Psychophysics (The God Series Book 27)

One hundred percent of scientists think that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct. One hundred percent of

1,142 212 3MB

English Pages 297 [275] Year 2015

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Psychophysics (The God Series Book 27)

Table of contents :
Psychophysics
Table of Contents
Introduction
Animatism
Kepler and Newton
The Second Ether
The Rebirth of the Ether?
John Bell and the Ether
Absolute Einstein?
The Unwelcome Guest
The Singularity
The Mystery of Light
Brainwaves
The Forbidden
Mind, Space and Time
Division by Zero
Relativity?
The Antidote
Goethean Science
Herbart
Psychodynamics
Pythagorean versus Platonic Form
Potentiality and Actuality
The Six Systems
The War
The Receptacle
Nested Uncertainty
Fechner
Day and Night
The Split Brain
Angels
The Mind Threshold
Fichte
The Unconscious God
The Mind Transmitter
Idiocracy
Noumenal Idealism
The School of Leibniz
The Rise of the Stupid
Panpneumatism
Eternity
Vitalism
What is a Thought?
As Above, So Below
The Fear
The God Series
The Compiler
The Photonic Universe
The Mind and the World
Conclusion

Citation preview

Psychophysics 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 Psychophysics Table of Contents Introduction Animatism Kepler and Newton The Second Ether The Rebirth of the Ether? John Bell and the Ether Absolute Einstein? The Unwelcome Guest The Singularity The Mystery of Light Brainwaves The Forbidden Mind, Space and Time Division by Zero Relativity? The Antidote Goethean Science Herbart Psychodynamics Pythagorean versus Platonic Form Potentiality and Actuality The Six Systems The War The Receptacle Nested Uncertainty Fechner Day and Night The Split Brain Angels The Mind Threshold Fichte The Unconscious God The Mind Transmitter

Idiocracy Noumenal Idealism The School of Leibniz The Rise of the Stupid Panpneumatism Eternity Vitalism What is a Thought? As Above, So Below The Fear The God Series The Compiler The Photonic Universe The Mind and the World Conclusion

Introduction One hundred percent of scientists think that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct. One hundred percent of scientists are wrong. Isn’t that astounding? Why is it so hard for scientists to see the blatant errors in Einstein’s logic? The central reason for the failure of Einstein’s theory as an account of ultimate existence is that, like everything else in science, it denies the real existence of mind. Once mind is admitted to physics, Einstein’s fallacies become obvious. To refute both Einstein and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, only one thing is required ... to place an eternal, non-sensory, mathematical Singularity at the centre of the spacetime universe. This Singularity is a Fourier frequency domain, but is functionally equivalent to a Cosmic Mind (“God”, we might say). Because it’s an immaterial, dimensionless entity outside space and time, the Singularity is undetectable by any scientific experiment, yet its existence automatically disproves all claims of scientific materialism regarding the fundamental nature of reality. A logical, rational, analytic mathematical Singularity – demanded by the principle of sufficient reason – at a stroke demolishes science’s entire Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. It leaves nothing standing. Every

theory of science – whether it’s relativity, quantum mechanics, Darwinism, the Big Bang, the Multiverse, neuroscience ... you name it – is formally falsified by the existence of a Cosmic Mind. The whole of science is literally predicated on the non-existence of a permanent, inherently unobservable Singularity – Mind – at the exact centre of existence. Therefore, if the Singularity is there – and we are talking about the Big Bang Singularity itself (meaning that the material universe of space and time in fact originated in a Cosmic Mind) – then the whole of science is false in any claims it makes about ultimate reality. The existence of the Singularity that rules the universe is proved by means of reason, logic and mathematics. It has nothing to do with the senses, experiences and experiments. It reflects a rationalist, intelligible, mathematical universe, not an empiricist, sensible, scientific universe. It’s not religion that demonstrates that the central claims of science are absurd, it’s ontological mathematics – the quintessence of reason and rationalism. At the Singularity, two worldviews fatally collide: empiricism and rationalism. If the Singularity exists, scientific empiricism cannot explain reality. If the Singularity does not exist, reality is neither rational, logical nor intelligible. If the Singularity exists, mathematics, and not science, explains reality. If the Singularity does not exist, reality contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and it’s incomprehensible how mathematics can have any place in science. Science, without math, is nothing but alchemy – a religion! Yet science with math is automatically contradicted by math since math is all about rationalism while science is all about empiricism; math is all about reason while science is all about the senses. So, which is it – is existence ultimately rational (mathematical), or sensory (scientific)? As Plato pointed out, ultimate reality can’t be both intelligible and sensible. It’s one or the other. Science plays the bogus game of trying to be empirical (experimental) and rational (mathematical), but if empiricism is true then rationalism is false, and vice versa. So, a fundamental logical contradiction stands at the heart of science and infects every claim made by science ... and, equally, everything it denies. This ontological and epistemological contradiction becomes inescapable at the controlling Singularity (Cosmic Mind) of the Universe. If rationalism (math) is true, this Singularity exists. If empiricism

(science) is true, the Singularity doesn’t exist, and math, reason and logic are false. But if these are false, science is irrational! Nothing is more important than the question of whether the spacetime universe of matter was born of an eternal mental Singularity outside space and time, which even now exists right at the centre of the spacetime universe, and controls all of spacetime. Mind might seem like something vague and impossible to pin down. It’s not. Mind is pure math, in fact the most mathematical thing you can possibly get. Mind is ontological mathematics. To see why Einstein is wrong, you need to replace physics, based on matter, with psychophysics, based on mind. No scientist has the vaguest idea what psychophysics is, yet its conceptual basis couldn’t be simpler. In order to revolutionise physics, all that’s required is to add to science’s spacetime world of matter, a frequency Singularity of mind. As soon as this is done, Einstein’s relativistic arguments collapse since the Singularity provides an absolute reference frame that entirely conditions the spacetime world, yet is undetectable by any scientific experiment. This is only to be expected given that the Singularity is immaterial, dimensionless and not in spacetime at all. The Singularity reflects pure, analytic, transcendental, ontological mathematics. It’s a mathematical object, not a scientific one. This book shows exactly where Einstein’s thinking goes wrong. It’s a logical failure created by science’s inability to understand what mathematics is ontologically, and to use mathematics correctly. This failure runs through the whole of science. Science is simply the systematic misapplication and misinterpretation of mathematics. Psychophysics, the replacement for physics, is the remedy. Nothing exposes the science delusion more than science’s dysfunctional relationship with mathematics. No scientist on earth can say what math actually is, why science uses it (given that math is non-empirical), and how it can be of any use at all in describing a reality that, according to science, is 100% non-mathematical, i.e. since science denies that reality is made of math, it’s impossible to understand how math can serve any function at all in describing a non-mathematical universe. It couldn’t be simpler: if reality is mathematical, math can describe it; if reality isn’t mathematical, math can’t describe it. There’s no in-between state: reality can’t be a bit mathematical and a bit non-mathematical. It’s one or the other. This is a zero-sum game.

Einstein himself said, “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?” Of course, he never provided any answer, and that’s the whole problem with science, and with Einstein’s “logic” in particular. He additionally said, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” On what basis is this statement valid? Where is Einstein’s evidence or proof? When has science ever demonstrated that the universe isn’t in fact made of math, e.g. of analytic mathematical entities such as sinusoidal waves? Why shouldn’t the “strings” that many scientists believe in be pure mathematical vibrations rather than bizarre, quasi-mathematical entities that have no analytic necessity? No scientist can answer such questions. Science is entirely predicated on the scientific method, yet this method can say literally zero about the ontology of mathematics. Therefore, we have the situation in which science is totally reliant on math (all modern scientific theories are ferociously mathematical), yet the method of science is 100% useless in addressing what mathematics is. If science can’t explain why it uses math and what math is, how can it explain reality to us? If science can’t explain itself, it’s manifestly unfit for purpose as any kind of explanatory tool. As Nietzsche observed, science does not explain, it describes. In particular, science describes “reality” in terms of science’s model of reality, but science can inherently provide no evidence or proof that this model has any bearing whatsoever on the ultimate constitution of existence. The Bible is a Judaeo-Christian model of reality, which, like science, cannot prove a single thing about the foundations of existence. The Bible is a silly bunch of stories and ancient superstitions based on emotions (fear, hope and tribal vanity in particular). Science, on the other hand, is a model based on sensory claims, yet where has science ever demonstrated that reality in itself must be sensory? If ultimate reality isn’t sensory (and it selfevidently isn’t!) then, whatever science is doing, it’s not explaining existence to us. Science is an exercise in simulating reality, but the validity of its simulation depends entirely on how well sensory experiments reflect ultimate reality. If ultimate reality is non-sensory, science is ipso facto telling us nothing about it. In fact, it’s actively concealing the truth from us

by pretending that the senses can reveal fundamental existence to us when they emphatically can’t. Science is the Matrix. It can tell us about the Matrix, but can’t tell us anything about the truth beyond the Matrix. To get to the Truth, we need the red pill. But science dispenses only blue pills. Science traps you in its simulation forever. It relentlessly promotes the Lie that the simulation is reality, and there’s no Truth outside the simulation. Science, therefore, is the enemy of the Truth. Like any religion, it promotes its own ideology and dogmatism as the Truth. Math – which science can’t explain – is the red pill that exposes all of science’s fraudulent claims. This book shows exactly why scientists will never accept any proof that Einstein is wrong ... because science is now effectively a religion that refuses to question any of its core beliefs. Above all, science refuses to confront its relationship with mathematics, and refuses to attach any ontological significance to math. Science isn’t what you think it is. Science is properly called scientific materialism and empiricism, and, unless you can explain why it’s not scientific idealism and rationalism, then you don’t understand what science is, what it does, why it makes the kinds of claims it does, and why it finds it impossible to detect Einstein’s errors. Materialism and empiricism are philosophical positions, and, by correctly labelling science as scientific materialism and empiricism, it becomes clear that science is itself a philosophy, hence must be subject to philosophical analysis and criticism. Yet science disdains philosophy and refuses to enter into any philosophical debate over its legitimacy and modus operandi. In this way, it’s exactly on a par with religions, which also refuse to engage with philosophy, and to defend and justify themselves philosophically. When was the last time you heard the Pope responding intellectually and theologically to criticisms of Catholicism? When was the last time you heard any scientist responding to ontological, epistemological and metaphysical critiques of science? It never happens. Science and religion both act as if they are immune to criticism. Science seeks to avoid philosophy by relying on its experimental method, but it hasn’t realised that this method is the exact means by which it conveys its materialist and empiricist philosophy. Why, for example, doesn’t science reflect the rational, logical method of mathematics, which

has nothing to do with either materialism or empiricism? This is all the more pertinent given that science without mathematics would be nothing but Aristotelian natural philosophy, alchemy or outright religion. Why does science use mathematics at all given that science is all about the senses, observations and experiments, and mathematics is about none of these things? Isn’t that a fundamental contradiction? Why does no science book ever mention the central mystery of the presence of mathematics at the core of science? The scientific method is all about what is observable to the senses, hence, by definition, is irrelevant to anything non-sensory, and it can tell us literally nothing about things not susceptible to observation. However, the advocates of the scientific method quickly, and with no logical validity, move from the claim that the scientific method tells us about the observable world, to a flat denial that there’s any unobservable world, i.e. they soon enough assert that anything not amenable to the scientific method cannot exist. That is pure belief, and has no rational basis. Science claims to be able to explain the world to us, yet it can’t even explain what mathematics is and why science is so reliant on it. The importance of mathematics to science implies that the world is in some way inherently mathematical, yet science refuses to engage with any such concept. It can say neither what math is, nor why the world isn’t fundamentally mathematical. Science rejects anything unobservable, yet math, in itself, is unobservable. Science rejects “hidden variables” and “rational unobservables”, yet mathematics is full of them. This means that the scientific worldview is radically different from the mathematical worldview. Indeed, they are almost diametrically opposed. If you accept the ontology of mathematics – i.e. you accept that mathematics is a real existent rather than a bizarre, mysterious, inexplicable abstraction – then you agree that the study of mathematics is the study of existence itself, and you have thereby rejected science. The examination of the rival claims of ontological mathematics and science involves a sophisticated rational, logical, and metaphysical analysis, but all such considerations are rejected by science. It refuses to entertain any ideas incompatible with its ideology and dogmatism. It doesn’t refute these ideas, it simply ignores them ... just like any religion disregarding whatever threatens and undermines it.

In all of these ways, science is a faith. If you haven’t realised that, you don’t understand “science”, and you’re not in a position to see through the host of fallacious claims it makes about the true nature of reality. Science doesn’t deal with “facts”, but with interpretations generated by its philosophical stance. Science’s core philosophy has never at any time been proved. There is zero evidence that it’s true, and any number of rational, logical arguments can be deployed to demolish its key claims, as we have shown throughout the God Series. If you subscribe to science, you are a believer, not a rationalist. If you think science is a rational undertaking then you should of course be rationally and logically capable of refuting the myriad rational and logical disproofs of science that we and others have raised against it. If you just ignore these, you’re no better than an Abrahamist or Karmist. You’re an enemy of reason. Anyone who is opposed to mathematics – the quintessential rational and logical subject – is irrational. So, is science pro or anti-mathematics? Science certainly uses mathematics, but only in terms of its materialist and empiricist ideology. It rejects all of mathematics that doesn’t fit its dogmatism, hence no one can plausibly claim that science is on the side of mathematics. In fact, science is a cynical abuse, and systematic misinterpretation, of mathematics. Science is the sensory distortion of ontological mathematics, and is exactly that which hides and masks the mathematical Truth. Science – the religion of the senses – is what must be overcome if humanity is ever to grasp the non-sensory Truth of existence. Science isn’t the friend of the Truth; it’s the greatest enemy of the Truth, and is what now stands between humanity and the Truth. The Truth is non-sensory, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics ... this being the only thing that can rationally and logically exist within the immaterial Singularity, outside space and time, which preceded the Big Bang that gave rise to the scientific world of time, space and matter. To put it another way, mathematics stands entirely outside science. The reality that precedes the scientific world isn’t “God”, or mysticism, or nonduality, or love, or consciousness, or randomness, or non-existence, but the mathematical world.

Mathematics has all the same attributes as a Creator God ... except math is a system, not a person. Math supports a deistic, not a theistic or atheistic, worldview. However, since ontological mathematics is a self-optimising, self-solving system expressed through countless living minds (monads), it possesses the remarkable capacity to transform all of us into perfect persons, i.e. to make theistic Gods of all of us. God doesn’t make math, math makes God, and not just one God, but as many Gods as there are monads. Abrahamism claims that an eternal, necessary, immaterial, theistic God outside space and time created us. In fact, eternal, necessary, immaterial, deistic Math outside space and time is the Source of all things, and it mathematically converts all of us into perfect theistic Gods by the end of Time (the end of a Cosmic Age). Abrahamism is theistic, Eastern religion is pantheistic or panentheistic, science is atheistic, and mathematics is deistic, but has theistic Gods as its ultimate product, i.e. math is a God Factory whereas science is a Godless Factory. Modern physics is the ultimate atheistic subject. This can be changed in an instant simply by converting it into psychophysics, which is the version of physics compatible with deistic, transcendental, ontological mathematics. Physics, like everything else, is a philosophy, and, if you change your philosophy, you thereby change your understanding of physics. Physics privileges matter over mind. It’s all about lifeless, mindless “stuff”, devoid of meaning and purpose. Psychophysics privileges mind over matter. It’s all about the fundamental components of reality – monads – which are living, striving, teleological minds. You couldn’t get a greater contrast. Psychophysics is the opposite of physics, and, unlike physics, is 100% compatible with total mathematics, i.e. the mathematics of all numbers: real numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, negative numbers, positive numbers, zero and infinity. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” This book tells the story of psychophysics. It’s the story of what science ought to be rather than it what it currently is. At a philosophical level, this story concerns the great battle between German idealism and rationalism, which begins with Leibniz, and British scientific materialism and empiricism, which begins with Locke and Newton.

The Germans are far more intellectual than the British, but the British are much more down-to-earth. The Germans are the modern versions of the ancient Greeks, and the British (joined by their American cousins) the modern versions of the Romans. However, whereas the Romans were great admirers of Greek culture, the British and Americans historically despised much of German and Continental thinking, a revulsion that remains to this day, especially in philosophy. Ancient Greek and German idealist thinking presents reality as a living, teleological organism, imbued with mind, i.e. it’s consistent with psychophysics. Anglo-American science and philosophy is all about reality as a mindless, purposeless machine, i.e. it expresses the conventional view of physics. Just look at the most prominent machine thinkers – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox. A host of other British and American names could be added to that list. Who are the greatest upholders of the Greek and Germanic tradition? ... the Illuminati. Look at some of the illustrious names who have served as Grand Masters of the Illuminati: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Hypatia, Leibniz, Weishaupt, Hegel and Goethe. The Illuminati have never been led by a materialist or empiricist ... and never would be. Illuminism is all about rationalism, logic, analysis and mathematics.

The Two Systems The world is either a machine made of lifeless, mindless, meaningless, purposeless things – as science and all mechanistic theories of nature maintain – or an organism made of living, minded, meaningful, purposeful things – as all religions, spiritual systems and ontological mathematics maintain. It’s easy to understand how a universal organism can produce the phenomenon of evolution. It’s impossible to understand how a machine with no living or mental parts, with no meaning or purpose, can manifest evolution through the alleged process of random, purposeless mutations being acted upon by random, purposeless Nature, which is of course the ideology of Darwinism. Darwinists seek to claim that randomness, uncertainty, chance, accident, indeterminism and acausation can lead from a primordial slime, or chemical soup, to human beings; that purposeful life can emerge from purposeless lifelessness; that mind can emerge from mindlessness. This would be the second greatest miracle of all time,

preceded only by the egregious, magical claim that non-existence can randomly and miraculously jump out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism! Science is absurd. Its central claims are impossible. Science openly defies reason and logic. It has no evidence or proof for its claims. No one ever has, or ever could, observe a “random” event. Randomness is an irrationalist, indeterministic philosophical hypothesis and speculation, not something factual and proven. Scientists refuse to refer to eternal God, or eternal mind, or even eternal matter, as causal mechanisms. Once you have removed any eternal causal order from existence, you then have no option but to refer to existence acausally jumping out of nothing for no reason – and this is exactly what science has done. Random indeterminism lies at the heart of all scientific theories, whether cosmology, evolution or wavefunction collapse. Without a necessary, eternal causal order, you can have a system only of contingency and temporality, of things appearing miraculously (since they do not belong to a permanent, rational, logical order). Only math can provide an eternal, necessary, causal order. If you want existence to have an answer, that answer must be math. There can be no other. Can a universe of car parts “evolve”? That’s what Darwinists expect us to believe. Can car parts randomly mutate? Can car parts be subject to “natural selection”? What does that even mean? Natural selection presupposes that something can select. Can a system of nothing but car parts select some car parts over others? How? Why? Natural selection presupposes mental qualities of evaluation, choice, will, will to power, desire, ambition, ruthlessness, intelligence, scheming, cunning, aggression, fitness, adaptability and purpose – but these are exactly the qualities that are denied by all lifeless, mindless, mechanistic, materialist systems, such as science. Darwinism is ridiculous. Machine parts cannot evolve. Full stop. There can be no “natural selection” in a system of machine parts. End of story. Not a single Darwinist has ever explained how “natural selection” – the centre of their belief system – comes to exist in the first place in their lifeless, purposeless system of mechanical parts. The task is not to explain evolution by natural selection. The task is to explain natural selection itself, since, without that, you can’t have Darwinism. How does a universe of machine parts naturally select

anything? Why doesn’t everything in such a universe reflect mechanistic inevitability – total classical scientific determinism – meaning that it’s impossible for anything ever to be selected? Selection, by definition, involves choosing one thing over another, but, in a mechanistic universe made exclusively of machine parts, there’s nothing at all that can select, hence there can be no “natural selection”, hence no Darwinism. That’s a fact! Why doesn’t Darwinism refer to “mechanistic inevitability” rather than “natural selection”? A system of mechanistic inevitability cannot evolve, only mechanistically unfold. There can be no such thing as evolution in a system of machine parts. “Evolution” is a misnomer within the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism. Nothing material can evolve. Nothing material is capable of evolving. Lifeless, mindless atoms cannot evolve (evolve into what?!), so how can collections of lifeless, mindless atoms evolve? If we laid out all the parts of a supercar on an alien planet, and came back a billion years later, would we expect to find a planet inhabited by hyper-evolved, living supercars, or a pile of rusted, useless parts? You’d need to be insane to imagine that lifeless things can evolve life, and that mindless things can evolve mind. However, if, like scientists, you believe in miracles and magic, in things jumping out of nothing for no reason, in things “emerging” from other things in which they have no precedent, well, Darwinian evolution must make perfect sense to you! Science is in fact an anti-evolutionary ideology, just like Abrahamism. Only through fraudulent, specious, impossible arguments does “evolution” enter into science.

***** Appealing to random, probabilistic indeterminism doesn’t help the scientific “evolutionists”. In fact, it makes things worse! An indeterministic system is as useless at selecting anything as a deterministic system (i.e. a system of mechanistic scientific determinism), and makes even less sense. In a genuinely random system, all events are by definition random, hence nothing is ever “selected”. Things just happen, with no rhyme or reason. “Natural selection” is a heuristic fiction, with no rational, logical basis. Scientists desperately introduced it in order to turn disordered randomness

into order. The only legitimate natural selection is one based on teleological minds expressing will to power, and such entities play no part in science.

***** In Illuminism, monadic minds – the basic units of existence – are evolving entities (they are inherently self-solving and self-optimising), hence a universe made of monadic minds must exhibit evolution. Organisms evolve. Machines don’t ... unless by the intervention of organisms! Materialist evolution is an inherent contradiction in terms. Darwinism is one of the greatest intellectual cons ever perpetrated. It’s a wholly false doctrine. Evolution is unarguably true, but evolution has nothing to do with Darwinism, with materialism and randomness. Evolution is driven by teleological minds manifesting will to power.

***** In a system of purely physical energy – which is what science is all about – how can you generate mental energy? How can there be mind in any sense at all? In a system of purely lifeless energy, how can you generate living energy? How can energy conservation apply to physical versus mental energy, non-living versus living energy? Science has no choice but to explain mental and living energy as material, lifeless energy, but how can that make any sense? It’s a literal category error, of the type of which science is full, and none of which it ever addresses or makes any attempt to philosophically, rationally and logical justify. Reason and logic are simply not part of the scientific toolset. Science doesn’t have any rational and logical core principles. It does not swear allegiance to the principle of sufficient reason.

***** Science is opposed to logic and reason. That’s a fact. It never once relies on rationalism and analytic first principles. That’s a fact. It denies eternal necessity, i.e. a permanent causal order. That’s a fact. It has never once sought to intellectually defend its stance, or refute the devastating criticisms of it. That’s a fact. Science is ferociously anti-intellectual and refuses to debate with any of its critics. What’s it so afraid of? Is it because scientists aren’t capable of

refuting their opponents? Is it that they’re too ignorant, stupid and badly educated to do so? Is it that science would be ruthlessly exposed as intellectually bankrupt, ruled over by narrow, limited, stunted, powerobsessed ignoramuses and Philistines? How many scientists know anything at all about philosophy, or about the secret, forbidden history of science? Scientists – 100% of them – are ignorant barbarians. You simply don’t find any intellectual scientists. John Bell was the last genuinely philosophical scientist. Naturally, he was a theoretician, not an experimentalist. Experimentalists are the lowest of the low, those who drag everything down to their moronic level of empiricism, materialism and the senses, and reject reason and logic because they are not susceptible to experimental “verification” (i.e. contingent interpretation).

The Impossibility Science precludes any substantive discussion of mind, life or subjective agency (free will). Neither mind, life nor subjective agency appears in any equation of science. Therefore, science will never explain mind, life or subjective agency. It simply has no means to do so. What it hopes to accomplish is to interpret life, mind and subjective agency as derivatives of mindless, lifeless, unfree scientific formulae, entirely lacking in subjective agency. All scientific formulae are passive, reactive, mechanical (or random!), meaningless, and non-teleological.

The Science Delusion “In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. A panpsychist sees himself as a mind in a world of minds. “Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in eastern philosophies such as Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, Panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism. The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has once again made panpsychism a mainstream theory. Author Jane Roberts wrote, ‘The Nature of Personal Reality’ in 1974, which explains in detail this theory – that

everything has some form of consciousness, even a photon. She explained that consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality...” – Wikipedia Panpsychism is about mind being a fundamental feature of everything. It’s emphatically not about consciousness (which is in fact a particular state of mind) being a fundamental feature of everything. As soon as you acknowledge the existence of unconscious mind, you have rejected any identity between mind and consciousness. Animism – the attribution of conscious life to objects, both animate and (seemingly) inanimate, and to the phenomena of nature – is the term that should be applied to the notion of consciousness being ubiquitous in Nature.

***** “[Ken Wilber’s] Integral model rests on an assumption of panpsychism: consciousness is present in all matter, down to the level of electrons and quarks. It also goes one mystical step further, consciousness exists separate from and prior to the existence of the material universe.” – Julian Walker This is typical of the New Age garbage spouted about panpsychism. Panpsychism is simply the doctrine that all matter has a mental aspect, that mind is everywhere. It has nothing to do with consciousness. The default state of any mind is unconsciousness. People such as Wilber and his followers conflate panpsychism with animism, the supernatural belief in a multitude of anthropomorphic spirits animating the world. A world predicated on animism automatically reflects conscious intentionality from the get-go, and mind is unmistakably present. In a world predicated on panpsychism, reality may, for eons, resemble something that has no mind at all. All mental changes, at least initially, take place painstakingly slowly and can easily be mistaken for scientific materialism’s “random” events, with no trace of conscious intentionality. Panpsychism is compatible with science. Animism isn’t. “Spiritual” people are much more likely to subscribe to animism. “God” is the ultimate product of animistic thinking and the notion that eternal consciousness underlies the universe.

*****

“Hylozoism is the philosophical point of view that all matter (including the universe as a whole) is in some sense alive. This may include the view that ‘inanimate’ matter has latent powers of abiogenesis [life coming from nonlife]. The concept dates to the Milesian school of pre-Socratic philosophers and was introduced in English as a term by Ralph Cudworth in 1678.” – Wikipedia

***** “Dialectical materialism (sometimes abbreviated diamat) is a philosophy of science and nature, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and developed largely in Russia and the Soviet Union. It was inspired by dialectic and materialist philosophical traditions. The main idea of dialectical materialism lies in the concept of the evolution of the natural world and the emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Z. A. Jordan notes, ‘Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of “matter in motion as a whole”.’ “The formulation of dialectical and historical materialism in the Soviet Union in the 1930s by Stalin and his associates (such as in Stalin’s book Dialectical and Historical Materialism) became the ‘official’ interpretation of Marxism. ... “A Soviet philosophical encyclopaedia of the 1960s speaks of the evolution of complexity in nature as follows: ‘This whole series of forms (mechanical, physical, chemical, biological and social) is distributed according to complexity from lower to higher. This seriation expresses their mutual bonds in terms of structure and in terms of history. The general laws of the lower forms of the motion of matter keep their validity for all the higher forms but they are subject to the higher laws and do not have a prominent role. They change their activity because of changed circumstances. Laws can be general or specific, depending on their range of applicability. The specific laws fall under the special sciences and the general laws are the province of diamat.’ Each level of matter exists as a type of organization, in which the elements that make up a whole, or system, are marked by a specific type of interconnection.” – Wikipedia

Dialectical materialism argues, in effect, that, as the complexity of material arrangements increases, higher laws of matter are uncovered, which are not obvious in the lower organisations of matter, but are always implicit in all material things. Mind, in this view, is the highest product or expression of matter, arising from the most complex organisations of matter. Dialectical materialism is a kind of hylozoism since, in order for matter to express mind, it must first express life (assuming we distinguish between life and mind), so life is an implicit quality of matter that explicitly manifests itself when matter reaches a certain level of order and complexity.

***** Scientific materialism, based on lifeless, mindless, non-teleological matter, cannot disprove rival versions of materialism, such as: 1) Living Materialism (Hylozoism). 2) Mental Materialism (Panpsychism). 3) Teleological Materialism (Dialectical Materialism). All three of these rivals are vastly superior to scientific materialism at explaining evolution and natural selection. They are imbued with life, mind, purpose and subjective agency, unlike scientific materialism. They have no impossible hurdles to overcome, such as explaining how life comes from non-life, mind from non-mind, purpose from non-purpose. Scientific materialism cannot model life, mind, purpose or subjective agency. Rather than admit that it’s merely a simple and simplified model that deals with a limited set of situations where the assumption of life, mind, purpose or agency can be reasonably omitted, scientific materialism makes the astonishing claim – which has no logical or rational basis – that anything it cannot model cannot exist, that anything it cannot observe cannot exist, that anything outside its ideology and dogmatism cannot exist. Even more incredibly, legions of ordinary people – atheists and skeptics in particular – wholeheartedly agree with the ludicrous inferences of scientific materialism. What has happened is that a crude model of reality – an approximation valid in a narrow group of situations where the model’s assumptions are plausible enough – has insanely claimed to be reality itself, and has fundamentally rejected anything external to the model.

We now have a model (science) that deludes itself that it’s more than a model. The reality is that the scientific materialist model has no relevance to mind, life, consciousness, meaning, purpose, or free will, since none of these do, or ever could, appear in any of the scientific materialist formulae that define science’s model. Rather than accept the obvious truth – that it’s a limited, incomplete model that’s good in a certain, restricted set of situations where its assumptions are approximately true, and has no validity beyond those situations – science concludes that its model is reality, and there’s nothing outside its model. There is no conceivable rational basis for this claim. Science is therefore a faith-system, a religion. What’s for certain is that it isn’t predicated on reason and logic. For any system to be true, it must be able to define life, mind, consciousness, free will, purpose, and meaning. This is exactly what ontological mathematics accomplishes, as we have demonstrated throughout the God Series. This series constitutes a radical, wide-ranging set of challenges to scientific materialism, but science will accept none of them. Like any religion, it doesn’t “do” challenges. It just ignores them. It ignores anything inconvenient or problematic for its paradigm. We ignore many attacks on Illuminism since they are simply irrational, and show no understanding of ontological mathematics. We would never ignore any rational, logical attack on Illuminism. Science has no such stance. Nothing is more disgraceful than science’s claim to be on the side of reason. It isn’t. It’s on the side of the delusional senses. Science refuses to address its critics. It refuses to engage with philosophy, reason and logic. It’s grotesquely anti-intellectual. It’s the religion of the senses, and its adherents are dull, unimaginative, non-intuitive, semi-autistic, sensing types. Science is the triumph of the bankruptcy of the human imagination and spirit. It’s predicated on the crudest thing of all – “seeing is believing” – and rejects the existence of anything unavailable to the senses. It’s for the dullest, most superficial people in the world, the people under the permanent spell of appearances. No one should ever be proud to be a scientist. You might as well have the label “Dullard” or “Dunce” stamped on your forehead.

Abstraction

Pythagoras was the first recognisable mathematician. For Pythagoras, mathematics was strictly ontological. It’s a disgrace that mathematics has abandoned ontology, to the extent that math is now variously described as a manmade language, a formalism, an axiomatic system, a branch of logic, a derivation of sets, a game, a set of marks that can be manipulated, an “artform”, and so on. All true mathematicians are ontological mathematicians, just like Pythagoras. Any mathematician who denies that mathematics is ontological isn’t a real mathematician at all. A new word should be coined for nonontological mathematics. Let’s call it “Abstraction”. Abstraction is an incomplete, inconsistent game, a kind of glorified crossword puzzle, or elaborate version of chess. People who study Abstraction aren’t serious about studying reality and truth. They are game players and puzzle solvers, rule followers, programmers ... and most of them are highly autistic. Pythagoras was the first person to call himself a philosopher, and it’s unacceptable that mathematics has separated itself from philosophy. Mathematics, philosophy, logic, reason, metaphysics, physics and religion must all go together, exactly as they did for Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel.

Animatism “Animatism is a term coined by British anthropologist Robert Marett to refer to ‘a belief in a generalized, impersonal power over which people have some measure of control’. Marett argues that certain cultures believe ‘people, animals, plants, and inanimate objects were endowed with certain powers, which were both impersonal and supernatural.’ “Mana, Marett states, is a concentrated form of animatistic force found within any of these objects that confer power, strength, and success. To various cultures, animatism and mana are visible through the successes and failures of these various objects. Success equals a high amount of animatism, or mana, whereas failure is the result of animatism, or mana, being lost.” – Wikipedia The “Force” of Star Wars reflects animatism. Electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism and light, pneuma, geist, and many other “forces”, can easily be viewed in such terms.

***** “A belief in a supernatural power not part of supernatural beings is referred to as animatism. For those who hold this belief, the power is usually impersonal, unseen, and potentially everywhere. It is neither good nor evil, but it is powerful and dangerous if misused. It is something like electricity or ‘the force’ in the Star Wars movies. “Animatism is a widespread belief, especially in small-scale societies. Among the Polynesian cultures of the South Pacific, this power is commonly known as ‘mana’. For them it is a force that is inherent in all objects, plants, and animals (including people) to different degrees. Some things or people have more of it than others and are, therefore, potentially dangerous. For instance, a chief may have so much of it that he must be carried around all of the time. If he were to walk on the ground, sufficient residual amounts of his mana might remain in his footprints to harm ordinary people if they later stepped on them. Volcanoes and some other places were thought to have concentrated mana and were, therefore, very dangerous.” – http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/rel_2.htm “A belief that natural objects are animated by spirits is animism. The term comes from the Latin word for soul (anima). This belief can take diverse forms. Things in nature may all have within them different spirits – each rock, tree, and cloud may have its own unique spirit. Alternatively, all things in nature may be thought of as having the same spirit. This latter version of animism was characteristic of many Native American cultures. In both forms of animism, the spirits are thought of as having identifiable personalities and other characteristics such as gender. A belief in a powerful, mature, protective ‘mother nature’ is an example. The spirits may be benevolent, malevolent, or neutral. They can be lovable, terrifying, or even mischievous. They can interact with humans and can be pleased or irritated by human actions. Therefore, people must be concerned about them and will try to avoid displeasing them. “Initially, animatism and animism may seem to be the same thing. In fact both beliefs are often found in the same culture. The difference, however, is that the ‘power’ of animatism does not have a personality – it is an impersonal ‘it’ rather than a ‘he’ or ‘she’ with human-like

characteristics. Spirits are individual supernatural beings with their own recognizable traits.” – http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/rel_2.htm

***** In animism, a volcano has an indwelling spirit that controls it; in animatism, the volcano itself is alive. In terms of animism, the “Force” in Star Wars would have a spirit ruling the light side and a spirit ruling the dark side. In terms of animatism, the “Force” is a single living entity, capable of manifesting itself in light or dark terms.

Simple Stuff What’s the simple reason why the world is subjected to scientific materialism rather than scientific idealism? It’s because scientists can see the body and can’t see the mind. It really is that straightforward. It’s pure sensory prejudice. Science is wholly opposed to reason and intellect, which are themselves invisible (non-sensory).

Kepler and Newton Newton generalised Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, which were strictly empirical (based on observations) and did not reflect any overarching theory of celestial and terrestrial motion. Newton provided the general theory, of which Kepler’s laws were seen to be particular cases. However, Newton’s theory reflects no eternal necessity. It’s not analytic, and not based on any first principles. “Gravity” to this day is not understood, and has found no place in any formal ontological and epistemological system. Einstein radically changed Newton’s version of gravity, quantum mechanics will radically change Einstein’s version, and something else will radically change the quantum version, and so on. Gravity is just another of science’s heuristic fictions, which takes us into science’s usual, non-analytic infinite contingent regress. A true theory must be absolute, infallible, indisputable, immutable, analytic, ontological and epistemological. Only mathematics provides such a theory. Humanity’s task is to properly understand math.

Internal Space Medieval Scholastic philosophers were enormously more intelligent than today’s scientists. They were rational, precise, analytic thinkers. The only thing they lacked was mathematics. However, despite this, they came up with brilliant ideas that, given the mathematical knowledge of today, can now be fully understood. One of their most profound ideas concerned “virtual” extension as opposed to “real” extension. This topic arose in an attempt to explain how dimensionless mind could interact with dimensional matter. Leibnizian dimensionless monads cannot have ordinary extension, but can they have a different, more subtle, type of extension ... a projected, mathematical extension proceeding by way of Fourier mathematics? God – a being with no extension – is understood to be everywhere in the universe. How is that possible? The soul – an entity without extension – is thought to be “virtually” extended throughout the whole body. (A key Scholastic principle was: “My soul is wholly in my whole body, and wholly in each of its parts.”) God is to the universe as the soul is to the body. The Scholastics referred to three different types of space (space = “ubi”): 1) Ubi circumscriptivum: circumscribed space ... the space occupied by a physical body. A body is wholly in the whole place where it is located and wholly in every part of it. A body completely occupies and fills its place. 2) Ubi definitivum: defined or definite space ... the space occupied by the soul, spirit, or an angel; such an entity is always somewhere since it cannot be in two places at once. A soul is completely within the boundaries of the body it controls: we know it can never be found outside that delimited space. 3) Ubi repletivum: filled space ... God. God is everywhere. He has no boundaries and no limits. “The question of how spirits, as opposed to bodies, are located in places was addressed by Peter Lombard, who introduced two conceptions that would, once subsequent thinkers had modified his terms, come to be known by the labels ubi circumscriptivum and ubi definitivum. Ubi

circumscriptivum referred to the filling of a place, and applied to bodies alone; a body fills, occupies, or is co-extensive with its place. Ubi definitivum referred to being in a place in the sense of being locatable via the terminus or boundary of a place, and was considered to apply both to bodies and to spirits, albeit only finite spirits. It applied to bodies in that a body, which fills a place, is also locatable by the boundary of the place that delimits it. It applied to finite spirits, to wit, souls and angels, in that such a spirit is locatable, even though it does not fill place, because it is delimited by the place’s terminus. Neither concept applied to the infinite deity. Being non-corporeal, God does not have ubi circumscriptivum, but being an infinite being, without limit, neither does he have ubi definitivum. In general, the deity’s relation to place was treated as a question distinct from, if related to, the relations of finite spirits to place. “Since the notion of ubi definitivum refers to a manner of being present without filling place, the spirits to which it applies are clearly conceived as non-dimensional. Ubi definitivum also came to connote the view that the finite spirit was whole in every part of its place, linking the nondimensional its concept of spirit to holenmerism, the doctrine that the spirit is whole in every part.” – Hylarie Kochiras Inherent in the Scholastics’ definitions was the notion of internal versus external space. Bodies occupy external space while souls and God occupy internal space, which maps to external space whilst not being in external space. To understand what this means, consider the mathematical object known as the Riemann Sphere. Encyclopedia Britannica’s depiction is shown below:

Every point on the extended plane maps back to the single unextended point at infinity (the north pole in the diagram). We can imagine the plane as the “world” – external space – and the point at infinity as the soul (mind). Its

one-to-one mappings with the world constitute “inner space”. External space and internal space are thus fully linked together. The individual mind can have a special mapping (ubi definitivum) to a particular part of the world, namely its own body (ubi circumscriptivum), the entity in the world that it directly controls. “God” can map to the whole universe, and control all of it (ubi repletivum). The average person finds it remarkably difficult to conceive of anything unextended and dimensionless. Their senses are relentlessly telling them that “reality” comprises the extended and dimensional ... stuff they can see and touch, stuff that presents itself to their senses. When people are asked to imagine the union of a dimensional body and dimensionless mind, they just can’t do it. When they think of the soul detaching itself from the body at death, they actually imagine a spirit body (i.e. something like the physical body). They conceive of it as extended, but immaterial. They are still picturing something observable. They certainly don’t consider the soul to be an unobservable, dimensionless point that was never in the body in the first place, but merely mapped to it from a transcendent, immaterial Singularity, beyond space and time. The Scholastics addressed the problem of the union of a dimensional body with a dimensionless mind by claiming that mind is virtually extended, and this virtual extension allows the mind to be coextensive with the body. We might say that the mind is the body’s internal space, or, alternatively, that the body is the mind’s external space. While the body is divisible, the soul is not. The definite existence of an indivisible substance in a specific region of space (where the body is located) occurs thanks to virtual extension. The soul is found, virtually, in every part of the body, and is not to be found anywhere outside the body. Its virtual extension corresponds exactly to the real extension of the body. As for “God”, his virtual extension corresponds to the total actual extension of the cosmos, i.e. the cosmos is his body. If we regard the soul as the point at infinity in the Riemann Sphere then we can say that this point is both transcendent and immanent. It’s transcendent because it’s not in the plane at all, and its immanent because it maps to every single point in the plane, hence is linked to the whole universe (like God). In the monadic view, every monadic soul maps to the whole universe, but controls only its own body (a specific region of space).

As its power grows and it becomes more Godlike, it controls more and more of the universe, i.e. it extends its control beyond its own body.

Actual and Potential Space Using Aristotelian terminology, we can refer to real space as “actual space” and virtual space as “potential” space. You can’t study potential space via scientific experiments – which bring you into contact only with actual space – but you can study it via reason. In fact, reason itself belongs to virtual space, as do all of our thoughts, which can’t be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched or tested. All mental activity takes place in potential rather than actual space.

The Mind Force If matter exhibits attraction and repulsion, so does mind. There is mental gravity, mental electromagnetism, a mental strong force and a mental weak force. All material forces are reflections of mental forces. Space and time themselves are just mental forces projected by monadic minds.

The Problem The central problem sabotaging the human understanding of reality is the inability to comprehend dimensionless, mental existence: inner or internal space, virtual extension, and so on. Humans have been very good at applying mathematics to dimensional things. We can all conceive of height, length, breadth, and even time (without knowing what it actually is ontologically). However, when it comes to dimensionless things, that’s when humanity suffers a collective brain freeze. Yet the remarkable thing is that a vast mathematics already exists for handling dimensionless, mental existence. The domain of “internal space” or “virtual extension” is none other than the immaterial Fourier frequency domain, outside space and time. Scientists, engineers and mathematicians refer to the frequency domain all the time, yet they have never once understood the ontology of frequency – that it’s all about mind, not matter, that it has nothing to do with spacetime dimensionality. 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. 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. ... “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. Light, which always travels at light speed through space, is special in that it always achieves such total diversion. 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! Time stops when travelling at the speed of light through space. A watch worn by a particle of light would not tick at all. Light ... doesn’t age.” There’s a fundamental problem with this analysis. Photons, according to Einstein’s own theory, reflect maximum time dilation and maximum length contraction. What that means is that not only has time stopped for them, but space has too, i.e. they are formally outside space and time. Nothing without mass, and with no dimensions, can travel through space. Just like the mind, light has no physical presence in spacetime. That’s no coincidence: minds are made of photons! Mind is light, outside space and time. Contrary to what Greene says, light does not travel through space. Instead, space travels through light! Light doesn’t move anywhere physically. It’s in the mental, immaterial, frequency Singularity, outside space and time. When you are sitting still, you might imagine that you are stationary. But you’re not. You’re actually moving through time; indeed, moving at light speed through time. Even Greene agrees with that. So, you are moving, while light is stationary (with respect to space and time). However, because you are stationary in space, you perceive light to be moving towards you in space. What’s actually happening is that your motion

through time is causing light – which is stationary in both time and space – to seem to be moving in time and space relative to you. This is a difficult concept, so let’s provide a simple example to illustrate it. Imagine the dimensional universe as a vertical one-dimensional line, 1 cm long. Imagine the dimensionless universe as a point sitting at the top of this line. Now imagine that the whole dimensional universe (the 1 cm line) moves through time, meaning that the vertical line moves upwards by 1 cm. The stationary point, which was at the top, is now at the bottom of the line. So, we have a situation where all the things in the dimensional universe haven’t changed at all in terms of their internal spatial relations to each other (i.e. to them it’s as if the physical universe is entirely stationary), but all of them have changed in terms of their relation to the stationary point. To them, it’s as if the stationary point has moved, when, in fact, it’s all of them that have moved relative to it. This is exactly the case with light. Light is entirely stationary with regard to spacetime. Spacetime moves through it, not the other way around. If scientists can’t even get this right, how can they get anything else right? Do you see the incredible problem? Light is stationary in relation to both space and time, while we are stationary (more or less) in space, and moving at light speed through time. Because we are stationary in space then we automatically perceive any motion to be coming from something and somewhere else. If we’re not moving then, so we think, it must be light that’s moving ... that’s “common sense”! However, it’s not light that’s moving, it’s us. It’s our motion through time that makes light seem to be moving to us through space. If, in one second, we have travelled the equivalent of 300,000 kilometres through time (which is in fact imaginary space, i.e. space defined by imaginary numbers rather than real numbers) then we will perceive light to have travelled 300,000 kilometres through space. Yet light isn’t doing anything. It’s our perception that’s doing all the work and projecting spacetime motion onto light. Isn’t it incredible that scientists can say that time stops for light, and then claim that light has a spacetime speed, i.e. that it moves through a specific distance (300,000 km) in a specific time (one second). How can anything that isn’t in time have a spacetime speed? That impossibility ought to be self-evident logically. That’s a fundamental principle ... but to not scientists with all of their heuristic fictions and ad hoc tricks.

Scientists project spacetime notions onto something that isn’t in spacetime. They do so because they are sensing types obsessed with spacetime, and they can’t conceive of a dimensionless, immaterial, ontological frequency domain outside space and time. Because they can’t imagine such a thing, they are forced to fit all of their concepts into spacetime, no matter how much irrationality and illogic that involves. They have to say that something massless and dimensionless (i.e. light) “travels” through a certain amount of space in a certain amount of time. But how can it? Light experiences neither time nor space. As science writer John Gribbin wrote, “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, so that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once.” As soon as you consider the issue from light’s perspective, you realise that light is doing absolutely nothing regarding spacetime – because it’s not in spacetime at all, but, rather, in the frequency domain. Scientists are projecting their spacetime perceptions onto light and creating a wholly false ontology. It’s a fallacy to say that light moves through space. Scientists make this error because of their sensory (spacetime) fixation. They suffer from a systemic delusion that affects everything they do and every thought they have. And this, of course, is the entire problem with empiricism, with common sense, with relying on your senses and experiences rather than on your reason and intellect. Only they can override your delusions. If you want to understand reality, you have to think mathematically, not scientifically; logically, not illogically. Scientists, with their experiments, systematically misinterpret reality. They create a false ontology and epistemology, one that derives from their irrational senses rather than from their rational reason. It’s crazy to rely exclusively, as scientists do, on their senses. Scientists are not producing facts. They are producing sensory interpretations – misinterpretations. They are subject to an all-encompassing false schema that flows from basing everything on sensory spacetime (the material world) and ignoring the non-sensory frequency domain (the mental world). Once you realise that light isn’t in spacetime at all, your entire conception of reality changes. If it isn’t in spacetime then where is it? It

can’t be nowhere. It is in fact in the domain outside spacetime: the frequency domain. That means that reality comprises a dual-aspect ontology involving the interaction of a frequency domain of mind, and a spacetime domain of matter. According to science, there’s only a mono-aspect ontology involving the spacetime material world alone – and that means that science hasn’t a prayer of ever explaining what mind is. Science misinterprets everything because it has rejected the mental world of frequency. Science tries to explain reality from an incomplete and inconsistent ontology, an exercise doomed to fail. That’s why no scientist understands quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is inherently about the interaction of the frequency domain and the spacetime domain. However, if you deny the existence of the frequency domain, you then have to devise an elaborate heuristic fiction to “explain” everything in spacetime terms, and that’s why you end up with scientists talking about unobserved cats being simultaneously dead and alive, observers being required to “collapse the wavefunction” to create actual reality, an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction describing potentiality rather than actuality (from which reality is then indeterministically extracted), and so on. All of this is garbage from beginning to end. The entire statistical, probabilistic, indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics on which modern science is predicated is 100% false and preposterous. It all originates in a mistaken ontology, one designed to reflect the senses (spacetime) rather than reason (spacetime and frequency). But you can’t reason with scientists. They don’t deal in reason, only in sensory “evidence”, which automatically brings into play the systemic delusion and false ontology on which they rely. Scientists are the “wisest fools” you could ever meet. Because they use mathematics, they seem quite intelligent, but what they are doing is abusing mathematics by processing it through the enormous distorting filter of materialism, empiricism, positivism, spacetime, common sense, experience, observations, and the relentless demand for sensory evidence acquired by experimentation. They have no clue that they are obeying a fallacious philosophy, one that automatically ignores mental, unobservable frequency reality. We say “unobservable” but that’s not strictly true. We do perceive the frequency domain – we see light, after all – but we perceive it from the

spacetime perspective, and that means that we can’t help but interpret it in spacetime terms. Only our reason allows us to transcend the spacetime, phenomenal delusion and rationally work out what the noumenal world must be like. So, if we can detect the frequency domain after all, that means something incredible ... we can construct a soul camera! We can take photos of the soul. The soul is light and what is “photography”? – light writing! Of course, this is no ordinary camera. To use Swedenborg’s term, we might call it a “correspondence” camera. Swedenborg defined a “correspondence” as a basic relationship between two levels of existence. He claimed that “the Word” (the Bible) was written by God entirely on the basis of correspondences between heaven and earth. So, to understand the Bible, you had to be able to understand the language of correspondence. Without that knowledge, the Bible is nothing but a set of bizarre stories (as most people now regard it). Everything we experience in the world in spacetime terms “corresponds” to something in heaven (outside space and time). For Swedenborg, heaven is a community of angels. In Illuminism, “heaven” – the frequency domain – is a community of monads. Swedenborg said that the human face is the outer appearance of our inner emotions. Our internal joy, sadness or indifference is literally written externally on our face. The phenomenal world, Swedenborg argued, has the same relationship to the spiritual world as the outer expression on a person’s face has to their inner emotional state. i.e. the phenomenal world is the spacetime face of noumenal heaven. In ontological Fourier mathematics, the spacetime Fourier world “corresponds” to the Fourier frequency world, and each can be converted into other via forward and inverse Fourier mathematics. So, can a camera be devised that, by photographing the spacetime world, thereby reveals the state of the monadic world, and of individual monadic souls? Are there natural “spiritual substances” – akin to the chemicals used in producing photographs prior to the digital age – that reveal the details of a person’s soul? Can they be assembled into a device? Can a digital version be produced? Have the Illuminati already constructed such devices? Can we literally see your soul? ...!!! Can the recruitment cell

of the Illuminati see if you have an illuminated soul, hence are eligible to join the Illuminati? Sometimes people write to us asking to be recruited. Two things should be noted: 1) the authors of the AC website and the God Series are not members of the recruitment cell of the Illuminati and have no influence over who gets recruited. All we can do is forward names of people who seem to us to be the right calibre of recruit. These then go on a “watchlist” for the recruitment cell to consider. 2) The recruitment cell, you can be sure, can gauge whether you are ready, in this lifetime, to join the Enlightened Ones. However, it must also be said that some people who are eligible are not recruited, and that’s because some souls are what we call “outsider” souls, meaning that they function best on the outside of things. They shrivel, and lose what makes them so valuable, if they are brought into a formal organisation where group discipline and loyalty are demanded. Would a proud, noble, fiercely independent soul such as Nietzsche prosper in a group? Nietzsche would be valuable in any context, but his greatest worth to the human race was as a tormented genius, on the outside, firing lightning bolts at the people. For some individuals, their torment is also their fuel. If you remove that from them, the most vital part of them dies. They can no longer say and do the things that need to be said and done. Some people are at their best when they have no ties and constraints at all, hence never have to censor themselves. They can tell the unadulterated truth as they see it. However, there’s all the difference in the world between staggering geniuses – such as Nietzsche – firing brilliant broadsides at the world, and moronic, toxic trolls pathetically sniping at everything they don’t like. Depressingly, many trolls believe themselves of Nietzsche’s calibre. Here’s the quick way to decide if someone is Nietzsche or a troll ... a Nietzsche will have written dazzling books such as Beyond Good and Evil; a troll will have written countless badly spelt, grammatically incoherent, vicious, rambling, hysterical, narcissistic rants on Facebook pages!

Relativity? Einstein’s special theory of relativity says that if a material object could be accelerated to light speed, it would thereby acquire infinite mass (energy), hence it would require infinite energy to make this happen. This is consequently impossible.

That fact ought to have told scientists at least four things: 1) matter belongs to a different ontological category from light (namely spacetime rather than frequency), 2) matter has to leave spacetime in order to become light, i.e. it has to be converted into frequency, 3) light inherently possesses infinite energy ... light is a perpetual motion entity, whose energy can never be depleted in any way, and 4) the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit in relation to spacetime because it doesn’t belong to spacetime at all; rather, it conditions spacetime (the spacetime world is derived from the frequency world via the “breaking” of light). All light “travels” at the same speed, and since matter is merely a derivative of light, it can never travel faster than light. The idea of superluminal tachyons is ridiculous. Any theory that allows for faster-than-light travel is ipso facto false. (Wikipedia says, “In special relativity, a faster-than-light particle would have space-like fourmomentum, in contrast to ordinary particles that have time-like fourmomentum. It would also have imaginary mass and proper time. Being constrained to the spacelike portion of the energy-momentum graph, it could not slow down to subluminal speeds.”) What Einstein actually stumbled on with his special theory of relativity wasn’t just the fundamental relationship between space and time (Newton had kept absolute space and absolute time completely separate; Einstein melded them together into “spacetime”), but the fundamental relationship between space, time and frequency, between the spacetime domain of matter and the frequency domain of light. However, given that he, like all scientists, had no conception of an ontological frequency domain outside spacetime, he tried to interpret light itself in spacetime terms – a preposterous undertaking. Light is what creates, conditions and defines spacetime; it is therefore not in spacetime, which is exactly why no spacetime entity can exceed light speed. Because Einstein’s ontology was wrong, so was his theory, hence why it erroneously predicted the existence of tachyons ... which experimentalists actually futilely searched for! Why is it impossible to reconcile relativity theory and quantum mechanics? It’s because relativity is an exclusively spacetime theory (apart from the undefined Big Bang Singularity!), while quantum mechanics is a spacetime-frequency theory. The only way to begin to unite relativity and quantum mechanics is to build a permanent frequency Singularity into

Einstein’s ideas, which would thus change his theories from relativistic to absolute. The remarkable thing is that Einstein’s theories already point to singularities – such as black hole singularities, photonic singularities and the Big Bang singularity itself – yet these are deemed somehow unacceptable, and theoreticians are even now busily trying to abolish them as genuine singularities. As ever, science is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent and can’t properly define or analyse itself, which is why it’s always making “Feynman guesses” (Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman proudly declared that all scientific hypotheses begin with a guess!). The principle of relativity itself is a heuristic fiction, arising from the failure to define an eternal, absolute frequency domain, outside space and time. As soon as you truly grasp what it means to say that the combined speed of any object’s motion through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light, you ought to see that this is stating an absolute condition, hence relativity is impossible. Einstein argues that if two entities are travelling at constant speed in a straight line, in apparently relative motion to each other, then either can regard itself as stationary and the other as experiencing time dilation and length contraction. However, if an entity has a specific speed through space and a specific speed through time such that the appropriately combined speed is the speed of light, then the entity cannot arbitrarily regard itself as stationary in space, because then it has altered an absolute condition without supplying any scientific mechanism for doing so (i.e. it has reduced a non-zero speed through space to zero, and raised a sub-light speed through time to light speed). This has happened simply by Einstein’s decree ... but that’s religion, not science! Take two objects, one travelling through space at 0.866 of light speed and the other at 0.5 of light speed. This means that the first is travelling at 0.5 of light speed through time, and the second at 0.866 of light speed (since, 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). These respective speeds are associated with absolute, not relative, length contraction and time dilation. A person travelling at close to light speed through space would be physically contracted, and die. They could not regard themselves as stationary and non-contracted, as Einstein claimed.

Einsteinian relativity is destroyed as soon as you have an absolute condition – an eternal frequency Singularity – at the heart of spacetime. You can’t go around blabbering about relative spacetime “frames of reference” – as Einstein did – if there is in fact an absolute frequency frame of reference. Newton said, “For God alone, who (gives motion to) individual (bodies) without moving and without being perceived (can truly distinguish true motions from apparent).” Einstein – one of science’s many God killers – refused to contemplate an absolute entity that can absolutely know where everything is and how it’s moving (even if humanity can’t via its simplistic spacetime experiments). It’s not an immaterial “God”, outside space and time, which knows where everything absolutely is, and what absolute state of motion each thing is in. Instead, it’s the immaterial Cosmic Mind (the Monadic Collective) outside space and time (in the frequency domain), which possesses this absolute knowledge. Plainly, any belief system, such as Einstein’s, which does not acknowledge an invisible, immaterial frequency Singularity, outside space and time, can never arrive at an absolutist conception of reality. The absolute worldview demands a God, Cosmic Mind or Singularity. Without it, in an exclusively spacetime reality, Einstein would be 100% right with his relativistic ideas. It’s the frequency Singularity of Mind that refutes Einstein, but no scientist accepts the existence of an ontological domain beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science is all about spacetime and matter, and ideologically refuses to consider that there’s something outside the material, spacetime world, namely the immaterial frequency Singularity of mind. This refusal is all the more amazing give that science openly says that the spacetime universe came from a Singularity that produced the Big Bang. The central difference between ontological mathematics and scientific materialism is that the former rationally asserts that the Big Bang Singularity didn’t go anywhere ... it didn’t vanish. It’s right there to this day. It’s none other than the Cosmic Mind: the eternal, necessary frequency domain of pure, analytic, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics. According to scientific materialism, the Singularity that spawned the Big Bang was a random, accidental, chance happening (an acausal, indeterministic, undefined, inexplicable, miraculous “fluctuation”) by

which non-existence (!) spontaneously generated spacetime and matter for no reason, via no mechanism. The Big Bang was literally the ultimate magic act ... magic that summons itself out of nothing to perform its show. Seriously, that’s what science claims. It’s the most insane proposal ever made to explain what we are doing here, infinitely worse than the most outlandish claim of religion. Every system other than science relies on some kind of design or Designer. Science, however, claims that things happen randomly, for no conceivable reason, and then somehow miraculously organise themselves into a universe that looks exactly like an ordered, designed thing. Believe science and you’ll believe anything. It’s the most irrational, illogical, intellectually offensive non-explanation you can possibly get for why the universe exists. Scientists even blithely say that they aren’t interested in “Why?”, only “How?” – how convenient for them! – without realising that when it comes to explaining existence, why and how are one and the same things, i.e. only if you know why can you explain how.

