to destroy the new tool.” – Charles Seife, Zero, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea Seife’s book is excellent, but it should perhaps be retitled as “Idealism, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. The extract we have quoted is all about fleeing in horror from zero and infinity – and indeed most of the book is about the sheer hatred and revulsion for zero and infinity that have been exhibited throughout history. That is, Seife, and the widespread opinion he represents, is preoccupied with defending the materialist philosophy. Seife is fascinated by zero and infinity but, like so many others, he sees them as some strange problem that needs to be overcome rather than as the quintessence of existence that needs to be embraced and made foundational to our understanding of reality. Zero and infinity pose no problems at all for idealists. They are nightmares only for materialists – because they make no sense within that paradigm. So, calculus has been “reframed” by the mathematical equivalent of M-theorists. These people have attempted to remove zero and infinity from calculus, even though these numbers are what it’s all about. In effect, they have maintained the power of calculus while denying the reality of

calculus, and so they talk about “approaching zero” to an arbitrary degree of closeness, but never actually reaching zero (thus maintaining the illusion of materialism). This type of manoeuvring is almost comical. It’s not motivated by mathematics but by the needs of the empiricist materialist paradigm of science. Calculus – TRUE CALCULUS – is all about zero and infinity. As soon as you link the number zero to the dimensionless point, the monad, then an expression such as “division of zero by zero” becomes meaningless. All such terms would have to be redefined in terms of monads. Thus, you might have ten monads divided by two monads (which equals five). As soon as monads are regarded as ontological entities rather than abstractions, calculus becomes a wholly different subject with a wholly different interpretation. “Idealist calculus” has a crucial technical difference from “materialist calculus”. An easy way to understand differential calculus is as a means of stepping down a dimension from the function you are differentiating, whereas integration involves the opposite process and adds a dimension. Consider the two functions y = x3 + 2x2 + 6 and y = x3 + 2x2 + 3. If we differentiate them, then, according to materialist calculus, we get 2 3x + 4x each time, i.e. two different functions give the same result. You would think that would worry mathematicians, but, no, it doesn’t! Things like this don’t worry them at all. According to idealist calculus, we get 3x2 + 4x + 6 monads and 3x2 + 4x + 3 monads, i.e. the results are suitably distinct. That means that when we integrate the resultant idealist functions, we return to the original distinct functions. However, we can’t do the same with materialist calculus. We never recover the original functions because constants (such as 6 and 3 in the above functions) vanish to indistinguishable zero in each case. Isn’t it alarming that materialist mathematicians were horrified by division by zero in calculus and sought to abolish it but seemed wholly unperturbed by the shocking hole in the centre of materialist calculus whereby you can’t seamlessly go back and forth between differentiation and integration if a function contains a constant term? In idealist calculus, no such problem exists. When, via differentiation, you strip the dimensionality from a constant such as 5 (which is equivalent to five 1D unit lines), you don’t get “nothing”, you get five dimensionless monad units. Hence, you can easily reconstruct the constant, c, when you

integrate. (This topic is discussed in much greater detail in The Noosphere, the next book in The God Series.) It has been said by some commentators that Leibniz was wrong mathematically (and metaphysically) when he asserted that absolutely any whole could in principle be regenerated from any of its parts (a highly holographic concept). Naturally, Leibniz wasn’t wrong at all. It’s his critics who were (and are) wrong! Leibniz was the true inventor of calculus, so he ought to know. Leibniz was of course using idealist calculus whereas his critics are attacking him via materialist calculus, which is not the same thing at all. This leads to a worrying truth about mainstream mathematics. It is infected by the empiricist materialism of science with which it has chosen to align itself. Like scientists, most practising mathematicians are hostile to zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers. Most are opposed to Platonic mathematics. Gödel, one of the greatest mathematical geniuses of all time, was appalled by the attitude of most of his own colleagues towards what he regarded as the true nature of mathematics. He was right, of course. Mathematics is RATIONALIST, IDEALIST, PLATONIC and ONTOLOGICAL, not EMPIRICIST, MATERIALIST, ABSTRACT and FORMALIST (“formalists” or “relativists” are those who believe that mathematics is a human invention). Mathematicians themselves are often the worst enemies of the truth of mathematics. As ever, it is because they are staggeringly philosophically illiterate that they adopt this science-driven attitude. Mathematicians ought to be based around the thinking of Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel. Sadly, it has been willing to submit to the high priests of empiricist materialist science. Someone such as Einstein is probably more revered by mathematicians than the divine Leibniz. Many mathematicians are a disgrace and insult to mathematics. Many of them are thinking sensing types (like scientists) rather than thinking intuitives. Isn’t it extraordinary? Most mathematicians have no idea of what it is they’re studying. They content to regard mathematics as a kind of super crossword puzzle – an intellectual game – rather than as the Philosopher’s Stone itself: the explanation of everything. Mathematics is wasted on most mathematicians who are unimaginative, autistic “calculators” and technicians rather than grand visionaries leading the world to divinity.

It’s time for mathematics to free itself from science and declare itself the master, not the slave, in that particular relationship. Mathematicians must become the supreme spiritual and intellectual elite – exactly as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes and Leibniz intended.

Nit Pickers Why do people nit-pick? They get bogged down in some tiny detail of something, forget the big picture, and all the energy drains away from them. They count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while forgetting what their task in life is.

Going to the Dogs It’s fascinating watching dogs with their masters because it’s just like watching humans with the Old World Order: obedient, compliant, docile, submissive and dependent. In Planet of the Apes, a holocaust destroyed human civilisation and allowed the apes to take over. Imagine that humanity is wiped out and Planet of the Dogs comes into being. Can anyone doubt that semiintelligent dogs would worship an invisible “Master”, exactly like their old human masters? They might even call it JEHOVAH, just as so many humans do. Their Master promises them “treats” when they do his bidding (heaven) and punishment (hell) when they disobey. Isn’t this hypothetical doggie world exactly the same as our human world? When you really get down to it, humans are staggeringly primitive animals driven by ferociously simplistic systems revolving around pleasure, pain and behaviourist operant conditioning.

Leibniz versus Newton “I don’t believe in natural science.” – Kurt Gödel You ought to be able to state exactly what something is before you start using it, rather than just using it and then hoping that “all will become clear” later on. Leibniz was obsessed with getting his concepts logically ironclad. Newton just blundered ahead and created his ad hoc concepts of absolute space and time, and gravity which operates instantaneously everywhere through the void – like magic!

Who got all the plaudits? Well, Newton, of course. Leibniz became a mere footnote in history. Yet Leibniz was right all along. His approach did not suit scientists eager to mass produce their papers and achieve career acclaim. Leibniz says, in effect, that you cannot embark on science unless you have first rationally defined everything upon which you will rely, and ensured the definitions are mutually consistent. This is the hyperrationalist method. The scientific method on the other hand says that you should just launch into things with any old arbitrary hypothesis, carry out experiments and see how you get on, refine the hypothesis, test again, and so on ad infinitum. It’s an entirely different approach to problem solving and is based on pragmatism rather than rationalism. Since there is no “system”, science is never anything other than arbitrary. Mathematics is a wholly different enterprise and proceeds in a different way, based on rationalism and not pragmatism. In many ways, mathematics is the opposite of conventional Newtonian science. With Leibniz, on the other hand, mathematics and science were practically identical. Science is a perfect example of Hegelian dialectics (grey logic; fuzzy logic) – very messy and proceeding largely by way of trial and error. Mathematical rationalism is an expression of black and white, binary Aristotelian logic, proceeding by way of precise, analytic steps. In Illuminism, the LAWS of the universe are consistent with immutable, eternal Platonic Forms and Aristotelian logic, as reconciled by Leibniz. However, evolution within this framework proceeds dialectically via Darwinian natural selection and Lamarckian adaptation. It’s a brute force, ugly method.

The Nonlocal Universe “The universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles, which remain in contact with one another over any distance, [and] in no time.” – Henry Stapp “The essential features of the implicate order are, that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything, and that each thing is enfolded in the whole.” – David Bohm These are exact descriptions of the Leibnizian monadic Singularity. What is especially frustrating about physics is that many physicists understand that

the basic materialist position is junk, but no one has the guts or authority to denounce it once and for all and abandon this failed paradigm. Too many careers and pensions are at stake!

The Six Dimensional Universe “[Our understanding of physics will] come from the geometry, and not from the fields.” – John Archibald Wheeler In Illuminism, the universe is not assigned the conventional four dimensions (three of space and one of time) of physics. Such an asymmetric arrangement immediately raises the question of why the dimensionality of the universe should be so ungainly. Where is the sufficient reason for this asymmetry? Illuminism instead uses six standard dimensions, three of space and three of imaginary space (with the latter providing the context for time). This 6D universe is derived from a consideration of Euler’s Formula, where real and imaginary numbers are perfectly balanced, and real cosine waves balance imaginary sine waves.

Science and Atheism Empiricist materialist science is a strictly atheistic position. There is no room whatsoever for God, the soul, or any afterlife. Nothing immaterial, dimensionless and unobservable is accepted within this Meta Paradigm. Those scientists who accept the Meta Paradigm yet also regard themselves as people of faith adopt the attitude that empiricism and materialism are the correct basis of science, but there is a level beyond science (the faith domain), about which science can say nothing. So, even some empiricist materialists are openly admitting that their Meta Paradigm can’t be the whole story. These people compartmentalize their science and their faith, and never mix the two (because they would be mixing incompatible Meta Paradigms). It’s hard to understand how any scientists can be believers. Why accept the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm at all if you do not believe it’s the whole story (why not turn to rationalist idealism instead)? And how can anyone rationally meld a faith-based Meta Paradigm to an empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm when it’s the direct opposite? Why did “God” arrange the world in such an odd way that if you accept materialist science (which he presumably used in his Creation) then you are highly likely not to accept him?!

As ever, these people of faith are philosophical illiterates. They don’t know that empiricist materialism is only one possible version of science and another version exists (rationalist idealism) that is wholly compatible with the immortal, immaterial soul – and indeed is based on the soul as the ultimate reality.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem The statement “I am unprovable” cannot be provable. If it were, it would be true but making a false claim, which is absurd. The statement “I am unprovable” cannot be false. If it were false, its negation (“I am provable”) would be true. However, if this negation is true then that serves to prove the original statement true (that it is unprovable), which cannot be the case since we have just stated that it is false. This is fatal contradiction. Thus, the only remaining possibility is for the statement “I am unprovable” to be true, but unprovable, just as it says. That is, it’s a true statement whose truth cannot be proved. Gödel’s theorem asserts that any formal logical system must suffer from at least one of the following deficiencies: 1) inadequacy: the system is too simple to perform basic arithmetic, i.e. it can’t count. 2) inconsistency: the system can count but it contains statements that can be both proved and disproved, which is absurd. 3) incompleteness: there are statements which the system recognises as meaningful but which it can neither prove nor disprove. What do you prefer – inadequacy, inconsistency or incompleteness? The only way to have adequacy, consistency and completeness is to accept ontological mathematics, which is inherently complete (it contains ALL numbers, including zero and infinity: no numbers whatsoever are excluded); which is inherently consistent (existence cannot have inconsistencies or it would be radically unstable and disintegrate into chaos); which is inherently adequate for counting and indeed for all mathematical tasks with no exceptions.

DF: “Gödel’s theorem is not a limitation of mathematics itself. Rather, it shows the limitations of ‘mechanistic’, formal systems (systems that are equivalent to computer programs containing finite information). Any such system (and we can’t ‘externally’ finish describing any other kind of system, although we may perhaps refer to them) will be incomplete. Just as all computing machines are equivalent to one, all formal systems are but the manifold shadows of a higher mathematical reality, or ‘complete mathematics’ as it were.” Exactly so. “In principle, we can know all of mathematics. It is given to us in its entirety and does not change. … That part of it of which we have a perfect view seems beautiful, suggesting harmony; that is that all the parts fit together although we see fragments of them only. … Mathematics is applied to the real world and has proved fruitful. This suggests that the mathematical parts and the empirical parts are in harmony and the real world is also beautiful.” – Gödel

Intelligibility Is the universe intelligible? If it is (and it is!), then either an intelligence is responsible or the actual stuff of the universe is inherently intelligible. If a Creator God did not intelligently design the universe then what “thing” could the universe possibly be made of that would give the appearance of intelligent design? Well, there’s only one candidate, of course: mathematics. A universe composed of mathematical entities can’t manifest itself in any way other than mathematically, and consequently display an incredible amount of order, design, organisation, pattern, form, shape – exactly of the type that would be supplied by any Designer. A universe with all the appearance of design is either designed by an intelligent designer (a consciousness) or comes inbuilt with design features (it’s made of stuff that exhibits intrinsic design). Plato talked of “Form” (ideas) and unformed matter and when they were brought together (by the Demiurge), they gave rise to a designed world. Formless matter on its own would forever remain chaotic, disordered and showing no signs of design. Aristotle took Plato’s Forms from their transcendent realm outside space and time and made them immanent in the physical universe, i.e. form and

matter, although separate entities, were always to be found together, giving the appearance of design (although there was now no need for a Platonic Designer Demiurge). In Illuminism, “matter” and Form become united, so to speak, in mathematical monads. The true stuff of the universe (mathematical energy) is contained within monads (and released by individual monads into a collective monadic arena of space and time), and is wholly defined by mathematics, hence automatically carries mathematical form. Thus, form and “matter” (matter is simply dimensional rather than dimensionless energy) are invariably found together in all circumstances.

Platonism “I am trying to prove that the laws of nature are a priori.” – Kurt Gödel “Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally, they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is...” – Gödel “One bad effect of logical positivism is its claim of being intimately associated with mathematical logic. As a result, other philosophers tend to distance themselves from mathematical logic and therewith deprive themselves of the benefits of a precise way of thinking.” – Gödel Gödel was ferociously anti-empiricist and highly receptive to mathematical intuition – his personal link to the transcendent Platonic domain. Platonism, a.k.a. mathematical realism, is the view that existence is mathematical. It asserts that the truths of mathematics are independent of human minds but can be discovered by human minds. Reality comprises numbers and the eternal, immutable laws of mathematics that define them and their relations. “I believe that mathematical reality lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theories which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations’, are simply notes of our observations. This view has been held, in one form or another, by many philosophers of high reputation from Plato onwards...

“[This] realistic view is much more plausible of mathematical than of physical reality, because mathematical objects are so much more what they seem. A chair or a star is not the least what it seems to be; the more we think of it, the fuzzier its outlines become in the haze of sensation which surrounds it; but ‘2’ or ‘317’ has nothing to do with sensation, and its properties stand out the more clearly we scrutinize it. It may be that modern physics fits best into some framework of idealistic philosophy – I do not believe it, but there are eminent physicists who say so. Pure mathematics, on the other hand, seems to me a rock on which all idealism founders: 317 is a prime, not because we think so, or because our minds are shaped in one way or another, but because it is so, because mathematical reality is built that way.” – G. H. Hardy Hardy didn’t seem to consider that minds were themselves mathematical. Idealism doesn’t founder at all.

Gödel Contra Materialism “Materialism is false.” – Gödel “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. ‘Matter’ refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter.” – Gödel “Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts.” – Gödel “The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit.” – Gödel Leibniz could equally have made all of these statements. They are all in agreement with the tenets of Illuminism. A key corollary is that artificial intelligence is impossible. “I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.” – Gödel

“Our total reality and total existence are beautiful and meaningful . . . . We should judge reality by the little which we truly know of it. Since that part which conceptually we know fully turns out to be so beautiful, the real world of which we know so little should also be beautiful. Life may be miserable for seventy years and happy for a million years: the short period of misery may even be necessary for the whole.” – Gödel

Gödel’s Esoteric Philosophy 1) The world is rational. 2) Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). 3) There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). 4) There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. 5) The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. 6) There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. 7) The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible. 8) Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. 9) Formal rights comprise a real science. 10) Materialism is false. 11) The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. 12) Concepts have an objective existence. 13) There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. 14) Religions are, for the most part, bad – but religion is not.

Gödel believed that scientific disproofs would emerge in the 21st century of the conventional positions that there is “mechanism in biology” and that “there is no mind separate from matter”. He thought that a supremely important project was the establishment of a “rational religion”. Illuminism does everything of which Gödel dreamt.

The Wisdom of Gödel “Philosophy as an exact theory should do for metaphysics as much as Newton did for physics. I think it is perfectly possible that the development of such a philosophical theory will take place within the next hundred years or even sooner.” – Gödel “Reason and understanding concern two levels of concept. Dialectics and feelings are involved in reason.” – Gödel “Religion may also be developed as a philosophical system built on axioms. In our time, rationalism is used in an absurdly narrow sense …. Rationalism involves not only logical concepts. Churches deviated from religion which had been founded by rational men. The rational principle behind the world is higher than people.” – Gödel “General philosophy is a conceptual study, for which method is allimportant.” – Gödel “Whole and part—partly concrete parts and partly abstract parts—are at the bottom of everything. They are most fundamental in our conceptual system. Since there is similarity, there are generalities. Generalities are just a fundamental aspect of the world. It is a fundamental fact of reality that there are two kinds of reality: universals and particulars.” – Gödel “Don’t collect data. If you know everything about yourself, you know everything. There is no use burdening yourself with a lot of data. Once you understand yourself, you understand human nature and then the rest follows.” – Gödel “What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a

meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.” – Gödel “The active intellect works on the passive intellect which somehow shadows what the former is doing and helps us as a medium.” – Gödel “When an extremely improbable situation arises, we are entitled to draw large conclusions from it.” – Gödel “The notion of existence is one of the primitive concepts with which we must begin as given. It is the clearest concept we have.” – Gödel “This blindness (or prejudice, or whatever you may call it) of logicians is indeed surprising. But I think the explanation is not hard to find. It lies in a widespread lack, at that time, of the required epistemological attitude toward metamathematics and toward non-finitary reasoning. …” – Gödel “If it were true [that there are mathematical problems undecidable by the human mind] it would mean that human reason is utterly irrational in asking questions it cannot answer, while asserting emphatically that only reason can answer them. Human reason would then be very imperfect and, in some sense, even inconsistent, in glaring contradiction to the fact that those parts of mathematics which have been systematically and completely developed show an amazing degree of beauty and perfection. In these fields, by entirely unexpected laws and procedures, means are provided not only for solving all relevant problems, but also solving them in a most beautiful and perfectly feasible manner.” – Gödel “My objectivistic conception of mathematics and metamathematics in general, and of transfinite reasoning in particular, was fundamental also to my other work in logic.” – Gödel “How indeed could one think of expressing metamathematics in the mathematical systems themselves, if the latter are considered to consist of meaningless symbols which acquire some substitute of meaning only through metamathematics?” – Gödel “Turing, in Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 42 (1936), p. 250, gives an argument which is supposed to show that mental procedures cannot carry any farther than mechanical procedures. However, this argument is inconclusive, because it depends on the supposition that that a finite mind is capable of

only a finite number of distinguishable states. What Turing disregards completely is the fact that mind, in its use, is not static, but constantly developing. … Therefore, although at each stage of the mind’s development the number of its possible states is finite, there is no reason why this number should not converge to infinity in the course of its development. Now there may exist systematic methods of accelerating, specializing, and uniquely determining this development, e.g. by asking the right questions on the basis of a mechanical procedure. But it must be admitted that the precise definition of a procedure of this kind would require a substantial deepening of our understanding of the basic operations of the mind.” – Gödel “I don’t consider my work a ‘facet of the intellectual atmosphere of the early 20th century,’ but rather the opposite. It is true that my interest in the foundations of mathematics was aroused by the ‘Vienna Circle,’ but the philosophical consequences of my result, as well as the heuristic principles leading to them, are anything but positivistic or empiricist. …” – Gödel “I was a conceptual and mathematical realist since about 1925. I have never held the view that mathematics is syntax of language. Rather this view, understood in any reasonable sense, can be disproved by my results.” – Gödel “Concerning my ‘unadulterated’ Platonism, it is no more ‘unadulterated’ than Russell’s own in 1921 when in the Introduction [to Mathematical Philosophy, 1919, p. 169] he said, “[Logic is concerned with the real world just as truly as zoology, though with its more abstract and general features.]” At that time evidently Russell had met the ‘not’ even in this world, but later on under the influence of Wittgenstein he chose to overlook it.” – Gödel (in reply to Russell’s comment, “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.”)

How to Create an Evil, Selfish, Sectarian, Divided World All you need to do is promote these three messages:

1) Love of God (leading to Religious Intolerance and Fanaticism). 2) Love of Family (leading to Privilege and hatred of Community). 3) Love of Country (leading to Nationalism, Patriotism, Jingoism, Chauvinism and Xenophobia). These three messages – Faith, Family and Flag – are the essence of evil and they are of course precisely the mantra chanted relentlessly by all right wing people, nowhere louder than in America. The great unrecognised truth of our world is that right wingness itself is the origin of evil and social division. Every country has a right wing, conservative political party and a left wing, liberal party, and a smaller proportion of right wing extremists (anarcho-capitalist libertarians, fascists, and so on), and a small proportion of enlightened, progressive, left wing radicals (“Jacobins”, as in the French Revolution). The battle between left and right is nothing less than the struggle between good and evil, light and dark. The world will never be a decent place, fair and just to all, until there are no right wingers at all. Faith must be abolished. Family must be subordinated to community, and no one’s identity should be attached to any nation state (and nationalism). The world needs a rationalist population, communitarians and internationalists.

The War between Subjectivity and Objectivity The late nineteenth century and the twentieth century saw the triumph of subjectivity over objectivity. Nietzsche struck many of the first blows. With his skepticism, perspectivism, nihilism, “immoralism” and famous declaration that God is dead, he radically undermined the accepted standards of the day. When he said, “There are no facts, only interpretations” and, “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors”, he challenged the whole basis of facts and truth. Einstein believed himself an objectivist (someone who accepted an objective reality and a reality principle), but, in fact, his theory of relativity did exactly what its name suggests: it replaced objective, absolute standards with subjective, relative standards.

Even worse was to follow. Quantum mechanics, according to the establishment view of its meaning (the “Copenhagen Interpretation”), adopted an extremist empiricist stance, and asserted (just as the fanatical idealist empiricist Bishop Berkeley had done long before) that to be is to be perceived. Things are real only when they are being perceived, and when they are not being perceived, they are not real. Thus, the moon doesn’t exist when you’re not looking at it, atoms don’t exist when you’re not performing observations and measurements on them, and things (such as Schrödinger’s cat) exist in a superposition of states (including being simultaneously dead and alive!) prior to observation. (In fact, by the logic of the Copenhagen Interpretation, you cannot legitimately talk about any superposition of states since such a superposition is WHOLLY UNOBSERVABLE, hence empirically meaningless. In this view, Schrödinger’s cat, like the moon, can’t be said to exist at all when it is not being observed!) To “explain” the extremely serious challenge posed by the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox concerning quantum entanglement, the Copenhagen Interpretation blithely asserted that quantum particles, once connected, can never be separated, no matter how far distant they are. Thus “locality” – a mainstay of the Einsteinian view of the world – was denied and replaced by “non-locality” (which Einstein derisively called “spooky action at a distance”). No attempt whatsoever was made to propose any physical mechanism by which this non-locality operates, and this remains true to this day. Non-locality is accepted but not scientifically explained. Non-locality can in fact be explained only by reference to a dimensionless domain outside space and time, linking everything instantaneously. Materialist science denies any such domain, hence has no means to account for non-locality.

***** Postmodern philosophy proclaims the “death of the author”, the death of the “grand narrative”, the death of “reality” (replaced by hyperreality where fact and fantasy become indissolubly linked), and the death of any stable meaning of any text (deconstructionism). That is, all objective standards have been subverted. So, a great war has been waged against objectivity. Subjectivity is triumphant everywhere. The reality principle has been abolished. This, of

course, supports an irrationalist view that the world is not grounded in rational principles that we can rationally discern. Rather, the world is something that we make up as we go along. Ironically, given that most people are firm materialists (they believe in a real, solid world of matter existing independently of them), the intellectual flavour of the day is actually unacknowledged subjective idealism (i.e. there is no objective reality; people invent their own reality with no heed to objective standards and reason). Materialist science itself has actually been transformed into the empiricist idealism of Bishop Berkeley – although no one ever acknowledges that (most scientists are so philosophically ignorant that they have never heard of Bishop Berkeley). The only real difference between Bishop Berkeley’s view and that of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is that Berkeley appeals to God to hold everything together whereas atheistic quantum theorists appeal instead to the mysterious, (“spooky”) unobservable wave function. This is actually less credible than Berkeley’s position because science is fanatically empiricist and yet at its core is an anti-empiricist mathematical wavefunction. As ever, no philosophically illiterate scientist is even aware that a catastrophic contradiction exists at the heart of their ideology. This is why modern science is now a quasi-religious faith. It no longer has any rational basis at all.

Mathematical Perfection Mathematics, not God, is that than which nothing more perfect can be thought. Mathematics itself is Platonic perfection. God can be perfect only if God is mathematics. If “God” is mathematics, this means that the whole of existence can be worked out a priori through the exercise of reason, logic and mathematics alone. There is no formal need for experiments, although these can help to clarify issues that are not immediately rationally clear. Humanity’s finest minds could be locked in a campus with nothing but paper and pencil and they could emerge a decade later with the answers to everything. Of course, what they would produce would be nothing other than Illuminism! This is a rational universe. Let’s start treating it rationally. Let’s get beyond the false doctrine of empiricism. The universe is ordered according

to rational, logically necessary, immutable principles ... not according to ad hoc, arbitrary, mutable, experimental principles. Isn’t that blindingly selfevident?

Good and Bad Infinity “Good” infinity = the number of points between 0 and 1 (“alpha-infinity”). “Bad” infinity = the number of points between 0 and infinity (“omegainfinity”). Bad infinity can accommodate an infinite number of good infinities.

What is the Answer to Everything? The ultimate answer is the singularity (the monad), where zero and infinity unite. Yet the singularity can be turned into something supremely analytic and well-defined thanks to the most mind boggling equation in the whole of mathematics: Euler’s Formula (the God Equation). Euler’s Formula defines numbers – all numbers – ontologically, turning them into eternal energy waves based on cosines (in the case of real numbers) and sines (for imaginary numbers). Euler’s Formula defines everything from zero to infinity, and it is in the mathematics and relations of the two end points – zero and infinity – that all the answers to the most intractable problems of existence lie. Zero, infinity and ontological wave numbers defined by Euler’s Formula. That’s it. There’s nothing else. If you don’t “get it”, well, that’s too bad. The truth isn’t for everyone, only for those on the threshold of divinity. The vast majority will go on being believers who think that “revelation” is the answer, or atheist materialists who think that experiments and contingent, arbitrary, ad hoc hypotheses are the answer, or “Eastern” thinkers who believe that some mysterious intuition is the right answer. Maybe they’re waiting for aliens to come and explain it all to them. Maybe they believe Edgar Cayce was the man who explained everything. Maybe they think the answer is on an ancient scroll hidden in a temple. Sorry, but it’s all moonshine and bullshit. Either you get with mathematics or you don’t “get it” at all. There’s no choice if you want the real answers to existence. It’s mathematics or nothing.

Pythagoras actually gave the answer 2,500 years ago: “All things are numbers. Number rules all.” However, he didn’t know enough about the properties of numbers – especially zero and infinity – to properly explain his dazzling intuition. The study of zero and infinity led to calculus and infinite series (the origins of which can be traced back to Archimedes). Calculus and infinite series led to Euler’s Formula, which led to Fourier analysis, which led to quantum (wave) mechanics and the whole of modern science (bar gravity). Illuminism links quantum mechanics to the mind (the monad) and thus everything is explained: all of mind and matter. There’s no other show in town. Accept the answer or don’t: it’s your choice. Most people won’t. They will go on believing in their absurd Mythos fantasies. That’s the nature of the human being: the flawed creature that fell from the stars because he loved “hot” Mythos too much and hated the “cold” abstractness of Logos.

***** Why is Euler’s Formula so remarkable? It traces a unit circle PERFECTLY balanced between real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers. A circle is of course a symbol of infinity, and very close to the symbol for zero (nothing). The reason why Euler’s Formula is so fundamental is that the unit circle it defines is, if understood correctly, a structured singularity! Everything about the Euler circle balances to zero. There is no resultant. All of its features are equal and opposite, thus cancelling each other. So, it is something and yet it is simultaneously nothing – and that is the quintessence of the singularity, and of existence itself. The whole of existence is, objectively, zero overall, yet it is in infinite in its activity and operations.

Logic and Arithmetic Gottlob Frege conceived a grand plan to reduce arithmetic to a formal system of logic. The problem with this is that it’s completely the wrong way around. Logic should be reduced to arithmetic! Numbers are the primary ontological entities from which everything else is derived. What Frege did in essence was to define numbers in terms of sets and then derive the laws of arithmetic from the axioms, rules and logic of set theory. Here’s the problem: what about the set of all sets that are not

members of themselves? Is that set a member of itself? If it is then it’s NOT a member of itself because, by definition, the set contains only sets that aren’t members of themselves. However, if it’s not a member of itself then it IS a member of itself because by definition it contains all sets that aren’t members of themselves. Thus, it’s a member of itself if and only if it’s not a member of itself! This is a fatal self-referential paradox known as Russell’s Paradox, after Bertrand Russell who discovered it. It destroyed Frege’s scheme since it placed inconsistency at its heart and you cannot have inconsistent logical systems. Russell and Alfred North Whitehead set about accomplishing Frege’s ambition using a slightly different methodology and they believed they had accomplished it in their monumental Principia Mathematica. However, their grandiose effort contained something akin to an arbitrary rule for banning self-referential sets. Therefore, they appealed to other logicians to resolve the issue. Wittgenstein was one who answered the summons. He didn’t resolve the problem but produced his famous Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus that seemed to redefine what could meaningfully be said and what couldn’t. At any rate, the academic world was suitably spellbound even if, if truth be told, Wittgenstein mostly wrote mystical, meaningless gibberish in the name, would you believe it, of clarity and meaning. Wittgenstein is perhaps the biggest fraud in the history of philosophy. He said that all of mathematics and logic was mere tautology, devoid of any descriptive content. This, of course, is exactly what you expect to hear from empiricist materialists. In fact, it is precisely the tautological nature of mathematics and logic – the fact that everything is true by definition – that makes these truths eternal, absolute, immutable, incontestable and perfect. Only eternal truths can apply to eternity, and existence is eternal. Nothing that is NOT tautological has any meaning in terms of absolute truth and knowledge. Everything else is mere description, opinion and phenomenon. As soon as you realise that existence IS mathematics then you also realize that tautology is the essence of existence. The eternal laws of existence must be tautological. It’s the fallacy that existence is non-mathematical that leads people such as Wittgenstein to deny that mathematics and logic have any content. So, how did Wittgenstein explain reality? Well, he didn’t. Wittgenstein became obsessed with mental masturbation regarding the nature of language and more or less destroyed philosophy as much as postmodernism did. He

turned philosophy into extreme pedantry regarding sentence construction and said that all the big questions of philosophy were essentially absurd, meaningless and nonsensical. Postmodernism also rubbished the traditional activities of philosophers and became merely sophisticated literary criticism and sociology. The postmodernist Jacques Derrida annihilated Wittgenstein’s stance by showing that there is no such thing as the precision of language: that words are always used politically to serve particular agendas, that their meanings are perpetually shifting and changing, that any text is fundamentally unstable. Derrida upset so many Wittgensteinians that they refused to call him a philosopher and sought to prevent him from being awarded an honorary degree at Cambridge University! “The Philosophy Faculty at Cambridge courted controversy amongst the academic community in March 1992, when three of its members posed a temporary veto against the awarding an honorary doctorate to Jacques Derrida; they and other non-Cambridge proponents of analytic philosophy protested the granting on the grounds that Derrida’s work ‘did not conform with accepted measures of academic rigour.’ Although the University eventually passed the motion, the episode did more to draw attention to the continuing antipathy between the analytic (of which Cambridge’s faculty is a leading exponent) and the post-Hegelian continental philosophical traditions (with which Derrida’s work is more closely associated).” – Wikipedia As for Wittgenstein, his position can be summed up in his own words as: “Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only point out that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language … And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all. … propositions show what they say: tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing. A tautology has no truth-conditions, since it is unconditionally true; and a contradiction is true on no condition. … say nothing except what can be said, that is, propositions of natural science … the totality of all true propositions is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the

natural sciences). … 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.” Wittgenstein is a charlatan. It’s amazing that he studied philosophy at all since he was such a slavish worshipper of empiricist materialist science. His “philosophy”, if it can be called that, is exactly what you get if you define truth in relation to a subject such as science that is inherently UNTRUE. The fallacy at the heart of Wittgenstein’s stance is that he rejects tautology because it is “unconditionally true”, and therefore he is automatically asserting that truth must be “conditional”, in which case its truth status is immediately called into logical question. Absolute truth cannot be conditional and if something is not absolutely true then why should we rely on it or accept it? As Nietzsche pointed out, it’s just an opinion, an interpretation, a description. It has an ever-changing, unstable meaning (as per Derrida); it’s political; it serves an agenda; it conforms to a paradigm. Look how the meaning of scientific concepts is continually changing. Thomas Kuhn pointed out that “mass” to Newton was something completely different from how it was to Einstein. Space and time radically changed their nature as Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics. So, where is the “truth” in science? It’s PURE interpretation, dependent on the prevailing paradigm. There are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, which all provide radically different views of reality. What, therefore, does quantum mechanics MEAN? The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the one taught in schools and universities. Who chose that interpretation? Why was it chosen? What agenda was it serving? What paradigm? Why were other interpretations suppressed? Why are we never told about these other possibilities and why is their ruthless suppression never debated? The only “truth” of quantum mechanics lies in its tautological mathematics. All the rest is speculation. It’s preposterous for anyone to say that we should look to science for truth since science itself denies that it is anything more than an ad hoc, provisional instrument and method for matching experimental observations to hypotheses. New experiments can destroy old hypotheses at any time. Contrary to what Wittgenstein says, natural science doesn’t provide any true propositions at all. It provides propositions not yet falsified and never

adequately verified. That’s not TRUTH. Science is about something completely different from truth. It concerns CONFIDENCE. By linking hypotheses to evidence, science builds confidence in those hypotheses, but the hypotheses are never formally proved. We simply gain more and more confidence in them as they pass more and more tests. Newtonian physics passed endless tests – but is an entirely false picture of true reality. Einstein’s relativity theory has passed many tests but is fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics, which is the most well tested theory of all (but the correct interpretation of which is impossible within the current Meta Paradigm of science). Experiments don’t prove anything. “Evidence” doesn’t prove anything. It simply points to possible truth without being truth. Any number of people have gone to jail on the basis of “evidence” that was later shown to be false. Similarly, science is built on ever-changing evidence that firstly verifies then falsifies earlier scientific hypotheses, and which will keep verifying then falsifying all new scientific hypotheses in a process that will go on forever since it has no possible endpoint. No end can ever be reached precisely because science is not unconditionally, tautologically true. Mathematics, on the other hand, is completely, unconditionally, tautologically true – for all eternity. And mathematics is precisely what science is based on. The only truth contained in science is the truth of mathematics. Never forget this: the sign of tautology is simply the EQUALS SIGN, and where would science be without “=”? Sadly, the equals sign in science does not have the same status as the equals sign in mathematics. In mathematics, the equals sign represents absolute, eternal, ontological tautology; in science, it means tautology within the terms of an ad hoc paradigm. As soon as you grasp one thing – that existence is mathematical – you understand that absolute truth and knowledge really do exist because the nature of mathematics makes that inevitable. Truth is all about unconditional tautology. There is no other truth. Mathematics is the sole instrument for providing truth. Everything else, including science, is absurd. Just as religion has beguiled, corrupted and misled countless minds, so has science. It has drawn many people to atheism because of its slavish adherence to the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm.

Nietzsche assertion that man’s truths are man’s irrefutable errors applies to religious AND scientific truths. It doesn’t apply at all to mathematical tautologies which are unconditionally true and can never contain errors. If existence (ultimate reality) is TRUE (and how could it not be? – what would it mean to describe ultimate reality as false?) – then it must be based on unconditional truth because otherwise it would not be true. Only one subject delivers unconditional truth: mathematics, hence existence is mathematical.

Tautology Wittgenstein said, “An equation merely marks the point of view from which I consider the two expressions; it marks their equivalence in meaning.” Is this statement valid? It’s certainly true that 3 + 5 = 4 + 4, but are both sides equal in meaning? In fact, this is precisely what they are not equal in. They are equal in objective outcome/result but not in their organization and meaning. This is why the universe can generate infinite information and meaning while obeying absolute conservation laws (everything in the universe is objectively equal to zero; everything, subjectively, is approaching infinity in terms of meaning and information). “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 Far from being a criticism, this is exactly why mathematics is so powerful and so intimately connected with the truth. Science also uses equations, so why does Wittgenstein accuse mathematics of being tautological (“going without saying”), while he thinks science provides “real” information? Wittgenstein simply hasn’t thought it through. His position is irrational. The difference between the equals sign in mathematics and science is that in the former case it means “necessarily equal and true by the immutable, eternal a priori laws of mathematics” while in the latter case it means “provisionally equal and true by the ad hoc a posteriori hypotheses of science”. The equals sign of science represents a perversion of the equals signs of mathematics because it is forcing mathematics (a rationalist subject) to be pressed into the service of science (an empiricist subject). Scientific

empiricism in fact has no right to use the equals sign since the equals signs belong quintessentially to rationalism and analytic definitions. When mathematics says 2 + 2 = 4, that’s eternally true. When science applies an equation to measure the gravitational force between two bodies, the resulting number is only as true as the ad hoc hypothesis that generated it. A different hypothesis would get a different result. Therefore, gravity is not truly being measured. A simulacrum of the truth is being generated: a simulation, an approximation. A new symbol ought to be invented for “=” in science, to expose its contingent nature. It must be made clear that it does not deal in necessary, analytic truths but only in contingent, synthetic truths. Science generates useful approximations. It doesn’t get things 100% right. Mathematics always does when it applies the equals sign.

