This book explains how the entire universe can be created using just two ingredients: nothing at all, and the Principle

*5,517*
*430*
*3MB*

*English*
*Pages 483
[446]*
*Year 2015*

- Author / Uploaded
- Mike Hockney

*Table of contents : Ontological Mathematics: How to Create the UniverseTable of ContentsIntroductionThe Flowing PointThe Circles of EternityThe SoulThe Two LevelsThe God EquationThe Mathematical MindSplitting LightThe Measurement ProblemNo BuddhaMap and TerritoryNo PartsThe Picture of the UniverseMathmadeQualiaThe Cosmic HologramZeroNull LinesNothingIn the BeginningBubble SingularitiesThe KeyMathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)What Humanity Failed To GraspBeautiful FacesThe Cosmic Speed LimitIlluminismThe Enemies of MathThe ExamDead ScienceThe “No Privilege” PrincipleThe Point at InfinityThe Event HorizonMathematical Bubble MagicHubble, Bubble, Boil and TroubleBuddhism versus IlluminismThe DeludedGroundhog DeathThe Theory of EverythingScience and the Emperor’s New ClothesA World Without TimeThe Musical UniverseThe Absurdity of the Scientific MethodFormThe Energy ConundrumWho’s Right?Chronons and ChoransMonadsThe Cosmic HologramHyperboreaThe Prince of DarknessDivision By ZeroThe Soul CameraThe Launchpad to HeavenDark EnergyThe ParadoxThe Blind Leading The BlindThe Truth RelationshipScience’s War On Reason*

Ontological Mathematics: How to Create the Universe M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2015 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Table of Contents Ontological Mathematics: How to Create the Universe Table of Contents Introduction The Flowing Point The Circles of Eternity The Soul The Two Levels The God Equation The Mathematical Mind Splitting Light The Measurement Problem No Buddha Map and Territory No Parts The Picture of the Universe Mathmade Qualia The Cosmic Hologram Zero Null Lines Nothing

In the Beginning Bubble Singularities The Key Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) What Humanity Failed To Grasp Beautiful Faces The Cosmic Speed Limit Illuminism The Enemies of Math The Exam Dead Science The “No Privilege” Principle The Point at Infinity The Event Horizon Mathematical Bubble Magic Hubble, Bubble, Boil and Trouble Buddhism versus Illuminism The Deluded Groundhog Death The Theory of Everything Science and the Emperor’s New Clothes A World Without Time

The Musical Universe The Absurdity of the Scientific Method Form The Energy Conundrum Who’s Right? Chronons and Chorans Monads The Cosmic Hologram Hyperborea The Prince of Darkness Division By Zero The Soul Camera The Launchpad to Heaven Dark Energy The Paradox The Blind Leading The Blind The Truth Relationship Science’s War On Reason

Introduction The human race has always dreamt of finding the answer to existence. The problem is that it has no idea what constitutes an “answer”. Will the “answer” be empirical, sensory, mystical, intuitive, emotional, or rational? Will it be a mysterious Super Being called “God” who has stayed perfectly

hidden for the entire existence of the human race? Will it all come down to faith? Will there be any evidence or proof for it? But what do “evidence” and “proof” even mean? “Evidence” is something that goes hand in hand with the senses. Given that the senses are fallible, flawed, mutable, evolutionary, frequently delusional, subject to all manner of biases, convinced by dreams, mirages, hallucinations, optical and auditory illusions, and so on, who is going to rely on the unreliable witness which they constitute? The senses did not evolve with regard to the Truth. There is no sensory organ for truth, i.e. something that infallibly detects what is true and what is false. No one has even explained what it is that the senses are supposedly revealing to us. What is “matter”, for example? No one has ever defined it ontologically and epistemologically, and swathes of philosophy have been devoted to demonstrating that it’s impossible for “matter” – considered as something independent from minds and the ideas in minds – to exist at all. No advocate of the senses has ever refuted the immaterialist philosophies of Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley and Hegel, for example. When Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations”, he destroyed empiricism and the reliance on the senses. There are no sensory “facts”, only sensory interpretations. All “evidence” is interpretive. Scientists talk about there being evidence for the existence of “atoms”. Do you have any idea what an atom is ontologically? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen a nucleus and orbiting electrons? Given Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, how can atomic “matter” be anything other than some vague, blurry, undefined, indefinable, hazy, statistical, indeterministic, unprovable, indeterminate speculation? Where is the solidity, the certainty, the clarity? How can fuzzy, contingent, temporal “atoms” be related to absolute, infallible, eternal, necessary Platonic Truth? You can’t even begin to contemplate discovering the answer to existence unless you have first defined what you mean by the word “answer”, how you are going to approach finding it, and why you should expect anyone else to agree with you. This book provides a definitive way forward. The answer we shall provide is predicated entirely on rationality, i.e. we assert that the answer to existence must be founded on pure reason, and nothing else. We reject your feelings, your subjective experiences, your mystical intuitions, your perceptions, your beliefs, opinions, hypotheses, conjectures, sensory

“evidence”, the stories you tell yourself (Mythos), your prophets, your popes, your sages, your Messiahs, your gurus, your shamans, your authorities, your “sacred” texts, your “holy” books, your “divine” scriptures, your scientific experiments (which are always falsifiable, and always in want of never-ending verification). All of it – everything humanity has told itself, all of its religions and sciences – is baloney and claptrap. It’s all contrary to reason. Science claims to be rational while subscribing to no rational principles whatsoever, and being predicated solely on sensory empiricism (i.e. antirationalism). The only reason why science works is that it uses rationalist mathematics, yet scientists regard math as unreal, abstract and manmade. In other words, according to science, we have to use a manmade construct to explain the reality that constructed man. That’s what you call circular logic. Nothing manmade can explain what preceded man. So, is there anything that necessarily precedes humanity? The answer is of course reason. The eternal truths of reason are exactly that... eternal. Humanity is temporal and contingent. The universe could easily get by without the human race. Mankind has no logical necessity. The eternal truths of reason, on the other hand, are absolutely fundamental and necessary. They cannot not exist. Given that the eternal truths of reason necessarily exist, they must be conveyed by entities that eternally exist too (assuming we are not going to buy into the notion of some transcendental Platonic domain of perfect, freefloating Forms). So, what are these entities? According to mainstream religion, “God”, or some mystical Oneness, is the eternal repository of the eternal truths of reason. According to scientific materialism, there is no eternal ontological order, and thus science claims that either reality is grounded in bottomless, infinite contingent regress (which is no answer), or that existence can randomly jump out of nonexistence for no reason, via no mechanism (which is also no answer). This book is about there being only one system consistent with reason that can exist eternally, and thus convey the eternal truths of reason. That system is mathematics. Mathematics, in our system, rationally replaces what people call “God”. Mathematics does everything “God” does, but without all of the anthropomorphic elements that humanity has projected onto the eternal source of existence.

Mathematics isn’t listening to your prayers, isn’t judging you, isn’t sending you to heaven or hell, isn’t in an emotional relationship with you, isn’t interested in your happy clappy hymns and your outstretched hands, isn’t serving any agenda of “love and peace”. Mathematics, in itself, has zero connection with “morality” and “love” – which is why there is no problem with the existence of “evil” in a mathematical universe, but there most certainly is in a universe supposedly created by an all-powerful, loving Creator, incapable of evil. By subscribing to mathematics, we don’t need to ask you to believe, trust or blindly accept anything we say. You either agree with reason, expressed ontologically through mathematics, or you don’t. That’s the end of it there and then. Total clarity! Of course, if you disagree with reason, you are ipso facto promoting unreason, and, given that, why would we listen to anything you say? Why do we disregard the claims of mainstream religion? Because they’re based on feelings, stories, mysticism, gurus, prophets and “revelation”. There’s no trace of reason. Why do we disregard the claims of scientific materialism? Because they’re based on the senses, and not on reason. Just ask yourself what happens when you subtract rationalist mathematics from science. What’s left? – nothing! How can a subject that defines itself empirically (via the experimental method; experiments being the means by which scientists measure sensory experiences) be 100% useless without rationalist mathematics which involves no empiricism or experiments whatsoever? What’s truly alarming about scientists is that they have no clue about this fatal contradiction at the heart of their subject, and they don’t care. Indeed, many practising scientists even denounce modern science for being too mathematical and insufficiently experimental. They conveniently refuse to ask themselves why science uses mathematics at all. To use mathematics presupposes that you know what it is you’re using. It’s obviously irrational to use tools you don’t understand, and have no idea why you’re using them. Science cannot be a rational subject until it defines exactly what mathematics is, and exactly what mathematics’ relation is to both science and the world (reality). Isn’t it extraordinary that science has never once addressed the ontology of mathematics? Even worse, it has no means for doing so. There is nothing in the scientific method of experiments that can analyse mathematics, which is wholly divorced from experiments.

So, our simple is claim is this: if the universe has a rational and intelligible answer, it must be rational and intelligible. After all, how could there be a rational, intelligible answer to an irrational and unintelligible universe? That would be a category error. Equally, how could an inherently irrational and unintelligible universe ever generate any rational and intelligible things and events? Scientists don’t accept that the universe is rational and intelligible. Instead, they claim that it’s “sensible”, i.e. that we must define our relationship to it in terms of our non-rational senses, and not our rational intellect. A sensible universe cannot have an intelligible answer. That, once again, is a category error. Science is a duplicitous subject because it actually rides two horses at once: 1) empiricism, via observations and experiments, and 2) rationalism, via mathematics. Scientists are too stupid to realise that you cannot find a rationalist answer to an empiricist hypothesis, or vice versa. When scientists talk about a “final theory of everything”, they mean they believe they will be able to construct a mathematical formula that caters for all scientific situations. Yet there can’t be anything “final” in science given that it defines itself as being based on the principles of verification and falsification, both of which are inconsistent with anything ever reaching a definitive state. Science simultaneously endorses two incompatible positions: 1) that science can have a definitive end, and 2) that science cannot have a definitive end. Whatever “final” claim science makes will be falsifiable and in need of verification, hence it won’t be “final” at all. Any new experiment could falsify it at any time. Science is trapped in bizarre doublethink. Via mathematical rationalism, it can conceive of a final equation to describe everything, but via experimental empiricism, it immediately denies that science can ever reach a final state. How irrational is that? Science is always caught in two minds, reflecting the fact that it simultaneously subscribes to empiricism and rationalism, which cannot be rationally reconciled. It’s forever switching back and forth between mathematical rationalism and experimental empiricism, but never at any time refers to the absolute contradiction this entails. Neither scientists nor their audience see the problem. This means that they can enjoy the best of both worlds, and maintain two opposite positions at once. They are not troubled by the contradiction because they

simply ignore the contradiction. Philosophers are concerned by contradictions. Scientists aren’t. Science seems much more powerful than it actually is because it uses two approaches to addressing the universe (empiricism and rationalism), even though it has established no connection between empiricism and rationalism, hence has no valid right to switch between the two at whim, to defend whatever argument it happens to be proposing at the time. Science continually switches between relying on experiments to make its case, to then making mathematical claims that have no experimental basis whatsoever. Nothing reveals the fundamental absurdity of science more than the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat. With this paradox, the most astonishing ontological claim is made – that unobserved reality comprises unreal, abstract mathematical probability functions. We are expected to accept that an unobserved cat in a particular, prepared apparatus is simultaneously dead, alive and in mixed dead-alive states, until we open the apparatus (perform an observation) and discover the cat to be either alive or dead, and nothing in between. There is exactly no connection between the experimental outcome, and the bizarre mathematical world said to underpin it. The whole of science is now infected by this untenable dualism. On the one hand, we are presented with experimental data. On the other hand, we are presented with the most truly astounding and insane mathematical inferences to “explain” the experimental results. If you truly think that unobserved cats can be alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states, you have a catastrophic problem with the reality principle. As we shall see, modern science totally contradicts the reality principle. Science reaches its idiotic conclusions on the basis of its philosophical Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. If it instead used rationalism and idealism (as Leibniz advocated), it would reach 100% different conclusions. For scientific empiricism and materialism to be a valid undertaking, it has to be capable of disproving its rival of scientific rationalism and idealism. Far from being able to accomplish this, scientists can’t even ontologically define “matter” (how can “matter” be something that dissolves into unreal (!) mathematical probability wavefunctions when no one is observing it?), so how can they possibly refute idealism? Equally, how can the scientific worship of experiments disprove that there is a

rational world (of ontological mathematics) upon which no sensory experiments can be performed? Science can’t prove anything at all. All it can do is speculate, and then claim that its speculations are supported by the experimental “evidence”. Yet there is no experimental support for the deranged claim taught in every science class in the world that Schrödinger’s cat can “exist” in an unreal probability state until observed. No one can observe a “probability state”, so such a state is incompatible with empiricism and experimentalism. (Nor is a probability state compatible with rationalism and the reality principle.) Equally, unreal probability states cannot be equated to any conceivable definition of matter as an enduring, solid entity that exists unchanged whether or not we’re observing it. Therefore, science’s own claims refute its philosophical Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Science has already disproved itself. It has already falsified the basis of its own theories!!! Naturally, science refuses to acknowledge this. This is because, like religion, it refuses to subject itself to philosophical scrutiny, hence the patent philosophical absurdities of science are never exposed. No scientist ever, under any circumstances, debates seriously with a critical philosopher. Science adopts the most extraordinary tactic. It basically makes an infinite number of wild and ridiculous claims (called “hypotheses”), and then says that only one test can be applied to deciding whether these claims are valid or not, namely that of matching the prediction of each hypothesis to the experimental data. No logical or rational principles are applied. No philosophical arguments are invoked. Everything stands or falls by whether or not there is apparent, provisional agreement with the hypothesis and experimental outcomes. Science dismisses absolutely all arguments unrelated to experimental outcomes. The supreme irony of course is that everything science says about the unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions of quantum mechanics – which it now relies upon – cannot in any way be detected experimentally. This is the most crucial of points. Science uses experiments to infer a “reality” or “unreality” (science can’t ontologically define either) that supposedly underlies those experiments and explains their outcomes, yet this proposed underlying world cannot itself in any way be experimentally detected, i.e. there is no experiment you can conduct to show that the claim that unreal, abstract probability wavefunctions have any role to play in our world is true, meaning that the

entire basis of science is pure speculation, with zero evidence or proof. For all its bluster, science is nothing but a belief system, and thus a quasireligion. Science, like religion, is about dubious inferences and interpretations (misinterpretations), derived from its unproved and unprovable philosophy. It doesn’t even admit that it has a philosophy, and that alternative philosophies would result in entirely different – and much more rational and logical – interpretations of what underlies experimental outcomes. Science rejects “hidden variables” on the basis that they are not compatible with experimentalism, yet the unreal probability wavefunctions it relies on are themselves “hidden variables”. Just as no experiment can reveal hidden variables (such as imaginary or complex numbers, or monadic singularities), so no experiment can reveal the existence of probability wavefunctions (indeed these probability wavefunctions have their basis in complex numbers!). In other words, science is incredibly disingenuous and inconsistent in what it regards as “hidden variables”. And it refuses to allow any philosophical light to be shone on its illogical claims and dubious terms of reference. No analytic philosophy is ever involved in the production of scientific papers. There is no philosophical review of scientific claims. Science is a giant scam and fraud that fools almost everyone (and especially scientists themselves). It’s just a Mythos. It’s a model – a simulacrum – of reality constructed according to a certain philosophy. It’s definitely not reality itself. If science’s philosophy is false – and we have already demonstrated that it is – it cannot reflect reality. Just as Christians once explained everything in terms of an unseen God, and unseen angels and demons, science now relies on something even more bizarre: unseen, unreal probability functions. The use of “probabilities” is exceptionally cunning because scientists never have to commit themselves to specific causes, to sufficient reasons, to direct explanations. They can always say that something is “probably” going to happen. If it does, they claim the credit. If it doesn’t, they say that some less probable outcome has taken place (i.e. they don’t have a clue what happened). This is rather like religion where “God” gets praised for everything that goes right, and is never blamed for what goes wrong. “Probability” is a get-out clause when the results you get are not the ones you predicted. Reality never operates probabilistically. Reality is

exactly that which is 100% certain and concrete. If this weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be real. Science is willing to say that our supposedly concrete world is underpinned by probabilistic unreality. Therefore, if you accept the existence of reality, you must reject science! If you accept science, you have abandoned any hope of explaining reality. Firstly, you have ipso facto rejected reality, and secondly you have made the most outrageous claim that apparent reality comes from non-reality, existence from non-existence. That makes you irrational. You subscribe to concepts that are logically impossible. Science has never addressed the fundamental problem raised by David Hume, namely, that it’s impossible to make any empirical connection between what we perceive and what we infer underlies those perceptions. We cannot perceive causation. The entire order of causation is empirically unobservable. As soon as you attempt to explain the empirical world, you have immediately ceased to rely on empiricism, hence, if you are an empiricist, you have automatically contradicted yourself. No consistent empiricist would ever try to explain his perceptions. Hume arrived at exactly this position. He was the supreme skeptic, nihilist and solipsist, and denied the possibility of any true knowledge. All he believed in was an undefined stream of perceptions and impressions onto which we projected various ideas, while having no empirical reason to believe in the validity of our projections. Why do scientists refuse to engage with these questions? It’s because if they did they would expose the farce that science actually is. They would show the world that science is a tower built on sand, with no solid foundations, and is incapable of providing true knowledge. Where Hume said that we can never know what underlies our perceived reality, science absurdly claims that we can “know” that probabilistic unreality underlies “reality”. Hume, if he had heard this, would have died laughing. Science is all about empiricism, yet repudiates empiricism with its claims about unreal, unobservable probability functions. How crazy is that?! Science is so conflicted because it’s wholly reliant on mathematics, and mathematics is the quintessential anti-empiricist subject. Science attempts the impossible. It seeks to arrive at the rationalist (mathematical) “explanation” of reality most compatible with its empiricist philosophy, and it has alighted upon unreal mathematical probability

wavefunctions as the best means to achieve this. By calling mathematics unreal (non-ontological), science does not have to confront a rationalist reality entirely hidden from our empirical perceptions. Yet science cannot do without mathematics, so has to couch all of its explanations in mathematical terms. Its fundamental dilemma is to use mathematics without acknowledging the reality of mathematics (which would automatically contradict empiricism). Hume, unlike science, would never have dreamt of appealing to “unreality” to “explain” reality. It’s an inherent illogicality. Non-causal, unreal mathematical probabilities are how science attempts to square the circle (of the relationship between mathematical rationalism and experimental empiricism): an impossible task. Once you rationally reject these crazy unreal mathematical probabilities – designed to accommodate empiricism – you are left with non-probabilistic, mathematical realities, i.e. the stuff of monadic ontological mathematics. These support a rationalist, not empiricist, understanding of reality. With rationalism, the entirety of Hume’s empiricist skepticism can be ditched, but at the expense of downgrading our entire sensory reality, i.e. a rationalist does not take seriously the claims of his senses and experiences in terms of explaining reality. Reality in itself is something beyond human experience and perception, but not beyond reason, logic and intellect. Rationalists do not seek to make mathematics compatible with empiricism. They seek to make empiricism compatible with mathematics. This is a diametrically opposed worldview to that of science. Rationalists start with the assumption that reality is intelligible and then seek to explain it. Empiricists start with their experiences (with the sensible rather than intelligible) and discover that they can’t explain them, so ending up appealing to “unreality”, “probability”, or indeed nothing at all. Unless you think that reality is fundamentally intelligible, you cannot possibly arrive at an intelligible answer to it. Empiricists do not accept intelligibility. They accept sensibility, which has no connection with intelligibility. They are looking for a “sensible” answer, i.e. an answer they can perceive with their senses or experiments (at least in principle, if not in actuality). They certainly aren’t looking for a rational, logical and intelligible answer, beyond the reach of any experiment. Kant tried to reconcile empiricism and rationalism via a philosophical manoeuvre: by attempting to combine the “analytic a priori” and the “synthetic a posteriori”. The rationalist world revolves around the analytic

a priori, i.e. we can work out reality prior to experience, just by applying our analytic, a priori pure reasoning. The empirical world, on the other hand, revolves around the synthetic a posteriori, i.e. we can work out reality only after the fact, after we have experienced it and formed ideas about it. Kant believed he had found the key to blending empiricism and rationalism via his proposed “synthetic a priori” category. Thanks to its a priori nature, we can apply it with certainty before we experience the world, and thanks to its synthetic nature, it does not deal with “empty” analytic tautology. Kant rejected “pure” reason and claimed that ultimate reality (in itself) was formally unknowable. The best we could do was apply valid synthetic a priori judgments to it. This was Kant’s answer to Hume’s skepticism, and especially Hume’s critique of causation. In effect, Kant simply, by decree, hardwired causation into our perception of the world. For Kant, knowledge derives from a synthesis of a posteriori experiences and a priori concepts. Without our senses, we could never become aware of any object, and without our conceptual understanding of the object, we could not frame it in any intelligible terms. Since pure reason has no connection with the senses, it did not, in Kant’s terms, lead to “knowledge”. This means that Kant’s philosophy is merely a sophisticated (and dishonest!) version of empiricism, and repudiates formal rationalism. Kant famously said, “Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.” Rationalism, for Kant, equated to “thoughts without intuitions” (or Form without Content), and empiricism to “intuitions without concepts” (or Content without Form). Kant conceived of some things existing as pure, unknowable content (things in themselves), and other things as pure, unknowable formative minds (also things in themselves) that projected form onto formless content, thus rendering them “knowable”. Anything – such as souls, the entire universe, or God – that could not have form projected onto it by minds could not be “known” in Kantian terms. Kant, unlike scientists, did not deny the existence of “unknowables”. He simply denied that we could say anything meaningful about them. Scientists take the further invalid step of claiming that anything that is not meaningful to us (in terms of sensory science, that is) can have no reality. Kant’s scheme is a variation on Aristotelian hylomorphism whereby form and content (matter) are always found together, except in the limiting

cases of prime matter (formless matter) and God (matterless form). Prime matter, God and souls (minds) are Kant’s unknowable noumena. Everything else comprises “phenomena”, i.e. formed content (content with a form successfully projected onto it by a perceiving mind). We can’t project a form onto matter in itself, and nor can we project a form onto God, our own minds, or onto the complete universe (which we cannot perceive in its entirety). Kant refused to accept the rationalist position that the things of pure reason definitely exist, and exist exactly because they are the things of pure reason, i.e. they are rational things justified by reason, and not by anything else that has no connection with reason. If something has a sufficient reason, it must exist, i.e. rational essence and ontology are the same thing. Anything with a sufficient reason cannot not exist. This is the entire basis of rationalism. Anything without a sufficient reason, on the other hand, is rendered non-existent by that fact. Since science is full of hypothetical things without a sufficient reason, science cannot tell us anything about ultimate reality (i.e. rational, intelligible reality that has an answer). There is no such thing as scientific “matter”, so the whole of science is false. Reality is fundamentally mental, but mind is denied by science, so, again, the whole of science is false. As soon as you get rid of rational things as the root of reality, you have no option but to resort to Kant’s unknowable noumena, or some undefined “God”, or a mystical “Oneness”, or science’s crazy non-existence that randomly generates existence, for no reason, via no mechanism. It’s reason or bust. It’s reason or madness. It’s reason or unreason. Make your choice. Only rationalism supports reason. Everything else, including science, Hume and Kant, endorses unreason. Empiricism cannot prove the logical necessity of the laws it seeks to invoke to defend empiricism. In fact, it’s a category error to apply “laws” to empiricism since, as Hume realised, an empirical universe can have no laws. Laws appear in science purely thanks to rationalist mathematics. Remove mathematics from science, as Hume did to remain consistent in his empiricism, and all of science’s laws vanish. What’s left is nothing but a set of Mythos speculations: augury and divination. What’s left is psychology, not science. Science is a fraud, a con, a scam, an anti-intellectual joke, riddled with blatant contradictions and inconsistencies – all stemming from the unholy

marriage between mathematics and the empirical philosophy of “matter” (something that no empiricist can define, yet which all empiricists take for granted and accept as holy writ). No one of intellectual integrity could view science and its relentless lies with anything but horror. Science works thanks to mathematics. Full stop. As soon as you go beyond scientific observations, science collapses. Its contradictions overwhelm it. Science, when it comes to cosmology, for example, is fantasy. The increasingly popular “Multiverse” is as bad as anything in religion. It might as well be a religion. You might as well believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. It’s laughable that scientists got rid of “God” in the name of “reason”, and then put something even more offensive to reason in God’s place. Given that they are empiricists, these people repudiate reason, so why do they still cite “reason”? They don’t know what the word means. Kant failed to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, and science equally failed. Kant resorted to using minds to project rational form onto formless empirical things through nothing other than Kantian decree (by “faculties”, “categories”, a priori intuitions, synthetic a priori judgments, and so on... none of these has any rational necessity). Science stole mathematical rationalism to underpin irrationalist empiricism. It never gave any logical justification for this irrational larceny. It simply said, “It works”. As Nietzsche pointed out so devastatingly, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” Science is taken much more seriously than religion because it’s much more successful than religion, not because it’s much more logical and rational than religion. People are persuaded by it just as they are persuaded by success in every walk of life. Science literally has zero truth content. How can it given that it rejects mind and is predicated on a non-existent called “matter”? Hume didn’t bother trying to combine rationalism and empiricism. Given his philosophy of empiricist skepticism, he regarded it as impossible. Hume saw no valid link at all between rationalism and empiricism. So, what is the answer? For Kant, formless matter and matterless form were both noumenal, hence unknowable, while all formed matter was phenomenal, hence knowable. In fact, there is no such thing as formless matter, and no such thing as matterless form, so Kant’s scheme is bogus. Dual-aspect entities

are what actually exist. All form is necessarily accompanied by content (“matter”, we might say), and all content is accompanied by form. You can’t get one without the other, no more than you can get a coin with only one side. The “formed” side of reality is its rational aspect, which we interrogate via reason, logic and mathematics. The “content” side of reality is its empirical aspect, which we interrogate via our senses, feelings, desires, and intuitions. It’s not a case of uniting rationalism and empiricism, as Kant attempted. They are already united, but as opposite sides of a single ontological coin. You can’t get from one to the other, just as no amount of staring at a tail will show you what a head looks like, and vice versa. Science is the attempt to work out what a “head” is like by examining the patterns associated with “tails”. It can’t be done. Abstract mathematics is all about form and no content. Science is all about content, viewed through the prism of the subset of mathematics deemed compatible with the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism (and ignoring all the rest of mathematics). Ontological mathematics is all about form and content. All mathematical forms are waves, and every mathematical wave has a particular experiential quality associated with it (i.e. a qualis; plural = qualia). To put it another way, all quantities are associated with qualities, and vice versa. This is the link science has always failed to make. Because qualities cannot be measured, and quantities can, science – which is all about the measurement of quantities – ignores the entire qualitative universe. Also, the quantities science measures are those concerned with phenomena and not noumena, so it equally ignores the entire noumenal quantitative universe (of mental frequencies outside space and time). In other words, science deals only with phenomenal quantities, and rejects everything else. It rejects all qualia and all noumena, i.e. the stuff of mind, religion, spirituality and mathematical rationalism. There are four aspects of reality you have to consider: 1) noumenal quantities. 2) noumenal qualities. 3) phenomenal quantities. 4) phenomenal qualities.

Pure rationalism deals with noumenal (unobservable) quantities, and derives phenomenal quantities from them. Science deals with phenomenal quantities only, and denies noumenal quantities (which it would regard as “hidden variables”). Empiricism deals only with phenomenal qualities. These are in turn derived from noumenal qualities (qualities in themselves), which no one can ever directly access in any meaningful way. Kant believed that we have an inbuilt conceptual mental apparatus for making sense of the world. Science believes that we can make sense of the world by underpinning it with unreal, abstract mathematical probabilities. Ontological mathematics says that we can make sense of the world only by identifying those rational entities whose existence is eternally rationally necessary, and from which everything else is derived. These are the foundational “notes” of reality, and the world we encounter corresponds to how the notes are played. Science disregards eternal necessity and is a purely heuristic undertaking... Heuristic (from the ancient Greek heuriskein “to discover”): gaining knowledge by intelligent guesswork rather than by following a preestablished formula, theory or program; based on experimentation, or trial-and-error methods; using experience to learn and improve; using rules of thumb; relating to a usually speculative formulation that serves as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem; educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student; using or obtained by exploration of possibilities rather than by following set rules; in computing, denoting a rule of thumb for solving a problem without the exhaustive application of an algorithm. Since science is heuristic rather than rational and logical, it does not invoke any formal principles. It’s all about “suck it and see”. You cannot answer the question of what is ultimate existence via heuristics. Science glosses over the fact that it’s doing something technically illegal: mixing rationalism and empiricism. The “brilliance” of science’s stratagem of ignoring philosophy is that it never has to justify any of its absurd ontology and epistemology. Science never addresses any arguments it doesn’t like. Scientists don’t refer to the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, all of whom delivered fatal blows to the ideology of scientism.

Religions refuse to take on their critics, and so does science. The only reason why science isn’t regarded as a quasi-religion is that its ideology is so unclear, so confusing – especially to scientists themselves – so complex, so intricate, and so intermixed with bewildering mathematics that virtually no one can gain any real insight into one is going on and what is being claimed. Moreover, you need to be an expert in the scientific ideology to even be in the game, so that rules out anyone who doesn’t have high-level scientific literacy. Religious types can’t put any dents in science because they don’t understand science. Only philosophers, mathematicians and scientists themselves are equipped to challenge science’s claims, but almost no philosophers, mathematicians and scientists are in any way motivated to challenge science since they themselves are on board with science’s ideology. Indeed, it was people exactly like them who put the ideology in place to begin with. The only people who could dent science’s self-confidence are precisely those people who have no interest at all in denting science’s selfconfidence. It’s Catch-22. Science is subject to immense, unstoppable conformism and groupthink. Heretics, blasphemers, apostates, infidels and freethinkers are all marginalised, ridiculed and excluded from science. No one who challenges scientific orthodoxy receives any scientific funding. Anyone who casts doubt on science is labelled a crank. These are all the characteristics of a religion, not of a rational, open-minded discipline that objectively questions itself, and seeks to perfect itself. There are no critics in science, only true believers. There is no such thing as a scientist who does not subscribe to empiricism and materialism. It’s impossible to find any science that addresses rationalism and idealism. Science can’t refute rationalism and idealism, it simply doesn’t entertain them at all. Leibniz was the last scientist to support rationalism and idealism, and he has been largely removed from the history of science. Nothing to do with Leibniz is taught in any science class on earth. Yet for all of its complexity, science reduces to the most simplistic basis. Scientists actually have only one card to play: “experimental evidence”. However, experimental evidence is moonshine without mathematics, and science has never once explained what it is that experiments are revealing to us as far as ontology and epistemology are concerned.

Scientists can ontologically define neither “matter” nor “energy”. All that science does is attach measurements to arbitrary labels. “Atom” is just a label. As soon as you drill down into the modern concept of “atom”, it’s impossible to understand what is being asserted. All of a sudden, we’re in the land of unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions, arbitrary wavefunction collapse, intrinsic uncertainty, and so on. When the average, simple minded person contemplates an “atom”, they either imagine a hard, little object, such as the ancient Greek Atomists believed in, or miniature solar systems with electrons as planets whizzing around a nucleus as the sun. But, given quantum mechanics, both of these pictures are absurd, so the whole atomic theory is a fantasy. In the end, “atoms” are just heuristics disguising the fact that the whole of atomic theory is an arbitrary mathematical scheme, which has no ontological and epistemological basis. “Atoms” are pseudo-mathematical functions force-fitted to experimental data. All mathematical “hidden variables” are necessarily excluded, but in what way has science ever proved that mathematical hidden variables do not exist? This is why it’s critical to define what mathematics is ontologically. Science should have to explain why, in its illogical opinion, there are two types of mathematics: 1) a full, rational mathematics based on every mathematical component required to provide mathematical completeness and consistency, and 2) a partial, empirical mathematics, which is both inconsistent and incomplete, but eliminates all hidden variables. Science refuses to engage in any such exercise. It knows it would destroy itself if it asked too searchingly what mathematics actually is and why science uses it. Mathematics is the ultimate taboo for scientists.

How To Build A Universe To build a rational universe, we require only two ingredients: 1) nothing at all, and 2) reason. In fact, given that we are going to define “nothing at all” purely in terms of reason, we are left with just reason to explain the whole of rational existence. This, of course, makes perfect rational sense. How could we explain a hypothetical irrational universe via reason? Alternatively, how could we explain a hypothetical rational universe by using anything other than reason? Nothing irrational can be invoked to explain a rational universe because that would instantly render the universe irrational.

So, a rational universe – which automatically means an intelligible universe – must be explained solely using reason. No other factor can intrude since any other factor would make the universe irrational and unintelligible. We now come to a second consideration: that of the Cartesian interaction problem. When Descartes defined matter as extended and mind as unextended, he appeared to leave nothing in common between the two substances by which they could interact. Exactly the same considerations apply to reason and unreason. There is no conceivable way in which reason can interact with unreason. Reason and unreason cannot co-exist in the same universe. You cannot have rational things in one place and irrational things in another place. Rational things cannot move amongst irrational things. This means that either everything is rational, or everything is irrational. The universe is 100% rational or 100% irrational. It can’t be a bit rational and a lot irrational, or a lot rational and a little irrational. It’s a zerosum game. It’s all or nothing. If the universe is 100% rational, it automatically has a rational answer. Anyone who is rational enough can work it out. There’s no mysterious veil drawn over the universe. There’s no irrational stumbling block that defies rational understanding. If the universe is 100% irrational then it automatically has no answer at all. Mathematics would be useless. Experiments would give different results every time. Chaos would reign. There would be no possibility of order, pattern and organisation. There could be no “atoms”, no bodies, no moons, no planets, no stars, no galaxies. In fact, there couldn’t even be a universe. An irrational universe would wipe itself out through its own irrationality. It would be riven by fatal contradictions. It would be explosively unstable. In summary, if you agree that the universe has an answer – that we can explain existence – then you agree that the universe is 100% rational, hence is literally made of reason. A universe made of reason has a rational explanation, an answer. No other type of universe does. Hegel famously said, “The real is rational, and the rational is real.” By extension, the unreal isn’t rational, and the irrational isn’t real. Hegel’s philosophy reflects panlogism. Wikipedia says, “In philosophy, panlogism is a Hegelian doctrine that holds that the universe is the act or realization of Logos. According to the doctrine of panlogism, logic and

ontology are the same study.” For Hegel, the universe was a giant rational organism, dialectically evolving to a state of consciousness of itself. It literally works out how to rationally comprehend itself, to find the answer to what it is. How could an irrational universe ever reach a rational understanding of itself? When people use sub-optimal reason to understand the universe, they arrive at sub-optimal answers such as “God”, or the “Oneness”, or Spirit, or “atoms”, or whatever. No one ever concludes that irrationality – something that has no possible explanation – is the basis of existence. Everyone, no matter what they believe, subscribes to some version of order being at the base of everything. Why not go the whole way and put pure order – reason itself – at the foundation of existence?

***** Are you ready to begin? In front of your disbelieving eyes, we are going to use reason alone to account for the entirety of existence. We shall create a 100% rational universe that explains everything you encounter in the world. Step One: Nothingness Our first task is to rationally define “nothing at all”. Only then can we start to define what “something” is. “Nothing at all” has no properties of any kind. It has no mass, energy, speed, extension, dimensionality, location density, weight, colour, smell, taste, sound, appearance, qualia, consciousness, unconsciousness, or anything else. Is there anything helpful we can utilise that meets this definition? There’s only one possible answer: the static mathematical point. This is “nothing”, “zero”, void, blankness, emptiness. It is nothing and it does nothing. It has no effects, no consequences. It’s as if it’s not there at all, and indeed, it isn’t there at all. This is pure zero, abstract zero, unreal zero, non-ontological zero. If we can have one nothingness, i.e. one mathematical point, we can have an infinite number. Nothing can prevent nothing. Where one static point is possible, infinite static points are possible. But all we are doing is multiplying nothing. We are merely creating infinite nothingness. This is the ground state of “reality”. Anyone who wants to explain the reality we observe must explain why there is more than just this infinite nothingness. What sufficient reason is there for more than simple nothing?

Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. Mathematically, this equates to asking what could be legitimately, rationally added to nothing at all, without violating the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. without creating an arbitrary add on to nothing that we could never justify. If nothing is the ground state of reality then anything we add to nothing cannot violate this ground state, i.e. whatever we add must itself be some version of nothing at all, while of course not being nothing at all (because then we could never have “something”). Only one thing can be added to static points without defying the principle of sufficient reason. That thing is motion. If “nothing” = nonexistence = static mathematical points, then “something” = existence = moving mathematical points. Existence, in other words, is rational, mathematical motion. But why should a mathematical point move? The answer, naturally, is the principle of sufficient reason itself. If it is possible for a point to move, and there is no sufficient reason for it not to move, then it must move. The only thing that would stop a point from moving is if it violated the zero ground state of the universe. The principle of sufficient reason does not allow any particular state to be arbitrarily privileged over any other state that satisfies exactly the same conditions. Thus, there is no sufficient reason for a static universe of absolute nothingness if a dynamic universe of somethingness can just as readily satisfy exactly the same requirement for the universe never to exceed a ground state energy of precisely zero forever. There is nothing special about absolute nothingness. It is no more fundamental than any other state that necessarily obeys the compulsory ground state energy of zero of the universe. Every state that satisfies the ground state energy of the universe will and must exist since there is nothing to prevent it. Moreover it will exist necessarily and eternally. Every such state is part of the permanent fibre and fabric of existence. This is the framework of the universe, the inherent superstructure and substructure. Everything hangs on this. It fills up existence. There are no gaps at all. In Leibniz’s system, true substances were “metaphysical” points which, so Leibniz said, were both real and exact, while physical points were real but not exact, and mathematical points were exact but not real.

In modern ontological mathematics, static mathematical points are exact but unreal, while moving mathematical points serve as the basis for both metaphysical points (concerned with minds) and physical points (concerned with matter).

Existence: Certain or Uncertain? Science claims that reality is shrouded in some sort of inherent uncertainty or indeterminacy, supposedly arising from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Let’s apply the problem of Cartesian substance dualism to uncertainty. How can uncertainty interact with certainty? They have zero in common. Ergo, either the whole of reality is totally uncertain, or the whole of reality is totally certain. Look around. Do you see uncertainty, indeterminacy, fuzziness, haziness, blurriness? According to science, the macroscopic world is more or less deterministic and certain, while the microscopic world is said to be indeterministic and uncertain. How is that possible? It automatically raises the dilemma of how certainty can interact with uncertainty, determinism with indeterminism, or how one can possibly originate in the other. Science never bothers to address these fundamental issues. We can abolish all of this alleged uncertainty by appealing to mathematics and zero/infinity mathematical monads. Science’s absurd claim that the fundamental basis of existence is shrouded in uncertainty, indeterminacy, indeterminism, acausation, statistics and probability is entirely refuted by a rational, rather than empirical, analysis of ontology. It’s impossible for energy to be “borrowed” from some mysterious temporal twilight zone and then rapidly repaid, as science crazily suggests. Science doesn’t even propose any mechanism for this borrowing. It’s imagined to take place as if by magic. Once the miracle happens, scientists nod sagely and say, “Ah, the uncertainty explains it.” They might as well refer to “God” – an equally ridiculous non-explanation that pretends to make sense of things but never rises above the purest nonsense. Science puts in an enormous effort to explain nothing at all. If you think “uncertainty” is an explanation, you plainly don’t know what an explanation is. “Uncertainty” is what you refer to when you are seeking to hide the gulf in your knowledge, and have no clue what the explanation is.

Existence, in its fundamental aspect, is the most precise and perfect thing you can possibly get. It is absolutely analytic. It has no uncertainty whatsoever. Only mathematics can provide the perfect, precise, unbreakable, absolutely stable, complete and consistent foundations of eternal existence. Any other foundations would instantly destroy themselves, especially any foundations built on “uncertainty”. Have you ever seen a house with “uncertain” foundations? If a house would fall over without stable, certain foundations, think how much more rapidly the universe itself would collapse without such foundations. Indeed, it would never stand at all. It’s not a question of why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, every state exactly equal to nothing cannot not exist. Even the state of infinite static points can be considered as a special kind of existence, one with absolutely no consequences and no effects, hence which sits permanently in the background, making no difference to anything. It is the state of nothing = nothing, while all other states are something = nothing. These are all mathematical states. They cannot be any other types of state. The arche, the ultimate substance of existence, is pure, analytic math, exactly equal to zero at all time. Naive religious types have called it “God”, or the Oneness, or the Spirit, or cosmic consciousness, or Will. Empiricists and materialists have rubbished all of that and opted for something much worse... non-existence that randomly and miraculously creates existence for no reason, and via no mechanism. If you want to avoid all of these crazy ideas, you have nowhere to go but math. Only math can provide a rational, logical explanation of existence. Everything else is moonshine and Mythos.

The Flowing Point How do mathematical points move in order to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason? The following considerations must all be taken into account: 1) No valid state must be privileged over any other valid state. All valid states are necessarily equal. None has a special status.

2) Each valid state must flow into each other valid state smoothly, uniformly and at the same speed. There can be no sufficient reason for abrupt movements, random speeds, jagged progress, and so on. Note that in science, the precise opposite of the principle of sufficient reason is invoked. Science claims that every possible state, speed and path will happen, given enough time. There is no causation and determinism in such a system. Everything happens according to statistics and probabilities. Modern science has gone wholly over to probabilities. Causation has vanished. Causation is compatible only with uniformity, with one thing happening after another in precise order according to exact, analytic laws. Statistics and probability don’t come into it at all. Everything executes with mathematical perfection. Reality has a 100% success rate. It’s impossible for reality to make an error. If errors were possible, the universe would be overwhelmed by mistakes instantly and would either be wiped out, or degenerate into chaos. The fact that we live in a staggeringly ordered, organised, patterned universe is sure evidence that we do not live in the uncertain, blurry, fuzzy, acausal, indeterminate, indeterministic, statistical, probabilistic universe posited by science. There is nothing in science to prevent endless mistakes from being enacted. In ontological mathematics, a mistake would be something that violated causal law, and such mistakes are impossible. In science, formal causal laws have been abolished, so there is nothing at all to prevent violations of causality (i.e. mistakes). There is no reason at all why one crazy thing after another shouldn’t happen. Science, as ever, cheats. What it does is define lawful (mathematical) outcomes and assign a probability to each one, so that every outcome is at least part of a rational overall pattern, even if not happening in a necessarily logical sequence (although science then makes the convenient claim that the logical sequence is the most probable sequence, thus becoming more or less identical to a causal law, even though that’s exactly what has been denied ). Yet, because it has rejected causation, science has no right to refer to laws at all, or to assign probabilities only to lawful things. But how would it go about defining unlawful things? How can you even refer to senseless, unlawful things? So, we always come back to math, but science denies that mathematics is reality. Science uses mathematics even as it repudiates mathematical causation and law. How irrational is that? It’s forever borrowing mathematical rationalism even as it rejects it in favour of scientific empiricism.

3) Nature makes no leaps. No discontinuous actions take place. There are no logical gaps. Reality is a logical plenum. 4) Nature always operates with maximum economy. It always follows the shortest path. 5) Reality is absolute, not relative. Only absolutism is compatible with the reality principle, which declares that there is a single objective reality for all. 6) Reality is deterministic, not indeterministic. It’s impossible for any event not to be determined by a sufficient reason. 7) Reality is certain, not uncertain; precise, not imprecise. Uncertainty and imprecision are incompatible with objective reality. In fact, uncertainty and imprecision are incompatible with any reality. How can reality be grounded in a blur, a haze, a fuzz? To say that the foundational elements of reality are indeterminate, uncertain and imprecise is to say that reality has no rational, logical basis, and no possible answer. No one can ever explain why “reality” should be uncertain. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is actually nothing to do with ontological uncertainty. It’s actually about ontological certainty, but involving two linked domains: an immaterial, monadic frequency domain, outside space and time, and a material domain inside space and time. The “uncertainty” associated with Heisenberg’s principle arises from the emphatic denial by scientific empiricism and materialism of the existence of zero/infinity monadic singularities. As soon as these are taken into account, the uncertainty vanishes. In other words, the supposed uncertainty actually applies to the false ontology supported by science. Change the ontology, and you banish the uncertainty. Science, since it has no foundational rational and logical principles, dismisses all such arguments and looks only for empirical “evidence”, which automatically means it looks only to the material world, and discounts the immaterial world. You cannot go around ignoring a world that you ideologically dislike. Your dislike doesn’t alter the fact that it exists. Science has never once advanced a rational argument to show that mind, soul or immaterialism is false. What it does is ideologically reject them on the basis that they are incompatible with materialism. That’s like Catholicism rejecting everything incompatible with Catholicism. When you have no reason for disregarding things, but only your subjective beliefs, opinions and ideology, then you are members

of a Mythos religion. Science is unquestionably a Mythos religion, telling itself a little sensory tale that it finds comforting. 8) Reality must permanently respect the conservation of energy. You cannot “borrow” energy from nowhere, then pay it back to nowhere, as science ludicrously claims. The fundamental things have always existed and can’t not exist. Their existence is their essence. In the case of a finite substance, its essence does not imply or necessitate its existence. In the case of an infinite substance (a zero/infinity monad), its essence necessitates its existence. It can’t not exist. This argument was originally applied to “God” – in the so-called “ontological argument” – but used the curious contention that it is “better” if a perfect Being exists than if it doesn’t exist (or if it exists only in our imagination), or, to put it another way, existence was regarded as a perfection that a perfect Being must possess (if he had all perfections bar existence, he was less perfect than a Being that had all perfections and existence; only the latter could be God, the perfect Being). As ever, “perfection” can only be defined mathematically. The ontological argument can certainly be applied to mathematical monads, but not to a non-mathematical Super Being. The real essence of the ontological argument is that if there is no reason why perfection should not exist then perfection, if it is possible, must exist. If perfection is not forbidden then it is compulsory. If perfection can exist then it does exist. The trouble then becomes one of defining “perfection”. Religious types conceived of it in terms of morality, power, knowingness, being everywhere and seeing everything, i.e. they anthropomorphised it and projected themselves – writ infinitely large – onto it. But you can’t bring human considerations to perfection. It’s strictly about reason and logic, i.e. mathematics. Perfection, mathematically, refers to something with perfect form, a perfect formula, an entity that is eternal, necessary, incapable of being destroyed, degraded or of running down, incapable of error, absolutely precise (associated with no uncertainty), autonomous, consistent, complete. It must always be exactly equal to “nothing” because “nothing” is the only thing that can never be prevented from existing. Nothing must exist! If it exists as static mathematical points then we can refer to that as “non-existence”, but we could just as easily refer to it as existence shorn of all properties: something like Aristotelian prime matter which was conceived as total potentiality – non-being – which required to be actualised by form to become something – being. What actualises the prime matter of static mathematical points with

no properties is motion, dictated by the principle of sufficient reason. This motion is none other than rational form, the actualising principle. Motion makes things real. Motion is energy. Everything that exists is energy, and energy is math. Nothing can stop monads from existing. To be clear about their perfection, they are perfect in terms of their objective mathematical form. They are not, however, perfect in terms of their subjective empirical content. The form is eternally perfect. The content – how a monad experiences itself – is that which undergoes the dialectical journey from total potential to total actualisation, from imperfection to perfection, from nothing to God! 9) Reality must be a monism. It cannot be a dualism or pluralism. It can however be a dual-aspect monism, i.e. it can have form and content. It can be both rational and empirical. 10) Reality must reflect the Cartesian principle that effects cannot have more reality than their causes. There is no sufficient reason why they ever could. Uncaused causes, on the other hand, can have more reality than all of their effects. As uncaused causes, they are eternal and necessary. Their effects, however, are temporal and contingent. The uncaused causes belong to the intelligible, rational world of mathematics. The caused effects belong to the sensible, empirical world of science. Underlying reality must always be the same. Manifest reality will change depending on how the uncaused causes interact with each other. The keys of a piano never change, but endless different compositions can be played on the piano, depending on which combinations of keys we choose. We are not compelled to choose any particular tune. No tune has logical necessity, but the piano does. The keys are the uncaused causes. The tunes are the contingent, temporal worlds to which they give rise. Every tune has an exact cause. There is no uncertainty. It’s a little-appreciated fact that the wavefunction of quantum mechanics is entirely deterministic. Left to itself, it will develop entirely deterministically. The incredibly odd feature of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it requires an indeterministic “collapse” of the wavefunction, prompted by an observation by an observer. Neither an observer or an observation is defined, and no causal mechanism is involved in choosing an outcome. The outcome is “selected” according to probability, although, of course, entirely improbable outcomes are not forbidden, hence any valid outcome, no matter how unlikely, could be

actualised. The observer and the observation are entirely extraneous to the theory of quantum mechanics, thus proving that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. A proper theory of existence should not have to appeal to something outside itself, which is not defined by itself. Before there were any observers or observations, how did the wavefunction collapse itself? There is no mechanism for doing so. Yet if the wavefunction cannot collapse, it cannot produce the observers who are required to perform the observations that are required to collapse the wavefunction. This interpretation of quantum mechanics is trapped in circularity. It’s plainly absurd, yet this remains the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s because science has no interest at all in reason and logic. It just wants to invent little heuristics that seem to work most of the time, provided you don’t subject them to too much intellectual scrutiny. The wavefunction is based on complex numbers, while observable reality is based on real numbers. The wavefunction is unreal and abstract, the world of observations real and concrete. So, we have multiple violations of the Cartesian principle. We have complex numbers versus real numbers, reality versus unreality, potentiality versus actuality, abstractness versus concreteness, non-observers versus observers, mathematics versus science, deterministic wavefunctions versus indeterministic wavefunction collapse, and so on. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense, yet this nonsense is uncritically accepted by the science community and taught throughout the world. People even get awarded Nobel Prizes for coming up with this irrational drivel.

The Circles of Eternity The principle of sufficient reason mandates that all equivalent states must be given exact parity of treatment. Strange though it may seem, this is what provides the foundation of existence. This requirement entails that the circle is the fundamental basis of reality. In a circle, every point on the circumference has the same status as every other point on the circumference. Moreover, if this is true for one circle, it’s true for any circle. However, we are now faced with a different question. What exactly do we mean by “circle”? How are we going to define a circle? We must of

course apply mathematics, but what manner of mathematics? Are we referring to circles defined by positive real numbers, or a mixture of positive and negative real numbers? What about imaginary numbers and complex numbers? How are we going to decide what are the circles of eternity? The question now becomes one of mathematical stability, completeness and consistency. Taking stability first, a cosmos must have perfect foundations. It cannot have a single flaw. Any operation or transformation applied to it must not result in any contradictions or anomalies since these would prove catastrophic. Imagine we were presented with a positive real number of 25. How would we be able to distinguish (-5)2 from 52? There is no sufficient reason to discard one or the other, so we must accept both. The number “1” can be generated from (-1)2 or 12. Now imagine taking square roots of all numbers. There is no sufficient reason why only positive numbers should have square roots. However, in order to take square roots of negative numbers, we require so-called imaginary numbers. Once we have imaginary numbers and real numbers then we have complex numbers. The fundamental theorem of algebra states that the field of complex numbers is algebraically closed. This is not true of the field real numbers. Step by step, as you probe with the principle of sufficient reason the stability, consistency and completeness of possible mathematical realities, all versions of mathematics bar one is found to be riddled with fatal problems. The only version of mathematics that’s eternally stable in itself and under all operations and transformations is the one deriving from a single cosmic master formula: the God Equation. A single formula cannot be inconsistent or incomplete with regard to itself. The God Equation derives from Euler’s Formula. Euler’s Formula concerns a unit circle in the complex plane, as shown below:

So, the fundamental circle of existence is that defined with respect to the complex plane. Only this kind of circle is compatible with an eternally stable, consistent and complete version of mathematics, i.e. with what we call ontological mathematics (as opposed to the abstract mathematics that’s taught at school). Some people don’t “get” the relationship between circles on the one hand and sines and cosines on the other. Here’s an excellent animation to illustrate the connection: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circle_cos_sin.gif What’s the significance of this? Well, what you are looking at is none other than the basic process of existence. Thanks to the principle of sufficient reason, all equivalent ontological states (i.e. every state that exactly equals zero) must be sampled equally, continuously (with no leaps or gaps), and forever. Famously, if eix = cos x + i sin x (Euler’s Formula) then, when x = π, eiπ + 1 = 0 (Euler’s Identity). But we can substitute any value for x and get an expression that equals 0, so all “x states” are exactly equal. Behind the scenes, all that nature ever does is trace out perfect Euler circles of every possible frequency. It does this because of the principle of sufficient reason, and nothing else. There is no “God” involved in this process. There is no mystical Oneness, or cosmic consciousness, or Universal Will, or random miracles jumping out of non-existence. There is no unknowable Kantian noumenal universe. The universe we are describing is the most knowable there can possibly be: the universe or pure reason. Reality – ultimate reality – comprises nothing but Euler circles – in every possible orientation, going round and round forever. As an Euler circle gets traced out (i.e. as a point flows around the circumference of the circle thanks to the motive force of the principle of sufficient reason, which demands that every value of x be equally sampled, in strict succession), it generates a cosine wave and matching sine wave (which are of course orthogonal to each other). Have you realised what we are saying? Eternal reality comprises just mathematical circles, and the sine and cosine waves (of all possible frequencies) which they generate. That’s it. That’s the permanent background to existence, which can never change under any circumstances. It’s eternal, necessary, complete, consistent, immutable, stable under all mathematical operations and transformations applied to it, and comprises

the entire basis of infallible, absolute Truth and Knowledge. This is the bottom line, the ground of all, the arche, the ultimate substance. This is Plato’s perfect, immaterial, transcendent domain of Forms, outside space and time. All of the Forms are pure math, and nothing else. Reason alone can take you to this domain. Your senses (science) and your feelings (mainstream religion) won’t help you one jot. It’s an intelligible domain, not sensible, and not emotional. A key formula related to Euler’s Formula is de Moivre’s formula: (eix)n = einx = ei(nx) = (cos x + i sin x)n = cos (nx) + i sin (nx) “n” can be interpreted as an internal change to Euler’s formula, representing frequency. As n goes up, an Euler circle has a higher and higher frequency, i.e. more and more energy. It’s essential to grasp a few key points about what we are saying. Firstly, the principle that stands behind everything – the principle that renders existence rational, logical and intelligible, which gives existence a definitive answer – is the principle of sufficient reason. This principle, by demanding that every equal state be given parity of treatment, is the origin of motion, i.e. motion exists purely because of the principle of sufficient reason, and could not exist without it. The principle of sufficient reason is therefore the Aristotelian God, the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover. The principle of sufficient reason, being a principle, does not move, but it is ontologically expressed through mathematics, through Euler’s formula. Motion, governed exclusively by the principle of sufficient reason, is the source of all energy, i.e. there would be no such thing as energy without mathematical motion, which is in turn generated by the principle of sufficient reason. To put it another way, motion and energy are purely mathematical in origin, and have no other meaning. There is no such thing as “scientific” motion or energy. Another key point is that we have now definitively defined what mathematics is, and what it certainly isn’t. Mathematics has nothing at all to do with logicism, axioms, formalism, set theory, intuitionism, or anything else. It’s purely defined by the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason equally defines ontology and epistemology. If it were not for the principle of sufficient reason, the universe could be neither rational nor intelligible, and there could be no knowledge and no Truth.

There could be no answer to existence. It would be a miracle. In fact, without the principle of sufficient reason, there could be no existence at all. Kurt Gödel said, “But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” This is the whole point. The principle of sufficient reason ensures that the foundations of existence are perfect. They do not contain a single error, and they are incapable of a single error. The ground of existence is a set of perfect, eternal, mathematical circles, which corresponds to a set of perfect, eternal, mathematical sines and cosines. These are none other than the basis frequencies of ontological Fourier mathematics. Absolutely everything takes place against this background. There is no such thing as non-existence from which existence can miraculously jump, as science absurdly and irrationally claims. We have provided the answer to the ground of existence. There can be no other answer, at least none that could ever qualify as rational and intelligible. From this background, we must be able to explain everything. This mathematical background must be able to account for life, mind, time, space and matter. They must be properties of this mathematical background. How can we possibly get mind and life from math? The answer lies in realising that sinusoids are none other than thoughts in themselves. A thought needs to have content and be carried. The sinusoidal wave is the carrier, but what is the content? Because a wave is energy, the content is an expression of energy too. Every value of energy has its own unique signature. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. Every part of it has different properties. We have extremely high frequencies, gamma rays, xrays, visible light, infrared, microwaves, radio waves, and extremely low frequencies. Consider the visible portion of the spectrum. Every frequency has its own colour. The point is that every energy (frequency) corresponds to a unique experience. Energy is not something purely rational. It’s not something abstract. It’s not pure form. It has content too. It has an empirical as well as a rational aspect. It can be experienced. It’s not just math. It’s rationalist math combined with empiricist math. This is how we get the dual-aspect ontology corresponding to the different but related worlds of rationalism and empiricism. They are the opposite sides of the coin. You can never get the one without the other.

Since we have a set of rational things, which are also empirical things (when viewed from the opposite side of the coin), we have everything that a mind requires. We don’t need to refer to anything called “matter”. We are dealing purely with mental, mathematical things: form and content; information carrier and information carried; signifier and signified; map and territory. Moreover, all mental events are living events, i.e. to have thoughts is to automatically have life. A universe of mathematical thoughts in themselves is none other than a universe of life in itself. The universe is fundamentally alive, just as all of humanity once believed, before the rise of scientific materialism and atheism. We have given the only conceivable definition of mind and life in themselves. All life and mind flows from mathematics, and thus from the principle of sufficient reason. We are thereby in the territory of Pythagoras’s world where all things are numbers, and numbers rules all. We are in Leibniz’s world of monads. We are in Hegel’s world of panlogism, of a dialectically evolving Mind/Spirit. We definitely are not in any scientific world of “matter”, but nor are we in any ludicrous world of religious Mythos, superstition, faith and mysticism. We are instead in the hyperrationalist world of pure mathematics, and pure reason.

***** It has to be understood that the world we have described is timeless. It has never not existed. It wasn’t a case of the principle of sufficient reason coming first, and then creating a world of mathematics. Rather, the principle of sufficient reason is inextricably linked to mathematics, and eternally expressed through it. A circle has no beginning and no end, and nor does the mathematics that expresses circles. Geometrically, the circle is what allows all equivalent states to be treated with complete parity (as required by the principle of sufficient reason). If we rotate a circle in the right way (around its north-south axis), we of course get a sphere, and if we have circles of different amplitude all centred on the same origin, then we have a set of nested spheres, bringing to mind the perfect, aetherial crystal spheres of the Aristotelian worldview that, in the ancient world, defined the perfect heavens above us (where the Gods resided). As ever, the amazing ancient Greeks arrived at the right concept, but got their details slightly wrong because their mathematical knowledge

wasn’t advanced enough. The “crystal spheres” are not in space and time, and aren’t made of aether. They are immaterial, made of pure energy, and they exist timelessly, outside of space (in the frequency domain). The ancient Greeks were enormously superior thinkers to modern scientists, even though they did not have the stunningly powerful mathematics at their disposal that science now has. The ancient Greeks were entirely committed to using reason, logic, metaphysical and mathematical arguments to explain reality, unlike modern scientists who subscribe to no rational and logical principles at all, but are instead absolutely committed to materialism and empiricism, and sensory experiments as the arbiter of what is real and what is not. The ancient Greeks saw the universe as a living, mental organism, imbued with meaning and purpose. Modern science entirely rejects this. It denies teleology, it denies life and mind as inherent properties of existence, and its bizarre and irrational worldview is that existence randomly jumps out of nothing, for no reason, via no mechanism, for no purpose, with no meaning. We are simply contingent, ephemeral, temporal and miraculous collections of lifeless, mindless, purposeless, meaningless atoms that randomly came together to produce the meaningless epiphenomena of life and mind, which are inexplicable “emergent” properties of how matter is organised. This scientific “explanation” is the worst ever because it’s the one furthest removed from the principle of sufficient reason. Ontological mathematics is predicated entirely on this principle. Science, on the other hand, rejects it, hence subscribes to a principle of unreason, which, by definition, makes it an irrational ideology. Any rationalism that appears in science has nothing to do with science, but is imported from the mathematics that science invalidly uses (even though science has never once attempted to define what mathematics actually is). Any system that privileges the senses over reason, logic and intellect – as science does – is doomed. It will never lead us to the rational, intelligible answer to existence.

***** Geometrically, we need a system based on the circle. Algebraically, we need a formula that is entirely concerned with circles. Euler’s Formula furnishes exactly this.

***** In geometry, two or more objects are said to be concentric when they share the same centre. What is the dead centre of existence, around which all the Euler circles revolve? It’s none other than Absolute Nothing, the Singularity of the infinity of static mathematical points.

***** “The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus and others. In these celestial models the apparent motions of the fixed stars and the planets are accounted for by treating them as embedded in rotating spheres made of an aetherial, transparent fifth element (quintessence), like jewels set in orbs. Since it was believed that the fixed stars did not change their positions relative to one another, it was argued that they must be on the surface of a single starry sphere.... After Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Parmenides all held that the universe was spherical. And much later in the fourth century BC Plato’s Timaeus proposed that the body of the cosmos was made in the most perfect and uniform shape, that of a sphere containing the fixed stars.” – Wikipedia

***** Another way to think about ontological mathematics is as the sole survivor of the ultimate battle outside time: the battle of all possible different versions of mathematics. The central assertion of ontological mathematics is that only it is consistent and complete, stable under all operations and transformations, and always equal to zero, the compulsory ground state energy of the universe. Any proposed version of mathematics that does not satisfy these requirements will contain fatal internal contradictions that will immediately wipe it out. Only ontological mathematics exists eternally and necessarily. It enshrines and conveys all of the eternal truths of reason. This is inevitable given that it is the ontological expression of the principle of sufficient reason. Only the principle of sufficient reason can provide a rational, logical, intelligible answer to existence. Nothing based on anything opposed to this principle – i.e. a principle of no sufficient reason – can ever rationally explain anything at all given that it is, by definition, a repudiation of

rational explanations by sufficient reasons. This is the whole problem with both science and mainstream religion. Neither accepts the principle of sufficient reason.

The Soul Consider a single monadic, mathematical soul. Consider a universe comprising just this one monad. What would it be like? Imagine the monad as a set of nested, concentric circles, (or spheres if we consider higher dimensionality), all radiating out from a central, logical point. This originating point has logical necessity, but it is not an actual thing. There is no such thing as an energy wave of zero. A static point has no existence. Rather, the logical point provides the focus around which the principle of sufficient reason can build its logical set of circles or spheres. The logical point is of course the “Nothingness” Singularity... the point where all static points reside, and do absolutely nothing. A complete and consistent set of circles and spheres constitutes the single monad. The monad encapsulates all of the laws of ontological mathematics, i.e. each and every monad is an autonomous expression of the whole of mathematics. It’s exactly because each and every monad identically contains all of the laws of mathematics that monads can interact with each other with mathematical perfection in every conceivable situation. There is never any doubt, uncertainty, acausation, indeterminism, probability or statistics (i.e. none of the ridiculous things on which modern science is now irrationally predicated). Every one of the Euler circles in a monad is essential to every other. They form a complete, unbreakable set. They belong exclusively to that monad, and not to any other. This has the most astounding consequences. You, as a monadic soul, experience reality solely via your Euler circles, via your own, unique set of sines and cosines. These are your “qualia”. Only you can know what it’s like to experience the content carried by your waves. You can never directly experience what another person is experiencing, although you can of course deploy empathy to get a good idea. Empathy is really just a means of establishing an analogy between what you are experiencing and what you imagine another is experiencing (if they

are anything like you). However, one of the enormous problems with empathy is that it’s useless in relation to people who have a very different worldview. You have no way of knowing how they will experience things, how they will think, how they will respond. That’s exactly why the world is full of conflict, and why people are so often surprised by others’ reactions. Rationalism is much more powerful than empathy, but requires everyone to be rational. If we were all rational, we would know what everyone else would do... because we would all do the rational thing. But humanity is nothing like that! A monad’s internal waves are its own thoughts, conveying content, information, sensations, perceptions, feelings, ideas, qualia, content, which are all subjective experiences of energy. A monad is an entity that mathematically experiences itself. This is a living entity. Mind and life always go together. However, it is not a true Self, but, rather, a potential Self. It’s something like a human baby. A vast amount of mental activity is occurring in a baby’s mind, but there’s no consciousness, no “I”, to direct it all. Consciousness is mostly a social construct, deriving from the acquisition of language. Humans are the only conscious animals in our world because we are the only species with a complex language capability. The very structure of a sentence contributes to consciousness. As soon as you can say, “I did that, and I did this, and she did that and she did this,” you have constructed the means to differentiate yourself from the other person, and take ownership of your deeds, and plan new deeds. As soon as you can say, “I will do X in ten years time”, you have shown a remarkable capacity to plan for a far distant future, which may never arrive for you (if you die before then). Animals can plan a few minutes into the future, or usually just a second or two. The “I” is like an avatar in a computer game. With your imagination, you can put it in all manner of virtual realities (scenarios) and imagine what will happen to it. You can do this because you have a conceptual framework – a language – that allows you to frame imaginary worlds, just like those in novels, into which you can insert yourself. “I” would be a complete abstraction – a kind of zombie – if it were not for the fact that all of your thoughts come as experiences. As you imagine future scenarios, your feelings are engaged in the present instant. You have a visceral response. You regard your adventures in the imagination as real,

in the same way that you regard a great novel or movie as real as you experience it. You suspend your disbelief. Mathematics is mind. Mathematics is life. There is no other possible answer. To think – which is what you are doing all the time – is to have experiences. You experience your thoughts. You experience the content conveyed by your sinusoidal thoughts. This is inescapable. You always get an experience with your thoughts. That’s why the universe is alive, and not just a bunch of dead atoms, as science claims. We live inside a giant cosmic Mind, and we ourselves are autonomous nodes in that Mind. If we called the cosmic Mind “God”, we would have a system not unlike the empirical idealism of the philosopher Bishop Berkeley. But since empiricism is just the experiential flip side of rationalism, we can easily convert Berkeley’s empirical idealism into the rational idealism of Leibniz and Hegel. We can underpin Berkeley’s philosophy with hard mathematics rather than some airy fairy “God”. We are extremely far from the “Kansas” of scientific materialism. We alone have given a rational account of mind, life, qualia and consciousness, and shown how they’re all rooted in mathematics. Scientists and followers of mainstream religion are as clueless as each other. When it comes to ultimate reality, the science Mythos is even more irrational and absurd than the religious Mythos, even more contemptuous of the principle of sufficient reason. “God”, as a concept, can easily be turned into ontological mathematics. Scientific randomness cannot be. There is no rational basis for indeterminism, acausation, uncertainty, indeterminacy, ontological probability, “unreal” wavefunctions, and so on. There is no reason and no possible way for existence to randomly and miraculously jump out of nothing, as science would have us believe. Why is science so irrational? Because it’s all about the senses, and not about reason, logic and intellect. In that case, why does science work? Because it illegitimately uses rationalist mathematics. Take away mathematical rationalism and science is rendered 100% useless. It really is as simple as that. Humanity gets so many things wrong because the average person simply isn’t equipped to make a conceptual leap from a sinusoidal wave to a thought and life. Look at science. It ridiculously tries to squeeze mind out of mindless atoms, and life out of lifeless atoms. Er, never going to happen! It’s a category error. It’s literally impossible. Whatever you define as the

basis of existence must also be the basis of mind and life. The ancient Greeks understood that. Modern scientists have no understanding at all. They’re hopeless. Why shouldn’t an eternal wave be the basis for thoughts and life? What could possibly be a better candidate? Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” In the case of waves = thoughts, it’s not improbable at all. It’s exactly the right thing, if we are to accept that we live in a rational, intelligible world with an explanation. Humanity has always regarded math as a weird, unreal abstraction. Only a few geniuses here and there have realised otherwise. Mathematics is the most concrete thing of all – eternally concrete. Thoughts are numbers. What could be more bizarre to an ordinary human mind? Reality is just an enormous numerical system, relentlessly solving and optimising itself. Numbers = frequencies = energies. Why is math so good at describing the world? Because the world is mathematical! Duh! Why are numbers exactly the right things to measure the world? Because the world is made of numbers! As soon as you realise that thoughts, numbers, life, energy, motion, frequencies and waves are all ways of talking about the same thing, it’s obvious why mathematics is the explanation for everything. Eugene Wigner spoke of “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”. There’s nothing at all unreasonable about mathematics being the explanation of everything. What could be more reasonable, i.e. more concerned with reason?! What is unreasonable is the belief in some bizarre, unexplained, indefinable things called “matter” (which is the basis of the natural sciences). How can you make anything reasonable out of such an unreasonable notion? Here’s a simple task for any scientist... try to imagine defining atoms without making any reference at all to mathematics. You would end up with the speculations of the ancient Greek Atomists, involving a system that had no useful consequences at all until people started applying mathematics to atomic theory. As soon as you apply mathematics to anything, you make it infinitely better.

The Two Levels

It’s essential to grasp that there are two levels to reality: 1) that of eternal necessity, and 2) that of contingency. The first level is that of the Euler circles, just going round and round forever, generating perfect sine and cosine waves that serve as the basis frequencies for ontological Fourier mathematics. This is the unchanging, perfect background to everything, the fibre and fabric of existence. It’s the transcendent, noumenal domain of knowledge and Truth. It’s the answer to existence. However, life isn’t lived at this level. It’s lived at the contingent level. Imagine the eternal Fourier frequencies as the keys of a cosmic piano. Life is conducted at the level of the music played on the piano, not at the level of the piano itself. The piano is there forever. It’s an instrument to be used, to be played. Life is the tune played on it. So, how do you play this piano? Every monad has its own autonomous piano on which to play the tune of life. How is the tune played; what’s playing it? There is in fact no sufficient reason for a set of Fourier frequencies not to spontaneously generate inverse Fourier transforms and Fourier frequency functions. It’s simply a capacity of the system. Nothing can prevent it. All of these Fourier activities produce novel experiences for the monadic mind in which they are occurring. All of this amounts to a kind of dreamworld in which the monadic mind resides. However, when many monads interact (produce collective inverse Fourier transforms), they thereby produce the experience of “otherness”, which is what is interpreted as “matter” – something separate from us and outside us. It really is all in the math. We defy anyone to demonstrate that what we have just described is not the fundamental basis of mental life, and the so-called world of matter. Imagine processes such as these: https://giphy.com/gifs/waves-illusion-9to2AkJO245os https://external-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php? d=AQAN403yXu_MdAwm&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2F media%2FTWSuVb2LJA9kQ%2Fgiphy.gif&ext=gif These are all you need to build a universe. You don’t need anything other than waves and Fourier mathematics. You certainly don’t need “God” or “matter” or “randomness”. Fourier mathematics is the basis of both mind and matter, and their mind-matter interactions.

Math The problem of existence is the problem of math. According to science, some mysterious, indefinable and inexplicable thing called “matter” is what existence is all about. Science has never once attempted to address the unarguable case advanced by idealists that scientific matter doesn’t exist, and, even if it did, we could never know anything about it since it would always be mediated by our minds and thoughts, hence we could never have any knowledge of what it is like in itself, independent of how our minds represent it. According to Abrahamists, some mysterious, indefinable and inexplicable thing called “God” is what existence is all about. According to Eastern Religion, some mysterious, indefinable and inexplicable thing called the Oneness is what existence is all about. Mathematics alone can tell you what things actually are. Mathematics can define and explain. Nothing else can. Whenever science seeks to say anything meaningful, you can be sure it will be using mathematics. Religion never says anything meaningful because it never uses mathematics. Religion is what science would be if you removed mathematics from it. It’s the human tragedy that people are willing to use mathematics without having any clue what it is, where it comes from and how can it exist at all. The commonplace idea that math is a manmade language is comically dumb. We know what manmade languages are like: English, German, French, Spanish, Japanese, and so on. None of these has any resemblance whatsoever to math. How can a human being invent π or e? How can a human pluck Euler’s Formula out of nothing? The reason why people are so keen to say that math is manmade is because if they’re wrong then the converse is true: man is mathmade! That is, of course, exactly the position of ontological mathematics, and it represents the highest possible wisdom. Anyone who opposes us opposes reason itself, and we simply have no time for the irrational. Don’t bother with meditation or prayer. If you want something to contemplate then contemplate mathematics. To all those who doubt mathematics, we simply ask, “Why?” What possible reason could you have for thinking that anything other than math is the basis of existence? Anything you propose as an alternative to math will be irrational, illogical, inconsistent and incomplete. So, if you want to be supporting a rational, rather than miraculous, answer to existence, you have nowhere to go but

math. Science is intelligible only to the extent that it uses math. When it strays from math, it starts saying insane things such as that existence randomly and magically erupts out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism, for no purpose. It then tries to suppress all analysis of this ludicrous stance by making yet another ludicrous claim that it’s invalid and meaningless to refer to anything “before” the Big Bang. The scientists who say this ought to try studying philosophy before making absurd philosophical assertions. “Time” and “space” are not ontologically and epistemologically defined in any way by science (they are “defined” instrumentally, which tells you how to measure them but not what they are), so how can you say that you can’t refer to anything preceding time if you haven’t bothered to explain what time is? Where have you proved that a time precursor doesn’t exist (this being the very thing that gives rises to time)? Time is in fact created by mathematics. It’s simply a mathematical property associated with imaginary numbers. We would like to see any scientist on earth prove that time doesn’t derive from eternal mathematics and imaginary numbers, and, if they can’t, they should shut their mouths about whether it’s valid to ask what comes before the Big Bang.

Time and Space People get hopelessly confused about time and space. This all stems from the disastrous notion of “time” being the means by which philosophers and scientists introduce motion into the world. You will never understand motion and change if you link these to time. Time, when understood properly (i.e. mathematically) is simply imaginary space that exists orthogonally to real space. It has nothing to do with motion. It’s just a container, exactly like space. Motion, as we have already shown, is simply the result of the principle of sufficient reason, ensuring that all equivalent states are given exact parity of treatment, and processed in precise, uniform, continuous sequence, one after the other, circularly. This is the basic expression of motion, hence change. It’s 100% mathematical. It takes place entirely outside space and time. Photons, which are maximally length contracted (in what we might call their proto-spatial aspect) and maximally time dilated (in what we can refer to as their proto-temporal – imaginary space – aspect) are ipso facto not in space and time. They belong to the frequency domain of eternal Euler circles.

When cosines and sines are strictly orthogonal to each other, there is no such thing as space and time. Space and time are what you get as soon as non-orthogonal phase relations apply between sines and cosines. In the diagram of the Euler circle shown below, all orthogonal relations are axial, while non-orthogonal phase relations apply to the inter-axial regions.

As soon as sines and cosines are paired non-orthogonally, they can no longer be said to exist in the mental, dimensionless domain of pure frequencies. They have now entered the spacetime domain, hence have “physical” rather than “mental” signatures. To put it another way, they are no longer maximally time dilated and length contracted, hence now have dimensionality.

How Big Is The Universe? When wavefunctions break free of the mental domain, hence enter the material domain, they then have a fundamental problem, namely, how big is this spacetime domain they have just entered? There is no such thing as a fixed Newtonian spacetime container standing outside the mental Singularity, waiting for dimensional wavefunctions to rush into it. This fact has an extraordinary consequence. Wavefunctions at the Big Bang have to enter spacetime with a certain mathematical signature, which is very close to their prior mental (dimensionless) signature. However, once in spacetime, there is no physical barrier to constrain them. There are no boundaries shutting them in. This has an inevitable effect: the high-energy waves will simply expand, and fill more and more spacetime (i.e. create a larger spacetime environment). This is exactly the process underlying the so-called expansion of the universe, which of course is the expansion of both space and time, and not just space, as science would have you believe.

The phenomenon of red shifting is vital in this context. [Red shift: “In physics, red shift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, ‘redder’ means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy...” – Wikipedia] Scientists will tell you that waves red shift because the universe is expanding. In fact, the opposite is the case. It’s because waves are red shifting that the universe is expanding. To state it more clearly, spacetime is made of dimensional wavefunctions, and these wavefunctions are naturally lengthening because there’s absolutely nothing to stop them from doing so, no invisible barriers. They can’t remain frozen and fixed. There’s no sufficient reason why they should. This all means that the “dark energy” driving the expansion of the universe is actually the energy of spacetime wavefunctions themselves, which have been expanding ever since the Big Bang. Eventually, spacetime will be 100% extended, and this will correspond to the end of the material universe since there will no longer be any energy at all in spacetime. All the energy will be in the mental Singularity. This is exactly why we have an oscillating universe (Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, followed by Big Bang, and so on). Science gets all of its interpretations wrong, and always for the same reason: it rejects mathematical rationalism and blabbers on about materialism and empiricism.

The God Equation We’re going to do something remarkable. We’re going to make the God Equation as simple as possible by applying a “speed” to Euler’s Formula. The standard formula is: eix = cos x + i sin x. However, we are now going to write ei(cx) = cos(cx) + i sin(cx), but with c = 1, so that we have not actually changed Euler’s Formula at all. We shall of course equate c to the speed of light (or, rather, the speed of sinusoids), and we shall ensure that it always equals 1, no matter the frequency, by writing 1 = fλ (as in c = fλ, with c = 1), where f is frequency and λ is the wavelength. No matter what f is, we can always pair it with λ = 1/f, ensuring that c = f x (1/f) = 1. We now have

a speed associated with Euler’s Formula, and it’s the same for every instance of the formula, regardless of how much we change the frequency. That’s why the speed of light is an absolute. (And note that we have a speed of light for the cosine wave and a speed of light for the sine wave). In physics, you will see expressions such as f(t) = a sin ωt, where t is time, a is amplitude and ω is angular velocity. It’s vital to realise that you cannot use such expression in terms of the immaterial ontological mathematical world outside space and time to which we have been referring. You can use time only when it has been defined and derived. You can’t just assume it. So, forget all about time and space references in relation to the fundamental equations of existence. These must never be used. Physics defines speed as distance over time. This already supposes an ontological understanding of space and time, which simply does not exist in physics. For argument’s sake, let’s agree that “time” is imaginary space. In that case, speed is real space distance divided by imaginary space distance, i.e. we are dealing with a ratio of two distances. So, what’s moving? The thing that’s moving is of course energy, and, as we see with photons, energy can be in motion despite being outside space and time. Never forget that science is just an ad hoc, arbitrary set of heuristics designed to achieve practical success in the sensory world. It has nothing at all to do with the eternal necessity, and rational, logical and analytic completeness and consistency, of the non-sensory world that underlies the sensory world. Nothing at all is meaningfully defined in science. Everything is defined instrumentally (with regard to how to measure it), not with regard to what it is and how and why it exists at all (i.e. its ontology). Science has no interest in rational issues. It’s all about empiricism. Motion, as we have seen, derives from the principle of sufficient reason, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with “time”. We cannot privilege real space over imaginary space, so everything we say of one we must be able to say of the other. Science completely rejects this rational requirement. You have to think of motion mathematically, not scientifically. In the dimensionless world, motion takes place in relation to both real and imaginary components. In the dimensional world, born from the dimensionless world, “space” is actually complex-numbered space, not the real-numbered space of science. Space divided by time is not “speed”; it is

in fact the complex spatial context in which motion occurs. As “speed” through space increases, the “speed” through time correspondingly decreases, and vice versa. In the dimensionless world, we can replace the scientific notion of dimensional speed (distance over time) with the notion of dimensionless speed, which is equal to frequency (a number) multiplied by wavelength (another, related number: the inverse of the frequency). In physics, c = fλ. Here we have the concept of speed without space and time (photons are not in space and time). This is exactly the concept we want to emphasise. We are making it an integral part of ontological mathematics, and not of physics. Speed is always the same if, every time we increase the frequency, we proportionately decrease the wavelength, maintaining a constant ratio of 1. The “speed of motion” is always the same (= 1), but the energy content of the motion varies according to the frequency. A speed involving f = 1 and λ = 1 is the same as the speed involving f = 100 and λ = 1/100, yet the latter is associated with motion of much higher energy (capable of delivering a much higher-energy impact). Note that we are providing no units for frequency and wavelength. This is because these are dimensionless numbers. This is a purely mathematical system. It has nothing to do with space, time and matter. A complete and consistent set of Euler circles (forming a single, autonomous monad) involves the Euler circle defined with regard to every conceivable valid frequency and matching wavelength. In relation to a cosine wave, c = fλ corresponds to a real numbered frequency and wavelength, and in relation to an imaginary sine wave, c = fλ corresponds to an imaginary numbered frequency and wavelength. Science, because it has no clear definitions of anything, forever gets things almost right, but slightly mixed up. Above all, it can’t handle imaginary and complex numbers since it ideologically denies that these have any real existence. Therefore, it has to keep introducing heuristics to ensure it never refers to imaginary and complex numbers as actual things, and this has a devastating effect on the rationality and consistency of its definitions, leading to the bewildering and totally unnecessary complexity of something such as M-theory. So, all waves travel at exactly the same speed, but they can be associated with radically different energies. A monad comprises the entire set of valid

energies, forming a complete and consistent autonomous set. Science has never once explained why the speed of light is an absolute. This singular fact is naturally built into ontological mathematics, and our more elegant version of the God Equation! Remember, never refer to space and time in eternal equations. One of the reasons why M-theory cannot be a final theory of existence is that it talks of 1-D strings vibrating in an 11-D spacetime, but we already know that spacetime is something created. It’s not eternal and necessary. If you refer to temporal and contingent things, you cannot in any sense be constructing a final explanation. A child could instantly ask an M-theorist proudly brandishing a “final” version of the theory, “What are space and time, and where do they come from?”, and the M-theorist wouldn’t have a clue how to answer – because the theory doesn’t actually explain anything at all. It’s just a giant heuristic attempting to explain away the observable world, but with nothing to say about the unobservable world of pure mathematics that truly explains reality.

A New Mentality You need a whole new mentality when coming to ontological mathematics. You are dealing with reason and logic alone. Forget all concepts such as space, time and matter. Forget empiricism, and experiments. You are dealing with ultimate reality... an immaterial Singularity outside space and time. Only your reason and logic can study it. Everything else is useless. This enormously simplifies what you are required to understand, and how you go about understanding it.

Planck’s Constant “The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck’s constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action, central in quantum mechanics. “First recognized by Planck in 1900, it was originally the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, E, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation, and the frequency, f, of its associated electromagnetic wave. In 1905 the value E, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Einstein with a ‘quantum’ or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum

behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called the photon. “The Planck–Einstein relation connects the particulate photon energy E with its associated wave frequency ν: E = hν. “... Planck discovered that physical action could not take on an arbitrary value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the ‘quantum of action’ and now called Planck constant). This inherent granularity is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to ‘make things a little bit hotter’ or ‘move things a little bit faster’. This is because the quanta of action are very, very small in comparison to everyday macroscopic human experience. Hence, the granularity of nature appears smooth to us.” What is the Planck constant really all about? Consider a point flowing round the circumference of an Euler circle. If the point had zero speed, it wouldn’t flow at all. It would have no dimensions. If the point had infinite speed, on the other hand, it would be everywhere on the circle at once, and thus have the complete dimensionality of the circle. However, if its speed is neither zero nor infinity then its speed must be a finite number between zero and infinity, and this number must be part of a complete and consistent mathematical system, just like π and e. The number in question is c, the speed of light, or, to be more precise, the speed of sinusoids in the frequency domain outside space and time. This is strictly a mathematical number. It’s not “scientific” at all. In natural units, it is simply “1” (since real numbers and imaginary numbers are perfectly balanced). All sinusoids in the frequency domain travel at exactly the same speed, and that means that the flowing point in every sinusoid has exactly the same size. This is a tiny 1D number, and is none other than the ontological Planck constant. Once again, this is a number of pure mathematics, not of science. The flowing point is the basic particle and is the smallest possible size of a particle. The famous problem of wave-particle duality is resolved by the fact that the flowing point follows a wave trajectory (the wave aspect), while the flowing point itself is a localised energy packet (the particle aspect). The higher the frequency of the wave, the more energy the flowing point carries. Providing you analyse wave-particle duality mathematically rather than scientifically, there is no contradiction. The very essence of a sinusoid is to have all of its energy concentrated in a tiny 1D package called the flowing

point. While the 1D packet is in the frequency domain, its net effect is dimensionless (as the packet flows round the Euler circle, it passes through as much negative territory as positive territory, so we can say that its 1D nature changes from positive to negative, and thus has a resultant of zero). When the 1D packet enters spacetime, it now has a dimensionality in relation to space and time, and this, in fact, is none other than the basis of the 1D string loops of M-theory. M-theory is just a clunky spacetime heuristic superimposed over ontological mathematics. We defy any Mtheorist in the world to prove us wrong! No matter what science says or does, we can always underpin it with analytic mathematics, and show how all of the concepts of science are simply clumsy versions of, and approximations to, underlying mathematical concepts and entities. There is no such thing as a science not grounded in pure ontological mathematics, the queen of the sciences.

The Mathematical Mind “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.” – Kurt Gödel The mind is mathematics. The mind is a living, striving, self-solving, selfoptimising mathematical organism.

Boring We get people saying that the God Series is boring and repetitive. Sorry, but you’re not our audience. Our books are for the future Leibnizes of the world, the people who can appreciate the points we are making, just as we appreciate the myriad of vital nuanced points made by Leibniz himself. People who don’t understand what we are saying imagine we are just saying the same thing over and over again. In fact, we are presenting richer and richer detail for all of those who need to go deeper and deeper into the world of ontological mathematics, and really understand that it’s the definitive answer to everything... and the future direction of science. If people think our books are bad, they should try studying M-theory. Any proposed final theory of everything is going to be way beyond the reach of ordinary people. That’s just a simple fact. Stupid people won’t get it, the really bright will. That’s the way it goes.

Leibniz was the most intelligent person who ever lived, but 99.9% of humanity would be bored of his work within seconds, and start checking out Facebook, or the TV, or their iPod, or phoning up their friends, or whatever. That’s the nature of the human race. Don’t blame us. Things are boring to you only to the extent that you are incapable of “getting into it”.

Seeing the Light “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself.” – Einstein The issue of “What are light quanta?” is as fundamental as it gets. As Einstein admitted, he didn’t know the answer. This is shocking given that Einstein was essentially the person who gave science its modern “understanding” of light... but that’s scarcely any understanding at all. Light poses immense difficulties for science in several ways. For one thing, light is massless and dimensionless, so how can it be said to belong to the material world of spacetime at all? Does this mean there is some other domain? But science – given its religious faith in materialism and empiricism – refuses to countenance the idea of any other domain, especially any that looks disturbingly like a domain of Cartesian mind... or God! Given Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, light seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to sine and cosine waves, but that turns science into mathematics, so science is having none of that. Light seems to be inextricably linked to singularities, but science can’t stand those and wants to abolish them. Light seems to partake of so called wave-particle duality, but how can massless, dimensionless things be particles in any way? Light seems to make no sense at all. To have any hope of understanding light, you must place it within a formal ontology and epistemology, but science is incapable of addressing ontology and epistemology. That’s the domain of philosophy, metaphysics and logic, and science is having nothing to do with that. Light is quite simply a nightmare for science. Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” Well, Einstein certainly couldn’t explain photons to a six year old.

***** If science is all about atoms (atomic number > 0, hence about extension and Cartesian matter), ontological mathematics is all about photons (atomic number = 0, hence about non-extension and Cartesian mind). Unlike scientific atoms, mathematical photons can be treated in a strictly analytic manner. The central thesis of ontological mathematics is that a photon, like an atom, can be split. If experimentalists ever work out how to split a photon, the Illuminati will have to be awarded the Nobel Prize, which should certainly make for an interesting ceremony in Stockholm! A photon, in ontological mathematics, comprises a cosine wave and an orthogonal, matching sine wave. We can associate the cosine wave with a choran (space particle), and the sine wave with a chronon (a time particle). Such a pairing is strictly dimensionless. It has no spacetime signature. The reason for this is simple. A choran is maximally length contracted, i.e. it has zero length. This is equivalent to saying that distance passes infinitely slowly, or, more accurately, that the choran simply isn’t in space at all (it’s in the frequency domain). A chronon, on the other hand, is maximally time dilated, i.e. time passes infinitely slowly, or, more accurately, that the chronon simply isn’t in time at all (it’s in the frequency domain). So, neither component of the photon is in spacetime. The choran is in the frequency domain, not in space, and has no relationship to time. The chronon is in the frequency domain too, not in time, and has no relationship to space. The interaction of the choran and chronon is thus entirely outside spacetime, leaving them with a null spacetime signature. Together, they form an electromagnetic standing wave: clas.sa.ucsb.edu/staff/martin/EM_StandingWave.html In order to support this mathematical conception of a photon, which is radically different from the scientific view of a photon (deriving from Einstein), we are going to highlight the fallacies in Brian Greene’s account of light, which peddles the science establishment’s illogical propaganda. Brian Greene wrote, in The Fabric of the Cosmos, “Special relativity declares a law for all motion: the combined speed of any object’s motion

through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light.” We agree with that! Greene goes on, “At first you may instinctively recoil from this statement since we are all used to the idea that nothing but light can travel at light speed. But that familiar idea refers solely to motion through space. We are now talking about something related, yet richer: an object’s combined motion through space and time. The key fact, Einstein discovered, is that these two kinds of motion are always complementary. When the parked car you were looking at speeds away, what really happens is that some of its light-speed motion is diverted from motion through time into motion through space, keeping their combined total unchanged. Such diversion unassailably means that the car’s motion through time slows...” Agreed! “Moreover, the maximum speed through space is reached when all lightspeed motion through time is fully diverted into light-speed motion through space – one way of understanding why it is impossible to go through space at greater than light speed.” Agreed! Then things start to fall apart. Greene says, “Light, which always travels at light speed through space, is special in that it always achieves such total diversion.” As soon as you see a word such as “special”, you should instantly be on full alert. We require a sufficient reason for any such specialness. What is the sufficient reason for light to travel at light speed through space, but not through time? Or is there something else other than light that travels at light speed through time? Greene already implied as much when he said, “When the parked car you were looking at speeds away, what really happens is that some of its light-speed motion is diverted from motion through time into motion through space.” How can a stationary car be travelling at light speed through time unless there’s a mechanism for it to do so, and a carrier to enable it to happen? Greene has told us that this carrier can’t be light (which, allegedly, only travels through space), so what is it? So, now we have some unknown thing that travels at light speed without being light. Who knew? Have you heard any scientist publicly stating that there’s something other than light that inherently travels at light speed?

