Ontological Mathematics for the Curious: An Introduction to Ontological Thinking

Table of contents :
TITLE PAGE
THE NEW PARADIGM
NOWHERE TO GO
THE FAILURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
EMPTY AND BLIND
OCCAM’S RAZOR
DECREE AND ABSTRACTION
PARTICULARS VERSUS UNIVERSALS
CONCLUSION

Citation preview

ONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS FOR THE CURIOUS An Introduction to Ontological Thinking

Dr. Cody Newman Copyright © Dr. Cody Newman 2019 All rights reserved

Table of Contents Ontological Mathematics for the Curious The New Paradigm Nowhere to Go The Failure of the Scientific Method Empty and Blind Occam’s Razor Decree and Abstraction Particulars versus Universals Conclusion

THE NEW PARADIGM a new kid on the block, a subject that can revolutionize humanity’s understanding of T here’s reality, while being completely rational and logical, and scrupulously avoiding faith and mysticism. It’s the long-awaited replacement for science. Only one subject can take over from science and that is the subject that is already at the core of science and gives it all of its power and success, namely mathematics. Science without mathematics is unthinkable. Mathematics without science suffers from no deficiency at all. Science is irrelevant to mathematics, while mathematics defines science. The great mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss said, “Mathematics is the queen of the sciences.” If mathematics is the queen, why do we need the pawns at all? For mathematics to remove science from the picture, only one thing needs to be done: mathematics must be assigned an ontology. Once mathematics is regarded as real and concrete, rather than unreal and abstract, everything changes. There is simply no further need or place for science. You’re probably imagining that this can’t be done – that science can never be dislodged – but aren’t you even slightly curious about whether it’s possible? If mathematics rather than science defines reality, reality becomes a radically different thing. Materialism is overthrown, and with materialism goes atheism, nihilism, skepticism, cynicism, and the hatred of mind, consciousness and free will that characterizes materialist thinking. Einstein wrote, “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.” With mathematics, which defines the immaterialism of the mind, everything becomes soluble, and all secrets are revealed. Mathematics is the subject par excellence for finding answers. If you want final answers, you must turn to the only subject that can deliver them, and that is mathematics. Only a mathematical universe has an exact answer, an exact definition, an exact formula – the formula for existence itself. Only mathematics can sweep away all the supposed unfathomable mysteries of existence. A mathematical universe, unlike a scientific universe, can support “God” (a Hive-Mind God, not a monotheistic God), the soul (an eternal soul, not something created), the mind (an autonomous frequency domain that performs Fourier mathematics), directed evolution (it’s purposeful mind, not purposeless matter and randomness, that drives evolution), singularities, immaterial entities, non-space and non-time, eternity and necessity, and the afterlife (only physical bodies die; eternal minds never do). If science is true, religion and spirituality are dead. If ontological mathematics is true, religion and spirituality are born again, but in nothing like the terms pronounced by mainstream religion. Mainstream religion is about Mythos – a bunch of stories told by prophets and gurus and set down in “holy” books and “sacred” scriptures. Mathematical religion is about Logos. No one gets to use stories. Now the medium of religion is reason, logic, and mathematics. Religion is now all about equations, formulae, calculations, calculus, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, and so on. A single book on elementary mathematics contains more knowledge, wisdom and truth than all the Mythos religions inflicted on the human race put together. What comes out at the end is not a belief system, but the ultimate knowledge system, based on the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), the sole rational means for explaining why

everything is thus and not otherwise. Ontological mathematics is simply the PSR turned into a complete and consistent, fully coherent and analytic system that can address and answer any conceivable problem. If you want the rational truth of existence, if you want to know the meaning and purpose of life, you have nowhere to go except ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the universal language that supports the sacred geometry and sacred algebra of the cosmos. Forget everything you have been taught to think about religion and spirituality. It’s all irrational nonsense. The rational truth is much stranger and weirder. We are all in an enormous cosmic calculator, furiously calculating the answer to perfection, and we are all nodes in the calculator and calculation, helping the cosmos to arrive at the right answer and become God. We ourselves are an essential part of the answer. The universe is not complete until each of us is individually complete. Where would you conceal the answer to existence if you wanted no one to ever find it? You would hide it in the subject most hated by humanity, most dreaded by humanity, most difficult for humanity, most avoided by humanity, the one humanity believes is the most abstract and least connected to reality. Mathematics is all of that. Why hasn’t humanity found the answer to existence? It’s because it has explicitly shunned the sole subject capable of providing it. It has accepted anything other than mathematics. It has looked everywhere other than the right place. The last place it would ever think to look is the only place where the answer can rationally be found. Humanity has failed to find the answer to existence because there is only one place where that answer resides, and infinite places where it does not reside, and humanity has far preferred to explore the infinite wrong answers rather than the one right answer. The irony is that this is factored into the cosmic equation. How would we experience all of the incredible wonders of existence if we went straight to the right answer and solved the puzzle immediately, rather than circling around it for countless millennia? We are all in the orbit of a unique Strange Attractor, the final answer to everything, upon which all of existence will finally converge. Gary Taubes wrote, “…chaos has its own pattern, a peculiar kind of order. This pattern is known whimsically as a strange attractor, because the chaotic system seems to be strangely attracted to an ideal behavior.” The Strange Attractor is the state of a mathematically chaotic system toward which the system trends. An attractor is called “strange” if it has a fractal structure. Ontological mathematics is all about one system composed of myriad units – monads, which are eternal minds comprised of mathematical sinusoidal waves – and how these relate to each other and the whole. At the Big Bang, the whole disintegrates and each monad becomes a fragment, a fractal. Benoit Mandelbrot said, “A fractal is a shape made of parts similar to the whole in some way.” He coined “fractal” from the Latin frāctus, meaning “broken” or “fractured”. Ontological mathematics is a unique fractal system because all of the “broken” units necessarily start off as identical, not merely similar, and all necessarily end as identical, not merely similar. A convergent dialectical system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis brings the fragmentary system to a perfect, absolute unity, yet the very fact of the dialectic – involving a constant clash of opposites as its primary driver – means that no process could be messier and more “violent” than this one. Mathematical nature is red in tooth and claw.

Ontological mathematics is a system based on only one thing – mathematical waves (sinusoids). The fundamental assertion of ontological mathematics is that monadic minds made of sinusoids can explain the whole of reality, literally 100% of everything. Hard to believe? Well, isn’t it time you discovered the incredible, wondrous, astounding properties of mathematical waves, the entities from which existence is made? These mathematical waves are the basis components of minds. They are the basis thoughts of eternal minds. One wave is one simple thought and when you combine simple thoughts, you create complex thoughts, as complex as you like, just as simple letters produce words, and words produce endless books. You think mathematics cannot explain love? Mathematics is what love actually is. Love, perfect love, is zero mathematical entropy, where everything is perfectly combined in a perfect unity. Curious? Then come inside and have your mind well and truly blown.

NOWHERE TO GO moment, intelligent people have nowhere to go other than science, yet science commits A tallthethose people who subscribe to it to perhaps the most bizarre worldview ever devised by the human mind, a worldview rejected by 100% of humanity in past ages. Let’s go through some of the key positions you are signing up to if you believe that science is the only way to understand reality: 1)

Existence is meaningless. Meaning appears nowhere in science. It is never once referenced. Science believes that reality can be explained without any concept of meaning.