The Two Choices There are two choices: 1) Rationalism, based on analytic, a priori and logically necessary truths. 2) Empiricism, based on synthetic, a posteriori and contingent “truths”. Wittgenstein and the logical positivists chose to regard rationalist truths as empty, tautological and contentless. They worshipped science. Leibniz, on the other hand, stands as the supreme champion of rationalism and mathematics. On the face of it, the choice seems to be between “empty” truths (of tautological mathematics), and unprovable, approximate truths (of empirical science). Scientific “truths” are supported by experimental evidence. That’s what science understands by “proof”. But this isn’t real proof because any number of theories “proved” by experimental evidence have fallen by the wayside. A mathematical proof is eternally true; not merely as true as the last experiment. If science were right, we could NEVER arrive at the fundamental truths of existence. No such truths could even be said to exist. We would live in a universe without a true, rational, adamantine base. That, frankly, is an insane position. The universe cannot in any way be irrational in its fundamental constitution – or we wouldn’t be here at all. There is only one alternative: a universe made of mathematics. That guarantees an eternal, rational, absolutely certain base to existence.

Wittgenstein and the empiricists never for one second considered that the universe is mathematical and not scientific. They therefore thought that mathematical truths were empty because they could not, apparently, relate to reality. However, once it’s understood that reality is 100% mathematical then these “empty tautologies” become the eternal, immutable, full pillars of existence. They are infinitely solid exactly because they are tautological. Only tautology will suffice. It is analytic, a priori and logically necessary. Sadly, you have to be a rationalist to understand rationalism. Empiricists just can’t “get it”. They want to use their extraverted senses to grasp what’s “out there”, but they ought to be using their introverted reason. More or less everything that Wittgenstein wrote in his famous Tractatus is false. It is of course a brilliant distillation of the empiricist Meta Paradigm, but existence is rational and the Tractatus is therefore supremely irrational. Consider this absurd statement by Wittgenstein: “In logical syntax the meaning of a sign should never play a role. It must be possible to establish logical syntax without mentioning meaning of a sign: only the descriptions of expressions may be presupposed.” How can anyone ever have taken these ramblings seriously? Did Wittgenstein cast a spell over the weak-minded? In logical syntax, the meaning of a sign is in fact all-important and the expression is meaningless if the meaning of the sign is unclear and vague. Ironically, Wittgenstein himself eventually repudiated the bulk of the Tractatus and constructed a new philosophy. So, there’s an “earlier” and “later” Wittgenstein to grapple with, saying radically different and almost opposite things. (That ought to have spelled the end of his influence, but, sadly, seemed to have the opposite effect!) No matter which Wittgenstein you choose, he is refuted by mathematics on the one hand and Derrida’s deconstructionism on the other. By the end of this century, his reputation will have faded away and “analytic” philosophy, of which he is the towering champion, will be consigned to oblivion for the nonsense it assuredly is. Wittgenstein has dragged several generations of philosophers into the gutter of empiricism and pointless quibbling about language. His bizarre (autistic) behaviour and cryptic remarks reduced grown men to frightened children. Once upon a time, Bertrand Russell showed him a key argument he was working on, then reported, “He said it was all wrong … that he had

tried my view and knew it couldn’t work. I couldn’t understand his objection – in fact he was very inarticulate – but I feel in my bones that he must be right, and that he has seen something I have missed.” You see what’s happening here? Wittgenstein is preying on the psychological vulnerabilities of those weaker than he is. He intimidates them with his personal mystique and Mythos, and they then convince themselves that he’s right and they’re wrong. Wittgenstein was one of the weavers of the Emperor’s New Clothes. He himself wore them – and was stark naked – but everyone else saw an immaculately dressed, infallible philosopher. The myth of Wittgenstein’s genius – which still persists – disguises the fact that he was invariably talking downright nonsense. Even he knew that his ideas weren’t formally defensible: “My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them – as steps – to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he had climbed up it.)” Wittgenstein’s ladder vanishes even as you climb up it, and once you’re at the top, you can’t get back down again. Where have you arrived? In FANTASY LAND! Wittgenstein’s ladder serves as a useful metaphor for the scientific method. It leads you to somewhere where you can perform useful calculations, but you shouldn’t enquire too deeply into the foundations of the ad hoc scientific theories that you’re using since they are not grounded in rationalism and cannot be rationally defended. Such “defence” as is provided comes from experimental evidence, but such evidence can never constitute proof, only provisional corroboration. Every refuted theory has been experimentally “confirmed” in one way or another, so experiment is therefore useless for establishing absolute truth. New experiments that reveal new things, like new theories that reveal new ideas, always show the insufficiency and incompleteness of their predecessors. The scientific method is about constant iteration – new theories and new experiments – but with no formal end. Whatever science does, it does not reveal final truths. It only ever trades in provisional truth. The search for absolute truth and knowledge can NEVER be based on science and experiments. These are simply not equipped for the task. To trumpet science as the best humanity can do is to assert that existence is not

founded on eternal, immutable, a priori, rational laws. That’s preposterous. You cannot have an eternal system based on chaos, randomness, arbitrariness, mutability and irrationality. Scientific laws themselves are not “scientific”. You can perform experiments on the effects and predictions of laws but you cannot perform experiments on the laws themselves. Consider gravity. Could anyone perform an experiment on Newton’s law of gravity? Well, where is it? Is it a thing? Is it made of material? In fact, it’s just an idea – one that was subsequently refuted by Einstein. So, where is Einstein’s law of gravity? Is it built into the fabric of existence? We know it’s not because it’s incompatible with quantum theory. And so on, to the point of absurdity. Will a “final” theory of quantum gravity be something on which we can do experiments? Will it be something we know to be unarguably true? The answer is no. It will simply be another idea with no logical necessity. But let’s imagine it were true. As before, it would be immaterial, it would be present everywhere and it would be immutable and eternal. None of these characteristics is compatible with empiricist materialist science. Ergo, science seeks laws that are not scientific to explain science! Does no one find that odd? A final law of gravity is one that must be analytic, a priori, necessary, immutable, immaterial, eternal, ubiquitous – and it must be 100% compatible with all other laws. There is only one system that can offer such an outcome: mathematics, not science. Ontological mathematics seeks mathematical laws to explain reality. Science seeks scientific laws that are not themselves scientific (in fact, they’re mathematical) to explain reality. You cannot embark on any pursuit of a grand unified theory of everything unless the final, all-embracing laws you seek are of the same nature as that which they explain. Mathematical laws explain mathematical existence. Scientific laws that are mathematical in character cannot explain non-mathematical existence. Scientific laws that are NOT mathematical cannot explain existence.

***** Wittgenstein said that there was no such thing as mathematical “intuition” since mathematics was all about robotic rule following. This is grotesquely lacking in insight. Mathematics is the quintessence of intuition: seeing new,

extraordinary, unexpected, startling connections and patterns. Mathematics is a kind of enormous, protean, infinite-dimensional, holographic labyrinth. There are endless ways of finding your way through it, of connecting different parts of it to other parts, of seeing it from different perspectives and associating elements that seem to have no possible links. It’s the most intuitive subject of all. Moreover, your intuitions can be proved absolutely correct – unlike mystical, woo woo religious intuitions. What are meaningful intuitions if not connected to rules and reality? Intuition isn’t about fantasy and irrationality. Intuition is about linking directly to the most fundamental level of existence. It’s about escaping from the phenomenon and reaching the noumenon. It’s about bypassing the local and seizing the non-local.

***** 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 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. Then we would have a full description of reality.

***** Gödel, with his revolutionary Incompleteness Theorem, destroyed Wittgenstein as much as he destroyed Russell, Whitehead and Frege. Gödel was of course a Leibnizian Platonist. Wittgenstein, however, never at any stage accepted Gödel’s work, which says a great deal about Wittgenstein’s attitude to the truth.

Eternal Motion “Any state or condition of a body, whether of rest or motion, must remain unchanged, and without increase or diminution, throughout all eternity, except some Cause appears, through which that state may be modified. [This law is known a priori since it cannot be suggested or proved by experience.] In like manner, says Schopenhauer, the other primitive forces of nature, or physical laws as they are more properly termed, such as gravity, electricity, cohesion, chemical affinity, and the like, are conceived as exempt from change, as everywhere present, and as inexhaustible. They are of the nature of occult causes or ultimate facts …” – Francis Bowen It’s an astounding fact that a moving body will move forever at a constant rate, unless caused to do something else by some force. This means that a body inherently contains INFINITE, inexhaustible energy. It can never run out of energy, slow down or stop. Its energy is 100% intact at all times, and never depletes. All things are perpetual motion “machines”. To exist MEANS to be in perpetual motion (and the “physical” default for humans is motion through time, not space). Motion is the most basic, indispensible feature of existence. Any viable theory of existence must account for this. Science does not and cannot. It is equally astounding that scientific laws are immutable, eternal, and everywhere. Science does not and cannot account for the nature of its own laws (which are incompatible with decaying material things, of which, allegedly, existence is solely composed). Any viable theory of existence must account for the character of physical law. Illuminism, unlike science, has these a priori principles built into it.

Gödel versus Wittgenstein The antidote to Wittgenstein is Gödel, and Gödel acts as a proxy for his hero, Leibniz. Gödel and Leibniz were mathematical “Platonists”. The central claim of this position is that although mathematics is not empirical it nevertheless says real things about the real world. It is “descriptive”. It has real content. It is not “empty”. Of course, this claim can be true only if reality is itself “Platonic”, i.e. 100% mathematical. Gödel, stating the position of all Platonists, asserted that it was a fundamental error that all meaningful thought concerned, as scientists

believe, sense perceptions alone. He stated, “Platonic ideas are what things are to be reduced to.” In addition to rejecting logical positivism and empiricism, he dismissed all of Wittgenstein’s arguments: “I was a conceptual realist since about 1925. I never held the view that mathematics is syntax of language. Rather this view, understood in any reasonable way, can be disproved by my results.”

Cantor’s Continuum Hypothesis Is there a set that is larger than the set of natural numbers and smaller than the set of real numbers? Georg Cantor introduced an ingenious but serious error into the study of the mathematics of infinity. There are two types of infinity, labelled “good” and “bad” by Hegel. Bad infinity goes on forever and we can associate it with endless repetition, and divergent mathematical functions. Good infinity is linked to the finite and is associated with mathematical convergence. Good infinity is “tamed” infinity while bad infinity remains wild. The number of points between zero and one is good infinity and the number of points between zero and infinity is bad infinity (made of infinite good infinities). Now, the problem is this. Mathematicians ignore Hegel and they follow Cantor’s lead. Cantor used a clever mapping technique to show that, with regard to BAD infinity, the rational numbers are the same “size” as the natural, counting numbers. However, the fallacy of this approach is unmasked as soon as you ask how many natural numbers there are between zero and one (none at all), and how many rational numbers there are (an infinite number). In other words, as soon as we bring the issue into the manageable, FINITE domain (the one we actually inhabit in a practical sense), and out of the unmanageable, abstract INFINITE domain (that we inhabit only in an abstract sense), we get a radically different view and result. Questions of infinity must always be defined with regard to good infinity (the infinity of the finite), or bad infinity (the infinity of the infinite). The contextualization of the question is critical. Wikipedia says of the Continuum Hypothesis: “In mathematics, the continuum hypothesis (abbreviated CH) is a hypothesis, advanced by Georg Cantor in 1878, about the possible sizes of

infinite sets. It states: There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and that of the real numbers. “Establishing the truth or falsehood of the continuum hypothesis is the first of Hilbert’s 23 problems presented in the year 1900. The contributions of Kurt Gödel in 1940 and Paul Cohen in 1963 showed that the hypothesis can neither be disproved nor be proved using the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the standard foundation of modern mathematics, provided ZF set theory is consistent. “The name of the hypothesis comes from the term the continuum for the real numbers. “Two sets are said to have the same cardinality or cardinal number if there exists a bijection (a one-to-one correspondence) between them. Intuitively, for two sets S and T to have the same cardinality means that it is possible to “pair off” elements of S with elements of T in such a fashion that every element of S is paired off with exactly one element of T and vice versa. Hence, the set {banana, apple, pear} has the same cardinality as {yellow, red, green}. “With infinite sets such as the set of integers or rational numbers, this becomes more complicated to demonstrate. The rational numbers seemingly form a counterexample to the continuum hypothesis: the integers form a proper subset of the rationals, which themselves form a proper subset of the reals, so intuitively, there are more rational numbers than integers, and more real numbers than rational numbers. However, this intuitive analysis does not take account of the fact that all three sets are infinite. It turns out the rational numbers can actually be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, and therefore the set of rational numbers is the same size (cardinality) as the set of integers: they are both countable sets.” In Illuminism, any appeal to bad infinity usually has little to commend it. The “cardinality” of numbers ought to be defined with respect to a finite limit such as 1. How many integers, rational numbers, irrational and real numbers, respectively, can be fitted between 0 and 1? Only the real numbers provide a continuum. There are more real numbers than irrational numbers, more irrational numbers than rational numbers, and more rational numbers than integers or natural numbers. In Cantor’s scheme, integers and rational numbers are countable and have the

same size; irrational and real numbers are uncountable and, to that extent, have the same size. However, in any FINITE range, Cantor’s counting methods bear no resemblance to reality. He has to appeal to something we never truly encounter – bad infinity – for his counting method to make sense. But since we don’t ever reach bad infinity in practice then his method is more or less meaningless and contrived. In fact, the whole set-based approach to mathematics that Cantor inspired is largely meaningless, no matter how much mathematicians seem to love it. Ontological mathematics is about numbers, so number theory – in its broadest possible meaning – is its basis, not sets, which are not inherently ontological. A set is an artificial human construction – a means of organizing numbers, or indeed anything else – into manageable “bundles” according to human logic and axioms. As soon as you rely on anything constructed by humans, you’re in trouble. You have left pure mathematics and created a paradigmatic mathematics. Mathematicians have an unerring habit of converging on the empiricist materialist thinking of scientists. Historically, most mathematicians hated negative numbers, hated zero, hated imaginary numbers, and hated infinity – so, they were never natural ontological mathematicians and number theorists. A huge amount of mathematics – or rather metamathematics – is junk, based on the same kind of assumptions that turned science into fanatical empiricist materialism, systematically excluding rationalist idealism. David Hilbert, one of the most revered mathematicians, is a classic example of a mathematician whose entire conception of mathematics was false. Kurt Gödel represents the opposite end of the spectrum, someone whose instincts and intuitions were completely correct. To this day, just as empiricist materialists rule science with an iron fist, mathematics is ruled by new incarnations of David Hilbert. The Leibnizes and Gödels are always on the outside and largely ignored. No wonder Gödel was certain he and Leibniz were the victims of an immense conspiracy being propagated down the centuries. Just as science requires a paradigm shift and must be taken over by rationalist idealists, so mathematics requires a paradigm shift. Gödelian Platonists must replace the David Hilbert Formalists.

Science and mathematics are both under occupation by enemy forces, by charlatans who have no philosophical understanding of their subjects. Philosophers of science and mathematics need to step into these subjects, wrest them away from their high priests and popes and sort them out once and for all.

***** Cantor’s continuum hypothesis has been formally shown to be undecidable. Paul Cohen, following work by Gödel, proved that it was neither provable nor disprovable, thanks to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Gödel delivered an appropriately caustic assessment of set theory: “For if the meanings of the primitive terms of set theory … are accepted as sound, it follows that the set-theoretical concepts and theorems describe some well-determined reality, in which Cantor’s conjecture must be either true or false. Hence its undecidability from the axioms being assumed today can only mean that these axioms do not contain a complete description of that reality.”

***** Gödel believed that Wittgenstein didn’t understand his incompleteness theorem. Given that Wittgenstein thought that all mathematics was empty tautology, it’s unsurprising that he rejected Gödel’s revolutionary Platonist theorem. Yet, in a way, both men are right. Mathematics is indeed all about tautology, just as Wittgenstein said. What Gödel was actually demonstrating was that human attempts to formalize mathematics in terms of logic were doomed to fail. Ultimately, that’s because logic derives from mathematics (from the relations of numbers), not the other way around.

David Hilbert: Anti-Mathematician Hilbert was the most influential mathematician of his day. “Mathematics,” he wrote, “is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper.” This is the classic view of mathematics as a glorified chess game. Of course, chess is nothing like mathematics. Chess is simply an ad hoc game with an arbitrary set of rules. If anything, it’s far closer to science. Mathematics is ontological and encodes the laws of existence. Those laws

are to be uncovered via number theory since numbers are the essential units of reality. Mathematics is NOT a human construction, a human game or a humanly chosen set of axioms. It is not any kind of formalist system. It’s extraordinary that so many mathematicians choose to see their subject as an abstraction with no fundamental connection to reality. What people fail to understand about Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is that it’s not about mathematics per se. It’s about the formalist systems devised and advocated by Hilbert and his ilk. These systems are not equivalent to mathematical reality. They are mathematical paradigms, just as empiricist materialism is a scientific paradigm that deliberately excludes rationalism and idealism.

Intuitions People can have all sorts of intuitions. Many intuitions are utterly false, especially regarding religion. In fact, these so-called intuitions aren’t intuitions at all. They’re gut feelings and intense wishful thinking and have nothing to do with intuition. The key to intuition is that it must be right, or it’s not an intuition. An intuition is tautologically true. If it’s genuine, it’s true. Otherwise, it’s false.

***** “In philosophy Gödel has never arrived at what he looked for: to arrive at a new view of the world, its basic constituents, and the rules of their composition. Several philosophers, in particular Plato and Descartes, claim to have had at certain moments in their lives an intuitive view of this kind totally different from the everyday view of the world.” – Hao Wang What wouldn’t Gödel have given to know about Illuminism?! It contains every answer he sought. However, it must be held against the Illuminati that they did not recruit him. He was, of course, someone in whom the Illuminati were intensely interested, but he was deemed far too solitary and eccentric to be part of a well-bonded group. It has since been acknowledged that it was a serious error to fail to recruit him.

Conjecture

A mathematical conjecture is a type of intuition, but it is not necessarily true. Goldbach’s Conjecture asserts that every even number larger than two is the sum of two prime numbers. Here’s the question ... could an artificial intelligence ever propose such a conjecture? Humans always leap ahead in their thinking; artificial intelligences never do. Humans are looking for something – answers. Artificial intelligences never are.

The Ontological Argument God, in this argument, is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Is there any sufficient reason why God should not come into being? If his existence is not forbidden and it’s compossible then it’s compulsory. If life can have an apex – a maximum point (divinity) – then divinity must be actualized.

Reality The vast machinery of nothingness; endless operations about nothing, generating nothing in infinite ways. The absolute symmetry of nothingness. Existence stays as nothing forever. It is permanently conserved at nothing. Yet nothing contains everything.

Sensible Mathematics “Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!” – Paul Dirac What’s the fallacy here? It’s that the infinite is not to be dismissed but the small can be dismissed. As soon as that attitude takes hold, you can see how it automatically steers people away from monads – zeros. The place where you find monads – the unimaginably small – is avoided or ignored and soon enough the domain of the unimaginably small becomes effectively non-existent (because no one ever gives it any thought, not because it is literally not there). Why did Dirac – a Nobel Prize-winning genius – not see a horrible asymmetry in his statement? The dismissive attitude he was complaining

about in relation to infinity was exactly the one he was exhibiting in relation to the very small. Why was he complaining in the first place? Out of self-interest. His theory of antimatter required infinity to be taken seriously.

The Axiomatic Challenge In 1900, at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians, David Hilbert famously announced the ten most important problems (in his opinion) that the mathematical community ought to tackle in the twentieth century (and there were thirteen other problems on his list, making twenty-three in total). Arguably, the second problem proved the most momentous – because it was the one Gödel blew out of the water, thus destroying Hilbert’s establishment view of what mathematics is. This second problem was about proving the consistency of the axioms of arithmetic (and once arithmetic was cracked, every branch of mathematics would be susceptible to the same treatment). The key word here is consistency. Consistent systems are those that do not contain any logical CONTRADICTONS. Now, Hilbert’s second problem is in no way “innocent”. It has a precise intent: to push one view of mathematics at the expense of another. Hilbert was arguing from the perspective of the paradigm of the UNREALITY of mathematics. In his view – that of the mathematical establishment, of which he was the leader – mathematics is a human construct, the product of human minds. It has absolutely no connection with the fundamental nature of existence, i.e. it’s not ONTOLOGICAL. The ontological mathematical paradigm asserts that reality is 100% mathematical and human minds are: a) imbued with mathematics since minds themselves are mathematical entities, structured mathematically, b) minds interact mathematically with other minds, c) the whole of science is the product of mathematical relations, and d) when humans study mathematics, and science in its truest sense, they are uncovering the laws of mathematics, not inventing them as if they were composing some great work of fiction. Intuition is possible in the ontological system but impossible in the opposing “formalist” scheme. Intuition means that you are tuning into hidden reality through some mysterious mental capacity – you are seeing

beyond what is obvious to the senses (and note that in Jungian psychology, sensing and intuition are polar opposites). If mathematics is simply an invention, there is no hidden truth available to intuition (and, in fact, intuition itself can’t exist because it’s a product of non-localist mathematical considerations). To sensing types, intuition does not exist (they never experience any intuitions!). Therefore, they regard appeals to intuition as on a par with magic or invocations of the “spirit world”. Intuition is the sort of concept that, along with the soul, has no place in the worldview of thinking sensing types. Mathematics and science are both infected by empiricist materialist atheism. Science formally denies that anything immaterial and non-observable can exist (even though quantum mechanics is based on an unobservable wave function, unobservable imaginary numbers are everywhere in science, black hole singularities are dimensionless and unobservable, the universe came from an unobservable Big Bang singularity, the laws of science are immaterial and directly unobservable, etc). Darwinism asserts that life is purposeless and random, and proceeds by way of natural selection acting upon random genetic “mutations”. Mathematical formalism fits in perfectly with this type of thinking because it says that mathematics is man-made and it eliminates mysterious “intuition”. This unholy trinity – empiricist materialist science, Darwinism and mathematical formalism – is the ruling paradigm of the “intellectual” world. In every way, it’s an attack on any possibility of a truer world beyond this one. This phenomenalist paradigm is constructed by SENSING types who are incapable of understanding anything non-sensory. They cannot conceive of things such as souls, intuition, and noumenal reality, so they construct a Meta Paradigm that explicitly excludes them. David Hilbert’s mentality reflects that of all scientific materialists. He was attempting to make mathematics compatible with the same paradigm as science. Ontological mathematics doesn’t deny the existence of mathematical axioms. It does deny that they are manmade, and it is therefore extremely suspicious of any axioms that are reflective of human, constructed, paradigmatic thinking. These may not have any connection with true mathematics at all.

There is only ONE true mathematics – ontological mathematics, the mathematics of existence, based on numbers and the properties and relations of numbers. Even geometry is just numbers. Where would geometry be without the number π, for example? Try and draw a circle without it! EVERYTHING flows from numbers. There can be plenty of FALSE mathematical systems. These are human inventions and reflect various assumptions about the nature of reality. Just as modern science can be exposed as a vehicle for a non-scientific paradigm (the “religious faith” that empiricism and materialism are reality), so many strands of so-called mathematics could, if analyzed properly (by philosophers), be revealed to be expressions of the same erroneous paradigm. (Never forget how mathematicians bitterly resisted zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers – a failure so shameful and extreme that it calls into question the mentality of the average mathematician. Most are unfit to be called mathematicians.) Many elements of mathematics, just like those of science, are contrived, artificial and false. Any systems based on them are false. The reality is that true mathematics – ontological mathematics based on numbers – has been replaced by a false mathematics infected by various formalist, manmade axioms that do not belong to mathematics but to a human simulacrum of mathematics. Mainstream science is similarly a simulacrum of true science (i.e. the science of reality). The spectacular failure of science to achieve a synthesis of gravity and quantum mechanics is wholly to be expected: the false paradigm of science makes it impossible to construct an ultimate theory. True science MUST be based on rationalism, idealism and ontological mathematics. False science – based on empiricism, materialism and formalist mathematics – will never solve the supreme problems of existence. Without the right paradigm for approaching true reality, true reality remains forever hidden. A fundamental tenet of mathematical formalism is that everything must be PROVABLE. If it’s not provable, it can’t be true. What Gödel did, of course, was to show that there were true statements that could not be proved by formalist methods – the worst possible disaster for formalism, and for David Hilbert.

Space Space isn’t space. It’s a MIND CONTINUUM. Space is both real space and imaginary space. Real space and imaginary space are dynamically coupled with respect to motion. The faster you travel through one, the slower you travel through the other. This is a direct consequence of Euler’s Formula and the Euler unit circle. Once you realize that the spacetime continuum is actually all about mind – an infinite, organized, coordinate-based array of minds – you suddenly see the material world dissolve before your eyes. Matter is just extended mathematical relations between minds.

Night Terrors What’s the difference between a night terror (or sleep terror) and a nightmare? The former happens during a different phase of sleep (deep nonREM sleep) and involves much more drama and disruption, with sufferers typically screaming hysterically, being inconsolable, sleep walking and not waking properly even when shaken. Night terrors can be highly alarming to those witnessing them but, curiously, are not actually remembered by the sufferers themselves. One of the great unexplored arenas is sleep. It truly is the “unknown country”. The different phases of sleep have specific functions, and many of these relate to the mysterious domain of the unconscious. Many odd phenomena occur at transitions between sleep stages if, for whatever reason, these are not executed smoothly. This is where out-of-body experiences, for example, happen. “Conscious” dreaming typically happens during REM sleep, but it can also occur in other phases. “Unconscious” dreaming is even more mysterious than normal dreaming – because we have no idea at all of what is going on. By definition, we can have no conscious recall of such a dream. So, what happens? Where does our mind “go”? What unconscious elements control us? Does our Higher Self communicate with us and seed our consciousness with messages, codes and symbols which are then picked up via our conscious dreaming? A night terror is not technically a dream, but an abrupt and terrified reaction to something that happens as control of one phase of sleep is released to the next. Some kind of existential horror takes place at that transition and we can imagine it as a terrifying encounter between the unconscious self and the conscious self which thinks it’s in the presence of an alien being – maybe a monster! Night terrors typically affect young children, who usually grow out of them. During an episode, the child typically sits bolt upright in bed and screams hysterically. Their heartbeat races and they sweat profusely. They might thrash around in panic and terror. Yet, often after only a couple of minutes, they calm down and return to sleep. Since they were in deep sleep when it happened, they have no memory of it: there are no conscious mental images to recall.

It might be speculated that nightmares themselves are conscious outcomes of prior night terrors. That is, the nightmare is a kind of conscious afterimage or echo of the previous unconscious terror. ALL of the final mysteries of the human condition are located in sleep. Sleep is a rehearsal for death in every way. It’s where we are immersed in the great unknown, where the unconscious dominates.

Evolution? “Sleep and the waking state are not two states that succeed one another ... They may be called sleep and sleep plus waking state. This means that when we awake, sleep does not disappear, but to the state of sleep there is added the waking state, which muffles the voices of dreams and makes dream images invisible.” – P.D. Ouspensky Human beings were originally bicameral (meaning largely unconscious), and subject to “hallucinations”, both visual and auditory. That is, they inhabited something much more like a waking dream world. Dreams, for the ancients, were very different from modern dreams since there was much less of a boundary between dreaming and waking. Rather than a sharp waking-sleeping dichotomy (as in the present day), there was a kind of continual mental state covering waking and sleeping. Above all, the dead didn’t fully die in this ancient way of perceiving the world. Even when their physical bodies were gone, the dead still retained a vivid mental presence. The ancients had enhanced “psychic” powers. They were all, more or less, intuitive feeling types. They believed that spirits were everywhere (animism). This is exactly what you would expect from people with a much closer link to the integrated, holistic, unconscious domain. Early humans had a NON-LOCAL mentality. The world and the universe seemed much more of a oneness. They had a holographic approach to reality. They were immersed in the frequency domain of Fourier transforms. Paranormal (non-local) phenomena are to intuitive minds what normal (local) phenomena are to sensing types. The paranormal has a similar relationship to the “normal” as metaphysics does to physics: it’s what comes after it; it’s what lies beyond it. The paranormal, metaphysics and religion all have the same non-local root, hence are all equally idiotic to people locked into localism (scientists).

Evolution brought about a remarkable change in humanity. The rise of left brain consciousness was, mathematically, a switch from minds designed for Fourier transforms (frequency domain functions) to minds designed for inverse Fourier transforms (space-time representations). This was an evolution from non-localism to localism and this change had the most extraordinary effect. The ancients had something approaching a collective consciousness. In fact, they were rather like ant colonies. (It would be fascinating to analyze actual ant colonies and determine whether it is not so much pheromones – a LOCAL phenomenon – that guide their behaviour but the fact that they all operate according to Fourier transform mathematics – a non-local phenomenon – and are therefore extremely closely linked mentally. Note how scientists ALWAYS have to find a local “explanation” since their Meta Paradigm does not accommodate non-local effects.) As soon as human brains became dominated by a local rather than nonlocal mode, psychic powers mostly vanished from the human race (the age of Oracles and Heroes directed by the gods came to an end). Humans became much less communitarian. In the pre-civilization world, the ancients had life-giving, nurturing goddesses as their divinities. As community began to vanish, selfish, violent, aggressive, masculine war gods came to the fore and we switched from a goddess matriarchy to a god patriarchy. Animism (involving many spirits and divinities, and often emphasizing the power of females) gave way to monotheism (a single hypermasculine, dominant God – the supreme alpha male). People under the thrall of extreme localism are prone to greed, selfishness, hate, intolerance, racism, xenophobia, nationalism, and so on. People such as the anarcho-capitalist libertarians in America have an absolute hatred of all non-local phenomena (amongst which can be classed government, the State, society). They want to inhabit a tiny local patch over which they have complete control, with which no one else interferes, and to forget the rest of the world. Localism gave rise to the scientific mind that looked at the world reductively, chopping it into endless localized parts. The scientific mind had no need of God, of course. Empiricism and materialism are intrinsically localist ideologies. The more left brained you become (in either thinking or sensing terms, or both), the more you are cut off from the non-local noumenal reality.

In fact, localism is the ORIGIN of the phenomenon-noumenon dichotomy. At the dawn of life on earth, life mentally inhabited the nonlocal frequency domain outside space and time. This was the only reality. Then, when it became possible to perform inverse Fourier transforms, a new domain emerged – the local, phenomenal domain of space and time. Two domains now existed: local and non-local. In truth, there is only one domain – the mental domain, outside space and time: the noumenal domain. But the phenomenal domain of space has sprung from it thanks to inverse Fourier transform processing which can represent frequency functions in an entirely different way (as space and time functions). Our right brain (home of the unconscious) is attuned to the non-local universe and operates according to frequency functions. Our left brain (home of consciousness) is attuned to the local universe and to space and time functions. Our weird and wonderful minds, and all the baffling mysteries that beset the human condition, are ALL caused by two different mathematical ways of representing the same information (but not forgetting a vital factor of Fourier uncertainty – the Planck constant upon which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is based). Is it not wondrous? We now have a mathematical means to unlock the secrets of the universe. The scientific view – based solely on localism – is entirely false. The real universe is one of endless frequencies. Our left brains convert this into space and time representations. When we go to sleep and dream, our left brain transfers primary processing to the right brain and we return to something like the mode of existence enjoyed by our ancestors. Space, time and causality fall apart. We are far more susceptible to “paranormal” influences.

Bicameralism Julian Jaynes’s dazzling theory of bicameralism is one of the most important intellectual breakthroughs of all time. Like many of the best ideas, it’s largely ignored. The “localist” paradigm that dominates science, mathematics and psychology can’t take seriously non-local, “hallucinated voices”. However, Jaynes’s theory can be put on the solidest of ground by making it strictly mathematical. Jaynes understood that the bicameral (two chambered) nature of the brain is its most significant feature. This is the key to human existence. The

two hemispheres allow two views of reality to be accessed at once. The right brain allows a frequency representation of reality and is about NONLOCALISM. The left brain allows a space and time representation and is about LOCALISM. The right brain is about synthesis, holism, integration, interconnectedness and the WHOLE UNIVERSE. The left brain is about analysis, individuation, reductiveness, separation and the IMMEDIATE UNIVERSE. Isn’t it extraordinary? All of the mysteries of the human condition are answered by this simple twin mathematical representation of reality by way of Fourier mathematics. Our soul belongs to the frequency domain outside space and time and is accessed by our UNCONSCIOUS located in the right hemisphere. Our body belongs to the domain inside space and time and is accessed by our CONSCIOUSNESS located in the left hemisphere. (The Jungian Ego belongs to the left hemisphere, and the Jungian Self to the right hemisphere.)

***** To understand reality, there are two things to bear in mind: 1) what reality is and 2) how humans interact with it. Reality is an endless ocean of energy (energy = ontological numbers), and this energy originates from endless monads (souls) which are eternal, autonomous mathematical functions that can originate their own mathematical functions (thoughts, behaviour, actions), which is why they are able to exhibit free will. Reality is noumenal and is outside space and time (it’s non-local: everything exists in a single point – the Singularity). Our unconscious right hemispheres are attuned to reality. Our left hemispheres have evolved a means (via inverse Fourier transforms) to depict frequency functions as space and time functions. This converts noumenal non-local reality into a local, phenomenal depiction of reality. The phenomenal domain is the one studied by science – which is all about localism. The noumenal domain is non-scientific since it has no local features whatsoever. Kant intuitively understood this phenomenal-noumenal division and knew that all the mysterious things such as the soul and free will were locked in the noumenal domain. However, he committed the

catastrophic error of asserting that the noumenal domain is unknowable. In fact, it’s completely knowable mathematically. We have evolved a brain that gives us two views of reality at once via its two hemispheres. That’s WHY we have two hemispheres! We perform Fourier transforms with the right brain and inverse Fourier transforms with the left brain, and the corpus callosum that links the two hemispheres shuttles information between them. What could be more elegant, effective and efficient? It’s simply magnificent. Nature (mathematics) has given us the opportunity to inhabit two domains at once: local and non-local, phenomenal and noumenal. In the local, we are separate. In the non-local, we are connected. But a problem has arisen. Our hemispheres, which ought to be balanced, have become asymmetric. The left brain is overwhelmingly dominant in most people. The right brain works reasonably well only in intuitives, who are outnumbered three to one by sensing types. In our bicameral past, where religion originated, the right brain was dominant and we were linked to the universe. Our consciousness was, however, meagre. Now, we have a strong consciousness but we have lost our link to the universe, which is why scientists are atheists. Only intuitives retain the non-local mentality in any meaningful way. Humanity was once too right brained and now it’s too left brained. During the transition phase, humanity must have passed through an extraordinary period where the human perception of space and time kept changing as we moved away from a mentality outside space and time to one firmly in space and time. Thesis (old humanity) = right brain dominance (right brain = master; left brain = slave); bicameral mentality. Antithesis (current humanity) = left brain dominance (left brain = master; right brain = slave); consciousness mode. Synthesis (new humanity) = hemispheric balance (left brain and right brain as equal partners; integration of Ego and Self); SUPER CONSCIOUSNESS. We can become divine only if we equalize our hemispheres in terms of their respective dominance, only if we end the master-slave system of our own

brains! The master-slave dialectic must cease within our own heads before it can cease in the world.

***** Our right brain might be called our quantum mind (it’s quantum mechanical and tuned into non-localism), and our left brain our classical mind (ruled by classical mechanics; tuned into localism).

The Birth of Consciousness Consciousness arose precisely because of the inverse Fourier transform. We could not be conscious without it! Without mathematics, consciousness is simply impossible. It’s a wholly mathematical phenomenon. Consciousness arose from the switch to a dominant local mode of mind rather than non-local. Once we had this local mode, we could all clearly distinguish ourselves from each other. Prior to that, we were so interconnected that we could not easily act as individuals. When people are hypnotized, they are docile and lacking personality and individuality. They become an extension of the dominant hypnotist’s mind. In the bicameral period, everyone was like this – all waiting to be directed by the voices of “the gods”. As people started to become conscious (separate rather than interconnected), they also started to become aggressive and violent, keen to dominate others. Thus, we entered the Age of War, of Male Rule, in which the most psychopathic men rose to the top. The world has been ruled by psychopaths ever since. Psychopathy is a kind of ultra individuation whereby a person has no sense of connectedness with other people. He exists purely for himself. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are high up on the psychopathy spectrum. All right wing ideologies reflect psychopathic tendencies. As individualism becomes too extreme, it kills sympathy and positive empathy towards others. Autism also reflects complete individualism, isolating the sufferer from everyone else. Autistics have no intuition, little or no empathy or sympathy, can’t tell lies, can’t fall in love and are locked into their own world. They experience sensory overload – meaning that they are victims of “hyperlocalism”. They are carrying out an extreme degree of inverse Fourier transform processing, producing far too much detail and intensity. (Interestingly, they suffer from sensory and emotional underload when it comes to interacting with others, i.e. they don’t seem greatly interested in other people.) Consciousness is the by-product of a mind that has achieved a localist view of reality. Thinking is a by-product of intuition: it’s a localist version of intuition. Intuition is parallel processing – everything at once. Thinking is linear processing, one thing at a time in sequential order.

***** The Freudian id is localist (located in the left brain) and the Freudian superego is non-local (located in the right brain), with the ego mediating between them (as the corpus callosum). In Jungian terms, the persona and ego are localist (left brained) and the shadow and Self are non-local (right brained).