This is the whole problem with science. As soon as you subject it to serious scrutiny, it collapses. According to science, nothing can travel at light speed except light, but now we have a senior scientist telling us that something entirely stationary in space travels at light speed through time. But that would mean it’s massless. How can that make any sense? How can a car be massless? Don’t ask a scientist! Wikipedia says, “In particle physics, a massless particle is a particle whose invariant mass is theoretically zero. As of 2015 the two known massless particles were gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons.” The mystery deepens! Greene writes, “And just as driving due east leaves no motion for travelling north, moving at light speed through space leaves no motion for travelling through time!” Well, by exactly the same logic, travelling at light speed through time must equally leave no motion for travelling through space. Greene says, “Time stops when travelling at the speed of light through space.” But that must equally mean that space stops when travelling at the speed of light through time. Greene says, “A watch worn by a particle of light would not tick at all.” Equally, a ruler carried by a time particle would not measure anything other than zero. In respect of light, why should travel through space be privileged over travel through time? If there’s no sufficient reason for it, it cannot be true. There’s something fundamentally wrong with science’s understanding of light, and it’s easy to see what it is, for anyone not blinded by empiricism and materialism, that is. Light is not a single entity that travels only through space and not through time. It is in fact a dual entity. It is not however travelling through space and time. It’s not travelling through space and time at all. Light belongs to the frequency domain, not the spacetime domain, and that’s exactly why it’s massless, maximally length contracted and maximally time dilated, and why it has a unique, fixed, absolute status in relation to its speed (unlike all of the things with mass within spacetime). Einstein, in his special theory of relativity, used three expressions of the Lorentz transformation, one for length contraction, one for time dilation and

one for mass increase. In the following equations, the “m” subscript refers to an object moving at speed v through space, and the “r” subscript to the object at rest: 1) Length Contraction: Lm = Lr√(1-(v2/c2)) 2) Time Dilation: Tm = Tr/√(1-(v2/c2)) 3) Mass Increase: Mm = Mr/√(1-(v2/c2)) In ontological mathematics, a fourth equation is added: 4) Imaginary Mass Decrease: M(i)m = M(i)r√(1-(v2/c2)) Moreover, time dilation becomes imaginary space dilation, and we split the four equations into two distinct, complementary pairs: Space 1) Length Contraction: Lm = Lr√(1-(v2/c2)) 2) Mass Increase: Mm = Mr/√(1-(v2/c2)) Time (Imaginary Space) 1) Time Dilation: Tm = Tr/√(1-(v2/c2)) 2) Imaginary Mass Decrease: M(i)m = M(i)r√(1-(v2/c2)) As speed through space increases, length contracts and mass increases, while, correspondingly, time dilates and imaginary mass decreases. If we were referring to the speed through time rather than the speed through space, the opposite considerations would apply. When Brian Greene wrote, “When the parked car you were looking at speeds away, what really happens is that some of its light-speed motion is diverted from motion through time into motion through space”, he was acknowledging that there must be a speed through time (what else does “motion through time” mean?), yet have you ever seen “speed through time” referenced in any scientific equation? Einstein’s equations don’t relate to one situation, i.e. time, space and mass relative to absolute light speed. Rather, they concern two different situations: one in time and one in space. Regarding space, length contraction takes place and mass increases with increasing speed through

space. Regarding time, time dilation takes place and imaginary mass decreases with decreasing speed through time. It’s not a question of light as a single entity being maximally time dilated and length contracted. Rather, at maximum speed through space, the real aspect of light is maximally time dilated and length contracted. At maximum speed through time, on the other hand, the exact opposite is true: time (imaginary space) is maximally contracted and length maximally dilated (meaning that it passes infinitely slowly). Einstein simply didn’t consider speed through time, hence his fallacious theory of relativity. Science would have an entirely different conception of reality if speed through time were considered in conjunction with speed through space. By Pythagoras’s theorem, the square of the speed through space plus the square of the speed through time equals the square of light speed (and we assign light the speed of “1”, in natural units rather than manmade units). When an object’s speed through space is zero (the object is stationary in space), its speed through time is c. When the object’s speed through time is zero, its speed through space is c. When an object’s natural length in space is zero, its natural length in time is one. Similarly, when an object’s natural length in time is zero, its natural length in space is one. As with speed, the square of time length plus the square of space length equals the square of light length (radius of a unit circle). In relation to mass, a smaller and smaller length for an object corresponds, in wave terms, to a smaller and smaller wavelength and thus a higher and higher frequency, hence higher and higher energy (which Einstein equates to higher and higher mass). As wavelength approaches zero, energy (mass) approaches infinity. Exactly the same considerations apply to time (imaginary space), and imaginary mass, hence imaginary energy (time energy). As real energy approaches zero, imaginary energy approaches infinity. As imaginary energy approaches zero, real energy approaches infinity.

The Difficulties “God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.” – Einstein All of us do mathematics in our heads all the time... without realising it. We do it unconsciously, not consciously. If we could do it consciously, we

would be Gods! “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” – Einstein Indeed! “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” – Einstein Einstein’s great problem was that he wasn’t willing to contemplate sufficiently “absurd” ideas, most especially that this is a mathematical universe, and not scientific at all. “Sometimes one pays most for things one gets for nothing.” – Einstein And sometimes one gets nothing for things one pays most for. “Why is it that nobody understands me and everybody likes me.” – Einstein It’s better than nobody understanding you and everybody hating you!

The Lorentz Transformation “In physics, the Lorentz transformation (or transformations) is named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz. It was the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived before special relativity.” – Wikipedia What is never discussed in standard scientific textbooks is the fact that the Lorentz transformation can just as easily be understood in absolute terms rather than relativistic terms, in which case it refutes rather than supports Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The relativistic interpretation of the Lorentz transformation abolishes the ether; the absolute interpretation preserves the ether. Einstein did not refute the alternative interpretation. No one has. It has simply become unfashionable, and no one gives any thought to it. This highlights one of the central failings of science. It rejects certain theories even though it has not falsified those theories. They have been rejected not on scientific grounds but on philosophical grounds, yet science

is always keen to claim it’s not a philosophy but a method. It is of course a method supporting and enacting a philosophy. There’s a simple explanation for why the speed of light is observed to be independent of any spacetime reference frame. Namely, it’s not in spacetime at all! As you would expect, no scientist ever considered this simplest of all explanations, the one most consistent with Occam’s Razor. That’s because scientists never apply any rational or logical principles whatsoever. They apply their ideology of materialism and empiricism, so any explanation outside that ideology is automatically rejected. The “ether” isn’t something that light travels through. Light is the ether. Light resides in a frequency Singularity that controls all of spacetime and all spacetime reference frames. All spacetime reference frames must adjust to accommodate the frequency domain of light, and they do so via absolute, not relativistic, Lorentz transformations. This means that if you are travelling close to the speed of light, you are being physically length contracted and time dilated... and you will die! According to Einstein, any suitable observer can simply deny that he is moving and claim that it’s the rest of the universe that is being length contracted and time dilated. Given two observers in motion with respect to each other, each can simultaneously claim that the other is length contracted and time dilated. This, of course, destroys objective reality. We can no longer state what actually is the case (there is no reality principle upon which everyone can agree), and we now have to rely on subjective viewpoints. The ether is necessary to provide a reality principle. The ether is a frequency Singularity, which is exactly why it cannot be physically detected and has no physical consequences. The ether is mental, not material, and reflects the Cosmic Mathematical Mind that controls the universe. This idea is anathema to scientists – who deny the existence of mind independent of matter – so it is rejected without a second thought. They would prefer to destroy reality rather than give up on materialism! That’s how irrational they are. Einstein believed that his relativity theory was still consistent with a deterministic universe (i.e. one where God did not play dice). Even though, by banishing the ether, he had rendered reality subjective rather than objective, he wasn’t worried by this. He considered that because the respective subjective viewpoints where still linked by precise mathematics (the Lorentz transformation), he was still operating within a deterministic

world. He was horrified by quantum mechanics because it was associated with indeterminism. Yet how can Einstein’s relativistic ideas not be indeterministic too? If you can’t specify a reality principle, if you are forced to consider every subjective viewpoint, how can you say what determines what? If two observers don’t know which of them is moving, and which isn’t, and both can regard themselves as stationary while the other seems to be undergoing a metamorphosis in accordance with the Lorentz transformation, how can we refer to causation and determinism at all? Nothing is causing or determining anything else. All that Einstein did with his relativity theory was destroy objectivity, and replace it with subjectivity where different subjective viewpoints could be related to each other mathematically, but certainly not physically! Either you’re moving or you’re not. Either you’re being length contracted and time dilated or you’re not. But not according to Einstein. Now, it’s essential to point out that Einstein’s crazy scheme would be potentially correct... if it were not for the frequency Singularity of light that stands outside spacetime, and to which all spacetime reference frames have an absolute relationship (as they were said to have with the ether before Einstein arrived on the scene). What is astounding about the science community is the way it so uncritically moved to support of Einstein, and seemingly had no concerns about how Einstein had just laid waste objective reality and the reality principle. Equally, it had no concerns when quantum mechanics, as conventionally interpreted, destroyed causation and determinism, and reduced “reality” to a casino. If you combine Einstein’s subjective madhouse and quantum mechanics’ cosmic version of Monte Carlo, you get the worst explanation of reality ever supplied by anyone! You kill off God, and replace him with insanity. The antidote is ontological mathematical rationalism.

Wave-Particle Duality The true answer to so-called wave-particle duality is that all particles are “flowing points”, and each flowing point is following a wave trajectory, internally programmed into it (as its Aristotelian form, or formula, so to speak). A flowing point, hence a particle, is a tiny information package expressing energy. During a collision, it acts like a localised thing (i.e. a

particle). When it’s travelling, it moves like a wave. Trillions of flowing points acting in concert (as in the case of a bullet, for example) have a wave profile that averages out to a straight line. This is why quantum (wave) phenomena are typically seen only in the case of isolated particles, i.e. in microscopic rather than macroscopic instances. This is where large-scale averaging effects have not had the opportunity to conceal wave effects. The waves are still there in the macroscopic cases, of course, but they are buried in the mathematical detail.

Splitting Light No experiment would be more earth shattering than the one that showed that a photon can be split: into a chronon and choran. An entirely new theory of matter can be constructed from these particles. In a photon, a chronon of a certain frequency is perfectly allied to a choran of the same frequency. They have an analytic, orthogonal relationship, hence they create a dimensionless union. They are the agents of mind. Now imagine taking a vast set of photons and subjecting them to the incredibly high energy of the Big Bang. This succeeds in splitting many of the (low energy) photons into their component chronons and chorans. Once this is done, we can then start putting them together again. But what if we join them together non-orthogonally? And what if we put together chronons and chorans of different frequencies? It’s when these mismatches take place that we generate new types of particles: material particles that exist in space and time rather than dimensionlessly. To be clear, when chronons and chorans are perfectly matched up, we get photons, which are particles that exist in an immaterial frequency domain of mind (a Singularity). When chronons and chorans are put together in any way other than perfectly, we get all of the particles of the material world of spacetime. Every material particle, like every photon, is a combination of a time particle and a space particle. In the case of photons, the time and space particles are so mathematically well-balanced that photons are both dimensionless and immaterial. In the case of material particles, this is not the case.

Material particles, despite comprising mismatched time and space particles, can nevertheless produce highly stable particles such as electrons and quarks. In turn, quarks can come together to produce stable protons and neutrons. That is, there are mathematically stable ways of combining non-matched chorans and chronons. Perhaps a wave with exactly twice the frequency of the other wave will work, or a wave with a phase difference of 30, 45 or 60 degrees compared to the other. The idea is to build up a set of stable sinusoidal patterns that we can then map to all of the known material particles, and show that they are actually derived from photons, i.e. from mathematical sinusoids. This turns them into mathematical rather than scientific entities. In this way, we can reduce the entire “particle zoo” to analytic sinusoids, and replace science with ontological mathematics.

The Uncertainty Principle “The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

“This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.” – http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html It is stated as a fact that “uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things”. This is not a fact. This is an interpretation given the ideology of materialism and empiricism. This uncertainty vanishes as soon as we move to ontological mathematics, predicated on the principle of sufficient reason, which guarantees certainty and precision.

It’s incredible how often science assumes that its dogmas are factual rather than mere beliefs, opinions and interpretations. No one has ever seen a random event, a probabilistic event, an indeterministic event, an indeterminate event, an event without a cause. People see events, and then interpret them in various ways. Even if the event can charitably be called a “fact”, the interpretation of the event most certainly cannot. That’s a reflection of someone’s unproven belief system and ideology. Science itself is an unproven, and unprovable, belief system and ideology. As we have shown, Planck’s constant corresponds to the smallest possible particle (the flowing point). It is impossible for anything to have a smaller size than this. This is the actual reason why you can’t specify the position of any particle more precisely than this. The only thing smaller than a flowing point is a static point, which is a non-existent! Consider these remarks by John Baez: “There’s an energy operator in quantum mechanics, usually called the Hamiltonian and written H. But the problem is, there’s no ‘time operator’ in quantum mechanics! This makes people argue a lot about the time-energy uncertainty relation – whether it exists, what it would mean if it did exist, and so on.... Matthew Donald wrote something interesting about this subject. I’m editing it a little bit here: ‘Most treatments of the time-energy uncertainty principle point out that you do have to be careful to consider the meaning of t. t isn’t an operator in quantum mechanics. Uncertainty relations are mathematical theorems as well as physical statements so if we begin with a proof we should end up with an exact definition of what we are trying to understand. There are probably several forms in which the time-energy uncertainty relation can be proved.’... From your uncertainty relation we then have (ΔT) (ΔH) ≥ ℏ /2 the famous time-energy uncertainty relation that everyone keeps yearning for! The problem is, for physically realistic Hamiltonians H one can prove there is no operator T with [H,T] = i ℏ. In other words, there is no time observable!” “Time” is a disaster for science. Science has no idea what time is. It doesn’t know if it’s tensed or tenseless, dimensionless or dimensional, absolute or relative, real or unreal. Is it a forward arrow? Why not a reverse arrow? Is it psychological? Is it connected to subjective consciousness? What is time in relation to the unreal, abstract, deterministic wavefunction? What is time as regards the arbitrary, observer-triggered, indeterministic collapse of the wavefunction? Science refers to time in all sorts of

contradictory ways, and no one really seems to notice or care. No scientist ever seeks to put time on a proper ontological and epistemological basis. It is always used as a heuristic. People choose whatever version of time suits their present purpose (and ignore all of the other versions that don’t). Wikipedia says, “In quantum mechanics, the position operator is the operator that corresponds to the position observable of a particle. The eigenvalue of the operator is the position vector of the particle.” Masahiko Yamaguchi wrote, “In Quantum Mechanics, position is an observable, but time may not be. I think that time is simply a classical parameter associated with the act of measurement, but is there an observable of time? And if the observable will exist, what is an operator of time?” “Daniel” wrote, “Time is not a variable in Quantum Mechanics (QM), it’s a parameter – much in the same way as it is in Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics.” “Mistake Ink” wrote, “In the first chapter of Srednicki’s book on QFT he states that one route to QFT is to promote time to an operator on an equal footing with position. He says this is viable but complicated so in general we do QFT by demoting position to a label on an equal footing with time. I don’t know more about this but hope it may be of interest.” Arnold Neumaier wrote, “The problem of extending Hamiltonian mechanics to include a time operator, and to interpret a time-energy uncertainty relation, first posited (without clear formal discussion) in the early days of quantum mechanics, has a large associated literature... Time measurements do not need a time operator, but are captured well by a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) for the time observable modelling properties of the measuring clock.” “Drake” wrote, “In QM, the temporal variable t is not an observable in the technical sense (i.e., in the same sense that position and momentum are). In order to be an observable, it should have to exist a linear selfadjoint operator T^ whose eigenvalues t were the outcomes of measurements.” A. de Saint-Ours wrote, “Time plays a problematic role in the framework of the canonical approaches to quantum gravity. This should not come as a surprise once one accepts the initial incompatibility between time in QM and Quantum Field Theory (QMT) on one hand, and time in General Relativity on the other. Indeed, time in QM is substantival in nature. The

parameter t that is involved in Schrödinger’s equation is an absolute external parameter. It is not described by an operator: this would be in contradiction with the boundedness of the energy. As noted by Alfredo Macias and Hernando Quevedo: ‘It is not a fundamental element of the scheme, but it must be introduced from outside as an absolute parameter which coincides with the Newtonian time. Since there is no operator which could be associated with time, it is not an observable.’ Consequently, time is not a dynamic variable in QM. “In QFT, the picture is similar, since absolute time is replaced by a set of times (the times of special relativity) that refer to Minkowski spacetime. Since this spacetime constitutes a background, it is substantival in nature and the time variable is a background parameter. ‘Instead of the absolute Newtonian time, we now have a different parameter associated to each member of the distinguished class of inertial frames. The two absolute concepts of Newtonian physics, i.e. space and time, are now replaced by the single concept of spacetime. Nevertheless, in special relativity spacetime retains much of the Newtonian scheme. Although it is possible to find an absolute difference between space and time, spacetime is still an element of the quantum theory which does not interact with the field under consideration. That is to say, spacetime remains as a background entity on which one describes the classical (relativistic) and quantum behaviour of the field.’ (Macias and Quevedo) Spacetime in QFT is an external nondynamical entity like the absolute time of QM. “In GR, there is a drastic difference with QM and QFT, since here time is dynamical, local and does not constitute a fixed background: ‘In GR, space-time is dynamical and therefore there is no absolute time. Space-time influences material clocks in order to allow them to show proper time. The clocks, in turn, react on the metric and change the geometry. In this sense, the metric itself is a clock.’ [Kiefer] Time in GR is not an external parameter. GR does not possess a naturally preferred time variable whereas QM and QFT do possess such a preferred time.” What a mess! How can science proceed without proper, agreed definitions? Scientists make up the meaning of time as they go along. They use whatever interpretation suits their pet theory of the time. They use different paradigms to discuss time, all of which are incompatible. These problems can all be swept away by the simplest adjustment. All that science needs to do is replace “time” with 3D imaginary space, and

treat it in exactly the same way as 3D space, but orthogonal to it in a complex domain. However, this involves switching from scientific empiricism involving real numbers to mathematical rationalism involving complex numbers. Believers in the religion of scientism refuse to take this rational step. As soon as we recast time as imaginary space, completely analogous to real space, we can rewrite the uncertainty relations as: (Δqr) (Δpr) ≥ ℏ /2, where r signifies real space. and (Δqi) (Δpi) ≥ i ℏ /2, where i signifies imaginary space (time). We can also write: (ΔT) (ΔEi) ≥ i ℏ /2 where ΔT relates to imaginary space, and Ei is imaginary energy. and (ΔS) (ΔE) ≥ ℏ /2 where ΔS relates to real space. You can no more say that energy can be borrowed from time (imaginary space) than you can say that energy can be borrowed from real space. At a stroke, all sorts of absurd scientific speculations about borrowing energy from time to achieve certain goals, and then rapidly repaying it to balance the books, are expressly forbidden. Given these considerations, the equations of quantum mechanics have to be altered to treat time on a par with space, rather than as an external parameter.

The Block Universe So, you think you know about time? Try to answer this question... is the block universe notion compatible with general relativity? It certainly seems consistent with special relativity, but isn’t time explicitly adjustable in general relativity? Indeed, isn’t the same true for space? “Robphy” wrote, “The modern view [used by working relativists] is that General Relativity works with a spacetime consisting of an arbitrary 4manifold M with a Lorentzian metric tensor field gab, whereas Special Relativity is the special case where the spacetime is the Minkowski spacetime consisting of R4 and the [flat] Minkowski metric ηab.”

Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin wrote, “... general relativity must be reformulated without the addition of the Riemannian spacetime conception, the disposition to spatialize time, or the block-universe view, none of which are vindicated by the empirical and experimental evidence adduced in favour of general relativity. The metaphysical gloss must be lifted from the empirical theory...” So, why do so many scientists associate the Block Universe with general and special relativity? It’s not at all clear that spacetime in special relativity has any connection at all with spacetime in general relativity. Remember, there are no forces present in special relativity, which makes it rather hard to see why it should be connected to the force-based theory of general relativity. It’s rather like trying to understand Fourier material spacetime functions exclusively from Fourier immaterial frequency functions outside spacetime, without ever mentioning spacetime and matter. In ontological Fourier mathematics, the addition of space, time and matter changes everything. Similarly, in relativity, the addition of force changes everything. Special relativity is actually a theory of light, with matter being compared to light in non-force situations. General relativity is a theory of matter, subject to forces.

Unification “Among the different attempts to unify GR and QM, one can distinguish: “* The canonical approaches that make use of the Hamiltonian formalism, in which spacetime is foliated and an appropriate canonical variable is chosen. This program is a direct quantization of Hamiltonian GR. In the spirit of GR, it does not assume a background spacetime. According to the choice of the variable, one can specify different subclasses of quantization: 1) The oldest version is quantum geometrodynamics in which the canonical variable is the three dimensional metric. 2) Since the end of the 1980s, this approach is pursued in a different from based on ideas of Abhay Ashtekar in which the canonical variable is a three connection. This has led to Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) * Covariant approaches. This line of research has led to string theory and M-theory. * Sum-over-histories line of research. * Others, such as: twistor theory, non-commutative geometry, causal sets...” – A. de Saint-Ours

Science can never succeed until it relies on rational and logical principles and agreed ontological and epistemological definitions of space, time, energy, mass, matter, speed, and so on. There’s absolutely no chance of that while science remains wedded to empiricism, materialism and heuristics.

The Measurement Problem “The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly [MH: It is non-empirical and immaterial!] has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement ‘did something’ to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution. “To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality? “The best known example is the ‘paradox’ of the Schrödinger’s cat. A mechanism is arranged to kill a cat if a quantum event, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, occurs. Thus the fate of a large scale object, the cat, is entangled with the fate of a quantum object, the atom. Prior to observation, according to the Schrödinger equation, the cat is apparently evolving into a linear combination of states that can be characterized as an ‘alive cat’ and states that can be characterized as a ‘dead cat’. Each of these possibilities is associated with a specific nonzero probability amplitude; the cat seems to be in some kind of ‘combination’ state called a ‘quantum superposition’. However, a single, particular observation of the cat does not measure the probabilities: it always finds either a living cat, or a dead cat. After the

measurement the cat is definitively alive or dead. The question is: How are the probabilities converted into an actual, sharply well-defined outcome?” – Wikipedia Scientists, when they try to interpret processes that cannot be perceived, try to produce the “explanation” that departs least from what they can perceive. If they accept the “perceived” order as reality then they are in no way predisposed to contemplate a deeper, rational, noumenal reality that they can’t perceive at all – an order with no appearance. So, they refer instead to an “unreal”, abstract world to provide the inescapable underpinning of the observed world. There is no “measurement problem” in rationalist, idealist science, only in empiricist, materialist science. Cats are never in living-dead superposition states. Their status is always ontologically certain, and is defined by an unseen rational order of mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what gets rid of the measurement problem.

Atoms of Substance “Only atoms of substance, i.e. real units absolutely devoid of parts, are the sources of actions, and the absolute first principles of the composition of things, and, as it were, the ultimate elements in the analysis of substantial things. They might be called metaphysical points; they have something of the nature of life and they have a kind of perception, and mathematical points are their points of view for expressing the universe. But when corporeal substances are contracted, all their organs together make but one physical point for us. Thus physical points are only apparently indivisible. Mathematical points are exact, but they are only modalities. None but metaphysical or substantial points (consisting of forms or souls) are exact and real. The organised mass, in which is the point of view of the soul, is more nearly expressed by the soul.” – Leibniz Metaphysical points are in fact ontological mathematical monads, made of a complete and consistent set of moving points. Static mathematical points have no consequences. “Philosophers [here = ‘philosophers and scientists’] have been at a loss regarding the origin of forms, entelechies, or souls, but not any longer. Careful investigations into plants, insects and animals have shown that Nature’s organic bodies are never produced from chaos or from putrefaction, but always from seeds, in which there is without doubt already

some preformation. Rather than something formed being generated from something formless, it has turned out that what is formed always comes from something that was already formed. So these days we think that before conception there is an organized body there, and that this has a soul; which is to say that before conception there is already an animal there. What conception does is to launch that animal into a great transformation that will turn it into an animal of a different kind. We even have examples of something like this great transformation apart from generation, as when maggots turn into flies and caterpillars into butterflies.” – Leibniz The ultimate preformed entities are monads mathematical entities that underlie everything.

themselves...

pure

Leibniz’s Core Principles and Doctrines “The subject-predicate form of propositions is basic. And for a proposition to be true, its predicate must be contained in the subject. “Finite analysis: The containment of the predicate in the subject is shown by a simple analysis of the terms. A finitely analyzable statement’s opposite cannot be asserted without a contradiction. “Infinite analysis: The procedure necessary in order to understand contingent propositions. E.g., to fully understand the concept of Socrates, we would have to know all of Socrates’ predicates. The denial of such propositions does not yield a contradiction. Only God can do infinite analysis. “The Principle of Contradiction: Two contradictory propositions cannot both be true. A proposition is either true or false. A proposition cannot be both true and false at once, and it is impossible for a proposition to be neither true nor false. This principle yields truths of reason. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason: Nothing can be true or real or existing unless there is a sufficient reason that makes it so and not otherwise. This principle yields truths of fact. “The Principle of Perfection (or the Principle of the Best): God acts for the objectively best and humanity acts with a view to what seems to be the best. This is, after all, the best of all possible worlds. “The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles: There cannot be two identical substances. Or, numerically different individuals must be qualitatively dissimilar.

“The Principle of Continuity: Nothing is accomplished all at once. Nature makes no leaps. “A Principle of Differentiation: Monads differ from one another in respect to their degree of consciousness. “The Internal Principle of Change: Appetition or desire. Inherent in monads. “The Doctrine of Preestablished Harmony: God created each monad with its particular dispositions such that it is coordinated and corresponds with all other monads at all times.” – William T. Myers The Principle of Sufficient Reason is often linked to truths of fact rather than truths of reason, which are said to be catered for by the Principle of Contradiction. Of course, it can equally well be applied to the latter. The Principle of Contradiction is just a particular case of the principle of sufficient reason. A contradiction provides the sufficient reason for a proposed eternal truth of reason to be rejected.

The God Series In the God Series, we have not only explained the way things really are, but also why people believe them to be other than how they really are. It’s because they reject reason and favour instead their own psychological type. People of faith (anti-reason), i.e. feeling types such as Abrahamists, are attracted to the notion of all-powerful Super Being, with whom they can have some kind of personal relationship. People of mysticism (anti-reason), i.e. intuitives not guided by reason, are attracted to Eastern religion, where they imagine that meditation can change their mental state so that they are absorbed by some tranquil, interconnected, mystical Oneness. People of empiricism (anti-reason), i.e. sensing types not guided by reason, are attracted to scientific materialism. All of these irrationalist anti-intellectuals oppose reason and regard it as unreal and abstract.

Change Change proceeds in an orderly manner from one state to another through all of the infinitely many intervening states. In fact, the principle of continuity is nothing other than cause and effect. Cause and effect does not take place in jumps. Cause and effect takes place continuously. Every state is the immediate consequence of the preceding state. There are no unexpected,

random, unpredictable jumps. Any such jumps would be inexplicable. They lack a sufficient reason.

No Privilege The principle of sufficient reason supports the principle of no privilege. None of a set of equal states can be privileged over any of the others. All must be given exactly the same treatment. This is a Round Table principle, fully consistent with equal opportunities. Eternity obeys exact equal opportunities for all equivalent states.

No Buddha Unlike the Buddha, we didn’t work out any of this through introspection, through examining our subjective experiences, our feelings, our sensations, perceptions, or mystical notions. We worked it out through reason alone – exactly what the Buddha and all empiricists (including all scientists) refuse to do. Only one scientist has even got close to the concept of ontological mathematics... Max Tegmark, who at least looks to some kind of mathematical underpinning for reality.

Perfect Movement How does a mathematical point move in order to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason? Remember that the principle of sufficient reason never privileges any valid state over any other equally valid state. All must be addressed equally and identically. It is exactly this requirement that explains existence. Only one shape can accommodate absolute equality of treatment... the circle, which is an instance of an n-sphere. Wikipedia says, “In mathematics, an n-sphere is a generalization of the surface of an ordinary sphere to arbitrary dimension. For any natural number n, an n-sphere of radius r is defined as the set of points in (n + 1)dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a central point, where the radius r may be any positive real number... “a 0-sphere is the pair of points at the ends of a (one-dimensional) line segment, “a 1-sphere is the circle, which is the one-dimensional circumference of a (two-dimensional) disk in the plane,

“a 2-sphere is the two-dimensional surface of a (three-dimensional) ball in three-dimensional space. “S0: a 0-sphere is a pair of endpoints of an interval (−r, r) of the real line “S1: a 1-sphere is a circle of radius r “S2: a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere “S3: a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space. “Spheres for n > 2 are sometimes called hyperspheres.” – Wikipedia All of the fundamental principles of existence flow from the 0-sphere.

***** “Another view of the circle is as the entire real line with one extra point added to close the loop. The correspondence comes courtesy of a simple map called the stereographic projection. Similarly, the 2-sphere is the entire infinite plane with one extra point (sometimes called the north pole). In other words, the 1-sphere is much like a line, and the 2-sphere is much like a plane, with the one difference that they’ve been ‘compactified’ by the addition of one extra ‘point at infinity’. Again, the 3-sphere is similar: It’s just euclidean 3-d space with one slightly mysterious extra point glued on.... Stereographic projections equate the circle and the sphere with the line and plane, respectively, each with an extra ‘point at infinity’” – Barry Cipra

The 0-Sphere “A 0-sphere is the pair of points at the ends of a (one-dimensional) line segment.” – Wikipedia The significance of the 0-sphere is much underrated. Conventionally, a linear process is considered to be radically different from a cyclical process. The former is apparently open-ended (never repeats), while the latter is closed (always repeats). Yet, when it is understood that there is a 0-sphere associated with every line, then we realise that no linear process is truly linear. At any time, we can rotate the line and generate a 1-sphere (circle), so every linear process is in fact permanently shadowed by circularity. There is no such thing as a line not associated with a 0-sphere, hence there is no such thing as a “pure”, open-ended, linear process, a process absolutely free of circularity. Circularity, via the 0-sphere, is built into every linear process. Of course, linearity is equally built into every circular process. Every circle has a line segment (radius) at its core.

Circles and lines are indissolubly linked. The formulas for the circumference and area of a circle (2πr and πr2) show that linearity, via the radius, is always linked to circularity. Consider the area of a circle, πr2, which we would express in functional terms as f(r) = πr2. If we differentiate this, we get 2πr (the circumference). If we then differentiate this, we get 2π, the constant applicable to all circles. Yet we must, by the inescapable logic of n-spheres, be able to associate 2π with a 0-sphere. How do we do this? We have said earlier in the God Series that ontological calculus allows meaningful differentiation to be applied to constants (an operation that results in nothing in conventional abstract calculus). Specifically, dimensional constants associated with spacetime can be differentiated to produce dimensionless constants associated with frequency. So, 2π (dimensional), associated with a 1-sphere (circle) becomes, under differentiation, 2π (dimensionless), associated with a 0-sphere. At this stage, we are entering the frequency domain of monads. Imagine a frequency wave inside a monad, going on cyclically forever. In linear terms, we can model this via the introduction of the concept of the “point at infinity”. A point linked to a point at infinity maps to a 0-sphere. A straight line linked to a point at infinity maps to a 1-sphere (circle). A plane linked to a point at infinity maps to a 2-sphere (regular sphere). A cube linked to a point at infinity maps to a 3-sphere (hypersphere). So, linearly, an endless wave process inside a monad can be represented as a process travelling from one point to a second point positioned at infinity, i.e. as a “point-at-infinity” 0-sphere. Why do you think 2π pops up everywhere in quantum physics? It’s because circularity, hence waves, are built into everything. There’s no such thing as a linear world free of circles, waves and 2π. There’s not really any such thing as wave-particle duality. There are only waves, particular features of which can be interpreted as if involving particles. In fact, everything is derived from circular and hence wave motion. Pure linearity is impossible. All lines are shadowed by circles and waves. Circles and waves are implicit in all lines. This has the most profound implications for mathematics. It means that there’s not really any such thing as the “number line”. There is no such thing as a pure Cartesian linear grid either.

Rather, the Cartesian grid is fully underpinned by dimensionless frequency monads, hence circles, waves and 2π. The Cartesian grid, as conventionally represented, is an abstraction, not ontological. To be made ontological, it must be understood to be indissolubly linked to invisible monads in a Singularity. The Singularity is the Cartesian origin. It’s the frequency (mental) domain at the heart of the spacetime (material) domain. You can never validly refer to spacetime without also referring to the Singularity. This, in fact, is the whole problem with science. Science, even though it acknowledges the spacetime universe erupting from a Singularity at the Big Bang, then denies the ongoing existence of this Singularity (which in fact goes on controlling spacetime as the Cosmic Mind to the Cosmic Body = universe). The Singularity is the mysterious “ether” that Einstein absurdly abolished, for which he was patted on the back by all of science, and proclaimed a “genius”. Ironically, many scientific “geniuses” are guilty of monumental blunders that have had catastrophic effects on humanity’s understanding and knowledge of reality. Equally, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and quantum mechanics make no reference to an ontological monadic Singularity: a permanent frequency domain. (Note that quantum entanglement is instantly explained via this Singularity outside space and time.) It’s exactly this catastrophic omission that ensures that no scientist knows what quantum mechanics actually means. Scientists are missing the critical ingredient – the mental Singularity – that defines the whole system. Of course, the ideology and dogma of science is wholly opposed to granting the existence of a mental Singularity, which would necessitate the abolition of scientific empiricism and materialism, and its replacement by scientific rationalism and idealism (= ontological mathematics). This is why science must be regarded as a Mythos religion. It will never contemplate anything outside its faith in the primacy of “matter” and the senses. It will never challenge its belief system. It rejects anything out of hand that does not conform with its religious worldview. It scoffs at anyone who opposes materialism. It even scoffs at everyone who supports rationalist mathematics, while failing to acknowledge that science without rationalist mathematics is a joke, and meaningless.

But the academic mathematical community is not much better. “Abstract” mathematicians have no understanding of the greatest tool in mathematics – calculus. Calculus, without reference to Leibnizian monads – is absurd. Leibniz, the discoverer of calculus, and the greatest genius in human history, was the only person who fully understood calculus, and the fact that it must be intrinsically tied to monads. The rest of the mathematical community, while accepting Leibniz’s notation and basic approach to calculus (bar the monads!) essentially followed Newton’s spacetime (scientific) understanding of calculus. “Spacetime” (material) calculus is formally false. Only spacetime calculus grounded in frequency (mental) calculus is valid, i.e. calculus must be underpinned by monadic frequency domains located in a Singularity, sited at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate grid. All calculus processes must refer to this invisible Singularity. The conventional calculus of “limits” is wrong. All of calculus must begin and end with monads, yet these are explicitly what the calculus of limits denies. We need a brand new understanding of the Cartesian coordinate grid. It needs to have an ontological Singularity – a Mind – placed at its origin. The Singularity is the Fourier frequency domain, and the rest of the grid the Fourier spacetime domain. The Big Bang is nothing but a Fourier process creating spacetime from the frequency Singularity (the Cartesian origin). The Cartesian grid must be replaced by the Fourier-Cartesian grid, reflecting frequency as well as spacetime. More or less the whole of science – and most of abstract mathematics – is conceptually false because the standard Cartesian grid is what is used to support science and abstract mathematics, and this grid automatically reflects spacetime, extension, dimensionality, materialism, empiricism, and the senses. Descartes himself was certain of the existence of unextended, dimensionless thinking substance, yet it does not feature at all in his own Cartesian grid. This can be rectified at a stroke by replacing the “empty” Cartesian origin with a Fourier frequency domain: a Singularity composed of countless monads, each of which is a self-contained frequency domain = a mind, a soul. The whole of the mind-body interaction can be understood as soon as we place a mental domain at the heart of the spacetime domain. Fourier

mathematics automatically takes care of the whole thing. The critical problem is that people just cannot conceive of this invisible, noumenal, transcendental, transcendent, Platonic domain of immutable, perfect, eternal Forms. They regard it as unreal and abstract. In fact, it’s the essence of existence, and the most concrete thing you can possibly get. The problem is that only reason and intellectual intuition can take us there, but people reject these in favour of their feelings (faith), their senses (empiricism, materialism and science), and their non-intellectual intuitions (Eastern mysticism). Only the brightest of all human beings can grasp that pure reason lies at the core of existence, and that the principle of sufficient reason rules the universe via its ontological expression (the God Equation). Only rational people can understand reality. Only rational people can see that pure reason must be placed at the origin of the Cartesian grid to make it ontological, to make it Pythagorean, Platonic, Gnostic, Hermetic, Neoplatonic, Leibnizian and Hegelian, i.e. Illuminated.

The Complex Plane “The complex plane is the plane of complex numbers spanned by the vectors 1 and i, where i is the imaginary number. Every complex number corresponds to a unique point in the complex plane. The line in the plane with i = 0 is the real line. The complex plane is sometimes called the Argand plane or Gauss plane, and a plot of complex numbers in the plane is sometimes called an Argand diagram. “The complex plane together with the point at infinity... is known as the Riemann sphere or extended complex plane.” – http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexPlane.html

The Cartesian Grid Arguably, nothing has had a greater impact on human thought than the Cartesian grid. It’s the basis of both mathematics and science. All Euclidean spacetime thinking originates here. All Newtonian thinking originates here. Empiricism and materialism are stamped all over the Cartesian grid. It contains the entirety of John Locke’s understanding of the application of mathematics to the “primary” properties of the things of the empirical world.

But reality is actually about circles, waves, frequencies, non-Euclidean geometry, projection, zero, infinity and complex numbers, none of which feature in the standard grid. Because the wrong grid is used to depict reality – the Cartesian grid – scientists and mathematicians can’t help falling into the wrong ways of thinking. The correct grid – the one that reflects reality – is the Fourier-GaussRiemann grid, but this is a) much more difficult to represent, b) contains “invisible” elements (monadic zero/infinity frequency domains = minds), and non-empirical, imaginary (hence complex numbers), c) it contains curvature. That’s why it has proved so difficult for it to gain any traction. Quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and quantum gravity would all be solved in a trice (well, in a decade) if the science and mathematics communities switched from the Cartesian grid to the FourierGauss-Riemann grid. The only reason they don’t is that the former grid is compatible with empiricism, materialism and conventional science, while the latter emphatically isn’t. The latter grid demands that you accept the ontology of mathematics. You must accept monads, minds, singularities, zero, infinity, imaginary and complex numbers. This means that you have fully acknowledged that the universe is mathematical, not scientific. It means that you have turned to scientific rationalism and idealism, and permanently away from scientific empiricism and materialism. It means that you have rejected Newton and embraced Leibniz. It means that you accept philosophy, metaphysics, reason, logic, deduction, analysis, ontology and epistemology as essential to the understanding of reality, and you no longer worship naive sensory experiments (as science does). It means that you are concerned with rational proof and not empirical evidence. In other words, it means that you support the ultimate intellectual paradigm shift... away from the temporal, contingent human condition and towards the eternal, necessary viewpoint of “God” (a mathematical God, naturally, and nothing to do with morality, prophets, gurus, holy books, sacred scriptures, Commandments, Chosen People, infidels, heretics, blasphemers, apostates, circumcision, and bans on bacon sandwiches and beardlessness). How can you become a God unless you adopt God’s viewpoint, and transcend your fallible, unreliable, limited humanity, with your narrow and dubious human senses, feelings and pathetic little experiences?

Only mathematics can provide a final, grand unified theory of everything. To arrive at this definitive theory, you must first identify the definitive grid that supports the ontological ground of reality. The conventional Cartesian grid is perfect for modelling the concept of the material world of spacetime. Newtonian physics is so embedded in the human imagination because it’s nothing but science worked out on a Cartesian grid. Einsteinian special relativity is what you get when you replace a real-numbered Cartesian grid with a complex-numbered Gaussian grid. General relativity is what you get when you add Riemannian nonEuclidean geometry to the Gaussian grid. Quantum mechanics is what you get when you add a Fourier frequency grid to the Gauss-Riemann grid. There is no further grid! The history of science is literally the history of the following grid progression: 1) Pre-Newtonian science – no grid, hence unmathematical. 2) Newtonian physics, reflecting the standard Cartesian grid, and Euclidean geometry. This is the simplest mathematical version of science. It’s no surprise at all that it appeared first. (Of course, Leibniz had produced an infinitely more sophisticated theory of reality, based on monadic holography, but this was rejected by the intellectual community... Leibniz, a real genius was centuries ahead of his time, while Newton, a minor genius, was exactly a man of his time, appealing to “common sense”.) 3) Einsteinian special relativity, reflecting the Gauss grid. In Einsteinian special relativity, time takes the role of imaginary numbers. Although this is widely recognised, no one actually assigns any ontological reality to time as imaginary numbers. This equivalence is simply taken to be a calculational convenience, and real numbers can in any case be substituted, using an appropriate mathematical “trick”. Wikipedia says, “Henri Poincaré showed that by taking time to be an imaginary fourth spacetime coordinate (√−1 c t), a Lorentz transformation can be regarded as a rotation of coordinates in a four-dimensional Euclidean space with three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate, representing time, as the fourth dimension... In a further development, Minkowski gave an alternative formulation of this idea that used a real time coordinate instead of an imaginary one, representing the four variables (x, y, z, t) of space and time in coordinate form in a four dimensional affine space. Points in this space

correspond to events in spacetime. In this space, there is a defined lightcone associated with each point, and events not on the light-cone are classified by their relation to the apex as spacelike or timelike. It is principally this view of spacetime that is current nowadays, although the older view involving imaginary time has also influenced special relativity.” Wolfram Mathworld says, “Minkowski space is a four-dimensional space possessing a Minkowski metric, i.e., a metric tensor having the form: dτ2= -(dx0)2 + (dx1)2 + (dx2)2 + (dx3)2. Alternatively (though less desirably), Minkowski space can be considered to have a Euclidean metric with imaginary time coordinate x0 = ict where c is the speed of light (by convention c = 1 is normally used) and where i is the imaginary number i = sqrt(-1). Minkowski space unifies Euclidean three-space plus time (the ‘fourth dimension’) in Einstein’s theory of special relativity.” It’s always possible to produce mathematical tricks to avoid confronting the imaginary nature of time. The complex plane is the simplest way to model Einsteinian special relativity. Newtonian absolute space and absolute time, represented by independent real numbers, are replaced by interlinked complex numbers, thus creating fused spacetime. You can’t make any change to space, without affecting time, and vice versa. Thus we have a set of dynamic relations of time dilation and length contraction. There is nothing in special relativity to explain why the speed of light is fixed and absolute. This is simply something imposed on the theory by postulate. The theory investigates what happens given this postulate. It doesn’t explain the postulate. Einstein famously abolished the aether, hence abolished the old Newtonian grid for absolute space and absolute time, and replaced it with inertial frames of reference, which could be rationalised in terms of 4D Minkowski spacetime where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. But the aether hasn’t gone away. The aether is actually the immaterial, unobservable frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, where everything travels at light speed. Light doesn’t travel through the aether. Light is the aether, which is exactly why it is fixed and constant, and provides an absolute framework for the entire material world. As ever, a famous scientist – Einstein in this case – got his coordinate grid wrong, hence produced a fallacious theory.

3) General Relativity, reflecting a Gaussian grid with curvature. Special relativity excludes forces. With the introduction of forces, the fabric of spacetime curves. Einstein said, “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” John Wheeler said, “Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move.” It’s necessary to leave behind flat space and accommodate curved space. We need Riemannian, non-Euclidean geometry. 4) Quantum mechanics, reflecting a Gauss-Riemann grid subject with a Fourier frequency domain added to it. QM is all about wave-particle “duality”. But where do the waves come from? They originate in the Fourier frequency domain. This is the domain of mind, while the GaussRiemann grid is the material domain of Fourier spacetime (body as opposed to mind). Of course, scientists have no idea how to understand QM, so they blabber on about “unreal,” “abstract” mathematical potentiality wavefunctions, and the like, i.e. things with no ontology. 5) Ontological mathematics, reflecting the full Fourier-Gauss-Riemann grid as ontologically real, and getting rid of the Cartesian-Euclidean grid once and for all. There is nowhere else to go. This is the end of the line. This provides for the final theory of everything. You cannot get your understanding of reality right unless you are using the correct mathematical grid, the ontological grid. Religious Mythos and mysticism use no grid at all. Philosophy uses no grid. Science, in effect, has never shaken off the Euclid-Descartes-Newton grid. Ontological mathematics demands a much more complex grid, that of Gauss, Fourier and Riemann. Their grid fully mathematically supports the monadic holographic system produced by Leibniz. Leibniz was simply too smart to be appreciated by his empiricist, materialist contemporaries. Newton was the man for them. Leibniz was the True Genius, Newton the False Genius, just as Abraxas is the “True God” and Jehovah (the Demiurge/Allah) = the False God = the Devil. If you have no ontological grid depicting reality, you have nothing. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are in the land of Mythos and fantasy. The tragedy for the human race is that our senses and feelings have evolved with respect to the simplistic Euclid-Descartes-Newton spacetime grid, the grid compatible with empiricism, materialism and real numbers.

This model “gets the job done” with minimum fuss. Its truth content is neither here nor there. The ancient Greek Atomists believed in little hard lumps (atoms) whizzing about in a void, colliding with each, coming together and breaking apart. That remains the basic conception 99% of humans have of reality. The religious amongst them are willing to place some undefined soul from another dimension, or no dimension at all, in the midst of a body made of atoms. When the person dies, and his atoms go their separate ways (the body turns to dust), the soul goes on. This is the basic model of Cartesian dualism. No one worries about the fatal interaction problem produced by dualism... how do substances with different, incompatible properties interact with each other? Descartes himself couldn’t fit an unextended domain of mind into an extended domain of matter. The ingredient he was lacking was an immaterial Fourier frequency domain outside space and time... a domain of monadic singularities (souls). It interacts with the Fourier spacetime domain via forward and inverse Fourier transforms. What could be simpler?! As soon as you abandon the naive Euclid-Descartes-Newton grid, you automatically leave behind science, empiricism and materialism, and are forced to enter the rationalist, idealist world of ontological mathematics. You are forced to turn to reason, logic and metaphysics. Experiments won’t help you. Experiments are only as good as our senses, and our senses evolved with regard to the simple Euclid-Descartes-Newton grid, not the complex Gauss-Fourier-Riemann grid. You can literally forget experiments as any kind of worthwhile tool to investigate the world of ontological mathematics. Newton can’t save you. Only Leibniz can. Empiricism is dead. Rationalism rules. All things are numbers, as Pythagoras said. Number rules all. Sensory people regard reason and logic as unreal and abstract. What that means is that they are not willing to consider any reality beyond that of the sensory Euclid-Descartes-Newton grid. They are stuck with their childish, simplistic beliefs regarding “things” – physical stuff. They can’t imagine mathematical, mental objects that have no sensory qualities whatsoever. These people simply aren’t intelligent enough. Only humanity’s finest, highest minds can grasp ontological mathematics... can overcome their delusional senses and their touching belief in “matter”. What lies beyond science is math. It’s as simple as that. What lies beneath science is math. What props up science is math. Science without

math is divination or skepticism. Haven’t you got the memo yet? Science is an absurdity. It’s a staging post on the journey from emotional Mythos religions to intuitive philosophy, and then onto rational mathematics. Science is the sensory stage of intellectual development, when unsophisticated thinkers imagine that their senses are showing them “reality”, that empirical “evidence” is what knowledge is about. In fact, knowledge is about rational proof. It’s about infallible arguments based on the eternal truths of reason, logic and mathematics. It’s nothing to do with sensory experiences. As David Hume realised, sensory experiences can’t explain anything, and can’t provide any knowledge at all. Science, if it couldn’t call on rationalist mathematics, would not be able to make any sense at all of sensory experiences. They are simply not things that can be considered intelligible. They are forever “sensible”, and nothing more than that. Only rational things, i.e. mathematical things, are intelligible.

Map and Territory The grid is both the map and the territory. Nothing is off the grid. Everything is defined by the grid. The grid is the Truth. The grid is the All. We are all nodes in an ontological, dynamic grid, a grid that is actually solving itself to find the position of optimal symmetry. Perfect symmetry corresponds to perfect Gods in perfect heaven. What could be more wondrous? It’s all in the math. To reach perfection you have to do the math, and that’s exactly the task all of us are engaged in, whether we know it or not. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs and opinions are. You are in a mathematical system that is definitely going to cure you and perfect you, regardless of the most cherished stories you tell yourself. The Truth couldn’t care less what lies you sell yourself. The Truth will get you in the end. It’s mathematically inevitable.

***** To understand reality, you must understand grids. If you don’t have a grid, you don’t have anything. A grid means math. Soz! Only a grid provides an ontology and epistemology. It provides the form on which all content hangs. A grid means rationalism. What, in essence, was the enormous leap that took place in science (empiricism and materialism) with the advent of

Newton? It was that he placed all of “natural philosophy” (pre-Newtonian science) on a Euclidean-Cartesian grid and came up with the first fully mathematical union of the heavens and earth, i.e. he showed how the earth was part of a cosmic system, with no special status, and obeyed the same laws as everything else. “Kepler had proposed three Laws of Planetary motion based on the systematics that he found in Brahe’s data. These Laws were supposed to apply only to the motions of the planets; they said nothing about any other motion in the Universe. Further, they were purely empirical: they worked, but no one knew a fundamental reason WHY they should work. “Newton changed all of that. First, he demonstrated that the motion of objects on the Earth could be described by three new Laws of motion, and then he went on to show that Kepler’s three Laws of Planetary Motion were but special cases of Newton’s three Laws if a force of a particular kind (what we now know to be the gravitational force) were postulated to exist between all objects in the Universe having mass. In fact, Newton went even further: he showed that Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion were only approximately correct, and supplied the quantitative corrections that with careful observations proved to be valid.” – http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton.html Newton’s success was due to the grid, and calculus. All scientific progress involves arriving at a more and more accurate grids, and more and more powerful mathematics. Each new grid involves a higher level of mathematics, with more explanatory power. Ontological Fourier mathematics, based on complex numbers, is the end of the line... the most powerful math you can get.

***** Science should stop everything it’s doing and hold a global scientific conference to discuss nothing but the definitive grid in which to conduct science. Or it could cut to the chase and adopt ontological mathematics straight away. But don’t hold your breath! Science is a Mythos religion, and it won’t be changing its religion any time soon. It’s too stupid to realise that getting the right grid – the one that reflects reality rather than the human senses is the way to cure all of the problems of science. Leibniz was right

300 years ago, and we, his successors, are right now. We’re ahead of the game, waiting for everyone else to catch up.

***** Ideas such as the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth involve the imposition of simplistic grids on perceived reality. The more sophisticated the grids we use, the more we understand true reality. The human senses, sadly, are very much based on simplistic processing grids. Only reason can lead us to higher and more powerful grids that actually explain reality. The ultimate grid is intelligible, not sensible.

H-Bar H-bar (ћ) is equal to the Planck constant divided by 2π.

The Calculus of “Limits” “Suppose f is a real-valued function and c is a real number. The expression means that f(x) can be made to be as close to L as desired by making x sufficiently close to c. In that case, the above equation can be read as ‘the limit of f of x, as x approaches c, is L’. “Augustin-Louis Cauchy in 1821, followed by Karl Weierstrass, formalized the definition of the limit of a function as the above definition, which became known as the (e, d)-definition of limit in the 19th century. The definition uses e (the lowercase Greek letter epsilon) to represent any small positive number, so that ‘f(x) becomes arbitrarily close to L’ means that f(x) eventually lies in the interval (L - e, L + e), which can also be written using the absolute value sign as |f(x) - L| < e. The phrase ‘as x approaches c’ then indicates that we refer to values of x whose distance from c is less than some positive number d (the lower case Greek letter delta) – that is, values of x within either (c - d, c) or (c, c + d), which can be expressed with 0 < |x - c| < d. The first inequality means that the distance between x and c is greater than 0 and that x ≠ c, while the second indicates that x is within distance d of c.” – Wikipedia More or less everyone who studies mathematics accepts the above approach uncritically. They don’t realise they are actually taking on board a nonmathematical ideology and philosophy when they do so. The above

approach is designed to accommodate empiricism and materialism, to guarantee that no interval ever reaches zero. Of course, real calculus (ontological calculus) is about all mathematical functions coming from zero/infinity monadic singularities through integration, and returning to them through differentiation. Each new iteration of integration adds an extra dimension to a function. Each new iteration of differentiation subtracts a dimension from the function, until we arrive at the dimensionless frequency domain of monads, from which the functions originated in the first place.

***** Ontologically, calculus is all about frequency functions in a dimensionless domain of monads (i.e. an immaterial Singularity devoid of space and time), and their relation with a holographic dimensional domain of spacetime and “matter”, projected from the Singularity. All calculus processes automatically include the destination, and not just the journey to the destination. Jean Le Rond d′Alembert, arguing against infinitesimals, said, “A quantity is something or nothing; if it is something, it has not yet vanished; if it is nothing, it has literally vanished. The supposition that there is an intermediate state between these two is a chimera.” It’s this type of fallacious thinking that continues to haunt mathematics. Firstly, consider a black hole singularity. Has it vanished? Consider the gap between the singularity and its event horizon. Is it a chimera? Adding negative one to one equals “nothing”, but what do we mean by “nothing”? Do we mean that negative one and one have annihilated each other and removed each other from existence (thus violating the law of eternal energy conservation), or that negative one and one exist in a coupled state where their net effect is zero, but, if they were to be separated from one another, would then have different effects? “Nothing” does not mean that anything has “vanished”. It means that the thing or things have entered the dimensionless world. They still have quantities, but not dimensional quantities. Moreover, as dimensionality irreversibly collapses into dimensionlessness (as we see in the formation of black holes), and taking into account event horizons, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and Planck’s constant, there must come a stage, ontologically, when we are in an intermediate state between dimensionality and dimensionless. We might even say that this is the domain of the Higgs boson, the particle that generates mass.

The key point is that as soon as you accept ontological mathematical processes, the abstract mathematical arguments of the likes of d′Alembert fall apart.

***** Ontological calculus must recognise the existence of Leibnizian monadic singularities, and the Leibnizian holographic principle that the whole can be regenerated from any of its parts. It must recognise the existence of dimensionless numbers (frequencies), as well as dimensional (spacetime) numbers. And under no circumstances can any information go “missing”, as it does in the fallacious calculus taught in schools and universities.

***** Just as you can have higher order dimensionality in spacetime (x, x2, x3, x4, etc), so you can have higher order dimensionlessness in the frequency domain (with its analogues of x, x2, x3, x4, etc). In other words, you can have dimensionless circles, squares, spheres, cubes, and so on, which exist mentally rather than physically. Look at a Rubik’s cube. That’s a spacetime dimensional cube right there. Now close your eyes and imagine the Rubik’s cube in your mind. There’s a frequency dimensionless cube right there. Nothing in your mind can have spacetime dimensions! Calculus is a process linking mind to matter.

Infinitesimals “Leibniz was much exercised by the problem of the logical respectability of infinitesimal quantities. At the time, mathematicians generally insisted that the objects of mathematics should be real, in the sense of being representable geometrically. They were deeply suspicious of ‘imaginary’ quantities which could not be constructed by ruler and compass – for instance, √-1. Infinitesimals, such as rates of change at an instant, clearly fell into this class. For example, speed is change of distance divided by time; but at an instant, no time changes and no distance is travelled – so the notion of distance divided by time is strictly meaningless. As Leibniz wrote to Bartholomew des Bosses in 1706: ‘Infinitesimals are mental fictions, though they have their place in calculations, like imaginary roots in algebra.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz

When you perform any mathematical operation “at an instant”, you are really dealing with the dimensionless version of the function, the mental analogue of the physical function. “Although Leibniz went along with the prejudice that infinitesimals needed a geometrical foundation, the route by which he arrived at the calculus was algebraic rather than geometrical. His discovery arose from the concept of an infinite series converging on a limit: the differential calculus was a technique for determining the limit of such a series, and the integral calculus for finding its sum.... Leibniz discovered that the gradient of a curve at a point (corresponding to a rate of change at an instant) could be treated as the limiting value of an infinite series generated by the gradients of shorter and shorter straight lines. It was from this that he developed the process of differentiation as a general technique. Similarly, the area under a curve could be treated as the sum of an infinite series generated by the varying lengths of infinitely many, infinitely thin strips under the curve. It was the generalisation of this process which led to the technique of integration... the discovery of the calculus ushered in a whole new era of mathematics. As for his failure to give a sound geometrical basis to the calculus, it was precisely the fact that he approached the issue algebraically that made his system superior to Newton’s.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz Leibniz’s version of calculus was algebraic (mathematical), Newton’s geometric (allied to physics). Although the mathematics community followed Leibniz’s much slicker system and notation, it nevertheless retained the propensity to try to “physicalise” calculus in terms of dimensionality, spacetime, sensory “realism”, and so on, i.e. it applied a materialist, empiricist philosophy to calculus. Monads, dimensionlessness, and infinitesimals were all rejected. The mathematics community, like the scientific community, refused to accept rationalism and idealism. It refused to accept that an infinite series converging on a limit reaches that limit in the monadic Singularity. “[Bishop Berkeley] resented, even feared, the support which Newtonian science gave to materialism, and proceeded to try to discredit calculus as the chief component of that science, thus hoping to rebut the negative views expressed by scientists on matters of religion. ‘He who can digest a second or third fluxion,’ Berkeley asserted, ‘or a second or third difference, need

not, methinks, be squeamish about any point in divinity.’” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics Calculus is in fact the chief component of idealism, not materialism. Berkeley had nothing to worry about. “The theory of limits is the true metaphysics of the calculus.” – Jean Le Rond d′Alembert On the contrary, the Leibnizian theory of monads is the true metaphysics of the calculus. “Leibniz’s striving for an efficient notation for his calculation was part and parcel of his endeavour to find a ‘universal characteristic’ – a symbolic language capable of reducing all rational discourse to routine calculation. As the above examples suggest, he succeeded brilliantly as far as calculus is concerned. C. H. Edwards puts it thus: ‘[Leibniz’s] infinitesimal calculus is the supreme example in all of science and mathematics of a system of notation and terminology so perfectly mated with its subject as to faithfully mirror the basic logical operations and processes of the subject.’... Leibniz’s calculus prevailed over Newton’s largely because of his well-chosen notation, which, he said, ‘offers truths... without any effort of the imagination.’ The pedagogical benefits for calculus are strikingly expressed by C. H. Edwards: ‘It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the calculus of Leibniz brings within the range of an ordinary student problems that once required the ingenuity of an Archimedes or a Newton.’” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics Leibniz was a vastly superior thinker to Newton, but humanity never fails to take the side of inferior geniuses. The true geniuses are always too far ahead. As Schopenhauer said, “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.” Newton was talented. Leibniz was a true genius. “The significance of the calculus is so great that it is generally held to mark the starting point of modern mathematics. Moreover, any development of physics beyond the point reached by Newton would have been virtually impossible without the calculus.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz Without mathematics, science would be nothing at all.

“[Euler] claimed that infinitely small quantities are all equal to zero, but that two quantities, both equal to zero, can have a well-determined finite ratio. In conformity with his formalistic view of mathematics, Euler stipulated that there are different orders of zero, and that the subject matter of the (differential) calculus is to determine the (finite) values of the ratios 0/0. He put it thus: ‘Therefore there exist infinite orders of infinitely small quantities, which though they all = 0, still have to be well distinguished among themselves, if we look at their mutual relation, which is explained by a geometric ratio.’” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics “The Berlin Academy offered a prize in 1784, hoping that it can be explained how so many true theorems have been deduced from a contradictory supposition [that is, the existence of infinitesimals].” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics The Berlin Academy should offer a prize today for how many successful scientific theories have been deduced from a contradictory supposition [that is, the existence of “matter”]. “Hilbert noted that every mathematical theory goes through three periods of development: the naive, the formal, and the critical. In the case of calculus, the naive period occurred in the seventeenth century, the formal in the eighteenth, and the critical in the nineteenth. The evolution of a mathematical idea often proceeds in four stages: discovery (or invention), use, understanding, and justification. It is important to keep the order of these stages in mind in discussing any concept or theory.” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics With ontological mathematics, the proper use of it comes last – allowing us to exert the control of mind over matter. “There was also a belief, shared by Newton, that mathematicians were simply uncovering God’s grand mathematical design of nature.” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics In fact, they are uncovering the mathematical design of God! “Lagrange (and others) had difficulty understanding what happened to Δy/ Δx ‘as it reaches its limit.’... [Lazare Carnot wrote]: ‘That method [of limit] has the great inconvenience of considering quantities in the state in which

they cease, so to speak, to be quantities; for though we can always well conceive the ratio of two quantities, as long as they remain finite, that ratio offers to the mind no clear and precise idea, as soon as its terms become, the one and the other, nothing at the same time.’” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics “When a function y = f(x) remains continuous between two given limits of the variable x, and when one assigns to such a variable a value enclosed between the two limits at issue, then an infinitely small increment assigned to the variable produces an infinitely small increment in the function himself. Consequently, if one puts Δx = i, the two terms of the ratio of difference Δx/Δy = [f(x+i) - f(x)]/i will be infinitely small quantities. But though these two terms will approach the limit zero indefinitely and simultaneously, the ratio itself can converge towards another limit, be it positive or negative. This limit, when it exists, has a definite value for each particular value of x...” – Augustin-Louis Cauchy “...the decisive period in the evolution of a rigorous foundation for calculus, embodied in the works of Cauchy, Bolzano, Dedekind, and Weierstrass. Recall that seventeenth century was largely geometric and that of the eighteenth century was grounded in algebra. The period under [from 1821] may be considered as based on arithmetic.... About a century after Weierstrass had banished infinitesimals ‘for good’ – so we all thought until 1960 – they were brought back to life as genuine and rigorously defined mathematical object in the ‘nonstandard analysis’ conceived by the mathematical logician Abraham Robinson.” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics You are naive if you believe we have heard the last word on the foundations of calculus. As Leibniz realised, but no one else did, calculus must be tied to a formal ontology, epistemology and metaphysics. It’s not some weird abstraction cut off from reality, or a foot soldier of science’s obsession with empiricism and materialism. Calculus must be grounded in the God Equation, sinusoids, monads and flowing points. It must reflect a frequency Singularity (dimensionlessness) at the core of spacetime (dimensionality). If you do not tie it to the ground of existence, you have turned it into a fantasy. No fantasy can be “rigorously” defined. It will always be trapped in Mythos, ambiguity and imprecision for the simple fact that it does not reflect reality.

“When Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus, they made use of infinitesimals. The use of infinitesimals was attacked as incorrect by Bishop Berkeley in his work The Analyst. Mathematicians, scientists, and engineers continued to use infinitesimals to produce correct results. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the calculus was reformulated by Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Bernard Bolzano, Karl Weierstrass, Cantor, Dedekind, and others using the (e, d)-definition of limit and set theory.... “While the followers of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass sought to rid analysis of infinitesimals, and their philosophical allies like Bertrand Russell and Rudolf Carnap declared infinitesimals to be ‘pseudoconcepts’, Hermann Cohen and his Marburg school of neo-Kantianism sought to develop a working logic of infinitesimals. The mathematical study of systems containing infinitesimals continued through the work of LeviCivita, Paul du Bois-Reymond, and others, throughout the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, as documented by Philip Ehrlich (2006). In the 20th century, it was found that infinitesimals could serve as a basis for calculus and analysis; see hyperreal numbers.... “The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form 1 + 1 +... + 1. “Such a number is infinite, and its reciprocal is infinitesimal.” – Wikipedia “In the seventeenth century came Newton and Leibniz, the two founders of infinitesimal calculus. Although their results were the same, their motivations and interpretations were quite different. This is a very natural occurrence in mathematics: the same ideas are treated in a different manner because they are used for different purposes. Leibniz developed his calculus based on differential quantities, their ratios (derivatives), and their infinite sums (integrals). Newton, who required new mathematical tools to advance his physical ideas, instead used notions of speed and motion, very apparent by his terminology of ‘fluents’ for functions and ‘fluxions’ for derivatives. Using such ideas, sometimes in an unwieldy manner, sometimes masterfully, both demonstrated an excellent intuition of the infinitesimals and obtained consistent rules, lemmas, and theorems, by thinking of notions

such as dy/dx in the context of ‘a change in y less than any assignable quantity divided by a change in x less than any other assignable quantity.’ – http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/analysis_hyperreals.html “Hyperreals emerged in the 1960s from the work of Abraham Robinson who showed how infinitely large and infinitesimal numbers can be rigorously defined and developed in what is called nonstandard analysis. Because hyperreals represent an extension of the real numbers, R, they are usually denoted by *R. “Hyperreals include all the reals (in the technical sense that they form an ordered field containing the reals as a subfield) and they also contain infinitely many other numbers that are either infinitely large (numbers whose absolute value is greater than any positive real number) or infinitely small (numbers whose absolute value is less than any positive real number). No infinitely large number exists in the real number system and the only real infinitesimal is zero. But in the hyperreal system, it turns out that that each real number is surrounded by a cloud of hyperreals that are infinitely close to it; the cloud around zero consists of the infinitesimals themselves. Conversely, every (finite) hyperreal number x is infinitely close to exactly one real number, which is called its standard part, st(x). In other words, there exists one and only one real number st(x) such that x – st(x) is infinitesimal.” – Internet Encyclopaedia of Science “The set of all hyperreal numbers is denoted by R*. Every real number is a member of R*, but R* has other elements too. The infinitesimals in R* are of three kinds: positive, negative, and the real number 0. The symbols Δx, Δy,... and the Greek letters ε (epsilon) and δ (delta) will be used for infinitesimals. If a and b are hyperreal numbers whose difference a - b is infinitesimal, we say that a is infinitely close to b. For example, if Δx is infinitesimal then x0 + Δx is infinitely close to x0. If ε is positive infinitesimal, then -ε will be a negative infinitesimal. 1/ε will be an infinite positive number, that is, it will be greater than any real number. On the other hand, -1/ε will be an infinite negative number, i.e., a number less than every real number. Hyperreal numbers which are not infinite numbers are called finite numbers... The set R of real numbers is scattered among the finite numbers. About each real number c is a portion of the hyperreal line composed of the numbers infinitely close to c. The numbers infinitely close to 0 are the infinitesimals.” – H. J. Keisler

“There are good reasons to believe that nonstandard analysis, in some version or another, will be the analysis of the future.” – Kurt Gödel “Whatever succeeds for the finite, also succeeds for the infinite.” – Leibniz

***** “A fundamental conceptual breakthrough, still with us today, was achieved by Euler around the mid-eighteenth century. It was to make the concept of function the centrepiece of calculus. Thus calculus is not about curves, asserted Euler, but about functions. The derivative and integral are not merely abstractions of the notions of tangent or instantaneous velocity on the one hand and of area or volume on the other – they are the basic concepts of calculus, to be investigated in their own right. Euler was not the first to introduce the notion of functions, but he was the first to make it central by regarding calculus as the branch of mathematics that deals with functions.” – Israel Kleiner, Excursions in the History of Mathematics All valid, ontological functions are those derived from the God Equation.

***** Calculus, in its simplest mode, is a ladder that allow us, in an entirely uniform way across all functions, to turn lower-order functions into higherorder versions of themselves (through integration), and to turn higher-order functions back into the lower-order functions that spawned them (through differentiation). Calculus is a set of rules concerning how to turn any simple function into a much more complex version of itself (each complex version already being implicit in the simple function), or recovering the simple function from the complex function. Calculus is the alchemy of functional metamorphosis. If we imagine a set of “atomic” functions, each of those can be converted into a much more complex function of itself... similar, in some sense, to the much more complex higher orbitals that are available to an electron in an atom as we supply more and more energy to the electron. Calculus tells us how to go up and down the functional ladder. Simple and higher-order functions exist in both the dimensionless frequency domain and the dimensional spacetime domain.

Dimensionless Motion

KW: “Hard to understand ‘dimensionless motion’.” Dimensional motion is motion taking place in the dimensional domain of spacetime (the material world), and is studied by science. Dimensionless motion is motion taking place in the dimensionless domain of frequency (the mental world) and is studied by mathematics.

Infinitesimal Extension KW: “Hard to understand ‘infinitesimal extension’.” The notion of the infinitesimal is one of the most controversial in mathematics. Some things have no extension (monads, for example), while other things have extension (“atoms”, for example). Things that have a tiny extension, close to no extension at all, are often labelled as infinitesimal.

***** PI: “Photons have zero mass and zero analytic length (across space). They defy the Plank mass and the Plank length, hence photons are actually dimensionless singularities and shouldn’t be able to interact with the dimensional world at all. Self evidently, things that exist outside space and time do have movement and interact with things inside space and time, otherwise we wouldn’t know anything about them and be able to measure their effects.”

No Parts Leibniz said that monads can have no parts. But, of course, they must contain something because how else would they be differentiated from each other? If we say that a monad has matter and form, or potentiality and actuality, or unclarity and clarity, haven’t we thereby given it parts? But these aren’t physical parts. They can’t be detached from it. A monad can indeed have no physical parts. It can however, and must, have non-physical parts. These must have no net dimensionality because any dimensionality would render a monad physical. In modern ontological mathematics, a monad comprises a complete and consistent set of sinusoids, each of which individually, and all together, have no net dimensionality. These dimensionless parts constitute the monadic mind’s mental hinterland,

in which exists all of its thoughts, perceptions, sensations, emotions, desires, and will. All of these are made of sinusoids, i.e. they are all sinusoidal functions. Everything has to be made of something, and the ultimate something is the sinusoid. There is nothing beyond the sinusoid. Sinusoids are grouped into autonomous (complete and consistent) sets, each such set constituting a monadic mind (soul). So, reality is all about sinusoidal monads and their interactions. Nothing else is happening.

***** Leibniz considered monads metaphysical thinking entities, without physical parts. Of course, this simply invites the question of what it is that supports mental activity in a partless, dimensionless monad. Leibniz never found the answer, but he knew it must be non-physical. Of course, we know now that it’s none other than light, which is made of massless, dimensionless sinusoids, outside space and time. To turn Leibniz’s dazzling Monadology of 300 years ago into something that could form the basis of a modern final theory of everything, the only task was to mathematicize the content of monads. This has now been achieved via Euler’s Formula, Fourier mathematics and sinusoids. Newtonian science was far more effective than Leibnizian science because the former was based on space and time (observable dimensionality), while the latter was based on mind, outside space and time (unobservable dimensionless). It is of course very easy to apply math to dimensional things, and correspondingly hard to apply it to dimensionless things. Newton was hailed over Leibniz because his system was much simpler, and humanity doesn’t half love the easiest, laziest path possible. Moreover, Newton’s science of dimensional things was amenable to sensory experimentation, which could perform sanity checks on it. Leibniz’s science of the dimensionless was not, and is not, amenable to sensory experimentation, hence it was disregarded as pure metaphysics. Instead, we get at Leibniz’s science via pure reason, pure logic, and pure math. It has absolutely nothing to do with the senses. We establish its truth via our intellect, not via our non-intellectual senses. We “perceive” its truth with our reason and logic, not with our eyes, nose, ears, tongue and skin. It’s all about unassailable intellectual proof, not assailable sensory evidence.

Sensing types are of course drawn to sensory science. Thinking types are drawn to ontological mathematics. Sensing types labour under an illusion that they are rational, logical and intellectual. In fact, the only thing that delivers reason, logic and intellect to science is rationalist, non-sensory mathematics, and if you removed it from science, science would instantly be reduced to pre-Newtonian junk, and have no power at all. Sensing types, not being thinkers, are too stupid to realise this. It’s with our reason, logic and intellect that we understand reality, not via our senses. The senses, cut off from intellect, can tell you nothing at all about what things are and where they come from. We cannot use our senses to perceive causes and explanations. There is no sensory organ for “truth”, so it’s crazy to rely on the senses if you want to understand the secrets of existence. Sensory empiricism, culminating in science, has zero capacity to explain reality. That’s a simple fact. But you have to be a thinking type, not a sensing type, to grasp this. Sensing types are those who believe that sensory things are “concrete”. Thinking types are those who know that sensory things are not concrete at all, and the only genuine concrete things are the eternal truths of reason, enshrined in mathematics. The Big Bang Singularity contained not a single sensory, scientific thing. It did, however, unavoidably reflect the eternal truths of reason. The Big Bang Singularity was 100% mathematical. It contained zero mass, zero dimensionality, no space, no time, no atoms, no subatomic particles, no Higgs field... absolutely nothing of science. To spell it out, the instant you accept the existence of an explanatory Big Bang Singularity – one in which resides the answer to existence (as opposed to the non-explanatory, miraculous Big Bang Singularity of science, which has no rational basis) – you have no option but to acknowledge that the world of science is inescapably born from a world of pure mathematics, and all so-called scientific things are simply sensory, dimensional mathematical things, which all have their origins in the non-sensory, dimensionless Singularity of mind. Mind creates all matter, not the other way around. And it does so using pure mathematics. We live inside a universe comprising a Cosmic Mind (a Singularity outside space and time), controlling a Cosmic Body (a material world inside space and time). And we ourselves are singularity minds (souls) controlling physical bodies. As above, so below.

Science, even though it is absolutely reliant on mathematics, refuses to accept that fundamental reality is mathematical. So it blabbers on about unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions, and so on. Even worse, it’s prepared to claim that the Bing Bang Singularity is not an eternal, mathematical feature of existence – indeed the exact answer to existence – but is some miracle that randomly, magically and impossibly jumps out of “non-existence” for no reason, via no mechanism, for no purpose, and totally meaninglessly. This is what happens when empiricists (non-thinkers) are allowed to “explain” reality. They have no clue what they are doing. Scientific “explanations” of ultimate reality are the worst and most irrational the human mind has ever devised, much worse than those of religion. The problem for empiricists (scientists) is as bad as it could possibly be. If you grant the existence of a mathematical, Leibnizian monadic Singularity as the answer to everything and the origin of the world, then you have immediately granted that rationalism is true and empiricism false (or, more accurately, useless intellectually), that scientific experiments (hence the scientific method) are useless when it comes to ultimate reality, and, above all, that mind creates matter rather than matter creating mind. All of this means that scientific materialism and empiricism is false, and, moreover, that religion is true! (As mathematical Logos, and not silly Mythos.) It destroys the entire atheistic scientific worldview at a stroke, which is exactly why scientists are so resistant to it. The idea that scientists are dispassionate truth seekers is a joke. We live in a meaningful, purposeful, teleological, striving, selfoptimising, self-solving mathematical organism, capable of holography (science’s so-called material world of space and time is nothing but a mathematical hologram, created collectively by monadic minds). All of this is anathema to scientific empiricists and materialists, but, as we have demonstrated, these people aren’t what you would call rational, logical, thinking intellectuals. They are irrational sensing types, cut off from their own minds! Why do sensing types hate their own minds, to such an extent that they are prepared to deny the existence of the mind (and claim that it’s nothing but a bizarre and ineffectual epiphenomenon of matter)? It’s exactly because the mind is non-sensory, hence incomprehensible to sensing types. If you admit that non-sensory things exist, you have denied the entire basis of your sensory worldview. You have admitted that your senses – the things

upon which you most rely – are useless in telling you about the true nature of existence. How can a sensing type make any sense of non-sensory things? It’s beyond them. Only thinking types – rationalists – can transcend their senses, feelings and mystical intuitions, to see what lies beyond the human condition, and gave rise to humanity. Scientists are human, all too human, and it’s their obsession with their human senses, with sensory experiments and sensory “evidence” that makes it impossible for them to understand reality. Never forget, the answer to existence resides in a non-sensory Singularity, so how could your senses possibly tell you even one thing about it? The search by sensory scientists for the answer to existence is the most futile there has ever been. It’s a category error. The answer to everything is intelligible, not sensible. Pythagoras and Plato told humanity this thousands of years ago!

The Power of the Flowing Point All power is concentrated at the flowing point. This is the ontological carrier of mathematical functionality. There can be no other. The flowing point is, of course, inherently in motion, which means that it contradicts the abstract notion of anything approaching a fixed, static point, which is essentially the concept lying behind the traditional “calculus of limits”. Mathematics is a holistic, holographic system. The whole is in every part. Every part necessitates every other part. Limits have to be considered in that context, not in relation to fixed, static points, which don’t exist. Calculus, as part of mathematics, must reflect these considerations. A radically new mindset is required to see calculus for what it really is. It’s a property of numbers, and numbers are ontological sinusoids. How can you define calculus if you can’t define, in complete and consistent terms, what a number is, and what mathematics itself is? If you fail to do so, you are simply making up a definition of calculus to suit your own ideology and philosophy, your own Mythos. Calculus must not be linked to empiricism, materialism, set theory, formalism, axioms, mathematical meta logic, logicism, or anything else. Calculus must be grounded in mathematical ontology.

The Picture of the Universe

One of the reasons why Newtonian physics was much more successful than Leibnizian physics was that it was much easier to picture what was going on. The following animation – you can searching for it on Google by typing, “A mechanical wave created by each point moving in its own circle” – by no means captures the essence of ontological mathematics, but it certainly succeeds in giving the flavour of what is happening. Take a good long look at it: https://33.media.tumblr.com/a5d2523e8a4fc92e1629ae9937d870f6/tumblr_ nl4lm8O73g1u93xcqo1_500.gif “Alexm920” wrote, “[All of the circles] have a fixed centre and fixed, identical frequency. It’s only the fact that they have a fixed phase relation (that is, each point starts on a different point on their own circle and they don’t jump randomly in time) that creates a wave. It’s a wonderful illustration of a pretty fundamental idea in physics.” Think of the background circles as the uncaused causes, the first causes, the prime movers, the eternal, necessary units of existence. These exist forever. They reflect the eternal conservation of energy. Think of the foreground dots (flowing points!) as the temporal, contingent patterns that can be produced by the myriad particular ways in which the eternal waves can combine. Think of the background circles as the eternal keys of the cosmic piano, and the foreground dots as the countless different tunes that they can play. But, remember, in ontological mathematics, all of these circles are dimensionless and sit on top of each other in a Singularity. The spacetime “tunes” they play are projected as a material hologram of space and time, and the frequency “tunes” they play are minds interacting with the material world.

The Genius of John Bell “The concept of ‘measurement’ becomes so fuzzy on reflection that it is quite surprising to have it appearing in physical theory at the most fundamental level... does not any analysis of measurement require concepts more fundamental than measurement? And should not the fundamental theory be about these more fundamental concepts?” – John Bell

Nothing in science is more bizarre than its current obsession with measurement. Science now literally says that things only exist while they are being measured or observed. Imagine quantum mechanics without any observers, any observations and any measurements. According to science, this corresponds to an unreal, abstract world of potentiality, which is incapable of becoming real. In other words, science’s most powerful theory is a theory of unreality! How weird is that? This is the drivel that hundreds of thousands of scientists accept uncritically. This is the mind-rot that gets taught in schools, colleges and universities. Why doesn’t science simply say, “We’re going to tell you a huge big story that we shall pretend is about reality but is actually about nothing that can ever actually exist – unless we miraculously introduce observers out of thin air!” What’s the difference between this and religion? How do “observers” differ from fairies, elves and spirits? They are every bit as offensive to reason. Schrödinger’s equation – the basis of quantum mechanics – makes no reference at all to observers, observations and measurements. These are nothing to do with quantum mechanics. They are artificially added to it thanks to ideology and philosophy. They have no connection with the actual theory, yet science pretends they are integral to the theory and how it works in the world. John Bell brilliantly asked, “What exactly qualifies some subsystems to play the role of measurers? Was the world wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-cell living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer – with a Ph.D.” This gets to the root of how ridiculous the standard interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) actually is. Bell thought the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation was much more credible: “While the founding fathers agonized over the question ‘particle’ or ‘wave’, de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer ‘particle’ and ‘wave’. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves

propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.” It’s ignored because it challenges the core empiricist, materialist, localist Meta Paradigm of science by invoking a non-empirical, immaterial, nonlocal pilot wave. Bell said, “Theoretical physicists live in a classical world, looking out into a quantum-mechanical world. The latter we describe only subjectively, in terms of procedures and results in our classical domain.” How can subjectivity now be integral to science? It’s absurd. We have witnessed the death of objectivity and the reality principle. Bell said, “A final moral concerns terminology. Why did such serious people take so seriously axioms which now seem so arbitrary? I suspect that they were misled by the pernicious misuse of the word ‘measurement’ in contemporary theory. This word very strongly suggests the ascertaining of some pre-existing property of some thing, any instrument involved playing a purely passive role. Quantum experiments are just not like that, as we learned especially from Bohr. The results have to be regarded as the joint product of ‘system’ and ‘apparatus,’ the complete experimental set-up.” The whole concept of “measurement” has become bizarre, inexplicable and indefinable in quantum mechanics. It certainly does not feature in any equation of quantum mechanics, hence is an alien philosophical concept superimposed on quantum mechanics. The alternative could not be any simpler: accept the quantum mechanical equations as real, and take them as they are, not as they fit in with your artificial philosophy of empiricism and materialism. Bell said, “I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I have principles.” That sums up modern science. Scientists simply have no principles on any day. No scientist ever refers to principles of reason and logic. They only ever refer to experimental results. Bell said, “Surely, after 62 years, we should have an exact formulation of some serious part of quantum mechanics? By ‘exact’ I do not of course mean ‘exactly true’. I mean only that the theory should be fully formulated in mathematical terms, with nothing left to the discretion of the theoretical physicist... until workable approximations are needed in applications. By

‘serious’ I mean that some substantial fragment of physics should be covered. Nonrelativistic ‘particle’ quantum mechanics, perhaps with the inclusion of the electromagnetic field and a cut-off interaction, is serious enough.” Indeed! But what we’re running up against now is blind scientific ideology and dogmatism – the religion of scientism, which has no interest in rationalism, and mathematical Truth. Bell said, “I agree with them about that: ORDINARY QUANTUM MECHANICS (as far as I know) IS JUST FINE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. Even when I begin by insisting on this myself, and in capital letters, it is likely to be insisted on repeatedly in the course of the discussion. So it is convenient to have an abbreviation for the last phrase: FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES = FAPP.” This, of course, is the whole problem. As long as science delivers apparent success, no one will question it seriously, just as no one questioned the banking system months before it catastrophically failed since it seemed so incredibly successful. Success is a very different thing from Truth, as the banking system showed, and as science will increasingly show. Bell said, “I expect that mathematicians have classified such fuzzy logics. Certainly they have been much used by physicists. But is there not something to be said for the approach of Euclid? Even now that we know that Euclidean geometry is (in some sense) not quite true? Is it not good to know what follows from what, even if it is not necessarily FAPP? Suppose for example that quantum mechanics were found to resist precise formulation. Suppose that when formulation beyond FAPP was attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the mind of the observer, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even only Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?” But not to any scientific materialist! Bell said, “The concepts ‘system’, ‘apparatus’, ‘environment’, immediately imply an artificial division of the world, and an intention to neglect, or take only schematic account of, the interaction across the split. The notions of ‘microscopic’ and ‘macroscopic’ defy precise definition. So also do the notions of ‘reversible’ and ‘irreversible’. Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is ‘observable’. I think he was right – ‘observation’ is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory. Information?

Whose information? Information about what? On this list of bad words from good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. It must have a section to itself.” Can any ordinary scientist even understand these points? Does any of them care? Shut up and calculate! Science shuts down any debates about such matters. It’s full of anti-intellectuals. Bell said, “The first charge against ‘measurement’, in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors there the shifty split of the world into ‘system’ and ‘apparatus’. A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context.” It’s about time every scientist was forced to answer Bell before continuing with his studies.

***** “We must thank John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into problems for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.” – Alain Aspect “I had never met Bell, nor heard him lecture, but in my reading of his scientific papers I have developed a great admiration for him and his work. I have especially admired his attempts to dismantle the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, written with such tremendous style and obvious enjoyment. Although in this book I have tried to present a balanced account – arguing one way and then another – I hope that I have done justice to Bell’s superbly constructed criticisms. The debate over the meaning of quantum theory will certainly be poorer without him.” – Jim Baggott No one in the mainstream science community has come forward to replace Bell. No one ever will. That type of genius no longer exists, given the sheer anti-intellectualism of modern science. Any subject that openly mocks philosophy has lost the plot. “In my opinion, John Bell performed an extremely important role then, and also later, in generally supporting – thereby making respectable – the apparently ‘fringe’ activities of such people as Karolyhazy, Bohm, Pearle, Ghirardi, and many others (including myself) in suggesting schemes that go beyond standard quantum mechanics, in the intended direction of realism.

No physicist could doubt the scientific credentials of John Bell. The fact that he was prepared to go out of his way to support research of this kind gave it a previously unaccustomed status.” – Roger Penrose It’s about time Roger Penrose became an ontological mathematician. Apart from Max Tegmark, he’s the only scientist who could ever understand our work. Ontological mathematics, in case you haven’t realised it, is all about restoring realism to science, about ensuring it obeys a reality principle. “It was John Bell who investigated quantum theory in the greatest depth and established what the theory can tell us about the fundamental nature of the physical world. Moreover, by stimulating experimental tests of the deepest and most profound aspects of quantum theory, Bell’s work led to the possibility of exploring seemingly philosophical questions, such as the nature of reality, directly through experiments. And this was just Bell’s ‘hobby’.” – Andrew Whitaker Science has gone horrifically wrong. It needs to find ways to produce new John Bells, but, if truth be told, the science establishment hates the John Bells of this world just as much as the Islamic world hates infidels, blasphemers, heretics and apostates. No thinking scientist could ever take seriously the absurd position at which modern science has arrived, a stance entirely contrary to reason and logic, and wholly surrendered to sensory empiricism, and the absurd, irrational views of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

***** Science is now all about subjectivity, relativity, indeterminacy, probability, indeterminism, acausation, statistics. But the classical causal, deterministic world of certainty has never gone away. It has simply become unfashionable in scientific circles. Classically, God does not play dice. In modern science, God is the chief client of Gamblers’ Anonymous. He can’t stop playing dice. Only ontological mathematics can restore the lost, classical, objective worldview to science, and resurrect objective reality and the reality principle.

The Speed

If everyone on earth were asked to walk ten kilometres, they would accomplish the task in an enormous range of times. Some are toddlers, some are old and feeble. Some have walking sticks. Some are athletes. Some are speed walkers. Some are morbidly obese. Some have breathing troubles, or muscular problems. There are specific reasons for why people take the time they do. But what about the world outside space and time, the world of eternal necessity? What’s the deal with speed there? Everything must in fact move at exactly the same speed. There is no sufficient reason why they shouldn’t. There is no reason for things to move at variable speeds, or random speeds. There is no reason for some things to be fast and others slow. There is no reason for anything to speed up or slow down. And is this not entirely consistent with the First Law of Motion: things will travel uniformly forever at the same speed! Such is the intrinsic rational nature of analytic sinusoids that their frequency is always exactly counterbalanced by their wavelength. All electromagnetic radiation travels at exactly light speed (c = fλ). This is true of the whole world beyond space and time since that world is none other than Light World. It’s made exclusively of photons. But why does the speed of light have the particular value it has? There are in fact only three possible speeds it could have: zero, infinity or the finite number c (which is in fact simply “1”). A world of points moving at no speed is, as we have seen, a world of absolute nothingness, where nothing at all happens. It’s a nullity. A world of points moving at infinite speed is simply the inversion of the world that moves at no speed. It’s also a nullity. It does nothing. It has no effects. It’s completely static. Nothing interesting takes place. Nothing has the chance to interact with anything else. In this case, the world might as well not exist. We know from our experience of the world that light doesn’t move at either no speed or infinite speed. But an argument from experience has no place in any rational system. Light doesn’t move at zero speed because, in that case, it wouldn’t exist at all. Given the relationship between zero and infinity, the same would be true if we tried to assign infinite speed to light. In technical terms, ontological mathematics could not be complete and consistent if the speed of light were either zero or infinity.

People imagine that the speed of light and Planck’s constant are part of the scientific world. They’re not... they’re part of ontological mathematics. They are essential to mathematical completeness and consistency. If Planck’s constant, like the speed of light, were equal to zero or infinity there could be no world. You can’t remove any part of a complete and consistent system without destroying the entire edifice. The system is holographic. Every part is in the whole. Every part is essential to the whole. Planck’s constant and the speed of light go together. Each necessitates the other.

***** A speed that is neither zero nor infinite is therefore finite. The speed of light and Planck’s constant have the values they do for exactly the same reason pi has the value it does... these are essential to the completeness and consistency of ontological mathematics.

***** All of the constant of physics are actually constants of ontological mathematics. Multiverse theorists like to talk of different universes as having different physical constants. That’s as absurd as claiming that different universes could have different values of pi. All physical constants are as exactly what they are as pi is exactly what it is. They can have no different values. They are the same in any conceivable universe. A universe must be based on a complete and consistent system. Any system that is arbitrary – as all the universes in the Multiverse are – would be incomplete and inconsistent, and would destroy itself because of its fatal internal contradictions. Multiverse theorists talk as if universes can be composed of any old things. They can’t. Universes that aren’t exactly right are inherently unstable, and unstable universes can’t exist. If a plane wing with a fatal crack in it would snap in two under any pressure, imagine what would happen to any universe with fatal contradictions throughout it. In fact, such a universe would be impossible in the first place. The whole notion of the Multiverse is mathematically and scientifically ridiculous. It’s extraordinary how such idiotic ideas get taken so seriously –

with no regard to reason and logic. The Multiverse is something appealed to by statisticians and randomists with no regard to the ontology and epistemology of these hypothetical universes. Only unthinking, irrationalist empiricists could come up with Multiverse theories.

***** Never forget, science wages a war on reason and rationalism (on mathematics), in favour of the senses and empiricism (revolving around sensory experiments, and excluding logic and intellect, and denying the reality of mathematics). You cannot be both a scientist (an empiricist, ruled by the senses) and a mathematician (a rationalist, ruled by reason and logic). That’s a category error. It’s absurd for science to be based on math, while rejecting the reality of math. You have to make a very simple choice: can you apprehend ultimate reality with your senses or your reason? Is ultimate reality sensible or intelligible? Everything you do to understand ultimate reality will depend on what you are going to use to address it: your feelings, mystical intuitions, senses or reason. Well, what shall it be? Our stance could not be clearer. Ultimate reality is rational and intelligible (mathematical), and reason and logic (and intellectual intuition) are the only means you have to approach it. Your feelings are 100% useless, your faith is 100% useless, your mystical intuitions are 100% useless, and your senses are 100% useless. Science, when it comes to ultimate reality, is 100% useless. Science needs to be ditched and replaced by ontological mathematics.

Mathmade Either math is manmade or man is mathmade. It’s one or the other. Math is eternal because it reflects the eternal truths of reason. There’s nothing at all eternal about “humanity”. The human race is a contingent, temporal species, with no logical necessity. Only humans could be dumb enough to imagine they could make math! What’s for sure is that the human attempt to discover what mathematics actually is has been slow, painful, clunky, and error-strewn. Humans have

kept imposing their various ideologies and philosophies on mathematics – most especially empiricism and materialism – with disastrous consequences. Only reason and logic can be used to interrogate math. Any assumptions or axioms that have no basis in the principle of sufficient reason will definitely be false and wrong. Mathematical incompleteness and inconsistency are exactly what you get whenever you define math wrongly, when you define it non-ontologically, and without regard to a single, allcontrolling Master Formula (the God Equation).

The Sensory Enigma So, here’s a question for you... why do you believe that what your senses reveal to you is more real and concrete than what your reason reveals to you? What does that say about you, and your thinking and intellectual capacities? What are your sensations made of? Where do they come from? How do they flow? What are they actually revealing to you? How do they exist at all? The more you think about what your sensations actually are, the more bizarre they become... and anything other than “concrete”. Your sensations exist in your mind. What on earth is a mind? Without mathematics to explain what a mind is, a mind is the most mysterious thing there can possibly be. Since when has science ever got near explaining what a mind is? And how could it ever explain what a mind is? It simply doesn’t have any means to do so. It’s just a bunch of sensory heuristics, and provisional mathematical formulae force-fitted to the latest experimental results. Reason, logic and intellect are nowhere called upon in science. Mathematics is assigned no ontological status. Everything in science is about the simplistic exercise of matching math to sensory patterns. Science is a fundamentally anti-intellectual subject because it has no interest in what math actually is, and no interest in what sensory patterns actually are and how they exist at all. Science has no ontology and no epistemology. It’s just a crude, superficial method of matching guesses (“hypotheses”) to observables. If you imagine that’s going to explain ultimate existence to you, you really are daft!