The Ether Einstein could find no evidence for the ether (whose function was to provide an absolute reference frame), hence got rid of it from his theory. This is equivalent to scientists finding no sensory evidence for the mind, hence getting rid of it. The reason why there’s no physical evidence for the ether is very straightforwardly that the ether isn’t physical! The ether is in fact the immaterial frequency Singularity, outside space and time. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that can prove its existence, but reason can prove it’s there. It’s not a question of light travelling through the ether. Light is the ether! Space, time and all material objects travel through light, i.e. through the ether. Einstein’s theory of relativity is based on an absolutely false ontology – one lacking the defining frequency ether that provides an absolute context for spacetime existence. Once you get the ontology wrong, everything you deduce from it is wrong too. Einstein’s theory worked only because he used Lorentz transformations – but he used them relativistically rather than absolutely. However, in the normal circumstances of our world, it’s impossible to experimentally detect any difference between the Lorentz transformations treated relativistically

or absolutely. This would change if we could accelerate a spaceship to near light speed ... its astronaut would die! He’d be crushed to death by absolute length contraction. He wouldn’t, as Einstein claims, be in any position to define himself as stationary (thus suffering no length contraction). Have you understood? The famous “ether” isn’t physical, it’s mental. It’s experimentally undetectable because it’s immaterial and outside space and time, hence permanently beyond the reach of the scientific method – just as the mind is. The frequency Singularity – the ether – is none other than the Mind of the Cosmos. Just as no scientist can detect the human mind via any experiment, nor can they detect the Cosmic Mind. Scientists then arrogantly conclude that mind doesn’t exist, rather than acknowledge that science is a limited undertaking that can’t reveal mental reality to us. Once science denies the existence of mind, it’s then based on a radically false ontology and can never say anything valid about ultimate reality. That’s a fact. We defy every scientist on earth to disprove the existence of a mental ether. Scientists are clueless materialists, who can’t imagine anything beyond spacetime and matter. They are hoist with their own petard – i.e. their materialist, sensory, spacetime method – which makes it impossible for them to consider anything outside spacetime and matter. They are the prisoners of their method, and totally defined by it. If their method is insufficient to describe total reality, i.e. if anything at all exists that cannot be detected by scientific experiments, then science is a bogus enterprise. The obvious thing that science can’t detect is the immaterial, dimensionless soul. ... Yet that’s not actually true. If science accepted that the soul is made of light, it would eventually be able to construct a soul camera! Science fails because it denies the existence of mind, because it refuses to accept a mental ether. Einstein’s theories are destroyed as soon as the existence of a frequency Singularity (= ether = Cosmic Mind) is granted. It’s as simple as that. Well, are you an advocate of Einstein? What are you going to do to refute our assertion that the universe has a mind, and that this mind is made of photons?! Go on, prove us wrong. The blunt fact is that once you understand that the cosmos comprises both a body and a mind, you will never again take the claims of science seriously. Science declares that mind is created from mindless matter – a

logical impossibility. The Cosmic Mind is imperishable and immortal, just like any soul. The temporal, contingent material world is born from this eternal, necessary Cosmic Mind via the Big Bang. That was when the material world was conceived ... mentally conceived. The mental world is studied by reason, by mathematics. Science, however, rejects reason and relies on the evidence of the senses. It will never accept any rational conclusion unsupported by sensory evidence. That’s why it rejects the mind. That’s why it disregards the ontology of mathematics. Science is an intellectual embarrassment. It’s offensively irrational. Any system that privileges the senses over reason can never be rational. It will always be hostile to pure mathematics. It’s time for science to become rational, and that can happen only if scientists accept the existence of a transcendental, noumenal, ontological Singularity ... a frequency domain of mind, of light. Mind = light = pure math. Science can never tell you about ultimate reality. Only math can. The soul camera is the greatest instrument conceivable. It provides the infallible proof that Illuminism is true. But, if you’re rational, you already knew that. Illuminism is nothing but mathematical rationalism, reflecting the principle of sufficient reason. No one can beat reason. No one can outsmart reason. Faith can’t do so, and nor can the delusional human senses. The human senses are so easily deceived that a particular dress can cause the internet to go into meltdown as people argue over whether it’s black and blue or gold and white. How can the senses ever show you Truth if they can’t even prove what colour a dress is?!

The Enemies of Reason The enemies of reason are: 1) Those who refer to their “experiences” (empiricists). 2) Those who refer to their intense faith or feelings (feeling types). 3) Those who refer to their mystical intuitions (unthinking intuitive types). 4) Those who refer to sensory evidence (sensing types).

5) Those who refer to cosmic consciousness, cosmic love, cosmic Oneness, “nonduality”, karma, and so on (Eastern religion and New Age religion). People who are on the side of reason study rationalism, logic, philosophy, metaphysics and mathematics. They treat science and organised religion with disdain. So, are you for or against reason? You must never forget that if you support reason and logic as the way to the Truth, you are literally saying that reality is made of reason and logic, i.e. it is made of complete and consistent ontological mathematics. If the universe isn’t actually made of the stuff of reason and logic then it’s formally impossible for reality to be rational, logical, ordered and intelligible: non-reason can’t produce reason; non-logic can’t produce logic; the unintelligible can’t produce the intelligible, the disordered can’t produce the ordered. As Nietzsche asked, “How could something originate in its antithesis?” Well, is reality fundamentally sensible, or emotional, or mystical, or intelligible? It must be one of these. It must be a monism. But, in order to reflect the dialectical world we live in, it must be a dual-aspect monism, comprising rational Form and non-rational Content; the rational information carrier and the non-rational information carried. Only an inherently intelligible reality confers an intelligible answer on existence. With all the others, you might as well believe whatever you like.

The Ether Enigma There are two ways of conceiving of the ether: 1) A stationary, absolute, physical spacetime reference frame, in comparison with which all other spacetime reference frames are relative. 2) An immaterial, stationary, absolute, frequency reference frame outside space and time (a Cosmic Mind), in comparison with which all spacetime reference frames are relative. What Einstein did was disprove the first scenario. He never even conceived of the second. No scientist is capable of formulating the second scenario. It’s not part of the scientific materialist spacetime schema.

Einstein got rid of an absolute spacetime reference frame, meaning that if there was no other form or existence (nothing outside spacetime) then his relativity must be right. However, if there’s an immaterial frequency ether outside space and time – completely undetectable by any scientific instrument – then Einstein must be wrong! There you have reality in a nutshell. Science must be wrong if a frequency (mental) Singularity exists. The whole basis of reality reduces to a very simple question ... does an eternal, necessary, rational, logical, mathematical Singularity exist, populated by individual monadic singularities, i.e. souls?!

The Different Conceptions of Reality Thanks to the work of Descartes, there are only three plausible ways to describe reality: materialism, idealism or Cartesian dualism. Illuminism can convert these three candidates into three different spacetime/frequency descriptions, where spacetime is equated with matter and the Singularity with mind: 1) Materialism: There’s a spacetime material world only; there’s no frequency Singularity of mind. The whole scientific community, believes in spacetime only, and rejects the existence of a permanent Singularity. Science claims that spacetime randomly and indeterministically sprang out of a non-existence Singularity (!) for no reason and via no mechanism. This is 100% incoherent and impossible. We can be rationally certain that scientific materialism is false. An eternal “steady-state” spacetime universe, such as Einstein and most scientists once believed in, is incompatible with a Big Bang and an expanding universe, and, if it reflects Einsteinian relativity, cannot be consistent with any conceivable rational ontology and epistemology. It has no analytic, coherent features since there is no absolute state with which to establish any definable reference point. A non-relativistic, eternal steady-state universe simply invites the question of how it can be explained at all. What sufficient reason could there be for it, and why should no other type of universe exist? Materialism is inexplicable and incoherent regardless of what approach you adopt. If the Abrahamic “God” created the spacetime universe out of nothing then the steady-state universe isn’t eternal, and was created by a magic act. The existence of an immaterial God who

made the spacetime material world would in any case refute materialism since it means that there’s a more fundamental reality that isn’t material. 2) Idealism: There’s a frequency Singularity only; the spacetime material world is a strictly mental construct, and has no reality outside of the mental Singularity. 3) Cartesian Dualism: The frequency Singularity and spacetime exist as ontologically independent realities. In Illuminism, Cartesian dualism is replaced by Fourier dualism, which is a version of idealism. With Fourier dualism, a Cosmic Age begins and ends with a perfect frequency Singularity frequency, but, in between, the Singularity generates the spacetime world of matter. The spacetime world is a real entity in its own right, but is entirely generated from the Singularity, hence is a purely mental construct, but one that is a well-founded mathematical phenomenon, obeying precise math. The spacetime material world isn’t a fantasy, or hallucination, or vague idea in a mind, or minds, or a crazy subjective dream. It’s a precise, objective, lawful mathematical entity, reflecting “scientific” considerations. Most people are instinctive dualists: they accept a mental and a material world (heaven and earth), although the details are obscure to them. Scientists are a peculiar cult who rule out any mental world and believe only in a material world of spacetime. There are few outright idealists in the world. Illuminism is ultimately an idealist system (since spacetime comes from the frequency, mental Singularity), but, practically and functionally, is a dualism that uses Fourier mathematics to resolve the Cartesian problem of substance dualism and how two ostensibly different substances (mind and matter) can interact. Don’t forget: the whole of scientific materialism fails if there’s an immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time ... a domain of mind. Einsteinian relativity automatically fails because an ether exists after all, and the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics automatically fails given that it’s predicated on empirical observables, and the rejection of “hidden variables”. Nothing is more of a non-empirical unobservable and hidden variable than the frequency Singularity itself. All of quantum mechanics, especially the interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty

Principle, changes beyond recognition when a permanent, analytic, precise (not uncertain!) Singularity is introduced.

***** So, which is it? 1) Spacetime only. (Materialism) 2) Singularity only. (Idealism) 3) Spacetime and Singularity. (Cartesian Dualism) 4) Singularity and derived Spacetime. (Fourier Dualism) Do you seriously imagine that science, religion or philosophy will help you with this? Mathematics alone is up to the task. Science/atheism is simply the ideology that there’s no such thing as a permanent ontological frequency Singularity. Abrahamism is the ideology that the Singularity is “God”. Eastern religion is the ideology that the Singularity is Tao, or Brahman, or Void, or Emptiness, or Nirvana. Illuminism asserts that the Singularity is the God Equation, i.e. noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics conveyed by PythagoreanLeibnizian monadic minds. Everything comes down to the Singularity and spacetime, and the relation between them. There’s nothing else. Materialists deny the Singularity, idealists deny spacetime as a true reality, and dualists accept both the Singularity and spacetime, but must then explain how they can interact. Only dual-aspect ontological Fourier mathematics can accomplish this.

Which is it? Make your choice. Is it: 1) spacetime only (reality is all about matter), 2) a Singularity alone (reality is all about mind), 3) spacetime and Singularity (reality is all about dualism and the interaction of matter and mind)? If you get your ontology wrong, everything you say about ultimate reality will be wrong. Science makes zero true statements about ultimate existence because it ideologically, dogmatically, irrationally and illogically denies the existence of a permanent frequency Singularity.

Reality comprises space, time and frequency, not space and time alone. Omit frequency and you have omitted mind, free will, subjective agency, consciousness, meaning and teleology.

The Second Ether The frequency Singularity projects a six-dimensional Cartesian spacetime grid, comprising three real space axes, matched by three imaginary space axes, the latter being “time” axes. This is a mathematical projection, and does not constitute anything physical or scientific. This can also be considered as a kind of ether – a secondary ether, or ether emanation, extension or projection – since it provides an absolute spacetime reference frame, centred on a fixed origin (the frequency Singularity itself), but cannot be detected by any scientific experiment. The first step of the Big Bang involves the projection of this six-dimensional Cartesian spacetime grid from the frequency Singularity, and this constitutes the creation of spacetime, or the context in which space and time become scientifically possible. It must be noted that this 6D spacetime arena is entirely conditioned by the speed of light, hence is an ontological Cartesian arena, and not an abstract mathematical grid.

The Ether “When we reached the point where we could demonstrate that light was a wave, then it was presumed that the wave must have a medium in which to travel. All the other waves we knew about required a medium. Since no medium was apparent between the earth and the sun, it was presumed that this medium was transparent and therefore not readily observable – it was called the ‘ether’. The popular presumption was that this ether was stationary and filled all of space. This involved the presumption that there was an absolute reference frame in the universe, and that all the movement of planets and stars was through this ether.” – http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html Einsteinian relativity works only if there is no absolute reference frame (ether). But there is an ether – light itself. Everything has an absolute

relationship with light. Because of that fact, time dilation and length contraction are absolute, real effects, not relativistic (as Einstein claimed). Einstein’s catastrophic blunder was to think of light travelling through the ether rather than light itself being the ether, the absolute framework for existence – the Singularity outside space and time. Light is mind, and it’s mind which is the ether that absolutely defines space, time and matter. All of these come from the Singularity via the Big Bang. Einstein, like all scientists, rejected mind, just as he rejected the ether. They are of course the same thing! Kant argued that people individually project space and time onto the world, i.e. he proposed that space and time are inbuilt faculties of the mind and do not have any external reality in the world itself. Kant was on the right lines. Where he went wrong was making space and time subjective by placing them in individual minds. In fact, space and time are objective and they are created by all minds together, not by individual minds. In monadic terms, Kant’s claim was that individual monadic minds subjectively generated space and time. Actually, it’s the Monadic Collective that generates space and time, i.e. space and time are objective for all minds. Kant’s system is however correct in one particular circumstance ... when we go to sleep and start dreaming. In our dreams, each of us is individually responsible for creating space, time, matter and causation. We all do so, but in a very haphazard way. The rules of space, time, matter and causation in our dreams have none of the systematic, inflexible, objective character of the rules of space, time, matter and causation in the waking world. Space, time, matter and causation do not exist independently of minds, as science ridiculously claims. They are properties of the mental operations of monadic minds. That’s why the “ether” – the absolute reference frame – is mental rather than physical. The Cosmic Mind (the Monadic Collective) governs and defines the ether, and thus the entire spacetime, material world. The physical world came from the ether; matter came from mind. 19th century scientists believed that the speed of light would change relative to the ether. When the measured speed of light was found not to change, science then agreed with Einstein that the ether didn’t exist at all, or was a redundant concept. Not one of them was intelligent enough to realise

that light doesn’t change with respect to the ether because light is the ether. What could be simpler?! The famous Michelson-Morley experiment didn’t prove that there was no ether: it proved that the ether is light itself, hence why its speed doesn’t change no matter how much we manipulate the experimental measuring apparatus. There’s no such thing as a physical ether, hence why no physical experiment ever found it. The ether is mental and is made of light. This is exactly what scientific materialism rejects. The ideology of science is what stops it from understanding reality. It’s as bad as any blinkered, dogmatic religion. Every time a scientist thinks about any problem, he first of all dons his materialist, spacetime goggles, and thus never sees mind. Yet mind is the root of everything, and any theory that ignores mind is automatically false. Scientists, since Newton with his absolute space, were robotically programmed to think of space as stationary. It never occurred to them that something inherently in motion (the frequency domain) could be stationary with regard to spacetime. Scientists are simply incapable of contemplating concepts that don’t conform to their narrow, limited schema. They are stunted thinkers. One thing we have to emphasize is that when we refer to “light”, we are of course talking about the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just the visible portion. Most light is invisible to us. Only physical processes that activate a spacetime interaction with the visible light spectrum create the phenomenon that most people regard as “light”. Even this portion of the spectrum is invisible in the absence of any triggered interaction with the material world. We are required to switch on a light, light a candle, have a set of nuclear reactions in the sun, or whatever. Without any of this, light has no appearance at all. The Singularity of light/mind, left to its own devices, is a black hole!

The Non-Speed of Light? Why is the speed of light always measured to be the same? It’s because it doesn’t have a speed at all! At least not in a physical sense. Light isn’t in spacetime, which is why no amount of spacetime manipulations and deploying different spacetime reference frames can alter its speed. You can’t change the spacetime speed of something that doesn’t have a spacetime speed, something that’s in a different ontological domain!

No scientist has ever explained why the speed of light is an absolute condition. We have. We have proved the existence of the ether – it’s mental, not physical; mathematical, not scientific – and thereby falsified Einsteinian relativity. The fixed cosmic speed limit – light speed – is the rational proof that a domain separate from spacetime exists. Light is so different from everything in spacetime because light isn’t in spacetime. What could be more logically obvious? As soon as you equate light to thoughts, you realise that the material world is bathed in thoughts, and controlled by thoughts. Suns are thought generators. They produce the thoughts that control the physical world.

The Rebirth of the Ether? “[Sunlight is] with respect to the ether, what sound is with respect to air ... [the sun is] a bell ringing out light.” – Euler “Lorentz and FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam’s Razor. ... Another, completely different attempt to save ‘absolute’ aether, was made in the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, which posited that everything was affected by travel through the aether. In this theory the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment ‘failed’ was that the apparatus contracted in length in the direction of travel. That is, the light was being affected in the ‘natural’ manner by its travel though the aether as predicted, but so was the apparatus itself, cancelling out any difference when measured. FitzGerald had inferred this hypothesis from a paper by Oliver Heaviside. Without referral to an aether, this physical interpretation of relativistic effects was shared by Kennedy and Thorndike in 1932 as they concluded that the interferometer’s arm contracts and also the frequency of its light source ‘very nearly’ varies in the way required by relativity. ... In later years there have been a few individuals who advocated a neoLorentzian approach to physics, which is Lorentzian in the sense of positing an absolute true state of rest that is undetectable and which plays no role in

the predictions of the theory. (No violations of Lorentz covariance have ever been detected, despite strenuous efforts. ... [Lorentz covariance: The property, possessed by the laws of physics and of certain physical quantities, of being the same in any Lorentz frame, and thus unchanged by a Lorentz transformation.]) Hence these theories resemble the 19th century aether theories in name only. For example, the founder of quantum field theory, Paul Dirac, stated in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled ‘Is there an Aether?’ that ‘we are rather forced to have an aether’. [Dirac wrote about his theory: ‘We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether’.] However, Dirac never formulated a complete theory, and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community.” – Wikipedia The ether was conceived as an absolute physical frame of reference at rest in space, against which all objective measurements must be made. Faraday, Maxwell and many other physicists based their theories on the existence of this “specially favoured” reference frame. The fatal assumption they made – there’s always a fatal assumption at the root of every scientific theory – is that the ether must be a physical, spacetime entity. The ether is in fact mental and is nothing other than the Big Bang Singularity itself, which originates and defines the spacetime universe of matter. Lorentz transformations are, on the face of it, all about spacetime, but they are in fact completely conditioned by the speed of light, which isn’t in spacetime at all, i.e. light – the ether – is built into the Lorentz transformations, which is exactly why no way can be found to violate Lorentz transformations. Science has totally failed to understand Lorentz transformations both ontologically and epistemologically. It tries to understand them in terms of space and time alone when, in fact, they are also reflective of the frequency domain (the ether: the absolute reference frame – stationary with regard to spacetime – which defines spacetime). Science systematically misinterprets mathematics by seeking to force it to fit science’s dogmatic spacetime schema. Just as 19th century scientists assumed there was a “space” ether – an absolute spatial reference frame – so they assumed a “time ether” – an absolute temporal reference frame. In other words, the space and time ethers were just “physicalised” versions of Newton’s absolute space and

absolute time, which were, as far as Newton was concerned, intimately related to God and his immaterial body. All you need to do is replace Newton’s “God” with the Cosmic Mind and a 6D Cartesian grid (conditioned by light speed) projected from it, and you can return to the notions of absolute space and absolute time, but these are no longer physical in any way, but purely mental. What’s not to like?! Every time you look at any scientific theory, you will always find that it can be interpreted physically or mentally. However, science systematically and ideologically rejects the mental interpretation. This means that when the mental explanation is far more rational and logical, science prefers an irrational and illogical material explanation. Both Einsteinian relativity and Copenhagen quantum mechanics make no sense physically, but they can be instantly cured by placing them in a mental rather than physical context.

***** “Lorentz also admitted that the postulate of an absolute but undetectable rest frame was purely metaphysical, and had no empirical consequences.” – Wikipedia An absolute but undetectable rest frame is purely mathematical, but, in our terms, that means ontological, not abstract. Metaphysics = ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics underpins science. Metaphysics underpins physics. The whole of empiricism and materialism derives from rationalism and idealism, from metaphysics and ontological mathematics.

Math and the Ether Ontological mathematics – the mathematics of light, the mathematics of mind – is the mathematics of the ether, and is the ether. The ontological mathematical Singularity is the noumenal, transcendent, transcendental, invisible, non-sensory, rational, logical ether that lies at the heart of science, yet is wholly denied by science. For science ever to change, it has to acknowledge that it’s completely underpinned by the ultimate hidden variable – ontological mathematics.

John Bell and the Ether

By a very wide margin, the greatest scientific thinker of the modern age was John Bell – a staggeringly different kind of scientist from the philosophical illiterates and Philistines that perennially run science. Bell’s inequality theorem – concerning the deep nature of reality – was described by particle physicist Henry Stapp as “the most profound discovery of science.” That’s exactly right. The trouble is, science still hasn’t come to terms with it ... because it proves that ontological mathematics is true and scientific materialism false. The inequality itself can only be properly discussed mathematically, which is an extremely telling fact, i.e. it’s a rationalist, logical theorem, not empirical and materialist. Bell’s theorem goes to the heart of what the ether actually is. The following discussion of the ether is taken from an interview between Bell and P. C. W. Davies and features in the excellent book The Ghost in the Atom (A discussion of the mysteries of quantum physics), edited by P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown. We have highlighted particularly important comments in bold. “I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it [i.e. of Bell’s inequality regarding the nature of objective reality] will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light. But then in other frames of reference when they seem to go not only faster than light but backwards in time, that is an optical illusion. … Revolutionary or reactionary, make your choice. But that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of phenomena, a deeper level is not Lorentz invariant. … Well, what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincaré, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and that 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. ...

“[It was abandoned] on the grounds of philosophy; that what is unobservable does not exist. And also on grounds of simplicity, because Einstein found that the theory was both more elegant and simpler when we left out the idea of the aether. I think that the idea of the aether should be taught to students as a pedagogical device, because I find that there are lots of problems which are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether. But that’s another story. The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that something behind the scenes is going faster than light. Now, if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. “It introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality and so on. And it’s precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether. Now the mystery is, as with Lorentz and Poincaré, that this aether does not show up at the observational level. It is as if there is some kind of conspiracy, that something is going on behind the scenes which is not allowed to appear on the scenes. And I agree that that’s extremely uncomfortable. ... [It is precisely Einstein’s] own theory of relativity which creates difficulties for this interpretation of the quantum theory (which is in the spirit of Einstein’s unconventional view of quantum mechanics). ... I do believe that there will theories that are better than the ones we have, in that they describe more of the universe and connect more of it up. ... the founding fathers of quantum mechanics rather prided themselves on giving up the idea of explanation. They were very proud that they dealt only with phenomena, regarding that as the price one had to pay for coming to terms with nature. … When I look at quantum mechanics I see that it’s a dirty theory.” This is a brilliant demolition of modern scientific ideology and dogmatism. Bell, rightly, trashes both Einsteinian relativity and Copenhagen quantum mechanics. Both of these theories are unquestionably false, and both for exactly the same reason ... they deny the ontology of a mental, immaterial, massless frequency domain (ether) outside space and time. Bell’s inequality makes sense only in relation to such an ether. This is hard, scientific proof of the reality of ontological mathematics, yet it’s completely denied by the science establishment.

Bell observed, “...in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light.” Paradoxically, this is both true and false. In the frequency singularity – outside space and time – everything is travelling at exactly the speed of light (since everything is light!). However, because the Singularity is outside space and time, anything travelling at light speed gets wherever it’s going instantly in relation to spacetime, i.e. it has no distance to cover, and, therefore, takes no time to cover it. This means that, in relation to spacetime, certain Singularity processes (such as entanglement) can appear to happen instantaneously. This is a mathematical illusion produced by the nature of the dimensionless, interconnected Singularity, not because anything in the universe actually does travel faster than light speed. The Singularity is the ultimate “wormhole”. In ontological mathematics, existence comprises mathematical sinusoids, and every single one of them, in the Singularity, travels at precisely light speed (where we are defining “speed” in frequency/wavelength terms rather than time/distance terms), and can never travel at any other speed (exactly as with electromagnetic waves, which are themselves simply matched sinusoidal pairs, comprising one sine wave together with an equivalent cosine wave). Bell’s one failing was that he never realised that a Singularity was the only way to explain his inequality theorem, to explain why some things appear to happen instantaneously, hence to defy Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which requires everything to travel at no greater than light speed in spacetime. As we have said, nothing, in ontological mathematics, can travel faster than light in any context (spacetime or frequency), but to travel at light speed outside spacetime can seem, in specific contexts, such as that of quantum entanglement, to be exchanging information instantaneously in spacetime. Only ontological mathematics can explain Bell’s inequality theorem. That’s a fact. This theorem can be taken as a formal proof that Illuminism is right and scientific materialism wrong and false. The whole thing comes down to the ether, and what its true nature and definition is. It’s time for the whole of science to sit down and properly confront the logical implications of Bell’s inequality theorem. Yet that’s never going to happen. Scientists have no respect for reason and logic, and don’t accept the falsification of their theories. They’re just like religious believers who never abandon their holy texts, no matter what.

***** “The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style. The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest, Einstein declares the notions ‘really resting’ and ‘really moving’ as meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz’s philosophy to accept a Lorentz pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than to hurry after each moving object in turn.” – John Bell These are exactly the sorts of issues scientists should be addressing, but they have no interest in deep conceptual analysis. They are incredibly shallow thinkers who can’t be bothered, and don’t know how, to define anything properly.

Bell’s Inequality Bell’s inequality theorem demonstrated that any viable interpretation of quantum mechanics must involve non-locality i.e. apparently faster-thanlight communications, which Einstein, with his special theory of relativity, had declared impossible. The full impact of the Bell inequality remains unfelt – because the scientific community bluntly declines to face up to its consequences. Bell proved definitively that the universe cannot be both “local and real” i.e. if it obeys Einstein’s speed limit, it cannot be objectively real, and if it is objectively real then it must be capable of exhibiting faster-than-light communications (with regard to spacetime) in certain situations. Something has to give, but the science establishment has as yet refused to consider Einsteinian relativity formally falsified. For anyone who accepts objective reality independent of the observer, Bell’s inequality disproves

Einstein’s relativistic thinking and signifies that there’s a catastrophic error at the heart of Einstein’s logic. Bell’s inequality has been proved correct experimentally, yet the science establishment will not pronounce Einstein’s theory of relativity dead. What this means is that science is not committed to objective reality and is content to countenance a universe of subjective relativity. Science is now pure ideology and dogmatism that refuses to accept the rational, logical facts. It refuses to countenance the rational falsification of its most cherished theories.

The Unobservable As John Bell pointed out, the whole of mainstream scientific materialism is predicated on the fallacious philosophy that “what is unobservable does not exist.” Once you reject this – as any rational, logical person does – you have opened the way to hidden variables and rational unobservables, to metaphysics and ontological mathematics (based on unobservable complex numbers). You have opened the way to Mind!

Time “In addition, all distantly separated light events in the Cosmos were often intuitively assumed to occur at absolutely the same instant in time (simultaneously). For example, the twinkling of a distant star and its perception by an observer on Earth were assumed by many to be simultaneous events.” – http://relativityoflight.com/Chapter19.html Relative to the Singularity – outside space and time – everything is happening simultaneously!

Inertia and Inertial Frames “Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish.

Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems.” – Wikipedia It’s relatively easy for a scientist to state what effects inertia has, but impossible for a scientist to state what inertia actually is ontologically, and what causes inertia. What does inertia tell us about the fundamental nature of existence? No scientist has ever told us.

***** “In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame or Galilean reference frame or inertial space) is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). ... Einstein’s theory of special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames, but makes an additional assumption, foreign to Newtonian mechanics, namely, that in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light...” – Wikipedia “In order to describe a physical event, it is necessary to establish a frame of reference or coordinate system. In Newtonian mechanics, it is desirable to use the ‘inertial frame of reference’. Such an ‘inertial frame’ is defined as the one in which Newton’s laws are valid. An inertial frame is a frame in which a free body exhibits no acceleration. Any system moving with constant velocity with respect to an inertial system is also an inertial system. “In Newtonian mechanics, the concepts of space and time are supposed to be completely separable. It is further assumed that time is ‘universal’ and is independent of the frame of reference. ... On the other hand, time may not be universal for all inertial frames [as we find in Einsteinian physics]. (We have to give up something for constant light velocity!) In relativity, the concepts of space and time are no longer completely separable.” – T. Tsang

“An inertial frame of reference has a constant velocity. That is, it is moving at a constant speed in a straight line, or it is standing still. Understand that when something is standing still, it has a constant velocity. Its velocity is constantly zero metres per second. “To say that the velocity of a frame of reference is constant is the same as saying that the frame is not accelerating. So, we could define an inertial frame of reference to be a coordinate system which is not accelerating. “Such a constant velocity frame of reference is called an inertial frame because the law of inertia holds in it. That is, an object whose position is judged from this frame will tend to resist changes in its velocity; it obeys the law of inertia. An object viewed with this frame will not spontaneously change its velocity. An object within this frame will only change its velocity if an actual non-zero net force is applied to it. “There are several ways to describe an inertial frame. Here are a few descriptions: “An inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference with constant velocity. “An inertial frame of reference is a non-accelerating frame of reference. “An inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which the law of inertia holds. “An inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which Newton’s laws of motion hold. “In an inertial frame of reference no fictitious forces arise.” – http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/framesOfReference/ inertialFrame.html

***** “Inertial frame” means a body moving with constant velocity (which can include being at rest). An inertial frame of reference is one in which an object, subject to zero net external force, moves in a straight line with constant speed (of which being stationary is the specific case where the speed is zero).

Absolute Einstein?

“Einstein’s great gift was his genius for physical insight into what a problem was really all about. Mathematics was never his strongest point ... but he had a great feel for physics.” – John Gribbin Here we have the whole problem with Einstein. He always tried to picture things physically, hence automatically failed to consider the problem nonphysically, i.e. mentally! Einstein’s methodology is wrong and false if there are any non-physical existents – which, of course, there are. Science systematically, with no evidence, proof or sufficient reason, excludes from its theories anything incompatible with physicalism. If physicalism is false or incomplete, so is science. Gribbin tells us that math wasn’t Einstein’s strong suit, and this is another telling fact. Given that mathematical thinking is the antidote to “physical” thinking, and can easily accommodate a non-physical ontology, the less you think mathematically, the more likely you are to succumb to physicalism, exactly like Einstein. “Newton, although he realized that motion is relative as far as people moving about on the Earth, or birds flying through the air, or boats sailing on the sea are concerned, also thought there must be some ultimate frame of reference against which all motion could be measured – a universal standard of rest. The idea of the ether fitted this picture, with all motion relative to the ether. Newton also believed that there was an absolute standard of time, a kind of clock of God, which ticked away inexorably at the same rate for everybody.” – John Gribbin The point we make over and over again is that people construct a schema of “reality” according to their personality type e.g. sensing types will automatically produce a physicalist – sensory – schema, while intuitives, for example, won’t. Newton provides the ultimate physicalist arena – Absolute Space – in which all physicality must happen. He makes no attempt, in his scientific writings, to consider a domain outside space (and time). Of course, as a religious maniac, Newton was certain that there was a God outside physical reality, but he failed to make any scientific and mathematical attempt to explain God’s existence and where he resides. The physicalist, atheistic scientific community that succeeded Newton ignored all of Newton’s religious ideas, leaving nothing but his materialist and empiricist considerations.

What would have happened if Newton had pondered where nonphysicality occurs? Eventually, he would have arrived at the position of his most hated enemy – Leibniz, a quintessential intuitive, rationalist, idealist, logician, metaphysician and mathematician. In Leibniz’s system, everything begins with unobservable, dimensionless monadic points outside space and time. Right from the getgo, Leibniz’s system was anathema to physicalists, and that’s exactly why science was so quick to dismiss Leibnizian rationalism. If Leibniz’s monadic minds cannot exist in space and time (and Leibniz explicitly denied the reality of Newtonian Absolute Space and Absolute Time), where, mathematically, can they exist? There’s only one conceivable mathematical domain outside space and time and that’s the immaterial, massless, dimensionless, ontological frequency domain. That domain is a Singularity, and it can comprise any number of individual singularities, i.e. we can fit an infinite number of monadic singularities on top of each other to create a Singularity of singularities. A collective frequency domain can be made of infinite individual, autonomous frequency domains. This, in fact, exactly describes Leibniz’s world of monads! What exists outside space and time is a monadic frequency domain. Big Bang theory does nothing other than demonstrate that spacetime material “reality” must come from a Singularity, i.e. space and time are not eternal and necessary, and in fact originate in the monadic minds of the Singularity. Minds produce matter. Minds are the Creator ... they are “God”! Minds say, “Let there be light!” In fact, minds are light, and the physical world is simply what you get when you “break” light in a particular mathematical way, as we shall shortly illustrate. So, fundamental ontology is based on an Absolute Frequency domain (Singularity), outside space and time. This is a mental ontology. From this ultimate mental ontology, a secondary, dependent, contingent physical ontology can be derived ... the world of space and time. This is reliant on the frequency Singularity for its existence, and couldn’t exist otherwise, i.e. space, time and matter have no fundamental reality, hence scientific materialism is false in all of its claims to reflect ultimate reality. This is a mental universe, not a material universe. Matter is derived from mind, not the other way around. Once you have truly grasped that, everything else follows, and you see how fallacious science is. Scientific materialism – in its central claim that matter is the basis of existence – is wrong and false.

The reality of the universe we are living in is that it comprises a permanent, necessary frequency Singularity, together with a contingent, temporal material world of spacetime derived from it. This is the only way to make sense of quantum mechanics, which has so baffled all physicalist scientists. Any theory that purports to explain the observed universe must reflect the following ontology: a Singularity (outside space and time) plus space and time. This is exactly what Einstein denies, and is exactly why his theories are false. The apparent success they enjoy flows from the mathematics they use. His mathematics is right (more or less). What is wrong is the physicalist interpretation he attaches to his math. All scientific theories ought to reflect the ontology of: dimensionless Singularity = frequency = mind, plus dimensional non-Singularity = spacetime = matter. What could be simpler, more straightforward and more obvious? Yet all physicalists reject the Singularity because it’s exactly where physicalism perishes and unobservable mind alone can explain what’s happening. The Singularity is where the scientific method absolutely fails, and, since science is predicated on its method, it cannot tolerate anything incompatible with that method. Science rejects the Truth itself since the Truth is beyond the scientific method of materialism and empiricism. Of course, the Truth is not beyond reason, logic and mathematics. “Einstein saw that there is no need to invoke a preferred frame of reference at all. There does not have to be a standard of rest in the Universe against which all velocities are measured. Instead, he said that all motion is relative – which means that anybody is entitled to say that they are at rest, and to measure all motion relative to themselves. Strictly speaking, this relativity of motion applies only to observers moving at constant velocities relative to one another – that is, at constant speeds and in straight lines. Anyone in an accelerated frame of reference can tell they are moving from the forces they feel, such as the way your weight seems to change as a fast elevator starts or stops, and the way you are flung to the side of a vehicle going round a bend at high speed. It is this restriction that gives the theory the name ‘special’. Einstein’s general theory of relativity extended the idea to cover acceleration, motion along curved trajectories, and gravity.” – John Gribbin

The whole basis of Einsteinian relativity is false as soon as it’s realised that there is a preferred frame of reference ... the Singularity! The Singularity – the ontological frequency domain – is where light exists (not in space, as scientists fallaciously believe). The Singularity is eternal and necessary. It’s a permanent feature of existence, and indeed the basis of existence, and the mental origin of the material, spacetime world. As a non-physical, nonspacetime entity, the Singularity can of course play no part in any physicalist theory, such as Einstein’s. Einstein followed the traditional scientific fallacy of asserting that anything that cannot be observed cannot exist. No one could observe the ether, and it played no part in Einstein’s relentlessly physicalist thinking, hence he simply abolished it as far his theory went. The whole of science followed him. Of course, the fact that Einstein got rid of the ether from his physicalist theory didn’t disprove the existence of the ether. What’s for sure is that because he got rid of it, his theory ipso facto became entirely false at an ontological level. His fundamental conception of relativity has no connection whatsoever with ultimate reality, which flows from an Absolute (non-relativistic) Singularity. The frequency Singularity is the ether! We dare every scientist on earth to try to disprove the existence of the ether as an inherently non-physical mental Singularity. It can’t be detected physically not because it doesn’t exist but because it’s intrinsically outside physicality! As soon as its existence is accepted – and the arguments for its existence are rational, logical, ontological, epistemological and mathematical, and most certainly not “scientific” – Einstein is refuted. It’s reason, logic and math that disprove Einstein, not scientific experiments. However, since science is dogmatically based on experiments, it automatically excludes all non-experimental proof that refutes it. The ether was discarded by science not because it was ever shown not to exist, but because it was incompatible with science’s inflexible physicalist ideology. Scientific belief, not any rational facts, removed the ether from science. “On reflection, it’s just as well that there is no evidence that the ether exists. For, when you think about it, it turns out that the kind of ether the Victorians believed in would have to have a very peculiar combination of properties. In the first place, it has to be extremely stiff, in order for light waves to move through it so rapidly. Vibrations passing through a substance move more rapidly if the substance is stiffer ... Try to imagine a substance

so stiff that vibrations travel through it at 300,000 kilometres per second, and you have some idea of one of the key properties of the ether. “On the other hand, the ether must be very tenuous. After all, the Earth moves through the ether, seemingly unimpeded – it isn’t slowed down in its orbit by the drag of the ether. And the ether was supposed to be everywhere, in order to propagate light – even between the atoms and molecules of air itself. You would be wading through the ether every time you took a step, and breathing it in by the lungful, without it having any effect on you at all except to transmit light from one place to another.” – John Gribbin The ether does exist ... the Victorians were right after all. However, they were wrong that it was physical. The ether is mental. That’s why it’s so tenuous. That’s why it’s everywhere. Because it’s not physical, it doesn’t need to be “stiff”. Everything that scientists said about the ether came from their ineradicable habit of physicalising everything. They simply couldn’t conceive of anything non-physical. Right from the outset, they were thinking about the problem wrongly, and this is the trouble that bedevils science when it thinks about any problem at all. It always brings to bear its prejudices, not any clear, rational, logical thinking, not any analytic, eternal, necessary principles. You can’t consider any problem properly unless you first have the correct ontology, and science never does because it ideologically denies the existence of the mental frequency domain outside space and time. As soon as you grant the existence of that domain, all of your thinking regarding all physical problems changes. “...perhaps before too long the nineteenth-century scientists would have decided that the idea of the ether should be discarded after all. The alternative proposal put forward by Faraday, that electric and magnetic fields of force extend through empty space, was still not fully accepted a generation later, even after Maxwell’s equations had shown how varying electric and magnetic fields could propagate hand in hand as an electromagnetic wave.” – John Gribbin Faraday never considered that electromagnetic waves weren’t actually in physical space at all, but, rather, in mental space (in the frequency domain). How can “wave in empty space” be reinterpreted? ... well, as “wave not in space at all but in the frequency domain outside space and time.” Every physicalist problem of science can automatically be reinterpreted as a problem involving mind. However, science never carries out any such

reinterpretation because it excludes the possibility of mind. Whenever any problem logically calls for a frequency analysis, involving the Singularity, science never performs any such analysis and instead turns to bizarre, untenable, illogical and irrational physicalist “explanations”, usually involving randomness, chance, accident, indeterminism, probabilities, statistics and miracles. “Einstein puzzled over what would happen if you could ride alongside a beam of light, at the same speed the light was moving.” – John Gribbin Right from the get-go, Einstein’s famous thought experiment contains a fundamental error, one that automatically flows from Einstein’s physicalist schema. He assumes that light is in space, and that he can travel alongside it in space. It never once occurs to him that light is actually in the frequency domain, hence not in space at all. This is exactly how a theory can be fatally flawed from its inception. Moreover, others looking at the problem from the same perspective, the same physicalist schema, uncritically accept the same assumptions, and go along with the argument without demur. We thus have a classic groupthink scenario, with which science is rife. There are no critical thinkers in science who challenge the established physicalist paradigm. Anyone brave enough to do so would be mocked by his colleagues and lose his job. Every thought experiment should be accompanied by a statement of what paradigm it reflects, what schema, what fundamental worldview ... and by what it automatically rejects, hence fails to consider. You cannot ride alongside light in space. In order to be truly in the company of light, you would have to leave space entirely, and enter the frequency domain. Einstein rightly says that nothing physical can be accelerated to light speed. He fails to reach the obvious conclusion ... light isn’t physical, it’s mental. Light belongs to a different category of existence: mind rather than matter, frequency rather than spacetime. It requires an ontological phase transition to convert matter into mind, such as we see with the formation of dimensionless black hole singularities from dimensional stars. Unimaginably vast forces are required to bring about this change. Once you understand what light really is, Einstein’s analysis of it becomes childishly simplistic. Einstein is often lauded for his “childlike”

thought experiments. Sadly, “childlike” is exactly what they are. They need to be “adult”. Science in general is a child’s understanding of adult math. “...the nub of Maxwell’s equations is that a changing electric field produces the (changing) magnetic part of the wave, and the changing magnetic field produces the (changing) electric part of the wave. But if you were moving at the same speed as the wave, it would not be ‘waving’, from your point of view, at all. It would be stationary, like a wave on the sea frozen into ice before it could break. And Maxwell’s equations quite clearly said (and, of course, experiments had shown) that a stationary magnetic field would not make an electric field, and nor would a stationary electric field make a magnetic one. There would simply be no wave at all – not even a frozen one.” – John Gribbin Contrast what Gribbin says with these comments by Dennis Gabor: “Fourier’s theorem makes of description in time and description by the spectrum, two mutually exclusive methods. If ‘frequency’ is used in the strict mathematical sense which applies only to infinite wave-trains, a ‘changing frequency’ becomes a contradiction in terms, as it is a statement involving both time and frequency. [The building blocks of Fourier analysis are sines and cosines, which oscillate for all time.] The terminology of physics has never completely adapted itself to this rigorous mathematical definition of ‘frequency.’” Gabor goes to the heart of the matter when he says that Fourier mathematics “makes of description in time [and/or space] and description by the spectrum [frequency, including wavenumber], two mutually exclusive methods.” Each method relates to a different ontological domain. So, to which domain does light belong? If it belongs to the frequency domain – as indeed it does – you cannot treat it in spacetime terms, as Einstein (and science) does. Gabor wrote, “Though mathematically [Fourier analysis] is beyond reproach, even experts could not at times conceal an uneasy feeling when it came to the physical interpretation of results obtained by the Fourier method. The reason is that the Fourier-integral method considers phenomena in an infinite interval, sub specie aeternitatis [‘under the aspect of eternity’], and this is very far from our everyday point of view.” Gabor is right on the money again. Science has never been able to physically interpret Fourier analysis. That’s because Fourier analysis

demands a mental interpretation, and that’s exactly what science ideologically refuses to apply. The expression sub specie aeternitatis [“under the aspect of eternity”] has incredible significance since it reveals something else that science refuses to acknowledge: an eternal, Godlike perspective; an eternal order of existence, an eternal mathematical reality; an eternal and necessary ontology, comprising mathematical sinusoids. This is the viewpoint of pure reason, pure logic, pure math ... it has nothing to do with contingency, temporality, the senses, experiments and all things scientific. The eternal perspective isn’t that of “God” but of mathematics and the eternal truths of reason. The frequency domain is the eternal domain, the domain of infinite, eternal wave-trains. No individual frequency can ever change. All frequencies are strictly immutable. Each frequency is akin to a Platonic Form. Change does not come from individual frequencies but from changing combinations of these frequencies (“wavefunctions”). Science, as we repeatedly say, is the systematic misinterpretation of mathematics. Nothing is more scientifically misinterpreted than light, and the Fourier mathematics with which it is ontologically coupled. Mathematically, a photon (a light “particle) is just a sine wave paired with a cosine wave. From the spacetime perspective, this arrangement is interpreted as an “electromagnetic” phenomenon involving changing fields. From the frequency perspective, outside space and time, waves can easily be interpreted as eternally “frozen waves”. In that context, the spacetime interpretation of a light wave is wholly false. Science undergoes the most radical paradigm shift as soon as it’s realised that everything in science must be viewed from two perspectives, not one: 1) The spacetime perspective: temporal; contingent; changing; sensible; inductive; dimensional; empirical – the “human” perspective, or, alternatively, the conventional “scientific” perspective. 2) The frequency perspective: eternal; necessary; unchanging; intelligible; deductive; dimensionless; rational – the “divine” or Platonic perspective, or, alternatively, the “mathematical” perspective.

Without this dual-aspect ontology, it’s impossible to reach the right answers regarding reality. Pythagoras and Plato pointed all of this out as far back as two and half thousand years ago, so humanity doesn’t have any excuse for not knowing this. “If all observers moving at constant velocities (all inertial observers, in the jargon of physics) are entitled to say that they are at rest and measure all motion relative to themselves, it follows that they must all find the laws of physics to be the same. If I carry out an experiment in my spaceship, travelling at three-quarters of the speed of light relative to the Earth, I must get the same ‘answers’ as you get in your spaceship, travelling at half the speed of light relative to the Earth. If we get different answers, we would know which of us was ‘really’ moving and which one wasn’t.” – John Gribbin This whole analysis is false because there is an absolute reference frame ... the frequency Singularity ... and everything in spacetime has an absolute, not relative, relationship to this Singularity. The fact that the Singularity isn’t physically observable (the “ether” cannot be scientifically detected) doesn’t mean it’s not there, and science is absolutely wrong as soon as it ideologically declares that something that does exist (the ether) doesn’t exist scientifically because it doesn’t conform to the scientific paradigm. You can’t ignore an ontological fact because it’s not part of your model of reality. That’s insanity, yet this is exactly what science does. It’s no different from mainstream religion, which also denies the existence of anything inconsistent with its model of reality. With science, irrational dogmatism and ideology come first, not reason, logic, ontology and epistemology. Science is a faith, not an intellectual activity. The ether isn’t a dimensional spacetime ether, it’s a dimensionless frequency ether. Anyone who agrees with Einstein and disagrees with us has to prove that this frequency Singularity doesn’t exist. If they can’t, they are subscribing to a faith position. They are religious believers in the nonexistence of an Absolute Singularity of Mind. Atheism is the formal religion that denies the existence of an ontological mental domain, hence believes that reality jumps out of nothing at all for no reason at all via no mechanism at all. “The special theory of relativity tells us that it is impossible to run alongside a beam of light at the same speed as the light is moving; relative

to some chosen inertial frame, you can in principle get your own velocity up as close to the speed of light as you like without actually reaching it – but no matter how close you get, when you measure the speed of the light beam itself you will always get the answer c.” – John Gribbin Have you spotted the fundamental problem with Einstein’s scheme? It says that no matter what inertial frame you are in, you can never beat the speed of light, i.e. any experiment will always give you the same measurement for c. Do you see what question is immediately being invited? What reference frame is light itself in? Why does light have a unique status? Doesn’t that automatically imply that it belongs to a different category of existence? It plainly can’t be in spacetime because then it would just be like all other spacetime stuff. So, we have the bizarre situation where light is regarded by science as: 1) being in space but not in time, yet allegedly has a speed (distance travelled divided by time), 2) isn’t anything like matter in spacetime, 3) has no mass, and no dimensions, unlike any material thing, and 4) is always measured to have the same speed, unlike any material thing. These flagrant contradictions are swept under the carpet by science. There’s one obvious conclusion: light is entirely outside space and time and belongs to a different category of existence from matter. This raises a catastrophic problem for science. If light reflects a different ontology from matter, what is this ontology? If this is not a spacetime, material ontology, science is ipso facto refuted since science is wholly predicated on a spacetime, material ontology. Why does no scientist ever ask what the fact that matter can never be accelerated to light speed tells us about the ontological gulf between matter and light? Plainly, light and matter are not in the same game. Sure, they belong to same monistic system, but they’re different sides of one coin. Light is on the frequency side; matter on the spacetime side. Yet as soon as anything different from spacetime and matter is acknowledged, scientific materialism is falsified. Einstein couldn’t find any evidence for the ether, yet he never once asked where light itself must be, and whether any evidence would ever be found for the authentic home of light. Like all scientists, he was staggeringly inconsistent, and lacking in all curiosity about anything inconvenient to his assumptions. As soon as you consider the nature of light, you realise it can’t be anything like the rest of materialist science. It can’t be part of the spacetime

material world at all. So, then, where is it? There’s only one conceivable answer: outside space and time ... in the immaterial frequency Singularity. Einstein never considered such a possibility. He made no attempt to explain the ontology of light. No scientist ever has. None ever will. Scientists barely think at all. What they do is systematically apply their sensory prejudices. In the frequency domain, everything travels at light speed. Nothing can ever gain more speed than that, and nothing can ever lose that speed. Nothing can speed up or slow down ... which is totally different from the spacetime world. However, even in the spacetime world, the speed of light is sacrosanct. When anything material speeds up in space, it slows down in time, and vice versa, and this balancing act is designed to ensure that, overall, taking into account both speed through space and speed through time, the speed of light is the net speed of the material object. Einstein’s thinking regarding the ether exposes how poorly scientists analyse reality, and how subject they are to groupthink, invalid assumptions, false schemas, logical fallacies and observer and confirmation bias. The question that Einstein was fundamentally addressing was this: is there an absolute reference frame for the world? This question could scarcely be any more important. It’s a disguised way of talking about “God” or a “God Equation” – something eternal and necessary that guarantees everything else. It also points to an eternal substance – an arche, such as the ancient Greeks sought. Relativity – the denial of an absolute reference frame – supports atheism, contingency, subjectivity, perspectivism, and so on. How did Einstein go about his task? Being an ineradicable materialist and empiricist, his starting point was Newtonian absolute space and absolute time. The “ether” was really just Newtonian absolute space imagined not to be physically empty (as Newton had conceived it), but filled with some physical substance that provided the medium for the transmission of light. Bizarrely, science never directly considered the notion of a “time ether”. If a spatial medium is required to transmit light, why isn’t a temporal medium also required? Straight away, we would have a Cartesian substance dualism, raising questions of how the “space ether” and the “time ether” sit on top of each other, and how they interact. Scientists as physicalists have no difficulty conceiving of a physical space filled with something. However, they’re much less confident when it comes to time. How do you picture time? Is it an energy, a substance, a

medium, a cosmic clock? Here we see the whole problem with science – it doesn’t ontologically define anything. No scientist knows what time actually is. In fact, science can’t provide any ontological definition regarding space either, so it’s doubly confused. Into this disastrous muddle, Einstein inserted his own muddled thinking. He denied both the existence of Newtonian absolute space and absolute time, and any spatial ether and any temporal ether. He concluded that there was no preferred frame of reference at all against which everything else must be measured. He said that any observer is entitled to say that they’re at rest (in other words, they can call themselves the ether, or preferred reference frame), and measure all motion relative to themselves. Having dispensed with any absolute conditions regarding space and time, Einstein then did something incredible, something that destroyed his entire relativistic argument, although he didn’t realise it. He proclaimed the speed of light as an absolute! Any observer, in no matter what spacetime reference frame, would always measure light to have exactly the same speed. What Einstein did was to remove the absolute from space and time, but then confer it upon light itself. He failed to see that this must mean that it’s light that provides the absolute reference frame for existence. As soon as you grasp that light is actually mind – outside space and time – what Einstein was really proposing, although he was oblivious to it, was that mind, not matter, defines reality and provides the absolute frame of reference for material existence, which is therefore dependent on mind, thus contradicting the entire basis of scientific materialism and empiricism. Brian Greene wrote, “Einstein’s theory does not proclaim that everything is relative. Special relativity does claim that some things are relative: velocities are relative; distances across space are relative; durations of elapsed time are relative. But the theory actually introduces a grand, new, sweepingly absolute concept: absolute spacetime. Absolute spacetime is as absolute for special relativity as absolute space and absolute time were for Newton, and partly for this reason Einstein did not suggest or particularly like the name ‘relativity theory.’ Instead, he and other physicists suggested invariance theory, stressing that the theory, at its core, involves something that is not relative.” The entity that defines “absolute spacetime” is light. Everything in space and time has to be referred to the absolute reference frame provided by light. But light is mind (massless, immaterial, unextended, dimensionless,

outside space and time, in the frequency Singularity). Therefore, “absolute spacetime” = light = mind = the Singularity from which the whole material world sprang at the Big Bang. Mind created matter and controls it via the absolute speed of light, which matter can never defy. Einstein’s theory, when properly analysed, is an absolute theory of mind (!) and exposes the fallacy of scientific materialism and empiricism (which is predicated on Newtonian absolute space and absolute time). Souls are absolute mental entities, made of light, and existing in the dimensionless frequency Singularity of mind. What Einstein and his successors failed to consider was that they had established an absolute reference frame ... light! As materialists, they always considered reality in terms of space and time only. Once they had determined that there was no kind of absolute space or absolute time, they then denied that there was any absolute reference frame at all. Yet, in every spacetime reference frame, the speed of light is always absolute. So, what reference frame is light itself in?! It’s not in a spacetime reference frame because all of spacetime is relativistically defined with regard to it. There’s only one possible logical conclusion ... light isn’t in spacetime at all. The only thing that can exist outside spacetime is a Singularity, and, ontologically, a Singularity can be comprised only of mathematical sinusoids (frequencies) defined by the God Equation. The Singularity is the Cosmic Mind, made of monadic souls. As soon as that’s admitted, science is automatically replaced by ontological mathematics, materialism by idealism, empiricism by rationalism, physics by mathematical metaphysics, and matter is seen to be the product of mind, not the other way around. There’s plenty of evidence and proof of the existence of mind, outside space and time. However, science systematically reinterprets all of this clear evidence and proof in terms of its prevailing Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox points straight to the existence of a frequency Singularity (Mind) outside space and time, yet that’s the last conclusion any scientific materialist would ever arrive at. They deliberately blind themselves to the Truth. They are slaves of their ideology and dogmatism, just like religious believers. There’s yet another fundamental problem with Einstein’s theory of relativity. If it’s allegedly based on “absolute” spacetime, we need only ask

– where was this absolute spacetime prior to the Big Bang? According to science, there was nothing before the Big Bang, so that means there was no absolute spacetime, no absolute light, and that means that it’s not absolute at all, but contingent upon something else. According to ontological mathematics, what preceded the Big Bang was an eternal mental Singularity of frequency, a Singularity made of light, hence furnishing a true basis of light-defined absolute spacetime. As ever, ontological mathematics is infinitely more logical and rational than scientific materialism. Einstein had everything he needed to falsify scientific materialism and empiricism, yet he refused to see the bankruptcy of this ideology, and remained loyal and faithful to it. Instead of admitting that mind (= light) is at the root of everything, he blabbered on about his absurd materialist relativity rather than mental absolutism. “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. Physicists seem to ignore this remarkable state of affairs ... Perhaps they are simply so stunned by what the equations say that they have not fully thought out the implications.” – John Gribbin The whole problem with science is that it never considers what reality is like from the perspective of photons. It never considers the ontology of photons and what domain they inhabit (the frequency rather than spacetime domain). Einsteinian relativity is falsified if there exists an ontological reference frame that is not one of Einstein’s inertial frames and yet is related to them and, indeed, defines them. This Super Reference Frame is in fact the photonic reference frame of frequency and it plays the role of the ether in providing an absolute standard for everything else. It’s not a spatial ether or a temporal ether. It’s not in space and time at all. Science doesn’t spend any time at all considering the photonic domain, and that’s exactly why it will never explain ultimate reality. It has no ontology and epistemology for photons. It doesn’t consider reality from their viewpoint. It doesn’t consider the mathematical, metaphysical, rational and logical implications of that viewpoint. That viewpoint is in fact eternal and necessary, and defines everything else. It’s the viewpoint of the soul!

The whole of Einstein’s understanding of reality is predicated on there being no master reference frame (no “ether”). If such a reference frame does exist, Einstein’s interpretation is automatically wrong. There’s no such thing as Einsteinian relativity. Instead, there’s an absolute reality ... defined by the Cosmic Mind. Because science denies the real existence of mind, it excludes the possibility of a Cosmic Mind. Science’s ideology and dogmatism make it impossible for scientists to think clearly and analytically about reality.