2)

Existence is purposeless. When the scientific worldview took over from the Aristotelian worldview, one of the first things science did was to remove purpose. Where purpose was essential to Aristotle’s understanding of reality, it plays no part at all in science. According to science, nothing has a purpose, nothing is trying to achieve anything. The fact that human beings themselves refute this – human beings are obsessed with purpose and trying to achieve goals – is dismissed by science as an inexplicable epiphenomenon or illusion. Humans, science says, are made of purposeless matter and are subject to the purposeless laws of matter, hence it is impossible for humans to have purposes. Purpose is never once referenced in science and science believes that reality can be explained without any concept of purpose.

3) Existence is pointless. According to science, existence has no point. It just is. The universe sprang into existence out of nothing, science tells us. Stephen Hawking said, “I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.” There is no point to this spontaneous, random Creation, as opposed to the designed Creation of, for example, the theistic worldview. 4) Free will is an illusion. Humans are material objects subject to the laws of science. Matter does not possess free will, and the laws of science do not make free choices, hence free will is strictly impossible. You suffer from a double delusion: 1) that you are free, and 2) that you are not in fact a mindless, material, biological robot, with no say over anything you do … that’s all handled by your matter and the laws controlling it. Science makes no attempt to explain why nature should pointlessly generate the illusion of freedom, given that no such thing actually exists. Also, if freedom does not exist, how can the illusion that it does exist be created? How can a strictly unfree system produce a simulation of its opposite, a free system? That’s a category error. 5) Life is an illusion. All “life” is made of dead matter, hence life is only an epiphenomenon, illusion or miraculous “emergent” property. There is no such thing as life in itself, i.e. substantive life. Life, such as it is, is only a peculiar and ephemeral relation between fundamentally dead things. 6)

Mind is an illusion. Science says we live in a strictly material world. There is no such

thing as mind in itself, i.e. substantive mind. Mind, such as it is, is generated by the organization of material atoms, and when that organization breaks down, mind disappears. 7)

Humans are food reorganized. Physicist Max Tegmark said, “Imagine all the food you have eaten in your life and consider that you are simply some of that food, rearranged.” You are what you eat (and drink). There is nothing else. Food, it seems, is protoconsciousness. Consciousness can be extracted from food, if food is arranged correctly.

8)

All that exists is observable. The scientific method is all about observation. Scientists regard absence of evidence as evidence of absence. If it can’t be observed, it can’t exist. This is an article of faith for scientists. They refuse to consider the possibility of wholly rational and logical entities – those of mathematics – that cannot be perceived but determine everything in the observable world.

9) Everything is empirical. Science revolves around all that is available to the human senses, or to instruments that extend the human senses. Science places no reliance on anything that is not about the human senses or their extension. Science rejects the basis of rationalism – the principle of sufficient reason – and has no place for Occam’s razor, the principle of economy. In fact, science enshrines no rational and logical principles whatsoever. These cannot be part of a paradigm based on sensory observation. Reason and logic are not perceivable. When an animal looks at the world, it doesn’t observe reason and logic anywhere. So, how can these be part of empirical science? Philosophically, science may be regarded as an extreme declaration of nihilism. It says, in short, that existence is random or spontaneous, involving some kind of eruption from nothing at all. It says that existence is pointless, meaningless, and purposeless. Life and mind have no reality in themselves and are strictly emergent epiphenomena of the relations of lifeless and mindless things. Science has been successful ever since it embraced mathematics. Prior to that, it was not successful at all. Isaac Newton, with his seminal work Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, may be regarded as the founder of mathematical science on the grand scale. This is the subject has dominated the intellectual world ever since. The devastating problem here is that although science uses mathematics for everything, it does not define what mathematics is and explain why it should be relevant to natural philosophy. Scientists regard mathematics as an unreal, manmade abstraction – in which case how can it have any connection to the real, non-manmade, concrete world, regarding which it has the opposite properties? Moreover, the first step of the scientific method is to observe the world, yet mathematics – if it is an unreal, manmade abstraction – is not observable, hence can have no connection with the scientific method. But how can you have a method that culminates in mathematically expressed theories that in themselves refute the method since mathematics is not a scientific observable? That’s a category error, a foundational logical refutation of the scientific method. Nobel laureate in physics Eugene Wigner wrote a paper called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. How can science, a subject that claims to be rational and logical and to address observable reality, unreasonably rely on something it regards as unreal? How does that work? How does that make any sense? It simply doesn’t. The scientific paradigm is full of disastrous anomalies and contradictions that have been

more or less ignored for centuries because science has proved so useful and successful. No one wants, or dares, to challenge the golden goose. When paradigms fail, it is essential to bring about a paradigm shift to a new paradigm with fewer and, preferably, no anomalies and contradictions. Anything that refuses to accepts its proven flaws is a religious faith. Is science now in that category? Can science evolve? Can a new paradigm be established that embraces the best of science while getting rid of all the aspects of science that don’t make any rational sense? Ontological mathematics is that new paradigm. Science became successful when it embraced mathematics, but it adopted the bizarre attitude that mathematics is an abstraction unreasonably and inexplicably perfectly suited to what it is not, i.e. concrete reality. Ontological mathematics is a rational upgrade of science. The illogical scientific claim that an unreal subject (mathematics) can be used to describe reality is rejected and replaced by the revolutionary idea that mathematics is not only real and concrete (i.e. ontological), it is none other than reality itself. Mathematics is perfect for describing reality because reality is mathematics. What could be simpler and more straightforward than that? That’s what Occam’s razor and the principle of sufficient reason mandate. In science, “matter” is real, while mathematics, which is used to describe matter, is unreal. In ontological mathematics, “matter” is the appearance of mathematical information, i.e. all matter, if you could drill down far enough, would simply be discovered to be composed of mathematical basis entities. Ontological mathematics asserts that mathematical waves – sinusoids – are the ground of all existence, and the true basis of matter. Sinusoids are the ontological mathematical counterpart of scientific “strings”. Adam Mann wrote, “String theory is an attempt to unite the two pillars of 20th century physics – quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity – with an overarching framework that can explain all of physical reality. It tries to do so by positing that particles are actually one-dimensional, string-like entities whose vibrations determine the particles’ properties, such as their mass and charge. This counterintuitive idea was first developed in the 1960s and ‘70s… The topic remained marginal for many years…” Ontological mathematics, currently a “marginal” topic, asserts that if “stings” were properly understood by scientists, they would in fact be reduced to nothing but basis sine and cosine waves, hence the whole of science would reduce to sinusoidal mathematics, aka ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is strictly the mathematics of sinusoidal waves defined as the fiber and fabric of existence, from which everything else is made, and through which everything communicates. Ontological mathematics is, in effect, string theory (a non-analytic scientific theory) converted into an analytic mathematical theory. Mathematics has radically different properties from science. Science is an empirical subject, while mathematics is rational. Science is a perceptual subject, while mathematics is conceptual. Science relies on the human senses, while mathematics relies on reason and logic. They are two drastically different activities, which makes it all the more remarkable that mathematics stands at the core of science as its indispensable engine. No scientist has ever explained this, and it forms no part of the scientific enterprise to attempt a rational and logical explanation of this foundational contradiction. Science is a use system, not a truth system. Ontological mathematics is both a use and truth system.

