Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason (The God Series Book 16)

Table of contents :
Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason
Quotations
Table of Contents
The Atheist Delusion
Four Possible Paths to the Truth
Event Horizon
The Collapse of the Materialist Paradigm
The War for the Soul of Science
What is Science?
Abraham: the First Suicide Bomber
The War of the Dunces: Science Versus Abrahamism
The True Matrix
The Argument from Ontology
The Mathematics Fallacy
Eternal Existence
The Ape of Reason
The Theory of Memes
The Meme War
The Cosmic Search Engine
Darwinism
The Evolutionary Fallacy
The Dawkins’ Fallacy
The Four Stages of “Truth”
The Smartest Humans of Them All
One Law To Bind Them All
The Resistance
The Fictive Hypothesis
The Madness of Quantum Mechanics
The Charlatans
A Word to the Unwise
Qualia and Consciousness
The Fourier Transform: Mathematical Magic
The Sensory Delusion
Ontological Mathematics
The Nash Equilibrium
Bunk
Science: The Flat Earth Society
Evil
White Holes and Black Holes
The Noosphere
Psychoid DNA
Inception and Conception
Involution and Evolution
Psychobiology
Hylozoism
The Great Refusal
The Gates of Horn and Ivory
The Failure of Science
Logos Religion
Religion, Science and Mathematics
Magic
Cosmic Drivel
The Secret of Life
The Satan Game
Too Stupid?
Logos and Mythos
Contra Science
“God”
Dawkins and Thatcher
Autism and Science
Past Glories
The Zero Theorem
The War of Reason
The Attack
Desperate Remedies

Citation preview

Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2014 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Quotations “Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason...” – H. L. Mencken “Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck “I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts.” – Ken Jenkins “Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one.” – Konrad Lorenz “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” – Richard Feynman “Science... never solves a problem without creating ten more.” – George Bernard Shaw “Science without religion is lame...” – Einstein “Philosophy is the science which considers truth.” – Aristotle “But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, How did it all begin?, science answers, Probably by an accident. To the question, How will it all end?, science answers, Probably by an accident. And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, Why are we here? and, to the question, What moral instructions do you give us?, the sciencegod maintains silence.” – Neil Postman “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck “There is no matter as such – mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck “The stuff of the universe is mind stuff.” – George Wald

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schrödinger “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” – Robert Millikan

Table of Contents Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason Quotations Table of Contents The Atheist Delusion Four Possible Paths to the Truth Event Horizon The Collapse of the Materialist Paradigm The War for the Soul of Science What is Science? Abraham: the First Suicide Bomber The War of the Dunces: Science Versus Abrahamism The True Matrix The Argument from Ontology The Mathematics Fallacy Eternal Existence The Ape of Reason The Theory of Memes The Meme War The Cosmic Search Engine Darwinism The Evolutionary Fallacy

The Dawkins’ Fallacy The Four Stages of “Truth” The Smartest Humans of Them All One Law To Bind Them All The Resistance The Fictive Hypothesis The Madness of Quantum Mechanics The Charlatans A Word to the Unwise Qualia and Consciousness The Fourier Transform: Mathematical Magic The Sensory Delusion Ontological Mathematics The Nash Equilibrium Bunk Science: The Flat Earth Society Evil White Holes and Black Holes The Noosphere Psychoid DNA Inception and Conception Involution and Evolution

Psychobiology Hylozoism The Great Refusal The Gates of Horn and Ivory The Failure of Science Logos Religion Religion, Science and Mathematics Magic Cosmic Drivel The Secret of Life The Satan Game Too Stupid? Logos and Mythos Contra Science “God” Dawkins and Thatcher Autism and Science Past Glories The Zero Theorem The War of Reason The Attack Desperate Remedies

Introduction “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the shithouse.” – Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism The world has waged Total War against reason. Nothing has fewer friends than reason. It stands alone in the corner, cold and shunned, reviled by all. Religion has always dreaded reason, knowing that it’s staring at its own inevitable replacement. The soft-minded New Age gurus proclaim that “Love” stands at the centre of existence. Not one of them says that Reason is the root of all, the Source, the sine qua non. The entertainment industry would rather perish than base anything on reason rather than emotion. Capitalism bypasses the rational mind completely and heads straight for the most primitive part of the human – the reptilian brain stem. Not once has an advertisement been about reason and intellect. Reason was in fact the final gift conferred on humanity. The last thing in Pandora’s Box was named Hope, but in truth it was Reason, since that is humanity’s greatest hope, the sole means to dispel all the darkness and horror that has afflicted the human race. The Coming Race of Higher Humanity – those that will rule this world as Gods – will be the enlightened people of reason, not those of love or faith. Mathematics, the most hated and feared subject on earth, is the standard bearer of reason. Mathematics, not to point too fine a point on it, is the Mind of God. We live in a perfect mathematical universe, without a single flaw. If the universe contained even one error, it could not exist. A mistake in the cosmos would spread like an uncontainable virus, like an out-of-control chain reaction, like the biggest atomic bomb ever. This would not be a Big Bang that makes the universe, but, rather, unmakes it. Mathematics alone can furnish perfection. Mathematics, you see, is perfection. Any definition of perfection must conclude as a statement of pure mathematics.

There’s one subject that you might expect to be the greatest ally of mathematics – science. Yet that’s not the case. Science stands condemned as the most spectacular traitor. It has repudiated reason. If religion is all about feelings, science is all about the senses. Neither is about reason. Mathematics, however, is nothing but reason. No feelings come to the mathematical party, and mathematics is in no need of any scientific experiments, or any input from the deceptive senses, which are the agents of Maya = illusion. Science has long rejected metaphysics, but here’s the most astounding fact about metaphysics: its true language is mathematics. Mathematics, hence metaphysics, is at the heart of modern science, so much so that science without mathematics is inconceivable. Yet mathematics is an analytic, a priori, rationalist, deductive subject that has nothing to do with the synthetic, a posteriori, empiricist, inductive method of science. To put it another way, mathematics is the opposite of the scientific method, yet science could not function without mathematics. What is the real meaning of this extraordinary contradiction? It’s that physics, despite its protestations, is entirely dependent on metaphysics. “Physical” mathematics (empiricism) is underpinned by “ontological” mathematics (rationalism). Physics is sensible, mathematics intelligible. Physics is phenomenal, mathematics noumenal. Science can’t admit to any of this since it religiously worships its method, and its method has nothing to do with the mathematical method, apart from being its opposite! The Popes long ago surrendered their triple crown of Unreason (no one listens to them anymore). Incredibly, it has been picked up by the scientific materialists. Richard Dawkins is now the Pope of Unreason. The Catholic Popes were no friends of mathematics, and nor is Richard Dawkins, despite his claims to the contrary. You must choose either science or mathematics. You can’t have both since their methods have nothing in common. This book is about the most damaging war fought in intellectual history. The war is not between science and religion (since religion isn’t intellectual at all), but between science and mathematics, between sensible physics and intelligible metaphysics. The world cannot evolve until science has been put in its place, as the servant of mathematics, as a rather minor branch of applied mathematics dealing with sensory, phenomenal things. Physics must acknowledge a

more fundamental reality, that of metaphysics, i.e. of ontological, noumenal mathematics.