The Ether Einstein did nothing at all to disprove the existence of the ether. His arguments merely show that the ether cannot be physical. That does not mean it cannot be non-physical... mental/mathematical. Yet Einstein’s case

is entirely dependent on the non-existence of the ether. Einstein’s theory of relativity falls if the ether exists. You might think that, regarding something so crucial, scientists would have a definitive disproof of the existence of the ether. Not only do they have no such disproof, they actually have theories – never refuted – that support the existence of the ether. That’s the trouble with science. It claims to be objective when in fact it’s just a subjective philosophy. Einstein is so immensely popular in science not because he’s right, but because his theory fits the ideology – the religion – of science. The rival theories are ignored because they don’t fit the ideology. The same goes for the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. It’s not ignored because it’s wrong, but because it challenges the scientific worldview. It challenges empiricism and materialism. It supports hidden variables. Science is full of theories and ideas that are shunted into the graveyard because they don’t fit the scientific Meta Paradigm, while all sorts of junk are accepted as true because they do. Science is a game. It has nothing to do with the Truth and any pursuit of the Truth. It’s just a set of speculations, driven by a particular philosophy. But it’s not even honest enough to admit that it’s just another speculative philosophy. Science differs from mainstream philosophy in only two ways: 1) it uses math, and 2) it rejects the intelligible world in favour of the sensible world. It has no interest in reason and logic, and if these appear at all in science, it’s purely because they are imported from mathematics, and not because science has any respect for them. Take away math from science and see if you can find a single trace of reason and logic.

The Problem of Numbers How do you distinguish the number 1 from the number 1.00001, which is approximately the same number? Well, to guarantee that 1 isn’t just a rounded-up number, you would have to write 1.00000 to ensure no one confuses it with 1.00001. But then we have the same problem again with respect to 1.00000000001. To make “1” different from all the numbers that are extremely close to it, but not actually it, we have to give it an infinite number of 0s after the decimal point. But this means that every number – without exception – must be infinitely specified to establish its uniqueness. Say we specify every number to thirty decimal places. Well, at the unspecified decimal place 31, we could have the number 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, all

of which could be the number we are trying to define. If we want to use one number uniquely, we simply can’t stop listing its decimal places if we wish to ensure we are not confusing it with the numbers on either side of it. Charles Seife wrote, “When you try to calculate the slope of a tangent line, zero wrecks your approximation process. As your approximations of the tangent lines get better and better, the points on the curve you use to create the approximations get closer together. This means that the difference in height, Δy, goes to zero, as does the horizontal line between the points, Δx. As your approximations get better and better, Δy/Δx approaches 0/0. Zero divided by zero can equal any number in the universe. Does the slope of the tangent line have any meaning?... 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 are actually the same thing. They are both aspects of calculus, a scientific tool far more powerful than anything ever seen before.” The problem of 0 divided by 0 is just about the most significant you can get. What is actually meant by this expression? How do you know you are dealing with exactly zero, and not tiny but non-zero numbers (infinitesimals)? And what, exactly, is 0? Is it a static mathematical point? Euler’s identity says that eiπ + 1 = 0. Is that what 0 is? 1 – 1 = 0. Is that what 0 is? All sinusoidal waves average to zero. So, is that 0? Given that all existents are flowing points, and all flowing points ipso facto have a dimensionality, where, exactly, is the tangent line to such a point (an extended point)? Moreover, given that we can never actually get to any point anyway since any point must have infinite decimal places, calculus must be a process in which the terminus is assumed, and reached ideally rather than in a practical sense. Leibniz said, “In any supposed continuous transition, ending in any terminus, it is permissible to institute a general reasoning, in which the final terminus may also be included.” All ontological processes terminate in monads.

Light Speed The speed of light is the Planck length over the Planck time: c = lp/tp. If c = 1, lp = lt. In physics, the Planck time (tp) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of one Planck length.

Amplitude and Frequency Changing the amplitude of a wave has no effect on the wave’s frequency. Changing the frequency of a wave has no effect on the wave’s amplitude. Frequency can be thought of as the interior structure of the wave. Amplitude, on the other hand, helps us to work out the number of waves having that frequency type. Waves are derived from circles. The radius of a circle is equal to the maximum amplitude of the associated wave, and, from the radius, we derive the circle’s area using the formula: Area = πr2. The frequency of a wave does not change as the area of its underlying circle changes. So, what is changing? What does it mean to change the amplitude of a wave? It means that we are multiplying the wave (i.e. adding identical waves to it), and the relationship is governed by a square relationship (because of the r2 term). For example, if we double the amplitude of a wave, we are actually producing four waves identical to the original wave. If we triple the amplitude, we produce nine identical waves superimposed on each other (superimposed waves create a “group wave”). If we increase the amplitude fourfold, we produce sixteen superimposed waves, and so on. The square of the wave’s amplitude gives us the so-called “intensity” of the wave. Intensity has no effect on frequency, so you can increase it as much as you like and it will make no difference to any process in which the wave’s frequency is below a critical threshold required to trigger an action (as in the photoelectric effect). Amplitude and intensity are like dials you can turn up for a wave. However, you cannot change the wave’s internal structure (its frequency). Frequency and amplitude are independent characteristics of a wave. Amplitude gives us the “size” of a wave and the frequency how often a cycle passes by a given point. Amplitude – the size of a vibration – determines how loud a sound is. Larger vibrations make a louder sound. This is because more waves are involved. Frequency – the speed of the vibration – determines the pitch of the sound. Higher amplitude light waves carry more photons, so have higher luminosity. They are brighter. Lower amplitude light waves carry fewer

photons, so the light is dimmer. The intensity of a beam of light is determined by the number of photons. More photons carry greater intensity (brightness). In fact, the intensity is the number of photons. The “internal” energy of a wave is inherent in its frequency. Its “external” energy (or collective energy) is dictated by its amplitude. The amount of collective energy transported by a wave is, in physics, directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave (E ∝ A2). But there is no mention of frequency in this relationship, so it does not tell us about the full energy transportation of the wave. A doubling of the amplitude of a wave provides a quadrupling of the energy transported by the wave. A quadrupling of the amplitude of a wave yields a 16-fold increase. Putting energy into a wave does not change its internal characteristics (frequency, wavelength and speed), only its external feature – its amplitude. Energy put into a wave in effect multiplies the wave (causes superposition of waves of the same kind). Maxwell’s classical theory of electromagnetism says that the energy of a light wave depends only on its amplitude, not on its frequency. So, in Maxwell’s theory, all waves of the same amplitude, regardless of their frequency, have the same energy. Moreover, in Maxwell’s theory, the energy of the electromagnetic wave can be varied continuously (it’s not quantized). This highly successful theory provided the background to the conundrum of the photoelectric effect where frequency became critically important (thus contradicting Maxwell’s theory).

***** An individual photon is just a flowing point. It has a frequency, wavelength and speed. Its amplitude is always “1”. We change the amplitude of a light beam by changing the number of photons in the beam. However, we must always increase the number of waves in a light beam via a square relationship, i.e. we must have four photons in a beam to get an amplitude of two.

***** We can regard the area of a circle as its “amplitude energy”, and its frequency as its internal energy. Two circles could have the same amplitude

energy, but radically different internal (frequency) energy. This is what controls the photoelectric effect. A sufficient frequency energy, not amplitude energy, is required to trigger the effect.

***** In quantum mechanics, a single photon is said to have a well-defined frequency and energy (E = hf), but not a well-defined amplitude. (In fact a photon’s amplitude is always exactly to 1.) The energy of an electromagnetic (EM) wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave. The greater the amplitude, the more photons the wave carries. For a monochromatic (fixed frequency) EM wave, carrying n photons, each of energy hf, increasing the amplitude increases n. A wave of amplitude 1 has 1 photon. A wave of amplitude 2 has 22 = 4 photons. A wave of amplitude 3 has 32 = 9 photons, and so on. Frequency is unaffected by change in amplitude.

The Horror Why are non-technical people so scared of Euler’s Formula? Why do they imagine it can’t possibly be the answer to existence? It’s because they can’t sense it, can’t feel it, can’t have any mystical intuitions about it. They can’t tell a story (Mythos) about it. They can’t pray to it and have a relationship with it. They can’t meditate about it. They can’t do anything human with it. That’s the whole point. It’s completely unrelated to the subjective, fallible human condition. It is reached by reason and logic alone. It transcends the human condition, exactly as the ultimate answer must (since the ultimate answer has existed forever, and humans obviously haven’t). Stupid people will never believe in anything they don’t understand, and how many stupid people can have any understanding at all of Euler’s Formula? Can you imagine Muslims and Christians having any clue of what Euler’s Formula is? Forget IQ tests. Just put Euler’s Formula in front of people, and give them a week to research it, and see if they can tell you even one correct thing about it by the end of the week. Euler’s Formula is none other than the equation of life and mind ... of the soul. And, from the mathematical interaction of souls, we get the holographic material world.

Qualia What are qualia? They are your own personal sinusoids, completely unique to you. Only you can experience your qualia! Why do we have free will? Because we have our own sinusoids, completely and uniquely under our control. There is no other possible explanation for our ability to initiate our own actions, regardless of the rest of the world.

Planck’s Constant What is Planck’s constant ontologically? What is the meaning of the equation E = hf, where E is energy, h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency? Thanks to dynamic causality, all points are “flowing points”, hence are dimensional on an instant by instant basis (although their dimensionality changes from positive to negative, in perfect balance, to ensure a net dimensionlessness). It’s this irreducible dimensionality of flowing points that gives rise to the Planck constant. Energy presents itself as a little dimensional “lump” – a quantum of energy. Static (dimensionless) points have no energy at all, hence do not exist. Only moving points have energy, and this comes by way of the mathematical characteristics of the flowing point (its inbuilt Aristotelian form, so to speak). Planck’s constant and the speed of light arise solely from the properties of Euler’s Formula. That is why they have the values they do, and it fully explains their ontological origin (which is otherwise inexplicable). Science is wholly unable to say why the speed of light should have the value it does, and why there should be a cosmic speed limit in the first place. It’s equally unable to say where Planck’s constant comes from. This is simply accepted as an experimental fact, but no scientific theory has ever accounted for its origin and value. Because the material world is associated with low energies rather than the highest energies (which are locked forever inside monads, being too energetic for spacetime), most flowing points encountered in the world are low frequency quanta, i.e. energy tends to be preferentially distributed in low-frequency quanta.

RMS

RMS or root-mean-square is a measurement of the overall amplitude of a sine wave, so there is not one particular place on the sine wave where it is measured. To explain it conceptually, you square the value of each point on the wave, thus eliminating negative troughs and doubling the frequency. Then you take the mean of the whole squared wave, which gives you a single positive value, and finally you take the square root of that value. For a pure sine wave, the RMS value is the peak amplitude times 0.7071.

Cause and Effect Science talks about “cause and effect” even as it denies that ultimate reality is grounded in cause and effect (claiming instead that it’s probabilistic). That’s irrational. Why doesn’t randomness and Multiverse thinking create paradoxes without limit? Unless it’s impossible for you to travel back in time to murder your grandfather as a child (preventing your father and thus you from existing), it must happen in the Multiverse. How does science go about proving the impossibility of such an occurrence given that nothing in science is necessary and analytic, and nothing obeys strict cause and effect and the principle of sufficient reason? As ever, scientists bodge and lie their way through their model of reality, showing contempt for reason at all points.

Time Travel? If time travel is possible, it implies that all past states and all future states exist right now, i.e. they are not in fact in the past or future at all. Rather, all states exist in the present and we live in what is known as a tenseless, block universe. So, Socrates, for example is alive right now in ancient Greece around 2,400 years ago. Socrates is also dead right now, following his drinking of hemlock. Each temporal event has a time coordinate associated with it, and these coordinates never cease to exist. If time travel isn’t possible, it means that the future doesn’t exist and nor does the past. Temporal events have no coordinates. You can’t travel to them. They are not possible destinations. If this is true, it has the most remarkable consequence. It means that the world is calculated afresh every instant, and is never more than an instant old. The present is the only thing that truly exists. It also means that the

materialist notion of solid things enduring through time is absurd. Not a single thing endures for more than the most fleeting instant. There are no “beings”, only “becomings”. Nothing “is” – because “is” is gone the instant it occurs. We are an ongoing calculation. Each new calculation strongly resembles the previous calculation, yet absolutely everything is very slightly different. Absolutely nothing is the same as it was an instant ago. Everything has altered. There’s not a single thing here now that was here identically an instant ago. Therefore, you cannot talk about material things persisting through time at all. That’s an invalid vocabulary. All atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, photons, and so on, are calculated brand new at every instant. There are no atoms here now that were here a moment ago given that the past doesn’t exist anymore, and everything has changed since then, meaning that all atoms are brand new, and we (since our bodies are made of atoms) are also brand new. It’s information that ages, not atoms. All atoms are completely fresh, but they are guided by a cosmic, informational, dynamical wavefunction. This wavefunction is the true reality. It’s a “becoming” wavefunction, not a “being” wavefunction”. Everything changes all the time, but each new state of the wavefunction is only imperceptibly different from the previous state, which is what produces the illusion of temporal continuity. We can’t help but think that things are persisting through time because nothing seems radically different from one instant to the next, but in fact the world is being reconstructed brand new continuously (mathematically). Materialists think that the seeming temporal continuity is provided by solid, enduring things. That’s false. Apparent continuity is provided by the information contained within the continuous dynamic wavefunction, which ensures that present states resemble past states. It’s telling that science, with its instrumental definition of time (i.e. it’s what you measure with a clock) is unable to distinguish between the tensed and tenseless theories of time and say which one is correct and which one false. This means its whole ontology is built on sand, and is more or less devoid of meaning. It’s pure Mythos.

***** The block universe theory – endorsed by Einstein and many other scientists – is one of science’s most bizarre creations. Life and death become almost impossible to define. Consider that Socrates is alive somewhere (along a

certain timeline), yet dead everywhere else. This has always been true, i.e. Socrates has always been dead and alive, and so has everyone else. Our own deaths have already happened. In fact, they happened when the universe was created, along with all other events. Everything has already occurred. All past states presently exist, as do all present states and all future states. All of them have already occurred. This theory is ridiculous even by scientific standards. Science has a habit of taking seriously the most ridiculous ideas that have no conceivable rational basis – such as the Multiverse, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Einstein’s principle of relativity, and so on. How is consciousness to be explained in the block theory? It implies that all the conscious states of Socrates exist right now and we could in theory go back to any such state. However, we couldn’t interact with any such state because that would change it. Each state of consciousness is like a freeze frame, a movie still. Henri Bergson exposed this kind of thinking for the absurd fallacy it is, but he’s little known these days. His reputation was destroyed by the empiricist fanatic Bertrand Russell. The block universe theory doesn’t explain life or death, mind or consciousness, or free will. It can’t explain motion. It has no room for any soul. What’s the point of it? It’s devoid of meaning.

Speed There is no sufficient reason for anything to move at an arbitrary speed. Einstein makes no attempt at all to explain why the speed of light (his cosmic speed limit) has its specific value. As usual in science, it’s handled instrumentally – it’s simply measured and no further comment is deemed necessary. Ontologically, this speed limit must reflect an analytic truth, not an arbitrary fact. It has that value because it reflects a fundamental mathematical constant of the universe. We (humans) convert it into our units of time and space, but these are not the “natural” units of time and space. Strictly speaking, it’s not even valid to talk of natural time units or natural space units – as if they were separate from each other. They are always linked in “spacetime” (defined by complex numbers). In the dimensionless domain, space and time do not exist at all, but the cosmic speed limit remains exactly the same as before, i.e. the physical

cosmic speed limit is simply the spacetime equivalent of a mental speed limit... the speed of thought, so to speak.

Relationism versus Relativism In his case against the doctrine of Newtonian absolute space, Leibniz deployed the simple argument of asking what would happen if you moved the whole universe one metre to the right. This is a change to the absolute coordinates, but nothing scientifically has changed within the universe because the relative coordinates have not changed (they still have exactly the same relation to each other). Of course, for Leibniz’s argument to work, the universe must not be infinite in extent, since, in that case, how could you move it to where it wasn’t already present? Relationism must not be confused with Einsteinian relativity, which is a completely different concept, and would certainly have been rejected by Leibniz. Special relativity claims that all laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Reality is certainly based on Lorentz transformations, but in an absolute sense, not an Einsteinian relativistic sense. John Bell argued that the spacetime concept of the “mind” was not Lorentz invariant, hence was incompatible with the laws of physics. Of course, the mind is Lorentz invariant in the context of Fourier mathematics, in terms of the relation of a frequency Singularity to a spacetime domain. A monad, being outside space and time, is inherently non-local, but it can map to the local spacetime environment via a body. We might fancifully choose to think of a monad as a singularity at the centre of the brain, with the brain as its local “event horizon”. In fact, the mind is simply more strongly expressed through the brain, but is in fact in control of the entire body.

The Cosmic Hologram A hologram, like the quantum mechanical wavefunction, is defined for the entire universe. Any changes in one part of the hologram are immediately recognized and reflected everywhere. Relativity can’t be reconciled with QM not only because of the lack of an absolute Cartesian framework in relativity, but also because QM defines a system simultaneously while relativity must define it successively.

David Bohm, a proponent of the holographic universe, had not worked out the ontological basis of holography – grounded in monads – hence often spoke obscurely about his model, frequently relying on Buddhist obscurantism.

Instant by Instant The universe is calculated on an instant by instant basis like a video game. It’s all in the math.

Speed How do you define “speed” without any reference to space and time? You must focus on analytic mathematical properties, namely wavelength and frequency. Frequency serves as a time precursor, and wavelength as a distance (space) precursor. This means that every sinusoidal wave, no matter its type (cosine or sine), has a temporal analogue through its frequency, and a spatial analogue through its wavelength.

Time Tenseless time, as measured by clocks, is based on distance in imaginary space. Tensed time is dimensionless (it’s “now”).

Negative Numbers Given the complex plane, all negative real numbers are simply positive real numbers reflected in the imaginary axis. All negative imaginary numbers are simply positive imaginary numbers reflected in the real axis. The only number that never changes under any such reflection operation is zero itself. Zero is the perfect balance point of all positive-negative reflection symmetry. The whole material world of spacetime arises wherever zero is not found. The whole mental world of frequency is found exactly where zero is found. Zero is the Singularity. All frequencies, defined with respect to the God Equation, exist within the Singularity. A black hole singularity isn’t “nothing”. It’s where dimensional entities undergo a phase transition into dimensionless existence. Similarly, the Big Bang Singularity isn’t “nothing”. It’s the perfectly balanced symmetry point from which an antisymmetry event occurs to cause the creation of the spacetime material world.

Frequency always inhabits a world of perfect symmetry. Spacetime is always anti-symmetric.

The Answers Mathematics is about questions that will definitely be answered. Mainstream religion is about “answers” that will definitely never be questioned. Science is about no answers at all.

Zero Zero is not a normal number. It’s a resultant number, a net number that arises wherever we find perfect positive/negative balance. Ontologically, this occurs outside space and time in the frequency domain of the mind/soul.

The Truth “Men do not find the truth: they create it, as they create their history.” – Paul Veyne Veyne’s remark is correct in relations to “truths” of fact. It’s false regarding truths of reason – the truths of mathematics. We do not create mathematics, it creates us. We are created by the truth and yet, through ignorance, we are alienated from it. Only through a long dialectical quest for knowledge are our subjective interpretations brought into alignment with truth, with mathematics. Mathematics alone is objective truth. Everything else is subjective interpretation.

Complex Numbers “The real power of complex numbers comes in the way they can generalize algebra and geometry. Being able to describe a system in terms of functions of a complex variable rather than a real variable has tremendous advantages. To begin with, there are formal relationships between the real and imaginary parts of such functions which stem from their mathematical good behaviour (called ‘complex analyticity’). Just as a complex number always has a real and an imaginary part, a complex function can be

similarly divided. For example, the relationship between the real and imaginary parts of a function determines how the absorption of light, as it passes through a piece of glass, is related to the way this light is bent and broken down into its component colours. “What is truly amazing about this relationship is that it follows directly from the mathematical behaviour of complex functions and not from the physical details of a particular piece of glass. There are a host of other important physical relationships between the real and imaginary parts of a complex function. The dispersion relations of the S-matrix are a case in point. They tell us about the relationship between elementary particle resonances and scattering experiments simply by relating the real to the imaginary parts of the scattering matrix. In many instances, mathematicians and physicists find that by pushing a function into complex regions – ‘analytic continuity’ as they would put it – they can bring more powerful techniques to bear. Clearly if Roger Penrose’s God is a mathematician, then while He may have created the universe by counting, He certainly had the beauty of complex geometry in mind when He did so.” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html It’s simply astounding that scientists are so resistant to complex numbers. They would simplify everything in science. The reason for science’s hostility to complex numbers is no mystery... if it accepted the ontological reality of complex numbers, it would have left behind science and embraced mathematics as the basis of reality! “But if this complexity is so important, why do we never see it directly? The length of something is 2 feet, never 2i feet or 2 + 3i feet. Likewise, the gasoline in your car is measured in gallons, not complex gallons. It appears that while complexity underlies the physical world, each time we try to see it by making a measurement, this complexity hides its face. “Mathematicians have a formal recipe for getting real results from complex numbers. Every complex number N has its mirror image reflected in the real axis. This is called its complex conjugate N*. For example, the complex conjugate of 2 + 3i is 2 – 3i; it is obtained by reflecting the complex number in the real axis. Therefore, whenever a complex number is multiplied by its complex conjugate, the result will be real number, for N × N* = (2 + 3i)(2 – 3i) = 4 – 9i2.

“And since i2 = -1, the result is 4 – 9(-1) = 4 + 9 = 13, a real result obtained from two complex numbers. “Whenever a complex number and its conjugate pair up, the result is always real. Or to put it another way, it could be that underlying our real universe there are products of complex and their conjugates. This, as we shall see, is exactly what happens in quantum theory. So mathematical complexity is always hidden from us by the pairing up of complex things with their conjugates to give real answers.” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html One of the key problems in science is how it uses tricks to get rid of complex numbers, to turn them into real numbers. That’s exactly what is shouldn’t do. It must grant the existence of imaginary and complex numbers. As for “measurement”, a clock may seem to be measuring real numbers, but is actually an indirect means of measuring imaginary numbers. A clock could just as easily be marked with imaginary gradations as “real numbered” gradations! “That complexity must underlie our real world can be most powerfully seen in the case of the quantum theory. In 1925, a matter of weeks after Werner Heisenberg had discovered quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger came along with an alternative approach. At first sight, Schrödinger’s equation had a direct intuitive appeal, for it looked like the sort of equation that describes waves in water and air. This differential equation of Schrödinger was called the wave equation, and its solutions were called wave functions. All observed quantities can be calculated using the wave equation and turn out to be real. “At first it seemed as if electrons in an atom could thought of a real standing waves – like the vibrations of a string. But closer examination of the mathematics showed that things were not that simple, for the wave function itself was a complex function rather than a real function. Being complex, the wave function can never be directly observed or measured.” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html Here we see the collision between science and reality. Science accepts only that which can be measured, but reality is under no obligation to satisfy human measurements. Evolution takes place with regard to simplicity. Our perceptual apparatus has evolved with regard to real space, and not with

regard to imaginary space (time). It would take far too much processing power for us to be able to perceive spacetime... a complex-numbered domain of six dimensions. The fact that we haven’t evolved the capacity to perceive complex spacetime doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, yet scientists are so primitive they imagine that reality is defined by what evolution did to the human senses. They are so simple-minded, they don’t consider all the things that evolution didn’t do! “However, the physical and observable quantities that are predicted by the theory are always obtained by a mathematical operation that involves taking the wave function Ψ and multiplying by its complex conjugate Ψ*. Simply taking the product of a complex wave function and its complex conjugate, for example, gives the probability of locating a quantum particle in given region of space. But the product of a complex function and its complex conjugate must always give a real result!” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html This trick – performed by Max Born (for which he won the Nobel Prize) – is one of the greatest disasters in intellectual history, which underlies science’s preposterous interpretation of quantum mechanics. Max Born did nothing but use a mathematical stratagem to banish complex numbers. No one asked him to, and there was no need to. Reality had no requirement of Max Born’s empiricist, materialist philosophy and his obsession with real numbers. Reality is exactly what reality is... it has no need of human misinterpretation based on real numbers. Scientists need to see beyond the senses which evolution has, in its haphazard way (with no regard to Truth, but purely utility) conferred upon them. Mathematics is what lies beyond the human senses. Isn’t it time science started addressing reality, and not the illusion produced by the senses? The trouble of course is science is all about the worship of the human senses! “So although the underlying formalism of the quantum theory is complex, its predictions always involve real numbers. Again complexity hides itself under the cloak of reality. Penrose believed that such complexity is so fundamental to the quantum world that it must enter explicitly into the describing of quantum space-time. In generalizing his spin network to twistors, it would therefore be necessary to work in complex spaces, and the whole power of complex mathematics would have to be used.” –

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html The catastrophe at the core of science is precisely its obsession with real numbers, and the horror of “unobservable” imaginary numbers. Science will undergo the ultimate paradigm shift to ontological mathematics only when it realises that there is no sufficient reason for real numbers to be privileged over imaginary numbers. The real world is complex. Imaginary numbers exist. The wavefunction is ontological in its complex form. It’s made unreal when it’s turned into a real-number probability function. The true world is deterministic, not probabilistic. When complex numbers are accepted as ontological, determinism immediately returns and probability is abolished. It’s the bias fostered by the empiricist experimental method that blinds scientists to the rationalist mathematical truth. Science, to move forward, must abandon its most cherished tool – the scientific method itself. Science must abandon Newton and embrace Leibniz. It must abandon physics and embrace mathematics (the language of metaphysics, of hidden variables, of rational unobservables, of complex numbers).

Null Lines “Another key idea in Penrose’s approach is the light ray, also called a null line. In fact, the null line is also connected with the idea of complex numbers. You will recall from earlier discussion that, because the transformations of Einstein’s theory of special relativity act to mix together space and time coordinates, Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909) decided to introduce time on an equal footing as the fourth dimension in physics. “But this fourth coordinate does not quite enter as the other three coordinates. It is not written as t but as ict, where c is the speed of light. That is, time enters as an imaginary number. But we never see the imaginary or complex side of space-time, because all measurements turn out to be real. Take, for example, the distance travelled on a journey through space-time. The distance on any graph is calculated by first measuring the distance along each of the axes. For example, to find the distance AB on the graph, we measure three units on the x axis and four on the y axis. The total distance s is obtained using the Pythagorean theorem:

s2 = x2 + y2 = 32 + 42 = 9 + 16 = 25 = 52. “Therefore s = 5. “The Pythagorean relationship is also used in calculating distances in spacetime. In this case, the time coordinate appears as ict. Hence: AB2 = x2 + (ict)2 AB2 = x2 – c2t2. “When x = ct, the measure of the distance AB becomes zero. This condition specifically holds for anything that moves with the speed of light c. “But what happens when one of these axes is the time axis? Suppose we measure the distance taken by a rocket on its journey through space-time. This distance is: √(x2 – c2t2). “Provided the rocket moves at speeds less than that of light, this distance has a positive value. The result is a real number, and the imaginary nature of the fourth coordinate does not show up.” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html As ever, we see science’s obsession with real-number measurements. Where does reality state that reality is about real numbers and not complex numbers? Why are scientists so tied to their senses and not to reason? Scientists have allowed themselves to be ruled by the specific sensory apparatus evolution gave us. What a bizarre way to address ultimate reality (which has absolutely nothing to do with the human senses and evolution). “But what happens when our rocket moves at the speed of light? In this case, x = ct, and the distance is zero. We have what appears to be a finite line, yet it has a length of zero. This is one of the famous null lines of relativity. (Null lines are to take a key role in twistor theory.) They are the tracks taken by massless particles, which move at the speed of light... “But what does it mean to say that the length of a null line is zero?... What happens... if a clock could be carried on board a null line?... In fact, no time would have elapsed between leaving A and arriving at B! All distances would have shrunk to zero. For light, not even one second ticks away from the time it leaves a distant galaxy until it reaches your eye. Look

up at the night sky and realize that, along a light ray, the distance to the stars is zero. When you look along a null line, nothing separates you from all that you see in the universe around you!” – http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/twistors.html Null lines are the keys to everything because they are where spacetime vanishes and is replaced by the absolute frequency domain! Science is hopeless when it comes to thinking rationally about null lines. “Of course, we generally say that a star is so many light-years away. This means that, for us as stationary observers on the earth, the light takes several years to travel from the star to earth, or that the information that now reaches us from the star concerns events that happened on the star’s surface several years ago. However, with respect to light itself, this time interval is zero, and the distance vanishes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that time, in relativity theory, enters as an imaginary quantity. In fact, the structure of a beam of light in space-time, what relativists like Roger Penrose would call the light cone structure, is most naturally expressed in terms of complex spinors... “Null lines and the speed of light occupy a very special place both in relativity theory and in twistor theory. That lines can have the special measure of zero length is a direct consequence of the fact that time enters space-time with an imaginary rather than a real factor. Complex numbers enter physics at many levels in relativity. For example, they appear in certain of the solutions to Einstein’s field equations. Penrose therefore believed that they must form the foundations of twistor theory.” – http://fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/gut.html We are told that “time enters space-time with an imaginary rather than a real factor”, yet no one (other than us) confronts what this must mean ontologically, namely time is an imaginary quantity, and spacetime is complex numbered rather than real numbered. The moment you accept the ontological reality of imaginary numbers, you can dispense with the absurd probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which exists purely to avoid acknowledging complex wavefunctions as real, deterministic things. As soon as you switch from real numbers to complex numbers, you ipso facto switch from scientific empiricism and materialism to mathematical rationalism and idealism.

Complex numbers can have no connection with “scientific” reality. They are unambiguously mathematical, and instantly and automatically point to a mathematical rather than scientific reality. Once math is accepted as ontologically real, science falls. Scientific experiments can’t probe null lines and “imaginary” quantities. Science is finished if reality is predicated on complex numbers rather than real numbers. That’s a simple mathematical fact.

Nothing “Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.” – Lucretius Lucretius argued that matter is required to make matter, and that objects cannot spring forth without reasonable cause. In Illuminism, Fourier mathematics is required to make matter by converting Fourier frequency functions into Fourier spacetime functions. Spacetime is the origin of matter, and the origin of spacetime is the dimensionless frequency domain. “Nothing will come of nothing.” – Shakespeare In fact, everything will come of mathematical, monadic nothing. “Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is incompatible with the philosophical definition of nothing, since it can be defined by certain properties such as space, and is governed by physical laws. Indeed, many philosophers criticize these physical explanations of how the universe arose from nothing, claiming that they merely beg the question.” – Wikipedia They do indeed do nothing but beg the question. The whole of science is simply the begging of the question.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of metaphysics and epistemology... Do all facts – including the most ordinary ones – demand an explanation? If you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason (= PSR), you

will require an explanation for any fact, or in other words, you will reject the possibility of brute, or unexplainable, facts. Formally, the Principle states: For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Isn’t it astounding that the requirement for everything to have a reason or cause is described as “controversial”? Surely what is controversial is the counter claim that things can happen for no sufficient reason, i.e. with no cause or explanation, hence miraculously and magically? Amazingly, science supports the principle of no sufficient reason rather than the principle of sufficient reason, hence is wholly irrational! “The term ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason was coined by Leibniz, though Spinoza clearly preceded Leibniz in appreciating the importance of the Principle and placing it at the centre of his philosophical system. The Principle seems at first sight to have a strong intuitive appeal – we always ask for explanations – yet it is taken by many to be too bold and expensive due to the radical implications it seems to yield. Among the alleged consequences of the Principle are: the Identity of Indiscernibles, necessitarianism, the existence of a self-necessitated Being (i.e., God), the Principle of Plenitude, and strict naturalism.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Rationalism flows directly from the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Illuminism asserts that mathematics enshrines the PSR and, indeed, is the PSR expressed ontologically. The self-necessitated beings are monads, not “God”. “The PSR is closely related, if not fully identical, to the principle ‘ex nihilo, nihil fit’ (‘From nothing, nothing comes’). One of the most interesting questions regarding the PSR is why to accept it at all. Insofar as the PSR stipulates that all facts must be explainable, it seems that the PSR itself demands an explanation just as much.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy In Illuminism, the PSR addresses the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, and answers that something is nothing. Mathematics – which is the ontological expression of the PSR – is something and yet the net effect of ontological mathematics is nothing. Everything is mandated to cancel to zero thanks to perfect symmetry between positive and negative

numbers, and between real and imaginary numbers (the latter becoming negative numbers when squared). Thus, whenever you see any reference to “nothing”, you are in fact seeing a reference to two somethings that have perfectly balanced each other. “Nothing” by itself is impossible (or has absolutely no consequences), and something by itself that does not balance overall to nothing is equally impossible. Something and nothing always go together. Symmetry demands it, and symmetry is the quintessence of the PSR. The PSR explains itself because it’s the sole way in which “being” is not privileged over “nothing”, or vice versa. The system that explains reality cannot arbitrarily privilege anything over anything else. The only system that does not do so is a system of Becoming, where something and nothing are perfectly balanced at all times. The only way in which this is possible is mathematically. In Illuminism, everything derives from the PSR, including the whole of mathematics, the whole of logic and the whole of causation. There is no alternative to the PSR. Only a fundamental rational principle can account for a rational, intelligible universe. The explanation for its existence is that it’s the only thing that can exist. The PSR provides for an eternal, necessary, complete and consistent, completely stable system = ontological mathematics. Nothing else does. Anything else would implode instantly, destroyed by its own contradictions and instabilities. The PSR is the only thing left standing, hence is the basis of existence. “A sufficient explanation may be understood either in terms of reasons or causes, for like many philosophers of the period, Leibniz did not carefully distinguish between the two. The resulting principle is very different, however, depending on which interpretation is given.” – Wikipedia On the contrary, Leibniz introduced a vital distinction between reasons and causes. Everything has a cause, except uncaused causes, which have a sufficient reason, established by the PSR!

Null Lines and Conformal Geometry “Null lines, or the paths taken by light and massless particles, are of such importance in relativity that Penrose has suggested only null directions are really ‘there.’ Indeed, it is possible to create a geometry based on null lines alone. But in a universe having such a geometry, mass would not exist, for

only massless particles can move at the speed of light. Since null lines always have zero length, scale and distance would have no meaning in such a universe. Change the scale of this universe, and all physical quantities remain the same. The property of being unchanged under changes of scale is called conformal invariance. “Conformal geometry is the sort of geometry that exists on a balloon that is being inflated and let down again. A face drawn on a balloon remains a face as it is stretched or contracted, yet the distances between the various features is never fixed. Similarly there is a rich set of relationships, particularly as regards the causal connections, that is unchanged by conformal transformations. “For Penrose, conformal geometry based on the properties of null lines, was another key to quantum geometry. Mass and scales of length, he conjectured, are not primary quantities but emerge in a secondary way. The universe may have begun with a conformal geometry, a universe of light and massless bodies moving along null lines. However, as these null lines began to interact, the basic conformal invariance was broken and mass was born into the universe.” – http://fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/gut.html There’s a huge amount of correspondence between Penrose’s theory and ontological mathematics, except Penrose still remains locked into scientism and can’t accept the existence of dimensionless monadic minds (nullities; null-line entities).

The Principle of Contradiction “Leibniz gives various formulations to his Principle of Contradiction or Law of Identity but the central idea is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. Leibniz hoped to be able to construct a logical calculus that would enable all significant truths to be demonstrated, since every concept must include, be included in, or exclude every other.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/#2 Leibniz’s system is perfect for rational form, but not for empirical content. “Given the feasibility of (a) analysing complex terms into simple ones or indefinable terms (to form an ‘alphabet of human thoughts’), and (b) a complete deductive analysis of necessary or eternal truths, Leibniz hoped

that it would be possible to construct a universal science incorporating mathematics, science, metaphysics, the study of law, and utilizing a universal language – a characteristica universalis – consisting of mathematical symbolism, so that if we wished to discover new truths all we would have to do would be to perform the appropriate calculations. [See De Arte Combinatoria.]” – http://philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_062.html Ontological mathematics itself is the true universal science. Everything that is true must be shown to be compatible with ontological mathematics. “The Principle of Contradiction (or Identity): A is A and cannot be non-A. This is the basic truth of reason on which all other truths of reason are based. Truths of reason (whose opposites involve a contradiction and are necessary) are interconnected in a system. The propositions of logic and mathematics are typical. They consist of self-evident axioms, real definitions, and deduced propositions.” – http://philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_062.html There are no such things as “self-evident” axioms. Everything needs a sufficient reason. “At the higher levels of reflection we may have general knowledge of eternal truths (the principles of contradiction, sufficient reason, truths of mathematics and logic), all of which are derivable by the mind from within itself through the exercise of reason; and inference is possible (at least in theory) from an analysis of one substantial monad to the predicates of all the others, thereby giving us potentially knowledge of the whole universe. In a wide sense, therefore, all ideas for Leibniz are (virtually) innate. However, using the term more narrowly he applies it to clear and distinct ideas such as those of substance, cause, God, as well as space and time, and perception itself. Confused perceptions, which mirror external aggregates of monads and thus constitute ‘knowledge’ of the phenomenal world, are therefore not strictly innate. Both senses of ‘innate’ are implicit in Leibniz’s observation: “There is nothing in the understanding which was not first in the senses – except for the intellect itself’ [New Essays, II, i].” – http://philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_062.html

Mathematics was never in the senses, and mathematics is entirely responsible for the intellect.

Spinoza “Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked, what is the cause (or reason) [causa sive ratio], why it exists.” – Spinoza Spinoza argued that since existence is something positive, it cannot have nothing as its cause. Of course, this logic falls apart as soon as you realise that “nothing” is mathematical and thus something “positive” too. The whole point of the PSR is, in fact, to explain how something comes from nothing. “[W]hat altar of refuge can a man find for himself when he commits treason against the majesty of reason?” – Spinoza Indeed. Science does nothing but commit treason against the majesty of reason, in order to side with the fallible, unreliable evolutionary human senses. “But since miracles were produced according to the capacity of the common people who were completely ignorant of the principles of natural things, plainly the ancients took for a miracle whatever they were unable to explain in the manner the common people normally explained natural things, namely by seeking to recall something similar which can be imagined without amazement. For the common people suppose they have satisfactorily explained something as soon as it no longer astounds them.” – Spinoza The vulgus [common people] went wrong in believing that once an extraordinary fact was shown to be the result of a familiar phenomenon, it was thereby “explained”, when, of course, the familiar itself had not been explained. “Common sense” operates in exactly this way. Almost nothing that is described in terms of common sense is true or is in any way easy to explain, hence it is not “common” at all. It is only the prejudice and complacency that’s “common”. The people are “common-sense philosophers” who are happy as soon as anything unfamiliar is brought into the domain of the common, and is understood commonly and consensually (regardless of its actual truth).

However, things do not become intelligible because they are common and familiar. Nearly all of common sense is wrong. Everyone is familiar with time, and everyone has a common understanding of time, and yet the reality is that to this day science has never been able to explain what time actually is. Because “time” is familiar, the masses simply do not think about it at all. Scientists and philosophers have put little effort into understanding time, and don’t even seem to know where to begin. (In fact, you must use imaginary numbers and motion to explain time.) It’s essential to de-familiarize everything in order to get people to look with new eyes, and a fresh, open mind. Common sense is catastrophic because it’s grounded in the familiar and the complacent. “What cannot be conceived [concipi] through another, must be conceived through itself.” – Spinoza Only the PSR (which is synonymous with ontological mathematics) explains itself, and thus is the ground of all. It is conceived through itself. The PSR says that everything is explainable. To oppose the PSR is to say that some things (and indeed why not everything?) cannot be explained, which turns the world into a place of magic and miracle rather than cause and effect. “For each thing there must be assigned a cause, or reason, both for its existence and for its nonexistence.” – Spinoza Tell that to science, with all of its probabilistic nonsense. “If a certain number of individuals exists, there must be a cause why those individuals, and why neither more nor fewer, exist.” – Spinoza For those who deny the existence of God, they must explain exactly why he does not exist. Scientific materialism utterly fails to do so. In Illuminism, God is that which each monad becomes when it mathematically optimises itself. “God status” is the Omega Point of mathematical optimisation. Given that there is nothing contradictory about the existence of God as a mathematically optimised monad, God must come into existence at the Omega Point. If God is not forbidden, he is compulsory. It’s compulsory for all of us to become God. It’s guaranteed.

“For Spinoza, if there are two (or more) possible worlds, it would seem that neither one would have a sufficient reason or cause (for if there were such a sufficient reason, this world would be necessitated, and all other worlds would be impossible). In other words, for Spinoza, the PSR dictates that there is only one possible world.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ There can be no Multiverse since infinite worlds violates the PSR. The Multiverse doctrine is the precise opposite of the PSR. It states that instead of there being a sufficient reason for everything, there is no reason at all, so that anything that is merely possible, no matter how improbable, irrational, inexplicable, uncaused or non-compossible must happen. This is a 100% irrational and false doctrine. “Michael Della Rocca argued not only that the PSR ‘provide[s] the key to unlocking many of the mysteries of Spinoza’s philosophical system’, but that Spinoza requires the reduction of the most basic philosophical concepts to reason or intelligibility. This alleged ‘double use of the PSR’ stipulates (1) that everything must be explainable, and (2) that it should be (ultimately) explained in terms of intelligibility. Hence, according to Della Rocca, Spinoza reduces his major philosophical concepts – existence, causation, rightness, and power – to intelligibility.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ Spinoza is a rationalist, and rationalism and the intelligible (rather than sensible) go hand in hand. All unintelligible concepts are absurd concepts, and fundamentally irrational. “Leibniz coined the term ‘The Principle of Sufficient Reason’ and is arguably its best known exponent. His treatment of the PSR is noteworthy for its systematicity and the centrality that he accords it. According to him, all truths rest upon two great principles: the Principle of Contradiction and the PSR. The second great principle is often identified by Leibniz as the Principle of the Best instead of the PSR. The two principles are intimately connected. The sufficient reason for any contingent truth is that it is for the best. According to Leibniz, God’s reason for creating the actual world is that it is the best of all possible worlds. The reason for this world is that it is

the best. The reason for any contingent truth is that, since the existence of the actual world entails it, it is for the best.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ It’s mathematics that creates the world, and everything that happens is for the mathematical best (i.e. the optimal mathematical solution, given the circumstances).

Six Formulations of the Principle of Contradiction 1: For any two contradictory propositions p and q, one is true and the other is false. 2: For any proposition p, p is either true or false. 3: For any proposition p, p is not both true and false. 4: For any proposition p, if p implies a contradiction, then p is false. 5: For any proposition p, if p is false, then not-p is true. 6: For any proposition p, if p is an identical proposition, then p is true. It has been argued that there are possible worlds where the PSR does not apply. In Illuminism, this is impossible. The PSR is the basis of ontology and, without it, nothing can exist. It’s the ontological principle itself. “[T]he principle of sufficient reason: namely, that nothing happens without a reason.” – Leibniz It has been said that truths are not the sort of things that “happen.” This is false. Truth is absolutely identified with motion, with becoming. Truth exists only in a dynamic system. There is no world of static being, of Platonic truth that can exist independently of living, dynamic souls (monads). Mathematical truth is encoded in each monad. Commentators have suggested that sometimes Leibniz seems to refer to the PSR only in relation to truths and then at other times only in relation to events. They have not appreciated how central the PSR was to all of Leibniz’s thinking. “Or perhaps he thought that the two formulations are equivalent because he thought that for every event there is a truth that describes it and that for every truth there is an event described by it. (It must be noted, however, that

the later assumption is quiet questionable. Many truths, e.g., mathematical truths, do not appear to describe events.)” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ In ontological mathematics, mathematics is about nothing but events. It’s a total system of becoming. There is no such thing as abstract, static mathematics.

The Frequency and Spacetime Domains The frequency domain is the upper and lower limit of the spacetime domain. If you could reach light speed, you would leave spacetime and enter the frequency domain. If you could be shrunk down to “nothing” you would reach the frequency domain. All black hole singularities are frequency domains. The Big Bang Singularity is a frequency domain. Pure light is a frequency domain. The spacetime domain is completely surrounded by, and penetrated by, the frequency domain. The frequency domain is immanent, transcendent, above and below the spacetime domain. The physical world of spacetime can be imagined as a structure within the mental frequency domain. Mind is the upper and lower limit of matter. If you could escape from the material world (through being crushed in a black hole, or reaching light speed), you would arrive at the frequency domain. There is, however, no possible escape from the frequency domain (i.e. to somewhere beyond frequency). Why can’t a material thing reach light speed? Because if a material thing could reach light speed, it would cease to be material and would become a mental thing! Matter is contained by mind. The material world exists inside mind. Matter is wholly penetrated and bounded by mind. Spacetime is a mathematical domain within another, higher mathematical domain – the frequency domain of mind. There is nothing but mathematics. Scientific materialism has never understood that it isn’t “nothing” that exists outside space and time but the dimensionless, frequency domain of mathematics. No one can understand reality until they grasp that there’s an unobservable domain of frequency outside space and time (or, in another sense, surrounding space and time since it forms the boundary of space and time). Spacetime didn’t begin from nowhere, from a random fluctuation in

nothingness: it began mathematically from the frequency domain outside space and time. The material world is a mathematical projection of the mental world. Specifically, it’s a holographic projection. That is the mathematical gospel of the Illuminati.

***** The spacetime universe isn’t expanding into “nothing”. It’s expanding into the surrounding frequency domain, with which it eventually becomes one (at the point of maximum spacetime expansion).

***** Switching on a light does not release photons into spacetime. Switching on a light “activates” a large number of photons in an infinite reservoir of photons in the frequency domain. Switching on a light permits a spacetime view of the frequency domain. Our eyes have evolved the capacity to see a portion – the visible light spectrum – of the frequency domain. Scientists absurdly claim that the total number of photons in the universe is not conserved. This is wholly false. It’s impossible to obey the Conservation of Energy without obeying the Conservation of Photons. Any rationalist realises that.

Numbers The Cartesian coordinate grid was one of the greatest innovations in mathematics. Unfortunately, it supports the fallacy that numbers are abstract rather than ontological. There are three related categories of ontological numbers: frequencies, distances (periods and wavelengths) and scalars (amplitudes). Frequencies are the most fundamental numbers and these are dimensionless. Frequencies do not exist in space and time. Amplitudes are also dimensionless and do not exist in space and time. The numbers that do exist in space and time are distances. Distances always involve at least two numbers (with the distance obviously measuring the gap between them). Frequencies and scalars, on the other hand, are single, self-standing numbers. You can have a frequency (mental), dimensionless domain without distances, but you cannot have a

dimensional domain unless it’s underpinned by a dimensionless domain. Dimensional distances arise from dimensionless numbers. The whole of scientific materialism is predicated on the existence of dimensional numbers only. Dimensionless numbers are entirely denied. Moreover, science says that only “real” dimensional numbers exist, while imaginary dimensional numbers are also denied. The greatest problem in science is what happens when the distance between two numbers reduces to zero. In science, if a force is being calculated and is dependent on division by the distance between two particles, the calculation, according to scientists, becomes impossible when the distance is zero (since infinity results). This is exactly what happens in black hole singularities and the Big Bang singularity – where scientists say that the laws of physics break down. Of course, the laws don’t break down at all. What breaks down is the materialist ideology. In terms of ontological mathematics, when a distance is reduced to zero it in fact means that the dimensional domain has been left behind and the dimensionless domain entered. Black hole singularities and the Big Bang singularity do not belong to the dimensional, material world but to the dimensionless, mental world. These singularities are mental portals (Mind Gates) into the physical world, and control the physical world. The Big Bang singularity created the material world, and supermassive black hole singularities control galaxies. Everywhere, mind is controlling matter. The material world is the cosmic body of the cosmic mind. Science says that reality cannot involve distances between particles being reduced to zero. Ontological mathematics says that distances between particles can be reduced to zero. However, when this happens, a phase change takes place to mental rather than physical, dimensionless rather than dimensional, existence. Science entirely denies this. Its view of mathematics and mathematical ontology is false. When matter is crushed into a black hole singularity, it leaves the spacetime world and enters the frequency domain. It’s converted into dimensionless energy. Science has no idea what happens to the matter in a black hole singularity and is awaiting a “final theory” of quantum gravity to make sense of it. Science will never achieve such a final theory since scientific materialism rests on numerous fallacies that preclude any final

resolution of science. To reach a final theory, science has to become ontological mathematics. That’s a rational fact.

The Mathematical Universe If the universe is 100% mathematical – and it can’t be anything else since nothing else can rationally account for “nothing” – then the universe obeys the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. there’s a specific reason why every fact is thus and not otherwise. Every effect has a cause. There are no random events, and there is no indeterminacy in the universe. All scientists who believe that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about randomness and indeterminacy have applied a disastrous interpretation (misinterpretation!) to quantum mechanics. They have viewed it from a non-mathematical Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Once you view it from the correct perspective of mathematical idealism and rationalism, the so-called” uncertainty principle” vanishes and becomes a “certainty principle”. It’s one that embraces complex numbers rather than real numbers, and seamlessly caters for zero, infinity and dimensionless existence, all of which are unacceptable to scientific materialists. The universe at all times is 100% mathematically rational. There are no bizarre things going on. Things don’t jump out of nothing. There aren’t inexplicable, random events taking place – effects without causes. Things that seem “weird” to scientists, locked into their spacetime materialism, aren’t weird at all when viewed from the perspective of a mental domain outside space and time (a domain denied by science). The greatest tragedy of science is that it went from being 100% determinist to 100% indeterminist and barely any scientist noticed or complained. Science is now a fantastically irrational expression of materialism and empiricism. It’s a philosophy, and an extremely poor one. Even worse, its practitioners fail to comprehend that. They are philosophically illiterate. Many openly express their contempt for philosophers without realising that they themselves are (bad) philosophers. Their worst crime is to reject rationalism, and, specifically, mathematical rationalism. They reject mathematical ontology – that mathematics is the ground of reality and that all things are mathematical. They reject “unobservable” entities within mathematics, such as imaginary numbers.

They reject mathematical “hidden variables” i.e. anything not susceptible to materialist and empiricist interpretation. There’s nothing surer that that our universe is mathematical and rational. There’s also nothing surer than that mathematical rationalism does not rely on empiricism in any shape or form. There are countless mathematical entities that are reachable only by rational thought, not by empirical experiments. Mathematics belongs to the intelligible world of rationalism and idealism (metaphysics), not the sensible world of empiricism and materialism (physics). Ultimately, all of us are components of a cosmic mathematical mind that obeys the principle of sufficient reason. This cosmic mind is unconscious, and the route to consciousness, although completely rational, is a fraught, dialectical one involving a huge war of binary opposites (thesis and antithesis). The rational synthesis phase of the dialectic allows these conflicting opposites to be steadily resolved. The dialectic converges on a final point – the Omega Point, the Absolute – where the cosmic mind becomes fully conscious. Reason knows itself as reason. Reason has come to life, and the universe is now consciously rational; “evil”, stupidity and ignorance are eradicated. We are in the world of the rational God of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Neoplatonists, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel. We are in paradise because we know and understand everything, and everything happens according to rational perfection. We are all rational gods, and we fear nothing.

Symmetry Ultimately, mathematics and physics are all about symmetry, antisymmetry and asymmetry – and exactly the same is true of the dialectic. The dialectic is a cosmic, living quest for the optimal symmetry of the universe. The perfect symmetry is the Absolute, the Omega Point, the Light Point. After perfection is reached – perfect symmetry, the perfect organisation of reality – the next stage is to wreck it with asymmetry (this is divine suicide that reboots the world). And thus a new cosmic age begins.

Different Mathematics How can you model a universe with a different mathematics from this universe using this universe’s mathematics? This is the absurdity at the core of Max Tegmark’s attempt to make science more mathematical. That man

needs a crash course in ontology and epistemology. He’s a classic example of a scientist who just can’t think straight... exactly because he has been so brainwashed by scientific ideology and dogmatism. He intuits that something is fundamentally wrong with science, and he intuits that math is the only way out, yet he can’t bring himself to jettison science and explain the universe solely in terms of math. He keeps coming back to the empiricist and materialist notions that infect science, but which have no connection with pure math. You cannot grasp ultimate reality until you move beyond empiricism and materialism. How can there be such a thing as a different mathematics? What would be the sufficient reason for any mathematical element at all being absent from the mathematics of another universe? There is only one mathematics. It’s a complete and consistent system, and absolutely every element is required. Given that there’s only one mathematics, there can be only one mathematical universe. The idea that you could have a universe of positive numbers only, or a universe of negative numbers only, or of even numbers only, or negative numbers only, or real numbers only, or imaginary numbers only, is ridiculous. Every element of mathematics implies every other element. Mathematics is holographic. The whole is in every part. You cannot have self-standing subsets of mathematics. They would be utterly incoherent, inconsistent and incomplete. Any universe based on them would implode instantly. Any such universe could have no stability.

***** One of the hardest things for people to understand is that we inhabit two domains – the frequency and spacetime domains – at once. Our body is in spacetime and our mind/soul in the frequency domain. We are continuously interacting with things from the frequency domain. Any entity with zero mass – such as the photon – belongs to the frequency domain and not to spacetime. Atoms are held together by mental (frequency) forces (bosonic forces). Black hole singularities are all about frequency, and nothing to do with spacetime. Spacetime itself was created at the Big Bang by an inverse Fourier transform performed by the collective cosmic mind (Singularity) outside space and time. The simple act of switching on a light causes a frequency function and spacetime function to mix and interact. Reality is all about the interaction of

spacetime and frequency functions. Bosons (force particles) are typically pure frequency functions, while fermions (matter particles) are always spacetime functions. Some bosons – such as the famous Higgs boson – are hybrid spacetime and frequency functions, and have mass while acting as force particles. This means they can flicker in some sense between local (spacetime; mass) and non-local (frequency; energy) behaviour. The frequency domain is all about dimensionless energy while the spacetime domain is all about dimensional energy (mass). Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 describes how dimensionless energy (frequency) is related to dimensional energy (mass), with the square of the speed of light providing the proportionality factor. Dimensionless energy is none other than light energy, and all dimensional mass derives from light energy. Our own minds are the supreme example of the frequency domain interacting with, and controlling, the spacetime domain. There’s no reason why the human soul should not be treated as simply a mathematical entity more elusive than the Higgs boson, which inhabits the frequency domain alone, just as light does (to which it is extremely closely related; in fact a soul is just a complete and consistent collection of photons). Whenever you switch on a light, you are interacting with souls! You are in fact permanently interacting with mathematical aspects of the soul! You cannot escape the soul. You are immersed in soul at all times. We truly inhabit Soul World. The material world is simply a mathematical Fourier projection created by all the souls of the universe. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is poor science and even worse philosophy. It’s remarkable that such a silly idea has been taken seriously for so long. It’s incoherent, ridiculous and impossible. What it reveals is how poor scientists are at thinking rationally and philosophically. Like Abrahamists, they try to fit everything into their prevailing worldview, rather than finding a new, superior and more rational worldview. They cling to their old views exactly like people of faith. They worship the religion of scientism. They are like the supporters of Ptolemy desperately resisting the new Copernican view of our place in the universe. They endlessly try to save a failed model, by adding ever more complex “epicycles” to it, instead of ditching the whole thing and moving to an infinitely superior, and infinitely clearer, worldview. Nothing is sadder than the belief many scientists have of

themselves that they are clear thinkers who would never have failed to follow in Copernicus’s footsteps. In fact, 99% of them would have resisted Copernicus, and fought a battle to the last ditch to save Ptolemy’s system. Quantum mechanics has destroyed empiricism and materialism entirely, yet scientists still defend empiricism and materialism. That’s perverse. It’s a refusal to see the Truth.

Intelligent Design The universe is intelligently designed not because of any “God”, but because it’s made of mathematics, hence automatically reflects order, organisation and design.

The Zone When you’re “in the zone”, make the most of it. We work very fast, don’t spend much time checking or refining, and just plough on. You can never know when circumstances will conspire against you to stop you, or when you will become burned out after your Herculean labours. It’s like Blitzkrieg. You just have to keep going. Nothing must stop the advance.

Einstein “Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.” – Einstein Indeed! Einstein spectacularly failed to understand that ultimate reality is mathematical, not physical. His principle of relativity is a mathematical abomination that defies objective reality. He said that God did not play dice and knew that hidden variables were essential to saving quantum mechanics, yet he couldn’t work out that mathematics itself provided both the hidden variables and the answer to the quantum riddle. He simply couldn’t “see” mathematics. “I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” – Einstein It’s a pity that Einstein didn’t have nearly enough intuition, inspiration and imagination. He kept himself rigidly inside the box of empiricist scientific

materialism. He literally refused to think outside that box. He should have had more respect for knowledge. “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.” – Einstein You yourself forgot it most of all! You failed to intuit the ontology of mathematics. “The only real valuable thing is intuition.” – Albert Einstein And you didn’t have it! “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” – Einstein So, why are scientists so staggeringly unimaginative? Why do none of them have the courage to challenge the empiricist materialist dogma of the science establishment?

In the Beginning The basic model for ontological mathematics is that everything begins with a dimensionless, monadic singularity, and the whole of dimensional reality can be constructed from it via a mathematical Big Bang, and perfectly returned to it via a mathematical Big Crunch. It’s a mathematically perfect system and there can be no loss of information since that would amount to a fatal inconsistency in ontological mathematics, which would instantly destroy all reality predicated on it! We have hitherto presented an ontological interpretation of calculus based on monadic dimensionlessness versus material dimensionality. However, a more profound interpretation is possible whereby we enter the structure of a monad, gaining access to its frequency contents. The dimensionless Singularity is a frequency domain (with each monad being a self-contained, autonomous Fourier frequency domain), and the dimensional domain of the material world is a spacetime domain. So, ontologically, we might say that the derivative of a dimensional space or time constant is actually a dimensionless frequency constant, located within a monad.

Ontologically, all mathematical operations have to be carried out with respect to actual things, whether they be monads, frequencies, real number dimensionality (space), imaginary number dimensionality (time), or complex number dimensionality (spacetime). Numbers cannot be treated as free-floating abstractions. Ontological calculus has to be able to explain what happens in reality, not on paper. The purpose of ontological mathematics is to completely replace physics. The dimensionless Singularity is a frequency domain, and the dimensional domain of the material world is a spacetime domain. Ontologically, the derivative of a dimensional spacetime constant is a dimensionless frequency constant.

Calculus Leibniz grounded calculus in monads, but this was ignored by the mathematical community, which didn’t ground calculus in anything at all (and still haven’t).

Conservation Mathematics obeys perfect conservation laws. No objective mathematical information can ever go missing. If this were possible in any way, the universe itself would soon enough go missing. This is why Leibniz is right about calculus, and the entire mathematical community wrong. It’s impossible for information to be lost during true calculus operations, yet the calculus taught in schools, colleges and universities is predicated on exactly such a loss in certain circumstances.

Circular Motion “In physics, circular motion is a movement of an object along the circumference of a circle, or rotation along a circular path. It can be uniform, with constant angular rate of rotation (and constant speed), or nonuniform with a changing rate of rotation. The rotation around a fixed axis of a three-dimensional body involves circular motion of its parts. The equations of motion describe the movement of the centre of mass of a body. “Examples of circular motion include: an artificial satellite orbiting the Earth at constant height, a stone which is tied to a rope and is being swung in circles, a car turning through a curve in a race track, an electron moving

perpendicular to a uniform magnetic field, and a gear turning inside a mechanism. “Since the object’s velocity vector is constantly changing direction, the moving object is undergoing acceleration by a centripetal force in the direction of the centre of rotation. Without this acceleration, the object would move in a straight line, according to Newton’s laws of motion.” – Wikipedia

Blue Light from the sky falls on the retina, enters the brain and, hey presto, we see the colour “blue”. Yet if we suffered from total colour blindness then, in exactly the same physical circumstances, we would not see “blue” at all, but some shade of grey. Therefore, whence “blue”? It’s plainly not in the physical sky itself. It’s in our perception of the physical sky (how it appears to us rather than how it is in itself: sky colour as phenomenon rather than noumenon). By changing our genes, we change our experience of something, our perception of it. Genes are just mathematical functions: information functions. By changing our genes, we change our internal mathematical processing of external data. Our experiences and perceptions of “reality” are always generated internally rather than externally (hence do not reflect externality in itself). We can never escape this, which is why science is so absurd. Science always commits the fallacy of “seeing is believing”, of taking how we perceive reality to be reality itself. These people have obviously never read Kant. As soon as you accept a distinction between phenomena and noumena, you can no longer accept science. With phenomena, we are dealing with how things seem to us, while knowing that this is not how they really are. They are noumena that we can never see in their true noumenal form. We always interpret them. We never see them directly: unshielded, bare, unprocessed, unmediated, uninterpreted, naked and raw. Science – a staggeringly naive, simplistic, plebeian way of thinking – asserts that there’s a true reality out there and we encounter it via “experiments”, which are said to be reliable, repeatable and objective. Of course, no matter how many times you look at the sky and see “blue”, it never proves what colour the sky truly has, if any colour at all. Science takes (mistakes) phenomena for noumena.

Scientists can’t grasp that everything they experience and perceive is filtered through the mind, and it’s impossible to encounter anything unfiltered. The whole of the “sensible world”, of sensory “reality”, is mediated by our senses, by our genes, by how brains work and process information, by how our brains and minds work together. The only reality that’s truly bare and unmediated is that of the intelligible world. All mathematical truths are analytic tautologies. 1 + 1 = 2 belongs to an entirely different category of knowledge from “the sky is blue”. Truths of reason are entirely different from truths of “fact”. All authentic truths of reason reveal eternity. They are true forever, and can never not be true. They have no contingency. They are necessarily true. 1 + 1 = 2 does not rely in any way on human senses, human observations, human experiments, human genes, the way the human brain works, how humans process and interpret data. 1 + 1 = 2 is outside all of that. It transcends the human condition. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an interpretation. It’s a true fact. It’s a noumenal fact, not a phenomenal fact. The expressions “truths of reason” and “truths of facts” should be replaced, respectively, by “noumenal truths” and “phenomenal truths”, by “truths of reality” and “truths of appearance”, by “unmediated truths” and “mediated truths”, by “truths of intellect” and “truths of the senses”. Facts are only true, noumenal facts when they are true forever. Only mathematical tautologies qualify.

Bubble Singularities “Physicists at the University of Chicago have discovered that air bubbles retain a ‘memory’ of how they are formed (Phys Rev Lett 97 144503). Their study revealed that the initial conditions of bubble formation can affect the dynamics of the singularity that occurs when a bubble pinches off a nozzle. This could have profound implications for our understanding of other phenomena that involve singularities including the formation of black holes or supernovae. “A singularity occurs when one or more of the physical parameters in a system approaches infinity. In bubble formation, this occurs at the moment of pinch-off, when the stress and pressure become very large.” – Jon Cartwright

“There are a large number of different physical structures which form spontaneously as their components try to meet certain energetic requirements. These components may be constrained, for example, to seek a point of minimal free energy, like a soap bubble, which acquires its spherical form by minimizing surface tension, or a common salt crystal, which adopts the form of a cube by minimizing bonding energy.” – Manuel De Landa Bubbles are one of the most interesting systems you can possibly get. Many of the universe’s secrets lie buried in bubbles. Monads can be considered as bubbles of some sort... light bubbles.

Light What is light? Its immaterial and dimensionless. For photons, time has stopped and length has contracted to zero (which makes them singularities). Sunlight belongs to the frequency domain (of bosons), not the spacetime domain (of fermions). Sunlight is a dimensionless, bosonic force – a mental force. We could actually regard sunlight as the thoughts of “God” (or the Cosmic Mind), radiating out into the material world (of planets and moons), and holding matter together. When huge suns “die”, they collapse back into dimensionless existence – into a black hole with an event horizon.

The Death of Stars “Stars are incredibly hot and shine because nuclear reactions in their cores keep heating them. Stars eventually ‘die’ by either exploding as a supernova or merely cooling to a point where they cannot support reactions. The ultimate fate of stars can be black holes, neutron stars, white (or black) dwarf stars.... Before a star actually dies, it goes through a series of death throes. In nearly all cases, this involves some form of a red giant: The star expands, usually over the course of a few thousand years, to many times its main sequence diameter. In the process, its outer layers cool and thus become redder. The expansion occurs because, when the core runs out of hydrogen, its outward radiative pressure ceases and a shell of material around the core collapses down onto it. This shell then gets hot and highpressure enough to start burning hydrogen into helium itself. Due to its greater surface area, the hydrogen-burning shell actually produces more outward radiation pressure than the core did during the star’s main sequence

lifetime. The red giant phase can last for upwards of a million years, if the star started out small enough. “Two types of main sequence stars are theorized not to pass through a red giant phase: The very large, and the very small. The largest stars, according to some models, will suffer core collapse directly to a black hole and explode as a hypernova. The small, dim red dwarf stars will be almost entirely helium by the time they deplete their hydrogen fuel, so there will be no hydrogen to form a hydrogen-burning shell; instead, they will heat up without expanding, becoming a hypothetical blue dwarf.... “A black hole is an astronomical body so dense that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.... A neutron star is a compact object that is created in the core of massive star during supernova explosion. As their name suggests, neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons. Though they are dead stars, they are still very hot. They are extraordinarily smaller than the original star from which they originated with a radius of about 12 km. In contrast, the Sun’s radius is about 60,000 times that. They typically have a mass between 1.35 and about 2.1 solar masses. As a result of its extreme density, a typical neutron star has a surface gravity of over a hundred billion G’s and an escape velocity of about 1/3rd the speed of light. A single teaspoon of its interior would weigh at least two billion tons at the surface of the Earth.... In the Christian sacred scriptures Satan cast down a third of the stars of heaven with his tail as he fell to Earth (Revelation 12:4). Even if we assume this only means 1/3 of the stars visible to the naked eye, we’re talking about 2000+ giant balls of superheated plasma, most of them hundreds of times bigger around than the Earth. This would have resulted in a mass-extinction event at least comparable to the small asteroid that struck the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs. In many religions, when the end of the world arrives (presumably in 2012), the stars will fall from heaven.” – Wikipedia

Bosons and Fermions Science is all about bosons and fermions; force particles and matter particles; mind particles and body particles.

Zero Gravity The universe has zero gravity at the beginning since the originating Singularity is immaterial, massless and outside space and time.

Dimensionless (mental) energy has no connection with gravity. Only dimensional (material) energy concerns gravity. Gravitational bodies are fermionic bodies. And just as fermions mathematically arise from the bosonic Singularity, so they must have a return path to the bosonic Singularity. Gravity, by ultimately crushing fermions into black hole singularities, achieves exactly this.

The God Equation The God Equation is a generator of perfect analytic sine and cosine waves. Cosines are even and symmetric (hence bosonic) and sine waves are odd and antisymmetric (hence fermionic). In dimensionless existence, sine waves are forced into a bosonic regime, but have an inherent tendency to seek antisymmetric expression. They get the chance to do so in the dimensional domain, and now it’s cosine waves that are being subjected to an alien (fermionic) regime, and wish to return to a bosonic world (singularity). Since sine waves can’t be privileged over cosine waves, or vice versa, we end up with a universe oscillating between fermionic and bosonic expression, between odd and even, symmetric and antisymmetric, dimensionless and dimensional. This, of course, is all about Fourier mathematics and the frequency domain (singularity) versus the spacetime domain (material universe). The true, final theory of gravity will be a Fourier theory that describes a bosonic force of attraction acting on a fermionic world of repulsion. Everything, in the end, will be about the opposite properties of sine and cosine waves. The trick is to convert this analytic mathematical theory into something that resembles the conventional theories of physics, i.e. that bridges the gap between sines and cosines on the one hand, and quarks, gluons, photons, Higgs bosons, etc. on the other hand. That’s where a genius is required – someone enormously smarter than the likes of Peter Higgs. We need a new Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Fourier or Riemann. Are you the genius the world has been waiting for?

Potential and Actual Mental Actuality = Fourier Frequency. Material Actuality = Fourier Spacetime.

Mental Potentiality = Fourier Spacetime. Material Potentiality = Fourier Frequency.

Negative Numbers “Negative numbers darken the very whole doctrines of the equations and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively obvious and simple.” – Francis Maseres, 1758. Maseres denied the existence of negative numbers. Several of his contemporaries thought they could be used in calculations as long as they were eliminated by the end. We see the same attitude exhibited by scientists, and extended to imaginary numbers. In science, anything weird, wonderful and unobservable can be used in mathematical calculations regarding the sensible world provided they vanish by the end, leaving only nice, positive, safe real numbers. Here’s a fundamental question for all scientists. If you invoked fairies in your experiments and calculations to describe the natural world, but made no mention of fairies in your final results and theories, does that mean that you do or not believe in fairies? How can entities that you regard as unreal – such as imaginary numbers – appear in your calculations? It’s no justification that they are abolished by the end of your calculations. The plain fact is that you have made use of things that you say do not exist (“fairies”) to describe things that you say do exist, a 100% irrational procedure. Only things that exist can feature in the equations of existence. You cannot use things that do not exist to produce the equations of existence. The quantum mechanical wavefunction involves imaginary numbers. Either this is a fantastical, nonsensical, illusory wavefunction – a “fairy function” operating by fairy magic – or imaginary numbers exist and the wavefunction itself is ontological, without having to be interpreted probabilistically (science’s magic trick to remove the fairies and pretend they were never there in the first place). Science is false, fraudulent dishonest and irrational, both mathematically and philosophically. Only people who despise reason could interpret quantum mechanics in the way scientists do. They might as well believe in God, fairies and goblins.

***** The Chinese referred to negative numbers as early as 200 BCE. The Indians mentioned them much later, in the 7th century CE, when zero was also being introduced into mathematics. The 7th century Indian mathematician Brahmagupta said: A debt minus zero is a debt. A fortune minus zero is a fortune. Zero minus zero is a zero. A debt subtracted from zero is a fortune. A fortune subtracted from zero is a debt. The product of zero multiplied by a debt or fortune is zero. The product of zero multiplied by zero is zero. The product or quotient of two fortunes is one fortune. The product or quotient of two debts is one fortune. The product or quotient of a debt and a fortune is a debt. The product or quotient of a fortune and a debt is a debt. The ancient Greeks were resistant to zero and negative numbers because they had a geometrical rather than algebraic view of mathematics. Lengths, arcs, curves, areas, and volumes resulting from geometry applied to the observable world were all positive by definition. For the Greeks, magnitudes referred to lengths and areas rather than numbers. So, the square root of two was not written as a number but as the hypotenuse of a triangle with two sides, each of one unit. Europeans did not start using negative numbers until the 15th century, when translations of the ancient texts recovered from Islamic and Byzantine sources became available in the West. Imaginary numbers can be regarded as an extension of negative numbers (they are their square roots). Although zero, infinity, imaginary numbers and negative numbers are regarded as unreal (non-ontological), they are used throughout mathematical models of the physical world of science and engineering.

They are all expected to be removed by the end of any modelling process in order to leave a “sensible” solution acceptable to materialism and empiricism. As soon as you realize that reality is under no obligation to satisfy the fallible human senses, you immediately understand how stupid the scientific agenda is. For sure, science is good for matching mathematical formulae to experimental data, but it’s useless for saying anything at all about the world beyond the human senses, the world of ultimate reality.

The Difference What’s the difference between physics and ontological mathematics? Physics is materialist and empiricist. It says that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal and unobservable – an inexplicable mathematical abstraction – but that, by converting it into a probability function, it can be linked to the real and observable, hence the sensory world of experiments. No scientist has ever actually explained how anything probabilistic can ever give rise to anything real or observable. A probability isn’t a thing; it’s something applied to things. Probabilities aren’t things in themselves, yet, in physics, they are treated as the basis of reality, even though they are acknowledged not to be real. Work that one out! Ontological mathematics is idealist, rationalist and metaphysical. It says that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is real but unobservable (since reality is intelligible, not sensible). Physics is all about promoting the “sensible world” view of reality. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is all about the “intelligible world” view of reality. Reality has an answer solely if it is intelligible, and that means it has an answer only if the universe is 100% mathematical. Physics is dumbed down mathematics for sensing types, who think that the senses evolution has conferred on them have more reality than non-evolutionary, eternal reason, logic and intellect. The catastrophic probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with truth, reality, ontology and intelligibility, but is purely about converting something real and intelligible yet unobservable into something sensible and observable yet unintelligible (i.e., it refutes rationalism, causality, the principle of sufficient reason and determinism, making reality based on randomness and indeterminacy).

***** “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” – Newton There are more scientists now than at any time in history. They are better educated, better paid and have better facilities than ever before. Yet today’s scientists seem to be pygmies standing on the shoulders of Newton’s giants. Scientist have now spent many decades trying to reconcile the two most successful scientific theories of all time: Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics. They have failed dismally. This inability to put two successful theories together undermines the credibility of the whole of science. Why is the scientific method so ill suited to merging two well tested theories? Mathematics doesn’t suffer from any of these problems. The whole of mathematics forms a perfect unity. No parts of mathematics contradict other parts of mathematics. No parts of mathematics are irreconcilable with other parts. The failure of scientists to generate a Grand Unified Theory of Everything now constitutes a lacerating critique of the whole scientific project. To be frank, science has run out of road. It can take us no further on the road to truth. Science’s two great theories cannot be combined for the simple reason that both of them suffer from fatal internal contradictions that are blatantly obvious when science is viewed from the perspective of rationalism and idealism. Tragically, scientists are empiricists and materialists and cling to their Meta Paradigm as if it were a religion. Their whole worldview has been called into question by their inability to create a theory of everything. The obstacle in their path is that both of their most cherished theories are wrong, or, rather, have been shockingly misinterpreted, and have no solid intellectual, logical, rational basis. Finagle’s Third Law says, “In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake.” In relation to science, this should be recast as, “The theories most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, beyond any possible challenge, that are the adamantine foundations of science, are the mistake.” Science is now full of groupthink careerists with no imagination. They are science’s greatest problem. They have failed to do what any rational group of people does when it is confronted by absolute failure – i.e. goes

back to first principles and checks all of the most basic assumptions to see if they are tenable. Science has failed for a simple reason. It assumes that it is ontological, while mathematics is not. In fact, it is mathematics and not physics that is the ground of actual existence. The final theory of everything is a 100% mathematical theory, and it already exists. Its Illuminism, the theory first formulated by Pythagoras two and a half thousand years ago, and which the Illuminati have been developing ever since. Science has become an embarrassment. The source of its problem is that, like the Gnostic Demiurge, it believes itself the True God when it is in fact the False God and the ape of God. The True God is mathematics. Take math away from science, and science collapses. Need any more be said? Can anyone seriously believe that the way forward for science lies within its current Meta Paradigm? If that were possible, why hasn’t it already happened? Science’s problem is that it refuses to undergo a paradigm shift because it’s now a quasi religious faith – in materialism and empiricism. Science needs new thinking but it has no new thinkers, just groupthinkers. The scientific method is simply not designed for finding a rational way forward. It relies on people coming up with contingent, arbitrary hypotheses. It has nothing to do with a deductive, necessary, analytic, systematic procedure. In other words, science’s problem is that it isn’t mathematics!

The Sun The Invisible Sun – The Intelligible World. The Visible Sun – the Sensible World. Which sun provides your light? Do you follow the light of reason, or the light of a bizarre sensory ball in the sky?

Non-Zero The great secret of mathematics is that zero is different from all other numbers because it is always a resultant of things and never a thing in itself. There is no individual entity that corresponds to zero. There is no zero-energy wave. Zero is the perfect, and mandatory, balance point

between positive and negative numbers. Science says that two things cannot get arbitrarily close to each other (since forces shoot off to unacceptable infinities). M-theory seeks to make it impossible for two things to get arbitrarily close to each other by positing 1-dimensional string loops that bump into each other and never meld into each other (with all the problems that would cause in terms of the materialist ideology). Mathematically, anything that is the perfect negative of something else can exist in perfect harmony with that thing as a united “nothing”. “Nothing” is always the resultant of two or more balanced things, and cannot exist independently of things. As we have seen, true “nothing” is the static mathematical point that has absolutely no effects, and does not exist. A black hole singularity is not “nothing”, but a place where many things, positive and negative, exist in perfect balance. Dimensionless existence is not “nothing” but, rather, dimensional existence that is perfectly balanced between positive and negative, hence converted into a resultant nothing. Dimensional existence is asymmetrical, while dimensionless existence is symmetrical. It’s all in the symmetry. It’s all in the math! The universe, overall, always has a net resultant of zero. This is the compulsory ground state of existence. What about infinity? Infinity is the flip side of zero. Since it’s derived from a resultant, it’s not itself a thing but is also a resultant. “Infinity” simply means that, unless there is a sufficient reason to prevent it, there is no limit on the number of things that can be brought together to create a net resultant of zero. Zero is the resultant, infinity is the scale of that resultant, and that scale is unbounded unless there is a reason why it should be bounded. (In fact, there is possible reason: we live in universe that has a highest possible number because the universe is based on the circle and the circle always returns to itself in a finite number of steps if it is defined by a “flowing point”: a point that has a tiny magnitude. We simply divide the circumference by the 1-D flowing point, and we always get a finite number, albeit immensely large. You can’t get true division by zero.) Infinity is an abstraction. It has no ontological status. Ontologically, it must be replaced by “Myriad”, the largest possible ontological number. Zero is the smallest possible abstract number, and infinity is the highest possible abstract number. Ontologically, the flowing point is the smallest possible number, and Myriad is the highest possible number. Yet these two systems of numbers – abstract and ontological – must sit together. To get

from one to two on the number line, a flowing point must pass through infinite points. The flowing point itself is 1D (finite), yet, as it moves forward, it must pass through every conceivable point, of which there are an infinite number. In terms of eix = cos x + i sin x, every x must be specified to an infinite number of decimal places. We can’t help but be involved in a system that involves a finite (ontological) order and also an infinite (abstract) order. We might say that the abstract is contained within the ontological. Mathematics is holographic – the whole is in the parts – and all the x’s are implicit in the flowing point’s trajectory. You can’t get one without the other. There is nothing permanent except change. The single formula that defines change is the God Equation. Change is ordered and mathematical, not chaotic and random. “Infinity” is about eternal repetition of numbers and not about a truly unlimited number that can never be specified, defined, reached, or analysed (which would destroy ontology).

***** Note that negative numbers cannot be considered “less” than zero. Negative numbers are simply positive numbers viewed from a different symmetry perspective. Only zero is dimensionless. Everything dimensional is larger than the dimensionless.

The Key The key idea to Illuminism is that myriad analytic energy waves (sines and cosines), which can never degrade (they repeat forever, with no loss of energy because they are perfect mathematical systems), are contained in myriad monads. Only perfect reason can sustain an energetically perfect process. Nothing “physical” can do so.

Causality David Hume denied causality. Science has not defined causality, and increasingly replaces it with probabilities. Hinduism has not defined causality. Karma can never be explained in terms of rational causality.

Causality can be defined solely mathematically. Without math, there can be no causation.

Dimensions The basic dimensionality is 2D: one space axis and one time axis orthogonal to it (in the complex plane). The 6D universe has three space and three time axes. The 6D spacetime universe is tied to a 0D Singularity of frequency. All Einsteinian “frames of reference” belong to spacetime, but all exist in an absolute, not relativistic, relation to the Singularity. You cannot privilege the dimensional over the dimensionless, as science does. In fact, the dimensionless is the more fundamental. You cannot privilege the sensory over the non-sensory, as science does. In fact, the nonsensory is the more fundamental. You cannot privilege the evolutionary (mutable) over the non-evolutionary (immutable, eternal), as science does. In fact, the non-evolutionary is the more fundamental. Science gets everything wrong in terms of ultimate reality. It simply isn’t designed for anything other than force-fitting mathematical guesses to observable patterns. It has no utility beyond that. That’s a fact. The pattern of ultimate reality has nothing to do with the senses. It’s the pattern of the Big Bang Singularity – the purely mathematical entity that preceded the formation of the scientific world of space, time and matter.

Truth How can we know for certain what is true and what is not true? The only things that are infallibly true are analytic tautologies and identities. The whole of ontological mathematics comprises mathematical tautologies.

The Nutters MS: “Math doesn’t exist. It’s only an idea made up by humans.” It certainly wasn’t made up by you, you moron. You can always tell that someone who makes an absurd statement such as this is a member of the God Squad. Sure enough, we find MS making the following statement: “Hey guys!!! Hope you’re all doing well!!!!!!!! Something that I just asked pastor Green about, and something I’d like to ask you all as well is do we truly have free will? God knows all. He knows all of our past actions and the actions that will come. In addition, I believe that God has made me for a purpose. So in a certain way I don’t feel like I have free will at all because

God made me for a particular purpose and I will live my life fulfilling that purpose. In other words, I already have a predetermined destiny that God has made for me and there is nothing I can do to change it. Is that really free will? Or is it possible for me not to fulfil what God has planned out for me? And if so does that mean it is possible to influence God’s ultimate plan? Just been something I’ve thought about the last couple nights. Am I thinking about this the wrong way? Do I have a point? Any scripture that answers this question? Let me know your thoughts.” Hey, MS, here’s a thought for you – your God doesn’t exist. He was made up by humans, just as you say math was! (After all, why should math be manmade and God not be?) Try ontological mathematics if you want the answer to free will. But, oops, you’re a mathematical ignoramus, aren’t you?! What a tough life it must be for any rationalist living in America, surrounded by all these religious nutjobs!

***** MS: “Math is something we made up to express various units and values. Do I need a foreign language to understand someone that speaks differently than me? No. Action tells us more than language.” WTF! It’s actually impossible for rational people to debate with irrational people. Irrationalists never make clear, analytic points. Their thoughts are totally jumbled and disorganised. Maybe we should get MS to talk to a Japanese person and see how much he understands him. All will apparently be clear to MS via “action” and not language. Maybe MS expects the Holy Spirit to descend on him and the Japanese person, and translate for them.

Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) “I was watching an episode of PBS’ NOVA a few weeks ago that asked an old question: Why is math so unreasonably effective at describing the world? One school maintains that math is an arbitrary formal system that is effective only insofar as it is because we choose problems that are easily solved using math. The other side maintains that math works because it represents an underlying reality; the structure of the universe is the structure of mathematics (and vice versa), and by discovering math we are

discovering the underlying nature of the universe. Max Tegmark is a member of the school that believes in the reality of mathematics, and was, in fact, the main defender of that view on the NOVA episode. To understand the reasons for his belief, we have to back up a few hundred years and start where Tegmark begins his book, asking questions about the pieces that make up the observable universe.” – From Michael J. Edelman’s Amazon review of Max Tegmark’s Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality We are the true defenders of the thesis that the world is made of math. This assertion equates to the claim – one that Tegmark certainly doesn’t support – that the world is mental and rational (i.e. intellectual). Science equates to the claim that the world is material and empirical (i.e. sensory). Everything comes down to whether or not you regard your intellect or your senses as the means to establish the answer to existence. An intellectual world is not a material world. A sensory world is not an intellectual world. It has no intellectual, rational answer that we can work out by the power of thought. “For thousands of years, from the time humans first began to speculate about the nature of the world, it was assumed that the world we see was the actual world that existed. A corollary of that was that if we divided the world into smaller pieces, those pieces would obey the same laws that we see in the larger universe. Twenty-five hundred years ago, Democritus proposed that all things could be physically divided into smaller and smaller parts, until they could be divided no further, and those pieces would still have the same qualities as the things one started with. That view held until the end of the 19th Century – specifically, until 1897, when J.J. Thompson first discovered evidence of the existence of the electron. Even so, electrons, and the later-discovered protons and neutrons were still assumed to obey predictable laws that reflected the same kinds of phenomena we observe in our daily lives.” – Michael J. Edelman Why should we be able to divide things into smaller and smaller pieces, and yet suddenly reach an arbitrary limit? Why that limit and not something smaller? Why not infinite divisibility? Why don’t we reach things (monads) that don’t exist in space at all, and which it’s impossible to further subdivide? These questions have haunted philosophy, science and mathematics. Modern science has come nowhere near answering them. In

fact, it has enormously muddied the waters by introducing the notion of ontological indeterminacy. “That world came to a crashing halt in the early 20th Century, first in 1905 with Einstein’s papers, and then in the years between 1905 and 1926 when de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and others outlined the first quantum theoretical view of the atom. In the quantum world, things do not behave in a predictable, deterministic manner. Positions and velocities of particles could only be described in probabilities, not absolutes. Worse, particles could wink in and out of existence. Matter appeared and disappeared in empty space, seeming to violate the most basic assumptions of thermodynamics. And then things started to get really weird.” – Michael J. Edelman Of course, it’s not real particles that wink in and out of existence. It’s particles – as fallaciously interpreted by scientists – that have this magic property. Real particles do none of the things claimed for them by the supporters of empiricism and materialism. There are no real cats that behave like Schrödinger’s cat. Things aren’t true simply because scientists say they are. Scientists, it must never be forgotten, are really bad philosophers, and what they are inflicting on you is their hopeless ideology. The only impressive thing about science is math, and when that’s removed all that remains is science’s hopeless philosophy. “Physicists struggled over the interpretation of these curious theories. The implications were bizarre, counterintuitive – but the math worked. In fact, it worked better than anything else. Eventually physicists decided to try not to think about the weirdness, and just do the math, and that approach yielded decades of productive theory and practical applications, like transistors, lasers, and GPS. But some scientists kept thinking about what the math meant. Various counter-intuitive, but mathematically rigorous, solutions to the problem floated around the periphery of modern physics. Ideas like parallel worlds, where every possible solution to quantum uncertainty existed in some possible world. Physicists who wrote about these ideas were typically marginalized. But in recent years some of these ideas have begun to achieve a certain degree of respectability. Physicists now talk about parallel worlds.” – Michael J. Edelman

If you keep thinking about what math “means”, you of course eventually realise that math means math... that math is real, that math is ontological. Mathematics explains reality so well because reality is mathematical. There is no other conceivable explanation. Reality can’t be like mathematics, yet not mathematics. Nothing is like mathematics. Science isn’t like mathematics. Science is mathematics, but with an absurd manmade philosophy of empiricism and materialism laid over it. Remove the math from science, and science is like a religion, not like math. “Max Tegmark is a physicist whose principal area, cosmology, is very much mainstream physics. But Tegmark has long maintained an interest in making sense of the counterintuitive math of quantum mechanics. He has looked into the past work of physicists like Hewitt and Wheeler and taken their work a step further to an even more radical notion: That the underlying nature of existence is not particles, waves, or any physical manifestation; it is pure math.” – Michael J. Edelman The underlying nature of existence is pure, analytic, mathematical waves (sines and cosines) – the true vibrating “strings” – which exist dimensionlessly and permanently. “Tegmark begins his exploration of the nature of reality by looking at the implications of Alan Guth’s cosmic inflation and the models that derive from it. If inflation is true, then there are infinitely many regions of space where inflation continues, and each of these regions becomes cut off from other regions of space. This leads to what Tegmark terms the Level I Multiverse: Infinite space. If space is indeed infinite, every possible solution to the quantum equations must exist somewhere – in fact, multiple copies must exist. It gets weirder. Somewhere there must exist an identical Earth, with an identical you, as well as a great many near-copies.” – Michael J. Edelman It’s fallacious to say that in an infinite universe, all possible solutions must exist. Cantor proved that some infinities are larger than others. It’s easy to imagine infinite solutions that will never be realised. The infinite set of integers is tiny compared with the infinite set of real numbers. How can Tegmark know what type of infinities he is dealing with, and if they are compatible and of the same order? And what about the Leibnizian doctrine of compossibility whereby things must not only be possible but also

possible in relation to other things; in fact with the maximum number of other things. There is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that there must be identical copies of us. This is expressly forbidden in Leibnizian terms, where no two things are identical (if they were, they would be the same thing!), and everyone has a unique soul. “The next possibility, Level II, is what happens if string theory is right, and the equations that describe the world have potentially an infinite number of possible solutions, and hence define an infinite number of possible universes. In these different universes, even the rules of physics would be different from our own. They’re still in the same infinite physical space that we occupy, but are moving away from us at the speed of light, and so are forever isolated from us and from each other.” – Michael J. Edelman There is no sufficient reason for any of this. It’s pure speculation. Scientists can’t even explain one version of physics, so their “answer” is to avoid explanation by claiming that there are infinite versions of physics. This is the biggest violation of Occam’s Razor and the principle of sufficient reason that you can possibly get. “The Level III Multiverse draws on the work of Hugh Everett, who in 1956 proposed something that sounds simple, but that has far reaching implications: The Schrödinger wave function never collapses. In other words, there is no ‘superposition’ of quantum states, as modern physics describes it; instead, every solution to the quantum wave function corresponds to a state of affairs that exists in some universe. Collectively, these universes compose the Level-II multiverse. These multiverses all existed in the same physical space, occupying different dimensions, unable to communicate with each other (although some have proposed that gravity leaks from one multiverse to another, which would explain why it’s so weak).” – Michael J. Edelman This is merely to pile absurdity upon absurdity. “Level IV draws on the question I asked at the beginning of this review: Why is it that the physical world corresponds so closely to the mathematical entities we use to describe it? Tegmark begins by noting that all our physical theories really have two parts. One is the pure mathematical description of what we observe. These structures can be freely manipulated, and (assuming our equations are correct, and we do the math right) the

result still corresponds to the observed world. The other component of theory is what Tegmark calls the ‘baggage,’ the physical entities that humans introduce in order to give the equations a physical reality. No one has ever observed an electron or a neutrino, only the results of a measurement; in a sense these are imaginary objects that only serve the purpose of making it easier for us to visualize the mathematical entities we compute.” – Michael J. Edelman All scientific particles are heuristic fictions. Tegmark is absolutely right that science is weighed down by manmade baggage (it’s science that’s manmade, not math). This is where humans abandon reason and start engaging their feelings, senses, mystical intuitions, and so on. A nonmathematical entity called “matter” is invoked, even though no one can define it. When you try to define matter, you end up with math and mathematical measurements, i.e. matter is just a mislabelling and misinterpretation of math. “What if, Tegmark asks, we could simply calculate the state of the universe without reference to these convenient physical objects? We’d be left with a set of abstract entities and a set of relations that applied between them. We could even dispense with the idea of time. Trajectories would not be laws describing forces acting on objects, but full descriptions of what appear to us to be histories. Objects we see as moving in space and time would have a description more akin to a four-dimensional mass of tangled spaghetti. The question of how the Universe came into existence becomes moot; the Universe just is. And if the description of the Universe can be reduced to a pure mathematical object without reference to physical objects, it follows, for Tegmark, that the ultimate nature of the Universe is mathematical. All else is an invention of our minds.” – Michael J. Edelman The express purpose of ontological mathematics is to reduce physical, unintelligible, indefinable, “sensory” objects to mathematical, intelligible, definable, “rational” objects. To answer existence, you must migrate from the sensible to the intelligible, from the empirical to the rational, from the scientific to the mathematical. Why is math at the heart of science? Because the rational is the origin of the empirical. There could be no empirical content without rational form to carry it and contain it.