Rationalism and Empiricism Kant attempted a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism when he said, “Concepts I mmanuel without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind.” He believed that concepts were pure abstractions that made sense only when tied to percepts. Otherwise, they were “empty” and would give rise to hopeless abstractions if used in isolation. As for percepts, they were meaningless (“blind”) on their own. Only when tied to concepts did they become meaningful. An animal looks at the world and perceives just the same as a human does (more or less), but an animal has absolutely no understanding of what it’s looking at. If it looks at the moon, it has no concept, no understanding, that the moon is an object hundreds of thousands of miles away from the earth. For an animal, the moon is just another object in its visual field. Nothing more and nothing less. Science adopts a similar approach to Kant. It says that mathematics (pure conceptualism) is, on its own, an unreal, manmade abstraction, an “empty” subject. Equally, matter (that which is perceived, the object of pure perceptualism) is “meaningless” on its own. It’s only when described mathematically (conceptually) that the theory of matter (perceptualism) becomes scientific and useful. However, in both cases, Kantian philosophy and scientific materialism, we are confronted by an impossible dualism. How can unreal concepts interact with, and explain, real percepts? All Kantians and scientists ignore this foundational problem. Ontological mathematicians do not. Einstein said, “At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things? “In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this:- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” This is to commit a category error, to perpetrate a form of Cartesian substance dualism. Einstein is basically positing two versions of mathematics: a “blurry” one that deals with reality, and a clear one that deals with unreality. How can you get blurry mathematics? How can blurry mathematics interact with clear mathematics? Where would they overlap? What would their common rules be? How can two such different things coexist? What would be the sufficient reason? Einstein was no philosopher. Many of his ideas were absurd, especially regarding the true nature of mathematics. There is only one mathematics, the mathematics of reality, and it is always crystal clear. It is science that is “blurry”, imprecise and uncertain. Science suffers from these defects exactly because it rejects clear mathematics in order to believe in an intrinsically inexplicable substance called “matter”. Try to define matter without using mathematics and you will not be able to say anything coherent. What is matter in itself, free of any human observation? No scientist could even begin to hazard a guess. It’s not even a definable problem. “Matter” is simply a manmade heuristic slotted into mathematical formulae to account for empirical observations. It is precisely this use of an undefined and undefinable heuristic that leads to blurry, imprecise, uncertain science. Ontological mathematics analytically reduces the whole of reality to precise sinusoids contained within precise monads. There are no vague terms, no undefinables, no heuristics. Clarity is total.

Hundreds of years ago, Leibniz pioneered this way of thinking. However, the likes of Einstein rejected the rationalism and logic of Leibniz, which is why they ended up as scientific materialists rather than ontological mathematicians. Science, let’s be crystal clear, is predicated on a heuristic called “matter”, which nobody can say what it is and why it should be. Ontological mathematics is based on mind, expressed through sinusoidal monads, which are a direct ontological expression of the principle of sufficient reason. Ontological mathematics brings about the replacement of scientific materialism and empiricism by scientific idealism and rationalism, thus ushering in the final paradigm shift necessary to explain all of reality. Humans are minds, not bodies. The universe is a mind, not a body. It is a mathematical mind that produces a host of mathematical constructs that are misinterpreted by scientists as “matter”. Science tacitly reflects two different and incompatible worlds: a mathematical world, deemed unreal, and a physical/empirical world deemed real. This is a logically untenable position. There is only one reality: a mathematical reality, which humans misinterpret by applying manmade fallacies, especially those involving the heuristic of “matter”. Ernst Mach said, “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.” Ontological mathematicians must use the rationally and logically simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not conceived by reason and logic. Robert Hanna wrote, “…the intensional content of a conscious representation is what it is about, or its topic: more precisely, it is a package of information about something, an X.” Scientists believe that only sensory objects are real. Ontological mathematicians know that the ultimate objects are non-sensory: they are conceptual (hence belong to reason and logic), and not physically perceptual (hence available only to the limited and unreliable human senses, which evolved without any connection to the truth, but only with regard to survival). Ontological mathematics decisively breaks from Kantian philosophy and scientific materialism by assigning an ontology to specific mathematical concepts, namely all those pertaining to sinusoidal waves. Sinusoidal waves are not unreal abstractions, they are real, concrete entities. They are in fact energy in its foundational form. They are not just any old energy, they are specifically mental energy. The energy that science associates with matter and which it claims gives rise to mind (in some obscure, unexplained way), is in ontological mathematics associated instead with mind, and matter is therefore a product of mind, rather than the other way around. This is a radically new paradigm for considering reality – which makes mind rather than matter paramount – yet even more mathematical than science, hence much more rational, logical, analytic and coherent than science. In ontological mathematics, a sinusoid is both form and content, both information carrier (as form) and information carried (as content). It is therefore rational and conceptual (in terms of form) and empirical and perceptual (in terms of content). In this way, rationalism and empiricism are properly unified in a single, dual-aspect ontology, making ontological mathematics the rational remedy for both incoherent Kantian concept-percept dualism and incoherent scientific matter-mathematics (reality-unreality) dualism. Kant’s philosophy and scientific materialism both commit a fatal error of subscribing to a non-ontological correspondence theory of truth. Wikipedia says, “Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts

on the other.” The “relationship” – whatever it is – is not an ontological one, hence there can be no genuine correspondence, only an arbitrary correspondence established by decree, convention and belief. Ontological mathematics, by contrast, is based on an ontological coherence theory of truth. Wikipedia says, “…truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole.” Mathematical coherence is what drives the truth content of ontological mathematics. It is not driven by correspondence with sensory observables, as in science. In ontological mathematics, thoughts and objects are brought together into a single system because thoughts are sinusoids and all objects are made of sinusoids (i.e. objects of perception are just complicated thoughts, misinterpreted as matter). Ontological mathematics actually invokes a strict ontological, non-arbitrary correspondence between information carriers and information carried, between form and content, all within an overarching system of total coherence. There is no such thing as content without form, or form without content. There is no such thing as information carried, but no information carrier, or an information carrier without information carried. No matter what you are looking at perceptually, it will be fully backed up conceptually, by pure mathematical form (specifically sinusoidal form). You can only perceive the content, i.e. the information carried. This is therefore all that science accepts as real. Science dismisses the reality of the information carrier, the form, which you cannot perceive with your sense organs, but which you can certainly conceive with your reason and logic. Exactly because ontological mathematics addresses ontological concepts as well as ontological percepts, it is able to go beyond physics to the domain of metaphysics (that which comes after physics, goes deeper than physics, is more foundational than physics, and in fact explains physics). It therefore enters the territory traditionally associated with the profoundest philosophy, religion and spirituality, the territory where meaning and purpose exclusively reside. They don’t reside in the mindless, lifeless matter of science, that’s for sure. Ontological mathematics can do everything physics does, and so much more. Ontological mathematics removes science’s empirical criterion that only the observable (perceptual) exists and instead extends existence to the unobservable rational and logical order of conceptualism too. This completely transforms the understanding of reality, and brings mind and metaphysics into science. It converts science from materialism and empiricism into idealism and rationalism, into a mind-based rather than object-based system. Ontological mathematics supplements physics with metaphysics. In doing so, it gives existence a point, meaning and purpose. It makes life, mind and free will substantive rather than relational and emergent. To put it another way, ontological mathematical reality is predicated on mind and life rather than matter and lifelessness. In ontological mathematics, a sinusoid isn’t just a single instance of mental energy. It is in fact a basis thought. Basis thoughts are organized into minds, called monads. Monads are the eternal and necessary functional units of existence. This is the same general worldview as the one proposed by Leibniz, Newton’s great rival. One day, Leibniz will be seen as the much greater thinker. Ontological mathematics is the subject that vindicates Leibniz. Leibniz, a genius philosopher, rationalist, logician and mathematician had a far more mathematical and metaphysical understanding of reality than Newton.

The New Method mathematics changes everything exactly because it assigns reality to concepts and O ntological not just percepts. This means that the method for understanding reality switches from the human senses (which detect percepts) to reason and logic (which are how we analyze concepts).