God = Math Men, Descartes argued, know that they are imperfect yet find in their minds an idea of supreme perfection. Whence this idea? Descartes deployed a principle that “a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect”. If we – imperfect beings – have a notion of perfection, it cannot, Descartes said, have originated within us. It must, therefore, have its source outside us, in something genuinely perfect: “God”. Of course, “God” is not the only entity that lays claim to eternal, immutable perfection. Ontological mathematics does too. Descartes’ whole argument can be redeployed to validate the existence of perfect mathematics, not of a perfect Christian God. Ontological mathematics – of which we are all in fact constituted – is the true source of our idea of perfection. Humanity’s greatest problem is that it has conceived of “God” as a perfect person rather than as a perfect system of mathematics. An eternal world absolutely needs eternal perfection (it can’t exist without it), but this perfection cannot reside in an eternally perfect being, only in an eternally perfect system. People have taken the idea of a perfect being and applied it to their own situations for their own purposes. The Jews called themselves the “Chosen People”, the people of the Covenant, and claimed that the one who chose them was the perfect Creator of the whole universe, who had rather prosaically promised them a barren land owned and occupied by others (the Canaanites). Why didn’t he create a brand new planet for them – a paradise of milk and honey – Planet Jew, shall we say? Isn’t that what a real God who had authentically chosen the Jews would have done? What sort of God chooses the Jews and then abandons them to the Nazi Holocaust, especially having previously delivered them from bondage in Egypt? Talk about a bad legal contract. The Jews, as the archetypal lawyer race, sure got screwed on that one! Religion makes perfect sense as soon as you remove any personification, reification or anthropomorphication from “God”, and redefine him (it!) as perfect ontological mathematics. No one is required to kneel to math and

slavishly worship math, to fear eternal hell if they don’t do math’s bidding! No one needs math to die for them on a cross. Humanity cannot evolve until it gets rid of the idea of God as a person with any interest at all in people. In truth, we ourselves are the race of Gods. We are far from perfect right now but we are all mathematically capable of becoming perfect and then we truly shall be Gods. Why does humanity want “God” to be a person? It’s because only a being can care for them, and only a being can punish others. Only a being can deliver heaven for the righteous and hell for the wicked, paradise for the Elect and the inferno for the Damned. Math, on the other hand, doesn’t care a jot for anyone. Like the Aristotelian God, it contemplates only itself, its own perfection. Humans are driven by their feelings, and their feeling are most manifest in their relationships with others. You can’t emotionally relate to a system such as ontological mathematics. You can only admire (if you’re smart enough) its infinite, austere perfection. Mythos – story “logic” – is the perfect way for feeling types to understand the world, which is why stories feature so heavily in religion, while, in mathematics, science, philosophy, physics, and metaphysics, they are almost wholly absent. The latter all belong to Logos, and feeling types cannot abide Logos. Modern religion is just a replay of ancient animism on an infinitely grander scale. Rather than individual rocks and trees being associated with a personality and will, the ancients conceived the entire universe in these terms. It’s one thing to say that the universe is inherently mental and alive, it’s quite another to say that this life and mind originate in a single, eternal, allpowerful superbeing. As soon as this step is taken, religion collapses into madness and evil because it becomes a projection of fanatical human beliefs, desires and feelings. That’s why Jewish monotheism is the worst idea – the most evil idea – in human history. The idea of a perfect Creator Superbeing must be eradicated before humanity can evolve. There’s no such being and there never can be. It’s a wholly false doctrine. Logos must replace Mythos. Humanity must turn to reason rather than feelings. Feelings will always have a place, but they must be subordinated to reason. This is humanity’s destined evolutionary trajectory.

Feeling types, with their Mythos nonsense, have ruled this world for too long. Now it’s time for the Enlightenment, for the rule of Reason.

The Triune Brain “The triune brain is a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behaviour proposed by the American physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean. MacLean originally formulated his model in the 1960s and propounded it at length in his 1990 book The Triune Brain in Evolution. The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution.” – Wikipedia Animals began as creatures of pure will and instinct – as reptiles, we might say. Higher animals then evolved a limbic system, which brought sophisticated feelings into play. The limbic system allowed animals to feel a sophisticated spectrum of pleasure and pain, and to pursue a broad policy of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. All lower mammals and most humans are ruled by their limbic system, which can harness the reptilian brain stem. Religion and Mythos ultimately originate in the limbic system. The highest humans, however, are those who make heavy use of the latest evolutionary development – the neocortex. This is the source of Logos. Where “Limbic” people proclaim the virtues of love, “Neocortex” people look to reason. These are entirely different worldviews. It’s humanity’s destiny for Neocortex (Logos) Humanity to succeed and replace Limbic (Mythos) Humanity. Mythos humans are drawn to religion, entertainment, soap operas, Hollywood, fiction, feelings and faith. Logos humans are drawn to mathematics, science, philosophy, metaphysics, fact, evidence and proof. Mythos humanity circles the Kaaba seven times then kneels en masse to an imaginary being. Logos humanity lands men on the moon. We have no future as a Mythos species. It’s Logos or extinction. The choice is yours. Survival of the human species is not compulsory.

Cause and Effect

Descartes proposed the powerful argument that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect. This seems self-evident. After all, how could an effect have more “reality” than what caused it? How could extra reality be added to the effect if it were not present in the cause? That would mean it had appeared by magic, or was caused by something else, in which case the same argument would still apply. By itself, this principle refutes the entire Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this absurd interpretation, an unreal wavefunction “collapses” to produce real effects, i.e. effects have more reality than their causes – a logical impossibility. Only an empiricist with absolute contempt for rationalism could ever make effects more real than causes. An effect is empirical. A cause is not. A cause is rational, noumenal and, as David Hume pointed out so devastatingly, cannot be perceived (hence cannot form any part of empirical science). Empiricists simply can’t bring themselves to acknowledge a real, causal, unobservable domain. Nearly every principle associated with quantum mechanics is false, stemming from an obsession with interpreting this subject empirically rather than rationally. Given that causality cannot be perceived (it’s unobservable), is it any surprise that science – based on observables – has finally got rid of it and declared that ultimate reality is instead random, indeterministic and probabilistic? Causation is the supreme “hidden variable”, but “hidden variables” were exactly what the Copenhagen school most strenuously opposed, so, insanely, they renounced causation. Thus they made science perform the most incredible volte-face in intellectual history. Science went from being totally deterministic to totally indeterministic. Why? Because science is empiricist, and the logic of empiricism, as Hume understood, is to deny causation. Causation is a strictly rationalist, metaphysical, and, finally, mathematical concept.

***** Cause and effect must have exactly the same degree of “reality”. An effect can’t have less reality than its cause, and definitely can’t have more reality, as the science community insists with its ludicrous randomist ideology.

A corollary is that random “causes” can have only random “effects”, and so no order could ever appear in such a system, in contradiction of the ideology of modern science in which randomness miraculously produces the deterministic universe we encounter and experience. A rational cause must have a rational effect. A deterministic cause must have a deterministic effect. An irrational cause must have an irrational effect. An indeterministic cause must have an indeterministic effect. A “cause” for which no sufficient reason can be given must have an “effect” for which no sufficient reason can be given. An inexplicable wavefunction collapse (cause), for example, must have an inexplicable wavefunction effect, hence indeterministic wavefunction collapse can play no part in true quantum mechanics, associated with the ordered world we find ourselves in. An indeterministic cause cannot have a deterministic effect, by rational definition. Nor can a deterministic cause have an indeterministic effect. A rational cause cannot have an irrational effect. An irrational cause cannot have a rational effect. Cause and effect must always belong to the same category. Otherwise, a blatant category error applies – as in an indeterministic version of quantum mechanics being proposed as the ground of the classical determinism we encounter in the macroscopic world. To say, as science does, that indeterminism underlies determinism is ridiculous. It’s irrational. Sadly, scientists have an extreme problem with rationality. Philosophically, science increasingly resembles an expression of David Hume’s extreme empiricism and skepticism. Yet, at exactly the same time, science is becoming more and more mathematical, and mathematics is the quintessence of rationalism. There is not a single scientist alive today who attempts to account for why science espouses empiricism (via its scientific method), yet is meaningless without mathematics (rationalism). How can any thinking person endure such a blatant and fatal contradiction? In case you’re not up to speed with the ideology of quantum mechanics, it is claimed that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is completely deterministic, but unreal, and it “collapses” indeterministically to generate observable, empirical reality. If you think this makes any sense, you are not rational. Unreality cannot underpin reality. Determinism cannot be the source of indeterminism. Unreal causes cannot produced real effects. Yet these are exactly the irrational claims made by contemporary scientists.