“That’s a tough notion to wrap your mind around; we all perceive the universe as consisting of solid objects that we can touch and feel, and here Tegmark’s telling us that the universe really just consists of information. Intuitively we want to reject that notion, as it doesn’t correspond with our experience. And yet science has demonstrated again and again that universe consists largely of things that don’t actually appear to have substance. Atoms consist mostly of nothing; what we perceive, when we perceive the world, is force, not particles. As we peer more deeply into the subatomic world, searching for the ultimate ‘stuff’ of which the universe is composed, we find that there isn’t a lot of ‘stuff’ there; we may not want to accept Tegmark’s ideas completely, but we don’t have a lot of grounds for rejecting them outright.” – Michael J. Edelman The battle is between our perceptions (senses) and reason (intellect). If the universe can be grasped by our reason, it must be rational. If it cannot be grasped by our reason, it cannot be rational. A sensory universe cannot be a rational, intelligible universe. There is no connection between rational objects and sensory objects. We can exactly define a sine wave. No one has any idea what a scientific “particle” is. Such particles are not analytic. They cannot have a meaningful, ontological definition. We can apply measurements to them, and nothing else. We cannot know them. We can know sinusoids. “What makes this book a particularly delightful read is that all these mindbending ideas are presented in the context of a fascinating and charming autobiography. We follow Tegmark from his undergraduate days and through graduate school, post docs, and into his academic career, and along the way we’re introduced to many of the great minds whose ideas Tegmark presents. He’s more than generous giving credit where credit is due, and acknowledging his own mistakes along the way. His admiring portraits of those physicists who inspired him, like Wheeler and Guth, show the generous nature of the man – although he is more than willing to attack what he thinks are misguided ideas – like Penrose’s notion that consciousness is mediated by quantum processes in neurons – head on. This is an excellent introduction to some of the more interesting ideas at the forefront of quantum theory as well as an interesting portrait of an interesting man.” – Michael J. Edelman

Tegmark is the classic example of a scientific careerist. He knows he would destroy his career if he became an outright ontological mathematician, so he adopts the stratagem of agreeing that all of the “big” theories of science are basically right, but suggests they are subsets of a bigger, all-encompassing mathematical theory. In ontological mathematics, on the other hand, we explicitly repudiate all scientific theories, and demonstrate that they are fallacious versions of ontological mathematics.

***** “The core book thesis is since the smallest building blocks of reality (quarks inside atoms for example)... have only number properties (no smell, or colour) then they are numbers. AND since we can describe all higher abstractions and concepts of our reality by those numbers only, then our reality with its ‘baggage’ also is only numbers! “What a leap! If you think you can buy this, then buy the book. “The author mentions a harsh letter from a reviewer warning him the papers he is submitting are not making sense and the author’s reaction is along the lines of ‘all great minds were ridiculed so I will march on’, hence the title of my review. [But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown]” – Tango, reviewing Max Tegmark’s book As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” People such as Tegmark are slowly catching on, but they still have such a long way to go. A number is both a form and a deliverer of content. Imagine a number as being akin to a piano note. Each number delivers an exact content, as part of an organised series. All the numbers together constitute the ontological piano of the cosmos. On it, any tune can be played. Infinite tunes are possible. The piano notes never alter, but the music they play is always changing. So it is with numbers. All of the numbers are rationally fixed, but they can generate infinite combinations, corresponding to a myriad of empirical content. Numbers provide us with two views of reality. We can study the numbers themselves and their rational relations (this is mathematics, the subject of the eternal and necessary), or we can study the empirical content

produced by temporal, contingent of numbers (this is science, art, Mythos, language, religion, philosophy, etc.). You cannot understand reality by listening to the music and ignoring the piano. Science is effectively a system which claims that all that exists are the different types of music, and nothing is playing the music. Our senses detect the perceivable music, but not the unseen, unobservable, mathematical piano. Given that science subscribes to the irrational doctrine that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, science doesn’t even contemplate any hidden piano. Instead, it says that there’s some unreal, abstract potentiality piano, which mysteriously and probabilistically plays a note whenever anyone puts their hand to their ear. You have no idea what note you are going to get, but you will probably get this note rather than that one. There is no real, eternal, necessary, immutable, Platonic piano out there. Well, do numbers actually exist, or don’t they?

Plato Plato, in attempting to reconcile the contradictory philosophies of Parmenides (there is no change; all change is illusory), and Heraclitus (everything is changing), produced a “two-worlds” solution. One world was perfect, immutable, noumenal, intelligible, transcendent, and eternal (i.e. Parmenidean). It was immaterial and outside space and time. Here we could find absolute, infallible Truth. The other world was imperfect, mutable, phenomenal, sensible, contingent and temporal (i.e. Heraclitean). It was material and inside space and time. There was no Truth to be found here, only opinion and belief. Science studies the changing world. Only mathematics can take us to the unchanging world of Truth... to the rational, intelligible laws of existence. Only math offers knowledge. It’s no surprise that science needs to rely on math to say anything meaningful. A temporal, contingent world cannot explain itself, and cannot create itself. It must be created from a world that exists eternally. Religious types claim that this is the world of “God” or the “Oneness”. In fact, it’s the world of ontological mathematics. Math is the true God!

*****

Abrahamists took up Plato’s ideas and posited two worlds: the truthful world of God, beyond science, and the deceitful, delusional world of man, studied by science rather than by faith and divine revelation. Nietzsche despised Plato’s two worlds, seeing this scheme as the basis of all attempts to run away from this world, and to refuse to engage with this world. Plato was right and Nietzsche wrong. However, the world of the beyond isn’t the world of idiotic religious belief and Mythos, as Nietzsche claimed. Rather, it’s the rationalist, Logos world of math. Nietzsche, sadly, was hopeless at math. That was his biggest failing.

***** No one can observe thoughts. Our senses can’t tell us anything about thoughts. The question is this... can our thoughts affect the material world? If they can, then materialism must be false because unobservable, nonsensory entities can therefore control matter. In order to avoid this conclusion, which is fatal to their ideology, scientific materialists are forced to claim that unobservable thoughts are “emergent” properties of material interactions (i.e. they are miracles), or inexplicable epiphenomena of material interactions (miracles!). Science has never had any means to address what mind is. It’s literally clueless, always has been, and always will be. You cannot explain mind via matter. You can, however, explain matter via mind... thanks to ontological Fourier mathematics and its respective frequency (mental) and spacetime (material) domains. Science denies the existence of free will. This is inevitable given a materialist conception of reality. Science denies meaning and purpose. Again, this is inevitable given materialism. Materialism is just another word for atheism and nihilism. If you accept that you have free will, you must reject science. If you accept that you can make your physical body move via your immaterial, non-sensory, unobservable thoughts, you must reject science. If you accept that existence has a rational, intelligible answer, you must reject science. Science is a Lie, a Mythos. Science is what you get when you reject your reason in favour of your senses. It’s irrational to privilege your senses over your reason, so all scientists are irrational. Mathematics is the antidote to science, the means of overcoming the sensible with the intelligible, the empirical with the rational.

What Humanity Failed To Grasp Humanity has never grasped that noumenal causes belongs to a separate order from phenomenal effects. Science has tried to replace causes with randomness, such is its empiricist loathing of all things noumenal. Causes are intelligible (mathematical), and effects sensible (available to experiment). The laws of science are inferred from experimental data. They are not themselves directly observed. Because they are interpretations, not facts, that’s why they keep changing. Never forget what Nietzsche said: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This would be exactly right if there were no noumenal domain of causes and absolute mathematical truth. Nietzsche, like scientists, dismissed the noumenal domain, but, unlike them, he realised that without some eternal Absolute (“God”, so to speak), all authentic knowledge was impossible. “God is dead” = “there is no absolute knowledge”. Science is happy to kill God, but refuses to concede that it is ipso facto mere opinion, conjecture, belief, hypothesis and interpretation. It thinks it’s dealing with “facts”, “evidence”, “reality” and “truth”. Nietzsche knew better.

Primes “Every whole number is either prime or can be made from multiplying together two or more prime numbers.... They’re the building blocks of all numbers. The primes are the most important numbers in mathematics.... How are the primes distributed through the universe of numbers?” – Marcus du Sautoy Such questions are the ultimate questions. They’re much more important than scientific questions. Science is for pedestrian, second-rate thinkers.

A Beautiful Subject Studies show that the brain reacts to beautiful mathematics in the same way as to magnificent art and music. Professor Semir Zeki said, “When one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.... To many of us mathematical formulae appear dry and inaccessible but to a mathematician an equation can embody the quintessence of beauty.”

According to a survey of mathematicians, the most beautiful formula is Euler’s identity: eiπ + 1 = 0. One person compared it to the finest of Hamlet’s soliloquies. Euler’s identity uses five fundamental mathematical constants (e, π, i, 0 and 1), and three basic arithmetical operations (addition, multiplication and exponentiation). The numbers e and π are both transcendental numbers, i is the “imaginary” number, and 1 and 0 are the two numbers of the binary system. Pythagoras’s theorem was also ranked highly.

***** “It seems to me now that mathematics is capable of an artistic excellence as great as that of any music, perhaps greater...” – Bertrand Russell “[Mathematics] gives in absolute perfection that combination, characteristic of great art, of godlike freedom, with the sense of inevitable destiny; because, in fact, it constructs an ideal world where everything is perfect and yet true.” – Bertrand Russell

Beautiful Faces “Facial symmetry has been shown to have an effect on ratings of attractiveness in human faces. More symmetrical faces are perceived as more attractive in both males and females, although facial symmetry plays a larger role in judgments of attractiveness concerning female faces.... In physical attractiveness studies, averageness describes the physical beauty that results from averaging the facial features of people of the same gender and approximately the same age. The majority of averageness studies have focused on photographic overlay studies of human faces, in which images are morphed together. The term ‘average’ is used strictly to denote the technical definition of the mathematical mean. An averaged face is not unremarkable, but is, in fact, quite good looking. Nor is it typical in the sense of common or frequently occurring in the population, though it appears familiar, and is typical in the sense that it is a good example of a face that is representative of the category of faces.” – Wikipedia Isn’t it remarkable that a very average face, in the mathematical sense, can be a very beautiful face (hence unaverage) in terms of how it’s perceived

and judged?

Avoiding the Freak Parade “A possible evolutionary explanation for averageness is koinophilia, in which sexually-reproducing animals seek mates with primarily average features, because extreme and uncommon features are likely to indicate disadvantageous mutations.... Facial symmetry is considered to be among many other characteristics related to health, beauty and facial and physical attractiveness. However there is dispute over whether increased facial attractiveness is solely due to changes in symmetry or averageness. Experiments show that symmetry and averageness make independent contributions to overall attractiveness. Averageness remains a significant predictor of attractiveness when the effect of symmetry is excluded. The results of these experiments rejected that the attractiveness of facial configurations could be solely due to associated changes in symmetry, and strengthened the evidence that facial averageness is attractive.” – Wikipedia As ever, mathematics – through symmetry and averageness – is the underlying explanation, even for something as apparently unmathematical as the human notion of beauty!

The Stranger Math is the strangest thing in the universe. Math is stranger than life, stranger than mind, stranger than consciousness, stranger than free will. In fact, math is the universe and math is life, mind, consciousness and free will.

Transcendental Idealism “Kant often describes transcendental idealism as the doctrine that we have a priori knowledge only of ‘appearances’ and not of ‘things as they are in themselves’ [or ‘things-in-themselves’].” – Roger Scruton So, here’s the problem. Are “appearances” and “things-in-themselves” distinct entities (i.e. there are objects that we can label as appearances, and there are other objects that we can label as things-in-themselves, without any appearance, such as Leibnizian monads) or are the appearances actually how things-in-themselves appear to us? Kant himself said, “All objects that can be given to us can be conceptualised in two ways: on the one hand as

appearances, on the other hand as things in themselves.” This seems to decisively indicate the latter view (i.e. a phenomenon is how a noumenon appears to us, and is not a separate entity). However, it has been argued that there is a fundamental ambiguity in what Kant says, and he seems to switch between the two opposed positions. Kant could be presenting a version of Descartes’ philosophy, with noumena as “unextended” things and phenomena as “extended” things. We can gain knowledge of phenomena, but not of noumena, hence we might as well not bother with noumena, other than using the noumenal domain as a dumping ground for anything non-empirical, such as “God”, the “soul” and free will. The noumenal domain thus becomes a get-out-of-jail-card to explain away things that cannot otherwise be explained in the phenomenal domain. We would then have exactly the same problem Descartes faced: how can these distinct substances (empirical versus non-empirical) coexist and interact? Kant’s philosophy improves on Descartes’ only if noumena and phenomena are the same things, hence there’s no substance dualism, only a problem of being able to perceive the surface appearance of something (phenomenon), but not its underlying, true self (noumenon). We still have a major problem in this view, but at least we have done away with the interactivity issue. The problem is now one of perception and not of fundamental logic and ontology. In ontological mathematics, noumena are monads and their contents, and all phenomena are mathematically generated from them (and are definitely not separate from them).

A Challenge Here’s a simple challenge to you to test whether you have any real understanding of Illuminism. What role does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle play in Illuminism? Bear in mind that everything in Illuminism obeys the principle of sufficient reason, is fully causal and fully ontological, i.e. there is no possibility whatsoever of a probabilistic understanding of quantum mechanics, as promoted by the Copenhagen School.

Maximum and Minimum “Since the fabric of the universe is most perfect and the work of a most wise Creator, nothing at all takes place in the universe in which some rule

of maximum or minimum does not appear... there is absolutely no doubt that every affect in the universe can be explained satisfactorily from final causes, by the aid of the method of maxima and minima, as it can be from the effective causes themselves... Of course, when the effective causes are too obscure, but the final causes are readily ascertained, the problem is commonly solved by the indirect method...” – Euler Science rejects teleology (final causes). Euler, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, did not. Why should we believe scientists over Euler? Where are science’s rational and logical arguments for rejecting teleology? It doesn’t have any. It only has its ideology and dogmatism. “To those who ask what the infinitely small quantity in mathematics is, we answer that it is actually zero. Hence there are not so many mysteries hidden in this concept as they are usually believed to be.” – Euler The infinitely small quantity is the monad! The monad must be the ontological basis of calculus. “A function of a variable quantity is an analytic expression composed in any way whatsoever of the variable quantity and numbers or constant quantities.” – Euler Functions are all about the properties, relations and changing interactions of numbers (which, ontologically, are sinusoids).

Different Waves Electromagnetic waves are unique. For all other wave types, such as sound waves, vibrating string waves and tidal waves, the energy of the wave depends only on its amplitude. In electromagnetic waves, frequency cannot be ignored, as proved by the photoelectric effect. Electromagnetic waves are fundamental waves, meaning that they cannot be decomposed or inherently changed by the medium in which they are travelling. Sound waves, and other such waves, by contrast, are nonfundamental and can be changed by altering the medium in which they are travelling. Sound waves, unlike electromagnetic waves, cannot travel through a vacuum. This is a key distinction that has not been accorded nearly enough attention. It raises the whole issue of what we really mean by a wave, and why one type needs a medium, and the other doesn’t.

In Illuminism, there are three types of wave: cosine waves (real space waves), sine waves (imaginary space waves, also known as “time” waves) and spacetime waves, which are cosine-sine hybrids. Cosine waves travel at the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) and have no temporal component (a clock attached to them would not tick). Sine waves also travel at light speed and have no spatial component (a ruler attached to them would never measure any spatial distance). Spacetime hybrids also travel at the speed of light, except this involves two inversely coupled speeds: a speed through space and a speed through time. As one goes up, the other goes down. Clocks on spacetime hybrid waves tick, and rulers measure – which is why they are dimensional and not dimensionless (material and not mental). Cosine waves travel along the real space axis, sine waves travel orthogonally to them, along the imaginary space axis, and spacetime hybrids travel in all radial axes in-between. Cosine waves are associated with chorans, sine waves with chronons (the time equivalents of chorans), and spacetime hybrids with “material” particles (spatial particles “in time”). Note that chronons are imaginary particles, hence are disregarded by mainstream physics. The discovery of chronons would decisively refute conventional physics, and go a very long way to proving that Illuminism is right. Unfortunately, finding a way to detect imaginary particles in a world dedicated to real-number measurements is highly problematic. A genius such as John Bell is needed to devise a suitable test. Are you such a genius? Can you make a world-historic contribution to knowledge?

Harmonics “Many oscillators, including the human voice, a bowed violin string, or a Cepheid variable star, are more or less periodic, and so composed of harmonics. Most passive oscillators, such as a plucked guitar string or a struck drum head or struck bell, naturally oscillate at not one, but several frequencies known as partials. When the oscillator is long and thin, such as a guitar string, or the column of air in a trumpet, many of the partials are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency; these are called harmonics. Sounds made by long, thin oscillators are for the most part arranged harmonically, and these sounds are generally considered to be musically pleasing. Partials whose frequencies are not integer multiples of the fundamental are referred to as inharmonic. Instruments such as cymbals,

pianos, and strings plucked pizzicato create inharmonic sounds.” – Wikipedia The fundamental frequency is called the first harmonic, the second harmonic is twice the fundamental frequency, the third harmonic is three times the fundamental frequency, and so on. This series is called the harmonic series. If the fundamental frequency is f, the harmonics have frequencies of 2f, 3f, 4f, etc. Pure sinusoidal waves contain only the fundamental, with no harmonic overtones.

Waves Classical theory describes radiation in terms of continuous waves. Quantum mechanics introduces wave-particle duality. Here’s the fundamental question. If you think of a wave in its most pristine form – a pure sine wave – how is its energy distributed? Is the wave an actual thing, with energy distributed uniformly along its entire length? But this is absurd since sine waves are infinite, hence would have infinite energy all at once, and would affect everything. The alternative is that a sine wave is not an actual thing across its whole range but rather a potentiality, with its actuality being concentrated in the “flowing point” – the prototype of a particle (a concentrated entity). The wave is its Aristotelian-Leibnizian internal form. The flowing point will express itself in motion, and that motion will follow a sine wave trajectory. The flowing point cannot stop. It will travel forever, and trace out an infinite sine wave. However, at any instant, it’s a particle in a specific location. It’s always a particle, but it’s internally programmed to have wave properties. It’s not a question of waves versus particles, or waves and particles. Rather, it’s about particles with wave behaviour built into them. There are no waves per se, only particles, but every particle is programmed with a wave formula. The ultimate source of waves in our world is the ocean, and ocean waves are of course made of molecules (particles) of water. Even here, we see that waves are actually grounded in particles. Classical theory is successful approximation for high intensity waves, where the number of photons is extremely large, and much less successful for low intensity waves where there are few photons of high energy.

A particle such as a photon has an inbuilt frequency, hence energy. As for amplitude, this is always one for a single photon, and otherwise it’s dependent on how many other photons are present.

Laser Beams A laser is a specially prepared beam of radiation where all of the photons are oscillating with the same frequency and phase. If a high-energy laser beam and a lower-energy microwave beam are carrying the same total amount of energy, it means that the laser beam contains a smaller number of photons, but compensates for this by virtue of each photon in the laser beam having more energy than each photon in the microwave beam. The area of a circle (πr2) can be regarded as a measure of the circle’s energy since the radius is equal to the amplitude, and energy is the square of the amplitude.

Frequency Versus Period and Wavelength Frequency is dimensionless. It involves a single number. Period and wavelength are dimensional. They involve a measurable distance between two points. They involve two numbers (and you subtract one from the other).

The Cosmic Speed Limit The speed of light, the cosmic speed limit, is fundamental to the operations of existence. Speed is defined as distance divided by time, so a car that travels 100 kilometres in one hour is therefore travelling at an average speed of 100 km per hour. The speed of light is best expressed as wavelength multiplied by frequency. The key fact about the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is that it is fixed. Any increase in a photon’s wavelength must be matched by a decrease in its frequency, and vice versa. In a universe defined solely by the God Equation, every sinusoid moves at the speed of light.

Although the speed of light is fixed, the energy contained in a photonic wave is not. As frequency increases, so does energy. It’s a remarkable fact that the presence of a vast amount of extra energy in a high frequency photon, compared with a low energy photon, results in no extra speed. All light waves are moving at light speed. There is no such thing as a wave that has no speed. Einstein claimed that a particle moving at constant speed in a straight line could in fact consider itself stationary – which would be tantamount to saying that any wave could consider itself stationary, a complete impossibility. Wave theory definitively refutes Einstein’s principle of relativity.

The Relativity Principle The principle of relativity is intimately connected with the existence, or not, of the ether. The ether provides an absolute, stationary framework against which everything is defined. If there is no ether then there is no absolute framework, hence any frame of reference can be chosen to act as the ether, i.e. if there is no absolute frame of reference (ether) then all frames of reference can call themselves the ether from their own perspective, and thus we get Einstein’s subjective, relativistic world where the reality principle has been destroyed. Einstein was a poor philosopher and believed that his special theory of relativity was consistent with objective reality. In fact, he destroyed objective reality since there can be an objective reality only if there is an absolute framework (ether), from which everything else can be viewed. We might call this the “God perspective”. Without it, any view becomes as important as any other view, hence subjectivity replaces objectivity, and relativism rules. There’s no overarching view of what’s going on in the universe. The fact that no physical evidence has been found for the ether does not mean that it does not exist (unless you’re an empiricist materialist like Einstein and the scientific establishment). In Illuminism, the ether is mental, not physical, hence it would be impossible for it to be detected by any physical experiment. The ether is in fact the frequency Singularity. It is there, outside space and time, that true reality lies. It is an absolute framework, which gives rise to an absolute Cartesian ontological grid underpinning spacetime and the material world. The ether is mathematical,

not physical. It can’t be detected by physical means. It is the necessary precursor and prerequisite for spacetime; the mathematical framework in which physical reality unfolds. As soon as an absolute, but unobservable, mathematical ether is accepted, Einstein’s relativistic ideology collapses. It’s interesting to note that although Einstein abolished the ether with his special theory of relativity, he produced the idea of a “warpable” spacetime for his general theory of relativity. This warpable spacetime is not any kind of physical substance, so what is it? Well, it’s an unobservable mathematical ether! In other words, Einstein got rid of Newton’s absolute space (conceived as a physical substance – ether) with his special theory of relativity, and then replaced it with warpable spacetime (not conceived as a physical substance) with his general theory of relativity, which implies that it is absolutely warping (everything objectively experiences the warping, as in the area around a black hole), not relativistically warping. As ever, philosophically illiterate scientists failed to notice that Einstein had thus replaced a physical ether with a non-physical ether, defeating the whole point of claiming that the ether did not exist. The ether does exist, but mathematically, not physically. So, nothing can be said to be stationary except the ether itself and all of Einstein’s relativistic speculations are exposed for the baloney they are. In effect, Einstein was claiming that you could have a light wave that travelled at zero speed – a total fallacy.

The Mirror Imagine that you were sitting on a train, looking at yourself in a mirror. What would happen if the train could travel at light speed? The light leaving your face wouldn’t be able to catch up with the mirror in order to be reflected, so your image would vanish. This was more or less the thought experiment that Einstein performed at age 16 and which was highly influential in his development of special relativity. Unfortunately, the theory already contains an unwarranted assumption – that a person travelling at speeds approaching light speed remains entirely unaffected. Therefore, the principle of relativity (that there is no absolute reference frame and everyone can consider themselves a stationary reference frame) is already included in this assumption, hence it can do nothing to prove the principle of relativity. In fact, the person in Einstein’s thought experiment would be

crushed to death by an absolute effect of length contraction, so the thought experiment is invalid.

Einstein Einstein is a classic example of someone who is very wrong, but ingeniously so. If you buy into his assumptions and dogmas, you buy into his conclusions. To see where has gone wrong, you have to be looking at his assumptions and conclusions from the perspective of a radically different Meta Paradigm (that of rationalism and idealism). In the theory of Special Relativity, Einstein pictured himself riding on a train, moving at incredibly high speeds. He envisioned himself staring at a mirror when the train reached the speed of light threshold. He considered that, should his image suddenly vanish from the mirror, he would be able to deduce his speed from this change, without any other outside information. He found this result to be unacceptable – and the only way to fix it was to presume that the speed of light is constant for all observers. The question is why do we need any outside information? The eternal truths of reason require no such outside information.

Time-Like Beings Given that our bodies are essentially stationary in space, human beings are quintessentially temporal beings. We are “timelike” rather than “spacelike”, and we are travelling at close to light speed through time (since virtually none of our speed is directed through space).

Illuminism What is Illuminism? It’s ancient Greek philosophy given a mathematical makeover, combined with the philosophical and mathematical rationalism of Descartes and Leibniz, the philosophical school of German idealism, the Will to Power of Nietzsche, the Collective Unconscious of Jung, and the mathematical rationalism of Gauss, Euler, Fourier and Riemann. Illuminism is philosophy and metaphysics combined with the GaussianFourier-Riemann coordinate grid, Pythagorean-Leibnizian monads, Leibnizian monadic calculus, Euler’s Formula, the Fourier Transform, the Riemann Sphere, and Holography.

We defy anyone to disprove Illuminism. To attempt to refute Illuminism is to assert that your knowledge is superior to that of mathematics, and that’s simply impossible. Of course, many irrationalists, New Agers, people of faith, scientific materialists, empiricists, atheists, and so on, will nevertheless say that mathematics is definitely not the answer to “life, the universe, and everything”. What’s for sure, however, is that they will never be able to present any rational argument to contradict us, or put any rational alternative in its place. We have seen countless messages on Facebook by idiots who say that mathematics doesn’t answer anything. Naturally, these people know nothing about mathematics and have never read the God Series. Their opinions are merely irrational, emotional, ill-informed, ignorant outbursts. Billions of people are terrified of mathematics, and entirely lost mathematically. The last thing they want the ultimate answer to be is mathematics. They will resist that conclusion to the bitter end. In other words, because they are useless at math, they will never accept math as the answer. People can only accept answers they understand, and since people can only understand simple emotional Mythos and religious faith, or religious mysticism, or sensory scientific materialism and empiricism, then those are the “answers” they respond to and believe. We say it time and time again: the truth is not for anyone. Mathematics is true and everything else is false. That’s a fact. Whether you like it or not is neither here nor there. The truth is rational, and only rational people can access it. The truth is intelligible, and only intelligent people can comprehend it. Reason is our only “organ for truth”... but only when reason is constrained by mathematical proof. It’s mathematics or nothing. If mathematics is not the answer, there is no answer. And that’s impossible. The universe is not a place of magic and randomness. It’s self-evidently a place of incredible mathematical order and organisation. We are not here to “convert” anyone. We don’t write holy texts. We’re not holy prophets. We don’t believe in miracles and we wholly reject faith. All we do is offer the mathematics of reality. Whether you understand it or not, whether you agree with it or not, is your problem, not ours.

Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism is an ancient expression of Illuminism. The “One” is the Singularity, the frequency domain, the source of all. “Nature” is the spacetime domain. Between the ineffable One and Nature are: 1) Nous (Mind/Spirit), something akin to Hegel’s Geist, and 2) Psyche (consisting of a collective Soul, and many individual souls), something like the collective and individual actions of Leibniz’s monads. Nature – the material world – is a construct, an emanation of higher mental processes. There’s no such thing as “matter” as defined by the classical materialists and scientists. Materialism is a wholly false ideology. Mind is the source of matter, not matter of mind. That’s one of the universe’s most indisputable facts. Hence scientific materialism is fatally false. If you find mathematics too difficult, your best alternative is to immerse yourself in the religions of the Western Esoteric tradition. These are: 1) Orphism, the immediate precursor of Pythagorean Illuminism, 2) “Platonism”, the religion described by Plato in the Timaeus, and based on Plato’s understanding of Pythagorean Illuminism (Timaeus is explicitly described as a Pythagorean), 3) Hermeticism, 4) Gnosticism, 5) Mithraism and 6) Neoplatonism (modelled on the Timaeus and seeking to reconcile Plato and Aristotle). These are pagan rivals to the monstrous religions of Abrahamism (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Everything that the Christians found useful was gutted from the esoteric religions and found its way into Catholicism. To some extent, Catholicism isn’t an entire write off since it still reflects esoteric pagan thinking. During the Reformation, however, Protestantism rid itself of every trace of paganism and esotericism, leaving nothing but Biblical literalism. Protestantism, therefore, is a religion with no redeeming qualities. When Luther declared that reason is the Devil’s whore, he summed up the hatred Protestants have for rationalism and how wedded they are to faith, revelation and scriptural “infallibility”. Kabbalah is an esoteric Jewish rip-off of the Western esoteric tradition. While there are some interesting ideas in Kabbalah, this is a dangerous religion because it drags you into the orbit of Judaism, and that of the Jewish Devil-God Jehovah (the same deity the Gnostics identified as the Demiurge, the Satanic tyrant of the material world). Kabbalah is the core religion of the Brotherhood of the Shadows and reflects their obsession with the Golem and the Dybbuk, and, indeed,

combines the two: 1) “In Jewish folklore, a golem is an animated anthropomorphic being, created entirely from inanimate matter. The word was used to mean an amorphous, unformed material in Psalms and medieval writing. The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late-16thcentury rabbi of Prague. There are many tales differing on how the Golem was brought to life and afterwards controlled.” – Wikipedia 2) “In Jewish mythology, a dybbuk (from Hebrew ‘adhere’ or ‘cling’) is a malicious or malevolent possessing spirit believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person. It supposedly leaves the host body once it has accomplished its goal, sometimes after being helped.” – Wikipedia

The Timaeus “Plato’s cosmogony is set forth in the Timaeus, which was translated into Latin by Cicero, and was, moreover, the only one of the dialogues that was known in the West in the Middle Ages. Both then, and earlier in Neoplatonism, it had more influence than anything else in Plato... The place occupied by Socrates in the earlier dialogues is taken, in the Timaeus, by a Pythagorean, and the doctrines of that school are in the main adopted, including (up to a point) the view that number is the explanation of the world.” – Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy The Timaeus is a key esoteric text, though it is dismissed as nonsense by Bertrand Russell. Given that he also ridiculed geniuses such as Hegel, Nietzsche and Bergson, his opinions carry no weight.

***** Illuminism is the necessary prerequisite for humanity to become divine. It’s up to humanity whether or not it accepts the gift offered to it in the God Series. The individual members of the Illuminati have a divine future regardless of what humanity as a whole chooses. The Illuminati’s success is in no way tied to that of the human race. Given how perverse, irrational, vain, deluded, ignorant and deranged most human beings are, it would fully reflect human nature to turn aside from the Holy Grail. Isn’t that what humanity always does? Does it ever learn?

Space Imagine taking countless different pictures of a town via a Google Map procedure. Where are all these images stored physically on a Google server? Are they in sequential order, all neatly packed into a tiny portion of a physical hard drive? Or are they all over the drive, in completely disparate physical locations (in fact what do we even mean by “physicality” in relation to how and where things are stored on a hard drive)? In fact, everything has a logical address, a numerical coordinate address so to speak, and it’s with these that we can link all of the photos in the correct sequence. Every image has a hyperlinked html address, and from any image (a particular perspective), we can hop to any other image (perspective) of our choosing. We might say, metaphorically, that all the images are “quantumly entangled”. If we were imagining this as a dynamic movie system rather than a set of still images, then any change in any part of the town would instantly be captured by all the different perspectives. Each part is in the whole. Thus, this is actually a holographic system. Things don’t have to be physical at all, or have meaningful physical locations, for us to be able to operate as if they did. All we need are unique mathematical coordinates, mathematical and logical relations, and hyperlinks between them all, and we have a system that looks physical without being physical. That’s the essence of holograms. They produce an immensely powerful illusion of the physical, without being physical. They are mathematical. That’s the whole point of Illuminism and ontological mathematics. Matter is a mathematical, mental chimera. There’s nothing solid there at all. It’s our senses that create the impression of “solidity”. But there are no solid things at all, just mathematical relations. We can have infinite monads within a Super Singularity, and it doesn’t matter where any of them really is in order for us to create what seems like a perfect coordinate grid. All that actually matters is its logical, mathematical set of relations. The whole of existence unfolds within just one Super Point comprising infinite sub points (monads), and these points can create an infinite and perfect coordinate grid via Fourier spacetime projection. No coordinate grid physically exists. It’s a logical, mathematical ordering of points within a Super point.

Circular Numbers All numbers are “circular”. They all return to the beginning. All numbers are part of a “bounded infinity”.

Subject-Object The universe is, in some sense, 100% subjective since it’s made of nothing but subjective minds. However, these are also analytic mathematical objects, hence, from another view, the universe is 100% objective.

The Argument From Reason Arguments from reason are entirely different from arguments from “evidence”. The latter are about the senses and have nothing to do with reason. If you privilege the senses over reason, you are ipso facto an antiintellectual, as all scientists are. Scientists are people of the senses, not people of the mind. No sensory argument can demonstrate the existence of the dimensionless mind. Rational arguments can easily demonstrate its existence, as we have shown. Reason says that the mind is the basis of reality. The senses say there is no such thing as mind. This means that people of reason will arrive at a 100% different view of reality from sensing types. There is only one reason why science seems to be more powerful than it actually is... because it uses mathematics, hence automatically partakes of mathematical rationalism (which has nothing to do with the senses). Science is a fraud. It’s about empiricism and the senses, yet what makes it work is its mathematical rationalism, and science cannot even define mathematics. Rational arguments will take you down an entirely different road from sensory arguments. You had better make your choice. You cannot ride two horses at once. Science takes us down the sensory road, and mathematics down the rational road. Only the latter road leads to an intelligible, definitive answer to existence. Unless you believe that the ultimate answer to existence is a) sensory, and b) this ultimate sensory thing can be completely “known” by us, you must reject science. Take the supposed existence of matter, upon which science is predicated. Can any scientist define “matter” ontologically and epistemologically? Bishop Berkeley trashed the whole concept of “matter”, and has never been

refuted. Hume poured total skepticism on it. Kant projected mental forms onto it. Leibniz had no need of the hypothesis of scientific matter in his Monadology, and was able to reduce it to a well-founded phenomenon generated by minds. There is no ultimate “matter” in Hegel’s philosophy. So, unless you can refute all of these geniuses, and many others (good luck with that!) then it’s impossible for you to claim that your senses allow you to detect some ultimate sensory reality, some ultimate “matter” that explains everything else, and can be completely known via the senses, and not via reason, logic and intellect (which have nothing to do with the senses). The existence of the soul flows entirely from rationalist arguments. Sensory arguments will automatically repudiate the existence of the soul since the soul is defined as non-sensory. So, here you have the fundamental choice you have to make in life: do you go with your senses (science), or with your reason (mathematics)? You will arrive at an entirely different understanding of reality depending on what path you go down. Mathematics leads to rationalism and idealism. Science leads to its opposite: empiricism and materialism. Mathematics is about the mind as the true reality. Science is about the non-mind (matter) as the true reality. These are literally the opposite worldviews. The only reason why the unbridgeable difference between the mathematical worldview and the scientific worldview isn’t self-evident to everyone is that science is dependent on mathematics, hence the blurring of the distinction between science and mathematics. Logically, science, as an empiricist subject, has no right to use mathematics, the quintessence of rationalism (thus the opposite of empiricism). The whole intellectual basis of science rests on a fatal contradiction. It’s only the fact that this is systematically ignored – by everyone other than us – which allows the Scientific Lie to be so relentless and aggressively spread without challenge. Science – as an empirical subject – cannot lead to anything other than lies and irrationality. Science “works” only by cheating... by illegitimately embracing mathematical rationalism. Ontological mathematics ends this farce, and gets rid of scientific empiricism and materialism once and for all. The New Science will be about rationalism and idealism, which are 100% compatible with mathematics, and involve no fundamental contradiction. Reason and intellect must be the way forward, not the senses.

Experiments should play a minor role in science, not the defining role. Experiments have nothing to do with reason, logic and intellect. You can never have “physical” evidence of the soul. It’s not even clear what “physical” means, or “evidence” for that matter. “Evidence” has nothing to do with proof. Proof involves the absolute and infallible. A statement that is proved is proved forever. It cannot be unproved. None of this is true of “evidence” and science. Scientific theories come and go. Evidence gets replaced by new evidence incompatible with the first evidence, and so on. None of this is compatible with proof. Proof is rational, logical and intellectual. Evidence is sensory, but we already know that our senses are fallible, flawed, limited, delusional, subject to various illusions, and have evolved over many millennia, without any regard to Truth. Only a simpleton would reject rational proof in favour of irrational evidence. There is rational proof that the soul exists. There is no rational proof that it does not. There is no scientific sensory “evidence” that the soul exists, and there never can be since the soul is defined as something non-sensory and non scientific (the soul is strictly mathematical). There is no evidence that it does not exist. You get people talking about “feeling” that they have soul. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Rational people never deploy emotional arguments. A person said, “Reason would say what should be true, but what should be true doesn’t always turn out to be true.” This is nonsense. It’s impossible for what ought to be true not to be true. Anyone who lays claim to such a position is saying that the eternal truths of reason aren’t true, which is a contradiction in terms. As Hegel said, “The real is rational, and the rational is real.” It’s never true things that turn out not to be true. It’s the falsifiable claims of science that always turn out to be not true. A falsifiable claim by definition can never be true. If you don’t understand reason, don’t get involved in a rational argument. Your feelings, opinions, beliefs, conjectures, interpretations (misinterpretations!) are neither here nor there. It’s not Truth that changes, it’s your relationship with Truth. Can anyone deploy a single rational argument to support the extraordinary claim that what should be true doesn’t always turn out to be true? This represents a catastrophic failure to understand the concept of identity, tautology and analytic definitions. 1 = 1 can never be untrue under any circumstances. It’s impossible for it to be

untrue. All Truth is of exactly this kind. Nothing can subvert it. All the “evidence” in the world can’t refute it. All the faith in the world can’t dent it. The senses, emotions, and mystical intuitions can do precisely nothing to shake the Truth. When someone claims that “what should be true doesn’t always turn out to be true”, they are proving that they have no idea what the Truth is, and what character and nature it must have. It must be 100% immutable, 100% eternal, and 100% necessary. If someone thinks that the Truth has been disproven, they can be sure it’s their own dodgy thinking that has gone wrong. When someone says, “But what should be true doesn’t always turn out to be true”, what they mean is that they have no idea what a truth is, and they are willing to change their mind about a truth depending on the last argument they heard that seems subjectively appealing to them. You cannot change your mind about the Truth. The Truth is not subject to change. Someone can’t wake up tomorrow and say, “Actually, we’ve all been wrong that 1 = 1.” It’s the person that has gone mad. Nothing has changed regarding 1 = 1. And nothing ever could change. Part of the problem we have with trolls is that they have no idea what we are saying, and they keep projecting their own irrational feelings, beliefs and subjective opinions onto our work. They “refute” us (to their own satisfaction) by completely failing to understand what we said, and by bringing their own ridiculous misunderstandings to our work. Try to understand us before arrogantly pontificating about our work, and making a fool of yourself. Our critics invariably spout gibberish. A person claiming that the Truth can turn out not to be True is making a crazy assertion, reflecting their own failure to understand the concept of analytic, infallible Truth. We keep getting people bringing their same old sensory arguments to our work. Ontological mathematics has nothing to do with the senses. It’s about the noumenal, causal, non-perceivable rational reality that must underlie phenomenal existence in order to explain phenomenal existence. Phenomena can’t explain themselves. Even science – the empirical science of phenomena, we ought to say – has to resort to ridiculous “unreal”, abstract, mathematical potentiality wavefunctions that are supposedly collapsed by “observers” (though no mechanism is ever suggested for how

“real” observers can interact with “unreal” mathematics... it’s Cartesian substance dualism all over again). You cannot understand our work if you cannot relinquish your sensory obsession. Someone said, “There’s nothing to say that mind is not physical signals from your brain.” On the contrary, reason, logic and mathematics prove that this is impossible. Ontologically define “physical”, “signal”, “brain”. Good luck with that! Science is just a sensory Mythos, with a bunch of arbitrary, heuristic labels attached to it that have no rational, ontological and epistemological basis. We have been making this point across the millions of words of the God Series, yet we still get people bringing their idiotic sensory misanalysis to our work. Stop reading our work if you can’t abandon your autistic sensory mania. You will never understand our work. Our work is for the rational, logical and mathematical, not for irrational sensing types, feeling types and mystics. Someone said, “What’s to say that 0 is mind?” Reason says! Someone said, “What if 0 is just a useless domain that exists without matter?” What is “matter”? Has anyone refuted Bishop Berkeley? Someone said, “Sure there’s such a thing as nothing, but what is the nature of that nothing?” Read the God Series. Read this book! Someone said, “There’s nothing to connect mind to 0.” In fact, the whole of ontological mathematics makes this connection, and mandates it. Some people have no relationship with reason, logic and mathematics, and keep returning to emotional, sensory and mystical arguments. It’s a category error to get them confused. You either accept that the universe is 100% rational in its causal functioning, or you don’t. If you don’t, you are a supporter of irrationalism, and we are not interested in your irrational beliefs. SC: “If the mind is non-physical and exists without space and time, How can our thoughts be understood if they are all happening at once?” SC hasn’t understood anything we’ve said about space and time. He simply begs the question. He has assumed the necessity of space and time in making an argument concerning the non-existence of space and time (!).

Read any book on physics and it will tell you that photons do not experience time. How can something experience space and not time? Are there other particles that experience time but not space? Why not? How can something outside time interact with time? How can it have a speed? So, to SC and everyone like him, before you start using heuristic scientific arguments to attack our position, why don’t you first try to work out what science says about space and time? Is time an energy? If so, why can’t we detect time energy? If not, what is time? Is time tensed or tenseless? Can you travel back in time? Can you go faster than light speed, and travel back in time? What’s the difference between time and motion? Is there a timeless “block” universe, as Einstein claimed, yet with consciousness somehow miraculously in motion? Einstein said, “People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstein therefore believed that reality is timeless, in which case, to quote SC, “How can our thoughts be understood if they are all happening at once?” It’s fantastically irritating when people attack our position, while having no idea what position they themselves are endorsing (and no idea what position we are endorsing). These people frequently cite science, yet they are clueless about what science actually says. Science doesn’t have the vaguest idea what time is ontologically and epistemologically. These people bring their “common sense” notions to our work, yet our work is all about revealing the absurdity of common sense notions. Try reading the God Series end to end, and try to actually understand it, before you make facile Facebook statements about our position. You’re not in Kansas any more! Motion takes place in both a dimensionless world and a dimensional world. Things change in both. You need to understand the difference between motion in a dimensionless domain and motion in a dimensional domain before you can understand our arguments about existence outside space and time. Well, do you?!

Consciousness MC: “If mind is an emergent property of matter then at what point do unconscious neurons produce consciousness?” Excellent point. And what about pre-consciousness (bicameralism)?

MC: “‘If the mind is non-physical and exists without space and time? How can our thoughts be understood if they are all happening at once?’... By virtue of consciousness.” Well, can you refute MC’s answer? All of us are already having countless thoughts all at once. Our consciousness is that which selects which particular thought to focus on. You don’t need “time” to have motion and a succession of events. You just need energy... mental energy, and something to perform selection. Time is, as we have shown throughout the God Series, simply imaginary space, hence is not associated with motion and the succession of events at all. There are two types of motion: dimensionless (mental) motion outside space and time, and dimensional (physical) motion inside space and time. All mental activity takes place outside the material world, in the mental domain.

***** People bring their simplistic notions of space and time to our work, and thereby fail to understand anything we say. You can’t come to our system with your definitions. If you are intent on understanding our system, you have to use our definitions, not yours, not the Buddha’s and not science’s. When we attack science, or Buddhism, or whatever, the first thing we do is understand their system in their terms. Only then do we attack, by exposing the internal inconsistencies and contradictions of the system in question. Our attack is always from the angle of rationalism, and we are always showing how irrational such systems are, and how contemptuous they are of rationalism. Our position, on the other hand, comes under attack from people of faith, mystics, and from empiricists who refuse to engage with rational definitions. They find us wanting through their own misunderstandings, and their incapacity to accept and grasp rational arguments. Our critics are “incommensurate”. They are subjecting our system to considerations that we have already excluded. There’s no point talking to us about the human senses and perceptions when we have told you that these are no valid base from which to discuss eternal necessity. They are mired in contingency, temporality and fallibility. We are not supporters of science. We are supporters of mathematics. They are entirely different things. Mathematicians don’t need to perform

any sensory experiments, and don’t need to refer to the human senses at all. Let’s remind you of the most salient fact... mathematics doesn’t need science at all, while science without mathematics is useless. Go figure! Don’t bring scientific arguments to the courtroom of reason. They don’t get past the front door. Science is a sensory Mythos fraudulently using mathematics. That’s a fact. Ours is a Logos system that gets rid of the scientific belief system. If you can’t transcend your senses, don’t bother reading our books. You will never grasp their message. Would SC like to write to Kant to ask him about the status of space and time in the noumenal domain? If SC can’t understand Kant, how could he ever understand us?

Rational Things Rational things are not observable things. All rational things are “hidden variables”. The whole of mathematics in itself is not observable. We observe the effects of mathematics, not mathematics as cause. Any scientist who worships observation automatically rejects reason, intellect, noumena and causation. Science has indeed turned its back on all of these. Reason and logic have no formal role in science. Causation is rejected in favour of causeless probabilistic events. There are no noumena in science, only phenomena. Anyone who opposes our system is opposing reason itself. They are advocating that we should understand reality via unreason, which is of course a contradiction in terms, since unreason can never lead to understanding. All of our opponents are too stupid for our system. That’s exactly why they oppose it. We will always have the stupid as our enemies. They have nothing to gain from intelligence and Truth.

The Difference Between Humans and Animals Animals might be said to have a sensing left brain and a feeling right brain. The animal’s senses reveal the animal’s environment and its feelings then judge (evaluate) what it’s observing. Animals also have a degree of intuition. But, of course, they almost entirely lack reasoning skills. Not so different from most of our critics then! It’s always dangerous to think you are smarter than you are. Don’t shout your mouth off unless you’re incredibly smart. Don’t bother with “common sense”. That will get you nowhere.

The Enemies of Math “I do not suggest removing math from our arsenal of tools. But it is a tool. Nothing more. A tool that allows us to organize observations. It does not become our observations, and it does not have a physical existence on its own.” – ME On what basis does ME make any of these claims? “It is not at all certain that ‘everything happens for a reason’...” – ME Ah, so ME is definitely not using reason to make his case. He is a believer in unreason... in things happening for no reason. That makes him irrational, and all of his claims are infected by this inherent irrationality. He’s a believer in magic and miracles, like all scientists who reject reason. “It is not at all certain that ‘everything happens for a reason’, and certainly not a reason we humans can understand or comprehend.” – ME So, now ME is invoking mysticism. He’s denying that this is a rational, intelligible universe, which we, as rational people can work out. Why should the universe be a mystery to humans? What’s bizarre about these “mysterians” is that they shout down people who support the principle of sufficient reason, and they bluster and pontificate, yet they have already admitted that they regard existence as a mystery, in which case how can they be arguing with someone who doesn’t regard existence as a mystery? How can a believer argue with a rationalist and realist? Why would a rationalist and realist ever listen to a believer’s irrational claims? Similarly, why would a rationalist and realist listen to someone who believes in mysteries, and the absence of reasons? “That’s a pretty arrogant statement I definitely cannot agree with. Once again, it leads my thoughts to religion – which isn’t flattering.” – ME Er, ME is the “religious” and arrogant person... the person who has dismissed reason in favour of mystery. Bizarrely, he believes himself not to be religious, even though he denies reason. Reason is the only antidote to Mythos religion. “There is a huge difference between ‘being defined by’ and ‘being described by’. At this point you have not provided one iota of proof that

math defines physics instead of describing it. It is putting the wagon before the horse. As I said before, the leap between those two is a matter of belief, not proof. And I am not disputing your belief. I just don’t want to make it mine.” – ME ME has not provided any proof that physics is not defined by math. We, however, have given an exact rational proof that it is. ME has simply stated his personal belief, not a proof. He is a believer, a person who rejects reason and math in favour of unreason and mystery. He has not performed even the most basic task to check his belief. If physics isn’t defined by math, then clearly physics will lose nothing by abandoning mathematics. So, imagine physics without math. That works, doesn’t it? Not! Physics must be defined by something. If not mathematics, then what? ME is so complacent and sloppy, he hasn’t even bothered to suggest an alternative. Of course, he knows he can’t. He is a believer in physics and scientism. He is not a rationalist. ME is a typical apologist for science. He has quasi-religious faith in it. He believes in things happening for no reason, i.e. miraculously. He believes that physics has no definition (what, is it magic?). He sees no need to provide reasons and definitions. Like many scientists, he hates math. This is a Mythos person of religious faith, not a Logos person of reason and logic. He explicitly repudiates the principle of sufficient reason, yet considers himself rational. How irrational is that?! You are automatically irrational if you reject the principle of sufficient reason. Like any person of faith, ME will never change his beliefs despite the arguments of reason and logic proving he’s wrong. People such as ME can say all they like that something hasn’t been proved. That’s because you’re too stupid to understand the proof. If they reject rationalism, how can they accept a rational proof? It’s beyond them. The problem is with them, not with the proof. The word “physical” has no ontological and epistemological meaning. It’s an undefined belief. According to Bishop Berkeley, all of our ideas concerning supposed physicality are just that, i.e. ideas – mental things. So where is this alleged physical stuff? How could anyone ever know that stuff exists independent of their idea of stuff? What conceivable basis could there be for this Cartesian dualism? The only thing we know are our ideas. Therefore, they are what exist. We can’t have any idea of anything that isn’t an idea, so nothing non-mental can exist. The whole point of ontological

mathematics is that the sinusoids that define it are the basic units of mental activity. All ideas are constructed from sinusoids.

The Information Universe Is this a universe for gathering and perceiving information, or for evaluating and judging information? To gather information already presupposes that there is information to be gathered, which precedes the gathering of the information, hence can be evaluated without any actual gathering of information. This is what mathematics addresses. It deals with the form that information must have, not its particular empirical content.

Misattribution All of the success attributed to science should be attributed instead to math. Without math science would be an outright religion. Consider, for example, science without calculus. Why do people fall for science’s propaganda? Science has relentlessly attacked the reality of the mind, and, given that this is an entirely mental universe, science is 100% wrong. AM: “[Our Quote] Science is the Great Lie that must be overturned. It has replaced religion as the immense fraud that all intelligent human beings must resist and expose. “This is going too far. It is right and proper to point out the flaws that science has introduced, but the methodology of science has proven to work time and again. It (science) attempts to be self-correcting as more evidence, experiment and analysis is performed. Grandiose statements accusing science of being the Great Lie are not only incorrect, but grossly detrimental to the Illuminati. Science to date has been mankind’s great hope, not the Great Lie. The Illuminati need to celebrate that, add to it, not blindly attack it.” Anyone who claims that science is not a “Great Lie” is therefore claiming it’s true. In what conceivable way is science true? It denies mind, free will, purpose, causation, determinism, meaning, purpose, eternal necessity, ontology, epistemology and the principle of sufficient reason. It is inconsistent and incomplete. It can’t explain life and consciousness. It says that existence jumps out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism. It uses math – and would be useless without it – yet it has no idea what

math is. It relies on math, yet says that math is unreal, abstract and probably manmade. So, in what way is science not a despicable lie? AM is yet another apologist for the lies of science. We can’t have people such as that in our movement. They are grossly detrimental to our cause. We are accused of “blindly” attacking science. In fact, our attack on it could not be more clear-sighted, precise... and needed. AM is the person blindly defending science. He did not refute a single point we made, just made a typical, snarky, cheap attack on us. KB: “Science was once 100% deterministic (Newtonian) and now is 100% indeterministic (the Copenhagen interpretation of QM). Truth doesn’t do 180s. At any moment any theory can be completely turned on its head because science looks (literally) at the world through a certain philosophy (empiricism, scientific method).” Exactly so. AM: “It is a misunderstanding to say ‘science was once 100% deterministic and is now 100% indeterministic’. While it is true that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict with each other in their ultimate predictions, Newtonian Mechanics is simply a subset of Quantum Mechanics. The path of a ball or a bullet or a planet is certainly deterministic and accurately computed with Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics does not contradict that. My point is that science is the best methodology we have to date to discover truth, and that to make blanket statements saying ‘science is the Great Lie that must be overturned’ is ignorant and counterproductive.” In fact, quantum mechanics claims that a bullet fired on earth could end up on Mars! This shows how absurd it is, and how it has nothing at all to do with Newtonian mechanics. As ever, defenders of science have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re ignorant of what it is they purport to support, thus demonstrating how vital it is to overthrow this scientific citadel of anti-knowledge. Their attempted defence of science is ‘ignorant and counterproductive.’ They have no understanding of it. Math is the only worthwhile ingredient of science, and the war of reason must be waged relentlessly to stop anyone from believing that science has any claim to knowledge beyond mathematics.

A bullet ending up on Mars isn’t impossible, according to quantum mechanics, merely improbable. Probability, not ontology, not any deterministic laws of nature, stops Mars being peppered with bullets. However, given that science says that anything that can happen will happen, then a bullet appearing on Mars will definitely happen, given enough time, thus totally falsifying Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics has zero connection with quantum mechanics. How moronic can you get to claim otherwise? Newtonian physics is all about classical atoms, and there are no such things in QM. Newton would have been appalled by QM, and 100% certain of its falsehood. Anyone who has read our books and knows anything about science should instantly be able to shoot down ignorant bigmouths such as AM. These people would do better reading our books that exposing how little they actually know about science! It’s exactly because so many scientists are of this ilk – subscribing to false beliefs about the claims made by science – that science needs to be smashed to smithereens and replaced wholesale by analytic, ontological mathematics, where there’s no scope for people such as AM to bullshit their way through life, and imagine themselves intelligent. These people are out of their depth. They have no idea what they’re talking about... and that goes right up to the summit of science. Einstein had no idea what he was talking about, neither did Heisenberg, and neither did Feynman. They succeeded because they guessed their way to valuable mathematical formulae, not because they had any ontological understanding of what the formulae meant. The trouble with science is that it interprets math according to the philosophy of materialism and empiricism, yet scientists are so philosophically illiterate, they have no idea that this is what they are doing. Like everyone trapped in the Matrix, they take the illusion for reality. To escape the matrix of science, all of its fallacies and delusions must be exposed. Nothing needs to be done other than asking all of these retards to ontologically define their terms. Sadly, none of them has any idea of what ontology and epistemology are and how they relate, or not, to science. Anyone who has read and understood the God Series has no end of ammo for blowing these clowns away. Their ignorance of the subject they champion is offensive.

Take the time to imagine science without mathematics. Science doesn’t seem like a very useful method after that.

Banish the Drudges “We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to MalthusianDarwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Tell it to the scientists!

Beauty “Dirac told physics students they should not worry about the meaning of equations, only about their beauty. This advice was good only for physicists whose sense of purely mathematical beauty is so keen that they can rely on it to see the way ahead. There have not been many such physicists – perhaps only Dirac himself.” – Steven Weinberg Beauty is at the heart of math and reality. “Mathematics is a branch of philosophy which studies numbers.” – Jason Quinn If, as Pythagoras says, all things are numbers, then philosophy is a branch of mathematics.

Syntax “Gödel’s logical system thus shows a similarity to natural language, in that it consists of two types of information – the syntax (formal logic) and the semantic (mathematical meaning).... referring to the example of natural language, the syntactic and semantic properties... provide logically different

types of information. Syntax determines the structure of the rules of language and thus, the way in which the words are assembled in sentences, but it does not determine the meaning of the words. This latter is the task of the semantics.... The syntax itself is meaningless...” – G. Muskhelishvili Reality comprises mathematical (rational) syntax and experiential (empirical) meaning. We become enlightened when we start defining meaning rationally rather empirically, in terms of Logos rather than Mythos. Humans assign meaning on the basis of their emotions, desires, perceptions, sensations, and mystical intuitions. They do not assign meaning to reason, logic and mathematics, which they regard as unreal, empty and abstract. “Gödel systematically mapped the logical ‘syntax’ of the Formal System (FS) to ‘meaning’. The meaning is the arithmetical truth mapped to the logical proposition. Since the syntax and semantics of the FS matched each other precisely, meaningful statements could be produced. The consistency of the FS means that it is impossible to generate both a particular statement and its negation from its axioms. Completeness means that it must be able to produce all the logical truths that are expressible in the system. Gödel aimed at constructing meaningful metamathematical statements that could be mirrored in the logical expressions (strings of signs) of the FS.... Since unique Gödel numbers were associated with variable signs and expressions of the FS, this offered the opportunity to construct metamathematical statements about the expressions of the FS using the arithmetical relations between their corresponding Gödel numbers. Gödel thus succeeded in constructing meaningful metamathematical statements about FS that could be accurately mirrored within the strings of the FS, showing that by using metamathematical language it is possible to teach the FS to speak about itself.” – G. Muskhelishvili “Gödel managed to construct metamathematically correct statements that could be mirrored in the strings of the FS, but could not be derived from the axioms of the FS themselves. Therefore the FS is incomplete. Moreover, he showed that the this incompleteness is essential, because the FS could not be cured by any extensions – new formulas revealing the same defect of the extended FS could be constructed ad infinitum.” – G. Muskhelishvili

The Exam You’re in an exam – the exam of existence. Do you know how to pass it? To whom will you turn for advice? This is the strangest exam of all. You are presented with a blank sheet, and you yourself must provide both the questions and the answers. How well you do this will determine whether you pass or fail. Most people ask the wrong questions and give the wrong answers. Know Thyself!

The Curse “The curse of the invasion of mathematics by mathematical logic is that now any proposition can be represented in a mathematical symbolism, and this makes us feel obliged to understand it. Although of course this method of writing is nothing but the translation of vague ordinary prose.” – Wittgenstein “‘Mathematical logic’ has completely deformed the thinking of mathematicians and of philosophers, by setting up a superficial interpretation of the forms of our everyday language as an analysis of the structures of facts. Of course in this it has only continued to build on the Aristotelian logic.” – Wittgenstein “Mathematical logic [...] has two quite different aspects. On the one hand, it is a section of Mathematics treating of classes, relations, combinations of symbols, etc. instead of numbers, functions, geometric figures, etc. On the other hand, it is a science prior to all others, which contains the ideas and principles underlying all sciences.” – Gödel “Gödel’s description of mathematical logic as the science that precedes all others is entirely similar to the definition of metaphysics provided by Aristotle. It is accordingly natural to think that mathematical logic (in Gödel’s second sense) is able to depict the deepest-lying structural maps of reality. The two aspects of mathematical logic distinguished by Gödel can be respectively denoted with the expressions, taken from Heijenort 1967, of ‘logic as calculus’ and ‘logic as language’. “Their difference resides in that logical form can be used to represent many different things: logical validity, truth conditions, an abstract calculus,

cognitive aspects or even ontological structures. Gödel’s reading suggests that logic (as language) is formal ontology. “The thesis of the identity of logic (as language) with (categorical) ontology is, as we know, one of the essential assumptions of Platonism (or logical realism). Moreover, it is one of the fundamental theses of the Hegelian dialectic and its paralogisms.” – Massimo Negrotti In fact, numbers, not logic, are the ontological foundations of reality. Numbers are the products of the principle of sufficient reason, and nothing else. “What then is involved in the foundational status of formal logic? I would suggest the following things. First, formal logic is concerned with judgments or propositions originally connected with the episteme (scientific knowledge) of the Aristotelian ontological concept of a science. In this sense, a science and its propositions are always about a certain independently given subject-matter. The subject-matter of a theory does not originate with the theory and its propositions; the theory is a representation (a sort of copy) of the subject matter that already exists in physical nature. Since logic is taken to be basic to all scientific discourse, this ontological (or descriptive) conception of propositions applies to mathematics as much as to physics.” – Sören Stenlund Any valid theory of existence must have has its subject-matter the actual stuff of existence, i.e. the subject-matter of the theory, which originates with the theory, must also be what existence actually is. This is true only of ontological mathematics. The subject-matter of science does not originate with science, hence can never be adequately described by science since it does not belong to science. Science attempts to reflect or model something that is inherently not science. In the case of ontological mathematics, the subject-matter is perfectly described by ontological mathematics because it is one and the same as ontological mathematics. There is no difference at all between the subject-matter and the theory. That’s how the system is designed. Any theory not designed this way has an unbridgeable gap between the theory and the subject-matter. The theory, in such a case, is like a painting. It resembles the real object but emphatically isn’t the real object. Science is a painting of reality, but it’s not reality. The problem is that scientists, and the credulous believers in science, think it’s directly presenting reality to them, rather than being a flawed representation.

“The discussion in the philosophy of mathematics since the 1920’s has taken place on the basis of this view of the nature of logic as if it were a well-established scientific fact that everyone taking part in the discussion is supposed to know. Doubts had been expressed earlier about the foundational significance of formal logic for mathematics by Poincaré and the early Brouwer, but their criticism was largely ignored and forgotten in the enthusiasm about the progress in mathematical logic that took place in the 1930’s through the work of Gödel, Tarski, Church and others.” – Sören Stenlund It’s always the same. In subjects such as science and math, “enthusiasm” for certain ideas causes doubts to be swept aside, and soon forgotten. “A clear manifestation of Wittgenstein’s symbolic point of view is his claim that mathematical propositions are not ‘real’ propositions. According to Wittgenstein, they don’t have a descriptive content; they do not describe real states of affairs.” – Sören Stenlund In this context, Wittgenstein was 100% wrong. Ontological mathematical propositions are the only real propositions, the only propositions where there is no gap between the language being used to describe reality, and reality itself. Existence only has one language. Only that language can be used to tell us about reality. All other languages are caught up in their own unreality, their artificiality, their manmadeness. The only valid language is the one not invented by men. That language is ontological mathematics. “[Wittgenstein’s symbolic, non-ontological conception of mathematics] is something that cannot be made much sense of within a philosophical vocabulary based on the foundational status of mathematical logic, where all possible propositions are propositions in the ontological sense. They have a descriptive content and are about something in a ‘referential sense’. There is no place in the vocabulary for propositions in another sense.” – Sören Stenlund Both Wittgenstein and the mathematical logicians are wrong. It’s not mathematical logic that is ontological, it’s mathematics itself. Numbers are the ultimate reality, the foundations of existence. This is a numerical universe.

“Thus within the philosophical vocabulary, one is forced to see Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics as some superficial kind of formalism in which mathematics has been deprived of all meaning (it is ‘purely syntactical, without semantics’ according to the Stanford Encyclopaedia article).” – Sören Stenlund “But there is also a third tendency, more common among many professional mathematicians: the picture of mathematics as a ‘science of mathematical objects and states of affairs’, bearing strong similarities with physics. The ‘abstract reality’ that is the subject matter of mathematics in this view is similar to the nature of the natural sciences in that ‘it is as it is by itself’; the subject matter is something given in advance, just as there are processes and phenomena studied in physics that are given in advance of the emergence of science of physics. As to the character of the objects and states of affairs in this ‘mathematical nature’, one tends to rely on analogies with laws of nature in physics. An equation such as 5 + 7 = 12 is seen as a law of nature about what happens (what number of objects you get) when you put together 5 objects with 7 other objects into one collection. As the equation E = mc2 expresses an eternal truth about physical nature, so do the true equations of algebra express eternal truth about ‘mathematical nature’. They are taken to be eternal, not in the sense of timeless, but as having permanence, as being invariant over time. There is no coming into existence and passing away in this abstract ‘mathematical nature’. Everything that is possible is already actualized and the mathematician is a discoverer, not an inventor.... In a certain sense, one might say that in the symbolic conception, form becomes the content.” – Sören Stenlund In fact, content always accompanies form. Content can never be form, and vice versa. They are the opposite sides of a single coin. A wave is pure mathematical form, yet every wave conveys information (content), hence the wave is not just form. It’s two things at once: rational form, and empirical content.

The Drug Sea “‘Life exists immersed in a sea of unconsciousness’, he reminded himself. ‘In the drug, these people gain a view of that sea.’” – Frank Herbert “We sift reality through screens composed of ideas. (And such ideas have their roots in older ideas.) Such idea systems are necessarily limited by

language, by the ways we can describe them. That is to say: language cuts the grooves in which our thoughts move. If we seek new validity forms (other laws and other orders) we must step outside language.” – Frank Herbert Humans are locked into grooves cut by manmade languages, and other grooves cut by the senses and feelings. We need to escape from these grooves to think properly about reality. Reason and logic need entirely different grooves.

Math A. N. Whitehead said, “It is no paradox to say that in our most theoretical moods we may be nearest to our most practical applications.” Ultimately pure theory – analytic, ontological mathematics – is responsible for all practical applications. “In most sciences one generation tears down what another has built, and what one has established another undoes. In mathematics alone each generation builds a new story to the old structure.” – Hermann Hankel This is a critical distinction between mathematics and science. No one can tear down mathematical proofs. Any scientific theory can be demolished at any time. This is exactly why science can never be a source of Truth, and why only mathematics can. Lobachevsky said, “There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.” This is no truer than in the case of Euler’s formula, which turns out to be the basis of everything. “Mathematics is the queen of the sciences and number theory the queen of mathematics.” – Gauss At the heart of reality is the ontology of numbers. Everything derives from numbers, the immortal, immutable, perfect Forms of Reality, which deliver all of Reality’s Content. “The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State.” – Napoleon

Nothing is more important to human progress than mathematics. The most mathematical nations will be the most prosperous and successful. “Algebra is generous; she often gives more than is asked of her.” – D′Alembert The human race has never known how to ask the right questions of mathematics. “Mathematics – the unshaken Foundation of Sciences, and the plentiful Fountain of Advantage to human affairs.” – Isaac Barrow Why is it so hard for people to put 2 + 2 together and see that mathematics is the unshaken foundation of reality itself? “In mathematics I can report no deficiency, except it be that men do not sufficiently understand the excellent use of the Pure Mathematics.” – Francis Bacon Mathematics is too perfect for imperfect humans. To understand the perfection of mathematics, you yourself must be becoming perfect. “Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of the world.” – Roger Bacon All the things of the world derive from mathematics.

The Method The rationalist method of the intellect is much more powerful that the sensory method of science, and requires no expensive equipment; in fact, no equipment at all, just a logical, methodical mind. The rationalist method, unlike the scientific method, can produce definitive, absolute, immutable results – the only true knowledge.

The Non-Arbitrary Formula Why is the God Equation the one that defines existence? Why not some other equation? Doesn’t the God Equation seem entirely arbitrary? The answer is that the God Equation is the only formula that is both consistent and complete, that creates a perfect continuum and Pleroma (Fullness), with no gaps whatsoever, which is stable under any operations

applied to it, and which ensures that nothing and something are always the same (all properties of the universe balance to zero). When these criteria and requirements are applied to all other equations, they fail. All of the alternatives produce universes that fall apart instantly. Only one solution is stable – that provided by the God Equation. That’s why it defines ontological mathematics. It’s the last man standing, the sole survivor of the war between all potential mathematical universes. We can imagine that all other universes were tried, and died. The only one that survived was the one associated with the God Equation. Any flaw at all – no matter how seemingly small or trivial – destroys a universe. The solution to existence must be flawlessly infallible. Only the God Equation suffices.

No Vision There are no visionaries in modern science, just drudges, drones, functionaries, bureaucrats, technicians and apparatchiks. Science is no place for the intelligentsia.

Dead Science Oscar Wilde said, “Science is the record of dead religions.” In fact, it’s the record of dead science. One day, science – the last false religion – will take its place in the graveyard along with all the other Mythos religions. Only true religion – ontological mathematics – will remain. Illuminism is the only Logos religion.

Evidence versus Proof “The tendency of modern science is to reduce proof to absurdity by continually reducing absurdity to proof.” – Samuel Butler Butler’s statement would make sense if he replaced the word “proof” with “evidence”. There is no proof in science at all. That’s exactly what it lacks. Science’s two greatest theories: quantum mechanics (as interpreted by the Copenhagen school), and Einsteinian relativity, are absurd theories based on the absurd misinterpretation of experimental evidence. They have mathematical elements that work well enough, but the mathematics is

interpreted through the hopeless Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and positivism.

Materialism “Science in the modern world had many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich.” – G. K. Chesterton Science is the intellectual wing of free-market capitalism. It’s ultimately controlled by the super rich. Economic materialism and scientific materialism are natural partners.

***** “A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life.” – Godfrey Hardy Scientists have always been the functionaries of the rich, ruling class. They have never once sought to replace the ruling class.

***** “No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.” – Douglas Yates Textbook science – what passes as the establishment view of science, hence the one accepted by the public – is almost wholly false and refuted.

***** “Creativity in science could be described as the act of putting two and two together to make five.” – Arthur Koestler In fact, that’s what happens when scientists stray into philosophy. Every conclusion they reach is wrong-headed and ludicrous.

Research “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” – Murphy’s Law of Research (A. Bloch) All scientific research is designed to support the establishment view of science. No alternative vision of science is ever funded, or contemplated.

Therefore, all science is groupthink, and supports the establishment dogma. “First Law: if an experiment works, something has gone wrong. Fourth Law: once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it only makes it worse.” – Finagle’s Laws (A. Bloch, Murphy’s Law) When combined with Nietzsche’s statement, “Success has always been the greatest liar”, Finagle’s Laws reveal that science went wrong from the start (in essence, with Newton). Ever since, every attempt to “save” science has made it even more ridiculous. The number of insane propositions stated as “factual” by science is now vast. More or less all of the key principles of modern science are false. And all for the same reason: they are not rational, logical and mathematical. “If a scientist uncovers a publishable fact, it will become central to his theory.” Mann’s Law (A. Bloch) That could be said of the whole of science. “Carson’s Consolation: no experiment is ever a complete failure. It can always be used as a bad example.” – Paul Dickson Eventually that will be said of the whole of science.

Space and Time Why do people believe in “space” and “time”? What are these supposed to be? They’re just human labels applied to human experiences, but what are they really? There are in fact no such things as space and time. There are just real number and imaginary number mathematical domains that we call space and time because we encounter the mathematical waves that constitute reality empirically and not rationally, forcing us to provide manmade words for what we experience. They are just mathematical dimensions (as contrasted with the mathematical frequency domain, which is dimensionless).

***** Dimensional units = spacetime units. Dimensionless units = frequency units. Dimensional means to be in spacetime.

Dimensionless means to be outside space and time.

Time Travel? Einstein said that something would have to go faster than the speed of light to go back in time. In fact, not only can nothing can go faster than the speed of light, nothing can go slower than the speed of light either. Everything in the entire universe travels at exactly the same net space – the speed of light, which is nothing other than the default speed of orthogonal sinusoidal waves. As for going “back in time”, there’s nowhere to go back to. The very fact that Einstein’s theories accommodate this possibility automatically falsifies them. No valid theory of existence can contain rationally and logically impossible possibilities.

Evidence? Evidence versus proof – which is best? This is to ask what is better between science and math, or between the senses and reason.

Motion Matter exhibits dimensional motion in the spacetime domain. Mind exhibits dimensionless motion in the frequency domain. There is no such thing as static matter, or static mind. Any matter stationary in space, is automatically moving at maximum speed through time.

Digital and Analogue The difference between an analogue and digital universe is the difference between a continuum and discrete bits. A digital universe is a materialist universe. An analogue universe is a mental universe. Materialism versus idealism equates to digital versus analogue mathematics.

The Equation We are all part of a cosmic equation of infinite scale, unconsciously solving itself. Its “solution” is the maximum subjective experience and feeling of power, allied with absolute objective knowledge = divinity. Objectively, the solution is tied to the optimisation of symmetry.

Antisymmetry

“The word antisymmetric refers to a change to an opposite quantity when another quantity is symmetrically changed. This concept is related to that of Symmetry and Asymmetry. The difference between these three concepts can be simply illustrated with Latin letters. The character ‘A’ is symmetric about the vertical axis while the character ‘B’ is not. The character ‘S’ is antisymmetric about the vertical axis since the left side is flipped relative to the right. A character such as ‘H’ fits the definition of both symmetric and antisymmetric. In this case the correct term is symmetric.” – Wikipedia It’s impossible to overestimate the significance of symmetry operations in the workings of the universe. Everything comes down to symmetry.

How to Create the Universe Question. What is the fundamental stuff of the universe? Answer. Energy. Everything is energy. Question. What is energy? Answer. Energy is that which is defined by the God Equation. Energy is the output of this formula, its sole product. This Formula is the generator of perfect, eternal, immutable, analytic waves. Energy, it must be understood, is mathematical waves. Energy = mathematics. Physics provides no definition of what energy actually is and where it comes from. In Illuminism, energy comprises waves, and these are generated mathematically by the God Equation. Question. Where does the God Equation come from? Answer. Imagine a vast war in a mathematical Limbo where all possible versions of mathematics fight it out, with no quarter offered. Only one version of mathematics can survive. It must be perfect. It must be immutable, eternal, adamantine, continuous and free of any contradictions. It must be consistent, coherent, integrated and complete. It must form a continuum and plenum. It must enshrine the principles of sufficient reason, continuity and non-contradiction. It must be the origin of causality and motion. It must be the First Cause, the Prime Mover. Only one foundational mathematical formula can exist without contradiction (a formula can’t contradict itself). All other mathematical formulae, identities, theorems, equations and functions must result from it. They cannot be in competition

with it. The whole of mathematics comes from the God Equation. This is mathematical monism. A complete and consistent mathematics must involve real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers, and be algebraically complete. It must be based on the perfect equal-opportunities shape – the circle. It must exist in the ground state energy of zero, i.e. even though it can generate any amount of energy, all of this energy must mathematically balance to zero (negative energy will always balance positive energy). It must be able to generate two very different types of space – real and imaginary, from which we get space and time. It must have dynamism and causality at its core.

Life Enhancers versus Life Drainers Are you one of life’s enhancers or life’s drainers? Do you give to the world, or take from it?

Dimensionality “In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces. “In physical terms, dimension refers to the constituent structure of all space (cf. volume) and its position in time (perceived as a scalar dimension along the t-axis), as well as the spatial constitution of objects within – structures that correlate with both particle and field conceptions, interact according to relative properties of mass – and are fundamentally mathematical in description. These, or other axes, may be referenced to uniquely identify a point or structure in its attitude and relationship to other objects and occurrences. Physical theories that incorporate time, such as general relativity, are said to work in 4-dimensional ‘spacetime’, (defined as a Minkowski space). Modern theories tend to be ‘higher-dimensional’

including quantum field and string theories. The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. “The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. Highdimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in. “In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property independent of the space in which the object is embedded. For example, a point on the unit circle in the plane can be specified by two Cartesian coordinates, but one can make do with a single coordinate (the polar coordinate angle), so the circle is 1-dimensional even though it exists in the 2-dimensional plane. This intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways the mathematical notion of dimension differs from its common usages.” – Wikipedia Nothing has been more problematic to both science and mathematics than to define and use the concept of dimensionlessness. This catastrophic failure has resulted in the rejection of dimensionless Leibnizian sinusoidal monads, the true, rational and logical basis of reality.

Forces The forces that operate outside space and time are the forces of mind (frequency forces). The forces that operate inside space and time are the forces of matter (spacetime forces). They are not separate forces. They are united by Fourier mathematics.

The Sphere A sphere is the set of all points in Euclidean three space at an equal distance from a fixed central point. It is not a solid ball. Technically, only the surface points constitute the sphere. The sphere is only the surface of a ball, not the inside of the ball too. It is the curved equivalent of a flat plane, which also has no volume. Just as a circle is a one-dimensional entity in a two-dimensional Cartesian grid, so a sphere is a two-dimensional object in a threedimensional Cartesian grid. A circle is always a one-dimensional object no matter what higherdimensional space it is in, and a sphere always remains a two-dimensional

object. In M-theory, strings are one-dimensional loops in an elevendimensional spacetime.

***** To say that something is one-dimensional is to say that you need to know one number to locate a point on it. The circle is fascinating. From its own perspective, it’s one-dimensional, and only the angle is required to uniquely identify a point on the circle. From the “linear”, Cartesian perspective, it needs two dimensions to specify a point on the circle (an x and y coordinate).

Intuition “It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.” – Henri Poincaré Intellectual intuition gives us insight into a problem, and we then solve the problem through the hard slog of reason and logic. Without reason and logic, intuition is often absurdly mystical, as we see in the case of Eastern religion.

Criticism “To know how to criticize is good, to know how to create is better.” – Henri Poincaré The creators are the good, and the critics are the bad. Only constructive criticism can be condoned.

The “No Privilege” Principle A strange, undeclared war has always existed within mathematics. It concerns straight lines and circles. The ancient Greeks practically worshipped circles and spheres, building their entire cosmology around them. By the time of Newton, we see the ellipse replacing the circle as the means of describing planetary orbits, and we see the universe characterised as a vast, linear, Cartesian cube with three orthogonal, static axes of length, breadth and height, and time as a strange fourth dimension which somehow introduces motion and change into the world. Then, with Einsteinian

physics, we have a weird fusion of space and time to create a 4D spacetime. M-theory then delivers 1D string loops vibrating within an 11D spacetime. What does this tell us? Cosmologists have never identified a proper way of analysing the dimensionality of the universe. New theories produce new, seemingly arbitrarily, numbers of dimensions. Where is the logic behind cosmic dimensionality? Where are the sufficient reasons? Are cosmologists just making it up as they go along? For thousands of years, mathematicians, scientists and philosophers were beguiled by Euclidean geometry. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that a non-Euclidean geometry began to be attempted by mathematicians, with Bernhard Riemann becoming the outstanding figure in this arena. His work underpinned Einstein’s general theory of relativity and its treatment of curved rather than flat Euclidean space. Here’s the real issue. Can flat, linear Euclidean space ever be privileged over curved, non-linear, non-Euclidean spaces, or vice versa? If we can’t find a sufficient reason to adopt one over the other then we are committed to using both. Consider Euler’s Formula. This is a 1D unit circle drawn on the flat 2D complex plane. The Riemann Sphere allows us to depict the complex plane in terms of a 2D complex sphere derived from Euler’s Formula. Mathematically, the Riemann Sphere is the Complex Plane with a point at infinity. Wikipedia says: “In mathematics, the Riemann sphere, named after the 19th century mathematician Bernhard Riemann, is a model of the extended complex plane, the complex plane plus a point at infinity. This extended plane represents the extended complex numbers, that is, the complex numbers plus a value ∞ for infinity. With the Riemann model, the point ‘∞’ is near to very large numbers, just as the point ‘0’ is near to very small numbers. “The extended complex numbers are useful in complex analysis because they allow for division by zero in some circumstances, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0 = ∞ well-behaved. For example, any rational function on the complex plane can be extended to a continuous function on the Riemann sphere, with the poles of the rational function mapping to infinity. More generally, any meromorphic function can be thought of as a continuous function whose codomain is the Riemann sphere. “In geometry, the Riemann sphere is the prototypical example of a Riemann surface, and is one of the simplest complex manifolds. In

projective geometry, the sphere can be thought of as the complex projective line P1(C), the projective space of all complex lines in C2. As with any compact Riemann surface, the sphere may also be viewed as a projective algebraic curve, making it a fundamental example in algebraic geometry. It also finds utility in other disciplines that depend on analysis and geometry, such as quantum mechanics and other branches of physics.” Illuminism is based on complex numbers rather than the real numbers of scientific materialism (note that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is complex rather than real!). However, why should it be based on the complex plane rather than the Riemann Sphere? If we make it based on both then we have to change from the simple complex plane to the extended complex plane, which involves a point at infinity. If you do not privilege planes over spheres, straight lines over circles or points over straight lines then you are left with a system in which the “point at infinity” is all-important. The ontology of such a set up is vital to understanding existence.

The Big Picture The God Series presents the “big picture” of existence, but there are of course countless details to be teased out. Only mathematical geniuses can tie up all of the loose ends. We are looking for are those who can join the company of the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Fourier, Euler, Gauss, Riemann and Gödel. Is that you?

What is Science? Never forget that science is just mathematics interpreted via bad philosophy (empiricism and materialism). Science completely changes when you switch to good philosophy (rationalism and idealism), and, in fact, then becomes ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what science is destined to become, just as empiricist, materialist philosophy was destined to become science. Get ahead of the game. Move to the End Game now. The smartest people are always those who see the future most clearly.

The Point at Infinity

“The point at infinity, also called ideal point, of the real number line is a point which, when added to the number line yields a closed curve called the real projective line. The real projective line is not equivalent to the extended real number line, which has two different points at infinity. The point at infinity can also be added to the complex plane, thereby turning it into a closed surface (i.e., complex algebraic curve) known as the complex projective line, also called the Riemann sphere. In an affine or Euclidean space of higher dimension, the points at infinity are the points which are added to the space to get the projective completion. The set of the points at infinity is called, depending on the dimension of the space, the line at infinity, the plane at infinity or the hyperplane at infinity, in all cases a projective space of one less dimension.” – Wikipedia If you want something to meditate on, meditate on the point at infinity.

Circles and Waves What is a wave? It’s just a different, trigonometric way of expressing a circle. A wave repeats itself over a consistent interval of time and distance, mirroring how a circle repeats itself as it rotates. One full rotation of a circle constitutes one complete wave cycle, rising to its highest point (peak) and lowest point (trough). The simplest wave is the sine wave: y = sin x where x denotes the radian measure of an angle periodically changing from 0 to 2 pi radians (one full rotation of a circle). Alternatively, we could write y = sin x degrees, where x degrees denotes the measures of an angle periodically changing from 0 to 360 degrees. A cosine wave is simply a sine wave phase shifted by 90 degrees (i.e., if you start the sine function at 90°, not at 0°, you get a waveform identical to a cosine function). A sine wave starts and ends at a zero. A cosine wave starts and ends at one. One might almost say that sine and cosine waves comprise a kind of binary system based on 0 and 1.

No Closure The field of real numbers is not algebraically closed. The polynomial equation x2 + 1 = 0 has no solution in real numbers.

Squaring the Circle

It’s often said that it’s impossible to square a circle – to construct a square with the same area as a circle. However, the square with edge of √π has an area of π, as does the circle with radius 1, so, a circle and square can have the same area. The problem is with actually drawing a square with sides of length √π, with the construction of such sides in Euclidean space in a finite number of steps. With infinite steps, there is no problem!

Flowing Points With flowing points, past, present and future are built into the point’s causal trajectory. Its previous (past) state necessarily leads to its current (present) state, which necessarily leads to its next (future) state.

The Universe The universe is a 100% mathematical object that defines everything. Nothing can exist outside this object. Nothing can be undefined or random within this object. Causality is absolute and begins with “first causes” – souls! Souls are simply autonomous mathematical objects, the totality of which comprises the cosmic mathematical object. We inhabit an inconceivably vast cosmic soul vibration, a universal hologram.

Speed and Energy The fascinating feature of the c = fλ relationship is that even though the energy of a photon is increased by increasing its frequency (via E = hf), its speed isn’t changed at all. Everything in the universe travels at the same speed – the speed of light (the speed of sinusoids).

Energy The frequency can be considered as the “internal” energy structure of a wave. Can frequency have any value, or is it restricted to specific values, i.e. integers? In Introducing Quantum Theory, J. P. McEvoy says, in relation to De Broglie “electron waves” in the “Bohr atom” (the first quantum model of the atom), “When the electron moves around in an atom, its associated wave is stationary, i.e. in a standing wave pattern, like a wave moving along a violin string fixed at its ends. In this situation, only certain discrete frequencies are produced – the fundamental and its overtones, as any good music student knows. Electron ‘standing waves’ are formed in an atom.

Only certain wavelengths will fit around a circle. This is just what Bohr needed in 1913 for his hydrogen atom postulate.... By just fitting a whole number of electron waves along the circumference of the atom, and using de Broglie’s relations, Bohr could have given a complete theoretical justification for the orbital quantization.” So, the basic Euler Formula (eix = cos x + i sin x), where the frequency = 1, forms the fundamental ontological standing wave, and all other integer values of frequency provide the overtones. This frequency system, with integer values only, is thus “quantized”. This might seem to contradict Leibniz’s principle of continuity whereby no “leaps” occur in nature. Of course, there is no contradiction at all. All intermediate states aren’t forbidden, they simply don’t lead to stable states. It’s energetic stability that might be said to be quantized, not energy itself.

Different versions of the Euler Formula In relation to the basic Euler Formula, we should not privilege positive numbers over negative, or real numbers over imaginary. This means that we should equally well consider four versions of the Euler Formula: 1) eix = cos x + i sin x 2) –eix = – (cos x + i sin x) = – cos x – i sin x 3) i eix = i (cos x + i sin x) = i cos x – sin x 4) –i eix = –i (cos x + i sin x) = – i cos x + sin x We thus have a full set of all possible cosines and sines for use in Fourier mathematics: cos x, – cos x, i cos x, – i cos x; sin x, – sin x, i sin x, – i sin x. Obviously, a whole new set of ontological possibilities are brought into view in this extended system. And are you willing to ponder the angle “x” being not just about real positive numbers, but also real negative numbers, imaginary positive numbers, or imaginary negative numbers?

Ontological Geometry: The Geometry of Reality “One geometry cannot be more true than the other; it can only be more convenient.” – Henri Poincaré

What is the geometry of reality? Is space flat or curved? There is no sufficient reason to privilege flat space over curved space, or vice versa, so the geometry of reality must reflect both without prejudice. Given the Big Bang, and Leibniz’s Monadology based on dimensionless monadic minds, it’s also essential that the dimensionless point should be at the heart of the geometry of reality. The dynamic universe must begin and end with the point. The geometry of reality must accommodate zero, infinity, and all numbers in between. The geometry of reality must reflect the flat space of Newtonian physics as a reasonable first approximation, and Einsteinian curved spacetime (in the presence of mass) as a more sophisticated second approximation. Stereographic projection has all the right, rational ingredients. Wikipedia says, “In geometry, the stereographic projection is a particular mapping (function) that projects a sphere onto a plane. The projection is defined on the entire sphere, except at one point: the projection point [the point at infinity].” So, we have a point at infinity, a plane (to provide flatness) and a sphere (to provide curvedness). We can extend this 2D arrangement to as many dimensions as we like. It’s crucial to understand that space and time are not things in their own right – not absolute existents (as Newton would have it). They are mathematical constructs, derived from the things that do actually exist, and those things are Leibnizian monads defined by the God Equation.

Static and Dynamic points There is nothing but energy, and energy is always expressed through motion. To this extent, there are nothing but dynamic points. Dynamic points are inherently dimensional since their movement means that, at any instant, they are occupying not just one location, but already moving on to the next location specified in the mathematical sequence. The causal sequence is what is well-defined, not the precise location, which is always “blurred” by motion. Although all ontological points are dynamic, combinations of dynamic points with opposite properties (negative instead of positive) can perfectly balance each other. This produces the paradoxical concept of a “static” point, insofar as it has no net motion, but is nevertheless completely dynamic. This is what a Leibnizian monad involves. It is a dimensionless

dynamic point that appears static rather than as a dimensional dynamic point clearly in motion. This is possible only because the monad is a resultant point rather than a basic point itself. A monad always comprises countless dynamic points in perfect balance. Given that monads are perfect dimensionless zeros, there can be an infinite number of them, unless there is a sufficient reason why there shouldn’t be. If, for example, there is a highest possible number in mathematics – and the whole of mathematics is then predicated on this number (i.e. it is implicit throughout mathematics, built into everything) – then the total number of monads would equal this number. It would be an utterly vast number, but not in fact infinite. Ontologically, it would make far more sense for there to be no true infinities since they imply a lack of mathematical precision, hence disrupt causality. If infinities do exist, each infinity must be precisely calculable ontologically so that it fits into precisely defined causal chains. Otherwise, infinities would tear causality to pieces instantly and destroy the universe. Infinities may in fact be abstract limits, associated with irreversible dimensional phase changes, and “event horizons”. The finite world is protected from infinities by one-way valves, and all infinities are precisely mapped to finite limits, i.e. once you attain a certain number (such as a Schwarzschild radius in the case of black holes), you automatically reach an infinity associated with a singularity. Rather than being considered as true infinities, these might be treated as “finite” infinities. In other words, if you take a finite thing, such as a collapsing star of sufficient density, you can generate a singularity (associated with infinity), but it is fact a dimensional thing irreversibly crushed down to a dimensionless thing. It is the dimensionality phase change that has generated the infinity, but the infinity is actually grounded in the finite numbers that defined the finite object prior to its irreversible collapse (and the same is true in the reverse direction that takes place at the Big Bang). The singularity is thus just a different way of presenting finite information. Since it results wholly from finite numbers, it cannot be an authentic infinity. Rather, it’s the change in dimensionality that produces the apparent infinity. We have to think of infinity not in terms of numbers spiralling off indefinitely but as the outcome of finite numbers undergoing a phase change from dimensional to dimensionless existence. Infinity is always an

outcome of finite processes, and cannot exist without finite processes. There are no authentic infinities that have no grounding in the finite. This radically alters the whole way in which infinity is considered ontologically. It makes perfect sense that phase changes from the dimensionless to the dimensional (“Big Bang” transitions) or from the dimensional to the dimensionless (“black hole” transitions) should underlie everything. That’s the only way you can have a reality that can emerge from a single, dimensionless point and return to that point at the end of a Cyclical Age. It’s 100% consistent with Leibniz’s Monadology. It’s fully consistent with stereographic projection from a “point at infinity”. The key difference between Illuminism (ontological mathematics) and scientific materialism is that Illuminism is defined by dimensionless existence while scientific materialism rejects dimensionless existence and says that the laws of physics fall apart at singularities.

The Event Horizon Event horizons could instead be called “dimensionality horizons”. A black hole event horizon conceals a dimensionless black hole singularity. The Big Bang has a zero-sized event horizon (hence is a naked rather than shielded singularity). Monadic minds are naked singularities, unshielded from spacetime (hence can directly interact with spacetime). We can think of the “event horizon” as simply the barrier between dimensionless and dimensional existence. When we go to sleep and start dreaming, we find ourselves on the other side – the soul side – of the event horizon. Waking puts us on the body side of the event horizon. An out-ofbody experience is when our body goes to sleep, but our mind remains on the body side of the event horizon. Sleepwalking happens when our mind goes to the soul side of the event horizon but our body remains active on the body side of the event horizon. The soul (the eternal dimensionless mathematical mind) is the essence of Illuminism, and wholly rejected by scientific materialism. Illuminism is a Logos religion while scientific materialism is a Mythos (sensory) antireligion. Those scientific materialists who believe in God choose to inhabit two domains – the atheistic domain of science and the theistic domain of religious faith, which they believe somehow exists independently of science

(as in Cartesian dualism). You must be a dualist to be a scientist who believes in God. Illuminism, on the other hand, is a mathematical monism. Mind and matter are two complementary aspects of mathematics. There is only one ultimate domain – that of mathematical monads – but this can express itself in terms of a material world. The material world is ultimately a projection, a phenomenon, a holographic emanation, of mathematical mind.

Dimensionality In his published writings, Leibniz was insistent that the dimensional must result from the dimensionless. However, shortly before his death, he reached a radically different conclusion: the dimensionless must result from the dimensional! Zero, as any kind of reality, involves the perfect balance of positive and negative numbers, i.e. it always derives from “parts” (component numbers). Zero either has no parts (in which case it is true “nothing” – nonexistence), or it has parts (in which case it is a type of “something” – existence – but with the very special property of having no net effect). If zero has parts but no net parts then it is in fact constructed from dimensionality since each individual part can be considered dimensional. It’s the net result that’s dimensionless, not the parts themselves. This leads to an extraordinary conclusion. Everything is in fact dimensional (as in the flowing point). Zero – dimensionlessness (nothing) – is simply where negative dimensionality exactly cancels positive dimensionality. A corollary is that all numbers (with the exception of zero itself, and its partner infinity) are dimensional. The number line is a continuum. There are no gaps. However, if we say that each number is a unique dimensionless point then how can we get from zero to one given that that there infinite points between zero and one? This is essentially what Leibniz referred to as the “labyrinth of the continuum” and stands as one of the most intractable problems in philosophy, science and mathematics. The answer is of course that points in motion (flowing points) have a finite size, hence can easily bridge the gap between zero and one. If they didn’t have a size, and motion, they never could.