***** If we over identify with our consciousness then we become strangers to our soul. If we over identify with our unconscious, we become strangers to our body (and body-renouncers such as the Buddhists). Left brain dominants are too connected with the body and not enough with the soul. Right brain dominants are too disconnected from the body, but this gives them a much better chance of achieving enlightenment. In fact, enlightenment religions often push an outright anti-body agenda. However, true enlightenment means that you should not despise your body (the physical vehicle of your soul) any more than you would your car (the physical vehicle for your body!). You should gain absolute understanding and mastery of the physical world before you choose to leave it. Otherwise, you’ll be coming straight back because you haven’t in fact grown out of it yet. Sensing is the defining left brain characteristic and intuition is the defining right brain characteristic. Therefore, our world is a battleground for sensing types versus intuitives. Thinking is a left brain characteristic (concerning reductive analysis) and feeling is a right brain characteristic (sympathy and empathy are all about relatedness). Extraversion is a left brain characteristic (because it directs energy outwards to the local environment) and introversion a right brain characteristic (because energy is directed inwardly to the non-local environment). Extraversion and introversion have the effect of reversing the “polarity” of thinking and feeling or sensing and intuition. In other words, although intuition is a right brain characteristic, if it is associated with extraversion rather than introversion, it points outwards to the sensory world rather than inwards to the frequency world, and takes on a different nature. Extravert intuitives are extremely good at reading body language

and are superb con men. Most showbiz “psychics” are extravert intuitives. Genuine psychics are introverted intuitives. Judging is a left brain characteristic and perceiving a right brain characteristic. The Myers-Briggs personality types represent all of the different human types. Consider the difference between an INTJ and an ENTJ. INTJ: Dominant: Introverted Intuition Auxiliary: Extraverted Thinking Tertiary: Introverted Feeling Inferior: Extraverted Sensing ENTJ: Dominant: Extraverted Thinking Auxiliary: Introverted Intuition Tertiary: Extraverted Sensing Inferior: Introverted Feeling An INTJ is defined by his introverted intuition (right brain) and an ENTJ by his extraverted thinking (left brain).

War All the great wars over religious and political beliefs, over the “truth”, have their origins in how our brains work, and what personality types we have. It’s more or less impossible for a thinking sensing type to be anything other than an atheist. A thinking intuitive could never be an Abrahamist. A sensing feeling type could never be scientific or mathematical, and so on. The more of a sensing type you are, the more CERTAIN you are that either there is no God at all, or he is a Creator God who created a real, solid world. The more intuitive you are, the more you think that the world around you is an illusion and there is a greater truth elsewhere. You are CERTAIN that this world is not all there is.

All of this relates, ultimately, to how we mathematically process information. We are so bound to mathematical calculations that the particular way we perform them determines our understanding of life. Isn’t that extraordinary?

Politics Right wingers are, ironically, left brained. They are sensing types and like to be separated from others (localized). They want to be left alone. They enjoy negative liberty: non-interference by the State. They typically love faith and family and claim to love the “flag”, while actually hating most of their fellow citizens. They are “tradition” and “inner directed” types. Capitalism is a ruthless, left brain, localist economic system. Left wingers are right brained and intuitive. They love community and endorse positive liberty: the State actively getting involved with people’s lives to create a better world. They typically reject faith and want their family to be well integrated with other families. They are other-directed and autonomous types (autonomous people are just at home being with others or doing their own thing – like the Buddha). Communism is a right brain, non-local economic system. Communism could only ever work with a 100% introverted intuitive population.

Hypnosis One of the most interesting of all phenomena is hypnosis. Highly intuitive feeling types are the most receptive to hypnotism. Their left brain consciousness is deactivated and they go into a right brain state where they await commands from a “god” (the hypnotist in this case). They lose their ego and their conscious awareness of their surroundings. The power and potential of hypnosis haven’t been explored at all because scientists don’t believe it’s a real phenomenon. Hypnosis can bring to bear unconscious elements that are otherwise inaccessible. For example, the unconscious mind is responsible for the placebo effect whereby a person’s beliefs have genuine physical effects. This effect can be immensely magnified under hypnosis.

Quantum Mechanics Classical mechanics is all about localism. Quantum mechanics is all about non-localism. Why are scientists so baffled by quantum mechanics? –

because they are so locked into classical, localist thinking. To a localist mind, quantum mechanics is incomprehensible. To a non-local mind, it’s exactly what you would expect. The smaller objects are, the closer they are to the true world of the dimensionless monad, which is outside space and time and everywhere at once. Quantum particles are much closer to monads than they are to the objects of the classical world.

Prejudice “I’m interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice.” – Clint Eastwood There’s a lot of truth in that. What’s even truer is that the more left brained (right wing) you are – like Clint Eastwood! – the more prejudiced you are. Right brained people are much less prejudiced because they are attuned to the holistic system to which we all belong. The more we like each other, the more we help each other.

Noumenon and Phenomenon Descartes was right all along. There are two domains: unextended (mind) and extended (matter). It can’t be stressed enough that the thinking domain is the primary domain – the domain of THINGS IN THEMSELVES. The material domain – the phenomenal world – is a product of the noumenal domain. The phenomenal domain is the world of Maya (illusion) which conceals the truth that the ultimate reality is mental. The true nature of mental existence is that it’s an ocean of vibrations, of frequencies – not of lumpy objects. There is no material world. There is only an alternative way (via inverse Fourier transforms) of presenting mental, frequency information as spacetime, materialistic representations.

Holography Imagine a hologram. One representation of it is the familiar 3D image – the spacetime representation – vividly depicted in Star Wars. But the other representation is an incomprehensible interference pattern – the frequency representation. The dual-nature hologram is, in a nutshell, the whole of existence. Our left brain shows us the spacetime representation while our right brain is immersed in the frequency representation. It’s the same information presented in two different ways and processed in two different ways. Our left brain performs inverse Fourier transforms (i.e. deals with space and time representations) and our right brain performs Fourier transforms (i.e. deals with frequency representations).

The Difference between Humans and Animals Animals have a sensing left brain and a feeling right brain. An animal’s senses reveal its environment and its feelings then judge what it’s observing. Since animals can’t reason to any significant degree (a three-year old human toddler could outreason any animal), the left brain exhibits very little thinking ability, allowing sensing to dominate. However, it’s quite likely that this lack of left brain thinking (meaning that animals are not conscious) makes animals highly intuitive, even superintuitive. Animals “sense” (we ought to say intuit) natural disasters much earlier than humans. Birds have astounding navigational systems – which make far more sense if they have a non-local “big picture” of where they’re going. With a few exceptions, animals can’t recognize themselves in a mirror. This means that they have a) no ability to understand what a mirror is and does, b) they have no sense of self and c) their mentality is non-local. Humans were once like that. Everything unique about humans comes from the emergence of our left brain thinking and consciousness. If we worked out the precise genes involved, we could genetically engineer all animals to be conscious!

Super Consciousness

Intuition can be regarded as a right brain analogue of sensing. Where sensing reveals the immediate, local environment, intuition reveals the nonlocal environment. Intuition can also be regarded as a special kind of feeling; a feeling of the intellect rather than of the heart and gut. Or perhaps we ought to say a “calculation”, an intellectual estimation, rather than a feeling. Intuition is also a type of rational thinking except it does not take place sequentially but in parallel, all at once. Thinking is a kind of localized intuition, no longer directed at the nonlocal, but focused on the immediate environment. Where intuition is about synthesis and holism, thinking is about analysis and reductiveness. The great champion of intuition was Henri Bergson. Intuition is Bergsonian while thinking is scientific (which Bergson disparaged). The problem for a non-local mind is that it is not individuated. It has no clear boundaries between itself and other minds. There are no demarcation lines, no distinct separation. It’s not clear where one mind ends and another begins. This is the domain of Jung’s mysterious collective unconscious. We are all linked non-locally. The “local” mind brings consciousness into existence because it establishes clear dividing lines between minds. Non-locally, we are in danger of being a single mind. Locally, we are transformed into many, distinct minds. The situation is highly reminiscent of the Neoplatonist treatment of the soul (psyche). The Neoplatonists claimed that there is a higher soul (which unites all of us), and a fragmentary lower soul, which separates all of us. That exactly corresponds to human beings having a unifying non-local mind (right hemisphere) and a separationist local mind (left hemisphere). Buddhists are attracted by the idea of abandoning the local mind (with all the desire and suffering it brings with it), and uniting with the single cosmic mind. Illuminism, on the other hand, is about each of us becoming God in terms of our individual consciousness (which has been brought into unity with our Higher Self). How does our Higher Self – locked in the non-local domain – become conscious? It does so by learning from the consciousnesses it has possessed across many mortal lives. The Jungian Ego is the light of consciousness and is located in the left brain. The Jungian Self – the centre of the whole psyche – is located in the

right brain. Jung spoke in terms of the Ego approaching the Self and becoming integrated with it. The Self was regarded as immovable, with the Ego being the defective part of the psyche that needed the Self’s help to see true reality. But that’s not the way it works at all. The Self needs the Ego as much as the Ego needs the Self. The real process involves a feedback loop between the Self and the Ego, each radically influencing each other. The Ego doesn’t move to be one with the Self. Rather, the Self moves towards the Ego and the Ego towards the Self. What they are aiming to achieve is a fully conscious mind that can inhabit the non-local domain. The Ego has to become more unconscious, and the Self more conscious. The Self learns about consciousness from the Ego, and eventually, after living many lives, becomes Super Conscious.

***** Jung saw the Self in terms of God (the imago dei) and the task of the Ego was to become closer to the Self and thus more Godlike. In fact, it’s the cooperation between Self and Ego – their attractions towards one another – that allows us to become God.

***** The Gnostic Mythos of “the Fall” whereby souls, tempted by the desires of the flesh, left heaven to inhabit the material world, only to become trapped in a Satanic nightmare, can be considered purely in terms of localism versus non-localism. Heaven is non-local and earth is local. When souls acquired the ability to perform inverse Fourier transforms, they ipso facto left the unity of heaven and entered the separation and conflict of earth. Where before they were together, now they were ALONE. Satan is the Lord of separation and conflict; he is localist. The Goddess Lucifer is holistic and harmonious; she is non-local. Abraxas is the dialectical synthesis of the two. In the Abraxian domain, we are all together, harmoniously, but as strong individuals.

Sleepwalking A woman in her pyjamas was arrested in her car in the early hours of the morning. She had been driving erratically and was accused of drunk

driving. She was found innocent when she proved that she was in fact sleepwalking (parasomnia). Isn’t that amazing? An unconscious person drove a car! (Albeit badly). That’s how powerful and clever the human zombie autopilot is.

Oceanic Feelings People now and again feel an incredible impression of oneness and a mystical union (uno mystica) with the universe. These experiences are produced by the right brain, of course. They are all about non-localism.

Bias When we refer to right brain and left brain properties, we are doing so from the dominant right-hand-centric perspective, hence treating left handers as “the other”. We apologize to the lefties. For them, hemispheric dominance is often the other way around, but the same general rules apply. In their case, the right hemisphere is local and the left hemisphere is non-local. There are also interesting cases where left handers have the conventional right handed hemispheric pattern. And what about ambidextrous people? They have no clearly dominant hemisphere, hence no clear local and nonlocal differentiation. It would be well worth scientists and psychologists performing detailed examinations of all left handers, all extreme right handers and all ambidextrous people to determine how their brains function and what the differences in their personalities are (and what their religious, philosophical and political beliefs are).

The Bridge The corpus callosum is the structure in the mammalian brain that links the two hemispheres of the brain and provides intercommunication between them. This, therefore, is in some sense where the local and non-local, the conscious and unconscious, the Ego and the Self, collide. This is the “stairway to heaven”. It’s quite possible that the corpus callosum is the most important structure in our body. Some researchers have claimed that large corpus callosums reflect exceptional intellectual activity. Women are said to have wider corpus callosums than men, and this has been linked to greater emotional intelligence, to enhanced empathy and

sympathy, to better hemispheric balance (more crosstalk and harmony between the hemispheres). Women are said to be better at multi-tasking than men, and this may mean that men’s brains are much more specialized than in women (causing men to focus on one thing at a time). Women are popularly said to be more intuitive than men, and a higher functioning corpus callosum could well facilitate enhanced intuition (or enhanced transfer of right brain intuitions to the left brain). Other studies suggest that males typically have the larger corpus callosum, irrespective of the fact that the male brain is usually larger than the female brain. However, particular features of the corpus callosum may be much more important than its actual size. It has been reported that the front portion of the corpus callosum is significantly larger in musicians than non-musicians, and is slightly larger in left-handed and ambidextrous people than in right handers. Some people have little or no corpus callosum, and this can lead to results similar to autism. Some “autistic savants” have been found to have no corpus callosum. Laurence Kim Peek (known as a “megasavant”) was the inspiration for the autistic character played by Dustin Hoffman in the movie Rain Man. However, it later became clear that Peek didn’t have autism at all, but a number of congenital brain abnormalities, including agenesis of the corpus callosum, a condition in which this bundle of nerves connecting the two hemispheres is missing. A drastic procedure to relieve severe epilepsy involves severing the corpus callosum and isolating the two brain hemispheres (to prevent an epileptic storm in one hemisphere spreading to the other and affecting the whole brain, with disastrous results). Many of the findings concerning the respective properties of the two hemispheres have been furnished by studies of people who have had this medical procedure performed on them.

***** Right-handed people constitute some 90% of the world’s population. The remaining 10% are left-handed or ambidextrous.

Strokes

The hemispheric location of a stroke can produce radically different results and outcomes. Some people recover exceptionally well from strokes. In these cases, it’s usually the right hemisphere (the seat of the unconscious) that has suffered damage. On the other hand, damage to the left hemisphere (the seat of consciousness) can be catastrophic since the person’s normal personality, behaviour and identity might be destroyed. Strokes in the left hemisphere have the effect of transferring hemispheric dominance to the right hemisphere, and vice versa. It has been found that some left brain stroke victims have acquired an artistic mania that was previously wholly absent, suggesting, as we would expect, that the right brain is the creative and artistic brain. The brain hemispheres are in a sense in direct competition with each other. To become more highly evolved, we need them to be in much greater harmony, or we need to be able to switch processing from one to another at will. Imagine if you could be scientific whenever you wanted, and artistic whenever you wanted, rather than being stuck as one or the other.

Synchronicity Jungian synchronicity is a non-local CAUSAL effect (contrary to Jung’s own assertion that synchronicity is acausal). That is, non-local interactions can cause entities to converge on a location where they will be visible to sensory consciousness, causing the parties affected to gasp with amazement. In other words, we are all surrounded by a non-local MEANING field. Our unconscious minds are always scanning this meaning field, trying to cause meaningful “coincidences” to take place. Intuitive people are of course much more attuned to synchronicity than sensing types.

Hypermind What would be the ULTIMATE MIND? It would be a split screen system where, on the left, you were shown the local spacetime representation and, on the right, the non-local frequency representation. At first, the frequency representation would be incomprehensible but eventually you would be able to “read it” – just as the resistance fighters in The Matrix started to see machine code in terms of normal reality. You would be seeing a different reality, of course, and you could never interpret the whole frequency pattern unless you were a God. However, you would become better and better at reading the frequency domain outside space and time and cross-referencing it with the local representation in space and time. Scientific materialism would perish. Everyone would be religious and spiritual. We would all be aware of the interconnectedness of everything.

Unity and Plurality If the universe is alive as a SINGLE life force, it becomes hard to explain why there seem to be many separate life forces (seven billion humans, for example). Why does unity seem to be a plurality? How and why did it come about? If the universe is alive as infinite life forces, the issue becomes one of how these different life forces interact. If the life force is an intrinsic, interior force (i.e. it is retained forever within each soul), it can’t be life per se that is used to mediate relations between life forces. So, what is it? In fact, it’s the material world, constructed from mathematical “extended” rather than “unextended” relations. Life/mind is about non-extension: matter is about extension.

Spirit Molecules What do “spirit molecules” such as DMT achieve? They effectively reroute left brain processing to the right hemisphere. Everything that increases spirituality is transferring emphasis to the right hemisphere.

Archetypes

Archetypes – templates – for all things exist in the right hemispheric unconscious. If you could tune into these templates, you could make yourself an instant expert in anything, just as the characters in The Matrix can have a program uploaded to them at any time and become an expert in anything – such as flying a helicopter.

Sartre Sartre dismissed the whole notion of the unconscious mind. Like Descartes, he defined the mind in terms of consciousness, so the concept of part of the mind being an “unconscious consciousness” was a blatant contradiction. He believed that we are aware of everything and some things we choose to admit to “full” consciousness and some things we don’t. However, to repress these latter elements, we must have been conscious of their content in order to see the need for them to be repressed. Freud’s so-called “censor” that prevents disturbing content being admitted to consciousness would have to be conscious in order to know what consciousness finds disturbing! Hence, there is no such thing as the unconscious but rather active and passive consciousness. We consciously put certain elements into a passive, dormant state, but this does not render them “unconscious” since they are always available to consciousness and being assessed by consciousness. So, for Sartre, at some level of which we are fully aware, we choose what we will allow into full consciousness and what we won’t. To this extent, “the unconscious” can never be used to excuse our behaviour since it is completely grounded in consciousness. We may not admit to ourselves what we are doing, but nevertheless we are choosing to do it and we’re responsible for it. Sartre maintained that even when we engage in self-deception, we know we are deceiving ourselves, hence we are doing so deliberately, to advance certain ends. We are making ourselves selectively blind so that we don’t have to “watch” whatever unpleasant thing we have chosen to do. Sartre’s philosophy was of course all about freedom and the hard choices it imposes on us. He regarded notions such as the unconscious as “bad faith” concepts which we use to try to avoid the burden of choice and the radical freedom we have. In reality, Sartre is wrong and we are actually overwhelmingly unconscious beings. Our consciousness is a “reducing valve”, as Aldous Huxley put it, to filter out the impossibly large amount of unconscious data

we have at our disposal. Consciousness is what allows us to focus our attention and make decisions. Consciousness is linked with the local, and the unconscious with the non-local. Sartre had a very human-centric view of reality. If humanity is descended from an apelike ancestor then, obviously, that ancestor wasn’t conscious. So, consciousness must be something that developed from the unconscious, meaning that Sartre is in error.

***** The unconscious is our link to the divine. If we were defined by our left brain consciousness (the Ego) then our death, and thus the Ego’s death, would mean our final end. In a reincarnational universe, each time our body dies our Ego/consciousness dies too. It is our Self, hidden in the unconscious, that endures. The belief that there is no unconscious goes hand in hand with atheism, mathematical formalism and scientific materialism. The scientific materialist and Sartrean existentialist attacks on the soul are directly connected to their attacks on the existence of the unconscious. The unconscious is the key to the soul. The unconscious, like the soul, is unobservable and immaterial, so falls foul of the empiricist materialist scientific Meta Paradigm. It’s no surprise that it’s psychologists rather than scientists who study the unconscious. The theories of Freud, Jung, Adler, Reich and others are wholly ignored by science. Psychology, not science, is our link to the “beyond”.

***** Twenty-first century science is more receptive to the unconscious, but the “unconscious” it has in mind is one that reduces us to zombie machines carrying out all manner of mechanistic processes with no reference to consciousness. That is, the scientific notion of the unconscious denies any complex psychic Jungian-style elements and instead portrays it in terms of simple biophysical processes (like instincts) that our consciousness knows nothing about. Science would be delighted to portray us entirely as strictly causal machines or zombies with no consciousness and no free will at all, and no

Jungian hinterland of psychic components.

Freud and Jung Freud was an extravert, looking to the outer world like a scientist, while Jung was a profound introvert who looked to the inner, religious and spiritual world. The critical difference between the two men, and the issue that drove them apart, was Jung’s advocacy of the “collective unconscious”. Freud dealt with a “shallow” and local system of the unconscious. According to him, we have a conscious mind and a personal unconscious, and that was it. By adding the collective unconscious, Jung made the unconscious deep, NON-LOCAL and gave it a completely impersonal level. With this innovation, Jung stepped radically outside the conventional scientific Meta Paradigm. However, his ideas were no more unprecedented than those of non-local quantum mechanics, and Nobel Prize winner Wolfgang Pauli (famous for his quantum mechanical Exclusion Principle) was happy to collaborate with Jung. To link the unconscious mind with the domain of quantum mechanics is revolutionary because it implies that just as the localist classical material world is founded on non-local, interconnected quantum mechanics, so the localist classical mind (the conscious Ego) is founded on the non-local, interconnected unconscious. The unconscious is to consciousness what quantum mechanics is to classical mechanics. It’s foundational and yet obeys a different paradigm of non-locality and interconnectedness rather than locality and separation. The message of Jung’s collective unconscious, and of quantum mechanics, is that we are all fundamentally connected in the unconscious domain. We are all influenced by archetypal, unconscious forces that affect everything in the universe, not just human or animal minds. Rupert Sheldrake’s extremely controversial hypothesis of morphic resonance can be analyzed easily within the context of the collective unconscious. In essence, Sheldrake said that if creatures learned a trick on one side of the world, equivalent creatures on the other side of the world would then pick up the trick much more quickly. (For example, if rats, after many iterations, learn a way through a complex maze, rats a continent away will learn the same solution after far fewer iterations). Sheldrake’s ideas are absurd in terms of conventional science, but make perfect sense if they operate through a dimensionless, interconnected, non-

local collective unconscious.

What is a Thought? Thoughts might be said to come in four types, corresponding to Jung’s four functions of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. Thinking (rationalism) might be imagined to flow in extremely regular patterns; feelings in grand symphonies; intuitions in enormous, all-embracing (non-local) patterns, and sensing in highly restricted (localised) packages. These patterns are all simultaneously present inside our brain-mind system, and a central conscious coordinator (the Ego) chooses which pattern to concentrate on at any one time. The more rational you are, the more you tune into rational thought patterns; the more emotional you are, the more you listen to the symphony of feelings; the more intuitive you are the more you concentrate on the immensely complex non-local patterns, and the more of a sensing type you are, the more you concentrate on the localized patterns being fed to you via your senses. In other words, we are immersed in a sea of mathematical functions of different types and patterns, and we have a preference for some of these over others, and that preference defines what kind of person we are (what our Myers-Briggs personality type is). Mathematical functions and signals (based on waves and wave combinations) are all there is. A “controller” (Ego) filters, sifts, organizes and assigns meaning to whatever signals are selected for attention. Our consciousness is all about to what we assign our attention. However, all the other signals are there anyway, available for our unconscious mind to interpret. Mental activity IS mathematics. Our minds receive and also generate mathematical signals. They prioritize these and assign meaning to them, then act on them or respond in some way. There’s nothing else going on. Mathematics is all there is.

***** If you want an analogy for your mental life, imagine yourself inside a digital TV, receiving hundreds of channels over cable, or from a satellite. You are immersed in all of these channels, but you can of course watch only one at a time. You must direct your attention to one channel and ignore all

the others. But they’re all still there, and you can switch to any one of them whenever you like. Imagine that some channels are about science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology; others are about soap operas, rom-coms, costume dramas, sitcoms; others are about all kinds of sport; others are about politics, or religion, or music, or economics, or Latin, or whatever. You will not watch all of these channels equally. You will keep going back to certain channels and ignoring others. Your choices will indicate your Myers-Briggs personality type. Inside your TV, you have perfect access to the screen. You can get a great 3D picture and fabulous surround sound. But, of course, you’re not encountering reality. You are simply being presented with mathematical signals being electronically processed in various ways. These constitute your sensory input. Yet these mathematical functions seem exactly the same as life itself, proving that life is just mathematics. And what if you want to interact with the channel you are watching? What if you want to vote, or buy something, or whatever? Well, you have an interactive “back channel” that you can use to respond to events occurring on the channel. You, and others like you, can influence what the channel transmits by feeding back to it. You are in a feedback loop. The channels influence you and you influence them. The point is that a TV is just a box of electronics shuttling around mathematical signals, yet there it is transmitting 3D pics, sounds, and all sorts of material for thinking, sensing, feeling, and types intuitive. There is a vast excess of data, so specific choices are necessary to manage all of this material. Most information has to be ignored. A personality is shaped through this process of selecting some inputs and ignoring all the rest. The ignoring part (negative selection) is every bit as important as what you turn your attention to (positive selection).

***** “We are shaped and fashioned by what we love.” – Goethe Therefore, we are shaped and fashioned by our psychological type since that dictates what we love.

*****

Human beings are mathematical receivers, processors and transmitters. That’s all they do: receive, process and transmit. A person receives mathematical signals, processes them and focuses attention on one of them. Then, in response, creates a reply and transmits it. The person does that over and over again for a lifetime. All of the events of a life take place within that sequence of receiving signals, processing signals and transmitting signals.

Left Brain World versus Right Brain World The left brain world of the senses and linear thinking is ordered, local, ordinary, predictable, causal and everything takes place within space and time. The right brain world is entirely different. This is the domain of ghosts and spirits, of hauntings, of people being possessed, of poltergeists and telekinesis. It’s the realm of inspiration, Jungian synchronicity, the paranormal, homeopathy, hypnosis, bicameralism, intuition, remote viewing, psychic phenomena, astrology, soothsaying, divination, geomancy, necromancy, alchemy, religion, oracles, the soul, the otherworldly. All the weird, inexplicable things are expressions of the non-local, interconnected domain. The left brain world is for normal, physical phenomena and the right brain world is for paranormal, psychic phenomena. Is not the history of our world simply the tension between those two domains: the local and non-local, the scientific and the psychological? The non-local domain, being so unusual in relation to our standard local sensory processing, is often misinterpreted – which is why it generates so much confusion and so many baffling experiences.

The Link The corpus callosum bridges the two hemispheres of the brain. Imagine if we could supercharge the corpus callosum and massively increase the degree of hemispheric interaction. In the limit, we could establish a single brain, fully integrating the properties of the separate hemispheres in a single entity. Equally, imagine we could suppress the corpus callosum. In the limit, the two hemispheres would be wholly independent. It would be as if we had two separate brains inside our skull. Imagine that – twice the processing power; able to do two things at once! Can we create technology, or discover drugs, that could bring this about?

The left brain is based on the Ego personality, and the right brain on the Self personality (our Higher Self). Together, they produce the Ego-Self dialectical combination. What is the divine future for humanity? It involves an ever-closer union between Ego and Self, between the local and non-local, the physical and the psychological (psychical). It’s all about EXPANDING THE MIND, about expressing the complementary power of our separate hemispheres in new and enhanced ways.

The Dual Hemispheric Gods Apollo’s properties straddle both hemispheres. He is the God of Reason (left brain) and, via music and the arts, Feeling (right brain). He is the god of moderation and order. Apollo’s counterpart is Dionysus. Dionysus is the God of the Senses and Sensuality (left brain). He is also the God of intuition, inspiration and enthusiasm (right brain). He is the God of immoderation, disorder, excess and intoxication.

Out of Body Experiences When we are awake, our left brain is dominant and we perform inverse Fourier Transforms (converting non-local frequency representations into local space and time representations). When we are asleep, our right brain is dominant and we inhabit the nonlocal frequency domain of our mind, and our left brain struggles to convert the information into space and time representations (hence space, time and causality are no longer strictly obeyed, and often not obeyed at all). Moreover, our minds are no longer functioning directly within the shared material world, defined by space and time, hence conventional space and time representations no longer apply anyway. An out of body experience involves the right brain of the sleeping person remaining linked to the objective, shared, public world rather than entering the subjective, solitary, private dream world, as normally happens. The person’s consciousness is now free to roam non-locally in the “real” world, and the left brain is able to convert that non-local information into normal, waking space and time representations, meaning that a person can observe the physical world, without being part of it (the body is asleep; consciousness has become detached from it and is “free-floating”).

***** When you are awake, you mostly perform objective, inverse Fourier transforms (converting frequencies into spacetime representations). When you are asleep, your mind operates overwhelmingly in the frequency domain itself. An OBE involves being asleep but continuing to perform objective inverse Fourier transforms. Since the person’s body is immobile,

his consciousness is now free to roam wherever it likes in the objective universe, unencumbered by physical limitations. In these circumstances, consciousness does not require the sensory input normally provided by the body. After all, all that your senses do is physically collect data that your mind has access to anyway (via the fact that everything is holographically linked). People can see in their dreams even though their eyes are closed; people who have gone blind regain their sight in their dreams. This unambiguously proves that the mind does not actually need eyes in order to see. However, it’s the right brain that is unrestricted by the senses. The left brain is absolutely connected to the senses.

The Foundation of Mathematics Illuminism shares Wittgenstein’s view that mathematics is all about tautology, but unlike Wittgenstein (who asserted that this made mathematics an empty subject with nothing to say about reality), Illuminism declares that tautology is the only thing that gives us complete, absolute, unarguable knowledge about reality. The symbol of tautology is the equals sign. Whatever is on the left of the symbol is objectively equal to whatever is on the right even if the expressions and functions on the left bear no resemblance to those on the right. The fact that they are equal means that they are the same regardless of appearances. Any expression with an equals sign can be reduced to the ultimate tautology: 0 = 0 Illuminism asserts that there is only one fundamental mathematical axiom, namely that all absolutely true assertions about reality must be reducible to the tautology 0 = 0, and this must be a necessary and analytic outcome (not based on the contingent ad hoc hypotheses of science which also use the equals sign, but which do not relate to reality but only to the particular scientific model in use). Two ancillary axioms can be added, concerning inequality: 1) x > 0, where x is any positive real or imaginary number. 2) x < 0, where x is any negative real or imaginary number. A conservation law must be applied to these three axioms. The universe as a whole must at all times be conserved at EXACTLY 0 = 0, so any x > 0

expressions must be exactly matched by x < 0 expressions. Any statement that is not about 0 = 0, x > 0 or x < 0 is not a statement of mathematics but of metamathematics (or other subjects such as philosophy, metaphysics, religion or science). The foundation of mathematics must be numbers and their relations. Nothing else is acceptable. And everything must be reducible to NOTHING. The mathematical universe can never at any time deviate from nothing. At all times, “something” (the expressions on either side of the equality sign) must cancel to zero (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4; 2 + 2 – 4 = 0). The universe exists precisely because “something” can be shown to equal “nothing”. Leibniz asked why there is something rather than nothing. The answer is that something IS nothing. It’s not a question of something rather than nothing, but of how something can BE nothing. Mathematics alone gives the answer.

The Buddha “All created things must pass.” – the Buddha But there is no reason why uncreated things must pass. In fact, they cannot pass since it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. The Buddha did not believe in eternity because, if he did, he would have believed in eternal, uncreated souls.

Eastern Religion versus Abrahamism Eastern religions are holistic. They are about synthesis and oneness, the interconnectedness of all things. This is entirely consistent with an ocean of vibrations (frequencies), centred on living souls, as the ultimate reality. Eastern religion is a product of right brain intuitive thinking. Eastern religion sees separation as a phenomenal illusion (the veil of Maya), concealing noumenal reality. Eastern religion, understood correctly, is about eternity involving uncreated, reincarnating souls that pass through one phenomenal existence after another until they understand the true nature of reality. Right brain types have much less of an attachment to the body, which they see almost as an enemy or prison (something that deceives, hurts and is ignorant of the truth).

Abrahamism, on the other hand, rejects holism and synthesis. It is about an eternal Creator God who is absolutely distinct from his Creation. The world is a real, solid thing created by God. It is no kind of phenomenal illusion. This appeals to left brain sensing types. Resurrection is a concept for people who are highly attached to one body and want it back, even after death! Left brain religion is almost a contradiction in terms. The world must move to right brain enlightenment religion based on reincarnation.

True Axioms Humanly constructed mathematical axioms can be inconsistent and incomplete. Ontological mathematical axioms can never be inconsistent or incomplete. Formalist axioms have had the truth – the necessary truth – drained from them. They cannot be guaranteed to produce true statements, hence such statements must be proved to be true. However, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that there are true statements that cannot be proved within a consistent system (so the system is incomplete). Moreover, a corollary states that the consistency of the system cannot itself be proved within the parameters of the system. The anti-Platonists sought to remove intuition from mathematics. They failed. David Hilbert said, “If mathematical thinking is defective, where are we to find truth and certitude?” Ontological mathematics is not defective: every other type is.

Falsification Science claims to acknowledge a falsification principle, meaning that if an experiment proves a theory wrong then that’s it: the theory dies. Well, Einstein’s special theory of relativity has already been falsified by the experiments relating to Bell’s Inequality Theorem. There is no question whatsoever that quantum wavefunctions are non-local, meaning that they are not bound by any-speed of light restrictions, in direct contradiction of Einstein’s special relativity. This is an absolute fact. How does the scientific establishment attempt to get out of this? In essence, it claims that Einstein’s theory simply doesn’t apply to quantum wavefunctions, hence there’s no contradiction! That’s what you call a neat sidestep. Science is thus committed to a “two worlds” interpretation of reality. There’s non-local quantum reality and a local Einsteinian reality. In which case, why is science so hostile to the two worlds systems that contrast nonlocal mind with local matter?! Science has blundered into the domain of mind without realizing it. It refuses to acknowledge what has happened and has chosen instead to enter a state of denial. We now have a scientific establishment maintaining a localist empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm, which cannot be sustained by the facts. Scientists like to pretend they deal in facts rather than personalities (in contrast with politicians, for example). But here’s the thing … how would it be announced that the Meta Paradigm of science had failed? Who would announce it? Would there be unanimous agreement? If science is clear-cut and facts are facts, why has no one “called it”, i.e. pronounced the existing scientific paradigm, based on Einsteinian relativity, dead? Einsteinian localism has been destroyed and it’s now an established fact that ANY quantum mechanical wavefunction is present everywhere (i.e. is defined over the whole universe), every part of the wavefunction is in instantaneous contact with every other part, and the whole thing “collapses” all at once. This has no resemblance whatsoever to Einstein’s view of reality. The truth is that science is extremely murky and confused. No one has any authority to overturn the prevailing ideology. There is no Pope to make an ex cathedra declaration. As Max Planck said, “A new scientific truth

does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” This is the grim reality. There is never any exact moment when any scientific theory is falsified to everyone’s satisfaction, so what does it even mean to talk about a falsification principle? Einstein’s special theory of relativity was not accepted by all scientists. Nor was his general theory. Einstein himself did not accept quantum mechanics. There are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are multiple approaches to quantum gravity. Where is the clarity? Where is the straight road of science? It’s a complete mess. All that happens in science is that adherents of certain positions die out and then those positions fade away, but none of the dead guys ever accepted that their theories were falsified. If people won’t accept falsification, what’s the point? Isn’t science just a religion with believers? Einstein had absolute faith quantum mechanics would be shown to contain a fundamental error, and he kept searching for it. So, was the great Einstein someone who believed in falsification? Even though his views about quantum mechanics were continually falsified, he never surrendered them. In practice, no scientist actually accepts falsification. All that happens is the competing scientific theories rise and fall in popularity. Science has neither a falsification nor verification principle, merely a popularity principle, a fashion principle. Science is American Idol for theories. It’s all based on opinions, judges (the establishment figures) and popularity votes (what the funding bodies support, what areas scientists find “sexiest”, what areas allow them to advance their careers most efficiently, and so on). The reality of science is nothing like the rational image it presents of itself. In the Catholic Church, the Pope can say what is true and what isn’t. No one in science can do the same. No scientist can pronounce any theory dead. Theories don’t die, but, like pop stars, simply fade away.

The Religion of Mathematics Many people think they understand Illuminism but, in reality, their understanding is rather vague. When someone writes down their

understanding of Illuminism and posts it, it becomes easy to see whether they have grasped it or not. Writing down your thoughts on Illuminism helps you clarify what parts you understand and what parts you don’t. It’s hard to sustain bullshit for several hundred words. We would encourage everyone to write a synopsis of Illuminism based on the God Series. RZ: “The interpretations are on the same foundations as philosophers past, but with some basic math brought into the equation.” That’s exactly right. Illuminism isn’t some bizarre reinvention of the wheel. Rather, it’s the summation and culmination of all that has gone before in humanity’s intellectual development, except we have found the “glue” that unifies everything – basic math (numbers). The math involved is VERY basic (to any mathematician) but the conceptual complexity is exceptionally high. Math is the supreme bullshit detector. Science replaced philosophy because it embraced math and philosophy didn’t. Science could measure and predict things: philosophy couldn’t. Science proved useful; philosophy didn’t and became marginalized. Philosophy lost out to mathematics on one hand, and religion on the other (religion is philosophy turned into a bunch of entertaining stories – Mythos). Illuminism is actually mathematical metaphysics based on numbers as the primary ontological reality from which everything else is derived. Scientific materialism is a subset of Illuminism. Science can’t explain WHY – Illuminism can. Everything, in an objective sense, happens through absolute mathematical inevitability. The universe exists because of zero and infinity, and couldn’t exist otherwise. From zero flows the idea that existence is “nothing” – void. From infinity flows the idea that existence is “something” – everything, the plenum. Existence is simply an exploration of this apparent contradiction. If you invert nothing, infinity pours out. And if you invert infinity, you return to nothing. Zero and infinity are the opposite faces of a single coin, and within that coin is contained EVERYTHING. All of the laws of existence are here, all of the energy of existence. The zero-infinity coin is the SINGULARITY, the supreme object of mathematics, and the most mysterious thing that can

possibly exist. Illuminism, in the final analysis, is the mathematical and metaphysical study of the properties of the Singularity. Guess where scientific materialism says that its own laws collapse? – you guessed it: the SINGULARITY. The Singularity is where materialism dies. The Singularity is pure mind, pure life and pure mathematics, outside space and time. It is the ORIGIN of all that can be and all that can become. It is the Genesis Point. If you wanted to anthropomorphize it, you would call it God (but not a conscious God). Moreover, its sole purpose is to become INFINITELY PERFECT, to find the mathematical solution to perfection, the final answer to life the universe and everything, and in doing so to become self-aware. The pursuit of the Singularity to optimize and solve itself is the divine force that permeates existence. We are all part of it and we are all making a contribution. Even those who oppose enlightenment are dialectically necessary, but they must of course be overcome if the universe is to become what it must become. The triumph of Illuminism is inevitable. The question is the time scale, and whether humanity is capable of becoming illuminated on a specieswide scale. Illuminated planets are those where the conscious species has produced some mathematical metaphysics equivalent to Illuminism. Since the Singularity – a mathematical and logical object – is the supreme reality, all enlightened species will come to the same understanding. The same is not true of science which is an ad hoc collection of hypotheses shaped by human experiments designed to accommodate the human senses. Anything unobservable or immaterial is automatically dismissed, meaning that the Singularity itself – the answer to everything – is ignored by science for ideological reasons. Make no mistake, science is a quasi-religion. It’s the irrational faith that there is nothing beyond matter and the human senses. But the Scientific Age is the necessary dialectical precursor of the Mathematical Age of Illuminism. Why has Illuminism appeared now in the public domain? Because science has completely stalled in the search for a final answer to everything, and the finest minds are now forced to enter Thomas Kuhn’s revolutionary phase of science where a paradigm shift must take place. Illuminism is that new – and final – paradigm. It is the paradigm that MATHEMATICS is the one, pure, true, inevitable, rational, all-conquering answer to everything.