Philosophy to expect philosophy to be able to correct science. Science replaced philosophy. I tTheis absurd only subject that can correct and replace science is the subject at the core of science ... mathematics. All you need to do is switch from regarding mathematics as abstract to treating it as real and concrete and then you no longer require science. Ontological mathematics does everything science does, but rationally rather than empirically, through the use of reason and logic rather than the use of the fallible, limited and defective human senses.

The Empiricist Delusion defining delusion of the human condition is that a world exists “out there” that is entirely T heseparate from mind. All fallacies in thinking flow from this delusion. In fact, the world “out there” is no more separate from mind than a dream is separate from its dreamer. The dream is a construct of the dreamer, and unfolds within the dreamer’s mind. Exactly the same is true of the “world”. It is constructed by the collection of all minds and unfolds within the Collective Mind, which is exactly why it is objective and the same for everyone. The world, therefore, is simply a collective rather than individual dream … a constant dream rather than an everchanging dream, a dream we can leave (when we go to sleep) and then re-enter (when we awake). Nothing much has changed while we have been gone!

THE FAILURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD scientific method fails in the very first thing it advocates, the activity that defines science – T heobservation. It places its fate and supposed coherence at the mercy of the limited, fallible, unreliable, evolutionary, mutable human senses, which are prone to systemic fallacies. Because of the human senses, many humans believed that the world was flat (this theory is now making a resurgence in the 21st century!), and that the earth was at the center of the universe and the sun orbited it. The delusions to which scientists now subscribe are more sophisticated perceptual errors, but they are disastrous all the same, and harder to refute, hence intellectually more dangerous. The human senses are not organs of truth and did not evolve with respect to the truth. They evolved with respect to survival and they have survival (use) utility, not truth utility. They have nothing to do with the truth. In fact, they are enemies of the truth. Science was a hopeless subject until one very remarkable thing happened – it was comprehensively mathematized by the likes of Galileo (1564-1642), Descartes (1596-1650), Newton (1642-1727), and Leibniz (1646-1716). Until science embraced mathematics, it was more or less mystical alchemy, and practically a religious faith. All the observation conceivable couldn’t make it useful. Mathematics – the very subject that totally defies the scientific method since it requires no observation at all and is entirely an a priori subject immune from sensory experiments – is the key to the success of science. No scientist can use science, or its method, to explain why science uses mathematics, a subject that wholly contradicts it. Even worse, no scientist even cares. Scientists everywhere in the world are busily using mathematics to do their science, yet not one of them is studying what mathematics is, why science uses it, and what mathematics has to do with reality. If science cannot explain what mathematics is, how can it possibly explain reality given that everything it says about reality is framed in terms of mathematics (“unreality”)? The very act of advocating observation (empiricism) as the best means to interrogate reality brings the advocate into opposition with reason and logic (rationalism), hence commits them to a formally irrationalist stance, which is exactly what science is. Science is not the defender and champion of reason and logic. It is their antagonist. Science defends empiricism, not rationalism. It defends the limited, fallible, unreliable, delusional human sense organs, which have no connection at all to showing us the incontestable rational and logical truth of existence. No sensory data is self-explanatory, hence there are no sensory “facts” in any authentic sense. What are the sensory “facts” of animals, of hawks and sharks, of ants, bees and spiders? How would we know? We have no clue. There are no absolute facts in sensory terms. Sensory facts are always mired in subjective interpretation. First, they are interpretations of the sense organs used to collect them, then they are the interpretation of the brain-mind circuitry that lies behind the sense organs to convert their raw data into comprehensible information. Then they are the interpretation of the particular framework of understanding applied to them. So, all facts are actually nothing of the kind. They are interpretations, and only when you grasp that can

you grasp that science can never deliver truth, only sensory utility. As Nietzsche definitively said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” What science regards as its greatest strength – observing the world and therefore linking, so it imagines, to “concrete reality” – is in fact its greatest weakness. The world in itself, ultimate reality, is not observable. No one can look at anything in the world, any particular, and see what ultimate reality is, what the universal truth is of reality. Ultimate reality is conceivable, not perceivable, and that means ultimate reality is mental (only minds conceive) and not material (only material things are perceived). Ultimate reality is the ultimate universal – that which can explain everything else, that from which all particulars are derived, with all particulars simply being tautologies of the ultimate universal, expressed in the individuating framework of space and time. Space and time are themselves simply derivatives of the ultimate universal. Mathematics, not science, is the subject of the ultimate universal. That is, by studying mathematics properly, which is to say as concrete, as ontological, you can trace your way back to the source of mathematics … a single master formula from which everything else in mathematics is derived. That formula is Euler’s Formula (eix = cosx + isinx), which can be understood only via the PSR, the basis of all rational and logical conception. Euler’s Formula, it must be clearly understood, is the PSR expressed as a mathematical formula. The PSR, and nothing else, is the basis of mathematics. Any version of mathematics that does not reduce to the PSR is a fallacious manmade abstraction. Set theory, for example, is all about fallacious human thinking about mathematics, and has no connection to mathematics itself. That’s why it’s inconsistent and incomplete. You can naively imagine a world of perceivable things, but when it comes to conceiving, all conceiving must reduce to one ultimate conception – the ultimate universal – and this is the PSR, expressible mathematically as Euler’s Formula and ontologically instantiated through monads. These are eternal mathematical minds capable of becoming conscious. Consciousness is nothing other than the capacity to understand universals and escape sensory particulars. Animals are not conscious. They have no concept of universals, hence they can know nothing of reality. They can certainly experience reality, but they can never know it. Knowledge means conception, not perception. Science is a subject fit for animals. It is predicated on sensory observation, yet it is 100% useless in that regard since no amount of scientific observations can lead to knowledge. All scientific knowledge, such as it is, is derived from the application of mathematics – a strictly conceptual subject – to perceptual data in order to universalize that data. If scientists were rational, they would grasp that the core activity of universalizing data inevitably leaves behind perceivable data, which is just one type of data, and ultimately addresses unperceivable, rational data, i.e. the data of pure mathematics. When you universalize all mathematical data – which comprises nothing but points and their motion, as per Occam’s razor and the PSR – you are arrive at Euler’s Formula. Scientists are not rationalists. They are empiricists, the historical enemies of rationalism. They are explicitly opposed to the concept of mathematical data – points and the motion of points – being real, concrete, ontological. No one can, or ever will be able to, observe mathematical points and their motion. Only conception, not perception, leads us to this foundational knowledge. Science actively prevents us from getting there, i.e. it blocks access to the ultimate universal – the grand unified, final theory of everything – which terminates solely with the identification of the ultimate universal. This is,