The PSR

Unless a sufficient reason can be provided for why something can’t happen then it must be assumed to happen if it’s possible. The Leibnizian doctrine of compossibility can be used as a potential sufficient reason in this context.

Materialism versus Idealism Materialism is based on the denial of dimensionless existence, while idealism relies on dimensionless existence. We have used “zero and infinity” as a shorthand way of referring to dimensionless existence since both of these numbers are rejected by scientific materialism.

Motion Ontological mathematics is all about motion. Everything is moving, always moving. Nothing can ever stop. It’s a completely dynamic system. Conventional, abstract mathematics is essentially a static system, where no inherent motion is assumed. Motion is instead associated with science. Ontological mathematics can be considered a synthesis of abstract mathematics and science. Why has no mathematician or scientist ever considered the two as a hybrid? Isn’t it obvious that they should be combined? The dynamism of ontological mathematics has the greatest possible consequences for the mathematical point and the nature of the continuum. The mathematical point can never be considered in isolation. Mathematics is a causality system. It’s about sequentiality, succession, a continuum, a plenum. It’s about energy, which is motion. (Energy cannot be expressed through non-motion.) The whole of ontological mathematics derives from the God Equation and this cosmic master formula is about pure energy and motion. With this formula, there is no such thing as a static point found in isolation. Rather, energy is expressed through 1D flowing points.

Causality “Reality itself could not be blurred, but had to be precisely what it was and nothing else.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz Flowing points necessarily have extension, albeit extremely small. All existent points are in motion (expressing energy) and have fractional extension, fractional dimensionality. These points represent the smallest physical dimensions that can be attained. Nothing can ever be physically

smaller than these. Flowing points are the agents of all causation: everything is caused via their mathematical motion. Physicists would talk about quantum indeterminacy providing a limit on the smallest possible things. The opposite is the case. Quantum determinacy is what sets ultimate physical limits. You simply cannot get smaller than what causality has decreed. Causality operates at a constant speed everywhere in the universe. This speed is of course the speed of light. This is also the speed at which “now” advances in a perfect temporal environment. Ontological mathematics is the study of processes operating causally at the speed of light. There is absolutely no indeterminacy in this system. It is the perfect reflection of Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason. When you understand mathematics properly, you grasp that mathematics is causality. Mathematics is what makes B inevitably follow A. Causality, as David Hume brilliantly realised, cannot be perceived, which made him, as an empiricist, doubt and then deny its existence. Causality is in fact an unobservable property of mathematics. You can’t see causality taking place within the God Equation, and yet every single thing that can happen within this Formula is defined with perfect precision... forever. The God Equation is an eternal system of perfect causality.

The Biggest Number; Circular Infinity To say that we can keep adding 1 to a number, in a process without end, isn’t a satisfactory definition of infinity. We can keep going round a circle or sphere forever, but, after we have reached a certain point, we are in fact simply retreading old ground, not defining brand new numbers with each fresh step. The south pole of a globe is a dimensionless point. Let’s give it the number zero. Now let’s start counting as we walk towards the globe’s equator. When we reach the equator, we have in fact reached the largest number possible within a spherical system since the journey from the equator to the north pole is just a reflection of the journey from the south pole to the equator, hence is not adding any new information. It’s mere repetition of the same information from a different perspective. The relation South Pole → Equator mathematically corresponds to the relation Zero → Highest Number.

The relation Equator → North Pole mathematically corresponds to the relation Highest Number → zero (as would Equator → South Pole). Imagine that cosmology is all about a circular journey from a dimensionless point (zero) to a highest number and back to zero, and over and over again: forever. With a linear system, we can keep generating new numbers without doubling back on ourselves. It’s “uncontained.” However, if the universe isn’t linear, then there can be no linear infinities. The universe is of course cyclical, hence contained.

The Point, The Line and the Circle “A generalized circle, also referred to as a ‘cline’ or ‘circline’, is a straight line or a circle. The concept is mainly used in inversive geometry, because straight lines and circles have very similar properties in that geometry and are best treated together. “Inversive plane geometry is formulated on the plane extended by one point at infinity. A straight line is then thought of as a circle that passes through the point at infinity. The fundamental transformations in inversive geometry, the inversions, have the property that they map generalized circles to generalized circles. Möbius transformations, which are compositions of inversions, inherit that property. These transformations do not necessarily map lines to lines and circles to circles: they can mix the two. “Inversions come in two kinds: inversions at circles and reflections at lines. Since the two have very similar properties, we combine them and talk about inversions at generalized circles. “Given any three distinct points in the extended plane, there exists precisely one generalized circle that passes through the three points. “The extended plane can be identified with the sphere using a stereographic projection. The point at infinity then becomes an ordinary point on the sphere, and all generalized circles become circles on the sphere.” – Wikipedia Imagine a dimensionless point at the intersection of an x-axis and a y-axis, which are of course orthogonal to each other. The point is a zerodimensional circle. Now start drawing circles around the point, of larger and larger radius. Keep expanding the radius to absolutely vast proportions.

Can we imagine a scenario at which we reach a highest possible ontological number and then irreversibly expand to infinity (with infinity not being a number per se). This process would be the reverse of a process that takes us to a lowest possible ontological number and then irreversibly contracts to zero (with zero, like infinity, not being a number per se). The gap between zero and the lowest possible finite number and the gap between the highest possible finite number and infinity are both ontological “event horizons” – which separate the mental and material worlds, the Fourier frequency and spacetime domains. The formation of a black hole – whereby a collapsing star irreversibly shrinks down to a black hole singularity, via an event horizon, provides an illustration of the kind of process we are describing. In conventional mathematics, there are no ontologically irreversible processes (since abstract mathematics doesn’t deal with ontology at all). In ontological mathematics, there are. This means that the relationship between zero and infinity, on the one hand, and all other numbers, on the other hand, must be treated differently in ontological mathematics from how it is in abstract mathematics, and this could, of course, resolve many of the mathematical paradoxes associated with abstract zero and infinity. Imagine abstract mathematics that must acknowledge irreversible contractions or expansions, and event horizons. Would it thereby be radically different? You bet! If, ontologically, we can define a straight line as “a circle that passes through the point at infinity” then, when we arrive at the highest possible ontological number, followed by irreversible expansion to infinity, we automatically convert the circle into a straight line. In fact, we can imagine that we have constructed a new x-axis and a new y-axis, at the centre of which we can place a dimensionless point and start all over again! Almost every way you consider the universe, you will discover a means by which the system returns to itself. It starts as a dimensionless point and finishes as a dimensionless point, at which stage it’s ready to begin anew.

***** The point comes in two ontological flavours: the dimensionless point and the dimensional point. The latter is a “flowing point” within a dynamic system of causality. It’s dimensional because it’s never static. At every “point”, it’s already moving on to the next point, hence has extension. Given that everything in the universe moves at the same speed – the cosmic

speed limit – then there’s a minimum distance that will be covered in a minimum time. Nothing can ever be below this minimum distance and time other than the dimensionless point. The dimensionless point is either static, in which case it is a non-existent, or it corresponds to a situation where flowing points, positive and negative, have perfectly balanced each other. It’s a resultant, net effect rather than something in its own right, i.e. in order to get dimensionless points you must first have dimensional (flowing points) in perfect balance. You can’t get meaningful dimensionless points on their own, independent of everything else. (Such points would constitute true nothingness – non-existence – and have no effects.) The Fourier frequency domain (outside space and time) – comprising autonomous, dimensionless monads – is the domain of dimensionless points. Space and time (antisymmetric and asymmetric dimensionality) introduce an asymmetry that stops things immediately balancing each other, as they do in the frequency domain. We leave behind well-balanced, symmetric, dimensionless points and start dealing with imbalanced, asymmetric, dimensional points.

The Central Point Draw a central point. Then draw a circle around it. You can imagine drawing a radius from the central point to every point on the circumference. But then you can draw an even bigger circle, and even more radii. You can keep drawing larger and larger circles and generating more and more radii. It’s as if endless numbers are being released from the central point. Is there any limit to the process? What if, once we reach some extremely vast circle, the curvature of the circle becomes so close to a straight line as to be indistinguishable from it. The circle then spontaneously wants to “transform” into a square, hence becomes totally unstable, and collapses to a singularity? That is the point at which we have generated the largest possible ontological number, the highest number implicit within zero. If there is a highest possible finite number then what does “infinity” mean? Infinity might be regarded as a technical term describing phase transitions between different ontological states. As soon as a dimensionless point exists, so does infinity, at least as an abstraction if not as a definable, ontological number.

Zero and infinity can both be regarded as net numbers, resulting from the effects of other numbers. If these other numbers are in fact primary then zero and infinity are their creations, rather than the other way around. If zero and infinity have, implicit within them, a finite collection of all other numbers then it means that zero and infinity are not true numbers. If infinity is ontologically made of a finite collection of numbers then it is not true infinity. Similarly, if zero is always made of non-zero numbers then it is not true zero. The mystery of how zero and infinity relate to all other numbers that lie between them is transformed as soon as we introduce concepts such as irreversible collapse, irreversible expansion, event horizons, and straight lines that are circles that pass through the point at infinity. If zero and infinity are not in fact separate from all other numbers, but, rather, made from them (i.e. they are secondary, resultant numbers rather than primary numbers in their own right), the whole understanding of mathematics changes. Abstract mathematics more or less says that zero and infinity are independent of all other numbers. It’s this that generates all of the bewildering paradoxes that surround zero and infinity. If, instead, zero and infinity are dependent on all other numbers then zero and infinity become completely manageable and all of the paradoxes are dispelled. Here again, then, we see a vital difference between abstract and ontological mathematics. The latter asserts that mathematics cannot be consistent and complete unless zero and infinity are dependent on, rather than independent of, all other numbers. Proving this is the supreme mathematical challenge, much greater than solving the Riemann Hypothesis. In fact, the latter might automatically flow from the former.

Mathematical Bubble Magic “Bubbles are the seed of everything.” – Leibniz “In mathematics, a partial differential equation (PDE) is a differential equation that contains unknown multivariable functions and their partial derivatives. (This is in contrast to ordinary differential equations, which deal with functions of a single variable and their derivatives.) PDEs are

used to formulate problems involving functions of several variables, and are either solved by hand, or used to create a relevant computer model. “PDEs can be used to describe a wide variety of phenomena such as sound, heat, electrostatics, electrodynamics, fluid flow, elasticity, or quantum mechanics. These seemingly distinct physical phenomena can be formalised similarly in terms of PDEs. Just as ordinary differential equations often model one-dimensional dynamical systems, partial differential equations often model multidimensional systems. PDEs find their generalisation in stochastic partial differential equations. “Partial differential equations (PDEs) are equations that involve rates of change with respect to continuous variables. The position of a rigid body is specified by six numbers, but the configuration of a fluid is given by the continuous distribution of several parameters, such as the temperature, pressure, and so forth. The dynamics for the rigid body take place in a finite-dimensional configuration space; the dynamics for the fluid occur in an infinite-dimensional configuration space. This distinction usually makes PDEs much harder to solve than ordinary differential equations (ODEs), but here again there will be simple solutions for linear problems. Classic domains where PDEs are used include acoustics, fluid flow, electrodynamics, and heat transfer. “In mathematics, an ordinary differential equation or ODE is an equation containing a function of one independent variable and its derivatives. The term “ordinary” is used in contrast with the term partial differential equation which may be with respect to more than one independent variable. “Linear differential equations, which have solutions that can be added and multiplied by coefficients, are well-defined and understood, and exact closed-form solutions are obtained. By contrast, ODEs that lack additive solutions are nonlinear, and solving them is far more intricate, as one can rarely represent them by elementary functions in closed form: Instead, exact and analytic solutions of ODEs are in series or integral form. Graphical and numerical methods, applied by hand or by computer, may approximate solutions of ODEs and perhaps yield useful information, often sufficing in the absence of exact, analytic solution. “In mathematics, a partial derivative of a function of several variables is its derivative with respect to one of those variables, with the others held constant (as opposed to the total derivative, in which all variables are

allowed to vary). Partial derivatives are used in vector calculus and differential geometry.” – Wikipedia “In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability.... A finite-time singularity occurs when one input variable is time, and an output variable increases towards infinite at a finite time. These are important in kinematics and PDEs – infinities do not occur physically, but the behaviour near the singularity is often of interest.” – Wikipedia A water drop breaking up is an example of a finite-time singularity. A bubble splitting apart provides a similar example. We can think of an expanding circle as a kind of bubble. Is there a point ontologically, but not abstractly, where it becomes unstable and collapses? In ontological mathematics, unlike abstract mathematics, there are actual self-limiting mathematical forces in operation that prevent abstract processes continuing indefinitely. “A drop falling from a faucet is a common example of a liquid fissioning into two or more pieces. The cascade of structure that is produced in this process is of uncommon beauty. As the drop falls, a long neck, connecting two masses of fluid, stretches out and then breaks. What is the shape of the drop at the instant of breaking apart? Something dire must happen to the mathematical description of the liquid at that point since the drop undergoes a topological transition where it starts out as a single, connected fluid and ends up in two or more separate pieces. This is an example of a finite-time singularity since the drop breakup occurs a short time after the drop becomes unstable and starts to fall. Using photographic techniques, we have been studying transitions such as these to understand how the nonlinearities in the governing equations (in this case the Navier-Stokes equations) can be tamed and understood. Singularities of this kind occur in many areas of physics from stellar structure to turbulence to bacterial colony growth. This drop breakup problem is one of the simplest places to start an experiment that directly probes the singularity itself.” – http://nagelgroup.uchicago.edu/Nagel-Group/Singularities.html “Infinities do not occur physically” – why not? The reason is that irreversible processes occur near singularities, involving very complex

mathematics not yet well-understood by mathematicians. These irreversible processes shield the world from infinities, except when singularities are actually created – as in the formation of black hole singularities following irreversible collapse of a star. Do you want to see bubbles – ontological mathematics – in action? Have a look at this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKvT1lRWhE0 To watch bubbles and how they undergo abrupt topological transitions is to watch some of the most complex mathematical processes of all. Few things are as awe-inspiring and mysterious as the way bubbles suddenly change their configuration, often moving from one stunning geometrical configuration to another. So, does a spherical bubble that keeps inflating undergo an abrupt and irreversible topological transition as its curves become flatter and flatter, finally ending up as a cube (this would involve a dimensionality transition since a sphere is mathematically two dimensional and a cube three dimensional), or does it simply burst (creating a dimensionless singularity)? Does a big enough circle become a square? (A circle is mathematically one dimensional and a square two dimensional.) Does an expanding point become a straight line? (A point is dimensionless and a line one dimensional.) Or a circle? Or a sinusoidal wave? Is this the answer to how dimensionality phase transitions occur... how we can shrink down to dimensionless singularities (as in black holes), and expand from a Big Bang Singularity to a dimensional universe? Calculus serves as a dimensionality step ladder, allowing us to add dimensionality through integration and subtract dimensionality through differentiation. Isn’t is wondrous? – and totally rational. “...these... bubbles are the seeds of things,... the foundation of bodies, and the ground of all of the variety that we admire in things, and all of the impetus we find in motions.” – Leibniz Bubbles – dimensional and dimensionless – are the basis of existence. Dimensionally, they are our best clue to the observable operations of ontological mathematics, and the world of the unseen dimensionless. Leibniz’s Monadology describes a cosmos of bubble-like monads. Monads are analytic, sinusoidal bubbles.

Hubble, Bubble, Boil and Trouble Bubbles produce perfect spheres: spheres because these provide the least amount of surface for a given volume. Bubbles, in whatever situation, always seek to find the arrangement with the least surface area. Bubbles are lazy and economical, following the path of least resistance and minimum effort. They perform shape changes with the minimum use of energy, which is the default way Nature operates. A Singularity is said to occur when a bubble formation undergoes a sudden change in shape or structure. Singularities are incredibly hard to describe and understand mathematically. The Singularity – the moment a radical rearrangement happens – involves non-linear mathematics, so is incredibly hard to solve. All phase transitions between mind and matter involve Singularity mathematics.

Surface Tension A dense steel needle can be placed on water and float on it. How does the water support it? It’s because of surface tension. Where molecules in the middle of water experience a uniform force from the environment around them, the water molecules at the surface are tugged by the molecules below them, but do not experience any force from above, leading to a net downward force which translates to the surface manifesting tension. The greater the surface area, the greater the surface tension energy. Nature seeks to minimise this energy, hence is committed to minimising surface area, as we see archetypally with bubbles.

Technological Singularity “The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization, and perhaps human nature. Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence (akin to a gravitational singularity) beyond which the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable.

“The first use of the term ‘singularity’ in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann. In 1958, regarding a summary of a conversation with von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam described ‘ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue’.... “Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an ‘intelligence explosion’, where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent’s cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.” – Wikipedia We will have a true “singularity” in our world – a divine singularity... a God Gate – when the whole of humanity is mathematically literate. A singularity is an inherently mathematical entity, and any cultural or social singularity will reflect math too.

Buddhism versus Illuminism “The Buddhist doctrine that, ‘All beings are fundamentally without self’ has been making headway in the Western world, though not necessarily with the precise meaning it carried in Oriental thought. The general idea is similar though: We are asked to contemplate the self as a construct, perhaps an illusory or truly deluded construct, rather than as a subsistent reality – as a fabricated, rather than a natural and perduring entity.” – Richard Ostrofsky Buddhism has no connection at all with Illuminism. Illuminism says, “All beings are fundamentally with self.” The whole of ontological mathematics is constructed from the monadic self. The self is the centre of mathematical ontology and epistemology. Buddhism has nothing to do with mathematics, and has no ontology and epistemology, hence is irrational and illogical. It is born from much the same empiricist and materialist roots as scientific atheism and nihilism, and might indeed be regarded as nothing but “spiritual” scientific materialism, whereby some kind of mental component is added to pure matter.

The Will to Power “The wreckage of stars – I built a world from this wreckage.” – Nietzsche “Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of selfpreservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength – life itself is will to power; selfpreservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.” – Nietzsche “And do you know what ‘the world’ is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by ‘nothingness’ as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be ‘empty’ here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my ‘beyond good and evil,’ without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself – do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you bestconcealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” – Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

This is an excellent, poetic description of a Hegelian, dialectical, selfoptimising mathematical universe!

***** The “Will to Power” is nothing but living, self-solving, self-optimising mathematics.

Dimensionality Phase Change Imagine a zero-dimensional point at the origin of a two-dimensional coordinate system. Now start inflating this point (as in the Big Bang!). The zero-dimensional point becomes a one-dimensional circle. Now keep inflating the circle. What happens to it? Does it go on expanding forever? Or does something extraordinary happen to it? At a certain point – the Zenith number – is the circle converted from a one dimensional circle into a two-dimensional square, i.e. it undergoes a dimensionality phase change. However, a square provides the axes for a new coordinate system, a new origin, and a new “Big Bang”. In other words, a point at the origin of a square coordinate system (the maximum size of which is already built-in) expands into a circle, which keeps expanding until it becomes a square, which then forms the new coordinate system for a new Big Bang from a zero-dimensional point. Thus this is a permanently oscillating mathematical universe. The point of maximum expansion of the circle is also, paradoxically, the point of maximum contraction, i.e. as soon as a circle reaches maximum expansion (a square!), the next step in the sequence is maximum contraction (return to a dimensionless point).

The Flowing Point and the Euler Circle A flowing point has a minimum size. However, as it travels around its defining Euler circle in the dimensionless frequency domain, its size changes sign from positive to negative (and from real to imaginary), meaning that it has no net size. Averaged over all of its states, it’s dimensionless, in accordance with the requirements of the frequency domain. In the spacetime domain (a dimensional domain, of course), the overall net dimensionlessness of the flowing point is much less apparent and the flowing point therefore has an enduring effective size (which is why it seems to act like a particle in the dimensional domain).

Overall, of course, the spacetime domain averages to zero (but in a much more complex way).

The Deluded It’s a catastrophic error to imagine you’re smarter than you are, and an even more catastrophic error not to recognise people who are smarter than you. No matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter than you. Well, at least until you come to the smartest person of the day. There is one person on earth right now who is the smartest person alive, and never encounters anyone smarter. In his day, Leibniz was that person. And he would still be that person if he were alive today. Yet Leibniz didn’t fail to appreciate the genius of the likes of Descartes and Spinoza. All geniuses are humble. The clowns and trolls never are.

The Contest So, on one side, you have people using pure reason, logic and mathematics to the highest possible level. On the other side, you have people using their senses, observations and experiments on the visible world, using science. Which side are in the best position to tell you about the ultimate secrets of existence, about the way world is eternally configured, about what the arche (the fundamental substance of existence) is? Is there even a contest? When was the last time you observed ultimate existence? When was the last time you experienced ultimate existence? So what on earth makes you imagine that your senses or experiences would help you to detect, know and understand ultimate reality? How stupid and irrational would you need to be to imagine they could? Only reason and logic can take you to the eternal order of existence where absolute, infallible Truth resides. If you take science seriously, it means you are stuck with the primitive belief that your senses reveal “truth” to you. Well, how reliable are your senses? Do you have any idea what they are revealing to you? If colour exists not in objects but in our perception of objects, how can we know that our entire idea of an object is not simply that... an idea. In Kant’s philosophy, the object in itself is unknowable. Well, which sensory scientist is smarter than Kant? Which sensory scientist has ever refuted Kant? Or

Descartes, or Spinoza, or Leibniz, or Berkeley, or Hume, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche, or even Marx? We’ve certainly never met one. So what is it you imagine you are accomplishing by siding with science? All you are doing is buying into a sensory, empiricist Mythos that dissolves under any serious, logical, rational scrutiny. Subtract rationalist mathematics from science and all that’s left is irrationalist nonsense. Buddhism is a version of scientific materialism and empiricism, stripped of mathematics. Funnily enough, Roman Catholic Scholastic philosophy is mathematical rationalism stripped of mathematics, and it’s much more impressive than science and Buddhism. At least it’s on the side of reason, and makes rational arguments. The Scholastics were much smarter than today’s scientists. Leibniz was arguably the last and greatest of those following the Scholastic tradition. There is no scientist fit to tie Leibniz’s shoelaces. He saw so much further than Newton that it makes one weep for the stupidity of humanity in embracing Newton and rejecting Leibniz.

The Experiment How can ontological mathematics be vindicated by science? The science community built the Large Hadron Collider to find evidence for the Higgs boson and the standard model of physics. We suggest they now build the “Light Smasher”. The idea is to build a vast chamber studded with an equal number of interspersed spatial and temporal event detectors. In the chamber, light must be smashed into light at incredibly high energy, and what is being sought is evidence for chorans (space particles) and chronons (time particles) ... the components of light. The clocks should detect time anomalies due to the disruptions in the chronon field. A further prediction is that all manner of ordinary particles will be generated by the light collisions, and the subsequent recombination of chorans and chronons in non-orthogonal ways. Well, science, do you have the guts to falsify yourself and demonstrate that science must now be replaced by ontological mathematics? Let’s get rid of the standard model of physics and replace it with the standard model of mathematics. As soon as we do so, we enter the world of reason, logic and perfect analysis.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Science admits that there is no Heisenberg uncertainty in relation to the past. So, how can there be a Heisenberg uncertainty in relation to the present? That would amount to a version of Cartesian substance dualism, or a violation of the Cartesian prohibition against effects having a different level of reality from their causes.

Nows In the God Series, we have spoken about two “nows”. One now is always right ahead and involves a wavefunction describing everything that can happen in the universe; the “now” we experience is the one relating to the collapsed wavefunction where an actualized reality has been selected from all the potential realities. This is objective reality. Objective reality, as we experience it, is, in this sense, always in the immediate past! Strictly speaking then, our consciousness inhabits the first instant of the past. The “now” of our experience is actually “then”. The reality principle – the experience of objective reality – is defined by a collapsed wavefunction, an actualized wavefunction. However, right ahead of us is an extraordinary world of pure potential and the wavefunction that describes all of that potential. What is the world that actually appears, actually crystallizes out of all that potential? It’s the maximum compossible world. Things are compossible only when they can all exist. Countless things are possible but not compossible. The universe could take on all sorts of spectacularly improbable states – extremely low entropy states such as all the water vapour from a boiling kettle congregating in one corner of a kitchen and nowhere else. Such states may be theoretically possible but they are certainly not compossible, i.e. if these states are true, much more probable states are prevented from being true. A world of lower compossibility would thereby be favoured over a world of higher compossibility, which is impossible. The whole science of entropy ought to be rewritten to accommodate the doctrine of compossibility. In the current scientific theory of entropy, all sorts of preposterous outcomes are deemed viable because they are not formally ruled out by the laws of physics. The progressive increase of entropy predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is said to happen only on average, but all sorts of lower entropy states are deemed possible. If

the Second Law were recast in terms of compossibility, this would no longer be the case. Bertrand Russell provides an effective summary of the Leibnizian doctrine of compossibility: “But sometimes, in papers not shown to any human being, there is a quite different theory as to why some things exist and others, equally possible, do not. According to this view, everything that does not exist struggles to exist, but not all possibilities can exist because they are not all ‘compossible’. It may be possible that A should exist, and also possible that B should exist, but not possible that both A and B should exist; in that case, A and B are not ‘compossible’. Two or more things are only ‘compossible’ when it is possible for all of them to exist. Leibniz seems to have imagined a sort of war in the Limbo inhabited by essences all trying to exist; in this war, groups of compossibles combine, and the largest group of compossibles wins, like the largest group in a political contest. Leibniz even uses this conception as a way of defining existence. He says: ‘The existent may be defined as that which is compatible with many more things than is anything incompatible with itself.’ That is to say, if A is incompatible with B, while A is compatible with C and D and E, but B is only compatible with F and G, then A, but not B, exists by definition. ‘The existent,’ he says, ‘is the being which is compatible with the most things.’ In this account, there is no mention of God, and apparently no act of creation. Nor is there any need of anything but pure logic for determining what exists.” True entropy goes hand in hand with wavefunction collapse. The wavefunction always collapses into the most probable state, which is the state of highest entropy of all the possibilities currently available and also the most compossible state: more possibilities can be actualized in this state than in any other state. Reality is an actuality generator, a potentiality-toactuality converter or transformer, and the collapsed wavefunction “reality state” selected is always that which actualizes more possibilities than any other. Compossibility is always optimized. If many high probability states can be actualized at once, there is no sufficient reason why lower probability states should ever be preferred over them. Wavefunction collapse is simply the means by which compossibility is maximized. The universe mathematically calculates the most compossible state. That’s not to say that improbable things can’t happen. The most compossible state might just happen to accommodate a number of extreme improbabilities.

Such improbabilities might be permitted because they paradoxically have the effect of allowing a higher number of more probable states elsewhere in the system. A system constrained to exclude all improbabilities might reduce the number of compossible outcomes, hence produce less overall actualization. Physicists like to say that what is not forbidden is compulsory. The doctrine of compossibility means that mere compatibility with the laws of physics is not sufficient to ensure existence. All existents must belong to the universe of maximum compossibility.

Infinite Regress You can escape from the infinite regress of dividing particles only by postulating ultimate entities which do not have the properties of matter, i.e. monads.

Time Dimensionless Time versus Planck Time The flowing point is dimensional, yet, at its advancing tip, it is always sweeping up infinitesimal points, in continuous sequence, and this process encapsulates “now”. When it comes to the “Planck time” of physics, there is allegedly a smallest possible time interval, one which has no connection to the continuous passage of time such as we have described. Although, in our system, you cannot specify a time more accurately than the size of a flowing point, this in no way means that time is not flowing continuously, or is in any way “granular”, as science claims. In science, there is no such thing as “now”. It’s impossible to define within the scientific paradigm. Scientists deny the existence of “now”, the present instant. They claim that “now” actually belongs to a dimensional interval rather than a continuously flowing point. This means that time does not flow smoothly and continuously, but via granularity, via non-smooth jumps. This wholly undermines the ontological requirement for a flawless bedrock of reality. It’s impossible for reality not to have a point-based, continuous foundation, establishing an ontological plenum. It’s nonsense to suggest that existence is granular and probabilistic. If that were the case, huge, fatal ruptures, flaws and errors would propagate instantly throughout

reality, turning it into randomness and chaos. No order and organisation would be possible. We wouldn’t be here to contemplate existence!

***** The Planck time – which is extremely small, but, crucially, not zero – actually stands in direct opposition to the theory of tensed time, to the concept of “now”. According to tensed time, neither the past nor the future exists, only the present instant – right now. As soon as it’s experienced, it’s gone. It’s the most elusive thing there is. If time is granular, where is the past? Doesn’t the grain contain past, present and future all at once, which is impossible.

Authority “To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.” – Einstein Why do so few scientists study ontological mathematics? It’s because, despite its denials, science is all about authority. You could easily destroy your career by speaking out against the likes of Heisenberg, Born, Bohr, Einstein and Feynman, i.e. the great authorities of science.

***** “Modern science should indeed arouse in all of us a humility before the immensity of the unexplored and a tolerance for crazy hypotheses.” – Martin Gardner Science is full of crazy hypotheses. It’s time it stopped being so crazy... by subjecting itself to rationalism. “The difference between science and religion is that the former wishes to get rid of mysteries whereas the latter worships them.” – Sidney Hook You must be joking. Science is itself a religion. It believes that existence springs out of non-existence by a self-performing miracle! No religion would make any claim as insane as that. “The desire to know the truth is as old as the human race, and this desire must thrust aside any feeling of caution over the possible loss of the security provided by customary concepts.” – D. I. Blokhintsev

Science, therefore, must be overthrown by mathematics. “It is true that many scientists are not philosophically minded and have hitherto shown much skill and ingenuity but little wisdom.” –Max Born None more so than yourself, Max! “...the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches.... Physical conceptions are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.” – Einstein Scientists aren’t nearly as good thinkers as philosophers are. “But some of these theories are so bold that they can clash with reality: they are the testable theories of science. And when they clash, then we know that there is a reality; something that can inform us that our ideas are mistaken.” – Karl Popper Infallible reason, not fallible sensory experiments, must tell us what is true and what is false. What intelligent person would ever regard sensory data as more certain than reason and logic? “Unless a thing can be defined by measurement, it has no place in a theory. And since an accurate value of the momentum of a localized particle cannot be defined by measurement it therefore has no place in the theory.” – Richard P. Feynman There are plenty of things that are measurable (mathematical), but which we cannot actually measure – everything to do with the mind. Science cannot ignore reality just because there are aspects of reality that are not amenable to sensory experiments. “Quantum mechanics, however, regards the interactions of object and observer as the ultimate reality. It uses the language of physical relations and processes rather than that of physical qualities and properties. It rejects as meaningless and useless the notion that behind the universe of our perception there lies a hidden objective world ruled by causality; instead, it confines itself to the description of the relations among perceptions.” – R. Eisberg & R. Resnick

The world rejected by science as “meaningless and useless” is the mental world of ontological mathematics that explains everything. Science discarded the Truth because it wasn’t perceivable by the human senses. Science is just repeating the skeptical empiricism of David Hume, but, in that case, it has no right to be invoking rationalist mathematics, which is the antithesis of empiricist skepticism. Mathematics has nothing to do with empirical experiments, observations and perceptions, so how can you validly use it when describing “relations among perceptions”. Remove math from such descriptions, and what’s left? – magic and divination! “The discontinuous ‘reduction of the wave packets’ which cannot be derived from Schrödinger’s equation is... a consequence of the transition from the possible to the actual.” – Werner Heisenberg WTF! This is pure mysticism. What on earth is the “possible” and the “actual”? Go on, Werner, rationally define them. “Today, after endless repetition, a dual nature of matter may seem as obvious and indisputable to the experts as the immobility of the Earth seemed to Galileo’s learned colleagues who refused to look through his telescope because it might make them dizzy.” – Alfred Landé One day it will be indisputable to everyone that we live in a dual-aspect mathematical monism of form and content.

Contra Quantum Mechanics “Trying to capture the physicists’ precise mathematical description of the quantum world with our crude words and mental images is like playing Chopin with a boxing glove on one hand and a catcher’s mitt on the other.” – George Johnson That’s true of the whole of science. That’s why we need math, an infinitely more precise instrument. “From the outset, however, this whole controversy has been plagued by tacit assumptions, very often of a philosophical rather than a physical character...” – David Bohm Science is full of these “tacit assumption”, reflecting extremely dubious philosophical positions that are never subjected to any philosophical

analysis (except by philosophers, who are always ignored by scientists). “Quantum mechanics, to put it gently, is not the most philosophically lucid theory in physics. Its conventional interpretations include fantastic claims that strike at the realist and empiricist underpinnings of modern science. Among these claims are the principle of superposition, where an object can be in an existentially indeterminate physical state, or simultaneously in contrary physical states; wave-particle duality, where fundamental particles are thought to become wave-like in between observations; and a more general observation problem, where the mere act of observing a quantum system necessarily alters it. These are just a few of the bizarre paradoxes of quantum mechanics. More troubling than their presence, perhaps, is the fact that most physicists do not perceive these paradoxes as problematic. If quantum mechanics contradicts Aristotelian logic and philosophical realism, so much the worse for logic and philosophy. Quantum mechanics has been empirically verified, we are told, so we must boldly embrace what is counterintuitive.” – Daniel Castellano Castellano is absolutely right. When will science be subjected to intellectual rigour? It has degenerated into gibberish, saved from insanity purely because the math it uses is pretty damned good and gets the job done. “But it is certainly not possible to insist on one hand that the formalism is complete and to insist on the other hand that its application to ‘the actual’ actually demands a step which cannot be derived from it.” – Karl Popper Indeed! Why are scientists so contemptuous of such considerations? Is it because they are such irrational empiricists that they don’t actually see the problems? Are they just too stupid and autistic? “A very interesting theory, it makes no sense at all.’’ – Groucho Marx That’s true of most of science! “Contemporary physicists come in two varieties. Type 1 physicists are bothered by EPR and Bell’s Theorem. Type 2 (the majority) are not, but one has to distinguish two subvarieties. Type 2a physicists explain why they are not bothered. Their explanations tend either to miss the point entirely (like Born’s to Einstein) or to contain physical assertions that can be shown to be false. Type 2b are not bothered and refuse to explain why.” – David Mermin

Most scientists have no interest in philosophical problems. That’s also why they are so uninterested in religion. Shut up and calculate! Scientists are just a bunch of autistic calculators who are clueless about the true nature of reality.

***** “Does mathematics simply model reality or does it become reality itself?” – Anonymous Mathematics doesn’t become reality. It always was reality, and always will be. “For every problem, there exists a simple and elegant solution which is absolutely wrong.” – J. Wagoner Actually, it’s absolutely right but is then rejected by science in favour of some inelegant, bewilderingly clunky, inelegant junk... like M-theory. “The basic rationale of science is that facts can be established by empirical verifications. However, science is now often charged with predicating its verification on evermore abstract mathematics, which may not be generally understood by society at large. As such, science has become, to many, an act of faith comparable to many religions.” – Anonymous Science is an act of faith because it doesn’t use math enough, not because it uses it too much. There is no faith involved in mathematical rationalism. That’s the exact opposite of faith.

Groundhog Death What if you killed yourself every day, like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day? What would you learn about life?

Hawking “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why

there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” – Stephen Hawking “Stephen Hawking stated one intelligent question in his book A Brief History of Time. While discussing the mathematical nature of science’s theories and a presumed future ‘Theory of Everything’ that science may one day discover, he said that even with such a mathematical description of all of reality, it wasn’t clear what ‘breathed fire into the equations” to make them active and real, to make them animate the universe. “That’s exactly the right question for a scientist to ask. Unfortunately, it’s apparent he never pursued an answer to it. Nor did science. But at least they did ask it once, so perhaps there’s some hope for them yet. “I wonder if he still wonders about it? And if he’d be interested in the answer. “The answer is of course is found in Ontological Mathematics!” – JP The universe is alive. Rules and equations aren’t dead... they’re the formulae for life itself. They are Platonic Forms of Life. Monads – the basic constituents of living mathematics – are living, self-solving, self-optimising minds. Life is breathed into math because math is inherently alive. Of course, you have to be an idealist, not a materialist, to understand this. People like Hawking will never “get it”. It’s beyond their rational capability. Monadic mathematics is life. Monadic mathematics is mind. Matter can never support life and mind. A material universe can by definition not be a place of life and mind. Hawking looks at equations and mathematics and sees only matter, death, mindlessness, meaninglessness and purposelessness. In fact, what he’s looking at is life and mind, but you have to be a genius to realise that, and he’s not.

***** Hawking asks, “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” Of course, it doesn’t go to any bother at all. It has never not existed, and it could never not exist. It has always existed because the principle of sufficient reason mandates it. Of course, Hawking as someone with no respect for reason, has no means of comprehending this. He’s an irrationalist... a sensory empiricist and materialist who uses math yet disdains logic, reason, ontology and epistemology.

***** “God not only plays dice. He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.” – Stephen Hawking God doesn’t play dice. And none of the fundamental basis of existence can be seen. Why would anyone believe in invisible dice being thrown in invisible places? That’s totally irrational, yet Hawking is regarded as one of the most illustrious scientists of the day. Scientists such as Hawking are forever talking nonsense. Moreover, it’s nonsense that isn’t even compatible with the empiricism and materialism they claim to endorse. How can any empiricist validly refer to invisible dice? You might as well to refer to fairies and elves. Where is the evidence for these invisible dice? And where is there any rational basis for them? No random, probabilistic event has ever been observed. “Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases.” – Stephen Hawking Hawking is referring to material disorder. What about mental order? “My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it as it is and why it exists as all.” – Stephen Hawking Then read the God Series! Become a rationalist. Try using reason and logic, for a change.

The Five Ways There are five ways of attempting to understand reality: 1) organised religion, 2) philosophy, 3) science, 4) mathematics, and 5) New Age Spirituality, which borrows from the previous four in a syncretic manner. The fifth path is the most popular in today’s world, and the one most associated with incoherent bullshit and charlatanry.

The Nothing Man “What is man in nature? Nothing in relation to the infinite, everything in relation to nothing, a mean between nothing and everything.” – Pascal Man is nothing and infinity. Man is an immortal, indestructible singularity.

The Kantian Question

“[How can metaphysics and geometry be united if] the former peremptorily denies that space is infinitely divisible, while the latter, with its usual certainty, asserts that it is infinitely divisible. Geometry contends that empty space is necessary for free motion, while metaphysics hisses the idea off the stage. Geometry holds universal attraction or gravitation to be hardly explicable by mechanical causes but shows that it derives from the forces which are inherent in bodies at rest and which act at a distance, whereas metaphysics dismisses the notion as an empty delusion of the imagination.” – Kant How many people are able to comprehend the different claims of physics, metaphysics, religion, and mathematics? Why do you agree with this and disagree with that? On what basis do you accept this rather than that? What’s your truth criterion? What do you rely on? – your feelings, senses, mystical intuitions, or your reason and logic? What possible reason could you have for rejecting reason and logic? And wouldn’t that make you irrational? If you believe in irrational answers to existence then why should anyone take seriously anything you say?

Ghost World The Ghost World is the Kantian noumenal world. It’s the world of God, the soul and free will. Kant thought this world was unknowable. That’s because he was scientifically rather than mathematically minded, and he knew that science cannot penetrate the noumenal. All Kantian phenomena concern all dimensional, spacetime (material) numbers. All Kantian noumena – which he wrongly believed unknowable – concern zero, infinity, and all dimensionless frequency (mental) numbers. Kant’s famous antinomies are, when reduced to mathematics, nothing but statements about zero, infinity and dimensionless numbers on the one hand, and all dimensional numbers on the other; and between circular reality on the one hand and linear reality on the other.

***** The essence of the four Kantian antinomies is that, using Kant’s methodology, both sides of the argument can be proven true: 1. Thesis: “The world has a beginning in time and is limited as regards space”; Antithesis: “The world has no beginning and no limits in space.”

2. Thesis: “Every complex substance is made of simple parts”; Antithesis: “Nothing is composed of simple parts.” 3. Thesis: “Humans have free will”; Antithesis: “Humans have no free will.” 4. Thesis: “There exists a necessary being (God) in the world”; Antithesis: “There does not exist a necessary being (God) in the world.” The domain of the thesis is the spiritual (religious) world, while the domain of the antithesis is the spatiotemporal (scientific) world. In Illuminism, the domain of the thesis is the mathematical, frequency, mental world, and the domain of the antithesis is the mathematical, spacetime, material world. Note that Hegel rejected the notion that Kant’s antinomies couldn’t be solved, and created his dialectic (crucially including a synthesis phase) to solve them. Contemporary Illuminism asserts that they are all resolved via strict mathematical arguments reflecting an eternal, necessary, ontological mathematical order of existence.

The Rebirth The Rebirth of the Ether. The Rebirth of Scientific Determinism. The Rebirth of Causation. The Rebirth of Reason and Logic.

***** The law of existence must flow from an action, a rationally inevitable action that privileges nothing over anything else, that is not arbitrary in any way. The action comes first and law is its consequence, not the other way around. The action is motion taking place according to the principle of sufficient reason, and from that action is generated the God Equation that controls the universe, and all life in it.

Music “Music is an unconscious exercise in arithmetic in which the mind does not know that it is counting.” – Leibniz

This is true regarding everything, not just music. “Music is an unconscious exercise in metaphysics in which the mind does not know that it is philosophizing.” – Schopenhauer Music is math and philosophy. We are all part of the cosmic orchestra. If you’re not an outright rationalist and logician, try to understand reality as a divine symphony. Try to understand the notes, the compositions, the players and the conductor. “Unlike the visual and verbal arts, Schopenhauer did not view great music as communicating Platonic Ideas. Rather, he claimed that music has the capacity to copy the Will itself without depicting anything within the world as representation.... Just as Schopenhauer argued that the world as representation is objectified willing, he argued that the world as representation could be viewed as objectified music. He also emphasized a direct kinship between philosophy and music, believing that if one could state verbally what is expressed in music, you would have philosophy, or if one could express in tones what is stated in philosophy, you would have music. Both express the inner nature of the world. [The metaphysics of music suggests that] music provides a copy of an original that cannot be copied, a representation in tones of that which cannot be represented.” – David E. Cartwright Music is a copy of reality because music is auditory math!

The Big Bang Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point. The universe must be expanding into something, but what? This presupposes a definable difference between what is expanding and what surrounds the point (even if “nothing” surrounds the point). How do we define “nothing”? How do we define spacetime? How do we define expansion? Science can’t answer any of these. There was no time before the Big Bang. That does not mean that there was no existence before the Big Bang. It does not mean that there was no causation. Existents do not have to be temporal; they can be eternal. In fact, fundamental existence is necessarily eternal. Existence is its essence. Before the Big Bang, according to science, there was simply nothing. There was no “where” and nor was there a “when”. It doesn’t even make

sense to say “before the Big Bang”, they claim. Yet, logically, there clearly was existence before the Big Bang. Eternal existence is not part of the temporal order, but it is certainly “before” the birth of time. The cause of the Big Bang, even if it were only a random fluctuation, was before the Big Bang. Moreover, even if it were a random fluctuation, we would have to ask a random fluctuation in what and of what? The Big Bang did not occur as a self-performing magic act, a miracle that needed no God. It did not occur without any reason. After the Big Bang, we can talk about matter, space, time, and contingency. Before it, we must talk of mind, frequency, eternity and necessity. What existed before the Big Bang was what caused the Big Bang. It was the prior cosmic state to the Big Bang.

***** “The Big Bang was an explosion OF space, Not IN space. The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time. So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where. Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.” – Tony It’s amazing how often this tripe gets trundled out by scientists. Firstly, notice the total failure to define what “space” is and what “time” is. Are they energies, geometries, abstract containers, unreal potentiality wavefunctions, virtual realities? Is space a vacuum? What is a vacuum? What’s the temporal equivalent of a spatial “vacuum”? Can we suck all of the time out of something, just as we can suck out all of the space (air)? Why does space have three dimensions and time only one? Where do space and time come from? How are they possible at all? What is the sufficient reason for them? Without all of these critical definitions, the scientific Mythos of the Big Bang is about as convincing as the Mythos in the Book of Genesis for the origin of the universe. There, we get an undefined, miraculous “God” as the root of everything. With the Big Bang, we get an undefined, miraculous explosion from non-existence, for no reason, and via

no mechanism. This is merely a different description, not a better description. When scientists say that it doesn’t make sense to refer to before the Big Bang, what they really mean is that it makes no sense within their Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, and their rejection of rationalism, logic, eternal necessity, eternal conservation of energy and mathematics. To those who follow a rationalist philosophy, it makes perfect sense to refer to before the Big Bang, and it’s entirely nonsensical not to do so. Scientists are not making factual, rational claims regarding the Big Bang. They are merely stating their dubious philosophical ideology and dogmatism. They have no means whatsoever to defend their claims. Tony writes that it’s an “inaccurate assumption” that “since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.” Eh? The whole point of the notion of the expanding universe is that we can mentally reverse the expansion, and contract it all the way back to a single point (the Singularity) – which is where the expansion must have begun. Presumably what Tony wanted to say was that no explosion took place within an existing spacetime, and therefore what was exploding from the Singularity was nothing other than spacetime itself. That has nothing to do with Tony’s casting of doubt on the universe expanding from a single point (the Singularity). Do scientists believe that an unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction existed prior to the Big Bang? Who knows? They never say. If such a wavefunction didn’t exist, then when did the unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions relied on by quantum mechanics first become relevant, where did they come from, and what produced them? What does it even mean to refer to unreal, abstractions? Things either exist or they don’t. You can’t refer to them at all if you say they are unreal. You might as well refer to your personal fantasies, or fairies. It’s extraordinary that people who subscribe to empiricism are willing to rely on non-empirical unrealities, and those who subscribe to materialism on immaterial unrealities. They say it’s meaningless to refer to “before” the Big Bang. Why isn’t it meaningless to refer to unreal abstractions? Science is very selective and self-serving about what it regards as meaningful and what it regards as meaningless. There is no coherence in the various stances it adopts. Tony wrote, “So any universal boundary that exists (an edge to the universe), is between place and time, and nothing. Of existence and non-

existence. Of laws of nature and no laws of nature. It is that boundary which is expanding and has no centre. It is the ‘when’ and ‘where’ that things can occur that is getting bigger all the time. Imagine pulling a large rubber sheet with white dots on it from every direction. All of the dots are spreading apart from each other everywhere, not from some central point. From the perspective of each dot, all the other dots are moving away from it. Outside of the sheet, nothing can happen, you can’t put stuff in there because there is no ‘in there’ to put it.” This is mystical gibberish, and simply begs the question of what “nothing” is. Tony goes on, “If everything in the universe is flying apart from everything else, this begs the question, Why aren’t the galaxies, stars, planets, the atoms in my body, also flying apart? Shouldn’t we all be slowly disintegrating as space and time expands? “After all, there is space and time in between protons and electrons, isn’t that space increasing all the time as well? “The answer is yes, but there are other forces at work at closer distances that fight against the expansion of the cosmos. If those forces didn’t exist (things like gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces), then nothing could form to begin with. It is those forces that create structure and beauty, and us. “For example, gravity keep atoms in a star together so they can shine, it also keeps stars clumped together in galaxies. On a local level, other forces can counteract the expansion of the universe. Chemical bonding and gravity keeps us alive. “These forces can’t hold out forever though. Eventually the universe will win. But for now, we have the upper hand.” Given that atoms are mostly space, and that the unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions of quantum mechanics are defined over the entire expanding universe, the expansion of spacetime will eventually wipe out everything in the universe. Isn’t it bizarre that you hear a lot about the Heat Death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but never about the total annihilation of matter via the expansion of the universe? There won’t be any “heat death” if there’s no matter at all. As ever, science chooses to highlight some theories and suppress others, or suppress the fact that they are radically in

conflict with each other, thus casting extreme doubt on the coherence of science.

The Theory of Everything Everything is made of light. Light is the carrier of ontological mathematics. A complete and consistent set of photons constitutes a monad – an eternal life form. Each photon has two components: a sine wave and a cosine wave. It has a real and a imaginary part, and is the basis of complex numbers. (Photons explicitly contradict the scientific world of real numbers only.) The theory of light is the theory of reality based exclusively on analytic sine and cosine waves. There’s nothing else. The whole of reality comprises analytic mathematical waves.

***** Our minds are, so to speak, inside a black hole (a Singularity). The whole material universe is collapsing into a Singularity via the so-called expansion of the universe, which just means that waves are becoming longer and longer in wavelength (lower and lower in frequency/energy). When a wave has been wiped out in terms of extension, it is therefore nonextended, and thus part of a Singularity.

The Critics Many of our critics trash ontological mathematics, yet refuse to say what your own “infallible” schema is. How convenient for them. Not for them the mantra of, “Put up or shut up.” They will criticize others without presenting their own schema so that we can judge what their claims are. Well, piss or give off the pot. We’re tired of non-entities and mediocrities treating the world to their infinite (or, er, zero) wisdom on Facebook. Fuck the Facebook warrior and gurus... heroes in their own lunchtimes.

Supermassive Black Holes “The entire genus of atoms did not appear all at once. Prior to the assistance of the higher-level activity of stars (i.e., the process of stellar nucleosynthesis), no elemental organisms heavier than hydrogen and helium were able to stabilize out of lower-level energetic activities. But

before stars could emerge, hydrogen and helium had to collect into huge swirling clouds, which became galaxies. At the centre of these early galaxies there emerged black holes (whose gravity was so intense not even light could escape), further securing the next stage of evolutionary complexity. According to astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, the influence of ‘energy feedback’ from these early black holes played a crucial role in forming the stars and planets making up the universe we know today. Star formation was first catalyzed as a result of the rapid revolution of the black holes at the centre of galaxies, which generated gravitational density waves that ‘shocked clouds of hydrogen and helium to condense rapidly into thousands of stars at a time.’ Had this rapid process of star formation continued unabated, the raw hydrogen and helium gas of most of the galaxies in the universe would long ago have become far too hot to form any new stars. Fortunately, the energy feedback effects of supermassive black holes has kept star formation in check. In effect, the eating habits of black holes allow them to act as cosmic thermostats, ‘making sure the porridge of intergalactic matter is not to hot and not too cold.’138 Black holes have played a fundamental role in the evolutionary adventure that gave rise to our present cosmic ecology. According to Scharf, ‘The fact that there are any galaxies like the Milky Way in the universe at this cosmic time is intimately linked with the opposing processes of gravitational agglomeration of matter and the disruptive energy blasting from matterswallowing black holes. Too much black hole activity and there would be little new star formation, and the production of heavy elements would cease. Too little black hole activity, and environments might be overly full of young and exploding stars – or too little stirred up to produce anything.’ “Galaxies and black holes can be understood as analogous to massive cellular systems, where the regulative role of the black hole is akin to that of the central nucleus of a cell. Like all other organisms, galaxies appear to have a finite life-span, beyond which they can no longer produce new stars. The nested feedback loops at work to secure the self-organizing dynamics of a biological cell are obviously far more complex and adaptive than the simpler feedback exhibited by black holes; but nonetheless, the general analogy seems to hold.” – Matthew David Segall If you read a book on Creation Myths, you will see how imaginative – and deranged – humanity has been in “explaining” how we came to be here. Are the Creation Myths of science really any better, or just expressed in a

different language, and pronounced by a different set of high priests wearing different robes (lab coats!)? The priests of religion talk to you about your hopes and fears, the meaning of your life, and, above all, the state of your personal relationship with your Creator. The priests of science get rid of all that emotional talk, and even get rid of meaning. They want you to believe you are a meaningless, random, indeterministic process that ultimately came from nowhere, for no reason, via no mechanism, for no purpose. Bizarrely, they are truly delighted by this non-explanation, this blatant religious miracle. Science lacks God, but it doesn’t lack magic and miracles. These are of the self-performing variety. The mystical and emotionalist priests of religion have, in science, been replaced by autistic sensing types and empiricists, who are only interested in what their sensory apparatus seems to be showing them right now. Since they are never being shown “God” or the soul, they dismiss these as absurd (and they are indeed absurd if your understanding of reality extends no further than your senses). Ontological mathematics introduces radically different priests: the priests of reason. Reason is the root of everything, and only reason can rationally explain everything. Reason is eternal and necessary, yet can produce temporal and contingent combinations of these eternal things, and thus create mortal bodies and mortal worlds. Reason operates like an eternal piano. Reason is complete and consistent, and equates to the collection of all the rational “notes” of the piano. However, we can then play myriad different tunes on this rational piano. Every composition has its own unique rational characteristics, but no matter what “music” we play, we can never deviate from the rational structure dictated by the eternal notes. To understand this underlying rational reality, we don’t need our senses or feelings. In fact, we need to specifically overcome and transcend these. Emotionalists are those who hear the music played by the cosmic piano of rationalism, and imagine that some Super Being must be the composer, someone with whom they can have a personal relationship. Sensing types believe that the music created itself out of nothing for no reason, and all that matters is their experience of it. Only reason can reveal to us the existence of the piano, yet, for all human beings who rely on their feelings, senses or mystical intuitions, reason is cold, abstract and unreal. As far as they concerned, there is no

world of reason, and there is no underlying world of rational (mathematical) notes, which are the unseen fibre and fabric of existence, and without which absolutely nothing would be possible. It’s time to leave behind empiricist Creation Myths and arrive at the rationalist Truth, which has no reliance on the human condition, on human feelings and the human senses.

Pseudomorphosis “Pseudomorphosis: The concept of pseudomorphosis is one that Oswald Spengler borrows from mineralogy and is a concept that he introduces as a way of explaining what are in his eyes half-developed or only partially manifested Cultures. Specifically pseudomorphosis entails an older Culture so deeply ingrained in a land that a young Culture cannot find its own form and full expression of itself. This leads to the young soul being cast in the old moulds, in Spengler’s words. Young feelings then stiffen in senile practices, and [fail to expand creatively]...” – Wikipedia Science is built on the wrong foundations. Old theories haunt it. Scientists still believe in fallacious concepts derived from ancient Greek Atomism and Newtonian physics. These are so deeply embedded in the scientific psyche that scientists just can’t shake free from them. Old theories aren’t killed off in science. In fact, many scientists openly say that Newtonian physics hasn’t been falsified – even though it most certainly has – and has merely been “corrected” or “adjusted”. Sorry, space and time are either absolute, or they are not. If they are not, and it has been proved that they are not, then Newtonian physics is false. It’s as simple as that. The practical uses of Newtonian physics should not disguise the fact that it’s conceptually and ontologically absurd. Science hates to admit that previous scientific theories are blatantly wrong, so pretends that science is some sort of smoothly progressing and evolving monolith rather than a succession of radically different and incommensurate paradigms, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out. Because science refuses to reject old theories definitively, it naturally remains infected by their errors and conceptual fallacies. Science can never make a clean break. Science is all about pseudomorphosis: the failure to escape from false theories of the past. All new scientific ideas are infected by old scientific ideas, and do not depart too radically from what went before.

Why did the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics prove so bizarre? It was because it was trying to remain within the spirit of existing scientific thinking, while addressing the new quantum revolution. So, it did the worst of all things: it neither completely broke with the past, nor completely embraced the future. Quantum mechanics was the opportunity for science to switch to mathematics. Instead, it became manically committed to observation, reaching the absurd conclusion that observable reality is underpinned by unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions, which indeterministically collapse to a certain state when an observation takes place. This is one of the craziest ideas of all time: a repudiation of causation, determinism and any concept of objective reality. The leading lights of quantum mechanics should have accepted mathematical hidden variables to defend causation, determinism and the reality principle. Instead, they rejected mathematical hidden variables and reduced reality to observable measurements only. Quite literally, they were prepared to say that the moon doesn’t exist when no one is observing it. This is to take empiricism to the level of insanity, yet it’s exactly where the “logic” of empiricism leads: we can only “know” what we are immediately experiencing. The trouble is, an empiricist has no idea what he is experiencing. That’s why you need to invoke rationalism, and a world of rational unobservables (mathematics, in other words).

Science and the Emperor’s New Clothes “The Emperor’s New Clothes is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that he doesn’t see any suit of clothes until a child cries out, ‘But he isn’t wearing anything at all!’” – Wikipedia Scientists are the weavers in the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes. They tell you that you’re too stupid if you don’t “see” the wonderful yarns they spin for you (their scientific theories). Science is stark naked, yet we are all supposed to believe it’s fully clothed. The only thing that actually works in science is the mathematics it uses. Science is the successful deployment of

math, while also being the systematic misinterpretation of what the mathematics means ontologically. Science gets the application right and the meaning wrong. Its success makes people believe in it, but it’s not true at all. It’s a model that works well, up to a point, and is useless beyond that point (where mind rather than matter must be addressed). The world needs to tell scientists that they’re stark naked, and just making it up as they go along.

One Point, All Points If one point of space is filled, all space must be filled since there’s no sufficient reason why it shouldn’t be. Space can have no gaps. It must constitute an absolute plenum.

No Identical Things Although entities may be functionally indistinguishable, no two things can ever be entirely identical. All things can have an identical set of attributes up to a point, hence seem identical to that extent, but ultimately have properties that allow them to be uniquely distinguished. They can all be individuated thanks to position (unique external relation to everything else) and state (unique internal disposition). All monads share the same characteristics, and are defines by the same formula, but all are ultimately unique since they all instantiate differently. No two monads can be in exactly the same position and state. All humans are in a sense identical – we all have human DNA, of course – yet we are all different. We are unique instantiations of humanity. We are, so to speak, the same but different. The principle of sufficient reason provides for only two possibilities: all things are identical or all things are different. You can’t have a mixture of some identical things and some different things. It’s one or the other.

Light “Light is a result of excited atoms giving off energy. Atoms are the building blocks of matter and consist of a positively charged nucleus of protons and neutrons orbited by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. Heat, light, and electricity are among the things that can excite atoms. Once excited, the atom’s electrons absorb energy and briefly move from their normal orbit level to one slightly farther away from the nucleus. The electrons then drop

back to the more stable state, giving off a particle of light energy, or photon.” – Frank DeFreitas Light is in fact what is generated by the God Equation, and is nothing other than the elementary building block of a universe made of reason. Photons are packets of ontological reason (mathematics). Do you see how the angle you come from wholly changes your understanding of reality? “Scientific” light has only a passing acquaintance with Mathematical (rational) light. The latter makes light essential to life and mind. In fact, life, light, mind and ontological mathematics all become synonymous. We thus depart from materialism and enter idealism, we leave behind empiricism and embrace rationalism. Everything changes through nothing more than changing the definition of what a photon is.

The Ultimate Force Nature’s ultimate force is none other the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the source of all motion. Things move purely because the Principle of Sufficient Reason requires it. No state can be privileged over any other equivalent state, so all equivalent states must be selected in strict sequence... in a circle.

Julian Barbour According to speculative thinker Julian Barbour, time doesn’t exist and the universe isn’t expanding. Of course, these positions are directly connected. If time doesn’t exist then, given that time is the source of change in science, how can space be expanding (and thus changing)? Yet Barbour says, “I’ve been taken much more seriously saying that time doesn’t exist than that the universe isn’t expanding.” How can this be, given that they are tautologous statements?

***** “To get a handle on Ernst Mach’s viewpoint [Mach was a denier of absolutism], imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary.

“If this doesn’t seem revolutionary, try seeing it from Isaac Newton’s perspective. When Newton penned his laws of motion, Barbour explains, ‘He thought he’d seen the anatomy of God.’ And to Newton, God looked pretty much like three-dimensional graph paper. On top of this invisible coordinate grid, balls rolled, apples dropped, planets orbited. “To Newton, our particle could definitely be said to be spinning, because it was moving relative to the fixed grid of space. All one needed to understand the universe was full knowledge of where each object was on the grid, and when, according to the ticking of an invisible absolute clock. “Newton’s ‘theory of change’ was ‘phenomenally successful,’ says Barbour. But it had a weakness, ‘the invisible background grid and clock.’ “‘My life’s work has been about finding an alternative theory of change,’ says Barbour, one that is purely ‘Machian’ – that is, a theory that does away with the grid and clock. Such a theory, he believes, might open the door to quantum gravity.” – Kate Becker Why are people such as Mach and Barbour so keen to get rid of the “grid and clock”? It’s because these are non-empiricist hidden variables. A spinning object, in the absence of any surrounding empirical reference points, can of course genuinely be spinning if that reflects its rational internal form, i.e. its spin properties are inherently programmed into it, and have no reliance whatsoever on the external environment, are independent of the external environment, and do not need to be measured or assessed with regard to the external environment. However, empiricists reject any innate forms, which can be understood only by reason and not via the human senses, experiences and experiments. As ever, we always come back to a fundamental clash between reason and the senses. People imagine that science is all about “settled” positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every position is up for grabs, every concept is in doubt. No position has been proved.

***** “Einstein took a big step in deconstructing Newton’s old grid. In his theory of General Relativity, Einstein reimagined the grid as pliable, allowing space itself to arch and flex under the influence of gravity. And because objects are in constant motion, Einstein saw the grid as dynamic, changing with time as gravity adjusted its grip. Einstein even coined the term ‘Mach’s Principle’ to describe the ideas that inspired him.” – Kate Becker

Einstein was indeed heavily influenced by Mach, to the extreme detriment of his theories. Without Mach, Einstein might have committed himself to mathematical rationalism. He might never have rejected the “ether”. The ether more or less stands for an invisible mathematical grid. It’s not a static Euclidean grid, based on real numbers, of the type imagined by Newton. It’s a dynamic, non-Euclidean grid, based on complex numbers, and projected from a Singularity. Only an invisible mathematical reality can guarantee objective reality, and a reality principle. Without it, you descend into Machian and Einsteinian relativity, which explicitly contradicts any possible objective reality. Einstein was a bizarre and inconsistent figure because he argued on behalf of hidden variables when it came to quantum mechanics, yet he rejected the ultimate hidden variable (the ether) when it came to his relativity theory. It demonstrates how unreliable scientific “authorities” are. Why doesn’t science split in two? Why aren’t there rationalist scientists who fully embrace rational hidden variables, and empiricist scientists who never once mention anything that cannot be directly supported by sensory experiments? All of the absurdities of scientific empiricism would soon be laid bare in such a system. Rationalist science would be enormously more successful. “But for a ‘Machian’ thinker, there is a problem: Following astronomer Edwin Hubble’s measurements in the 1920s and 1930s, which showed that other galaxies seem to be receding from ours, Einstein accepted that the universe is expanding. Yet, with no absolute ruler to measure that expansion, how would it be possible to know that the universe is any bigger today than it was yesterday?” – Kate Becker This is exactly the kind of problem that arises without absolute standards to which to refer. How are temporal and spatial distances to be measured at all? How can we know that a kilometre or a second, as measured in today’s world, has any relationship to what might have passed as a kilometre or second at the start of the universe? Without an absolute cosmic measuring standard, how can we ever know that “constants” don’t change? Constants assume a fixed reality, but there is no fixed reality in a relativistic system, so every “constant” could change without contradiction. “‘When you look at General Relativity, it is beautifully Machian,’ says Barbour. ‘But the expansion of space that it allows presupposes an absolute

ruler. That’s a surprising vestige of Newton’s absolute grid.’ [MH: This echoes our comments about pseudomorphology; the presence of old structures in new structures that are supposedly free of the old structures.] “Barbour explains with a geometrical analogy. Suppose the whole universe just consisted of a triangle. You could measure the angles of the triangle with respect to each other and classify the triangle as equilateral, isosceles, or scalene (providing, that is, that you remembered your seventhgrade geometry). You could say, hey, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees! But if you wanted to judge the size of the triangle, you’d need a second triangle to make a comparison. “Barbour’s conclusion: ‘Shape is much more fundamental than size. I conjecture an alternative cosmology in which the universe is merely changing its shape – becoming more structured – and not doing that as well as expanding.’ “Another way to put it: ‘We swim in nothing,’ says Barbour. Not in a rigid grid; not with an absolute clock and ruler. ‘But,’ he asks, ‘precisely how do we swim in nothing?’ “To answer that question, Barbour set out to reformulate physics, this time leaving out both the absolute size and the universal clock. With his hands thus mathematically tied, he began at the beginning, with Newton and the law of inertia (‘objects at rest tend to stay at rest, objects in motion tend to stay in motion’ – you remember). “Barbour likes to start with his intuition, and then dig in to the math... “Barbour’s first insight was that Newton’s laws of motion could, indeed, be completely rewritten without absolute time or absolute distance. Then, he and his collaborators showed that general relativity is perfectly relational – except for the niggling problem of that un-Machian expansion.... “Then, of course, comes quantum mechanics. Barbour’s dream is that elimination of expansion might reveal a new route to quantum gravity.... “Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist, says that Barbour has already carved out a comfortable place in the history of quantum gravity. Smolin calls Barbour a scientific ‘seer,’ adding that he has provided the rigorous mathematical structure upon which to build clock- and ruler-less theories. “Olaf Dreyer, a quantum gravity researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, sits on the opposite side to Barbour on the debate over time, but he salutes his work: ‘He is one of the few

people who really thinks about the foundations of general relativity,’ which Dreyer describes as nearly ‘virgin territory.’ “Barbour is also in the process of writing a book which, he says, ‘will present more or less everything that I think I have learned about two basic questions: What is time? What is motion? The answers to these two questions permeate the whole of modern physics in a way that few researchers realize.’ It will be ‘a new perspective that they won’t find in any textbook.’” – Kate Becker Barbour will find the answers to all of his questions in the God Series, but he will not be a happy man. We contradict everything he says! We are absolutists who accept objective reality and the reality principle. The only conceivable objective reality – one that is intelligible and rationally explicable – is one based on invisible mathematics as the ground of ontology. Such thinking never appears in Barbour’s theories. He would run a mile from the reality of mental singularities (monads), which act as autonomous Fourier frequency domains, and which, collectively can produce an absolute, shared, public, objective reality. Barbour’s ideas relate to subjective, personal, relativistic dreamworlds!

***** “I like Barbour’s approach in questioning the expansion of the universe since I too believe that it is shrinking and not expanding at all. Ironically, though, what that means is that time is actually real and space is the emergent concept. Shape and space are what seem more real to us than time, but the exact opposite is actually true.” – ANONYMOUS Do you see how when things fail to be ontologically, rationally, definitively defined, it’s possible to endlessly speculate about the nature of reality? This is the whole problem with science: it can never establish what is truly real. An infinite set of perfectly performed experiments would never establish the truth of anything at all. It’s the interpretation of the experimental results that’s crucial, and that’s exactly where you need rational and logical criteria rather than empirical criteria (which are incapable of belonging to a complete and consistent intelligible system).

Is The Universe Expanding Faster Than The Speed Of Light?

Q. “I had a recent discussion with a professor about the early universe and rapid expansion. He affirmed that the expansion was not greater than the speed of light. Why is there such a misunderstanding about this?” – Anonymous A. “Some of the misunderstandings surrounding this topic might come from confusion over what is meant by the universe ‘expanding faster than the speed of light.’ However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! As a consequence of their great speeds, these galaxies will likely not be visible to us forever; some of them are right now emitting their last bit of light that will ever be able to make it all the way across space and reach us (billions of years from now). After that, we will observe them to freeze and fade, never to be heard from again.” – Dave Rothstein Isn’t it remarkable? One moment we are told that the universe isn’t expanding, then we are told that it is definitely expanding. One moment we are told nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then we are told that galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This is exactly what happens in a subject without rational, logical principles. Science cannot refer to any definitive laws, constants and principles. Under the umbrella of empiricism, you can reach whatever conclusion you like that seems to reflect the observable data. The question is this... should our understanding of reality be based on absolute, infallible, eternal, necessary principles (rationalism), or on slavish reliance on the superficial validity of observational data? To put it another way, if we accept the truth of rational principles, then we must accept that any experiments that seem to contradict them have been performed wrongly (they contain some sort of fundamental design error or technological problem – by no means improbable... remember the group of scientists who claimed that neutrinos travelled faster than light?), or that the experimental results are showing us some deeper problem, such as that time and space were faster and shorter in the past, and the further we look into spacetime, the more we are seeing a universe that is extremely unlike ours, hence cannot be judged according to the empirical “facts” of today?

In our ontological mathematical universe, it’s impossible for anything to exceed light speed since the only things that exist are sinusoids whose maximum speed is light speed. Given this eternal truth, anything that seems to exceed light speed cannot actually be doing so, so we must find the mathematical feature that is leading to the apparent anomaly. Once we find it, we will see that there is no anomaly at all. Scientists – since they reject anchoring principles – start coming up with fantastical speculations about space expanding faster than light, and so on. Of course, you can make claims such as this only when you haven’t provided ontological definitions. If “space” is made of sinusoids, with a maximum speed of c, nothing can ever be going faster than c, regardless of appearances. Do you try to interpret the appearances (this is what scientific empiricists do), or do you try to logically work out what hidden mathematical variables must be underlying the appearances (this is what scientific rationalists do)? You can see that the method of science is fundamentally flawed since, given the rejection of eternal principles, science invariably descends into multiple speculative and contradictory “explanations” of exactly the same data. This is exactly why no sane, rational person would ever apply anything other than the most extreme doubts and skepticism towards the claims of science. Descartes, applying his method of doubt, would have had a field day with the bizarre claims of modern science. Nothing would survive. Science is a Mythos. Get used to it. Science is really bad philosophy. It’s time for good philosophy, for rationalist philosophy that makes sense.

Gravitational Waves “There is intense speculation among cosmologists that a US team is on the verge of confirming they have detected ‘primordial gravitational waves’ – an echo of the big bang in which the universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. “Rumours have been rife in the physics community about an announcement due on Monday from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. If there is evidence for gravitational waves, it would be a landmark discovery that would change the face of cosmology and particle physics. “Gravitational waves are the last untested prediction of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. They are minuscule ripples in the fabric of the

universe that carry energy across space, somewhat similar to waves crossing an ocean. Convincing evidence of their discovery would almost certainly lead to a Nobel Prize. “‘If they do announce primordial gravitational waves on Monday, I will take a huge amount of convincing,’ said Hiranya Peiris, a cosmologist from University College London. ‘But if they do have a robust detection … Jesus, wow! I’ll be taking next week off.’” – Dr Stuart Clark, Friday 14 March 2014 Why would cosmologist Hiranya Peiris need a “huge amount of convincing”? Aren’t the fact the facts? That’s the entire problem. There are no facts, only interpretations. Science is all about interpreting the facts, which are themselves interpretations, i.e. science is about interpreting the interpretations, and speculating about the speculations. A “fact” on its own is almost entirely useless. If you’ve been keeping abreast of the gravitational waves controversy you’ll know that things have not turned out well. Wikipedia says, “Various gravitational wave detectors exist and on 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics erroneously claimed that they had detected and produced ‘the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky’ within the cosmic microwave background, providing flawed evidence for inflation and the Big Bang. Peer review will be needed before there can be any scientific consensus about these new findings. On 19 June 2014, lowered confidence in confirming the cosmic inflation findings was reported; on 19 September 2014, a further reduction in confidence was reported and, on 30 January 2015, even less confidence yet was reported. Therefore, scientists outside of the gravitational wave astronomy community doubt the existence of such phenomena.” Why should anyone have much confidence in any scientific claim at all? It’s one thing to regard science as useful, quite another to regard is as true, rather than as pure speculation, a sensory Mythos that keeps changing. Note how we are told that “peer review will be needed before there can be any scientific consensus”. Is it being claimed that scientific consensus stands for “truth”? It was once the scientific consensus that the earth was flat, and then that the sun orbited the stationary earth. It was once the scientific consensus that Newtonian physics was right. It was once the scientific consensus that Einstein was right. It was once the scientific consensus that quantum mechanics was right. Yet Einsteinian relativity and

quantum mechanics fatally contradict each other, and no one can get near a viable theory of quantum gravity. So, consensus and successful peer review amongst scientists have about as much connection with the Truth as consensus and successful peer review amongst the Cardinals of the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas once came close to being declared a heretic by the Catholic Church. Now he’s a saint and the Church’s official theologian. Why should it be any different in science? Being declared a “saint” doesn’t make you right. Being awarded a Nobel Prize (sainthood for scientists) doesn’t make you right either! There is no Truth in either science nor mainstream religion. Only mathematics is true.

The Answer As a matter of simple logic, the answer to existence is either rational or irrational. If the answer is rational then there can only be one such answer since it would be irrational for rational answers to contradict each other. Therefore, the rational answer must be consistent and complete, and that necessitates that the rational answer must be a single principle (since a single principle cannot be incomplete and inconsistent with respect to itself). The principle in question is of course the principle of sufficient reason, and this principle is expressed ontologically through the God Equation (Euler’s Formula), which defines ontological mathematics. In the past, the God Equation, the rational explanation for everything, was anthropomorphised and turned into a Super Being called “God”. As for irrational “answers” to existence, since there is no rational reason why irrational “answers” should agree with each other (and it would be miraculous if they did), there are as many irrational answers to existence as there are irrational people proposing them. This is exactly what we see in relation to all of the irrational mainstream religions of the world. They all tell their own ridiculous, irrational Mythos, which you are expected to believe completely, while having zero belief in all of the rival stories (even though there’s no rational ground for believing one crazy story in preference to any other crazy story). Hence, we can definitively state that there is only one rational answer to existence, while there as many irrational answers to existence as there are irrational people. Of course, irrational “answers” are not answers at all. Nothing irrational can be an answer to anything real.

So, you have two choices: accept the rational Truth (one answer), or the irrational Lie (as many answers as there are liars). The Lie is relative and fallible. The Truth is absolute and infallible. Anyone who tells you that everyone has their own truth is a liar. People certainly have their own lies, but not their own Truth. If you want to be a Liar, and believe Lies, that’s entirely your choice. Nietzsche wrote, “The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment: it is here that our new language perhaps sounds strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding; and our fundamental tendency is to assert that the falsest judgments are the most indispensable to us … that to renounce false judgments would be to renounce life, would be to deny life. To recognise untruth as a condition of life: that, to be sure, means to resist customary value-sentiments in a dangerous fashion; and a philosophy which ventures to do so places itself, by that act alone, beyond good and evil.” This gets to the heart of the matter. People believe lies because they find them much more useful in terms of Will to Power (hence life) than the Truth. Only a tiny percentage of humanity (around 5-10%) are rational, and only they associate their Will to Power with the Truth. Everyone else wants to believe whatever Lie makes their life easiest for them. Why do Christians believe in absurd stories revolving around a Jewish rabbi called Yehoshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus Christ)? It’s because it makes them feel good. They get a childish Mythos that allows them to understand reality in a childish, easy way. Of course, the fact that the Christian Mythos has nothing to do with reality is neither here nor there. Perception is reality, as the relativists like to say. Can you imagine a Christian confronted by Euler’s Formula (the Truth)? It would mean exactly nothing to him. It doesn’t empower him in any way because he has zero understanding of it. A bunch of facile parables in the Bible, on the other hand, allow him to make sense of his life. He can use those stories in various situations that crop up in his life. People love Mythos and hate Logos. They embrace the Lie with a passion, and they are repelled by the Truth. That’s the human condition. We can hardly be surprised that our work is so reviled given that we are promoting the Truth of reality that is incomprehensible up to 95% of the

human race (including many of the people who have shown an interest in Illuminism). You can choose to accept a mystical, emotional, sensory, or rational answer to existence. Eastern religion goes for the irrational mystical option (it’s all about absorption into a mysterious “Oneness” via meditation), Abrahamism goes for the irrational emotional option (it’s all about a personal relationship with “God” via prayer), and science goes for the irrational sensory option (it’s all about the total denial of anything nonsensory, such as the mind itself, via sensory experiments). Only ontological mathematics is about reason and logic. We don’t expect you to agree with us. In fact, we expect you to disagree with us. Nothing in human history has been more ferociously resisted than the Truth, and nothing has been more fanatically supported than the False Truth (the Lie). So it goes. That’s humanity for you. It always preferred the False God (the Demiurge, the Devil) to the True God (the God Equation).

***** Humanity is a Mythos Species, not a Logos species. It loves the Lie and hates the Truth. Humanity’s problems will be solved only when this is reversed ... when all Mythos (mainstream) religions die, when “God” dies, and when atheistic scientific materialism dies.

Expansion “The first thing to be aware of is that the universe is expanding, and has been since the Big Bang. Counter-intuitively, this doesn’t mean that the universe was once small, and is now bigger: in all likelihood, the universe was always infinite in size. Instead, it means that things began packed in close together, and have since moved further apart. While various forces (gravity, electromagnetism) hold things together on short scales, the wide open spaces between galaxies are constantly widening, spreading out the map of the universe.” – Matthew von Hippel “In all likelihood”?! Most other scientists would say that there’s no likelihood of this at all (i.e. of the universe always having been infinite in size). So, who gets to define “likelihood” in science?

The Difference Between Topology and Geometry

“Pithily, geometry has local structure (or infinitesimal), while topology only has global structure. Alternatively, geometry has continuous moduli, while topology has discrete moduli. “By examples, an example of geometry is Riemannian geometry, while an example of topology is homotopy theory. The study of metric spaces is geometry, the study of topological spaces is topology.” – Wikipedia “While topology is the study of shapes, it’s not the study of geometry in any usual sense. That is, it doesn’t care about distance and volume and angles and coordinates. Instead, it’s interested in shapes as shapes are representations of groups or sets.” – Michael Byrne “Imagine a surface made of a thin, easily stretchable rubber. Bend, stretch, twist and deform this surface any way you want (just don’t tear it). As you deform the surface, it will change in many ways, but some aspects of its nature will stay the same.... The aspect of a surface’s nature which is unaffected by deformation is called the topology of the surface.... A surface’s geometry consists of those properties which DO change when the surface is deformed. Curvature is the most important geometric property. Other geometric properties include area, distance and angle. An eggshell and ping pong ball have the same topology, but they have different geometries.” – http://www.austincc.edu/herbling/shape-of-space.pdf Topology concerns the study of geometric properties and spatial relations, unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of figures. What Julian Barbour is attempting is a kind of scientific repudiation of geometry in favour of topology. It’s not going to work. Geometry reflects absolutism, the reality principle, objective realism and ontology. Topology is relativistic and relational, and has no connection with ontology and reality. All specific details – the exact stuff of existence – are wiped out in favour of general, abstract patterns.

The Difference Between Entelechy and Teleology “‘Entelechy’ and ‘teleology’ share the Greek root telos, which means ‘end’ or ‘perfection,’ but there is a world of difference between entelechial selfrealization and teleological subordination of all entities to a single purpose. Kenneth Burke said of entelechy that ‘the kind of purpose [Aristotle]

assigned to natural entities was hardly purpose in the Providential sense of the term. Though all motion and action are ultimately guided by a desire for the perfection of God, each kind of things is conceived as striving to be perfectly the kind of thing it is.’” – Robert Spoo Teleology is the Aristotelian concept that everything has a final cause... an end to works towards. Entelechy is the idea of self-fulfilment... striving for some sort of completion or realization/actualization. We might regard teleology as relating to the collective (the macrocosm), and entelechy to the individual (the microcosm). However, there is no absolute distinction between the two words, and they can often be validly used interchangeably. “The term entelechy was first introduced into philosophy by Aristotle who used it in several but related senses. We shall understand by it an intrinsic tendency within a physical body, by virtue of which it is orientated towards some goal, e.g., the perfection of the individual concerned or of the species to which it belongs. The principle of entelechy is sometimes known as the principle of finality of teleology.” – John Russell

The God Equation The God Equation is the most beautiful, powerful and economic equation it’s possible to get. It’s the master formula of existence.

***** “God”, the mind (soul), and the world all obey a single equation. What could be simpler? This is the supreme expression of Occam’s Razor.

A World Without Time Why do people imagine that nothing can happen in a world without time, or that everything must happen at once? “Time” is just imaginary space.

The Expansion The expansion of the universe returns all material energy to mental monads, leaving nothing of the material world. A Big Bang is required to give rebirth to materialism. A Big Bang reincarnates the universe.

Causes and Reasons

All causes have causes, except uncaused causes, which have sufficient reasons.

Mathematical Alchemy Everything in the material world can be transformed into everything else, via mathematics.

Artificial Intelligence Ultimately, the claim of proponents of artificial intelligence is that, like the fictional Dr Frankenstein, they can make life and mind from dead things. Well, can they?

On the Fly If you do things on the fly, you do things without preparation, responding to events as they happen. You do things while in motion or in progress. You do them on the hoof. Science is a subject done on the fly, on the hoof. It lacks reason, logic, structure, analysis, i.e. all the things associated with math. It’s a heuristic subject, not analytic.

Waves Waves do not annihilate. That would defy the first law of thermodynamics. What they do is mathematically cancel with regard to space and time – which means they become dimensionless rather than dimensional, and are exactly superimposed over each, leaving no mathematical net effect.

Beauty “Youth is happy because it has the ability to see beauty. Anyone who keeps the ability to see beauty never grows old.” – Franz Kafka “It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment... It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one’s equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one’s work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.” – Paul A. M. Dirac

“The research worker, in his efforts to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form, should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. He should take simplicity into consideration in a subordinate way to beauty... It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash, the latter must take precedence.” – Paul A. M. Dirac Science is spectacularly ugly and clunky, hence false. Any system that is not complete and consistent is false. Only ontological mathematics, defined by a single master formula, is complete and consistent.

Science Science rejects monads, minds, souls, singularities, zero and infinity. It does not do so for rational reasons. It does so to affirm its dogmatic ideology of empiricism and materialism. Science relentlessly campaigns against zero and infinity.

The Absolute The universe relies on absolute causality and precision – nothing is uncertain or indeterminate. Math is causal, dynamic, and expressed through the flowing point.

The Difference The difference between “paper” (abstract) mathematics and ontological mathematics is motion. Abstract mathematics is predicated on static points, ontological mathematics on dynamic points. Traditionally, science has taken the job of dealing with dynamics, although it does so mathematically, of course. Why not simply make mathematics dynamic, and then no one needs science?! Mathematical movement underlies cause and effect, sequentiality, and continuity.

Warpable Why is spacetime “warpable”? It’s because spacetime is an energy field, composed of sinusoids. Since science does not explain what space and time actually are (it provides no ontological definition), it can give no coherent explanation for why spacetime warps. Why does mass warp spacetime? – because mass is just concentrated sinusoids, interacting with the surrounding less dense sinusoidal environment. What could be simpler?

“Empty space” means a space devoid of matter. It does not mean devoid of energy. The whole point of Illuminism is that everything derives from sinusoids. Sinusoids are energy, energy in itself.

Spontaneity According to science, the universe appears randomly, spontaneously, for no reason at all. This is an absurd “explanation” for the existence of the universe, even worse than “God” (the Creator). The Truth lies beyond science, beyond the scientific method, beyond experiment and observation. Only reason can take us to the Truth. Science rejects reason. Science is based on the senses.

The North Pole Steven Hawking says that talking about what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole, which, in his opinion, is absurd. Of course, it’s not absurd at all. Earth exists in space, so there is a point above the north pole, and indeed there are potentially infinite points above the north pole. What scientists such as Hawking want to do is to draw arbitrary boundaries and then declare any discussion of what lies beyond those artificial boundaries as “meaningless”. However, what they are really doing is – like an intolerant religion – banning any discussion of what lies outside their ideology. Things that are meaningless for logical positivists or scientists are not of course meaningless for anyone who does not accept their ideology. What is so tiresome is when science wannabes dogmatically echo people such as Hawking, and talk as if they are saying something profound and definitive, rather than merely parroting a dubious philosophy.

Photons “How could photons interact with time if they weren’t the same substance?” – PJ Nothing can interact with anything else in the absence of a fundamental commonality between them. Everything is ultimately the same substance, expressed in different ways, according to the environment and context. Everything – photons, space, time, mind, matter – is made of sinusoids, and that’s how they are all able to interact. Anyone who does not define an arche – an ultimate substance – has no chance of explaining reality. The universe must exhibit a substance

monism, not a dualism or pluralism. That’s why the first element of the periodic table must be the photon, with atomic number zero, and all atoms with atomic number greater than zero must be derived from photons. Consider the following: “Breit and Wheeler suggested that it should be possible to turn light into matter by smashing together only two particles of light (photons), to create an electron and a positron – the simplest method of turning light into matter ever predicted. The calculation was found to be theoretically sound but Breit and Wheeler said that they never expected anybody to physically demonstrate their prediction. It has never been observed in the laboratory and past experiments to test it have required the addition of massive high-energy particles.” – Gail Wilson

Reason Reason versus faith. Reason versus emotionalism. Reason versus mysticism. Reason versus the senses. Reason is something wholly separate from the human condition. It is eternal and mathematical. Scientists make the catastrophic error of subordinating reason to the senses, while Mythos religious types subordinate reason to faith, feelings and mysticism.

Relativity Einstein’s Special Relativity concerned the special condition that the things under discussion were valid only when no forces applied. General Relativity accommodated forces.

The World When scientists refer to “the world”, they mean spacetime and matter, and they cannot conceive of anything beyond that. They cannot imagine a mental Singularity that transcends the physical world. The true “world” is an immaterial Singularity outside space and time, and this has the capacity to spawn a subordinate world of matter, space and time (a holographic universe).

The Wave Universe “Waves. Light waves washing against our eyes, creating a vision of the world around us. Sound waves crashing against our ears, sometimes jarring and other times beautiful. Cosmic waves bathing the universe. All of it explained, illuminated, and connected via mathematics. Sometimes we call it harmonic analysis, other times we call it spectral analysis, but most people call it Fourier analysis.” – Don Rockmore It’s all about waves. It’s all about Fourier mathematics. Both mind and matter are based on waves. Mind concerns dimensionless sinusoids, and matter concerns dimensional sinusoids. What could be simpler? That’s the true basis of the Cartesian definition of unextended mind and extended matter.

The Musical Universe “Of all these sensory experiences, perhaps music more than any other is the one that is most closely associated with mathematics. The Greeks believed that beautiful music was mathematically based music and that there was a mystical connection between music and mathematics, that music was actually the mathematics of time.” – Don Rockmore There isn’t a “mystical” connection between music and mathematics. Music is a direct expression of mathematics. In fact, music provides the perfect analogy for expressing how ontological mathematics works. Just as we don’t hear mathematical waves bombarding our ears – instead we hear the musical information conveyed by the mathematical waves – so we never encounter mathematical waves in themselves, and we always encounter the empirical information they carry. Yet we could never have the experience (the information) without the carrier of the experience. Some of the least asked questions in intellectual history are: 1) what is an experience made of, 2) what conveys an experience, 3) how are experiences formed, 4) where do experiences go, 5) how do experiences interact with each other, 6) how are experiences related to the environment and how do they interact with the environment? All of these questions are answered with regard to mathematical waves that we never encounter as form (rationalism), but only as content (empiricism), i.e. we encounter the information carried and not

the information carrier. A rationalist understands that an unseen, nonempirical world must underpin the seen, empirical world. An empiricist has no such understanding, and in fact repudiates any notion of a deeper reality we inherently can’t experience. For empiricists, their experiences are the be all and the end all. As science shows, and as David Hume’s philosophy demonstrates, empiricists ultimately believe that experiences come from nowhere, have no non-empirical foundations, are not causal or deterministic, and no analytic laws can be constructed to explain their behaviour and interactions. “The Greeks applied the same rigors of rational thought to music as they did to everything else. Pythagoras is said to have made the earliest acoustical observations when he described the arithmetic ratios of the harmonic intervals between notes, ratios which were based on the length of the object creating the sound. For example, octaves, 2:1. fifths, 3:2. and fourths, 4:3. For the Pythagoreans, these arithmetic ratios held great metaphysical significance because they believed that a single set of numbers from one to four was the source of all harmony. So their theories about music were intricately connected to their mathematical and philosophical description of the universe: how the planets, the sun and the stars vibrated in harmony, creating a ‘music of the spheres.’” – Don Rockmore The universe is not about music, it’s about waves. Music is just one of many wave phenomena, but a study of music will of course lead us to mathematical waves and thus the innermost character of the universe. “In the ensuing 2,000 years, we’ve learned that this connection between math and music, whether mystical or not, is all about waves. sound is simply a disturbance of air, as Pythagoras observed, a vibration, but as we now understand, a vibration that extends through space in the form of a wave. The initial disturbance can be caused by anything, and that anything is called an oscillator, like a vibrating string.” – Don Rockmore All monads are oscillators sending out ripples dimensionlessly (mentally) and dimensionally (materially). We live in a universe of oscillators, interacting via waves. There is literally nothing else.