Nothing can trump mathematics. There is nowhere to go after Illuminism. The end of the line has arrived.

***** DD: “Well, anything that takes that long to explain falls under suspicion.” Can only “short” explanations be true? We all know where such “thinking” leads – a three-letter word: GOD. People looking for short explanations are people not looking for explanations at all. There are three positions that thinking people in the modern world can take: 1) Logical positivism, empiricist materialism, “analytic” philosophy, Wittgenstein, science, atheism – this is the position of the American and British intelligentsia. 2) Postmodernism, “continental” philosophy (European): cynical, skeptical, playful, literary, psychological, political, sociological, contemptuous of grand narratives and absolute truth, atheist, relativist – led by French thinkers such as Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault, Lyotard and Deleuze. Often described as “meaningless” by its opponents (such as Noam Chomsky who claims it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge). In essence, each side regards the other’s work as meaningless! 3) Platonism, mathematics, eternal verities, a mathematical grand narrative, absolute knowledge, religious, idealist, rationalist – championed in the modern Age by Gödel. Which will you choose?

The Riemann Hypothesis – A Challenge to All Mathematicians Want to earn one million dollars? Well, all you have to do is solve the Riemann hypothesis. If you succeed, you will be one of the greatest geniuses of all time, lauded by all and sundry. There is someone out there, perhaps reading this, who will crack it one day. Will it be you? The Riemann Hypothesis

“Some numbers have the special property that they cannot be expressed as the product of two smaller numbers, e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, etc. Such numbers are called prime numbers, and they play an important role, in both pure mathematics and its applications. The distribution of such prime numbers among all natural numbers does not follow any regular pattern, however the German mathematician G.F.B. Riemann (1826 – 1866) observed that the frequency of prime numbers is very closely related to the behaviour of an elaborate function

ζ(s) = 1 + 1/2s + 1/3s + 1/4s + ... called the Riemann Zeta function. The Riemann hypothesis asserts that all interesting solutions of the equation

ζ(s) = 0 lie on a certain vertical straight line. This has been checked for the first 1,500,000,000 solutions. A proof that it is true for every interesting solution would shed light on many of the mysteries surrounding the distribution of prime numbers.” – http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/

The Magic Numbers – the Primes Why are prime numbers so important? They are to natural numbers what atoms are to molecules in chemistry: the essential building blocks. “The crucial importance of prime numbers to number theory and mathematics in general stems from the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which states that every positive integer larger than 1 can be written as a product of one or more primes in a way that is unique except for the order of the prime factors. Primes can thus be considered the ‘basic building blocks’ of the natural numbers. For example: 23244 = 2 · 2 · 3 · 13 · 149” – Wikipedia “In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 is either prime itself or is the product

of prime numbers, and that, although the order of the primes in the second case is arbitrary, the primes themselves are not.” – Wikipedia Euclid’s proof that there are an infinite number of primes: 1) Assume that there are a finite number, n, of primes, with the largest being pn. 2) Multiply these prime numbers then add one to the resultant product: N = (p1...pn) +1. 3) N cannot be divisible by any of the primes you have chosen, by construction. 4) Therefore N is either a new prime number, or it’s divisible by another prime greater than pn, contradicting the original assumption (that your initial pn was the highest prime). This procedure can be performed indefinitely.

***** “In number theory, a formula for primes is a formula generating the prime numbers, exactly and without exception. No such formula which is easily computable is presently known.” – Wikipedia

The Fatal Allure of the Riemann Hypothesis TP: “Faust sold his soul to Lucifer so that he might know the ultimate truth of existence. So much so that he was willing to spend eternity in hell for that prize. If I were to give Lucifer a mathematical property, it would of course be the primes. Nothing besides nothing has lured the greatest thinkers towards its dazzling light more than the incomprehensible, infinite nature of the primes. In this sense, Lucifer is the spirit of knowledge and wisdom. She has drawn our minds from the swamps of ignorance to the perfect domain of pure form.” “For many mathematicians working on [the Riemann Hypothesis], $1m is less important than the satisfaction that would come from finding a proof. Throughout my researches among the mathematicians’ tribe (I have interviewed 30 in the past year), Riemann’s Hypothesis was often described to me in awed terms. Hugh Montgomery of the University of Michigan said

this was the proof for which a mathematician might sell his soul. Henryk Iwaniec, a Polish-American mathematician, sounded as if he were already discussing terms with Lucifer: ‘I would trade everything I know in mathematics for the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. It’s gorgeous stuff. I’m only worried that I’ll be unable to understand it. That would be the worst...’” – K. Sabbagh “Most mathematicians would trade their soul with Mephistopheles for a proof.” – Marcus du Sautoy [on the Riemann Hypothesis] “If the Riemann Hypothesis is true . . . the function f(u) constructed from the primes has a discrete spectrum; that is, the support of its Fourier transform is discrete. If the Riemann Hypothesis is false, this is not the case. The frequencies tn are reminiscent of the decomposition of a musical sound into its constituent harmonics. Therefore there is a sense in which we can give a one-line non technical statement of the Riemann hypothesis: ‘The primes have music in them’.” – M.V. Berry and J.P. Keating “Our purpose is to report on the development of an analogy, in which three areas of mathematics and physics, usually regarded as separate, are intimately connected. The analogy is tentative and tantalizing, but nevertheless fruitful. “The three areas are eigenvalue asymptotics in wave (and particularly quantum) physics, dynamical chaos, and prime number theory. At the heart of the analogy is a speculation concerning the zeros of the Riemann zeta function (an infinite sequence of numbers encoding the primes): the Riemann zeros are related to the eigenvalues (vibration frequencies, or quantum energies) of some wave system, underlying which is a dynamical system whose rays or trajectories are chaotic. “Identication of this dynamical system would lead directly to a proof of the celebrated Riemann hypothesis. We do not know what the system is, but we do know many of its properties, and this knowledge has brought insights in both directions: from mathematics to physics, by stimulating the development of new spectral asymptotics, and from physics to mathematics, by indicating previously unsuspected correlations between the Riemann zeros.” – M.V. Berry and J. P. Keating (The Riemann Zeros and Eigenvalue Asymptotics)

Why is the Riemann Hypothesis so seductive? Well, it has become the holy grail of mathematics and acquired a magical allure. Given that it has stumped all of the world’s greatest mathematical geniuses since it was first proposed, everyone knows that, if they solve it, they will immediately leap into the first rank of geniuses. Their name will be IMMORTAL. The odd thing about the Riemann Hypothesis is that it’s actually one level removed from prime numbers themselves. It supplies information about primes but is only a clue rather than an answer to the mystery they pose. As mathematician Marcus du Sautoy observed, “I have described the primes as atoms: what mathematicians are missing is a kind of mathematical prime spectrometer. Chemists have a machine that, if you give it a molecule, will tell you from what atoms it is built. Mathematicians haven’t invented a mathematical version of this. That is what we are after. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, it won’t produce a prime number spectrometer. But the proof should give us more understanding of how the primes work, and therefore the proof might be translated into something that might produce this prime spectrometer. If it does, it will bring the whole of e-commerce to its knees, overnight. So there are very big implications.”

The Enigma of the Inverse In order to defend imaginary numbers, negative numbers, zero and infinity in an ontological sense (against the empiricist materialist science hypothesis that only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity have genuine existence, or relate to existence in any real way), we often state that no numbers can be privileged over any others. At a more profound level, there’s a hierarchy of numbers. The ultimate number is zero (“nothing”), the source of all numbers. Now, consider another form of privileging numbers unfairly: why should a number be privileged over its inverse? In other words, how do we know which version of a number is more important? – the number itself or the inverse of that number. Given that we can move seamlessly from one number to the other by inverting it, there’s no sufficient reason to privilege one form over another. They are equally valid. So, what happens when we invert zero (divide 1 by zero)? We get what we define as ALPHA INFINITY, the first infinity: the number of zeros (ontological, dimensionless points) that, each separated from the next by an

infinitesimal distance, can be fitted between zero and one on the number line. If we divided two by zero, we would get two alpha infinity, if we divided three by zero we would get three alpha infinity, and so on. Alpha infinity divided by zero is alpha infinity times alpha infinity (i.e., alpha infinity squared). Zero cannot be privileged over alpha infinity (its inverse). Both constitute a single coin with two faces. You see one or the other, but not both at the same time (though there may be some weird situation where the coin is balanced on its edge and showing both faces at once! – any suggestions for a suitable phenomenon corresponding to that?). The first number in the numerical hierarchy therefore becomes the zero/alpha infinity pair. This is the GENESIS number and is the key determinant of the Singularity. There’s an enormous difference between pure numbers (“eternal” numbers) and derived numbers (“mortal” numbers). To understand how they differ, think of the two numbers 2 and 6. Each of these is an eternal number. What is the distance between them? It’s 4, but this is a derived number because it came into existence only as a relation between two eternal numbers. The number 4 on its own is an eternal number, but if it’s the distance between two numbers then it’s a mortal number. 15 – 11 = 4; 20 – 16 = 4; all sorts of things can have 4 as the derived distance between them. The key point is that you have to draw a clear distinction between a selfstanding number and a number expressing a relation between two selfstanding numbers. Self-standing numbers are eternal, Platonic frequencies. Derived numbers express dynamic relations and belong to the domain of space and time. Derived numbers are all about distance between numbers, about Cartesian EXTENSION, and belong to the domain of space and time. All self-standing numbers are about NON-EXTENSION and exist in the frequency domain outside space and time. Something extraordinary happens when you invert a derived number: it is converted into an eternal number. So, if we take 11 – 7 = 4 (derived number) and then invert 4, we get 1/4 (eternal number). The inversion process causes the derived origin of 4 to be lost. This is a crucial consideration in relation to Fourier transforms whereby space and time functions – based on derived numbers – are turned into

frequency functions (eternal numbers). Associated with this process of turning mortal numbers into immortal numbers is a critical constant reflecting an inherent uncertainty that accompanies the mismatch between numbers in space and time and those outside space and time. Ontologically (i.e. relating to real processes rather than paper abstractions), this uncertainty produces a characteristic constant – Planck’s constant, upon which Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the whole of quantum physics is based! Numbers based on the distance between things in a dynamic universe are changing all the time, i.e. “extension” is inherently unstable. That’s why the world of space and time – of Cartesian extension – involves change, decay and death. In the Cartesian domain of non-extension (“Soul World”), nothing can ever decay or die. The immortal soul inhabits the frequency domain of eternal, immutable numbers and the mortal body inhabits the world of derived numbers, of the changing distances between things in space and time.

***** Note that one is its own inverse, i.e. dividing one by one gives one. More intriguingly, zero divided by zero is also one. Think of one “thing” being divided by that same “thing”. The result must be one. If you divide yourself by yourself what do you get? – one. Well, you don’t vanish, do you? Division by yourself doesn’t generate “nothing”. Any number, including zero, divided by itself is one. Ten divided by ten is one (i.e. ten can be fitted into itself once). Similarly, zero divided by zero is one: zero can be fitted into itself once. One monad fits into one monad once!

***** It’s not just the “first” inverse to which a number is related, it’s ALL of its inverses, i.e. 2 is not related just to 1/2 but also 0/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, and so on. All numbers are related to all other numbers. All numbers and all their various relations are a single interlocking system.

The Enigma of Frequency Frequency comes in two “flavours”: temporal and spatial. Temporal frequency, f (measured in Hertz; cycles per second), is the reciprocal of the period, T, the length of time taken to perform one cycle:

f = 1\T (so, if T = 0.2 seconds, f = 5Hz) Spatial frequency, ῦ (measured in the number of wavelengths per metre), is the reciprocal of the wavelength, λ: ῦ = 1/λ (so, if λ = 0.2 metres, ῦ = 5 m-1) T and λ play the same role in their respective equations. If we think of T in terms of imaginary space and, in fact, as an imaginary space wavelength (rather than “time period”), the correspondence becomes even closer. In effect, T and λ are orthogonal to one another in the complex plane, but are otherwise identical. An alternative angular, or “circular”, wavenumber (the number of wavelengths per 2π units of distance), can be defined: k = 2π/λ

***** Frequency (wavenumber) is critical to our world, and inverted numbers are every bit as important as “upright” numbers. Neither class of numbers can be privileged over the other. In a sense, all numbers should be considered as a pair: x and 1/x (in the simplest case of inversion). That is, all numbers are “coins” with a front side and an inverse side (or obverse and reverse). Zero and alpha infinity are not two numbers: they are one number viewed from two different perspectives. Wherever you encounter zero, there is an implicit reference to alpha infinity, and vice versa. Each number is the “ghost” of the other and haunts it, in a manner of speaking. They are indissoluble twins. Zero/alpha infinity is the most important number, the sine qua non for all others; the alpha and the omega, the origin and the totality. What numbers are the next most important? THE PRIMES. “In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 is either prime itself or is the product of prime numbers.” – Wikipedia This is an extraordinary fact. From the prime numbers, we can construct ALL of the natural numbers (positive integers) on the number line. Prime

numbers are the “atoms” of the number line and non-primes are the molecules (which cannot exist without the atoms). The full numerical hierarchy is therefore: 1) zero/alpha infinity – the origin, the source. 2) prime numbers (and their inverses) – the “atoms”. 3) non-primes (and their inverses) – the “molecules” built from the atoms. Non-primes cannot exist without primes and primes cannot exist without zero/alpha infinity. Certain individual numbers have critical importance, such as e, pi and phi. These, therefore, also occupy the elevated levels of the pantheon of numbers. Regarding primes, it’s curious that almost no attention is paid to their inverses. The “critical line” that features in the Riemann hypothesis occurs at exactly 0.5, which is none other than the inverse of the first prime number: 2. A coincidence? The first prime, via its inverse, in a sense controls all the others. It’s the leader of the pack. The prime numbers are miraculous. To see why, consider the challenge facing them. Prime numbers – a vanishingly small subset of the integers – must be able to account for ALL integers, an infinite number of them, leaving not a single gap (or, to be more accurate, the primes ARE the gaps). There are only primes and non-primes. Nothing else can exist. Applying a few Leibnizian considerations, the prime numbers must form the absolutely minimum set of “atomic” numbers since there’s no sufficient reason why they should have any superfluous members. The fewest possible primes must give rise to the greatest possible number of nonprimes. The prime numbers must provide the simplest, most elegant, most economic set of atomic numbers, and be maximally productive. Imagine if YOU had to create atomic numbers in order to achieve all of that. Where would you begin? How would you begin? Luckily, mathematics does not have to try. The prime numbers are eternal. They have always been the perfect set of atomic numbers. Of course, in ontological mathematics, numbers are energy and that fact has radical implications. They constitute a “musical scale” of energy, the perfect notes from which ALL energy is constructed. All energy waves are either “atomic” (primes) or “molecular” (constructed from primes). The

Music of the Primes is something akin to the Music of the Spheres. The prime number notes are those that provide the perfect notes to which God himself listens. One area that is enormously under-researched is the influence of prime number energy waves (sines and cosines) in Fourier mathematics. All waves can be constructed from a small number of atomic waves. Are these atomic waves the true basis of science’s string theories? There is not a single string which can be plucked in various different ways to produce all of the different particles we observe. Rather, particles either are spacetime manifestations of prime waves themselves, or are constructed from combinations of prime waves. The scientific view is a typically ad hoc, with no logical necessity. Science should be linked directly to logically necessary prime numbers – true atomic waves. How are primes distributed along the number line? Can we discover a formula that shows exactly where all the primes are on the number line and why they must be there? Riemann’s key to throwing light on the primes is the astonishing “zeta” function. When x = 1 the zeta function is equivalent to the famous harmonic series, a divergent series. When x = 2, the series becomes convergent. Astoundingly, the series, in this case, converges on one sixth of the square of π:

How on earth did π pop out? Mathematics delivers endless wonders and miracles! Who needs God? Riemann’s treatment of the zeta function is of course masterful, yet is it radically incomplete? Does the zeta function have much more to yield, making the Riemann hypothesis itself somewhat trivial? Riemann walks straight into the trap of privileging real numbers over imaginary numbers. Even though complex numbers are fed into the zeta function, the function nevertheless privileges real numbers over imaginary numbers by having 1 as a numerator. This function ought to be partnered with another zeta function with the imaginary number i as the numerator (let’s call this the imaginary zeta function), which will be orthogonal to the other function. Riemann, although he was no stranger to imaginary and complex numbers, always retained an overriding real-number prejudice, i.e. he used

imaginary and complex numbers to illuminate real numbers, which he took to be the primary reality. The answer to the mystery of the primes must be provided in a COMPLEX number context, not real numbers. Imaginary prime numbers, orthogonal to real primary numbers, must be fully accounted for, as must their respective inverted forms. It is one, complete, integrated picture – not separate parts in which real numbers are placed on a pedestal. Riemann, in common with virtually all mathematicians, treated numbers as abstractions rather than ontological realities based on Euler’s Formula, and thus on real cosine and imaginary sine energy waves. Numbers inhabit an actual, not abstract, landscape. It is that landscape – based on COMPLEX NUMBERS – that needs to be revealed, not some real number representation abstracted from it. Just as science has failed to find a final theory because of empiricist and materialist dogma (that ignores non-localism), so mathematics commits much the same crime and insists on being fundamentally about real numbers rather than complex numbers. Ontological mathematics is, crucially, about complex numbers, not about real numbers. It’s time that the mathematics community, like the science community, got with the program. The worship of real numbers must end. Unless you have the right paradigm, you can’t arrive at the final answers. Illuminism is about EULER’S FORMULA as the foundation of ontological mathematics – where perfect balance is maintained between real and imaginary, positive and negative numbers. It’s imperative that all numbers cancel to zero, and that’s what Euler’s Formula uniquely delivers. A universe of positive real numbers, on the other hand, is not a real universe at all.

Prime Magic Prime numbers are divisible only by themselves and one (the “identity operator”), starting with the number two (the sole even numbered prime given that all other even numbers can be divided by two, which makes two a particularly fascinating number). So, primes are the “root” numbers, the “atomic” numbers, the core numbers. They are the foundation stones of the natural numbers. All non-prime natural numbers can be built by multiplying primes together.

Primes are randomly distributed, so these “random” numbers create nonrandom numbers. These “unique” numbers create non-unique numbers. Prime numbers reflect a kind of exclusion principle – repelling anything from sharing with them. Non-primes are non-exclusive. They are combinatorial numbers. Primes stand alone; non-primes always stand together. The perfect basis for all thinking – the atoms of thought – would be the prime numbers, bearing in mind that, in ontological mathematics, numbers are not symbols but definitions of unique energy signatures (in terms of frequency, amplitude and phase). The primes – as the building blocks of natural numbers – are the perfect Pythagorean notes to construct the cosmic Music of the Spheres. In fact, it’s almost certain that primes are also the building blocks of the atomic world of physics and chemistry, and thus of the material world we inhabit. Primes, in other words, define reality! Prime Music = the Pythagorean Music of the Spheres.

Finitary Mathematics “In mathematics or logic, a finitary operation is an operation that takes a finite number of input values to produce an output, like those of arithmetic. Operations on infinite numbers of input values are called infinitary. “A finitary argument is one which can be translated into a finite set of symbolic propositions starting from a finite set of axioms. In other words, it is a proof (including all assumptions) that can be written on a large enough sheet of paper. “The emphasis on finitary methods has historical roots. Infinitary logic studies logics that allow infinitely long statements and proofs. In such a logic, one can regard the existential quantifier, for instance, as derived from an infinitary disjunction. “In the early 20th century, logicians aimed to solve the problem of foundations; that is, answer the question: ‘What is the true base of mathematics?’ The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using an entirely syntactical language without semantics. In the words of David Hilbert (referring to geometry), ‘it does not matter if we call the things chairs, tables and beer mugs or points, lines and planes.’

“The stress on finiteness came from the idea that human mathematical thought is based on a finite number of principles and all the reasonings follow essentially one rule: the modus ponens. The project was to fix a finite number of symbols (essentially the numerals 1, 2, 3, ... the letters of alphabet and some special symbols like ‘+’, ‘—>‘, (,), etc.), give a finite number of propositions expressed in those symbols, which were to be taken as ‘foundations’ (the axioms), and some rules of inference which would model the way humans make conclusions. From these, regardless of the semantic interpretation of the symbols the remaining theorems should follow formally using only the stated rules (which make mathematics look like a game with symbols more than a science) without the need to rely on ingenuity. The hope was to prove that from these axioms and rules all the theorems of mathematics could be deduced. That aim is known as logicism.” – Wikipedia “[The blindness to a Platonic understanding of mathematics] lies in a widespread lack of the required epistemological attitude toward metamathematics and non-finitary reasoning. Non-finitary reasoning in mathematics was widely considered to be meaningful only to the extent to which it can be ‘interpreted’ or ‘justified’ in terms of finitary metamathematics. (Note that this, for the most part, has turned out to be impossible in consequence of my result and subsequent work.) According to this idea metamathematics is the meaningful part of mathematics, through which the mathematical symbols (meaningless in themselves) acquire some substitute of meaning, namely rules of use. Of course, the essence of this viewpoint is a rejection of all kinds of abstract or infinite objects, of which the prima facie meanings of mathematical symbols are instances.” – Gödel Gödel makes a crucial point. He is highlighting the mathematical equivalent of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Just as science hates zero and the infinite, and wants to accommodate everything within a finite system of non-zero objects, so mainstream, mathematics (highly antiPlatonist), wants to treat mathematics as non-ontological and define it in terms of finitary metamathematics where infinity is banished, and zero (the source of self-reference) ignored. The finitary mathematics mentality goes hand in hand with the empiricist materialist science mentality. What these attitudes reflect is an

obsession with localism and an outright denial of non-localism. Bell’s Inequality Theorem of quantum mechanics is therefore of the utmost significance since it PROVES that reality cannot be explained in localist terms. The quantum mechanical wave function is the ultimate scientific expression of non-localism. Of course, there is another phenomenon that is quintessentially non-local: MIND. Gödel asserted that arithmetic was consistent as long it was NONFINITARY. We wholly agree.

The End of a Genius In the last days of his life, Gödel made an extraordinary statement, “I’ve lost the faculty for making positive decisions. I can only make negative decisions.” Life is all about “positive decisions”. The forces of death are those of negative decisions.

Teaching Mathematics RZ: “The world needs interpretations of calculus beyond the textbook application of abstract numbers. Something to match the different personality types so they can understand it in a way for which their brain is wired. I suppose this would take quite the intuitive understanding of not only calculus, but how it applies to literally everything.”

Religion versus Science “The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable. To be sure, theology is always yielding a little to the progress of knowledge, and only a Holy Roller in the mountains of Tennessee would dare to preach today what the popes preached in the Thirteenth Century, but this yielding is always done grudgingly, and thus lingers a good while behind the event.” – H.L. Mencken On the face of it, this is a great quotation, but there are two problems with it. Firstly, it’s how science likes to think it functions but not how it actually does function. As Max Planck said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” That’s just like religion! Secondly, the truths of existence ARE eternal and immutable. They are not, however, religious. They are the truths of Platonic mathematics. Science, as Thomas Kuhn, pointed out, is about paradigms, and paradigms are just like religious ideologies. It takes an immense effort to change them, regardless of facts and evidence. People’s careers are invested

in paradigms, so there’s no burning desire to change them. Who cares about truth when lucrative, prestigious careers are at stake? Religion and science are united in being highly resistant to new ideas and innovation. “Innovation—any new idea—by definition will not be accepted at first. It takes repeated attempts, endless demonstrations, and monotonous rehearsals before innovation can be accepted and internalized by an organization. This requires ‘courageous patience’.” — Warren Bennis

Sets “Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of object can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics. The language of set theory can be used in the definitions of nearly all mathematical objects. “The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s. After the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory, numerous axiom systems were proposed in the early twentieth century, of which the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, with the axiom of choice, are the best known. “Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for mathematics, particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. Beyond its foundational role, set theory is a branch of mathematics in its own right, with an active research community. Contemporary research into set theory includes a diverse collection of topics, ranging from the structure of the real number line to the study of the consistency of large cardinals.” – Wikipedia

Objections to Set theory as a Foundation for Mathematics Why are sets the basis of modern mathematics? After all, no one in the ancient world who first developed mathematics ever used set theory. Set theory betrays a logicist attitude to mathematics. Sets are much more closely connected with logic than with mathematics. NUMBERS are the true basis of mathematics. They always have been and they always will be. Therefore, only number theory is a valid basis for mathematics.

“From set theory’s inception, some mathematicians have objected to it as a foundation for mathematics. The most common objection to set theory, one Kronecker voiced in set theory’s earliest years, starts from the constructivist view that mathematics is loosely related to computation. If this view is granted, then the treatment of infinite sets, both in naive and in axiomatic set theory, introduces into mathematics methods and objects that are not computable even in principle. Ludwig Wittgenstein questioned the way Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory handled infinities.” – Wikipedia Logicist set theory is bogus. It’s time to abandon it and embrace number theory.

Constraints To solve a problem that’s resisting all attempts to crack it, it’s often necessary to find additional constraints. The more constraints there are, the better. Occam’s Razor, Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, Energy conservation laws, Symmetry conservation laws ... these are all excellent constraining principles. The Riemann hypothesis is currently insufficiently constrained and the reason for that is that it has an inbuilt real number bias. When the constraint of not privileging real numbers over imaginary numbers is applied, the problem may take on a different character. In general, all mathematical problems ought to be resolved within a context of complex numbers rather than real numbers. Real numbers are associated with empiricism and materialism; complex numbers are associated with rationalism and idealism. Complex numbers are the basis of mathematical ontology. Real numbers are the basis of science. The switch from a scientific definition of reality to a mathematical definition involves a switch from real numbers to complex numbers and to the acceptance of mathematical rational unobservables (especially zero and infinity).

Three Persons in One In terms of the Freudian model of the psyche, there are three different “persons” inside our head: the id, ego and superego. Is this therefore the

perfect model for the Christian Trinity which is defined as three persons in one God? In Freud’s system, the id and ego are dialectical opposites, and the ego is the mediator and rationalist that reaches a compromise between them. In Christian terms, we might say that Jehovah is the id, Jesus Christ the superego and the Holy Spirit the ego. That would make sense, but it’s now how Christianity works. In the Trinity, Christ is not the ENEMY of Jehovah but rather the “son” who reveres him. In the Trinity, the three persons cannot disagree with each other or contradict each other. They always have to share the same views. In other words, there is no substantive difference between them. Jesus Christ = Jehovah = the Holy Spirit because they always agree on everything. This means that every atrocity performed by Jehovah was in fact performed by Jesus Christ too. No distinction can be drawn.

Death When we die, it’s our local, left brain consciousness (Ego) that perishes. Our non-local, right brain Self is outside space and time and does not perish. The physical right brain dies, of course, but not the non-local environment to which it was tuned. (When a TV set “dies”, the channels it receives go on regardless. The set is not the crucial thing; the channels are. The set is just a receiver and processor, exactly like the physical right brain.)

Jung and Freud In Jungian terms, the left brain is the home of the ego and persona, and the right brain is the home of the shadow, anima/animus, mana personalities, archetypes and Self. In Freudian terms, we might say that the id is the left brain, the superego the right brain and the ego is the corpus callosum that mediates between them. In terms of David Riesman’s categories, the left brain is traditiondirected in relation to other people while the right brain is other-directed. In relation to oneself, the left brain is inner directed and the right brain autonomous.

Satanic Libertarians

The left brain promotes extreme individualism, extreme selfishness, extreme egotism. It’s LIBERTARIAN. Of course, the ultimate advocate of libertarianism is the Freudian ID – “it”, an entity wholly devoted to itself. Left brain = “me, me, me” = Satan, the id. Right brain = “us, us, us” = Lucifer, the superego. Rational hemispheric balance = ABRAXAS, the ego.

Computer versus Person In emotional terms, left brain dominance leads to selfishness and a preoccupation with oneself. This is the origin of psychopathy where others are regarded as mere things to be used and abused. In thinking terms, left brain dominance can lead to computerized, algorithmic behaviour. Many autistics are much happier spending time with computers than with human beings. Computers make sense to them (since they’re so rule-bound and predictable) and people don’t. In these terms, the right brain represents humanity, feelings, intuition, compassion, sympathy and positive empathy – everything a computer cannot emulate. Left brain = computer, machine, scientist, atheist. Right brain = human being, artist, religiously inclined, mathematician. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem can be seen as another expression of Bell’s Inequality Theorem – demonstrating that reality cannot be explained according to finite localist algorithms. The universe is non-local and infinite. It’s the fact that we are linked to non-locality that makes us human. A machine will never imitate a person because it will always be local.

Faith III LV: “In this optic, then, faith really is a dark antithesis to intuition. It’s an irrational, facile substitute for the greatest power we have as humans. May we overcome it with a much more attuned and empathetic faculty of intuition. In other words, may Lucifer and her spiritual siblings prevail.” Faith is intuition’s shadow. Intuition is linked to thinking and rationality; faith dispenses with thinking and rationality and accepts something as

absolutely true simply because it’s written in a book by a “prophet”. Mohammed said he encountered the Angel Gabriel in a cave and had the infallible “Word of God” (the Koran) presented to him. And 1.5 billion Muslims in our world believe this! If the Koran is the best God can do, God is pointless. ANY book on philosophy, science or mathematics is infinitely more impressive and useful than the Koran. That’s an incontestable fact. “GS”: “The funny part about this whole thing is a good portion of the world’s scientists are actually intuitive thinking types; at least they consistently test as belonging to the NT-Rational temperament. According to a body of typology research, sensing-thinking types tend to usually gravitate toward super-practical, ego-fulfilling occupations concerned with everyday humdrum bullshit that involves a lot of repetitive, regimented tasks; jobs like: accounting, law enforcement, military, business, middle management, repair, technical support, etc. Sensing types tend to not really mind all those mind-numbing tasks that usually drive intuitives bonkers after any sustained period of involvement. “I would argue that the orthodox localism that dominates the empirical professions and other areas full of rationals, is more a result of cultural programming than Jungian cognitive functions. From what I’ve observed very extensively, most intuitive types don’t come anywhere near to adequately utilizing their gifts. People across the board are asleep and completely consumed by the phenomatrix, often regardless of their MyersBriggs cognitive type. I know more than a few intuitive feeling types who couldn’t give a fuck about things beyond celebrity gossip, inconsequential interpersonal drama and other vapid flavours of nonsense. “Going back to the scientific materialism problem, I see this greatly attributable to the extreme negative stigma attached to anything ‘religious’ among rational thinkers. This is mostly a product of the great backlash against centuries and centuries of abusive, mythos-based belief systems like the various subdivisions of Abrahamism. Many professional scientists fear the ridicule from their peers that would result from openly expressing ‘weird’ ideas that fall outside the scope of material realm measurement methodology. Ironically, many of these intuitive scientists are getting those ‘a-ha’ and ‘lightbulb’ moments required to grasp very complex concepts moments via those very intuitions that access the mind realm and expedite the transmission of countless tidbits of very useful information back into the phenomatrix part of their brains.”

GS’s comments are astute. It’s true that many people aren’t actually reflecting their true personality type because they have been culturally conditioned into taking on board the dominant paradigm in whatever sector they are operating, even if it contradicts their own “natural” position. DT: “As an INFP, I take that [‘The most religious people are feeling intuitives.’] as an insult. I am a proud atheist who doesn’t need god or religion. What I need is an affordable DMT recipe.” What do you need DMT for if you’re a proud atheist who doesn’t need god or religion? DMT is nicknamed the “spirit molecule”, so you obviously seek a spiritual experience. Why would you want this if you’re a scientific materialist atheist who repudiates mind as an independent entity? Your own desires betray you. You ARE religious. When we say “religious”, we are using it in the broadest sense of accepting a reality that transcends the material world and where we continue to exist after our physical death – something rejected by all atheists. If you don’t accept that view, Richard Dawkins is the man for you. Dawkins often states that existence is meaningless and serves no purposes whatsoever. It’s just a bizarre, mechanistic process. DT: “Benevolent NTs running the world sounds like an increase in efficiency, but NFs like me too? I can’t speak for all NFs, but although I’m rather altruistic, I’m also quite chaotic. NFs might only be useful in the cultural sector.” NTs running the world would be extremely efficient but there would be a serious risk of NTs having no compassion at all towards irrationals. The people most likely to see how best to implement the General Will are those who reflect the General Will in their own nature. NTs would place rational principles above people, and that would exclude all those who are outside the reach of rationality, hence would reflect a particular will rather than the General Will. If NFs are scared of their own “chaos”, they simply need to make sure they have good NT advisers. Every personality type has its strengths and weaknesses. The task is to find the optimal arrangement. Those making the final decisions on behalf of all should be the people most considerate towards all. In fact, it’s quite

likely that female NFs would be the best leaders of society, but with an NT advisory board supporting them.

The Left Hemisphere The left hemisphere is almost always larger than the right hemisphere, even in foetuses. The left hemisphere is specialized for the use of written and spoken language (and language is a prerequisite for the development of advanced consciousness). Sixty percent of left handers have their language centre in the left hemisphere, just like right handers. The rest have the language centre in the right hemisphere, or split between the two hemispheres (which might lead to peculiar language traits). The right hemisphere can understand only simple language, and we might predict that this is similar to the language capacities of animals. If a baby suffers a left brain injury, its language centre can develop in the right hemisphere instead. This, generally, is not true of adults. The left hemisphere deals with arithmetic, algebra and logic, while the right deals with geometry and multi-dimensional analysis. The left hemisphere deals with 2D representations and the right hemisphere with 3D representations. The left hemisphere is about verbal and numeric ideation. The right hemisphere is about non-verbal and non-numeric ideation. The left hemisphere deals with language, numbers, logic, analysis. The right hemisphere deals with feelings, intuitions, dreams, music, art, sculpture, dance, fantasy, perception, drawings, geometry (including 3D), mental imagery, understanding spatial relationships and patterns, and synthesis. It’s the creative hemisphere. In general, creative artists show right hemispheric dominance and analytical scientists and mathematicians left hemispheric dominance. Left hemisphere = LOGIC, ANALYSIS, SENSORY AWARENESS, RATIONALISM AND LOCALISM. Right hemisphere = CREATIVITY, FEELINGS AND NON-LOCALISM.

SYNTHESIS,

INTUITION,

Dyslexia It has been suggested that dyslexia is due to language being split between two hemispheres, or spatial abilities being split. Either way, confusion and conflict is generated, leading to a scrambling of the order of words, or

words being read backwards, or some letters being mistaken for other letters (such as d’s with b’s).

The Sensing Conundrum Although sensing is regarded as a left brain phenomenon in terms of the raw collection of data, the left brain is not in fact good at handling the INTEGRATION of data. It’s the holistic, right hemisphere that has to convert left brain sensory data into a complete “3D” holistic perception. Along similar lines, right brain feelings can in a sense migrate to the left hemisphere. Consider how emotionally involved people become when reading novels. Words – left brain entities – are producing feelings (a right brain experience). While thinking is definitely left brain and intuition right brain, sensing and feeling might be said to have a far more dualistic hemispheric nature.

Privilege “They [the privileged elite] are all about where people come from. The only thing’s that’s important is where somebody’s going.” Johnny Depp as John Dillinger in Public Enemies Ultra-privileged David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, used almost exactly the same statement to deny that his toff background was important. Yet everything he and his class stand for is WHERE YOU COME FROM. That, for most people, completely determines where you’re going in life.

***** “Where are you going?” “Anywhere I want.” Johnny Depp as John Dillinger in Public Enemies In a meritocracy, that will be true for everyone.

Construction and Deconstruction All things are constructed from entities possessing one dimension fewer than they possess. So, 1D straight lines are constructed from dimensionless points, 2D squares are constructed from 1D lines and 3D cubes are constructed from 2D squares.

In calculus, the process of “integration” takes a function up one dimension, and “differentiation” takes it down one dimension. Since zero is the base dimension, you can’t get anything below a dimensionless point. Ultimately, all things are derived from points (monads).

Continuity and Discreteness The war between idealism and materialism is a conflict over “continuity” and “discreteness”. Materialism says that the universe ultimately reduces to tiny grains. This raises an immediate problem. If you imagine the smallest material particles as the finest grains of sand, then there will ALWAYS be gaps between the grains. So, what inhabits those gaps? Void? Well, what IS void? What’s it made of? It must be something because if it’s not something then it’s nonexistence, which by definition isn’t there! If it is something, is it material? Is it granular? If so, what exists between its grains? ... and so on to the point of absurdity. Discreteness (materialism) is incoherent. The only substance that can form a perfect continuum is the monad (zero; the ontological dimensionless point). Zeros can be brought infinitely close together. This is exactly what happens in the perfect continuum: the Cartesian number grid.