and cannot be anything other than, the PSR, expressed as a single, simple mathematical formula expressing points and their motion. That formula, the base formula of existence, of everything, is, as we have seen, Euler’s Formula. This is what humans have traditionally called “God”. God is the principle of sufficient reason. The world created by God is one that expresses the consequences of the PSR, the contingent particulars capable of being generated by the PSR. Science is not helping us to understand reality. It is preventing humanity from understanding reality, just as much as its predecessors, religion and philosophy, did. Mathematics is the truth. Nothing else is. Science has use value, but no truth value. It’s a great way of modeling observable reality but a hopeless way of modeling ultimate, unobservable, conceptual reality. Science is the subject that applies mathematics to observables. Ontological mathematics is the subject that applies mathematics to unobservables, and from there to observables. The unobservables that direct reality are points in ordered motion. These are not scientific, they are strictly mathematical. They are not physical, they are strictly mental. They are not perceptual, they are strictly conceptual. They are not addressed by the laws of physics, they are addressed by the PSR, the foundational principle of ontological mathematics. No empiricist, i.e. no scientist, will ever understand reality. Science will be forever stuck at the level of phenomena and will never penetrate to the level of noumena, from which all phenomena are derived, and of which all phenomena are expressions. Remember, mathematics = conception, while science = perception. Science has to use conceptual mathematics to universalize its perceptual data. When the task of universalization is detached from perceptual data and instead applied to non-perceptual data – points and their motion – ontological mathematics is the result. Science is just a sensory derivative of this. Science is a phenomenal subject. Mathematics is noumenal and phenomenal. Kant claimed that an unknowable noumenon underlay all phenomena, and could only be approached via faith. (Kant was raised a Lutheran, with all the faith and irrationalism that implies.) Absurdly, he critiqued pure reason and claimed that mathematics was simply an intuitive faculty built into undefined mind. In fact, the “unknowable” noumenon that underlies everything is pure reason itself, the PSR, and it is encapsulated in a mathematical formula (Euler’s Formula), ontologically expressed through myriad monadic minds, each of which is an autonomous instance of Euler’s Formula, and all of which belong to a single interactive system ... the One and the Many. So, the noumenon is not unknowable at all. It is the quintessence of knowability. It is pure reason, which exist as mathematics. Kant considered mathematics in terms of space and time. In fact, mathematics must be considered in terms of the precursors of space and time, which are simply points and their motion, which produce sinusoidal waves, from which space and time are then constructed via wave phase relations. Science is a subject that, like Kantian philosophy, dismisses pure reason and instead makes a fallacious philosophical claim that reason must only be applied to observable particulars. In fact, reason cannot be applied directly to observable particulars because these are not true objects of reason. Reason can only be validly applied to reason, i.e. reason only works conceptually, not perceptually. Science twists reason to fit the perceivable and the result is a bunch of mathematical formulae that have no inherent unity and coherence. Science’s two best theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are totally incompatible and reflect completely different thinking and assumptions, yet both are brilliantly successful perceptually, in terms of sensory validation. Conceptually, they are manifestly unfit for purpose since they contradict each other. It is because of their conceptual incoherence, not because of any perceptual difficulties

they generate, that they cannot be unified.

Reason radical subtlety regarding reason is that reason, a conceptual subject, necessarily produces T heexperiences (percepts), i.e. empirical percepts always accompany rational, ontological concepts. In other words, as soon as you have an ontological concept, a rational entity, you automatically have an empirical counterpart, its experiential flip-side. The easiest way to explain this is via a simple analogy. Consider light. Light forms an electromagnetic spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has a different frequency, and every frequency conveys a different experience. You can have a red experience, a blue experience, an infra-red experience, ultra-violet, x-ray, microwave, radio wave, and so on. You cannot have a numerical frequency without a non-numerical experience to accompany it. It is the seen, felt experienced layer that constitutes the empirical world of particular things, but it is the unseen, unfelt, unexperienced frequency layer that underlies all of this. This layer is where perceptual science cannot go but conceptual mathematics certainly can. Our task is not to look at the world and work out the observable world, as science claims, it is to think about the world (conceive it rather than perceive it), and work out what the numerical, noumenal frequency world that underlies the empirical, phenomenal world is like. We must use reason and logic, not our flawed senses and highly subjective and dubious sensory observations, none of which is self-explanatory. Everything, noumenally, can be considered in terms of frequencies (waves), and all frequencies are simply products of the regular motion of points in motion, their motion being dictated by the PSR, and the source formula for their motion being Euler’s Formula. Tragically, it is impossible to get scientists to change their thinking, to become conceptualists rather than perceptualists. They are locked in. They are irrational and illogical. They only accept physical “evidence”, but reality is not about physical evidence, it’s about unobservable points in motion (“nothings” in motion), not observable “somethings” (particles) in motion. Here’s the self-evident problem regarding science. To claim that observation is the best way to understand reality is a philosophical stance, not scientific. It is a conception, not a perception. It is already contrary to the scientific method since it does not rely on observation, but on a contentious claim regarding the merits of observation. If the foundational reality of existence is conceptual (non-observable) then science automatically falsifies reality and automatically leads us away from the truth of reality. How can science prove that no rational, logical, conceptual, mathematical order exists? Such an order is by definition beyond the reach of the scientific method. A method is all it is, attached to the dubious and unproved philosophy, ideology and dogmatism of materialism and empiricism. A method may have use value. It has no intrinsic truth value unless it rationally and logically addresses indisputable truth, and not mere interpretation, opinion and belief. Knowledge is about certainty. Plato rightly stated this some 2,400 years ago. If you are mired in uncertainty, you lack knowledge. Science is not a subject about certainty. It is, as Nobel laureate Richard Feynman infamously said, about guessing. (“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it…” … so much for analytic, rational, logical first principles!)

EMPTY AND BLIND said that percepts are blind. That’s certainly true. They can’t do anything knowledgeK ant wise until you apply non-perceptual concepts to them. Kant’s catastrophic error was to claim that concepts are “empty”. In fact, content always accompanies form, ontological percepts always accompany ontological concepts, hence no valid concept can ever be “empty”. Content is the empirical experience that accompanies the form, the “matter” that accompanies the form, the territory that accompanies the map, the signified that accompanies the signifier, the semantics that accompanies the syntax, the particulars that instantiate universals. Reason, in its aspect of form, is pure reason. In its other aspect of content, it is pure experience. Irrationalists fail to grasp that reason supplies a dual-aspect ontology of form (rationalism) and content (empiricism). Kant tried to bridge the gap between concepts and percepts by applying concepts to percepts. He claimed that percepts in themselves were unknowable, and that concepts when applied only to concepts (instead of to percepts) became invalid and produced metaphysical nonsense. In fact, they produce pure syntactic mathematics, the science of pure form and logic. Science tried to bridge the gap between percept and concept by using mathematics (concept) to make sense of and organize sensory observations (percepts). When you leave percepts behind, you enter the world of pure mathematical concepts, free of percepts, where we can work out the only truly knowable part of reality, namely its exact syntax. We can’t know its other aspect, its semantic content, we can only experience that. Experience is not knowledge. Animals experience reality all day every day. They do not know anything. Knowledge belongs to the ability to conceptualize, which animals cannot do, and which stupid humans can barely do. Only the smartest humans are actually capable of knowing what reality is. They alone have the conceptual ability to do so. Only they can carry out the process of universalization using reason and logic. Concepts are not empty. Ontologically, you can never get form without content, form without matter, syntax without semantics, map without territory, signifier without signified, universals without particulars, rationalism without empiricism. It is humans that artificially separate form and content and claim that concepts are “abstract and unreal”. Kant separated concept (form) and percept (content). That was his defining error. That was his abstract fallacy. Only this fallacy allowed him to claim that concepts were empty and percepts blind. In fact, percepts are always sighted and directed because they are always attached to concepts, and concepts are always full because they are necessarily accompanied by content.

Experience are those who say, “Matter is how the universe experiences itself. Get rid of matter and T here you get rid of the universe.” In fact, matter is entirely the mind’s construct, and is used to provide the arena – the “world” – in which mind can act, and also interact with fellow minds. Mind is how the universe

experiences itself. Existence is mind. Mind comes to consciousness of itself through acquiring the knowledge that “not-mind” is not something separate from mind but simply mind’s construct, projected via space and time. When mind understands that it is the Creator of everything, it becomes God.