“But like ripples on a pond, the sound wave spreads when molecules in the air are disturbed and themselves begin to vibrate. the vibrating air molecules, in turn, bump into other nearby molecules, causing air pressure to compress and expand. This changing air pressure creates alternating waves that extend from the source of vibration. If a person is in the path of the sound wave and then the wave enters the ear, it’s rapidly processed and recognized by the brain as sound.” – Don Rockmore You are literally immersed in a cosmic ocean of waves. Waves – the analytic sinusoids of ontological mathematics – are thoughts in themselves, and thus the wave universe is a mental universe, much as conceived by Bishop Berkeley, and, especially, Leibniz. There is no such thing as scientific “matter”. Quantum mechanics – wave mechanics – has shown that materialism is absurd and false, and that mind is the primary reality. “There are many different kinds of sound waves, but they all begin with a simple sinusoid, like this... a perfect ‘a.’ And this, the s-curve, is the sinusoid that represents the sound. Sinusoids are one of the simplest forms of what a mathematician would call a periodic function, which is a function that repeats over and over... or cycles through a specific period of time.” – Don Rockmore It all comes down to sinusoids. They are not the result of physics or God, or religion, or spirit. They are produced by pure reason, and they reflect the eternal truths of reason. They go on forever, never degrading, never running down, never becoming disordered, never losing their perfection. They are uncreated. They are the uncaused causes, the prime movers, the sources of all motion, and the causes of all things. They take the role that Aristotle assigned to “God”. They are perfect and eternal, and they are organised into complete and consistent sets called monads. These are the autonomous units of ontological mathematics, which contain within them the entire laws of ontological mathematics, hence they know what to do in any possible

mathematical situation (and there are nothing other than mathematical situations). These monads are none other than minds. Since they are immortal and indestructible, they are also none other than souls. “We use the sinusoid to represent the periodic behaviour of sound in its simplest, purest form. It’s the most basic wave, moving in a simple harmonic motion with a perfect pattern of peaks and troughs. sinusoids are largely determined by two basic characteristics: amplitude, how high the wave goes up, and wavelength, which is the distance from trough to trough, or equivalently, frequency, which is the number of waves per unit length. Amplitude and frequency have immediate psychoacoustic correlates as loudness and pitch.” – Don Rockmore To understand reality, all you have to do is understand the properties and interactions of waves. There’s nothing else. The mystery of existence is over. Yet humanity hasn’t even begun to tap the power of waves, of eternal and infinite free energy (mental, not physical!). “...the greater the disturbance, the greater the amplitude and the louder the sound. Frequency is simply the number of waves in a given interval. The higher note has a higher frequency than the lower note. So frequency is a measure of pitch, and the geometry of these sinusoids explains why, when we play the higher and the lower a together, they sound good together. The sinusoids from each of these two notes fit perfectly inside one another. The higher ‘a’ is the lower one squashed by one-half. Of course, not all waves are perfect sinusoids. There are all sorts of waves. Different objects create different types of waves, therefore different types of sound.” – Don Rockmore Not all waves are perfect sinusoids, but they are all derived from perfect sinusoids. That was Fourier’s dazzling insight, one of the most important since Pythagoras said that all things are numbers. In fact, sinusoids are numbers, and numbers are energy. This is universe of energetic vibrations, perfectly describable via math. “Strings are the source of some of the most beautiful music on earth.... When we play different strings, we create different sounds, therefore differently shaped sound waves. The same thing happens when you pluck the same string at different positions, or when you play strings on different instruments. In each case, you create different sounds, therefore different

sound waves. and when a variety of sound waves of different amplitudes, frequencies, and shapes are combined, we have music.” – Don Rockmore And when we “play” the invisible, noumenal sinusoids of existence, we get thoughts, and we even get thoughts made concrete (as far as our senses are concerned), i.e. we get “matter”. “But the music of the real world is comprised of complicated sound waves, not the simple, pure sinusoids we’ve just discussed. In fact, most sounds are composed of complicated waveforms, whether we’re listening to a single instrument or a symphonic orchestra. And while the Greeks may have deconstructed music into simple arithmetic ratios such as octaves, fourths, and fifths, how can we mathematically understand such complexity? For centuries, we couldn’t. Not until the early 1800s, when the eccentric French mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier discovered that waves can be combined and separated. It was a discovery that no one believed at first but that changed music and math forever.” – Don Rockmore It changed everything forever. It was the key that finally unlocked the mystery of existence. It was exactly what needed to be added to Leibniz’s monads to make them into mathematical systems that could become the basis of ontological mathematics, and of physics (and thus science as a whole). It was what allowed mind to be introduced into science for the first time ever... ushering in the biggest revolution in intellectual history. “Fourier’s revelations didn’t begin with music, but rather, with his investigation of heat. Friend and advisor to Napoleon, Fourier is said to have become obsessed with heat while accompanying Bonaparte as chief science advisor on the 1798 military expedition to conquer Egypt. Fourier was apparently so impressed by the well-preserved sarcophagi that he kept his rooms uncomfortably hot for visitors while also wearing a heavy coat himself.” – Don Rockmore All geniuses are a bit on the eccentric side. It comes with the territory. They are always outsiders. They are never understood. And they are frequently hated. “The heated problem that Fourier took on in his famous memoir, on the propagation of heat in solid objects, was the problem of heating and cooling of our earth, our own cycle of temperatures. The French mathematician

developed his understanding of heat flow in terms of Newton’s law of cooling that says that the movement of heat between two bodies is proportional to their temperature difference. Translating this to the infinitesimal scale of temperature differences between infinitely close positions in an object gives the famous differential equation called the ‘heat equation.’ In Fourier’s solution of the heat equation, he found these periodic solutions of sinusoids mirroring the cycle of temperatures over the year as the accumulation of periodic effects, such as the regular orbit around the sun and the daily spinning of the earth on its axis.” – Don Rockmore The entire Global Warming debate should be a reduced to a study of Fourier heat equations, but based on the Leibnizian monadic ontology that Fourier unfortunately failed to grasp. It must be realised that all pure, ontological sinusoids are dimensionless. They are the perfect photonic sinusoids of the eternal frequency domain (immaterial and outside space and time, hence concerned with singularities). Perfect sinusoids always come in matched sine-cosine pairs, exactly orthogonal to each other. As soon as sines and cosines get paired up non-orthogonally, they create dimensionality and are then associated with the spacetime domain of matter. “Fourier found that no matter how complicated a wave is, it’s the sum of many simple waves. This was an astounding discovery. But for many years, few people believed his theories. After all, how could a complicated wave be reduced to the sum of seemingly many incompatible shapes: square waves and v-shaped waves have corners, while sinusoids are smooth. But over time, mathematicians affirmed Fourier’s discovery and came to refer to the unique set of simple waves that combine to form a more complicated wave as the wave’s Fourier series.” – Don Rockmore What could be as simple as this: all complex things are made from simple things. Once we establish what the simple things are, we can work out every possible thing they can produce. Leibniz famously said, “In whatever manner God created the world, it would always have been regular and in a certain general order. God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” There is no world simpler than the one made of sinusoids, and there is no world richer in phenomena. Sinusoids can be combined infinitely to produce infinite possibilities.

“We’re here with Liz Stanhope, professor of mathematics at Lewis & Clark college, and Liz’s research expertise lies at the intersection of Fourier analysis and geometry.... We’re going to talk a little bit about Fourier, and my understanding is that when Fourier introduced this at that time, I guess, it was an impossible idea that any function could be represented as a sum of sines and cosines. People didn’t really believe it. >> Yeah, it seemed sort of surprising to do arithmetic with waves. I mean, you’re adding and subtracting things that aren’t functions. that seems like a surprising idea to come up with. >> And it was even more than that, because it wasn’t just, well, you take maybe three of these waves, which people maybe could think about, because it was like three things, but he was actually saying, you know, you could take an infinite number, is that right? >> You might even need an infinite number to get at what you’re trying to construct. >> At that time, notions of like summing an infinite number of functions was a very complicated thing for people to think about. The real sort of stopping point for people were what we call questions of convergence, right? So if you add an infinite number of things, what are the conditions under which that could have a finite limit, something bounded?” – Don Rockmore “Arithmetic with waves” is what it’s all about. Waves, remember, are what numbers are ontologically. Forget Buddhism and meditation. Get a good book on Fourier math and study as hard as you can. But that’s not as “sexy” as meditation, is it? And it’s infinitely harder. You don’t like difficulty, do you? Much easier to sit down under a tree, cross your legs, close your eyes, fold your arms, and try to abandon your mind and your reason... just like the Buddha, one of the worst anti-intellectuals in history, right up there with Jesus Christ, Mohammed and Martin Luther. “Let’s talk a little bit about Fourier analysis of a simple function. Fourier is claiming that this thing really is a sum of sines and cosines. How does that work? >> You can decompose it. You take your squiggly thing, and using Fourier analysis, you can decompose it into its fundamental parts. And its parts will be simple sine waves or cosine waves. >> So Fourier analysis is almost like a prism? >> Absolutely. >> So in the sense that you can be given light, it passes through Newton’s old prism there, and there you see all the components, the sort of pure frequencies of light, right? >> You’ll take your complicated function and, using this mathematics, pull it apart. so you might have a sine wave with a certain period as one of its fundamental

parts, and then maybe a cosine with a slightly tighter frequency on there as another fundamental part. And it’ll tell you how much of each of those show up.” – Don Rockmore With ontological Fourier analysis, we can reduce the whole of science to analytic problems involving sinusoids. We can get rid of all the arbitrary, ad hoc, heuristic, Mythos tactics deployed by science, which are inconsistent and incomplete, and infected with irrationality, illogic and empiricist speculation. “A sine wave is a periodic waveform, and it’s really one of the pure waveforms. Sine waves relate to Fourier series, which is a big, big deal in the kind of fusion of math and sound. Fourier came up with this equation that said any arbitrary function or complex waveform that varies in time can be described with a series of cosines and sines. This was a very, very powerful mathematical leap at the time, and it really has had profound effects on everything we do in terms of electronics, because basically it means that we can break down any phenomenon that we either observe or want to create in nature into a set of sines and cosines.” – Don Rockmore Who in their right mind would not want to reduce science to the ontological Fourier science of waves, where everything is exact and analytic, with precise mathematical solutions, and which allows mind and matter to be mathematically defined, including all of their interactions?

Dimensional and Dimensionless Waves When you think of a wave, you think of something oscillating in spacetime, i.e. a dimensional wave. A dimensionless wave is completely different. A dimensionless wave is an eternal, immutable wave located in the immaterial frequency domain outside spacetime. When scientists talk about waveparticle duality, they can define neither the word “wave”, nor the word “particle”. Do they mean a dimensional or dimensionless wave? Is a particle a dimensionless point or a tiny space-occupying “atom” (in the most general sense of that word). Isn’t it crazy that science is completely unclear about what it’s talking about? In fact, there are nothing but 1) dimensionless waves in the frequency domain outside space and time, and 2) dimensional waves in the

domain inside space and time, linked by Fourier mathematics. This enormous wave interference pattern covers the entire universe. There are no particles and no matter: just flowing wave points with welldefined mathematical features. It’s these features that are interpreted in a sensory manner as representing a material world of solid things. In fact, no such solid things exist. They are illusory. There is no material world at all. The so-called material world is simply a mental, mathematical projection of functions in a frequency domain. Every monad – every soul – is a frequency domain outside space and time. The universe is a mathematical code. This code defines things such as location in space and in imaginary space, velocity, momentum, mass, energy, density, volume, and so on. In other words, none of these features is physical at all. They are all just mathematical properties, which are then interpreted by sensory minds as “physical”. Everywhere, there are nothing but numbers defining various mathematical properties, and we then interpret these numbers in a physical, sensory way rather than as what they truly are – just numbers. The whole universe is a vast, causal number generator, continually producing new temporal, contingent combinations of numbers, with these numbers being interpreted physically rather than numerically. The reason for that is simple. Imagine you looked at the world and wherever you cast your gaze you saw not faces and people, and cars and objects, and the sky and the sun, the grass, buildings, planes and so on, but simply a neverending, ever-changing sequence of numbers, the world would make no sense to you, especially no emotional sense. In the film The Matrix, the Matrix is depicted as ever-changing machine code streaming down computer screens. Well, true reality is something like that except with machine code replaced by numbers – numbers without end, continuously changing. Rather than engage with these numbers as numbers, minds evolved to interpret them as sensory data, as colours, shapes, “things”, with volume, size, density, extension, hardness, scent, taste, noises and so on. These are the empirical experience of numbers. What could be more wondrous than for minds to turn numbers into sensory and emotional things?

***** Pythagoras: “All things are numbers.”

Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Human minds do nothing but interpret an immense field of numbers as sensory objects. Our minds translate numbers into shades, shapes, colours, smells, tastes, sounds and hardness or softness – all the stuff of the so-called physical world. Anyone who faces up to the mysteries of quantum mechanics realizes it’s nothing but a cosmic mathematical wavefunction, dynamically generating a set of numbers for every point in spacetime, and continuously changing them as the wavefunction teleologically evolves. Our minds are designed to convert the sets of numbers being spewed out everywhere by this gargantuan mathematical function (with infinite monadic nodes) into local, sensory data that we can recognise as physical things. The right hemisphere of our brain – the home of the unconscious mind – is non-local and can tune into the number sequences far beyond our sensory capabilities, and retrieve astounding, invaluable information in the process we call intuition. Consider a sequence such as: 14, 47, 187, 6, 1890000, 7, 4444, 67, 987, 1, 0, 3333. Our minds interpret this as, for example: “blue”, “smells like lemon”, “tastes like sugar”, “hard”, etc., etc.) The universe is a numerical code, and we are all code breakers.

The Absurdity of the Scientific Method “Naturalism privileges the scientific method over all others, yet mathematics is one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of human knowledge.” – Timothy Williamson, Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford “Yet mathematics does not use experimental or empirical methods, but proves its results by pure reasoning.... If we do not treat pure mathematics as a science, we are obliged to exclude mathematical proof from our understanding of the scientific method. After all, Williamson argues, mathematical proof is just as effective a route to knowledge as experimental or observational methods.” – Alister McGrath Why is it so badly understood that the mathematical method is far superior to the scientific method?

The Absurdity of the Scientific Verification Principle “Despite its supposedly empirical basis, the ‘Verification Principle’ actually excluded all scientific laws [because the corrigible nature of science leads to the conclusion that there are no statements we can hold as absolutely true on empirical grounds] – and therefore most of the scientific enterprise – as meaningless. But we could see something else. By its own criteria of meaning, the ‘Verification Principle’ was meaningless. It was itself a metaphysical assertion that could not be verified on the basis of its own criteria of judgment.” – Alister McGrath Exactly the same can be said of the Falsification Principle: it’s a metaphysical assertion that cannot be falsified on the basis of its own criteria of judgement. Thus science has no rational basis! It can neither legitimately verify any of its theories, nor legitimately falsify any of them. It’s just as religion, a really bad one, which would be useless without math.

The Anti-Wonder of Science “Do not all charms fly At the mere touch of cold philosophy? There was an awful rainbow once in heaven: We know her woof, her texture; she is given In the dull catalogue of common things. Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings, Conquer all mysteries by rule and line, Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine— Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade.” – John Keats Science does nothing but turn everything wondrous into dull catalogues. It’s forever unweaving rainbows. Ontological mathematics reweaves them.

Descriptive, Not Causative

The laws of physics are merely descriptive, not causative. The laws of ontological mathematics, on the other hand, are causative since they are enshrined in living, striving, purposeful agents (mathematical monads). They are not arid, dull catalogues of common things.

Pi “The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and is approximately equal to 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter ‘π’ since the mid-18th century... π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of any two integers (fractions such as 22/7 are commonly used to approximate π; no fraction can be its exact value); consequently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern. The digits appear to be randomly distributed, although no proof of this has yet been discovered. π is a transcendental number – a number that is not the root of any nonzero polynomial having rational coefficients. The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straight-edge.” – Wikipedia What is the number exactly preceding π and the number exactly succeeding it? Is it even possible to answer this question given that π is said to have infinite decimal places? How would you even set about this task? π, to 25 decimal places, is equal to: 3.1415926535897932384626433 So, to 25 decimal places, the number below pi is: 3.1415926535897932384626432 and the number above it is: 3.1415926535897932384626434 We can carry out this process indefinitely, but we never establish exactly what π is and so we never establish exactly the number below and the number above. Reality seems to meander off into some bizarre haze where nothing is ever properly defined. If these numbers are truly definable, they must have an end of some kind, perhaps as the limit of an infinite series.

In mathematics, the Leibniz formula for π is:

As long as everything can be expressed analytically, we can simply replace the infinite series (the journey) with the result (the destination). There cannot be non-analytic numbers in ontological mathematics. No number cannot be “reached”. There can be no fuzzy things in ontological mathematics, no imprecision, ambiguity or things trailing off into a fog. Numbers, ontologically, must have a precise terminus determined by the mathematical causality dictated by the God Equation. Nothing can vanish into an indefinite haze. Numbers are not bottomless. They have an ontological limit, meaning that they have a definite terminus. It’s because mathematics is holographic – the whole is in every part – that we can reach any terminus. All infinities are resolved within the whole. As Hegel said, “The true is the whole.” Nothing is undefined with regard to the whole system. Everything has its allotted, reachable place.

***** Think of an analogue clock with hands. If there are infinite points between 12 and 6, how does the clock ever get from 12 to 6? In fact, how does the clock tick to any destination at all? Why isn’t its progress simply swallowed up by infinity? The answer, of course, is that time consists of dimensional flowing points, not static dimensionless points. Although time seems to be forever poised on the razor’s edge of “now”, it is in fact always flowing into the next “now”, hence has a tiny but definite size. This definite size, combined with the fact of constant motion, means that there’s no infinite barrier to progress. To say that there are infinite points between two numbers such as 12 and 6 is to refer to an abstraction, not an ontological reality. Only something with zero speed and size (a static point) would be confronted by infinite points that it could never traverse. To be a flowing point is to be able to traverse any gap in due course. The infinite abstract points are swallowed up in the ontological finitary motion.

What is the Greatest Infinity?

One divided by zero is infinity. What is infinity divided by zero? And what is that result divided by zero? And so on.

Zeno’s Paradox Zeno’s paradox is explained by virtue of everything travelling through spacetime at exactly the same overall speed (but with separate, but inversely coupled, speeds through space and time: as one goes up, the other goes down). In Zeno’s paradoxical race, the tortoise is travelling slower through space than Achilles, hence faster through time (i.e. Achilles suffers a time dilation disadvantage). However, the difference between their respective speeds through time is negligible. Similar considerations apply to their speed through space. If, say, the tortoise is travelling at 0.1 km per hour through space while Achilles is travelling at 10 km per hour then Achilles is travelling one hundred times faster than the tortoise, yet both are more or less stationary in comparison with the speed of light through space (300,000 km per second). We are in an almost static environment where tiny differences in relation to light speed have a big relative effect in terms of what we observe in our environment. Zeno tried to negate uniform overall speed through spacetime and turn it into a mathematical series where space and time could both be chopped into smaller and smaller sections, and decoupled from each other. None of this is possible. Spacetime is a causal continuum driven by a “flowing point” in constant motion. Zeno’s operations are, ontologically, mathematically invalid. They “work” abstractly, which is why they were so difficult to contradict. The answer to the paradox concerns constant motion split between two speeds, one through space and one through time. The infinite points are not an issue. We might say that they are virtual and not actual.

***** “Zeno’s arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite – with the result that not only the time, but also the distance to be travelled, become infinite. However, none of the original ancient sources has Zeno discussing the sum of any infinite series. Simplicius has Zeno saying ‘it is impossible to traverse an infinite number

of things in a finite time’. This presents Zeno’s problem not with finding the sum, but rather with finishing a task with an infinite number of steps: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of (non-instantaneous) events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a ‘last event’?” – Wikipedia The traditional calculus solution to Zeno’s paradox is not the right answer. The calculus proposal shows how an infinite series can give rise to a finite answer, but it does not show how an infinite series can actually be traversed in a finite time, i.e. how do you carry out infinite steps in the physical world in order to reach the finite limit? In Illuminism, reality is based on the “flowing point”. A flowing point can be defined as a dimensionless point in permanent motion according to a mathematical formula (the God Equation), with this motion conferring an effective dimensionality on the dimensionless point since implicit in the point is an eternal trajectory, so we can no longer say it exists at solely one location but is always in the process of reaching a second, different location. By spanning two or more locations rather than one, it is dimensional rather than dimensionless. The dimensionless point (static) becomes a dimensional point (dynamic) in a system of ontological causal mathematical motion. There are infinite dimensionless points between zero and one, but there’s a finite number of dimensional points between zero and one. The mistake of Zeno was to imagine a static world of dimensionless points, and his paradoxes all arise from this. The actual world consists of flowing, dimensional points which are not subject to any of the paradoxes of abstract, static mathematics. For dimensionless points, there’s an unbridgeable infinity between zero and one. For dimensional points, there’s a bridgeable finity. Motion devours infinities. That’s exactly why we are able to have a finite world at all. Abstract mathematics is always conquered by ontological mathematics. The static is always conquered by the dynamic. Achilles could never beat the tortoise in a static, abstract world of mathematics. There, Zeno would be right. However, this is a dynamic, ontological world of mathematics, and Achilles always effortlessly beats the tortoise because his flowing points are moving faster through space than those of the tortoise. The tortoise’s flowing points are, conversely, moving faster through time. Both the

tortoise and Achilles are moving at exactly the same overall speed through spacetime. The tortoise’s faster speed through time (imaginary space) is unobservable, while Achilles’ faster speed through space always gives him the victory. It must be noted, however, that if we were viewing this race in relation to imaginary space, the tortoise would indeed always win!!!

***** Zeno’s paradox is analysed in terms of static points. In fact, it need to be analysed in terms of uniformly flowing points, which instantly resolves the paradox.

The Smallest In physics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is interpreted as meaning that there are lowest possible meaningful numbers, beyond which everything is swallowed by uncertainty. Everything is quantised, including space and time. There are smallest possible units of space and time and any numbers below these are devoid of meaning. This is the province of the Planck scale, involving a Planck length, Planck mass, Planck time, Planck charge and Planck temperature. Quantum uncertainty is an interpretation of the meaning of quantum mechanics, reflecting the requirements of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. If this Meta Paradigm is rejected, quantum mechanics can be reinterpreted in wholly rationalist and idealist terms without any uncertainty at all. To allow this to happen, the existence of a mental frequency domain outside space and time must be accepted, but this is exactly what scientific materialism dismisses as impossible (for dogmatic, ideological reasons, not mathematical reasons).

The Eternal Foundations Imagine building the universe. It would need perfect foundations or it would collapse. Science says that the universe has no foundations at all. It simply jumps out of nothing. Ontological mathematics provides the universe with eternally, analytically perfect foundations.

*****

A universe with uncertain foundations would produce an uncertain structure to the universe since, as Descartes pointed out, an effect cannot have more reality than its cause.

Data Scientists say you have to pay attention to the empirical data. They never say you have to pay attention to the rational ontology and epistemology that supports the data. Thus science becomes a series of mere speculations – dubiously propped up by the strange version of math used by science – to “explain” the data. That’s the whole problem with science. Science believes itself to be guided by the data, but is in fact guided by the ideology used to interpret the data. There’s no such thing as neutral data, independent of the philosophy used to interpret and understand the data. Science has never grasped this elementary point. It has never understood that if you want to be taken seriously, you must justify the philosophy you are bringing to the party, but science explicitly repudiates philosophy, hence avoids this whole issue... the defining issue. No scientist on earth can provide a rational, logical justification for why scientific empiricism and materialism should be chosen over scientific rationalism and idealism. Indeed, the unexplained presence of rationalist mathematics at the heart of science completely contradicts the philosophy of David Hume, the greatest empiricist of them all. Hume said that “impressions” are our perceptions of the world, while “ideas” are images of impressions, formed in thinking and reasoning. Thus we can have no idea of anything of which we have received no impression. This is the core doctrine of empiricism. You cannot then appeal to ideas (derived from impressions) to explain impressions. Yet this is exactly what science does. It relies on the ideas of mathematics to account for the impressions (empirical data). Remove math (ideas) from science – a step which you are obliged to take if you are a true empiricist like David Hume – and you then have no means to explain the empirical data, hence, like Hume, you must become a total skeptic, someone who denies any possibility of authentic knowledge. Science is based on circular logic. It says that impressions come first and then ideas. If this were the case, you would have no right to use ideas to explain impressions, and this would leave you with no means at all to

account for impressions. They would just be “givens”, without any possibility of explanation. That was exactly the position Hume arrived at. Kant responded to Hume by creating a set of twelve a priori categories of the understanding and two pure intuitions – space and time – to form a basic conceptual apparatus in the mind for making sense of the world. However, these were like rabbits pulled out of a magic hat... Kant could do nothing to explain why minds were like this, and, in effect, basically claimed that “God” created minds this way, which is to explain nothing. The only way to overcome Hume’s deadly logic is to invert his system, i.e. to switch from empiricism to rationalism. With rationalism, ideas come first and then impressions are attached to them. Rationalism concerns the forms of things, while empiricism concerns their content. We first of all establish a theory of form (mathematics), and then we account for our impressions (empirical content) with regard to that rational theory. Thus we have a rational and logical explanatory framework for all impressions. If you reject form, as Hume did, and base everything on content, you have left yourself without any means to place content in a theoretical, explicatory framework. Hume was willing to do exactly this. Science wasn’t. Despite calling itself empiricist, science fraudulently uses rationalist mathematics to provide a theoretical, explicatory framework for all scientific data. It has thus become rationalist by the back door. Science is pseudo-rationalism, masquerading as empiricism. What’s worse, it compounds its dishonesty and lack of intellectual integrity in two ways: 1) Despite recognising that scientific data must be placed in a mathematical explicatory framework, science refuses to do this completely and consistently. It subjects mathematics to its empiricist philosophy and thus produces a subset of mathematics based on real numbers. Imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero and infinity are all banned from appearing in the output of “scientific” mathematics (i.e. empiricist mathematics). Even negative real numbers are barely tolerated. Bizarrely, and inexplicably, science has no problem with using complex numbers during calculations, provided they are eliminated by the end of the calculations. This is an absurdity. If complex numbers are not things related to reality, how can they appear in mathematical operations purporting to tell us about reality? This is like using elves to make your shoes, and then denying that elves exist... in which case you must have made the shoes yourself, even though you know you didn’t (!).

2) Science claims that mathematics is an unreal, manmade abstraction. Thus, it feels it can justify using complex numbers during calculations because these are just convenient abstractions that can be got rid of at any time. (You couldn’t get rid of them if they were ontologically real, as they are in ontological mathematics). However, by taking this attitude to math, science has simply returned to the circular logic that Hume definitively destroyed. Science uses a manmade set of ideas to account for nature, which means that science can never explain nature. It’s using manmade ideas derived from empirical impressions to “explain” the empirical world. This is therefore merely a Mythos, a human construct, a fantasy. We could even call it just another manmade religion. Of course, all of these problems can be resolved at one stroke. If mathematics is not an unreal, manmade abstraction, but in fact the language of existence itself – the language that defines reality and nature – then we can indeed validly use mathematics to explain empirical data. In fact, we can’t use anything else. Moreover, we must use all of mathematics, and not just those parts (real numbers) that scientists like. Ontological mathematics does exactly this. It’s a fact that science can’t explain reality since it uses math, which it claims is unreal (!). Yet science would be worthless and useless without math. In fact, it would simply turn into Hume’s dead-end skepticism, or into ancient augury and superstition. So, science is reliant on unreality to account for reality! How irrational is that?! Only ontological mathematics can actually explain reality. That’s because it recognises mathematics as real, not unreal. Only real math can explain real reality. Unreal math can only explain “unreal reality”, and that’s not to explain anything at all. Science is exactly this... the “explanation” of “unreal reality”. Everyone has been overwhelmed by the success of science. What none of these people has grasped is that it’s mathematics that is 100% responsible for science’s perceived success, and if we simply got rid of science and replaced it with ontological mathematics, we would enjoy infinitely more success... sufficient to transform us into the masters of earth, the masters of nature, the masters of the universe... Gods! Isn’t it time to move to rationalism and idealism, and leave behind the circular logic of empiricism and materialism? There is no such thing as “matter”. It’s just a manmade term invented by scientists. It’s a human idea

derived from impressions. It can’t explain impressions, yet this is exactly what science irrationally attempts to do with it. It ridiculously claims that minds are made from this human concept called “matter”. It’s impossible to have any impression of matter-in-itself, hence we can form no valid idea of “matter”. We can assign no ontology to it. Science is offensive to logic and intellect.

***** You will hear of scientists endorsing “the data”, but not the conclusions or interpretations regarding the data. That’s exactly science’s core problem. Data by itself is useless. You have to draw conclusions regarding the data, and that’s exactly where science becomes pure speculation, belief, opinion, Mythos and interpretation, contemptuous of reason, logic, ontology and epistemology.

Limitations Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle are fundamental limitations of empiricism and materialism, not of rationalism and idealism!

The Expansion If we say that space and time are made of sinusoidal waves then the expansion of the universe (of spacetime) corresponds to waves becoming elongated (red shifted), meaning that wavelengths get longer and longer, and frequencies smaller and smaller.

Quantum Mechanics Quantum mechanics must be reinterpreted in terms of a six-dimensional spacetime (involving three real dimensions and three imaginary dimensions), linked by Fourier mathematics to a complex-numbered frequency Singularity of autonomous monads.

Form A wave is the internal Aristotelian form of a “particle” (flowing point), its inbuilt program. Science doesn’t accept the “innerness” of particles, and says they travel only in straight lines or curved lines, never in pure wave

trajectories. This is bizarre given that quantum mechanics is often called wave mechanics. The waves are consigned to an “unreal”, abstract mathematical potentiality “space”.

Function In ontological mathematics, an ontological function is anything that can be derived from the God Equation. Any function that cannot be so derived is an “abstract” function, unrelated to ontology.

The Choice So, who has provided the most rational and logical account of existence? – ourselves, with our rationalist, logical ontological mathematics, or scientists with their irrational, sensory empiricism, relying on their bizarre, realnumbered, “unreal”, abstract version of mathematics? Is there any doubt? We explain everything that science fails to explain. Above all, we explain the mind: an impossibility for science. Scientists aren’t sufficiently rational and logical to embrace ontological mathematics. They are ruled by their senses and “evidence”, not intellect and proof. Scientists are anti-intellectuals. The intellectual banner was always carried by philosophy, by the lovers of wisdom. Science is the love of the fallible, unreliable, delusional human sensory apparatus. Given the claims of scientists, you would imagine they had never heard of Descartes and his method of doubt. Absolutely everything to do with the human senses can be doubted.

Spherical Harmonics “In mathematics, spherical harmonics are a series of special functions defined on the surface of a sphere used to solve some kinds of differential equations. As Fourier series are a series of functions used to represent functions on a circle, spherical harmonics are a series of functions that are used to represent functions defined on the surface of a sphere. Spherical harmonics are functions defined in terms of spherical coordinates and are organized by angular frequency, as seen in the rows of functions in the illustration on the right. “Spherical harmonics are defined as the angular portion of a set of solutions to Laplace’s equation in three dimensions. Represented in a system of spherical coordinates, Laplace’s spherical harmonics Ylm are a

specific set of spherical harmonics that forms an orthogonal system, first introduced by Pierre Simon de Laplace in 1782. “Spherical harmonics are important in many theoretical and practical applications, particularly in the computation of atomic orbital electron configurations, representation of gravitational fields, geoids, and the magnetic fields of planetary bodies and stars, and characterization of the cosmic microwave background radiation. In 3D computer graphics, spherical harmonics play a role in a wide variety of topics including indirect lighting (ambient occlusion, global illumination, precomputed radiance transfer, etc.) and modelling of 3D shapes.” – Wikipedia “[People are now using spherical harmonics] to basically try to understand what the universe sounds like, so that there’s this cosmic microwave background which is vibrating throughout the entire universe, and then understanding that in terms of its harmonics ends up being a deep question related to cosmology and the big bang. >> And at the small scale, you could use the spherical harmonics to understand how electrons move between energy shells in an atom, for example. So you have orbitals that also use the harmonics of a sphere. >> So we have strings, but not quite string theory. >> No. >> But then we go from electrons, right, and we sort of stop at musical instruments, and then we proceed out to the universe, right? And it’s all harmonics.” – Don Rockmore Fourier analysis is the true string theory. The trick is to define the ultimate “strings” as dimensionless sinusoids housed within monads (minds). Instead, scientific string theory typically involves 1D string loops vibrating within some bizarre space involving large spatial dimensions, rolled-up spatial dimensions and one dimension of time in a non-empirical 11D domain. All of this complexity can be abolished simply by converting the heuristic, non-analytic string theory of science into ontological, monadic Fourier mathematics, based on analytic sines and cosines. Scientific string theory has no rational, logical grounding. Ontological Fourier mathematics does. It’s blind ideology that makes scientists cling to string theory. Life would instantly become infinitely simpler with pure mathematics instead of clunky scientific theories. It’s nothing but bad philosophy – empiricism and materialism – that keeps science wedded to bizarre, speculative theories. Incredibly, these strange theories are much harder than actual mathematics. They contain any number of fudge factors,

artificially bolted on elements, ad hoc considerations, heuristic devices, pseudomorphological structures, and arbitrary ingredients intended to satisfy empiricist materialist dogmatism. Stripped of all this nonsense, string theory reduces to ontological Fourier mathematics, predicated on Leibnizian monadic minds. “Ambisonics is an approach to the recording and reproduction of threedimensional sound fields which is founded on the description of sound fields in spherical coordinates. The sound field may be expressed as a sum of orthogonal terms with polar responses which are real spherical harmonic functions.... The theoretical description of higher order Ambisonics uses both real and complex forms of spherical harmonic solutions to the wave equation in spherical coordinates. This paper develops a description of sound fields using consistent definitions of either form, and shows how the expansion coefficients of each are related. Both descriptions produce complex field coefficients.... The complex spherical harmonics may be separated into real and imaginary parts. The real part... is even in azimuth, while the imaginary part is odd.” – Mark Poletti In ontological mathematics, we need to go to the next level up from spherical harmonics, i.e. to hyperspherical harmonics. Obviously, this is where the mathematical complexity starts to become daunting. The God Series is not about the mathematics per se, but about the conceptual basis of the mathematics, hence we stick to the simplest possible examples and illustrations. One of the immense problems regarding both science and standard mathematics is that they are exceptionally poor at explaining their conceptual foundations. Scientists and mathematicians tend to operate at the level of playing around with equations and seeing what happens rather than proceeding step by step from well-established rational and logical principles, and a well-defined ontology and epistemology. The God Series represents a dramatic departure from how science, math and philosophy are traditionally conducted. The God Series demands that the core principles must be established first before anything else is done. Ontological and epistemological issues must be fully addressed rather than people launching into speculative hypotheses and heuristic stratagems. Science does away with principles by insisting on everything being matched to experimental data. This automatically turns it into a vast system

of trial and error, heuristics and speculation, rather than anything that proceeds in a logical, methodical, complete and consistent rational manner. That’s exactly why it’s so hard to follow the claims of science. None of them makes any sense. Each one has no necessary connection with any other. Mark Linsenmayer said, “Does scientific knowledge simply accumulate as we learn more and more, coming closer and closer to a full and truthful picture of the world? Thomas Kuhn says no! Instead, each scientific subculture has its own ‘paradigm,’ or model for what constitutes legitimate science, which includes what problems to study, what to counts as a result, some background assumptions, and other things nebulous enough that you really can’t enumerate them. While Kuhn still believes that the movement to a new paradigm constitutes progress in a sense, the traditional picture of progressive science is still wrong.” Kuhn devastatingly highlighted what really goes on in science. Minipriesthoods establish paradigms reflecting their belief system, ideology and ways of doing things. Everyone else has to fall in line, or commit career suicide. Truth doesn’t feature at all. The only thing that counts is apparent success. When Nietzsche said that success has always been the greatest liar, he delivered a mortal blow to science. Science simply isn’t in the Truth game at all. It’s all about producing paradigms and models that seem to work given a certain philosophical standpoint (that of empiricism and materialism). The whole of science is automatically false if we actually live in a mathematical world reflecting rationalism and idealism. Science cannot do a single thing to demonstrate that we do not! And it’s wholly irrational to argue that we do not.

The Music of the Spheres “The Greeks’ idea of the music of the spheres, the idea that there must be some connection between music and the workings of the heavens, was based on the mystical numerology of philosophers like Pythagoras. Ironically, even though their explicit declarations of rational orbits analogizing the relative lengths of harmonious strings was wrong, their instinct was correct. While there isn’t really a music of the spheres, there is a song of the universe, a steady hum that you hear no matter where you turn your ear, or rather, your microwave detector. That’s what Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered in the mid-1960s at bell labs. They aimed a

radio antenna at the sky and noticed that no matter where they pointed it, they received the same steady microwave signal, which sounded like static. With the help of some Princeton physicists, they realized that this wasn’t any old static, rather it was very likely to be the spectral remnants of the big bang, the leftover vibrations from that initial explosion of densely packed energy that presumably gave us our universe. For this discovery of the cosmic microwave background, Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel prize in physics in 1978. The connection to music lies in Fourier analysis, or more properly, Fourier analysis as it is created in the setting of a sphere, which is how we analyze the microwave background.” – Don Rockmore Why isn’t this background radiation taken as evidence of ontological Fourier mathematics, and a mental singularity origin of the universe? The only reason why not is that science is an ideology – that of empiricism and materialism – and it dogmatically (irrationally) refuses to consider solutions consistent with rationalism and idealism, even though these are infinitely more logical. “Fourier analysis as we’ve been describing it is about periodic functions, those regularly repeating patterns in time. Fourier showed that these could be broken up into sinusoids of different frequencies. On a sphere, rather than get sinusoids, spherical symmetry leads to functions called ‘spherical harmonics,’ discovered by the great French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace. The secret to the origins of the universe may very well lie in the highest frequency harmonics of the cosmic microwave background. The analogy between the sinusoids and the spherical harmonics is very precise. Whereas the sinusoids end up being the solutions of the wave equation on a line, the spherical harmonics work for a wave equation defined on a sphere. Sinusoids describe waves on a string, and spherical harmonics describe waves on a ball.” – Don Rockmore It’s astounding when people in the 21st century still look to ancient, premathematical gurus such as the Buddha for “wisdom”. What, do they imagine that “wisdom” entails ignoring all of the mathematics, science and philosophy conducted since the Buddha’s time? All of that refutes everything the Buddha ever said! The Buddha is one of the worst examples of anti-rationalist, empiricist drivel.

“Spherical harmonics are a frequency-space basis for representing functions defined over the sphere. They are the spherical analogue of the 1D Fourier series. Spherical harmonics arise in many physical problems ranging from the computation of atomic electron configurations to the representation of gravitational and magnetic fields of planetary bodies. They also appear in the solutions of the Schrödinger equation in spherical coordinates. Spherical harmonics are therefore often covered in textbooks from these fields.... As their name suggests, the spherical harmonics are an infinite set of harmonic functions defined on the sphere. They arise from solving the angular portion of Laplace’s equation in spherical coordinates using separation of variables. The spherical harmonic basis functions derived in this fashion take on complex values, but a complementary, strictly real-valued, set of harmonics can also be defined. Since in computer graphics we typically only encounter real-valued functions, we restrict our discussion to the real-valued basis.” – Wojciech Jarosz Why has so little intellectual attention been paid to the war between complex numbers and real numbers? If complex numbers are ontological, the whole of modern science falls at a stroke. That’s the significance of what’s at stake. “The 19th century development of Fourier series made possible the solution of a wide variety of physical problems in rectangular domains, such as the solution of the heat equation and wave equation. This could be achieved by expansion of functions in series of trigonometric functions. Whereas the trigonometric functions in a Fourier series represent the fundamental modes of vibration in a string, the spherical harmonics represent the fundamental modes of vibration of a sphere in much the same way. Many aspects of the theory of Fourier series could be generalized by taking expansions in spherical harmonics rather than trigonometric functions. This was a boon for problems possessing spherical symmetry, such as those of celestial mechanics originally studied by Laplace and Legendre. “The prevalence of spherical harmonics already in physics set the stage for their later importance in the 20th century birth of quantum mechanics. The spherical harmonics are eigenfunctions of the square of the orbital angular momentum operator and therefore they represent the different quantized configurations of atomic orbitals.” – Wikipedia

Try doing science without Fourier mathematics. Why don’t people realise that math is the important thing, and not the science? Ontological mathematics says that Fourier mathematics is not some abstract tool to be used with “real” science. Rather, Fourier mathematics is the reality, and science is the abstraction. We can get by without science. We can’t get by without math. “Spherical harmonic functions arise when the spherical coordinate system is used. (In this system, a point in space is located by three coordinates, one representing the distance from the origin and two others representing the angles of elevation and azimuth, as in astronomy.) Spherical harmonic functions are commonly used to describe three-dimensional fields, such as gravitational, magnetic, and electrical fields, and those arising from certain types of fluid motion.” – Encyclopædia Britannica Spherical Harmonics are generated in the same way as Fourier Series, simply in one dimension higher. “As the Greeks contemplated the mathematics of music, their ideas went beyond the mere creation of sound that pleases the ear to a model of the outer reaches of the cosmos, where the stars, the sun, and the planets were thought to dance in harmony to the beat of an inaudible ‘music of the spheres.’ Today we know that this mathematics of sound goes far beyond sound waves. We’ve discovered that there are many different kinds of waves – waves that vibrate in purely mathematical worlds and waves that surround us in our world, some which we can perceive directly, and others that we can only detect with technology the Greeks never could have imagined – all unified by mathematics.” – Don Rockmore The real perfect crystal spheres are not in the material world. They are in the mental universe. Souls (monads) are mathematical crystal spheres, and they are the divine instruments that play the true Music of the Spheres. Beyond the contingent, temporal, perishable, empirical world of science lies the necessary, eternal, imperishable, rational world of mathematics. You can’t have the former without the latter. That’s why science can’t do without mathematics. Why doesn’t science acknowledge that mathematics is the master, and science the servant? It’s because of the ideology of empiricism. It makes scientists reject reason and instead stake everything on their fallible senses. How irrational is that?!

Photons “Einstein was the first to propose that energy quantization was a property of electromagnetic radiation itself. Although he accepted the validity of Maxwell’s theory, Einstein pointed out that many anomalous experiments could be explained if the energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into point-like quanta that move independently of one another, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over space. In 1909 and 1916, Einstein showed that, if Planck’s law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/λ, making them full-fledged particles.” – Wikipedia Nothing is more badly understood than so-called wave-particle duality. It’s not about something sometimes exhibiting particle behaviour and sometimes wave behaviour. Rather, particles always move in wave trajectories. These are complex-numbered trajectories, which is why they cause such difficulties in interpretation for scientific materialists. Moreover, they can involve dimensionlessness as well as dimensionality. Moreover, time is to be understood as imaginary space. Moreover, monads are an integral part of this setup. Moreover, these are mathematical entities, not “scientific”. They have nothing to do with scientific “matter”. When these considerations are taken into account, wave-particle duality, as described by science, is abolished, along with all of its absurdities, especially the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (which is required to banish complex numbers). When Louis de Broglie proposed that if light can display particle-like behaviour, then matter can also display wave-like behaviour, what he was really suggesting (although he didn’t know it) was that matter is actually made from light, hence why it can partake of light-like properties (otherwise we would be in a situation of Cartesian substance dualism). Specifically, material particles are simply pairs, or combinations, of sines and cosines, which are not in orthogonal relations to each other (the condition required for pure light, travelling at light speed). Matter is simply light existing in a certain, broken, asymmetric way. It is not something completely different from light. The reason why quantum mechanics has been so badly misinterpreted by science, and turned into something bizarre and absurd, is that scientists have considered QM problems in terms of empiricism and materialism instead of rationalism and idealism. They have

considered the problem in relation to real numbers and indeterministic probabilities rather than complex numbers and deterministic certainties. If you change the Meta Paradigm through which the problem is viewed, you get a completely different answer! Science doesn’t have to be irrational. It chooses to be. It prefers empiricism.

***** Incredible though it may seem, quantum mechanics really comes down to whether it’s necessary to multiply a wavefunction complex by its complex conjugate. If y = a + ib, then y* (the complex conjugate) = a – ib, and yy* = (a + ib)(a – ib) = a2 + b2, hence yy* is real and non-negative. This is how science turns determinism into indeterminism (probabilities). Remove this tactic, and science remains fully deterministic, but in a complex-numbered space. So, here’s your choice: 1) Real numbers, indeterminism, probabilities, unreality principle (the scientific world). 2) Complex numbers, determinism, certainties, reality principle (the mathematical world). What’s it to be? Science can easily be restored to determinism, but only by becoming completely mathematical and rationalist. If it chooses to stay empiricist, it must be indeterministic, indeterminate and statistical forever. Science’s problems come from its unstated philosophy. Change that philosophy and science turns into something completely different.

***** “The wavefunction itself is a probability amplitude and has no physical meaning, per se. This interpretation is due to Max Born (1926). He argued that probability is measurable (at least in principle) and as such it must be a real, non-negative quantity, and it therefore must relate to a real, nonnegative quantity arising out of the wavefunction. Wavefunctions must be well behaved but they can be real or complex, positive or negative. Born postulated that the correct identity was given by the product of the wavefunction with itself, or with its complex conjugate when the function contains imaginary quantities. The Born postulate highlights the difference between classical and quantum mechanics.” – Michael A. J. Rodgers

Max Born is probably the person most responsible for the descent of science into total irrationalism. And all because he was obsessed with his senses (empiricism) and could not accept his reason (rationalism). He could not accept that complex numbers could be as ontologically valid as real numbers. Science will never be cured until it becomes complex-numbered, and carries out no operations at all to abolish complex numbers. Complex numbers stand for the difference between rationalism (mathematics) and empiricism (science). Complex numbers are “hidden variables”.

The Energy Conundrum According to many scientists, a “free-lunch” universe is possible, and does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Logically, this implies, “Easy come, easy go.” If a universe can be born from nothing, just like that, what’s to prevent it vanishing into nothing, just like that? Energy, from the scientific viewpoint, can be freely created and destroyed as long as the overall effect of the action is zero. Energy, in science, can be completely annihilated, i.e. removed entirely from existence (if it’s done in the right, balanced way). Equally, energy can be completely created, i.e. miraculously generated from non-existence (if it’s done in the right, balanced way). Since no net energy has been destroyed or created in the respective scenarios, this is deemed consistent with the conservation of energy. Science takes no heed of the stark fact that, in the annihilation scenario, things that once existed no longer exist, and, in the creation scenario, things that did not exist now exist. We define energy as existence, so to say that energy can annihilate is to say existents can vanish from existence. This is impossible. If it were possible, existents could equally jump out of non-existence at any time, and vanish back to non-existence at any time, provided the action was always performed with a net effect of zero. This would render reality incomprehensible and chaotic, with no conservation of existence (energy). This, indeed, is exactly the position to which science subscribes. As we said, it talks of “free lunch” universes, whereby entire universes can spring out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism, provided they have a net effect of zero, hence do not create any net energy.

Ontological mathematics takes the opposite stance. Ontological mathematics says that all fundamental existents – all energies – have existed forever. No new existents can be created, and none can be destroyed. The only “newness” in the universe comes from arranging the eternal existents in different ways, i.e. endless temporal, contingent patterns can be generated from immutable, eternal, necessary existents, simply by organising them differently. The piano never changes, but countless different tunes can be played on it. That’s the basic metaphor for existence. You can’t remove the notes of the piano, and you can’t create new pianos. So, scientific creation from non-existence, or annihilation to nonexistence is impossible. What is actually going on is that dimensionless existents can generate dimensional existents thanks to ontological Fourier mathematics, which allows dimensionless frequency functions to generate dimensional spacetime functions, and dimensional spacetime functions can also combine in such a way as to generate dimensionless frequency functions (as in the formation of black hole singularities). In ontological mathematics, a mathematical Fourier frequency Singularity gives rise to the Big Bang universe of spacetime and matter. According to science, the Big Bang universe erupts out of nothing at all (non-existence). In ontological mathematics, spacetime functions can “implode” and produce black hole singularities. These are reverse processes from those involved in the Big Bang. According to science, black hole singularities do not equate to non-existence (as logically they should if we are to believe that non-existence can spawn existence, hence the reverse must happen too, since there is no sufficient reason why it should not). No, now they become extremely mysterious entities which somehow have mass even though they can’t have mass since mass can’t exist in a singularity (!). Science tries to have its cake and eat it. As usual, it engages in doublethink and double-dealing. As ever, it is fundamentally inconsistent and irrational. The remarkable thing is that science openly admits to not understanding singularities at all, yet it draws incredibly controversial, illogical and conflicting conclusions regarding Big Bang singularities, photonic singularities and black hole singularities. It avoids having to confront its own illogic by writing a “promissory” note that a theory of quantum gravity will one day resolve everything. The trouble is, no such theory has been produced despite the most intensive effort in scientific history over many decades from the most informed scientists in history. No theory will ever

come because what science is now actually confronting are its own internal, fatal contradictions, resulting from its refusal to accept singularities as purely mathematical, not scientific, entities. Once science is seen to be grounded in mathematical singularities, empiricism and materialism fail, and rationalism and idealism take over. We leave behind the Newtonian worldview, and embrace the Leibnizian worldview, predicated on monads (singularities). Ontological mathematics deals with the rational relationship between dimensionless and dimensional existence. Science, on the other hand, deals with the creation of existence from non-existence, and the annihilation of existence to non-existence (although, in the case of black hole singularities, it denies that any annihilation takes place). Science is wholly contradictory... all because it denies dimensionless existence, yet it must do so because its philosophy is that of empiricism and materialism, and repudiates rationalism and idealism. Consider the question of what the mass of a black hole singularity is. Is the answer zero, infinity, or the mass of the star that produced it? Luke Mastin wrote, “In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains infinite mass in an infinitely small space, where gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is ‘the point where all laws of physics break down’. So, here we are told that the mass is infinite. Wikipedia says, “At the centre of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.” Here, we are told that the density, not the mass, is infinite, and the mass is that of the “black hole solution”. Elsewhere, Wikipedia says, “Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes

infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the ultraviolet catastrophe, renormalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula.” So, we’re back to infinity or “approaching infinity”. In an article about “The Problem of the Speed Limit of Particles”, Alex Meske wrote, “...let us take the situation where a particle was falling through the black hole toward the singularity. In essence, you could say that the collapse of the star into a black hole would be nothing more than this same case repeated for however many atoms/protons/quarks make up a star and it would be effective. So let’s run with it and see what we get: “First the particle would be sucked through the event horizon and into the black hole. It would not actually become part of the singularity but would, rather start spinning around it. “As the particle continues its trek around the singularity, it would continue to gain speed, thanks to the conservation of angular momentum, as it continues to spin around the singularity. “As the radius of the particle’s rotation decreases, its speed continues increasing until it approaches the speed of light. At this point, according to relativity equations, it would both shrink and gain mass. “‘Hah,’ you might say, ‘if the particle somehow achieves the speed of light, it cannot get any faster! Therefore, it will continue in its orbital motion around the singularity, creating a stable rotation for the black hole!’ “However, if the particle did that, it could not be going in a normal, elliptical orbit around the singularity. The particle would need to travel faster than light to have a stable, elliptical orbit inside the event horizon and it is impossible for a particle to travel faster than light. This is because every motion on the ellipse that tends toward the singularity is, in essence, the particle falling toward the singularity. But the particle would need to be travelling at greater than the speed of light in order to have enough momentum to not continue falling toward the singularity. This is impossible and it, therefore, will not happen. “Furthermore, if the particle were to reach the speed of light while in a circular orbit around the singularity, it would lose energy because circular orbits require energy to be added in order to remain stable. Thus the particle will lose velocity and the only way for the circularly orbiting particle to gain energy is to fall closer to the singularity and, therefore, it will continue falling toward it....

“Continuing along this line, the particle descending through the black hole would approach the speed of light, causing its mass to increase toward infinity. This means that all the particles in the black hole would be approaching infinite mass as they rotated around the singularity, giving the entire black hole a mass approaching infinity. If a rotating black hole were to have a singularity at the centre, it would quickly achieve something like infinite mass and, therefore, infinite gravity. Thus, the event horizon of every rotating black hole would expand out to swallow everything in the universe in a very short amount of time. Of course, the infinitely massed particles would also get the singularity in motion and it would be one very weird, spinning, collapsing mass. “Considering how old the universe is and considering that primordial black holes were probably created at the beginning of the universe, it seems that this is not how things work. Otherwise, the entire universe would have been swallowed up by black holes by now. “However, you might say, ‘But the rotating particles would inevitably be sucked into the singularity, which you previously said could not rotate, so then it will stabilize at the singularity.’ “As a matter of fact, no, the particle will not reach the singularity because the singularity is a zero-dimensional object. Even if the particle were to approach the singularity, it would also be shrinking as it neared the speed of light and, as a result, it would also be essentially zero-dimensional. “If the particle is rotating around the singularity, it would only continually get closer to it rather than actually hitting it. It could never hit the edge of it because both the black hole singularity and the particle would continue to approach each other, but they would be in one of those ‘limit’ math problems where they would only touch each other after an infinite amount of time. Thus, a particle that rotated around the black hole would never reach a singularity.... “So if there was a singularity at the centre of a rotating black hole, the black hole itself would rapidly gain mass until the mass became infinite and the black hole swallowed the universe, or the black hole itself stopped rotating. However, because rotating black holes do not have roughly infinite mass, they are clearly not centred on actual singularities. Only a nonrotating black hole could reasonably be expected to have a singularity at the centre, but any particle that entered the non-rotating black hole and began

any rotation around its singularity would quickly turn it into a rotating black hole. “This means that, because black holes rotate and remain at a stable mass that is increased only by the addition of new mass, there is not a singularity at their centres – even though I already said that it is close enough to be considered a singularity for most considerations. “Incidentally, this creates a situation where there would be an exclusion principle that works below the level of even the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Which is pretty wild, when you get down to it. But in order to find that new exclusion principle, we would probably need to determine just what level of particle we are dealing with that excludes other particles of its ilk. Which means we would need to determine the size of the (not so singular) singularity at the centre of a black hole.” The question of what quantity of mass should be assigned to a black hole singularity is fantastically difficult in science. In ontological mathematics, there is no difficulty at all. A singularity – any singularity – has zero mass. “Mass” is a concept defined with respect to dimensionality. It has no connection with dimensionless existence (as we see with massless photons). Because science rejects formal dimensionless existence, it then has to try to assign dimensional properties to dimensionless singularities to avoid saying that they are “non-existence”, but, when it comes to the Big Bang, it’s perfectly happy to say that existence can come from nonexistence. Science is all over the place. It has no rational principles and no coherence. Whenever you research any ontologically profound question concerning a key science issue, you are guaranteed to find no official answer, but just endless speculation in blogs, articles and forums. Science simply doesn’t do coherent, rational, ontological and epistemological definitions. It’s just an elaborate set of speculative guesses and heuristics, clothing itself in pseudo-mathematical jargon to give a pretence of authority and legitimacy.

Energy Everything that exists has energy. Everything that exists is energy. And mathematics, and only mathematics, can define energy. Your feelings, your desires, your intuitions, your sensations, your perceptions, your hopes, fears, ambitions, loves and hates – everything that makes you human – is

energy, and thus mathematics. Too bad if you can’t see that and can’t understand that. Whether you like it or not, it’s all about math.

***** “Sigmund Freud defined libido as ‘the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude... of those instincts which have to do with all that may be comprised under the word “love”.’ It is the instinct energy or force, contained in what Freud called the id, the strictly unconscious structure of the psyche.... According to Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, the libido is identified as psychic energy. Duality (opposition) creates the energy (or libido) of the psyche, which Jung asserts expresses itself only through symbols: ‘It is the energy that manifests itself in the life process and is perceived subjectively as striving and desire.’ (Ellenberger, 697)... Defined more narrowly, libido also refers to an individual’s urge to engage in sexual activity, and its antonym is the force of destruction termed mortido or destrudo.” – Wikipedia “In traditional Chinese culture, qì or ch’i is an active principle forming part of any living thing. Qi literally translates as ‘breath’, ‘air’, or ‘gas’, and figuratively as ‘material energy’, ‘life force’, or ‘energy flow’. Qi is the central underlying principle in traditional Chinese medicine and martial arts. “Concepts similar to qi can be found in many cultures, for example, prana in the Hindu religion, ‘chi’ in the Igbo religion, pneuma in ancient Greece, mana in Hawaiian culture, lüng in Tibetan Buddhism, ruah in Hebrew culture, and vital energy in Western philosophy. Some elements of qi can be understood in the term energy when used by writers and practitioners of various esoteric forms of spirituality and alternative medicine. Elements of the qi concept can also be found in Western popular culture, for example ‘The Force’ in Star Wars. Notions in the West of energeia, élan vital, or ‘vitalism’ are purported to be similar.” – Wikipedia All of these different energies, are, like everything else, just different manifestations of mathematical sinusoids. You can believe in obscurantist mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus all you like, but, in the end, hyperrationalism underlies everything and makes sense of everything.

*****

The “soul” is an entirely mathematical, sinusoidal entity. There is nothing physical about it, so it’s inconceivable to irrationalist sensing types (scientists), completely wedded to “physicalism”, though they can’t ontologically or epistemologically define what “physical” means.

***** The soul is pure light. It’s massless, unextended, dimensionless, and outside space and time. A soul comprises an autonomous, complete and consistent set of photons. You have your own unique set of photons that provide your free will, qualia, experiences, thoughts and feelings, and make you exactly who you are (and not someone else). There is no escaping from your eternal photons. You are the light forever... literally. Photons (sine and cosines orthogonal pairs) are the basic units of mathematics, mind and life. They are the arche, the eternal basis of existence. Only when humanity comprehends this can humanity embark on its divine trajectory to the Light. Math will set us free. Math will make us Gods, and deliver us all to paradise. Anyone who opposes math is an en enemy of God... an enemy of himself!

Who’s Right? Who has provided the real answer to everything? – scientists or us? Is there really any question? We would like anyone to explain anything at all rationally and logically without referring to mathematics. Science couldn’t say a single rational thing if it were banned from using math. Mainstream religions are Mythos nonsense exactly because they never refer to math. Math is the end of the line. Own it! Embrace it! Love it!

Religion MS: “It’s easy to say such negative things about religion. However, the same thing can be said about science. All you know is a schema of possible fact. You live by faith as much as the clergy. You can’t write such things when you yourself are not perfect. You will not understand his ways. For you only have finite knowledge. Instead of attacking the three Abrahamic religions, try to understand the other side instead of bashing it.”

We bash science as much as we bash religion! Scientists do indeed have faith in their “facts”. They reject the infallible, absolute, eternal truths of reason. And, by the way, we have gone to immense trouble to understand the other side... and, having understood it, that’s exactly why we bash it! You, however, have made zero attempt to understand ontological mathematics, yet you feel qualified to bash away. What a hypocrite. What a fool. You’re so typical of your kind. You demand respect for your beliefs, while you yourself are unwilling to extend respect to others’ knowledge.

Tachyons RB: “Dear Sir, I just wanted to ask you that given the fact that we with our minds can get back to our thoughts, isn’t that alone a fact that tachyons exist?” No. Our minds are outside space and time, and that’s why we can get “back” to our memories. You seem to be claiming that our memories are stored in the past, hence we need faster-than-light tachyons to allow us to travel back in time to access them. This is wrong in so many ways. Nothing can travel faster than light, hence tachyons are impossible, and the past doesn’t exist, hence nothing can go back to it.

The Vacuum Nature abhors a vacuum. Nature abhors non-existence. There’s no such thing.

The Gods And Nothing The ancient Greeks believed that the Gods would never create nothing since it serves no purpose. What the Greeks didn’t realise was that nothing is something existing in a very specific way – dimensionlessly, which is to say mentally, not physically. The change from conventional numbers to zero is the phase change from matter to mind. In mind, positive and negative are always immediately and perfectly balanced. In matter, positive and negative are separated and balance overall, but are not balanced on an immediate level (on an eternal level), but are balanced temporally (i.e. over time).

Ontological Zero, the Flowing Point, and the Resultant Zero “Leibniz thought [he could appeal] to the scholastic concept of the flowing of a point. His idea was that, if a point was in continuous motion, it would at any instant be moving away from where it was, and would therefore be occupying fractionally more than the zero space of a stationary point. Moving points might therefore be large enough to function as the elements of three-dimensional objects. Moreover, since motion was a positive characteristic of things, it might endow points with some sort of real existence – unlike the utter nothingness of a static mathematical point. ... Since things were essentially in motion, they had to differ from things at rest, at every instant of their existence. The difference was that, like a ‘flowing point’, a moving object would always be entering its next position – it both did and did not occupy a precisely defined space, unlike a stationary object, which occupied a space exactly equal to itself.” – George MacDonald Ross, Leibniz “So what we’ve been presented with lately is this idea that reality is based on the flowing point, with a net resultant of zero. The net zero resultant allows you to get away with having nothing with something and the flowing point accommodates Becoming rather than Being. Another way this was and can be stated is that something which has zero size (the ontological zero) doesn’t actually exist and hence it can’t form the basis of physical reality. In The Mathematical Universe the Hockney writers said essentially this...” – JP Absolute nothingness (non-existence) can be modelled by a static mathematical point. As soon as a point is in motion, it is something... it is energy, indeed eternal energy. By our definition, there can be no such thing as static ontological zero since this equates to non-existence. There is no energy wave that corresponds to zero. Zero energy is non-existence. Energy is existence. Energy is motion, and anything not in motion (either through mental space, or physical space, or physical time) cannot exist. What people often find confusing is the notion that by putting two or more exactly balanced things one on top of the other, you get a net effect of zero (dimensionlessness). This zero – which is very different from static zero – can be described as “ontological zero”, but we must understand it to be a

container for actual things (energies) in perfect balance with each other. It’s a thing that exists, but it exists only because it has components. A proposed ontological zero that had no components definitely could not exist. So, ontological zero as a thing in itself is impossible; it’s a non-existent. Ontological zero as the net outcome of balanced existents can exist. When we encounter this latter ontological zero, there really is something there, but it is shielded from physicality, hence, in the scientific view, there’s nothing there at all. Mind is not nothing, mind is something existing dimensionlessly (hence non-physically). “When I was in undergrad, in my first year, I gave a talk on precisely this issue of dimensionality and minimum size. The talk was about String Theory and the thesis was that the minimum dimensionality that could underlay matter is 1, since something which was zero-dimensional is logically physically non-existent. Hence, from the physical materialist’s perspective, i.e. that of science, that a string might be the basis of reality is logically satisfactory. For example, electrons are treated as zerodimensional in physics but if they were really zero-dimensional, they wouldn’t actually be physically present.” – JP What the materialist says is that things can never exist dimensionlessly. What ontological mathematics says is that two things, which in physicalist terms “annihilate” each other (a somewhat bizarre term in relation to the law of the conservation of energy), do not “annihilate” each other at all. We replace the concept of “annihilation” with that of “dimensionlessness”. The fundamental issue is as follows... if we take two dimensional things which are opposed to each other in every way (such as matter and anti-matter) and put them right on top of each other, what happens to them? Do they cancel each other and vanish from existence? Science actually says that antimatter/matter “annihilation” produces photons, which are of course dimensionless! So, why does science talk about annihilation and not about conversion, or transformation, or a dimensional-dimensionless phase transition?

***** “Now, where we could go with this is to just say, ok, fine, we’ve been on this journey revolving around the ontological zero up to this point, but now let’s forget all this mental masturbation, and just go with the physical

masturbation acknowledging that reality has to exist because it cannot not exist. We just have to accept that reality exists, and has to, and not for any other reason than that it has to. If you do this, there’s no longer any reason to speak of even a resultant zero, let alone an ontological zero.” – JP Reality does indeed have to exist because it can’t not exist. That’s the whole point! That’s exactly what the principle of sufficient reason states. It’s impossible for points not to be in motion so as to satisfy the requirements of the principle of sufficient reason. Nothing can prevent it. Anything that is capable of happening, has no cost, and which cannot be prevented from happening, will definitely happen. In terms of eternal, necessary things, these things have always existed. Existence is their essence. They are not like temporal, contingent things whose essence does not include existence. The universe could logically continue without these latter things. “And so that’s where it ends up. And so that is why it is an error to speak and write this way. Because it makes reality, existence, materialistic, and it gets rid of the mental non-local domain.” – JP There are no grounds whatsoever for this conclusion. These comments reflect a fundamental misconception of ontological mathematics, and the essence of mental, mathematical existence. Mental existence, going right back to Descartes, is unextended, dimensionless existence. It is emphatically not non-existence. Anything is mental provided it meets the following criteria: 1) it is not extended, 2) it is not dimensional, 3) it is not in space and time, and 4) it is not material. It must, however, be something. It must be energy. Since it cannot be an energy of simple zero (the static mathematical point) – i.e. non-existence – it must be an energy of net zero, i.e. existents must combine to have a resultant mathematical effect of zero, but without any of those existents being simple zero. That does not make them “matter”, as JP claims. They are mental because they balance to exactly zero in exactly the right way. Things are matter because they fail to do so in this way. Mathematically, mental things manifest orthogonality, and material things manifest non-orthogonality. Mental things are axial, and material things reside between the axes (inter-axial). “Speaking of a flowing point as the fundamental basis of reality which has a resultant of zero is a materialistic approach to reality.” – JP

Says who? Does the principle of sufficient reason say so? Making a statement isn’t making an argument. A flowing point which does not have a resultant of zero cannot exist. Simply by virtue of being a flowing point, it has dimensionality (this is inescapably true by virtue of the PSR), but this is a dimensionality whose effects can be abrogated by mathematics, leaving a net result of nothing. “We’ve probably seen this in one of the books, but I’ll repeat it here. We have options for local vs. non-local interactions and absolute vs. subjective background. “1. Local & Absolute: This is Classical Physics running through thermodynamics and up to Einstein’s interpretation of relativity (Special Relativity). Cause & effect is what drives physics. “2. Local & Subjective: This is Classical Physics with Special Relativity added on. Science begins to abandon absolutivity. “3. Non-local & Subjective: This is Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics and physics. Science has now completely rejected absolutivity and cause & effect, although the majority of science still uses equations from the classical, deterministic era. “4. Non-local & Absolute: This is Illuminist Physics, i.e. Ontological Mathematics, based on Eulerian Relativity and the guided-wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from Dirac (? I believe it was his formulation).” – JP Not sure what Eulerian “Relativity” means... Eulerian mathematics must provide an absolute framework in order to support an absolute ontology. It was de Broglie and Bohm who were responsible for the pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics, not Dirac. With that said, JP’s summary is a good one. “Without writing a book to explain the developments, option 1 was legitimate science for its time, and still is for the most part. Scientists still cared about classical philosophical education in this period and philosophy was respected. With option 2, Einsteinian Relativity appears to be based on logic, but the paradoxes which expose its flaws were always there for anyone to see. They are extremely easy to detect, high-schoolers can detect them... the only problem is in personal confidence. The illogic of a God

who orders fathers to murder their children doesn’t really dawn on the vast majority of people, merely because they are told by others that everything works out in the end. Humans simply need to be more confident in their detection of illogic.” – JP Agreed. “The error of Einsteinian relativity lies with its subjectivity, not with its locality. A legitimate Special Relativity would have gotten by just fine and with much more respect if it had have been interpreted on an absolute basis, and would have been remembered as the final major discovery of classical physics.” – JP In fact, the error of Einsteinian relativity lies with both its subjectivity and its locality. An absolute interpretation of the Lorentz transformations would certainly have been superior to a relativistic interpretation, as JP says, but that by itself would still have been fallacious unless it was acknowledged that the Lorentz transformations also pointed to a non-local domain as the domain of light, which is why, at the speed of light, all lengths contract to zero, time dilates to infinity, and mass vanishes (or becomes “infinite”, depending on your take). It’s impossible for the scientific ideology of empiricism and materialism to cater for non-locality. Special relativity, whether interpreted in Einsteinian terms, or reinterpreted in absolute terms, spelt the death knell for old-style science. It was no longer possible to imagine math as a mere tool for science. Relativity was such a mathematical theory that it strongly pointed to the ontology of mathematics (thus overthrowing science.). To defend itself against this, science started becoming fanatically preoccupied with observables, and the denial of the reality of non-observables (hidden variables). To accept hidden variable is to accept a noumenal, mathematical, unobservable, rational (non-empirical) basis to existence, which repudiates the entire scientific conception of reality. “With option 3, by this time we’re dealing with philosophical and logical nitwits, willing to say the most ridiculous, contradictory, paradoxical and illogical, really stupid things. Like that the moon doesn’t exist when you don’t look at it, or that a cat can be both alive and dead: What was reality then before human minds evolved to make the observations?” – JP Agreed.

“The modern scientific mind is first infected with Einsteinian Relativity and is then totally destroyed with Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics. Just like the illogicity of Abrahamism, it is difficult to believe that these logically aberrant interpretations manifested of their own accord by innocent stupidity... particularly when you consider the resources expended to promote them in those particular ways. ‘You always got to be on the lookout for who’s fucking with you.’ – Sigmund Ausfaller. He didn’t actually say that but he would say that, if you asked him. If you don’t know who I’m talking about…I feel so sorry and sad for you.” – JP Agreed. And you certainly do have to be on the lookout for who’s fucking with you! “The point is that if you go with the flowing point because you don’t like the non-materialist nature of the ontological zero, you’re getting rid of the dimensionless domain entirely. And you can’t get rid of the dimensionless domain if space-time and reality is non-local, which it is.” – JP This is fallacious, and a non-sequitur. Spacetime is local – that’s the whole point of it. It’s the frequency domain of mind that’s non-local. Reality in itself is a non-local frequency Singularity... an immaterial point outside space and time. Reality, as we encounter it (from the world we live in), is a mathematical system involving a non-local, immaterial, Fourier frequency (mental) domain and a local, material, Fourier spacetime (physical) domain. It couldn’t be more wrong to state that spacetime is non-local. Thus we arrive at the flawed logic with which JP suggests that there’s something fraudulently materialistic about the flowing point. The good thing about this kind of exercise is that, unlike in science, it’s easy to see where someone goes wrong. JP previously stated, “The error of Einsteinian relativity lies with its subjectivity, not with its locality.” Well, if spacetime is non-local, as stated by JP, there must be a problem with Einsteinian relativity if relativity is a localist theory (which it is in Einstein’s own view... Einstein completely rejected non-localism). “Here’s how to do it: The Ontological Zero is indeed still the basis of all reality, i.e. the monad.” – JP No one said it wasn’t. However, it must be understood that monads are not static points (which equate to non-existence).

“It is dimensionless and exists in that domain.” – JP No one said it didn’t! “The Ontological Zero still answers the question of the rational prerequisites for the basis of reality, that of indivisibility and permanence, and it is a first-cause ‘prime mover’ in its own inherent dialectic of the contradiction and resolution between something and nothing. Monads (souls) are thus the Being of Becoming. Mmmm sexy!! How can you not just love the creation here? It drips with sexy gushiness. We actually get the word “cum” from Becoming. Not many people know that. It’s ancient Greek.” – JP The monad must indeed be dimensionless (net), indivisible, permanent, and an uncaused first cause. “The flowing point, however, is simply what has to exist physically, in the dimensional r > 0 domain, because it is certainly true that something physical, material, cannot have zero size or dimension.” – JP Oh dear! We can’t stress how important it is to grasp that a flowing point going round and round in its Euler circle has no net dimensionality, while being dimensional at all times on its journey. The “trick”, of course, is that the nature of the flowing point’s dimensionality is changing as it moves round the circle, involving real, imaginary, positive and negative phases in its dimensionality, which all necessarily average to zero. “So all that logic and argument is true for the dimensional extended domain, but it does not imply that there is no Ontological Zero as a sensingmaterialist would feel.” – JP JP seems to have become stuck at a certain notion. He believes that anything extended must be material, hence a dimensional flowing point must be material. He has missed the point. It’s the net result that is either dimensional or dimensionless, not the component parts themselves. For anything to exist at all, it must be dimensional (it’s dimensionality is, as we have seen, necessarily created by its non-zero motion). The only thing that inherently has no dimensions is the static mathematical point, which is exactly what we have defined as non-existence. For JP to successfully contradict us, he would have to demonstrate that a mathematical point, without any properties at all, which does absolutely nothing and is

incapable of doing anything, is the “ontological zero” which he believes to be the basis of existence. We state that the exact opposite is true. It is the quintessence of non-existence. It is a non-ontological zero. “The ‘Resultant Zero’ is honestly not that important of an underlying concept, because the Ontological Zero already says precisely that, it already dictates precisely that.” – JP If you don’t get what an ontological zero is, and how it differs from a static mathematical point (non-ontological zero), you don’t understand ontological mathematics. “Resultant Zero” couldn’t be more important. It’s the heart of the entire system! What JP actually meant to say was, “Given my understanding of ontological mathematics, resultant zero is not that important.” That’s a statement about him, not about ontological mathematics. “The flowing point is the manifestation of the moving energy of the monad in the dimensionless domain, into the physical domain with its inherent Nyquist sampling frequency in the Fourier Transform, which is of course all about Planck’s Constant and the finitization of infinity in the physical domain so that it doesn’t explode. (Explode … hmmm…). A minimum number and a maximum number, etc.” – JP In fact, the flowing point is the functional entity in both the dimensionless and dimensional domains. The flowing point is the active part of any sinusoidal wave in any context, dimensional or dimensionless. It’s impossible to get a wave without all of its properties encapsulated in the flowing point. That goes for mind as well as matter. For JP to argue differently, he would have to demonstrate that dimensionless waves have nothing in common with dimensional waves, and he would thereby commit the fallacy of Cartesian substance dualism and resurrect the notorious interaction problem between incompatible substances. The whole point of wave-particle duality is that we must find a common ground for waves and particles. Flowing points, i.e. particles with wave trajectories, are exactly what unify particles and waves. They are particles guided by “pilot waves” (internal forms). “A great question to ask is: What does the flowing point look like? And so you have to wonder if the modern physicists still might be on to

something... innocently arriving at it as they were, in their domain at least.” – JP This is exactly right. The 1D strings that theoretical physicists posit could easily be transformed into 1D flowing points following wave trajectories.

***** The flowing point is unquestionably a difficult concept, but it is in fact the spearhead of the entire ontological mathematical edifice. It’s exactly where the action takes place, and where all of the mathematical information that defines the sinusoidal wave exists. A wave is not a thing in its own right. The whole wave does not literally exist at once. The wave, as it actually exists, is present at the flowing point only. The rest of the wave is “virtual” (it’s an internal form followed by the flowing point). To get a visual understanding of the flowing point, look at the following diagram: http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~mcquarrb/teachingarchive/Precalculus/Animati ons/SineCosineAnim.html Unlike so many others, JP at least has the skill to contemplate the fundamental basis of ontological mathematics, and engage with this complex material at the right level. His is a problem with nuance, not with a failure to comprehend the subject at all. Nuances can be sorted out. We wish far more people came to this subject as JP has done. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes. All of us who are rational are able to learn from our mistakes, and rectify them.

Chronons and Chorans A chronon (from the ancient Greek for time) is a time particle. A pure chronon exists only in the time domain (imaginary space). A choran (from the ancient Greek for space) exists, in its pure form, only in the space domain (real space). A photon comprises exactly one chronon and one matching choran, perfectly orthogonal to each other. Their net dimensionality effect is zero. Dimensional particles are generated when non-orthogonal chronons and chorans are brought together.

***** The dimensionless domain = the domain of orthogonality = the domain of light = the domain of mind = the Fourier frequency domain. The dimensional domain = the domain of phase (non-orthogonality) = the domain of matter = the Fourier spacetime domain.

The Dirac Process and the Breit-Wheeler process The “Dirac process” involves an electron and a positron (anti-electron) colliding to produce two photons. The “Breit-Wheeler” process is the inverse of the Dirac process: two photons collide to produce an electron and positron. Do you get it? Particles and photons are inextricably linked!

Energy and Momentum Equations E = energy; p = momentum. E = hf; energy increases as frequency increases. E = (hc)/λ; energy increases as wavelength gets shorter. E = pc; energy increases as momentum increases. E = mc2; energy increases as mass increases. p = h/λ; momentum increases as wavelength gets shorter. p = (hf)/c; momentum increases as frequency increases. Classically, p = mv. If it were possible for photons to have mass, then p for a photon would equal mc. By bringing together p = h/λ and p = mc, we can define an “effective” or “virtual” photon mass as: m = h/(λc). Alternatively, m = hf/c2 = h/(fλ2). It is this virtual mass that gives rise to actual mass in the spacetime domain. Given that photons are not in the dimensional domain, no dimensional units can be applied to them. However, they contain all of the properties in prototype that will be manifested dimensionally. Note that, since h and c are constants, then the only way to increase something’s mass is to increase its frequency (equivalent to contracting its wavelength). Higher frequencies have a greater nominal mass than lower frequencies.

In terms of mass in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Wikipedia says, “Mass in special relativity incorporates the general understandings from the concept of mass-energy equivalence. Added to this concept is an additional complication resulting from the fact that ‘mass’ is defined in two different ways in special relativity: one way defines mass (‘rest mass’ or ‘invariant mass’) as an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; in the other definition, the measure of mass (‘relativistic mass’) is dependent on the velocity of the observer.” Taylor and Wheeler said, “The concept of ‘relativistic mass; is subject to misunderstanding. That’s why we don’t use it. First, it applies the name mass – belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector – to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.” The idea of relativistic mass flows automatically flow the principle of relativity. If this is false, which it certainly is, then there is no such thing as relativistic mass. Mass is in fact absolute. Taylor and Wheeler state that the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself. How can such a statement make any sense? How can increasing the speed of car not have anything to do with the car but the spacetime road and environment it’s travelling in? How does pressing your foot on the accelerator of your car cause spacetime to change rather than for your car simply to speed up because you’ve increased its energy? Such comments seem quite ingenious until you properly examine them and then you realise they’re bizarre, on a par with cats being simultaneously alive and dead. As ever, we are not being taught science but speculative empiricist philosophy. Let’s agree with Taylor and Wheeler that you cannot increase the internal structure of something – a perfectly rational principle. So, you cannot change the frequency of a specific wave with a specific inbuilt frequency. Its frequency is permanently fixed and immutable. However, we are in fact always dealing with Fourier functions, not isolated frequencies. To increase the speed of a particle, you simply add higher and higher frequencies to its Fourier description, and thus raise the “group velocity” of the relevant wavefunction in spacetime. You haven’t changed the internal

structure of anything, but you have radically changed its mathematical nature, and in an absolute, not a relative, sense. What you must never forget that scientists are never doing anything other than dealing with interpretations that sound plausible when articulated by clever minds. However, other clever minds can reinterpret the same facts and evidence and reach 100% different ontological considerations. No observation will show who’s right and who’s wrong. Reason alone can decide. Who has the most rational explanation? What’s for sure is that science has lost all rational plausibility when it denies that the moon exists when no one’s looking at it, when it says that things can be both living and dead, when it swears by an unreal, unobservable, probability wavefunction, when it says that something can be, relatively, both stationary and moving. No rational person would wish to take these crazy positions seriously when far superior alternatives exist that reflect a reality principle. Scientific “particles” are not solid, enduring things with well-defined, classical internal structures – such a view is wholly incompatible with quantum mechanics – so Taylor and Wheeler’s view is not tenable. Particles are in fact dynamic Fourier functions, and we can radically change anything’s behaviour by radically changing its Fourier description. We can add and subtract basis frequencies, high and low, and thus produce wholly different behaviour. It’s about time scientists got on board with Fourier mathematics, especially since it’s so fundamental to wave mechanics.

***** Everything dimensional has a dimensionless analogue, and vice versa, even when it comes to mass. That’s why the dimensional and dimensionless domains can interact. Every number has a mass and an energy. Dimensionless energy; dimensional energy. Dimensionless mass; dimensional mass. Dimensionless frequency and wavelength; dimensional frequency and wavelength. Dimensionless phase = orthogonality; dimensional phase = nonorthogonality.

Zero

We write the number “20” in terms of a logical ordering of numbers based on powers of ten. The Romans wrote numbers in terms of a very small cast of numbers: I, V, X, L, C, M. For them, “20” was XX, meaning 2 times X. Our version of “20” also means two times ten, except the notation is radically different. We place 2 in a specific position with regard to powers of ten to communicate our meaning. If we put it in the wrong column, we would get the wrong number. If we put “2” in the column before or after the correct column, we would get “2” or “200” as our number, rather than “20”. What distinguishes these numbers is of course “0”. Here, “0” functions as a “placeholder”. The Romans had no such concept as “placeholder” and their number system was correspondingly clumsy, and good only for simple arithmetic. In an equation such as 5 – 3 – 2 = 0, 0 apparently functions not as a placeholder but as an ordinary number that can appear in simple statements of arithmetic. However, if we divide by zero, everything goes haywire and we get infinity, or a formally undefined term, as our result. Zero is known as the “additive identity”, i.e. the number that, when added to any other number x, doesn’t change x’s value. (“1” is the “multiplicative identity” – the number that, when multiplied by any number x, doesn’t change x’s value.) Zero is a Real Number, but not one of the Counting Numbers or Natural Numbers, where the set N = {1, 2, 3,...}. So, zero is no ordinary number. It’s uniquely a placeholder; it’s uniquely the additive identity, it’s uniquely a generator of infinities or undefined terms via division, you can’t count objects with it, and a group of terms cannot equal zero except in the unique circumstances where they cancel each other exactly. Human beings, by treating zero as “just another number” have forgotten that it is in fact nothing at all like other numbers. In many ways, zero is a “logical number” rather than a number itself. By that, we mean that it performs several logical and necessary tasks within the system of numbers, but, ontologically, has a problematic meaning. There is no energy wave corresponding to a frequency of zero. Infinity suffers in the same way, given that it’s a logical product of division by zero, or the limitless multiplication of zero. No matter how large a number we can reach, we can always add “one”, and we can never reach the end of this process. This underpins the common

understanding of infinity. Just as zero can’t be used for counting, nor can infinity. Zero and infinity seem to serve as logical numbers on either side of actual numbers, i.e. all actual numbers fit between zero and infinity. Zero and infinity are the logical limits. We might refer to zero and infinity as “trans” numbers – numbers that go beyond ordinary numbers. They are container numbers.

Circular or Linear Time? “Man is unable to comprehend eternity in any other sense than that of a circle. The greatest god of all the old pantheons always represented Time, and he was the father of all the other gods. He carried in his hand a straight line and a circle. The first had beginning and end, the second neither. This represented Time and Eternity. The straight line divided into 12 equal parts also represented Matter. From it was constructed the greater cosmic triangle of 3, 4, and 5 parts, the foundation of all geometrical science.” – Frank C. Higgins

Monads It’s worth considering Anthony Quinton’s comments about Leibnizian monads: “Leibniz’s really weird manoeuvre begins when he gets to the point of saying that everything is made of indivisible, unextended points. Now these points are indeed immaterial in the sense that they do not occupy space, do not spread over a tract of space. But that does not in the least mean that they are immaterial in the sense of being things of a mind-like nature. They could well be in space without occupying any of it. Leibniz assumed that these ultimate points were minds because he accepted without question Descartes’ principle that everything that exists is either spaceoccupying or mental.” Things cannot be in space without occupying it. A point can only belong to a Singularity, outside space and time. Space and time are for matter. The Singularity is mind. It’s impossible for anything immaterial not to be mindlike. Quinton’s entire analysis of Leibniz is based on Quinton’s own misconceptions.

***** So, can a dimensionless point be in space? This might be true if an ontological Cartesian coordinate grid (made of dimensionless points with unique coordinates) could be self-standing. However, such a grid is formally impossible because points have no extension. It becomes possible if the notion of dimensionless points is replaced by that of “dimensional” points, so-called “flowing points”, whose inherent mathematical motion means that they have effective extension. It turns out that, mathematically, the only way to create an ontological Cartesian coordinate grid that supports a material universe is via an inverse Fourier Transform. A domain of net dimensionless frequency points outside space and time (a Singularity) generates a spacetime domain of dimensional flowing points. Any point outside space and time is a singularity. It’s also holographic: the whole is in every part. Each singularity is in contact with the whole of spacetime. Dimensionless points are not at specific locations “in space”. They are everywhere in space, via the Fourier mechanism. And remember that a monad contains all possible frequencies. Quinton is simply mathematically wrong, and Leibniz right. Moreover, monads are unquestionably minds: anything immaterial is mental. It can have no other ontological meaning.

Planck’s Constant Consider the equation E = hf. Planck’s constant, h, has units of Js (Joule seconds), and frequency has units of inverse seconds, so hf has units of Joules (energy units). But the implication here is that h is somehow what provides energy (since the Joules belong to h and not to the frequency). Of course, this is ontological nonsense. It’s not Planck’s constant but waves that provide energy. Planck’s constant is simply the smallest possible portion of a wave (which is something always in motion, hence defined by the concept of the flowing point). Planck’s constant is a tiny length in real space (where the unit is the metre) or in imaginary space (where the unit should be the imaginary metre, but is in fact the “second” in conventional physics). Much more energy will be present in an h-sized chunk of a high frequency wave than of a low frequency wave.

The trouble with physics is that because it doesn’t apply rational first principles, it can’t define anything analytically and ontologically. It always uses an instrumental approach, consistent with the empiricist scientific method. The point of the scientific method is to allow the matching of hypotheses to data. The hypotheses are contingent and ad hoc. Look at how Planck came up with the Planck constant – simply by trying to construct a formula that could replicate experimental data regarding black-body radiation. He did not use any analytic concepts; he simply played around until he got something that fitted, and he had no explanation at all for what he had come up with (just as Newton had no idea how to physically explain gravity). This is how science really works... it’s a giant exercise in trial and error applied to pattern fitting. There’s nothing systematic, rational and analytic about it. All the scientists currently working on M-theory aren’t using any analytic techniques. They are simply trying things out and seeing whether they look promising and productive or not. In other words, they are making all sorts of educated guesses. Is that really how science should be conducted?

Points And Motion Ontological mathematics couldn’t be any simpler. It involves just two ingredients: points (“nothings”, with no properties at all) and motion, which follows from the principle of sufficient reason. Points in motion = ontological mathematics = the ontological principle of sufficient reason. From this primordial, simplest possible ontology, reflecting Occam’s Razor, the entire epistemology of mathematics can be constructed. So, we start with mathematical ontology and derive the tautological mathematical epistemology that flows from it. That’s as far as any true ontology and epistemology can go, i.e. it begins and ends with mathematics. This is the world of rational form.

***** If you attempt to divide a flowing point, you can’t, because it’s in motion. It’s the true atom, i.e. (indivisible entity). There must be a sufficient reason for anything not to be indivisible... and there is! The fact that it’s in constant motion guarantees this.

Kant According to Kant, the mind imposes a spatial and temporal form on experience. Space and time are not things that we experience. Rather, they are the essential framework that our minds impose in order to have regulated, organised, structured experiences. Without our minds, there would be no space and time. In the absence of our perceiving minds, the things that are capable of being experienced by us – the things in themselves – exist neither spatially nor temporally. This totally subverts the scientific worldview. Kant suggested that God, unlike humans, did not impose the spacetime framework, hence could know past, present, and future all at once.

***** “One of the most puzzling aspects of the tradition of German rationalism from G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) to Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is the claim that space is ‘ideal’, or merely a form of subjective representation. That is, the metaphysical world, or the world as it is ‘in-itself’, is not spatially organized. The claim has often been misconstrued, or at least overinterpreted. While the tradition of German rationalism aims to show that space and time are merely subjective forms of representation, it does not also claim that we cannot learn about the natural world and its organization from relations of space and time. Rather, the claim is that since space and time are subjective forms of representation, the fundamental nature of reality cannot be spatial and temporal. “The positive thesis of the idealist claim is that the intelligible ground of nature can be known, even though it is not spatial or temporal. For Leibniz, this intelligible ground is ‘internal force’ (Leibniz); For Kant, it is ‘body’ (Gegenstand); For Hegel, it is the ‘concept’ (Begriff). In each case, the German rationalist foundation of our knowledge of nature draws on an Aristotelian conception of the nature of bodies as a principle of motion (energeia). The idealist claim of German rationalism is not the radical rejection of space and time and its objects as ‘mere phenomena’. Rather, the claim is that some intelligible principle of dynamics is prior to and in fact grounds any explanation of the nature of bodies in space and time.” – Tyson Gofton

Transcendent

Incorruptible, eternal, immutable, perfect, dimensionless existence is the home of form, reason, intelligibility, Truth, and the Answer to Existence. It is exactly this domain that is denied by all sensing types. They require dimensionality since only dimensional things can be sensed. Empiricists are therefore anti-reason.

***** Plato was right. The Truth resides in an eternal, immutable domain of perfect Forms outside space and time. Those Forms are the Forms of mathematics, and they include the Form of Life (the monadic soul).

***** You cannot understand reality if you do not understand what math is. The central problem for science is the definition of mathematics, without which it would be gibberish.

Infinitesimals “The primary problem for the natural philosophy of the Modern era is the problem of the infinitesimal. The infinitesimal, or the infinitely small magnitude, is the idea of the least component of any possible magnitude in space and time. The problem of the actual infinitesimal is that we seem to admit into natural explanation a magnitude that has no extension. What, however, is a point of space?” – Tyson Gofton The central problem of “natural explanation” is exactly that it rejects entities without extension, i.e. it refuses to consider dimensionless existence. Things can indeed have a magnitude without extension. Photons have a magnitude (a frequency, and an amplitude) despite having no (net) extension. Photons are unextended atoms, while all of the atoms of chemistry are extended (and are derived from photons).

Form and Content “The main claim of [Kant’s] Inaugural Dissertation is that we come to know objects in two different ways: as objects in an intelligible world and as objects in a sensible world. This dualism, Kant believes, is at the root of our inability to reconcile a metaphysics of bodies with the spatial and temporal relations of geometry.” – Tyson Gofton

Kant’s fundamental problem was that he created two worlds, one of intelligibility and one of sensibility, but without any connection between the two. He had to use minds to project intelligibility onto sensible things. Without minds, Kant’s universe is unintelligible. Kant’s scheme is just a variant of Aristotelian hylomorphism. For Aristotle, matter is sensible, while form is intelligible. A world of pure matter would be unintelligible. Aristotle combined form and matter into form-matter hybrids (substances). Kant, on the other hand, mentally projected form onto matter, so the hylomorphic substances existed only as ideas in our minds, and not as real things in the external world. David Hume simply abolished intelligibility since it could not be perceived. He believed only in a sensible, empirical world. Science added intelligibility to the sensible world via unreal, abstract mathematics. Ontological mathematics brings together intelligibility and sensibility, form and content, rationalism and empiricism, noumena and phenomena, as two sides of one coin. Reality comprises formed mathematical waves, each of which conveys an experience – content, information, “matter”.

***** Aristotle: form and content are separate; they combine to create hylomorphic substances. Kant: form and content are separate; minds project form onto content. Hume: there is only perceivable, sensible content; there is no unperceivable intelligible world that we can refer to in order to explain what we perceive. Science: unreal, abstract, potentiality wavefunctions “collapse” – via observations – into real, formed “matter”. Ontological mathematics: all content is hardwired to form. We perceive the empirical content, but not the rational form. Mathematics nevertheless shows up everywhere in the perceivable world. We perceive dimensional (phenomenal) mathematical form (which science studies), but not dimensionless (noumenal) mathematical form. Any viable theory of existence must be able to explain form and content, and their relation. Only mathematics can bring them together rationally, coherently and intelligibly. “Mathematics” is the science of form; “nonmathematics” is the other side of mathematics... it’s the experience of the

content that accompanies mathematics. Humanity has never understood mathematics and has invented any number of silly theories to account for form, content and their relation. You can’t get mathematics without nonmathematics (which is simply the experience of mathematics rather than knowledge of mathematics). Abstract mathematics treats mathematics as pure rational form, with no ontology. It denies that we experience mathematics. It denies that mathematics carries empirical content. Aristotle said, “The minute accuracy of mathematics is not to be demanded in all cases, but only in the case of things which have no matter. Therefore its method is not that of natural science; for presumably all nature has matter.” Here we encounter the classic intellectual error of treating mathematics as unreal and abstract – something non-ontological, something separate from the world. This is exactly the mistake to which science continues to subscribe. Mathematics is both the intelligible map and the sensible territory. You cannot have the territory without its ontological map (form). “Kant’s argument for relational properties in the Inaugural Dissertation begins with a complaint against Leibniz’s contraction of space and time to ‘physical points’ or ‘monads’. For Kant, Leibniz’s ‘contraction’ implies reducing representations of the sensible world to representations of the intelligible world.” – Tyson Gofton Leibniz, via his “contraction” did indeed reduce the sensible world to the intelligible. The sensible world is all about extension and dimensionality. A world of point-singularities is a world with no sensible properties. It’s entirely mathematical. Yet the irony is that Kant himself, by putting space and time inside minds, stripped space and time from the sensible world, thereby making it actually non-sensible (and also unknowable, in his terms). Kant’s “solution” was incoherent and self-contradictory. Schopenhauer, Kant’s successor, understood this all too well. He abolished Kant’s incoherent sensible world and replaced it with a noumenal world of a unitary Cosmic Will outside space and time, from which the sensible world was derived as a phenomenon.

***** “Before he became a university professor, Kant published a number of short works on topics in metaphysics. He received his professorship in 1770, at

the age of 46. As was the custom at the time, he submitted an inaugural dissertation, which he entitled ‘Concerning the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World.’ This work set the tone for his future research in metaphysics. In a letter to Marcus Herz of February 21, 1772, Kant had revealed ‘the plan for a work that might have such a title as The Bounds of Sensibility and Reason.’ Already in his investigations, Kant thought he had found ‘the key to the whole secret of metaphysics that had until then remained hidden to itself.’ He said that he would publish the first part of ‘a critique of pure reason’ in ‘approximately three months.’ It ended up taking him almost ten more years to reveal the whole of that secret—a period in which he published nothing.” – G. J. Mattey Kant’s fatal problem was that he was alienated from his own pure reason. Leibniz wasn’t. Kant separated form and content. Leibniz asserted that they were united in monads, the basis of everything. Kant said, “The mania for method and the imitation of the mathematician who advances with a sure step along a well-surfaced road, have occasioned a large number of mishaps on the slippery ground of metaphysics.” In fact, it was Kant’s failure to be sufficiently mathematical that caused his philosophy to be mired in fatal fallacies.