What is the central problem facing science? It’s a purely philosophical issue – how to marry the scientific method (empiricism) with mathematics (rationalism). Scientists, because they are philosophical ignoramuses, have entirely failed to address this issue. The Copenhagen school came up with the crazy formula that mathematics belongs to an unreal order, and the scientific method to a real order. The problem is extremely easily resolved: mathematics is the real order but is metaphysical (noumenal), while science is its phenomenal expression. The true way to understand quantum mechanics is that mathematics is true reality (reality in itself), while the observable world is the appearance of the underlying mathematics. This is the rationalist, deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, which makes mathematics primary and the scientific method secondary. The crazy way to understand quantum mechanics is the one taken by science. Science says that mathematics is unreal and observable reality “real” (not appearance). To put it another way, deterministic quantum mechanics asserts that mathematics is noumenal and the observable world phenomenal (this view is formally metaphysical, idealist and rationalist). Indeterministic quantum mechanics asserts that there’s no such distinction as noumenal versus phenomenal. Only that which can be observed is real, it says, and since anything noumenal cannot be observed, it cannot be real. So, this approach to quantum mechanics denies the metaphysical distinction between noumena (hidden variables) and phenomena (observable variables). However, because science cannot dispense with mathematics, it has to introduce a radically different distinction, namely, reality versus unreality. Where deterministic quantum mechanics says that real noumena (actual reality) underlie the appearance of noumena (i.e. phenomena = how reality appears to us, but not how it is in itself), indeterministic quantum mechanics says that unreal wavefunctions underlie actual reality, and unreality collapses into reality for no reason. These two views reflect the difference between the philosophies of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism says that true reality is unseen – it’s noumenal, metaphysical and mathematical. Empiricism says that true

reality is seen – it’s physical and scientific, and anything unseen cannot be real. It’s all a question of ontology, i.e. of what truly exists. Rationalism says that ontological mathematics – total rationalism – is what truly exists. If you removed all phenomena (appearances), you would encounter reality in itself, and it would be strictly mathematical. Empiricism says that if you removed the observable world, you would remove reality itself, i.e. there’s no unobservable ontology. You therefore have an extremely simple question to ask yourself. Is true reality seen or unseen? If true reality is unseen, we can underpin the world of appearances with an absolute, perfect, rational mathematical order. If true reality is seen, as science claims, then the unseen order that underpins it (e.g. the quantum mechanical wavefunction), is not real. This is exactly what the Copenhagen school claimed. They said that an unreal mathematical order (consisting of unobservable wavefunctions) lay underneath “reality”. Because causation cannot be observed, it also belongs to “unreality”, hence all that remains, in the Copenhagen view, is for an unreal, unobservable quantum mechanical wavefunction to collapse randomly (without any cause) to generate “reality”. That, believe it or not, is the central claim of science. All hidden variables = noumena = ontological mathematics = minds = causation = rationalism, have been consigned to “unreality”, leaving nothing but indeterminism and acausality as the basis of “reality”. Scientists say that the deterministic macroscopic world emerged from microscopic indeterminism, that reality is underpinned by unreality, that the universe was produced by a random fluctuation in nothing, that genes randomly mutate, and so on. Are you buying it? If you are, you’re totally irrational. There’s an easy, wholly rational way out – to accept that true reality is mathematical, not scientific, to accept that mathematics defines ontology, i.e. what truly exists. If you accept this, you ipso facto accept that existence has an answer. If you don’t accept it, you are saying that existence has no answer and is grounded in “unreality” – in irrationalism, magic, mystery, opinion, conjecture and faith. That, logically, is the position held by Richard Dawkins and his cohorts. It’s a religious position, not a position consistent with reason.

It all comes down to the status of the scientific method. In ontological mathematics, the scientific method concerns phenomena, not noumena. Experiments do not, and never can, reveal true reality, which is always hidden from our senses, but not from our reason. It’s intelligible, not sensible. Therefore, the scientific method cannot show us true reality. For scientists, however, the scientific method is their God. Without it, they are lost; their faith is destroyed. For scientists, things are real only to the extent that the scientific method says so. Anything not amenable to the scientific method – including causation, determinism, ontological mathematics, metaphysics and rationalism – is consigned to “unreality”. But that’s insane. Unreality, by definition, doesn’t exist, so no one, especially not an empiricist, can use it to underpin observable reality! Incredibly, this is exactly the mad ground on which science, and people like Richard Dawkins, now proudly stand. Science is a formally irrationalist subject, and all scientists are irrational. Their claims concerning ultimate reality are lunatic claims. As soon as any scientist strays beyond phenomena, he ceases to say anything that makes any sense at all. That’s a rational fact. If you haven’t already grasped it, science isn’t science, it’s philosophy. Specifically, it’s empiricist philosophy with a method attached – the scientific method – and the method defines the philosophy, i.e. only things amenable to the method are regarded as real, and everything else is dismissed as unreal, including mathematics, although science without mathematics is unthinkable. How can something defined as unreal be at the core of something that purports to be about “reality”? How can an unreal wavefunction underpin observable reality? It’s nonsensical. Science is a philosophy that refuses to call itself a philosophy, and which rejects all philosophical challenges to the empiricist philosophical claims it makes. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is nothing to do with real science and is instead all about empiricist philosophy. Like a religion, science refuses to engage with any critics, with any heretics or apostates, with any infidels or freethinkers. This makes it an irrationalist quasi-religion. It’s a Church, the Church of Empiricism, and Richard Dawkins is its pope, the Pope of Unreason.

The Soul

With regard to science, the soul has exactly the same status as mathematics. It’s a hidden variable, a noumenon, a non-empirical entity that cannot be directly observed under any circumstances. No Large Hadron Collider can detect the soul, just as no Large Hadron Collider can detect mathematics in itself. The reason, in each case, is exactly the same. The soul – the mathematical monad (singularity) – is mathematics. Mathematics exists as monads. These are autonomous frequency domains defined by the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). Monads are the noumenal basis of mind, matter, religion, metaphysics, physics and psychology. They are the unseen reality that underpins the world of observables, of appearances. Monads are the agents of causation, determinism and rationalism. As uncaused first causes, they are also the basis of free will, i.e. they can initiate their own causal chains without reference to anything else. The soul is a totally rationalist, mathematical entity that underlies everything. Leibniz wrote all about the soul as the basis of reality in his Monadology, some three hundred years ago! Monads, defined by the generalised Euler Formula and reflecting Fourier mathematics, must now be regarded as the hidden variables that Einstein sought in order to make quantum mechanics deterministic rather than indeterministic. Without monads, there’s only madness. Without monads, science rejects determinism, rationalism, causation and ontological mathematics and makes the deranged and impossible claim that reality is underpinned by unreality – whatever that is! With monads, science can become an analytic, hyperrationalist subject with a precise mathematical answer. The soul – the true soul – is nothing to do with “God”, or faith, or mainstream religion, or Mythos. It’s the transcendent, immanent, noumenal basis of reality. It’s zero and infinity – the singularity. It’s pure math – the most mathematical object you can possibly get. And it’s alive! It’s a dimensionless mind, an autonomous Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. It’s immortal and indestructible. It’s all in the math! Far from being the most irrational and fantastical entity conceivable, as Dawkins would claim, the soul is reason itself – pure mathematical reason with a precise analytic equation. The soul, far from being vague and mystical, is the most well-defined entity there can possibly be, and everything else is a consequence of it, exactly as Leibniz realised so long ago, and Pythagoras much earlier than that – an astonishing two and half

thousand years ago, in the Golden Age before Christianity darkened the minds of men. What is reality? Science says that science itself is reality, underpinned by unreal mathematical wavefunctions that collapse inexplicably and indeterministically. Ontological mathematics says that mathematics itself is reality, and science is its phenomenal expression. Science is the appearance of mathematics while mathematics is reality in itself. Mathematics is 100% deterministic. There is no magical, miraculous “collapse” of anything, just the unfolding of a cosmic mathematical equation with infinite autonomous nodes (monads). Monads explain everything. There is nothing else. If you are rational, you will accept the truth of noumenal, ontological mathematics, wholly beyond the reach of the scientific method, yet underpinning every single observable thing. If you are irrational, you will accept randomist, indeterministic, acausal science. You will worship the scientific method like a true believer, you will subscribe to “seeing is believing”, you will irrationally accept absence of evidence as evidence of absence, you will reject all hidden variables and rational unobservables, you will reject the ontology of mathematics, and you will especially reject the soul – the basic unit (monad) of ontological mathematics, the Fourier frequency domain, the immaterial, analytic singularity beyond space and time. No one forces you to worship science and its method. Reason explicitly instructs you not to. If, like Richard Dawkins, you go on believing, it’s because you are an enemy of reason, just like all the crazy Abrahamists and Karmists. Absolutely nothing is more irrational than to claim that existence randomly sprang out of nothing, that unreality is the ground of reality, that reality is fundamentally indeterministic, that mathematics isn’t real despite being the engine of science, that genes randomly mutate, and so on, i.e. nothing is more irrational than to agree with the worldview of Richard Dawkins. Even “God” offers a more rational explanation of reality than scientific randomness. Scientists have become the least rational people of all – and all because they refuse to accept the ontology of mathematics. Mathematics is the arche – the ground of existence – that which defines all. To oppose ontological mathematics is to oppose reason itself.