OCCAM’S RAZOR razor refutes science. Occam’s razor, when properly formulated, says that reality O ccam’s must be made of the simplest possible things, and the explanations applied to them must be the simplest possible. Reality under no circumstances ever does anything unnecessary, superfluous, redundant, excessive, anything more complex than necessary. It wouldn’t know how. Doing things as simply as possible is built into reality. There’s a mathematical formula for it. There is no mathematical formula for adding unnecessary complexity. Therefore, unnecessary complexity is formally impossible. It is impossible for reality to violate Occam’s razor, so why is Occam’s razor not a foundational principle of science? Indeed, science actually rejects Occam’s razor. No scientific theory is ever dismissed because it is incompatible with Occam’s razor. This especially applies to Multiverse theory, the biggest possible violation of Occam’s razor, hence the falsest theory ever constructed. The fundamental units of reality are, by Occam’s razor, the simplest things possible. These are not physical and they are not observable. The fundamental entity with which reality works is the mathematical point – “nothing”. The point has no properties at all – you cannot get simpler than that! So, how can all non-nothing properties be extracted from the point, from nothing? We shall show exactly how this is possible. In itself, a reality composed of nothing but mathematical points is nothing and does nothing, hence “reality”, if treated on this basis alone, would be nothing. Nothing would happen. Although “nothing” does not have any properties, there is one thing that can be done to it that produces the whole reality of “something”. “Nothing” can be rationally moved in order to remove a rational contradiction. Why would it be moved? It’s because of something called the principle of insufficient reason, which is an aspect of the principle of sufficient reason. If there is no sufficient reason for a specific outcome to be privileged over all others, over all alternative outcomes, then there is a sufficient reason for all equivalent states to be grouped together under a single formula, where no state is privileged over any other equivalent state. When this line of thinking is performed exhaustively, the result is Euler’s Formula, the rational master formula of existence. In essence, if we do not know where to locate a nothing (a mathematical point), we have to locate it everywhere permissible, i.e. we have to accommodate all equivalent states, and ensure that none is privileged over another for no sufficient reason. Mathematically, this process brings us inexorably to unit circles in the complex plane, and thus to Euler’s Formula. Reality, then, is simply structured nothingness, the rational science of nothing – a purely rational, logical, analytic, conceptual, mathematical subject. It is not a scientific subject. Science rejects the existence of eternal, necessary, structured nothingness. “Something” is simply what you get when you dynamically arrange nothing according to the PSR and its corollary, Occam’s razor. In any situation where an insufficient reason applies, the situation must be expanded to include all equivalent states so that a sufficient reason then applies. Rationalism demands that everything has a sufficient reason. Empiricism does not. There is nothing in empiricist ideology

to support causation and reasons, as David Hume demonstrated with his hyper-skeptical empiricism that wiped out all substantive knowledge.

The Units fundamental units of reality are not observables. They are in fact the very things that T heproduce observables. They are the noumenal underpinnings of phenomenal observables. Occam’s razor demands that we look for the simplest possible explanations. These necessarily entail the simplest possible things. The simplest possible things are mathematical points. It is impossible to get anything simpler. Science does not base itself on points, hence is false for that reason alone. Science automatically contradicts Occam’s razor. Ontological mathematics is true because it is entirely based on points subject to the principle of sufficient reason. There are only two ways existence can go: points – the minimal Occam’s razor units – can be subject to either the principle of sufficient reason, hence producing mathematical order, or the principle of no sufficient reason, hence producing non-mathematical chaos. With the principle of sufficient reason, there is an exact account for why everything is thus and not otherwise. This is an analyzable state of affairs. With the principle of no sufficient reason, there is no reason for anything. Things happen without reasons. This is not an analyzable state of affairs. It’s impossible for there to be any mixture of the PSR and non-PSR. They are entirely incompatible. They cannot coexist. They cannot interact with each other. It’s all of one and none of the other. One is literally 100% true and the other 100% false. All we need to do is be cognizant of our own thinking – an ordered process, not a chaotic confusion – to know that the PSR is 100% true and therefore the non-PSR 100% false. It is literally impossible for anything not to have a sufficient reason. Once anyone makes any claim that things happen without reasons, they have thereby become irrational and are making claims wholly incompatible with reason and logic. They have committed a catastrophic error of logic. Given that scientists are empiricists who reject rationalism, this happens frequently in science. Scientists are perfectly happy to claim that events happen without reasons, which merely proves how irrational and illogical science foundationally is. Any system that has any reliance whatsoever on randomness, chance, accident, indeterminism, indeterminacy, and so on, is a system contrary to reason and logic. Science is such a system. The most bizarre thing of all is that scientists try to use arguments – invariably based on empiricist misinterpretations and fallacies – to show why the PSR, the basis of rational argument, is invalid. Any argument that terminates with a claim that things happen for no reason is by that very fact irrational. No one ever has or ever will perceive a random event, an event that has no reason. Random events, events without reasons, are not perceivable. They are mistaken conceptual inferences, not perceptual facts. They are always fallacious inferences, resulting from the fact that no empiricist is prepared to accept that the universe operates rationally at all times and that the universe’s foundational reasons are not observable, hence are contrary to empiricism. They belong to the conceptual order. How could a random event happen, even in principle? There is no rule for it, no reason for it, no algorithm for it, no principle for it, no formula for it, no law for it, no motivation for it, no purpose for it, no way of calculating it, no mechanism for it – so it simply couldn’t happen. It is

entirely incompatible with laws, which are all about events that conform to ordered sequences. Random events can never belong to a system of laws. There is no class of laws that deal with events that don’t obey laws. Laws reflect the principle of continuity. Randomness is all about the total absence of continuity. Randomness concerns absolute discontinuity – chaos in other words. Nothing links anything to anything else. When scientists refer to “randomness”, they are demonstrating that they have no idea what randomness is. What they are actually referring to is their ignorance of continuous, lawful, PSR processes unobservable by the human senses or by human instruments. Rather than admit their epistemic ignorance, they prefer to claim that “things happen for no reason”. No claim could be more absurd. Even religion does not reach that level of irrationality. If you roll dice, the outcome is 100% guaranteed from the get-go. The fact that you don’t know what the outcome is going to be is due to your epistemic ignorance, not due to any randomness inherent in dice (i.e. dice don’t suddenly, at random, choose to produce one result rather than a different result; the laws of physics don’t suddenly alter course to produce a different outcome than the one mandated by them when you first threw the dice). Science is irrational and illogical and it would be total nonsense were it not for the extraordinary fact that it incoherently and unaccountably uses rationalist mathematics. Mathematical rationalism, for the most part, conceals the fundamental irrationalism of so many empiricist claims. Mathematics fails when it is itself interpreted in irrational ways to conform with empiricist ideology. Anything not grounded in dynamic mathematical points is formally refuted by Occam’s razor. Science in its entirety is refuted by Occam’s razor because it is not based on points. Science is currently based on speculative “strings” with no rational, logical, analytic basis. Strings are nothing but heuristic devices intended to bolster the ideology of scientism, which fundamentally rejects the ontology of mathematics (rationalism).

Points analysis of points – unobservable “nothings” – can only be conducted mathematically. T hePoints are outside science, but not outside reality, of which they are the foundations. There is something rather than nothing because, and only because, nothing can be conceptually moved by the PSR to allow all equivalent nothing states to be treated on a par, with none being arbitrarily privileged over any other (which would contradict the PSR). When the PSR cannot select one state (i.e. there is no sufficient reason for one state, which is to say there is an insufficient reason for it) then the PSR mandates that all equivalent states are combined, producing a mathematical formula for all the equivalent states. A mathematical point samples all the states open to it at a constant speed, so that no state ever receives a privileged status. This is the ontological basis of Euler’s Formula, which generates sinusoidal waves, which are the basis of all reality. These waves are not observable as form (syntax). Only their unintelligible semantic content can be observed. This is the domain of empiricism. It is mathematics, free of observations, that allows us to understand unobservable syntax.