Ontological Mathematics Ontological mathematics is about analytically defining everything, and providing it with a sufficient reason. All the mystical, undefined junk of science is jettisoned. All the indeterminacy is thrown out. If this is a rational, intelligible universe, with an answer, then it must be possible to explain everything in it. Science doesn’t and can’t. Ontological mathematics can and does. All you really need to do to understand ontological mathematics is understand exactly what an ontological wave is, and how its information is carried via a “flowing point”, which is what gets mistaken for a particle.

***** Why do scientists refuse to engage with ontological mathematics? Because science is a Mythos religion that rejects reason.

The Absurdity of “Time Travel”

When people think of time travel, they imagine going back to the world of, say, a hundred years ago. However, they still imagine themselves going forward in time, i.e. all their internal body clocks are still going forward, they are laying down new memories in the present instant, they are ageing normally. So, how can you be personally going forward in time, and yet everything else is travelling backwards in time (in order to take you back to 100 hundred year ago)? The notion of time travel is totally devoid of coherence. If you were truly going back in time, you would be shrinking back to a fertilised egg! That doesn’t sound so exciting, does it? Time travel is one of the great Mythos absurdities.

The Wrong Answers Most people’s answers to existence aren’t based on reason, but on their irrational personality type, whether emotional, mystical or sensory. Feeling types imagine the answer to existence as an infinitely powerful version of themselves (“God”), with whom they can have a personal relationship (as slave to master, but disguised as child to loving, just parent). Mystics (intuitives without reason) appeal to a “Oneness”, by which they want to be absorbed. Sensing types imagine some great experiment that detects an ultimate dimensional particle (whatever lies beyond the Higgs boson). None of these people has any interest in reason. Reason is nonemotional, non-mystical and non-sensory, and the answer it provides is none of those things, hence all non-thinking types refuse to accept reason as the answer, i.e. they subscribe to an answer based on unreason, which makes them irrational crazies.

The Cosmic Hologram The universe is a hologram. The whole (the Singularity) is in every part. No matter how much you chop up the world, the singularity will still be there. It’s both transcendent and immanent. Holography explains quantum mechanics, non-locality, entanglement, instantaneous communication, the interconnectedness of everything. There’s no woo woo or mumbo jumbo here... it’s pure, analytic mathematics. Mathematically, the hologram is all about the relation between the net dimensionless mathematical point (the singularity) and the one-dimensional

“flowing” point, the one-dimensional straight line, the one-dimensional curve, the one-dimensional circle, and the one-dimensional wave. All the “mysteries” of existence are simply aspects of mathematics; aspects of dimensionless and dimensional existence. What is “wave-particle” duality? It’s simply the Fourier mathematics of the dimensionless frequency domain (the Singularity) and the connected dimensional spacetime domain, unified by flowing points. There’s nothing at all bizarre about quantum mechanics once you rationally understand that a frequency domain is at the core of everything.

The Nutshell “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning.... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.” – Einstein Einstein should have concluded that time, space, gravitation and matter have no separate existence from immaterial frequency. They are all derived from the mental universe.

Phase Every circular path (and wave) needs an amplitude, frequency and phase. The phase angle is the starting point for the circle or wave. The conventional starting point is of course a phase angle of zero degrees (the xaxis), but it can be any angle. The sine wave starts at zero degrees, and the cosine wave starts at ninety degrees relative to it (i.e., it’s phase-shifted by ninety degrees: sin(θ + 90°) = cos θ).

“The phase is the fraction of the cycle that you have reached at any given point. If the point is not specified, it may be assumed to be 0º. The start of the cycle is the point where the wave is 0 and going from negative to positive. (If the wave is not a sine curve, there may be more than one such point in a complete cycle so the starting point may be arbitrary.) For sin θ the phase at 0º is 0; for cos θ it is ¼. If the cycle has wavelength 360º or 2π radians, the phase is often expressed as an angle corresponding to the given fraction of the wavelength, so the phase of cos θ at 0º is 90º or ½π radians.” – Wikibooks

The Universal Speed Limit The cosmic speed limit can be considered in two ways: 1) Dimensionless. Given that speed = wavelength times frequency or wavelength, c = λf. 2) Dimensional. By Pythagoras’s Theorem: c2 = vs2 + vt2, where vs = speed through space and vt = speed through time.

Mass The Joule, the unit of energy, is equivalent to the kg m2 s-2. When analysis of the units of the expressions m = h/(λc) and m = hf/(c2) is performed then we find that mass units (kg) = J s2 m-2 (here “m” stands for metres). So, J = kg m2 s-2 = (J s2 m-2)( m2 s-2) = J. and, kg = J s2 m-2 = (kg m2 s-2)( s2 m-2) = kg. If we refer to m2 s-2, (ratio of metres squared to seconds squared, or, rather, imaginary metres squared) as simply A (for Area) then: J = kg A and kg = J/A Now we can clearly see the relationship between mass and energy. Mass is simply energy concentrated in a unit area, and this becomes much more evident in spacetime than in the frequency domain.

You can construct a whole universe from wavelength, frequency, a cosmic speed limit (tied to the wavelength and frequency), amplitude (tied to radius and area) and the “flowing point”. The flowing point is the active agent, the locus where ontological waves are actually expressed. They are the actualised wave and they also contain the wave as potential, or as an internal mathematical program (Aristotelian form) that drives where the flowing point goes next. The basic formula for energy is E = hf, meaning the flowing point (h) multiplied by the frequency. Frequency tells us about the energy of individual flowing points, and the amplitude tells us about the energy of collections of flowing points. From energy we can get mass. So, we see that all of the vital factors needed for physics – energy, mass, speed, wavelength, frequency, amplitude, time, space – are all supplied by the God Equation. This is all you require for a universe. Moreover, it can provide precise, analytic, mathematical definitions. There’s no need for the half-baked, instrumental, contingent definitions of science. It’s time for the standard model of physics to be replaced by the standard model of mathematics, based on the God Equation. If you were God and you wanted to create the universe, the God Equation is all you would use. The universe must be based on just one foundational mathematical equation: a mathematical monism. That’s the only way it can be perfectly coherent, consistent and complete. The relevant equation must of course reflect all of the properties we observe in the universe. The God Equation accomplishes precisely that. The God Equation is the answer to everything. The “final theory of science” will simply be an explanation of how we get from the God Equation to every aspect of physics, down to the fine detail (above all, that means explaining quantum gravity).

The Aim The aim of the universe is to produce consciousness, and thus know itself, bring a conclusion to itself, and then give new birth to itself. The universe is both Thanatos and Eros, Apollo and Dionysus. And Janus stands everywhere, looking backwards and forwards. Janus is the door. He is the divinity of beginnings and endings.

Light

Why does light interact so well with matter? Because matter is just a mode of light. Physicists say that photons mediate the electromagnetic force. In fact, light mediates all forces. The strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism, are all unified in a single light force, which is nothing but the force of symmetric, even cosines and antisymmetric, odd sines. There is only a single force: the force of mathematical sinusoids. Everything is unified in sinusoids: mind, life, physics, metaphysics, science and mathematics. Sinusoids are energy in its basic form. Sinusoids are information in its most basic form. Sinusoids are thoughts in their most basic from. Sinusoids are the eternal flow of structured information, and all else can be deduced from that single fact. “Life” is simply a consequence of that flow. Mind is a consequence of that flow. Consciousness is what you get when that flow can reflect on itself and know and experience itself.

The Zeroth Element The zeroth element, the basis of everything, is light. All atoms are made from light. The Periodic Table is essentially a table of stable sinusoidal functions.

The God Equation The God Equation does everything that science signally fails to do... it explains everything, including the origins of everything. It makes no reference at all to faith, magic, feelings, senses, mysticism, randomness, probability or indeterminacy. It provides a sufficient reason for why everything is such and not otherwise. The God Equation is the only possible answer to existence, to “life, the universe and everything”. In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams famously said that the answer was “42”. In fact, it’s not a number but an equation that’s the answer. Whether or not people understand the answer is an entirely different issue. To all irrationalists, it’s the worst possible answer, and they will unquestionably reject it. They will go on believing in their absurd prophets, gurus and sacred texts. They will continue to worship their Mythos Gods. They will continue to be “believers” and have faith in whatever nonsense floats their boat. Some will continue to believe in mystical intuitions and

some will solemnly declare that “love” is the answer. The scientific materialists will continue to reject anything their senses can’t grasp. Such is life. The truth, as we often say, isn’t for everyone. The truth belongs to the rational, intelligible world, and nowhere else. If you prefer to subscribe to faith, feelings, mystical intuitions and your senses, you will never enter the mansions of truth, objectivity and reality. You will never enter the Logos domain, but remain forever in the Mythos realm, telling yourself unbelievable little stories to comfort yourself. The irrational scientists will keep saying, “Show us the evidence” and we will keep replying: “Use your reason, not your senses. There is nothing to see. Reason isn’t a sensory organ.” Only the Gods can grasp the truth. Mathematics is the truth. The God Equation generates all numbers and controls all numbers. It’s thus in complete accord with Pythagoras’s incredible intuition when he said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” Your task is not to worship the God Equation as God. Your task is to understand the God Equation and use its power to make yourself God! The God Equation, not meditation, is your route to gnosis and divinity. How many are equipped to fathom the mysteries of the God Equation? Precious few. Only the authentic Elect. Pindar said, “Neither by land nor by sea shalt thou find the road to the Hyperboreans.” The road to Hyperborea is the road of the God Equation, and only the finest Grail Knights can discover it. It’s hidden in plain sight, but only those with eyes to see and ears to hear can detect it.

Hyperborea “Alone among the Twelve Olympians, Apollo was venerated among the Hyperboreans, the Hellenes thought: he spent his winter amongst them. For their part the Hyperboreans sent mysterious gifts, packed in straw, which came first to Dodona and then were passed from tribe to tribe until they came to Apollo’s temple on Delos (Pausanias). Abaris, Hyperborean priest of Apollo, was a legendary wandering healer and seer. Theseus visited the Hyperboreans, and Pindar transferred Perseus’s encounter with Medusa there from its traditional site in Libya, to the dissatisfaction of his Alexandrian editors. Along with Thule, Hyperborea was one of several terrae incognitae to the Greeks and Romans, where Pliny, Pindar and

Herodotus, as well as Virgil and Cicero, reported that people lived to the age of one thousand and enjoyed lives of complete happiness.... Also, the sun was supposed to rise and set only once a year in Hyperborea; which would place it above or upon the Arctic Circle, or, more generally, in the arctic polar regions. The ancient Greek writer Theopompus in his work Philippica claimed Hyperborea was once planned to be conquered by a large race of soldiers from another island (some have claimed this was Atlantis), the plan though was abandoned because the soldiers from Meropis realized the Hyperboreans were too strong for them and the most blessed of people...” – Wikipedia Only math can take you to Hyperborea.

The Photonic Universe “The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. From the point of view of the photon, of course, it is everything else that is rushing past at the speed of light. And under such extreme conditions, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction reduces the distance between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, or that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once.... From the point of view of a photon, it takes no time at all to cross the 150 million km from the Sun to the Earth (or to cross the entire Universe), for the simple reason that this space interval does not exist for the photon.” – John Gribbin, Schrödinger’s Kittens In Illuminism, there are two interconnected domains: the frequency domain and the spacetime domain. In the frequency domain, time and space do not exist, so everything is dimensionless (net). If physical motion is associated with spacetime, mental motion (thinking) is associated with frequency. Mental motion is, of course, exactly what is missing from science! All frequency domain “particles” have no physical mass (real or imaginary, positive or negative), no net dimensions (real or imaginary, positive or negative), and all travel at the same speed (the speed of light, the cosmic speed limit, the speed of thought).

***** When you switch on a light, photons don’t pour out. After all, photons exist in the dimensionless frequency domain – the Singularity. Switching on a light activates an energy field that causes the local spacetime environment to glow. The photons don’t travel through space. Rather, they add energy information to an inverse Fourier transform, producing the mathematical effect of a region of spacetime lighting up. The Higgs field that confers mass on things does not affect the frequency domain, only the spacetime domain. In fact, we might define the spacetime domain exactly as the domain where the Higgs field applies. The Higgs field has the property of causing the mixing of cosine and sine waves non-orthogonally, so that hybrid functions (complex number functions) are generated. All “pure” functions travel at the cosmic speed limit (defined as the speed of light). All “hybrid” functions also travel at this speed, but in a more complicated way, with the total speed being made up of a time and space component: 1) a pure function travels at c, the speed of light. 2) For a hybrid function, vs2 + vt2 = c2 where c is the speed of light, vs = the speed through space, and vt = the speed through time. So, vs = √(c2 – vt2) and vt = √(c2 – vs2). That is, Pythagoras’s Theorem applies to spacetime (Higgs) functions, but not to pure functions. You are in spacetime if Pythagoras’s Theorem applies, and you are not if it doesn’t. Simple! Pythagoras’ Theorem itself is a kind of spacetime Higgs field, and is in fact the source of the Higgs field. Look at the Euler unit circle. Where doesn’t Pythagoras’s Theorem apply? At 0, 90, 180, 270 and 360 degrees. Everywhere else, we can draw right-angled triangles involving the radius as the hypotenuse. “Pure” functions – unmixed sine and cosine waves – exist at the axes (which correspond to the frequency domain). “Hybrid” functions – mixtures of sine and cosine waves – exist everywhere else, defined by Pythagoras’s Theorem. In Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it is stated that no material particle can be accelerated to light speed because it would take an infinite amount of energy. In a Pythagorean triangle, one angle is ninety degrees,

and the other two angles add up to ninety degrees. A straight line (axis) is associated with an angle of one hundred and eight degrees. In relation to the special theory of relativity, we could say, mathematically, that as one of the non-right angled angles of the Pythagorean triangle gets closer and closer to zero, its counterpart gets closer and closer to ninety degrees. At the limit, the triangle becomes a straight line. It’s the ontological resistance of a rightangled triangle to becoming a straight line that mathematically underpins Einstein’s theory. This corresponds to the resistance between a hybrid spacetime function (non-orthogonal) becoming a pure frequency function (orthogonal). As ever, it’s all in the math. The Euler circle contains within it both the Singularity and Spacetime. The axes belong to the Singularity, and everything between the axes to Spacetime. The axes reflect pure sines and cosines while the “inter-axes” reflect hybrid functions of sines and cosines (where non-orthogonal phase relations apply between the sines and cosines). The “Big Bang” is when the Singularity – via the Euler circle axes – populates all of the inter-axes zones. A black hole singularity is caused when a spacetime hybrid function irreversibly collapses, which corresponds to its hybrid functions of sines and cosines being separated back into pure sines and cosines. The Big Bang is an ontological inverse Fourier Transform operation (pure frequencies are mixed together to create spacetime functions), and black hole formation is an ontological forward Fourier Transform process operation (hybrid spacetime functions are decomposed into pure frequencies). All the processes of physics are actually just relabelled (reinterpreted) mathematical processes. As soon as you accept mathematics as ontological rather than abstract, you can get rid of physics and its “scientific” interpretations, and replace them with the true, underlying mathematical definitions, descriptions and operations. The Euler circle, if properly understood, describes everything that happens in physics. Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity are there, as is quantum mechanics. The Fourier Transform and Holography are implicit in the Euler circle. The final scientific theory of everything – uniting relativity and quantum mechanics – will be found solely within the framework of Euler’s Formula. The only thing stopping a final theory is the fact that both relativity theory

and quantum mechanics have been wholly misunderstood and misinterpreted by scientists, who have systematically sought to view science through a materialist and empiricist prism rather than an idealist and rationalist one. If they adopted the correct, rational approach – that of ontological mathematics – all of their problems would vanish. The Einsteinian principle of relativity is false (it contradicts the reality principle), and must be abandoned. Einstein’s theory is strictly local whereas true reality also reflects non-locality. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is false because it treats reality as statistical (God plays dice). It denies the ontological reality of the quantum wave function based on complex numbers. Both relativity theory and Copenhagen quantum mechanics fail to treat time properly because imaginary numbers – the basis of time as the imaginary equivalent of space – are deemed “unreal” and non-ontological. With a few mathematical “tweaks” (which would, however, involve the end of the current scientific paradigm and its materialist empiricist ideology), science would get its final theory – based on nothing but Euler’s Formula.

Ontological Fourier Mathematics Conventionally, the question of what Fourier mathematics actually means, what it tells us about reality – about ontology – is ignored. Fourier mathematics is most often used in signal processing and is regarded as a useful tool for analyzing wave patterns, i.e. the subject is approached instrumentally and pragmatically (as always happens in science), rather than philosophically and metaphysically. The key to Illuminism and ontological mathematics is that the Fourier frequency domain is the primary domain of existence. With this ontology in place, Fourier mathematics takes on a radically different complexion. In Illuminism, spacetime functions are mixtures of sine and cosine waves, but, crucially, they can interact with pure sine and cosine frequencies (mind frequencies). To repeat, spacetime functions, comprised of sines and cosines, can interact with pure sines and cosines that do not enter spacetime but nevertheless impact on it (as, for example, when a light is turned on: the photons, from their perspective, remain wholly in the frequency singularity).

Fourier spacetime functions are combinations of low-energy sines and cosines, but these functions can mathematically interact with high-energy sines and cosines that remain outside space and time. It’s as if we are adding Fourier mental (frequency) functionality to Fourier material (spacetime) functionality. Matter was created when a symmetry-breaking operation associated with the Higgs field caused the sine and cosine components of low-energy photons to break apart and then form non-orthogonal hybrid functions that we call “material particles”. The only “particles” that exist fundamentally (eternally and necessarily) are photons. Material particles are possible only because a symmetrybreaking process allowed sines and cosines to combine in such a way as to form time-space hybrid functions (material particles). This symmetrybreaking is implied by the Euler circle itself since it must be possible to populate the quadrants between the pure frequency axes, and this can happen only if sines and cosines are able to mix together non-orthogonally (via inverse Fourier transforms):

To be clear, material particles are actually sine-cosine hybrids (defined by non-orthogonality), which is exactly why their resultant speed is light speed. “Pure” (mental) particles are associated with the axial radii of the Euler circle, and with either imaginary or real numbers, depending on context. “Hybrid” (material) particles are associated with non-axial radii, and with complex numbers. The spacetime universe is a complex-numbered universe. The frequency domain comprises pure real numbers and pure imaginary numbers. Illuminism permits a staggering simplification of the “particle zoo” of standard physics. Everything reduces to sines and cosines, their combinations and phase relations. There is nothing else. All apparent

“material” particles are simply mathematically stable combinations of nonorthogonal sinusoids. Photons are the basic bosons, and also the source of fermions. Photons are symmetric and fermions antisymmetric. It’s all in the symmetry! The gluons associated with the strong nuclear force can be reinterpreted in terms of ultra high energy photons. The W and Z bosons associated with the weak nuclear force can be associated with photons that are able to undergo symmetry-breaking operations. Hypothetical gravitons – which have been at the heart of the search for a quantum theory of gravity – must be radically reinterpreted in terms of the mathematical scheme we have set out here. It’s because gravitons are so woefully conceptually misunderstood that quantum gravity has got nowhere despite the immense scientific resource poured into it (the most intense effort in scientific history). Gravitons must be defined sinusoidally. Mind operates on matter in the same way as photons do. That’s because photons are in fact the carriers of mind! The mind stays in the frequency domain while still having an impact on spacetime, and interacting with matter. Photons are “force particles” (bosons) operating on “matter particles” (fermions). We could equally say that photons are “frequency mind particles” operating on “spacetime matter particles”. Light is thought. Sinusoidal antisymmetry is what allows matter (fermions) to be injected into the universe. Photons, with their bosonic ability to form superconcentrations (as in lasers), show how mind can intensely focus on matter and hold it together, so to speak. Look at how simply and naturally “wave-particle duality” emerges from our system. It’s built in! Look at how mathematically simple Illuminism is (even if it’s conceptually immensely difficult). It’s all about waves, sines, cosines, even and odd functions, symmetry and antisymmetry, symmetry breaking, zero, infinity, real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers, complex numbers, circles and lines, Pythagoras’ Theorem and Fourier mathematics. Why would anything else be required to explain the universe? All the vital ingredients are here. Nothing else is needed. The God Equation, from which the entirety of ontological mathematics flows (consistently and completely) does everything required to build a universe.

Euler

The Euler universe has an origin, linear axes, circles (that constitute eternal energy systems, hence encapsulate infinity), cosine and sine waves that go on forever, amplitudes, frequencies, positive and negative numbers, real and imaginary numbers. Everything in the universe travels at a single, uniform speed (either directly or once a speed through space and speed through time have been properly factored in). The God Equation provides a framework and criteria for irreversible collapse to zero, or its opposite of irreversible expansion to infinity (always an analytically contained infinity). It provides everything that’s necessary for Fourier mathematics, quantum mechanics and holography. It also naturally supports the Riemann Sphere, which allows the complex plane with a point at infinity to be mapped to a complex sphere with a south pole at zero, and a north pole at infinity. It accommodates dimensional and dimensionless existence. Nothing is omitted. “Something” and “nothing” are unified in the God Equation. An extraordinary feature of the God Equation is that the axial radii can serve a dual role. They can describe distance from the origin in real or imaginary space, or they can describe frequency, starting at zero and increasing to infinity (or largest possible ontological number). We can therefore analyse Euler circles in terms of the frequency domain, or spacetime domain, exactly what is required for Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics is built into Euler circles. One of the key features of Euler circles is that spacetime ends at the axial radii, i.e. these constitute ontological barriers. For any material particle to reach light speed, it would need to leave spacetime and become a frequency, i.e. it needs to undergo a dimensionality phase transition. Nothing, under any circumstances, can travel faster than light, thus showing that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is conceptually false since it fails to forbid superluminal particles (so-called tachyons), which would be able to travel back in time and thus refute causality itself. Things that seem to communicate instantaneously – such as entangled quantum particles – are actually utilizing a dimensionless communication channel (so it takes no time to get anywhere even for things moving at the finite speed of light). The frequency Singularity and the spacetime domain are both present in the God Equation: mind and matter! The Singularity (Cosmic Mind) fully penetrates the material world of spacetime. The Singularity is transcendent and immanent, accessible at all points to the spacetime domain, and also

setting the limits to the spacetime domain. The spacetime domain, as it expands, ultimately comes right back to its origin – to the frequency Singularity (Big Bang Singularity). This cyclical return is what constitutes an Age of the Universe. Spacetime is always constrained by the frequency Singularity. Just as supermassive black holes dictate the size of the galaxies that surround them, so the frequency domain itself sets the size of the entire spacetime universe. What could be more straightforward? The Singularity, whether in terms of the Big Bang, black holes, white holes or the frequency domain, is the unconscious mental entity – the Cosmic Mind – that controls the spacetime universe, which is the equivalent of the Cosmic Mind’s physical body. As above, so below. Frequency is mind and spacetime is matter. The Singularity is the “World Soul” of which the ancients spoke. The Singularity and spacetime are both present in the God Equation. If anything is worthy of religious veneration, meditation, contemplation and awe, it’s the God Equation. It is more or less God itself, the true God of absolute, infallible reason and immutable, eternal perfection ... the Aristotelian God. We have only touched on the astounding properties of Euler circles. The full ontological interpretation of Euler circles could take decades, but when it’s accomplished, humanity will stand on the threshold of divinity. The God Equation explains everything. End of story. We defy every scientist and religious believer on earth to show that we are wrong. We, however, have shown exactly where they are wrong.

Mental Thermodynamics “No cyclic process is possible whose sole result is a flow of heat from a single reservoir and the performance of equivalent work.” – Lord Kelvin The laws of mental rather than physical thermodynamics enshrine zero loss, degradation or dissipation of energy. Nothing ever runs down. The mind endures forever. Matter does not. “Although mechanical energy is indestructible, there is a universal tendency to its dissipation, which produces throughout the system a gradual augmentation and diffusion of heat, cessation of motion and exhaustion of the potential energy of the material Universe.” – Lord Kelvin

The material world exhausts all of its potentiality. The mental world maximises all of its potentiality. The two processes are directly connected (mental entropy – negentropy – decreases as material entropy increases). “Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life, or subjected to the will of an animated creature.” – Lord Kelvin All mental energy is “animate”, and can never be dissipated.

Incommensurability “In 1962, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend both independently introduced the idea of incommensurability to the philosophy of science. In both cases the concept came from mathematics and in its original sense is defined as the absence of a common unit of measurement that would allow a direct and exact measurement of two variables, such as the prediction of the diagonal of a square from the relationship of its sides.” – Wikipedia Incommensurability is one of the most important, yet radically underappreciated, ideas in philosophy. You cannot make different worldviews “talk” to each other. They are incommensurate. There is no common ground between Mythos and Logos, between religion and science, between empiricism and rationalism. Even science and mathematics are incommensurate. Sloppy, shoddy thinkers try to forcefit things that have no right to be together. Many of the most egregious falsehoods in human history lie in the artificial interfaces constructed to allow incommensurates to talk to each other, i.e. in the attempt to construct fraudulent commensurateness. For example, Scholastic philosophy sought to use rationalism to defend religious faith and revelation, a preposterous undertaking. Just as absurdly, science tries to use rationalism to defend empiricism. All such incommensurate attempts reflect a version of Cartesian substance dualism. You can never get incommensurates to validly talk to each other. We live in a monistic universe, one where everything knows exactly what language to use to communicate with everything else. That language is the language of existence, i.e. mathematics. The universe isn’t a bit religious, a bit spiritual, a bit mystical, a bit scientific, a bit empirical, a bit Mythos, a bit irrational, a bit Logos, a bit rational, a bit

mathematical. Reality is in fact 100% mathematical form, with all mathematical form accompanied by content, which we experience empirically (not as mathematics). The only subtlety in existence – one that has truly baffled the human race – is that it’s a dual-aspect monism. Reality is made of mathematical waves. The waves are Forms, but they all convey Content (information). To understand reality in itself, we must address mathematical Form. To live in the world, we must address empirical Content.

The Futility “Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer!” – Nassim Haramein Yet this is what the entire subject of neuroscience is now devoted to. There is not a single neuroscientist who accepts the existence of mind independent of matter. Not one! There was a time in history when not a single astronomer believed that the earth orbited the sun. That’s where humanity is in terms of neuroscience... the Dark Ages!

***** “My brain is only a receiver. In the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.” – Nikola Tesla The core is the mathematical, mental Singularity at the dead centre of the physical universe. This is the domain of limitless “free” energy! It has nothing to do with the physical world. Energy always costs physically, and is always running out.

Seeing the Light Light is the answer to everything. Light is ontological mathematics.

The Prince of Darkness Voice: “This is not a dream... not a dream. We are using your brain’s electrical system as a receiver. We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are

transmitting from the year one, nine, nine, nine. You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing. Our technology has not developed a transmitter strong enough to reach your conscious state of awareness, but this is not a dream. You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation.” (Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter, 1987) Professor Edward Birack: “Let’s talk about our beliefs, and what we can learn about them. We believe nature is solid, and time a constant. Matter has substance and time a direction. There is truth in flesh and the solid ground. The wind may be invisible, but it’s real. Smoke, fire, water, light – they’re different! Not as to stone or steel, but they’re tangible. And we assume time is narrow because it is as a clock – one second is one second for everyone! Cause precedes effect – fruit rots, water flows downstream. We’re born, we age, we die. The reverse NEVER happens... None of this is true! Say goodbye to classical reality, because our logic collapses on the subatomic level... into ghosts and shadows.” (Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter, 1987) Professor Edward Birack: “From Job’s friends insisting that the good are rewarded and the wicked punished, to the scientists of the 1930s proving to their horror the theorem that not everything can be proved, we’ve sought to impose order on the universe. But we’ve discovered something very surprising: while order DOES exist in the universe, it is not at all what we had in mind!” (Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter, 1987) Professor Edward Birack: Suppose what your faith has said is essentially correct. Suppose there is a universal mind controlling everything, a god willing the behaviour of every subatomic particle. Well, every particle has an anti-particle, its mirror image, its negative side. Maybe this universal mind resides in the mirror image instead of in our universe as we wanted to believe. Maybe he’s anti-god, bringing darkness instead of light.” (Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter, 1987) Student: “The point [of the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat] is, until the cat is observed by someone, he’s not in any definite state, either alive or dead. He’s in a wave superposition state, both dead and alive at the same time. Only when we open the box and observe the cat... does he materialize into reality, either dead or alive. [The fact that it doesn’t make sense] is the

entire, complete point. It doesn’t make any common sense. Our common sense breaks down on a subatomic level.... That’s what Einstein couldn’t accept.” (Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter, 1987) Science now literally claims that our subjective experiences and observations determine reality, and, without our subjective experiences and observations, there would be nothing but unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions, which would never turn into actual things. In other words, science now officially repudiates objective reality, i.e. a reality that objectively unfolds regardless of the subjective experiences and observations of human beings. Science is insane, generating one crazy claim after another, which are every bit as offensive to reason as all the claims of mainstream religion. If you agree with how science interprets the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, you have lost your mind. The most astounding thing is that the paradox was introduced precisely to illustrate how absurd the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics was. Schrödinger was of course correct that there is an objective reality, hence that the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is bogus. Unfortunately his name is now associated with the exact opposite of the position he endorsed. What a tragedy. “Bohr and Heisenberg did not claim that the cat was really both dead and alive at the same time. They insisted instead that – and this has been accepted by the majority of physicists ever since – we cannot talk about the cat as even having an independent reality until we open the box to check up on it! Their reasoning was that all the time the box is closed we simply have nothing to say about the ‘real’ state of the cat. All we have to go by is the wavefunction, and this is just a set of numbers.” – Jim Al-Khalili Al-Khalili tries to present Bohr and Heisenberg’s deranged conclusions as eminently sensible. Only an empiricist could find their arguments convincing. It would be bad enough if they were saying the cat was really both alive and dead at the same time. In fact, they are making an even more preposterous claim, namely that life and death are meaningless in the absence of observations and measurements. If you were living alone on a desert island then, according to Bohr and Heisenberg, the rest of the world – since it could not observe you – would be entitled to say you didn’t exist (to be is to be perceived), or that you were an unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction that would collapse into a real state only if someone found

your island and “made you real” by forcing your wavefunction to do one thing or another. It must not be thought that Bohr and Heisenberg were referring to mere ignorance on our part of the state of the cat. They were claiming that it didn’t have a state until we looked at it, i.e. reality isn’t reality until someone experiences it. This is to repudiate the reality principle, which asserts that everything in the universe is in a definite state at all times, and there is no uncertainty, indeterminacy, indeterminism, acausation, and probabilistic potentiality, as science claims. This is the difference between rationalism and empiricism. Scientific empiricism has become so preposterous that it has declared objective reality itself an invalid “hidden variable”, i.e. just as scientists dismiss hidden variables because they cannot be brought into experience, so they dismiss unobserved reality. This was what prompted Einstein to ask Bohr if he seriously believed that the moon wasn’t there when no one was looking at it. A rationalist knows something because it is in indisputable agreement with reason. Experience and observations don’t come into it at all. An empiricist, however, “knows” only what he is observing or experiencing, and otherwise it doesn’t exist (or, he might say, he has no “knowledge” of it, hence it might as well not exist). For empiricists, absence of evidence is straight away converted into evidence of absence, i.e. if you can’t observe or experience something, you should conclude it doesn’t exist at all. This is the demented solipsism and skepticism that empiricism inevitably arrives at. Empiricism always rejects objective reality for the precise reason that it cannot be continuously experienced. Rationalism doesn’t require it to be experienced in order to know it’s there. Thus we have two diametrically opposite understandings of what constitutes “knowledge”. For rationalists, knowledge is what analytic a priori reason can indisputably reveal to us, and there can be no knowledge other than that. For empiricists, knowledge concerns whatever we are observing or experiencing, and there can be no knowledge other than that. Therefore, mathematical rationalism is incommensurate with scientific empiricism. Science, by being an empirical subject underpinned by rationalist mathematics, presents two incompatible versions of knowledge. Therefore, it is incoherent. It’s impossible for science to present a rational, intelligible answer to existence.

As for Al-Khalili referring to the “majority of physicists” accepting something as true, that’s a pathetic appeal to authority. The Truth is not a democracy. Who cares what the majority of physicists believe? It’s no more convincing than what the majority of rabbis, imams or cardinals believe.

Understanding Unless you understand the meaning of terms such as analytic, a priori, synthetic, a posteriori, physics, metaphysics, dimensionality, dimensionlessness, nature, supernature, extension, unextension, determinism, indeterminism, spacetime, frequency, mind, matter, indeterminacy, certainty, the necessary and eternal, the temporal and contingent, causation versus probability, empiricism versus rationalism, faith versus rationalism, etc., you cannot comprehend what “knowledge” means. People construct hypotheses on the basis of what they “know”, but since they don’t know much, of what value are their hypotheses?

Doublethink Scientists engage in permanent doublethink. They hold two opposite views at once, and see no contradiction. They do not suffer cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously support rationalism (via math), and empiricism (via experiments). They square the circle (in their own minds) by subordinating rationalism to empiricism, i.e. by denying the reality of rationalism in itself, and by rejecting all aspects of rationalism that do not conform to their empiricist beliefs. A scientist, so he believes, can’t experience an imaginary number with his senses, and therefore automatically rejects the reality of imaginary numbers. He has no rational grounds for doing so. He has attacked rationalism via its opposite (empiricism), and discarded vital rationalist components because of irrationalist considerations. This is why science makes no sense at all if you a rationalist, but makes a great deal of sense to empiricists. No scientist ever reflects on what would happen to empiricist science if rationalist math – its opposite – were removed from it, as it logically should be. Empiricist science without math becomes either augury, or Hume’s philosophy of skepticism, nihilism, solipsism, and the total denial of knowledge. It’s unbelievable that anyone looking for an answer to existence could ever be anything other than an out-and-out rationalist.

The Remainder The remaining eight books of the God Series – now cancelled – would have teased out the consequences of ontological mathematics in much more detail. However, any person familiar with mathematics, who simply applies the principle of sufficient reason to the ontological mathematical world we have described, can work out all of the details for himself. You don’t need any faith in what we say. You don’t need to buy into any Mythos. You don’t need a holy book or a prophet. You don’t need to meditate and enter a mystical state. You don’t need to smoke weed. You don’t need to perform any experiments. Reason is the one and only thing you require in order to carry forward our work and see where it leads. If you’re not rational, too bad. You will never find the door to God at the end of our work. That’s life!

***** The best symphonies are always unfinished.

The Impossibility It’s impossible for anything demanding to become a popular success... unless it becomes a fad, an affectation, a fashion craze, or a personality cult arises around its author.

The Difficulties “...the twin slit experiment presents some difficulties in understanding in classical terms. This is because classical physics, and still even modern physics to be sure, doesn’t account for or think in terms of noumenal reality. “True reality, reality in itself, is the frequency domain. This is the noumenal domain, and can be called the Fourier domain, the monadic domain, the Euler domain, the singularity domain, the interior domain, the mental domain, etc. The space-time domain which we inhabit in human consciousness is only a representation of noumenal reality (its inverse Fourier transform), and thus it is not true reality in and of itself. Our spacetime domain can also be called the exterior domain, the phenomenal domain, the plenum domain, etc. “Our space-time domain, the exterior domain, is actually limited by a ‘sampling frequency’ related to the Planck constant; our reality ‘samples’ the noumenal domain at what amounts to a very, very low resolution. If it sampled the entire noumenal domain at infinite precision, then it would in

fact become perfectly equal to the noumenal domain and thus would simply revert back to the noumenal domain itself. The sampling limit limits how much waveform information from the noumenal domain can appear in the space-time domain before that energy simply collapses back into the noumenal domain and exits space-time, such as in the formation of a black hole. This limit is actually what allows for free-will. If the entire waveform was sampled in our domain, then the entire future trajectory of the wave would be totally determined and hence we’d get the clockwork classical universe where the presence of free-will shouldn’t exist. By sampling only a tiny (particle-like, flowing-point) portion of the waveform from the noumenal domain actualized into the plenum domain, then at each instant of collapse and reformation of the wavefunction does the monad have the freedom to initiate new causes, new ‘directions’, as it thinks about what to do next. Basic monads with very little mental development can’t choose to do all that much, and so they don’t stray very far at any instant from what the waveform is already doing, and hence we get a lot of predictable physical behaviour in space-time.” – JP “Life, activity, exists in only one true noumenal place, and that is in the monad. The monad is life bursting with life, it is its first cause, and it is absolutely unquestionably free. However, its freedom does have to abide by the compossibility conditions of the nature of existence, of which it itself of course defines, the monad being the basis of existence. It’s not really so much as abiding by compossibility, as it is simply to being its own nature. The boundary condition of existence, of the monad, is that of an implicit dialectical Becoming, and nothing can contradict that, ever. This is reality and reality is nothing else. Some might argue that this limits free will. Rather, it defines free will. We are absolutely free to Become, and the soul is absolutely free to test and utilize whatever method it can think of to do so. Rationality serves the great purpose of the soul in that the self-aware mind can consciously think of how and in what ways it can Become the best, instead of groping blindly in dim stupidity or unconsciousness. Reason lights up the possibilities, and thus the abilities, of the soul. Reason sheds light on the darkness a lesser reason cannot see into, and in that illuminated darkness are greater and additional possibilities for action and freedom. It requires reason to realize possibilities, and better reason can realize better possibilities. Hyperhumanity, the Star Trek future, can only be created by hyperreason.” – JP

“The condition of existence is that the monad Becomes from potential to actualization, and soul-actualization feels good to the soul! When and if you can tune in to the sensation that the soul has as it experiences your life and develops its energy and frequency spread, it can only be described as totally erotic. The ‘love and light’ types and the ‘universal love’ types, the feeling intuitives, can tune in to this sensation in limited and ‘dim’ way, whereas Abrahamists can’t tune into it at all and actually become xenophobic towards those who can, because they can’t understand it, thus leading to the relevant religious persecutions and the massive suppression of sexual exploration and enjoyment. Only the scientific materialists are further removed from God, from their divine self, than the Abrahamists. The rationalists, the introverted thinking intuitives, can tune into the sensation of Becoming and their divine self to the highest degree, and thus you never find them banging on about ‘love and light’ and ‘universal love’ for the simple fact they intuitively realize that the polarizations and oppositional contrasts found via the dialectic is the very method that the soul uses to Become, and feel good. The feeling intuitives are close behind, but not quite to the point where they’ve become full of love and eroticism enough to be able to handle interpersonal contrasts and the risks of ‘battle’. Most mystics fall under this category as well.” – JP

Division By Zero How do you avoid infinities caused by division by zero? – via irreversible processes, phase transitions, and event horizons. Once you reach a certain finite point, collapse takes place automatically to a point. Zero/infinity mental singularities are always linked to the finite physical world. Infinities don’t represent impossible ruptures in reality. This is how science treats them, and instantly assumes that an equation has gone catastrophically wrong (and can’t represent reality) if it generates infinities. Nothing has gone wrong. The appearance of an infinity merely signifies that you have left behind spacetime considerations and must now adopt frequency considerations.

Motion

Motion is driven by the “force” of the principle of sufficient reason. Reason, and nothing physical or sensible, is the true source of motion. Time has nothing to do with motion. Once motion is understood to be driven by mathematical reason, time can be seen for what it truly is – imaginary space. It has no connection whatsoever with motion. We live in either a world of reason or a world without reason. The world can’t be a bit of both because that would raise an impossible dualism, with no sufficient reason, and would lead to chaos. We live in either a cosmos (place of rational order) or an acosmos (place of irrational disorder). Plainly, we live in the former, hence the universe is 100% rational in its foundations, and obeys the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. everything has a precise reason why it is thus and not otherwise, which is consistent with what classical science claimed, but the opposite of what modern science claims. Classical science was much more rationalist than modern science, which is utterly infected by the ideology of empiricism and randomness (God plays dice).

Inertia Why do bodies have inertia (the observed behaviour necessary to obey Newton’s First Law of Motion, which requires bodies subjected to no force to be in a state of rest or moving uniformly in a straight line forever)? Physics has never provided an explanation for inertia. The principle of sufficient reason explains it. If something is in a state of constant motion thanks to the PSR, and there is no reason for this to change, then it will continue forever, with zero degradation, i.e. it is perfect perpetual motion, thus falsifying the scientific claim that there are no perpetual motion machines. All minds are perpetual motion organisms. That’s why they are souls. There is nothing at all that cannot be explained by the principle of sufficient reason.

The “Leap” “Natura non facit saltum (Latin for ‘nature does not make jumps’) has been a principle of natural philosophy since at least Aristotle’s time. It appears as an axiom in the works of Gottfried Leibniz.” – Wikipedia The principle of “nature does not make jumps” is, in fact, identical to the principle of sufficient reason. It means that reality doesn’t do anything

random, spontaneous, unexpected, chaotic, discontinuous, indeterministic, acausal, and so on (i.e. all the absurd things that science claims reality performs). The principle of “nature does not make jumps” is the quintessence of ontological mathematics. Everything happens regularly, uniformly, rationally, smoothly, continuously... with perfect mathematical order, organisation, pattern and causality. There are no surprises. Science contradicts this fundamental principle, just as it does so many other key principles. Science is therefore irrational and anti-mathematical.

The Soul Camera “It would be good to figure out what physical arrangements of matter can be used to perform Fourier transforms in space-time and thus retrieve frequency information out of the singularity domain. I see no fundamental reason why it would not be possible to one day build a device that can extract the frequency information from any energy structure in the singularity for direct analysis in space-time. Any individualized energy structure in the singularity is of course a monad, thus, it should be possible one day to analyze the frequency information of something as advanced as a human monad soul. I refer of course to the Soul Camera and it is my opinion that such a concept is not merely a literary device, but an actual physical device that can actually display the waveform contents of any monad, and that these waveform contents will correspond to the various natures of the soul.” – JP “Now a photon wave is actually composed of not one but two waves: an electrical component and a magnetic component, which oscillate at 90 degrees to each other. That is, if the electrical component oscillates up and down, then the magnetic components oscillates left and right, and these both travel forward in the 3rd dimensional axis. ... There seems to be some existing confusion in materialist science on whether the electric and magnetic components oscillate in phase with each other, or, 90 degrees out of phase to each other thus making them orthogonal. Most textbooks and websites show the magnetic and electric components oscillating in-phase, meaning that they maximize and minimize at the same time. However, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave is given by the sum of the squares of the values of its electric and magnetic components, and so if those

components were in phase, then the intensity of the photon would turn on and off because the intensities of the magnetic and electric components pass through zero at the same time and maximize at the same time. Basically the photon would disappear and reappear repeatedly as it travelled along its path. Photons do not do this – their intensity is constant. So on the other hand, if the magnetic and electric components are out of phase by 90 degrees, then one component can be described by a cosine wave and the other component by a sine wave, and the sum of the squares of a cosine and sine is a constant, thus providing constant intensity as the photon travels through space.” – JP JP raises a profound point here. For anyone who wants to consider the point further, take into account the difference between standing and travelling electromagnetic waves, as illustrated here: http://clas.sa.ucsb.edu/staff/martin/EM_StandingWave.html http://clas.sa.ucsb.edu/staff/martin/EM_TravelingWave.html The underlying issue is this... do travelling electromagnetic waves exist at all? Is not all electromagnetism in fact restricted to a non-physical Singularity of standing waves (sines and cosines)? It’s not photons that move through spacetime. Rather, spacetime moves through photons, so to speak. The travelling isn’t done by the photons, it’s done by the interaction between physically static photons and the physical movement inherent in the material world (anything stationary in space is ipso facto moving through time at light speed). Regarding the specific point of photonic intensity seeming to switch on and off, while this is an ontologically profound issue – raising potentially serious objections to the fundamental equations of electromagnetism used by science – there is always a trick (a fudge) available to scientists to avoid confronting the problem. In this case, the trick is the “root mean square”: “It turns out that for an electromagnetic wave, the energy associated with the electric field is equal to the energy associated with the magnetic field, so the energy density can be written in terms of just one or the other... A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is carried by the wave from one place to another. A good measure of this is the intensity of the wave... Generally, it’s most useful to use the average power, or average intensity, of the wave. To find the average values, you have to

use some average for the electric field E and the magnetic field B. The root mean square averages are used.” – http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html Do you see how difficult it is to pin down science? It can always find a trick to seemingly wriggle out of anything. Nothing is more valuable in this regard than “averaging”. All the specific details of reality – the key ontological considerations – can be swept under the carpet via averaging. The whole of reality – all the “bodies” – are buried in the averages. Averages allow you to get the right answers from the wrong ontology.

The God Series So, the God Series – outside the Illuminati – only has a tiny, select audience. Yet there will come a time when every intelligent person on earth has read the God Series, and you will not be considered intelligent at all if you have not. Being ignorant of the God Series will be like being ignorant of the theory of evolution. A “black swan event” will take the God Series from total obscurity to enormous prominence. It might be an action of one of its readers – possibly nothing more strenuous than mentioning it to someone in a bar or at a party – that accomplishes this. Will you be that reader who makes all the difference?

***** The destiny of the human race is inextricably linked to the success of the God Series. Why? Because only through the introduction into science of monads, defined by the God Equation, can science accommodate the mind, and only then is it capable of delivering a final, grand unified theory of everything, one which will be based on mathematical metaphysics rather than scientific physics. Only with a science of mind and matter, rather than matter alone, can the human race become divine. If humanity rejects Illuminism, it has turned its back on its own future and chosen to become just another extinct species. The stakes could not be any higher.

*****

Look at this God Series of books. Doesn’t it offer an infinitely broader vision of the world than science?

***** The God Series – the Answer to Everything... guaranteed. The God Series is what any God worthy of the name would write, rather than idiotic stories about wandering tribes in the Middle East. Are you smart enough for ontological mathematics, the Science of Existence? Are you smart enough to be God?

Illuminism Pythagorean Illuminism is the world’s only Logos (as opposed to Mythos) religion. Illuminism rejects faith, prophets, holy books, “revelation”, and any Creator. Instead, Illuminism is about the necessary, analytic, immutable, a priori, eternal Platonic truths of mathematics. Mathematics alone furnishes the unarguable, definitive answer to existence. That answer, incredibly, revolves around the immortal, indestructible human soul (the “singularity”). The “Big Bang” – a singularity event – was all about soul (all the souls of the universe, in fact)! The soul is none other than the most basic autonomous unit of mathematics: the dimensionless, unobservable point. The soul is “nothing”, yet it is also infinity – because it comprises positive and negative infinity, which balance to nothing. The soul is neither being nor non-being. The soul is becoming. If you want to know what it’s becoming, read the God Series.

***** The Illuminati are hyperrationalists. Our task is to bring about a New World Order, a Second Enlightenment, a true and permanent Age of Reason.

The Launchpad to Heaven The God Series will define humanity’s future. It will be the launchpad for humanity’s destined journey to divinity. If you wish to become all-knowing, join our movement. If you wish to become all-powerful, join our movement. If you wish to become God, join our movement.

The God Series reveals the “Mind of God”. God is simply the principle of sufficient reason, the explanation for everything, the source of everything.

Forever Anything that is rationally provable is rationally provable forever. The eternal truths of reason are immutable. Nothing that anyone experiences can ever alter them. Rational knowledge is entirely different from empirical “knowledge”. It’s eternal and necessary, whereas empirical “knowledge” is temporal and contingent. It’s analytic a priori, as opposed to synthetic a posteriori. True knowledge can never be false under any circumstances. It’s absolute. Empirical “knowledge”, on the other hand, isn’t knowledge at all since any empirical “fact” could easily be imagined to be different, and there is nothing within the ideology of empiricism that allows us to know that what we experience today we will also experience tomorrow. Empirical knowledge comes with no certainties, and has no rational basis. Science has to underpin all of its empirical claims with rationalist mathematics. It deploys mathematical laws – which are nothing to do with empiricism – to convince people that the world today will be the same as the world tomorrow (i.e. will obey the same laws). Without these laws – which are empirically invalid – science would reduce to Hume’s nihilistic skepticism where we can have no knowledge of anything at all. Hume got rid of knowledge, and replaced it with customs and habits. He wrote, “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning. Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation.” Since customs and habits do not provide any necessary links between the past and future, and deal only with subjective expectations, they cannot provide any basis for genuine knowledge. Even to refer to customs and habits is purely speculative. Tomorrow, everything might change, every

custom and habit might be subverted, all of our expectations might be thwarted. It’s deranged for any empiricist to make any claims regarding knowledge. Empiricism is all about what you are experiencing right nothing, and nothing else. Knowledge is exactly what empiricism prevents. Scientific empiricism is one of the world’s supreme con jobs since it would be devoid of value without mathematical rationalism. Science can predict eclipses because of mathematical rationalism, not because of empirical experiences. Science is a fraud. It calls itself empiricist even as it rejects empiricism via its use of eternalist, rationalist mathematics. No one, least of all any scientist, ever ponders the fatal contradiction at the heart of science: using rationalism (math) to prop up empiricism (experiments and observations). Remove the rationalism from science, and it degenerates into empiricist nonsense. Hume regarded “knowledge” as an exercise in subjective human psychology, not as anything to do with eternal ontology and epistemology. Hume was just a more radical version of the Buddha. Buddhism is also hyper-empiricist, and totally opposed to any real knowledge. In fact, Buddhism is just a psychological formula devised by the Buddha to delude his followers into believing that they cannot suffer because they do not really exist. “Suffering” happens to a self, but if the self is denied, where is the suffering? Hume replaced cause and effect with consistent, constant “conjunctions”, although he refused to explain (and couldn’t explain) why even consistent conjunctions should exist and not just total chaos (which is where his inveterate skepticism really leads). Hume’s dead-end, useless philosophy is what you get when you apply empiricism consistently and honestly. Science is a dishonest version of empiricism because it’s predicated on rationalist mathematics, which it has no right to use. Given that the entirety of Hume’s philosophy flows from empiricism, the entirety of Hume’s philosophy is false. What his philosophy demonstrates is the sheer folly of going down the empiricist path, as science has done. Rationalism is the only source of true knowledge, and the only way to explain existence. If we live in a rationalist universe, it has a rationalist, intelligible answer. If we live in an empiricist universe, it’s neither rational, nor intelligible, and

it’s impossible for it to have an answer. No “experience” can constitute the answer to existence. Interestingly enough, Buddhists are striving to have an ultimate experience (“nirvana”), but this certainly wouldn’t amount to a rational, intelligible answer to existence. Empiricists don’t want answers. They just want experiences, without answers. You don’t embrace empiricism if answers are important to you. Empiricists are “surface” people, the slaves of what appears to them. Scientists, and skeptics such as Hume, refuse to accept the existence of anything that doesn’t appear to them, i.e. they reject out of hand all noumena (things in themselves). They reject anything which they cannot experience in some way. Thus we end up with the absurdity of science denying the existence of hidden variables, yet relying on unreal (!), abstract potentiality wavefunctions as its proposed basis of “reality”. David Hume – a proper empiricist – would never have scraped the barrel, as science does, by invoking an unperceivable order of existence, which isn’t even regarded as real. Science – insanely – relies on nonexistence to explain existence, even though, rationally, non-existence is exactly what existence isn’t! Don’t even bother trying to get any sense from a scientist. It’s the definition of futility.

True Magic “Magic is believing in yourself, if you can do that, you can make anything happen.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The Largest Number If there is a largest number definable within mathematics then it’s implicitly encoded in everything. There can be nothing in a mathematical universe that is indefinable, or unreachable.

Unification “Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and James Clerk Maxwell are the most well-known physicists. They discovered many great theories and these discoveries developed physics and still apply to our world. Moreover these functions seem to relate each other. “In our real world, there are basically 4 big forces of nature, which are Gravity, Electromagnetic, the Strong Force, and Weak Force. Gravity is a force act between all mass in the universe. Electromagnetic is a force act

between electrically charged particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force. The Strong Force is a force bind which put neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms. Weak Force is a force causes Beta (a radiation) decay, and various particles are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions.... “...we can assume that there is one basic relationship between all of them, and this is the idea of the grand unification theory. “...Isaac Newton discovered the unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics, which is called Universal Gravitation today. James Clerk Maxwell succeeded with the unification of electricity, magnetism and light, which is called Electromagnetism today. Albert Einstein developed the idea of space-time geometry and the theory of gravitation. And recently the theories of weak force and electromagnetism are unified by Glashow, Weinberg and Salaam in 1979, and this theory is known as Standard Model of particle physics. The weak and electromagnetic interactions have been unified under electroweak theory (the Nobel Prize for 1979). Grand unification theories attempt to treat both strong and electroweak interactions under the same mathematical structure.” – http://www2.hesston.edu/Physics/Unified/grand_unification_theory.htm

Which? The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Or The whole is less than the sum of its parts?

The Labyrinth of the Continuum How can infinitely small points come together to constitute a line? Only by introducing motion into the points. Static points stand for non-existence, hence are totally abstract. Moving points constitute existence. They are real. One of the key failings of academic mathematics is that it focuses on static points, and ignores ontological, dynamic points. You cannot form a number line from static, dimensionless points. They can never escape from a singularity. A number line can only be created as a result of continuous motion from one point to another. Since that motion necessarily involves

travelling through every conceivable intervening point, without any gaps, it is motion itself that summons the number line into existence.

Fixed Laws The Laws of Nature are fixed. They are the eternal laws of mathematics. Science, which denies eternal necessity and the ontology of mathematics, can logically have no fixed laws, rendering it incomprehensible. Science not only says that the universe jumped out of nothing at the Big Bang, it also says that the laws of physics – of matter, space and time – did too, since there was no matter, space and time prior to the Big Bang. How can immaterial laws – that are claimed by science to have eternal validity – be created out of nothing, and how can anything immaterial feature in scientific materialism anyway (where there is nothing but matter)? Given science’s empiricist ideology, why shouldn’t laws be evolutionary, like human laws, and, indeed, like humans themselves? Why shouldn’t they obey Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance? Why shouldn’t they reflect cosmic “habits”? Only eternal mathematics can provide an eternal basis of law. Without math, there is no anchor for the universe.

Something and Nothing Unity (the multiplicative identity) and Nothing (the additive identity) = the binary system. They stand for Something and Nothing.

Dark Energy The so-called “dark energy” that drives the expansion of the universe is simply the energy of mathematical waves being extended over everlengthening (red-shifting) distances. Monadic energy could also be accurately described as dark energy since it’s invisible to us.

The Block Universe “It is true that there is a time dimension defined within the universe. And for an observer within the universe, objects appear to change with respect to this time axis. However, this apparent flow of time is just an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the time dimension. As there is

no clock outside the universe, there is no ‘external’ time axis, and the external view of the entire universe structure can therefore never change with respect to that non-existent external time axis.” – Andrew Thomas If there is no Clock outside the universe, nor is there any Ruler outside the universe. Why is there no “flow” of space? Actually, there is... that’s why we have an expanding universe. So, is space flowing like time? If so, why is there no discussion of the “Arrow of Space” to match the proposed “Arrow of Time”? Space always goes in one direction... that of the expansion (and not the contraction) of the universe. Time, we are told, always goes forward and not backwards. But is not the real truth of time that it’s actually imaginary space, and, just like real space, it is expanding (outwards from an initial Singularity)? We now have complete symmetry between space and time (imaginary space) rather than the bizarre asymmetry proposed by science. Is there a space dimension defined within the universe? For an observer within the universe, do objects appear to change with respect to this space axis? Is the apparent flow of space just an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the space dimension? As there is no ruler outside the universe, there is no ‘external’ space axis, and the external view of the entire universe structure can therefore never change with respect to that non-existent external space axis. Well? Do you see how easy it is to throw scientific concepts into total confusion? All we need to do is make time into imaginary space, and everything we say about it must be equivalent and symmetric with everything we say about real space. As soon as that’s done, science’s claims about time collapse. If it is true that there is an internal space dimensionality, and internal time dimensionality, and both of them are changing in accord with the expansion of the universe, then it means that dimensional energy is getting more and more attentuated, hence less and less energetic. Alternatively, photons – from the perspective of expanding spacetime – are getting less and less energetic. It’s not of course the photons in themselves that are changing, but their relationship with the non-photonic universe, which “sees” them as less energetic, when, in fact, it is spacetime itself that is getting less energetic (thanks to the expansion). Wikipedia says, “The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the time of recombination in Big Bang

cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or ‘relic radiation.’ The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.... Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck’s relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation.” As ever, science has fundamentally misinterpreted what is happening. Photons haven’t changed. They were never in spacetime to begin with. It’s the energy profile of photons with respect to expanded spacetime that has altered, not the profile of photons in themselves (independent of spacetime). Not only is space expanding, so is time. This means that time passes much more slowly than it did at the beginning of the universe. It also means that space is expanding much more slowly than it once did. So, how do these considerations fit in with the notion of the accelerating universe? Consider this article: Time Itself May Be Slowing Down “For a decade, scientists have puzzled over a surprising phenomenon: Supernovae stars viewed at extreme distances seem to be moving away from us faster than those nearby. “Most researchers have assumed that the stars have somehow accelerated – or that, more precisely, the rate of the expansion of the postBig Bang universe itself has accelerated over time. “This was particularly odd given that the universe was thought to be dominated by matter, which should, through the aggregate gravitational effect of each bit pulling on the others, have led to a deaccelerating expansion, rather than the opposite. Thus, scientists have postulated an unknown kind of energy, now known as ‘dark energy,’ which would be responsible for the acceleration.

“But hold on just a minute. “A group of scientists from the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, and Spain’s University of Salamanca have offered a different idea. Maybe it’s the passage of time itself that’s slowing down, they say. The distant galaxies only look like they’re accelerating because our deep-space telescopes are essentially looking back in time to see them, to when time was going faster. “The theory, outlined in the New Scientist and the UK Telegraph, and in a paper published in Physical Review D, is based on a complex bit of string theory that remains entirely speculative today. Under this theory, our entire universe is embedded in a multidimensional ‘brane,’ which itself is floating through a higher dimensional space that we can’t detect. “Naturally, the theory has a few chilling conclusions. If time is slowing, it could – in billions of years – actually come to a complete halt, University of the Basque Country professor José Senovilla told New Scientist. “Would that mean everything freezes in place forever? Apparently. Does forever mean anything if time itself has literally stopped? Pass… “In short, a brain twister. Of course, there’s a catch, which Senovilla says his group hasn’t yet considered. Another group of physicists has postulated that there may actually be two dimensions of time, rather than just one we all know and fear. Which would explain where all that lost time goes, I suppose.” – John Borland, Wired In fact, there are three time dimensions! Time will indeed eventually stop completely. So will space. There will be no more expansion of space and time, and this is functionally equivalent to the universe becoming a Singularity once more. Professor Roger Penrose said, “If people asked me what happened before the Big Bang, my normal answer would be to say, well, you know, the word ‘before’, you see, what does that mean? Well, that’s a sort of temporal concept, and if the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime that means the very notion of time loses its meaning at this event, this so-called Big Bang. If the notion of time loses its meaning, the very notion of ‘before’ loses its meaning. Therefore, we pretend to say it’s a meaningless question to ask for before. There wasn’t a ‘before’. That’s the wrong kind of notion. And I would have perhaps gone along with this point of view until I’ve had some different ideas more recently. … The present picture of the universe is that it starts with a Big Bang and it ends with an indefinitely

expanding, exponentially expanding, universe where, in the remote future, it cools off and there’s nothing much left except photons. Now what I’m saying is that in this remote future the photons have no way of keeping time: they don’t have any mass. You need mass to make a clock and you have to have a clock to measure the scale of the universe, so the universe loses track of how big it is. And this very expanded universe becomes equivalent to a Big Bang of another one. So I’m saying that this, what we think about our present universe, is but one eon of a succession of eons, where this remotely expanding universe of each becomes the Big Bang of the next. So small and big become completely equivalent.... “Our universe’s expansion means that all of its mass will eventually be converted into energy. When that happens, conventional ideas of time and size disappear. Because of this, an infinitely large universe could be the infinitely small starting point for the next one, a cyclic system with a before and after.” Not enough hours in the day? Scientists predict time will stop completely “Time might feel like it is running away from us as the pace of life increases but according to scientists, the future will stop completely. “The theory of time running out was devised by researchers from two Spanish universities trying to explain why the universe appeared to be spreading continuously and accelerating. “Observations of supernovae, or exploding stars, found the movement of light indicated they were moving faster than those nearer to the centre of the universe. “But the scientists claimed the accepted theory of an opposite force to gravity, known as dark energy, was wrong, and said the reality was that the growth of the universe was slowing. “Professor Jose Senovilla, Marc Mars and Raul Vera from the University of the Basque Country and the University of Salamanca said the deceleration of time was so gradual, it was imperceptible to humans. “Their proposal, published in the journal Physical Review D, claimed dark energy does not exist and that time was winding down to the point when it would finally grind to a halt long after the planet ceased to exist. “The slowing down of time will eventually mean everything will appear to take place faster and faster until it eventually disappears.

“Professor Senovilla told the New Scientist: ‘Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, for ever.’ “Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist the University of Cambridge, told the news website RT that the idea was not as absurd as it sounded. “‘We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang and if time can emerge, it may disappear as well as the opposite effect,’ he said.” – Donna Bowater, UK Telegraph Actually, it’s not that dark energy does not exist. Wikipedia says of dark energy, “In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.” All we have to do is redefine dark energy not as an energy that permeates all of space, but, rather, as the energy of spacetime itself. There’s nothing additional to space that causes space to expand. Rather, the fabric of space (and time) is sinusoidal energy and this has been lengthening (redshifting) ever since the Big Bang, and eventually will arrive at total redshift, corresponding to the end of this iteration of the Cyclical Universe. In other words, “dark energy” simply is spacetime. The expansion of the universe – the expansion of spacetime – means that all matter will be wiped out in due course, just as Roger Penrose said, and that time and space pass much quicker in the past than they do now. However, they always do so proportionately, to maintain the constant value of the speed of light. There is a theory concerning the variability of the speed of light. Wikipedia says, “Variable speed of light (VSL) is a hypothesis that states that the speed of light, usually denoted by c, may be a function of space and time.... The varying speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by Jean-Pierre Petit in 1988, John Moffat in 1992, and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo in 1998 to explain the horizon problem of cosmology and propose an alternative to cosmic inflation.” In fact, a variable speed of light is not required to achieve an alternative to inflation theory. All that is required is that time and space passed at an enormously higher frequency than they do now. Every energetic process at the Big Bang took place at the speed of light, but at a much higher frequency version of the speed of light.

Consider the following relations between a matched time wave and space wave: Equation 1) c = ftλt where c is light speed, ft is the frequency of the time wave and λt is the wavelength of the time wave. Equation 2) c = fsλs where c is light speed, fs is the frequency of the space wave and λs is the wavelength of the time wave. With these relations, we convert energetic motion through space and time (with energetic motion regarded as something that takes place within a static spacetime container) into the energetic motion of spacetime itself. That’s what it means to have an expanding universe. We can no longer conceive of spacetime as a fixed container (as in Newtonian physics). It becomes a dynamic, energetic background in which other energetic processes take place. “Dark energy” isn’t an energy inside a spacetime balloon causing the otherwise static spacetime balloon to expand. Rather, the spacetime balloon is a self-expanding (red shifting) sinusoidal energy field. This field expands uniformly at light speed, but it does so at a constantly changing energy frequency, from high to low. Using equations 1) and 2), we can write c = ftλt = fsλs. Thus, c = ft/fs = λs/λt. In these terms, light speed is the ratio of the time frequency to the space frequency, or of the space wavelength to the time wavelength. We can have a constant speed of light no matter what frequency or wavelength we are at, provided space and time are expanding at exactly the same rate (and there is no sufficient reason why they shouldn’t). We can have a high energy, high frequency speed of light or a low energy, low frequency speed of light. In the early stages of the universe, processes were happening at a fantastically high frequency/energy. As the universe approaches its end, extremely sluggish energy processes occur. We obviously haven’t made this argument with much thoroughness. It needs more time to be developed, but, hey, time has caught up with us due to the cancellation of the rest of the God Series. Of course, the full argument relies on Fourier mathematics and the relationship between a fixed frequency singularity and an unfixed, expanding spacetime.

The Block Universe

“The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” – Einstein In the block universe, if time is frozen, so is space. Einstein could just as easily have said, “The distinction between back, here, and forward is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” If time has no universal reference, space (position) can’t either. “Absolute” measurements must be replaced with relative, or relational, ones. Surely that’s the whole point of spacetime relativity. “The ‘Big Bang’ does not represent the ‘start’ of the universe. Remember, all times are equally real in the block universe – there is nothing special about time at the ‘Big Bang’. As all times are equally real, the final state of the universe is just as real as the initial state. So the so-called ‘initial’ Big Bang tells us nothing more about the existence of the universe than the ‘final’ state does. While it is true that to an observer within the universe the Big Bang might appear like the start of the universe this is revealed to be an illusion of human perception caused by the psychological arrow of time.” – Andrew Thomas Just as science recognises no fundamental difference between life and death, so it recognises no fundamental difference between beginning and end. We are now told that the arrow of time is merely psychological (unreal), and not an objective aspect of existence. If our psychology were different, we might see reality running backwards. In this worldview, it’s our minds that impose motion – the illusion of motion – on the world, which is actually totally unchanging (as in Parmenides’ conception of reality). However, since we must surely imagine our minds to be part of this static universe, frozen in a block forever, this makes it incomprehensible how these minds can psychologically generate the unreality of motion and change. Karl Popper arguing with Einstein against determinism: “The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him [Einstein] to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him ‘Parmenides’.) I argued that if men, or other organisms, could experience change and genuine succession in time,

then this was real. It could not be explained away by a theory of the successive rising into our consciousness of time slices which in some sense coexist; for this kind of ‘rising into consciousness’ would have precisely the same character as that succession of changes which the theory tries to explain away. I also brought in the somewhat obvious biological arguments: that the evolution of life, and the way organisms behave, especially higher animals, cannot really be understood on the basis of any theory which interprets time as if it were something like another (anisotropic) space coordinate. After all, we do not experience space coordinates. And this is because they are simply nonexistent: we must beware of hypostatizing them; they are constructions which are almost wholly arbitrary. Why should we then experience the time coordinate – to be sure, the one appropriate to our inertial system – not only as real but also as absolute, that is, as unalterable and independent of anything we can do (except changing our state of motion)? The reality of time and change seemed to me the crux of realism. (I still so regard it, and it has been so regarded by some idealistic opponents of realism, such as Schrödinger and Gödel.)” “The structure of the universe at the Big Bang does seem unusual because of its peculiar spatial geometry. But that does not make it the ‘start’ of the universe. All we can say about the entire universe structure at the Big Bang is a comment about that unusual spatial geometry: ‘Along one of its dimensional axes (the backward time dimension), we find the spatial dimension decreasing in size until it reaches a point’ (this is essentially describing a ‘cone’ structure). “The universe did not ‘emerge from nothing’. It is meaningless to talk of the ‘start’ of the universe, or the ‘emergence of the universe from nothing’, or any other term which implies change of the entire block universe structure over time. The entire spacetime block is laid out as one unchanging structure. Here’s a quote from Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time: ‘If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.’” – Andrew Thomas So, in this view, we have an eternal, frozen structure, which we could presumably work out in its entirety if we could unlock the laws of the structure. We wouldn’t need to perform a single experiment! So much for scientific empiricism. Of course, we would require a sufficient reason for

the existence of this structure. How would it be explained? How would motion be explained? How would psychology be explained? This “block universe” theory is a total dead-end. It’s incomprehensible and impossible to rationalise – like all too many scientific speculations, driven by science’s fanatical resistance to reason, logic, mathematics, rationalism and idealism. “This means that any theory which attempts to explain the existence of the universe solely in terms of events which happened at the Big Bang would appear to be plain wrong. This includes any theory which suggests the reason for the existence of the universe is because the universe ‘emerged from nothing’ (so-called ex nihilo solutions). This includes the theories of Tryon and Vilenkin which suggest that the reason the universe exists is because it quantum tunnelled into existence from nothing. “Ex nihilo explanations for the existence of the universe are a red herring. “The universe is not expanding. Again, there is no temporal change in the entire universe structure, so it is meaningless to talk of a universe which is expanding with time. After all, expansion means an increase in size with respect to some time reference. With no external time reference axes, there is no absolute directional reference axis for time for you to say ‘the universe is expanding’ rather than ‘the universe is contracting’ – one is obviously just the reverse of the other, and with no external time reference axis how could you possibly prefer one statement over the other? (Also see Julian Barbour’s article The Non-Expanding Universe).” – Andrew Thomas Note how unstable scientific theorising is. Here we have Big Bang theory and the Expanding Universe theory (which flow from Einstein’s general theory of relativity) being trashed by the Block Universe Theory (which flows from Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and the invention of 4D spacetime). In other words, Einstein’s own relativity theory radically contradicts itself (and also radically contradicts quantum mechanics). How often do you hear about these catastrophic contradictions in science class and science documentaries? Er, never! Science engages in a spectacular propaganda operation whereby it pretends it’s a model of consistency and smooth progress, when the reality is that it’s riven with incompleteness, inconsistency, and incoherence, even within universally accepted theories (such as relativity), never mind in relation to rival theories.

It’s impossible to make sense of science. It’s pragmatic, not truth-based. We have to abandon it and replace it by analytic, ontological mathematics, where everyone can know exactly what they’re talking about. Never forget that relativity is an extremely well-tested theory, and has passed with flying colours. So, of what use is experimental success if it’s impossible to use that success to produce a definitive explanation – free of internal contradictions – to fully explain the experimental results? Experimental success proves nothing! That’s a fact. Endless theories can be proposed to explain those same results, as we see in quantum mechanics, and as we ought to see in relativity. “It seems to my mind (and to John Cruickshank who made this suggestion in a comment posted on the Arrow of Time page) that we are relying far too heavily on the psychological arrow of time to determine our time directionality, and hence decide whether the universe is expanding or contracting. We ‘perceive’ the universe to be expanding because our brains determine our feeling of directional time flow in the forward time direction. But that psychological arrow of time is always going to align itself from a low entropy universe state to a high entropy universe state. That is no basis to say ‘the universe is expanding’ – that just says something about the distribution of entropy in the entire universe structure. It is more accurate to say the universe is neither expanding or contracting. It just has a structure. It just is.” – Andrew Thomas Why should a frozen universe have any entropy? Why shouldn’t a frozen universe be like the Crystal Spheres model of the universe favoured in the ancient and medieval worlds? That seems an infinitely more suitable universe for being cast “in stone” for eternity. What’s the point of the Block Universe if no one can explain why it is thus and not otherwise? You have reached the wholesale abandonment of reason and explanation, if you simply say, “It just is.” In that case, you might as well believe in God! “The Grandfather Paradox is solved. If you’ve seen the movie Back to the Future (or virtually any episode of Star Trek) then you are aware of the socalled grandfather paradox. The paradox poses the question: ‘What happens if you were to travel back in time to kill your own grandfather?’ If you do kill your own grandfather, then you are never born. But if you are never born, then you cannot go back in time to kill your own grandfather. So it’s a

real puzzle: your grandfather appears to be in an oscillatory state of being dead, then alive, then dead, then alive again, etc. “But the block universe model provides a solution to the grandfather paradox. And, as the block universe model has been derived by a solid, logical approach, we can say that this is a definitive solution. According to the block universe model, all of space and time is laid-out in an unchanging spacetime block. There can be no place for an oscillatory grandfather: the grandfather must be defined as being in an unchanging state of either dead or alive. It can never be possible to change that state. The only possible time loops would be consistent time loops.” – Andrew Thomas It’s amusing to see the Block Universe being described as having been “derived by a solid, logical approach”, and providing a definitive solution! WTF! This is one of the most ludicrous speculations ever. It has no solid grounding in logic. It has no sufficient reason. It’s impossible to explain and rationalise. It’s even impossible to test. It’s anything other than “science”. No experiment can be performed to demonstrate that a frozen universe exists in which all events have already taken place. This theory not only offends rationalism, it also offends empiricism! Regarding the Grandfather Paradox, we are told that “the grandfather must be defined as being in an unchanging state of either dead or alive.” Hmmm, isn’t that the complete refutation of the standard scientific explanation of the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat where a cat can be simultaneously alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states? This is the whole problem with science... it’s just a bunch of ad hoc, arbitrary, heuristic speculations with no analytic necessity, and no requirement to be complete and consistent. No rational person could ever be convinced by these neverending speculations and conjectures. The entire method of science is flawed. We must not rely on observations and experiments. We must rely on reason, logic and mathematics. We are told, “The only possible time loops would be consistent time loops.” What does it even mean to refer to “time loops” in a system without time (i.e. where time is frozen forever)? What possible reason could there even be for the illusion of time loops? The Block Universe Theory is mired in bizarre conjecture and has no explanatory power at all. It’s every bit as bad and ridiculous as science’s Multiverse theory or Many Worlds theory. What about a Block Multiverse Theory?! Well, why not? When science can’t explain something, it simply invokes infinity. So, if we can’t explain

why the Block Universe is like this rather than that, we can then claim that in the Block Multiverse, every possible Block Universe is instantiated, and we just happen to be living in this particular block! The Block Universe idea wholly contradicts the quantum mechanical notion whereby observers miraculously collapse some unreal, abstract, potentiality wavefunction into an “actual” observable state, and without such observations, “reality” would never occur at all (it would remain in a superposition state of different potentialities forever). Why does no prominent scientist ever write a book entitled Science Is Nonsense, and put together all of the major scientific speculations and show how they all fatally contradict each other? Of course, no prominent scientist is ever motivated to expose the farce of scientific theorising. He would only serve to undermine his own status as an authority and guru. A vast conspiracy operates within science whereby scientists refuse to highlight the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies within it. They don’t want to cast doubt on the scientific project. They don’t want the masses to lose faith in their religion! You would never find the Carl Sagans of the world making documentaries about all the idiocy science spouts. Science presents its absurd speculations as wondrous and thought-provoking. It never lines them all up in direct competition with each other, thus revealing that, at best, all but one of these theories is definitively false, and there’s no way at all of establishing the truth of any of them. “Observations” and “evidence” won’t help you one jot. Science is simply no route at all to the Truth. It will remain forever as pure speculation. It’s just a religion – a Mythos – conducted by other means (via the senses rather than feelings). No rational person would ever take the science Mythos seriously. Einstein’s statement that the distinction between past, present, and future is an illusion goes to the heart of the scientific crisis regarding time, and its complete inability to understand and define time. Time appears everywhere in science, yet science has no idea what it is. How irrational is that!

***** Tenseless Time Theory = Block Universe = “Eternalism”: the “past”, the “present”, and the “future” are all real... they all exist right now. Past, present and future are psychological terms, not reflective of reality (since

there is no non-psychological means to distinguish between past, present and future). Psychological time travel is conceivable in such a system. Tensed Time Theory: the past was real (it happened), the present is real, and the future isn’t real. You can’t go to the past or the future. Time travel is impossible.

The Paradox According to Zeno’s “metrical paradox of extension”, it’s impossible to attain an extended region of space by combining any number of unextended simple elements (points)... not even an infinite number of such elements. The answer to this problem is that an otherwise unextended point that is set in motion at a constant, finite speed thereby acquires a finite extension, hence objects can be made from it as extended things. No such objects can be made in a strictly motionless, abstract universe, or in a universe where points travel at infinite speed.

Spirit Bodies Some people are obsessed with extension, yet they deny materialism. They claim that immaterial bodies can be extended, and thus they speak of “spirit bodies”. “Ghosts” and “auras” are spirit bodies. Well, we know that material bodies are made of material atoms. What are spirit bodies made of? Spirit atoms? The only things that could possibly qualify are photons, but these are dimensionless, hence cannot produced an extended body. All people obsessed with extension are unable to accept dimensionless, mental, monadic existence.

***** “Yeah! And you know that ‘existence of God’ thing that I had trouble understanding before? I think I am starting to understand it now. Maybe, just maybe, it’s a concept that’s similar to a zero in mathematics. In other words, it’s a symbol that denies the absence of meaning, the meaning that’s necessitated by the delineation of one system from another. In analog, that’s God. In digital, it’s zero. what do you think? Also, our basic construction is digital, right? So for the time being, no matter how much data we accumulate, we’ll never have a Ghost. But analog-based people like you,

Batou-san, no matter how many digital components you add through cyberization or prosthetics, your Ghost will never be damaged. Plus, you can even die ‘cause you’ve got a Ghost. You’re so lucky. Tell me, what’s it feel like to have a Ghost?” – Tachikoma, Time of the Machines

The Form of Existence All things that necessarily exist participate in the Form of Existence. This Form is the Form of Nothing and the Form of Something. It is the Form of Nothing (the thesis), the Form of Being (the antithesis), and the Form of Becoming (the synthesis). It is the Form of Mind and the Form of Eternal Life. It is the Form of the Monad.

***** Monads are mathematical “crystal spheres” – perfect mathematical objects that endure forever, undergoing perfect trajectories that never deviate.

The Null Result “The null result obtained by Michelson and Morley was generally accepted, and various suggestions were made to explain it. Similar ideas were put forward by G. F. Fitzgerald and H. A. Lorentz. The Irish physicist George Francis Fitzgerald (1851 – 1901) was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, remaining there as professor for the rest of his short life. To explain the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment he suggested that a body moving through the ether contracts slightly in its direction of motion, in proportion to its velocity. Such contraction would not be experimentally observable, since any measuring instrument would contract correspondingly and the length would appear to be unchanged. The idea was that the apparatus used in the Michelson-Morley experiment would change its dimensions in such a way as to compensate exactly for the expected change in the observed velocity of light. “A similar explanation was put forward by the eminent Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853 – 1928), who for many years was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Leiden. He too suggested that the null results obtained by Michelson and Morley were due to the contraction of matter as it moves relative to the ether, and this contraction is now commonly known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. In 1904 Lorentz developed a mathematical treatment of the contraction,

concluding that if, for example, an electron has radius r0 when at rest, its radius r when it is moving at speed vi is given by r = r0 √(1– v2/c2). Since v is bound to be less than c, the ratio v2/c2 is a fraction and therefore √(1– v2/c2) must be less than one; r is therefore less than r0, corresponding to a contraction. “Lorentz then took this argument a stage further. He suggested that according to electromagnetic theory, the mass of an electron is inversely proportional to its radius. If, therefore, we represent the mass of the electron when it is stationary as m0, its mass when moving with a speed v is given by: m = m0/(√(1– v2/c2)) “We shall see that the same relationship was later given by Einstein in his special theory of relativity, so that Lorentz’s work was of great importance in paving the way for relativity theory. “Einstein’s great contribution in his special theory of relativity was to arrive at these and other relationships in a more satisfactory and comprehensive way. Einstein discarded the ether concept as unnecessary, and made two important postulates. One was that the laws of motion are exactly the same when they are determined by observers moving at different speeds. The second is that the velocity of light has a constant value, irrespective of how the source of the light is moving relative to the observer.” – Keith James Laidler, Energy and the Unexpected

***** The electromagnetic radius of the Bohr orbit of an electron is inversely proportional to the mass of the electron. The electron’s frequency, mass, and energy are inversely proportional to its radius. According to Einstein, this was a relativistic effect. According to Lorentz and others, it was an absolute effect, i.e. if you shrank the radius of an electron from its normal position, you would absolutely increase its frequency, mass, and energy. Such an idea has never been disproved, and nor has Einsteinian relativity ever been proved. What has been proved is that the Lorentz transformations are true, but no experiment has been performed to establish whether they are true absolutely or relativistically. It’s merely fashionable to say that Einstein is right. There’s no experimental evidence for that claim. Any

evidence claimed to support Einstein can equally be used to support the rival absolute conclusion. That’s science for you... never getting to the bottom of anything.

Photons All photons have a real and imaginary component. They are pure mathematical objects. They are not part of physics at all. They are immaterial, unextended, dimensionless, and outside space and time. The real component relates to space and the imaginary component to imaginary space (time).

Matter “Matter” is produced when sine and cosines that are non-orthogonal to each other interact. Matter and spacetime are associated with complex numbers, not real numbers as science claims.

Something From Nothing Everything is made from nothing and comes from nothing. Static nothing is nothing at all. Dynamic nothing is ontological mathematics = numbers = frequencies = energies.

God It’s not a question of who is God and what does he want from us? Rather, it’s a question of what is God, and what is he made of? God is math, not a person. There’s no point praying to him.

The Wave Table We need a Periodic Table of sine and cosine functions. Imagine a Periodic Table of Chemistry where the atom with an Atomic Number of zero (i.e. it has no atomic mass) is the soul atom! We might call this zeroth element – that from which all others come – Nihilium, or Monadium. Of course, the zeroth element is none other than the photon!

Dark Energy and Dark Matter There is no mystery to dark energy and dark matter. Everything in the universe is made of sine and cosine waves. There’s nothing else. The only task is to define which sines and cosine wavefunctions belong to which of

the four categories (i.e., dark energy, dark matter, “bright” energy, “bright” matter), and how they can move from one category to another. All deep mental energy is the darkest possible energy. It’s not visible under any circumstances.

Nothing What does “nothing” mean to a scientist? Is it the vacuum? Is it “real” nothing (non-existence)? Is it undifferentiated potentiality? Is it an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction? Is it virtual existence? Is it ruled by Heisenbergian indeterminacy? Does it have limitless capacity? Is it a singularity? Is it dimensionless? Is it sensory? Can we experience it? If not, how can it be part of scientific empiricism? Is it material? If not, how can it be part of scientific materialism? How can “nothing” appear at all in scientific empiricist materialism? Nothing, by its very nature, cannot be part of science predicated on sensory experiments. Did space and time originate in nothing? Isn’t nothing (non-extension) mind, as Descartes said? Why not? If scientists can’t define “nothing”, why should we accept any of their other definitions? Ontological mathematics, unlike science, begins with the definition of nothing and rationally builds everything on the basis of that definition.

Hypersphere A hypersphere is a mathematical object existing in more than three Euclidean spatial dimensions; all points on the surface are equidistant from the central point.

Something and Nothing If you are in the process of becoming then you are always something and nothing at the same time!

The Speed of Causality The maximum speed of causality is the maximum speed of the universe (= the speed of light).

Math Mathematics is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and that than which nothing outside it can be conceived.

Ideas John Locke called all objects of the mind ideas. These come in two kinds: 1) ideas of sensation – the physical world as perceived, and 2) ideas of reflection – the operations of the mind upon the ideas of sensation. In other words, we perceive the world, and then we contemplate and process what we have perceived. Inbuilt in Locke’s system is the notion that the world is an empirical, material entity “out there”. This is the basic conception of reality used by science to this day, although relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, and so on, have rendered this naive worldview absurd. Bishop Berkeley did not challenge Locke’s empiricism, but blew to smithereens Locke’s materialism. Berkeley expertly showed that there is no reason at all to accept the real existence of matter. All of our ideas concerning matter are exactly that: ideas. Where is the evidence or proof of the existence of matter as something independent of minds and the ideas in minds? There is none at all. It’s impossible for humans to step outside their minds and their ideas, so any valid theory of anything must start with minds and ideas... with non-physical things. Science is false on this basis alone. It assumes the primacy of physicality even though it has no grounds for doing so other than its own ideology. It simply begs the question. Locke rejected the notion of innate ideas, i.e. he rejected the existence of a mental, rational, intelligible world of mathematics that we cannot perceive, but which we can access via our reason, intellect and intellectual intuition. In other words, Locke rejected the notion of a world of pure form. He was, in common with scientists, obsessed with perceivable content. It can’t be stressed enough that when you grasp that all content is and must be carried by form, but that we will never see the form precisely because we are experiencing the content (i.e. the content necessarily hides the form), then you can no longer accept the claims of empiricism. Empiricism commits the fatal error of claiming that only the perceivable is real. It fails to ask what is carrying the information we perceive, i.e. what is the universal information carrier? Science once claimed that “atoms” were the universal information carrier. However, it didn’t answer what atoms were made of. When the subatomic world appeared, science couldn’t explain what subatomic particles were made of. To do this day, science cannot identify any ultimate

bottom to things. “Strings” have been proposed, but these are entirely unperceivable, hence non-empirical and thus non-scientific. Given quantum mechanics and Heisenbergian indeterminacy, science also refers to unreal, abstract, potentiality, probabilistic wavefunctions. What connection do these have to empiricism and materialism? Locke’s worldview, and that of scientific materialism, has collapsed, but no one acknowledge it. Everyone’s in denial. Every time science tries to explain anything, it has to resort to mathematics, but mathematics is immaterial and unempirical, hence contradicts the entire basis of the Lockean, scientific worldview. Mathematics goes hand in hand with innate ideas, and with the existence of an eternal, rational, intelligible world that has nothing to do with perceptions and experiences... a world of pure form. As we have said, form and content always go together: the noumenal and phenomenal, the signifier and signified, the information carrier and the information carried. If you deny the existence of things that cannot be perceived, you have rejected form, hence rationality and intelligibility. If science rejected mathematical form, it would be gibberish. Equally, if you deny the existence of perceivable, empirical content then you have wiped out the world we actually experience. That’s why you need both form (rationalism) and content (empiricism). They are hardwired together, two sides of one coin. You can’t have one without the other. There is a world of form that we can’t perceive, but which we can work out with our reason and intellect (leading us to math), and there is a world of content that we can perceive, but which we can’t know (rationally and intelligibly). Only form – which we can’t perceive in itself – can be known. Content can be perceived and experienced, but never known. Truths of reason apply to eternal, necessary form. So-called truths of fact apply to temporal, contingent content. “Facts” are not knowledge. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” So-called facts are just contents that we are perceiving and interpreting in a certain way. Try interpreting the “facts” of science without any reference to rationalist mathematics (form), and see how far you get. Why is the sky blue? Because the God of Blueness fought the Gods of all other Colours and vanquished them all in an apocalyptic colour struggle at the dawn of the world? That’s

the level of explanation at which you are stuck if you deny the existence of unseen mathematical form. In a world of pure empirical content, nothing you say can be proved. All of your “evidence” is just a set of meaningless interpretations. The “fact” of blueness is neither here nor there if it cannot be linked to an eternal, necessary ontology and epistemology. Empirical “facts” can never, by themselves, belong to a knowledge system. It’s precisely because humanity has divorced content from form that it ends up inventing a never-ending assortment of absurd stories – mostly religious – to explain the world of content. Only mathematical form can rationally and intelligibly account for the existence of content. Mathematics is the unseen fibre and fabric of existence, the unseen world of causation, the unseen, universal information carrier. Everything knows how to interact with everything else because everything obeys the laws of mathematics – the universal language of existence. David Hume also attacked Locke’s materialism, but he went down the road of skepticism rather than the idealism of Bishop Berkeley. Hume – the truest empiricist of them all – realised that absolutely no knowledge can be associated with empiricism. It is by its nature anti-knowledge. In a world of empiricism, all you can have is a set of experiences, and you can make no connections at all between those experiences since the connections (the causes) cannot themselves be experienced, and if you believe only in perceivable things, you must reject all unperceivable things. But without them, you can’t explain anything, hence you can have no knowledge. Science ought to agree with Hume, but doesn’t. Science – via the most outrageous intellectual crime ever – calls itself empiricist and defines itself with regard to experiments and observations, yet is 100% useless without rationalist mathematics, which contradicts the entire empiricist ideology. You have to engage in doublethink to be a scientist. Even as you reject rationalism as absurd, you are entirely reliant on rationalism, and your scientific empiricism would be nothing but religion or Humean skepticism without it. The Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy says, “[Hume] argues that we cannot found any knowledge of the external world upon our sensory experience, we can only examine the psychology of our beliefs about that world, notwithstanding that it is an irresistible and also fortunate part of our nature to have such beliefs.”

Scientists, if they had any intellectual integrity, would agree with Hume that empiricism cannot lead to knowledge. Science should call itself a branch of psychology, whereby it examines the nature of our beliefs, but makes no claim that these beliefs correspond to anything real. Science, unfortunately, claims otherwise. Science claims to be about “reality”. Only mathematics – the only entirely non-empirical subject (in its aspect of pure form) – can be about reality in itself. Only math can yield genuine knowledge. Hume called all objects of the mind “perceptions”, and he divided these into two kinds: impressions (primary) and ideas (secondary; derived from impressions). Impressions correspond to Locke’s ideas of sensations, while ideas are images of impressions, formed in thinking and reasoning, and are similar to Locke’s ideas of reflection. It follows that we can have no idea of anything of which we have received no impression: what has not been perceived cannot be known. Hume, like Locke, denied the existence of a world we cannot perceive with our senses. For Hume, we are immersed in appearances. These are the only things of which we are immediately aware. We can have no knowledge of what the appearance is an appearance of. We can get no impression of what, if anything, underlies the impression. We have a mental impression of “matter”, but we have no access to matter itself (separate from our impression of it), hence we cannot know that there is any matter there at all. This is the position that science ought to adopt. It should admit that materialism is a Mythos, a story we tell ourselves, but without any proof. In Hume’s system, there is a difference between experiencing and thinking. Thinking can only be about what we have experienced, and cannot – as in pure mathematics – be about things we can never experience. All eternal, necessary truths of reason precede any conceivable experience. They are not dependent on experiences in any way. Their existence refutes empiricism. Empiricists respond by trying various strategies to deny the reality of eternal truths of reason, to make them manmade constructs (even though they can’t be if they are eternal), or to consign them to unreality, abstraction and the “ideal” (which is how science treats math). For Hume, ideas are of two kinds: simple ideas derived directly from impressions, and complex ideas, which are combinations of simple ideas and need not represent the actual relation of impressions. When we put together complex ideas, we are no longer responding to the external world;

we are operating strictly within our own minds. In Hume’s system, it’s exactly at this stage that we invent all of our false notions about reality. We are inventing connections. We can have no valid ground for believing that they reflect anything in the real world. They are our mental construct, our Mythos. We can connect the dots in whatever way we like, according to our psychology. In essence, Hume argues that math is simply the most elaborate of our mental constructs. Kant later turned math, science and morality into synthetic a priori aspect of our minds, independent of our experiences. He thus believed he had defused Hume’s skepticism. Nietzsche pointed out that Kant had simply invented a faculty, which explained nothing. Kant failed to explain where this synthetic a priori category came from. What is its ontology? Who created it? Did it create itself? Ontological mathematics is what explains all of the defects in Kant’s response to Hume.