***** The Archimedean property of real numbers states that even a very small non-zero number will become arbitrarily large if added to itself enough times. An infinitesimal is defined as a number greater than zero which would remain less than a finite number (such as 1) no matter how FINITELY many times it was added to itself. This would therefore be a “nonArchimedean” number. Zero itself is of course non-Archimedean. So, here’s a question. How can you get from zero to one on the line of real numbers without leaving any gaps at all? Will Archimedean numbers do it? Sure, you can get to 1 via ten 0.1s or 100 0.01s or 1000 0.1s, or whatever. But what will you define as the FUNDAMENTAL number? If you choose an Archimedean number, you have committed yourself to a “materialist” interpretation of numbers, and what sufficient reason do you have for such an assertion? Whatever Archimedean number you choose, it

will always be theoretically divisible into infinitesimals. It is therefore NOT fundamental. If you define non-zero infinitesimals as the fundamentals, you are mired in ambiguity. If you choose zero itself then you have an absolutely indivisible, fundamental number. However, you have also left behind the material world. To get from zero to one, an alpha-infinity number of zeros must be put together. But the crucial thing is that they get there. That’s astounding because it means that infinity – good infinity, alpha infinity – is embedded in the finite world. All materialists have always concluded that infinitesimals and zeros DO NOT EXIST. Yet without zero, there can be no fundamental, indivisible number. With zero, every monad (zero) is infinitesimally close to every other monad. There are NO gaps between monads (zeros) arranged infinitesimally – EVER. Only monads can furnish a perfect continuum. “While it is the fundamental nature of a continuum to be undivided, it is nevertheless generally (although not invariably) held that any continuum admits of repeated or successive division without limit. This means that the process of dividing it into ever-smaller parts will never terminate in an indivisible or an atom – that is, a part which, lacking proper parts itself, cannot be further divided. In a word, continua are divisible without limit or infinitely divisible. The unity of a continuum thus conceals a potentially infinite plurality. In antiquity this claim met with the objection that, were one to carry out completely – if only in imagination – the process of dividing an extended magnitude, such as a continuous line, then the magnitude would be reduced to a multitude of atoms – in this case, extensionless points – or even, possibly, to nothing at all. But then, it was held, no matter how many such points there may be – even if infinitely many – they cannot be ‘reassembled’ to form the original magnitude, for surely a sum of extensionless elements still lacks extension.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy It is often argued that dimensionless points, no matter how many you add together (even infinitely many) can never create something dimensional. This is wholly false. The number line itself is the proof that if you linearly place alpha-infinity points (monads; zeros) infinitesimally close to each other, you bridge the gap between zero and one, i.e. you create a onedimensional line: an extended thing.

The fact is this. Mathematicians, bar the likes of Leibniz, have NEVER come to terms with zero. You can never construct anything one dimensional without starting from zero dimensional entities, and without 1D entities, you cannot have any other dimensions. The whole logic of mainstream mathematics falls apart with zero and infinitesimals. Mathematicians have produced a specious “materialist” concept called “limits” to try to explain away zero and infinitesimals. The idea is that you can get arbitrarily close to zero without ever actually reaching the dreaded number itself and so you can pretend that you never do reach it, hence remain in nice, safe, materialist terms. What that actually means is that mathematics has committed itself to being an open-ended (anti-continuum) rather than closed (continuum) system. There’s something dangling at the end of mainstream mathematics that is never defined because, according to “limits”, it is never reached and never can be reached. And that means that mathematics is a farce, a turtle world of endless turtles stacked one of top of another without any bottom. Astoundingly, you hear mathematicians claiming that “limits” make sense of calculus. In fact, they do the opposite: they render it nonsensical and impossible. That’s the materialist mentality for you. Only points (zeros) provide a continuum. Without a continuum, existence and non-existence cannot be distinguished (what “exists” between the materialist “grains”: existence or non-existence?), and that’s absurd since the whole point of materialism is to clearly demarcate “things”. It has been claimed that the “coherence” of a continuum necessitates that each of its “parts” is also a continuum, and, therefore, divisible. As usual, the completely wrong conclusion is reached. In fact, the coherence of a continuum necessitates that every part of it be indivisible and separated by an infinitesimal amount. The continuum must be punctiform (shaped like, or of the nature of, a point) not nonpunctiform. How can anything pass from one point to another distant point without crossing a continuum of intervening points? It can’t get there by avoiding points. It can’t get there by passing through non-existence! Materialism, when analyzed from the perspective of the continuum, is absolutely incoherent.

Machine Predictions

Could an android make a prediction? Could it state a conjecture or hypothesis? Could it have an intuition? Could it imagine the Apocalypse? Could it be made to fear death and dream of an afterlife?

Madness: Catch 22 Once you’re mad, how do you reason your way out of your madness? Every rule, every principle, you use is itself mad. Once you believe, how do you stop believing? Belief got you into it, and only belief can get you out. But belief in what? Belief in something new, or belief in what you believed before being false? But that’s just a belief too. There’s no escape. Can we inoculate people against belief by giving them silly beliefs when they’re children? What about Santa Claus? The trouble with this belief is that we grow out of it: our parents don’t actually sit us down and tell us that it was an invention, a lie, a fabrication to achieve a certain end. In fact, people don’t grow out of belief in Santa Claus at all: they simply replace it with belief in a much more sinister Father Christmas – GOD THE FATHER, the Devil! If children were officially told at, say, age eight, that they had been deliberately lied to by the whole of adult society (concerning Santa Claus), it would protect them from the much bigger and more serious lies of Abrahamism. They would know that the adult world systematically lies to achieve certain ends.

Circumcision Allah, we are told, created man in his own image. He therefore must be responsible for the creation of the foreskin. A Muslim woman claimed that there are two reasons why Islam demands circumcision: 1) Health; the foreskin is “dirty”. 2) The Koran says that circumcision is mandatory. If the foreskin is “dirty”, it means that its creator made a mistake. But Allah cannot make mistakes, so the foreskin cannot be dirty, so there can be no possible need to remove it. Circumcision is a blatant insult to God, implying that he is a bungling designer and that he is imperfect, hence NOT God. It is a Satanic suggestion. Historically, the Koran was entangled in a “Satanic Verses” scandal. By insulting the work of God, it proves that it is indeed the work of the Devil.

Circumcision is how the Devil gets HIS brand on his Devil-worshipping followers. It’s the sign that they reject and scorn God’s work, his grand and perfect design of the human body. It’s an obscene mockery of Allah. Circumcision is the ultimate Satanic ritual, and stands as a symbolic representation of the horrific, evil episode when the Devil ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his son, and Abraham agreed. Islam is PURE SATANISM, as of course is Judaism, which also demands circumcision.

Islam and Evolution The foreskin is a product of evolution, so all those who believe in chopping it off think that they have identified a prominent evolutionary mistake. But there is no mistake. The error lies is in the beliefs – the delusions – of the circumcisers. The believers reach a conclusion – that circumcision is right (because it says so in the Torah and Koran) – and then seek reasons to validate their bizarre beliefs. Why don’t they do the rational thing and dump the Torah and the Koran? These ancient, idiotic, unenlightened, pre-scientific texts literally make you stupid. A highly respected scientific university – Imperial College London – had to cancel a conference titled Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution because of torrents of abuse and opposition from Muslim students who believe in Islamic Creationism. If Islam ruled the world, the world would be retarded, just as Islam already is. The Koran is the Book of Retardation. If Muslim’s are God’s beloved people, why are infidel Christians and Westerners so much more successful? What kind of God makes you a second class citizen in a dumbed-down, failing culture?

The Rich – the Threat Within “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in

the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” – Abraham Lincoln Too bad, Abe, they didn’t. America has been taken over by the corporations and the rich in the most ingenious coup of all time. No one even noticed!

Karma Karmists have a naive belief that what goes around comes around. The karmic doctrine asserts: 1) Good things happen to good people (good actions are rewarded). 2) Bad things happen to bad people (bad actions are punished). This plays out over many lifetimes. So, if you’re suffering now, it’s payback for some past sin – and you deserve it! This type of thinking is anti-scientific, anti-philosophical nonsense. It is the “moral” thinking of a child. Karma ignores two situations that we all see all the time: 3) Bad things happen to good people (good actions are punished). 4) Good things happen to bad people (bad actions are rewarded). The people who run our world belong to category 4) – they are being continually rewarded for behaving despicably (just think of the Wall Street psychopaths). They, of course, could assert, karmically, that they belong to category 1). How could any karmist contradict them? So, karma ends up providing a defence for successful evil people – which makes it an utterly evil doctrine!

Proof versus Intuition Gödel was the supreme defender of intuition. For him, his Incompleteness Theorem exposed the limitations of rigorous, formalist proof, but certainly not of intuition, which could reach the truth even when proof couldn’t. If war is the continuation of politics by “other means”, intuition is the continuation of proof by other means. “Proof” is incapable of establishing the truths of an infinite system in a finite number of steps. Intuition, on the other hand, goes beyond proof and makes contact with the infinite. It brings back something true, but

unprovable. Intuition is what comes after proof. It is metaproof. It transcends proof. In fact, proof has the same relationship to truth that physics has to metaphysics. Proof, like physics, is about the FINITE. Truth, like metaphysics, is about the INFINITE. The infinite can never be captured by any finite system. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is about the fundamental mismatch between mortal, finite space and time representations of reality and immortal, infinite frequency representations of reality. Intuition declares that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle are different expressions of the same thing. At the end of the 19th century, classical physics thought it had more or less solved everything – and then promptly fell apart. More than anything, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle destroyed classical physics. There is a FUNDAMENTAL problem about crossing from an understanding of the finite to an understanding of the infinite. The Singularity is where science dies because the Singularity is the domain of zero and infinity, and these are the two numbers where the finite cannot go. Division by zero always destroys scientific equations. Scientists therefore conclude that division by zero cannot be something that ever happens in reality. But, of course, it does happen. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is a metamathematical equivalent of division by zero. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is quantum mechanics’ equivalent of division by zero. The Singularity is physics’ version of division by zero. Whenever we probe absolute truth from the perspective of the finite, it’s inevitable that we will run into some version of division by zero. Our hopes of a finite understanding of everything will founder on that immovable rock. The only thing that can get beyond that deadly rock that brings to grief all finite hopes is intuition, which can carry mathematical reason with it and reveal the basic truths of zero and infinity. How are we able to be intuitive at all? Because we are SOULS and we ourselves are creatures of zero and infinity. Our body is finite; our mind is not. No machine can ever resemble a human because it will never be linked to zero and infinity as the human soul is. No machine can be programmed

to cope with division by zero. THAT is the difference between the living and the dead. A human being never enters an eternal loop. We don’t grind to a halt and have to be rebooted whenever we encounter a “blue screen” error. We handle it and move on (well, some people might go mad, but that’s another story). Microsoft operating systems “die” endlessly with their dreaded blue screen of death. If humans were like that, we wouldn’t survive our first week as babies. What is human death? It’s exactly where mortal humans encounter division by zero. Our body perishes, and our soul returns to the Singularity containing infinite souls. When we acquire a new body through reincarnation, we again return to the finite but our soul always remains on the infinite side of the fence. We straddle the finite and the infinite. That’s what defines us. That’s what contains all the mysteries of our existence. Empiricist materialists are people who wage war against “nothing” and the “infinite”. This is the most deluded and idiotic war of all because it’s a war against the truth of existence. We are beings of two domains: noumenal (infinite) and phenomenal (finite), unextended (zero) and extended (non-zero). We are beings who are IN space and time and also OUTSIDE space and time. THAT is the explanation of reality. Physics, finite mathematics, atheism, empiricism and materialism all fail to grasp reality. They all try to comprehend reality by finitizing it, and they all suffer from an existential horror of nothing and the infinite. You know that something will never deliver the final answers as soon as you see that it has prohibitions against zero and infinity. Intuition is our innermost and surest link to zero and the infinite, and intuition is what three quarters of humanity lack (sensing types outnumber intuitives three to one). Physics denies the existence of the SUBJECT. It denies free will, and cannot explain life, mind and consciousness. Physics is all about the OBJECT. While physics deals with objects, it performs splendidly. As soon as it comes near the subject (ZERO), it falls apart. The OBJECT is about the extended and finite. The SUBJECT is about the unextended and infinite. That’s the secret of existence. You cannot make a machine into a subject. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, by being about SELF-REFERENCE, is about SUBJECTIVITY. As soon as any finite system encounters

subjectivity (zero and the infinite), it cannot cope. It inherently cannot cope. Here is wisdom. You either accept an inclusive, continuum reality that goes all the way from zero to infinity (and includes subjects and objects) or you accept an “exclusive” reality that goes from greater than zero to less than infinity and explicitly excludes zero and infinity (without ever explaining why, of course, or providing any sufficient reason for a truncated existence). If you accept zero and infinity, you are religious and KNOW you have an immortal soul. If you deny zero and infinity, you are an atheist and are certain your death will be the end of you. So, what’s it to be? – will you accept zero and infinity, or not. All arguments about science, logic, religion, philosophy, mathematics and psychology reduce in the end to a conflict over the ontological status of zero and infinity. Is ontological mathematics complete (i.e. intrinsically embraces zero and infinity) or incomplete (i.e. decides to arbitrarily exclude zero and infinity in order to achieve a strictly finite view of reality)? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

***** Anything connected with self-reference (subjectivity) is also connected to infinity since zero and infinity are two sides of the same coin, hence are always found together (always with one explicit and the other implicit).

***** There are two classes of people: the “finites” and the “infinites”. The finites are the scientists, atheists, skeptics, agnostics, empiricists, materialists and formalists who reject zero and the infinite (hence the soul, the afterlife, God, free will and mind as an independent entity). Their “patron saint” is Doubting Thomas. They are Jungian sensing types who can’t cope with anything outside the sensory domain. The infinites are the intuitives, the religious, the Platonists, the rationalists, the idealists, the metaphysicians. Their patron saint is Faust who was always striving for the infinite. The infinites are subdivided into two: the intuitives and the faithful. The faithful believe in the soul on the basis of prophets, holy books, “revelation”, feelings and wishful thinking (Mythos rather than Logos). The

intuitives have a) an intuitive grasp of the infinite and b) can rationalize it using metaphysics. Metaphysics has proved inadequate for the task but mathematical metaphysics (Illuminism) does the job by using infallible, absolutely certain and necessary, immutable, eternal, analytic Platonic mathematics. The finites are always demanding “proof” and “evidence” acceptable to the human senses, but zero and the infinite are not subject to any such sensory exploration. These are DEFINED as being non-sensory and not existing in any way as material entities. Do rational UNOBSERVABLES exist? Yes or No? Finites say no, but provide no sufficient reason. Rational intuitive infinites say yes and do provide a sufficient reason – via mathematics. Consider the Big Bang singularity. This is inferred, but no scientist who refers to it has ever experienced it or has any direct evidence for it. They have circumstantial evidence. Consider black hole singularities. They can never be SEEN. Their presence must always be detected indirectly, by the effect they have on their environment. Well, we already have perfect proof that the domain of mind (of zero and infinity) exists. The proof is FREE WILL. It is impossible to rationalize free will in a system of inexorable scientific laws that inescapably apply to all things at all times in the scientific world. These laws cannot accommodate caprice, whim, free choice, and non-scientific causality. The finites refuse to accept free will as the definitive evidence of an immaterial domain. In fact, when pressed, they actually deny free will. How can you ever get anywhere with people who, using their free will, deny the existence of free will?! They are irrational. The finites have absolute faith in the non-existence of zero and infinity. Where’s their evidence, their proof of this? They have NONE. They are guided by ideology and fanatical dogmatism, like Catholic Inquisitors! According to the finites, mathematics is wonderful, yet is nonsense apart from real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. For no reason at all – other than blind prejudice – they reject the reality of negative numbers, imaginary numbers and zero and infinity. What’s rational about that? Rationalists accept ALL numbers, and when you do so, you immediately find yourself as an infinite rather than a finite. ALL OF THE MYSTERIES OF EXISTENCE REVOLVE AROUND ZERO AND INFINITY.

Zero and infinity define the individual soul (an individual singularity) and the Collective Soul (composed of infinite souls). The Super Singularity comprises infinite individual singularities. That is the mystery and paradox of the Super Singularity. It exists outside space and time and has infinite energy. It is indestructible and eternal, just like all souls. Whenever you analyze anything, you can be sure that when you probe deeply enough, you will find either an acceptance or denial of zero and infinity. Calculus was formulated CORRECTLY by Leibniz in terms of zero and infinity. Subsequent mathematicians then said that calculus had no proper foundations precisely because it was based on zero and infinity. So, what did they do? They introduced the concept of “limits”, which banished zero and infinity (except as unreachable endpoints) and pronounced that calculus was now logically sound! In fact, they had just destroyed the logic of calculus. For calculus to make any sense at all, you must invoke zero and infinity, exactly as Leibniz did. Look at science’s M-theory. What’s it all about? – the denial of division by zero (because this operation produces infinity). 1D strings are science’s means of avoiding zero and infinity. What about David Hilbert’s metamathematics? It’s all about using nonzero, finitary methods to abolish zero and infinity. Over and over again, we see this same game being played out. The history of mathematics was the history of bitter resistance to zero, negative numbers, imaginary numbers and infinity. In each case, these were rejected as being “unobservable”, “fictitious”, “unreal”, “imaginary”, and so on. Even now, the same prejudices exist even though the heart of science – the wave function of quantum mechanics – is unobservable and invokes imaginary numbers. Will people never learn? The finites are never satisfied until they have found some artificial means to kill zero and infinity. They then proclaim what great geniuses they are and how they have established “proper” foundations for their theories. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is the supreme stake through the heart of these people because it proves once and for all that finitary methods cannot explain reality. But Gödel needn’t have bothered. Mathematics itself – ALL of the numbers of mathematics – already demonstrate that you cannot deploy

mathematics rationally without invoking every conceivable number, including negative and imaginary numbers and, above all, zero and infinity. Euler’s Formula – the God Equation – is all about negative and positive numbers, imaginary and reals, and zero and infinity. That’s why it’s the foundation of existence. Nothing else provides that mandatory balance between ontological numbers. The finitary project is dead. The finites have been refuted in every way. Tragically, like the Abrahamists, they go on believing anyway, and no amount of reason will ever persuade them to abandon their faith.

Zero and Infinity Here’s what you are, here’s what we all are: zero and infinity! We are all indestructible, immortal singularities that exist outside space and time. We have infinite information capacity and infinite energy. We are uncreated, uncaused, self-optimizing and self-actualizing. The physical world is a mathematical construction of all of our minds. You cannot understand reality by understanding only the physical world, just as the scientists in The Matrix were getting nowhere by studying the simulation of reality in which they were trapped. Uncomprehendingly, they researched an illusion, a construction, in more and more depth, without intuiting that the truth lay beyond. The finites are all “blue pill” people, oblivious to the truth. As for the faithful infinites, they are all deranged. Only the rational, intuitive infinites have access to the red pill. What about you? Which pill have you taken?

***** Reason, if linked to the senses, is finitary. If linked to intuition, it’s infinitary. Down the ages, the thinking intuitives, outnumbered, have fought a desperate battle against the thinking sensing types. Plato was a thinking intuitive and Aristotle a thinking sensing type. Leibniz was a thinking intuitive and Newton a thinking sensing type. Whose side are you on? – that of Plato and Leibniz, or Aristotle and Newton? The world, thus far, has taken the latter path.

The Anti-Intuition War

David Hilbert waged a war against intuition. Gödel, the champion of intuition, destroyed him. All the paradoxes that afflict finitary mathematics and metamathematics originate in self-reference and the infinite, and self-reference and the infinite are tied to subjectivity. Frequently, when zero and infinity are brought into play (either directly or implicitly) unbreakable, infinite logical loops are created, or infinitely divergent functions are generated, or infinite oscillations between two poles, or everything is swallowed by zero-infinity singularities, or by chaotic patterns that go on forever without repeating. All such outcomes destroy finitary systems. The finite rational human mind cannot cope with infinity. The intuitive rational mind CAN. How have the finites attempted to combat the infinite? – by ignoring it, avoiding it, creating a partition for it (which is then ignored), defining it out of existence, or producing ad hoc rules and hypotheses to bypass it. All of these stratagems are pathetic, irrational, ludicrous and embarrassing. The fallacies generated by “rational” attempts to explain away zero and infinity stand alongside Abrahamic faith as monuments to human folly. Zero and infinity must be at the heart of any explanation of reality. The first genius to see this was the greatest genius of all – LEIBNIZ, with his infinite monads (zeros) and his divine calculus.

The Quantum Mind You might expect there to be some kind of bridge between mind and matter. There is – quantum particles! These are inherently non-local, but can localize with a certain probability. They thus straddle both worlds (the local and non-local). Why is quantum mechanics so baffling to the finites? It’s because it trades in imaginary numbers and non-localism. The quantum wavefunction is everywhere, like the mind, but can be localized, like a material particle. Quantum mechanics – dealing as it does with the domain of zero and infinity – has baffled scientific materialists since its inception. It simply makes no sense at all if its mental aspects are ignored (as they invariably are). Quantum mechanics interconnects everything. It is non-local. The wave function can instantly collapse to a point (zero). At the very heart of science, at the core of science’s most successful theory, is everything that scientists abhor. Only one thing is more grotesque to materialists than quantum mechanics and that’s the SINGULARITY.

Paradigmatic Reinforcement Every time you read a science textbook, every time you see a science documentary, every time you hear a scientist speaking, the ruling empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm is being reinforced in your mind. Nobel Prizes are awarded only to those working within the paradigm. Paradigms constitute a CONSPIRACY and a virus. Their task is to spread themselves and eliminate their rivals.

The Undead Scientists are a kind of vampire species. They are alive, yet they renounce life, mind and free will, hence they are spiritually dead. They are the UNDEAD, those who say No to life. They are literally enemies of life. Science is incapable of explaining life and mind since these are defined by zero and infinity, the numbers absolutely rejected by science. Why can’t a machine ever be alive? Because it can never be linked organically to zero and infinity.

Plato and the Eternal Domain of Forms Plato argued that since Forms are eternal then the part of us (our reason) that interacts with the domain of Forms must be eternal too. All the rest of us is mortal. For Aristotle, active reason is the only part of us that survives death, and he believed that our active reason came directly from God (and in fact was part of God; a divine spark, so to speak). So, we have a fragment of God in us that returns to God when we die. It was never really part of us. It was always on loan. In that case, no part of us is eternal. Does the fact that we can understand eternal mathematics make us eternal? Does the fact that we can have mathematical intuitions that machines can never have make us eternal? A human mind can go from particular cases to a general case. When see a few white swans and no other colour of swan, we rapidly conclude that ALL swans are white. Would a machine ever reach such a conclusion? We are stunned when we see a black swan. Would a machine show any reaction at all? All of us can imagine a powerful person. When we think of “God”, we imagine an infinite version of a powerful person. Would a machine ever extrapolate from a finite property of a person to an infinite property of a God? Could a machine ever conceive of God? To contemplate God, you must have a notion of infinity, and no machine could ever be programmed to understand infinity. Darwinism is an assault on zero and infinity. Consider how different Darwinism becomes if, instead of blind, random processes being at play, eternal, teleological, striving, subjective minds are directing genetic mutation and evolution. It is transformed into a different paradigm. It is no longer purposeless. In fact, it is all about purpose.

Algorithms Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is a direct attack on the notion that reality can be converted into algorithms and formal systems. All those who maintain that artificial intelligence (AI) is capable of emulating life are essentially arguing that life is finite and programmable: that zero and infinity do not exist. AI enthusiasts, like scientists, are enemies of life and

haven’t begun to grasp its meaning and how it functions. All AI advocates are finites. They have no concept of religion and spirit. “Gödel’s theorem seems to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So also has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed to similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections stated and properly met.” – John Lucas A machine can do only what it is programmed to do. It can’t look outside that formal system of rules. A human being CAN get beyond any formal system via an appeal to infinity and intuition. Of course, no one can appeal to anything outside infinity and intuition since there is nothing outside infinity and intuition. So, the finite can always be exceeded (by the infinite). But the infinite can never be exceeded. Who would want to sign up to a finite system (such as science or computing) knowing that the infinite is unaccounted for? “We are trying to produce a model of the mind which is mechanical – which is essentially ‘dead’ – but the mind, being in fact ‘alive’, can always go one better than any formal, ossified, dead system can. Thanks to Gödel’s theorem, the mind always has the last word.” – John Lucas This critique could equally well be extended to the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. This paradigm tries to produce a model of reality that is essentially mechanical, mindless and dead, but reality is a living organism with a mind: it is pure, living mathematics. Mathematics, and only mathematics, can account for life since life is nothing but the interplay of two mysterious numbers: zero and infinity. These two numbers constitute subjectivity, and life is just that – subjectivity. Without subjects, there can be no life. Science and computing present a finitary, objective model of reality. Subjectivity, hence life and mind, have no role.

Soul World People have a very odd idea of what the soul is. No one other than the Illuminati has ever defined the soul. The soul is simply a subjective mathematical function. What else could it possibly be?

The reality is this. The universe is actually subjective and made of souls. The objective universe is a mathematical product of souls. We inhabit a Soul World, in a manner of speaking, created by souls, for souls in order to allow souls to maximize their potential by being clearly individuated (via bodies).

The Unique Mind “Among the things that Gödel indisputably established was that no formal system of sound mathematical rules of proof can ever suffice, even in principle, to establish all the true propositions of ordinary arithmetic. This is certainly remarkable enough. But a powerful case can also be made that his results showed something more than this, and established that human understanding and insight cannot be reduced to any set of rules. It will be part of my purpose here to try to convince the reader that Gödel’s theorem indeed shows this, and provides the foundation of my argument that there must be more to human thinking than can ever be achieved by a computer, in the sense that we understand the term ‘computer’ today.” – Roger Penrose Penrose, despite being a critic of machine emulation of human minds, is still a scientific materialist at heart, believing the mind and brain to be identical. He argues that quantum mechanics underlies consciousness. Of course, if this argument were valid, a computer invoking quantum programming rules might succeed in mimicking human minds where normal computers fail. Penrose fails to grasp that it is finite materialism and localism that is the problem. You have to escape from dimensional matter to the mental zero/infinity dimensionless domain to capture the quintessence of human minds.

The Mystery In a sense, the whole mystery of existence can be reduced to a single simple question – what lies between zero and one on the number line? According to ontological mathematics (Illuminism), an alpha-infinity of monads (points) can be fitted exactly between zero and one. The monads form a perfect continuum. Each monad takes the role of a unique number on the number line. Nothing can be fitted between any two adjacent points: they are as close together as possible, without overlapping (that’s the meaning of a unique number).So, in order to cross from zero to one, you must pass along this continuum of monads. In Illuminism, the number one is infinitely divisible (divisible to the extent of alpha infinity). There is no sufficient reason to cause division to reach some arbitrary finite point at which it abruptly stops. That is, there are no finite, indivisible “atoms”. It’s not at all clear what establishment mathematics and science say regarding what lies between zero and one. It would seem that they advocate the existence of some minimum grain, quantum or atomic kind of number, which resists division thanks to what we might call “Force M” – the magical and unexplained force of metaphysical materialism that allows division up to a limit, and then no further. Where does this miraculous limit come from? Why is it there? No answer is ever given – but it’s essential to the whole materialistic paradigm. In an infinitely divisible material world, the terminus is the indivisible monad (nothing), which is not in the material world at all. Everything in the material world is extended, but the monad is not. It’s unextended, hence MENTAL, and belongs to the Idealism paradigm. In a finitely divisible world, there is no such thing as non-extension, so there is no mind, no soul, and no Idealism. In our “big world”, these questions are invisible but, of course, they become more and more pertinent as we drill down into the quantum world.

***** All the fundamental questions are contained within the nature of the number line from zero to one. We have indivisibility versus divisibility, mental atoms (monads) versus physical atoms, non-extension versus extension,

mind versus matter, idealism versus matter, a continuum and plenum versus granularity. Zero is the origin, the Singularity, and is the template for ALL points. You can produce a number line and grid simply by ordering points infinitesimally close to each whereby they have unique coordinates and do not overlap, but nothing can be placed between them. Ponder the problem of moving from one place to another if you don’t in fact get there point by point. Can you leap over “grains”? In which case, why shouldn’t you leap over multiple grains at once and behave entirely chaotically? What exists between “grains”? Non-existence? But nonexistence DOESN’T EXIST! How can you fill all of space infallibly, and support motion, if you use finite grains? If air exists between sand grains then what exists between “space grains”? Well, it can’t be anything since the materialists have defined the “grain” as the smallest possible existent. So, materialism is based on an infinitely mysterious and inexplicable magical VOID lurking between grains. This void makes NO SENSE in terms of either materialism or ontology. All of these dilemmas are instantly resolved in a universe of monads where there are no conceivable gaps, hence no mystery to be explained. Only monads can furnish a perfect plenum and continuum, and existence MUST be based on a perfect plenum and continuum, with no void of formally impossible “non-existence”.

Gödel on Religion “It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be made useful for religion, since this is doubtless also justified in a certain sense.” – Gödel Gödel was convinced his theorem furnished evidence of a Platonic domain of eternal, objective verities – independent of the human mind – that could be glimpsed by the human mind “through a glass darkly”. The Platonic domain must be based on infinity and zero in order to make it something beyond the reach of finitary methods and thinking. However, that’s not actually an inherent part of the definition of Plato’s domain. Plato never talked about zero and infinity in respect of his transcendent domain (these weren’t formally defined in ancient Greece). He didn’t mention negative numbers and imaginary numbers either since these hadn’t been

discovered. His transcendent domain was fundamentally mysterious and ill defined. It’s not the existence of a Platonic domain per se that is crucial but the existence of a Platonic domain of ontological mathematics embracing all numbers, and particularly zero and infinity. Gödel asserted that although all attempts by human minds to produce a consistent and complete formal system of arithmetic were doomed to failure, this did not mean that arithmetic was either inconsistent or incomplete. In the Platonic domain, arithmetic (and mathematics in general) is complete and consistent. This is a crucial point because Gödel’s ideas have been more or less inverted in many quarters. Gödel never at any time said that arithmetic and mathematics were inconsistent and incomplete. He always believed that they were consistent and complete (in the Platonic domain). What he was attacking were finitary, humanly constructed formal systems that imperfectly simulated the Platonic domain. These could never be consistent and complete. Many commentators have interpreted Gödel’s ideas to mean that rationality itself has somehow been destroyed and that reality must always, in the final analysis, elude reason. Of course, if Plato’s domain is denied then this is true, but Gödel never denied Plato’s domain and in fact believed that he was demonstrating its existence. To Gödel, it was inconceivable that the universe isn’t based on completely rational principles. But, equally, these weren’t systemizable in terms of human finitary formal systems. That was his whole point. He certainly wasn’t attacking or undermining rationality. Gödel believed that we could not formally systematize mathematics, but he nevertheless believed that we could still have knowledge of all of mathematics via intuition, which linked us to the Platonic domain. Thus, humanity’s knowledge is greater than humanity’s formalizing systems. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, believed that mathematics was fully formalizable since it was nothing but tautology, and he denied that it could ever be incomplete, saying, “Mathematics cannot be incomplete any more than a sense can be incomplete.” In actual fact, both men were right. Mathematics is indeed endless tautology and complete but, since it invokes zero and infinity, it cannot be

formalized and made consistent and complete within a finitary system resistant to zero and infinity.

Expressibility What is Gödel really saying? His point is that there’s expressible knowledge which escapes being placed within a formal, finitary system. What does that actually mean? It implies that true knowledge belongs to an infinitary, subjective system. You cannot describe reality without recourse to infinity and its partner zero. This, of course, is the step that the empiricists and materialists refuse to take. This is the final battleground where rationalism and idealism MUST triumph if humanity is to gain access to the divine truths and fulfil its potential. It’s an obvious truth that a finite system must sit within an infinite system, and that a finite system cannot encapsulate the infinite system. Yet the empiricists and materialists deny infinity, hence they believe that their finite systems CAN account for everything. M-theory is a theory of the FINITE, hence is automatically refuted by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, yet no scientist notices or cares. Science is all about the finite. It always has been and always will be until it changes its Meta Paradigm from empiricism and materialism to rationalism and idealism. Science, in its present form, can never account for reality.

Consistency Gödel demonstrated that for any formal system there are truths expressible in that system that cannot be proved. Above all, the most important truth about the system – its own consistency – was unprovable within the system. And if you can’t rely on a system’s consistency, you’re in big trouble.

Hilbert and the Infinite “Operating within the infinite can be made certain only by the finite.” – David Hilbert In fact, this is the opposite way around. The finite can be made certain only by the infinite. Hilbert waged a war against mathematical intuition. It’s an extraordinary thing that empiricists, materialists and the “finites” hate intuition and free

will. They want to suck all the life out of life! Gerhard Gentzen, a member of the Hilbert school, proved in 1936 that arithmetic is consistent, but he did so by invoking transfinite induction, i.e. he was compelled to summon the infinite into Hilbert’s stronghold of the finite, and thus he destroyed that citadel as surely as Gödel had before him.

***** (Transfinite: going beyond or surpassing any finite number, group, or magnitude; being or relating to the cardinal and ordinal numbers of infinite sets.)

Consistency and Completeness Within any consistent finitary formal system, there are true statements that are provably unprovable, i.e. the system is incomplete. Any system rich enough to express arithmetic cannot be both complete and consistent. If it is complete, it is inconsistent, hence useless. If it is consistent, it is incomplete, hence cannot fully capture reality. What is Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem all about? It basically amounts to an ingenious proof, expressed numerically (i.e. Gödel found a way to create arithmetical statements capable of making metamathematical statements, by way of what is called Gödel numbering) that the following statement is true: THIS STATEMENT IS NOT PROVABLE WITHIN THIS SYSTEM. That being provably true, there are therefore true statements within the system that cannot be proved – a catastrophe for the formalists who expected to be able to prove all true statements. Thus, the way was open for intuition to reveal true knowledge incapable of being proved by any finitary formal system. Platonists were perfectly happy with intuition; the formalists were not.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem Since Euclid’s monumental work on geometry, mathematics has been transfixed by the notion that everything can be determined on the basis of a small set of fundamental axioms that are so basic and self-evident no one could question their truth. With these axioms, the intention is then to prove every mathematical statement either true or false. If something defies proof,

the assumption is that a fundamental axiom is missing, and, if this is found and added to the list, then all will be well. What Gödel proved was that no matter how many axioms you add (finitely), you will NEVER prove all truths or falsehoods. There will always be true or false statements that are unprovable within a formal system based on a finite number of axioms. Moreover, one question you will never be able to answer is whether or not your axioms are consistent. Many people have arrived at the false conclusion that mathematics itself is therefore inconsistent and incomplete and can never yield a perfect system of eternal truth. Gödel himself held no such view. He believed in Plato’s perfect domain of eternal truths and maintained that we, as humans, could never create a finite axiomatic system that captured all of its truths. In Illuminism, objective mathematics is defined as ontological, consistent and complete in every sense. It is impossible for objective mathematics to be inconsistent or incomplete. However, this is predicated on ALL numbers – the plenum of numbers – being accepted. In other words, mathematics is inconsistent and incomplete if it does not embrace all positive numbers, all negative numbers, all real numbers, all imaginary numbers, zero and infinity. Ontological mathematics has infinite numbers, which can be related to each other in infinite ways. Infinity is essential to mathematics. Any attempt to finitize mathematics will always fail. Science is inconsistent and incomplete because it asserts that only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity have any bearing on reality. All other numbers are deemed non-existent or empty of effect regarding reality, although imaginary numbers are used all the time in science and engineering. In science, an operation to remove imaginary numbers must be performed before a “final” answer is given. Imaginary numbers function in science as scaffolding: they allow you to construct the building and then you remove them at the end. This, obviously, privileges real numbers over imaginary numbers and creates an inconsistent mathematics since true mathematics contains not one element that suggests that real numbers have a different ontological status from imaginary numbers. It is humans, with their fallible human senses, who create the false “axiom” that real numbers are “real” and all other numbers are unreal. This axiom is the most damaging in the whole of humanity’s intellectual history because it has created a false understanding of mathematics and its

ontological significance. Mathematics IS reality and soon as you claim that real numbers are “better” than all other numbers, you have applied a false human judgment and turned away from reality. Science is humanity’s false, finite attempt to grasp reality. Just as Gödel disproved all the grandiose finite axiomatic attempts to explain mathematics, his work disproved science too since science is an ad hoc system of human axioms and hypotheses that MUST be inconsistent, incomplete, or both. And, in fact, that’s why science cannot arrive at a final theory of everything. A true such theory must be 100% consistent and complete, and science can never provide any such thing. It’s as futile for scientists to seek a final scientific theory of reality as it was for Russell and Whitehead to attempt to explain mathematics on the basis of a finite set of logical axioms. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. Mathematics itself is the complete, consistent, necessarily true final theory of everything. But, no matter how hard anyone tries, it will never be reduced to any set of fixed rules, including those of logic. Mathematics is infinitely expressive, contains infinite numbers, and can be framed only in infinite terms. Mathematics, finally, is about infinity and its partner zero. Everything else flows from those two numbers, but those two numbers are infinitely mysterious. The Neoplatonists spoke of the “One” as the ineffable source of all things, beyond human comprehension. The “One” is in fact the mathematical Singularity of infinite zeros contained within a single dimensionless point which has infinite energy and will endure infinitely long. We can state what the One is – but we, with our finite human minds, can NEVER actually grasp it. It defies the minds of all but the Gods.