No one forced scientists to be empiricists. They chose that as their philosophy. Reason didn’t guide them there; their sensory obsession did. Empiricists reject rationalism, and that’s identical to rejecting the ontology of mathematics since it’s ontological mathematics that constitutes pure reason.

***** The mathematical soul (monad) = noumenon. The world produced by monads = the observable world of phenomena. Souls (immaterial frequency singularities) produce the material, spacetime domain via Fourier mathematics. That’s it. That’s the mathematical, rational explanation of reality. It’s not so hard to accept, is it?

Perfect Existence In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes argues that God’s existence follows from the fact that existence is contained in the “true and immutable essence, nature, or form” of a supremely perfect being. Existence can no more be separated from the concept of a supremely perfect being than can the fact, regarding a triangle, that its angles must equal two right angles. That’s its essence. Descartes is absolutely right that existence cannot be separated from perfection. He’s absolutely wrong that perfection means the Christian God, or any God. Only mathematics is perfect. Perfection exists objectively in monads, the basic units of ontological mathematics. Monads are not of course perfect subjectively, only objectively. Subjectively, monads start off (at the beginning of a cosmic cycle) in a state of absolute potential and then, through dialectical evolution, achieve absolute actualisation, at which point the objective and subjective are brought into perfect alignment, into perfect symmetry. This constitutes the end of a cosmic cycle. Only perfection necessarily exists. All other existence results from these perfections. All of the classic ontological arguments of medieval philosophy were basically correct. Their only error was to conceive of “God” in terms of a being rather than in terms of ontological mathematics. If you simply replace all references to the perfection and necessary existence of “God” with

references to the perfection and necessary existence of ontological mathematics, all of the ontological arguments become valid. Platonic mathematical Forms are eternally perfect, but no person is eternally perfect. All monadic persons begin as perfect potential (alpha) and evolve, through eons of imperfection, to perfect actualisation (omega). The perfection of a person – his apotheosis – results from evolution. No person starts off perfectly actualised, so there is no perfect God (when conceived as a person rather than as a mathematical system). Humanity has, throughout history, confused the real perfection of ontological mathematics with the imaginary perfection of “God”. All Gods are evolutionary, hence do not belong to the category of eternal perfection. Only ontological mathematics does, and its perfection is conveyed by myriad mathematically perfect monads. To qualify this statement, they are perfect as regards form, but not as regards content. Their form is immutable (it’s eternally defined by the flawless God equation); their content does nothing but change – from potential to actualisation. “God” is humanity’s Mythos interpretation of ontological mathematics; it’s humanity’s feelings, beliefs and desires projected onto ontological mathematics, turning it into a person rather than a system. It’s ontological mathematics reified, personified and anthropomorphized. Logos Humanity can correct this catastrophic error and understand that there is no perfect Being, only perfect Becomings – self-optimising monads. They are already perfect in objective form (this is Aristotelian logical perfection), and they must become subjectively perfect in content (via Hegelian dialectical logic). The culmination of the dialectic is when form and content perfectly coincide, when Hegelian dialectical, living logic (of content) has been merged with Aristotelian analytic logic (of form), when objectivity and subjectivity unite, when objective reason and subjective reason are one and the same, when perfect symmetry is attained. Where did humanity go wrong in its thinking? First, it was driven by feelings rather than reason (as in religion). Second, it was driven by the senses rather than reason (as in science). Humanity must be driven by reason alone – by rationalism, by math. There are not multiple paths to the truth. There’s only one – reason – and reason is fundamentally about mathematics. Historically, “rationalism” is associated with philosophy, but it should be understood strictly in terms of ontological mathematics. All the rationalist philosophers, such as

Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Gödel, were all profoundly mathematical in their views.

Rational Perfection A rational universe is a rationally perfect universe. It’s perfect ontologically and epistemologically. It’s Platonically perfect. It’s a universe of ontological mathematics, the science of perfection. An irrational universe is a universe of cosmic chaos, randomness and indeterminacy. Modern scientists claim that the universe is fundamentally of this nature. No one has ever plausibly explained how inherent randomness can produce the ordered cosmos we actually encounter. Given the size of the universe and the number of particles it contains, why aren’t fantastically implausible and improbable, yet possible, things happening all the time? They are simply never observed in the macroscopic world. We live in a universe that is without doubt 100% causal and deterministic – mathematically causal and deterministic. Mathematical causality involves complex numbers, zero and infinity, not positive real numbers only, as science fallaciously believes. Existence is the ultimate perfection and only perfect things can necessarily exist. All imperfect existence is contingent, not necessary. Imperfection, in terms of fundamental ontology, is inconsistent, incomplete, contradictory, fallacious, flawed, in error, unstable and impossible. Any contradiction, error, lack, need, defect, insufficiency or instability instantly destroys any potential candidate for necessary existence (it renders its existence formally, rationally, logically, impossible). The only thing that can survive every stress and strain is perfection. It endures eternally. Mathematical perfection is the sole thing so immutably stable it can exist forever.

The History of Anti-Intellectualism It’s impossible to understand how science became so irrational without first understanding the irrational enemy that was so vital in defining it – religion. Science should have been about reason, but, instead, it chose to be a crude reaction and retort to religion, and that drove it down a catastrophic atheistic path.

Had it not been for religion, science would have become what Leibniz always thought it should be: a union of the empirical and rational, of the physical and metaphysical, with the rational and metaphysical being the dominant partners.

***** Abrahamists believe that if reason contradicts faith, it’s reason that’s wrong. You cannot be a believer if you assert that reason must always be given primacy. Abrahamists typically speak of “God’s Truth” (revelation) versus “man’s reason” (science, mathematics, philosophy). The former is regarded as infallible, the latter as distinctly fallible. So, if the Torah, Bible or Koran says one thing (infallible, divine revelation) then it must be right, and if science, mathematics or philosophy says anything that disagrees, it must be wrong, reflecting, allegedly, the weakness of human reason. Abrahamists never consider that their own holy texts are written by men, hence are beset by the flaws of human reason and are thus completely unreliable. They insist that God wrote them directly, or inspired chosen men with long beards (prophets) to state verbatim what he had in mind. That’s a faith position, one that refuses to be rationally contradicted. That’s the attitude that underpins Creationism (i.e. the belief that what the Book of Genesis says about the origins of the world is literally true). Logically, all Abrahamists ought to be Creationists. After all, if they don’t accept that their holy texts are infallible, why do they go on believing? You can regard holy texts as either literal or metaphorical. If you believe they are literal, you are saying that they do not contain a single error since they are the infallible words of an infallible God. However, if you believe they are metaphorical, you are then faced with explaining why “God” chooses to talk in riddles, parables, allusions, and codes rather than simply stating the unarguable truth. Why does God communicate obliquely rather than directly, metaphorically rather than literally, in code rather than plainly, confusingly rather than clearly, ambiguously rather than straightforwardly? Why is God so poor at communication, and why does he choose a metaphorical technique guaranteed to cause disagreement and confusion over