The Failure of Scientific “Thinking” Einstein is a classic example of the failure of the scientific way of thinking. Scientists don’t think analytically, ontologically and epistemologically. Their starting point is not the principle of sufficient reason. They do not use formal logic and rational first principles. What scientists do is deploy a sensory model based on space, time and matter. Everything is forced through this filter. So, given that an immaterial frequency Singularity has nothing to do with space, time or matter, it cannot be an object of thought for scientists. The thought processes by which Einstein arrived at his theory of relativity were exactly those that prevented him from conceiving of a mental Singularity at the heart of existence. A Singularity is not an experimental entity. It has no connection with the scientific method, no connection with the human senses, no connection with materialism and empiricism, no connection with the scientific schema and mindset. A Singularity is purely logical, rational, analytic, metaphysical and mathematical, but none of these plays any part at all in the formal scientific method. When all’s said and done, the scientific method is about observing a pattern and then guessing a mathematical formula that generates that pattern. By its nature, this method can never address anything that doesn’t produce an observable pattern. So, if ultimate reality is about entities – monadic souls, for example – that we can’t observe using any conventional scientific techniques, then science can tell us zero about these things. Einstein’s principle of relativity could be formulated only in a system exclusively based on the things of science: space, time, matter and extension. Once immaterial, unextended entities are granted, Einstein’s entire analysis falls apart. Einstein literally missed out the most important

thing in existence – the mental Singularity that controls reality! – hence his principle of relativity is absolutely false, as false as it could possibly be. Why can’t relativity theory be reconciled with quantum mechanics? The answer is simple ... both theories are false! Both refuse to countenance a permanent immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. Since that’s exactly the entity that’s required to correct both relativity theory and quantum mechanics and allow them to be brought together, science can never make any further progress towards a final scientific theory of everything. Scientists will go on making Feynman guesses forever. They are too stupid to apply formal analysis, which would immediately turn science into ontological mathematics. Science is hoist with its own petard. It has wagered everything on the scientific method being the only route to knowledge, yet this method, by definition, can say nothing about anything unobservable. Since the monadic Singularity that defines existence is unobservable, science can tell us nothing about it, and all of its theories, which automatically exclude it, are false. Science is an ad hoc, heuristic system for modelling observable phenomena. It has nothing to contribute to a theory of unobservable ultimate reality. Mathematics alone can take us to the world of the unobservable Singularity – the Cosmic Mind, made of individual monadic minds. Science can tell you nothing about the mind because it doesn’t believe the mind exists. It considers the mind an epiphenomenon of matter. Since this is in fact a mental rather than material universe, science is literally 100% wrong. There’s only one reason why science isn’t a laughing stock, exactly as Abrahamism is. Science uses math, and since math is the Truth of reality, science can’t help but get some things right. Science is, in effect, sensory, phenomenal mathematics, and it does extremely well while it addresses sensory phenomena. As soon as it doesn’t, it’s useless. Science cannot address non-sensory, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics. It can tell humanity nothing about religion, spirituality, mind and life itself. Science is for extremely narrow, limited, pedestrian thinkers, lacking in imagination and intuition, and unable to understand that reason, logic and intellect are much more powerful than the senses. Sensory scientific “evidence” doesn’t tell you what reality is. Non-sensory mathematical proof

does. But you have to be a rationalist to know that, and all scientists are empiricists, i.e. anti-rationalists and irrationalists. Scientists aren’t allies of reason. They are its enemy. A person can be considered on the side of reason only if that person agrees that the principle of sufficient reason rules existence and the universe. Anyone who disagrees is claiming that existence and the universe are not grounded in reason, which means that these people are on the side of faith, obscurantism, mysticism, opinion, conjecture, supposition, hypothesis, and interpretation. Only a universe ruled by the principle of sufficient reason can be logical, intelligible, and have a rational answer. It really is as simple as that. If you are a scientist, you are an enemy of the principle of sufficient reason and you cannot logically claim to believe that the universe is rational, intelligible and has an answer.

Intuition versus the Senses In terms of ultimate reality, religious and spiritual intuition are infinitely more powerful than sensory science. Yet because we live most immediately in a sensory world, science is increasingly deemed much more powerful and true than religion and spirituality, which are more and more regarded as absurd superstitions and fantasies. Yet ontological mathematics rationally and logically demolishes the scientific sensory mania, and shows that nonsensory intuition was right all along.

The Unwelcome Guest Despite scientists’ hatred, fear and loathing of singularities, their theories keep producing them. We have the Big Bang singularity, black hole singularities and photonic singularities, i.e. spacetime “reality” is completely bounded by singularities, which aren’t material and aren’t in space and time at all. Why haven’t scientists got the message yet? Did no one send them the memo? There’s more to existence than space, time and matter ... there’s also non-space, non-time and non-matter (mind)! What could be more obvious?!

Absolutely Wrong

Einstein himself knew that there was something badly wrong with his theory. He was honest enough to realise he did not understand light, plaintively saying, “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.” How can any scientist claim to know anything if he can’t even define something as basic and fundamental as a photon? How can Einstein’s special theory of relativity be credible if it’s defined by light, yet Einstein, by his own admission, didn’t know what light is?! This is the central problem with science. It provides no ontological and epistemological definitions of anything at all. All it has are instrumental definitions, and these don’t tell you anything about what anything actually is. Einstein’s theory of special relativity relies on two postulates: 1) First postulate (principle of relativity): The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. 2) Second postulate (invariance of c): The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference. The second postulate is true, but has nothing to do with relativity. It’s an absolute criterion relating to an absolute universe, a universe reflecting absolute light. As for the first postulate, this is, in the terms proposed by Einstein, totally false. There is no such principle of relativity. In particular, time dilation and length contraction are absolute effects, not relative, in each inertial frame of reference. However, we are certainly not proposing that different laws of physics exist. There is only one set of laws of physics, traceable back to the single God Equation (the grand unified law of everything). That one set of laws of physics has different consequences in different inertial frames of reference. It’s not that the laws (causes) are different ... it’s that they have different effects depending on the frame of reference (as compared with the absolute reference frame of the ether). We invite every physicist on earth to attempt to prove that we are wrong! Physicists can’t even begin to do so because they can’t ontologically define light, space, time, mass, energy or speed! Science is a busted flush, and its bankruptcy is no more apparent than in Einstein’s celebrated relativity theory, one of the greatest blunders in

intellectual history, a blunder flowing inevitably and inescapably from science’s blinkered, dogmatic commitment to materialism, empiricism and positivism, to an obsession with space, time and matter, and a refusal to consider anything else. Luke Mastin wrote, “Einstein realized that Maxwell’s equations led to an apparent paradox or inconsistency in the laws of physics, because it suggested that if one could catch up to a beam of light one would see a stationary electromagnetic wave, which is an impossibility. Einstein hypothesized, therefore, that the speed of light actually plays the role of infinite speed in our universe, and that in fact nothing can ever travel faster than light (and certainly that nothing in the universe could ever travel at anything like infinite speed). It should be noted that Einstein did not actually prove the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference. Rather, it is an axiom (an underlying assumption) from which he derived the rest of his theory. The axiom can be experimentally verified, but it is not proven in any theoretic sense. “The other main plank was the ‘principle of relativity’ (or ‘principle of invariance’), an idea first stated by the great Italian physicist Galileo Galilei as early as 1632. Galileo argued that the mechanical laws of physics are the same for every inertial observer (those moving uniformly with constant speed in a straight line), and therefore that, purely by observing the outcome of mechanical experiments, one cannot distinguish a state of rest from a state of constant velocity.” At the extremely low velocities (compared with light) encountered in our world, the principle of relativity is approximately true, which is exactly why it came to be accepted in the first place. At speeds close to the speed of light, it’s wildly false. We could indeed clearly distinguish between a state of rest and a state of high constant velocity. The reason for this is, as we have said, that the time dilation and length contraction effects that Einstein considers relative are actually absolute. The reason why this hasn’t been experimentally verified lies purely in the fact that it’s incredibly difficult to get anything substantive to move at anywhere near light speed. If we could send a cat into space and make it travel at a constant velocity close to light speed, it would suffer absolute length contraction and be crushed to death. This is the opposite of Einstein’s insane claim that the cat wouldn’t change at all, but would perceive us, at rest on Earth, as being radically length contracted and time dilated. From the cat’s point of view, so Einstein

argued, we are moving and suffering relativistic effects. From our point of view, it’s the cat that is moving and suffering relativistic effects. It’s all relative. Nothing absolute is happening, according to Einstein. This is the total and absolute repudiation of the Reality Principle, whereby there is a single, objective reality, agreed upon by all! You cannot subscribe to both the Reality Principle and the Relativity Principle. They are mutually exclusive. The first is objective, the second subjective. The first says that we live in a real world, common to all. The second says that the world is merely as we perceive it to be, and others perceive it to be entirely different. It might as well be an unreal, private dream world. Einstein’s relativity principle is in fact the Dream Principle (the Unreality Principle), not the Waking Principle (the Reality Principle). With Einstein, we encounter the gospel of total subjectivity. It’s merely a mathematical version of Hume’s ultra-skepticism, whereby different observers can never agree on the same facts, thus radically undermining any claims to absolute knowledge. There is no objective reality whatsoever. If there were, it would be obvious who was moving and who wasn’t. According to Einstein, both are moving, and both are stationary (since each, simultaneously, can validly consider itself stationary, and the other in motion) – a logical impossibility! – and all that matters is what viewpoint you are taking, and the mathematical operations (Lorentz transformations) you deploy to describe the other entity. You see the other as length contracted and time dilated, and it sees you as length contracted and time dilated. Given this relativistic paradigm, there is ipso facto no such thing as objective reality. It can’t be stressed enough that the mathematics of this situation – i.e. the mathematics of Lorentz transformations – is exactly the same for both the absolutists and the relativists. The question is whether the Lorentz transformations have absolute or relative effects, and no experiment has thus far been devised to settle this question. A definitive solution would be produced only if we could send a life form into space at near light speed, and see what condition it’s in when it comes back. In the Einsteinian subjective, dreamlike worldview, it should come back alive; in the absolute, objective, waking worldview, it should come back emphatically dead. Experiments on dead particles don’t tell us anything in this regard. Anything that happens to them can be interpreted either relativistically or absolutely. This problem has been unresolved since the period before

Einstein published his famous theory. As Wikipedia says, “Lorentz and FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all.” Everyone agrees that the basic math is the same in both cases. What remains at issue is whether there’s an absolute reference frame (aether) that renders the effects absolute rather than relative. No scientist has ever disproved the existence of the aether. That’s a fact. The absolute, objective, waking world has not vanished. We are not all trapped in a solipsistic, subjective dream! Scientists love the fact that Einstein’s theory uses the Lorentz transformations without invoking any aether. They tell themselves that this accords with Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor is of course about not multiplying entities unnecessarily. However, if it is necessary, Occam’s Razor demands that you include it! The mental Singularity (Cosmic Mind = ether) is necessary, yet has been excluded by Einstein, whose theory is ipso facto false. Science excludes things that are unobservable. It hasn’t realised that these unobservable things are necessary for a rational, logical, intelligible world and cannot be excluded. As ever, science is destroyed by the method it worships. Like any religion, it insanely clings to its false God and gets everything wrong because of it. All scientists are illogical and irrational. They are fanatical believers in the delusional, inconsistent and incomplete human senses. They subscribe to “seeing is believing”. They are too plebeian, too irrational, to grasp that there’s more to existence than sensory things. Above all, math – without which science would be useless – is, in itself, totally non-sensory. Scientists are illogical idiots who have failed to comprehend the ontology of mathematics. Their failure to define what math actually is is the biggest intellectual failure conceivable. If you don’t know what math is, how can you know that ultimate reality isn’t purely mathematical? How can you know that mathematical metaphysics isn’t the underpinning of physics, that mathematics isn’t the noumenal underpinning of phenomenal science?

*****

Einstein’s relativistic ideas are an attack on the philosophical concept of substance. In fact, the whole of modern science is an onslaught against substance. A substance is something that depends on nothing else for its existence, and in which various properties inhere. These properties inhere absolutely, not relativistically. All substances have definite states. They do not have uncertain states, vague states, relativistic states, fuzzy states, blurry states, hazy states, indeterministic states, acausal states, probabilistic states, statistical states, random states, chance states, accidental states, unreal states, potentiality states, or any of the other crazy states that science loves to invoke. Science says that an unobserved cat in a special box can be dead, alive and in mixed alive-dead states all at once. This is the sort of drivel that is permissible once substance is abolished. In a world of substance, a cat is either alive or dead ... exactly what logic and reason mandate. The substance world is a world of actual things with real, precise, unambiguous states. Leibniz’s monadic world is a substance world. The world of Copenhagen quantum mechanics definitely isn’t, and nor is Einstein’s relativistic world. In Einstein’s system, nothing has any absolutely defined mass, energy, length or temporal characteristics ... it’s all relative. Both Copenhagen quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity are predicated on infinite contingent regress. There is no base to anything, no eternal and necessary foundations, no definite substratum to existence, no substance. Leibniz’s monadic system is the direct opposite. It’s logical, rational, exact, necessary, eternal, analytic, consistent, complete and absolute. It comprises monadic substances and their precise mathematical states. Philosophically and mathematically, the two central pillars of modern science – Einsteinian relativity and Copenhagen quantum mechanics – are preposterous. They are irrational, illogical, inconsistent and incomplete. They work as well as they do purely because of the mathematics they use. The scientific interpretation of that mathematics is, however, comically bad. Modern science is a combination of quite good math and utterly hopeless philosophy (materialism, empiricism, positivism, relativity, randomness, uncertainty, indeterminism and probability). This hopeless philosophy is radically holding back science. It’s science’s inept philosophy that’s preventing it from creating a final scientific theory. Above all, it’s

science’s repudiation of substance that means it can never succeed as an ultimate explanation of reality. Science’s biggest problem is its philosophical illiteracy and ignorance – indeed outright contempt for philosophy – quickly followed by its failure to understand the ontology of mathematics. Science blunders around making ad hoc guesses that it tries to map to experimental observations. How crazy would you have to be to imagine that such a process will ever arrive at definitive Truth?

***** Newton: absolute space and absolute time. Leibniz: absolute Mind; absolute spatial and temporal relations between material phenomena. Einstein: absolute spacetime: relative spatial and temporal relations between material things.

The Singularity Every major system of thought other than science implicitly or explicitly invokes a Singularity at the heart of reality. That’s true of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Neoplatonism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Gnosticism and Hermeticism. It’s in the philosophies of Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Jung, and countless others. Science alone defies the Singularity, which is why it’s the falsest description of ultimate reality than you can possibly get. Science is the worst explanation of all of what reality is. Science says that reality is an inexplicable accident that randomly jumps out of nothing for no reason via no mechanism. It’s actually hard to imagine a less scientific and rational explanation of reality than the one science actively subscribes to. If you are a thinking person, you should revisit every theory you have ever come across, in every context, and place an unobservable Cosmic Mind, made of monadic minds, at its core, and see how that consideration changes the theory. The theory most impacted by this addition is scientific materialism, which is entirely falsified by it.

The Cosmic Mind

Einsteinian relativity is totally refuted by the existence of a Cosmic Mind. The Cosmic Mind, in order to sustain objective reality (rather than some absurd, chaotic subjective dream with no rules) must know absolutely where everything is. The universe cannot be mathematical unless everything has a precise, absolute location, and everything at all times can be slotted exactly into the cosmic God Equation. A relativistic universe, or an “uncertain” universe, cannot have an answer. A mathematical universe, directed by a mathematical Cosmic Mind, is not random, acausal, indeterministic, accidental, probabilistic, statistical, fuzzy, hazy, blurry, unreal, or uncertain. It is not ruled by chance. The God Equation – ontological mathematics – does not play dice! Science alone reduces reality to meaningless dice throws in an inexplicable, miraculous, random universe where everything happens for no reason at all. You are either for or against the principle of sufficient reason. There is no middle ground. You must choose and commit. Science has chosen to believe in a sensible, empirical world, which does not have the principle of sufficient reason at its core, rather than an intelligible, rational world which does. It’s science versus math. You must choose one or the other.

Nothing to Lose Why doesn’t science perform a vast “thought experiment”? Why doesn’t it assume that a mathematical Singularity obeying Fourier mathematics stands at the centre of the universe, and controls everything in the universe? What does it have to lose? If it doesn’t perform this thought experiment, it will go on forever futilely making Feynman guesses to try to make progress in unifying relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It will never succeed!

Infinity Science rejects all infinities. It considers them inherently incompatible with physicality. Yet consider the scientific claim that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a physical object to light speed (which is therefore deemed impossible). If the physical universe contains no infinities – which are judged physically impossible – how can the physical universe contain light, which is seemingly separated from physical matter by infinite energy (i.e. you need infinite energy to accelerate matter to light)? Yet when

you detonate a nuclear bomb, or just switch on a light bulb, or even light a candle, you get light, so light is readily and intimately connected with matter. How can that be if they’re so radically separate? There’s something fundamentally wrong with science’s logic. In Illuminism, matter is simply “broken” light, hence has an inherent relationship with light.

***** Philosophically, Einstein fell under the spell of Ernst Mach, a phenomenalist empiricist and one of the inspirations for the school of logical positivism. Mach believed that only sensations are real, that we should therefore rely purely on physical observations and physical experiments. He rejected Newtonian absolute space and absolute time on the grounds that they could not be physically experienced. Science, to this day, remains infected with Mach’s ideas, hence why it’s so strenuously opposed to reason, intellect, logic, rationalism, mind and ontological mathematics – all of which are nothing to do with physical experiences and sensations, and which relegate physicalism and the senses to delusional states and the prime sources of misconceptions of reality.

***** The calamitous failing of science is that it has no ontology and no epistemology. It defines no substances. It posits nothing eternal and necessary in which exact properties inhere. Science is proud to be about indeterminism, contingency, randomness, relativity, probability, chance and accident. It doesn’t want an analytic answer to existence. It doesn’t want any answer at all. It just wants to keep guessing and observing. That’s all it does. No intellectual would ever defend science against mathematics, logic and reason. No intellectual would ever side with empiricism against rationalism.

The Mystery of Light

“The electromagnetic waves that compose electromagnetic radiation can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. This diagram shows a plane linearly polarized EMR wave propagating from left to right. The electric field is in a vertical plane and the magnetic field in a horizontal plane. The electric and magnetic fields in EMR waves are always in phase and at 90 degrees to each other.” – Wikipedia “Maxwell’s four equations describe the electric and magnetic fields arising from varying distributions of electric charges and currents, and how those fields change in time. The equations were the mathematical distillation of decades of experimental observations of the electric and magnetic effects of charges and currents. Maxwell’s own contribution is just the last term of the last equation but realizing the necessity of that term had dramatic consequences. It made evident for the first time that varying electric and magnetic fields could feed off each other – these fields could propagate indefinitely through space, far from the varying charges and currents where they originated. Previously the fields had been envisioned as tethered to the charges and currents giving rise to them. Maxwell’s new term (he called it the displacement current) freed them to move through space in a selfsustaining fashion, and even predicted their velocity it was the velocity of light! ... The next step is to imagine an electric current in the sheet that’s oscillating like a sine wave as a function of time: the magnetic and electric fields will evidently be sine waves too! In fact, this is how electromagnetic waves are generated. ... This is how Maxwell discovered a speed equal to the speed of light from a purely theoretical argument based on experimental determinations of forces between currents in wires and forces between electrostatic charges. This of course led to the realization that light is an electromagnetic wave, and that there must be other such waves with different wavelengths. Hertz detected other waves, of much longer wavelengths, experimentally, and this led directly to radio, TV, radar, cellphones, etc.” – Michael Fowler Physicists always have to think in terms of physical, sensory phenomena in order to understand anything. James Clerk Maxwell famously produced four equations to describe electromagnetism, and thus light. However, ontological mathematics always looks behind the physical, phenomenal veil to the noumenal, mathematical, rational, ontological reality that underlies

all physicality. Maxwell’s work, no matter how brilliant (and it certainly is), does not tell you what light is fundamentally: ontologically and epistemologically. How is light to be defined noumenally (in itself) rather than phenomenally (as it appears to us)? Anyone who has been paying serious attention to the God Series should see that Maxwell’s equations are rooted in something much more fundamental ... the true, ontological ground of light ... Euler’s Formula! Euler’s formula, when considered dynamically, across all possible values of angle, yields an eternal cosine wave and matching sine wave. This is the noumenal basis of an electric field and magnetic field operating in concert to produce the phenomenon of light. All physical phenomena have an ontological, noumenal mathematical underpinning, and everything can ultimately be traced back to Euler’s Formula (and it’s more general expression: the God Equation). To make sense of the fundamental relationship between Euler’s Formula and light, we have to distinguish between standing and travelling waves. Encyclopædia Britannica says, “Standing wave, also called stationary wave: combination of two waves moving in opposite directions, each having the same amplitude and frequency. The phenomenon is the result of interference – that is, when waves are superimposed, their energies are either added together or cancelled out. In the case of waves moving in the same direction, interference produces a travelling wave; for oppositely moving waves, interference produces an oscillating wave fixed in space. A vibrating rope tied at one end will produce a standing wave...” Edward M. Purcell and David J. Morin say, in Electricity and Magnetism, “In contrast with the travelling wave, the [electromagnetic] standing wave has its electric and magnetic fields ‘out of step’ in both space and time.” In University Physics, Hugh D Young, Roger A Freedman, and Ragbir Bhathal write, “Electromagnetic waves can be reflected; the surface of a conductor (like a polished sheet of metal) or of a dielectric (such as a sheet of glass) can serve as a reflector. The superposition principle holds for electromagnetic waves just as for electric and magnetic fields. The superposition of an incident wave and a reflected wave forms a standing wave. The situation is analogous to standing waves on a stretched string... The total electric field is a sine function of t, and the total magnetic field is a cosine function of t. The sinusoidal variations of the two fields are

therefore ninety degrees out of phase at each point At times when sin ωt = 0, the electric field is zero everywhere, and the magnetic field is maximum. When cos ωt = 0, the magnetic field is zero everywhere, and the electric field is maximum. This is in contrast to a wave travelling in one direction...” For an excellent visualisation of the difference between electromagnetic standing and travelling waves, see the following links: http://clas.sa.ucsb.edu/staff/martin/EM_StandingWave.html http://clas.sa.ucsb.edu/staff/martin/EM_TravelingWave.html Wikipedia says, “The most common cause of standing waves is the phenomenon of resonance, in which standing waves occur inside a resonator due to interference between waves reflected back and forth at the resonator’s resonant frequency. For waves of equal amplitude travelling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.” In the eternal frequency domain defined by the generalised Euler Formula, electromagnetic waves aren’t travelling anywhere in space and time, and are not performing any net propagation of energy, so they must be considered as standing electromagnetic waves. i.e. “standing light”. Conventional spacetime “moving light” is how standing light in the frequency domain appears to observers positioned in the spacetime domain. Remember, nothing that is massless and dimensionless can ever be genuinely moving in spacetime (it can move only in the frequency domain). The motion of observers that are stationary, or near stationary, in space, but moving at or close to light speed in time, mathematically adds to stationary electromagnetic waves the necessary phase relations to produce the mathematical illusion of a travelling electromagnetic wave.

***** “[James Clerk Maxwell] proposed in his electromagnetic theory of light (1864) that in fact light is an electromagnetic wave. ... There are two kinds of electric charge, plus and minus. When we have a charge of any sign, the direction of force on another nearby positive charge is defined as the direction of electric field. The intensity of the electric field is stronger where the force is stronger. Thus, the electric field is a vector, which has an intensity (i.e., magnitude) and direction.

“The electric and magnetic fields vary with time. For example, when no one is talking, the electric and magnetic fields close to an AM or FM radio station antenna are a perfect sine wave at a given frequency. However, the sine wave for the electric field is slightly different from the sine wave for the magnetic field. Specifically, the phase between the electric field and magnetic fields differ by 90 degrees. If the electric field is a sine wave, this means that the magnetic field is actually a cosine wave, a sine wave delayed by 90 degrees. This is the nature of electromagnetic resonance. It can be imagined that in the near field, the electric energy and the magnetic energy are sloshing back and forth. So if all the electromagnetic energy is just sloshing back and forth, how does it ever travel to the distant receiver? “Maxwell’s equations also give us a travelling wave ... The complete electric and magnetic fields are everywhere the same on a transverse (i.e., perpendicular to the direction of travel) plane. Note that the electric field Ex and magnetic field Hy are perpendicular to each other and are in phase. We call this a plane wave. ... “In the near field of an antenna, the electric and magnetic fields surge back and forth, going nowhere. In the travelling wave, the electric and magnetic fields are in phase, travelling at the speed of light. ... Electric fields (electric lines of force) and magnetic fields (magnetic lines of force) cannot be seen or experienced directly...” – Hiroaki Kogure, Yoshie Kogure, James C. Rautio, Introduction to Antenna Analysis Using EM Simulators

***** Earlier, we quoted Luke Mastin’s comment: “Einstein realized that Maxwell’s equations led to an apparent paradox or inconsistency in the laws of physics, because it suggested that if one could catch up to a beam of light one would see a stationary electromagnetic wave, which is an impossibility.” Well, you can get a stationary, or standing, electromagnetic wave, either in spacetime, or outside spacetime. “Stationary” or “standing” doesn’t mean “frozen” in place. Such waves are full of motion, but do not propagate anywhere. As ever, Einstein’s materialist and empiricist preconceptions prevented him from thinking properly about the true nature of light.

*****

Viewed from the frequency Singularity, light surges “back and forth”, going nowhere. Viewed from spacetime, light travels at the speed of light in spacetime. Singularity: electromagnetic standing waves. Spacetime: electromagnetic travelling waves. (From the spacetime perspective, electromagnetic standing waves in the frequency Singularity are translated into, or perceived as, travelling waves in spacetime.) Reality is all about standing and travelling electromagnetic waves, all about intact and “broken” electromagnetic waves. There’s nothing else. It’s all in the math. Electromagnetic standing waves in the frequency Singularity are eternal, necessary, indestructible and reflect the mathematical First Law of Energy Conservation. Electromagnetic standing waves are what souls are made from. Souls are therefore eternal vibrations of light. Those vibrations are none other than thoughts! Electromagnetic standing waves = thoughts. “Matter” is made of travelling waves that, due to asymmetric phase relations, have mathematically broken out of the standing-wave Singularity. From their perspective, light becomes a travelling wave rather than stationary wave! Existence is all about light, all about thought, all about life, all about how light “breaks” to form darkness (matter)! Everything is about electromagnetic waves and their relations.

*****

“Euler’s formula wip wo the unit circle” by WoodMath See WoodMath’s “Euler’s formula 3d visualization” at: http://woodmath.deviantart.com/art/Euler-s-formula-3d-visualization268936785

***** One thing that we must stress is that a fundamental manoeuvre performed by physics – using angular velocity multiplied by time as a substitute for angle (since the angle that can be rotated in one second multiplied by the number of seconds equals the total angle) – is invalid at the fundamental ontological level we are considering here, given that “time”, at this stage of the proceedings, has no ontological meaning. It has not been defined, so can’t be used. This is the kind of basic rational consideration that science ignores as it rushes ahead to produce workable, “successful” formulae, and this is exactly why science has no rational, logical analytic foundations, and no formal ontology and epistemology. That’s why science is an ad hoc, heuristic fiction.

The Sine Function, Cosine Function and The Unit Circle http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~mcquarrb/teachingarchive/Precalculus/Animati ons/SineCosineAnim.html Check out this link. You are looking at the two most basic processes of existence, life, mind and matter!

Ontological Light Analytically proving that Euler’s Formula can be equated with Maxwellian electromagnetism at the fundamental ontological level is of course an enormously complex mathematical task. However, if you fancy yourself as a mathematician who can change the world, that’s the sort of challenge you should be setting yourself. Bridging the gap between pure math (ontological mathematics) and applied math (physics) is exactly what must be accomplished to show how physics can be reduced to ontological mathematics, and thus made fully analytic, hence have an exact answer. The central problem in this regard resides in the nature of i (the imaginary number), and how that impacts reality. Ontological mathematics is predicated on the ontology of both imaginary and real numbers (to produce ontological complex numbers). Physics is predicated on real numbers alone (so all imaginary and complex entities must be banished in the output of any physics calculations).

The difference between a mathematical and scientific conception of reality reduces to precisely the “reality” of imaginary numbers, complex numbers, negative numbers, zero and infinity. In essence, physics is a claim that all numbers other than positive real numbers have no bearing on reality. This is an assertion about both ontology and mathematics, but no scientist has ever provided one shred of evidence or proof that the scientific conception of numbers is valid. If that conception is invalid (as it is), science is automatically ontologically false. Note that science’s version of math (based on positive real numbers) is mathematically inconsistent and incomplete, hence false. Science simply ignores all such problems. It has no interest in rational and logical coherence.

The Double Helix!!!

DNA double helix model – interactive sculpture, Berkeley, California.

“Phasor Candidate” by WoodMath

***** Do you see how light, life, mind, thinking, DNA ... everything ... comes back in the end to helices and spirals, sines and cosines. This is a strictly mathematical universe. It’s all in the math!

Brainwaves

Everyone has heard of brainwaves, which are normally discussed in terms of five distinct types: 1) Beta Waves (14-40Hz): associated with waking consciousness and conscious reasoning. Also linked to stress, anxiety and restlessness. Sometimes regarded as the carrier of our “inner critic”. 2) Alpha Waves (7.5-14Hz): associated with deep relaxation, with daydreams, light meditation, and so on. These waves engage intuition, imagination, visualization, memory, learning and concentration. They have been described as the gateway to the subconscious mind. They are the base of conscious awareness, and after them comes the subconscious. The alpha state can be reached from the beta state (above it), or the theta state (below it). 3) Theta Waves (4-7.5Hz): associated with light sleep and REM dream states. Here, consciousness is linked to the private dream world rather than the public dream world (aka the waking world). The theta state can be reached from the alpha state (above it) or the delta state (below it). 4) Delta Waves (0.5-4Hz): associated with deep sleep, and the apparent absence of dreaming. These waves are firmly linked to the unconscious. Plants may have some kind of delta wave activity. The delta state is reached from the theta state (above it), or the undefined, unlabelled state below it. In Jungian terms, we might refer to the undefined, ultra-low frequency state as psychoid, whereby we are starting to enter the material state. 5) Gamma Waves (above 40Hz): these are actually higher frequency waves than alpha waves, and are associated with insight, and the approach of enlightenment (gnosis). Animals exist mostly at the alpha state, with occasional forays into beta, but they never reach gamma. In fact, only higher humans can access gamma, and most humans are actually much more likely to fall back down to alpha and below than get anywhere near gamma. Higher reasoning, i.e. intellectual activity, is much more likely to take you to gamma than Eastern meditation. If anything, the latter will put you into a zombie-like or plant-like state, hence is actually leading you away from enlightenment! “Brain waves” are associated with the physical brain. What about “mind waves” – omega waves, we might call them – associated with the

dimensionless, non-physical mind? The relevant waves are electromagnetic standing waves – true light waves – and there’s a whole spectrum of them, associated with entirely new, and much more powerful levels of insight and mental power than anything linked to brain waves. Photons are described as the carriers of the electromagnetic force. In fact, they are the carriers of the sine-cosine force, and that’s the force of ontological mathematics – the mental force of monadic minds. “Electromagnetism” is a phenomenal interpretation of noumenal mathematical behaviour concerning the interaction of sine and cosine waves. Mathematics isn’t an abstraction. It’s not about symbols on a piece of paper, or marks on a blackboard or whiteboard. Mathematics is ontological. It’s the fibre and fabric of existence. That means it has Form and Content, not Form alone. The Content gives rise to all of the empirical phenomena that we encounter in the universe. Underlying all of them are mathematical noumena, but we (humanity) never directly encounter these, and thus we never interpret the world mathematically, only physically, phenomenally, and empirically. We assign non-mathematical labels to things that are actually purely mathematical. Space, time, mass, matter, energy, electricity, magnetism, speed, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, thinking, intuition, emotions, sensations, desires, will ... these are all labels attached to mathematical functions arising from sine and cosine waves, and their interactions. Mathematical sinusoids are the unifying arche behind absolutely everything. They are the basis of the true grand unified, final theory of everything, the very thing that science desperately seeks but will never find – unless it turns to ontological mathematics. The God Equation is the ontological light equation, the ontological mind equation, the ontological matter equation. Light unifies mind and matter. Pure light defines mind, and broken light defines matter. All of the secrets of the universe can be found in the following simple diagram, depicting the unit circle traced by Euler’s Formula:

As one example of the power of this diagram, we shall derive the Lorentz factor that’s at the core of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and effectively defines the whole thing. We won’t of course be using any of Einstein’s relativistic, materialistic arguments! The whole point is that we can derive his system mathematically, without performing any experiments of referring to the physical world at all. Moreover, our derivation is absolute, not relativistic, thus refuting Einstein’s fallacious ideology of relativism. Simply put, Euler’s Formula tells us that a mathematical point tracing out the circumference of the Euler unit circle generates a full (real) cosine wave, and a matching full (imaginary) sine wave. We can regard the x-axis as an analogue of absolute real space, and the y-axis as an analogue of absolute imaginary space (= absolute “time”). However, these potential Newtonian absolutes are never actually encountered. The cosine wave that runs along the real axis is paired with the sine wave that runs along the imaginary axis, and their combined effect is to produce absolute spacetime, yet this, actually, is nothing to do with spacetime ... it’s entirely outside spacetime and, in fact, defines the frequency domain of mind (the Singularity). All spacetime entities are circumscribed by this frequency domain, and can never escape from it. The frequency domain provides the absolute conditions that define everything within spacetime. All the regions between the axes in the above Euler diagram, correspond to spacetime. Consider the top right quadrant where the triangle is shown. This triangle is a classic Pythagorean right-angled triangle. Such a triangle can be constructed for every possible angle between zero and ninety degrees, with the radius always acting as the hypotenuse of the triangle. No such triangle, with the radius as the hypotenuse, can be constructed for the radial axes themselves. That’s exactly why they’re not in spacetime, and why they in fact belong to the dimensionless frequency domain.

The radius (hypotenuse) for each such Pythagorean triangle is, naturally, exactly the same length as each of the two axial radii, i.e. it corresponds to the speed of light (since all sinusoids in the frequency domain move at this speed, the cosmic speed limit ... it’s a fundamental property of a reality based on analytic circles!). All objects in spacetime move – overall – at the speed of light. However, we can define a speed through space (vs) for each, and a speed through time (vt). Via Pythagoras’s theorem, we can write c2 = vs2 + vt2. Solving with respect to vt, we initially get: vt2 = c2 – vs2. Dividing each side by c2, we get: vt2/c2 = (1 – (vs2/c2)). Taking the square root, we get: (vt/c) = √(1 – (vs2/c2)). The expression on the right is the Lorentz factor (or, its inverse, to be more accurate). In other words, it’s something that comes from nothing more complex than Pythagoras’s triangle applied to the Euler unit circle. As for vt/c, we have discussed that ratio in much more detail in our earlier book The God Equation. The key point is that all of the central ideas of modern science are actually just misinterpretations of mathematical features of Euler’s Formula, the base equation of light, life, mind and matter, of space and time, of electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity, of frequency and spacetime, of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, of the Singularity, of the Big Bang ... of absolutely everything that science deals with. So, who needs science?! Remember, you can never be right about reality unless your ontology and epistemology are right, and only ontological mathematics furnishes this. Science makes no attempt whatsoever to define any ontology or epistemology. It’s based on nothing but Feynman guesses, ad hoc speculations, arbitrary hypotheses, randomness and probability, indeterminism, heuristic fictions and infinite contingent regress. How stupid would you have to be, how philosophically ignorant, how contemptuous of the ontology of mathematics, would you have to be to place all of your trust in science ... the study of appearances, but not of reality in itself. Reality is eternal and necessary. Science, however, has no eternal, necessary elements. It actively disdains them, which is exactly why it will never be the answer to existence that humanity seeks. Only two things are

eternal and necessary: God and the God Equation, and the first is merely a Mythos fantasy, a personification and anthropomorphication of the latter. How does science account for the fact that an entirely different derivation of the Lorentz transformations can be provided, one that wholly supports the existence of the ether (as mental and mathematical rather than material and scientific)? Science doesn’t have a clue. It never proves anything. It simply arrives at useful heuristic fictions. Einstein produced a non-ether misinterpretation of the authentic Lorentz transformations, and science proclaimed him a genius. In fact, he was totally wrong and has steered science away from the mathematical, nonphysical truth of existence for over a century! Science must learn to overcome its heroes, its authorities, its popes. Science’s greatest saints – Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Born and Feynman – are all wrong. What they all have in common is that they produced mathematics that worked, and interpretations of their mathematics that were entirely fallacious, and which now actively prevent science from solving its most fundamental problems, such as how to make relativity theory and quantum mechanics compatible. In fact, both theories are formally false ... but rational, logical, mathematical thinkers, not physicalists and physicists, can easily extract the true elements from them. Just as no ancient religion – such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism – can succeed until it repudiates its core beliefs and turns into something completely different, so science can never succeed until it rejects its two gods – the experimental method and materialism.

The Union Note that the expression (vt/c) = √(1 – (vs2/c2)) features both spacetime (via vt and vs) and the frequency domain (via c). In other words, the frequency Singularity – the true ether – is right in the middle of the very equation that Einstein believed got rid of the ether! How’s that for irony?

The Forbidden It’s effectively forbidden for any scientist to challenge Einstein’s theory of relativity. John Bell was the last to do so, and not a single living scientist had the guts to follow him, just as none followed Paul Dirac decades earlier.

Scientists bow to “authority” at all times. They are the opposite of freethinkers. They would never dare to conceive of the ether as mental rather than physical since that would overthrow their entire Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. Science is now a religion, a Church. It dogmatically shuts down all heretics, freethinkers, blasphemers and infidels. Scientists are a disgrace. They are irrational and illogical. They’re blinkered drones and functionaries, just like priests of intolerant religions. They base everything on the denial of dimensionless, non-sensory, mental, frequency existence, and they are simply wrong.

***** “Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” – Plato Science – one of the most authoritarian systems of groupthink you can get – labels everyone who rejects materialism and empiricism a lunatic and a fool. The trouble is that logic and reason, and ontology and epistemology, all refute materialism and empiricism, hence scientists are the true lunatics and fools. They are the sensory equivalents of the emotional, irrational and illogical people of religious faith. Reason and logic are the antidotes to mainstream religion and science. Logos is the cure for Mythos whether it’s emotional (religion) or sensory (science). Anyone who scorns the principle of sufficient reason is lost. Science has never found a place for this fundamental principle of existence. There’s only one way to make rational, logical sense of space, time and matter, and that’s to go outside space, time and matter – to an eternal, necessary, mathematical Singularity. Science refuses to do so, and makes the absurd, quasi-religious claim that space, time and matter magic themselves into existence out of nothing via a random miracle! At least the Abrahamists have “God” to perform the miracle of creating something out of nothing. Scientists get the miracle to randomly and magically perform itself! They’re so stupid, they think this is a rational proposal. Scientists will believe any old drivel provided it doesn’t involve mind or God. Materialists and empiricists, for ideological reasons, cannot subscribe to a rational, eternal, necessary, mathematical Singularity that’s neither

material nor empirical! Science cannot subscribe to a dimensionless, mental, mathematical ether.

Mind, Space and Time “This is the big difficulty that there has always been with mind; that it can’t be located anywhere in space, and yet one presumably wants it to be located in time.” – P. C. W. Davies In fact, it’s essential for mind not to be in time. As Kant pointed out, free will is possible only if mind is outside space and time causality. Mind, which is made of light, is immaterial, massless and outside both space and time. Mind is both timeless and spaceless. Science has always been clueless about the nature of mind, and ignorant of philosophy. It’s simply embarrassing whenever any scientist dares to refer to mind and its properties. They can’t help but try to squeeze it into their little materialistic, autistic spacetime box.

***** “Of course Eugene Wigner has suggested that he can insert a very definite division between the observer and observed, because he invokes the mind as a completely separate entity which is somehow coupled to the world, and he says that it’s the entry into the mind of the observer that resolves the quantum mechanical paradoxes we’ve been discussing. So, he’s bringing the idea of a non-material mind to play a prominent part in the physical world.” – P. C. W. Davies Wigner was absolutely right! However, he was unable to do what Illuminism has done and provide a mathematical definition, ontology and epistemology for the mind. “Well, it’s an idea worth exploring. But in my opinion, the difficulties associated with it are underestimated, simply because nobody has developed the theory beyond the talk stage. As soon as you try to put such theories down in mathematical equations, as soon as you try to make them Lorentz invariant, you get into great difficulties. For example, the interaction between the mind and the rest of the world, how does that occur? Does that occur over a finite region of space, at an instant in time?

Clearly not, because that is not a Lorentz invariant concept [i.e. it doesn’t have a consistent description for all observers depending on how they’re moving]. And the only way to get such a consistent description, if you assume the mind has access to a single point in time, is to also assume that it has access to only a single point in space. ... yet Wigner wants somehow to couple that up into the equations of physics. It has simply not been done. It is simply talk, for the present.” – John Bell It has been done! ... by Illuminism. The concept that Bell was failing to grasp, but which Wigner intuited, was that of the mind as an immaterial frequency singularity, outside space and time, which interacts with the physical world via Fourier mathematics. If John Bell were alive and reading this book, he would be the only scientist in the world capable of grasping the scale of the revolutionary breakthrough that Illuminism has accomplished ... putting mind mathematically into physics for the very first time. The average scientist would read a book such as this in blank incomprehension, and then give it a one-star review on Amazon, declaring it nonsense and “woo”. So it goes. Only geniuses can understand genius!

Necessary Math is a necessary existent. Everything about math is necessary and inevitable. Nothing about “science” is necessary. It’s pure contingency, with no rational foundations.

Division by Zero Science has a total horror of zero and infinity. It claims that dimensionless existence is impossible, and that nothing natural – no process taking place in nature – can be linked to infinity. It imagines that infinity somehow destroys anything it touches, or automatically renders absurd any theory that produces it. In fact, the Euler circle is all about zero and infinity – and everything in between – and is a well-behaved, analytic system, with no oddities, discontinuities, or out-of-control processes. Consider division by cos x or sin x. There’s nothing bizarre about such division. Yet, at zero degrees, sin x = 0, and, at ninety degrees, cos x = 0. So, in those cases, division by zero occurs. Yet, at zero degrees, cos x = 1,

and, at ninety degrees, sin x = 1. In other words, at zero degrees, we wipe out the sine component (and have a pure cosine component), and, at ninety degrees, we wipe out the cosine component (and have a pure sine component). When we potentially arrive at division by zero at sin 0 – which would lead to an infinite result – something else takes place that prevents division by zero ... we switch from the world involving sines to the cosine world alone. In other words, whenever you encounter division by zero, or any infinite result, what you are really being told is that you are leaving the world that generated that result and moving to a different world, where division by zero does not apply. To put it another way, you are undergoing a phase transition. For example, to be told that the mass of an object will become infinite at light speed should actually be translated into “the object will undergo a phase transition at light speed; specifically, it will leave the material world and enter the mental world”. In a well-regulated, well-behaved, analytic system, there are no true uncontrolled, incomprehensible infinites, such as science imagines, dreads, and ideologically forbids. Every time you encounter an infinity, you are being told that you have failed to take into account a phase transition. When you identify the correct phase transition, the infinite result vanishes. Science hasn’t learned this simple truth yet. When it encounters an infinity in a theory, it thinks the theory must be in wrong, when, in fact, all that has to be done is make sure that the theory accommodates a logical phase transition that takes place at exactly where the infinity is encountered. At the bottom of all spacetime processes is a phase transition to the frequency domain of singularities outside space and time. Infinity is never a disaster in a theory ... it’s the best clue you can get that your theory needs a phase transition at that point to a different ontological category. Of course, science rejects different ontological categories (such as mind existing separately from matter), which is why it never has an escape route from an infinite result.

Descartes and Light Isn’t it remarkable that no scientist has ever noticed the incredible similarity between light and Cartesian mind? Check it out:

1) Cartesian mind: unextended, dimensionless, immaterial, massless, indestructible, immortal, outside space and time. 2) Light: unextended, dimensionless, immaterial, massless, indestructible, immortal, outside space and time. 3) Cartesian matter: extended, dimensional, material, massive, destructible, mortal, inside space and time. 4) Scientific matter: extended, dimensional, material, massive, destructible, mortal, inside space and time. Why has no scientist ever proposed that – given that light has exactly the same characteristics as Cartesian mind – light is the scientific basis of mind and thought? Unfortunately, that would require imagination, intuition, reason and logic: exactly what scientists lack. They are so indoctrinated to deny the existence of mind that they attempt to define light as a form of matter rather than matter as a form of light (broken light, to be exact). The truth of reality is that a permanent mental Singularity exists at the heart of the spacetime material world, and controls that world mathematically – via light (which conveys the thoughts of the Cosmic Mind). A photon, as we have seen, is simply the pairing of a sine wave and a cosine wave in a perfect orthogonal relation to each other. A material particle is produced by any arrangement in which sine-cosine orthogonality breaks down and the sine and cosine waves have any phase relation that is not exactly ninety degrees. It’s all in the math. The material world is the product of broken thought. It’s a mental construct, arising from non-orthogonal sinusoidal phase relations. What could be more straightforward?

***** Science defines matter particles (fermions) and force particles (bosons). If science simply said that fermions are extended (physical) and bosons unextended (mental), it would have arrived at a Cartesian description of reality!

Speed

All things with mass have a subluminal speed. Anything without mass travels at light speed. There’s nothing that is neither massless nor massive, so nothing can travel faster than light. What could be simpler? Particles with mass travel at subluminal speed through spacetime, while particles without mass travel at light speed through the frequency domain, outside space and time. This latter scenario is perceived, or, rather, misperceived, by beings in spacetime, to correspond to light travelling through spacetime. Brian Greene says that light travels only through space, and not through time. In fact, it doesn’t travel through either space or time ... it’s entirely in the frequency domain. There’s self-evidently something wrong with Greene’s claim because we all interpret light to be travelling through space and time. How would we be able to assign a physical speed to light in the first place if we were not able to measure how far it travels through space in a certain time? How can something travel through space without travelling through time, given that the whole concept of spacetime travel depends on taking time to get from A to B? If you remove time from travel, everything in space is everywhere at once, and nothing takes any time to get anywhere. Everything therefore has infinite speed (in spacetime terms). Scientists such as Greene try to make light conform to our spacetime perceptions and sensibility. However, when we look at the situation from light’s perspective, it experiences neither time nor space. After all, it’s maximally time-dilated and maximally length-contracted. Anything with maximum time dilation (time passes infinitely slowly, so that a clock never ticks) cannot be in time, and anything with maximum length contraction (length passes infinitely slowly, so a ruler never has anything to measure) cannot be in space. Scientists are compelled by their empiricist and materialist ideology – not by reason and logic – to assert that light travels through space, but not time. If they were to admit that light travelled through neither space nor time then they would ipso facto have conceded that there’s a world outside spacetime – the frequency domain of mind! Scientists will never accept the existence of a separate world of mind no matter how much reason and logic prove that it exists. They are fanatics who refuse to doubt their own belief system. They are people who cannot escape their sensory, spacetime fixation. Imagine how much science would

change if light were understood to be mental rather than physical! The ultimate paradigm shift would be ushered in immediately. Here’s another simple reason why light must be understood to belong to an entirely different category of existence from matter (frequency rather than spacetime existence; dimensionless rather than dimensional existence) ... it takes an infinite amount of energy, according to Einstein, for mass to be converted into light. This is obviously total nonsense. For mass to become light, it must in fact undergo a phase transition from dimensional spacetime existence to dimensionless frequency existence. This does not require infinite energy. In fact, exactly this process takes place during black hole formation. A dimensional star in spacetime collapses into a dimensionless hole outside spacetime (in the frequency domain). In a black hole singularity, all of the star’s former mass has been converted into light! Light can’t “escape” from a black hole because a black hole is pure light ... pure mind, outside space and time. The mass – the “broken” light from which the star was made in the first place – has now been restored to pure light and returned to its originating frequency domain. The frequency domain, in these circumstances (those in which it’s mathematically linked to enormously curved spacetime), is shielded from spacetime by an “event horizon”. Where spacetime is essentially “flat” – as is true in the vast bulk of spacetime – the frequency domain is “naked” in relation to spacetime (i.e. it has no event horizon), hence we can “see” light (and thus directly interact with the frequency domain). One way to think of black holes from a spacetime perspective is to imagine that they create a spacetime environment where light seems to have to travel infinitely far to reach us, so it never does. In normal spacetime environments, light doesn’t have to travel infinitely far to reach us, and so it does reach us. Moreover, light always reaches us at exactly the same speed. Scientists imagine they know a lot about black holes. Actually, they know next to nothing. They haven’t understood that black holes are massless, immaterial frequency domains that have left space and time entirely. They haven’t understood that black holes are mental rather than physical environments! Black holes are mental portals into the physical world. Once you get your ontology wrong, everything you subsequently say is wrong too. Science has got its fundamental ontology wrong because it

accepts the existence of only the spacetime (material) domain, and rejects the frequency (mental) domain, outside space and time. Science has produced an elaborate heuristic fiction – a bogus model of reality – that works well as long as it sticks strictly to spacetime, phenomenal issues. As soon as it attempts to address noumenal issues (“God”, the soul, mind, life, consciousness, the ultimate constituents of reality), it becomes spectacularly absurd. Why can’t scientists think? Anyone who regards sensory “evidence” (i.e. sensory interpretation) as more important than eternal, analytic, necessary rational proof, is plainly not a thinking type. It’s disgraceful that scientists claim to be rational. They are fanatical empiricists, explicitly opposed to rationalism and the principle of sufficient reason. This fundamental principle does not appear anywhere in scientific discourse. You will never hear a scientist relying on rationalist arguments. They always refer to sensory, empirical experiments.

Correspondence Brian Greene says that light travels only through space. If that were true, scientists should automatically search for particles that travel only through time ... since why should travel through space be privileged over travel through time? If there’s no sufficient reason to prevent space-time correspondence, space-time correspondence must always occur, i.e. whatever is true for space must be true for time too. For exactly this reason, there should be three dimensions of time, corresponding to the three spatial dimensions, and there should be a speed through time to match a speed through space. If the speed through space is the amount of space covered in a certain time, the speed through time is the amount of time covered in a certain space. The only way for all of this to make sense is for time to be the “same but different” in relation to space. Mathematically, this is easy to facilitate ... by making time nothing but imaginary space. Reality is therefore based on complex numbers, not real numbers. Einsteinian relativity treats time as a “fourth dimension”, i.e. a special kind of space. In fact, Einsteinian time has exactly the same features as imaginary space. Doug Renselle writes, “We regard time here as an added fourth dimension to three space. Time is an imaginary space dimension of Minkowski’s spacetime triangle. Time is also a real time dimension of his spacetime triangle. (Sort of complementary alter egos!) Space is a real

space dimension of our spacetime triangle. Space is also an imaginary time dimension of our spacetime triangle. You can think, using this spacetime triangle in two modes: timelike or spacelike.” What’s astounding is that neither Einstein nor any scientist ever thought to question why space is assigned three dimensions, and time only one. As soon as you link time to imaginary space, you have automatically opened the way to giving time as many dimensions as space. Scientists, however, never think in a logical, mathematical way. They always think empirically (i.e. irrationally!).

Reality It’s an extraordinary thing, but the human understanding of reality can be reduced to just six positions: 1) Existence is about extended atoms ... science. 2) Existence is about unextended monads ... ontological mathematics. 3) Existence is about one unextended entity ... God, Will, the Oneness, the One, the Monad ... religious monism and certain kinds of philosophy (such as that of Schopenhauer). 4) Existence is about one extended entity ... the “block universe” of science, or various kinds of pantheistic universe. 5) Existence is about two extended or two unextended entities in conflict with each other ... good and evil, yin and yang, positive and negative, space and time, attraction and repulsion, love and hate, Will and Intellect (as in Hartmann’s philosophy) ... religious dualism. 6) Existence is about many unextended or extended beings (gods, spirits, angels, demons) ... animism. There are no other possibilities. Every religion, philosophy or science is just a variation on one of these six themes. With further analysis, we can reduce everything to just two contrasting positions: 1) The One (unity) versus the Many (plurality; multiplicity).

2) The extended versus the unextended. This gives us four possible realities: 1) The One: extended. 2) The One: unextended. 3) The Many: extended. 4) The Many: unextended. We can then add a further refinement: Living beings versus inanimate “things”. This gives us the following eight categories of existence: 1) The One: extended; a thing. 2) The One: extended; a living being. 3) The One: unextended; a thing. 4) The One: unextended; a living being. 5) The Many: extended; things. 6) The Many: extended; living beings. 7) The Many: unextended; things. 8) The Many: unextended; living beings. No matter what system you think of, we can classify it according to one of the above categories. Now, in order to get to the bottom of which of these eight categories is the correct one – i.e. the one that actually reflects reality – we simply have to perform a logical analysis of each system. For example, if reality comprises inanimate things only – as science claims – we are immediately faced with the problem of how to explain how life comes from “thing/s” (non-life). Science has never even begun to explain how life comes from lifeless atoms. And it never will ... because this is a logical impossibility. Throwing in terms such as “emergence” or “random or spontaneous generation” doesn’t help. You might as well refer to magic or miracles. These are all non-explanations.

It’s a blunt fact that we do not have to perform any scientific, sensory experiments whatsoever to define ultimate reality. We simply have to apply reason and logic, i.e. we have to be rationalists, not empiricists. Even to propose that experiments, experiences and observations are required to understand ultimate reality is to side with empiricism rather than rationalism, with the senses rather than the intellect. The notion that we can rationally work out reality with our senses rather than our reason is a contradiction from the outset since the senses have nothing to do with reason. Regarding the eight categories listed above, we can add a few further ontological and epistemological refinements: 1) Contingency versus Necessity. 2) Temporality versus Eternity. 3) Content versus Form. 4) Phenomenon (Appearance) versus Noumenon (what underlies Appearance). Extended things, Leibniz argued, can come apart, be broken up, hence are contingent and temporal. They are always compounded, i.e. it’s logically impossible to have a single, necessary, eternal, extended thing. For Leibniz, as soon as you have extension, you have the automatic logical capacity to break down the extended thing into smaller extended things. In Leibniz’s philosophy, only unextended things can have no detachable parts. Since they cannot be broken up, it follows that they are eternal, and all eternal things are necessary things. If there are indeed necessary, eternal, unextended things, it follows that science must be explained on this basis, yet science dogmatically denies the existence of unobservable entities: hidden variables; rational unobservables; perpetual motion entities. If things exist eternally, it implies they are in perpetual motion. Otherwise, if eternal things were static, it would be logically impossible to account for the presence of motion in the universe. To posit some moving things and some stationary things would be to fall foul of both Cartesian substance dualism and also the principle of sufficient reason, which opposes arbitrary dichotomies. The point is that if we fully, rationally, logically analyse all of the concepts we have mentioned, we can work out the complete and consistent

nature of ultimate reality, and we can rule out various suggested solutions. Scientific materialism, for example, can easily be rationally ruled out as an explanation of ultimate reality since it requires existence to jump out of non-existence for no reason via no mechanism ... an impossibility. Science suffers from a calamitous inability to examine concepts. In fact, it rejects philosophy outright, and happily accepts a set of contingent, provisional, ever-mutating ad hoc notions. For example, the scientific idea of “mass” has changed radically over the centuries and it’s now impossible to assign any formal ontological and epistemological meaning to this word. Science uses “mass” instrumentally, i.e. it has an agreed procedure for measuring it. No scientist can state what mass actually is. Rather, they can tell you how to measure what they have pragmatically defined as mass. Scientific measurements of mass are based on the “kilogram”, and the kilogram is defined by the international prototype of the kilogram (IPK). This is a physical object – an alloy of 90% platinum and 10% iridium – kept in Paris. Do you see the fundamental problem? Science doesn’t tell you what mass is. It tells you that there is an object that is arbitrarily defined to “have a mass of 1 kilogram”, and all mass is then measured with regard to this object. This is true of all scientific units. We have no idea what any of them is in terms of fundamental ontology. They are all wholly arbitrary, and could be defined entirely differently. Science never defines anything ontologically. What it does is select objects as standards and conventions. Comparative measurements are then made on the basis of these standards and conventions. These are then fitted into contingent, provisional, falsifiable, ever-changing theories. There is no part of this system that is eternal, necessary and ontological. It’s a pragmatic, instrumental scheme for doing things. But it doesn’t – and never can – actually tell you what anything is. Science is a set of circular definitions. It says, for example, E = mc2. Mass is defined with respect to energy, and energy with respect to mass. We don’t know what either actually is. So, if mass is based on an object in Paris, what is “energy” ... a bizarre sample stored in Rome? If distance and time are measured according to various human conventions, what is the real speed of light? Come to think of it, what is light, given that it’s massless and dimensionless, and outside space and time?

Science can’t help us with any of this. Science is an enormous heuristic fiction that stupid people mistake for reality. It has nothing to do with reality. It’s a model with no connection at all with ultimate existence. It’s just a useful human set of agreed standards and measurements, and equations into which we insert measurements and extract information about things we haven’t measured. If we applied the same arguments to science that Hume applied to causation, we couldn’t be sure that any experiment would reproduce the results of any other experiment, yet science is predicated on the necessity of experiments being consistent, reliable and repeatable. There is absolutely nothing in science that can prove that this is the case. Like so many things in science – in fact more or less all of science – it’s uncritically assumed. Science says a cylindrical metal object kept in Paris is “mass”, or has mass, although it hasn’t in fact stated what mass is in order to justify this claim. It establishes a means for measuring this mass to be exactly 1 kg (a made-up, arbitrary unit), and, given this, it can then comparatively measure the “mass” of everything else in relation to that Parisian metal object. This is a relative system, a comparative system, not an absolute, ontological system. However, no instrument for measuring mass can measure the mass of light, which is therefore deemed massless. But what does that actually mean? How can you ontologically define masslessness if you can’t ontologically define mass? Again, you’re simply coming up with a comparative, not an analytic definition. Thoughts, like light, can’t be assigned a mass. Science accepts the independent existence of light, but not the independent existence of thought. Why not? It doesn’t even contemplate the possibility that light is thought! Why not? It’s because science is dogmatic and ideological. It has no formal ontology or epistemology. It’s clueless about how to analyse anything. Science ideologically rejects the autonomous existence of mind, hence it automatically rejects the autonomous existence of thoughts. It never links mind to light, hence never links thoughts to photons. This simply doesn’t accord with its Meta Paradigm. Science doesn’t even assign ontological independence to light. Light is produced by matter, science says. For example, material reactions in the material sun produce light. By analogy, according to science, material reactions in the material brain produce thoughts.