***** Hume’s view that ideas are exact representations of impressions is controversial. No mechanism is proposed to account for this. How do “impressions” get converted into “ideas”, which then exist as separate objects in the mind? No ontology and epistemology is provided, and, of course, neither of these is possible within the empiricist ideology. Hume had to distinguish between impressions and ideas to defend the core contention of empiricism that everything must begin with experiences, so that there can be no thoughts or ideas unless there are first sensations, perceptions, or feelings. A rationalist contends that none of these are essential. If we were “pure” minds, we could, like the Aristotelian God, contemplate thought itself, reason itself. A person who can directly tune into Number World needs no experiences at all to think his way through the identities and tautologies of mathematics. Hume did not ask what an impression actually is. What’s it made of? How is it transmitted? How does it move? How does it interact with things? What laws does it obey? If it’s not causal, what is it? Random? How does an impression get turned into an idea? Is causation involved? But surely Hume trashed the whole concept of causation. How can we point to any

link between impressions and ideas? Aren’t we back in the realm of “constant conjunctions” and subjective psychological beliefs? Where are impressions and ideas stored? How do they interact? Hume can explain none of this. Hume is a classic example of someone who puts forward a scheme that seems not only plausible, but actually right, but which, under close rational scrutiny, degenerates into irrational, incoherent gibberish, full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Hume’s own philosophy prevents him from linking impressions to ideas in any causal way, so his entire philosophy is falsified right there. We have no reason to accept Hume’s claims to be true, especially if we apply Hume’s own analysis (!). It’s extraordinary how many people take Hume seriously as a philosopher when, in fact, he was really an anti-philosopher, campaigning against the very possibility of knowledge. His real value is in the way he exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of empiricism. Hume is a superb example of what catastrophes overcome your thinking when you refuse to allow an underlying rational reality that cannot be perceived or experienced (i.e. a mathematical world). Without a rational underpinning, you cannot explain anything at all, and knowledge is impossible. Science needs to follow either Hume (skeptical empiricism) or mathematics (rationalism). Instead, it tries to ride both horses, and thus produces nonsensical theories. The only thing that works in science is the math. Quantum physicists have no idea what quantum mechanics means. What they do is apply staggeringly successful mathematical formulae, which, according to empiricists such as Hume, are total fantasies with no connection to reality. It’s very simple. Either mathematics explains reality, or it doesn’t. If it does, Hume is 100% refuted. If it doesn’t, the universe has no conceivable answer, and no one can have knowledge of anything. Science claims to aspire to knowledge. If so, it must become rationalist (mathematical), and must downgrade empiricism (experimentalism).

***** To scupper Hume’s entire scheme, all you have to do is say that every “impression” is information (content), and what conveys it is a causal information carrier (a mathematical wave... pure form). We perceive the impression, but not what carries it. We can have “ideas” that address form

and not content, hence have nothing to do with sensory impressions. This is what math is all about. Hume sought to make ontological rationalism impossible. He spectacularly failed. The moment you get ideas independent of impressions, Hume’s scheme turns to ash. Hume, like nearly every philosopher, could not conceive of a dual-aspect mathematical monism: mathematical information carriers (forms) and the information (content) they convey. Math addresses the form; all other subjects address content. Only mathematics is explanatory and provides absolute, infallible knowledge, of the kind Plato sought in order to escape mere opinion and belief, mere relativism and solipsism. Locke’s “ideas of reflection” need no connection with “ideas of sensation”. They can reflect pure form.

***** Jungian judging types are much more likely to respond properly to rationalist arguments concerning form. Jungian perceiving types are much more likely to be receptive to empirical arguments concerning content. No rationalist could ever be a Humean, or a Buddhist, or a scientific materialist, all of whom are consume by empiricist dogmatism.

To Be Rational, Or Not To Be Rational Either knowledge has a rational basis or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, we live in an irrational world of magic and mayhem. Plainly we don’t. Therefore, the universe is rational, and, being rational, reason must be used to work out how it must be. What must Absolute Truth be? It must be that which constitutes existence. Existence itself cannot be false. We can certainly interpret it falsely, but, in itself, it can never be false. Absolute Truth can never have changed. What are the things that are eternally true? There is only one system that’s eternally true: the truths of reason – the truths of mathematical tautology. These are true definitionally (analytically), hence are resistant to the so-called Münchhausen trilemma. Of this trilemma, Wikipedia says, “In the theory of knowledge the Münchhausen trilemma is a philosophical term coined to stress the impossibility to prove any certain truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. Its name is going back to a logical proof of the German

philosopher Hans Albert. This proof runs as follows: All of the only three possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail: “All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of an infinite regression. “One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking ‘ex cathedra’ or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned. “The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular argument.” All of this certainly applies to empiricist arguments, but not to analytic tautology. The Münchhausen trilemma claims that “proof” comes only in three flavours: circular, axiomatic and infinite regress. It fails to consider a fourth kind: ontological tautology. The ultimate ontological things are true eternally because of analytic definition, which can never be false.

***** For anyone to cite the Münchhausen trilemma, they themselves are already assuming the truth of the Münchhausen trilemma, but the Münchhausen trilemma itself has no proof and can itself be attacked using all three limbs of its own trilemma, hence it is an invalid assertion, even within in its own terms! It’s just like science’s falsification and verification principles: unprovable within its own terms of reference. It can certainly undermine all empiricist claims, but it can’t lay a finger on analytic rationalist claims. 1 = 1 is an analytic identity. It does not involve infinite regress, circular logic, or arbitrary axioms. The claims of scientific materialism involve all of those things.

The Speed Due to recent circumstances, we have had to write this book at very high speed and squeeze in material that we would have held back for later. Speed isn’t necessarily bad. Some of our thoughts are very “raw” in this book, but raw ideas are often the most productive. We hope that our more astute readers will see their potential, and fully exploit that potential.

Nietzsche said, “One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.” We need our readers to do wondrous things with ontological mathematics. This is the tool to change the world forever.

The End of the Line This is the final book in the God Series. This is the last-ever book by “Mike Hockney”. Due to the common herd, and their hatred of all things noble and elevated, we have had to end our project prematurely. Even so, we managed over three million words before the mob dragged us down. That is easily enough to launch ontological mathematics for those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and intellect to understand. Einstein rightly said, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” The “mediocre minds” strangle the world. They are mired in pettiness and ego. They despise anything that challenges them. The rabble is a supremely strong force in our world. The task for all intelligent people is how to break free of them and establish a New World Order of reason and illumination. We will succeed despite the mediocre minds and the common herd, not because of them.

Creation How to Create the Universe is the final book in the God Series and the vindication of Leibniz’s Monadology as the explanation of everything. It’s the answer to everything – guaranteed, but only if you’re rational enough to understand it. This is a hyperrationalist answer with no reference at all to faith, empiricism, the senses, mysticism, feelings, experiences, or the human condition. The answer to everything obviously transcends humanity since the answer to existence preceded the existence of any human being. You cannot use any human traits to find the answer to existence. Human experiences are 100% useless, and all people who tell you that your experiences are the only truth are the biggest fools in the cosmos. This is conceptually the most difficult book ever written ... because it places no reliance at all on human experiences, feelings, beliefs and observations. That’s exactly why it’s the truest book ever written. It is not contaminated by the human condition, by human delusions and human wishful thinking.

Ontological mathematics is about moving people away from a sensory, scientific conception of reality involving temporality and contingency to a rational, mathematical worldview, based on eternal necessity. Science without mathematic is nothing but divination, so why not cut to the chase and go straight to math? Ontological mathematics is about moving religion away from Mythos to Logos, from holy books to math books. Ontological mathematics supports a completely religious and spiritual worldview since it is predicated on immortal, indestructible, autonomous mathematical systems called monads. These are none other than what religious people call “souls”. They have an exact mathematical formula, and can be inserted directly into the equations of quantum mechanics. For the first time ever, mind and religion can feature in science – via pure analytic mathematics. There is no God, no Creator. “God” is simply an anthropomorphic misunderstanding of mathematics. It’s math that is all-powerful, allknowing, ubiquitous, perfect, indestructible, eternal, necessary, flawless, infallible, absolute, immutable, and the source of all things. “God” is simply math regarded as a person with whom human feelings types can imagine having a relationship. But, in fact, you can have no such relationship with “God” (math). On the other hand, reason and logic can give you a 100% understanding of “God” (math), and once you command this complete knowledge of God then you yourself have become God! In a universe of self-solving, self-optimising souls, we all eventually find the answer to ourselves. “God” is the answer, and God means mathematical perfection translated, subjectively, into the experience of possessing complete knowledge of existence, and total command over the world of matter, space and time, much as Neo enjoys in The Matrix. We are all potential Gods slowly being turned into actual Gods, although some are making much better progress than others. You are enlightened – illuminated – when you understand that light itself is nothing but mathematics (sinusoidal waves), and light is the carrier of both mind and life. Moreover, light is the element with atomic number zero, and is the basis of all other elements. Nothing can go faster than light because light is ultimate reality, and it exists not in space and time but in a mathematical Singularity of pure frequency – an eternal, necessary Fourier frequency domain, from which all material, spacetime functions are derived.

It’s all in the math. If you want to achieve gnosis, don’t meditate, and don’t pray ... do the math! This book explains how the entire universe can be created using just two ingredients: nothing at all and the principle of sufficient reason. How can anyone beat that?

The Blind Leading The Blind ME: “It all comes about because people fail to realize what science can tell us. Matter is very real. Just as energy. In fact, the two can convert into each other. The observation that both can be described as ‘nothing but’ some vibrations in a medium we cannot detect does not change that.” So, matter is “very real”. Hmmmm, must have missed ME’s stunning refutation of idealism and immaterialism. The existence of dimensionless energy changes the whole of science. It grounds it in unobservable mathematical mind rather than observable scientific “matter” (whatever that is). ME: “The mind is the matrix of all matter ONLY when we recognize that everything we know about the Universe is based on two things: 1) Verifiable observations – 2) Logic (in the form of mathematical models to describe a multitude of data).” Ah, here we go. Yet another irrational victim of scientism, illegally mixing and matching empiricism and rationalism. ME refuses to read anything that does not agree with his blinkered ideology. As Hume demonstrated, we don’t “know” anything at all based on observations. The plain fact is that reason alone furnishes knowledge, and it has nothing to do with observations. Note how ME says that mathematics is “logic”. Where has anyone ever proved this? He says that mathematics is merely a modelling tool. Where has anyone ever proved this? Why should logic have any connection with observation? It certainly doesn’t in Hume’s work. Does ME know better than Hume? ME completely fails to explain the ontology of mathematics, and completely fails to explain how mathematics, if it’s ontologically unreal, can model anything at all in nature. In fact, the sheer number of lazy, sloppy, complacent assumptions, all of them not only unproven but actually disproven, in ME’s pronouncements is staggering.

This is so typical of an arrogant, smug, philosophical illiterate and ignoramus. He says that “knowledge” must be based on “verifiable observations”. The principle of verification, as we saw earlier, is entirely unscientific. It is not itself verifiable! The world is full of bad scientists such as ME who have no idea that science has no rational basis whatsoever, is explicitly hostile to rationalism and logic, uses falsification and verification principles that are anti-scientific metaphysical principles, has no idea what mathematics is, and no idea why an empiricist subject such as science should be entirely reliant on an anti-empiricist subject such as mathematics. ME is a religious believer, a worshipper at the altar of the senses. He privileges his senses over reason, logic and intellect, yet he seeks to be taken seriously as someone making rational arguments. His whole stance is the opposite of rationalism! There is barely a scientist alive today capable of understanding ontological mathematics. It’s far too rational and logical for them. ME: “Sure, observations are really nothing but experiences of the mind. And math and logic most definitely are pure human inventions!” WTF! Yes, let’s all believe whatever ME says. We all remember his fantastic book proving that math and logic are “pure human inventions”. Not. The sheer arrogance of this person. He even admits that observations are nothing but experiences of the human mind, hence can tell us nothing about true reality the instant we apply Descartes’ brilliant method of doubt to them. ME: “So, in this regard we can conclude that ‘it is all in our minds’. But taking this at par value, as most uneducated people will do, such a statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!” Oh dear, now we have ME making an appeal to the “uneducated people”, and their prejudices, to defend his case. As Einstein said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Nothing that ME says makes any sense at all. All he does is make outrageous claims that have already been trashed by the great philosophers. Christianity makes sense to billions of uneducated people. Why would any educated person care what these people think? ME: “Contrary to what many pseudo-scientists want us to believe, Newton’s laws are not dead. They are not invalid. They are not outdated.

We have just realized that they have limitations that lie WAY outside our daily abilities to observe things directly with our senses. What we CAN observe directly is STILL governed by Newton’s laws!!!” Laws are either true or false. The fact that Newton’s laws are still used does not make them true. Regardless of their use value – an entirely different argument – they have been absolutely falsified. What does the principle of falsification mean to scientists if they refuse to accept it when a theory has been officially falsified? We have Einsteinian physics precisely because Newtonian physics has been falsified by it. ME, like so many scientists, has such a poor grasp of his subject, he might as well be a pseudo-scientist. Newton’s laws are dead in relation to the truth. They are still used because they are successful approximations, despite being known to be false. They are outdated. They reflect classical determinism, and Newtonian gravity has been described as an “occult” theory by Leibniz such is the egregious, supernatural character of its claims, which require the involvement of God to transmit gravity instantaneously across empty space! They have no connection with quantum indeterminacy and Einsteinian relativity. ME – like so many scientists – is so scientifically illiterate that he does not know any of this. Like all blinkered, closed-minded people, he listens only to what he wants to hear, and what suits his agenda. He ignores all the inconvenient facts. ME is one of those self-proclaimed “experts” who sweeps on to the grand fallacy, while ignoring all of the contradictions. ME says that we should disregard the fact that Newton has been falsified because the limitations of Newton’s theories “lie WAY outside our daily abilities to observe things directly with our senses.” ME has no regard for truth whatsoever. He’s willing to accept falsified theories rather than abandon his sensory mania. The human senses are 100% irrelevant to Truth. The Truth was here before any human, and no human would be here at all without the True Order of things. ME says, “What we CAN observe directly is STILL governed by Newton’s laws.” How can what we observe be governed by falsified, approximate laws? Plainly, they are governed by True laws, not by false ones. ME has no idea how to present a rational argument. He has no idea what an “observation” is (and none of the founders of quantum mechanics could offer any defence for the inclusion of undefined observers and observations within the formalism of quantum mechanics). He just keeps coming back to his empiricist mantra of the human senses, experiences and observations.

He hates the Truth. The human senses are as unreliable, fallible and untrue as Newton’s laws. Go on, ME, tell us that you still believe in Newtonian absolute space and Newtonian absolute time. Tell us that you deny time dilation and length contraction. Tell us that you believe in non-relativistic mass (incommensurate with the concept of mass in Einsteinian relativity). Tell us that you still believe in a variable speed of light. Tell us that you believe that space is God’s sensorium. Have you never heard of Einstein, you clown? If relativistic spacetime is true, and absolute space and absolute time false, how can you possibly claim that what we observe is governed by Newton’s laws? What you are actually trying to say is that the falsified Newtonian theory (model) of reality is still sufficiently accurate in everyday circumstances to provide a reasonable first approximation (if we have no interest in precision and Truth). Scientific theories and models don’t govern anything. Only the true laws of existence govern us. Scientific theories and models cannot be considered true just because they provide approximately correct predictions in the domain of their applicability. They remain nothing but models and simulations. They are not reality, and they don’t govern anything, just as a simulation of the weather doesn’t govern the weather, even though it might predict it quite well. ME is unable to understand the difference between models and Truth. He actually believes that Newtonian physics is somehow true, despite having been scientifically refuted. In other words, he doesn’t even accept that Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativity and QM, and that these will in turn be superseded. He is as illiterate scientifically as he is philosophically. This is the type of idiot we regularly come up against, spewing out all of their pseudo-scientific idiocy (they don’t even get as far as scientific idiocy because they don’t know enough about science to be scientific idiots). What’s infuriating is that garbage of this kind frequently appears in Facebook posts about Illuminism and is never challenged. Are Illuminists too stupid to outargue these bozos? ME: “In the moment we try to extract what we can only observe and conclude indirectly (i.e. not through direct observation, but only through instruments) and we try to make that ‘the truth’ also for the world we CAN observe, we are completely off the map of validity of science.”

Er, in whose opinion? So, you must mean that Schrödinger’s cat, the Multiverse, string theory, supersymmetry, the claim that existence randomly jumps out of non-existence, the claim that reality is grounded in unreal, abstract, unobservable potentiality wavefunctions, the claim that there are “random” events (which can’t be observed), and so on, are all scientifically invalid? That must be news to every scientist in the world. But you know better of course. You are the arbiter of what does and doesn’t qualify as science. You are one of those people who claims that the moon exists only when it is being observed, and it’s scientifically invalid to refer to the unobserved moon because no one can empirically “know” of any such moon. ME: “That is NOT what can be concluded from modern science!” Says who? You? When were you proclaimed the expert and authority on what modern science is? ME: “It is only what some pseudo-scientists want to conclude on a basis of truly NOT understanding the science they try to claim an opinion about.” You’re the one who is clueless about what science claims. You are the pseudo-scientist, as we have demonstrated. Go on, prove us wrong on anything we have said. ME: “The conclusion that ‘materialism is dead, because matter now appears at a very infinitesimally small level to be something different than what we can measure and observe on a grander scale’ is simply absurd.” On what conceivable basis can the fact that “matter” at the microscopic level has no resemblance to “matter” at the macroscopic level be considered irrelevant to the meaning of “matter”? Why don’t you study Kuhn and the concept of incommensurability rather than making irrational and absurd claims? How can matter be ontologically different at different scales? What an insane notion! ME is a classic anti-intellectual, with no regard for rigour and Truth. That’s so typical of empiricists. ME: “It is an illogical bastard of messing up two completely different perspectives and do exactly what science teaches us we cannot do: use the same measuring standards in micro-cosmos as we do in macro-cosmos or in the world we can observe directly.”

Where does it say in science that we are to regard the microscopic world as having no bearing on the macroscopic world? What an absurd remark. What’s for sure is that science has found it impossible to reconcile alleged microscopic indeterminism with alleged macroscopic determinism, and has introduced its usual battery of ad hoc, heuristic notions to “explain away” the absolute disjunction between what is claimed at the microscopic level and what is claimed at the macroscopic level. ME has zero understanding of what science says, and its validity. ME: “It is quite simple: your observations do not become invalid, just because we find out about quantum mechanics.” On what basis are classic observations to be maintained in the light of quantum indeterminacy? It’s as if ME has literally no conception of the quantum revolution and how it has totally destroyed the classical understanding of science. Science no longer has any connection with determinism, causation, ontology, epistemology and reality. It’s a set of instrumental, positivist, empiricist claims, mired in incoherence due to the rejection of rationalism. ME: “It is OK to ‘see things in a greater perspective’, but that STILL does not make our daily observations invalid!” ME seems unable to challenge his absurd faith in his observations. He has no idea what he is observing. He has no idea what “matter” is. He has no idea how quantum mechanics and relativity have changed the entire concept of matter. What is truly alarming is that ME still believes in Newtonian physics, still believes it to be totally valid and truthful, and has simply ignored the fact that Newtonian physics has been officially falsified by quantum mechanics and relativity theory. ME is a scientific ignoramus. He has no idea what science is and does. He refuses to accept that successful new scientific theories formally invalidate old scientific theories. Anyone who still believes that Newtonian physics has any truth content is bonkers. They might as well believe in the Newtonian God too! ME: “We need to accept that we must change paradigm (and measurement technology) in accordance with the perspective we want, and one perspective does not negate the other.”

Er, yes it does. Now we have ME endorsing relativism and perspectivism. ME seems to have repudiated science’s falsification principle, because he finds it inconvenient to his belief system, and wants to go on believing in falsified Newtonian physics. If “one perspective does not negate the other”, how can scientists subscribe to any notion of falsification? What is falsification if not the negation of a proposed perspective? It’s amusing when scientists have to defend their position because they start contradicting themselves even within the same sentence. They have no idea what they are saying. ME: “Just think of how we adjust measurement methods when we want to observe x-rays or radio waves! We CANNOT use the naked eye for that, and we most certainly cannot detect radio waves with x-ray detectors or vice versa!” So what?! Is it being claimed that we must not change our ideas about the world we observe with our eyes on the basis of our ability to detect x-rays and radio waves? No one who only used their eyes and observations would ever have conceived of x-rays and radio waves. We started looking for these exactly because of Maxwell’s brilliant mathematical theory of electromagnetism. What else are we unable to detect with our senses, but which mathematics can point us to? How about the monadic soul?! ME: “Just too bad that ontological math also is a human invention.” Science is a human invention, like religion. Ontological mathematics is not. ME has done zero to prove that ontological mathematics is a human invention. He simply has a quasi-religious faith that it is. If he accepted ontological mathematics, he would have to abandon his faith in scientism. ME: “I am truly agnostic. I reserve the right to abstain from believing in something I do not find to be verifiable through observation.” Aha, here we see a person with a religious faith in his senses, in empiricism, in observations. He utterly rejects reason, logic, intellect, mathematics and rationalism. This is exactly the choice that faces everyone. You must side with your irrational senses, hence science, or your reason, hence mathematics. You can’t have it both ways. ME: But I do agree that it is a nice, even beautiful, model! And I do believe in Occam’s Razor (that the simplest solution is always the one we should

prefer). So, you obviously reject the increasingly popular scientific Multiverse theory, the most egregious violation of Occam’s Razor there has ever been. And if you actually do “believe” in Occam’s razor (a rational and not empirical principle), how can you possibly reject a system based on nothing but mathematical points and the principle of sufficient reason? What could possibly be simpler than that? You can’t claim to support something and then immediately reject it by supporting “observations”, whatever they are. ME: “The problem I represent here is that I have no intent to find the ‘truth’.” Indeed! Like all scientists, you have no interest at all in the Truth. ME: “I do not need to make such a claim. And no one actually does.” Like all scientists, ME believes in a meaningless, purposeless universe, devoid of any answer, and where Truth is entirely absent. As we keep saying, this is exactly the anti-intellectual stance to where empiricism inevitably leads. ME: “I can see how science (through observation) can bring us CLOSER to the truth – but we are limited in our abilities to observe, and ‘truth’ encompasses EVERYTHING – so we can never get to know what it really is.” This is the irrational, empiricist drivel spouted by all scientists. They ought to read Hume and become outright skeptics, nihilists and solipsists. Human observation has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the eternal truth of existence. Only through reason, and certainly not through observation, can we get to the answer to existence. As Hegel said, “The true is the whole.” The principle of sufficient reason is the only principle that can explain everything. That’s the whole point of it! ME: “Even this beautiful math model ONLY explains what we can observe.” Ontological mathematics is about explaining what we definitely cannot observe, and demonstrating how everything we do observe derives from that.

ME: “It is really more arrogant than even religion to claim that it also covers everything we cannot observe.” So, reason is arrogant, is it? Reason has nothing to do with observation. At all times, ME drags everything back to his irrational human senses and observations. How on earth can temporal, contingent things tell us about eternal, necessary things? ME: “No – I do NOT believe that ‘pure reasoning’ is a valid way of determining what we cannot observe. That’s exactly where the waters divide...” There you have it in a nutshell. ME, like all scientists, rejects reason, hence is a person of unreason and irrationalism. He always privileges his senses over reason, logic and intellect. He has a slavish faith in empiricism, even though empiricism leads, as Hume showed, to the inevitable denial of any possible knowledge. Observations, by which ME swears, are 100% useless. Try making any sense at all of observations without the use of rationalist mathematics. You could literally perform infinite perfect observations on the world and learn not one single Truth about it. Without mathematics, observations are just disconnected nonsense. The ancient augurs and alchemists were great observers, and useless mathematicians. Their “knowledge” was worthless, just as ME’s is without reason and math. ME: “Euler’s formula is based on observations and man-made definitions of what the math symbols are supposed to mean.” This is preposterous. Euler’s formula has nothing to do with observations, and is based on analytic tautology. What’s for certain is that math symbols are manmade (we could use completely different symbols!). Ontological sinusoids, on the other hand, are not in any way manmade. The task is to find a set of symbols that best expresses and captures the ontology of mathematics. ME: “I understand why the theory of complex numbers appear very intriguing, but it is indeed nothing but the result of man-made definitions of what those ‘strange’ numbers are supposed to mean, and that is all derived from the fact that it makes them immensely practically useful in a variety of physical applications that are very complicated to describe with ‘just’ normal rational numbers, because we are missing a dimension.”

Missing a dimension? WTF! Who knew?! How do we know we’re not missing a trillion dimensions? How can you define what you are missing if you do not know what you are missing? ME is just making it up as he goes along. ME is entirely ignorant of mathematics and its ontology, and his mindset is absolutely resistant to mathematics (since it has no need of the observations he worships). ME: “Math does not exist outside the human mind.” On the contrary, science does not exist outside the human mind, and ontological mathematics defines the human mind. If mathematics is manmade then it can have no conceivable relation to non-manmade reality, hence it would be absurd for science to use math. Did humans invent π, e, circles, squares, and all the eternal truths of mathematics? It’s impossible to create anything that is eternal. Eternal, necessary things are uncaused and uncreated. They can be discovered via reason. They cannot be invented. Everything in science, on the other hand, is invented. All scientific theories are heuristic. Nothing is eternal and necessary about any scientific theory. Science is a Mythos, a human construct. The tragedy is that people such as ME worship science and dismiss math, and apply to math exactly the “manmade” description they should be applying to science. ME: “Many natural processes can be DESCRIBED with math, but that does not mean that they are controlled by math.” How can something be described with math but not controlled by it? How can allegedly manmade math have any connection at all with natural processes? Does the manmade Russian language have any connection at all with manmade processes? How can any sane person put perfect mathematics on a par with imperfect languages such as English and Japanese? ME: “It might appear so for a simple observer, but the number of times we have found in science that the math we have been using is only ‘sort-of’ correct (and only within a certain set of boundaries) are as numerous as new scientific discoveries.” Er, that’s the whole point, dumb ass. Science deliberately excludes huge chunks of math because it contradicts scientific ideology. The math that science uses is a ridiculous, incomplete and inconsistent subset of

mathematics, designed to be compatible with empiricist, observational dogmatism, and the “common sense” of people such as ME. Scientific mathematics isn’t “sort of” correct. It isn’t correct at all! At best, it can sometimes approximate the true solutions of true (ontological) mathematics. ME: “But let it rest. You want to believe in this as a Christian wants to believe in the Bible, and that’s your right.” It’s you who wants to believe in scientism as a Christian wants to believe in the Bible! ME: “And it is my right to point out that the logic is flawed by making assumptions that do not hold tight...” What a joke ... an empiricist referring to logic. It’s the senses that do not hold tight (read Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley and Hume!). And it is our right to expose all of the fallacies and false assumptions that litter ME’s thinking. None of his claims is rational. There is nothing at all in his religion of scientific empiricism that logically “holds tight”. In fact, it is already proven that his beliefs have no connection at all with knowledge. ME: “And because the reasoning is circular: what it wants to prove and what it assumes as ‘fundamentally true’ is logically the same thing.” Ontological mathematics is predicated on the principle of sufficient reason, hence doesn’t “assume” anything. The whole point of the PSR is to explain everything, including itself (as we have shown throughout the God Series, and this book). The only way to explain existence is via the language of existence. That language is mathematics. The language, uniquely, in this case, is reality. The map and the territory are one and the same. The map is mathematical form, and the territory is mathematical content. They are the opposite sides of the single ontological mathematical coin. It’s certainly the case that what is “fundamentally true” must be analytic, provable, necessary, eternal, and defined by a single, complete and consistent formula (God Equation), ontologically enshrining the PSR. Clearly, anything based on pure reason and logic must reflect a reality of reason and logic because, otherwise, reason and logic would be irrelevant and wouldn’t apply. The PSR creates a rational universe. It can’t create an irrational one! If you accept that this is a rational universe, with a rational answer, you have nowhere else to go. If, like ME, you do not accept that this is a rational

universe then, like ME, believe whatever irrational nonsense floats your boat. You can’t be wrong! (Or, rather, you can never be right.) ME seeks to argue that it is “circular reasoning” (i.e. invalid reasoning) to assert that the PSR necessarily leads to a rational universe. Circular reasoning is in fact the type of reasoning with which science is full. Science is always begging the question. Wikipedia says, “To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument – a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within a premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent. The term ‘begging the question’, as this is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates as ‘assuming the initial point’.” Scientists are experts at begging the question. They say, “Matter exists because I can observe it, ergo materialism is true.” They don’t define observers, matter, or observations, and there is no necessary connection between “matter” and “observers” or “observations”, as idealism emphatically proves. We, however, are not begging the question. We are instead making a necessary, analytic statement. By definition, a rational universe can only be explained by a rational principle. It’s a contradiction in terms to say that an irrational principle can explain a rational universe. We are not making any claim. We are stating a logical definition that no one can challenge, just as no one can challenge the analytic identity 1 = 1. It’s logically inevitable that a universe grounded in the PSR will be a rationally explicable universe. That’s the whole point. That’s exactly why it’s unarguably the right answer. And it’s also why science – with its bizarre reliance on undefined “matter” – is unarguably the wrong answer. Science does nothing but beg the question, as all empiricism does. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is based on the eternal truths of reason, hence cannot be false and cannot be contradictory. Its Truth status is built into it by definition. “1” can never not be equal to “1”, and exactly the same is true for a system of analytic tautology. You don’t “assume” that 1 = 1. This is an identity. No claims, guesses, interpretations, conjectures, beliefs or opinions are involved. No questions are begged. Analytic tautology has nothing to do with assumptions and begging the question. Science, sadly, is exactly about those.

Philosophically illiterate scientists just don’t get the difference, the gulf, between rationalism and empiricism. You can’t assume a definition. Ontological definitions are those reflecting eternal necessity. They cannot not be true. Everything in science can be false. The eternal truths of reason can never be false. You can’t apply temporal contingency to eternal necessity, as ME and his ilk do. That’s a category error. If ME were better educated, he would never make the arguments he does. So, of course, you get a rational universe from rational definitions. It’s impossible not to. And since these rational definitions involve eternal necessity, they must define eternal existence. To oppose this position is to be irrational, like ME. ME: “And the whole assumption that we, through application of logic alone, logic that is based on our observations, can prove something about nature that lies beyond what we can observe is simply not there.” ME just keeps not getting it. Logic has nothing to do with observations. Reason has nothing to do with observations. Observations are experiences, and experiences, by themselves, do not belong to any conceivable system of knowledge, as Hume pointed out. ME, a locked-in sensing type, simply can’t imagine reality beyond the senses. It’s ME’s own fallacious logic – predicated on extremist empiricism – that’s “simply not there”. How can logic have any connection to observations? Logic doesn’t need any content at all. Pure logic is about pure form. KS: “We can never trust conclusions from scientific materialists. They are not interested in ‘truth’ about reality that is part of a coherent and provable theory of everything.” Exactly. ME: “You need to differentiate between what is VERIFIABLE OBSERVATION and what is MATHEMATICAL MODEL.” You need to define “verifiable”, “observation”, and how and what is being observed. You also need to define “math” and “model”. ME: “Verifiable observations are truth.”

Observations have nothing to do with truth. Observations are pure interpretation. Never forget Nietzsche’s destruction of empiricism: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Science is a wholly interpretive subject. It has nothing to do with truth. ME: “But the math explanation we use to describe them is only that: a model we use to describe them.” It’s science, not math, that is the model – the bad philosophy – used to interpret observations. It’s a paradigm – with no truth content – used to “explain” phenomena according to a whole set of ad hoc heuristics without eternal analytic necessity. ME: “We can hope that, with time, get constantly CLOSER to the truth, but trying to find the truth in math is completely absurd and in violation of the very foundation of science, which is built on OBSERVATION.” Math has nothing to do with observations and experiments, so why does science use math? That’s a category error. We don’t need science. Science is simply bad empiricist philosophy laid over rationalist mathematics. It’s certainly true that scientism is all about observations. And it’s certainly not true that observations have any connection whatsoever to eternal necessity, to the eternal truths of existence, which are entirely mathematical, and the only true, infallible, indisputable, immutable, absolute knowledge and truth. ME seems more like a sensory cultist than someone capable of thinking. He can no more get past his mania with observations than Abrahamists can get past their insane faith. ME: “But I agree that many professional and paid-for scientists don’t understand that difference – so they should ask their tuition fees back.” ME is the one who should be demanding a refund on his tuition fees. He doesn’t seem to have learned a single thing. KS: “A ‘mathematical model’ is different than a complete, coherent theory of everything based on ontological mathematics.” Correct. All mathematical models are incomplete and inconsistent products of manmade philosophies and ideologies. Only ontological mathematics has no connection with human opinions, beliefs and fallacies. Ontological mathematics reflects the eternal, necessary order of reason.

KS: “Until you read Mike Hockney, we will always come back to this very basic issue.” It’s impossible to debate with scientists who have not read the God Series. They have no idea just how much the God Series demolishes their sensory belief system. ME: “I don’t believe Mike Hockney will change my perception on that.” No one can change the mind of closed-minded person. How can you reject something without even bothering to read and study it? Of course, religious believers already have their beliefs and they “know” they will never be changing their beliefs. That’s why it’s impossible to have a rational discussion with them. ME is of the same type. ME: “Many others have tried – and they have all failed.” That’s because ME is a fanatic, with a totally closed mind, especially closed to reason, logic and mathematics. How sad, pathetic and irrational is that? ME: “They all subscribe to the BELIEF that math is something natural. It is not.” ME is the one who subscribes to the belief that it is not. Go on, refute a single statement of ontological mathematics. How would ME go about it given that he has never studied ontological mathematics, and has no intention of studying it? He’s far too closed-minded. It’s appalling that science is now full of such extremists. No wonder it has made no breakthroughs in a theory of quantum gravity. Scientists have lost the ability to think. ME: “It is organized human thought. it is actually completely equivalent to religion.” ME is surely referring to sensory science: the irrational worship of the human senses. Take math away from science and there’s nothing of value left. It’s exposed for the Mythos religion it assuredly is. ME: “Well said – and that reasoning bites its own tail by trying to prove what it assumes to be right from the start... And it makes the parallel to religion as obvious as I think it should be.”

Here we go again... the same old fallacies trotted out again and again. The parallel of scientism to Mythos religion gets more and more obvious every time ME opens his mouth. ME: “Once again, disagreeing with Kant is OK – but not when using a path of logic that depends on the very premise it makes being false! Humans ARE prisoners of their minds! And math IS a human invention!” If humans are prisoners of their minds, there can be no truth. Kant himself said that ultimate reality was unknowable. That’s exactly where ME’s beliefs lead – to total nihilism, solipsism, skepticism, empiricism and relativism, and the absolute impossibility of ultimate knowledge. Minds are math. Math invents humans; humans don’t invent math. How can a human invent eternal truths of reason? Humans aren’t eternal. Math is. ME is a poor scientist, and equally poor philosopher. Even worse, he’s a dogmatic fanatic. He is exactly the kind of person who worships the sensory religion of scientism. He believes that existence miraculously jumps out of nothing, for no reason, via no mechanism, for no purpose. He isn’t even worried that these are wholly non-empirical beliefs – no one ever observed these alleged events – hence he is logically prohibited from holding such beliefs. When logic is applied to ME’s beliefs, every single one of them can be shown to be fallacious. KS: “Euler’s Formula describes everything, even mathematical unobservables. That proves that ontological mathematics was in existence before human beings. So how could humans invent the foundation of reality, before we existed?” Precisely so. No one can invent that which preceded the human race. Someone can invent English, or knitting. They can’t invent math. It’s insane to believe that math is manmade. There is no rational basis whatsoever for such a belief.

The Truth Relationship You cannot have a relationship with the Truth unless you can first of all identify your organ for truth. Your fallible, unreliable senses are no organ for truth. They can’t even tell you if you’re dreaming or not. They can’t

distinguish between dreamworlds and “real” worlds. How can the senses tell you about something called “matter” if the senses are completely duped by dreams, where there is no matter at all (since dreams take place entirely in the mind)? Descartes warned us always to doubt our senses. Empiricists ignored him. The one thing ME never doubts, as he keeps telling us, is his “observations”, yet observations, as Hume demonstrated definitively, have no connection with Truth and cannot be the basis of any knowledge. People such as ME just can’t grasp this. They can’t understand philosophy. They can’t understand reason and logic. Emotionalists believe that their emotions reveal “truth” to them. Sorry, nothing is less connected with the truth than your transient feelings. No one can rely on feelings. Love can turn to hate in an instant, with a single negative revelation. Buddhists look to their own subjective experiences for the Truth, which they call their “own Truth”. Sorry, your “own Truth” is just relativism, solipsism, egotism... and madness. Mystics think their mystical intuitions reveal the Truth. Sorry, your mysticism is pure Mythos. People of faith think that prophets, gurus, “holy” texts and “sacred” scriptures reveal the Truth to them. Sorry, these, again, are pure Mythos, total fantasy. You will never find the Truth if you can’t even work out what you are going to use to discover it. Are you going to use your observations, your feelings, your faith, your mysticism... or your reason? Observations, which scientists such as ME swear by, can’t tell you what it is you are observing and why the observable world exists at all. Above all, your observations can’t tell you even one thing about the unobservable world. So, you either have to admit that there’s a whole reality you know nothing about, or irrationally conclude that there is no such thing as an unobservable world (even though you have no reasons whatsoever – beyond your blind sensory prejudice – for concluding that what exists must be observable). Tragically, scientists do indeed conclude that the unobservable is the non-existent, despite the fact that this is incompatible with their speculations about unobservable parallel worlds (in the Multiverse), unobservable strings, unobservable probabilistic wavefunctions, unobservable random events, unobservable cats being

simultaneously alive, dead and in living-dead mixed states, the unobservable eruption of existence out of non-existence, and so on. You would never look to a scientist to tell you anything rational and coherent. They literally talk gibberish. Science is just a different kind of Mythos religion, based on the senses rather than on the feelings. Look at how fanatically ME worships his observations, and never once doubt them. Feeling types can imagine having a relationship with an all-powerful Super Being, hence believe in God. Sensing types are atheists because they cannot imagine observing an all-powerful Super Being. They equally reject math because they cannot observe math. As we see with ME, they regard mathematics as unreal, abstract and manmade, yet they can’t do without it, which rather demonstrates how illogical these people are. How can you rely on “unreality” to explain reality to you? Scientists fall foul of Descartes’ superb principle that effects cannot have more reality than their causes. You cannot claim that the “real” world of your experiences and observations is ultimately caused by some speculative, unreal world of mathematical indeterminacy, probability and potentiality. Yet that’s exactly what science does, and shows not one scintilla of embarrassment about the fact. Isn’t it incredible? – people such as ME refer to reason, logic and mathematics as a Mythos religion. In fact, the real Mythos is the scientific belief in the senses. Scientists do not understand the most basic fact of existence... that empirical information is carried by non-empirical information carriers, that unexperienceable form underlies all experienceable content. All of your feelings, sensations, perceptions, and subjective experiences are carried by mathematical waves. They are made of mathematics, not of “matter”. Feeling types, sensing types, and mystical intuitives, all inhabit the world of content, and have no relationship to the non-empirical world of noumenal, non-empirical form. Only reason, logic and math can take us to the world of Truth, explanation and knowledge... the rational world of analytic form. Yet the empirical types, obsessed with content, regard unseen form as unreal, abstract, manmade and, frankly, impossible. These people are simply too stupid to make the conceptual leap to understanding that every experience is made of something, and conveyed by something, and that the something in question obeys the fundamental laws of existence, and talks the fundamental language of existence... mathematics.

Mathematics is the eternal, necessary law of existence and the language of existence, which is why any true ontology and epistemology must concern math and nothing else. Only math can be known. Nothing empirical can be known, as Hume showed. Math provides the entire hidden causal order. Hume denied causation because he could not perceive it. That’s the madness to which empiricism leads. Science claims that mathematical unreality is the basis of reality. How insane is that? Mathematics – real mathematics, ontological mathematics – is the one and only thing that can save science from its madness. Reality underlies reality. What could be simpler? Rational reality underlies empirical reality, form underlies content, the signifier underlies the signified, the noumenon underlies the phenomenon, the information carrier underlies the information carried, the unseen underlies the seen. Scientists cannot conceive that the appearance of reality – what we detect without our senses – necessarily conceals reality without an appearance (reality in itself). Bare, naked, raw, ultimate reality is rational, not empirical. It has no appearance at all. That’s why ultimate reality revolves around an unextended, dimensionless, immaterial, mental zero/infinity Singularity outside space and time. Of course, as you would expect, scientists despise the whole concept of singularities and are intent on abolishing them. Unobservable mathematical singularities – minds – are the adamantine rock upon which the entire ship of scientific materialism runs aground. It’s impossible to argue with someone such as ME. He’s a true believer in scientism. He literally cannot see beyond his own senses. People such as ME deny that there is anything beyond the horizon. They deny the existence of the moon when no one is looking at it. They agree – although they don’t realise it – with the idealist empiricist Bishop Berkeley who said that to be is to be perceived. Having a discussion with a scientist is as futile as having a discussion with a Muslim. You are up against irrational dogmatic beliefs that are immune to rational argument. These people are perfectly happy to rubbish reason – and thus endorse unreason – in their mania for defending their position (which thus reduces to total irrationalism). Never forget what ME said: ME: “No – I do NOT believe that ‘pure reasoning’ is a valid way of determining what we cannot observe.” He is therefore committed to unreason to explain what we cannot observe, or to irrationally denying that

there is anything at all that we cannot observe. By his own words, he logically proves himself to be a person of faith, Mythos and unreason. He said, “I reserve the right to abstain from believing in something I do not find to be verifiable through observation.” In other words, he wholly rejects reason, logic and mathematics. This is a person who believes in his senses and observations. However, an observation can explain nothing at all. Try to “explain” the observations of quantum mechanics without using “manmade” mathematics. If something allegedly manmade is required to explain our fallible, unreliable human observations then we are literally trapped within a human interpretation – misinterpretation – of “reality”, and we can never escape from our human feelings, senses, mystical ideas, faith, the stories we tell and sell ourselves, opinions, beliefs, guesses, and psychological flaws. This is exactly where Hume’s empiricism led. It’s exactly what Plato rightly railed against. ME merely proved once and for all that he was an irrational person of faith, absolutely resistant to reason. Why would any rational person listen to these crazies? Your senses and your observations are the road to the Lie, not the Truth. The only truth in science is math, which has nothing to do with the senses and observations.

***** SG: “ME, Remove math from science and you have nothing but a story – which you cannot prove and/or predict. This would imply that science works because of math (on which it is based on). “Now, you say that observation is what the fundamental thing is, or should be, according to you. But where were the observers when the universe came to be so that it could come to being in the first place? Does it really mean that the moon does not exist if no one is observing it? “Furthermore, the more you zoom into the world of the smallest particles – the only description that you can conclude and observe are mathematical properties and interactions of the particles, their state, waves, fields etc. Mass dissipates in the state of field forces of the infinitely small. The large Hadron collider is only useful because the only intelligible things that can be observed or even just thought are mathematical properties that can be interpreted in ‘physical’ ways, i.e. their nature is 100% mathematical. If atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons etc. etc. etc. are all

defined by their mathematical properties/qualities – doesn’t that mean that they ARE mathematical entities? And if they are, isn’t ultimate reality then a mathematical reality? How can mathematics be separated from observable and unobservable phenomenon? In fact, mathematics is the causal noumenon that allows observable phenomena to be possible at all. Because where are the laws of physics? Where are they located? Do they have mass? Do they have a certain place in each particle? Why is it that everything with mass decays and decomposes over time but the laws governing these processes do not decay and decompose but are eternal? If they were physical things, they should also be subject to decay and change together with the matter that they reside in. “Sure we come to the egg and chicken. One thing is certain though, everything happens for a reason and it happens for a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise. It can only be what it is. So, observers or not, existence is existing, its fundamental laws and substances are all mathematical (rational), and empiricism comes only after that. Empiricism is about the post-factum universe that can physically be observed and gauged. Rationalism is about the causality that caused the observable universe and things. You cannot use empiricism to probe and describe the unobservable causality of things that can only be arrived at through reason.” Precisely! Science is supposedly – according to its own propaganda – about getting at the truth. Anything that gets in the way of that diminishes science. Of course, nothing gets in the way more than science’s rejection of reason and logic. Science subscribes to no rational and logical principles whatsoever. Any claim, no matter how insane, is regarded as plausible if it provisionally explains observations. No sane person could defend the claim that an unobserved cat is simultaneously alive, dead and in living-dead mixing states, yet this is exactly the deranged claim taught in science classrooms all across the world. That’s what happens when you reject rationalism in favour of empiricism. ME: “SG, you bring an interesting perspective that certainly makes me want to modify what I meant with math as a human invention: I was referring to the ways we represent math, not the functioning of math. I completely agree with you about math being universal, ONCE we agree on the fundamental rules for defining and operating numbers.”

Aha, now we have backtracking in rapid progress. Now we have the claim that math is real, but, somehow, we “represent” math in unreal (manmade ways). That’s like saying that 1 + 1 is true, but somehow the symbol “1” is dodgy because it’s a manmade representation. It matters not a jot what symbols we attach to the things of math. What matters is that we capture the completeness and consistency of math using whatever set of symbols we deploy. The symbols are arbitrary. We can use whatever symbols we like. However, what the symbols represent (mathematics) has no arbitrariness whatsoever, unlike science, which is permanently mired in incompleteness, inconsistency, Mythos, faith, the ad hoc, the arbitrary, and the heuristic. Only the principle of sufficient reason can allow us to “agree on the fundamental rules for defining and operating numbers”, certainly not science and observations. When ME says he is questioning how we represent math, not the functioning of math, he has destroyed his entire position at a stroke because now he has to explain what math is in itself (i.e. beyond human representation). No doubt ME, as a second-rate Kantian, would hide behind some superstitious, mystical claim that math in itself is “unknowable”. How absurd can you get? Math is the quintessence of knowledge. In fact, it’s the only thing that can be truly known. ME: “I have personally made experiments in university that confirm Einstein’s relativity theory. You can’t beat MY VERIFIABLE OBSERVATIONS with some religious dogma.” Yet again, ME shows his spectacular ignorance of science. His “verifiable observations” vindicate the mathematics of Lorentz transformations, not of Einstein’s relativity theory. Surely every scientist knows that. As the scientific genius John Bell said, “The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view. This view was abandoned on the grounds of philosophy; that what is unobservable does not exist.” In other words, absolutist interpretations of the Lorentz transformations were never disproved. They merely became unfashionable and unpopular because they did not conform to scientific ideology and dogmatism. ME is apparently entirely ignorant of this fact. ME therefore has no idea what he did or didn’t verify... and that’s the entire problem with science (not that

“verification” counts for anything in truth terms in any case). No one in science, no matter how good their observations, can ever prevent completely different theories being used to explain the same “verified” results. That’s why there are around twenty different interpretations of QM, none of which can be disproved. ME has no idea what he’s talking about. He cited his personal experience as though it were some clinching argument (like some ridiculous Buddhist), when in fact he was hoist by his own petard. He merely demonstrated that he had no idea how controversial – and unproven – Einstein’s theory of relativity actually is. That’s why the “testimony” of people such as ME is worthless. They have no conception how badly informed they are. They believe themselves experts in science, when, in fact, they don’t know the first thing about it. Try reading the God Series, ME, and get yourself a proper science education! ME doesn’t know anything about ontological mathematics. He has never bothered to read any of the books about it, and dismisses them out of hand on the basis of Facebook posts (!). We, however, know all about science. How can ME even begin to imagine he can outargue us when we are much better informed about science than he is, while he knows knowing about the God Series? The first thing you’re supposed to learn as a scientist is to “do your research”. That’s exactly what so many pseudo-scientists, such as ME, signally fail to do. They shout off their mouths about science while knowing nothing about philosophy and mathematics, and having only the shakiest and most dubious knowledge of their own subject. That’s why these people are the equivalent of religious believers. They fanatically cite their ideology and dogmatism without knowing anything about the opposition to their religion. Scientists are supposed to be people of knowledge. What a joke. As ME demonstrates, they are people of faith. Do your research. Do your math. Learn something! There is no such thing as a “verifiable observation”. It’s always a “consensus interpretation”. And the verification isn’t even a scientific principle. It’s metaphysical and extremely controversial. ME: “But we are discussing whether the hen or the egg came first... You see math as being the fundamental thing, and I don’t. I see OBSERVATION as being the fundamental thing, the only thing that really matters, because it IS our life and ‘reality’.”

Here we see the classic statement of empiricism, and rejection of Descartes and reason. ME really ought to study Hume and discover that observations are just about the least fundamental thing conceivable when it comes to reliable knowledge. Ancient augurs were fabulous observers. Does ME endorse augury? Do you see how ME ends up as a solipsist, relativist and Buddhist... making the claim that his own experiences and observations are the only ‘reality”? ME refers to “our life”? What on earth, as a scientist, does ME mean when he refers to “life”? Is he talking about the inexplicable epiphenomenon supposedly generated by lifeless, mindless atoms when they are miraculously ordered in just the right way? Go on, ME, explain the origin of life and the definition of life, using nothing but sensory observations of lifeless things. Good luck with that! As for the “chicken and the egg”, both of these are contingent and temporal, which is exactly why there is a confused debate about what comes first. What is absolutely certain is that the eternal, necessary order of existence (the rational mathematical order) must underlie the temporal, contingent order of the phenomenal, empirical things in which ME so slavishly believes. ME – by denying an eternal, rational order – believes either in infinite contingent regress – an absurdity – or the equal absurdity of existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism. “Observation” won’t help him one jot in regard to the eternal, necessary order of the eternal truths of reason (mathematics). People such as ME must be clueless about why science uses math if math is unreal and manmade. Our explanation could not be simpler: science uses math because math is the hidden rational order on which science is predicated, and without which science is augury. ME: “As a scientist, I do not subscribe to the notion you support, which is that we can, through our limited observations, draw conclusions about that which we cannot and possibly never will observe.” Yet again we return to ME’s blind belief in observations, even though these are already proven not to provide knowledge. ME is a mystic. He refuses to accept that we can, using our reason, transcend the fallible human condition and gain the view of the eternal, necessary reality that underlies the temporal, contingent world. We certainly can’t reach this world via the unreliable human senses and their observations. The principle of sufficient

reason has no reliance at all on fallible human observations (just as Occam’s Razor doesn’t). Observation is explicitly repudiated by the principle of sufficient reason. Unlike ME, we place no reliance on the human senses that have evolved with no regard at all to Truth, which have no relationship to the Truth, and are mired in endless interpretations and misinterpretations about what their observations are supposedly revealing to us. An observer, by definition, cannot reach the conclusion, from observation alone, that what is observed has a level, a core (form) which cannot be observed. It is exactly this rational, noumenal, mathematical core that allows us to explain reality. Without it, an explanation is impossible, as Hume’s philosophy so definitively demonstrated. ME: “You obviously believe we can.” Unlike ME, we don’t believe anything at all. All we do is apply the principle of sufficient reason. ME, however, believes that we must look to unreason to explain reality. How irrational is that? ME: “I know science history too well to dare to agree.” ME’s problem is that he doesn’t know science history at all, as his many fallacious comments illustrate. ME: “The difference is BELIEF, not science.” ME is the believer in scientism and observations. He has not presented even one argument that dented ontological mathematics. He adopted only one tactic: he simply stated his belief in observations over and over again, like a religious fanatic. He never once challenged his beliefs and prejudices. We have been down the scientific road too, but, unlike ME, we overcame the scientific brainwashing and propaganda, and discovered that reason, logic and mathematics are infinitely more powerful. Unlike science, they can provide absolute, infallible knowledge of the kind Plato craved. What’s truly sad is that ME’s position has been known to be false for centuries and even millennia. All of the points he raises were considered by the pre-Socratic philosophers. All arguments based on empiricism have been intellectually demolished. Hume, who was himself the greatest empiricist, showed that empiricism leads to no knowledge, and total skepticism (and it was Hume’s work that woke up Kant).

Empiricism is an intellectual dead end. Science escapes from Hume purely by its outrageous theft of mathematics, by which it fraudulently introduces rationalism into empiricism. You won’t find ME addressing any of these points. He has shown that he doesn’t have a clue, that he’s a closed-minded, blinkered believer in scientism. ME: “...and your intelligent and well thought-through reasoning does not change that.” Reason will never persuade ME of anything. He has chosen to reject reason and embrace the principle of unreason. It’s literally impossible to have a rational debate with such a person. They have rejected rationalism even before entering the debate. ME’s only goal was to keep pressing his religious belief in fallible human observations on those who reject the unreliable human senses. He might as well have quoted excerpts from the Koran! He seeks to argue against us by assuming the absolute correctness of his position from the outset and doing nothing but referring to his irrational belief system of empiricism and materialism. ME, you can’t argue with rationalists by invoking irrationalism. Go and study philosophy. We can rationally shoot down your irrational position. You cannot irrationally shoot down our rational error. You have committed a category error, and proved that both you and your arguments are irrational. ME: “Now, you might like to redefine what you understand as ‘science’ to include something I do NOT accept as ‘science’, so that brings us back to square one again.” That’s exactly what we are doing. We are replacing irrational scientific empiricism and materialism with scientific rationalism and idealism, just as Leibniz advocated. We are getting rid of science, and putting ontological mathematics in its place. ME, as a fanatical sensing type, certainly won’t be joining us. He totally rejects our science, based on infallible reason, just as we totally reject his science, based on fallible observations. There can be no common ground between ME and us. ME is representative of the entire irrational scientific establishment. ME would argue against Max Tegmark just as much as he would against us. Tegmark could easily arrive at our hyperrationalist position – he’s on the right trajectory – but ME never could. Science will eventually undergo a

total schism between observers (experimentalists who believe in materialism and empiricism) and analysts (theoreticians who subscribe to idealism, conveyed by sinusoidal monads, and rationalism). ME: “That ‘little gap’ you want to include as ‘science’ is nothing but religion to me BECAUSE it builds on an assumption I believe no scientist should make if he respects himself as such.” ME uses the word “religion” as a calculated insult. Of course, there is nothing wrong with religion provided it is Logos, based on reason, and not Mythos, based on feelings, the senses (like scientism) and mysticism. Sorry, ME, but since you explicitly reject the principle of sufficient reason and endorse unreason, we define you as a believer in an irrational Mythos religion (that of scientism). You have simply replaced “God” with randomness, but that doesn’t make your system any more rational. In point of fact, it makes it less rational. The worst explanation of reality ever provided is that of science, when, in its eagerness to avoid an eternal, necessary order furnished by God, Mind or Mathematics, it claims that existence is miraculously and randomly spawned from nothing at all... a total and definitive logical impossibility. It’s much harder to refute the rationalist God of Thomas Aquinas than it is to refute science. The ultimate claims of science – ME’s most cherished beliefs – are nonsense. They are impossible and deranged. They make no sense at all. We should not of course be surprised by this since ME has already told us that he rejects reason, and considers his subjective experiences and observations to constitute “reality”. You can’t argue with a solipsist and relativist such as ME. We accept objective reality. We accept a rational reality that has existed forever and can be revealed to us by reason. ME agrees with none of that. For him, it all comes down to his subjective observations and his principle of unreason. We do not regard ME as a scientist at all. We consider him an irrational believer in the anti-intellectual religion of scientism, predicated on privileging the irrational senses over reason. ME: “But I can certainly see why it is a very tempting conclusion to make, although I fail to see what practical implications it should have, other than making people question their observations because they get bloody confused – which is NOT something I want to support.”

ME has no conception whatsoever of the power and use of ontological mathematics. With ontological mathematics, mind can finally be rationally inserted into science, a step which changes the human understanding of reality once and for all, and opens the way for us to gain mental control of “material” reality... like Gods! We absolutely want to make people question their observations. That’s hardly new. Descartes, the first modern philosopher, and a brilliant rationalist, started from exactly that point. The first thing to which he turned his brilliant method of doubt was the belief in the reliability of the human senses. It’s a pity that sensing types such as ME are incapable of similar doubt. ME, as he says himself, never wants to doubt his unreliable, fallible, limited human senses that evolved with zero regard to Truth. That’s his tragedy, not ours. We can show you the rational Truth. We cannot make you accept it. We will never persuade people such as ME of anything at all. His belief in his religion is far too strong. ME is perfectly happy to subscribe to unreason. As rationalists, that’s something we can never do. Only mathematics, not science, can satisfy rationalists.

The Path Remember, there is only one path to the Truth, not many. There are four possible paths (of which, of course, only one is correct): 1) The path based on human emotion, leading to faith in “God” – an allpowerful Creator – with whom individual humans can have an individual emotional relationship. Emotional people kneel and pray to this imaginary Super Being, sing to him, and also kill and persecute for him. Abrahamism follows this path. 2) The path based on human intuition, leading to faith in a mystical Oneness where everything is interconnected. Mystical intuitives fast, pray, meditate and beg for charity. Eastern religion follows this path. 3) The path based on the human senses, leading to faith in some ultimate sensory entity as the answer to existence. Sensing types look to sensory experiments. Science follows this path. (Note, however, that all scientific “answers” are written as mathematical formulae, yet math has absolutely nothing to do with the human senses and experiments, raising a

fundamental and fatal contradiction, which is permanently ignored by scientists.) 4) The path based on reason (which transcends the human condition), leading to knowledge of the eternal truths of reason, enshrined in mathematics, which definitively and unambiguously explain the fundamental nature of existence. Rational types exercise reason, logic and mathematics, and nothing else. The greatest mathematicians and metaphysicists follows this path. There is no connection to feelings, the senses and mysticism. None of these existed in the Big Bang Singularity, hence can have no connection to the explanation of the eternal, necessary order of existence. You cannot get to the Truth unless you can work out what path you should be on. Only rationalists can calculate the right path. All the rest are locked into their fallible humanity, and can’t escape from their feelings, senses and mystical intuitions. They are prevented from seeing the Truth by the flawed human condition. Only eternal reason can escape the evolutionary defects of humanity. Humanity did not evolve with regard to Truth, but with regard to survival, reproduction and the acquisition of power over others. Eternal reason, on the other hand, never evolved at all, and was always concerned with the Truth. Only reason leads to a rational, intelligible answer to existence. Everything else concludes with an irrational “answer”, and that’s no answer at all.

Dogmatism Abrahamists are infamous for their blinkered, fanatical dogmatism, and their refusal to challenge their own beliefs. Everyone knows it’s impossible to have a rational debate with any Abrahamist. Yet, when you talk to a follower of Eastern religion, and they start fanatically telling you that everyone has their own truth based on their own experiences, and everyone has their own path to enlightenment, you suddenly realise that this position is every bit as dogmatic as Abrahamism. Where Abrahamists dogmatically cite holy books, Eastern religious types dogmatically cite their own experiences. Frankly, the latter are even worse than the former. At least the former bring a bunch of interesting stories with them. Is there anything more dull, desperate, self-righteous and

pompous than someone screaming at you that they are right and you are wrong because of their personal, subjective experiences (which, obviously, you can never contradict)? The Bible is a lot more interesting than the dull catalogue of some dreary narcissist’s “experiences of life”. Eastern religion is full of people telling you that they are right because they have meditated and “experienced” the Truth. Of course, they can’t explain the Truth to you. They can’t present the Truth in terms of reason, logic, ontology and epistemology. They can’t give you any knowledge and understanding. All they can do is say, “I have experienced the Truth, and no one can contradict me” – which is exactly what anyone in a mental asylum can, and will, say. Why would we ever accept a subjective claim to the Truth? Why would any rational person conclude that the Buddha was enlightened? What possible basis is there for this claim? His opinion? The opinions of his loyal followers? Where are the objective reasons? Did the Buddha present the world’s most fantastic ontology and epistemology, based on flawless reason and logic, which later helped to land men on the moon? Er, no, the Buddha made zero contribution to science, engineering, technology and mathematics. In terms of the Age of Enlightenment, the Buddha would have been considered wholly unenlightened, making no contribution to the advance of human knowledge. How many Buddhists have won Nobel prizes? Is Buddhism associated with the highest reason, logic, intelligence, knowledge and understanding? How has Buddhism helped the world? It’s just a bunch of beliefs and opinions, with zero evidence or proof. Buddhism is no better than Abrahamism, no more rational, and no less dogmatic. Then we come to the religion of scientism. ME shows exactly how fanatical and dogmatic scientism is. He pours scorn on reason, logic and mathematics, while worshipping (like a Buddhist) his own sensory experiences and observations, which form his entire self-proclaimed “reality”. He refuses to acknowledge a world beyond his own subjectivity, hence he is the absolute enemy of objective Truth: eternal and necessary Truth that has no connection with anyone’s observations. We have been astounded by how much irrational dogmatism has been directed at the AC project by followers of Eastern religion and followers of scientism. We expected it from Abrahamists, of course, but we had no idea how irrational and fanatical scientists and Eastern mystics were, and how ferociously resistant they were to reason, logic and mathematics. It has been

profoundly depressing, and reveals the scale of what we are up against. It’s us against the world. We reject Abrahamism, Eastern religion and scientism. Reason, logic and math are the only way to the Truth. No one can be dogmatic about 1 = 1. Everyone can be dogmatic about their subjective beliefs and perceptions.

Observation What is an observation made of? Since we never physically take the object we are observing into our mind, we are ipso facto representing it as something mental, which we can inspect within our mind. The fundamental issue, of course, is whether the representation has any resemblance whatsoever to the unrepresented object (the object in itself). Naive empiricists, such as ME, assume that the representation is the object, i.e. exactly the same as it is in itself. This is of course preposterous. The object in itself is outside our mind; the represented object is inside our mind. How can a mental representation have any commonality with a “material” entity? How can mind interact with matter and represent matter? We are right back to the famous problem of Cartesian substance dualism, which science has attempted to answer by denying the existence of mind. Of course, science has made zero progress in defining mind, qualia and mental representations in terms of “matter” (whatever that is). The reality is that the object in itself and our representation of it are so different that Kant went as far as to say that the object in itself is wholly knowable. We reject that conclusion. We can be sure that the object is made of math, and we can interact with it, represent it, and simulate it with our mathematical minds for exactly that reason. How can dreams resemble reality unless we use the same mathematics in each case? Otherwise, dreams would have no similarity at all to the world we live in. What is an object like without any representation? It is pure mathematical form.

***** It is not clear what is being asserted when naive empiricists say that we can mentally represent (i.e. “observe”) some unknown and unknowable thing called “matter”. Just as a “material” object cannot be represented accurately inside a mind (which contains no matter), nor can David Hume’s “impressions” be accurately represented by “ideas”. They are either the

same thing, or they have nothing in common at all, and we can draw no rational conclusions from one concerning the other. The only way round this is for everything to be mathematical, and then all things can automatically communicate and interact with each other. They all belong to the same mathematical order and category of existence.

***** Naive empiricists such as ME, when they worship observations, aren’t even aware of all the incredible difficulties regarding primary and secondary properties. Wikipedia says, “The primary/secondary quality distinction is a conceptual distinction in epistemology and metaphysics, concerning the nature of reality. It is most explicitly articulated by John Locke in his Essay concerning Human Understanding, but earlier thinkers such as Galileo and Descartes made similar distinctions. “Primary qualities are thought to be properties of objects that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number and figure. These characteristics convey facts. They exist in the thing itself, can be determined with certainty, and do not rely on subjective judgments. For example, if a ball is spherical, no one can reasonably argue that it is triangular. “Secondary qualities are thought to be properties that produce sensations in observers, such as colour, taste, smell, and sound. They can be described as the effect things have on certain people. Knowledge that comes from secondary qualities does not provide objective facts about things. “Primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality. Secondary qualities are subjective.” As Berkeley, Kant and many others pointed out, the primary qualities cannot be unambiguously attributed to the object either, and could be every bit as subjective as the secondary qualities. In which case, nothing objective is left regarding the “scientific” observations by which ME swears. By worshipping his own senses, observations and experiences, he has consigned himself to subjective solipsism. It’s impossible for him to construct any link between his subjective observations and objective reality. He might have created all of the primary and secondary properties in his mind, as an elaborate dream. This is exactly why no sane, rational person would ever rely on their senses, and why they turn instead to rationalist mathematics. Religious people of irrational faith – such as ME – are,

however, unable to overcome their sensory prejudices. They’re not clever enough. They’re not sufficiently philosophically literate. ME selectively chooses to ignore all of the well-known problems associated with empiricism and the senses. He never refutes them, he simply shouts louder and louder about the rightness of empiricism and observations. He refuses to question them, and he sneers at anyone who questions them, while never providing any rational justification for his belief system.

***** Simplistic scientists such as ME suffer from “naïve realism”. Wikipedia says, Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from minddependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses. “The realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them. “Naïve realism is known as direct as against indirect or representative realism when its arguments are developed to counter the latter position, also known as epistemological dualism; that our conscious experience is not of the real world but of an internal representation of the world.” ME is blissfully unaware of all of these problems regarding the observations that he worships and which he regards as indisputable “reality”. It’s often embarrassing to have debates with people such as ME because they are simply so ill-informed, and have obviously spent no time analysing their belief systems. Quantum mechanics blows naive realism out of the water and even suggests that we ourselves construct reality depending on the observations we make. Is that what passes as “science” these days? It sounds more like magic. Mathematics is the only instrument that can cure all of these absurdities and impossibilities. Only mathematics is compatible with objective reality, only mathematics supports the Reality Principle. Anyone who opposes

reason is subscribing to an irrational Unreality Principle. That’s exactly where ME’s bizarre views have taken him. He thinks he’s a level-headed person operating according to common sense. In fact, he has rejected reason and is living in a fantasy world of his personal “observations” (representations), which he considers to be the essence of existence. What will happen when ME dies? Will the world vanish with him? That’s clearly the logic of ME’s irrationalist, subjective position of faith. Only mathematics – reflecting rational, eternal necessity – guarantees an objective reality, independent of our observations, feelings, perceptions and experiences. If ever you find yourself on a Facebook page confronted by an irrationalist such as ME, just quote from the material presented here. None of these people are able to respond to our rationalist case. They only have unreason on their side, and that’s definitely the losing side! The degree to which you can understand the God Series is directly correlated to your intelligence. We cannot communicate with blinkered, closed-minded, prejudiced, dogmatic people – such as ME – who reject reason. They will always be the obstacle, the resistance, the deadweight, which we have to overcome. Max Planck provided the ultimate indictment of science when he morbidly said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Science can make progress only when the dinosaur thinkers – the people resistant to reason – die out. Science has to escape from people such as ME.

***** We don’t invite people such as ME to opine on our work. They feel compelled to do so, although they never feel compelled to take the trouble to actually read our work. We have contempt for trolls like that. These people are anti-intellectuals, who attack without even knowing what they’re attacking. It’s extraordinary that so many scientists despise reason, logic and mathematics, and remain so wedded to their irrational senses. Science is possibly the most perverse subject the world has ever seen. It hates the golden goose – mathematics – without which it would be the poorest, feeblest nonsense of all time. Science does nothing but bite the hand that feeds. It abuses mathematics. It twists it, distorts it, misrepresents it, lies

about it. Science is not the ally of mathematics. It is in fact the greatest enemy of mathematics. Science must die so that math can live. Science has laid claim to rationalism even though it’s nothing but empiricism, the opposite of rationalism. Science steals the clothes of math, even as it burns them in the trash. Science suffers from an identity crisis. Is it about mathematical rationalism, or experimental empiricism? Is it about reason or the senses? Is it about a logical method or an observational method? Where does science stand when logic and observations collide, as in relativity theory and quantum mechanics? When it comes to it, science always repudiates reason and supports the senses. It chooses “evidence” over proof. It takes the side of the body against the intellect. It denies the mind. It denies free will. It denies consciousness. It denies meaning. It denies purpose. To all intents and purposes, it denies life itself (it makes it an epiphenomenon of death). If you organise lifelessness in certain ways, life miraculously and impossibly appears – so says science. If you put a cat in a special box – a potentially lethal box – then, if you can’t see inside, you are to conclude, science says, that life and death mix. Why should we be remotely surprised by this crazy scientific claim? According to science, life is simply a probabilistic, anomalous “emergent” of non-life, i.e. there is no such thing as essential life, life-in-itself, immortal life. In science, there are no monads. Only rationalists are capable of understanding monads. Scientists – irrationalists – despise the concept of monads. As ME demonstrates, the average scientist would rather die than embrace unobservable, rational entities that have existed forever as the ontological carriers of mathematics. That’s why scientists will never understand reality. Scientists, like Buddhists, are the opposite of enlightened people. Scientists and Buddhists are every bit as dogmatic as Abrahamists.

Clarity and Nobility “If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts; and if any would write in a noble style, let him first possess a noble soul.” – Goethe Have you noticed that everything that trolls write is unclear and ignoble?

Science’s War On Reason

We have made a case study of ME because he so vividly demonstrates the extraordinary hatred of mathematics exhibited by so many scientists, to the extent that they even regard math as a manmade religion! Not one of these math-haters is able to explain why science can’t do without math, why it’s useless without math. Of course, if math is a religion, as ME says, science must be too since science is so reliant on math. If math is manmade, so is science! How can anything manmade explain the reality that preceded all humans? ME equally exemplifies the bizarre hatred of reason and logic that afflicts so many scientists. Even more bizarrely, people such as ME probably imagine that they are making rational and logical arguments even as they pour scorn on reason and logic, and dismiss them in favour of the laughably irrational human senses and observations. How irrational and illogical is that? We – rationalists, logicians and mathematikoi – regard arguing with these people as on a par with arguing with Abrahamists. ME’s arguments are so irrational – so ignorant of the history of philosophy and science – that he might as well be a preacher quoting Biblical passages to us. ME is a classic example of what we are up against from the brain-dead science community. He perfectly demonstrates why scientism is a dangerous religious faith that opposes reason and logic, and seeks to reduce everything to human sensory experiences. Sorry, it’s impossible for the unreliable, fallible human senses to be the answer to anything at all. Bring back Descartes! Science is taking humanity backwards, not forwards. It’s pure obscurantism, with no ontological and epistemological definitions.

***** ME is the sort of person who would have railed against Einstein, Bohr, Born and Heisenberg back in the day. He would rage against Tegmark and Penrose today. Science is full of such people. We will never enter the Age of Reason while these people flourish.

***** “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth.” – H.P. Lovecraft

If science were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon everyone into believing in their senses. How can the “unbending quest for truth” be anything other than a rational, logical undertaking? How can unreason and illogic provide any truth whatsoever? You might as well believe whatever you like!

***** It has been said that when religion goes wrong, it really goes wrong. Exactly the same is true of science.

Reason “But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” – Kurt Gödel Transcend your experiences. Reason is the sole path to transcendence, and thus to truth.

The Supreme Genius “It is difficult not to be impressed by the number of ways in which Leibniz’s ideas were far ahead of his time. But his being out of his time made him all the less influential. Generally, it has only been after the independent rediscovery of his ideas that his priority has been noticed.” – George MacDonald Ross Leibniz’s day has yet to come. The world is still catching up with him. “In content [Leibniz’s] philosophy was largely an updating of the Pythagorean and Platonic traditions, using the concepts of Aristotelian scholasticism.” – George MacDonald Ross Modern Illuminism simply adds Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics to Leibniz’s monads, thus turning them into mathematical entities that can be used in science. Protestantism got rid of Plato and Aristotle from Christianity, leaving nothing but Biblical literalism (the “inerrancy” of scripture), and no intellectual content at all. Illuminism gets rid of Christ from Christianity, but keeps Plato and Aristotle, thus getting rid of scripture and keeping the intellectual content. The incomprehensible Christian Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is abolished and replaced with

Math. Faith is replaced by reason. Faith becomes the “Devil’s whore.” Religion is converted from Mythos into Logos, and every religious assertion is analytically defended via mathematical hyper-rationalism and logic. The created soul of Christianity is replaced by the uncreated monadic mind of ontological mathematics. Empiricism is rejected as antirationalism. Illuminism is the one and only way to make religion and spirituality rational. Mathematics, but certainly not science, can fully vindicate religion and spirituality, provided it is Logos religion and spirituality, and has no connection with silly stories (Abrahamism), or personal experience (Eastern religion).

***** “It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true.” – H. L. Mencken And to disbelieve what is true.

Forever What scientists fundamentally deny is the existence of an eternal, necessary, analytic, logical, rational, intelligible order, which underlies everything, and produces, at the Big Bang, the temporal, contingent world of science. Scientists deny it for the most pathetic of all reasons ... they mistake it for “God”. It is in fact Mathematics. Beneath the world of scientific experiments is a permanent mathematical order, invisible to the human senses (just as “God” was always deemed invisible). Mathworld isn’t invisible for any “spooky” reason, but thanks to pure logic. Mathworld is the rational information carrier, and the information it carries is what constitutes the empirical world, i.e. the empirical content (information carried) is visible to us, while the rational form (information carrier) is not. As a matter of simple logic, noumenal form and phenomenal content can’t both be available to our senses. The mathematical order provides the fibre and fabric of existence. All information – all the stuff of empirical experience – is conveyed via it, and is impossible without it. There are no freestanding experiences, not grounded in rationalist mathematics. The mathematical world is not sterile and clinical. It’s fundamentally alive. It’s made of autonomous mathematical units called monads, which are none other than immortal, indestructible minds (which religious people

refer to as “souls”). They are immaterial, dimensionless frequency domains that exist outside space and time. They are in fact made of complete and consistent sets of photons, i.e. monadic souls are made of light, and light is math (sinusoidal waves). These monadic minds are both objects and subjects. As mathematical objects, they engage in interactions dictated by mathematical laws, and these objective interactions produce the ordered, patterned world studied by scientists. However, as subjects, they are entities that can experience themselves and the world, and exhibit free will. They are self-optimising and self-solving, forever seeking the answer to themselves, and undergoing a vast dialectical journey to get to the solution – the meaning – of their existence. They make this cosmic journey in conjunction with all other souls. This makes them religious and spiritual beings, imbued with purpose. Because scientists reject a rational order of mathematics holding up the universe, they irrationally subscribe to concepts such as randomness, probability, indeterminacy, indeterminism, acausation, chance and accident. They insanely claim that existence randomly jumps out of non-existence for no reason, and via no mechanism. It serves no purpose, and is devoid of any meaning. This is a worldview predicated on magic and self-performing miracles. Science offers the worst explanation of ultimate reality ever furnished by the human mind, one wholly cut off from the principle of sufficient reason (which demands and ensures that everything must have an exact reason for why it happens). To claim that things can happen without reasons – as science does – is to enter a mystical, irrational world of unreason and illogic, which is rather like a world defined by a bizarre, autistic religious cult (!). All of this can be cured at a stroke, by underpinning science with mathematics. Imagine removing mathematics from science. What would be left? – divination! Imagine Newton’s laws of motion without mathematics. They would be just a bunch of guesses and speculations, based on long lists of observations. All of the most brilliant observations and experiments conceivable would amount to nothing without mathematics to make sense of them all. Science has never grasped that it’s mathematics, and not observations and experiments, that’s responsible for science’s success. Science before the introduction of mathematics was alchemy!

Illuminism – the religion and philosophy of the Illuminati – replaces “God” with Math, conveyed by living mathematical souls made of light, all interacting with each other in an incredible cosmic dance of mathematical waves (sines and cosines), which, via Fourier mathematics, create a universal hologram that humanity calls the material world of space and time, and with which mathematical souls can interact using the very same mathematics (i.e. Fourier mathematics, which deals with two domains: a dimensionless frequency domain of mind, and a dimensional spacetime domain of matter). It’s all in the math! Do the math. Illuminism, grounded in ontological mathematics, defined by Euler’s Formula, furnishes the world’s only Logos religion, one based on reason and logic, and rejecting all prophets, popes, priests, gurus, messiahs, holy books, sacred scriptures, and divine revelations that characterise the Mythos religions of the world. Illuminism repudiates the two great enemies of rationalism: 1) religious faith, and 2) the sensory empiricism of science, which rejects the eternal, necessary mathematical ground of existence. Illuminism repudiates relativism and perspectivism, i.e. the notion that everyone has their own “truth”, and there is no infallible, absolute Truth. It repudiates the idea that people can pray or meditate their way to “enlightenment”. Gnosis is all about knowledge – mathematical knowledge! It repudiates the New Age notion that everyone has “their own path”, and every path is as valid as every other path (which means that all paths are wrong). Illuminism asserts that there is only one path, and one answer to existence. That answer is mathematics ... and anyone in the world can work out the answer if they are rational, logical and intelligent enough. You don’t need faith, your feelings, your senses, or your mystical intuitions. In fact, you don’t need anything at all concerned with the human condition. What you are seeking to do is transcend temporal, contingent humanity, and get in touch with the world of the eternal truths of reason. These are the only source of infallible, absolute truth and knowledge. Everything else is mere belief, opinion, conjecture, speculation, and interpretation (or, rather, misinterpretation). If you want the answer to your existence, math is the only thing that can give it to you. Leibniz, in his Monadology, provided the blueprint of fundamental, ultimate existence three hundred years ago. Ontological mathematics has turned this into an entirely mathematical system rather

than a merely philosophical system. It has defined the mind via the most powerful analytic formula in mathematics (Euler’s Formula), and can thus put mind at the root of matter (rather than claiming, as science absurdly does, that mindless matter can miraculously create mind, and lifeless matter can magically create life). Ontological mathematics converts scientific empiricism and materialism into scientific rationalism and idealism. It converts the scientific notion of the universe as a dead machine into a vision of the universe as a living, evolving mathematical organism, using mathematics to transform souls from bare potential into maximum actualisation ... to metamorphose souls into Gods. Illuminism, the secret religion, the Logos religion, rationally promises that everyone will become a God ... thanks to mathematics. The sooner humanity gets on board with ontological mathematics, the sooner we shall all become Gods, and create heaven for ourselves. Only human stupidity, faith and obsession with the senses are holding us back. It’s time for humanity to enter the true Age of Reason, and to have a second and final Enlightenment ... based on mathematics instead of science. Mathematics is the authentic language of nature, of existence itself. Mathematics is what comes after physics (hence is the true metaphysics). It’s impossible for Mythos religions to rationally explain reality. It’s equally impossible for empiricist science to rationally explain reality (the ultimate answer is obviously not something you can see, or in any way detect with your human senses; if science could produce a “final theory of everything”, it would of course be written as a mathematical equation!). Only one thing can rationally explain existence: reason itself – a wholly non-sensory entity – which is expressed ontologically as mathematics, derived entirely from the principle of sufficient reason, and enshrined in a single complete and consistent cosmic master formula. Illuminism replaces God with the God Equation, and with that single change, transforms religion from spectacular idiocy into the expression of hyper-rationalism, where mathematics is used to explain everything. Einstein said, “God does not play dice.” In fact, it’s the God Equation that does not play dice. It provides an exact reason for everything. There is nothing external to the God Equation. There is nothing not under the control of the God Equation. It is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal,

indestructible, and it is everywhere. From this equation, the universe is created. “Let there be light ... the light of reason ... the light of mathematics.” This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.

***** “All things are numbers; number rules all.” – Pythagoras, Grand Master of the Illuminati

The Zombies Scientist are those who are too stupid to understand Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRip8mvn07U). Scientists are locked into the belief that nothing exists beyond the Cave (which stands for the sensory world of science). They cannot conceive that an entire world stands beyond it: the ultimate world of light and reason, i.e. of mathematics. Science is the intellectual wing, the ideology and philosophy, of autism, i.e. of a mental disorder concerned with a manic preoccupation with the senses. Scientists are people who regard and define themselves as meaningless, purposeless zombie machines, devoid of free will, and subject to random processes resulting from unreal, abstract, mathematical potentiality wavefunctions and their indeterministic collapse. If you removed rationalist mathematics from science, it would instantly degenerate into the most irrational subject of all. That’s what happens when you subscribe to anti-intellectual empiricism rather than intellectual rationalism. The world beyond science isn’t the absurd world of Mythos religion and spirituality, it’s the hyperrationalist world of Logos mathematics. That’s why math is at the core of science, and why science can’t do without math. It’s math that links science to true reality.

The Few Only the most intelligent people in the world can understand Illuminism. The herd and the mob will rage against it, denounce it, revile it, and oppose it to the bitter end. That’s what the stupid do. They want their faith, and their priests, and their gurus, and their holy books, and their Creator (Super Daddy in the Sky!). They want Mythos, not Logos. They want the Lie, not

the Truth. Only the most special type of human being – the rationalist – wants the Truth of existence. Wikipedia says, “The Rational temperament is one of the four temperaments defined by David Keirsey. Correlating with the NT (intuitive–thinking) Myers-Briggs types, the Rational temperament comprises the following role variants (listed with their corresponding Myers-Briggs types): Architect (INTP), Fieldmarshal (ENTJ), Inventor (ENTP), and Mastermind (INTJ). This temperament makes up only 5 to 10 percent of the general population, making this the smallest temperament group of all.” Some “NF” types will also “get” Illuminism. However, it’s almost impossible for any sensing types to grasp Illuminism. They are locked into their sensory observations, and lack the imagination to see beyond the limited, stunted world that so fixates them. Only Higher Humanity can be illuminated. They will first be transformed into HyperHumanity, and then into the Gods Themselves. Are you with us or against us?

Nihil Est Sine Ratione: Nothing Is Without A Reason There are only two ways to think about reality: either nothing is without a reason, or everything is without a reason. You can’t have a world where some things have a reason and other things don’t. How can things with reasons interact with things without reasons? This is simply Cartesian substance dualism all over again. If everything has a reason, we necessarily live in a rational, mathematical universe. If nothing has a reason, we necessarily live in an irrational universe of magic and mystery. Tellingly, classical science believed that everything had a reason, while modern science believes that nothing has a reason (things are alleged to happen probabilistically and indeterministically, and to be shrouded in ontological indeterminacy). Science has become the standard bearer of irrationalism. It’s even worse than Mythos religion in the claims it makes about ultimate reality.

One Way There’s only one way to understand reality, and that’s via reason. There’s no alternative. Reason leads inevitably to mathematics, which is its ontological expression. The cosmos is a system of living mathematics. Your own will is

pure mathematics, and affects the reality you inhabit. Every act of free will on your part leads to a change in the nature of reality. The more powerful your mind, the more powerful your understanding of mathematics, and your ability to perform the most complex mathematical operations (controlling matter with your mind), the more Godlike you will be. It’s all in the math.

The New Mathematics We have provided an entirely new basis for mathematics, wiping out all of the previous, abstract versions. We have changed mathematical logic forever. Everything must be based on ontological considerations, and be derived from the principle of sufficient reason. Everything must reflect the complete and consistent God Equation. We have rendered irrelevant Gödel’s incompleteness theorems by revealing that they concern not actual mathematics, but manmade attempts to define mathematics using particular philosophical viewpoints that are entirely extraneous to mathematics. Mathematics ontologically is very different from mathematics being force-fitted to some ideology such as intuitionism, or logicism, or axiomism, or formalism, or set theory. Ontological mathematics revolutionizes mathematics even more than it does science. Above all, it allows humanity to think clearly and analytically for the first time ever about dimensionless existence, mental existence, frequency existence, zero and infinity, and singularities. Physics has been associated with mathematics for hundreds of years. Ontological mathematics now allows metaphysics to be treated mathematically, thus allowing physics and metaphysics to be brought together, exactly as Leibniz always intended. This automatically leads to the end of the rule of Newtonian scientific materialism and empiricism, and the eclipse of the likes of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Ontological mathematics allows humanity to undergo the final and most revolutionary paradigm shift. The problem, of course, is that humanity is not rational enough to seize this opportunity. Only a tiny, elite group of rationalists see the way forward. Are you one of them? Are you one of the final heroes?

The Age of Math Why have people failed to understand reality? It’s because of the gulf between how they experience the world, and how they explain what those

experiences are telling them about reality. As David Hume pointed out, we perceive a succession of impressions, but we never perceive what is causing those impressions. That leaves us with two choices: 1) to ignore causation, or 2) to assume that that there is an inherently unobservable causal order. Since option 1) leads nowhere (to total nihilism, skepticism, relativism, solipsism and irrationalism), the vast majority of humanity has turned to option 2). And that’s exactly where the problems begin ... because people can invent any old nonsense they like. Abrahamists have said that “God” is the unobservable source of causality. Eastern religious types have cited a spiritual “Oneness”, and some bizarre force of “karma” (whatever that is). Science once upon a time said that the universe was a giant, deterministic clockwork mechanism where everything had a precise place, and everything was predictable with, in principle, 100% accuracy. Now it has done a 180 degree turn and says we live in an indeterministic universe of inherent indeterminacy, chance, accident, and probability, where existence can leap out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism. The truth, of course, is that our experiences are not separate from the causal order of existence. We can’t perceive the causal order for the simple reason that we are perceiving the experience, i.e. you can’t perceive the phenomenal experience and its noumenal cause. Yet we know that experiences aren’t free-floating miracles. Something conveys them (they have an ontology), and something makes them part of an organised, causal world. What is that thing? Science once claimed that it was some undefined and indefinable thing called “matter” that performs this function. However, given quantum mechanics with its ineradicable indeterminism and indeterminacy, it’s now impossible to make any sense of this claim. Quantum mechanics is even more mysterious than any experience! The answer could not be simpler. The universe is made of causal mathematical waves. Mathematical waves are information carriers, and the information they carry are empirical experiences. If we could see beyond the experience (the content), we would encounter the carrier of the experience (the causal form). We have no empirical means to go beyond the empirical world (rendering science useless), but we do have non-empirical means: reason and logic. And it’s exactly these that reveal ultimate reality to us ... mathematical reality.

You can believe whatever mumbo jumbo you like about what lies beyond experience, or you can accept the mandates of reason and logic, which lead you straight to math. If you are rational enough, you will accept that mathematics is the unseen, and unseeable, medium which transmits all of the information we see and experience. Mathematics provides the fibre and fabric of existence. Everything flows via causal, ontological mathematics. Only mathematics provides a rational, intelligible answer to existence, and that’s the only answer acceptable to a rational, logical, intelligent person. The Truth is not a democracy. The Truth is not available to everyone. The Truth is available solely to rational, intelligent people. The Untruth, however – the Lie, the Mythos – is indeed available to everyone. Absolutely anyone can make up any old garbage they like about the nature of reality ... and human history has shown how brilliant humanity has been at inventing the most outrageous, irrational nonsense. Just look at the crazy Mythos religions of the world, and the equally crazy claims of modern scientific empiricism, whereby supposedly intelligent people tell you that unobserved cats can be in unreal, abstract probability states of death, life and mixed death-life states all at the same time! Once you take something like that seriously, you have sundered all connection with objective reality, the reality principle, and even the sanity principle. Everyone who says, “Everyone has their own truth”, and “We all have our unique path to the truth”, is a relativist who has zero interest in the Truth, and wants to make the Lie sacred. The antidote to all of this self-serving, mad drivel is reason and logic, expressed through ontological mathematics. It couldn’t be simpler. You either support reason, or you oppose it. If you oppose reason, you’re irrational, so who cares what you say? You’re certainly not going to be saying anything that makes any rational sense. You want people to have faith in your claims. You want people to believe you have some “mystical” insight. Sorry, we’re not listening. We ignore the irrational preachers. They have nothing to contribute.

The Age of Reason Only rationalists support the Age of Reason. People of religious faith oppose it, mystical spiritualists oppose it, and scientific empiricists oppose

it. These are all enemies of reason, and fundamentally deny that the universe is made of reason (expressed ontologically as mathematics). The ambition of Illuminism is to bring together all the rationalists in the world under a single banner, thus forming the greatest force the world has ever seen. To achieve this goal, we must exclude all of the irrationalists: the Abrahamists, the followers of Eastern religion, the scientists who deny that science is simply the empiricist study of a rationalist mathematical universe (which is exactly why math is at the core of science). No one who denies the ontology of mathematics, or who endorses Eastern gurus, or who subscribes to any faith position, can play any part in Illuminism. We have thus provided the means to identify anyone who is not an Illuminist. If you want to wallow in your personal experiences, feelings, and mystical ideas, Illuminism is definitely not for you. Prayer and meditation are absolutely useless and pointless, and scientific observations can’t tell you a single thing about unobservable ultimate reality. If you disagree, you know Illuminism isn’t your thing, so you should go and find something that satisfies you. The Buddha, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammed – and all the collected sacred texts in human history – didn’t land men on the moon. Math did. Math, not science, was the sine qua non. If you haven’t grasped that mathematics, and not dumb ideas and stories from thousands of years ago, is what makes all the difference, please stay as far away as possible from Illuminism. We are now adopting zero tolerance towards “crazies”, by which we mean anyone who opposes reason and logic, hence mathematics. Illuminism is ontological mathematics and is strictly for rationalists. Illuminism is about Logos, not Mythos. It’s about objective reality and objective Truth, not about subjective experiences, and relativistic “truth” (i.e., everyone has their own truth, and no one is wrong). If you do not trust reason and logic enough to assert that rational people are right and irrational people are wrong, Illuminism is not for you. We don’t say that the Mythos religions of the world each contain a bit of the Truth. We say they don’t contain any truth at all! Truth is Reason. There is no other Truth. Anyone who opposes Reason has declared themselves irrational, and why would anyone who is rational listen to irrational and illogical fantasies about the nature of reality? Who believes crazy stories other than crazy people?

The Second Enlightenment The great figures of the First Enlightenment were assuredly not theists, but they emphatically weren’t atheists either. They were in fact deists. The Second and Final Enlightenment will also be about deism, but with ontological mathematics performing all the functions formerly assigned to the deist God. If theism is the thesis, and atheism the antithesis, modern deism is the synthesis. It does not express religion through a Creator (“God”), but through a God Equation, conveyed by immortal, indestructible mathematical minds (monads).

***** Theism is an emotional Mythos. Atheism is a sensory Mythos. Deism is a rational Logos, and has nothing to do with human feelings or human senses, but is, instead, all about eternal reason and logic.

The Ontology of Mathematics We have created a whole new way of thinking about reality, one where you have to think about what mathematical concepts actually mean in terms of existence, and not as mere abstractions. One hundred years from now, abstract mathematics will seem weird.

The God Equation The God Equation in its simplest form is ei(cx) = cos(cx) + i sin(cx) where c = 1 = f x (1/f), i.e. Euler’s Formula supplied with an ontological speed (c) that drops out (because it equals 1). A monad is an entity expressing every valid value of f. We can generalise it by putting an amplitude (A) in front of it, further generalise it by accommodating phase shift, and further generalise it by catering for orientation. With the God Equation, mind can be inserted directly into science as a mathematical object (the monad defined by Euler’s Formula), thus revolutionising science, and paving the way for the Second Enlightenment. However, we are not holding our breath for scientists catching on to the power of ontological mathematics.

Never Forget

Never forget, the mathematical moon is really there when no one is looking at it. God does not play dice. Nothing is uncertain. Everything has a reason. Causation is everywhere. There is an entire universe of unobservable, noumenal, ontological mathematical form that serves as the fibre and fabric of existence. It is the medium through which all information is transmitted. Scientific observations and experiments can tell you nothing at all about this hidden world of reason and logic. Reason, logic and intellectual intuition alone can take you there, and certainly not your feelings, senses, faith, or mystical intuitions.

The Soul Only ontological mathematics can define the soul. Only ontological mathematics saves it from absurdity, superstition, Mythos, faith and fantasy. The soul, in the absence of ontological mathematics, is a joke, an embarrassment. If you want to address religion and spirituality in any rational, logical way, you have no alternative to ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the true language of metaphysics, of ultimate reality beyond the human condition.

The Time Has Come “Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo

All You Need All you need to make the universe is the simplest thing of all – the mathematical point, and the principle of sufficient reason. This is the ultimate expression of Occam’s Razor. We defy anyone to produce a rational, intelligible answer to existence that is simpler than ours, and we defy anyone to show that we are wrong.

Conclusion Only ontological mathematics is an intellectual, rational system that provides a definitive answer to existence. Everything else, including science, is an irrational religious faith, a silly story people tell themselves to comfort themselves, or to satisfy their psychological type. Sensing types will never get over their sensory observations. That’s what’s “concrete” to them. Emotionalists will never get over their feelings

and their imagined personal relationship with “God”. Mystics will never get over their desire for absorption into some interconnected “Oneness”. Reason alone frees you from all this nonsense. Reason allows you to be more than human, superhuman, hyperhuman... a God. You can step out of your limited, flawed human prison. You can transcend the human condition, and see reality for what it actually is... a living mathematical organism relentlessly optimis