interpretation? No confusion at all applies to the God Equation, or anything mathematical. Those who regard holy texts as metaphorical are having their cake and eating it. They like religious belief, but they acknowledge that their holy texts are full of errors. They explain this away by saying that the errors aren’t errors at all because they’re actually metaphors, not intended to be taken as literal truths. So, is the whole of any holy text a metaphor, or just the parts that contain proven errors? Why would God sometimes communicate literally and sometimes metaphorically in the same book, and why are the parts that contain errors always to be assumed to be the metaphorical parts? Why does God switch from one mode to the other and then back again, and why does he not make it clear when he is being literal and when metaphorical? Realistically, you have to accept the whole of a holy text as literally true, or none of it all, i.e. it’s all pure metaphor. But if none of the New Testament is literally true and it’s all just metaphor then no one could go on believing in Jesus Christ and his alleged virgin birth, miracles, death on the cross and resurrection (which must all, by this logic, be metaphorical). It’s all just a big fiction designed to communicate some ambiguous metaphorical message, like a coded novel by a medieval writer of Arthurian romances. Literalists are true believers while Metaphorists are fraudulent believers. They believe when it suits them, and don’t when it doesn’t. The Metaphorists want to play the religious and scientific games, without admitting that it must be one or the other. They have no real values. How dishonest can you get to claim that a holy text is literal where uncontradicted by science and metaphorical where contradicted? Talk about moving the goalposts! The Metaphorists are extremely prone to Orwellian doublethink: simultaneously believing two contradictory things, and switching from one to the other, depending on context. Mainstream religion is pure Mythos (emotionally compelling narrative, but with no truth content), while science, mathematics and philosophy can, to varying degrees, claim to be Logos (reflecting logic, reason, facts, evidence, proof, but with almost zero emotionally satisfying content). In life, you will encounter a small number of religious Literalists and many religious Metaphorists, the latter outnumbering the former by around four to one. You will encounter many Mythos people and few Logos

people, the former outnumbering the latter, again, by around four to one. You will encounter many people of faith and few of reason. That’s our world. That’s what evolution created. Where does Richard Dawkins fit into all of this? This book is about showing that the scientific materialism championed by the likes of Dawkins is not in fact rational at all. It does not reflect Logos but an elaborate Mythos. As Nietzsche put it, it’s about description and not explanation. Where religion primarily concerns a Mythos based on feelings (Abrahamism) or mystical intuitions (Eastern religion), scientific materialism is a Mythos based on the senses. Plato divided reality into two domains: 1) a noumenal, rational, intelligible domain of truth, and 2) a phenomenal, irrational, sensible domain of illusion. The former domain is the authentic Logos domain and is metaphysical, with the proper language of metaphysics being ontological mathematics, i.e. mathematics that truly exists and is not some weird, undefined abstraction or manmade language selectively deployed by humans. Science is all about the illusory, sensory world – the Matrix – and has nothing to say about ultimate reality, which is noumenal, not phenomenal, mathematical, not scientific. Prominent, popular scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox subscribe to a “sensible” Mythos but disingenuously claim it’s an “intelligible” Logos. We will show why scientific materialism is an irrational quasi-religion, and the people who subscribe to it are believers, not rationalists. Richard Dawkins, the most militant atheist and most active proselytizer on behalf of atheism, is the leader of the Church of Scientism. He’s the Pope of Unreason. Science is a quasi-religious cult based on a mania with the sensory world and the complete denial of the existence of anything nonsensory. Underneath science lies a whole domain of non-sensory, hidden variables, which are the fundamental units of ontological mathematics. These are Pythagorean-Leibnizian monads, but can also be described as immaterial, dimensionless, Fourier frequency domains (singularities), outside space and time. They are the unobservable source of causation. No experiment can ever detect them, only the highest reason: mathematical reason. The whole of phenomenal reality is simply an expression of their mathematical properties and interactions. They stand at the root of all of the processes of the universe and are 100% rational. They leave no room

whatsoever for faith. There is no “gap” in which “God” or faith can find any refuge. Ontological mathematics is hyperrationalist and enshrines the principle of sufficient reason: for every fact, there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. This book is about the undeclared war between physical mathematics (physics; science) and metaphysical mathematics (ontological mathematics). The former is phenomenal and sensible, the latter noumenal and intelligible. The latter is the basis of the former, although science absolutely denies this. Ontological mathematics fully explains mind, life, the mind-body problem, the unconscious, consciousness, evolution, causality, determinism and the principle of sufficient reason. Modern science asserts that reality is acausal, indeterministic, random, probabilistic, and it repudiates the principle of sufficient reason. Classical science, in agreement with ontological mathematics, held the exact opposite view. Science has literally gone from being a 100% deterministic system to 100% indeterministic. It’s therefore a formally irrationalist system with a 100% range, i.e. what it says today is white, it might well tell you tomorrow is black. Accordingly, it has zero truth content. The apparent success of science is not based on truth, epistemology and ontology but on fitting phenomenal models to phenomenal observations (often with a metaphorical crowbar). At no time does noumenal truth come into it. Richard Dawkins declares Darwinism a “fact”. Actually, it’s an interpretation. The “facts” of Darwinian evolution can be interpreted entirely differently. Rather than genetic mutation being “random”, it can be causal and teleological, driven by Fourier mathematics arising from monads (Fourier frequency singularities). What we omitted to say about Pythagorean-Leibnizian-Fourier monads is that they are immortal, indestructible, mathematical minds. Normally, they are unconscious, but when they evolve consciousness, they become souls. These are emphatically not religious souls. They are not created. They are not caused. They have no owner or master. They are in no need of God or gods, of faith, of priests, popes, preachers or prophets, of holy texts, of temples, churches, mosques or synagogues. They are rationalist, mathematical souls and they are the explanation of everything. The war between physical mathematics and metaphysical mathematics came to its head in the titanic struggle between Newton and Leibniz in the

seventeenth century. Newton won because he was able to match his mathematical hypotheses (his “laws” of physics) to experimental data, and Leibniz wasn’t. Yet Leibniz was right all along. The only thing Leibniz lacked was the type of high-level mathematics we have today that had not yet been discovered in his day (in fact, it needed his wondrous innovation of calculus in order to be developed). What Leibniz needed to do was provide a precise mathematical formula for the monads he described in his Monadology. That didn’t become possible until the advent of Euler’s Formula. Next, Leibniz had to explain how monads could mathematically account for bodies. That didn’t become possible until the advent of Fourier mathematics (which can be derived from Euler’s Formula). Ontologically, Fourier mathematics allows immaterial frequency (mental) functions to be represented as material spacetime (physical) functions. Science has spectacularly failed to produce a “final theory of everything” (despite the most intensive intellectual effort in history) because it relies on a wholly false ontology. Mind, matter, gravity, quantum mechanics, Einsteinian “relativity” and holography can all be explained in terms of Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics, and nothing else. These furnish the ontological mathematics that underlies everything, and explains everything.

***** In response to the question, “Why is reality like that?”, scientists shrug their shoulders and say, “It just is. Now shut up and calculate.” Is that an “answer” any rational person would ever accept, or even allow to pass his lips? It’s an insult to the intelligence. When Kant declared the noumenal domain “unknowable”, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel immediately and rightly mocked him. The fact that you can’t answer something doesn’t mean that it can’t be answered. There are much smarter people than you. There are much smarter people than scientists. Ontological mathematics is the highest and most demanding of all intellectual disciplines, for the smartest of the smart only.