But can’t we reach the absolutely opposite conclusion? – light produces matter and then interacts with matter ... and minds produce brains, and then interact with them? You cannot answer this question unless you can ontologically define what light is, or a mind. If massless, dimensionless photons and minds exist necessarily and eternally then this means that the state that preceded the Big Bang was one of pure, immaterial mind and photons, outside space and time, from which all matter ultimately derives. But science denies the pre-existence of mind and light, so it never gives any consideration to the notion that minds and photons are eternal, hence that the Big Bang was produced from them rather than from some miraculous, magical, irrational, inexplicable, random eruption of material existence (spacetime) from non-existence. Science refuses to entertain any idea of any type of existence independent of spacetime, i.e. it ideologically denies the existence of an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. For science, you have non-existence and then the miraculous production of existence from nonexistence. For ontological mathematics, you have a rational, eternal, necessary, indestructible, immaterial, frequency (mental) domain, from which the Big Bang universe of spacetime and matter is produced via Fourier mathematics. There are no miracles, there’s no magic, no randomness, and no non-existence. Everything is fully explicable. Everything has a sufficient reason. This is an intelligible (mathematical), not a sensible (scientific) universe. Science is a faith, not a rational system of thought with analytic, indisputable definitions. Science does nothing but beg the question. What’s truly disturbing is that its adherents imagine they are brilliantly answering the question, rather than simply addressing their own fallacious, heuristic fiction – their phenomenal model of reality, not noumenal reality in itself.

***** Material, spacetime existence = dimensional, extended existence. This is what science studies. Mental, frequency existence = dimensionless, unextended existence. This is what science fundamentally denies. The only thing that science ever pairs with spacetime existence is either 1) formal non-existence, or 2) unreal, abstract, mathematical potentiality

wavefunctions – which have no ontological reality, hence are just a miraculous form of non-existence with unreal properties that can be converted into actuality via inexplicable, random wavefunction collapse. This is a system of pure magic. It has nothing to do with reason, and is actively offensive to reason. The mind/soul is a mental, frequency entity, hence is automatically rejected by science. Science has no rational basis for this rejection. Its attitude stems from pure dogmatism and ideology, from its preference for non-existence with magical qualities over dimensionless existence with ontological mathematical properties. No intellectual could ever have anything but contempt for science. Its apparent success is bogus and flows solely from the fact that it deploys mathematics. Without math, science would be a hideous joke. What’s truly horrifying is that scientists don’t realise this. They haven’t worked out the first truth of science – it’s 100% reliant on math for its credibility, which automatically means that the most important task of science is to define what math is (and thus what science is). Instead, science defines itself with regard to experiments, experiences, observations and the senses, and makes no attempt at all to define what math is. Math is treated as nothing but a tool whose ontology is not worth commenting upon or considering.

Mind and Cosmos “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False is a 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University. “In the book, Nagel argues that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness, and is therefore at best incomplete. He writes that mind is a basic aspect of nature, and that any philosophy of nature that cannot account for it is fundamentally misguided. He argues that the standard physico-chemical reductionist account of the emergence of life – that it emerged from a series of accidents, acted upon by the mechanism of natural selection – flies in the face of common sense. “Nagel’s position is that principles of an entirely different kind may account for the emergence of life, and in particular conscious life, and that those principles may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic. He stresses that his argument is not a religious one (he is an atheist), and

that it is not based on the theory of intelligent design (ID), though he also writes that ID proponents such as Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, and David Berlinski do not deserve the scorn with which their ideas have been met by the overwhelming majority of the scientific establishment.” – Wikipedia Any rational person can see that the claims of science regarding life, mind and the origins of the cosmos are absurd and impossible. Nagel should have gone further. He should have said that the entire materialist conception of reality is certainly false. It’s ludicrous to explain reality on the basis of contingent lumps of lifeless, mindless “stuff” that randomly jumped out of non-existence for no reason. What science is concerned with above all is the denial of the existence of God, hence of intelligent design. It hasn’t grasped that all of its rants against “God” are also rants against the God Equation, the all-powerful, eternal and necessary basis of ontological mathematics. To attack “God” is to attack math since all of the classic proofs for the existence of God are actually proofs for the existence of ontological mathematics.

The Question of Dimension When humanity was religious, it had no great problem imagining dimensionless, hidden existence. The advance of scientific materialism has made it harder and harder for people to conceive of dimensionless things, hidden things, the unobservable, the noumenal. All such things are dismissed as “superstition” by science. In fact, it’s the primitive, childish, simplistic notion that all things must be observable that’s superstitious, and a dogmatic object of faith!

Constant Speed In the frequency domain, all sinusoidal waves – sines and cosines – travel at exactly the same speed: the speed of light. In the spacetime domain, sines and cosines no longer travel at light speed. However, the square of the speed of a sine wave plus the square of the speed of a paired cosine wave always equals the square of light speed. This is the true, ontological, absolute basis of the Lorentz transformations that exist at the core of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

In effect, what Einstein discovered (although he didn’t realise it) was that everything has both a speed through space and a speed through time, and the total speed, when appropriately combined, is just the speed of light, hence nothing can ever exceed this speed. This indicates an absolute reality, not a relativistic one of the type conceived by Einstein. The speed of light as an absolute cosmic speed limit flows directly from the complementary properties of sine and cosines waves. When the sines and cosines are orthogonal to each other, they each travel at light speed. When they are non-orthogonal to each other, they individually travel below the speed of light, but their appropriately calculated combined speed is always equal to the speed of light. This is illustrated in the following diagram concerning Euler’s Formula. Just concentrate on the top right quadrant, and compare and contrast the axes with all positions between the axes:

The radius is always light speed, and anything less than the radius is less than light speed. Yet again, we see how closely and intimately related the dimensionless domain of frequency is to the dimensional domain of spacetime. It’s purely thanks to the mathematical properties of sinusoidal waves that existence is as it is. The whole of ontological mathematics, science, religion, philosophy and psychology flows from the nature of sinusoids.

***** Note how everything in this ontological mathematical system, based on the cosmic speed limit of sinusoidal light, automatically adjusts to preserve the sanctity of absolute light speed. Nothing can deviate from this absolute condition for even an instant, thus reflecting exact conservation laws and refuting all scientific claims that the world is somehow fuzzy and probabilistic. Consider how precise and analytic this system is ... the direct opposite of supposed Heisenberg uncertainty. If we actually did live in an

uncertain universe, nothing would be certain at all. Light speed itself would have a range – an inherent uncertainty associated with it – but that’s exactly what it doesn’t have. What kind of idiot claims that some things in the universe are infinitely precise and absolute, while others are shrouded in uncertainty and imprecision? Only a “scientist” could commit an error of that magnitude. It would constitute just another example of Cartesian substance dualism. How can the universe consist of both precise and imprecise things? That’s logically impossible. Either everything is precise (mathematics), or nothing is precise (science). It’s one or the other. Either everything is ontologically certain, or nothing is ontologically certain. If the former, we live in an absolute universe. If the latter, we don’t.

***** “For God alone, who (gives motion to) individual (bodies) without moving and without being perceived (can truly distinguish true motions from apparent).” – Newton Newton rightly says that “God” – or the Cosmic Mind – can identify absolute motion. This is exactly what Einstein denied. The fact that no human can, using any experiment, establish their own absolute position in the universe doesn’t mean that they don’t have an absolute position. It just means that human knowledge is limited. Scientists, with their empirical obsession, have never grasped this simple logical point. The Sophist Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things.” This is the principle that science has eagerly embraced, but any rationalist Philosopher will tell you that it’s nonsense. The Cosmic Mind, not man, is the measure of all things, and it measures all things absolutely and mathematically, not relativistically and scientifically.

Two Perspectives Reality has two perspectives: 1) one relating to waves existing dimensionlessly (“mental”, unextended waves), and 2) one relating to waves existing dimensionally (“material”, extended waves). The two perspectives might alternately be described as: 1) the viewpoint of immaterial atoms (photons), outside space and time, and 2) the viewpoint of material atoms, inside space and time. A photon – which is a frequency singularity – sees the whole of reality as a singularity, i.e. it doesn’t see

space, time, matter and dimensionality at all. It’s as if it’s wearing frequency goggles that it can never remove. Likewise, a material atom sees the whole of reality in spacetime terms, i.e. it sees nothing but space, time, matter and dimensionality, and never sees dimensionless frequencies. That’s not to say that it doesn’t encounter and interact with dimensionless frequencies. It certainly does, and then reinterprets those dimensionless frequencies in spacetime terms. Light is always moving at light speed (natch!), but it’s doing so in the frequency domain, outside space and time. However any observer looking at this from the spacetime perspective (i.e. the observer is wearing Kantian spacetime goggles) can’t help but interpret this behaviour in spacetime terms. Motion taking place outside space and time is interpreted as taking place inside space and time, but there’s something obviously amiss with this picture because, as we know, we always measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be exactly the same, no matter what speed we ourselves are moving at. This doesn’t make any sense at all if light is in spacetime. If it were, we would always measure it differently, depending on our own speed. The fact that its speed is constant means that it belongs to a radically different category of existence, i.e. a frequency mode of existence, outside space and time. When you switch on a light, you imagine that light comes streaming towards you. That’s not what happens at all. Flicking the switch triggers a specific interaction between the frequency domain and spacetime domain, and, because you are wearing spacetime goggles, you interpret this interaction as a flow of light towards you. If you were looking at it from the light’s perspective, you would see something entirely different. Science systematically misinterprets reality because simple-minded scientists subscribe to the notion of “direct realism”: they think that what they see is actually what’s happening and what’s out there. They fail to realise that they are wearing Kantian spacetime goggles, and that, if they intellectually removed these, they would obtain an entirely different understanding of reality. The problem is that scientists believe that spacetime is all there is, so they simply can’t conceive that they are wearing spacetime goggles, and that non-spacetime perspectives are required in order to understand ultimate reality. Scientists are crude, primitive thinkers – plebeians rather than patricians. They have no sophistication of thought.

Nothing is more important than transcending your senses and using your reason. That’s exactly what science doesn’t do. It’s a ferociously antiintellectual subject. Science For Dummies is all too true!

Relativity? Einstein’s principle of relativity is one of science’s greatest absurdities. Science could have chosen, without any contradiction, an absolute rather than relativistic interpretation of the Lorentz transformations that are at the heart of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. In fact, such interpretations were proposed prior to Einstein, and were never disproved by Einstein. His theory became the fashionable, popular one, but never at any time refuted the rival theories that proposed an entirely different, and infinitely more logical, ontology. As ever, the discarded theories were much closer to rationalism, and invoked rational unobservables. This was enough to spell their doom since science always chooses the theory that has the least explicit reliance on hidden variables. That said, relativity is itself a hidden variable since it’s impossible to produce any empirical evidence that it’s actually true. By getting rid of the ether, however, it shed a major hidden variable that had long troubled science. For mainstream quantum mechanics, the wavefunction that defines quantum mechanics is a mere mathematical abstraction, and is formally unreal (which, naturally, creates insurmountable ontological problems). For de Broglie and Bohm, as for ontological mathematics, the wavefunction is real and concrete – it truly exists in the world; it’s an ontological reality. This gets rid of all the crazy ontological implications flowing from the claim that “reality” is predicated on an unreal abstraction! It’s vital to realise that the wavefunction in both conventional and unconventional quantum mechanics is non-local. However, in the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the non-locality of the wavefunction is regarded as just one property of the unreal, abstract wavefunction, hence is itself an unreal abstraction. When the wavefunction “collapses”, it always collapses locally (although “locally” could mean anywhere in the universe!), hence non-locality becomes an unacknowledged “hidden variable” in Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In the de Broglie-Bohm system, however, the non-locality is an actual property of an actual pilot wave, so now non-locality is an explicit rather

than implicit or hidden feature of reality. Any disturbance in the de BroglieBohm pilot wave in one location instantly modifies the real wave throughout the whole universe (!), i.e. this, on the face of it, contradicts Einstein’s rule that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Of course, Einstein’s prohibition collapses as soon as the existence of a frequency domain is acknowledged. Via this domain, which isn’t in space and time at all, hence isn’t subject to any spacetime limits, non-locality and instantaneous modifications across the entire universe at once are wholly natural processes. Do you see how, via the frequency domain, any scientific interpretation, based on spacetime alone, can be radically reinterpreted? So, why do so many people choose to believe what mainstream science claims about reality? Science has no means at all to disprove the existence of a frequency domain. All rational and logical arguments point to its existence and prove its existence. Once the existence of this domain is granted, science automatically changes from materialism, empiricism and spacetime to idealism, rationalism and frequency. You will often hear mainstream scientists saying that it’s impossible to prove that a de Broglie-Bohm particle follows a real, definite trajectory. What they don’t say is that it’s impossible to prove that it doesn’t, and equally impossible to prove that it follows no real trajectory at all, but merely collapses out of an unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction whenever an observation takes place, as Copenhagen quantum mechanics claims. This is a scientific inference, not any kind of observed fact. The whole idea of referring to reality as based on unreal wavefunctions is spectacularly ludicrous, so why do so many scientists go along with this lunatic claim? No rational person would ever trust the claims of science. Science is the systematic, sensory, phenomenal, materialist misinterpretation of reality. That’s a fact. Science is a sensory Mythos, a heuristic fiction, an inadequate spacetime model of a reality that comprises spacetime and frequency! That’s why science can’t say anything about mind and life – which are defined by the eternal, necessary frequency domain and not the temporal, contingent spacetime domain.

The De Broglie-Bohm Interpretation

Physicist Jim Al-Khalili wrote, “Bohm’s programme actually belongs to a class of interpretations known collectively as ‘hidden variables’ theories, and is the most sophisticated of these approaches. These hidden variables represent a deeper level of physical reality that is hidden from us but is the origin of quantum uncertainty and fuzziness. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, the hidden variables are the definite positions of the particles. Thus it differs from the Copenhagen view when it states that a quantum particle does have a definite position and momentum prior to measurement but we are unable to access these properties. The uncertainty principle becomes now just a statement about our inescapable ignorance [MH: rather than ontological uncertainty, as the Copenhagen Interpretation claims.]. ... Provided you allowed for nonlocality, there was no reason why you couldn’t have an interpretation based on objective reality such as that of Bohm.” Ontological mathematics, based on immaterial, invisible monads outside space and time, is the ultimate hidden variables theory and takes the de Broglie-Bohm approach to its inevitable, logical, purely mathematical conclusion. In ontological mathematics, there is a definite, analytic basis of reality, but we can’t reach this level through empirical means, only through rational means. We can never know position and momentum exactly because of the empirical impossibility of measuring them, not because reality is in any way lacking analytic, mathematical precision. With Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the ontological claim is made that reality is fundamentally uncertain and blurry, hence particles inherently don’t have a definite position and momentum prior to an observation, and reality wholly lacks analytic, mathematical precision. That’s an unambiguously anti-realist stance! It turns objective reality into an incomprehensible mush, full of ambiguity, uncertainty, and subjectivity. You would need to have contempt for reason to buy into the scientific myth that reality is intrinsically “mysterious” and blurry, predicated on uncertainty rather than certainty. The antidote to this obscurantist, mystical, quasi-religious garbage is analytic, ontological mathematics, the saviour of definite, intelligible, objective reality. It gets rid of existential uncertainty by grounding everything in exactly definable, absolutely certain monads. Science is a religion – a faith – based on the supposed absence or impossibility of hidden variables, yet, ironically, it’s based on the ultimate hidden variable – an unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality

wavefunction. Why does science never discuss its own incoherence, its irrational, illogical and nonsensical claims? Very conveniently for its own interests, science scoffs at philosophy and refuses to engage with philosophy, thus it never has to defend its ridiculous, anti-intellectual claims before the Court of Reason ... something it dreads judging by how much it goes out of its way to avoid responding to rationalist criticisms. If science believes that it’s superior to philosophy, it should seek to refute philosophy, not merely sneer at it while never addressing any of the fundamental problems philosophy raises regarding the claims of science.

***** Isn’t it odd that you never hear the Catholic Church attacking the theology of Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, New Ageism, and so on? Why not? Why, if all of the different religions each believe themselves to be the sole truth, aren’t they continuously trying to refute the others (which, by definition must be false since they disagree with the “true” religion)? And why, if science believes itself to be the truth, can’t it refute philosophy or ontological mathematics? We don’t avoid our rational obligation. The God Series disproves everything that is incompatible with ontological mathematics. Science could never lay a finger on ontological mathematics. Its default attack – an absurd one – would be the assertion of a lack of physical, sensory, experimental, scientific evidence for monads, thus ignoring the fact that monads are defined as immaterial, non-physical, non-sensory, non-experimental, nonscientific entities. The entire difference between science and ontological mathematics is that the latter is predicated on a rationalist, intelligible, logical, analytic, mathematical world inherently unavailable to physicalist, sensory, empirical science.

Occam’s Razor Science believes itself on the side of Occam’s razor when it rejects “hidden variables”. Occam’s razor is about not multiplying entities unnecessarily, but has nothing to do with not multiplying entities simply because they are inconsistent with science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism (a Meta Paradigm that makes no ontological and epistemological sense). As it turns out, mathematical hidden variables are necessary in order to produce a complete and consistent ontology and epistemology, hence must

be invoked. Occam ’s razor demands them. Science goes horribly wrong precisely because it tries to explain reality on the basis of an inconsistent and incomplete ontology and epistemology.

Newton “The latest authors, like the most ancient, strove to subordinate the phenomena of nature to the laws of mathematics.” – Newton All phenomena must be subordinated to the laws of mathematics. Only mathematics can account for a rational, intelligible universe, and eternal, necessary existence. “God created everything by number, weight and measure.” – Newton God is a mathematician. God is mathematics. All things are numbers. Number rules all. We can measure the universe purely because it’s a mathematical universe. “I will not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” – Newton Science still can’t provide an ontological definition of time, space, place or motion. Or of mass, matter, light or energy. Or, indeed, of anything! “I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” – Newton This is typical of scientists. They don’t explain anything, i.e. they provide no ontological and epistemological systems and definitions. Instead, they propose empiricist and materialist guesses that “work” (i.e. are experimentally successful), but which they don’t understand, can’t explain, and which form no part of any complete and consistent system. Science is pragmatic and instrumental. It has nothing to do with Truth. Daniel Albright astutely wrote, “The distinction between a physics that predicts and a physics that interprets is fundamental and crucial. A predictive physicist is conscious of his or her limitations and fields of ignorance, and seeks a model of reality, not because it is correct, but because it is useful; an interpretive physicist studies the universe by

attempting to ape the mind of God – to understand all of nature as a single integrity. Newton, the classic example of a predictive physicist, wrote equations that govern the position of planets orbiting the sun; some of the symbols in these equations stood for entities that were overtly ‘real’ (such as the planets), whereas other symbols stood for entities that were inexplicable (such as the force of gravity); but Newton didn’t trouble himself about the difference, as long as the equations worked. Leibniz, the classic example of an interpretive physicist, felt that the whole edifice of Newtonian mechanics tottered unless all the symbols in his equations stood for overt realities. He criticized Newton for explaining the motions of the planets by means of ‘occult virtues’ – in Leibniz’s view, the statement that planets experience gravity because of gravitational force was equivalent to the statement that opiates produce sleep because of their ‘dormitive virtues.’ That is, it explained nothing.” These acute observations encapsulate the whole problem with science. It explains nothing. What it does is produce heuristic fictions (such as “gravity”, “mass”, “atoms”, and so on) that are successful but which don’t tell you anything about ultimate reality. Leibniz, unlike Newton, was a philosopher as well as a scientist and mathematician, and he grasped that science must be an explanatory system, not a clever, predictive, modelling system ... an ingenious fiction without any connection with ultimate facts. “Scientists”, as a class of people, don’t care about Truth. They’re not intellectuals. What they care about is being successful. They want things that work. They want to be able to predict phenomena and control things. But they have no interest in understanding why their predictive models work, and what truly underlies them. They don’t care about the noumena that underlie phenomena. They ignore hidden variables and rational unobservables. Scientists are shallow people who operate exclusively at the level of superficial appearance. They have no depth, and they don’t look into the depths. They are wholly alienated from the soul, the deepest thing of all. They actually deny that they have a soul, and pat themselves on the back. You can’t get more of a contrast than between Leibnizian science and Newtonian science. Leibnizian science is true yet superficially unsuccessful because it doesn’t deal with appearances but only with ultimate reality that you can’t see. Newtonian science is false but superficially successful

because it’s all about predictive modelling: matching heuristic, ad hoc hypotheses to observations and appearances until a fit is forced, at which point the fit can be successfully used to predict a range of related phenomena (but the validity of which drastically tails off the further you leave behind the original phenomenon). Leibnizian science will be triumphantly vindicated in the end. All genuine Truth-seekers are drawn to it, and not to the clunky, messy, arbitrary, inconsistent and incomplete theories of science. Scientists are mediocrities, functionaries, drudges and drones, with no intellectual integrity. They are prepared to accept absolute crap – total nonsense and non-explanations – provided it “works”. It’s no wonder they hate religion and philosophy. These require that you have some interest in the Truth and what lies beyond appearances. Scientists have zero interest in the Truth, and care only about appearances. It’s every bit as impossible to have a rational debate with a scientist as it is with a Muslim, and there can be no greater intellectual indictment than that. Muslims will blabber on about the Koran, and scientists will blabber on about sensory, experimental “evidence”. The ultimate paradigm shift will take place when Newtonian scientific empiricism and materialism give way to Leibnizian rationalism and idealism. That’s when humanity will enter its higher state, and converge on its divine destiny. “...from the same principles, I now demonstrate the frame of the System of the World.” – Newton That’s exactly what you don’t do. You merely demonstrate a provisional, contingent, ad hoc model – or simulacrum – of the “frame of the System of the World”. “Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another; and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter into their composition? For all fix’d Bodies being heated emit Light so long as they continue sufficiently hot, and Light mutually stops in Bodies as often as its Rays strike upon their Parts, as we shew’d above. I know no Body less apt to shine than Water; and yet Water by frequent Distillations changes into fix’d Earth, as Mr. Boyle has try’d; and then this Earth being enabled to endure a sufficient Heat, shines by Heat like other Bodies. The changing of bodies into light, and light into bodies, is

very conformable to the course of Nature, which seems delighted with transmutations.” – Newton Well, for once, Newton was on the right track. Material bodies do indeed come from light and can be converted back into light. That, in fact, is the fundamental process that takes place during the lifetime of the Big Bang universe. The current universe started with light being converted into matter, and will end when all of that matter has been converted back into light. Broken light belongs to the material universe of spacetime. Light itself belongs to the immaterial frequency Singularity of Light, outside space and time. “Have not the small Particles of Bodies certain Powers, Virtues, or Forces, by which they act at a distance, not only upon the Rays of Light for reflecting, refracting and inflecting them, but also upon one another for producing a great Part of the Phenomena of Nature? For it’s well known, that Bodies act upon one another by the Attractions of Gravity, Magnetism, and Electricity; and these Instances show the Tenor and Course of Nature, and make it not improbable that there be more attractive Powers than these… . For we must learn from the Phenomena of Nature what Bodies attract one another, and what are the Laws and Properties of the Attraction, before we enquire the Cause by which the attraction is perform’d. The Attractions of Gravity, Magnetism and Electricity, reach to very sensible distances, and so have been observed by vulgar eyes, and there may be others which reach to so small distances as hitherto escape Observation, and perhaps electrical Attraction may reach to such small distances, even without being excited by friction.” – Newton So much for Newton’s self-proclaimed intention never to “feign hypotheses”. He seems to do nothing but that. His entire system is one giant hypothesis and speculation! Experiments don’t alter anything. Any experiment has to be interpreted, and in order to do that, you require a hypothesis! No experiment ever proves anything. All that an experiment ever does is show that the way in which the experiment is interpreted is possibly consistent with a proposed hypothetical model. Yet look at quantum mechanics. There are something like twenty different ways of interpreting the experimental results of quantum mechanics. The experiments themselves can do nothing to show which, if any, of the interpretations is correct. Experiments can tell us zero about ultimate reality.

“Newton thought that part of chemistry (especially the physical part) could be explained in terms of the mechanics of corpuscles, but that there was something more important – a harder-to-pin-down vital spirit, which was the basis of life (and also somehow connected with mercury and other elements). He also felt this was the key to the way God ran the universe – the merely mechanical interaction of corpuscles could not, in his opinion, generate the rich variety of life. And Newton wanted to understand just how God did run the universe. Newton probably spent more time studying alchemy than he did working on his laws, gravitation and calculus combined! In fact, Newton probed ‘the whole vast literature of the older alchemy as it has never been probed before or since’ according to a recent historical study (see Never at Rest, Richard Westfall, page 290). He also used quite precise quantitative measures in many of his investigations. This did not provide the insight into mass conservation that Lavoisier’s work did a century later, probably because Newton didn’t count the various gases absorbed or emitted, these were still considered incidental and not really important to the reactions. Also, maybe they didn’t smell too great – a recipe for preparing phosphorus Newton copied from Boyle begins ‘Take of Urin one Barrel’. Enough already. (Never at Rest, page 285). “Not that this matters too much as far as developing the atomic concept is concerned. On the positive side, the alchemists, in their fruitless quest to turn lead into gold (and find the elixir of life, etc.) did get very skilful at managing a great variety of chemical reactions, and so learned the properties of many substances. “The alchemists’ point of view was based on Aristotle’s four elements, earth, air, fire and water, but they added what they called principles. For example, there was an active principle in air important in respiration and combustion. There was an acidic principle, and others. And then there was phlogiston. Looking at something in flames, it seems pretty clear that something is escaping the material. That they called phlogiston. After Boyle discovered that metals become heavier on combustion, it was decided that phlogiston had negative weight.” – Michael Fowler, University of Virginia Ironically, the “vital spirit” that Newton sought was best explained by Leibniz’s monads, but Newton despised Leibniz, so monads were the last things he wanted to contemplate. This shows how a petty, spiteful, meanminded, small-minded scientist can reject the Truth just because he has personal animus towards a certain person who happens to have exactly the

answer he is looking for. Even today, scientists automatically turn away from anyone who does not subscribe to their Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. What a pathetic bunch. They are anti-intellectuals, exactly as you would expect from people who privilege their senses over their reason.

***** There is nothing more ontologically significant than the fact that many symbols in the equations of science do not stand for “overt realities”, and even those that do are not ontologically defined. This is exactly why science is a heuristic fiction. In ontological mathematics, on the other hand, all things are made of sinusoidal waves – the ultimate ontological foundations of the universe – and as long as all equations directly reflect sinusoids, or can be directly and precisely translated into sinusoids, then all such equations reflect “overt realities”, and not undefined, ad hoc, heuristic inventions.

Absolute Motion Absolute motion produces absolute position. In Einsteinian relativistic physics, material objects do not have absolute motion, hence do not have absolute positions.

The Antidote What is the antidote to scientific irrationalism? The ultimate remedy is noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics. However, historically, philosophical idealism and panpsychism have led the intellectual resistance to scientific materialism. The rest of this book will focus on the challenge offered to science by idealism and panpsychism, beginning with the three great post-Kantian thinkers ... Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.

Fichte, Schelling and Hegel Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814): “[Fichte aimed] at a self-sufficient doctrine in which the science of knowledge and ethics were intimately united. Fichte’s ambition was to demonstrate that practical (moral) reason is really (as Kant had only intimated) the root of reason in its entirety, the absolute ground of all knowledge as well as of humanity altogether. To

prove this, he started from a supreme principle, the ego, which was supposed to be independent and sovereign, so that all other knowledge was deduced from it. Fichte did not assert that this supreme principle was selfevident but rather that it had to be postulated by pure thought. He followed, thereby, Kant’s doctrine that pure, practical reason postulates the existence of God, but he tried to transform Kant’s rational faith into a speculative knowledge on which he based both his theory of science and his ethics. ... [Fichte composed] ‘On the Grounds of Our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe’ in which God is defined as the moral order of the universe, the eternal law of right that is the foundation of all man’s being. ... [In ‘The Vocation of Man’] he defines God as the infinite moral will of the universe who becomes conscious of himself in individuals. ... [In ‘The Way Towards the Blessed Life’] the union between the finite selfconsciousness and the infinite ego, or God, is handled in a deeply religious fashion reminiscent of the Gospel According to John. The knowledge and love of God is declared to be the end of life. God is the All; the world of independent objects is the result of reflection or self-consciousness, by which the infinite unity is broken up. God is thus over and above the distinction of subject and object; man’s knowledge is but a reflex or picture of the infinite essence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775-1854): “The young Schelling was inspired by the thought of Immanuel Kant, who had raised philosophy to a higher critical level, and by the idealist system of Johann Fichte, as well as by the pantheism of Benedict de Spinoza, a 17th-century rationalist. [Regarding his two early works ‘On the Possibility and Form of Philosophy in General’ and ‘Of the Ego as Principle of Philosophy’] one basic theme governs both of these works – the Absolute. This Absolute cannot be defined, however, as God; each person is himself the Absolute as the Absolute ego. This ego, eternal and timeless, is apprehended in a direct intuition, which, in contrast to sensory intuition, can be characterized as intellectual. ... “He acknowledged that Fichte, whom he had previously revered as his philosophical model, had not taken adequate notice of nature in his philosophical system, inasmuch as Fichte had always viewed nature only as an object in its subordination to man. Schelling, in contrast, wanted to show that nature, seen in itself, shows an active development toward the spirit. This philosophy of nature, the first independent philosophical

accomplishment of Schelling, made him known in the circles of the Romanticists. ... “It was Schelling’s desire, as attested by his famous work ‘System of Transcendental Idealism’ to unite his concept of nature with Fichte’s philosophy, which took the ego as the point of departure. Schelling saw that art mediates between the natural and psychical (spiritual) spheres insofar as, in artistic creation, the natural (or unconscious) and the spiritual (or conscious) productions are united. Naturalness and spirituality are explained as emerging from an original state of indifference, in which they were submerged in the yet-undeveloped Absolute, and as rising through a succession of steps of ever-higher order. “[Schelling] tried to show that, in all beings, the Absolute expresses itself directly as the unity of the subjective and the objective. ... “Schelling questioned all idealistic speculations built on the assumption that the world presents itself as a rational cosmos. Were there not also irrational things, he asked, and was not evil the predominant power in the world? In his ‘Of Human Freedom’, Schelling declared that the freedom of man is a real freedom only if it is freedom for good and evil. The possibility of this freedom is founded on two principles that are active in every living thing: one, a dark primal foundation that manifests itself in carnal desire and impulse; the other, a clearheaded sensibleness that governs as a formative power. Man, however, has placed the dark stratum of impulse, which was meant only to serve the intellect as a source of power, above the intellect and has thus subordinated the intellect to the impulses, which now rule over him. This reversal of the right order is the occurrence known in the Bible as the Fall from grace, through which evil came into the world. But this perversion of man is revoked by God, who becomes man in Christ and thus re-establishes the original order. ... “[In ‘The Ages of the World’], Schelling wanted to relate the history of God. God, who originally is absorbed in a quiet longing, comes to himself by glimpsing in himself ideas through which he becomes conscious of himself. This self-consciousness, which is identical to freedom, enables God to project these ideas from himself – i.e., to create the world. ... “[Schelling’s final lectures] represented the climax of his creative activity. Schelling divided philosophy into a negative philosophy, which developed the idea of God by means of reason alone, and, in contrast, a positive philosophy, which showed the reality of this idea by reasoning a

posteriori from the fact of the world to God as its creator. Schelling then explained (referring to his work on freedom) that man, who wanted to be equal to God, stood up against God in his Fall into sin. God, however, was soon elevated again as the principle. During the era of mythology, God appeared as a dark power. During the era of revelation, however, God emerged in history as manifestly real in the figure of Christ. Thus, the complete history of religion should be conveyed through philosophical thought. ... “Particularly striking was [Schelling’s] unwavering consciousness that it was his mission to bring philosophy to a definite completion. ... “Great philosophical influence was denied to Schelling. The philosophical situation at the time was determined not by the few disciples of Schelling but by the Hegelians. ... “... in tracing the development of German Idealism, the early and middle Schelling – that is, the Schelling who drew up the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of identity – has been placed between the Idealism of Fichte, who started from the ego, and Hegel’s system of the Absolute spirit. “The independence of Schelling and his importance for philosophy are only now being recognized, and that in connection with Existential philosophy and philosophical anthropology, which conceive themselves as counteracting the philosophy of absolute reason. ... Schelling’s insight that man is determined not only by reason but also by dark natural impulses is now valued as a positive attempt to understand the reality of man on a level more profound than that attained by Hegel.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831): “Hegel was the greatest of the German idealists, quite possibly the most difficult to understand, and possibly the most outrageous in his claims to have understood the whole of history and philosophy. ... Hegel can be described as a monist, a believer in the one totality, the Absolute Spirit. The Idealists, and Hegel, put forward the opposite view [to Kant who believed that things in themselves were unknowable] that whatever is, is knowable. In Hegel’s famous dictum, ‘The real is rational, and the rational is real.’ Unlike Kant, Hegel set no limits to what was knowable.” – Richard Osborne “German idealism is the name of a movement in German philosophy that began in the 1780s and lasted until the 1840s. The most famous representatives of this movement are Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.

While there are important differences between these figures, they all share a commitment to idealism. Kant’s transcendental idealism was a modest philosophical doctrine about the difference between appearances and things in themselves, which claimed that the objects of human cognition are appearances and not things in themselves. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel radicalized this view, transforming Kant’s transcendental idealism into absolute idealism, which holds that things in themselves are a contradiction in terms, because a thing must be an object of our consciousness if it is to be an object at all. “German idealism is remarkable for its systematic treatment of all the major parts of philosophy, including logic, metaphysics and epistemology, moral and political philosophy, and aesthetics [MH: But not, crucially, math and science, which is the omission addressed by noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics]. All of the representatives of German idealism thought these parts of philosophy would find a place in a general system of philosophy. Kant thought this system could be derived from a small set of interdependent principles. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel were, again, more radical. Inspired by Karl Leonhard Reinhold, they attempted to derive all the different parts of philosophy from a single, first principle. This first principle came to be known as the absolute, because the absolute, or unconditional, must precede all the principles which are conditioned by the difference between one principle and another. [MH: The absolute is in fact ontological mathematics. The absolute is the ancient Greek arche by another name. In ontological mathematics, the principle of sufficient reason is the absolute, the unconditional, the principle that precedes all others, and from which all others are derived. Science has no such principle, which is exactly why science is false.] “Although German idealism is closely related to developments in the intellectual history of Germany in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such as classicism and romanticism, it is also closely related to larger developments in the history of modern philosophy. Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel sought to overcome the division between rationalism and empiricism that had emerged during the early modern period. The way they characterized these tendencies has exerted a lasting influence on the historiography of modern philosophy. Although German idealism itself has been subject to periods of neglect in the last two hundred years, renewed

interest in the contributions of the German idealism have made it an important resource for contemporary philosophy. [MH: And it should now also be a critical resource for psychophysics and scientific idealism and rationalism.] ... “To say that the idealism of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel is more radical than Kant’s idealism is to understate the difference between Kant and the philosophers he inspired. Kant proposed a ‘modest’ idealism, which attempted to prove that our knowledge of appearances is objectively valid. Fichte, however, maintains the very idea of a thing in itself, a thing which is not an object for us and which exists independently of our consciousness, is a contradiction in terms. There can be no thing in itself, Fichte claims, because a thing is only a thing when it is something for us. Even the thing in itself is, in fact, a product of our own conscious thought, meaning the thing in itself is nothing other a postulation of our own consciousness. Thus, it is not a thing in itself, but just another object for us. From this line of reasoning, Fichte concludes that ‘everything which occurs in our mind can be completely explained and comprehended on the basis of the mind itself’ (Breazeale 1988, 69). This is a much more radical form of idealism than Kant maintained. For Fichte holds that consciousness is a circle in which the I posits itself and determines what belongs to the I and what belongs to the not-I. This circularity is necessary and unavoidable, Fichte maintains, but philosophy is a reflective activity in which the spontaneous positing activity of the I and the determinations of the I and not-I are comprehended. “Schelling defended Fichte’s idealism in On the I as Principle of Philosophy, where he maintained that the I is the unconditioned condition of both being and thinking. Because the existence of the I precedes all thinking (I must exist in order to think) and because thinking determines all being (a thing is nothing other than an object of thought), Schelling argued, the absolute I, not Reinhold’s principle of consciousness, must be the fundamental principle of all philosophy. In subsequent works like the System of Transcendental Idealism, however, Schelling pursued a different course, arguing that the essential and primordial unity of being and thinking can be understood from two different directions, beginning either with nature or spirit. It could be deduced from the absolute I as Fichte had done, but it could also arise from the unconscious but dynamic powers of nature. By showing how these two different approaches complemented one

another, Schelling thought he had shown how the distinction between being and thinking, nature and spirit, could be overcome. “Fichte was not pleased with the innovations of Schelling’s idealism, because he initially thought of Schelling as a disciple and a defender of his own position. Fichte did not initially respond to Schelling’s works, but, in an exchange that began in 1800, he began to argue that Schelling had confused the real and the ideal, making the I, the ideal, dependent upon nature, the real. Fichte thought this violated the principles of transcendental idealism and his own Wissenschaftslehre, leading him to suspect that Schelling was no longer the disciple he took him to be. Intervening on Schelling’s behalf as the dispute became more heated, Hegel argued that Fichte’s idealism was ‘subjective’ idealism, while Schelling’s idealism was ‘objective’ idealism. This means that Fichte considers the I to be the absolute and denies the identity of the I and the not-I. He privileges the subject at the expense of the identity of subject and object. Schelling, however, attempts to establish the identity of the subject and object by establishing the objectivity of the subject, the I, as well as the subjectivity of the object, nature. The idealism Schelling and Hegel defend recognizes the identity of subject and object as the ‘absolute,’ unconditioned first principle of philosophy. For that reason, it is often called the philosophy of identity. “It is clear that by the time he published the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel was no longer interested in defending Schelling’s system. In the Phenomenology, Hegel famously calls Schelling’s understanding of the identity of subject and object ‘the night in which all cows are black,’ meaning that Schelling’s conception of the identity of subject and object erases the many and varied distinctions which determine the different forms of consciousness. These distinctions are crucial for Hegel, who came to believe that the absolute can only be realized by passing through the different forms of consciousness which are comprehended in the selfconsciousness of absolute knowledge or spirit (Geist). “Contemporary scholars like Robert Pippin and Robert Stern have debated whether Hegel’s position is to be regarded as a metaphysical or merely epistemological form of idealism, because it is not entirely clear whether Hegel regarded the distinctions that constitute the different forms of consciousness as merely the conditions necessary for understanding objects (Pippin) or whether they express fundamental commitments about

the way things are (Stern). However, it is almost certainly true that Hegel’s idealism is both epistemological and metaphysical. Like Fichte and Schelling, Hegel sought to overcome the limits Kant’s transcendental idealism had placed on philosophy, in order to complete the idealist revolution he had begun. The German idealists agreed that this could only be done by tracing all the different parts of philosophy back to a single principle, whether that principle is the I (in Fichte and the early Schelling) or the absolute (in Hegel).” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/germidea/

***** Fichte: Subjective idealism. (Thesis) Schelling: Objective idealism. (Antithesis) Hegel: Absolute idealism. (Synthesis)

***** The Absolute is in fact math! Hegel’s dialectically evolving Geist (Mind/Spirit) is none other than the self-optimising, self-solving, ontological mathematical Monadic Collective.

***** Slavoj Žižek’s, one of today’s few superstar philosophers, calls for a return to the Cartesian subject and to German Idealism (in particular, Kant, Schelling and Hegel). We entirely agree, though we would insist on of all this being conducted within the context of Leibniz’s monads and ontological mathematics. With all of this in place, scientific materialism can be entirely replaced in a fully systematic, rational, logical way. Everything must begin with the mathematical mind – the monad – and proceed by an analysis of the laws governing its constituent sinusoids, from which comes all thought, and the material world. Mind, not matter, is at the root of all. All “physical” matter is underpinned by mathematical mind. Science is underpinned by ontological mathematics. Matter is a potentiality of mind, and is always implicit in a mental, mathematical system.

Idealism, Panpsychism and Math It can’t be stressed enough that all that’s needed to turn idealism and panpsychism from speculative philosophies into rational, logical, hard “science” is math. It’s the immaterial mental Singularity (Fourier frequency domain), made of countless independent, autonomous singularities (individual Fourier frequency domains = monadic minds) that turns philosophical idealism and panpsychism into scientific idealism and panpsychism. It’s now necessary for the philosophical world to entirely reappraise Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, and Jung from this mathematical perspective of the monadic Fourier frequency Singularity.

Goethean Science “Matter can never exist and act without mind, and mind never without matter.” – Goethe (1749-1832) “[There are] two great driving forces in all nature: the concepts of polarity and intensification. ... [polarity] is a state of constant attraction and repulsion [MH: polarity concerns the material dimension of reality.] ... [intensification] is a state of ever-striving ascent [MH: intensification concerns spiritual reality ... polarity is a mechanical imperative, and intensification an evolutionary imperative ... evolution can only be associated with life and mind, never with wholly lifeless, mindless matter, as neo-Darwinism absurdly claims.] ... Since, however, matter can never exist and act without mind, nor mind without matter, matter is also capable of undergoing intensification, and spirit cannot be denied its attraction and repulsion. [MH: Self-solving, self-optimising, ontological Fourier mathematics furnishes exactly the system Goethe imagined.]” – Goethe “The phenomenon is not detached from the observer; rather it is caught up in the observer’s individuality.” – Goethe Where the scientific materialist observer traditionally attempts to detach himself from what he observes, the Goethean scientist endeavours to participate in the objects he observes, to become one with the observed, thus overcoming the separateness between them. (Interestingly,

Copenhagen quantum mechanics renders the observer the creator of what is observed, since it’s what the observer does that causes the potentiality wavefunction to randomly collapse and generate the actual observation that the observer experiences.) “Goethe: Although not regarded as himself a philosopher, Goethe maintained a deep interest in philosophical ideas, particularly Spinoza’s pantheism, Leibniz’s panpsychism, and Kant’s aesthetics. His influence on German philosophers, especially his friends Schiller and Schopenhauer, was considerable.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy

***** Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) embraced Goethe’s stance that mind is inseparable from matter. This is, of course, a panpsychic stance. Panpsychism is the great antidote to scientific materialism, and is consequently hated and feared by scientific materialism. The forbidden history of science traces a panpsychic rather than materialist trajectory. All intelligent thinkers have always tried to give mind its rightful place in the universe, rather than subordinate it to mindless matter. It’s impossible for non-mind to produce mind. On the other hand, it’s certainly possible for mind to produce matter, as soon as the mental, mathematical basis of matter is understood. Matter is a specific kind of thinking ... the thinking of all monadic minds at once, rather than of individual monads.

Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Schopenhauer believed that the world is growing worse, not better. In fact, he regarded existence as evil, producing an overwhelming preponderance of pain, suffering, angst, misery, depression, sadness, hopelessness, futility and despair. In other words, this is the Devil’s Universe, and there is no God. We are in a permanent hell, and there are no exits. The only way out is to cease to exist, which we accomplish by freeing ourselves from our will. That which does not will does nothing at all. It does not participate in the hell of existence.

Hartmann (1842-1906) Eduard von Hartmann characterized his philosophy as a synthesis of Hegel and Schopenhauer’s, viewed through Schelling’s conception of the

unconscious. Hartmann said, “I have followed Schelling’s precedent in uniting Hegel’s one-sided identification of the world’s substance with the logical idea with Schopenhauer’s similarly one-sided identification of it with Will, so I have also endeavoured to effect a higher unity between Hegel’s coldness and want of feeling whereby the individual is degraded to an insensitive instrument of the idea, and Schopenhauer’s lack of interest in the process of the All, and his insistence on the redemption of the self from an individual existence of pain as the sole end of life.” Hartmann’s system is predicated on “the unconscious absolute” as the basis of reality, and he characterises it as a dual-aspect system involving Will and Idea (Idea = Intellect; Reason). The combination of these two functions creates the world we encounter. All phenomena are manifestations of the Will and its insatiable lust to exist and gain power (Nietzsche later formally designated it as Will to Power). As for the Idea, this gives us the rational and intelligible form, order and organisation of the world. Without the Will, Hartmann said, the Idea can never be realized (it’s the Will that drives the actualisation of potentiality). But, without the Idea, the Will would be nothing but unintelligible, irrational striving, and would never generate the ordered, purposeful cosmos we experience. Left to itself, it would produce incomprehensible Chaos. In Illuminism, the Idea is mathematical Form, and Will concerns mathematical Content and the inherent mathematical self-optimising, selfsolving drive. All living mathematical monadic minds – the autonomous units of ontological mathematics – are intrinsic entelechies that want to perfect themselves, and this pursuit of perfection is expressed dialectically in terms of both mathematical Form and Content, i.e. both perfect Form and perfect Content are sought – divine Form and Content. Form and Content are inherently related since they are the opposite sides of the same ontological coin, hence whatever happens to one affects the other. Form and Content in their eternal, individual aspect (i.e. Form and Content in relation to a particular sinusoid) reflect a kind of perfection, albeit a sterile, static one. It’s their temporal, dynamic, living, collective aspect that’s dialectical, and where all the fun and mess of life exist. With scientific materialism – because it rejects the ontology of mathematics and the eternal principle of sufficient reason – there’s no inherent design, form, order and organisation in the cosmos. Scientific

materialism, logically, is about chaos, with nothing to tame it. Science has no right at all to appeal to mathematics to bring order to it. Science regards mathematics as a manmade, unreal abstraction, so how can it play any role at all in scientific “reality”? It would be as plausible for science to invoke the manmade Chinese language as mathematics, since Chinese is every bit as divorced from the fundamental nature of existence as mathematics, if we are to grant that mathematics is in fact as unreal and manmade as Chinese. The ontology of mathematics is, and always has been, the biggest problem confronting science. If mathematics isn’t ontologically real, how can it be used to describe reality via mathematical scientific formulae? If it is ontologically real, why do we need science? The presence of mathematics in science renders science either absurd and invalid (if mathematics has nothing to do with reality), or redundant (if mathematics defines reality). Either way, mathematics falsifies science. No scientist has ever addressed this logical catastrophe at the heart of science. None ever would or ever could. Scientists have zero interest in ontology, epistemology, consistency, logic and Truth. They are interested in one thing only – scientific formulae that work, no matter how absurd they are ontologically. This attitude goes right back to Newton who produced brilliantly successful formulae that made no ontological and epistemological sense at all, as Leibniz ruthlessly pointed out at the time, but whose objections were ignored both then and now. In Hartmann’s system, the universe would be pure nothingness were it not for the Will, which is the “Will to actualise” – to convert potentiality into actuality. The Will is pure action and activity, hence must be expressed through actuality rather than potentiality. However, since the Will is irrational, it produces a world of suffering and meaningless phenomena. Absolute chaos would be generated were it not for the fact that the Unconscious (the basis of existence) contains Idea in addition to Will, and thus reason and purpose can manifest themselves in the world of Will. Given that the Will is irrational and the Will rational, the two aspects of the Unconscious are in constant conflict. The Idea has the purpose and function of overcoming the irrationalism, chaos and illusions of the Will, thus undoing the pain and suffering that Will creates, and delivering rational peace and harmony to the world. It can do so only by becoming conscious. In Consciousness, unlike in the Unconscious, Idea and Will can effect a

kind of separation, and Idea then has the opportunity to master the bestial Will. In Hartmann’s system, we see the foreshadowing of Freud’s Superego versus Id. The Id is pure Will while the Superego serves as pure Idea that generates the moral code of the world and rational civilisation. For Hartmann, the objective of the evolution of the world is to deliver it from the misery and savagery inflicted by the primitive, irrational Will. Like Schopenhauer, Hartmann concludes that non-existence (non-being) is to be preferred to evil existence. The Idea must, in effect, cause us to cease Willing. Without Will, nothing can be actualised, so we return to some primordial state of non-being or potentiality where everything is harmonious and peaceful – nirvana, so to speak. To secure this end, individuals must cooperate, must be rational, must control their blind, selfish impulses. This necessitates a Superego rather than Id society, Apollonian rather than Dionysian. Intelligence and reason are the true basis of morality, not faith and religious dogmatism, hence we must make the human race more rational and more intelligent. The success of the world is achieved through the optimisation of everyone, not just the “elite”. We have to rise together or we shall assuredly all hang separately. The more we raise the intelligence and reason of humanity, the better, the more prosperous, the more moral, more sane, and more successful humanity will become. We must subordinate ourselves to the Enlightenment – the Rule of Reason – not the Endarkenment – the Rule of the Rich. Hartmann agreed with Schopenhauer that the world is a huge blunder. He regarded happiness, for both the individual and the species, to be a seductive and ultimately destructive illusion. Reason cures all illusions and delusions. When the Last Illusion is addressed, humanity will achieve the nirvana of peace and bliss, where all striving and desire will cease. This, for Hartmann, is the ultimate goal of existence. In a sense, existence must go from actuality (evil) to potentiality (good). Imagine the unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction of Copenhagen quantum mechanics. If no observations ever took place, the wavefunction would never “collapse”, and reality would never be actualised. Nothing terrible and horrific would ever be made real. Evil and suffering would never be born.

Deduction versus Induction In common with the scientific attitudes of his time, Hartmann rejected the deductive method and instead sought support for his metaphysical system from the inductive procedures of the natural sciences. Big mistake! Deduction, based on reason, is the great intellectual gift that humanity has wilfully chosen to spurn in favour of induction, based on the senses. Induction is evidence based (sensory; scientific); deduction is reason based (intellectual; mathematical). You can’t apply induction to the state that preceded the Big Bang, but you can certainly apply deduction. Scientists have never grasped this simple truth. Any state that preceded the Big Bang, whether eternal existence or “non-existence”, cannot be an object of science or the scientific method. It cannot be an empirical state. It can, however, certainly be a rational state, and, indeed, must be if this is a rational, intelligible universe with an answer to why it exists. Science more or less claims that nothing (total non-existence) preceded the Big Bang, and that the spacetime universe of matter literally jumped out of nowhere for no reason via no mechanism ... the most irrational and impossible claim ever made regarding the origin of existence.

Herbart Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841): “German philosopher and educator, who led the renewed 19th-century interest in Realism ... Herbart’s position in the history of philosophy is due mainly to his contributions to the philosophy of mind. His aims in this respect are expressed by the title of his textbook – ‘Psychology As Knowledge Newly Founded on Experience, Metaphysics, and Mathematics’; of central importance is the inclusion of Mathematics. He rejected the whole concept of faculties (in Kantian terms) and regarded mental life as the manifestation of elementary sensory units or ‘presentations’ (Vorstellungen). These he conceived as mental forces rather than as mere ‘ideas’ in Locke’s sense. The study of their interactions gave rise to a statics and dynamics of the mind, to be expressed in mathematical formulas like those of Newtonian mechanics. Ideas need not be conscious; and they might either combine to produce composite resultants or conflict with one another so that some get temporarily inhibited or repressed ‘below

the threshold of consciousness.’ An organized but unconscious system of associated ideas formed an ‘apperception mass’; such a system could apperceive a new presentation and thus give it richer meaning.” – Encyclopædia Britannica “Both nature and man, Herbart taught, are constituted by the coming and going, the mingling and separating of units which he called ‘reals’. The universe of reals is absolute. In it there is no change, growth, decay. The only change lies in our own habit of relating reals in such a way as to form objects or patterns. ... Man is a result of the organization of ideas which result from the interaction of reals. And Herbart believed all this can be stated in purely mechanical terms. For him, psychology was nothing other than the mechanics of the mind. As Herbart saw the universe operating in terms of dependable laws, he reasoned that man, in all his actions, can be explained in the same terms. Everything in mind follows fixed laws. Man is part of the natural universe, is governed by the same laws, and can be understood and controlled if we know the laws.” – S. E. Frost, Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers Herbart’s system becomes equivalent to ontological mathematics if we simply replace his “reals” with mathematical analytic sinusoids. Ontological frequency sinusoids are absolute. They do not change or decay. They are immaterial and outside space and time. They are thoughts in their most primitive, ontological, noumenal form – thoughts in themselves. Our observed reality is produced by the adding together of eternal, necessary sinusoids to create temporal, contingent sinusoidal functions (wavefunctions), and the breaking down of such wavefunctions, into subwavefunctions, or back to the original sinusoids themselves. The whole world is made of wavefunctions. And that includes our individual minds. Herbart sought to describe reals in mechanical terms. We can describe analytic sinusoids in purely mathematical terms, specifically those of Fourier mathematics. Psychology is the mathematics of the individual monadic mind, while physics is the mathematics of the collection of all monadic minds (the Monadic Ensemble). Mathematics can thus unify psychology and physics, mind and “matter”. The laws of the universe, in both its mental and physical aspects, are the laws of ontological Fourier mathematics. Scientific materialism can never address reality because it leaves out the mind ... the most egregious intellectual sin possible. Science

claims that the mind is a magical, emergent property of matter, or a mysterious epiphenomenon of matter with no independent reality of its own, and no causal agency separate from the laws of matter. This is ludicrous, and more or less insane. There is zero evidence or proof that the mind doesn’t exist as in independent entity in its own right, wholly separate from “matter” (whatever that is!).

***** “Herbart looked upon thinking as the organization and integration of reals. Through experience the soul throws off reals which are organized in consciousness into ideas and points of view. Many of these are pushed into the subconscious, there to wait until the time is favourable for them to come back into consciousness and dominate it.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. “For Herbart, there are many simple, unchangeable ‘reals’ or substances which combine to form objects. The soul, he taught, is a real which may be characterized as simple, absolute, timeless, and spaceless. The body of a man is a mass of reals with the soul established in the brain.” – S. E. Frost, Jr.

Herbart and Plato “[Both Herbart and Plato] believed that behind appearances, there were unchanging reals, reals ultimately existing as knowable transcendental ideals.” – Clarence J. Karier Herbart’s system, especially his concept of “reals”, is conceptually tricky to grasp. The best way to think of it is in terms of Plato’s transcendent, eternal, immaterial, immutable domain of Forms (Ideas). This domain was conceived to comprise both static Forms, and dynamic, living Forms (= souls). Using Herbart’s language, let’s call static Forms reals (or ideareals), and living Forms soul-reals. Moreover, let’s make the idea-reals dynamic (which is equivalent to give Plato’s Forms the capability of moving in space and time and directly coming into contact with the things they effect, and each other). In Plato’s system, souls gaze on the Ideas and enjoy a Beatific Vision. This was a notion taken over by Roman Catholicism, whereby souls gaze eternally on the perfection of God, an idea captured with poetic genius by Dante in Paradiso.

Wikipedia says of the Beatific Vision, “In Christian theology, the beatific vision (Latin: visio beatifica) is the ultimate direct self communication of God to the individual person. A person possessing the beatific vision reaches, as a member of redeemed humanity in the communion of saints, perfect salvation in its entirety, i.e. heaven. The notion of vision stresses the intellectual component of salvation, though it encompasses the whole of human experience of joy, happiness coming from seeing God finally face to face and not imperfectly through faith. (1 Cor 13:11–12). “It is related to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief in theosis, and is seen in most – if not all – church denominations as the reward for Christians in the afterlife. ... “In Christian theology, divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis) is the transforming effect of divine grace, the spirit of God, or the atonement of Christ. It literally means to become more divine, more like God, or take upon a divine nature. ... “In the philosophy of Plato, the beatific vision is the vision of the Good. In Plato’s Allegory of the cave, which appears in the Republic Book 7 (514a – 520a), he writes (speaking, as he does in many of his works, through the character of Socrates): ‘My opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good (the Good) appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual.’ (517b, c) Thus, for Plato, the Good appears to correspond to God in Christian theology. “St. Augustine expressed views similar to Plato’s on this subject, and was familiar with Plato’s ideas, most likely via Neoplatonist writings. “Socrates’ mystic vision of initiation from Plato’s Phaedrus states: ‘There was a time when with the rest of the happy band they saw beauty shining in brightness – we philosophers following in the train of Zeus, others in company with other gods; and then we beheld the beatific vision and were initiated into a mystery which may be truly called most blessed, celebrated by us in our state of innocence before we had any experience of evils to come, when we were admitted to the sight of apparitions innocent and simple and calm and happy, which we beheld shining in pure light. [Phaedrus: 250]”

***** In Plato’s system, the “Demiurge” is required to apply the Ideas (Forms) to the inferior world of space, time and matter, into which souls subsequently “fall” thanks to their uncontrollable desires, lusts, and impulses, and from which they then need to escape – back to paradise. Wise souls (mathematical souls) look to the intelligible universe. As for fallen souls, these come in three types: 1) sensory souls (scientific souls) look to the sensible world, 2) emotional souls (religious souls) look to faith, revelation and the world of Mythos, and 3) mystical souls (intuitive souls) look to visions, epiphanies ... and hallucinogenic drugs. Herbart dispensed with Plato’s Demiurge. Therefore, space, time and matter had to arise from the reals and soul-reals – and their dynamic interaction – alone. Consider a red table with a rough surface. According to Plato, this partakes of the eternal Ideas of “table”, “red” and “rough”. In Herbart’s system – which is a system of reals all colliding with each other like atoms – a soul-real would collide with the reals of “table”, “red” and “roughness”, and thereby have the perceptual experience of the particular table in question. Dimensionality, weight, mass, and so on, could all be added in exactly the same way. In this manner, we could build up any object we liked. An idea thus constructed is a real ontological entity – actually made of objective reals – not merely a nebulous idea in a subjective mind. If the same combination of reals were brought into contact with another mind, that mind would see exactly the same thing as the first mind. This is an objective thing in the real world that can be moved from one place to another, one mind to another. Herbart’s system implies that there are as many table-reals as there are potential tables in the world, and the same goes for everything else. We have as many red-reals and rough-reals to account for all the redness and roughness in the world, and any we haven’t yet encountered. This is a giant, dynamic, causally interacting system of idea-reals and soul-reals, producing all of the stuff that we perceive to exist, but emphatically grounded in a true, metaphysical reality (thus reflecting knowable transcendental realism rather than unknowable Kantian transcendental idealism).