***** Note that while we say that objective mathematics is consistent and complete, we do not say the same of subjective mathematics. That, in fact, is the opposite. It’s inconsistent and incomplete.

Gödel’s Revolution Gödel’s main points: 1) Any consistent finitary formal system must be incomplete. 2) Any complete finitary formal system must be inconsistent. 3) In any finitary formal system, there will be truths and falsehoods that cannot be proved within that system (hence it does not reflect reality). 4) No finitary formal system can be proved consistent without recourse to axioms outside that system (in infinitary ontological mathematics, no elements are outside the system). 5) Given any finite number of axioms, and rules for deducing additional axioms from them, then, if the system is consistent, it will always be possible to produce at least one true statement that the system cannot prove. Therefore, no such system can encapsulate the absolute truth.

Gödel Numbering In essence, Gödel assigned a specific number to every part of a metamathematical system and then combined them arithmetically to create a unique number for any statement within that system. He then produced a number which corresponded to a metamathematical statement that was completely meaningful but asserted of itself that it was true but unprovable within the system.

One Mathematics There is only one mathematics. It’s a single monolithic system, all of which is connected by necessary, immutable, eternal, analytic truths. No part can be removed or treated in genuine isolation. Every part implies every other part. Above all, it must include zero and infinity. It will therefore inherently contain self-reference and sequences involving infinite steps. Subjective mathematics, in order to be ALIVE i.e. non-mechanistic and non-deterministic MUST reflect Gödel’s theorem. It must have incompleteness and inconsistency inbuilt. Subjective mathematics must be able to accommodate lies, mistakes, love, fear, hate, irrationality, free will and free choice because otherwise it

would be possible to deterministically program the universe, and both free will and life itself would be impossible. Free will and meaningful life are essentially equivalent. Profound autistics can’t lie and can’t love. They have no theory of mind. They can’t empathise. Autistics are a glimpse of a non-Gödelian mathematical universe; one getting closer and closer to machine-like behaviour, to being deterministically programmed. Paradoxically, in order to be “complete” (i.e. to furnish an explanation of EVERYTHING within a strictly mathematical context), mathematics must have a feature corresponding to Gödelian incompleteness. It is the incompleteness that actually completes mathematics ontologically! Leibniz’s published Monadology shows a deterministic, programmed universe, designed to be entirely consistent with the precise foreknowledge of a Creator God. This might be argued to correspond to a non-Gödelian universe (i.e. to a hypothetical finitary universe where mathematics is in fact consistent and complete, notwithstanding the fact that Leibniz always invoked infinite monads). Leibniz, in his secret writings, wanted to demonstrate some feature of mathematics that allowed mathematics to retain all of its predictive, scientific power while permitting free will. Scientific materialism effectively rejects Gödel’s theorem and regards existence, if not as fully programmable and deterministic, as certainly devoid of any capacity to exhibit free will. Mathematics seems to demand rigid cause and effect, so how can freedom be explained? Leibniz didn’t solve this problem but Gödel, using techniques inspired by Leibniz (his hero), did. The Incompleteness Theorem is exactly the feature of mathematics that permits freedom. It proves once and for all that mathematics, in some capacity (that we label subjective), cannot be 100% consistent and complete, hence cannot give birth to a completely programmed, determined universe. So, mathematics becomes ontologically complete (i.e. able to account for freedom as well as scientific cause and effect) precisely because of this element of incompleteness. This element is indispensible to mathematical ontological completeness, hence furnishes the capstone of ontological mathematics. DF: “While in purely mechanistic causality, the cause always ‘contains’ and ‘justifies’ the effect, entelechy is akin to time-reversed causality, in that it

has the effects justify and contain the cause.” There is a way in which these apparently contradictory views of causality can be reconciled. Consider the concept of entropy. All processes seem to be tending, on average, towards increasing disorder. If these processes continue in the same way indefinitely, we will end up with a condition of maximum disorder. This is a mechanistic understanding of entropy. But exactly the same outcome can be reached in terms of entelechy. We can say that the “purpose” of the universe, its teleology, is to maximise entropy. Maximum entropy is its entelechy. The future state of maximum entropy is drawing everything towards it. The Law of Entropy is in some sense attracting all things towards it; in particular, it is attracting increasing disorder. We might similarly characterise all scientific laws as instruments of teleology. Entropy is not something we normally associate with “intentionality”, but let’s take another concept that is: Nietzsche’s Will to Power. We can imagine all processes using a mechanistic causality to increase their power (meaning to increase their stability), yet we can also say that their entelechy is to increase their power (stability), and they are being drawn towards the logical outcome of this entelechy – maximum power (i.e. the status of God). We can go further and simply state that any tendency, any drive, any urge, mechanistic or teleological, constitutes an entelechy. So, it doesn’t matter whether causality is viewed mechanistically or teleologically – both yield exactly the same results. Is it wrong to say that the PURPOSE of the physical universe is to reach ultimate disorder (entropy; the maximum entropic state is the most thermodynamically stable) and therefore all processes are seeking to contribute towards that outcome? Is the Second law of Thermodynamics a mechanistic law or a teleological law? Both views end up at the same destination: maximum entropy. Similarly, with Will to Power, there is only one final destination: the optimal power of the universe. That is equivalent, in terms of monads, to all monads becoming Gods. DF: “Any statement about natural numbers is completely determined, either Platonically true or false.” That statement is right, but it’s a statement about the objective nature of numbers, and the number zero has a special status: it, and it alone, is

subjective as well as objective. DF: “So, perhaps I’m stretching a metaphor beyond its intended scope, but, if subjectivity worked like that, subjects would necessarily rise above others in faithfully reflecting the one ‘Platonically complete subject’ (analogous to the ‘Platonically complete natural numbers).” Subjectivity does work like that. Zero, and its partner infinity, do rise above other numbers insofar as they have properties absent from all the others. Zero is the sole unextended, dimensionless number, and all the others are ultimately constructed from it (alpha infinity multiplied by zero equals the finite number one, and from one we can get all the other natural numbers simply by keeping adding one). All dimensional things can be broken down into dimensionless things (just as a star can be reduced to a black hole singularity). Zero, the dimensionless number, can be inside dimensional things, within dimensional things. It is this interiority that makes zero the unique number of the subject. Zero is precisely that which is non-physical and can be inside physical things without being formally part of those things, just as minds are inside bodies without being part of bodies (they survive the death of the body). Zero is the experiencing number, the living number, the number of mind. Zero is the SOUL, hence the most important number of all (in conjunction with its mystery inversion: infinity). Zero is both a Platonic natural number and a Platonic subject. Whereas all non-zero numbers are just numbers, zero is something more. Let’s call the “Platonically complete subject” GOD. All of us are on the God scale. Most of us are very far from the apex, but some are surprisingly close. There is a hierarchy, a meritocracy, in terms of the degree to which individual subjects reflect the Platonic Subject. Zero is extraordinary. It adds an entirely different “dimension” to our conventional understanding of numbers. Paradoxically, it does so by in fact subtracting a dimension from normal numbers. Differential calculus involves the removal of a dimension from a mathematical function and integration does the opposite and adds a dimension. What happens when you differentiate one? – you get zero. What happens when you differentiate ten? According to conventional calculus, you also get zero. According to Illuminist calculus, you get ten zeros. With Illuminist calculus, all

mathematical functions can be perfectly differentiated and then integrated without any loss of information, unlike with normal calculus, which is incapable of recovering, by integration, a function such as x2 + 12 after it has first been differentiated. You would have thought this would have alarmed the mathematicians of the world and pointed to something being radically wrong with the current formulation of calculus, but the problem has been ignored. Calculus, when properly formulated, PROVES the existence of ontological zero. DF: “Subjectivity should allow for choices which are neither formally determined to be true or false, nor Platonically determined to be true or false (unprovable but neither true nor false, as opposed to Gödel’s statements), which would make subjectivity’s relation to Gödel’s theorem murky.” This goes to the heart of the matter. Objectively, ontological mathematics must be complete and consistent and it must contain zero and infinity in order to be complete and consistent. Yet as soon as zero is included, subjectivity is introduced into the situation, which is of course radically different from objectivity. DF suggests a plausible scheme: Gödel –> true or false statements that cannot be proved true or false. Subjectivity –> statements that are neither true nor false, hence cannot be proved true or false. But is this valid given that subjectivity INTERSECTS with objective mathematics (at zero)? Zero is not pure subjectivity. It is both subjective and objective. It fits in perfectly to an objective scheme of numbers, and yet it’s not like any of the other numbers because it’s also subjective. So, the profound question arises of the status of zero within the architecture of Gödel’s thinking. DF suggests the separation of subjectivity from Gödel’s work. But how can they be separated? In fact, zero and infinity are precisely the whole basis of Gödel’s work. Finitary formal systems cannot cope with zero and infinity. In terms of infinity, finitary systems fail because they want to solve a process in a finite number of steps when in fact an infinite number of

steps might be required. As for zero, finitary systems fall foul of the selfreferential paradoxes of zero. Consider the subjective statement, “My favourite colour is red.” Anyone making such a statement is probably being truthful, but could be lying for one reason or another, meaning that the statement might be false. So, here we have a situation in which we have a subjective statement which is either true or false, but is formally unprovable by any objective means. It is therefore compatible with a Gödel statement. It is not a statement that, as DF suggested, is neither true nor false. In fact, all subjective statements are either true or false, but cannot be formally proved. “I believe in God,” is a subjective statement made by someone and is either true or false, but it can’t be objectively proved. Only the person making the statement knows the truth of what he is saying (and his position might change as time goes on). The statement “The Christian God exists” is both a subjective statement (made by a subject) and yet not self referential, hence is claiming to be objective. What “proofs” are offered? Revelation, faith, feelings, prophets, holy books, voices in the head. None of these is objective. Over an infinite period, only non-existence can show no evidence of existence, so if no evidence of the Abrahamic God is forthcoming in that period then he does not exist. Infinity resolves all such questions and proves them true or false. (In fact, finitary considerations are just as important. Why is there absolutely no evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God in the terms in which he is defined? If we are his “special creation”, why does he completely ignore us? The Christians of 2,000 years ago thought the Last Judgment was imminent. Why hasn’t it happened? What’s “God” waiting for? With every passing year, the concept becomes more absurd. Given that something like 98.3% of souls will be condemned to hell, the longer God waits, the more souls he will be torturing in hell ... which makes him a Torture God, and not a God anyone would actually want.) If the numbers zero and infinity didn’t exist, a finitary formal system would be complete, consistent and able to prove everything true or false, and we would be living in a machine or a computer. Nothing would be alive and nothing would have mind, consciousness or free will.

Scientific empiricist materialism is the scientific equivalent and counterpart of mathematical finitary formal systems. Gödel’s Platonic mathematics is both consistent and complete (because it embraces zero and infinity), but this is true only OBJECTIVELY. Any system that does not include zero and infinity cannot be consistent and complete (so no finitary systems are consistent and complete). The key to the mystery of Gödel’s work is not in fact finite formalism versus infinite Platonic intuition (although that’s certainly one part of it), but mathematical objectivity versus subjectivity, revolving around the peculiar properties of the number zero, which, uniquely, is both subject and object. Gödel did not ever reach this level of understanding. Only the Illuminati have advanced this argument. What is Gödel’s theorem actually saying? Is it declaring that there are unambiguously true statements that cannot be proved or is it asserting that there are statements that declare of themselves that they are true but cannot be proved, and which cannot be proved to be false statements? In other words, such statements can be validly stated within a formal system, but are they true statements or meta true statements, i.e. statements making assertions about truth without themselves being necessarily true? Consider the Gödel sentence, “This statement is not provable within this system.” Now consider an imaginary statement by Jesus Christ such as, “I am true but I am not provable within your system.” Would it be possible to perform a Gödelian treatment of Jesus’ statement and show it to be “true” but not provable? Of course, it wouldn’t actually BE true, but it would be a validly formulated statement within the system that was declaring of itself that it was true, and might therefore be taken to be true. In other words, is any self-referential statement to be taken at face value, or is a logical sleight of hand taking place where what is really being said is that such a statement can validly exist within a system even though what it asserts might be the opposite of what it actually is? To put it another way, it’s not that true but unprovable statements validly exist within formal systems but rather that statements that assert of themselves that they are true but unprovable validly exist within formal systems. These, of course, are quite distinct positions. One is about truth itself and one is about validly formulated assertions about truth (which are

not necessarily true!). Is it clear that Gödel’s work truly distinguishes between these positions? “This statement is not provable within this system.” – is that an unambiguously true statement or a validly formulated self-assertion about the provability of the statement, but which might in fact be false? Is the statement itself true or is it true that it’s making such a claim about itself, causing it to be inferred, wrongly, that the statement itself is true? We can all make claims about ourselves that we assert to be true but that doesn’t make them true. Is Gödel’s work about the assertion or the reality? How can we place any reliance on a self-referential statement? Why should its assertion about itself be taken at face value? We only have its “word” for it. That, of course, is the whole basis of subjectivity. Is there a distinction between “truths that cannot be proved” and “selfreferential truths that cannot be proved”? Does the qualifier “selfreferential” make it a different class of “truth”? In particular, do we have to distinguish between objective and subjective truths, with self-referential truths being subjective truths that make assertions about truth without being necessarily true? Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations,” and this is absolutely true of all subjective statements: all statements referred back to oneself for the “truth”. There is a clear distinction between objective and subjective truths. ALL objective truths can be proved mathematically, even if infinity must be invoked. No subjective “truths” can be proved mathematically. Other means must be invoked. Zero is where objectivity and subjectivity intersect, and it’s precisely there, at that intersection of “nothing”, that paradoxes multiply like the Hydra’s heads. What Gödel did, in effect, was to ingeniously insert, although he didn’t realize that was what he was doing, a subjective, self-referential statement into the heart of a formal objective system. He was able to do so precisely because zero inhabits two worlds. If you think about it, how are we even able to formulate self-referential statements? Could a computer ever assert, “All computers are liars” (as a Cretan asserted that all Cretans were liars, in which case was he lying or telling the truth?!)?

You have to be a subject before you can contemplate making statements about yourself or the group to which you belong. We are always being caught in subjective paradoxes. If a tolerant person says he will tolerate everything then he is saying that he will tolerate intolerance, which makes him a fellow traveller of intolerance because he does not fight it, hence he is liar since he is not tolerant at all, but the opposite! Equally, if he says he won’t tolerate intolerance then that makes him intolerant – which is exactly what he says he’s opposing! We all muddle our ways through these logical traps in our own fashion, but there are no clear-cut answers. It’s an interesting fact that all statements actually have a binary component. When you say that something is true, you are simultaneously saying that it’s not false. When you say it’s light, you are saying it’s not dark. When you say it’s evil, you’re saying it’s not good. When you refer to tolerance, you are also referring to intolerance, so when you ask whether the tolerant should tolerate the intolerant, you are making a self-referential statement. To say that a tolerant person should tolerate intolerance is to say that “A” should at the same time be “not-A”, which is of course impossible in terms of Aristotelian logic. To say that the tolerant should NOT tolerate the intolerant is also to suggest that A and notA can be performed at once by the same person, which of course they can’t. Self-reference is a kind of uncertainty principle. The more of “A” you are, the less of “not-A” you are, but what happens when you address “A” to “not-A”? If you are a tolerant person (“A”) attacking intolerance (“not-A”) then you are in fact increasing your “non-A” component even as you attempt to be more of “A”?! It’s CATCH-22! In Joseph Heller’s famous novel, the only way to get out of a mission was to be irrational (mad), but to rationally ask to be allowed out of a mission led automatically to Catch-22: “There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was

moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.” In other words, to get out you had to be mad, but if you wanted out you plainly weren’t mad, so you had to keep flying! If you were mad, you wouldn’t ask to get out ... so one way or another you were never getting out! To be excused from flying missions you had to be “A” but if you wanted to be excused that proved you were “not-A”, hence you would never be excused. “If you shoot me, I won’t be able to stop you, and you’ll be free to go. But... someone may come after you. ... Probably not, given your reputation for shooting people who come after you.” – Homer Simpson “Men are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness.” – Pascal

***** “This statement is not provable within this system” also tacitly refers to “This statement is not NOT provable within this system” (i.e. “This statement IS provable within this system”). If the first statement is true, the latter must be false. Aristotelian logic is suitable for objective truth but life is primarily about subjective truth, hence life proceeds by way of dialectical logic, not Aristotelian. In dialectical logic, we can be A and not-A at the same time. We can be the tolerant person who does not tolerate intolerance. With dialectical logic, opposites and contradictions are always entwined. Gödel creates an interface between the objective and subjective domains, between Aristotelian and dialectical logic. Although Gödel’s work seems a model of logical precision, its meaning is “murky”, as DF said (hence why its precise interpretation is so controversial). This is because it hovers on the border of the illogical world of subjectivity. In the subjective world, anything can be asserted to be true or false without a shred of proof. Most statements asserted to be true will, in the fullness of time, be demonstrated to be false, and a few “false” things will be shown to be actually true. It is imperative for mathematics to be complete and consistent in terms of objective mathematics. However, in terms of subjective mathematics, it

must be possible for illogicality, irrationality, will, desire, feelings, and all the things that make us human rather than algorithmic computers, to reign supreme. Free will is possible only if autonomous, indestructible, uncreated, eternal subjects (SOULS) exist, with their own agency. In terms of Illuminism, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is interpreted to mean that there is a complete, consistent Platonic universe of objective mathematics, all of the truths of which cannot be established in finitary formal systems. However, it is also taken to point to a self-referential, inconsistent and incomplete universe of subjective mathematics where irrationality and free will exist, and dialectical logic (based on the resolution of contradictions via repeated iterations of thesis, antithesis and synthesis) replaces Aristotelian logic. In the subjective domain, irrational things such as “faith” can exist – which are impossible in formal systems. Arguably, we may be over-extending the interpretation of Gödel’s theorem, but what is clear is that a 100% mathematical world can either be a strict algorithmic universe where all truths and falsehoods can be rigorously proved, or it must be viewed in terms of two domains of objectivity and subjectivity, linked by the number zero that is both an object and subject. If it is algorithmic, then we should be living in a computerized, machine world – plainly, we’re not! Hence, it MUST have a subjective, non-algorithmic element where all the “madness” of the human condition resides, along with the freedom to make the sort of IRRATIONAL choices that no computer would ever make. Gödel’s theorem may not say actually this as clearly as we would like. In which case, there’s scope for a new Gödel to establish exactly what we have said using an even better application of Gödel’s ideas. Remember, Illuminism is all about existence being 100% mathematical, in which case it becomes necessary to demonstrate how free will, irrationality, faith and feelings are possible. The answer to this riddle is SUBJECTIVITY, centred on the number zero, the most enigmatic of all numbers (especially when considered with its partner, infinity.) Gödel’s theorem, with its concern for the paradoxes of self-reference, appears to deal directly with the problem of subjectivity within an objective edifice. “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” – Nietzsche “There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Nietzsche

***** So, to be clear, we are making the following assertion: mathematics has both an objective and subjective aspect. The objective aspect provides the framework for existence and must be consistent and complete. The subjective aspect must however be the opposite: it must be inconsistent and incomplete in order to permit freedom. Freedom is all about choices, about uncertainty, about acting on incomplete information, about changing your mind, about acting perversely, about contradicting yourself, about being inconsistent, about beliefs, about desires, and so on. (You do not go about your life algorithmically, proving everything you do, and establishing the absolute truth of all of your behaviour and ideas.) This means that mathematics both is and is not consistent and complete. In other words, it’s dialectical. That’s exactly what we need it to be to explain the wonderfully ordered structure of the objective universe, and the evolving, utterly messy nature of the living, subjective universe. Mathematics is the ultimate vehicle of the Hegelian dialectic.

***** Most things that people (subjects) say are false. Meaningless statements (in which most people specialize) are just a special type of falsehood (since they’re certainly not true). All beliefs are inherently false since they are not supported by any legitimate reasons or proofs and actively dismiss reasons and proofs. The statement that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is prima facie false since no human virgin has ever conceived and given birth, and nor could they. All beliefs concern outrageous Mythos claims that contradict known Logos truths, hence they are automatically false. All faith is false. All statements, in the end, are either true or false, and the vast majority are false. Truth constitutes a tiny part of subjective reality. However, the whole of objective reality is, of course, 100% true and can never be false. What a wonderful, paradoxical and deceitful world we live in!

The Human Mind If no finitary axiomatic system is able to generate all of the truths of arithmetic and yet humans can nevertheless see these unprovable truths, then it means that our minds have non-algorithmic powers that take us

beyond the axioms, rules and programs of machines. No machine could ever be programmed to emulate a human. Our minds have a factor beyond programming. That factor is life itself. Only a non-algorithmic mind can recognize truths outside the algorithmic system.

Consistency versus Completeness In finitary axiomatic systems, an uncertainty principle applies. The more complete the system is, the less consistent it is. The more consistent it is, the less complete it is. So, what do you want in your finite, mortal life – consistency or completeness? Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan said that most people go through life with a set of rules that’s quite consistent (predictable, leading to “normal” behaviour), hence sacrifices completeness (people have large gaps in their “rules”, hence are confused about many issues outside their area of experience and normality). Normal people are content to live with incompleteness, with a dynamic world where their opinions in many areas can change rapidly from day to day. They are “other” directed, i.e. heavily influenced by the opinions of their peers. They like “safety in numbers”, and being “completed” by the crowd (i.e. by popular opinion). Psychotics, on the other hand, have highly complete systems – they think they have an answer for everything – but these complete systems of theirs are ipso facto extremely inconsistent. The Abrahamic texts are intended to be “complete” – the perfect word of God, no less – but they are monstrously illogical, irrational and inconsistent. Therefore, people who fanatically subscribe to these holy books are psychotic. They believe they have found the answer to everything, but they therefore have to overlook the horrendous inconsistencies and contradictions that imbue and infect their views. They are filled with rage whenever these problems are pointed out. Muslims (more or less all of them), Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians are all psychotic. Most right wingers are psychotic (and most of them are of course fanatically religious). “Complete” religion, based on revelation, is always psychotic. In general, right wingers go for “completeness” (hence suffer from severe inconsistency), while left wingers go for consistency (hence suffer

from incompleteness). Left wingers are other-directed, and public opinion fills the areas where they are “incomplete”. Right wingers are tradition-directed. The fact that their views are inconsistent is ignored because they are all inconsistent in the same way. Psychotics never seem psychotic when they are surrounded by other psychotics! Another group of right wingers (anarcho-capitalist libertarians) are inner-directed. These are people who do not slavishly follow ancient traditions but are nevertheless attracted to “holy” books: typically new fads that capture their imagination. Ayn Rand is the sort of person who appeals to the inner-directed psychotics. She has a “complete” system, but it’s riven with inconsistency. Her followers overlook all of these inconsistencies. Many inner-directed people are conspiracy theorists. Once they have embraced a “complete” conspiracy theory they become psychotically incapable of seeing its myriad contradictions. They attack anyone who challenges their theory. The 9/11 Truth Movement is full of psychotics. Everything that seems to support their conspiracy theory is validated and appropriated; everything that opposes it is invalidated, rejected, and deemed to be disinformation and misinformation provided by the conspirators. This whole way of thinking is manifestly deranged. Facts are facts only if they fit the theory; otherwise, they are false information. Such thinking can never break out of its own loop. It’s an INSANITY LOOP. There’s no point at all in debating with conspiracy theorists. 9/11 is an American viewpoint that IGNORES the rest of the world. It’s a belief that only America matters, that’s it’s all about America. The idea that anyone foreign could attack the power of America is dismissed out of hand. Therefore, any attack on America must have come from an enemy within – from Americans themselves. And who has the power? Well, the government, of course. The CIA, the FBI, Special Forces, FEMA – these are the groups that the government can use to carry out their evil, oppressive deeds against the people. The “Truth” Movement have a completely insular view of reality. For them, the enemy is always the government and the State; the “big” government and “big”, tyrannical State. Everything is viewed through a single, COMPLETE prism that the government and State are bad.

The idea that Muslims hated America enough to attack it simply does not compute for the Truth Movement since Muslims have nothing to do with the American government and State, hence can’t be part of the evil government conspiracy. American right wingers have no idea that their nation is despised by Muslims for its perpetual preference for Zionism, for its infidel soldiers laying their unholy feet on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, for its crass, anti-Islamic “freedom and democracy”, for its disgustingly corrupt and corrupting capitalism. American right wingers cannot conceive of the rest of the world hating America, and of some groups wishing to visit the sort of horrors on America that America has routinely visited upon many parts of the world since WWII. They cannot imagine “ragheads” being able to operate a clever (but actually extremely primitive and low-tech) attack on America. In the “complete” view of the Truth Movement that the sinister American government and State is all-powerful, knows everything, spies on everything, and controls everything, it is literally inconceivable that it wasn’t responsible for 9/11. Anyone who disagrees is “blind”, “mad”, a stooge, a patsy, a shill, a sucker, a sheep – or actively part of the conspiracy. So, these Truth Movement lunatics search frantically for the “smoking gun” of government responsibility for 9/11. They’ve put forward endless “proof”, but, of course, all of it has been rebutted exhaustively. However, to fixated, obsessed people who cannot escape from their own “complete” view – which makes 100% sense to them (but not to anyone else) – they will never accept any facts or evidence that contradicts their view. Their psychotic problem is that their “complete” view is necessarily riddled with inconsistency, but they refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies (so they think their views are both consistent and complete, in contradiction of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem). It is precisely this refusal to accept blatant inconsistencies that defines mad people. Humans long for completeness, for wholeness, for the big “answer to everything”, and the price they are willing to pay for this, more often than not, is INSANITY. The Jews believe that God was a burning bush and spoke to their prophet Moses. This is obviously insane. The Christians believe that the Creator of the Universe was born in a stable to a 14-year-old Jewish virgin – plainly, this is insane. The Muslims believe that the Angel Gabriel communicated the thoughts of God to an illiterate Arab in a cave – BONKERS! The Truth Movement believe that the source of all evil in

America, and the author of all attacks on American soil, is the American government! In all cases, one crazy view overrides all other things. The mad Jews bob back and forth in front of the Wailing Wall. The mad Muslims are just mad, full stop. The mad Christians dream of the Rapture and the Apocalypse. The mad Truthers believe that the American government arranged for planes to be slammed into the Twin Towers, and then for the buildings to be brought down by controlled explosions about an hour later. But why wasn’t the demolition timed to happen as soon as the planes struck? – which would surely have been enormously more successful and killed many thousands more people. Why would anyone carry out a demolition in full view of countless cameras an hour after the initial incident? Who chose this weird and potentially catastrophic bad timing? Were the explosives in place the day before? Why did no one notice? Did people arrive at the Twin Towers and place the charges AFTER the planes struck. God only knows – or the Truth Movement! People who are committed to a “complete” view cannot bear its own contradictions (because that would mean that their view is wrong and they are deluded). Rather than sacrifice their complete view, they sacrifice their willingness to “see” any of it contradictions. They blind themselves; make themselves insane – so that they don’t have to confront reality. That is the basis of psychosis. Endless human beings are pre-programmed for psychosis. “It is not doubt, it is certainty that makes men mad.” – Nietzsche Was ever a truer word spoken? Sane people want to be consistent, and that means they are plagued with doubts about the areas of incompleteness in their knowledge. Insane people want completeness and that means they madly ignore all of the contradictions and inconsistencies necessarily present in their worldview. People make themselves certain by making themselves mad. Who but a madman would believe in a Jewish God who didn’t lift a finger during the Holocaust? Who but a madman would believe that a loving and forgiving Christian God sentenced the whole of humanity to hell because Adam and Eve ate an apple? Who but a madman would believe that the best way to honour a compassionate and merciful Allah was to hijack planes and slaughter thousands of innocent people – Allahu Akbar!

But never forget that the whole of Abrahamism is predicated on the psychotic belief that God would order you to murder your children, and that your task is to slavishly and mindlessly do so without hesitation. If that’s not psychotic then psychosis does not exist! Why is Illuminism – a complete and consistent worldview – not psychotic? Because it is the only worldview that reflects the true nature of existence – ONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS. Only the worldview that corresponds to the absolute truth of reality can be genuinely complete and consistent. There can be only ONE absolute truth of reality. Who but a madman would say that mathematics is mad? Mathematics does not order people to murder their children. It doesn’t sentence people to hell. It doesn’t yell Allahu Akbar as it murders people. Objective mathematics is complete and consistent. Sadly, nothing else is. All finite systems that exist within the mathematical universe are incomplete, inconsistent or both. We, as mortal human beings, are finite, incomplete and inconsistent entities. Yet we are also infinite mathematical systems, so we DO have the capacity to align ourselves with the truth. Illuminism is the only possible truth of our world.

The Madness of Humanity If the Abrahamic God does not exist, all those who believe in him are insane. If he does exist, all those who don’t believe him are insane. Either way, an enormous number of human beings are patently insane. And the rest (the sane) are forced to live with those insane people. Insanity is the major driver of the human condition.

Poverty What is the main cause of poverty in Africa? – the beliefs of Africans. They are poor because they retain an overwhelmingly irrational religious and superstitious outlook on life. Africa, like Islam, has never undergone a rational Enlightenment. There are plenty of smart, rational people in Africa, of course, with enormous potential, but all the religious crazies will hold them back. People’s worst enemy is frequently their own belief system. Nothing has done more damage to Muslims than the Koran.

Something and Nothing Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. Any credible thinker MUST answer this question. The only possible rational answer, given that nothing is necessarily the ground state of the universe and the universe must always be in its ground state (since there is no sufficient reason why it would ever deviate from this) is that “something” can be shown to be equivalent to nothing. This can only be done mathematically. In order to answer Leibniz’s question, it’s imperative to identify the arche – the fundamental substance/unit of existence. There can be only one fundamental ontological unit – an indivisible ground state – and that is the Leibnizian monad. Since it has zero resultant energy, there can be infinite monads. Each monad can have infinite energy content, of course, as long as this infinite energy is perfectly balanced, positively and negatively, to provide a net result of zero. Therefore, existence comprises infinite zeros, with each zero comprising opposite infinities that cancel to zero. Zero and infinity are indissolubly linked. All answers come back to zero and infinity, and mathematics alone

can define zero and infinity. Mathematics is the answer to everything. It answers Leibniz’s question by showing exactly how something can be a manifestation of nothing.

***** Existence is about how unconscious mathematical systems (autonomous souls) become conscious of what they are, and of their infinite mathematical power that can render them DIVINE. It’s zero that makes us indestructible and immortal, and infinity that gives us the capacity to be all-powerful gods. If you could define yourself numerically, what numbers would you choose? You would be insane if you didn’t choose zero and infinity – because only those numbers can make you an immortal God. In many ways, the proof that you are an enlightened, self-aware person lies in your ability to choose your defining numbers. No Abrahamist would ever think to define themselves by zero and infinity. No scientific materialist would either. Nor would karmists even though all Eastern religions are quintessentially about zero and infinity (but never expressed mathematically). Define yourself. Create yourself. Choose Life. Choose Immortality. Choose Divinity. Choose zero and infinity, and a dialectical process that converts potential into actualization.

***** You are NOT nothing. You are an INFINITE SOMETHING, with the peculiar property that your infinite capacity is mathematically set at the perfect balance point – ground state – of positive and negative, real and imaginary: ZERO. You are something – an infinite angel – wearing an invisible cloak that hides you from sight. You are the Deus Absconditus – the hidden God –

seeking to make yourself manifest. All infinite minds (souls) are shielded from physical existence by an infinitely small portal (point/monad).

***** Illuminism is a complete and consistent grand unified theory of everything for one reason and one reason only – it is based on ontological mathematics, which is the sole complete and consistent system in the universe. In fact, it IS the universe. Only one system can be complete and consistent and that is mathematics. If Illuminism weren’t mathematical, it would be as psychotic as the other religions. If you’re not an Illuminist then the next best thing is to be consistent but incomplete. The worst thing you can be is complete but inconsistent – like the psychotic Abrahamists. The psychosis of Abrahamism is evident immediately. Virtually the first thing Abraham is ordered to do by his God is murder his own son. No sane person, hearing such an order, would believe it came from God. But Abraham was a psychopath seeking to be “complete”, and he saw being the perfect slave of God as the ultimate means of being complete. His son’s life meant nothing to him. All that mattered was his own completeness. A war must be waged against all non-mathematical systems that claim to be complete. They invariably produce psychosis. Abrahamism has been nothing but the history of psychosis predicated on “infallible” holy texts that allegedly reveal the absolute truth of existence and God’s will itself.

The Fate of the Genius The genius has no one to talk to about the things he regards as the most important things in his life. He has no colleagues, companions or peers. He stands completely alone. No one understands him, and most think he’s insane. He has no supporters. No one is more isolated than the genius. That’s the price he pays for seeing so much further than everyone else. Where would we be without these ultimate heroes who go alone where no one else can follow?

Gödel and Turing

While Gödel concentrated on provability, completeness and consistency, Alan Turing, a British pioneer of modern computing, focused on “decidability” and “computability”. A computing question is decidable if there exists a single computable series of operations that can determine whether the answer is yes or no. If no such computable series exists, the question is undecidable. If an algorithm existed for always showing whether a proposition or its negation were provable, this would contradict Gödel’s work. Turing demonstrated that no such algorithm exists, thus confirming Gödel’s findings. A decidable proposition is one associated with a computable algorithm. The algorithm will reach an end within a finite number of steps and come to a halt. If it’s undecidable, the algorithm will run forever and never come to a halt (the algorithm is not computable). We might say that’s it’s gone into an infinite loop, and there’s no way of breaking out. This is known as the “halting” problem. Turing’s work is a perfect complement to Gödel’s. If Gödel’s is primarily about self-reference (the problem of zero – subjectivity), Turing’s is primarily about infinite steps (the problem of infinity). Of course, Gödel’s work can be cast in infinite terms (via Turing’s decidability and computability) and Turing’s in terms of self-reference (via Gödel’s completeness and consistency).

The Halting Problem “In computability theory, the halting problem can be stated as follows: ‘Given a description of an arbitrary computer program, decide whether the program finishes running or continues to run forever.’ This is equivalent to the problem of deciding, given a program and an input, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input, or will run forever.” – Wikipedia Human beings never go into a loop (excepting the insane). Why not? Why are they able to halt? All humans can break out of processing loops. A machine cannot. There would be no Microsoft blue screens of death if machines could make their own decisions.

Decidable and Undecidable

In mathematics and logic, a decidable problem is one capable of being decided. Computationally, an algorithm can decide the problem in a finite amount of time. In mathematics and logic, an undecidable problem is defined as one that can never be either proved or disproved (i.e., by proving its negation) via the axioms of a given theory. Computationally, it is a problem that no algorithm can decide in a finite time. In short, an undecidable statement can neither be proved nor disproved. Given infinite time and infinite axioms, there are no undecidable problems. Such problems are a creation of finitary perspectives and considerations.

Science Science is based on an incomplete set of numbers (just the real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity). It’s an inherently incomplete view of reality. It does not provide the ultimate answers, and it never can within the terms of its current Meta Paradigm. What is the fundamental issue for science? It’s division by zero. This is where the scientific paradigm collapses. No material object can be a dimensionless point (which is why M-theory seeks to model particles as string loops rather than points). Since science falls apart at division by zero, M-theory seeks to prevent division by zero from taking place. So, if division by zero corresponds to a real, ontological operation then science is ipso facto refuted as a valid account of reality. Apart from its fear and loathing of zero and infinity, science also applies the cold shoulder and silent treatment to negative and imaginary numbers. Illuminism is based on complete mathematics and is fully consistent. That’s because it excludes no numbers and fully accepts zero and infinity, hence can cater for all infinitary procedures and all subjective, selfreferential situations. Any objective statement in Illuminism can be proved to be true or false. (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is about the incompleteness of finite systems, not of infinite, complete, Platonic systems.) Illuminism is about NUMBER THEORY since numbers are the only ontological reality. (The precise form in which numbers exist is as energy waves – sine and cosines – deriving from Euler’s Formula, expressed in its most general way.)

***** Science = a finite system. Mathematics = an infinite system. Science has no constituent that corresponds to a subject, a self-referential entity, an autonomous mind. Any system that does not permit infinity does not permit zero either, and without zero, there is no subjectivity. Mathematics = an objective and subjective system. Science = an objective system only (no subjectivity). Science = finitary = objective = non-zero = non-infinite = non-subjective. Mathematics = infinitary = objective and subjective = zero and infinity. What is science? It’s an incomplete and inconsistent version of mathematics. It’s the world envisaged as an objective expression of real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. That’s why it can’t explain life, mind and subjectivity.

***** In an infinite system, EVERY statement purporting to be about truth and falsehood can be definitively proved. Consider the question of the existence of the Christian God and the Last Judgment. Given that Christianity is predicated on “God” judging all souls on Judgment Day, if this event NEVER occurs, the Christian God does not exist! (In truth, given that Christians have been expecting the Apocalypse ever since the death of Jesus Christ, it’s already clear that this event will never happen. After all, what’s “God” waiting for?)

The Jewish View of Hell MV: “I would like to point out that very few Jews believe that followers of other faiths will burn in hell.” Why are people so dumb? The Jewish God, by his own account (in the Torah), exterminated the whole of humanity bar eight people (Noah and his family). So where are the exterminated now? In heaven?

The Jewish God continually threatened with the death penalty everyone who didn’t believe in him. Are we to imagine that these people he condemned, damned and murdered went anywhere other than hell? There’s only one reason why the Jews don’t say that all non-Jews are going to hell – because it would mean hell on earth for them if they did say it. Nevertheless, it’s what they all secretly believe.

Scientific “Proof” An experimentally well-verified theory is not thereby “true”. Many experimentally well-verified scientific theories have subsequently been refuted. Why is experimental “proof” taken so seriously? Because it’s the only thing that sensing types understand.