The Atheist Delusion

Atheism is the “religion” (pseudo-religion) associated with the scientific materialist creed. It’s a religion because it’s about faith and is opposed to rationalism. Atheism (scientism) is the faith-based claim that there’s no domain beyond the senses. No facts, evidence, rational arguments or mathematics are used to support this claim. Instead, one must fanatically commit oneself to the irrational, unproven and unprovable ideologies of empiricism and materialism. These assume from the outset that there’s no such thing as dimensionless existence, and so, by definition, no part of atheism can address the possibility of such existence (dimensionless existence comprises points: immaterial, mental, frequency singularities – monads – outside space and time). Atheism asserts, without a shred of evidence, reason or proof, that anything that cannot be observed cannot exist. In other words, it denies the existence of points (singularities). Absence of sensory evidence is regarded as evidence of ontological absence, even though dimensionless existence is, by definition, inherently impossible to detect with the senses since it’s immaterial and not in space and time. Abrahamism is a faith-based claim that there is a domain beyond the senses. No facts, evidence, rational arguments or mathematics are used to support this claim. Instead, one must have faith in the Mythos sayings of bearded prophets, “holy” books and “divine revelation”. Most of these sayings directly contradict reason, in addition to all available facts and evidence. Mathematics – the quintessential rationalist subject – has no connection with experiments and involves all manner of rational unobservables such as imaginary numbers, negative numbers, zero and infinity, and dimensionless points (singularities). Mathematics is the basis of modern science, without which science would be mere alchemy, astrology and soothsaying, yet the faith-based religion of atheism (scientism) claims that mathematics has no ontological reality – it doesn’t exist! Therefore, science is grounded, by its own account, in the non-existent, hence is a fantasy, just as atheism surely is. In order to deny the existence of rational unobservables, science denies its own existence! If that’s not a fanatical, faith-based religion, what is? Reality is based on unobservable mathematical points (singularities). That’s the secret of existence. What’s at the centre of a black hole? – a singularity. What was the Big Bang? – a singularity event. What is the Big Crunch? – when spacetime returns to a singularity. What is light made of? –

photonic singularities (immaterial and dimensionless; according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, photons have no mass, are maximally length contracted to zero, and time has stopped for them). The whole universe is made of light. It comes from light and returns to light. Light is all about points – singularities. Light is the basis of thought, the basis of mind, and the basis of matter. Everything is derived from light, and light is nothing but mathematical points defined by the generalised Euler Formula, and it creates the visible world via Fourier mathematics. Quantum mechanics – science’s greatest success – is, according to the scientific establishment’s interpretation, based on an unreal, unobservable mathematical wavefunction that nevertheless interacts with reality, albeit in an indeterministic, probabilistic way. How can any rational person who swears by observations, measurements and experiments, assert that observations, measurements and experiments are rooted in something metaphysical that can in no way itself be measured, observed or experimented upon? Instead, a deus ex machina process of “wavefunction collapse” (a wholly unexplained and indeed inexplicable process) must take place before something becomes observable. Moreover, an observer is required to perform the required observation. We thus arrive at a complete absurdity, the most spectacular example of circular logic: an observer is required to collapse the wavefunction but an observer can exist only if the wavefunction has collapsed. Without observers, the wavefunction cannot collapse, so at what point from the Big Bang onwards did any observer miraculously come into existence to collapse the wavefunction? The Copenhagen Interpretation is wholly silent on such questions. You might as well appeal to “God” as the agent of wavefunction collapse (which is what the extreme idealist Bishop Berkeley would have done)! Science certainly can’t say you are wrong. Quantum mechanics is, in truth, derived from Fourier mathematics, and, ontologically, Fourier mathematics is a dualist system involving a dimensional spacetime (material) domain and a dimensionless frequency (mental) domain. According to the irrational, fanatical bigots of atheism and scientism, the dimensional (material) spacetime domain is ontologically real while the dimensionless (mental) frequency domain is not. They provide no sufficient reason for this flagrantly anti-mathematical claim. Their dogmatism and faith ensure that they will never accept the ontology

of a scientifically unobservable, dimensionless domain (of pure Fourier frequency mathematics, of singularities). The Big Bang itself was a dimensionless event involving a Singularity, where, by scientists’ own account, the laws of physics break down. The Big Bang Singularity is none other than the ontological Fourier frequency domain. It’s not science that establishes the truth of this assertion, but mathematical reason. Where Abrahamism rejects reason in favour of faith, atheism (scientism) rejects reason in favour of the scientific method, predicated on sensory, dimensional observables and the non-existence of dimensionless, “hidden” variables of the sort that Einstein believed were necessary to ensure that God did not play dice (i.e. to make quantum mechanics deterministic rather than indeterministic). As for ontological mathematics, this approach rejects faith, and equally rejects any requirement for fundamental existence to be sensory (dimensional). In ontological mathematics, the scientific method has value in probing the dimensional, spacetime domain of observables. However, it has no value and no applicability at all in the domain of dimensionless, rational, hidden, mathematical unobservables. So, do such unobservables exist or not? If they do, atheism and scientism are refuted. If they don’t, science, by its own “logic”, is grounded in an unreal and unobservable mathematical wavefunction that produces its effects randomly (statistically) rather than causally. Science, therefore, fundamentally denies the existence of objective reality. It denies both the reality principle and the principle of sufficient reason. If, therefore, you think that it does not constitute an irrational, faith-based, quasi-religious, stance, that’s because you yourself are ... irrational! Just like an Abrahamist. Mathematics is the supreme defender of rationalism. Abrahamism is the supreme defender of feelings (faith) and wholly opposed to rationalism. Abrahamism will always prefer faith and revelation over reason, hence is irrational. Science is the supreme defender of the senses (empiricism) and wholly opposed to rationalism. There are only two reasons why science is superior to Abrahamism: 1) the senses are more reliable, objective and dispassionate than feelings, and 2) science, despite its overt hatred and rejection of rationalism, relies on mathematics, the defining subject of rationalism. No empiricist scientist has

ever explained why their ideology is grounded in its opposite: rationalist mathematics, for which there is no need whatsoever for the scientific method, for experiments, or for the human senses. Scientists are scarcely any better than crazy Abrahamists. They’re irrational and dogmatic. They refuse to consider the ontology of dimensionless mathematical unobservables. They do so not for rational reasons but because mathematical, dimensionless existence (the Singularity as an ontological reality, a frequency domain outside space and time) is not part of their faith-based religion (or should that be irrational, faith-based anti-religion?!). Whenever atheists comment on our work, they have invariably never studied any of our writings, they know nothing about ontological mathematics, and they assume that we believe in some absurd Abrahamic Creator God. They are ignorant and irrational and have no idea what they have actually encountered. Illuminism, the religion of ontological mathematics, is nothing to do with faith, revelation, prophets, Creator Gods or anything else like that. It’s the rationalist religion of the likes of Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel. What kind of fool would choose to stand against these geniuses? Leibniz gave us the monad – the mathematical, dimensionless soul (the singularity), immortal and indestructible. Richard Dawkins gave us the “immortal, selfish gene”. So, do you think Dawkins is smarter than Leibniz? Have you even read one word of Leibniz? On what rational basis do you dismiss Leibniz and worship Dawkins? Atheism is just another silly faith, contemptuous of rationalism. Atheists are spectacularly ill informed both mathematically and philosophically, and they mindlessly suck up all the irrational drivel spouted by empiricist scientific materialists like Dawkins. The ultimate question can be stated very clearly, in the terms set out by Plato well over two thousand years ago: is reality intelligible or sensible? If it’s intelligible, we must address it with our reason (rationalism). If it’s sensible, we must address it with our senses (empiricism). If it’s intelligible, mathematics is our tool for investigating its properties. If it’s sensible, empiricist scientific materialism is the correct tool. Well, do you think your reason or your senses are more important, and more fundamentally related to the quest for truth? If the latter, don’t claim to be rational!

The Good News? The good news, for most people, is that there’s a God. The bad news, for most people, is that God isn’t a person. “He” is ontological mathematics. However, this mathematical God guarantees you an immortal, indestructible mathematical soul – an immaterial, dimensionless monad (a frequency singularity outside space and time).

The Mind and the Brain The mind is a singularity that controls a body, but is shielded from the body by a mathematical event horizon. Bodily death results in our crossing the event horizon until we are purely in the mental domain. Conception results in our crossing the event horizon in the opposite direction, allowing us to control a body in the material, spacetime domain. At no time, can we ever directly encounter a mind (soul), hidden as it is behind its impenetrable event horizon. Like a black hole, we can only ever see a mind’s effects on its environment. We can’t see the mind itself.