Herbart’s scheme, so he believed, explains what all of the noumena (thing-in-themselves) actually are. They are all reals, of one kind or another. Ontological mathematics has a similar set-up, except the “reals” are immaterial, analytic mathematical sinusoids in the Fourier frequency domain, outside space and time. Each sinusoid is energy in itself, information in itself, a particular experience in itself. Sinusoids are dual-aspect entities: one aspect is rational Form, and the other is empirical Content. To put it another way, every sinusoid is a number, and every number has a one-to-one mapping with a particular mental experience. A monad (equivalent to a soul-real) comprises a complete and consistent set of all possible numbers (and thus all possible individual mental experiences; all possible individual idea-reals). When monads interact with each other, their respective sinusoids dynamically, mathematically, and causally interact (via Fourier mathematics), generating the world we experience. It’s all in the math. All that exists are monadic sinusoidal minds and their sinusoidal contents. Each sinusoid is a basic “thought”, a thought-in-itself. A thought comprises both Form and Content, signifier and signified. A thought is both an information carrier, and the information it carries. There’s nothing other than thoughts and minds to think them, but these are real, ontological thoughts, with real mathematical effects. They are not obscure, undefined, subjective ideas of the kind normally described or implied in idealist philosophy, i.e. they are not fantasies, hallucinations or dreams with no real, objective basis. In Illuminism, Herbart’s “reals” are simply mathematical sinusoids, and his soul-reals are monads, made of sinusoids. Thus we can provide a closed, analytic explanation of existence ... the only one possible. Math alone can furnish an answer to existence.

***** Herbart’s non-soul-reals (idea-reals) wouldn’t actually exist at the level of something like a complete table, or concept thereof. Rather, they’d be at a much more basic level, from which a table could then be constructed. They would be more like Kant-Boscovich physical puncta, with soul-reals as mental puncta. However, critically, Herbart, unlike Kant and Boscovich,

conferred mental properties on the supposedly physical puncta, and associated them with mental experiences and sensations.

***** Herbart’s scheme resembles Plato’s, but with Plato’s static Forms rendered dynamic, and with many instances of each rather than just one. In Herbart’s system, we can imagine Plato’s Forms being transported into space and time and subject to causal, mechanical forces rather than standing forever outside space and time.

***** “[Herbart’s] analysis of the concept of ‘the real’ underlying existence and change led him to believe that the universe is populated with atomistic beings, each originally possessing but a single quality. He named these individual beings, or essences, ‘reals.’ He postulated the need for such ‘reals’ through a series of arguments reminiscent (as he was the first to point out) of Eleatic arguments for a permanent substratum underlying change. Following Leibniz, he argued that the ‘reals’ underlying the aggregate of things found in experience must themselves be simple, akin to Leibniz’s monads (as, again, he was the first to observe). But he disagreed with Leibniz in that he posited real causal interactions among reals in order to explain their internal changes of state. His monads, it would seem, had doors at least, and perhaps windows, too.” – Gary Carl Hatfield, The Natural and the Normative “...Herbart considered Kant’s (alleged) attempt to found philosophy on psychology to be among his greatest failings. Herbart believed psychology had a role to play in philosophy, but not that of foundation; indeed, he contended that psychology itself must be based upon metaphysics. ... He contended that the notion of ‘thought’ may be regarded from two points of view: as the activity of the mind, and as what is thought thereby.” – Gary Carl Hatfield “[Herbart] maintained that those reals we call souls (those having perceptual capabilities) are, like all other reals, essentially simple, without any manifoldness. At least originally, a soul-real can intuit in a single moment only a single quality (a tone, a colour, etc.) of determinate intensity. ... a truly simple representation can include no representation of

relations within it ... Causal commerce between soul-reals and other, independently existing reals (among which intelligible spatial relations obtain) serves to establish the correspondence between intelligible space and psychological space.” – Gary Carl Hatfield Soul-reals are simple substances endowed with perception. In the most basic scenario, a soul-real experiences only a single quality at a time, and these experienced qualities are called “representations”. Each representation has an intensity but no spatial structure. The representations experienced by a given soul-real alter as a result of its causal interactions with other reals. Herbart set out to construct a mental mechanics capable of describing the interaction of successive representations within, or in interaction with, a soul-real, and also of dealing with momentary interactions among competing representations striving to enter consciousness simultaneously (such as would happen when a soul-real is involved in multiple causal interactions with other reals). “Unconscious” representations (i.e. representations that have not entered a soul-real’s consciousness) may attempt to enter consciousness at the same time, in which case, they may “fuse” (become associated), thereby generating more complex, compound representations. All of Kant’s a priori mental faculties are, in this way, replaced by Herbart’s mental mechanics. All forms of representations, including spatial and temporal relationships, arise via such mechanics, and are not simply built into our minds as Kant claimed. Basing psychology on mental mechanics is close to basing it on ontological mathematical sinusoids, as in Illuminism. It’s essential to introduce mathematics into psychology, thus turning it into a proper science, rather than an anecdotal Mythos. Nothing is better able to turn any subject into math than by defining its core elements as analytic sinusoids. You cannot have a true mathematical system if it’s not based on authentic mathematical foundations. Science is not based on math, but, rather, the human senses, hence is anti-mathematical. It uses math in an entirely bogus and fraudulent way, and, in fact, it has no right to draw on math at all since it doesn’t acknowledge any mathematical ontology or epistemology, and rejects logic, rationalism and the principle of sufficient reason, preferring ad hoc, heuristic guesses, fictions, observations, experiments and experiences. It relies on empiricism, induction and synthesis, not rationalism, deduction and analysis.

Herbart drew attention to the critical question of how spatial representations might arise from a system based on non-spatial representations. Where Kant solved this problem simply by imposing spatial goggles on us, which forced us to see everything in spatial terms, Herbart used his “mental mechanics” approach. In Illuminism, ultimate reality is outside space and time – in a frequency domain – but the mental experience of space and time can be generated by translating Fourier frequency functions into Fourier spacetime functions. “[Herbart] described what might be termed the ‘causal space’ of the reals as an intelligible space, to which the mathematics of the continuum applies. He contrasted this intelligible space, as postulated in metaphysics, with the sensible space of phenomenal experience, as described in psychology. ... the continuity of geometrical space described an actual feature of reals; their ability to be more or less ‘next to’ one another in continuously varying degrees of causal influence. ... [Herbart] accepted the distinction between intelligible and psychological (or subjective) space as found explicitly in Kant and implicitly in Leibniz, but he sided with Leibniz against Kant on the question of the existence of intelligible space. Whereas Kant had held that ‘intelligible space’ – a space existing independently of human perceivers and populated by things in themselves – is for us unknowable, Leibniz (according to Herbart) thought that monads exhibit real spatial relations among themselves. Herbart interpreted the notion of ‘intelligible space’ not as a spatial container, nor as a set of real spatial relations, but as a description of actual or potential causal relations among reals. This intelligible space serves as the ground of the space we intuit, i.e., psychological space. ... On Herbart’s view, space is an acquired form of representation. Whereas Kant and Fries had rejected any attempt to describe the relationship between mental representations and things in themselves, Herbart the realist pressed ahead with just such a description. He maintained that the ability for spatial representation is acquired as a result of causal interactions among soul-reals and other reals in intelligible space; psychological space is built up through interaction with the real (causal) relations found among things in themselves. ... Causal commerce between soul-reals and other, independently existing reals (among which intelligible spatial relations obtain) serves to establish the correspondence between intelligible space and psychological space. ... Although spatial predicates do not properly pertain to the ‘reals’, Herbart ascribed them an intelligible

spatial order in virtue of their causal connectedness ... the justification (and interpretation) of the claim that there is an intelligible space distinct from and represented by sensory space comes from metaphysics and is independent of psychology.” – Gary Carl Hatfield “In connection with the whole of metaphysics, it can, by the way, specifically be maintained that we perceive external objects as spatially ordered because they actually are spatially ordered.” – Herbart What Herbart had in mind was a virtual, mental, noumenal, mathematical space which mapped to a “real”, physical, phenomenal, scientific space. Unlike in Kant’s system, we could be certain of a correspondence between the noumenal and phenomenal spaces. “The psychology Herbart developed was essentially an associationist psychology. The child’s mind, at birth, is a blank slate which can only enter into ideational relationship with its environment by way of the nervous system. The mind has neither innate ideas nor innate faculties but builds up a content on the basis of ‘presentations’ of sense perceptions. Through assimilation of these presentations, or ideas, the mind develops clearer, more complex, and higher mental processes. This process of apperception, if properly controlled, eventually produces a self, a will, and, in the end, character. All this seems reminiscent of Locke, except that the ideas Herbart dealt with are basically transcendental, Platonic entities, all of which have logical relationships.” – Clarence J. Karier Herbart rejected innate Kantian conceptual structures and mental faculties. He returned reality from the mind (psychology) to the external world (metaphysics and physics). He was then able to construct a scientific rather than philosophical psychology. “In his time, the philosopher Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841) was considered the first scholar to not merely have spoken of the necessity of psychological laws, but to also have attempted to lay out and precisely define them. He was also considered the one who deemed faculty psychology obsolete. Instead of tracing psychological phenomena back to any natural predispositions, to a ‘mere aggregate of the soul’s faculties,’ Herbart sought to describe a model of mental life in which various phenomena could be explained uniformly by ‘psychological laws linked by necessity.’” – Michael Heidelberger

Ontological mathematics can likewise be regarded as psychology involving “laws linked by necessity”, i.e. it mathematicises psychology. “Thus in Psychology as a Science Herbart sets out to ‘research the soul in the same way that we research nature; inasmuch as this implies presupposing an ubiquitous, completely regular relationship of phenomena, and investigating this by surveying facts, making careful deductions by using novel, tested and corrected hypotheses, and finally, whenever possible, by contemplating and calculation.’” – Michael Heidelberger There is only one way to research the soul just as we research nature – math! Fourier mathematics gives us exactly this capability. “[Mach] was very much influenced by Herbart’s philosophy. According to Herbart ... a substance is capable of no other form of modification except self-preservation in the face of disturbance caused by other substances. The substance called ‘soul” modifies itself by having ideas, the substance called ‘matter’ changes inner states, which is expressed in terms of its spatiality.” – Michael Heidelberger For Herbart, all mental phenomena arise from the interactions of reals, and how they modify each other via association. That’s the whole shooting match.

Psychodynamics 1) Mathematical psychodynamics.

psychology

=

psychophysics

or

2) Physics and metaphysics = psychophysics. Physics is turned into Psychophysics simply by adding a mental Singularity of monadic minds to material spacetime, by adding an ontological Fourier frequency domain to a Fourier spacetime domain. Is that so hard? Ontological Fourier mathematics handles all of this automatically.

Representation Herbart agreed with Leibniz’s thesis that the mind is primarily a vis representativa (a power of representing). What it does, in the final analysis,

is represent a world of mathematical sinusoids (noumena) as a world of sensory Content (phenomena). Herbart insisted that soul-reals can be fully conscious of only one representation at a time. All the rest of the representations are therefore unconscious. There are causal interactions between soul-reals and other reals (nonsoul-reals = idea-reals). The reals are the noumena of which the events of our experience are the phenomena. Reals that, in themselves, are ultimately timeless and spaceless (i.e. they are eternal, immutable and necessary) produce the phenomena of space and time (just as Fourier timeless and spaceless frequency sinusoids produce the Fourier spacetime world). These timeless and spaceless reals can be linked to intelligible (mathematical) space and time, from which sensory (physical) space and time can then be derived perceptually. The soul-real is a monad continuously interacting with other soul-reals, and also with idea-reals. Soul-reals are autonomous, complete and consistent sets of sinusoids, and idea-reals are the individual sinusoids.

***** “So far as it represents or conceives, the soul is called mind; so far as it feels and desires, it is called the heart, or disposition.” – Herbart

Kant’s Conversion “Kant was initially a metaphysical realist about primary qualities as spatialized forces (versus bare extended particles), before placing space among the appearances in his ‘critical’ period. Space becomes the subjective form in which transcendently real forces and relations appear.” – Wikipedia The early Kant’s position was much more akin to Herbart’s philosophy. His puncta (point-atoms) were not unlike reals.

Change In ancient Greece, Heraclitus was the great champion of change, while Parmenides was the equally prominent champion of non-change. Parmenides believed that true reality was unchanging and all perceived change was therefore illusory, and associated with falsehood. Plato thought

he had reconciled the contradictory views of Parmenides and Heraclitus by positing an eternal, unchanging domain of perfect, immutable, necessary Forms, outside space and time, and a temporal, changing domain of imperfect, mutable, contingent, inferior simulacra of Forms in space and time. The world of Becoming – always changing and in motion – is the physical world we perceive through our senses. The world of Being – always static and unchanging – is the world of Forms or Ideas that we apprehend via our intellect. This latter world is absolute, independent, and transcendent. It became the template for a perfect heaven beyond our imperfect world, hence was the obvious home of God. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “...Timaeus [in Plato’s book of that name] posits a distinction between what always is and never becomes and what becomes and never is. He goes on to connect each with its familiar epistemological correlate: the former is grasped by understanding (noêsis) involving a reasoned account (logos), and the latter by opinion (doxa), which involves unreasoning sense perception (aesthêsis alogos).” In ontological mathematics, the most fundamental distinction isn’t between being and becoming, but, rather, between the eternal and necessary on the one hand, and the temporal and contingent on the other. Analytic sinusoids, grouped into monadic units (complete and consistent autonomous sets of sinusoids) are the eternal, necessary building blocks of existence. They constitute the world of eternal being. However, these sinusoids can combine in various, non-necessary ways to create temporal, contingent wavefunctions. These temporary, non-essential wavefunctions constitute the transitory, ephemeral world of becoming. Where Plato talked of intelligible Forms, and inferior, sensible copies of Forms, what ontological mathematics asserts is that there are eternal mathematical sinusoids, and temporal combinations of these sinusoids. That’s it. There’s nothing else going on. Likewise, in Herbart’s system, there are eternal reals, and what they do is continuously change their relationships with each other, thus generating all of the perceived phenomena of the world of becoming. For Plato, ontological mathematics and Herbart alike, there’s an eternal order underlying the temporal order, and the task of philosophy, metaphysics and mathematics is to understand and define this eternal order.

This is signally not the approach of science. Science denies any eternal order of existence, hence is about nothing except infinite contingent regress, or miraculous emergence from non-existence. You have a simple choice to make. Does reality consist of an eternal, necessary, rational order of existence, from which we derive temporal, contingent things, or does reality consist of non-existence that, illogically and contradictorily, possesses an existent property – the potential capacity to randomly generate something out of nothing for no reason via no mechanism? This, amazingly, is the central claim of science! It’s an utterly irrational and impossible claim. However, it’s essential for empirical science to make this claim since, to do otherwise, i.e. to accept eternal, necessary existence (reflecting the eternal Law of Energy Conservation) ... is to accept that there’s a rational, intelligible order that has no connection at all with experiments, observations, the senses and experiences (all the stuff of empiricism). Eternal, necessary reality is studied via logic, reason, metaphysics and mathematics (all the stuff of rationalism). The eternal truths of reason, dictated by the principle of sufficient reason, have no link whatsoever with empiricism, the senses, temporality and contingency, i.e. with science. Only an eternal and necessary system is compatible with a complete and consistent ontology and epistemology, and true conservation laws. Only such a system can offer absolute, infallible knowledge. Only such a system can furnish a rational and intelligible universe. That system is ontological mathematics. Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” It’s comprehensible solely because it’s predicated on a logical, rational, intelligible eternal order, not because of the incomprehensible infinite contingent regress of science ... or science’s incomprehensible relativity, its incomprehensible take on quantum mechanics, its incomprehensible contingent conservation laws that don’t conserve anything, its incomprehensible Multiverse and multitude of parallel worlds, its incomprehensible infinite clones of us, its incomprehensible denial of the independent existence of mind, its incomprehensible reliance on observers and wavefunction collapse, its incomprehensible commitment to incomprehensible randomness, chance, accident, acausation and indeterminism, its incomprehensible preference for statistics and probability over analytic determinism, its incomprehensible

advocacy of irrationalist, unintelligible empiricism and materialism, its incomprehensible love of induction rather than deduction, its incomprehensible preference for the senses and experiences over reason and intellect, its incomprehensible rejection of the hidden variables of mathematics. Einstein should have said, “The most incomprehensible thing about science is that it’s comprehensible.” The only thing that saves science from being divination and alchemy is the hyper-rationalist, anti-empirical mathematics it uses, the exact opposite of everything that empirical science stands for! Rationalist math, which empiricist science has no valid right to invoke, is precisely what make science comprehensible. There’s a fundamental, unaddressed, catastrophic contradiction at the heart of the scientific enterprise – what rationalist mathematics is doing right in the middle of empiricist science. Not a single scientist has ever attempted to account for this. Science therefore illegitimately and illogically supports both empiricism – in the shape of provisional, contingent, interpretive empirical experiments – and empiricism’s arch enemy, rationalism – in the shape of mathematics. This is the typical sort of absurdity that science shamelessly endorses, and which ensures that no intellectual would ever respect science, or take it seriously ontologically and epistemologically. Science has nothing to do with absolute knowledge, nothing to do with Truth. Kant at least attempted to explain why math and physics can work in conjunction, but science simply ignores the whole issue. Science is not an intellectual subject, and it isn’t rational. It’s a practical, instrumental method for generating useful, ad hoc mathematical guesses that match experimentally observed mathematical patterns in nature. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. It has no formal epistemology and ontology, and does not reflect any eternal, necessary, rational order. The idea that science gives us “knowledge” is a joke. It’s nothing but a heuristic fiction, a sensory Mythos, a method, a model, a simulation, a simulacrum, which never once gets to the heart of ultimate reality. It doesn’t even come close.

***** Understanding (noêsis) relies on a “reasoned account” (logos).

Opinion (doxa) relies on unreasoning sense perception (aesthêsis alogos). Science is about opinion (Mythos) and rejects understanding (Logos). That’s a fact. Anything based on the senses cannot be true. That’s a fact.

Realism Herbart insisted that the perceived appearances of objects derive from actual things, the independent elements that he called “reals.” Mental life, he said, was the manifestation of the ontological interactions of the reals, with complex, compound, contingent, temporal ideas arising from relationships among simple, necessary, eternal reals. Herbart was convinced that these mental interactions could be mathematically studied and modelled, just as physics constructs mechanistic models of material things, i.e. he maintained that a dynamics of the mind (psychodynamics) was just as viable as the dynamic of matter (hylodynamics). Herbart’s scheme is entirely correct, except in the rather fundamental issue of what the “reals” actually are. In ontological mathematics, the fundamental existents – the only true “reals” – are the sine and cosine waves defined by the God Equation. Unless you define the reals in this way – as analytic mathematical entities – any proposed psychodynamics would be as bogus and fallacious as scientific materialism.

Herbart’s Concept of the Real Where Kant was convinced that we gain valid knowledge only through studying the innate categories of thought and how they shape our perceptions (which, in effect, is to turn philosophy into psychology since we are no longer studying reality but merely what we perceive to be reality ... a radically different thing from reality in itself), Herbart insisted that real knowledge comes from studying the real things of the world. Where Kant regarded these as unknowable noumena, Herbart was certain they were knowable noumena. He declared, “The world is a world of things-inthemselves, [and] the things-in-themselves are perceivable.” So, in Kant’s system, we apply our inbuilt mental apparatus to things-inthemselves and thus impose an appearance on them, which we then “perceive”. In Herbart’s system, thing-in-themselves have an actual appearance or content that we directly perceive (without being mediated by any internal mental categories that automatically separate us from the

things-in-themselves). We agree with Herbart, except we use different terminology. Every thing-in-itself is an ontological sinusoidal wave, but this wave has both Form (that we never perceive in itself) and Content (that we always perceive). If we simply equate Content to “appearance” then we are saying that every thing-in-itself (i.e. sinusoid with unperceivable mathematical Form) appears to us in a certain way that hides from us the fact that we are dealing with a sinusoid. Sinusoids are information carriers, but all we ever see is the information (Content) they carry, and never the sinusoids themselves. They are permanently hidden from us. We do see a kind of Form in the world – in fact we see Form everywhere – in leaves, snowflakes, crystals, DNA, seashells, you name it – but this is secondary Form derived from the hidden, primary Form of sinusoids, i.e. we see the effects of mathematical Form – all the shapes, patterns and order of the observed world – but not the mathematical Form in itself. We perceive everything other than the sinusoids. Only our reason allows us to work out that sinusoids are the only possible ontological carriers of information, for all eternity. Only sinusoids can exist necessarily and eternally. Only sinusoids can populate the Singularity that precedes the Big Bang. Anything that exists has an appearance (i.e. has Content accompanying its hidden Form). The mere fact that it appears to us means that it exists. The mere fact that the world appears to us means that the world exists, and also tells us that something underlies its appearance (in order to furnish that appearance). The ultimate underlying thing has usually been referred to as “God”, but it is in fact the God Equation, expressed through sines and cosines. Science – a subject all about observation – takes the appearance of something to be its reality, i.e. science always avoids talking about hidden variables, rational unobservables, souls, minds, noumena, God, religion and metaphysics. It rejects the whole notion that an appearance is always the appearance of something that doesn’t appear, i.e. it rejects the distinction between phenomena and noumena. Science deals only with phenomena and denies the existence of noumena. Phenomena are the stuff of physics; noumena are the stuff of metaphysics and mathematics. That said, theoretical scientists are more than happy to posit string theories with 10, 11, 12, 26 – or whatever – number of dimensions, nearly all of which are unobservable, hence must be considered hidden variables

unless some ingenious experiment is devised to reveal tiny, “rolled up” dimensions, cosmic “membranes”, and so on. The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics invokes countless unobservable parallel worlds. Multiverse theories invoke countless unobservable universes. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics invokes an unreal, unobservable, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunction, and claims that unobserved cats in special boxes can be in unobservable dead, alive and mixed living/dead states all at the same time. In other words, science is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, illogic, irrationalism, incompleteness and fatal paradoxes. You simply can’t do science without referring to mathematical hidden variables, so why not embrace them – exactly as ontological mathematics does? End the phoney war. Science must be replaced by math.

***** For Herbart, reals were simple, indivisible, dimensionless, mental things – reminiscent of Leibniz’s monads, except some of these monads were minds while others were the ideas perceived by minds, and they were in dynamical interaction with each other. In Illuminism, monads are souls made of autonomous, complete and consistent sets of sinusoids, while individual sinusoids – from inside a particular monad, or outside a particular monad (but always originating in other monads) – are the basis of thought and perception, i.e. monads are “collections of sinusoids” that experience individual sinusoids, and groups of sinusoids. Sinusoids therefore experience themselves. Autonomous sinusoid sets experience individual sinusoids and groups of sinusoids. Forms (containers) experience their own Content (what they contain). This is a strict monism. Sinusoids are all that exist. All minds and all matter originate in how sinusoids organise themselves: within themselves (intra-sinusoidal behaviour) and between themselves (inter-sinusoidal behaviour). This system may be staggeringly conceptually difficult to people first coming across it, but it is in fact the most simple ontological system you can possibly get, the one that fully achieves Leibniz’s goal: “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.” Here, “God” is really the God Equation, which ontologically defines all possible sines and cosines, from which we derive Fourier mathematics that allows the construction of spacetime matter from immaterial frequencies, and enables minds to interact with matter. We defy anyone on earth to prove us wrong. No one will ever improve on this system. That’s a fact. This system is the unarguable answer to existence. All that remains is to fully explore and master all of its details and incredible properties.

***** Herbart agreed with Locke’s empiricist viewpoint that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) onto which experiences are written. He explicitly denied that there are any innate ideas or inbuilt Kantian categories of thought. Yet, without some such pre-existing system – like a computer without an operating system – it’s impossible to imagine how order, organisation, pattern and reason could ever enter this setup. Ontological mathematics avoids this problem because, self-evidently, it has mathematics built into it (innate to it) ... mathematics being the quintessential ordering, patterning, logical, organising principle, hardwired to reason. Herbart argued that soul-reals are passive initially, apart from their active property of resisting the changes that external forces seek to impose on them. They don’t do much, and nor do they allow much to be done to them. Soul-reals are inherently unchangeable, hence cannot be disrupted by external forces. The only sense in which they can change without being altered ontologically is via their perception of other reals. All reals remain intact, but soul-reals are able to perceive and experience the constantly changing ocean of reals in which they are immersed. In this system, there are fixed things – the reals – but these are all moving around and interacting with each other, producing an ever-changing mental landscape. There are necessary, eternal, noumenal things interacting with each other to produce temporal, contingent phenomena, which are what are then experienced and perceived by soul-reals. In Herbart’s world, reals collide and influence each other. In ontological mathematics, sinusoids are the reals that interact with each other (producing contingent wavefunctions from necessary basis waves).

Herbart argued that all reals have to fight for their own selfpreservation, implying that they could conceivably be annihilated. In fact, all reals – all sinusoids – are eternal and necessary, hence it’s impossible to get rid of them. Reals can be neither created nor destroyed, only “transformed” by virtue of their changing relations and interactions with each other. Herbart conceived of idea-reals as dynamic forces, operating according to mathematical formulae, and reflecting Newton’s mechanical principles. These forces generate the changing perceptions of reality that soul-reals experience. We don’t impose our own mental schema on the external world, as Kant proposed. Rather, we perceive a world of reals – an actual world – and how the reals are arranged determines what we perceive. This is a scientific rather than psychological way of understanding the reality we perceive. We are really encountering the world, not mentally projecting onto an unknowable world, as Kant suggested. Perception has been turned into a mechanical, mathematical process rather than a Kantian, metaphysical categorisation exercise. The “mechanics of ideas” involves idea-reals moving around and interacting in different ways. Intensity is a critical consideration. Some interactions don’t produce enough intensity for the phenomenon to enter our perception. In this case, they have failed to cross the consciousness threshold, but can still be present in our perception, unconsciously rather than consciously. Something might then happen to push them into consciousness, and current conscious perceptions out of consciousness (hence below the threshold). Idea-reals can combine in all sort of ways to form compounds of ideareals, corresponding to complex thoughts and perceptions. Herbartian psychodynamics involves understanding how mental representations (resulting from combinations of idea-reals) excite or inhibit one another, how they constructively reinforce or destructively cancel, and so on. Herbart worked out a whole mathematical scheme for modelling such phenomena. It wasn’t of much practical use and fell into neglect, but his basic approach was right. His problem was that his basic ingredients – the reals – weren’t themselves mathematical, as they are in ontological mathematics.

***** Herbart labelled the ultimate building blocks of existence “reals” and believed them to be in continuous mechanical interaction. From these reals and their relations, all contingent, temporal phenomena are derived. The reals can directly affect each other through contact. Herbart imagined some idea-reals attracting each other and some repelling each other, i.e. ideas, just like physical things, can attract and repel. Parallels can be drawn between Herbart’s system and chemistry. If we regard the atomic elements as different atomic-reals, the elements can combine in all manner of ways (according to the laws of chemistry) to form molecules and compounds. In water, hydrogen is linked to oxygen. In methane, hydrogen is linked to carbon. The hydrogen is the same in each case, but the context it finds itself in is radically different: methane is nothing like water. What Herbart was doing was trying to find a kind of chemistry of ideas. In fact, it’s the mathematics of sinusoids that must be harnessed, mapping atomic Content to atomic basis waves and trying to predict what kind of molecular Content will arise from different combinations of sinusoids. This is staggeringly problematic since there’s no obvious way to predict what kind of experience we will have when we compound two atomic Contents. Imagine combining a smell and a colour or sound. How would we experience their combination? Can we predict this? We can predict mathematical Form, but predicting mathematical Content is altogether trickier. We can add Form 1 + Form 2 to get Form 3, or Quantity 1 + Quantity 2 to get Quantity 3. We can even add Content 1 + Content 2 to get Content 3, or Quality 1 + Quality 2 to get Quality 3. We know, by the eternal laws of mathematics, what Quantity 1 + Quantity 2 must be, but the problem is that we have no idea what Quality 1 + Quality 2 will give us as an experience, i.e. we might be able to say Q1 + Q2 = Q3, but we will have no idea how we will actually experience Q3, no more than we can know how we will experience the colour of the sky before we ever look at it.

This goes to heart of the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, and the definition of knowledge. If we can say in advance what the answer to a problem will definitely be, this is an analytic a priori situation concerning eternal necessity, and reflecting “relations of ideas” (truths of reason). If we have to wait until after an event has happened, this is a synthetic a posteriori situation concerning temporal contingency and reflecting “matters of fact” (truths of fact). Rationalism is all about knowledge being known “before the fact”, i.e. we apply the eternal rules and the answer necessarily follows. Empiricism is all about knowledge being known “after the fact”, i.e. we need something to happen before we can have knowledge of it. No one can know before they have experienced the colour of the sky what that colour will be like. Anyone can know, given any arithmetical calculation, exactly what the result will be. They don’t have to wait for anything. This encapsulates the whole problem with rationalism versus empiricism. Rational knowledge is often thought to be “mere tautology”, or purely formal, or “empty”, or abstract, telling us nothing about the real world, while empirical knowledge is said to tell us non-tautological information about the world, hence to be “real” knowledge. In fact, all knowledge is strictly tautological. What isn’t tautological is how we experience knowledge. Reality is based on analytic sinusoids, which have a precise Form and a precise Content. When we add together two sinusoids, we add together both their Form and their Content in a tautological way: 1) Form: F1 + F2 = F3 2) Content: C1 + C2 = C3 We know exactly what F3 is and can state it in advance. This is a priori knowledge, and is infallible. C3 arises just as inevitably and infallibly. As soon as we have C1 and C2, C3 is defined. This is also a priori knowledge. The problem is that this knowledge of Content is something we can never actually possess a priori. Where knowledge of Form relies purely on our reason, and reason can be applied a priori, knowledge of Content relies on our experience, and experience is something that happens to you, i.e. you can only “know” about it after it has happened. You can never predict how you will experience something you have never experienced before. You don’t know what love is like before you have fallen in love. You don’t know what the redness of a rose is like until you have seen it. You don’t

know in advance that when you combine chlorine and sodium you will get sodium chloride that you can sprinkle on your fish and chips ... you have no way of knowing what “salt” will be like as an experience. So, rational knowledge is always a priori and thus seems unreal because we don’t need to experience the world in any way at all to acquire this knowledge, while empirical knowledge is always a posteriori since we always have to experience the world before we can acquire this knowledge. Yet the whole problem with this latter knowledge is that it’s simply not real knowledge. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are no empirical “facts”, only interpretations. No two people can disagree with rational facts such as 1 + 1 = 2. But people can easily disagree over empirical “facts”. Was the famous internet dress gold and white or blue and black? If we can’t even agree over the colour of a dress, how can we say that empiricism gives us any genuine knowledge at all? Wittgenstein rubbished mathematics as empty tautology, and said that facts arise from our engagement with the world, yet facts are exactly what we don’t get ... only interpretations. What do you prefer? – infallible mathematical knowledge, or fallible empirical knowledge that isn’t knowledge at all? Science isn’t knowledge. It’s empirical interpretation, and it gains its power purely by being underpinned by mathematics. All “facts” of science are interpretations, usually quite ridiculous ones. Science is the systematic empirical misinterpretation of rational mathematical reality. The cosmic state that preceded the Big Bang was a purely rationalist state. Empiricism can’t tell you a single thing about it. Science can’t tell you a single thing about it. It’s outside the empiricist paradigm. The state that preceded the Big Bang was an a priori analytic state. Science needs it to be an a posteriori synthetic state, which it can never be. Science needs to understand something after it has happened, but the answer to the Big Bang necessarily existed before the Big Bang. Science has never understood this basic truth. You can’t use science to study the world that existed prior to the creation of the world of science. Science will never give an answer to what caused the Big Bang. That’s an absolute fact, hence there will never be a “final” scientific theory. That can be stated right now, as a matter of simple logic. The terrifying thing is that scientists are far too stupid to realise this.

*****

Herbart defined psychology as the “mechanics of the mind”. In fact, it’s the mathematics of the mind. For Herbart, mental states and thinking are simply the interactions of idea-reals. Herbart attempted to treat idea-reals as akin to atoms, displaying attraction and repulsion. He also assigned them a kind of Will to Power, and they vied with one another to cross the threshold into consciousness, and to suppress and inhibit their rivals. Freudian repression can be seen as a means by which “healthy” ideas push negative, “unhealthy” ideas out of consciousness. Why do we forget some things and not others? The most memorable ideas have a far higher vitality. They are much more vivid to us. In Herbart’s system, change is just the contingent alterations in the various relations amongst eternal reals. Reals come together (synthesis) and break apart (analysis). What could be simpler?

Mechanics Matter Mechanics: Dimensional mathematics; space and time; physics. Mind Mechanics: Dimensionless mathematics; frequency; metaphysics. Science is all about matter mechanics and has denied the existence of mind mechanics. Science cannot progress until it embraces mind mechanics. Once it does, it will move away from scientific materialism and empiricism to scientific idealism and rationalism, and thus transform into ontological mathematics. It will reflect panpsychism rather than materialism; psychophysics rather than physics, metaphysics rather than physics, reason rather than the senses, noumena rather than phenomena. Science, as things stand, is a religion of the senses. It needs to become a rational, intellectual, Logos discipline. No intellectual subject rejects the reality of the mind. Materialism is the falsest ideology conceivable.

Form “Form: the external shape, appearance, or configuration of an object, in contradistinction to the matter of which it is composed; in Aristotelian metaphysics, the active, determining principle of a thing as distinguished from matter, the potential principle. “The word form has been used in a number of ways throughout the history of philosophy and aesthetics. It was early applied to Plato’s term eidos, by which he identified the permanent reality that makes a thing what

it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. The Platonic concept of form was itself derived from the Pythagorean theory that intelligible structures (which Pythagoras called numbers), and not material elements, gave objects their distinctive characters. Plato developed this theory into the concept of ‘eternal form,’ by which he meant the immutable essence that can only be ‘participated in’ by material, or sensible, things. Plato held that eternal forms, though they were not tangible, were of a higher reality than material objects. “For practical purposes, Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hypokeimenon or hyle) and form (eidos or morphe). He rejected the abstract Platonic notion of form and argued that every sensible object consists of both matter and form, neither of which can exist without the other. For Aristotle, matter was the undifferentiated primal element; it is that from which things develop rather than a thing in itself. The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of the particular forms of which the knowable universe consists. Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form separate from matter, eternal and immutable.) “Thus according to Aristotle, the matter of a thing will consist of those elements of it which, when the thing has come into being, may be said to have become it; and the form is the arrangement or organization of those elements, as the result of which they have become the thing which they have. Thus, bricks and mortar are the matter that, given one form, become a house, or, given another, become a wall. As matter they are potentially anything that they can become; it is the form which determines what they actually become. Here ‘matter’ is a relative term, for a brick on the pile, while potentially part of a house, is already actually a brick; i.e., it is itself a composite of form and matter, clay being matter to the brick as the brick is to the house or to the wall. Matter is that which is potentially a given object but which actually becomes that object only when it is given the right form. “Aristotle’s notion of form combines with his teleological viewpoint to give the conclusion that formal development has a direction and may have a goal and that some things are more informed than others. Bricks are more informed than clay, and a house more than bricks. “The Aristotelian concept of form was uniquely adapted to Christianity by Thomas Aquinas, whose works mark the high point of the medieval

Scholastic tradition. Aquinas further delineated the concept of form to include ‘accidental form,’ a quality of a thing that is not determined by its essence; ‘sensible form,’ that element of form that can be distinguished from matter by sense-perception; and other such distinctions. ... “For the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, form was a property of mind ... it is imposed by the individual on the material object. In his Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781, 1787; Critique of Pure Reason) Kant identified space and time as the two forms of sensibility, reasoning that, though humans do not experience space and time as such, they cannot experience anything except in space and time. Kant further delimited 12 basic categories that act as structural elements for human understanding.” – Encyclopædia Britannica

***** Werner Heisenberg was a secret Aristotelian. For him, the quantum mechanical wavefunction was the equivalent of Aristotelian “prime matter”: an unreal, abstract potentiality, waiting to be actualised. The role of form – the thing that actualises potentiality – was taken, in Heisenberg’s view, by observers and their observations. Sadly, Heisenberg was no philosopher and his version of potentiality versus actuality is a joke compared with Aristotle’s. In order to “make sense” of various features of science, scientists often borrow ideas from philosophy that they don’t properly understand. In the end, they make a huge mess since they manifest none of the analytic precision in their thinking that philosophers apply. Philosophers are motivated by truth and wisdom, scientists by producing workable models. Heisenberg produced a heuristic fiction that couldn’t possibly conform to any rational ontology and epistemology. Neither he nor science cared. What they wanted to resist above all was any suggestion of “hidden variables”, which would undermine their entire empiricist project. Laughably, Heisenberg’s unreal, abstract, mathematical potentiality wavefunction is itself totally non-empirical, non-observable, and has to be imagined to “collapse” indeterministically and randomly via an undefined observation, in the total absence of any mechanism. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is comically bad yet continues to be enthusiastically embraced by science. However, some scientists are now favouring the even more preposterous “many worlds”

interpretation of quantum mechanics, involving infinite clones of us in infinite parallel worlds! Is there no end to scientific silliness? The most troubling thing of all is that scientists actually believe that these positions of theirs are intellectually defensible, and perfectly “logical”!

Sensible Form Form can be divided into “sensible” form and “intelligible” form. Sensible form is the phenomenal form of a thing revealed to us by our senses. This is not its true, noumenal form, which is intelligible, mathematical, ontological, transcendental and sinusoidal. We absolutely never encounter the sinusoidal forms that define all things, i.e. we never encounter the world of pure math on which our sensory world is built.

The Rebirth of Form “Form: The term ‘Form’ is used to translate the Greek term ‘eidos’. In the philosophy of Plato, ‘Form’ and ‘Idea’ are interchangeable terms. Although Aristotle’s account of the nature of forms differs from Plato’s, he is concerned with broadly the same problems. In Plato, to know the Form of X is to understand the nature of X; so the philosopher who, for example, grasps the Form of justice knows not merely what acts are just, but also why they are just. Similarly, Aristotle regards a form as that which makes something intelligible, and which (like Plato’s Forms) is grasped by the intellect. [MH: Note that no “sensible” consideration can make something intelligible, a point that no scientist has ever understood.] “However, Aristotle rejects Plato’s view that all forms are ‘separable’, that is have an independent existence. For Aristotle, what exist independently are substances, and substances (with a few important exceptions, such as God) consist of both matter and form. Matter is that which has form; for example, the human soul is the form of the human body, which is its matter. [MH: the cosmos is the body – matter – of the Cosmic Mind (World Soul) = Cosmic Form.] The human body is again a form, whose matter is constituted by the bodily organs, and so on. In the case of the products of skill, form is imposed on matter; for example, when a carpenter makes a table out of wood he imposes on matter (the wood) a form, which is what is grasped when it is understood what makes a table a table. But many forms (such as the form of the human body) are not imposed on matter in this way, but are in a sense immanent. A form of this

kind explains a thing’s development; it is the intelligible structure that a thing has when fully developed, and the growth of the thing is regarded as a striving to make actual its form. Forms in this sense figure not only in Aristotle’s biology, but also in his physics. For example, he explains the fall of an unsupported body in terms of its endeavour to realize its form – namely, its proper place in the universe. “When the scholastic philosophers spoke of ‘substantial forms’, they had in mind forms of the immanent kind. The theory of substantial forms was sharply criticized by many philosophers and scientists of the 17th century, who saw such forms as inconsistent with the mechanistic concepts of the new physics.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The concept of form must be resurrected, and placed at the heart of science. The subject that quintessentially deals with eternal, necessary form is of course mathematics. Science has routinely abandoned many of the most important intellectual, rational, logical concepts, such as substance, form, eternity, necessity, causality and determinism. That’s why it’s an irrational, anti-intellectual subjects, making increasingly laughable claims about the nature of reality.

Forms and Sensibles In Plato’s system, Forms are mental (outside space and time) while Sensibles are inside space and time. In Aristotle’s system, Forms and Sensibles occur together in space and time. In ontological mathematics, dimensionless sinusoids (Forms) are outside space and time, and they give rise to dimensional sinusoids (sensibles), inside space and time. For Plato, Forms are “being” (eternal, necessary and immutable), but this then raises a fundamental problem – where does “non-being” (= becoming) happen? It plainly can’t occur in the domain of Forms. Additionally, what is “non-being” (becoming) made of? It can’t be made of Forms. To explain the universe of non-being, we need a location for it, and a “stuff” from which to make it. Plato referred to the “Receptacle of Becoming” or “space” (khora) as this location. Khora is a liminal zone, between the domains of being and non-being, in which the temporal, contingent universe of becoming arises (and by which it’s separated from the domain of Forms). Khora – space, the receptacle of becoming – has been referred to as the “universal womb”. Here, the

empirical, phenomenal, physical world is born, but it’s always to be understood that there’s an unborn, never-to-be-born (since it always exists), eternal, necessary world standing behind it. This is exactly what science denies. Science posits an eternal, contingent receptacle of becoming (of infinite contingent regress), or a receptacle of becoming that jumps out of nothing for no reason. It refuses to accept an eternal, necessary order of Platonic being. The eternal order of being is a mental, “hidden variable”, and any such thing is automatically, ideologically rejected by science. There’s no reason for this beyond sheer dogmatism. Science has zero capacity for disproving an eternal order of existence. If such an order does exist, science is ipso facto 100% fallacious in any claims it makes about ultimate reality. It’s as wrong as it can possibly get; the very essence of falsehood. No rational person would ever look to science to understand ultimate reality. That’s a fact. You need to be anti-intellectual and anti-rational to take science seriously as an “explanation” of reality. It doesn’t tell us a single thing about reality in itself. It’s as false as any mainstream religion.

***** Khora is the mysterious space lying between two places or limits, but science denies the existence of one of those limits: the eternal domain of necessary Forms. Newtonian absolute space is a version of khora. Beyond it is Newton’s God. If, for argument’s sake, we agree that Newtonian absolute space exists, there are only two possibilities: it exists forever (as part of an eternal order of existence), or something created it. Science denies both propositions: it denies that that there’s any eternal order (i.e. necessary things that have existed forever), and it denies that there’s any Creator (any Intelligent Designer). Once you have rejected both eternity and Creation, what’s left? ... only randomness, chance, accident, indeterminism, acausation, probability, statistics, emergence, potentiality and non-existence that’s capable of producing existence miraculously and magically. Scientists love this irrational, unintelligible, incomprehensible and totally meaningless “explanation” of why we are here. Their underlying agenda is to disseminate their extremist atheism. They don’t want to leave

any room for any God, or design, or any hidden variables beyond the reach of science. What they haven’t grasped is that “God” is nothing but an anthropomorphic representation of the “God Equation” that defines an eternal, necessary order of ontological mathematics. It’s not in fact religion that scientists are denying but math, the supreme irony being that math is indispensable to science. Richard Feynman said, “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” That’s science in a nutshell. It can never provide any knowledge worthy of the name! Writer Will Self said, “Scientific theories aren’t descriptive of any reality at all but, rather, are provisional rules of thumb for a universe which exhibits assumed regularities.” Yes, that’s science. It has nothing to do with reality. It’s an ad hoc sensory model of the contingent world of appearances, and nothing more than that. It’s just a grand heuristic fiction. Feynman said, “Some people say, ‘How can you live without knowing?’ I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.” You certainly don’t get to know via Feynman’s science. You do it via reason, logic and eternal necessity, enshrined in ontological mathematics.

***** As the receptacle of becoming, khora must also, logically, be the provider of the stuff from which the things of the world of becoming are made. That is, “formless matter” and space go together as the ingredients of khora. Aristotle replaced the receptacle of becoming with his notion of “prime matter” – pure, formless potentiality, waiting to be actualised by the addition of form (actuality). However, Plato’s receptacle of becoming and Aristotle’s prime matter can be regarded as functionally equivalent. Both of them posit a kind of cosmic clay waiting to be sculpted into actual things. Copenhagen quantum mechanics posits a cosmic set of wavefunctions waiting to be “collapsed” into actual things by observers and their observations, though it makes no attempt to explain how observers came into existence in the first place in order to be able to perform the observations required to bring about the wavefunction collapses. It’s therefore a random, indeterministic system of magic and miracles, with no conceivable causal, rational explanation.

Science never once teaches how utterly ridiculous scientific interpretations of reality are. It pretends that these interpretations are intellectual masterpieces that no rational person could ever challenge. In fact, you’re profoundly irrational if you can’t see right through them and detect their absolute explanatory and intellectual bankruptcy. The biggest problem facing science is that it doesn’t know how to address the question “why?” It concentrates on “how?” without realising that “how?” makes sense only in relation to “why?”. Without “why?”, you end up appealing to random miracles, chance, accident, magic, acausation, probability, statistics and indeterminism. None of these involve any explanation. In fact, they are the quintessence of non-explanation. If you can’t explain why something happened, you simply say, “It happened spontaneously, randomly, for no reason.” This is exactly science’s stance! Science replaced “why?” with random miracles, and then had the cheek to call it itself rational and logical. Historically, the ultimate answer to “why?” was an eternal, necessary God. The true answer is an eternal, necessary God Equation. Math is the answer to all whys and all hows! Science, insanely, has rejected math as the explanation of existence. Ontological mathematics rectifies this most grievous of all intellectual sins.

Universals and Particulars Universals are general functions; particulars are specific evaluations of these functions. For each unique function (universal), there are countless specific evaluations (particulars). DNA is a biological function (universal). Each species has its own DNA universal (each of which is in fact a particular in relation to some overarching, master DNA universal – the prototype DNA), and all the members of each species are particular, unique expressions (evaluations) of the universal (i.e. each member has its own unique DNA).

Pythagorean versus Platonic Form Both Pythagoras and Plato subscribed to the notion of eternal, necessary, intelligible structures. Pythagoras called these numbers, while Plato called them Forms. Pythagoras had an outright mathematical vision, whereas Plato had a metaphysical vision.

Where Plato proposed Forms for things such as Beauty, Justice, and Tableness, what Pythagoras did was associate particular properties – such as masculinity, femininity, wisdom, justice, beauty, and so on – with specific numbers, i.e. he gave numbers non-mathematical Content. To put it another way, he added a sophisticated numerology to analytic number theory, and this approach proved highly influential regarding esoteric schools such as Kabbalah. They tended to obsess over the secrets of numerology, and to ignore the secrets of number theory! To this day, we get people insisting that the Bible is full of math, when what they mean is that sad weirdos can apply a preposterous numerological analysis to the Bible to justify all of their crazy beliefs. These people claim that the words of the Bible are actually numerological codes, and when you solve them correctly, all the secrets of existence are revealed. So, rather than write a book on ontological mathematics, “God” apparently wrote a non-mathematical book of stories about Jews, in which he concealed the numerological answer to Creation. If you believe that, you really will believe anything. In modern Illuminism, every number is, ontologically, a sinusoidal wave, and every number (wave) has a specific experience associated with it, i.e. all numbers are Form/Content hybrids, much like Aristotle’s hylomorphic hybrids, except we have now changed Aristotle’s form/matter dualism to a Form/Content dual-aspect monism. In this way, we have Form and Content as two sides of a single ontological coin rather than two independent ontological coins that suffer from the notorious interaction problem of Cartesian substance dualism. Pythagoras had the Law of Harmony (modelled on musical harmonies) to link all of his numbers, while Plato had no such mathematical link. Pythagoras, in effect, devised the first “string theory” of existence, with the strings being ontological mathematical strings (that we now call analytic sinusoids). Music theory is indeed a superb way into ontological mathematics. Many people will be able to make much more sense of musical ideas than formal mathematics. For Plato, all the tables in the world partook of the perfect Form of table or tableness. For Pythagoras, particular tables were made from particular, characteristic combinations of numbers. For Herbart, much later, particular tables were made of “reals” rather than numbers. If reals are equated with numbers, ruled by mathematical relations, then Herbart’s system becomes Pythagorean.

In the Pythagorean system, numbers are the eternal, necessary aspects of reality, and their particular combinations are the temporal, contingent, specific things of the world. Modern Illuminism reflects this same big picture, except numbers – ontologically – are now defined as waves (energy), which have both Form and Content, hence are both rational and empirical. In the Pythagorean system, dimensionality arises from the properties of numbers. Plato, via his perfect solids (regular polyhedra) also envisaged dimensionality in mathematical terms. Numbers (conceived in terms of sinusoids), can, uniquely, operate both dimensionlessly and dimensionally, the necessary prerequisite for a world of dimensionless mind and dimensional matter. Dimensionlessness flows from orthogonal relations between sines and cosines, and dimensionality from non-orthogonal relations. Do the math!

Aristotle’s Hylomorphism For Aristotle, sensible objects were hylomorphic combinations of matter and form. If we rebrand “matter” as “content” then, in ontological mathematics, all things are Form/Content hybrids. Aristotle bookended his system with formless matter (prime matter) and matterless form (“God”). This does not happen in ontological mathematics. All sinusoids are Form/Content hybrids, and there can be no such thing as Form without Content or Content without Form. Aristotle’s system was dualistic whereas ontological mathematics is a dual-aspect monism. The decisive factor that ontological mathematics offers is that sinusoids can manifest themselves dimensionlessly or dimensionally, i.e. mentally or physically, hence there is no interaction problem between different substances. Leibniz’s monads reflect the Aristotelian scheme. Each monad comprises a clear, active aspect (Form) and an unclear, passive aspect (Matter). The “God Monad” is perfectly clear and contains no matter at all. God is pure activity, pure actualisation and no potentiality. All ordinary monads are teleological and are, in effect, striving to become as active and clear as the perfect God Monad. Modern Illuminism changes Leibniz’s scheme so that it’s about Form and Content, noumena and phenomena, signifiers and signifieds, dimensionlessness and dimensionality ... all handled mathematically.

Monism “Monism: 1. A philosophical theory that maintains that there is one, and only one, substance. Examples of this type of theory are provided by the philosophy of Spinoza and Hegel. 2. (in the context of discussions of mindbody relations). A theory of mind-body relations that is not dualistic. The theory of neutral monism, to be found in the philosophy of William James and in Bertrand Russell’s logical atomism, is a monism of this type. According to this theory, minds and bodies do not differ in their intrinsic nature; the difference between them lies in the way that a common (‘neutral’) material is arranged.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Ontological mathematics is the perfect expression of neutral monism. Mathematical sinusoids manifesting dimensionlessly produce mind, and manifesting dimensionally produce matter. What could be simpler?

Sensible Form Dimensionless sinusoids have unobservable, noumenal, intelligible Form. That’s why thoughts have no discernible “shape”. Dimensional sinusoids give rise to observable, phenomenal, sensible Form. That’s why physical objects have shape.

Kantian Form In Kant’s system, his noumenal domain is a kind of Aristotelian formless “prime matter”, or a Platonic Receptacle of Becoming. According to Kant, the mind is the source of form and projects it onto the noumenal domain, thus producing formed phenomena. Kant has relocated Plato’s Forms from Plato’s universal, transcendent domain to individual minds. When you study philosophy properly, what you discover is that there’s a basic set of philosophical concepts, and the major philosophers simply shuffle these concepts around into unique configurations that constitute their “system”. For all his bluster, Kant produced nothing but a disguised version of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, dealing with the traditional subjects of form and matter. Minds, for Kant, come with form inbuilt, and the noumenal domain is the source of the “prime matter” that gets shaped by formative minds into perceivable, knowable, “scientific” phenomena. In Kant’s system, each of us becomes, in some sense, a Platonic Demiurge, applying Form to Matter to render it actual and knowable.

The mind, according to Kant, is however incapable of generating and projecting, in sensory, phenomenal terms, the forms of God or the soul, hence these stand outside the scope of Kantian “knowledge”.

Potentiality and Actuality There are two views of reality. One says that it’s based on potentiality, the other that it’s based on actuality. These entail radically different ontologies and epistemologies. So, is existence actual or potential? If existence is actual, it means that what ultimately exists has existed forever. In relation to the Law of Energy Conservation, it means that nothing that already exists can, in its ultimate form, ever be destroyed, and nothing new can ever be created. It means that all actual things are eternal and necessary, and it means that all the contingent things that we encounter in the world are nothing but different arrangements of these eternal things. In ontological mathematics, the eternal things are mathematical sinusoids, and all the things you come across in the phenomenal world of appearances are just temporal, contingent compounds of sinusoids. Beyond the phenomenal world is an eternal, necessary, invisible world of everlasting, indestructible noumena. Nothing ever “dies”. Things simply “transform”, by entering into different arrangements with other things. “Death” is just a phase transition from an old, worn-out arrangement to a new, vital arrangement. Death is the essence of life because it allows life to be completely re-energised and re-expressed on a periodic basis. “Transhumanists” are the enemies of life because they want to be locked into one body forever. Transhumanism is the definition of insanity. It’s how to fail the test of life. Unsurprisingly, many scientists believe in transhumanism. That’s because they deny the existence of the immortal soul, so they believe that death is final ... unless they can “download their consciousness” into a machine. This is the most absurd dream ever created by science. Consciousness is a property of living monadic minds, not of dead machines. It’s impossible to transfer monadic properties to machinery. Science is a philosophy that’s opposed to actuality. Science is the ideology of potentiality, of contingency, of temporality. Science denies the existence of eternal, necessary things. It denies the Law of Energy Conservation insofar as it denies that the foundational elements of existence have always existed, and always will exist.

If existence comprises eternal, necessary things, it means that these eternal, necessary things pre-existed the Big Bang and were the cause of the Big Bang. Science refuses to acknowledge any such state because it would automatically demonstrate that science is false (or radically incomplete). The state prior to the Big Bang cannot be part of science since it’s a nonscientific Singularity state. The pre-Big Bang Singularity is an immaterial state, but science is predicated on materialism. The pre-Big Bang Singularity is a non-empirical state but science is predicated on empiricism. The pre-Big Bang Singularity is dimensionless but science is predicated on dimensionality. The pre-Big Bang Singularity is outside space and time, but science is predicated on space and time. Any analytic, rational, intelligible state prior to the Big Bang is a necessarily non-scientific state. That’s why science denies any state of existence prior to the Big Bang and makes the deranged, indefensible claim that non-existence randomly, miraculously and magically spawned existence, i.e. existence literally jumped out of nothing at all for no reason at all via no mechanism. Seriously, that’s the true basis of “science”. It’s worse than religion. It’s the product of magical thinking. It’s impossible for something to come from nothing at all, yet science is entirely based on that impossibility – and is extremely smug about it. It loves this “explanation” (or, rather, non-explanation) since it avoids any hint of God, souls, mind, design, meaning, purpose, intelligibility or rationality. Science trumpets its miraculous, magical “explanation” as the greatest thing ever. Scientists can’t get enough of it. They write whole books about the universe randomly jumping out of nothing at all for no reason, and want everyone else to believe this too. They’re worse than the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They won’t shut up about their crazy, impossible faith system. Science is an insult to reason, a total embarrassment. Science claims that potentiality, not actuality, is the basis of everything. For science, non-existence has one remarkable property (which, logically, means that it must in fact be a form of eternal existence!) ... it can generate actuality from itself. Alternatively, we might say that, like Baron von Munchausen, existence can pull itself up by its own bootstraps; it can generate itself out of nothing at all for no reason at all; it can miraculously give birth to itself.

Of “bootstrapping”, Wikipedia says, “In general parlance, bootstrapping usually refers to the starting of a self-sustaining process that is supposed to proceed without external input. In computer technology the term (usually shortened to booting) refers to the process of loading the basic software into the memory of a computer after power-on or general reset, especially the operating system which will then take care of loading other software as needed. The term appears to have originated in the early 19th century United States (particularly in the phrase ‘pull oneself over a fence by one’s bootstraps’), to mean an absurdly impossible action...” Science is predicated on bootstrapping, i.e. on the initiation of a selfsustaining process that proceeds without any external input. Science believes that this is completely “logical”. Science thinks that reality powers itself on ... that it presses the “on” button itself! But, of course, the “on” button would already have to exist in order to be pushed, and something else would have to exist in order to push it. According to science, the button spontaneously and miraculously appears out of nothing and then presses itself. Where the Abrahamic “God” creates the world out of nothing, the scientific world creates itself out of nothing! Science therefore even outdoes Abrahamism in absurdity. With science, “God” not only creates the universe out of nothing, but also creates himself out of nothing. If you don’t have God or a God Equation as the basis of your system then miraculous bootstrapping is all you have left. Such is science’s maniacal detestation of an eternal God or an eternal God Equation as the cause of everything that it prefers that things should appear miraculously, and that this should be a universe predicated on self-performing miracles and magic. A universe of actuality means that God or a God Equation has existed forever. A universe of potentiality means that nothing has existed forever, and existence simply bootstraps itself. A universe of actuality means that reality consists of eternal, necessary things continually rearranging themselves. A universe of potentiality means that things jump into actuality from some unreal, formless, indefinable “receptacle of becoming” full of potential existence, but no actual existence. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, “reality” comprises unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions from which actuality is randomly plucked by way of

observers and their observations. Since this system is predicated on unreality, it makes no sense in terms of a real ontology. Scientists never concern themselves with such issues. They’d rather believe in unreality, infinite contingent regress, randomness and potentiality than any eternal actuality that would, by the mere fact of it, falsify science as the means to explain reality. Science is incompatible with any system based on the eternal truths of reason, of eternal, necessary things, of eternal actuality. Such things have always been associated with God, or gods, and science flees as fast as it can from that territory. It has no rational reason for doing so, just ideology and dogmatism. When you replace God and gods with the God Equation and mathematical monads, you at last realise that mathematics, not religion, is the basis of eternal, necessary existence. The real question then becomes ... why do scientists hate mathematics so much? Why do they refuse to see mathematics as the basis of science? Why do they prefer sensory empiricism to mathematical rationalism and logic? Scientists are the sworn enemies of reason and enlightenment. They will fight to the last ditch to prevent reason and proof being placed above the senses and “evidence”. Can anyone imagine any scientist on earth being able to respond to the criticisms of science presented in the God Series? We can savagely attack science because we have an eternal and necessary ontology and epistemology, based on the mathematical God Equation, behind us. Science has no such thing, so it has no foundation on which to defend itself. Since it has no formal position, everything in science can change overnight. When experiments seemed to show that neutrinos travelled faster than light, many scientists were delighted that a central plank of science might be about to be overthrown. Similarly, many scientists openly hoped that no evidence would be found for the Higgs boson, so that “new science” would be needed. How can anyone defend an ideology that has no interest in definitive answers against one that does? How can an irrationalist beat a rationalist? Science refuses to involve itself in any debate with its critics, philosophers in particular. No scientist would have the vaguest idea how to respond to our attacks. They’d need to understand philosophy, and none of them do. They simply aren’t equipped to engage in a battle of reason, logic and clear thinking, so they don’t bother. At all times, they fall back on their moronic

default position: “Where’s your experimental evidence?” This stance of theirs makes no reference to logic, intelligibility, analysis, deduction, ontology, epistemology, mathematics or the principle of sufficient reason. And that, of course, is the whole problem. How can science argue rationally when it doesn’t respect reason, and doesn’t have reason as the basis of science? The foundation of science is the irrational sensorium, not the rational intellect.