The Rational Universe If the universe is grounded in rational principles – which it plainly is – then these principles can be fully known a priori, i.e. without reference to experience and experiments. We can logically deduce the nature of reality. Therefore, the whole scientific project to discover how the world is configured (which is an a posteriori, inductive undertaking) is fundamentally misconceived as far as a Grand Unified Theory of Everything is concerned. Science, not being a priori, cannot, by definition, furnish the eternal, immutable, a priori, rational principles of existence. Only rationalism can discover these principles. It must, however, be the right kind of rationalism. Metaphysical rationalism has been tried and must be judged a failure since the metaphysicians produced many ingenious rational schemes, but it proved impossible to determine which was correct (and there can of course be only one correct answer). Science, as a practical subject, enjoyed countless practical successes and thus became the de facto intellectual means for understanding reality. Metaphysics failed because it did not identify the most important consideration in constructing the rational edifice: the arche, the fundamental rational substance of existence, composed of fundamental rational units. Without the arche, all rational schemes founder. With the arche, the rational language of existence becomes evident, and only with that language can we explain reality.

One metaphysician did in fact correctly identify the arche. Pythagoras was 100% correct when he declared that all things are numbers, but his answer was ignored. By identifying numbers as the quintessence of existence, Pythagoras ipso facto identified the rational language of existence: MATHEMATICS. Science has been extremely successful because it hijacked mathematics and used it as its subordinate tool. But mathematics cannot be subordinated to anything. Mathematics is the primary, foundational language of existence. Metaphysics failed to utilize mathematics, hence failed to explain reality. Illuminism is nothing but mathematics, hence it alone can explain reality. Illuminism, in the final analysis, makes an extremely bold claim. It asserts that the whole of reality can be understood by a rational examination of the concept of “NOTHING”, hence zero (which, ontologically, is the Leibnizian monad) becomes the key to reality. But zero cannot be separated from another number: its partner, INFINITY. Therefore, Illuminism is all about zero and infinity, and from these two numbers we can study all the numbers that lie between them: all the numbers of mathematics. From zero/infinity, we derive mathematics and with mathematics, we can rationally explain the whole of existence. That’s it. That’s all that needs to be done to provide a complete a priori account of reality. Mathematics explains all. Science, on the other hand, is an a posteriori, irrational, empiricist “explanation” of existence. So, will you be a scientist or a mathematician? Your choice will radically affect your comprehension of reality. Science is materialist and has no rational place for religion, life, mind or free will. Mathematics is idealist and is fundamentally about religion, life, mind and free will. Mathematics, to put it another way, is fundamentally ALIVE, and life is all about the ceaseless operations of mind. What people fail to grasp about mathematics is that it IS mind! Existence is nothing but mental activity (mathematical activity), which is unconscious in its basic mode, but can evolve a higher mode (of consciousness), and then an even higher mode: divinity. Mathematics is not something static. It’s not about equations waiting to be written down and solved by mathematicians. Instead, the equations of existence are self-solving and self-optimizing. Ontological mathematics is performing its self-optimizing work at all times, eternally. Existence is a

perpetual mathematical process: a self-solving, self-optimizing system that MUST culminate in mathematical perfection – the answer to life, the universe and everything.

What are “Thoughts”? Thoughts are simply mathematical functions comprised of combinations of Fourier basis waves. Infinite such combinations are possible. Basis waves are the “atoms” of thought and their combinations are “molecular” thoughts. Given that the whole ontological universe is made of Fourier functions then the whole of reality is about thought, i.e. existence is mental (idealist) not material. Matter itself – being nothing but an expression of Fourier functions (via quantum mechanics) – is simply a special kind of thought. In particular, it is “external” thought. Internal thinking is what we normally think of as thought and it takes place strictly within our own mind. But what happens when thinking takes place outside individual minds but within the whole collection of monadic minds? This is “external” thought and it is what we experience as the material world. Thinking, therefore, takes places two ways: privately and publicly. When it takes place privately, we talk of being in the mental domain. When it takes place publicly, we talk of being in the material world (of shared thought obeying shared, objective rules). When thinking takes place collectively rather than individually then it is described as being “alienated” from itself. The whole of Hegel’s philosophy is about mind becoming alienated from itself (in Nature) and then returning to itself and becoming fully self aware (through Absolute Spirit and Absolute Knowledge, fully reflecting the Absolute Idea – GOD!). Illuminism alone explains exactly what thinking is: mathematics. Private mathematics is subjective; public mathematics is objective. That’s reality in a nutshell. We are all private mathematical entities participating in a public mathematical arena (the material world). When we “die” we leave the public arena (and become temporarily locked in our private world), but then we re-enter it in a new body via reincarnation. The public arena is MADE of energy waves (thought waves) originating from all the private minds of which the PUBLIC MIND (the cosmic mind) is composed.

Our minds literally create reality. The material world is an objective reality simply because all of our minds generate it according to the objective laws of mathematics. When we go to sleep and dream, we can create our own private worlds. The dream world is distinguished from waking reality because we have complete control over our dreams while having only minimal control over the shared “dream” of waking reality. In the shared dream, we are opposed by all the other minds in the universe, so we don’t get our own way (while in our private space, we are unopposed so can do whatever we like). Everyone in the public arena – except higher beings and Gods – must follow the strict mathematical, objective rules. Only minds powerful enough to override the rules can change the public space: and that makes them GODS. Illuminism, uniquely, explains what thoughts and dreams are, and what the mathematical difference is between our private space and the public space. Every part of this system is based on mathematics, which is why the whole thing works in the first place.

The Dialectic Every monad (living, autonomous, eternal, mathematical force) is an individual source of Nietzschean Will to Power. All monads have the same will: to optimize themselves. That immediately raises a simple question – should monads fight and try to dominate other monads in order to maximize their own Will to Power (the basis of the master-slave dialectic; of unadulterated, unsublimated self-interest) or should they cooperate (the basis of altruism; of sublimated self-interest)? The master-slave dialectic is about SATANISM. Altruism is about LUCIFERISM. If Satanism is the thesis, Luciferism is the antithesis and the final synthesis is Abraxism (complete rationalism; the perfection of mathematics). The Freudian Id (obeying the Pleasure Principle) is Satanic; the Freudian Superego (obeying the Morality Principle) is Luciferian and the Freudian Ego (mediating between Id and Superego and obeying the Reality Principle) is Abraxian. We can imagine all other minds acting as a resistance to our will, (opposing us). The same is true for each of them, of course. We are all opposed by all other minds. How best to proceed? Should we emphasize what we have in common (and cooperate), or what we have in opposition (and fight)? Or should we rationally work out the optimal strategy for ourselves and everyone else? The history of our world is the simply the exploration of these three possibilities, manifesting themselves in countless different ways. Are you a “master”, a co-operator or a rationalist? Those are your three choices. Every person, institution, political, economic and religious system on earth reflects one of these three positions. The co-operators and the rationalists can work together in harmony. The co-operators and masters must always fight (left wingers versus right wingers). The rationalists may reluctantly work with the masters (to secure a reasonably good life for themselves). What we need is a RATIONALIST, COOPERATIVE world. The masterslave model must be completely eradicated in every one of its insidious manifestations.

Natural-Born Slave

The master-slave dialectic system has a curious and rarely discussed aspect. It is that the master-slave system could never function if the slaves were permanently fighting and resisting the masters. The slaves must, ultimately, WANT to be enslaved. So, why would anyone have such a desire? The answer is simple. You may look at yourself and feel inadequate for the great cosmic contest of wills in which you are engaged. You don’t want to be responsible for yourself. You don’t want to keep fighting and struggling. You don’t want to take tough decisions. So, you conclude that the best strategy for you is to ALLY yourself with a great power (a supreme master). By swearing your absolute allegiance to him, you come under his protection, and, as long as you’re happy to be his slave, you can live a contented, safe life. ABRAHAMISM is precisely this choice. Countless Muslims get on their bellies to grovel to the cosmic dictator Allah. The Jews bob backwards and forwards in front of the Wailing Wall as they plead for mercy from the Torture God Jehovah, and the Christians kneel to their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ – the nutcase who inflicted Original Sin on humanity and condemned everyone to hell. Abraham was willing to murder his own son to please his God, and this is true of ALL Abrahamists (or they would repudiate Abraham and his God). Of course, the slaves don’t like to actually call themselves slaves, so they come up with various euphemisms. The Jews call themselves the Chosen People (of their Master); Christians call themselves the Elect (of their Master) and the Saved (by their Master) while Muslims style themselves as those who willingly SUBMIT to their Master, hence are his True People. This raises the interesting question of alliance. Co-operators enter an alliance with other co-operators, as equals. Rationalists do likewise. But slaves (sheeple) enter into an alliance as willing slaves of their powerful master. To all dominants, the Abrahamic religions are the most sickening thing they can imagine (unless they themselves are the masters being worshipped by the slaves!). To natural-born submissives and slaves, Abrahamism makes perfect sense and simply reflects the natural order. There’s always a tension between dominants and submissives. Dominants have contempt for submissives but submissives love dominants.

The dominants are those who actively shape the world, but the submissives, through their passivity, actually represent a major force in the world. They are a resistance that must be overcome. For example, any dominants trying to change the world by eradicating Abrahamism automatically have the problem of how to deal with the billions of fanatical Abrahamists.

***** The rationalists are defined by their intelligence and reason. Co-operators are defined by empathy, sympathy and altruism. The master-slaves are defined by self-interest. The masters want to dominate everyone else. The slaves want the protection of the alpha master. They are fearful people, and by allying themselves with something strong, they assuage their fears. The Abrahamic “God” is the supreme, alpha master. If you obey him, he rewards you with paradise. If you oppose him, he tortures you forever in hell. You simply could not get a cruder equation than that.

Dreams In our dreams, we can be anything we like. We could use our dreams to rehearse being GODS where we have complete control over our environment. Yet our dreams are usually about our fears and concerns, or about simple wish fulfilment. Our dreams are simply exaggerations of our normal lives. Through our dreams, we could make ourselves the people we want to be, and then project our Higher Dream Self into the waking world!

Ghosts “Ghost” is the name we give to human beings who are not fully alive, who do not fulfil their potential, who haunt life rather than live it, who are on the periphery, marginalized. It’s as if they’re not there at all.

Platonism There are many different approaches to mathematics, but they all avoid the central issue: what exactly IS mathematics? Is mathematics a construction of human minds, a language, a special version of something like Chinese or English?

No one would ever suggest that Chinese was the language of nature. Plainly, Chinese is artificial and wholly manmade. On the other hand, many renowned thinkers have stated that mathematics is the language of nature. So, is mathematics a construction of our minds, or are our minds constructed mathematically? Does our mathematical knowledge arise from the fact that we are mathematical beings in a mathematical universe? This is the fundamental question of existence, yet it’s more or less a topic that’s never discussed by anyone at all. The following general attitudes exist towards mathematics: 1) It’s a language related to other human languages, hence is a construction of human minds. 2) It’s a set of empty tautologies that does not describe reality. 3) It’s a set of finite axioms. 4) It’s a product and derivation of logic. 5) It’s a game with rules – like chess. 6) It’s the language of nature, hence is real and independent of humans. Platonism asserts that mathematics has a reality beyond human minds, but what does that actually mean? Plato spoke of a Form of Eternal Life, of which all souls partake, rendering them immortal. The body does not partake of this Form, hence is rendered mortal. The body is sure to perish; the soul is sure to go on. In Illuminism, the Platonic Form of immortal life is none other than the indestructible, indivisible, Leibnizian monad, characterized by the number ZERO. Zero is always associated with INFINITY (the other side of the same coin). Zero and infinity contain all other numbers between their boundaries. All of these bounded numbers must simultaneously be infinite, finite and zero! Each number is infinite insofar as it endures forever; it is finite insofar as it defines a specific finite number, and it is zero insofar as it must cancel to zero to stay in its ground state. Thus, ontologically, every “finite” number is directly linked to infinity and zero. To call a number finite is, ontologically, a misnomer. Every finite number is really just a particular “arrangement” of zero. This “conjuring trick” can be brought about by defining all numbers according to:

Equation A) reix = r (cos x + i sin x), where r is any “finite” number. When r = 1, this reduces to Euler’s Formula: eix = cos x+ i sin x. The unit circle produced when Euler’s Formula is plotted is perfectly balanced between positive and negative numbers, and real and imaginary numbers. Therefore, ontologically, we can regard the Euler unit circle as an ingenious representation of zero. The negative left half of the unit circle exactly cancels the positive right half of the unit circle, leaving zero. So, if we define any number, r (between 0 and infinity), according to Equation A), then, no matter what r is, reix must, ontologically, be zero. We thus accomplish the task of having ontological numbers of any magnitude that are, nevertheless, always zero ontologically. (The situation is slightly more complicated because we actually have to define numbers according to the three criteria that define waves: frequency, amplitude and phase. However, the principle is exactly the same in each case. We can always define numbers that, by being linked to eix, will always leave a resultant of zero ontologically.)

The Infinite Nature of Sine and Cosine Sin x and cos x can be expressed as infinite expansions: sin x = 0 + x + 0x2 – x3/3! + 0x4 + x5/5! + 0x6 – x7/7! + 0x8 … i.e. sin x = x – x3/3! + x5/5! – x7/7! + x9/9! … cos x = 1 + 0x – x2/2! + 0x3 + x4/4! + 0x5 – x6/6! + 0x7 + x8/8! … i.e. cos x = 1 – x2/2! + x4/4! – x6/6! + x8/8! – x10/10! … So, sin x is about odd powers of x, and cos x is about even powers of x. eix = 0 + 1 + ix – x2/2! – ix3/3! + x4/4!+ ix5/5! – x6/6! – ix7/7! + x8/8! … Sin x, cos x and eix all inherently embrace infinity. Is that not astounding?

***** De Moivre’s formula (derived from Euler’s Formula): ei(nx) = (cos x + i sin x)n = cos (nx) + i sin (nx) Equation B) rnei(nx) = rn (cos x+ i sin x)n

(which reduces to de Moivre’s formula when r = 1).

Heraclitus “This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: ever-living fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.” – Heraclitus Heraclitus asserted that the world came to be in a fiery holocaust (the Big Bang!) and perished in a fiery holocaust (the Divine Suicide!), only to be born again. The universe has no beginning or end; but each Cyclical Age has a beginning and an end. Heraclitus, the philosopher of flux, maintained that everything was always changing, transforming itself – yet the world remained stable thanks to Logos, the rational law. Today, we would simply replace Heraclitus’s word “fire” with “energy”, and “Logos” with the laws of science (or mathematics, to be more exact). Energy is conserved. It can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Heraclitus viewed the soul as having a fiery nature and considered it the highest form of energy. He said of it, “If you went in search of it, you would not find the boundaries of the soul, though you travelled every road, so deep is its measure.” In other words, the soul is INFINITE. In Heraclitus’s worldview, fire could be converted into air, air into water and water into earth. By the same token, earth could be transformed into water, water into air and air into fire. In other words, we can imagine the four elements as being on an energy scale. As fire loses energy, it collapses all the way down to earth. As earth gains energy, it is converted into fire. Heraclitus was willing to accept a divine unity underlying the cosmos: “The wise, being one thing only, would and would not take the name of Zeus [or: Life].” In other words, a rational law [Logos] supported existence and Heraclitus referred to it in much the same way as Spinoza would millennia later: God or Nature. Existence is an ongoing process governed by a law of change: “all entities come to be in accordance with this Logos”. So, for Heraclitus, fire is the most fundamental element, the arche, and gives rise to the other elements, hence to all things.

While the highest souls were pure fire, ordinary souls were deemed to be a mixture of fire and water. Fire provided the noble (rational) part of the soul, and water the ignoble (sensory and feeling) part. A soul’s aim was to become drier (more rational). Heraclitus maintained that worldly pleasures made the soul “moist”, hence these were to be avoided. Heraclitus, the great dialectician, emphasized the role of opposites and the “strife” that ensued from oppositional processes: “We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.” Dike eris: “strife is justice”. Strife is the dialectic force striving for greater rationality: Logos.

The Stoics The Stoics took their inspiration primarily from Heraclitus and to a lesser extent from Aristotle. Stoicism was adopted as the major philosophy of the Roman Empire before being replaced by Christianity, which absorbed many elements of Stoicism. The Stoics were most drawn to Heraclitus’ treatment of fire, viewing it as the most fundamental of the four elements of earth, air, fire and water and the one that carried the Logos. Fire and air were regarded as the two “active” elements, and water and earth as “passive”. The active elements (with fire hot and air cold) combined to form “breath” (pneuma). Pneuma is the “sustaining cause” which permeates everything and controls the development of animate things. For the Stoics, Zeus ruled the universe with his rational law (nomos/logos).

Logos Heraclitus regarded the Logos as a non-human cosmic intelligence that organized the otherwise chaotic parts of the universe into a coherent whole. For the Stoics, the Logos was the rational God that was the source of all rationality and order in the universe. Spinoza’s God (or Nature) was rather similar. The Christians, influenced by the Stoics, associated the Logos with Jesus Christ (in a rational, creative, cosmic role).

Fire Heraclitus, the renowned Illuminist philosopher, was the first to teach an everlasting dialectical becoming, guided by an inherent cosmic reason (Logos). Hegel’s philosophy is a much more detailed version of Heraclitus’s, with Geist (mind/spirit) replacing “fire” as the basic substance of existence. Of course, “fire” could be defined as mental energy, following a rational trajectory determined by inherent Logos, and it would then be more or less identical to Geist. Heraclitus saw the human soul as an individual rational soul (a divine spark) that could unite with the cosmic rational soul of God (Logos).

The Individual Soul versus the Collective Soul Throughout religious philosophy, there has been a tension between the concept of many individual, autonomous souls and one cosmic, autonomous soul that manifests itself phenomenally in myriad particular, individuated ways (but underneath they all belong to just a single noumenal Oneness). Plato, for example, advocated countless different immortal souls while Aristotle defended a single immortal soul (that of God). Both were insistent on reason being the defining quality of the immortal soul. Irrational “souls” were always mortal, and mired in matter. Now, if every different Platonic soul came to perfect rational understanding of the eternal Platonic Forms, they would all, rationally, agree on everything – so, in what sense would they continue to be individual? If there is only one rational thing to be done in every instance and everyone agrees on it, how are the rational souls to be distinguished? In a sense, then, even Plato’s individualistic souls all rationally merge into a kind of Oneness. The big difference, in the end, is one of subjective experience. It’s rather hard to conceive of how a single soul can give rise to countless different qualia – to lots of apparently different souls having unique subjective experiences. Only genuinely individual souls can rationally account for different qualia. Aristotle would have attributed qualia to mortal souls that die with their bodies; Plato would have defended rational souls as experiencing their rationality in an individual, subjective sense rather than as nodes of a collective rational mind. In the Aristotelian view, different nodes would be akin to computer subprograms of a giant cosmic program. Plato’s souls are much more ALIVE.

The Wisdom of Heraclitus “It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess that all things are one.” – Heraclitus Everything is fire (energy), expressed in different modes. “Though this Logos is true evermore, yet men are as unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have heard it at all. For,

though all things come to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its kind and showing how it truly is. But other men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep.” – Heraclitus People are generally stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t understand reason. “Those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a little.” – Heraclitus Wisdom is rarely to be found, and it takes a lot of hard work. “Nature loves to hide.” – Heraclitus The answers to existence are not obvious. “Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things.” – Heraclitus We require a Grand Unified Theory of Everything! “This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures going out.” – Heraclitus The universe is eternal and uncreated, and is all about fire (energy). “Homer was wrong in saying: ‘Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!’ He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for, if his prayer were heard, all things would pass away....” – Heraclitus The dialectic is essential to the working of the world. “War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.” – Heraclitus The master-slave dialectic. “It is the opposite which is good for us.” – Heraclitus We ought to seek balance between conflicting elements. “The way up and the way down is one and the same.” – Heraclitus

“Good and ill are one.” – Heraclitus “To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right.” – Heraclitus This was an idea much championed by the Stoics. If you understand the rational big picture, you will grasp the necessity of all things. “We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife.” – Heraclitus Conflict drives the dialectic. “The hidden attunement is better than the open.” – Heraclitus The need for secret societies. “Men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very many things indeed.” – Heraclitus “The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to be called by the name of Zeus.” – Heraclitus “God” is a subtle concept. “Asses would rather have straw than gold.” – Heraclitus The people can’t recognize the true value of things. “Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.” – Heraclitus People must be “forced to be free” (to quote Rousseau). “Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the one living the others’ death and dying the others’ life.” – Heraclitus In other words, reincarnation. “In the circumference of a circle the beginning and end are common.” – Heraclitus The end of one Cosmic Cycle is the start of the next. “You will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling in any direction, so deep is the measure of it.” – Heraclitus The soul has infinite capacity.

“And it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead, awake and asleep, young and old; the former are shifted and become the latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and become the former.” – Heraclitus “We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and are not.” – Heraclitus The law of becoming. “I have sought for myself.” – Heraclitus Seek thyself. Find thyself. Know thyself. “Thought is common to all.” – Heraclitus Panpsychism. Everything has a mind (but it’s usually unconscious). “A man may be a grandfather in thirty years.” – Heraclitus “The waking have one common world, but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of his own.” – Heraclitus We inhabit a shared world when we are awake, and a private world when we are sleeping. “The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.” – Heraclitus “The people must fight for its law as for its walls.” – Heraclitus Society requires the best possible laws, or the city walls are not protecting anything worth defending. “The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has.” – Heraclitus People are foolish. “Greater deaths win greater portions.” – Heraclitus The need for heroism. “It is hard to fight with one’s heart’s desire. Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul.” – Heraclitus What you want isn’t what you need. Be careful what you wish for. “One is ten thousand to me, if he be the best.” – Heraclitus

Meritocracy! “The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every grown man of them, and leave the city to beardless lads; for they have cast out Hermodorus, the best man among them, saying, ‘We will have none who is best among us; if there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others.’” – Heraclitus How the mob persecutes the most talented. “Dogs bark at everyone they do not know.” – Heraclitus “(The wise man) is not known because of men’s want of belief.” – Heraclitus People would rather be believers than knowers. “Man’s character is his fate.” – Heraclitus “There awaits men when they die such things as they look not for nor dream of.” – Heraclitus Most people have no idea at all of what will happen to them at death. “Night-walkers. Magians, Bacchii, Lenai, and the initiated.” – Heraclitus “The mysteries practiced among men are unholy mysteries.” – Heraclitus “And they pray to these images, as if one were to talk with a man’s house, knowing not what gods or heroes are.” – Heraclitus “For if it were not to Dionysus that they made a procession and sang the shameful phallic hymn, they would be acting most shamelessly. But Hades is the same as Dionysus in whose honour they go mad and rave.” – Heraclitus “They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing thus, would deem him mad.” – Heraclitus “Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre.” – Heraclitus

Paradigms A superb way to think of cultures and civilisations is in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s “normal” and “revolutionary” phases of paradigmatic science. A culture or civilisation is a paradigm. An establishment, a priesthood, is in charge of the paradigm, which then zealously defends the paradigm and identifies heretics, blasphemers and infidels. “Normal” activity takes place for a long, stable period. However, “anomalies” and tensions start to appear that challenge the truth and efficacy of the paradigm. Rebels, outsiders, mavericks and revolutionaries begin to gain traction in terms of their critique of the paradigm. Eventually, the prevailing paradigm is untenable and collapses, often overnight, and a revolutionary phase then begins. The revolutionary fervour subsides and consensus coalesces around a new paradigm, which then becomes the new establishment view with its own priesthood. The new paradigm will exist at a more robust, higher level of synthesis than its predecessor, but, being a dialectical entity, it will sooner or later generate a strong antithesis and conflict. Revolution will again erupt in due course – and on we will go until the dialectic is exhausted and it has reached its Absolute state, its omega point.

The Importance of Euler’s Formula Why do we assign such incredible importance to Euler’s Formula? It’s because it’s the perfect balance between real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers and sines and cosines. When understood properly, Euler’s Formula allows an infinite sequence of numbers from zero to infinity to all have different numbers and yet still be just one number – ZERO. That’s a critical and decisive fact, so let’s go through it in scrupulous detail. A number isn’t a symbol on a piece of paper. A number is a “thing”. It’s ontological. Above all, a number is ENERGY. Energy is composed of waves (sines and cosines) and has an amplitude, a frequency and a phase. When you refer, ontologically, to a number, you are actually referring to the frequency, amplitude or phase of an energy wave. (The context will determine which version of the number is in focus.) Now imagine an infinite number of Euler circles radiating out from an origin (which has zero frequency, zero amplitude and zero phase). Each of

these circles has a different radius (amplitude), but no matter the radius, the Euler circle itself always balances to zero. So, here is a miraculous way to introduce numbers (non-zero entities) that, ontologically, don’t deviate from zero. Every Euler circle GUARANTEES that all the numbers with which it is associated (whether in terms of amplitude, frequency or phase) will, OVERALL, cancel to zero. Thus, Euler’s Formula inherently provides the perfect CONSERVATION LAW. It ensures that all of the energy in the universe never at any instant deviates from zero – the ground state energy of existence. The energy of existence can never exceed zero and the law ensuring this is simply Euler’s Formula because it comes inbuilt in the Formula. We always talk about the incredible relationship between zero and infinity. It’s Euler’s Formula that controls this relationship ontologically. You can have infinite things that are completely different and unique and yet are all exactly the same – ZERO. Every Euler circle, with its different Euler numbers and different energy characteristics, is, at one and the same time just zero energy because all the different elements ALWAYS cancel to zero. This is simply breathtaking. Only mathematics can deliver this and, in particular, only Euler’s Formula. That’s why it’s the all-controlling God Equation. There is nothing in the universe other than the Euler Formula! The Euler Formula is the origin of ALL ENERGY (sine and cosine waves), provides the laws that determine the relations of all energy waves, and ensures that all energy in the universe is conserved at zero. Yes, it does all of that, and all of that is what constitutes existence. Euler’s Formula is the definitive answer to why the universe can be something and nothing at exactly the same time: because that’s exactly what IT is – something and nothing simultaneously. It is staggeringly simple, staggeringly efficient, staggeringly powerful and staggeringly beautiful. At the centre, from which an infinite number of Euler circles radiate in all directions, is none other than the Leibnizian monad: the SOUL. It is the point that collects all of the information associated with all of the energy of the infinite Euler circles. It is the perfect balance point of the whole Euler system of perfect symmetry. What is Illuminism’s greatest triumph? It is the identification of Euler’s Formula as the God Equation because the whole of mathematics, the whole of science, the whole of logic and reason and the whole of religion flows

from that single equation. If you really grasp Euler’s equation and the Fourier wave mathematics to which it gives rise, you have grasped the whole of Illuminism and the whole of existence. Pythagoras’s immortal statements (“All things are numbers.”; “Number rules all.”) can be simply recast as: 1) All things are numbers defined by Euler’s Formula. 2) Euler’s Formula controls all. Existence is nothing other than the exploration of the consequences of Euler’s Formula, and Euler’s Formula is nothing other than the exploration of how you can create infinite numbers (energy) out of literally nothing. Euler’s Formula is why the universe is so well designed. No Creator designed Euler’s Formula. It’s ontological. It’s uncreated and uncaused. The only reason why existence is possible is because of the properties of mathematics and of Euler’s Formula in particular. Any planet that, as a totality, embraces the truth of Euler’s Formula and declares it officially the truth of existence and the answer to everything, immediately becomes a Gnosis Planet – a planet on its way to divinity. It is taken over by Phosters who then bring humanity into the Society of the Divine, the Community of Gods. The only thing standing in the way of humanity’s greatest achievement and supreme apotheosis is mathematical ignorance. We have been held back by all the faith-obsessed, ignorant, superstitious, irrational Mythos hordes with their compulsive desire to wallow in sensations and feelings, and to ignore reason (Logos). According to ancient Gnosticism, why did humanity fall? Because of lust, desire, an insatiable craving for material things, for carnal things, for Dionysian things. Apollo was put to death so that Dionysus could reign. What will restore Apollo to life and allow us to enter heaven? – EULER’S FORMULA. Every single problem of M-theory could be solved at a stroke if the Mtheorists realized that there was nothing other than Euler’s Formula. The Nobel Prize FOR ALL TIME will be given to the thinker who works out in every conceivable detail the full ramifications of a universe that contains nothing but infinite energy defined by Euler’s Formula. Who is the supreme enemy of Euler’s Formula? Jehovah/Allah/ Christ: the DEVIL himself. The Devil knows nothing of mathematics, never uses

it, never refers to it and ensures that none of his followers use it. He makes them grovel on their knees and bellies, and never once gives his followers a mathematics book. What is the Tree of Knowledge? – MATHEMATICS. Who was the first mathematician? – EVE. What was the fruit she ate that could turn humans into Gods? – EULER’S FORMULA!

The Generalized Euler Formula To specify a wave, only three criteria are required: frequency, amplitude and phase. Amplitude, in relation to Euler’s Formula, can be expressed as: A eix = A cos x + A i sin x, where A is the amplitude. Phase can be expressed as: ei(x + φ) = cos (x + φ) + i sin (x + φ), where φ = the phase angle (phase shift). Frequency can be expressed as: (eix)f = eifx = (cos x + i sinx)f = cos (fx) + i sin (fx), where f is the frequency. The generalized Euler Formula, accommodating all three elements is: A ei(fx + φ) = A cos (fx + φ) + i A sin (fx + φ) or A ei(fx + φ) = A eiφ ∙ eifx Amplitude, frequency, and phase are all time-invariant; they belong to the eternal domain outside space and time. Ã = A eiφ is known as a phase vector, or phasor, and contains information about the amplitude and phase of a sinusoidal signal (but not the frequency).

***** When we talk about the ontology of numbers, we are really talking about “number systems” (information systems), defined according to the generalized Euler Formula. We are talking about energy; about energy

waves. All of the information of the universe is encoded in energy waves. It’s all MATH.

The Wonders of Math e2π iφ = cos 2π φ + i sin2π φ ea+bi = ea cos (b) + ea i sin (b)

***** eix = cos x + i sin x e-ix = cos (-x) + i sin (-x) = cos x – i sin x eix + e-ix = cos x + i sin x + cos x – i sin x = 2 cos x cos x = (eix + e-ix)/2 eix – e-ix = cos x + i sin x – (cos x – i sin x) = 2 i sin x sin x = (eix – e-ix)/2i

Sinusoids A sinusoid: a signal in the form of the sine or cosine function. (Sometimes, the terms sinusoidal and cosinusoidal are used.)

***** sin (A + B) = sin A cos B + cos A sin B sin (A – B) = sin A cos B – cos A sin B cos (A + B) = cos A cos B – sin A sin B cos (A – B) = cos A cos B + sin A sin B

***** sin (ωt ± 180◦) = − sin ωt cos (ωt ± 180◦) = − cos ωt sin (ωt ± 90◦) = ± cos ωt

cos (ωt ± 90◦) = ± sin ωt Using these relations, a sinusoid can be transformed from sine form to cosine form, or vice versa. A phasor is a complex number that represents the amplitude and phase of a sinusoid, but not its frequency. In circumstances in which only amplitude and phase are important, sinusoids are often expressed as phasors, which are more convenient to work with than sine and cosine functions. (Phasors furnish the ideal means of analyzing linear circuits, since, most of the time, all quantities in the circuit have the same frequency, so frequency isn’t a variable.)

Logicism “I invented a new subject, which turned out to be all mathematics, for the first time treated in its essence.” – Bertrand Russell (on completing the first draft of his book The Principles of Mathematics.) What does the ATTEMPT to reduce mathematics to logic signify? It is denying that mathematics is ontological. It’s asserting that logic – a kind of ultra precise language – is truer, higher and more fundamental than mathematics. It’s saying that the concept of a number has no meaning beyond one supplied by a human construct – the logic and theory of sets. In Illuminism, mathematics is ontological, analytic, eternal and a priori. That means that the whole of mathematics comes as a single package, with all elements interlocking with all other elements. Nothing can in fact be defined in isolation. No reductive process is possible. Everything is defined holistically with regard to everything else. The whole notion of “atomising” mathematics – of applying reductive techniques of logic to establish a set-based definition of “one” and “plus” in order to create a logical sentence of “one” “plus” “one” “equals” “two” is almost comical. We often loosely talk of monads as being the “atoms” of mathematics, and the ultimate product of a reductive analysis but, in truth, a monad is not a simple thing but an entire self-contained system of infinite mathematics, defining every number simultaneously. No part of a monad stands alone; every element is defined with respect to all the rest. That’s what it means for something to be eternally ontologically true.

A monad, objectively, is complete and consistent. It cannot contain any errors, inconsistencies, contradictions or incompleteness. Any of these would prove ontologically fatal and destroy the monad and indeed the universe (which is made of monads). Therefore, such problems are impossible ontologically. They simply can’t happen.

The Deadly Barber Let’s examine a classic problem of logic. It’s known as the “Barber Paradox” and goes like this: “The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?” The barber, being a man in town, can therefore be shaved by himself, or by the barber (but, of course, he IS the barber, so he would be shaving himself). If the barber shaves himself, then the barber (which happens to be himself) does NOT shave him, by the definition of the paradox. If the barber does not shave himself, then the barber must shave him, but he IS the barber! Either way, we have reached a logical impasse. There is no valid, consistent, logical solution. It’s the dreaded logical problem of selfreference. If logic were ontological (rather than a contingent language derived from mathematics), self-referential paradoxes would wipe out reality. Logic CANNOT be the basis of reality and it cannot be the basis of ontological mathematics. Logic falls apart under the stress of self-reference. In ontological mathematics, self-reference is attributed to the number zero, and the number zero has a unique status because it is part of objective mathematics, and it is also a SUBJECT. Ontologically, all logical absurdities can be shunted off into the subjective world where they can do no harm objectively. The Barber Paradox, or, more to the point, the absolutely deranged claims of Abrahamists, cannot undermine the fabric of reality, you’ll be relieved to hear. The objective fabric of the universe is protected from subjective madness. The two systems – objective and subjective – intersect at zero. Zero is perfectly well behaved analytically and objectively as long as self-reference is not involved. As soon as it is, zero flips to its subjective aspect (which acts as a firewall preventing logical contagion spreading to objective reality). Subjectivity is the perfect safety valve.

*****

What’s for certain is that logic does not provide the ontological basis of reality. Anything that makes a claim to be ontological must explain objectivity AND subjectivity. Science, like logic, has no means of explaining subjectivity. Only mathematics can, and does.

Illumination Illuminism may seem highly complex to some people but, in fact, it’s simply the rational and logical a priori investigation of “nothing” from a mathematical perspective. Science says that the universe erupted from “nothing” in the Big Bang event. We agree. It certainly did. So, what must the properties of “nothing” be to give rise to the world we see around us? When we explore “nothing”, we stumble upon negative numbers and positive numbers. We stumble across real and imaginary numbers. Above all, we stumble across infinity. “Nothing” is simply the mask worn by a seething ocean of mathematical activity. It is that activity which gives birth to the Big Bang and the universe. If you want to be an Illuminist, ponder, above all, nothing and infinity until you have fully understood that, mathematically, “something” and “nothing” cannot be distinguished, hence why we can answer Leibniz’s famous question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” There is not something rather than nothing. There is “nothing” that can be shown to be “something” and there is “something” that can be shown to be “nothing”. If that weren’t true, we wouldn’t be here. You cannot have something that is NOT, ultimately, nothing. Only mathematics explains this equivalence between something and nothing, and that’s why existence is 100% mathematical. Any other explanation of reality breaches the equivalence of something and nothing and creates an impossible situation where a non-zero state is allowed to exist in preference to a zero state. Zero is the lowest energy state, the ground state of the universe. Nothing can exist above the ground state. Even if it could, it would immediately cascade down to the ground state since that is a more stable state.

The Cosmological Argument 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Causal loops are impossible. 3. Infinitely long causal chains are impossible. 4. Therefore, there must be a First Cause (something that is NOT an effect).

***** According to the Cosmological Argument, the existence of the Universe demands an explanation. It’s assumed to have a cause – a First Cause – and that, in turn, is assumed to be God. Of course, there’s an immediate and fatal flaw with this argument. All it does is switch the argument to God: it’s his existence that now requires an explanation. What was the cause of his existence? You can’t say that a First Cause is needed to explain the world’s existence but, then, not needed to explain God’s existence. Either the First Cause has explanatory power, or it doesn’t. If it can’t explain itself then it has explained NOTHING. In fact, the issue of the First Cause is one of the ultimate questions. The First Cause argument is a Creationist argument, with God appointed the First Cause who then creates everything else. The corresponding “Eternalist Argument” denies that there is a First Cause or any need for a First Cause and asserts that a First Cause cannot exist in any case because what was ITS cause? The First Cause “explanation” is an example of “magic”. It’s a deus ex machina explanation. Deus ex machina means “a god from a machine”. The machina was a stage apparatus allowing actors playing gods to be suspended above the stage. In plays, it was the function of these gods to intervene in the action and resolve any difficulties, or communicate to the audience knowledge that only the gods could know (and could never be available to the human characters). Thus, figuratively, the expression refers to any convenient and exceptionally improbable (miraculous) resolution of any difficulty. Deus ex machina explanations are not explanations at all. They are the avoidance of explanation by explaining something in terms of something in even more need of explanation. If the universe is mysterious, how much more mysterious is its alleged Creator? No one who believes in causality can use First Cause explanations because the First Cause must itself have a cause, and that’s an obstacle that can’t be surmounted.