Symmetry, Asymmetry and Antisymmetry “Symmetry (from Greek symmetria ‘agreement in dimensions, due proportion, arrangement’) has two meanings. The first is a vague sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance. The second is an exact mathematical ‘patterned self-similarity’ that can be demonstrated with the rules of a formal system, such as geometry or physics.” – Wikipedia “Asymmetry is the absence of, or a violation of, symmetry. Symmetry is an important property of both physical and abstract systems and it may be displayed in precise terms or in more aesthetic terms. The absence of violation of symmetry that are either expected or desired can have important consequences for a system.” – Wikipedia “The word antisymmetric refers to a change to an opposite quantity when another quantity is symmetrically changed. This concept is related to that of Symmetry and Asymmetry. The difference between these three concepts can be simply illustrated with Latin letters. The character ‘A’ is symmetric about the vertical axis while the character ‘B’ is not. The character ‘S’ is

antisymmetric about the vertical axis since the left side is flipped relative to the right. A character such as ‘H’ fits the definition of both symmetric and antisymmetric. In this case, the correct term is symmetric.” – Wikipedia

The Flowing Point According to the doctrine of the “flowing point”, a point in motion has an effective dimensionality (one dimension) since it is neither definitely at one point on its trajectory, nor at the next: it straddles both, so to speak. The flowing point is therefore greater than zero in size, unlike all static points, which are zero in size. The best and most familiar example of a flowing point is “now”, the present instant in time. The “now” we experience is the ultimate moving target. You can never isolate it at a single point. Even as you experience it, it has already moved on. It’s always in motion, and never frozen. The most significant fact about the flowing point is that it introduces the possibility of the dimensional, the finite, into a system that would otherwise be solely based on zero and infinity. How can you get from zero to one in a system of static points where there are infinite points between zero and one? Yet we know that we can get from zero to one. Why does the “force” of infinity not stop us? It’s because the number of flowing points between zero and one is extremely large but nevertheless finite since a flowing point has a tiny, non-zero extension thanks to the very fact that it’s in motion. Yet there’s an extra subtlety regarding flowing points, and in such subtleties we find the ultimate secrets of existence. At any instant, a flowing point has an effective dimensionality, but if we average a flowing point in a sine wave, for example, across all of its possible states (which are of course both positive and negative in a wave), then, across the full cycle, the net dimensionality of the flowing point is zero! Thus a flowing point allows us to have dimensionality within an overall dimensionless system. This material world of ours appears to be dimensional, but, averaged over all possible states, it’s actually dimensionless. We all exist within a Singularity. The world is a hologram projected from a single mental mathematical point – a living Singularity composed of myriad mathematical minds (monads), which are nothing but autonomous collections of sinusoidal waves defined by the generalised Euler Formula.

Existence doesn’t randomly leap out of non-existence, as science absurdly claims. Existence is a permanent, indestructible mathematical Singularity whose remarkable mathematical properties allow it to create the illusion of a material world. If we could see the world from a perspective outside the world – a “God perspective” – we would see that the physical world actually exists inside a mental Singularity of pure ontological mathematics. The Singularity, being made of sinusoidal waves, has a period. Like any regular wave, it repeats its pattern over and over again forever. We live in a cyclical universe where the cycle begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, which immediately passes over into a new Big Bang, and so on. Every cycle necessarily obeys the same pattern, but the events within the cycle are always unique to that cycle. There is eternal recurrence of pattern, but not eternal recurrence of events within the pattern (of the sort Nietzsche believed in). The universe permanently cycles between perfect symmetry (brought about by the Big Crunch), the breaking of perfect symmetry (brought about the Big Bang), and the long journey to recreate perfect symmetry (at the next Big Crunch). The universe is driven by the force of symmetry. When symmetry breaks, the dimensionality of the flowing point becomes critical. If the Big Crunch generates perfect dimensionless existence, the Big Bang instantly shatters it and creates dimensional existence (yet, averaged over all states, this is a pseudo-dimensional existence since, overall, the dimensionality remains strictly at zero, i.e. we never truly escape the original, immortal Singularity). It’s crucial to understand that inevitable, cosmic, dialectical mathematical forces are at work and the universe has no choice about reaching perfect symmetry. This will definitely happen, yet how it happens is unique to each cycle. In human terms, what this means is that there are some people on the side of how the cosmos is evolving (those who are becoming Gods), and there are many opposing it (the slaves). The ones who oppose evolution are certain to be crushed by it, and deserve to be. Hegel identified “world-historic” figures – those he saw as transcending mere events. These people were players in the cosmic dialectic itself. The universe necessarily produces such people since they are necessary to drive forward evolution towards its inevitable climax: the Omega Point of divinity, corresponding, “scientifically”, to the Big Crunch.

In other words, viewed objectively from the outside, the universe is just a giant system of symmetry operations, involving the breaking of symmetry and then the restoration of symmetry. The universe has no choice about this. It’s what it inherently does. Subjectively, this same mathematical force of symmetry manifests itself as a great dialectical war between the individual (who is on the side of antisymmetry and asymmetry) and the collective (which is on the side of symmetry), i.e. between right wing ideology and left wing ideology. It’s inevitable that the left wing collective will win since this corresponds to the triumph of the cosmic mathematical force driving the re-establishment of universal symmetry. The right wingers always start off with the whip hand, and are always defeated in the end. This corresponds to the unfolding of the master-slave dialectic. In terms of physics, there’s a war going on between antisymmetric fermionic particles and symmetric bosonic particles. The expansion of the universe corresponds to a bosonic force that eventually overwhelms and destroys all fermions, leading, paradoxically, to the dramatic collapse of the universe via the Big Crunch, i.e. the “expanding universe”, when viewed from another perspective, is none other than the “contracting universe”, and will eventually restore the universe to the Singularity from which it originated. It’s all in the math. What is the flip side of zero? Infinity! What is the flip side of ultimate expansion (infinity)? – ultimate contraction (zero). Professor Roger Penrose said, “If people asked me what happened before the Big Bang, my normal answer would be to say, well, you know, the word ‘before’, you see, what does that mean? Well, that’s a sort of temporal concept, and if the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime that means the very notion of time loses its meaning at this event, this so-called Big Bang. If the notion of time loses its meaning, the very notion of ‘before’ loses its meaning. Therefore, we pretend to say it’s a meaningless question to ask for ‘before’. There wasn’t a ‘before’. That’s the wrong kind of notion. And I would have perhaps gone along with this point of view until I’ve had some different ideas more recently. … The present picture of the universe is that it starts with a Big Bang and it ends with an indefinitely expanding, exponentially expanding, universe where, in the remote future, it cools off and there’s nothing much left except photons. Now what I’m saying is that in this remote future the photons have no way of keeping

time: they don’t have any mass. You need mass to make a clock and you have to have a clock to measure the scale of the universe, so the universe loses track of how big it is. And this very expanded universe becomes equivalent to a Big Bang of another one. So, I’m saying that this, what we think about our present universe, is but one eon of a succession of eons, where this remotely expanding universe of each becomes the Big Bang of the next. So small and big become completely equivalent.”

***** For human beings, the universe has three perspectives: 1) mathematical, involving symmetry, symmetry breaking and symmetry restoration, 2) physical, involving bosons generating fermions and then converting all fermions back into bosons, and 3) a left wing world of equals giving rise to a divided, right wing world of masters and slaves, haves and have-nots, followed by a great left wing uprising to restore left wing equality, but this time as a communism of Gods! If you’re right wing, you’ve had your time in the sun. The Day of Reckoning is coming. The moment of maximum inequality – to which we are now extremely close thanks to the staggering greed of right wing capitalists – is, paradoxically, the moment when the whole right wing ideology fails totally, and the left wing takes over once and for all. This cannot be avoided. It’s how the dialectic plays out. Symmetry and bosons are left wing, collective and constructively cooperative. Antisymmetry and fermions are right wing, individualistic and destructively competitive. These mathematical, physical and political things are not all separate. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives.