Form and Matter For Aristotle, matter is the potentiality factor, form the actualizing factor. In science, there’s no eternal form, so matter pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. It actualises and forms itself – by magic! (Or, according to Copenhagen quantum mechanics, matter actualises itself by magically observing itself!) The central catastrophe of science is that it rejects eternal, necessary, mathematical form. For Aristotle, matter is that which has the potentiality to become something, but only actually becomes something when it encounters form (the actualising agent). For science, this encounter with form never takes place. Rather, matter, which is the unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunction in Copenhagen quantum mechanics, is actualised by observations performed by observers, though science never explains how observers come into existence in the first place. What caused the observers to be actualised? As ever, science appeals to its magical bootstrapping nonexplanation ... its deus ex machina.

The Six Systems 1) Pythagoras said that ultimate reality (eternal necessity) comprised numbers, and from numbers we could generate the contingent, temporal world of becoming (via combinations of numbers). 2) Plato said there was an eternal, necessary, transcendent domain of Forms, together with an eternal receptacle of becoming full of formless matter (prime matter). The Demiurge, knowledgeable about the Forms, applied them to prime matter, like a sculptor shaping clay, and thus created the things of the phenomenal world

of becoming. Space and time are intimately associated with the receptacle of becoming, and not with the domain of Forms. 3) Aristotle said that there are two extreme ontological situations: formless matter (prime matter = non-being; potentiality) and matterless form (God = being; actuality). Neither of these exists in the world of becoming. Neither is in space and time. The spacetime world of becoming is made of hylomorphic hybrids of form and matter. 4) Science says that, ontologically, there are no such things as Plato’s eternal Forms, or Aristotle’s eternal matterless form, or Pythagoras’s eternal numbers (mathematics). All that remains is the receptacle of becoming of prime matter (the potentiality wavefunction, so to speak). So, this must generate formed matter by itself ... it must pull itself up by its own bootstraps. The Big Bang, for science, is where the material spacetime world of becoming bootstraps itself into existence out of unreal potentiality (non-being). Science is literally ancient Greek philosophy with form (mind) removed. 5) Kant’s “receptacle of becoming” was his formless, unknowable, noumenal domain. His forms were contained in the mind and projected onto the receptacle of becoming, thus creating the “knowable” empirical, phenomenal world of becoming. Space and time themselves were a priori intuitions of the mind, projected onto the noumenal world outside space and time. Causation and substance were also mental projections onto the world, which otherwise did not possess them. 6) Ontological mathematics combines Form (mind) and Content (“matter”), dimensionlessness and dimensionality, frequency and spacetime. Fourier mathematics is the “receptacle of becoming” that can generate spacetime from an immaterial Fourier Singularity of pure frequency. Who needs science ... or philosophy ... or religion?! Math does all that they aspire to do. Can anyone in their right mind believe that science is the best of these six systems? Arguably, it’s the worst! Science doesn’t explain anything. It’s a

far-fetched, irrational, miraculous, self-bootstrapping, magically selforganising system. Ontological mathematics is also a self-organising system, yet this is selforganisation based on eternal necessity, not on the temporal contingency of science. Ontological mathematics involves inherently self-solving, selfoptimising, living, teleological mathematical agents (aka souls!) – everything that science loathes. Reality is just a cosmically vast, self-solving equation with infinite nodes (monads). Ontological mathematics doesn’t need any “God”, but it does require a God Equation. It doesn’t need a Creator; it is the Creator (of the contingent, phenomenal world). Ontological mathematics is intrinsically a system of intelligent design since design is built into mathematics, and a mathematical world will look designed even though it doesn’t have a Designer (in the religious sense).

***** For Plato, the ultimate Form was “The Good”, which Catholicism rebranded as “God”. For Aristotle, perfect Formless Matter was the God of Pure Reason. For Pythagoras, the Monad (the One) was God, the Source of All. Science got rid of all of that. It got rid of form, mind, reason, intelligibility, actuality, eternity, necessity ... and the ontological mathematics that reflected all of that. It was left with nothing but madness and miracles, randomness, chance and accident. And it was delighted!

The War Science has waged a relentless war against eternal Form, regarding this as a secondary way of referring to “God”. In fact, Form is mathematics. Science denies that Form is the basis of causation. Science believes in randomness and spontaneous generation. It believes that cosmology proceeds by the random, spontaneous generation of whole universes. It believes that evolution proceeds by the random, spontaneous mutation of genes. It believes that quantum physics proceeds by the random collapse of wavefunctions, caused by unexplained observers and observations. You will under no circumstances hear any scientist referring to a complete, consistent, rational, logical, eternal, necessary order of existence. Scientists believe in magic, miracles, illogic, spontaneity, irrationalism,

incompleteness, inconsistency, randomness, chance, accident, acausation, indeterminism, statistics and probability. This is what happens when your philosophical base is empiricism rather than rationalism. Empiricism can make no contact with an eternal, necessary, causal order of things that exist for purely logical and rational reasons and have no connection whatsoever with the senses, experiences, observers, observations, phenomena and appearances, i.e. the exact stuff of the scientific method. The scientific method – by which all scientists swear – is the falsest God there has ever been. Exactly like Martin Luther, the scientific method proclaims, “Reason is the Devil’s whore.” The scientific method involves no eternal, necessary, rational, logical, analytic principles. It’s purely about the ad hoc, the arbitrary, the contingent, the heuristic, and, finally, just educated guesses. Science is nothing but an immense Mythos, a pseudo-mathematical heuristic fiction. Intellectuals – true intellectuals – regard science as a joke in terms of being any kind of answer to ultimate existence. It’s literally a method for guessing what ultimate reality is by looking at the sensory world of appearances and trying to match hypothetical hunches to what has been experimentally observed. Why would any rational, logical person ever imagine that such a blatantly non-analytic, irrational and illogical makeshift process would ever work? Mathematics exposes everything that’s wrong with science. It proceeds by pure logical, deductive, rational proof ... by pure analysis. It requires no experiences at all, no experiments, no observations, no observers, and no sense organs. Mathematics is the absolute opposite of the scientific method, which makes it all the more astounding that scientists can’t do without mathematics yet never once comment on its total logical incompatibility with the scientific method, with experiments and empiricism. However, given scientists’ anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist method, and their total contempt for philosophy, logic and metaphysics, why would we expect them ever to be bothered by consistency and completeness? The scientific method is predicated on inconsistency and incompleteness. After all, its central ingredient is ad hoc guessing! When Richard Feynman pointed this out to his students and they all – rightly – burst out laughing, he told them to stop. Well, the joke’s on him. Why did Feynman never ponder why science is literally a laughing matter when its

dirty little secret is revealed? Who would ever laugh at the deductive, analytic method of mathematics? There’s all the difference in the world between reasoning your way forward and guessing your way forward. Mathematicians seek to discover the eternal, necessary truths of unobservable, noumenal existence via deduction. Scientists seek to discover the temporal, contingent truths of observable, phenomenal existence via induction. However, as Hume pointed out so devastatingly, induction never proves a single thing. At any time, a “black swan” can destroy an inductive inference. There are never any black swans in deduction. You have a simple choice to make when it comes to understanding reality. You must follow either the mathematical or scientific route, and the second has no connection at all with necessary, absolute, infallible proof and Truth. As soon as you take the scientific path, you have confessed to the world that proof, Truth, and understanding ultimate reality are not for you, that you have no interest in them, and that you are in fact interested only in the superficial exercise of trying to find ad hoc mathematical formulae to match disparate patterns you have observed in Nature via experiments. Science results in nothing but a huge collection of ad hoc hypotheses, with no necessary connections with each other. Is there any connection between gravity and Darwinism, for example, or quantum mechanics and gravity, or quantum mechanics and Darwinism, or relativity and Darwinism, or Darwinism and the Big Bang, or the Big Bang and the law of conservation of energy, or Darwinism and Schrödinger’s cat, or Darwinism and special relativity, or the Big Bang and special relativity? It’s impossible to fit these hypotheses into a single complete, consistent, necessary and eternal system, such as is needed to rationally and logically explain existence. If you want the provable Truth, math is the only game in town. That’s an unassailable, adamantine fact. Live with it. Science is a sham, a fraud, a Lie. Science is pseudo-intellectualism. It can never be real intellectualism because it’s not based on reason, logic and deduction, but on the delusional, unreliable, fallible, irrational sense organs. Scientists think that things are true only insofar as they have phenomenal, observational “evidence” for them, thus automatically dismissing the whole of noumenal reality from which the phenomenal world is actually constructed. Science, to put it

another way, dismisses the noumenal Truth from the outset and worships nothing but the phenomenal Lie. Science is all about appearances, but ultimate reality has no appearance, hence is forever unreachable by science. If you haven’t understood that what we see isn’t a true depiction of what’s actually there, you haven’t understood anything. You’re an empiricist, not a rationalist, so you should never say you’re on the side of reason and logic. You emphatically aren’t. You’re the enemy, just as a person of faith is.

Naive Realism “Naive realism: The simplest form of the view that sense perception is direct awareness of external things: that we do actually perceive objects in the ‘external world’, and are not forever cut off from them all by a veil of appearance. Naive realism is generally challenged and supposedly refuted by arguments from illusion, pointing out, for instance, that a round thing may appear as elliptical from a certain angle, and that its colour seems to change under different illumination.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The whole of science is nothing but a childish belief in naive realism. Scientists lack the imagination and intellect to grasp that reality in itself is completely different from how reality appears to us, hence the scientific method, predicated on naive appearances, is useless at revealing ultimate reality to us.

The Boundary For Plato, the Forms constitute the world of being, while the Sensibles – the imitations of the Forms – constitute the world of becoming. The boundary between them is the “the receptacle of all becoming”, the khora. In Dante’s cosmology, Creation is a great crystal sphere, and outside that sphere is God. In Platonic terms, the world of being is outside the Crystal Sphere, the world of becoming is inside it, and the task of the soul is to ascend through the multiple levels of the Crystal Sphere, and finally cross the boundary into the Empyrean, the divine world beyond. In Fourier ontological mathematics, the frequency Singularity is the Empyrean, and the Material World is the spacetime creation born from it via Fourier mathematics (which is the source of the Big Bang, where

frequency functions – thoughts! – were converted into spacetime functions – matter).

The Receptacle The Receptacle is that in which all becoming takes place. It’s the world of phenomena, appearances, delusions, illusions, and phantasms. The soul “falls” from the rational world of the Empyrean (the Logos universe) into the seductive, exciting, irrational world of the senses and emotions (the Mythos universe). It soon realises that this glittering sensual world is more hell than heaven, and it longs to return to pure heaven. The trouble is ... how does it get back?! The Receptacle is where the fires of Form are kindled amongst the flammable Prime Matter, producing the temporal, contingent flames of appearances. The material world is a phenomenal fire occurring in the receptacle of becoming. At all times, some flames are being fanned, while others are being extinguished. Some flames burn bright while others are dim and barely noticeable.

***** Buddhism is a receptacle of becoming. It’s all about process, change, contingency, temporality. There’s no eternal essence in Buddhism. There are no immortal souls, no essential selves. Buddhism is a wet dream for “spiritual” scientific materialists. It’s the “thing without the thing” – religion without the soul, the very thing that defines religion.

Change In Herbart’s system, change is nothing but the alteration in the various relations among eternal, necessary “reals”. This is true in ontological mathematics too, with eternal, necessary, analytic sinusoids replacing Herbart’s “reals”. Reals, or mathematical sinusoids, are the ultimate noumena, the true things-in-themselves, from which everything else comes. Herbart modelled his “reals” on Leibnizian monads. They constitute a plurality of simple and immutable entities whose mutual interactions generate the world of

becoming. In ontological mathematics, a monad is made of a complete and consistent set of sinusoids.

***** Kant claimed that things-in-themselves are transcendentally ideal, hence unknowable, while Herbart took the view that they are transcendentally real, hence knowable. He thereby turned Kant’s system on its head.

Einstein on Math “One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.” – Einstein That’s exactly why only ontological mathematics can be true ... and why science can definitely never be true. No “final” scientific theory would ever be final. It would never be definitive. Any new experiment could falsify it at any time. “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?” – Einstein Mathematics isn’t a product of human thought. Mathematics is what human thought and the world are made of. Mathematics is “so admirably adapted to the objects of reality” because the objects of reality are entirely mathematical. What could be more obvious? Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge the self-evident facts? How can Einstein be regarded as a great thinker when he couldn’t even add 2 + 2 to get 4?! If math is ontological then only math can be used to define reality. If math is a human construct and we can use this construct to accurately describe “reality” then the implication is that reality itself is a human construct ... a fantasy! Kant concluded exactly this ... that “knowable” reality is our own construct, produced not by mathematics but by our inbuilt mental “faculties” which force us to see reality is a certain, subjective, psychological way. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Einstein

The laws of ontological mathematics are always certain: they are eternal, necessary, absolute and infallible. Since reality is made of ontological mathematics, the laws of ontological mathematics always refer to reality and are always certain. “Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I assure you that mine are greater.” – Einstein Indeed! Einstein, like all scientists, was utterly ignorant of the ontology of mathematics, and the ignorance destroyed his ability to understand ultimate reality, and led to his bogus theory of relativity, which has set science off on a wild goose chase. One of the primary requirements for scientific progress is the destruction of Einsteinian relativity. The mathematics used by Einstein must be interpreted absolutely rather than relativistically ... and in terms of sinusoidal waves. “But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.” – Einstein That can be true only if mathematics is ontological, something that Einstein, as a scientific empiricist and materialist, routinely and resolutely rejected. Einstein’s tragedy was that he intuited that math is reality, but his bias for science prevented him from following through on his intuition. “But there is another reason for the high repute of mathematics: it is mathematics that offers the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security which, without mathematics, they could not attain.” – Einstein Without mathematics, science would be astrology and alchemy! Therefore, the ontology of mathematics is the biggest question facing science, one that it adamantly and perversely refuses to address. “Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?” – Einstein Yes! Because reality is mathematical, and mathematics requires no experience, just the exercise of pure reason and logic. “Mathematics is well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.” – Einstein

No, our sensory, emotional, wilful consciousness – not nature – drags us round by the nose. If we could see nature in itself, we would see nothing but mathematics! Our sensory noses drag us around by the nose (!) ... we don’t use our reason, logic and intellect. We have no sensory organs for these. That’s why we can rely on them, and why they have nothing to do with the delusions of the senses.

Biophysics and Psychophysics Biophysics: the science of the application of the laws of physics to biological phenomena. Psychophysics: the science of the application of the laws of physics to mental phenomena; the branch of psychology that deals with the relationships between physical stimuli and mental phenomena.

Nested Uncertainty If the standard interpretation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle were true, there would be nothing to prevent “nested uncertainty”, i.e. within one uncertain process, there could be uncertain subprocesses, and within those uncertain subprocesses, we would get further uncertain subprocesses, meaning that any such system would automatically degenerate into infinite contingent and uncertain regress, and thus total disorder, chaos and “noise”. Nothing ordered, patterned and organised could ever arise from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle if its ontology were as pronounced by science. No scientist has ever addressed the problem of nested uncertainty, or even contemplated this fatal problem. As ever, science simply ignores all ideas inconvenient to its self-serving agenda, ideology and dogmatism.

***** Ontological mathematics is predicated on nested certainty. Only this can be compatible with an exact answer to existence. Math: certain. Science: uncertain. Math: true. Science: false.

Science is simply mathematics subjected to empiricist and materialist philosophy. Naive, foolish people imagine that because science deals with observables and math doesn’t, science is real and math isn’t. In fact, science deals with sensory delusions and guesses, while math deals with reason and logic.

Symmetry The whole of particle physics, the whole of apparent mind-matter dualism, can be reduced to nothing other than dimensionless symmetry (bosons; mind), dimensional antisymmetry (fermions; matter) and intermediate, bridging asymmetry (boson-fermions or fermion-bosons). That’s the whole of existence in a nutshell. It’s all in the symmetry.

The Science Conundrum Isn’t it astounding that Einstein’s theory of special relativity was never proved, and, equally, rival, absolutist theories were never disproved? All that happened was that Einstein’s theory won the popularity contest. It simply became more fashionable. The other theories vanished into total obscurity not because they were false, wrong or refuted, but merely because no one could be bothered to study them any longer and put in any effort to sustain, develop and prove them. To this day, they are all still standing in the shadows, waiting to be reactivated when Einstein’s relativity principle finally falls out of fashion, and is inevitably refashioned in absolute, ontological mathematical terms. Isn’t it astounding that science reveres two theories – quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity – that are completely and utterly incompatible and inconsistent? Science has no intellectual integrity. It’s just a collection of ad hoc, heuristic fictions, and nothing else besides. It doesn’t satisfy any rational, logical, analytic person. Science is the Ship of Fools, sailing onto the rocks.

Schleiermacher (1768-1834) “Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher identified God with the universal creative principle of the universe, the source of all life. God is in the world, but is more than the world. Men, individual egos, are self-determining principles, each with his own specific talent and nook in the scheme of things. Each individual is necessary to the whole. If the universe is to

realize itself to the fullest, is to create to the limit of its ability, each unit, each ego, must create to its limit. Man is necessary to the complete selfrealization of the universe. ... Schleiermacher took the position that God, the Absolute, and the world are one. For him God has never in all time or eternity been without the world. Whenever God has been, the world has also been. Further, the world cannot be without God. Nevertheless, there is an important distinction to be made between God and the world. While God, for Schleiermacher, is to be thought of as a unity, a one, without space and time, the world is, as we conceive it, many things in space and time. Thus, while this philosopher was in that school of thinking we have called pantheism, he did make a distinction between God and the world. Further, he held that is impossible to ascribe to God the usual attributes of personality, thought, will, and the like. For him, God is to be thought of as the universal creative force in the universe, the source of all life. He is such that man can know him only through religious feeling, a feeling of absolute dependence and recognizes that the thing upon which he is dependent for all that he is must be a ‘world ground,’ God.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. It’s not God but the God Equation that’s the ground of the world and all things. Humanity has always wrongly labelled the God Equation – the eternal, necessary Formula for existence – as “God”, an eternal, necessary, all-powerful Super Being. Thus Mythos and religion have always stood in the position rightfully belonging to Logos and mathematics.

Fechner Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801-1887): “German physicist and philosopher who was a key figure in the founding of psychophysics, the science concerned with quantitative relations between sensations and the stimuli producing them. ... he conceived of a highly animistic universe with God as its soul. He discussed his idea of a universal consciousness at length in a work containing his plan of psychophysics, Zend-Avesta: On the Things of Heaven and the Hereafter. Fechner’s Elements of Psychophysics established his lasting importance in psychology. In this work he postulated that mind and body, though appearing to be separate entities, are actually different sides of one reality. He also developed experimental procedures, still useful

in experimental psychology, for measuring sensations in relation to the physical magnitude of stimuli.” – Encyclopædia Britannica “The mind is not in atoms, but in systems.” – Fechner “Those only have had great influence in the world who have recognized the spiritual tendency of the time in which they lived and have directed their free action and thought into that tendency.” – Fechner “Man lives on earth not once, but three times: the first stage of his life is his continual sleep; the second, sleeping and waking by turns; the third, waking forever.” – Fechner Have you woken yet?

Day and Night “By the daylight-view as contrasted with the night-view, Fechner meant the anti-materialistic view – the view that the entire material universe, instead of being dead, is inwardly alive and consciously animated.” – William James Matter is dead and dark. Mind is alive and light. Fechner contrasted his joyous, living “daylight view” of the world with the dreary, dead “night view” of materialism. Scientific materialists are unenlightened people of the dark. They are the enemies of the Light of Reason. Fechner’s philosophy is an example of panpsychism, i.e. mind is everywhere; everything has a mind. For Fechner, all matter has a mental interior: mind and matter are co-eternal aspects of the self-same reality. Fechner insisted that the Earth has a soul and is to us as a tree is to leaves, i.e. we grow upon the Earth as the leaves grow upon a tree. God, for Fechner, is the sum total of the consciousness of the whole universe, and evolves in time as his consciousness grows via his component parts.

The Three Lives Fechner said that man lives upon the earth three times: 1) The First Life is that of “continuous sleep”, which occurs before man is born. The passage from the First to Second Life

takes place via birth. 2) The Second Life is “an alternation between sleeping and waking”, which occurs during conventional human life on Earth. The passage from the Second to Third Life takes place via death. 3) The Third Life is “eternal waking”, which occurs after man’s death. The spirits of the third stage (life after death) each have their share of the universal body (rather than each having an individual physical body as in the Second Life).

The Threshold Fechner’s theory of consciousness involved the “law of the threshold of consciousness”. Things become objects of consciousness only if their intensity surpasses a certain psychical threshold, and otherwise they remain unconscious. This immediately implies that the mind-brain complex is a filter, admitting – from a vast ocean of mental activity – only those items that have achieved critical intensity.

***** “Each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. […] But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funnelled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet.” – Aldous Huxley We have the whole universe available to us, but below the threshold of consciousness. If we expand our consciousness – if we achieve Mind at Large – we can tap into everything. “Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language.” – Aldous Huxley

Science is the sensory reducing valve, and analytic, linguistic philosophy sanctifies “local language”. The language of existence, the language of Mind at Large, is ontological mathematics. Intuitives are capable of grasping this. Sensory types are not. “Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?” – Aldous Huxley Truth is about numbers ... about math.

The Split Brain Fechner speculated that if the corpus callosum – the band of fibres connecting the two hemispheres of the brain – were split, the mind would become two, i.e. there would be two separate, independent streams of consciousness. Split-brain experiments performed on epileptic patients in the twentieth century largely vindicated Fechner. The two hemispheres do not produce equivalent consciousness, or anything like it, but each generates a mind with independent agency, capable of reaching decisions that conflict with those of the other.

Angels Fechner believed that angels are the souls of stars, and human souls stand between the angels and the souls of plants. His worldview was highly animistic and panpsychic. God, for Fechner, was the Soul of the Universe, and the Universe was his body. The laws of Nature are how God perfectly controls his body (the Universe).

Fechner and God “Not a pre-assumed idea of God determines God’s being, but what is cognisable by us of God in the world and in ourselves determines our idea of Him.” – Fechner

Fechner regarded the whole universe as having a soul (which was God), and this world-spirit animated all of its parts. Every individual has his own soul, and this shares in the life of the whole, i.e. we are all umbilically linked to God. God is the Highest Soul. (Likewise, Plato gave the World a Soul, and also had all other souls existing within the World, hence intimately related to the World Soul.) All things are contained in God, and participate in His spirit. God is the supreme spirit, whose body is the world. His consciousness permeates everything, thus meaning that all physical things are actually psychophysical. We might refer to this view as hylozoism (matter is alive), or panpsychism (mind is everywhere, including in matter). Everything has a dual-aspect nature: matter on the exterior, mind in the interior. Therefore, Fechner draws no sharp distinction between body and soul, seeing them as two sides of one coin. They have different manifestations, and are different in kind, but they are in constant correspondence with each other, and reflect the same deeper reality (God) that supports both. Fechner said, “The body is appearance for others, the soul is self-manifestation.” He likened the unbreakable relationship between them to the convex and concave of the same circle.

***** Fechner sought to base metaphysics upon natural science (Illuminism bases it on ontological mathematics), hence concluded that we should avoid a priori speculations about the metaphysical world, as the great philosophers had engaged in (if metaphysics is mathematical then the “a priori” is in fact entirely the right approach to take!), and instead proceed by way of induction, analogy, observations and experiments. We should develop psychophysical explanations of the world, he argued, in which all things are connected in a living unity, rising in an ascending series of stages, culminating in finding their ultimate existence in the consciousness of God.

***** “Fechner conceived the universe as similar to human individuals. The material world is the body of the universe. But this body has a soul or a mental life. This mental life is to be found in descending degrees in animals, plants, and lastly in organic matter. God is the soul of the universe, just as the human body has a soul. ... Fechner taught that God is to be

thought of as the highest soul, a world soul, which is related to the world just as the human soul is related to the human body. For Fechner, nature is the body of God. Fechner began his thinking from the fact of mental processes which he discovered in men. The human individual thinks, he engages in what are called psychic processes. Also, according to Fechner, there are higher forms of psychic processes in the universe. All of these, united, are the World-Soul or God.” – S. E. Frost, Jr.

Holism “Panpsychism is related to the more holistic view that the whole Universe is an organism that possesses a mind (cosmic consciousness). It is claimed to be distinct from animism or hylozoism, which hold that all things have a soul or are alive, respectively. Gustav Theodor Fechner claimed in ‘Nanna’ and ‘Zend-Avesta’ that the Earth is a living organism whose parts are the people, the animals and the plants. Panpsychism, as a view that the universe has ‘universal consciousness’, is shared by some forms of religious thought such as theosophy, pantheism, cosmotheism, non-dualism, new age thought and panentheism. The hundredth monkey effect exemplifies the threshold for this applied cosmic consciousness. The Tiantai Buddhist view is that ‘when one attains it, all attain it’.” – Wikipedia Panpsychism is not about “universal consciousness”. In fact, it’s about “universal unconsciousness”, from which consciousness evolves at a late stage, in advanced organisms. To talk of a threshold for consciousness is already to acknowledge that the more primitive, default state of mind, below that threshold, is inherently unconscious. That was the view Leibniz took. Equating mind (and hence panpsychism) with consciousness is a fallacy perpetrated even by such luminaries as Descartes. Most ancient thinking regarding mind demonstrated the same error. The notion of the unconscious radically alters what mind means, hence what panpsychism means. This is rarely reflected in the literature regarding panpsychism. Consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg as far as mind goes. Therefore, mind should always be treated as overwhelmingly unconscious. This is what ontological mathematics does. It also points to a radical difference between individual minds (monads, which are inherently unconscious but can evolve consciousness), and the entire collection of minds (the Monadic Ensemble, which is the basis of “material” existence,

and operates using objective mathematics, common to all monads, and which is even more unconscious than any individual monad, hence is even further from consciousness, i.e. “collective consciousness” in this case).

Psychophysics Fechner was one of the founders of psychophysics, the science dealing with the quantitative relations between sensations and the stimuli producing them. He proposed that mind and body are not two different realities but two different sides of one reality, two sides of one ontological coin.

***** Psychophysicists sought to perform empirical measurements on the brain, and correlate brain states with sensory experiences. Nowadays, neuroscience does much the same, but has a radically different core assumption. Modern neuroscientists are zealous materialists who insist that matter produces mind, although they have never once suggested how. For Fechner and other psychophysicists, matter doesn’t cause matter. Rather, mind always accompanies matter. They are two sides of one coin, and run in parallel. Brain states always correspond to mental states, and vice versa. The brain is the physicalization of the mind, while the mind is the mentalization of the brain. Mind and matter are different modalities of the same thing. In this picture, matter does not cause mind, and nor does mind cause matter. Rather, mind-matter causes mind-matter. Mind and matter maintain a strict interdependency. No materialist has ever refuted this view, but nor does any materialist ever entertain it, because it makes mind just as fundamental as mind. It has the effect of making matter alive (hylozoism), or of assigning mind to all matter (panpsychism) – both of which are repugnant to materialists. Fechner’s system was labelled a “double-aspect” view of the psychical and the physical.

***** Psychophysics = “physiological bodily processes immediately accompanying psychical events”. Fechner suggested that “the functional relation between mental and physical might be construed logarithmically”, i.e. psychical sensation is proportional to the logarithm of its physical

stimulus. William James, however, was skeptical. He argued that “introspection is no sure guide to truths.” Since the brain-mind complex can’t speak for itself, except through subjective human agency, we always require someone to tell us about how they have responded to a stimulus, and that’s an inherently unreliable opinion or interpretation, not an objective fact. If you were asked how much you were in love with someone, what answer would you give? Would the intensity of your kisses, or the frequency of your sex sessions, or the amount your pupils dilate, reveal the answer? It’s astoundingly hard to correlate “quantia” and “qualia”. Quantity and quality are radically different things. How do you connect the subjective experience of inner psychological states with objective “external” stimuli (facts)?

***** “The poverty of the psychological vocabulary leads us to drop out certain states from our consideration, and to treat others as if they knew themselves and their objects as the psychologist knows both.” – William James

The Mind Threshold The limen (threshold) describes the border between the conscious and the unconscious mind. The limen (threshold) was Herbart’s conception of a limit below which an idea is out of consciousness, and, above it, is in consciousness.

***** “[Herbart] argued that his psychology was mathematical, empirical and scientific. ... Influenced by Newton and Leibniz, he substituted ideas for monads and proposed mathematical rules, static and dynamic, for describing how ideas affected each other. Ideas, he argued, preserved themselves and inhibited or promoted other ideas (inhibition or excitation). Ideas, thus, never ‘died’. Instead, some ideas remained in consciousness while others dropped into the unconscious. One of Herbart’s most original contributions was the threshold or limen. Ernst Weber and Gustave Fechner, of course, made good use of that Herbartian concept in their psychophysical research. Herbart also borrowed Leibniz’s notion of apperception and made it an integral part of his psychology through a new and related construct, the

apperceptive mass. The apperceptive mass described the sum total of competing ideas at any given time.” – Edward Kardas, History of Psychology: The Making of a Science

***** Herbart’s worldview was that of a three dimensional, real world of causally connected, discrete monads: soul-reals and idea-reals, with ideas crossing the threshold to be perceived, or not (in which case they were unconscious).

Kant Your attitude towards Kant’s mature (“critical”) philosophy depends very much on whether you are instinctively an empiricist or a rationalist. Empiricists are far more impressed by Kant than rationalists. After all, Kant’s most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, not the Critique of Pure Experience. He was opposed to the three great rationalists: Plato, Descartes and Leibniz.

Bodies In Roger Boscovich’s system, all “bodies” are divisible into punctual atoms (points). These are not bodies themselves, but, rather, centres of the forces of attraction and repulsion. Their impenetrability results from the shortrange repulsive force. According to Fechner, centres of force are elements of a system that in its outer aspect is bodily (obeying the laws of physics) and in its inner aspect is mental/spiritual, obeying the laws of mind/spirit. According to Herbart, reality consists of a plurality of simple “reals”. These reals are based on Leibniz’s monads. They are absolute point-units that cannot change or decay. However, unlike the windowless monads of Leibniz’s published Monadology, reals are interactive. Moreover, reals aren’t necessarily minds (as monads were for Leibniz). Reals obey psychomechanical laws, and do not reflect Leibniz’s pre-established harmony. Herbart’s ontological system constitutes a form of transcendental realism. Reals are the ultimate atoms, and all things are just compounds of reals. The reals always maintain their identity through all combinations. Herbart argued that idea-reals, and the compound idea-reals that derive from them, actively resist change. They always seek self-preservation. Ideas

driven below the level of consciousness (via repression, for example), continue to exist, and can return to consciousness in certain conditions. Idea-reals relate to each other in various ways, forming complex systems of thought. Idea-reals obey the laws of thought. Some ideas (made of idea-reals) are dominant, and drive the mental agenda. In Herbart’s system, the human soul is itself a real (albeit a special type), which interacts with other reals, including other souls. Like all reals, it’s concerned with self-preservation. Herbart was a realist but not a materialist realist (like scientists). His system was highly deterministic: soul-reals interact with idea-reals in an mechanistic way. Every experience impacts on soul-reals in a mechanical way.

Theosophy Fechner was said to have constructed a system of theosophic metaphysics.

The Rivals The three classic systems for explaining the existence of mind are as follows: 1) Idealism: Only minds exist. Matter is illusory. This illusion is constructed by minds. Bodies are impossible without minds. 2) Materialism: Only matter exists. Mind is illusory. This illusion is constructed by mindless matter. Minds are impossible without bodies. 3) Dualism: Bodies and minds are separable, distinct things – there’s a physical body and a non-physical soul. At physical death, the living mind detaches from its erstwhile body. Dualism is what most people have in mind when they refer to the continued existence of the soul after bodily death.

***** For a materialist to accept life after death, he would require the resurrection of the material body (and with the body would come, so the materialist would contend, the mind associated with it). Certain versions of Abrahamism, especially Judaism (the founding Abrahamic religion), are

compatible with this materialist worldview. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, with its Platonist roots, is much more on the side of Cartesian dualism. For an idealist, the illusion of the physical body ends at the “death” of the physical body (when the idea of it perishes). We then continue in purely spirit form. Hegel can be interpreted in this way, and also many versions of Christianity, where we live on in spirit bodies rather than physical bodies (which rather invites the question, in Christianity, of why we ever needed physical bodies in the first place; for Hegel, the dialectic demanded this alienated “physical” stage of existence). Dualists accept the immortality of the soul, and Christianity is typically interpreted in this dualistic way. The soul continues after the physical body dies, and, according to Saint Paul, acquires a spirit body (though it’s not clear what function a spirit body serves: why should a purely mental world resemble a physical world, i.e. why does it need any “bodies”, or “things” at all?). According to the doctrine of reincarnation, we have a detachable mind that can attach itself to a succession of bodies, producing a “one to many” relationship of soul to bodies. (The Buddhist version of reincarnation or rebirth is much murkier since there’s no essential, permanent self that can undergo this process.) According to the doctrine of resurrection, we have a detachable mind, but it’s always associated with one body, producing a “one to one” relationship of soul to body. Reincarnation says we have many lives (expressed through many bodies), while resurrection says we have one life only (expressed through one body). Reincarnation concerns the transmigration of the soul from body to body, while resurrection concerns the reunion of one soul with its one body.

***** Plato argued that the soul is immortal because it’s imperishable. This is the basic definition of any rational soul. It’s an eternal, necessary entity, complete and consistent, massless and outside space and time, hence there’s no way for it to perish. The immortal soul is the surest noumenal fact of eternal existence!

Dualism asserts that a human being comprises a material body (a temporary, contingent machine) and a non-material mind (an eternal, necessary essence). Only the former can perish. The soul can never die. Materialists claim that the most serious objection to the eternal mind (soul) is the “mind-body unity” argument, i.e. a mind requires a functioning brain. This argument already presupposes the truth of materialism, i.e. it simply begs the question. A mind doesn’t need a brain. It can function perfectly well without one. What is true is that it needs a physical brain if it’s to operate in conjunction with a physical body in the physical world of spacetime. A brain in these terms is a physicalization of a mind, and could not exist without a mind. We don’t see any brain in a pile of rock, which has no controlling mind and no agency. The “mind-body unity” argument can easily be used to justify idealism, dualism, or many systems other than materialism, hence is pointless. It entirely depends on the assumptions, beliefs, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses, paradigms, dogmatism, ideology and interpretation that you choose to deploy with regard to the argument.

Fichte “[Fichte] took the principle of freedom and made it fundamental to his whole philosophical position. He took the stand that the self, the ‘ego,’ is a free, self-determining activity. “The starting point of Fichte’s thinking is this ego or creative, free principle. It is God, and is the creator of all that is. It creates each individual person, you and me and all the individuals in the universe. It also creates the entire world of things. “But, we and all things are not matter, material. There is no material in the sense of lifeless matter such as the older philosophers taught. Everything in the universe is spirit. The tree and your mind are both the universal, absolute ego or God. Thus, the real world is a world of mind or spirit and not a world of dead matter. Everything is the ego, God. But the ego creates a limit to itself so that it may contend against this limit and grow to perfection. This, the world of objects, the so-called ‘material world’, is produced by the ego to furnish an arena in which it may exercise its freedom.

“Freedom would mean nothing if there were not something hindering the exercise of freedom. Therefore, the eternal ego, God, has created the world, the ‘non-ego,’ as a limit to itself, a world of opposition in which it can struggle, in which it can become conscious of itself. This is a world of law, a world in which things happen according to set rules. “My reason, your reason, our minds are also creations or parts of this universal ego. We do not create our world of things, but are creations of the same ego which has created this world. Since the universal ego is the universal active reason, the same in all persons, we all see the world alike. ... “The universe is mind, spirit, ego, God. Thus, though the universe is a reality outside of individual, personal minds, it is not made of a different material, it is not a world of dead things. But, it is ‘the revelation in human consciousness of the absolute principle.’ Nature is spirit, mind, and can be nothing else. “Thus, for Fichte, the moral law of Kant implies freedom, freedom implies deliverance from obstacles. There must be obstacles. Therefore, the universal self or ego created out of itself the world of sensible things to serve as its opponent. The world of experience is deduced from the moral law.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Before Kant, the conventional belief was that the ego passively receives sensations from something different from mind (a real, external material world). Kant gave the ego a much more active role and claimed that it projects a framework onto an otherwise unknowable external material world. Fichte denied that there was any external material world in its own right, meaning that the ego now actively projected the entire external world (which was thus mental and not material). So, it wasn’t a question of ego imposing a framework on a world of non-ego. Rather, ego itself constructed the apparent external material world of non-ego, i.e. matter is actually an aspect, a construct, of mind. Hence mind, if it can know itself fully, will also thereby know Kant’s allegedly unknowable noumena. The mind can understand Nature because it made Nature! Fichte’s philosophy was highly influential on Hegel, and it was in fact Fichte who introduced the triadic dialectic now associated with Hegel. Fichte argued that the ego firstly posits itself (as the thesis) then posits the non-ego – the “other”, opposite to itself (which is thus the antithesis).

Finally, the Ego makes a synthesis of ego and non-ego within itself, and thus brings the whole of reality into consciousness. The key to this system is that the ego does not initially realise that the non-ego is its own construct, hence regards it as something genuinely independent, something other, a thing in itself. It takes a long, complex, dialectical journey for it to realise that matter is actually a manifestation of mind and that it can therefore know the world in its entirety. Hegel turned Fichte’s system into a far more powerful, comprehensive and well-thoughtout system, to such an extent that Fichte is largely forgotten (he’s now little more than a footnote to Hegel). Fichte’s system united theoretical and practical reason (which Kant had previously separated) and allied them with the will. The ego wills the world into existence in order to challenge itself there (in that environment of “otherness” and alienation), and learn and grow. All the things-in-themselves that, for Kant, are strictly unknowable are, for Fichte, ultimately knowable. In fact, since the mind constructed them, they must be knowable because otherwise the mind wouldn’t have known how to construct them in the first place. The world is simply a determination of the mind, a thing unconsciously known to the ego that constructs it, and which will eventually be known consciously. Fichte transformed the transcendental idealism of Kant by identifying the Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself with the Kantian knowable object constructed by the mind, and thus he was a transcendental realist. For Kant, a noumenon was something that speculative, theoretical reason conceives and practical reason demands. For Fichte, it was something that reason, both theoretical and practical, produces. Minds rationally construct the world of matter. This worldview is highly compatible with Illuminism. In Illuminism, it’s the Monadic Collective that produces the external world, the “other” world of matter. It does so mathematically, using Fourier spacetime mathematics. The world seems strange, resistant and objective because it’s the construct of all minds. No individual mind made it. Each individual monadic mind, as part of the Monadic Collective, made only a tiny, unconscious contribution to it, hence is confronted by something that seems radically strange and alien to it. In effect, what an individual monadic mind is striving to work out is how all the monadic minds together created the so-called material world.

Slowly but surely, it comes to the conclusion that it was achieved via the language of existence, the language common to all monads ... ontological mathematics. And once it has realised that the world is made of math, it inevitably follows that monadic minds themselves must be made of math, and math is the basis of everything, both mind and matter ... which is exactly why the two can interact, and how the Monadic Collective can create the material world (via the Big Bang) in the first place. It’s literally all in the math. Fichte reached much the same conclusion. Where Kant had argued that every consciousness says, “I think” (meaning that each “I” is always present to all of its ideas), Fichte posited a level of unity of all selves, i.e. they could operate as a Collective Mind (“we think”). [This is reminiscent of the Neoplatonic view that the Psyche of the universe had a unitary higher part outside space and time, and a fragmentary lower part in space and time, meaning that all individual minds actually had a level – the higher one – at which they operated in common.] With this change, Fichte was able to explain the unity of everything produced by the Ego (i.e. the Collective Mind, or, even “God”). In this regard, Encyclopædia Britannica says, “Kant had said that the synthetic unity ‘I think’ is in all consciousness one and the same, meaning that I am always present to all my ideas. Fichte transformed this unity of the conscious self into a unity of all conscious selves, or a common consciousness; and this change enabled him to explain the unity of anything produced by the Ego by contending that it is not the different objects of different thinkers, but the one object of a pure Ego or consciousness common to them all. According to Kant, the objective is valid for all consciousnesses; according to Fichte it is valid for one consciousness. Here he was for the first time grappling with a fundamental difficulty in metaphysical idealism which is absent from realism, namely, the difficulty of explaining the identity of a thing, e.g. the sun. As long as even the meagre realism of the Kantian thing in itself is maintained, the account of there being one sun is simply that one thing causes different phenomena in different minds. But as soon as the thing in itself is converted into something mental, metaphysical idealists must either say that there are as many suns as minds, or that there is one mind and therefore one sun.” In Fichte and Kant on Freedom, Rights, and Law, Gunnar Beck wrote, “Fichte’s mature doctrine of collective or communal consciousness

according to which human reason in both its theoretical and practical capacities – i.e., rational understanding and moral knowledge – and selfawareness are no longer given as undeniable properties of each individual. The individual can become human only amongst other individuals ... through the experience of social life, through language, education, and communication with others. Human reason, on this view, is a social artefact, that is the result not of individual but collectively human creation through time. It cannot be the property of any individual mind and can be actualised, Fichte claims, only in the collective consciousness of the community unfolding historically. From this it follows, he argues, that the free, rational subject, the source of the concepts and categories of human understanding and the lawgiver of the rational, autonomous will, can no longer be regarded as the single individual, but must be something much larger, the collective self or Geist of the community. The individual now become a mere fragment of this larger collective consciousness, and since knowledge of the ultimate ends of humanity and the imperatives of the law and morality is no longer vested in the individual and his private conscience, it is from the community and its collective conscience that the individual receives moral law, legislation, and liberties.”

***** Kant’s position was reflected in his principle of apperception: “The I think must be able to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or else at least would be nothing for me.” Kant produced an awkward system whereby individual minds constructed the world for themselves. Since they all did so in the same way (i.e. using the same mental apparatus of a priori intuitions and categories of understanding), Kant imagined that they could all share a common world, given that the noumenal world was an external reality common to them all. However, since the noumenal world doesn’t contain space, time and causation, this means that subjective minds have to impose these on the shared noumenal reality, and to do so in exactly the right way to make it appear that they are all in the same, common, objective, phenomenal spacetime universe of causation. The slightest mistake in correlation would lead to people seeing reality radically differently, and in completely

different causal relations. Any errors would, after a very short time, lead to catastrophic mismatches in people’s respective perceptions of reality. It’s impossible to imagine how different people could see a common, objective reality if they were all subjectively imposing space, time and causation on it. The agreement between their subjective projections would have to be 100% perfect forever. There would need to be flawless synchronisation at all times, and this is a much harder trick to pull off than simply accepting that the spacetime world of causation is objectively real for all of us (which is why we are all in perfect synch.). For Fichte, with his Collective or Absolute Ego, he was in the position to assert that one united mind, or, alternatively, one overarching mind, constructed the whole world. There were not different worlds for different thinkers, but each individual mind or ego tuned into the objective world made by the Absolute Ego. Fichte called his system “real idealism” or “ideal realism”.

***** Fichte was originally regarded as an atheist since it seemed that he had made mankind the Absolute, and the Creator of the World. This attracted considerable negativity, so gradually he refined his philosophy to make God the Absolute. This was a God of reason and cosmic will, but not one possessing consciousness and personality (which were left to human minds).

Noumenon Fichte changed the meaning of “noumenon” from the thing apprehended – taken to be some kind of material externality – to the thought (something that minds themselves generate). With his hypothesis of a Collective Mind, he presented the view that an apparently external “thing” is not your or my thought, but a common, objective thought of all minds. By making mind the source of activity and construction, Fichte paved the way for Schopenhauer, who believed that a Universal Will lay behind everything. Fichte was the bridge between Kant’s philosophy and all the different reactions to Kant, i.e. his successors had to respond to Kant and Fichte rather than Kant alone.

Fichte’s doctrine has been called “no object, no subject; no subject, no object”. In other words, “things” are objects of minds, and couldn’t exist without the minds to think them, while minds without objects would be pointless; they would have no Content and be just empty Form. The tendency of Fichte’s thought is not that an alien God made the world, but that, collectively, we are all God, and we made the world between us.

Schelling Where Fichte regarded nature as mere object and construct – opposed to the subject (the Ego) – Schelling took the view that nature should not be regarded as opposed to the mind. They are equal partners. The “ideal” is rooted in the “real”, and the “real” in the “ideal”. Schelling unified subjective mind and objective nature within the “Absolute”. The Absolute, Schelling argued, cannot be known through intellect or spirit, or the senses or experience. So, he turned to art. Through art, the natural and the transcendental are reconciled, and the unconscious Absolute can represent itself. This worldview naturally brought him acclaim from artists and Romantic philosophers. Goethe greatly admired his work. Fichte regarded the Ego as the “Absolute”, gradually coming to know itself. Schelling regarded history as the means through which the Absolute revealed itself: “[history is the] progressive, gradually self-disclosing revelation of the Absolute. Hence one can never point out in history the particular places where the mark of providence, or God himself, is as it were visible. ... [The evolution of the Absolute] is also an infinite process, and history itself a never wholly completed revelation of that Absolute which, for the sake of consciousness, and thus merely for the sake of appearance, separates itself into conscious and unconscious, the free and the intuitant; but which itself, however, in the inaccessible light wherein it dwells, is Eternal Identity and the everlasting ground of harmony between the two.” The history of the world is nothing but the process of God coming to Himself. Like Spinoza, Schelling argued in favour of a fundamental unity of nature and mind, whereas Fichte saw nature as mind’s construct. Hegel provided a kind of synthesis of Fichte and Schelling’s views, and also gave them a far more rigorous intellectual treatment, so much so that Fichte and Schelling were reduced to “also rans”.

***** Schelling distinguished between “negative” and “positive” philosophy. Any explanation of the finite world, he said, can result only in a negative philosophy (a kind of nothingness and emptiness). We see exactly this with scientific materialism, with its irredeemable nihilism, skepticism, meaninglessness, purposelessness and atheism. Science, and all such negative philosophy, has separated itself from positive reality.

Positive and Negative Philosophy “Schelling divided philosophy into a negative philosophy, which developed the idea of God by means of reason alone, and, in contrast, a positive philosophy, which showed the reality of this idea by reasoning a posteriori from the fact of the world to God as its creator.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica “... what Schelling means by absolute is not a concept but an experience (or intellectual intuition) of the true life. If the Absolute can still be called God, then God cannot be understood as a final cause, as Hegel understands God. Hegel’s God is only a concept, a result, having no future. ... [Schelling’s] positive philosophy affirms itself as a moment of intensity in thinking in itself. ... The negative philosophy is the one that defines negatively the nothingness of the absolute, while the positive philosophy concretizes the experience of the positivity of absolute nothingness.” – Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback “...it may be said that whereas [negative liberty] deals with ideas, concepts and definitions – in a word, with ‘essences’ – [positive liberty] is concerned with the actuality of being, with ‘existence’.” – Bernard M. G. Reardon “The distinction [between negative and positive philosophy] corresponds to the difference between the essence of things and their existence. Negative philosophy is purely abstract and conceptual and it deals with the essence or ‘whatness’ of things. As such, it does not go beyond the realm of mere possibility. Positive philosophy, on the other hand, seeks the actual existence or ‘thatness’ of things – the raw facticity of existence – and, consequently, it is empirical and historical. Positive philosophy begins from that which simply is and tries to prove, by sifting through the historical

materials, that what is in fact corresponds to what has been established in thought, that is, by the negative philosophy. “The distinction between the negative and positive philosophies is rendered necessary by Schelling’s recognition, inchoately conceded in the Freiheitsschrift, that being takes priority to thinking. Schelling now fully embraces the radical inability of thought to contain existence, since he comes to accept that thought cannot account for its own existence, or as he would put it, thought cannot ground itself. Schelling often expresses this incapacity of reason in the question: Why is there something and not nothing? Ultimately, reason cannot explain why there is a world at all. In order to answer this question (insofar as it can be answered at all), Schelling turns to the positive philosophy as the philosophy of existence. Through the positive he attempts to show that the realm of history (of freedom) reveals our participation in an order of reality that cannot be comprehended within the negative philosophy. He tries to show, in other words, that despite our inability to develop a reflective understanding of order, we nevertheless know the order that we live within.” – Steven F. McGuire

***** Schelling argued that God cannot be known through reason (negative philosophy, as he called it), but can be experienced through myth, art and revelation (positive philosophy). Reason, he insisted, can yield only the Form of Reality, and provide an outward order or arrangement of truth. Using such arguments, he attempted to overthrow Hegel’s system of panlogism. However, he fundamentally failed to understand the ontology of reason (and mathematics). Reason/mathematics does not exist as an abstraction, as Schelling believed. It’s two-sided, Janus-faced. On one side, it’s Form (rationalism, logic, Logos, essence, “negative” philosophy, as Schelling puts it). On the other, it’s Content (empiricism, feelings, sensations, desires, mystical intuitions, will, art, Mythos, existence, “positive philosophy”). The existentialists said that existence precedes essence, and Schelling very much anticipated this sentiment. In fact, essence and existence go together. You can never find one without the other. Essence is Form. Existence – how we actually encounter and live reality – is the experience of Content. To understand and know reality is to rationally grasp its Form

(and Essence). However, to live is to be immersed in Content rather than Form. We exist in a universe of information carriers (mathematical sinusoids) – of Form, Essence, objectivity and rationalism – but we live by experiencing the information carried – and thus we inhabit an empirical world of Content, existence, irrationalism, illogic, Mythos, emotion, religion, mysticism, imagination, intuition, sensation, lust, will to power, subjectivity, beauty, faith, revelation, uncertainty, doubt, and so on. Only at the Omega Point do Essence and Existence, Form and Content, rationalism and empiricism, align. That’s when we all become Gods!

The Unconscious God Fichte (Subjective Idealism): The Unconscious God (Mind) creates Nature. Nature is separate from God. God comes to consciousness via his interaction with Nature, via his own Creation. Schelling (Objective Idealism): The Unconscious God is both Mind and Nature. Nature is not separate from God. Nature is God asleep, and Mind is God awake. God comes to consciousness in man, i.e. humanity constitutes God’s consciousness. Hegel (Absolute Idealism): The Unconscious God (Mind) evolves via Nature to Conscious God.

***** Fichte considered the “I” to be the absolute and denied the identity of the I and the not-I ... he privileged the subject at the expense of the identity of subject and object. This is a kind of theism. Schelling asserted the identity of the I and not-I. The subject is not privileged over the object, and nor is the object privileged over the subject (as it is in scientific materialism). The I/not-I is the absolute. This is pantheism. (“Schelling claimed that the Fichte’s ‘I’ needs the Not-I, because there is no subject without object, and vice versa. So there is no difference between the subjective and the objective, that is, the ideal and the real. This is Schelling’s ‘absolute identity’: the ideas or mental images in the mind are identical to the extended objects which are external to the mind.” – Wikipedia)

For Hegel, the I/Not-I are aspects of a dialectically evolving absolute Mind/Spirit. With the dialectic, the thesis of Being is opposed by the antithesis of Nothing to produce the synthesis of Becoming, which then drives reality forward to its culmination (Omega Point). The thesis of Idea (cosmic subjectivity) is opposed by the antithesis of Nature (cosmic objectivity) to produce the synthesis of evolving Mind/Spirit (Geist). The thesis of subjective mind/spirit (the individual) is opposed by the antithesis of the objective mind/spirit (the collective) to produce the synthesis of absolute mind/spirit. This is panentheism ... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

William James (1842-1910) William James said, “The great psycho-physiological formula: Thought is a function of the brain.” Is this true? Why not say, “The brain is a function of thought”? How can you prove which of these diametrically opposed positions is true? It’s easy for materialists to assert the former, but where is their evidence? Materialists can’t even state what matter is ontologically, and have never once refuted Bishop Berkeley’s idealism, which asserts that all that exists are minds and their ideas. Matter itself is just an idea in minds!

The Mind Transmitter James proposed that instead of thinking of the brain as the producer of thought, we should instead consider the brain to have “permissive” or “transmissive” capacity. In these terms, the brain filters information coming from outside. Think of the mind as in one domain, and the brain in another. The mind transmits thoughts to the brain, much as a TV transmitter transmits pictures to a TV. So, the death of the brain doesn’t imply the death of the mind, just as the breakdown of a TV doesn’t imply the termination of a TV broadcast or the destruction of the TV transmitter. James said, “My thesis now is this: that, when we think of the law that thought is a function of the brain, we are not required to think of productive function only; we are entitled also to consider permissive or transmissive function. And this the ordinary psycho-physiologist leaves out of his account.”

James proposed that the brain was analogous to a “prism, or a refracting lens” – which transmits light that comes from elsewhere. He said, “mind is not generated by the brain but instead focused, limited, and constrained by it.” The brain is a receiving station, so to speak, of the genuine content of reality transmitted by the environment, which James sometimes poetically labelled “white radiance.” As Aldous Huxley said, the brain is the reducing valve for the Mind at Large. Scientists, with their incredibly small minds, have never grasped this.

***** Kant claimed that physicality inhibits and restricts the intellectual function of the mind, hence it reaches full power only after death when it’s released from its phenomenal prison into noumenal freedom. Schiller said that matter restricts “the consciousness which it encases”. These echo Gnostic sentiments where the body is characterised as the prison of the soul (soma sema).

***** “Imagine holding out your hand and catching words, pictures, and information passing by. That’s more or less what an antenna (sometimes called an aerial) does: it’s the metal rod or dish that catches radio waves and turns them into electrical signals feeding into something like a radio or television or a telephone system. Antennas like this are sometimes called receivers. A transmitter is a different kind of antenna that does the opposite job to a receiver: it turns electrical signals into radio waves so they can travel sometimes thousands of kilometres around the Earth or even into space and back. Antennas and transmitters are the key to virtually all forms of modern telecommunication.” – Chris Woodford The monadic frequency Singularity at the exact centre of the Universe is the transmitting antenna beaming out thoughts to the spacetime universe of matter. Each monadic mind is an individual transmitter. The cosmos itself receives the transmissions of the Singularity (the Monadic Collective) while the physical brain is the receiving antenna for the transmissions of individual monads. The Cosmic Mind controls the Cosmic Body

(Universe), while an individual mind controls an individual body. What could be simpler? As above, so below. The Monadic Collective is the Mind at Large.

Lotze Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1817-1881): “German philosopher who bridged the gap between classical German philosophy and 20th-century idealism and founded Theistic Idealism. ... Although he regarded physical and psychic sciences equally, he espoused a natural order to the creation of the universe as determined by a supreme being. His religious philosophy affected modern thought by emphasizing the problem of delineating value from existence. The foundation for his theories is documented in Logik (1843), Mikrokosmos, 3 vol. (1856-64), and Metaphysik (1879).” – Encyclopædia Britannica “The universe, for Rudolf Hermann Lotze, must be understood in terms of the human mind since the mind is the only true reality we can know. Mental life is present throughout nature, even to rocks and dirt. The human mind is the highest stage, that upon which mind becomes self-conscious. Man is the truest representation of the universe, the highest creation of the great creative mind which is the universe. ... Lotze sought to interpret Kant’s thing-in-itself in terms of mind. He taught that the physical world is to be understood as purely mechanical, as a matter of physical and chemical laws. But this is the world of perception. The cause of this world is comparable to soul or mind. Thus, there are various degrees of reality. In the case of matter mental life is present but clouded. In man this mental life is conscious and clear. The universe, then, is alive and is mind. Here again we encounter Idealism. ... The world which Lotze believed in, a world of spiritual realities, could not, Lotze held, be thought of unless one admitted the existence of a universal substance of which all the spiritual units are modes or expressions. In this world of many interrelated units he saw the expression of some absolute will which unified these parts, which kept them from being all tangled up in endless confusion. All nature, then, is in some way controlled by the Absolute, a substance of which all the processes of nature are states. This, of course, is pantheism.” – S. E. Frost, Jr.

According to Lotze, we must regard individual existences as modes, nodes, conditions, or parts of a single, infinite, all-embracing substance. We must assume the existence of an absolute, all-comprehending unity in which all things are rooted and have their being. Since only a spiritual being – a soul – remains a unity throughout all change, the ultimate unity must be God. All the souls of the universe are therefore united, Lotze argued. They form a community of monads, and are held together in mutual correspondence and relationship via their direct relation with the supreme substance or absolute spirit (= God). This is a highly Leibnizian viewpoint. In ontological mathematics, all monads are held together by virtue of all being defined by the single, unitary, all-embracing, ubiquitous God Equation. All monads exist together in the Singularity – the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. For Lotze, “God” is at the head of the world of monadic spirits. He is the Soul of souls, and his breath is what animates the universe. Where Kant and Boscovich sought to unite Leibniz and Newton (monads with physics), Lotze sought to unite Leibniz and Spinoza (monads with pantheism). In Illuminism, Leibniz is united with Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics (monads with mathematics). Scientific materialism completely rejects Leibniz, hence has no capacity at all to explain, define, utilize and express mind. Lotze rightly hated the increasing influence of scientific materialism over the philosophy of his age. As an advocate of teleology, he said that mechanism (science) “must be regarded philosophically as the instrument of a purpose”. Mechanism was fine as far as observable events and outward facts were concerned, but useless in describing interior, purposeful, mental existence. Mechanism furnishes the external scaffolding of existence, but does not reveal the internal landscape, which is where meaning and purpose reside. Science has never grasped this simple point.

Space Creation “[Lotze] provided his own account of how the mind perceived physical space. That theory held that the mind constructed the three dimensions of physical space out of variables that, by themselves, did not provide spatial data. The three variables he posited were intensity, quality and movement.