There is no logical difficulty with infinite causal regress, just as there is no logical difficulty with an infinite series in mathematics. There is no need for a first term in a series. The series of proper fractions has no formal first term and if you were to try to give it a first term then that term would be ZERO. This is the key point. All mysteries ultimately come back to two entities that can be understood only mathematically: zero and infinity. It’s absurd to look to “God” for an explanation. Only zero and infinity, only mathematics, can explain everything. Everything comes from nothing. Nothing requires no cause: it doesn’t require anything at all. Nothing can never not exist. It’s eternal. There can be no First cause of nothing. Yet nothing contains infinity since zero and infinity are Siamese twins, permanently bound together. Mathematics alone allows the First Cause Argument to be circumvented, and thus dispenses with a Creator God. The properties of nothing and infinity are the only entities that need be considered when the question of why anything exists at all is being addressed. The ONLY answer is that something and nothing are the same thing when properly understood – and that is mathematically enshrined in the indissoluble relationship between zero (nothing) and infinity (everything). You cannot separate zero from infinity, hence nothing and something cannot be treated as different things. They are always two aspects of the SAME thing – and that same thing is mathematics itself. Mathematics is the answer to everything. There is no other answer. The properties of numbers reveal all of the secrets of the universe. The whole of ontological mathematics is simply an expression of nothing at all – and that’s we’re all here!

The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. This is false in almost every way. There isn’t anything fundamental that “begins” to exist for the simple reason that all fundamental existents are

eternal, uncreated and uncaused. Nothing can come into existence or go out of existence. Everything can, however, be transformed. As with the standard Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Argument can’t address why the First Cause, uniquely, does not require a cause. Why should it be exempt? Why does it require special pleading? You can’t emphasize the importance of causality and then deny that the First Cause needs a cause.

***** Others have pointed out that even if God were, contrary to reason, accepted as the First Cause, his continued interaction with the Universe is not required. Within the terms of the argument, he could cease to exist as soon as he has initiated the causal chain – because that was his only required function. So, the First Cause Argument in fact offers no consolation to Abrahamists. Deism accepts that “God” created the Universe, but then asserts that he ceased to interact with it and it proceeds according to the entirely rational and inexorable laws he established. This is extremely close to atheism since a universe without a personal God who has a personal interest in the people of the world is of no use to any Abrahamist. Moreover, it’s not clear what function souls have, or an afterlife, or Divine Judgement have, in a Deist system. David Hume is frequently regarded as an atheist but Deism is just as compatible with his view. Even Richard Dawkins would be unable to attack Deism, except on the grounds of its being somewhat redundant. According to pandeism, the Creator of the universe actually became the universe, hence ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. This too is no good for people of faith. If mathematics is regarded as an unconscious living being then it can be said that it created the universe out of itself and thus became the universe and supplied all of its laws (mathematically). Hence, Illuminism can be seen as kind of pandeism.

Stoicism The Stoics said that the universe was a material, reasoning substance (God or Nature) which had two aspects, active and passive. Matter was the passive dimension that would do nothing without some kind of force being applied to it. The active element was Universal Reason (Logos). This is the

fiery, creative energy (pneuma – air and fire) which acts on the passive matter (water and earth) and takes the role of Platonic/Aristotelian Form. The universe itself is God. Passive matter is its body, and pneuma its mind, which permeates everything. The souls of people and animals are fragments, emanations or seeds of God’s mind, but are clouded by being trapped in matter and are full of emotion and desire rather than divine reason. The more rational people become, the more divine they are, and the more they understand the world and the Fate (inexorable rational, causal law) to which everything is subjected. The universe is a living being with one body and one soul that appears in countless fragments. This was a logical extension of Aristotle’s view that creative, active reason pre-existed human bodies and souls, hence did not perish when they did. This creative, active reason was nothing other than the divine spark itself, a fragment of God, unaffected by the base, animalistic part of the soul.

Plato The Platonic Argument from Opposites: Just as the living become dead, so the dead must become living. Life and death are in a perpetual cycle. Death is not a permanent end, and birth is not a permanent beginning. The Platonic Theory of Recollection asserts that learning is essentially an act of recollecting things we knew before we were born but then forgot. True knowledge is knowledge of the eternal and unchanging Forms that underlie perceptible reality. If we have innate knowledge, whence such knowledge? Plato contended that our soul was once a denizen of the perfect domain of eternal Forms and knew everything. We were all Gods. But even the Gods can fall. Temptation and desire overcome our rationality and plunge us into the hell of the material world. At birth, we forget all of the immortal knowledge we once had. Yet some innate fragments remain (mostly mathematical) and, through them, we can slowly but surely regain the lost knowledge of true reality: we can find our way back to heaven! The Platonic Argument from Affinity. There are immaterial, invisible, and immortal things, and there are material, visible, and perishable things.

The body belongs to the latter category. But what of the soul? We can’t see it, hear it, touch it, smell it or observe and detect it in way. Therefore, it must belong to the first category, so we can be rationally certain it is immortal. Plato asserted that a soul that does not properly detach from the body becomes a ghost that longs to return to the flesh. So, ghosts (shades) go to the Underworld (Hades) where they drink from the infernal River of Lethe and forget their previous life. They are then reincarnated. The philosopher’s soul on the other hand has achieved gnosis – complete rational enlightenment and understanding of the Forms. Such a soul completely detaches from the body and is free to dwell in heaven. Reason, not faith, is the passport to heaven – which is the worst possible news for all the irrational, ignorant, superstitious, stupid Abrahamic believers. They will NEVER reach heaven. The Platonic Theory of Forms. A Form is pure and perfect and does not admit its opposite. The Form of Beauty does not possess any trace of ugliness. It is always absolutely beautiful. The Form of Truth contains no lie. The Form of Justice is devoid of any injustice. The soul participates in the Form of Life. The Form of Life includes none of its opposite – death – hence the soul cannot in any way be affected by death. Hence, it is immortal. The soul is what animates us. We are alive purely because we have a soul. (Thus, an artificial intelligence could never be alive because it could never partake of the Form of Life and have a soul.) The soul does not die when the body dies. It simply becomes disconnected from the dead thing. The soul existed before the body did, and will exist after it has gone. The mortal world is but a poor shadow of the immortal “true earth” above us in the heavens. We will never be happy until we are restored to our true, immortal nature and existence. The domain of perfect Forms was originally a Pythagorean concept, and related solely to numbers (mathematics is all about perfect clarity and permanence). Plato extended it magnificently, but wrongly, to everything else, so that everything was a degraded material copy of a perfect Form. Here (in this world) nothing is clear and permanent. There (in heaven) everything is clear and permanent. The world of experience is false and illusory. The world of pure reason is true and real. There, all imperfections

are made perfect. All flaws become flawless. All base metal becomes incorruptible gold. Above this transient unsatisfying world of experience is a permanent satisfying world of the mind.

The Form of Life There is something remarkable about the Form of life. It’s the perfect idea of life, yet is not itself alive. In fact, this is true of all Forms. They are not the thing itself, but the idea of the thing. The Form of Beauty is not itself beautiful (it’s just another idea like all others). The Form of Justice is not itself just. The Form of a Horse is not itself a horse. There is a serious problem with Plato’s concept of a Form of Life given that it’s just an IDEA of life. Why should partaking in the idea of life give you immortal life? And does that mean that all dead things partake in the idea of death? But in order to partake in an idea, they must have a mind, a mind is a soul, and a soul partakes in the idea of life and is immortal! (To be fair to Plato, he did talk of mortal and immortal parts of the soul, and it’s only the latter that experience the Form of Life.) In Leibniz’s system, everything is a mind and therefore everything is alive and immortal. You cannot have two substances called life and death that interact with each other. They are opposites and cannot coexist. There is no sufficient reason to have the world made of two incompatible substances. Either everything is alive or everything is dead. The fact that we are alive proves that life is the only true mode of existence. What we call death isn’t death at all. It is the termination of a passage of life in a certain form, and is immediately replaced by life in a different form. Matter – the material world – is a mode of mind; in fact of all minds. In our dreams, we create new worlds every night. These dream worlds are not real: they are mental constructions. Similarly, the material world we experience is not a THING. Instead of being the subjective dream world we create when we’re asleep, the material world is the objective dream world created by ALL minds. It is as unreal (as mental) as a normal dream except, as the creation of infinite minds, it has to obey objective rather than subjective mathematical rules and that’s what gives it its seeming solidity and permanence. To repeat, the material world isn’t made of dead things: it’s made of the contents of living minds, hence is itself alive.

Philosophy

The three great rationalists were the continental philosophers Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. The three great empiricists were the British philosophers Locke, Hume and Berkeley. Kant was deemed the philosophical hero who reconciled rationalism and empiricism in his system of transcendental idealism. However, Kant’s system had at its core the notion of an unknowable noumenal true reality. The idea of reality being unknowable proved unacceptable to several great thinkers, and Fichte, Schelling and Hegel all quickly refuted Kant. In truth, Kant was an important philosopher (and many academic philosophers regard him as the greatest of all) who proved strangely irrelevant. British empiricism turned into Newtonian empiricist materialist science and departed from philosophy entirely. As for rationalism, it was replaced by the rationalist idealism of Hegel. This in turn was replaced by the political dialectical materialism of Marxism. As for Kant’s ideas, they were more or less left to rot except within the narrow confines of professional philosophy. Thus, whereas empiricism was swallowed by science, utopian political grand narratives ultimately swallowed rationalism and idealism. Kant’s only real successor was Schopenhauer, and his emphasis on the Will was transformed via Hartmann, Freud and Jung into psychology. As for “philosophy”, it gave way to the proto-existentialism of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche then to the full-blown existentialism of Heidegger and Sartre. Then it was swallowed by postmodernism: a kind of amalgam of politics, sociology, psychology, deconstructionism and literary criticism. Technical philosophy was swallowed by analytic philosophy based on logic and language, with people such as Russell and Wittgenstein at its fore. So, philosophy gradually disintegrated. Heidegger called Nietzsche the last metaphysician but Nietzsche was nothing like conventional philosophers. In fact, he wasn’t technically a philosopher at all but a classical philologist. The last towering philosopher in the great philosophical tradition was unquestionably Hegel. In a way, Hegel killed philosophy. He was the last great system builder and his system was so all encompassing that there wasn’t really anything else left to be done. He himself believed he had communicated the Mind of God to the world. No thinker after Hegel attempted a giant philosophical Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Marx was a system builder, but he simply stole

Hegel’s dialectical system and made it materialist rather than idealist, and he switched the emphasis to economics, politics and sociology. In fact, after Hegel, the general tendency was to scoff at vast systems and grand narratives. If Hegel was the ultimate holist, afterwards philosophy became extremely reductive and fragmentary and began to eat itself. Up to Hegel, the idea was to put everything together and establish a definitive meaning; after, it was about pulling everything apart and declaring most of philosophy to be meaningless. Wittgenstein on one hand, and postmodernism on the other, assassinated philosophy as a serious enterprise. Illuminism is the last and final all-encompassing philosophical system. It might be called the synthesis of Leibniz’s idealist rationalism and Hegel’s rationalist idealism, but mathematicised. Just as grand philosophy died after Hegel, all scientific attempts to construct a Grand Unified Theory of Everything will end once Illuminism becomes well known. There’s nowhere left to go. We have covered every base. The only remaining task for human thinking is to rationally and dialectically perfect every detail of Illuminism. The “big picture” is now complete. Nothing will ever replace Illuminism. It’s the culmination of humanity’s intellectual tradition. It’s the end of the line. Why? Because it has identified mathematics as the supreme truth. There’s nowhere beyond mathematics.

The Great Science Hoax Science is not an intellectual subject. It is an instrumental METHOD for creating an evidence-based collection of useful facts and hypotheses. However, the scientific edifice can’t sustain any serious intellectual scrutiny. It’s almost laughably irrational and anti-philosophical, full of dubious ad hoc propositions with no proper philosophical foundations. Consider the question of scientific laws, the very essence of science. What is the meaning of these laws? Well over two thousand years ago, Plato separated Forms from matter then Aristotle brought Forms and matter together. What “improvements” has scientific materialism made to their views? Well, we now have things (matter – just as Plato and Aristotle had) and we have laws that control matter – exactly as Plato and Aristotle had

Forms that controlled matter. So, “scientific laws” are just a different take on ancient Forms, and aren’t even all that different. Scientific materialism asserts that all that exists is matter. Yet scientific laws aren’t material, so this assertion is immediately refuted! Science is false right from the get go. All matter decays, but scientific laws don’t. They are eternal, immaterial and never change regardless of how much matter changes. In other words, scientific laws sit like Platonic Forms in an immaterial domain of eternal perfection and immutability. So much for materialism! In another respect, scientific laws are immanently embedded in matter, exactly as Aristotle said of Forms with regard to matter. So, scientific laws are both transcendent and immanent – which is exactly the definition of mind with regard to matter! Ironically, scientific laws PROVE that scientific materialism is false because they themselves demonstrate that there is more to existence than mere matter. Scientists are forever creating new scientific hypotheses, theories and laws and yet not one of them ever stops to ponder what a scientific law actually is. Where is it? Why is it? How did it come to be? Where was it before the Big Bang? How does a scientific law interact with matter if doesn’t belong to the same substance? How do material things “know” how to obey scientific laws? Is “matter” versus “immaterial scientific laws” another version of Cartesian matter-mind dualism, with all of the problems that entails? Incredibly, science calls itself calls itself a rational, intellectual discipline and yet it has shown not one jot of interest in its own validity and whether or not it actually makes any sense. Science is pure pragmatism and instrumentalism. It’s not about TRUTH, it’s about getting results. Experiments are used as a blunt-force weapon to bludgeon all opposition. A successful experiment is deemed evidence of the correctness of a hypothesis, but an experiment does NOTHING AT ALL to clarify the meaning and rationality of any hypothesis. No experiment ever addresses philosophical considerations and rigour, and that’s exactly what science is lacking. That’s why it’s just a collection of ad hoc ideas. Science’s catastrophic failure to produce a Grand Unified Theory of Everything stems precisely from the fact that it has failed to address the

fundamental philosophical questions relating to the meaning of science and existence. How can you establish a law of everything if you don’t know what or where a law is and how it interacts with things? In Illuminism, the laws are encoded in the basic particles of existence themselves – monads. In fact, there is only one law: Euler’s Formula (the God Equation). The whole of mathematics flows from Euler’s Formula applied to infinite monads organised in a 6D Cartesian-Gaussian complex grid. The “laws” and the “things they control” are one and the same thing! “Matter” and “form” are indistinguishable. The universe is a hologram. Each part is in the whole, and the whole is in each part. Everything is immanent and transcendent with regard to everything else. The whole universe is mathematically contained within a single point. One point contains infinite points. There is nothing else. The One point is alive and has a mind. All the points within it are alive and have a mind. This system, no matter how weird and contrary to “common sense” it might seem (it’s a lot less weird than the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which denies objective reality, denies that the moon is still there when no one is looking at it, and says a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time!), provides a complete rational explanation of everything. There are no mysteries or oddities in this system. There is nothing ad hoc. Everything that science fails to answer, Illuminism answers.

Islam and Education 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 God himself – so what need is there for anything else? It’s blasphemy to suggest otherwise. And blasphemers must be killed!

Bad Decisions Most human beings have utterly hopeless decision-making abilities. Over and over again, they make the wrong decisions. They are driven by impulse, faith, emotion, laziness, apathy, ignorance and everything irrational. They have no knowledge base, no self-control, no self-discipline and a

rudimentary education. No wonder they keep screwing up. It’s time for the world to become rational.

Bergson Henri Bergson believed that modern science undermined human values. In fact, it undermines life itself since it essentially says that human beings are androids programmed by inescapable causality, hence have no free will. Values are therefore meaningless since no one could ever have behaved differently. Bergson asserted that the universe was a moving, developing, growing, living, BECOMING thing and accused science of cutting slices out of it and then telling us that these lifeless slices were reality. Imagine trying to understand a human being via bits of the body that have been cut off and put in a formaldehyde jar. Sure, we can learn all manner of “facts” but do we learn anything about what it is to be human? Imagine we found a dead alien and we carried out the most detailed autopsy on it. Would we learn a single thing about how it thought, how it felt, how it behaved, how it experienced things, how it LIVED? Even Neanderthal Man is a mystery to us. Science always ignores life or kills life and then tells us that its analysis of death is true reality. It would consider the dead alien’s body as a machine and it would construct a machinelike description of it, but at no point would it capture the life of the alien. Science can NEVER capture this. Bergson said that life is reality. Science’s reductive, analytical “slices”, which he regarded as dead, were unreal or irrelevant to life. A human being is a gestalt: more than the sum of its parts. It CANNOT be reduced to mere parts. Science reduces everything to reductive parts, hence completely misses the whole – yet it’s the whole that constitutes the thing’s quintessence. In many ways, you capture almost nothing of a living thing by studying its parts. You could study human brain cells forever and never learn a single thing about minds, qualia, feelings, ambitions, love, desire. The universe is made of slices, in a manner of speaking (if we focus on localism rather than the non-local), but is not defined by these slices. It’s not a car that can be disassembled and understood perfectly in terms of its parts. Only non-living things can be reduced in that way. Science’s trouble is that it reduces everything in that way, including life and mind, and then

proclaims that it has provided the best way of understanding reality. If reality is alive then science knows almost NOTHING about reality. Bergson defined the universe in terms of a process of “creative evolution” – a vast unfolding of becoming which was radically unpredictable and creating new, unexpected and unimaginable things. No one has any idea where this creative evolution is taking us. It doesn’t know itself. Anything is possible. The future is completely unknown and undetermined. Over and over again, Bergson emphasized that science only analyzes. It doesn’t synthesize. It never gets to the dynamic, vital essence. It is a perpetual process of autopsy, always missing the life. It kills life in order to study life, and that must be the most idiotic undertaking ever. It studies living WHOLES by analysing dead PARTS. It reduces, dissects and separates organic, living, holistic reality. It is all about the local and never about the non-local. Science works only on machinelike things. It is hopeless in regard to all the important things: life, mind, consciousness and free will. All of these things are FOREVER beyond science. Bergson created an Aristotelian-style scheme involving traditional dead matter on the one hand and, on the other, a living, teleological element: a vital force that he called élan vital. Bergson’s was a dynamic, dualist system in which a vast vital impulse sought to manage recalcitrant, inert matter: life struggled with non-life (matter) which resisted and opposed life. Bergson characterized reality in terms of two opposing tendencies. Life was making reality – sculpting it. Matter was unmaking reality – wrecking everything (like scientific entropy). Élan vital manifested itself in endless novel ways as it existentially wrestled with matter, and it was this struggle that drove “creative evolution”. Anything might happen in the future. No one could ever know what élan vital would try next. Life ascends; matter descends. Matter is the mountain that offers resistance to the climber. Matter, just as the Gnostics said, is a trap, a prison for the life force. The soul is forever striving to break free and express itself fully in its own terms, unrestricted by material constraints. In Aristotelian terms, élan vital is always striving to become matterless form, i.e. GOD.

“The whole evolution of life on our planet is an effort of this essentially creative force to arrive, by traversing matter, at something which is only realized in man and which, even in man, is realized only imperfectly.” – Bergson Bergson said that the universe could be understood in terms of intuition versus thinking. The thinking aspect is analytic, deductive, systematic and sequential. It focuses on dead, inert matter, which it views in mechanical terms. This type of thinking is what defines science. Scientists overwhelmingly belong to the thinking SENSING type, with the senses being very much focused on matter and externality rather than interiority. For Bergson, intuition, unlike thinking, drew from the life force itself and was synthetic, holistic, and could grab insights all at once – by flashes of inspiration – rather than plodding along linearly. Have you EVER heard a scientific explanation of intuition? How on earth can answers to immensely complex things simply be presented to intuitives in a dazzling flash of insight? Bergson aligned intuition with the élan vital and thinking with dead matter. Thinking, as science proves, tells us about dead, inert things. Only intuition reveals the true workings of life. Thinking was artificial; intuition was REAL. Bergson, the great intuitive, is an advocate of life, action, creativity, vitalism and unconstrained freedom. So, if you want to apprehend reality, you must turn to intuition, not thinking. If you’re not intuitive – too bad! Reality is not for you, the truth is not for you. Empiricist materialist science is the best you can do.

Matter One of the key concepts in understanding the universe is that of “matter”. What, exactly, is it? Is it a substance, a thing, something completely independent of mind (or indeed that gives rise to mind as materialists insist)? Bergson conceived of matter as something inert, sluggish and resistant to life. He didn’t deem it a “thing” per se but rather something that seems like a thing to the human intellect. In other words, he was really saying it was a kind of mode of mind, a very low, unproductive mode.

It’s useful to consider Aristotle’s notions of a) potential versus actualization, and b) active, creative reason versus passive, uncreative reason. Matter, for Bergson, is mind potential as opposed to mind actualization. It is inert, sluggish and resistant because it doesn’t know what it is and of what it’s capable. In Hegel’s terms, it is alienated mind seeking to find itself. Mind is active; matter is mind in its passive mode. Modern Illuminism applies a radically different definition. Matter is the product of COLLECTIVE mental activity, and mind itself is simply individual mental activity. The reason why we find “matter” so sluggish, inert and resistant is that we are literally pushing against the minds of all other things. None of us can overcome this collective, objective mental barrier – unless we acquire the power of the Gods, like Neo in The Matrix who learns how to reprogram the Matrix at will. Matter IS the Matrix: the collective simulation of “physicality” into which we all mentally tune. We are all individual minds and what we inhabit is the collective mind – which we call the objective material world. When we dream, we leave the objective material world, so all of its rules disintegrate. When we wake, we once again enter the collective dream that seems so solid and unshakeable. We have no ability to change this because it is imposed by infinite minds.

***** Bertrand Russell was a notorious critic of Bergson and did the most to destroy Bergson’s reputation, so much so that Bergson is barely known now. This is a tragedy because Bergson was a far more interesting thinker than Russell, though neither man joined the ranks of the great. Wittgenstein, Russell’s protégé, came to be quite contemptuous of Russell, finding him a limited, pedestrian thinker, and there’s no question that this is the correct assessment of Russell. Russell’s greatest achievement was his book A History of Western Philosophy, which we often quote, although it contains ridiculously negative assessments of geniuses such as Hegel and Nietzsche. Brilliant in some places, it’s all too often a bland, liberal, privileged English Lord’s take on the world. Writing of Bergson’s treatment of intellect, Russell said:

“The account of the doings of intellect is not always easy to follow, but if we are to understand Bergson we must do our best. “Intelligence or intellect, ‘as it leaves the hands of nature, has for its chief object the inorganic solid’; it can only form a clear idea of the discontinuous and immobile; its concepts are outside each other like objects in space, and have the same stability. The intellect separates in space and fixes in time; it is not made to think evolution, but to represent becoming as a series of states. ‘The intellect is characterized by a natural inability to understand life’; geometry and logic, which are its typical products, are strictly applicable to solid bodies, but elsewhere reasoning must be checked by common sense, which, as Bergson truly says, is a very different thing. Solid bodies, it would seem, are something which mind has created on purpose to apply intellect to them, much as it has created chessboards in order to play chess on them. The genesis of intellect and the genesis of material bodies, we are told, are correlative; both have been developed by reciprocal attention. ‘An identical process must have cut out matter and the intellect, at the same time, from a stuff that contained both.’ “This conception of the simultaneous growth of matter and intellect is ingenious, and deserves to be understood. Broadly, I think, what is meant is this: Intellect is the power of seeing things as separate one from another, and matter is that which is separated into distinct things. In reality there are no separate solid things, only an endless stream of becoming, in which nothing becomes and there is nothing that this nothing becomes. However, becoming may be a movement up or down: when it is a movement up it is called life, when it is a movement down it is what, as misapprehended by the intellect, is called matter. I suppose the universe is shaped like a cone, with the Absolute at its vertex, for the movement up brings things together, while the movement down separates them, or at least seems to do so.” In terms of Illuminism, what Bergson calls “intellect” equates to the left brain performing localist, reductive, analytic, inverse Fourier transform processing while “intuition” equates to right brain, holistic, synthetic, nonlocal Fourier transform processing. It is indeed the activity of the left brain that GENERATES our concept of the material world – so Bergson was right!

*****

“For Leibniz, the world consisted of nothing but point-particles of energy permanently expressed in motion. This energy was the source not only of the activities of physical objects (in particular, kinetic energy), but also of their passive aspect, or matter itself, which just was the energy to resist penetration or acceleration, and to react to applied forces.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz If you want to grasp reality, you must overcome the illusion that matter is independent of mind and can exist without it. Matter simply is mind in a particular mode – the collective mode. Imagine that we all dreamt collectively using an agreed set of rules (objective mathematics). How could any ordinary mind overcome the collective power of infinite minds all obeying mathematical laws? Only Gods that can alter mathematical functions with their all-powerful mathematical minds can change objective reality as if it were the subjective reality of their dreams.

***** “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” – Albert Einstein To be more precise, energy is mental energy that comes from monads. Not only is there no matter, it’s actually MIND!

Music Germanic culture – based on the Faustian strivings of Goethe and the idealism of its brilliant philosophers – produced composers of the stature of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Händel, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Strauss and Wagner. Britain, with its culture of pragmatism, empiricism, materialism and commerce produced virtually no great composers. Elgar and Holst are perhaps the only ones who could get anywhere near the Germans. Napoleon contemptuously referred to the English as a “nation of shopkeepers” and that is probably the best-ever description of the English. They are small-minded, insular, petty people with their eye on the bottom line and no interest in visionary schemes. The British “empire” was built on the tactic of heavily armed British forces going to technologically backward parts of the world, massacring the indigenous populations and stealing all of

their resources to make themselves rich. Just think of what the Americans did to the “Red Indians” – that’s what Britain did to the real Indians, the Africans, the Irish and the West Indians. To this day, they imperialistically occupy the Falkland Islands, 8,000 miles from Britain, and the North of Ireland is still under anti-democratic British occupation (if an all-Ireland referendum were held on the future of Ireland, the Irish people would of course overwhelmingly vote for reunification). The British were looters and murderers on an epic scale, and all in the name of free-market capitalism and Christianity, of course. They were prime movers in the slave trade and routinely reduced everyone they conquered to effective slavery. In 1791, when English slave abolitionist William Wilberforce tried to push through his first bill to abolish the Slave Trade, the bishops of the Church of England sitting in the House of Lords unanimously opposed it! The Church of England ran a slave plantation in the West Indies. Individual bishops personally “owned” hundreds of slaves and demanded compensation when the Slave Trade was ended. Well, that’s English Christianity for you – pure, unscrupulous capitalism and love of money. The British have no souls, which is why they rejected idealism and rationalism. They are mired in materialism and worship of the senses. A nation’s philosophical attitudes affect every part of society. There is nothing more important than a nation’s chosen philosophy. Make sure you choose the right one.

***** Why did Hitler enthrall Germany? Why did a genius like Heidegger take Nazism seriously? Why was Jung accused of having Nazi sympathies? Why was Nietzsche regarded as the unofficial philosopher of Nazism? Why have Britain and America NEVER produced people of the calibre of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Goethe, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Freud, Jung, Adler? Why was Austro-Germanic culture so much more interested in IDEAS than MONEY? Britain and America have always been obsessed with materialism, with consumerism, with money and status. They have almost zero spirituality. German culture was IDEALIST. The Germans were the great Faustian dreamers.

Hitler succeeded in taking over Germany because he tapped into the German dream of something new and wondrous. Above all, Hitler offered an escape from CHRISTIANITY. Anyone can see that Christianity has failed. It’s so far past its sell-by date it’s rancid and putrid. No idealist could ever be content with this abomination. However, for the British and Americans who aren’t remotely interested in ideas and spirituality, the ersatz spirituality provided by Christianity gives them the “hit” they need while they get on with the serious business of being materialists and obsessing over money. World “history” is nothing of the kind. It’s actually world philosophy and, even more to the point, the progress of national psychological types. You have a complete understanding of America when you realize that it primarily expresses ESFJ and ESFP values. It’s all about extraversion, action, sensations, excess emotionality, sentimentality and nostalgia. It’s wholly materialistic and not reined back at all by reason and intuition, by the introverted values of the mind. America began as a “mini-me” version of the British Empire, and now Britain, denuded of its Empire, is simply “mini-me” America, saved from being equally gross purely because it has a long European history which it allows it to be rooted in another tradition. America and Britain are the supreme materialist nations, while Germany remains the archetypal idealist nation – which is why Germany can still be the Nation of Destiny that liberates the world from the enslavement of Judaeo-Christianity, free market capitalism and materialism. For all its horrors and madness, Nazi Germany had elements that might have proved glorious, and it was with these elements that geniuses such as Heidegger sympathized. If people such as Heidegger, Jung and Nietzsche led Nazism, rather than a racist lunatic such as Hitler, Nazism might have proved the greatest force of good that demolished Abrahamism and materialist freemarket capitalism. Changing the world is not about changing policies and tinkering with this and that. It’s about changing whole paradigms. It’s about replacing old philosophies, institutions and cultures. It’s about changing the psychological type of nations. You must transform EVERYTHING to have a New World. It must be a Revolutionary change. If we want a world completely different from this one, introverted values must replace extraverted values, reason must replace faith, ignorance and superstition, Logos must replace Mythos and faith, idealism must replace

materialism, rationalism must place empiricism, thinking values must replace feeling values and intuition must replace sensing. The world is basically the inverse of what it ought to be. It is Satanic rather than Godly. Above all, it remains fundamentally BESTIAL, i.e. rooted in humanity’s animal ancestry. Most people are just glorified brutes and beasts. Many even choose to have “pets” so that they can get even closer to their true, familiar animal level. How many dogs study philosophy? How many dog owners study philosophy?

Hollywood Values It can’t be stressed enough how much “Hollywood values” have influenced the world over the last century. They are now being increasingly supplemented by the values of American TV. The American media has much the same influence as religion. The American media is of course all about Mythos, pressed into service in the name of making huge profits for the capitalist media moguls.

Britain – the Home of Privilege Britain has a queen, a prime minister from the world’s most elitist school, and a cabinet of privately educated millionaires from privileged families. Britain is a nation mired in privilege, nepotism and cronyism. There is almost no social mobility. That all stems from the British “culture” and “philosophy”.

The Insanity We have had TWO THOUSAND YEARS of the doctrines of the Christians, and even longer of the beliefs of the Jews. We have had fourteen hundred years of the Koran. No Abrahamist can complain that they haven’t had ample time to make the world a wonderful place. They have had that time and they have utterly failed. We have had modern science for around five hundred years and, regardless of its truth content, it has transformed our world for the better. It has WORKED. Why would any rational person continue to support failed religion and oppose successful science? It’s insane. Why is Illuminism the only acceptable religion? Because it’s all about the truth and the successful transformation of the world. Illuminism asserts that the Philosopher’s Stone that works the greatest wonders of all is not science, but the hyperrationalist subject on which science’s success is founded: mathematics. Mathematics is both truth and wonder. It is the most transformative subject conceivable. A world of ten billion mathematically literate human beings will be a world of Gods, and we will all be living in paradise!

Jung’s Personality Type Jung classified himself initially as a scientist (ISTP) and later as more philosophical (INTP). Others have said that he was actually an INFJ, and we would concur with this. The ISTP case: “As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious.” Jung, Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar, 1925 The INTP Case: “I most certainly was characterized by Thinking … and I had a great deal of iNtuition, too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. … I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for diagnosis.” – Jung, the BBC Interview, Face to Face, 1959 The INFJ Case It’s obvious that Jung was astoundingly intuitive and actually did his thinking “intuitively”. What is also clear is that he was not a man who made the sort of very careful and technical arguments you would expect from a scientist, philosopher or mathematician. He was a highly emotional man, who had several breakdowns. It seems as though he was in complete denial about how much of a feeling type he was. Introverted intuition feeling types usually have a highly profound and mystical comprehension of reality (as in Eastern religion) whereas introverted intuition thinking types have an extremely technical intuition about reality (Leibniz being a perfect example). Jung is no Leibniz, and nor could Leibniz ever have had Jung’s insights into psychology.

Different Philosophies Different Jungian personality types cultivate different philosophies. Bertrand Russell said that philosophies of feeling are inspired by the love of

happiness, theoretical philosophies are inspired by the love of knowledge and practical philosophies are inspired by the love of action. So, feeling types will be attracted to philosophies of feeling, which will in fact probably be expressed non-philosophically through art, music, romance, poetry, literature, movies, TV shows and faith-based religion. Thinking types will love theoretical philosophies. Intuitive types will be attracted to grand, all-embracing, often mystical ideas going far beyond what is apparent to the senses. Sensing types will be attracted to action philosophies, but these will normally be manifested in terms of politics, business, economics, banking, trading, fast cars, shoot ‘em up computer games and dangerous sports. Thinking sensing types are typical scientists; thinking intuitives are typical philosophers and mathematicians, feeling sensing types are typical Abrahamists, and feeling intuitives are often attracted to Eastern religions of enlightenment. We are all prisoners of our personalities, but some personalities are much more useful than others for apprehending the truth of existence.

The Worst Nightmare Thinking sensing types – the “scientists” – believe they are smart and that they have discovered the only valid way to make sense of the world: the scientific method, based on sensory observations, implying that only the sensory is real. The Hologram is therefore their worst nightmare. The hologram is dualistic. It presents a sensory representation of information, but the information itself is contained in a wholly non-sensory wave interference pattern. So, here we have INCONTESTABLE PROOF that sensory data is not the only truth of the world. At the very least, we can say that an alternative frequency representation is every bit as valid. However, we can then make a devastating second claim: there is activity that takes place in the frequency representation that is NOT reflected in the sensory representation because there are restrictions that apply to the sensory representation that do not apply to the frequency representation. Above all, we can say that mind – thinking; mental activity – occurs in the frequency domain but is in no way reflected in the sensory representation. You cannot hear, see, taste, touch or smell the contents of the mind. Thoughts are never “visible” or “palpable”. The hologram refutes the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Reality IS a hologram. The left hemisphere of our brain (consciousness) deals with the sensory, spacetime, local, materialist representation, and the right hemisphere (the unconscious) deals with the non-local, immaterial, frequency-based information. What could be simpler and more obvious? What could be an easier explanation of the mystery of the conscious and unconscious minds? Our senses have evolved in such a way as to convince us that “Star Wars-style” holograms are real and solid rather than shimmering, translucent and distinctly unsolid. Material “reality” is, in truth, ghostly – but our senses make it “concrete”. It’s all a mental, mathematical illusion. The most important realization you can come to is that there is no “solid” world; that solidity is the supreme illusion. Once you get rid of the concept of inherently solid things, you can start to grasp that reality has nothing to do with tangible “things” but simply with mathematical patterns – wave combinations, frequencies, amplitudes and phases.

We live in an information universe, not a material universe. The scientists have committed an error as serious as Abrahamism in deceiving us about the true nature of reality with their experimental, ad hoc, sensory nonsense.

Conclusion “But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” – Kurt Gödel Feeling types seek emotional reassurance. Faith is all about a wish fulfilment fantasy where everything turns out just right. Feeling types have no rational basis for their beliefs. Their beliefs simply “feel right”. You wouldn’t want to go to the stake on the basis of an irrational “gut feeling”. Sensing types need sensory evidence. Doubting Thomas needs to be able to put his hands against Christ’s wounds in order to accept the “reality” of resurrection. Doubting Thomas was a “scientist” seeking evidence, keen to perform “experiments”. Unless something is concrete to his senses, he won’t accept its reality. Of course, the human senses are staggeringly easy to deceive. Just go and watch a performance by any illusionist! You wouldn’t want to go to the stake on the basis of “seeing is believing”. Sensing and feeling can never yield the truth of existence. Animals are locked in the sensing and feeling domain and you wouldn’t consult them about the nature of reality, would you? Most humans are little more than animals and are imprisoned in the same irrational domain. Scientists debase their reason by seeking to explain reality through only what they observe and detect with their senses. Why should reality be a sensory phenomenon? Is thinking itself a sensory phenomenon? Since when have we been able to see thoughts or touch them? Since when they have been part of the sensory domain? Materialism asserts of itself that it is the only reality, and it does so via inexplicable, unobservable, immaterial thoughts! “Intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof.” – Kurt Gödel Intuitive types have an internal epiphany and just “know” that something is right. However, even though a genuine intuition is ALWAYS right in some

sense, it can easily be misinterpreted. Much of Eastern religion is highly intuitive, but absurd concepts such as karma have been introduced into the mix. You might be justified on going to the stake on the basis of a very powerful intuition. “The a priori is greatly neglected. Logic is very powerful.” – Kurt Gödel Thinking types aren’t interested in feelings (religious faith) or sensory data (scientific experiments), and don’t trust intuitions if they have not been placed within a rational system. Thinking types follow the diktats of reason and will rationally go to the stake on that basis. A thinking rationalist is asserting that the universe is constructed on the basis of rational principles that any rationalist can work out for himself, and gain CERTAIN knowledge. A Hyperrationalist is someone who asserts that rationalism is valid only within a context of necessary, analytic, immutable, eternal a priori truths and that these can be supplied by one subject alone – mathematics. Hyperrationalism is therefore the philosophy that reality is 100% mathematical. Nothing else exists. A hyperrationalist pays zero attention to faith and experiments. He is happy to use intuition to ascertain mathematical truths since mathematics can present itself in countless different ways and can’t simply be worked out by plodding, linear methods. Only flashes of intuition reveal the immense, cosmic patterns of mathematics. A hyperrationalist will normally be extremely intuitive. The two most famous hyperrationalists are Gödel and his hero, humanity’s greatest of all geniuses: Leibniz. So, which is it? Are you directed by your feelings, your senses, your intuition, your reason or your mathematical, intuitive hyperreason? If you have to go to the stake, on which basis will it be? Will you proclaim the truth of a feeling, a sensory fact, an intuition, reason, or mathematics?! Mathematics alone explains everything. Mathematics alone is truth. In hoc signo vinces.

1+1=2