DECREE AND ABSTRACTION regarded concepts as being inbuilt in human minds – merely by his decree... he gave no K ant explanation of how this was possible and how it was accomplished. He did not explain why human minds were radically different from animal minds. Naomi Fisher wrote, “Kant’s Critical philosophy seems to leave very little room to account for the mental lives of animals, since the understanding, which animals lack, is required for experience and cognition. While Kant does not regard animals as Cartesian machines, he leaves them few resources for getting around in the world in a coherent and responsive way.” Kant said that conceptual minds operated on the world of percepts to create the empirical world of knowable phenomena (phenomena being a hybrid of percepts and concepts). He said that percepts in themselves were unknowable, and that concepts, when they dealt only with concepts, produced metaphysical nonsense. Science regards mathematics as an unreal conceptual abstraction which is applied to real percepts. Like Kant, it can offer no conceivable explanation for this and just decrees it ideologically. It doesn’t even worry about the fact that it has introduced unreal concepts into its attempted explanation of reality. That’s why science has use value but no truth value. Science is a practical, heuristic subject. It is a modeling system. It has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of reality, which it can get nowhere near because it rejects the proper tools for the job: reason, logic and concepts, all expressed through mathematics. Ontological mathematics ties percepts to concepts, so unlike with Kant and science, concepts are concrete and real rather than mere abstractions. Nothing is more important than to grasp that concepts are real. In particular, waves – mathematical concepts – are the basis of existence. They are the fundamental units of ontology, and they are none other than basis thoughts. Stephen Hawking wrote, “A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations in terms of a simple and elegant model, and second if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested, and possibly falsified, by observation.” Scientists always bring everything back to observation. What would an ontological mathematician say instead? … “A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of concepts in terms of the simplest and most elegant model of all – the Occam’s razor model that reflects the PSR – second if the model is entirely coherent and contains no incompleteness and/or inconsistency, and third if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested empirically, through sensory verification, but note that our senses are easily able to deceive us, so all sensory interpretations must be treated with the utmost circumspection.”

Life and Death Davies wrote, “Clearly something is missing in an account that focuses on chemical P aul complexity alone. A recently deceased mouse is chemically as complex as a living mouse, but we wouldn’t think of it as being, say, 99.9 per cent alive. It is simply dead.”

When has science ever explained what it is that differentiates a body alive at midnight, and a body dead one instant later? What tiny material change has terminated life?

PARTICULARS VERSUS UNIVERSALS particulars – chaos, no coherence, no consistency, no completeness. H ell isHeaven is universals – order, tautology, coherence, consistency completeness. Ontological mathematics is heaven; scientific materialism and non-ontological mathematics is hell. Science in its opening declaration – observe – concerns particulars and not universals. You cannot observe universals, only particulars. What manner of world empirically confronts us? One of nothing but particulars. We do not and cannot observe the universals – laws – that hold everything together, that make everything a unity, that allow everything to communicate with everything else using the same language, which provide order, coherence, consistency and completeness. Literally from its first, defining step, science is opposed to coherence, completeness, reason and logic. Yet the whole task of science is to establish the laws of science, and, so it hopes, to reduce everything to a final, single, unified theory of everything, expressed through a simple universal equation. In other words, the goal of science is totally at odds with the method of science. You cannot observe your way to the universal master equation of existence. Perceiving particulars is not how you address universals in themselves. Observation, in and of itself, supplies nothing but a bewildering, inexplicable collection of particulars, with, on the face of it, not a single thing in common. Science can get nowhere without the conceptual part of it that totally contradicts its headline procedure of observation. What gives science its power is the step where it has to form hypotheses to account for many observations, i.e. where it works with conception rather than perception. Conception is an entirely different cognitive activity from perception. It is inherently about universals and not particulars, about reason and logic, not mere observation via the limited and fallible human senses. Science is a fraud. It’s intrinsically self-contradicting. It champions sensory empiricism, yet no amount of using the senses amounts to anything, as the animal world reveals. Animals are true scientists. They do nothing but observe the world … and they are creatures that do not understand even one thing about reality. Not one thing. That’s what happens when you are cut off from conceptual understanding. That’s true science right there – observing with no understanding. Humans rule the world because, unlike animals, we are not mere observers. There is much more to us than perceiving. We are sublime conceivers. We are conceptualizers. We use reason and logic. We can grasp the ultimate universal subject – mathematics. It’s not observation that empowers science. It is exclusively the ability to conceptualize and express concepts via mathematical formulae that makes science so successful. Imagine how much more powerful science would be if, instead of commencing with a contradiction, with the opposite of conceptualism, namely sensory perceptualism, it instead started with pure concepts, pure reason and logic, with pure ontological mathematics. Rational, logical concepts, providing the means to understand universals and the single, ultimate universal that dictates all of reality, is the only way to provide an answer to everything. Science cannot do so because its defining method is hostile to reason and logic and gets rid of

rationalism in favor of empiricism. Science stakes everything on the absurd human sensorium, a fantastically limited and delusional tool that presents us with no end of mirages, and rejects the subject that underpins science and makes it work – rationalist mathematics, the a priori, unobservable subject of universals. We never see universal mathematics directly. We see all of its particular effects, but 100% of these effects are traceable back to the master formula that made all of them possible – Euler’s Formula, the God Equation. It was easy for ontological mathematicians to see that Euler’s Formula answers everything. It is technically impossible for science to reach this conclusion since no one can observe pure mathematics in itself, only the consequences of mathematical operations, generating a plethora of particulars. There is no greater sin than that intellectuals have bowed to science and allowed percepts to rule over concepts. They have chosen to be animals rather than gods. Gods don’t need to look at the world even once to understand the nature of reality. All they need to do is exercise the PSR, the fundamental, incontestable principle that governs existence, and which is ontologically expressed through eternal monadic minds, each an instance of Euler’s Formula, the PSR expressed as a mathematical formula. Schopenhauer said, “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.” Scientists take the limits of the scientific field of vision for the limits of the world. They take the limits of the fallible, unreliable, delusional human senses – and whatever instrumental extensions to those senses they can contrive – to be the limits of the world. In fact, the world is mind-bogglingly bigger than that.

The Presupposition do science, you need a world to observe. Without a world to observe, science is impossible. T oScience cannot address nothing. It cannot address no world. It cannot address an unobservable world. The mind constitutes an unobservable world. Science can tell us nothing about it since no one can observe a mind or a mind’s thoughts. Science is literally unable to discuss mind, thought, the conscious, the unconscious, free will, meaning, purpose – all of which are unobservable. Science dismisses them all as “illusion”, but science cannot address illusions either since illusions are mental, and, as we have seen, science can say nothing about the mental. Life itself is outside science. Who can observe the departure of life as someone dies? As far as the origins of life are concerned, science cannot observe how a group of atoms which it says are lifeless suddenly organize themselves into an organization which it deems alive. Science cannot address the fundamental nature of existence, which it cannot observe. Science cannot address the Big Bang singularity that caused the scientific world. In other words, science can never be anything but a useful tool for describing the observable world. It is 100% useless for addressing the world that precedes science, and the world of life and mind that everywhere penetrates the scientific world but can never be observed. Science presupposes the world, hence cannot explain the world. You cannot start science without the world, hence you cannot use science to explain the world. An explanatory system must be able to explain why there is something rather than nothing, but science cannot do so

since it presupposes something. It simply begs the question. Science presupposes both the world and the sense organs to observe it. It can therefore never explain the world, i.e. that which exists prior to any observations or any sense organs. There were no sense organs at the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang, and no observable world.