In some innate way the mind combined them to yield the perception of space.” – Edward Kardas, History of Psychology: The Making of a Science

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) Wilhelm Wundt was one of those great thinkers who mediated between philosophy and natural science. He believed that the function of philosophy was to enlarge and complete the sciences, i.e. to turn them into a complete and consistent rational system, rather than just a set of disparate facts with no necessary connections. It must bind and unite them, make them an integrated whole where all of their inter-relations are defined and explained. It must account for their assumptions and axioms, and systematically comprehend all of their results. In this way, ungrounded speculation might be abolished, i.e. everything not concerned with established, observed, demonstrable facts.

***** “Wilhelm Wundt taught that the external world is ‘the outer husk behind which lies concealed a spiritual creation, a striving and feeling reality, resembling that which we experience in ourselves.’ By admitting the existence of a material world he met the objections of those who felt that the Idealists had denied common sense. But, by holding that mind or spirit is the creative spirit in this world, that the world is alive, he believed that he had conserved the values of Idealism. His philosophy was an attempt to meet the demands of the then growing natural sciences while at the same time to escape the crass materialism which threatened philosophy as science became stronger. He believed that the values of mind, spirit, or soul should not be covered up and lost completely in the landslide of modern science.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. The notion of an exclusively material world is a modern, atheistic aberration. Even Newton, who was more guilty than anyone of giving birth to scientific materialism, was actually a religious fanatic who thought that space was God’s extended immaterial body, and God transmitted the force of gravity (action-at-distance) via his thoughts through that body! Slowly but surely, science stripped every trace of “God” from Newton’s worldview, leaving nothing but mindless matter. Nowadays, no one could belong to the world of scientific materialist neuroscience if they made any

reference at all to mind having any causal agency. Neuroscience is the supreme expression of “crass materialism”. You can be certain that no neuroscientist will ever discover the secrets of the mind ... they deny that it’s a real thing in its own right! What is science’s problem regarding mind? Why do scientists hate it so much? There are three reasons: 1) The mind and its thoughts cannot be seen, hence they are beyond the observational scientific method. 2) Science is all about “dimensional” mathematics, i.e. mathematics applied to space and time, to material, observable objects moving at a constant speed, or accelerating, in space and time. No one – other than the Illuminati – has ever considered the possibility of “dimensionless” mathematics, dealing with immaterial, analytic sinusoids, outside space and time, i.e. “frequency” rather than “spacetime” mathematics. Why has quantum mechanics baffled every scientist on earth bar none? The answer couldn’t be simpler ... quantum mechanics is all about wave-particle duality, “wave-particles” are all about Fourier mathematics (reflecting the two Fourier domains of frequency and spacetime), and Fourier mathematics inevitably introduces the dimensionless, immaterial frequency domain into the heart of science, something that no scientific materialist can comprehend, given that dimensionless, immaterial existence is fundamentally rejected by science (notwithstanding that photons are massless, immaterial, dimensionless “wave-particles” outside space and time (!); a fact that science refuses to contemplate or acknowledge). Science cannot successfully interpret quantum mechanics because, to do so, would require science to admit the existence of a dimensionless, mental domain of frequency, and it refuses to take such a step since this would mean the automatic end of science’s Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. Instantly, a revolutionary paradigm shift would be necessitated, and 100% of the science establishment would be out of a job. Their power, prestige, influence and lucrative salaries would end overnight ... and these people are never going to allow that to happen. Their careers, families and status are infinitely more important to them

than the Truth! So it goes. The idea that scientists are objective seekers of the Truth is about as big a joke as the claim that Abrahamists are moral and believe in a benevolent, loving God. 3) The existence of mind independent of matter opens the way to the existence of “God” and religion.

Thinking When you’re too dumb to think, believe. When you’re too dumb to think, use your senses. When you’re too dumb to think, be mystical. When you’re too dumb to think, blabber on about your experiences, opinions, faith, religious dogmatism, cranky New Age speculations, whatever ... anything that ensures you don’t have to think. Nothing has proved more difficult for humanity than to think rationally and logically. Math is the most hated subject in the world because if you can’t reason and use logic, you’re well and truly fucked mathematically.

Dialectical Idealism Marx turned Hegel on his head by converting his dialectical idealism into dialectical materialism. It’s time to return to dialectical idealism ... to restore Hegel.

Crass Materialism Aleister Crowley said, “If one were to take the Bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the Bible seriously, one must be already mad.” The same can be said of materialism. It’s an insane, bankrupt ideology. No one anywhere can say what scientific “matter” actually is. No one can define it ontologically. It can’t be placed within any formal epistemology. Matter – rooted in atoms that are neither eternal nor necessary, and arise, ultimately, according to science, from nothing at all for no reason at all via no mechanism at all – are the supreme heuristic fictions. They are a hypothesis that is highly productive in terms of modelling the observable world of phenomena, yet they have zero validity and use beyond that. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. That Singularity contained not one material atom, so how can anyone look to material atoms to explain reality?

How can people explain reality on the basis of things (atoms) that we know for a fact that are not the primary reality (because they are derived from other things)?

Idiocracy Jesus Christ wasn’t a philosopher, wasn’t a mathematician, and wasn’t a scientist. He didn’t use logic or reason. There’s no evidence that he could even read or write. He may have been as illiterate as Mohammed. Who would want to be “saved” by Jesus, this ferocious anti-intellectual and enemy of knowledge and learning? Jesus Christ communicated via simplistic, childish “parables”. Why didn’t he communicate via math, philosophy, logic and science? Why has no “prophet” ever communicated intellectually? Why has “God” never said a single clever thing? Why are “holy” books” about silly stories, or fanatical commandments, threats, punishments and prohibitions? Why didn’t “God” choose to communicate with humanity rationally and reasonably? Why didn’t God provide explanations for how reality functions? Look at the Bible and look at the God Series. Which tells you about reality? Which doesn’t treat you like a moron? Which appeals to your logic and reason? Which is the Logos? Only stupid people are attracted to Christianity, and to mainstream religion in general. The world has hitherto been ruled by the stupid. Faith and money have driven humanity. It’s time the world was ruled by the smart. It’s time for the rule of reason and logic. It’s time for the second, and final, Enlightenment. Science ushered in a false Enlightenment. What it did was switch the focus away from religious feelings and Mythos to sensory “evidence”. Experiments became the new God, yet experiments can say zero about ultimate reality (which is non-sensory, hence unobservable). “Atheism”, ultimately, is the denial that anything non-sensory exists. No atheist will accept the existence – no matter how rationally or logically well founded – of anything for which no experimental evidence can be provided, meaning that atheists are simply worshippers of their delusional five senses, hence they too are religious believers. Only the nature of their “God” is different. Their irrationality and illogic is the same as that of any member of the God Squad.

Illuminism entails the explicit repudiation of the senses. Illuminists accept what is eternally provable and eternally true. Everything else is mere opinion and belief. Everything else is religion. We deal only with eternal facts, and the only eternal facts are those of ontological mathematics and logic. No eternal facts are observable. None of them are physical things detectable by the senses. Only mind, not matter, can convey eternal, non-sensory, non-physical facts and truths, hence this is mental universe, not a physical universe. Physicalism is a total lie. Scientists are people obsessed with the False World – the Matrix – and have zero understanding of the rational, logical, mental world beyond. They are people who deal only with phenomena, and never consider noumena. That makes them dangerously stupid ... as they have demonstrated all too often. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking are typical examples of crass materialists spewing out a never-ending stream of unenlightened, illogical garbage. Almost everything they say is a denial of the rational, noumenal truth of reality. No ideology is falser and more offensive to reason and logic than scientific “randomism”. Randomism has now been placed at the foundation of every single theory of science. You therefore have a very simple choice. Reality is either based on the principle of sufficient reason, or it’s based on no such principle, hence this is an irrational, random, chaotic, indeterministic, illogical, uncertain, random universe – exactly as science now proclaims! No scientist is on the side of reason. That’s a rational fact. The Age of Reason to come will, therefore, not be a scientific Age, but a mathematical Age. It will be based on intellectual proof not sensory evidence. Reason will reveal the secrets of existence, not our fallible, unreliable, limited, deceptive five senses. Reason and logic can arrive at a definitive answer; experimental science cannot. Any proposed “final” theory of science will always be either falsifiable, or in need of verification, hence cannot be final at all. Reason and logic – via mathematics – are solely capable of delivering an absolute, infallible answer to existence. If you haven’t grasped that, it’s because you yourself are lacking in reason and logic, just like all religious believers and all scientists. If you truly understand what reason is, you understand that it automatically points to reality being made of reason. This is what Hegel’s

philosophy of panlogism is all about. His genius was to see that there are two types of reason: eternal (ahistorical) and temporal (historical). Eternal reason reflects Aristotelian logic. Temporal, historical reason reflects Hegelian dialectical logic. The latter occurs within the framework set by the former. The former is perfect, the latter imperfect, but evolving towards perfection. At the Omega Point – the end of a Cosmic Epoch – dialectical reason and eternal reason come into perfect alignment, meaning that all things have perfect, Absolute Knowledge of everything. All monadic beings have literally become God!

Noumenal Idealism “Noumenal idealism is the metaphysics of those who suppose that all known things are indeed mental, but not all are phenomenal in the Kantian sense, because a noumenon is knowable so long as by a noumenon we mean some mental being or other which we somehow can discover beyond phenomena.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Mathematics is the sole instrument for taking us reliably and systematically beyond phenomena, and all phenomena are in fact appearances of mathematical noumena. They are the Content of mathematical Form, the information conveyed by mathematical information carriers. “But [the noumenal idealists] disagreed with Kant, and agreed with Fichte about things in themselves or noumena, and contended that the mental things we know are not mere phenomena of sense, but noumena, precisely because noumena are as mental as phenomena, and therefore can be known from similar data: this was the central point of their noumenal idealism. ...they would not allow that extension and body are different from thinking and mind.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 All things are mental. There is no matter. The issue that has never been properly considered is the “Collective Mind” versus the “Individual Mind”. The former is the true basis of “matter”, and the latter is what we conventionally understand as mind. Mind-matter dualism is really Individual Mind/Collective Mind dualism, but this is in fact a monism since everything is about Mind.

“Their real founder was Fichte, on account of his definite reduction of the noumenal to a mental world. This was indeed the very point – the knowability of a noumenal mental world. At the same time it soon appeared that they could not agree among themselves when they came to ask what it is, but in attempting to define it seem to have gone through the whole gamut of mind. Schelling and Hegel thought it was infinite reason [panlogism]; Schopenhauer, unconscious will; Hartmann, unconscious intelligence and will; Lotze, the activity or life of the divine spirit; Fechner, followed by Paulsen, a world of spiritual actualities comprised in the one spiritual actuality, God, in whom we live and move and have our being.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 In fact, it’s ontological mathematics. Only math can save noumenal idealism from the speculation and ambiguity in which it has hitherto been mired, to its extreme detriment. Just as science became successful purely thanks to math, so noumenal idealism will be successful only if it embraces math. The trick, of course, is knowing how to apply math to something as traditionally hard to pin down as mind. Only dimensionless mathematics will suffice. “Schelling accepted the whole process of mental construction, and the deduction that noumena are knowable products of universal reason, the Absolute Ego. But from the first he was bolder than Fichte, and had no doubt that the Absolute is God. God, as he thought, is universal reason, and Nature a product of universal reason, a direct manifestation, not of man, but of God. How is this Absolute known? According to Schelling it is known by intellectual intuition. Kant had attributed to God, in distinction from man’s understanding, an intellectual intuition of things. Fichte had attributed to man an intellectual intuition of himself as the Absolute Ego. Schelling attributes to man an intellectual intuition of the Absolute God; and as there is, according to him, but one universal reason, the common intelligence of God and man, this intellectual intuition at once gives man an immediate knowledge of God, and identifies man with God himself.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Reason (ontologically expressed through math) is indeed the only way to bridge the gap between Nature and mind. The “Absolute” is, however, not “God”, but the God Equation.

“On Schelling’s idealistic pantheism, or the hypothesis that there is nothing but one absolute reason identifying the opposites of subjectivity and objectivity, Hegel based his panlogism. But, while he fully recognized his indebtedness to [Schelling], he differed from him profoundly in one fundamental respect. He rightly objected that the system was wanting in logical proof. He rightly, therefore, rejected the supposed intellectual intuition of the Absolute. He rightly contended that, if we are to know anything beyond sense, we must know it by a process of logical reason. But, unfortunately, he did not mean the logical inferences described in [Aristotle’s] Organon and [Bacon’s] Novum Organum. He meant a new ‘speculative’ method, the dialectic, founded on an assumption which he had already learnt from Schelling, namely, that things which are different but similar can have the same attribute, and therefore be also the same. With this powerful instrument of dialectic in hand, he attempted to show how absolute reason differentiates itself into subjective and objective, ideal and real, and yet is the identity of both – an identity of opposites, as Schelling had said. By the same dialectic Hegel was able to justify the gradual transformation of transcendental into noumenal idealism by Fichte and Schelling. ... Nature is also identical with our Spirit, or rather with the Infinite Spirit, or Absolute Reason, which alone exists.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Hegel focused on dialectical reason to explain reality. But dialectical reason – when properly understood – is living, mental, teleological, transcendental, ontological mathematics. Math is what drives the universe. Math is what resolves all contradictions. Math is all about ontological problem solving, hence is the true instrument of the dialectic. Panlogism should have been panmathematics. The “dialectic” is math solving its own ontological equations. “Reality is not Reason. It is strange that the underlying assumption of panlogism was not at once contested in this plain way.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Reality is Reason ... mathematical reason. Nothing could be plainer. How else could the universe be rational, intelligible, comprehensible, ordered, organised and patterned if it were not made of reason (in the form of ontological mathematics)? Humanity has an astounding habit of dismissing

the Truth from the outset, so that it can get down to what it loves most – revelling in lies and fantasies, in pure Mythos. “Schelling urged that besides the rational element [in nature] there must be something else ... a blind impulse, a will without intelligence, which belongs to the existent...” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Schopenhauer took this notion of a blind impulse, an irrational Will, to its extreme. Where Hegel advocated panlogism (Reason is everywhere), Schopenhauer’s philosophy concerned panthelism (Will is everywhere). “Schopenhauer accepted Kant’s position that the world as phenomenal is idea (Vorstellung); but he added that the world as noumenal is will (Wille). He got the hint of a noumenal will from Kant; but in regarding the noumenal as knowable, because mental, as well as in the emphasis he laid on the activity of will, he resembled Fichte.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The secret of reason is that it is living reason, and living reason unavoidably expresses will ... will being the lust to accomplish objectives for specific reasons, i.e. will is always teleological (and teleology is, of course, exactly what science denies). It’s impossible to have life without will, which is why no A. I. will ever be alive. How can you program will into a machine? To have will, you need an eternal soul, and that’s exactly what a machine can never have (unless, by the law of unintended consequences, it becomes complex enough to actually attract and host a real monadic soul!). “[Schopenhauer] rejected the infinite intelligence supposed by Fichte, Schelling and Hegel against whom he urged that blind will produces intelligence, and only becomes conscious in us by using intelligence as a means to ends. He also rejected the optimism of Leibniz and Hegel, and placed the most irrational of wills at the base of the worst possible of worlds.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Leibniz, with his doctrine of the best of all possible worlds, was the supreme optimist. Schopenhauer, with his opposite doctrine of the worst of all possible worlds, was the supreme pessimist. Schopenhauer, in effect, believed that the world was Satanic and irredeemably trapped in evil. “God” did not exist ... but the Devil did. Instead of pantheism, pansatanism

or pandiabolos applied! The only way to cease to suffer was to cease to exist (and thus attain nirvana ... extinction, annihilation!). “Hartmann advanced the view that the world as noumenal is both unconscious intelligence and unconscious will, thus founding a panpneumatism [all is spirit] which forms a sort of reconciliation of the panlogism of Hegel and the panthelism of Schopenhauer. ... he further showed that, in his later philosophy, Schelling had already combined reason and will in the Absolute. Indeed, Fichte had previously characterized the life of the Absolute by reason and will without consciousness; and, before Fichte, Leibniz had asserted that the elements of Nature are monads with unconscious perception and appetition. Hartmann has an affinity with all these predecessors, and with Spinoza, with whom he agrees that there is but one substance unaltered by the plurality of individuals which are only its modifications. Following, however, in the footsteps of Schelling, he idealizes the one extended and thinking substance into one mental being; but he thinks that its essence consists in unconscious intelligence and will, of which all individual intelligent wills are only activities. The merit of this fresh noumenal idealism consists in its correction of the one-sidedness of Schopenhauer: intelligence is necessary to will. But Hartmann’s criticism does not go far enough. He ends by outdoing the paradox of Schopenhauer, concluding that Nature in itself is intelligent will, but unconscious, a sort of immanent unconscious God.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The tendency of noumenal idealism is to portray “God” as unconscious rather than conscious, and to be involved in a great journey, some kind of dialectical quest, to come to consciousness, and know what he is and what the world is. This is a radically different view from Abrahamism, where “God” is eternally conscious and consciously creates the world. The notion of an unconscious God makes infinitely more sense than that of a conscious God, and, unlike the latter, can account for evil and imperfection in the world. It’s impossible for a perfect Creator – infinitely good, the author of all – to create a world in which evil, misery and imperfection are evident everywhere. They are the unarguable refutation of the existence of an eternally conscious God. An unconscious God, however, struggling to understand himself and the world, would, however, make myriad mistakes, be thoroughly imperfect, even be selfish and evil (because he does not yet know any better). As the Marquis de Sade said, “In order to know virtue we

must first acquaint ourselves with vice.” Morality, unlike the laws of math, is not eternal. Morality is temporal, historical and evolutionary. As Nietzsche observed, it has a genealogy [a line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor ... and morality’s ancestor was amoral or even immoral]. Consciousness is not given. Consciousness is the ultimate product of evolution. Nothing, not even God, can be conscious from the outset. Everything has to acquire consciousness, and that’s the longest and most difficult journey of all, littered with error, lies, delusion, fantasy, madness, savagery and evil. All of these must be overcome by the dialectic. Only math can cure them all. The universe is a mathematical system seeking to solve itself, and it can do so only by becoming conscious. It becomes conscious through us! “Hartmann identifies matter with mind by identifying atomic force with the striving of unconscious will after objects conceived by unconscious intelligence, and by defining causality as logical necessity receiving actuality through will. He explains the rise of consciousness by supposing that, while it requires brain as a condition, it consists in the emancipation of intelligence from will at the moment when in sensation the individual mind finds itself with an idea without will. Here follows his pessimism, like to, but differing from, that of [Schopenhauer]. In his view consciousness begins with want, and pain preponderates over pleasure in every individual life, with no hope for the future, while the final end is not consciousness, but the painlessness of the unconscious. But why exaggerate? The truth of Nature is force; the truth of will is rational desire; the truth of life is neither the optimism of Leibniz and Hegel, nor the pessimism of Schopenhauer and Hartmann, but the moderatism of Aristotle. Life is sweet, and most men have more pleasures than pains in their lives.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Nothing is more important than realising that all matter is controlled by mind, and imbued with mind. For the intellectual progress of the human race, it’s essential that scientific materialism is overthrown. Scientists, like religious believers, are obstructing humanity’s advancement. Math, not science or religion, is how we will achieve our destiny. “Lotze (1817-1881) elaborated a very different noumenal idealism, which perhaps we may express by the name ‘Panteleologism,’ [teleology is

everywhere] to express its conclusion that the known world beyond phenomena is neither absolute thought nor unconscious will, nor the unconscious at all, but the activity of God; causing in us the system of phenomenal appearances, which we call Nature, or bodies moving in time and space; but being in itself the system of the universal reciprocal actions of God’s infinite spirit, animated by the design of the supreme good. The Metaphysik of Lotze in its latest form (1879) begins with a great truth: metaphysics must be the foundation of psychology.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The most grotesque assassination in intellectual history was that of teleology by scientific materialism. Without teleology, mind, will, meaning, the soul and God all vanish from existence, to be replaced by atheism, nihilism, skepticism, cynicism, randomness, chance, accident, statistics, probability, indeterminism, acausation, purposelessness and meaninglessness. This litany of despair is science’s true “gift” to humanity. That’s why the majority of humanity will always resist science. You need to be profoundly autistic and machinelike to be attracted to science, to be unable to conceive of anything beyond your limited, narrow senses, to worship your “reducing valve” as the be-all-and-end-all. Scientists ought to be pitied for having such narrow, limited, reduced minds. As Prince Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet could easily have been talking about science when he said, “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.” The much vaunted scientific method, not reason and logic, is the means by which science madly expects to explain ultimate reality. Lotze was absolutely right that metaphysics (mathematical metaphysics) must be the foundation of psychology. It must also be the foundation of science, something that scientific materialists will never accept. Mathematical metaphysics alone can define the state prior to the Big Bang, and thus explain existence. “Lotze concluded that we have no more reason for supposing an external space like space constructed out of our perceptions, than we have for supposing an external colour like perceived colour. Agreeing, then, with Kant that primary qualities are as mental as secondary, he agreed also with Kant that all the Nature we know as a system of bodies moving in time and

space is sensible phenomena. But while he was in fundamental agreement with the first two positions of Kant, he differed from the third; he did not believe that the causes of sensible phenomena can be unknown things in themselves. What then are they? In answering this question Lotze regarded Leibniz as his guide. He accepted the Leibnizian fallacy that unity is indivisibility, which led to the Leibnizian analysis of material bodies into immaterial monads, indivisible and therefore unextended, and to the theory of monadic souls and entelechies.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The Leibnizian “fallacy”? Leibniz is the least understood of all philosophers, and also the best of all philosophers. The two facts are not unconnected. Monads – made of dimensionless sinusoids – are the absolute ground of existence, and, if you can’t get this right, you won’t get anything right! “Indeed, from the time of Leibniz such attempts either to analyse or to construct matter had become a fashion. Lotze agreed with Leibniz that the things which cause phenomena are immaterial elements, but added that they are not simple substances, self-acting, as Leibniz thought, or preserving themselves against disturbance, as Herbart thought, but are interacting modifications of the one substance of God.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Monads are interacting instances of the one God Equation, the ontological Form in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason exists, and in which all things participate. The God Equation is the Platonic Form of Life, and the Platonic Form of Reason, and the Platonic Form of Numbers, and the Platonic Form of the Good. “In the first place, [Lotze] resolved the doubt of Leibniz about bodies by deciding entirely against his realistic alternative that an organic body is a substantia realizans phaenomena, and for his idealistic alternative that every body is a phenomenon and not a substance at all. Secondly, he accepted the Leibnizian hypothesis of immaterial elements without accepting their self-action. He believed in reciprocal action; and the very essence of his metaphysics consists in sublimating the interaction of bodies into the interaction of immaterial elements, which produce effects on one another and on the soul as one of them.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

In ontological mathematics, the underlying monadic reality is expressed via Fourier mathematics, which involves a primary frequency domain of mind, interacting with a secondary, derived, spacetime domain of matter. “According to the mechanics of Newton, when two bodies collide each body makes the other move equally and oppositely; but it has become a convenient habit to express this concrete fact in abstract language by calling it the conservation of momentum, by talking of one body communicating its motion to the other; as if bodies exchanged motion as men do money. Now Lotze took this abstract language literally, and had no difficulty in showing that, as an attribute is not separated from its substance, this supposed communication of motion does not really take place: nothing passes. But instead of returning to the concrete fact of the equivalence of momentum, by which each body moving makes the other move oppositely, he denied that bodies do reciprocally act on one another, and even that bodies as mutually resisting substances press one another apart in collision. Having thus rejected all bodily mechanism, he had to suppose that reciprocal action somehow takes place between immaterial elements. This brought him to another difference from Leibniz as well as from Newton. According to Leibniz, while each immaterial element is a monadic substance and selfacting secondary cause, God is the primary cause of all. According to Lotze, the connexion required by reciprocity requires also that the whole of every reciprocal action should take place within one substance; the immaterial elements act on one another merely as the modifications of that substance interacting within itself; and that one substance is God, who thus becomes not merely the primary but the sole cause, in scholastic language a causa immanens, or agent of acts remaining within the agent’s being.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 In fact, there are countless autonomous substances – monads – but they are all governed by exactly the same God Equation, which is the sufficient reason for all things, i.e. everything that happens in existence is a manifestation of the God Equation. It’s essential for all of existence to be controlled by a single formula. That’s the only way to avoid incomprehensible, irrational dualism or pluralism. “At this point, having rejected both the Newtonian mechanism of bodily substances and the Leibnizian automatism of monadic substances, [Lotze] flew to the Spinozistic unity of substance; except that, according to him, the

one substance, God, is not extended at all, and is not merely thinking, but is a thinking, willing and acting spirit.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 It’s certainly true that the mental activity of the universe is as much concerned with willing, acting, desiring, intuiting, sensing and feeling as with “thinking” (formal reasoning). All of these other aspects of mental activity reflect their own take on reason, i.e. each has its own dialectical reasoning capacity, and all of the different expressions of reason are dialectically interacting (sometimes conflicting and sometimes cooperating). “Lotze’s metaphysics is thus distinguished from the theism of Newton and Leibniz by its pantheism, and from the pantheism of Spinoza by its idealism. It is an idealistic pantheism, which is a denial of all bodily mechanism, a reduction of everything bodily to phenomena, and an assertion that all real action is the activity of God. At the same time it is a curious attempt to restore mechanism and reconcile it with teleology by using the word ‘mechanism’ in a new meaning, according to which God performs His own reciprocal actions within Himself by uniform laws, which are also means to divine ends.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Lotze is a much-underrated thinker, more or less unknown today. His system, like most of those associated with noumenal idealism, can be instantly resurrected by giving it a Fourier mathematical makeover. “Thus [Lotze’s] pantheistic is also a teleological idealism, which in its emphasis on free activity and moral order recalls Leibniz and Fichte, but in its emphasis on the infinity of God has more affinity to Spinoza, Schelling and Hegel. Hence his philosophy, like the Hegelian, continually torments one with the difficulty that its sacrifice of the distinct being of all individual substances to the universality of God entails the sacrifice of the individual personality of men.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Although, on one level, all substances are independent and autonomous (each is complete and consistent, uncreated and uncaused), on another level, they are indissolubly linked to all other substances (the rest of the Monadic Ensemble), and will always exist in interaction with these others. In other words, all independent monads are in fact dependent on each other insofar as they can never be in any situation where they are not interacting with each other and being influenced by each other. Hence, we are necessarily

involved in a dialectic of the Many and the One. There are many monads (mathematical singularities), each of which can do its own thing to some degree (reflecting free will), but ultimately all of them are inescapably harnessed together in one overall Singularity comprising them all. In the end, it’s the power of the Collective that wins out, and all monads are brought under the control of the whole Monadic Ensemble, whether they like it or not. No individual monad can hold out against all the rest of the monads. As Kafka said, “In man’s struggle against the world, bet on the world.” The culmination of a Cyclical Age of the Universe is where the Monadic Collective achieves total, perfect mathematical symmetry, meaning that every individual monad has to reflect the group symmetry rather than individual asymmetry or antisymmetry. We are all free up to a point, and have our own self-solving, selfoptimising teleology, but ultimately we are all determined by the group teleology, which, because we are all part of a unitary mathematical system governed by a single equation, culminates with a completely resolved group solution as the final answer to existence, manifested mathematically as perfect collective symmetry. This final group solution is driven by the highest souls in the universe, i.e. the most enlightened souls become Gods – much more powerful than all the other souls – and, as a Cosmic Age reaches its climax, this community of Gods imposes perfect reason – perfect mathematical symmetry – on all the rest. By doing so, it elevates all of them to Gods too. The Devil – the God of stupid, selfish, self-interested people who despise the Collective (i.e. the Selfish God of Ayn Rand’s “libertarians”, or the Torture God of Abrahamism, the most selfish being in the universe) – is the last to be converted. The Illuminati are those who aim to become the Gods that bring universal peace, harmony, community, cooperation, mutual respect and reason to the cosmos. That equates in emotional terms to universal bliss and love (paradise; heaven; nirvana; enlightenment; gnosis). “Our bodies were reduced by Lotze to the general ruck of phenomenal appearances. Our souls he tried his best to endow with a quasi-existence, arguing that the unity of consciousness requires an indivisible subject, which is distinct from the plurality of the body but interacting with it, is in a way a centre of independent activities, and is so far a substance, or rather able to produce the appearance of a substance. But at the end of his

Metaphysik, from the conclusion that everything beyond phenomena is divine interaction, he drew the consistent corollary that individual souls are simply actions of the one genuine being. His final view was that certain actions of the divine substance are during consciousness gifted with knowledge of themselves as active centres, but during unconsciousness are non-existent. If so, we are not persons with a permanent being of our own distinct from that of God. But in a philosophy which reduces everything to phenomenal appearance except the self-interacting substance of God, there is no room for either the bodies or the souls of finite substances or human persons.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 In Illuminism, there is room for bodies and (infinite) souls, but Lotze’s position is recognised as one with great force. What we have here is a dialectic of the Many and the One. If the Many is the thesis and the One is the antithesis, the synthesis is the “Many-One”, where the Many, while remaining the Many, have come together in a single, symmetric configuration – the One. A single symmetry applicable to all monads is the culmination of “the dialectic of the Many and the One”. It’s all in the math. Leibniz emphasizes the Many (individual monads) while Lotze emphasizes the One (the Monadic Collective). “Fechner (1801-1887) affords a conspicuous instance of the idealistic tendency to mysterize nature in his Panpsychism, or that form of noumenal idealism which holds that the universe is a vast communion of spirits, souls of men, of animals, of plants, of earth and other planets, of the sun, all embraced as different members in the soul of the world, the highest spirit – God, in whom we live and move and have our being; that the bodily and the spiritual, or the physical and the psychical, are everywhere parallel processes which never meet to interact; but that the difference between them is only a difference between the outer and inner aspects of one identical psychophysical process; and yet that both sides are not equally real, because while psychical and physical are identical, the psychical is what a thing really is as seen from within, the physical is what it appears to be to a spectator outside; or spirit is the self-appearance of matter, matter the appearance of one spirit to another. Fechner’s panpsychism has a certain affinity both to Stahl’s animism and to the hylozoism of materialists such as Haeckel.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

Fechner’s ideas, like those of Lotze, are too speculative as they stand, but they can readily be given clarity and force via mathematics. “But, while [Fechner’s view] differs from both in denying the reality of body, it differs from the former in extending conscious soul not only to plants, as Stahl did, but to all Nature; and it differs from the latter in the different consequences drawn by materialism and idealism from this universal animism. According to Haeckel, matter is the universal substance, spirit its universal attribute. According to Fechner, spirit is the universal reality, matter the universal appearance of spirit to spirit; and they are identical because spirit is the reality which appears. Hence Fechner describes himself as a twig fallen from Schelling’s stem.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Haeckel is a hylozoist, and Fechner a panpsychist. “Schelling’s adherent Oken by his Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie conveyed to his mind the life-long impression that God is the universe and Nature God’s appearance. At the same time, while accepting the Schellingian parallelistic identity of all things in God, Fechner was restrained by his accurate knowledge of physics from the extravagant construction of Nature, which had failed in the hands of Schelling and Hegel. Besides, he was deeply impressed by the fact of man’s personality and by the problem of his personal immortality, which brought him back through Schelling to Leibniz, whose Monadologie throughout maintains the plurality of monadic souls and the omnipresence of perception, sketches in a few sections a panpsychic parallelism, though without identity, between bodily motions and psychic perceptions, and, what is most remarkable, already uses the conservation of energy to argue that physical energy pursues its course in bodies without interacting with souls, and that motions produce motions, perceptions produce perceptions. Leibniz thus influenced Fechner, as in other ways he influenced Lotze. Both, however, used this influence freely; and, whereas Lotze used the Leibnizian argument from indivisibility to deduce indivisible elements and souls, Fechner used the Leibnizian hypotheses of universal perception and parallelism of motions and perceptions, in the light of the Schellingian identification of physical and psychical, to evolve a world-view (Weltansicht) containing something which was neither Leibniz nor Schelling.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

All roads lead back to Leibniz! Leibniz is the great antidote to scientific materialism. He’s the founder of scientific idealism. “Fechner’s first point was his panpsychism. Emphasizing the many real analogies between physical and mental agency, but underrating the much stronger evidences that all the mental operations of men and animals require a nervous system, he flew to the paradox that soul is not limited to men and animals, but extends to plants, to the earth and other planets, to the sun, to the world itself, of which, according to him, God is the world-soul. In this doctrine of universal animation he was like Leibniz, yet very different. Whereas Leibniz confined a large area of the world to wholly unconscious perceptions, and therefore preferred to call the souls of inorganic beings ‘Entelechies,’ Fechner extended consciousness to the whole world; and accordingly, whereas Leibniz believed in a supramundane Creator, ‘au dessus du Monde’ and ‘dans le Monde,’ Fechner, in the spirit of Schelling, identified God with the soul of the world.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 One of the classic religious debates is whether God is separate from the world – the Creationist view – or is the world’s Soul (hence the world is his body) – the pantheistic view. “Fechner’s second point was that, throughout the animated universe, physical processes accompany psychical processes without interaction. In this panpsychistic parallelism he was again like Leibniz, and he developed his predecessor’s view, that the conservation of energy prevents interaction, into the supposition that alongside the physical there is a parallel psychical conservation of energy. Here, again, he went much further than Leibniz, but along with Schelling, in identifying the physical and the psychical as outer and inner sides of the same process, in which the inner is the real and the outer the apparent.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Nothing is more important than comprehending that the world has an inner character, an interior ... a dimensionless mind. Science is exclusively about outer character, exteriority ... dimensional matter ... hence is false and incomplete. “Fechner’s third point carried him beyond all his predecessors, containing as it does the true originality of his ‘world-view.’ He advanced the ingenious suggestion that, as body is in body and all ultimately in the

world-body, so soul is in soul and all ultimately in the world soul. By this means he explained immortality and vindicated personality.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 All monads are in the Monadic Collective. All singularities are in the Singularity. “His fourth point was connected with this inclusion of personal spirits in higher spirits and in the highest. It is his so-called ‘synechological view’ of the soul. Herbart and Lotze, both deeply affected by the Leibnizian hypothesis of indivisible monads, supposed that man’s soul is seated at a central point in the brain; and Lotze supposed that this supposition is necessary to explain the unity of consciousness. Fechner’s supposition was that the unity of consciousness belongs to the unity of the whole body; that the seat of the soul is the living body; that the soul changes its place as in different parts a process rises above the ‘threshold of consciousness’; and that soul is not substance but the single psychical life which has its physical manifestation in the single bodily life. Applying this ‘synechological view’ to the supposed inclusion of soul in soul, he deduced the conclusion that, as here the nature of one’s soul is to unite one’s little body, so hereafter its essence will be to unite a greater body, while God’s spirit unites the whole world by His omnipresence; and he pertinently asked, in opposition to the ‘punctual’ view, whether God’s soul is centred in a point.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 In fact, the Singularity of the Monadic Collective is the World Soul at the heart of Universe. The universe is the collective body of all monads, not of just one God Monad. The stuff of individual physical bodies is provided by the Monadic Collective, not by individual monads, i.e. one body isn’t “made” by one soul. Each body is made by all monads (because all monads produce the atoms from which individual bodies are made: atoms are collective expressions of monads), and individual monads then assume control of these individual bodies made of collective things. It’s exactly because the monadic soul does not have total control of the body – the body is “other” in relation to the soul since it belongs to the Monadic Collective rather than the individual monad – that bodies eventually die, although the atoms of which the bodies are made do not perish. A monad can “kill” a body by losing control of it (via age, disease, accident, injury, and so on), but it can’t kill the individual atoms that comprise the body.

“Lastly, the whole of this ‘world-view’ was developed by Fechner in early life, under the influence of his religious training, and out of a pious desire to understand those main truths of Christianity which teach us that we are children of God, that this natural body will become a spiritual body, and that, though we are different individual members, we live and move and are in God: ‘in Deo vivimus, movemus, et sumus.’” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Scientific materialism – the underpinning of atheism – is determined to obliterate all mention of mind, spirit, soul, will, free will, desire, purpose, and meaning. You need to be suffering from a serious mental illness to be attracted to this ideology. “Afterwards in Nanna (1848) [Fechner] discussed the supposed souls of plants, and in Zendavesta (1851) the supposed souls of the earth and the rest of the world. Then in 1855 he published his Atomenlehre, partly founded on his physics, but mainly on his metaphysics. Under the influence of Leibniz, Boscovich, Kant and Herbart, he supposed that bodies are divisible into punctual atoms, which are not bodies, but centres of forces of attraction and repulsion; that impenetrability is a result of repulsive force; and that force itself is only law – taking as an instance that Newtonian force of attraction whose process we do not understand, and neglecting that Newtonian force of pressure and impact whose process we do understand from the collision of bodies already extended and resisting. But, in thus adapting to his own purposes the Leibnizian analysis of material into immaterial, he drew his own conclusions according to his own metaphysics, which required that the supposed centres of force are not Leibnizian ‘monads,’ nor Herbartian ‘reals,’ nor divine modifications such as Lotze afterwards supposed, but are elements of a system which in outer aspect is bodily and in inner aspect is spiritual, and obeying laws of spirit. At the same time his synechological view prevented him from saying that every atom has a soul, because according to him a soul always corresponds to a unity of a physical manifold. Thus his metaphysics is Leibnizian, like that of Lotze, and yet is opposed to the most characteristic feature of monadology the percipient indivisible monad.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Many have strayed from the true Leibnizian path. Although Leibniz’s successors were ingenious and produced fascinating variations of Leibniz’s

ideas, in the end everything comes back to Leibniz and his monadic substances. Modern Illuminism has simply made Leibniz’s metaphysical monads into mathematical frequency singularities reflecting ontological Fourier mathematics. “In 1860 appeared Fechner’s Elemente der Psychophysik, a work which deeply affected subsequent psychology, and almost revolutionized metaphysics of body and soul, and of physical and psychical relations generally. ... At the very outset he started with his previous metaphysical hypothesis of parallelistic identity without interaction. He now compared the spiritual and bodily sides of a man to the concave and convex sides of a circle, as inner and outer sides of the same process, which is psychical as viewed from within and physical as viewed from without. He also maintained throughout the book that physical and psychical energy do not interfere, but that the psychical is, like a mathematical quantity, a function of the physical, depending upon it, and vice versa, only in the sense that a constant relation according to law exists, such that we may conclude from one to the other, but without one ever being cause of the other. By his psychophysics he meant the exact doctrine of the relations of dependency between physical and psychical. The name was new, but not the doctrine. From antiquity men had applied themselves to determine the relations between the physical stimuli and the so-called ‘quality’ of sensations. But what was new was the application of this doctrine to the relations between the stimuli and the so-called ‘intensity’ of sensations. He generalized Weber’s law in the form that sensation generally increases in intensity as the stimulus increases by a constant function of the previous stimulus; or increases in an arithmetical progression as the stimulus increases in a geometrical ratio; or increases by addition of the same amount as the stimulus increases by the same multiple; or increases as the logarithm of the stimulus. There are then, at least within the limits of moderate sensations, concomitant variations between stimuli and sensations, not only in ‘quality,’ as in the intervals of sounds, which were understood long ago, but also in ‘intensity’; and the discovery of the latter is the importance of Weber’s and Fechner’s law.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 It’s essential to create a true psychophysics in preference to hylophysics (scientific materialism).

“By the rules of induction from concomitant variations, we are logically bound to infer the realistic conclusion that outer physical stimuli cause inner sensations of sensible effects. But, unfortunately for Fechner, the very opposite conclusion followed from the presuppositions of his parallelistic metaphysics, and from the Leibnizian view of the conservation of energy, which he was the first in our time to use in order to argue that a physical cause cannot produce a psychical effect, on the ground that physical energy must be exactly replaced by physical energy.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Fechner’s parallelism is false. Via ontological Fourier mathematics, we can have a constant causal interplay of “physical” energy (spacetime; material; dimensional), and non-physical energy (frequency; mental; dimensionless). There is, however, indeed a parallelism between Form and Content. All Content is parallel to Form, or is the flip side of Form. “Having satisfied himself in what he called ‘outer psychophysics,’ that the stimulus causes only the nervous process and not sensation, [Fechner] passed to what he called ‘inner psychophysics,’ or the theory of the relation between nervous and psychical processes. He rightly argued against the old theory that the continuity of nervous processes in the brain is interrupted by mental processes of thought and will: there is a nervous process for every mental process. But two questions then arose. What is the relation between nervous process and sensation? What causes sensation? The first question he answered from his imagination by supposing that, while the external world is stimulus of the nervous process, the nervous process is the immediate stimulus of the sensation, and that the sensation increases by a constant fraction of the previous stimulus in the nervous system, when Weber’s law proves only that it increases by a constant fraction of the previous stimulus in the external world. The second question he answered from his parallelistic metaphysics by deducing that even within the organism there is only a constant dependency of sensation on nervous process without causation, because the nervous process is physical but the sensation psychical. This answer supposed that the whole physical process from the action of the external stimulus on the nervous system to the reaction of the organism on the external world is one series, while the conscious process beginning with sensation is only parallel and as it were left high and dry. What then is the cause of the sensation? Huxley, it will be

remembered, in similar circumstances, answered this question by degrading consciousness to an epiphenomenon, or by-product of the physical process. Fechner was saved from this absurdity, but only to fall into the greater absurdity of his own panpsychism.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 There’s nothing absurd about panpsychism, as long as it’s cast in mathematical rather than mystical terms, and avoids the kind of parallelism that Fechner proposed where mind and matter can’t causally interact. As for mind as an emergent epiphenomenon of matter, this is an absolute absurdity. It’s impossible for mind to come from non-mind. “Having long assumed that the whole world is animated throughout, and that there are always two parallel series, physical and psychical, [Fechner] concluded that, while a physical stimulus is causing a physical nervous process, a psychical accompaniment of the stimulus is causing the sensation, which, according to him, is the psychical accompaniment of the nervous process; and that, as the whole physical and the whole psychical series are the same, differing only as outer and inner, this identity holds both of stimulus and its psychical accompaniment and of nervous process and its accompanying sensation. Accordingly, he calls these and all other processes ‘psychophysical’; and as he recognized two parallel energies, physical and psychical, differing only as outer and inner aspects of the same energy, he called this ‘psychophysical energy.’” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Fechner’s system strongly resembles the later one advanced by Jung that mental “archetypes” are the flip side of biological instincts. Jung is much closer to German idealism than scientific materialism. It’s impossible to be a genuine psychologist and yet be opposed to the real existence of mind. Materialist “psychologists” are invariably behaviourists who deny the reality of mind, or they are epiphenomenalists, who maintain that mind is the impotent after-effect of material interactions. Neuroscientists are 100% materialistic. There is no neuroscientist on earth who accepts the reality of mental agency. There is no greater closed shop in the world than neuroscience. “In such a philosophy all reality is ‘psychophysical.’ At the same time Fechner would not have us suppose that the two sides are equal; according to him, the psychical, being the psychophysical as viewed from within, is

real, the physical, being the psychophysical viewed from without, is apparent; so in oneself, though nervous process and psychical process are the same, it is the psychical which is the reality of which the nervous is mere appearance; and so everywhere, spirit is the reality, body the appearance of spirit to spirit. Finally, he supposed that one spirit is in another, and all in the highest spirit, God. By this means also he explained unconsciousness. In point of fact, many stimuli are beneath the ‘threshold’ of a man’s consciousness. Leibniz, in the Nouveaux Essais, had also said that we have many ‘petites perceptions,’ of which we are unconscious, and had further suggested that a perception of which we are, is composed of a quantity of ‘petites perceptions’ of which we are not, conscious. Proceeding on this suggestion, and misled by the mathematical expression which he had given to Weber’s law, Fechner held that a conscious sensation, like its stimulus, consists of units, or elements, by summation and increments of which conscious sensations and their differences are produced; so that consciousness, according to this unnecessary assumption, emerges from an integration of unconscious shocks or tremors. But by the hypothesis of the inclusion of spirit in spirit, he was further able to hold that what is unconscious in one spirit is conscious in a higher spirit, while everything whatever is in the consciousness of the highest spirit of God, who is the whole of reality of which the spirits are parts, while the so-called physical world is merely outer appearance of one spirit to another.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Fechner is absolutely right that the psychical is noumenal reality (the world as it appears to our reason, and as we internally experience it), and the physical is phenomenal reality (the world as it appears to our senses). Science has always chosen to regard sensory appearance as reality itself, and always denied that there’s a non-sensory, intelligible, rational reality underpinning it. “[Fechner] perceived that Darwinism attributed too much to accident, and was also powerless to explain the origin of life and of consciousness. But his substitute was his own hypothesis of panpsychism, from which he deduced a ‘cosmorganic’ evolution from a ‘cosmorganic’ or original condition of the world as a living organism into the inorganic, by the principle of tendency to stability.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

Why isn’t Darwinism – a bizarre materialist hypothesis predicated on chance, accident and contingency – openly laughed at since it can explain neither the origin of life nor mind, and invokes the manifest impossibility of life and mind randomly “emerging” from lifeless and mindless matter? As soon as mind is removed from any worldview, randomness flows in to fill the vacuum – exactly as we see with scientific materialism. “The world, as [Fechner] thought, on its physical side, always was a living body; and on its psychical side God always was its conscious spirit; and, so far from life arising from the lifeless, and consciousness from unconsciousness, the life and consciousness of the whole world are the origin of the lifeless and the unconscious in parts of it, by a kind of secondary automatism, while we ourselves are developed from our own mother-earth by differentiation. By thus supposing a psychical basis to evolution, Fechner, anticipating Wundt, substituted a psychical development of organs for Darwinian accidental variation. The difficulty of such speculations is to prove that things apparently dead and mindless are living souls.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The opposite and much greater difficulty is to explain how the dead and mindless can ever produce the living and minded. Living things can “die” (in terms of appearance) and relocate to new physical vessels (bodies). Inert things cannot become non-inert (animated): dead things can’t arrange themselves into living things under any circumstances. Darwinism, true Darwinism, is driven by mental teleology, not by material randomness. “Their interest to the metaphysician is their opposition to physics on the one hand and to theism on the other. Shall we resign our traditional belief that the greater part of the world is mere body, but that its general adaptability to conscious organisms proves its creation and government by God, and take to the new hypothesis, which, by a transfer of design from God to Nature, supposes that everything physical is alive, and conducts its life by psychical impulses of its own? Fechner himself went even further, and together with design transferred God Himself to Nature. This is the subject of his last metaphysical work, Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht (1879). The ‘day-view’ (Fechner’s) is the view that God is the psychophysical allembracing being, the law and consciousness of the world. It resembles the views of Hegel and Lotze in its pantheistic tendency. But it does not, like theirs, sacrifice our personality; because, according to Fechner, the one

divine consciousness includes us as a larger circle includes smaller circles. By this ingenious suggestion of the membership of one spirit in another, Fechner’s ‘day-view’ also puts Nature in a different position; neither with Hegel sublimating it to the thought of God’s mind, nor with Lotze degrading it to the phenomena of our human minds, but identifying it with the outer appearance of one spirit to another spirit in the highest of spirits.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 “God” is Nature ... mathematical Nature. Ontological mathematics can be regarded as an idealistic, panpsychist, pantheistic or panentheistic system, where the universe is an evolving God, and, eventually, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Monads will produce Gods, and the Gods will produce a God of Gods. This will be a cellular God. The cells of which he is made are individual monadic Gods ... us! “We have dwelt on this curious metaphysics of Fechner because it contains the master-key to the philosophy of the present moment. When the later reaction to Kant arose against both Hegelianism and materialism, the nearly contemporary appearance of Fechner’s Psychophysics began to attract experimental psychologists by its real as well as its apparent exactness, and both psychologists and metaphysicians by its novel way of putting the relations between the physical and the psychical in man and in the world. Fechner saw psychology deriving advantage from the methods, as well as the results, of his experiments, and in 1879 the first psychological laboratory was erected by Wundt at Leipzig. But he had also to endure countless objections to his mathematical statement of Weber’s law, to his unnecessary assumption of units of sensation, and to his unjustifiable transfer of the law from physical to physiological stimuli of sensations, involving in his opinion his parallelistic view of body and mind. Among psychologists Helmholtz, Mach, Brentano, Hering, Delboeuf, were all more or less against him. Sigwart in his Logic has also opposed the parallelistic view itself; and James has criticized it from the point of view that the soul selects out of the possibilities of the brain means to its own ends. Nevertheless, largely under the influence of the exaggeration of the conservation of energy, many psychologists — Wundt, Paulsen, Riehl, Jodl, Ebbinghaus, Münsterberg, and in England Lewes, Clifford, Romanes, Stout have accepted Fechner’s psychophysical parallelism, as far at least as men and animals are concerned. Most stop here, but some go with Fechner to the

full length of his metaphysical parallelism of the physical and psychical, as psychophysical, throughout the whole world. This influence extended from Germany to Denmark, where it was embraced by Hoffding, and to England, where it was accepted by Romanes, and in a more qualified manner as ‘a working hypothesis’ by Stout.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 It’s time for the rebirth of 19th century psychophysical thinking. Why is scientific materialism so hostile to expanding the concept of science to include scientific idealism and scientific panpsychism? What’s it so afraid of? “But the most thorough and most eloquent of Fechner’s metaphysical disciples was F. Paulsen, who spread panpsychism far and wide in his Einleitung in die Philosophie. Here reappear all the characteristic points of Fechner’s ‘world-view’ – the panpsychism, the universal parallelism with the identification of physical and psychical, the inclusion of spirit in spirit, the synechological view of spirit, and the final ‘day-view’ that all reality is spirit, and body the appearance of spirit to spirit. But Paulsen tries to supply something wanting in Fechner. The originality of Paulsen consists in trying to supply an epistemological explanation of the metaphysics of Fechner, by reconciling him with Kant and Schopenhauer. He borrows from Kant’s ‘rationalism’ the hypothesis of a spontaneous activity of the subject with the deduction that knowledge begins from sense, but arises from understanding; and he accepts from Kant’s metaphysical idealism the consequence that everything we perceive, experience and know about physical nature, and the bodies of which it consists, is phenomena, and not bodily things in themselves. But he has a different theory of human nature and soul, and so does not accept the Kantian conclusion that things in themselves, in the sense of things beyond phenomena, are all unknowable. On the contrary, his contention is that of Fechner that all knowable things are inner psychical realities beneath outer physical appearances the invisible symbolized by the visible. Kant, however, had no epistemology for such a contention, because according to him both outer and inner senses give mere appearance, from which we could not know either body in itself, or soul in itself.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Any new psychophysics must, unlike scientific materialism, be grounded in a formal ontology and epistemology. Only mathematics qualifies.

“Parting, then, from Kant, Paulsen resorts to a paradox which he shares with Fechner and Wundt. He admits, indeed, Kant’s hypothesis that by inner sense we are conscious only of mental states, but he contends that this very consciousness is a knowledge of a thing in itself. He agrees with Fechner and Wundt that there is no substantial soul, and that soul is nothing but the mental states, or rather their unity thus identifying it with Kant’s synthetic unity. On this assumption he deduces that in being conscious of our mental states we are conscious of soul not merely as it appears, but as it is in itself, and therefore can infer similar souls, other psychical unities, which are also things in themselves.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Everything must come from the substantial soul ... the eternal, necessary mathematical monad defined by the God Equation. “But what is the essence of this psychical reality which we thus immediately and mediately know? Here [Paulsen] appeals to Schopenhauer’s doctrine that will of some sort is the fundamental fact of mental life. Taking, then, will to be the essential thing in itself of which we are conscious, he deduces that we can infer that the psychical things in themselves beyond ourselves are also essentially ‘wills.’ Combining with this the central dogma of Fechner that spirit extends throughout the world of bodily appearance, he concludes that the realities of the world are ‘wills,’ that bodies are mere appearances of ‘wills,’ and that there is one universal and all-embracing spirit which is ‘will.’” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 All such worldviews ultimately break down because of their failure to embrace mathematics. Science has achieved its current pre-eminence purely thanks to math. For scientific idealism/panpsychism to compete, it must turn to math too, but much more comprehensively than scientific materialism has ever done. It must appeal to the whole of math, negative and positive, real, imaginary and complex ... and zero and infinity. It must appeal to frequency singularities outside spacetime, as well as to spacetime. “[Paulsen’s] ultimate metaphysics, then, is this: Everything is spirit, and spirit is ‘will.’ Lastly, by ‘will’ he does not mean ‘rational desire,’ which is its proper meaning, but inapplicable to Nature; nor unconscious irrational will, which is Schopenhauer’s forced meaning; nor unconscious intelligent will, which is Hartmann’s more correct meaning, though inapplicable to Nature. His ‘will’ is instinct, impulsive feeling, a ‘will to live,’ not indeed

unconscious, but often subconscious, without idea, without reasoning about ends and means, yet pursuing ends – in short, what he calls, after K. E. von Baer, Zielstrebigkeit. How persistent is ancient animism! Empedocles, Plato and Aristotle; Telesio, Bruno and Campanella; Leibniz; the idealists, Schopenhauer and Hartmann, Fechner and Paulsen; and the materialist, Haeckel all have agreed in according some sort of appetition to Nature. So prone are men to exaggerate adaptation into aim! So prone are they to transfer to Nature the part played by the providence of God! ... The three most vital idealisms of this kind at the moment are the panpneumatism of Hartmann, combining Hegel with Schopenhauer; the panteleologism of Lotze, reviving Leibniz; and the panpsychism of Paulsen, continuing Fechner, but with the addition of an epistemology combining Kant with Schopenhauer. All these systems of metaphysics, differ as they may, agree that things are known to exist beyond sensible phenomena, but yet are mental realities of some kind.” – Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 The author of this old Encyclopædia Britannica article was certainly no advocate of noumenal idealism. Many of the objections he raises are ridiculous. He states his personal opinions as “facts”. He’s clearly highly influenced by scientific materialist thinking. It’s a huge task to overthrow the rigid schemas that trap people in narrow, dogmatic boxes, where they are unable to fairly consider rival ideas. Scientific materialism refuses point blank to engage with anything that does not fit with its ideological Meta Paradigm.

The School of Leibniz With Lotze, Fechner, Herbart and others, we see ingenious developments of Leibniz’s philosophy, but, although they all have many excellent points to contribute, they all go wrong for exactly the same reason – their lack of mathematical rigour. The only way to make scientific idealism as potent as scientific materialism is to weaponize idealism in exactly the same way as materialism did ... via mathematics. It all comes down to math in the end. Materialism is all about dimensional mathematics (space, time and physical objects) while idealism is all about dimensionless mathematics (frequency and non-physical things = monads, made of dimensionless sinusoids). Because, historically, dimensional mathematics came much

earlier than dimensionless mathematics, and was much easier to envisage in pictorial, sensory terms, dimensional mathematics became the de facto standard of mathematics, and science accepted only this kind of mathematics as having any bearing on reality. It rejected the ontology of numbers, especially of imaginary and complex numbers, of zero and infinity, of anything at all without dimensions. When Fourier mathematics appeared, with its dimensionless frequency aspect, and its dimensional spacetime aspect, the means at last became available to solve the Cartesian mind-body substance dualism problem and to have a comprehensive dimensional/dimensionless mathematics. However, only the Illuminati recognised this. Fourier himself, although he intuited that his new mathematics was fantastically powerful and had enormous range, didn’t realise it could be applied to the problem of mind. To this day, Fourier mathematics is found everywhere, but its ontological implications are resolutely ignored. No one outside the Illuminati has grasped that the Fourier frequency domain is the mental domain of the soul. Scientists regard the frequency domain as an unreal abstraction that allows spacetime problems to be considered from a different angle. No ontological significance is attributed to it. Science’s fanatical materialist ideology has blinded it to the truth.

The Mathematical Synthesis Thesis: Dimensional mathematics (r > 0) ... matter. Antithesis: Dimensionless mathematics (r = 0) ... mind. Synthesis: Dimensional and Dimensionless mathematics (r >= 0) ... mind and matter.

***** Scientific materialism, by rejecting mind, is an incomplete and inconsistent expression of mathematics, hence is false.

***** The r >= 0 designation is a useful shorthand for describing ontological mathematics. However, it’s somewhat simplistic. The r > 0 designation for scientific materialism masks the fact that science accepts only real numbers whereas ontological mathematics accepts imaginary numbers too, and thus

complex numbers. Moreover the r = 0 designation ignores infinity, the flip side of 0. Also, negative numbers aren’t formally recognised in this designation, though it should be understood that all negative numbers are just positive numbers under a reflection operation. No negative number is less than zero. Zero is the smallest number you can possibly get. A negative number is just a positive number in the opposite direction. It’s a matter of convention, not ontology, what counts as “negative” and what counts as “positive”. Anything positive can be rebranded negative, and vice versa, without any logical contradiction, i.e. there’s no absolute ontological standard of positive and negative. What matters is that, relatively, positive and negative numbers must both exist. All non-zero things can be considered absolutely positive, yet with a negative relative relationship with their mirror-image counterparts.

Buddhism Buddhism is the “spiritual” wing of scientific materialism, which is why so many scientists are attracted to it. The only real difference between Buddhism and scientific materialism is that the former puts a mental Singularity at the heart of reality, and the latter doesn’t. Both reject God and souls, and are all about process rather than substance.

Materialism Science doesn’t have to be materialistic. It could be hylozoistic, panpsychic or dialectical (teleological), but science refuses to consider the overthrow of nihilistic, atheistic, dead materialism. There’s no logic behind this stance. Science is a “night” dogmatism and ideology, desperately in need of daylight. Scientists are the undead, the people of the night, the benighted and endarkened, those who are as far from gnosis as it’s possible to get. To be enlightened you need an immortal mind, and that’s exactly what science denies!

German Idealism The great intellectual contest is between German idealism and rationalism on the one hand, and Anglo-American materialism and empiricism on the other. The latter leads inevitably to atheism, skepticism, cynicism, solipsism, nihilism, and to no answer to existence, while the former leads to

spirituality, meaning and teleology, and a definite answer to existence. Which side are you on?