No Ears to Hear Big Bang made no sound. There were no ears to hear it. When people think of the Big T heBang, they can’t help but insert themselves into the scene. They imagine themselves seeing, hearing and feeling a grand explosion. In fact, no physical bodies were present at the Big Bang, hence no physical signals were registered and no physical sensory experiences recorded. The Big Bang took place in absolute darkness and silence and was simply an immense mathematical calculation. It was only when creatures with sense organs evolved that the mathematical information of the universe began to be experienced in sensory terms. There are no physical sensory terms without the physical senses (!).

Before wrote, “What did God do before He made heaven and earth? He was preparing S t.hellAugustine for pryers into mysteries.” In fact, hell is for all those that do not rationally investigate the fundamental mysteries and reach the rational, indisputable answers.

Interpretations is full of interpretations. So is science. Look at quantum mechanics. Take your pick T heas toBible which of the many different interpretations is correct. There are no scientific facts, only scientific interpretations of facts. All scientific theories are interpretations of interpreted facts. Science is all about nested interpretations and inferences, all designed to defend the unproven, dubious philosophy of materialism and empiricism. Science, which claims to be about observation, is in fact a conceptual philosophy making philosophical claims regarding the absurd tenets of materialism and empiricism, and fiercely opposing rationalism and logic.

Original Thinking B. Cobb wrote, “No deeply original thinking can be expressed adequately in existing J ohn language.” Science cannot express the deepest thinking. Only ontological mathematics can. It’s the ultimate language, the language of reality itself. Mathematician G. H. Hardy wrote, “I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that

our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations’, are simply our notes of our observations.” In fact, the situation is much more radical than that. Mathematical reality lies inside us. We ourselves are mathematical. So is the world we construct between us. Ontological mathematics makes the most astounding assertion of all, namely that the basis of existence is the mind, and the mind is pure mathematics. That’s exactly why existence has an answer. Existence is mental and mathematical, which means we can mathematically work it out in our minds. What could be more straightforward than that?

Subjects B. Cobb wrote, “Subjects cannot be evolved from a world consisting only of objects.” J ohn This is exactly right. A world of matter cannot produce subjective minds. It’s impossible. For subjects to exist, they must exist eternally. This is what monads provide. Each is an eternal, necessary subjective agent (regarded from its own internal perspective) and each is an eternal, necessary objective agent (regarded from the external perspective of a different monad).

Causation mathematics reinstates the metaphysical causation described by Aristotle, thus O ntological restoring meaning and purpose to existence. Aristotle produced a four-dimensional understanding of causation. There are, he said, four causes behind all the change in the world: 1) the material cause (the physical properties or makeup of a thing; the stuff we can see, touch, taste, and so on), 2) the formal cause (the essence of a thing; what makes it one thing rather than another; the blueprint; the plan; the design; the structure), 3) the efficient cause (the thing or agent which actually brings something about; the immediate trigger of the change), and 4) the final cause (that for the sake of which a thing is done; the reason for a thing’s existence; its end; its goal; its purpose). For science, matter is passive, inert, dead. It is motionless unless moved by something. Matter doesn’t cause anything, hence there is no material cause in science. Science does not acknowledge that matter has any intrinsic, internal form, hence nothing has a formal cause in science. (Science imposes form on matter via scientific laws external to matter.) Science does not acknowledge any meaning or purpose, hence there is no final cause in science. So, only efficient causation applies to science. Ontological mathematics, by complete contrast, recognizes syntactic causation (causation due to form, due to the information carrier), semantic causation (causation due to content, due to the information carried), final causation (all syntax and related semantics is striving to attain a final, perfect end), as well as the efficient causation of science. This means that ontological mathematics can support meaning and purpose, a teleological universe, a universe heading towards a specific end, namely the maximization of meaning. Ontological mathematics supports directed evolution: evolution directed by reason and logic. Directed evolution is called orthogenesis. Wikipedia says, “Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction

towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or ‘driving force’. According to the theory, the largest-scale trends in evolution have an absolute goal such as increasing biological complexity. Prominent historical figures who have championed some form of evolutionary progress include Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Henri Bergson.” In ontological mathematics, existence is a mathematical life form, a mathematical organism that is subject to entropy (which divides it), and negentropy (which unites it), and it oscillates between these two poles. The Big Bang was where the mathematical universe underwent an entropic explosion on a cosmic scale, maximizing mental entropy. From then on, the universe strove to reduce mental entropy (to maximize mental negentropy). It will accomplish this at the Big Crunch, which exactly reverses the Big Bang. This oscillation from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang to Big Crunch, goes on forever, each cycle corresponding to a cosmic lifetime. We are of course all located in one such cycle right now. All mental life and physical life is played out in this cosmic competition between mathematical entropy (disorder) and negentropy (order). The ontological mathematical universe – since it is conceived as a living, mental organism seeking to perfect itself (“to become God”) – is completely different from the scientific universe, which used to be conceived as a mindless machine and is now viewed as a cosmic casino where all that happens are dice throws. Einstein said, “God does not play dice.” Science says, “There is no God, but whatever there is does nothing but roll the dice – meaninglessly, purposelessly, pointlessly, with no possible end.” Is that seriously what you’re buying?

The Software Paul Davies said that life is about the software, not the hardware. Really? According S cientist to science, there is nothing but hardware (matter). There is no authentic software (mind). In ontological mathematics, everything is about the software – the mind – and the hardware is one of its constructs.

Unreality so science says, deals with unreality. Scientific mathematics, so science says, M athematics, deals with reality. This is exactly the irrational claim forbidden and rejected by ontological mathematics. Science’s view of mathematics constitutes an incoherent substance dualism between two different types of mathematics. In practical terms, this illegitimate conception of mathematics works up to a point, which is why it has been accepted for so long. It works heuristically, not ontologically and epistemologically. Science does not care about coherence and truth, only about correspondence and practical, heuristic success.

CONCLUSION “Empirical sciences prosecuted purely for their own sake, and without philosophic tendency are like a face without eyes.” – Arthur Schopenhauer mathematics is for those that admire and respect science but have serious doubts O ntological about its intellectual coherence and whether it is strictly compatible with reason and logic. It’s a blunt fact that science does not accept either the principle of sufficient reason or Occam’s razor, hence can never be consistent with rationalism. Is science a subject with immense use-value but no truth-value? Is it just a heuristic modeling system that will never explain ultimate reality? Can it be converted into a system of total explanation by shifting its emphasis on materialism and empiricism to idealism and rationalism, from perceptualism to conceptualism, from semantics to syntax, and content to form? What ontological mathematics does is add metaphysics – conducted exclusively rationally, logically and mathematically – to physics, thus giving ontological mathematics total explanatory power. Ontological mathematics can systematically address all foundational metaphysical questions, unlike science which cannot address any of them because these problems are not, and never can be, associated with scientific observables. Science will never observe the state that preceded the Big Bang. It was not a perceptual scientific state. It was however a conceptual, mathematical state. Ontological mathematics is the true language of both physics and metaphysics, hence physics and metaphysics can be completely unified under ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics constitutes the supreme tool for addressing existence. It ushers in the final paradigm shift, correcting the incoherence of physics. Has your curiosity been sated? Or is your journey to the complete answer to everything just beginning?