The Rise of the Stupid It’s often reported that Americans are getting stupider and stupider, and reading fewer and fewer books. A major part of the reason for the spread of stupidity in America lies in the disjunction between the fact that American conservatives are highly religious, hence automatically opposed to the prevailing materialism and empiricism of the American liberal intelligentsia, hence simply do not believe them. In Britain, a highly unspiritual nation, the ordinary people are much more in thrall to scientific materialism and empiricism than in America, which is why so many of the most vocal atheists are British. Britain is the home of atheism, or such watered-down spirituality that it might as well be atheism. Only Britain could take seriously a movement such as “Sea of Faith”, which states that God doesn’t actually exist, but we should act as if he does, i.e. the Sea of Faith is the thing without the thing, the Church of God without God. As Lord Mancroft wryly observed, “Cricket is a game which the English, not being a spiritual people, have invented in order to give themselves some conception of eternity.”

Panpneumatism Panpneumatism (“all is spirit”; “spirit is everywhere”) is a higher synthesis of panlogism and panthelism. The Absolute is both Reason and Will. Ontological mathematics can be considered an expression of panpneumatism. It is mathematical reason driven by the insatiable mathematical will to optimise and solve itself. It’s this mathematical will that leads to apparent illogic, irrationalism, error, delusion and so on ... for the simple reason that an ontological mathematical living monad has no idea a priori how to solve itself, hence must undergo a vast number of experiments, trials and lessons, and seek to learn from them.

*****

If rationalism is the study of mathematical reason (Form), empiricism is the study of mathematical will (Content).

Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) According to Ernest Haeckel, there were only two possible positions in philosophy: dualism or monism. Dualism, he said, saw the world in terms of two opposed principles: material and immaterial (mental). Monism recognised only one substance, through which God and Nature, body and spirit, all had to be expressed. Haeckel considered monism the only truly rational philosophy. Therefore, his focus was on the nature of the substance in which matter and energy are inseparably bound together. This substance must be concerned with motion since all the all the laws of both mind and matter are laws of motion and the change that goes with that motion. Illuminism agrees with this analysis. The one substance that unites mind and matter is ontological mathematics, manifested through sinusoidal monads, with each sinusoid being in constant, eternal motion (dimensionlessly, or dimensionally). For Haeckel, the localization and instantiation of sentient energy was the soul, and souls evolved from simple to complex. Outside the formal world of mind, there was, according to Haeckel, sensory mass, and the imponderable ether in which mass moved. The ether, whatever it was, seemingly had extension and conveyed the mysterious energies of light, heat, electricity, and magnetism. The ether, Haeckel said, was neither gaseous, fluid, nor solid (i.e. any of the different forms that mass takes). He characterised it as structureless, yet infinite and ever active. It was a tremendous reservoir of potentiality (rather than actuality, of which mass was an expression). He reached the conclusion that everything divided into mutually convertible potential and actual energy. Haeckel’s views in these terms are not so different from Plato’s receptacle of becoming, or Aristotle’s prime matter, or Copenhagen quantum mechanics, which posits potentiality wavefunctions (which we might liken to Haeckel’s mysterious, intangible ether) and actualities (particles) that are plucked from them via specific observations. In the end, Haeckel conceived of the soul as deriving from some ultimate material protoplasm, saying, “All the phenomena of the psychic life are, without exception, bound up with certain material changes in the living substratum of the body – the protoplasm.” In other words, Haeckel

was a materialist rather than idealist, and considered psychology to be a branch of physiology, exactly as modern materialist neuroscientists do.

***** “In regards to philosophy, Haeckel’s importance resides in his monism, which was pantheistic. This monism proposed the unity of organic and physical nature, including social phenomena and mental processes. Although the initial theory was rather mechanistic, his later preoccupation with historical processes led his theory of the history of life into a monistic pantheism. “Haeckel strongly opposed the reductionist biophysics of Herman Helmholtz, and Emil Du Bois-Reymond. Rudolf Virchow’s theories of cellular organization, and Johannes Muller’s theories of vitalist comparative anatomy and physiology influenced Haeckel. He was further influenced by J. W. Goethe’s concept of morphology and the Philosophy of Nature of Friedrich Schelling. Haeckel was inspired by Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species to develop evolutionary theory scientifically and as a form of materialist ethics. The protoplasmic theory of the cell, developed by Max Schultze, prompted Haeckel’s idea that ‘Plasma’, or the cell substance, was equivalent to the first-formed life. Haeckel was led to conclude that all organisms were plasmatic bodies, their difference being on account of differences in the degrees of organization alone. Haeckel was by no means a conventional Darwinist, in so far as he linked his cell theory to evolutionary theory, and in so much as Haeckel argued that natural selection was circumspected by both environmental and historical forces. “Haeckel’s monism, first articulated in General Morphology (1866), argued that there is no fundamental difference between organic and inorganic nature, that is, life differed from inorganic nature only in virtue of the degree of its organization. Haeckel also proposed that substance united spirit and matter – resorting to the image of ‘crystal minds’ to convey the linkage between the two. In this work Haeckel proposed the two fundamental laws of substance, namely, the constancy of energy and material, and the law of the evolution from unformed to fully formed. For Haeckel, all mental capacity was derived from movement and sensitivity, while all morality was sourced from, and a development of, the social instincts of animals.

“In the 1870’s Haeckel developed the ‘biogenetic law’ that ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny, that is, the recapitulation law that each particular individual of a species embodied the entire evolution of the species. “Following the work of Herbert Spencer, Haeckel argued that higher evolved organisms required a centralized nervous system. That is, organisms with greater degrees of organization or differentiation required and possessed centralized coordination and control, the importance of which grew in concert with the organism’s degree of complexity and organization. Haeckel argued that such a hierarchy in organisms, conceptualized in Vischow’s egalitarian concept of ‘cell state’, finds a necessary parallel in social structures, as evidenced by the difference between empire and republic. “Haeckel’s theories regarding biology found extension in his politics. Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, was strongly condemned by Haeckel, who considered it nothing more than primitive superstition, in virtue of its deploration of nature. He proposed that instead of Christianity, it should be monism that becomes the basis of education and civic life. A dispute arose between Haeckel and Virchow on this account; while Virchow considered Darwinism to be but a hypothesis, Haeckel considered it to be nothing short of a law, and consequently, was led to reject modern liberal notions of free will. Haeckel was ultimately scientifically isolated, in virtue of disputes he had with others in the field, over the process of development and heredity. At the same time as his scientific isolation, Haeckel’s public popularity continued to increase. This popularity was on account of the contribution his ideas had for nineteenth century sociology, psychology and the early developments in psychoanalysis. Near the end of his productive life, Haeckel founded the Monist League (1909), in which he nonetheless encountered opposition to his pantheism. “Controversially, Haeckel is considered by some to have been a forerunner to German Nationalist Socialism, of the early to mid twentieth century. More specifically, the argument is that Haeckel’s monism provided the scientific basis for National Socialism. Haeckel was in fact very interested in Eugenics, and was an honorary member of the German Society for Racial Hygiene, from 1905 onwards. Additionally, Haeckel theorized an anthropology grounded on a procedural progression from primitive races to Modern Europeans. Moreover, Haeckel personally expressed anti-Semitism on occasion. In fact, many of Haeckel’s pronouncements tempt his readers

into ascribing to the view that he was a forefather of National Socialism, as for example his announcement that the death penalty is justified for irredeemable criminals, and that attributed less value to the weak and sick. Moreover, he also claimed that euthanasia has served a positive purpose for the Spartans’ military aptitude, in so far as it rid them of malformed and crippled new-borns. However, Haeckel was quick to point out that such uses of euthanasia had no place and no positive role in modern society, any more than modern man was still subject to the law of the survival of the fittest. Although some of these views suggest an affinity to Social Darwinism, the opposite is in fact the case, namely, recalling Haeckel’s view of how evolutionary theory is supplemented and effected by social and environmental factors, we can see that Haeckel’s stance is that Social Darwinism is redundant, and utterly useless in modern society. In short, his monistic theory, with its tangents, in no way founds or justifies antiSemitism, or any other form of racial discrimination, or worse. While Haeckel’s anthropology argues that primitive races were subject to the survival of the fittest, that is, survival of the fittest played a historical factor; it also argues that this is no longer the case in modern times. “Nonetheless, Nationalist Socialism idolized Haeckel on the basis of a misreading, selective reading, or incomplete reading of this theories. Haeckel was also revered by materialists, such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and German socialists such as Walter Ulbricht, who saw him as furthering their cause and argument. Although this too was a partial distortion of his views, it was not a negative one, for being a forefather of Fascism as opposed to a hand of Communism, is analogous to the difference between primitivism and the highest of civilization. “Lastly, Haeckel also influenced Sigmund Freud, the movement for homosexual rights, as well as countless artists and authors; in large part, this influence was from his controversial theory of evolutionary ethics.” – http://www.egs.edu/library/ernst-haeckel/biography/ It’s no wonder that Lenin approved of Haeckel’s theories. They seem remarkably consistent with Marxist dialectical materialism. With Marx and Haeckel, we see other ways in which science might have progressed, with teleology added rather than subtracted (as it is in scientific materialism). Haeckel, a strong proponent of Darwinism, had a radically different version of Darwinism in mind from that of Richard Dawkins. Darwinism

doesn’t have to be randomist, accidental and materialist. It can easily be merged with Lamarck’s ideas, which means nothing other than injecting teleological minds into the evolutionary process. No one should be in any doubt that scientific materialism is science with all trace of mind, life, feeling, desire, intuition, imagination, teleology, meaning, will, consciousness, self-activity and agency removed. As soon as mind, and all it entails, is added to science, scientific materialism automatically fails. It is in fact incredibly easy to add mind to science. You do it via a mental Singularity of monads. This is an immaterial Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. This very Singularity was what produced the Big Bang. It did so using pure math, not science! By adding a frequency domain outside space and time to a material domain inside space and time, you bring together mind (frequency) and matter (spacetime). Automatically, given this dual-aspect ontology, the reign of scientific materialism is over.

Paulsen (1846-1908) “[Paulsen] was the greatest of the pupils of Gustav Theodor Fechner, to whose doctrine of panpsychism he gave great prominence ... He went, however, considerably beyond Fechner in attempting to give an epistemological account of the knowledge of the psychophysical. Admitting Kant’s hypothesis that by inner sense we are conscious of mental states only, he holds that this consciousness constitutes a knowledge of the thingin-itself which Kant denies. Soul is, therefore, a practical reality which Paulsen, with Schopenhauer, regards as known by the act of will. But this will is neither rational desire, unconscious irrational will, nor conscious intelligent will, but an instinct, a will to live, often subconscious, pursuing ends, indeed, but without reasoning as to means. This conception of will, though consistent and convenient to the main thesis, must be rigidly distinguished from the ordinary significance of will, i.e. rational desire.” – Wikipedia

***** “During Haeckel’s lifetime, philosophy and science diverged to the point that he could be criticized by professional philosophers as a mere scientist. This was exacerbated by his arrogant claims that natural science had solved problems that traditional philosophy found intractable. He drew the ire of

noted philosophers of the day, most notoriously Friedrich Paulsen. Paulsen himself was a panpsychist who had advocated a view that was substantially in agreement with Haeckel’s. ... Paulsen disliked Haeckel’s claim that evolutionary theory was the key to philosophical progress and his belief that both religion and classical metaphysics had been defeated by natural science. ... “[Paulsen’s views on panpsychism] were substantially in line with those of Fechner, Schopenhauer and Leibniz. “[Paulsen attacks] the basis of materialism. He claims that the materialistic theory that ‘all reality is corporeal or the manifestation of corporeality’ is an inadequate conception of reality. He immediately adopts an idealist standpoint: ‘Bodies have [only] phenomenal existence ... Their entire essence is a content of perception.’ He then attributes to materialist philosophers two views: that ‘states of consciousness ... are effects of physical states’ (epiphenomenalism) and that ‘states of consciousness ... are nothing but physical states of the brain’ (identity theory). He dismisses the second view, that ‘thoughts are movements in the brain,’ by claiming that such a statement has no meaning. One is then obliged to consider that the physical and the psychical bear some sort of relationship to one another. This relationship must be either interactionist (and hence causal) or parallelist (and acausal). Materialism, Paulsen claims, typically opts for the former. But this involves a ‘transformation of motion or force into thought,’ resulting in a ‘destruction of energy’ in the physical realm – a recognized impossibility. Similarly, a transference from the mental to the physical world would appear as ‘creation out of nothing’ and hence is impossible. Thus, one is forced to conclude that a form of parallelism must be true. “Parallelism, or acausality, logically assumes that the mental does not affect the physical, and conversely that the physical does not affect the mental. The first condition leads one to the view that ‘the living body is an automaton’, albeit a complex and sophisticated one. Of the second, Paulsen states that psychical events, such as a particular sensation, must have a cause; since the cause cannot be physical (under the conditions of parallelism), then it must be psychical – that is, mental/psychical events are caused only by other such (preceding) events. “Paulsen concludes, along with Spinoza and Fechner, that physical events move along in corporeal causal chains, mental events move along in psychical causal chains, and the two chains simply proceed together; they

are ‘concomitant.’ Furthermore, Paulsen claims that of the two chains the psychical is the more fundamental, because it is ‘the representation of reality as it is by itself and for itself’. He attributes this advance to Leibniz. And it justifies Paulsen’s claim that such a view is a form of idealism. “Paulsen then addresses the issue of panpsychism: In which physical structures does this parallel chain of events exist? Like Schopenhauer, he begins introspectively: Each person is directly aware of his own mental states. He then extends this by analogy to other human beings and deduces the existence of others’ mental states. The crucial question is ‘How far may this inference be extended?’ The commonly accepted view (at the time) was to include all animals, but Paulsen notes that there is no sharp dividing line between animals and plants; therefore the rational conclusion is that plants possess an inner life as well. “Finally Paulsen arrives at the main point of contention: the inorganic world. ... ‘The same forces act in organic as well as in organic bodies.’” – David Skrbina, Panpsychism in the West

***** There are two main ways of addressing the mind-body problem, i.e. the problem of how, if the mind and matter are two different substances, they can have any relationship with each other: 1) One way is to deny that they are in fact different systems, so 1) mind is actually matter, or an effect or epiphenomenon of matter, or 2) matter is actually mind or an effect or construct of mind. 2) Mind and matter run in parallel to each other and are somehow correlated or concomitant (naturally accompanying each other), by God’s will, occasionalism, a pre-established harmony, being two different views of the same thing, two aspects of one substance, opposite sides of one coin, or whatever. In Illuminism, matter is a construct of mind, but it’s a well-founded phenomenon, so much so that we can in some sense regard it as a separate but compatible substance (rather than separate and incompatible). The way to make mind and matter compatible and interactive is to find a means to present each in terms of the other. There is only one way to accomplish this ... ontological Fourier mathematics.

In traditional science, mathematics and engineering, Fourier mathematics is just a technique for representing the same information in two different domains: spacetime and frequency. People who use Fourier mathematics typically regard it as a way of getting two views of the same thing, hence of deriving extra, useful information, unavailable from one view alone. In other words, it’s treated as nothing but a helpful tool, revealing a different angle on something. It’s certainly not treated in ontological terms, i.e. as signifying how reality is actually constituted. Fourier mathematics tells us that there are two distinct ontological domains, or two domains that can be treated as if they are ontologically distinct: a frequency domain of mind, and a spacetime domain of matter. The forward inverse Fourier transform allows spacetime functions to be represented as frequency functions, and the inverse Fourier transform allows frequency functions to be represented as spacetime functions. However, the situation is actually much more complicated than that, which is why ontological Fourier mathematics cannot be considered equivalent to conventional Fourier mathematics, but, rather, a radical extension of it. Here are the extra complexities that have to be considered: 1) Each monadic mind is an independent, autonomous, Fourier frequency domain, capable of subjective self-determination (free will). Each individual Fourier frequency domain can project its own Fourier spacetime domain, and this is exactly how we generate private, subjective dreamworlds during our sleep. 2) All of the monadic minds can act together (as the Monadic Ensemble) to form a single, collective, objective Fourier frequency domain, which can then project a single, collective, objective Fourier spacetime domain (i.e. the material world of Nature). 3) Only a narrow range of low-energy frequencies can be ontologically projected in spacetime terms. In Leibnizian terms, we would say that the low-energy band is the passive aspect of the monad (associated with matter and unclearness), while the highenergy band is the active aspect of the monad (associated with form and clarity). When all of these considerations are taken into account, a complex picture emerges, involving the following ingredients:

1) Frequency domain: individual monads; high-energy; exclusively mental; cannot be projected or represented in spacetime terms. 2) Frequency domain: individual monads; low-energy; can be projected or represented in spacetime terms. 3) Frequency domain: the collection of monads; high-energy; exclusively mental; cannot be projected or represented in spacetime terms. 4) Frequency domain: the collection of monads; low-energy; can be projected or represented in spacetime terms. 5) Spacetime domain: low-energy; produced by individual monads; private dreamspace. 6) Spacetime domain: low-energy; produced by the collection of monads: the waking, public world. The following scenarios can be described: 1) The Monadic Collective projects a low-energy, spacetime, material world. 2) Individual monads, in their high energy, mental capacity, interact with this collective spacetime world. They do so by taking control of material bodies in spacetime, and thus they animate those bodies. 3) Individual monads, in their low energy, mental capacity, generate their own private spacetime worlds = dreams. (Science, it must be noted, has never been able to account for how dreams are generated.) 4) Spacetime, material functions can interact with other spacetime, material functions. 5) Within an individual monad, mental functions can interact with other mental functions. 6) Mental functions of individual monads can interact with the spacetime functions of the Monadic Collective.

7) Spacetime functions of the Monadic Collective can interact with the mental functions of individual monads. 8) Mental functions of individual monads can interact with mental functions of other individual monads, thus allowing direct mind-tomind interaction outside spacetime rather than mind-to-mind interactions mediated by bodies in spacetime. This would be the basis for many paranormal and psychic phenomena, including Jungian synchronicity, and would pave the way for mind reading, telepathy, the Jungian Collective Unconscious, and a future Collective Consciousness. So, we have interactions of the following four kinds: 1) mind-matter (frequency-spacetime), 2) matter-mind (spacetime-frequency), 3) mattermatter (spacetime-spacetime), 4) mind-mind (frequency-frequency). All of this is conducted via Fourier mathematics, which is the only conceivable means for allowing two different domains (frequency = mind and spacetime = matter) to interact. Fourier mathematics is the sole way of solving the mind-matter interactivity problem. As ever, it’s all in the math. It’s absolutely impossible for any physicalist scientific theory to address the mind-matter interactivity problem. Fourier mathematics is the basis of psychophysics, physics, metaphysics and biophysics. Above all, it’s the basis of holography, and this universe of ours is a holographic universe. Matter is ultimately a projection of mind.

***** Mind-matter interactions can additionally be considered from a different angle, one relying on the individual monad (mind) versus the collection of monads (the source of matter): 1) Mind-mind (individual-individual). 2) Matter-mind (collective-individual). 3) Mind-matter (individual-collective). 4) Matter-matter (collective-collective). What is free will? It’s the exercise of individual subjective agency within collective objectivity. Science denies individual subjective agency (autonomous mind), hence denies free will. In science, only collective

objectivity is assumed to exist. No equation or formula of science involves the capacity of anything to operate autonomously, in accord with its own internal reasons, tastes, desires, feelings, purposes or will. Will, in general, is entirely lacking in science.

Veil of Appearance “Veil of Appearance: Sense data viewed as interposing between the experiencer and the external world. Since the revival in the late 1500s of the classical Greek Skepticism most people with what Hume was to call ‘the slightest philosophy’ have taken it that all of which we are or can be immediately aware is our own private experience. The sensory elements in this experience are thus viewed as standing forever between us and the external world (if such, indeed, there be). The rising opposition to this once established view describes sense data so conceived as the veil of appearance.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The entire basis of science is that the external world really exists and is really made of matter, but there is zero evidence or proof for this claim. The “veil of appearance” hides the supposed external, material world forever. We can never empirically know if such a world exists. Therefore, science, an empirical subject, is a farce from the get-go since it’s not compatible with empiricism! It stakes everything on the existence of “matter”, but, in its own terms, it can never know if there is any such thing as matter. Matter is simply a heuristic fiction.

“God” “[The] truth of the existence of God [is] as clearly demonstrable as any theorem in mathematics.” – Henry More In fact, “God” is actually the God Equation and is mathematics!

Mach “Ernst Mach: Austrian philosopher and physicist. Mach is widely regarded as the father of logical positivism. His philosophy is radically empiricist. The mind is allowed no power to know or understand things beyond its own sensations, and scientific theory is not the discovery of real things apart from our sensations, but a device for predicting their course. The logical positivists took from this not only the foundational approach to knowledge

based on sense experience, but also the consequence of the fundamental unity of science – all sciences have the same subject matter: sensation. Mach’s criticism of concepts that try to go beyond their empirical role influenced Einstein. His philosophy was criticized by Lenin as surreptitiously idealist and solipsistic.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The whole of science is “radically empiricist”. Science, unlike math, is emphatically not “radically rationalist”. That’s its whole problem. It’s simply not a rational, logical, analytic discipline. To say, as Mach did, that the mind is allowed no power to know or understand things beyond its own sensations, is to rule out the whole rationalist enterprise, since “sensations” are not inherently rational, logical, analytic entities (as numbers are). To base everything on sensations is to claim that this is an inherently sensible rather than intelligible world, that it’s not grounded in reason, logic and math. A sensible, empirical, scientific world can have no answer. An intelligible, rational, mathematical world can, and does. Mach claimed that a scientific theory cannot tell us anything about a reality separate from our sensations, in which case he was advocating a Kantian stance that we can “know” only phenomena (appearances) and never noumena (things in themselves). The entire scientific community buys into this sensory faith and fanatically denies the existence of all hidden variables and rational unobservables. Science automatically goes from claiming that we can’t “know” the noumenal world to asserting that the noumenal world doesn’t exist at all. Where Kant reserved the noumenal world for God, the soul and freedom – a world beyond the reach of science – science, with its zealous hatred of God, the soul and free will, simply abolished the world in itself, leaving nothing but a world of superficial appearances that don’t explain anything. All that Machian science can do is predict what patterns of sensations we will have, what we are likely to observe, when we look at the world. It can tell us literally zero about reality in itself. It can tell us zero about “God”, the God Equation, the mind, the soul, life, the afterlife, consciousness, the unconscious, free will, purpose, meaning, the “why” of existence, logic, the principle of sufficient reason. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, addresses all of these. That’s precisely why we have to

leave behind science and the senses (the world of phenomena) and move to mathematics and reason (the world of noumena ... of reality as it actually is rather than how it appears to us). Mathematics is the unseen reality behind everything, not “God”, or the “Buddha Mind”, or “Brahman”, or “Tao”, or any other spiritual speculation. Empiricism always degenerates into nihilism, skepticism and solipsism. Although empiricism and materialism are always linked scientifically, philosophically they have no connection at all, as Lenin (a dialectical materialist) understood all too well. John Locke was a materialist empiricist, but his successors, Bishop Berkeley and David Hume, were, respectively, an idealist empiricist and an outright skeptical and solipsistic empiricist. Empiricism has no necessary connection with materialism and is in fact much more logically allied to idealism, which makes empiricist scientific materialism all the more ridiculous!

***** Einstein, like Mach, rejected “concepts that try to go beyond their empirical role”. This is exactly why Einstein’s theory of relativity is false. The frequency Singularity (Cosmic Mind), which stands at the dead centre of the universe, and wholly defines the universe, is a mathematical, not an empirical entity. It’s this Singularity that falsifies Einstein’s theory by introducing an absolute “ether” that renders all spacetime states absolute (not relative), yet science refuses to consider any such Singularity, so blindly goes on promoting a rationally absurd theory that defies objective reality and is demonstrably incompatible with Bell’s inequality and the experiments that have proved Bell’s inequality. In other words, experimental evidence already exists that falsifies Einsteinian relativity, yet no scientist realises this because their Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism actually makes it impossible to falsify Einstein’s theory within that Meta Paradigm (all the elements that falsify the theory are systematically ignored or rejected). It’s not just Einstein’s theory that has been falsified, it’s the entire Meta Paradigm of science! Popper’s principle of falsification is therefore absurd because evidence that does indeed falsify a particular theory is actively ignored by science if it challenges science’s core assumptions. In other words, scientists accept “falsification” only in extremely limited circumstances that do not threaten the basis on which science is currently

conducted. It requires one of Kuhn’s famous paradigm shifts in order to falsify the prevailing scientific Meta Paradigm. This type of “paradigm falsification” involves the wholesale replacement of a prior scientific philosophy. Scientific materialism and empiricism is a philosophy, not a science, and it can be completely replaced with scientific idealism and rationalism, which is fully compatible with those experiments proving Bell’s inequality and refuting Einsteinian relativity. Science is an astoundingly bad philosophy that has already been experimentally disproved! Science, therefore, qualifies as a religion, a blind faith that stands defiantly against reason, logic, evidence and proof.

***** Mach’s whole ideology fails once it is realised that every sensation is simply Content, or “empirical information”, and each is necessarily accompanied by Form, the rational information carrier. With our senses, we always encounter the information carried, and never the information carrier. With our reason, our intellect – not our senses! – we can reach the world of the information carrier, the world of math. Scientists – with their total inability to conceive of noumena – have never grasped this simple point. If scientists were rational people, they would understand noumena. Scientists, however, are sensory people, hence “understand” only phenomena. All scientific theories without exception disregard the noumenal world of reality in itself, and that’s why all scientific theories are fundamentally and inherently false. What science offers is a useful model for manipulating the sensory, empirical, phenomenal world. It can tell us nothing whatsoever about the non-sensory, rational, noumenal world. Only math can go there. You are an absolute fool if you have not fathomed that the scientific world of empirical phenomena sits on top of the mathematical world of rational noumena. That’s exactly why science is powered by math, even though an empiricist subject has no right at all to appeal to the quintessential rationalist subject. It’s math that gives science its “truth”, not sensory experiments. Alchemy was all about detailed sensory experiments and scrupulous observation. It had no math, however, hence was useless. So, where are the alchemists now? In fact, today’s scientists are the modern alchemists, and they still haven’t twigged that it was only the introduction of math that raised their alchemy above the level of a primitive superstition.

***** The shadow of Mach and the logical positivists continues to cloak science in intellectual darkness. Science claims that knowledge is based on sense experience when, in fact, it is based on reason and logic, and has nothing to do with the senses. Knowledge – ultimate knowledge, the knowledge of reality in itself – is entirely mathematical, not scientific. Mach and the logical positivists said that all sciences have the same subject matter: sensation. This is certainly true. The catastrophic problem is that all sciences would be useless without math, and math, as ontological Form, has nothing to do with sensation. It has never dawned on any scientist that sensation is Content, and all Content must be accompanied by Form. Math – ontologically – has a dual aspect. One side is Form (rationalism), the other is Content (empiricism). Science studies the latter side, while being oblivious to the existence of the former. However, via its use of math – a use which it has never rationally justified and would find it impossible to logically defend – it ends up inadvertently reflecting the other side of the coin, which is of course exactly why science is successful. Despite its wholly fallacious ideology, science works well practically ... because it uses math force-fitted to observed experimental patterns. Math, not experiments, is the real, unacknowledged, and disgracefully ignored, truth of science. Experiments without math are useless (they are mere alchemy). Math, however, is at its most powerful exactly when it has entirely dispensed with experiments. We can thank the likes of Newton, Mach, Einstein, the logical positivists, Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Feynman and Hawking for the disgraceful scientific falsification of reality. These supreme heroes of science are the bitterest enemies of the Truth. They are defenders of the great Lie that this is a sensible world of sensations rather than an intelligible world of reason. Science desperately needs to undergo a fundamental paradigm shift. It must move away from its obsession with experiments and the senses, and embrace reason and mathematics – all of math! Phenomenal, sensory, scientific materialism and empiricism must acknowledge the primacy of noumenal, non-sensory, scientific idealism and rationalism. Leibniz, not Newton, must become the greatest hero of science.

Eternity Scientists are completely unable to comprehend the concept of eternity. This is a non-empirical notion, hence is unthinkable to scientists. If there’s an eternal order of existence – such as that of God or the God Equation – then a specific state of such an order necessarily precedes the Big Bang universe of space and time. Scientists are in the habit of saying that it’s meaningless to refer to any state “before” the beginning of time. This is to commit an automatic fallacy of assuming that only temporal states can precede temporal states. In Abrahamism, “God” – an eternal being – is outside space and time when he creates the world of space and time, i.e. a “God state” precedes a temporal state. In ontological mathematics, a purely mathematical state – part of an eternal order of mathematics – precedes the Big Bang. So, there’s no contradiction whatsoever in asking what came before the Big Bang, and every scientist who argues otherwise is simply revealing their philosophical illiteracy. It’s a blatant logical error to maintain that a temporal state must precede another temporal state, and then, in the same breath, to say that there was a beginning in time (meaning that a temporal state did not precede it!). Unless you claim, as science in fact does (!), that a miracle preceded the Big Bang then, rationally and logically, a specific state preceded the Big Bang, and this state is of necessity not a temporal state. Scientists refuse to consider any such state because its existence would automatically falsify scientific materialism.

***** According to science, there was no space and no time before the Big Bang, there was no light before the Big Bang, no atoms, no eternal order, no mathematical order, no mental order, and in fact absolutely nothing at all. This means that science is left to appeal to nothing but random miracles to get the Big Bang going – which is exactly why science is the worst possible explanation of reality, and the only one that relies on miracles and magic. Here’s a question for all Einsteinians – where was Einstein’s theory of relativity prior to the Big Bang, before space, time and matter existed? Is it a theory of magic that magics itself into existence? In ontological mathematics, everything that is used in space and time already existed in precursor form in the mathematical frequency Singularity

that preceded the spacetime Big Bang.

Kalām “Kalām: (Arabic for speech). In Islamic philosophy the adducing of philosophical proofs to justify religious doctrine. The word is often translated as ‘Muslim scholastic theology’.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Science uses (abuses) math to justify its materialist and empiricist ideology.

Heuristic “Heuristic: Serving to indicate or stimulate investigation. In many cases it involves proceeding to a solution by trial and error in the absence of an algorithm. In modern logic, the word describes a process that may solve a particular kind of problem but offers no guarantee of success.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Science is a purely heuristic undertaking, which offers absolutely no guarantee (or indeed any possibility) of success in explaining ultimate reality. It’s nothing but trial and error dressed up as a “method”.

Material Idealism “One of the difficulties in understanding Kant’s attitude toward idealism is that he distinguished several kinds of idealism ... [According to Kant], material idealism and material realism are concerned with matter, or alternatively, with extended, impenetrable bodies. There are two basic forms that material idealism can take. One kind is metaphysical, concerning the existence of matter, and the other is epistemological, concerning the possibility of certainty that matter exists. Thus, the metaphysical material idealist denies the existence of matter, and the epistemological material idealist claims that the existence of matter cannot be known with certainty.” – G. J. Mattey Scientists are material realists. They believe that matter actually exists, although they can offer no evidence or proof whatsoever that it does. Material idealists assert that what is imagined to be matter is nothing but a set of ideas in our minds. There is no such thing as scientific matter, or, if

there is, we could never have any knowledge of it at all, so it might as well not exist.

Knowledge “Knowledge” comes in various types. Mythos believers consider claims in alleged “holy” books – supposedly revealed by God to prophets or gurus – to be infallible knowledge. To non-believers, such claims are absurd, and religious texts don’t contain any knowledge at all, i.e. they have zero truth content. Empiricists believe that their experiences constitute “knowledge”. However, does the experience of dreaming, or being irrational, or being insane, constitute “knowledge”, or pure delusion and fantasy? Many empiricists believe that the senses provide us with knowledge. But what about optical illusions? And what is it we think our senses are showing us? According to Kant, we project an appearance onto the world, which otherwise doesn’t have an appearance. So, what does “knowledge” mean if our own minds constructed it, and it has no validity outside our minds? For a rationalist, “knowledge” relates to those things that are eternally, infallibly knowable ... such as the laws of ontological mathematics. Many people regard this as abstract, empty, tautological knowledge that has no connection with the “real” world. Of course, these doubters are totally wrong if existence is in fact 100% mathematical. One of the problems concerning the human discourse concerning knowledge is that people think they are talking about the same thing when in fact they don’t agree at all on what knowledge is. A believer can’t understand how anyone can regard Biblical or Koranic “knowledge” as ridiculous drivel. An empiricist can’t understand how anyone can regard sensory, experimental “facts” as mere interpretations, conjectures, beliefs and opinions. A rationalist can’t believe that people don’t accept the eternal truths of reason as infallible, absolute knowledge. You must always establish what kind of “knowledge” a particular claim belongs to. To confuse different types (or sources) of knowledge is to fall into category errors, and such things as Kant’s “transcendental illusions”. A huge amount of human debate involves people futilely talking at crosspurposes and relying on types of knowledge that are utterly rejected by others.

Sensible and Intelligible The sensible world relies on the senses, which deal in sensory intuitions. The intelligible world relies on the intellect, which deals in concepts. So, do you understand ultimate reality via sensory intuitions or concepts? This amounts to asking whether ultimate reality is sensory or non-sensory, whether it’s made of non-reason (random miracles) or reason (math).

Physics and Metaphysics Physics deals with the sensible world of sensory intuitions. Metaphysics deals with the intelligible world of concepts. Kant held that the soul is purely intelligible, hence is an object of reason and conceptualization. It has nothing to do with the sensible world and sensory intuitions. Kant argued that it was a category error to apply sensible considerations to intelligible entities. Sensory intuitions should play no part in their representation In other words, he maintained, it was intrinsically wrong to attempt to picture the soul as a “thing” in space and time. The soul is indeed rational, conceptual and logical. It has nothing to do with the sensible world in any naive, scientific way. It’s an immaterial, analytic entity in the frequency domain outside space and time. It’s entirely defined by mathematics. The soul is an intelligible, not a sensible entity, and its operations and effects must be considered purely conceptually, metaphysically and mathematically.

Matter and Soul Matter has to be physically present at a location to have an effect. Soul is never physically present at the location where it has an effect.

Matter and Life The principle of life is never found in matter. Physics can never discover it. The principle of life is metaphysical. It’s solely found in entities of an immaterial nature.

Vitalism

“Vitalism: An often elusive doctrine, ultimately inspired by Aristotle, which holds that the phenomenon of life cannot be fully explained in purely material terms, but that it is something non-material in living organisms that differentiates them from inanimate bodies. For some vitalists, but not Aristotle himself, these vital elements are entities that could significantly be said to survive the dissolution of their organisms. Following the considerable advances in biological science in the 19th century, vitalists (sometimes referred to as neo-vitalists) such as the biologist-philosopher Hans Driesch (1867-1941) opposed the doctrine of mechanism which claimed that activities (for example growth and reproduction) that characterize all living things can be accounted for in terms of physicochemical processes. According to Driesch, such activities were due to entelechies defined as autonomous, mindlike, non-spatial entities that exercise control over the course of organic processes.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The monad is the entelechy, the vital element, which controls organic processes. The monad is the refutation of mechanism and materialism. It’s the monad that survives death. It’s the monad that drives Darwinian evolution.

What is a Thought? Outside of the Illuminati, it has never been understood that it’s essential to define what a thought is in itself. So, what are the candidates? Materialists claim that thought is something that miraculously emerges when certain kinds of lifeless, mindless atoms are organised in certain ways. They can provide zero details. Mystics say that a thought is some kind of energy or vibration, but, again, they can provide no details. A thought in itself is in fact a sinusoidal wave, and, from this, everything else – the entire nature of existence – follows. Equating a thought to a sinusoidal wave that can be used in Fourier mathematics is the greatest intellectual breakthrough of all time. When its consequences are eventually understood by scientists, philosophers and mathematicians, it will revolutionize the human race like nothing before. By identifying a thought as a dimensionless sinusoid, ontological mathematics, based on such sinusoids, becomes a mental rather than

physical system.

Where? Scientists always say, “Where’s your evidence?” They regard this as their decisive, trump card. However, to make such a statement is simply to buy into the fallacious sensory Mythos that all real things must be objects available to the senses, and that all statements must be justifiable and verifiable in sensory terms. Neither religion, spirituality nor noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics has anything at all to do with the senses, so it’s an instant category error – a total failure of logic – for scientific sensing types to demand that others – non-sensing types – should subject themselves to sensory requirements and expectations. Scientific objections are wholly irrelevant to all non-sensory considerations. Only reason and logic can be used to probe the non-sensory world and establish the truth or falsehood of any claims regarding that world.

***** “Up to the Twentieth Century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality. Ninety-nine percent of all that is going to affect our tomorrows is being developed by humans using instruments and working in ranges of reality that are nonhumanly sensible.” – R. Buckminster Fuller

As Above, So Below “World Soul: An analogue, in the world as a whole, of the human soul or mind. Anti-materialist in conception, the idea is founded on the view that the world is productive of life and animation, and can therefore be regarded as itself animate.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Materialists say that the body creates the mind, i.e. matter is the source of mind. Oddly enough, given this “logic”, there’s nothing to stop materialists from concluding that all of the moons, planets, stars and galaxies of the cosmos create a Cosmic Mind ... the equivalent of God! If the human body can create a human mind, why can’t the matter of the moon create a Moon

Mind, or the matter of the Earth create an Earth Mind (Gaia), or the matter of the Sun a Sun Mind (Ra)? Why has no materialist ever explained why some types of matter, and some organisations of matter, produce mind and life, but every other type of matter, and every other organisation of matter, does not? Scientists more or less claim that life and mind are anomalous, statistically improbable (enormously so) expressions of death and mindlessness (i.e. the ordinary, inert, material state). Scientists say, in effect, that life is an abnormal state of death, and mind an abnormal state of mindlessness. In Illuminism, each monadic soul can control a material body. The collection of all monadic souls controls the entire body of matter (i.e. the cosmos), hence the Monadic Collective is the World Soul. It’s an immaterial Singularity outside space and time, and it uses objective mathematics to direct the universe. There’s absolutely no contradiction between a World Soul and a “scientific” universe. The World Soul is not a personality, not a theistic God. It does, however, carry out all those functions of God that do not rely on personality, morality, prophets, gurus, holy texts, revelation, faith, Mythos, and so on. A cosmos ruled by a mathematical World Soul outside space and time, could, to the intellectually naive (i.e. scientists), seem indistinguishable, at first sight, from a spacetime cosmos of matter entirely lacking a World Soul. Soulless science uses math, and so does the World Soul (Singularity) of ontological mathematics. Whether a World Soul exists or not then becomes an entirely mathematical issue. Do the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics seem more consistent with a World Soul/Cosmos arrangement, or a Cosmos/No World Soul arrangement? How you answer that question depends entirely on how well you understand the ontology of Fourier mathematics. Scientists don’t understand mathematical ontology at all, hence they treat math as a bizarre abstraction that, by pure accident (indeed miraculously!) seems to be ideal for describing a universe that scientists claim is 100% non-mathematical! Scientists insist that the cosmos is made of inherently non-mathematical “stuff”, then go right ahead and define it entirely mathematically. That’s scientific “logic” for you! If math is unrivalled in its capacity to explain the universe and its operations then the universe is of course mathematical. It’s inconceivable

that a non-mathematical universe could ever be described mathematically. Nothing can be “like” mathematics and not be mathematics. Mathematics is unique. It has no imitators. Science is the most bizarre subject because it makes two clear, and totally contradictory, assertions, namely: 1) the universe is definitely not made of math, and 2) mathematics is the means by which science will describe this non-mathematical universe. Figure that out! It’s simple. If math is our tool for describing the universe then it’s literally insane not to regard the universe as purely mathematical. Science is nothing but math subjected to an absurd philosophy of empiricism and materialism. It’s “phenomenal” math. When you strip away empiricism and materialism from science – i.e. when you remove science’s bogus, antiintellectual, irrational, untenable, sensory philosophy – you are left with noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics alone: pure, nonsensory, analytic mathematics in itself ... mathematics with no appearance whatsoever. Sensory people (scientists) simply can’t conceive of mathematics without an appearance, and so they give it one, and they do so in an utterly fallacious way. Only genuine intellectuals – mathematicians, philosophers, logicians, rationalists and metaphysicists – can contemplate math without any appearance. The immaterial Singularity outside space and time, which is the eternal source of all things, has no appearance whatsoever. The senses are useless with regard to it, and all scientific experiments are equally useless with regard to it. It’s an object of pure math, pure reason, pure logic, pure analysis. Only the smartest human beings in world history are capable of pondering the mysteries of the Singularity – the Monad of monads. Are you one of the geniuses? Can you transcend your emotions, desires, senses, mystical intuitions and human consciousness? Only those who can escape their own humanity can understand ultimate (non-human) reality. Pure math is all that remains when you remove every trace of humanity from the consideration of what came before humanity. Math is the least human subject of all, which is exactly why it’s considered cold, clinical, abstract, “empty”, and why it’s the most feared and loathed subject on earth, and also the most badly taught and most scandalously misinterpreted.

Only the greatest humans can recognise math for what it is – the unsullied, infallible, absolute, necessary, eternal, unarguable, irrefutable, indisputable Truth! Everything that involves human considerations is false and wrong ... mired in belief, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, supposition, faith, hope, desire, interpretation and Mythos. It’s math or nothing. Math is absolute. Everything else is relative. If you want a unique, infallible, analytic answer to existence, math is the sole candidate. All other “answers” are as good or bad as each other. They are just opinions. Math ensures that we live in one absolute universe with one absolute answer. Anything else would ensure that we live in a relative universe with as many relative opinions about it as there are people. Many of our opponents are out-and-out relativists who claim that everyone has their own answer to existence, and it’s as valid as anyone else’s. This belief amounts to the total denial of objective knowledge, the total denial of Truth, the total denial of any absolute Platonic standards. It amounts to narcissism elevated to total insanity. If you really imagine that you posses the answer to everything, and that answer is based on nothing but various prophets and gurus you’ve read, various experiences you’ve had, various ruminations you’ve engaged in, and has no connection with the ultimate objective discipline – math – then you are living in your own fantasy world. Sadly, that’s where nearly all of humanity lives. “God” (or Plato’s Form of the Good) was the original absolute standard, against which all things could be judged. Ontological mathematics replaces God with the God Equation. Nietzsche proclaimed that God is dead. What he meant by that is that absolute standards are dead (or don’t exist), hence we live in a relativistic world. However, Nietzsche, unlike conventional relativists, denied that all opinions are as good or valid as each other. Nietzsche said that every opinion or belief system is invested with a Will to Power, and the Will to Power is the determinant of what is “true” and what is false. In other words, Nietzsche’s system, for all of its brilliance, ultimately reduces to the most simple, blunt, stark and grim message of all: Might is Right. Those with the highest will to power will prevail, and they will define the “truth” ... their truth. The victors write history. Illuminism asserts, on the contrary, that the Will to Truth will prevail. The Truth, as it turns out, is the most powerful thing of all since reality, in

the end, always defeats fantasy. The smartest people in the world – those with the closest relationship with the Truth – will be able to harness powers unimaginable to all those opposed to the Truth. Everyone who opposes the Truth – the greatest power of all – will be crushed by the Truth. Fantasy gods, absurd beliefs, narcissism, egotism, megalomania, greed, selfishness, psychopathy, and so on ... none of these will help you to defeat the Truth. The Truth is the Hammer, the obliterator of all delusions. When the Truth comes knocking on your door, all the relativism you like, all the lies, delusions and fantasies in the world, won’t protect you. The Truth is the Grim Reaper. You can’t debate with it. You can only understand it. If you do, you yourself will become the Grim Reaper for all those who obstruct the Truth, all those who stand in the way of the Light! Only the Illuminati are on the side of the Truth and Light. We are the mathematikoi, and mathematics is the one and only answer to everything. All the fools who oppose us will be destroyed by the Truth, by Math. So it goes.

The Fear Why are scientists so terrified of panpsychism, hylozoism and dialectical materialism? It’s because all of these radically undermine science’s dogmatic ideology of empiricism and materialism. There’s also a technical reason ... none of these can be modelled using the prevailing formulae of science. Science is all about passive laws. There are no agents in science, nothing capable of free will and free action. There’s no “fire” in any scientific equation, nothing that animates it and makes it an active agent in the world.

The God Series One of the greatest of all concepts presented in this revolutionary God Series of Illuminist books is the identification of dimensionless sinusoids with thoughts. The God Series has several purposes, and one of the most important is to locate a new genius of the calibre of Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Fourier, Riemann and Gödel.

There has been no great (i.e. world historic) scientist since John Bell died in 1990, and no great mathematician since Gödel died in 1978. Science and mathematics now produce intellectual pygmies, extremely narrow, blinkered, over-specialised individuals with no imagination or vision. We need a Renaissance thinker, a genius of the highest order, someone who will do an absolutely astounding thing. He, or she, will demonstrate how to produce a sinusoidal wavefunction that equates simply to, “I shall now raise my arm.” With that, humanity will enter a brand new age ... one where agency – free will and mind – enter into science and mathematics for the first time. Everything will change from then on. We need someone who can think as imaginatively as Gödel did when he created his incompleteness theorems. We need a brilliant intuition, a breathtaking, unparalleled idea that places the subject inside objective science and mathematics. That genius is already out there. Their presence has been detected. These books are specifically for that person ... to provide that person with the background to solve this supreme problem, and thus irrevocably change the world and humanity.

The Compiler “A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that transforms source code written in a programming language (the source language) into another computer language (the target language, often having a binary form known as object code). The most common reason for converting a source code is to create an executable program. The name ‘compiler’ is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code). ... More generally, compilers are a specific type of translators. ... A compiler is likely to perform many or all of the following operations: lexical analysis, preprocessing, parsing, semantic analysis (syntax-directed translation), code generation, and code optimization. ... A program that translates from a low level language to a higher level one is a decompiler.” – Wikipedia “A decompiler is a computer program that performs the reverse operation to that of a compiler. That is, it translates program code at a relatively low

level of abstraction (usually designed to be computer readable rather than human readable) into a form having a higher level of abstraction (usually designed to be human readable). Decompilers usually do not perfectly reconstruct the original source code, and can vary widely in the intelligibility of their outputs. Nonetheless, decompilers remain an important tool in software reverse engineering. A decompiler takes as input an executable file, and attempts to create a high level, compilable, possibly even maintainable source file that does the same thing. It is therefore the opposite of a compiler, which takes a source file and makes an executable. ... The term decompiler is most commonly applied to a program which translates executable programs (the output from a compiler) into source code in a (relatively) high level language which, when compiled, will produce an executable whose behaviour is the same as the original executable program.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematical sinusoids constitute the “machine code” of existence, through which all actions are performed at the fundamental level. All human languages must be considered “high-level” languages. When someone thinks, “I shall now raise my arm”, the reason why their arm then rises is that the high level willed command is compiled into the mathematical executable that actually causes the action to be performed. What the world needs now is the “Last Genius”, the person who will show how to compile all high level languages into mathematical wavefunctions, and decompile all mathematical wavefunctions into high level languages, to compile all Content into Form, and decompile all Form into Content, thus allowing us to effortlessly switch between the two sides of the ontological coin of Form/Content. We need to be able to perform conversions and mappings such as the following: 1) Form-Content: Form1 + Form2 = Form3 → Content3 2) Content-Form: Content1 + Content2 = Content3 → Form3 As we have said, it will always be impossible to know in advance how anything will be experienced, but, if we can know the mathematical form the experience must have, we can insert it into equations and apply various types of predictive analysis to it. It can become a mathematically manipulable function.

More importantly, any a priori Content – such as the intention to raise an arm, go for a walk, or carry out a terrorist act – can be given a mathematical form and used in scientific equations. Ultimately, we will be able to eliminate crime via predictive analysis. Once we can inject human agency into scientific equations, we can start making accurate scientific predictions about what specific individuals, and groups of people, will do in various contexts. We can start building the rational environment where each and every person will be optimised, and, from that, we will be able to build paradise on earth. Quite simply, nothing is more important than turning subjective agency and will into mathematical forms and then using them in scientific formulae. We can apply such considerations in all contexts: cosmology, Darwinism, quantum mechanics, as well as psychology and sociology. This is a vastly expanded science, a science capable of addressing mind as well as matter. This is the Holy Grail of the New Science, and it’s a problem that must be cracked before humans can achieve their divine destiny.

***** Once all Content can be converted into mathematical wavefunctions, Content – including subjective agency (free will) and qualia – can start to be routinely included in the equations and formulae of science. In this way, scientific materialism will be converted into scientific idealism. Matter mechanics will be joined with mind mechanics. At long last, the ultimate paradigm shift will take place. The final piece of the jigsaw is to convert all Content into math that can be used in science, and then to convert all of the mathematical results back into Content ... the stuff we actually encounter in the world. The gap between rationalism and empiricism will finally be bridged. It’s all in the math! The Last Genius will be the reincarnation of Pythagoras, and thus we shall come full circle. The Illuminist loop of enlightenment will finally be closed. Pythagoras united mind and matter in numbers. In the present day, we must unite mind and matter in sinusoidal mathematical wavefunctions. Once we have done so, we will be able, scientifically, to use our minds to control matter ... exactly the capability that defines Gods.

Who designed the Big Bang Universe? The Cosmic Mind did so, and it did so mathematically. The Big Bang was how divine mind was converted or translated into gross matter. It was the supreme act of Involution. Evolution concerns how mind manages to insert itself into matter, or link to matter, in order to control it. The culmination of evolution is the restoration of the perfect Cosmic Mind (“God”), which then designs a new Big Bang! All that ever happens is: Involution → Evolution → Involution → Evolution ... God → Nature → God → Nature ... Mind → Matter → Mind → Matter ... Metaphysics → Physics → Metaphysics → Physics ... Only via ontological mathematics can humans achieve the power of the Gods. Some humans can attain divinity through the sheer power of their intuitive minds. They unconsciously understand mathematics perfectly, and are in perfect alignment with it. The task, however, is to consciously understand ontological mathematics, and deploy its full power collectively ... as a rational, systematic, universal science: the God Science. The Illuminati’s “God Project” is all about constructing just this God Science. When we have cracked it, we shall literally be all-powerful, with the Doomsday Weapon at our disposal. Have you ever watched Colossus: The Forbin Project? One day, this will be science fact, not science fiction. Colossus, however, won’t be a rogue machine. It will be the agent of the will of the Illuminati. Reason, in the end, must triumph decisively. Humanity must comply with the Age of Reason ... or perish. The Kingdom of Reason is heaven itself. The Kingdom of Unreason is hell.

The Photonic Universe The universe is made of light. The photonic building blocks of existence are matching pairs of cosine and sines, i.e. every photon is a sine wave of a specific frequency paired with a cosine wave of the same frequency. Photons are dimensionless. Dimensional existence is created when photons are split and their component sine and cosine waves get scrambled (i.e. they enter into asymmetric and non-orthogonal phase relations). Reality comprises nothing but light and broken light. There can be nothing else.

Minds are light. Human thoughts are high-energy photons. Matter is made from low energy, broken photons (matter is made from “darkness”, so to speak). The Big Bang involution creates the dark universe of matter (broken light), and evolution ultimately causes the darkness and matter to be dispelled, allowing everything to return to the light. At the Big Bang, light breaks. At the Big Crunch, light is restored to perfection. That’s the cyclical, inevitable trajectory of existence. The universe, like any wave (and the universe is of course made of waves) has a period, and this period, naturally, is repeated over and over again forever.

***** The True God is the God of Light, the Photonic God. The False God, the Demiurge, is the God of Darkness, the God of Broken Photons. The Demiurge is the God of Matter. Matter is evil and illusory, a prison and torture chamber for light. The task of the soul is to liberate itself from matter and return to the light, to the Good ... to the Truth. This is the gospel of Gnosticism.

The Mind and the World In the Riemann Sphere, think of the point at infinity as the dimensionless mind – the Fourier frequency singularity – and think of the complex plane as the Fourier spacetime world (the dimensional world of matter). The latter is the private dreamworld available to the individual mind. But each individual mind (singularity) is surrounded by countless other minds (singularities), thus producing the Collective Singularity. The Collective Singularity is associated with a collective Riemann World ... which equates to the common, objective, waking “material” world that we all experience.

Conclusion What’s the most obvious, self-evident thing of all? Exactly as Descartes said, it’s our own thinking ... “I think therefore I am.” If we couldn’t think, we either wouldn’t exist, or might as well not exist since what would reality

be like if we had no mind with which to contemplate it? We can’t even imagine any such scenario. We would be no better than unthinking machines. So, our own mental existence is without question the surest and most immediate fact of all. But not if you ask a scientist! According to scientists, minds and thinking aren’t obvious and selfevident at all. What is obvious and self-evident to scientists is a “material” world out there, independent of us. But, as Descartes pointed out, the world out there, isn’t sure at all. It could be an elaborate dream, or the ingenious construct – the Matrix – of a Malicious Demon. How would we ever know? But you can certainly know that you factually exist, even if you doubt everything else. Even to be able to doubt is a proof that you mentally exist. So, rationalists such as Descartes assert that inner mind is the primary, knowable reality, and outer matter is something we infer, and perhaps something we even construct with our own minds, individually or collectively. Rationalists are therefore introverts. The inner is more real to them than the outer. Reason is more important to them than their senses. Scientists – sensualists (i.e. people ruled by their senses rather than their reason) – claim, on the contrary, that the supposed material world “out there” is the primary, knowable reality, and mind is something that must in fact be constructed from matter, and by the way in which matter is organised. Scientific empiricists (irrationalists) are therefore extraverts. The outer is much more real to them than the inner. Their senses are more important to them than their reason. They more or less deny the existence of the inner since the inner is non-sensory (you can’t experiment on it). Physics is all about matter as the ultimate reality, from which we get mind. Psychophysics is all about mind as the primary reality, from which we get matter. Mathematical sinusoidal waves – which can be both dimensionless (mental) and dimensional (material) – are the basis of psychophysics. Physics denies the existence of anything dimensionless. It’s trying its hardest to dispel any reference at all to singularities – immaterial entities outside space and time. It thinks that’s the route to a final theory of everything. How deluded can it get?! Only dimensionless, frequency existence can accommodate mind, and any system that rejects singularities (autonomous Fourier frequency domains) is automatically false. Physics, however, has never had the slightest interest in mind since it denies that mind exists at all in any real sense.

What ontological mathematics provides is the means for minds to communicate with each other objectively, via the exchange of sinusoids. It’s this exchange that creates “matter”, space and time. They are products of the Collective Mind, not individual minds. Idealism has always been bedevilled by its emphasis on individual mental experience and mechanics, and its total failure to consider collective mental experience and mechanics. It’s the Cosmic Mind that produces the “material” world of physics. It’s the Cosmic Mind that seems so alien to the individual mind. The Cosmic Mind – because it operates according to what all minds have in common (the laws of mathematics) – operates exactly like an objective mathematical machine, and this seems very different from our individual existence, which is all about subjective mathematics, i.e. the mathematics of subjective agency, free will, feelings, sensations, desires, purposes, intuitions, and so on. Physics seeks to be purely about objective mathematics. Psychophysics is about linking objective and subjective mathematics via dimensional and dimensionless waves, and the Fourier mathematics that links all such waves into a single system. Monadic minds, when operating subjectively (individually), use dimensionless waves that are located strictly within the monads. Monadic minds, when operating objectively (collectively), use dimensional waves that are shared between all of the monads. It’s these dimensional waves that produce matter, space and time. The critical thing to realise is that all of the dimensional waves – the entities that create the “scientific” world – originate in monadic minds, and have no reality independently of minds, i.e. matter is a mental construct: a dimensional, collective construct. The vital ingredient that was always missing from idealism and panpsychism was mathematics. Scientific materialism used math, and its rivals didn’t, and that’s why science became the dominant ideology. If idealism and panpsychism are able to use math too, they can replace science. Ontological Fourier mathematics with its dimensionless (mental) and dimensional (material) waves is how the gap is bridged between mind and matter. Minds, internally, use dimensionless waves. When minds are communicating with each other – i.e. they are engaging in external communication – they use dimensional waves. It’s all in the math. Don’t forget:

1) Minds communicating with themselves use dimensionless waves (pure light). 2) Minds communicating with other minds use dimensional waves (broken light). Atoms come from dimensional waves, and from atoms we get bodies, and bodies are the vehicles through which minds interact with each other in “the world”. The material world is bathed in light, which means that it’s continuously interacting with individual minds. This all happens unconsciously of course, via the Jungian Collective Unconscious, we might say. Old-style idealism and panpsychism had no way to allow minds to objectively communicate with each other. Ontological Fourier mathematics solves this problem once and for all. Minds communicate via actual, ontological waves. Since dimensional waves are the basis of matter, minds can directly interact with each other in the material world! The material world is a mental construct that provides the objective arena in which minds may encounter each other in space and time and get to know each other. The material world is an objective, waking dream. When we go to sleep, we leave this waking dream and enter our private, subjective dreams. While our own dreams change radically all the time, the collective dream changes incredibly slowly. Every time we awake from sleep, the world seems very familiar and much the same as it was yesterday. We resume exactly where we left off, which is never true of our private dreams. “Death” means that our current body leaves the waking dream permanently, but reincarnation reinserts us back into the waking dream via a new body. “Scientifically”, monadic minds are “point-atoms” that project or emanate forces (as dimensional waves) into a collective arena. The interaction of these dimensional waves produces the so-called objective material world of space and time. This is the true basis of quantum mechanics: matter is produced by mental singularities; dimensional waves come from dimensionless waves. Isn’t it time for a New Science, a New Physics, based on the mind rather than matter? The science establishment is now the biggest barrier to the advance of the Truth, to humanity achieving its divine destiny. Just as it was dialectically essential for science to overcome mainstream religion (for a sensory Mythos to overcome an emotional and mystical Mythos), so it’s

now dialectically essential for transcendental, ontological mathematics to overcome science (for a rational Logos to overcome a sensory Mythos). Are you part of the dialectical future of humanity – its divine future – or are you one of the religious or scientific dinosaurs resisting this future, and locked into the failed past? We are the plan. We are the answer. We are the future. We are the Illuminati.

Lux et Veritas (“Light and Truth”)