Love versus Reason Feeling types promote “love” as the path to universal symmetry. They blabber on about “unconditional love”, “love and light”, “light working”, and so on. Thinking types promote reason. There’s no problem with reason. After all, everyone in the world can agree that 1 + 1 = 2. But what of love? People love themselves, their family, their friends, their lovers, their nation, money, power, and all manner of things, which are often in direct conflict with each other.

If, like a right winger, you are fanatically in love with yourself and your family, this means you are the active enemy of everyone else. You are in a game theory world of everyone acting out of ruthless self interest, and cutting each other’s throats. You endorse destructive competition rather than constructive cooperation. No one who actually liked the rest of the world would want to be enormously richer than everyone else in the world, yet the primary desire of all right wingers is to be fabulously rich in comparison with others. This is the “America Dream!” – or, rather, nightmare as far as left wingers are concerned. What is family inheritance all about if not to ensure that rich families maintain a permanent advantage over all other families? Symmetry demands 100% inheritance tax. Love is a false path to symmetry. Look at Christianity. It promotes love, and yet, historically, has been the most hateful force of all. So it always goes when people use feelings rather than reason. How far would Jesus Christ have got if he had written a gospel based on Euler’s Formula? People despise reason. They want to wallow in irrational, convenient, expedient feelings. If the rich are such great Christians, why don’t they give all of their money away? – exactly what Jesus Christ, their God, demanded they do! Their love of money, luxury, status and power was much greater than their love of their neighbour, or even of their own God! If disobeying God in the Garden of Eden led to Adam and Eve being marked with Original Sin, and they and all their descendants being condemned to hell, why is it that disobeying God, in terms of his command to give up all your money and possessions and follow him, is simply ignored? All Christians with any money and possessions are, according to their own religion, going to hell! They have flagrantly rejected and disobeyed God’s command. He didn’t offer any choice to his followers – they must be poor in order to be Christians! Christianity is an extreme left wing ideology, believed in, perversely, by extreme right wingers, which makes it obscene. If “Christians” were genuine Christians, they would all be communists rather than capitalists. They cannot serve Jesus and capitalism: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” – Jesus Christ, the Sermon on the Mount

Every Christian should be compelled to choose between Christianity and capitalism (Mammon). They must be seen to choose their one master!

***** It’s the force of reason, not love, that’s driving the universe towards its Omega Point. Everything is united in reason. Love has many, diverse, contradictory answers. Reason – true reason – has only one. There is only one rational answer, and when all things are agreed upon it, a cosmic cycle ends. Who are the world-historic figures of today? They are the most rational human beings. They are the ones destined to lead the human race out of the darkness, to lead them away from Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism to absolute rationalism.

Material “Evolution”? “Evolution, on the materialistic theory, is reduced to the role of being another word for the description of the changes of the external relations between portions of matter… There is nothing to evolve… There can merely be change, purposeless and unprogressive… [and] there is material [or energy]… which endures.” – A. N. Whitehead A mind can evolve. It can become smarter. What does it means to talk of “evolution” in the context of matter? Mental atoms can evolve, but material atoms cannot. Have any of the atoms in your body evolved? They are exactly the same as they were before they entered your body, and as they will be afterwards. So, people like Richard Dawkins must be claiming that evolution operates at the level of collections of atoms, but how does it make any sense to say that atoms themselves don’t evolve but collections of these same non-evolving atoms do? Isn’t that a category error? It’s the same fallacy as claiming that dead atoms can be mixed together to produce life, or mindless atoms mixed together to produce mind. If atoms are dead, no amount of mixing them together will ever produce life. If atoms have no minds, no configuration of them, no matter how elaborate, will exhibit mind and qualia. If atoms cannot evolve, no amount of atoms assembled together, no way of arranging them, will result in anything that evolves. No matter how long you spent arranging car parts, you would never turn them into a

living, evolving car! If there’s no substantive difference between material atoms and material car parts made of material atoms, exactly the same rules and logic must apply. Evolution, as a concept, can apply only to mind, never to matter. A mind can learn things and change. A mind can pursue ends and develop better and better way to pursue those ends. But dead, mindless atoms cannot evolve under any circumstances. All they can do is combine together and break apart. How irrational would you need to be to imagine that if you mixed enough Lego blocks together, in sufficiently complex ways, a living, conscious being would suddenly emerge? It’s impossible.

The Singularity “Though the originating power gave birth to the universe fifteen billion years ago, this realm of power is not simply located there at that point in time, but is rather a condition of every moment of the universe, past, present, and future.” – Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme The mathematical Singularity, outside space and time, is the “originating power”, and applies at all times, to everything. The Singularity is immaterial, immortal and indestructible. It’s the domain of immutable, perfect, Platonic mathematical Forms.

Honesty? “It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.” – Noël Coward Is it shocking? Really? How much people have the vaguest idea what truth is? Who is the judge of honesty? Are scientists honest given that they do nothing but seek to interpret reality according to their own wholly biased Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism? Is it honest or dishonest to reject out-of-hand alternative Meta Paradigms without having any sufficient reason for doing so? Only rationalism is associated with truth, only rationalism is associated with eternal truths of reason. Science is anti-rationalism. Science dishonestly says that only the empirical is real, and anything non-empirical is ipso facto false.

Religion Religion is typically defined as the expression of a group’s belief in, and reverence for, a supernatural power that allegedly creates or governs the universe and controls human destiny. In a broader sense, it’s simply an institutionalized system of beliefs, rituals, customs and practices; a system that has become ideological, dogmatic and incapable of considering other possibilities. The word religion has its origin in the Latin religare, meaning to rebind, refasten or bind fast the bond between humanity and the gods, i.e. to ensure that the connection is continually refreshed and strengthened via ritualistic prayer and worship. The scientific establishment in general, and Richard Dawkins in particular, are “religious” insofar as they fanatically adhere to a belief system (that of scientific materialism), the validity of which they never question and any attacks on which they reject automatically and vehemently. Dawkins, an atheist zealot, frequently talks of science being associated with “facts” and “evidence”. Yet Nietzsche, a far more consistent and rational atheist than Dawkins, declared, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Dawkins has never grasped that he’s in the interpretation game, and scientific materialism is just one more interpretation, and one, moreover, that can be easily challenged and rejected ... by ontological mathematics. Where mainstream religion irrationally claims that feelings (faith) can reveal the truths of reality, scientific materialism is about an irrational devotion to sensory “evidence”. Science is more successful than religion because our senses are attuned to the world we observe around us whereas our feelings are about our hopes and fears, which are subjective and prone to fantasy and wishful thinking. Dawkins is denounced by people of faith who dismiss his attacks on religion as crude and simplistic. We have no intention of criticising Dawkins’ loathing of mainstream religion. In fact, he doesn’t go nearly far enough! Nietzsche was far superior at expressing his revulsion for Christianity: “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is

sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty – I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind…” Faith is an abomination. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to the human race and the biggest obstacle in the way of the progress of humanity. Yet Dawkins himself is a person of faith: in the scientific method and the results it produces, which he regards as true facts and evidence about the workings of the world. Dawkins believes that Darwinism has been “proved”. What he ought to be saying is that evidence has been collected, which, at face value, is consistent with a Darwinist interpretation. Nothing has been proved, and other non-Darwinist interpretations could equally well account for the same evidence. In relation to quantum mechanics, there are many different interpretations of what it implies about reality. These rival interpretations are associated with radically different ontologies, yet they are all consistent with the known mathematics and experimental results of quantum mechanics. This proves that “facts and evidence” do not do anything to verify one interpretation over another. If science can’t refute ontologically false interpretations of quantum mechanics, how can it claim that Darwinism is unambiguously true? Darwinism is the biological equivalent of one interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation is all it is, and rival interpretations are certainly not ruled out. Dawkins, irrationally, believes that Darwinism is a demonstrated “fact”. It’s nothing of the kind. Nietzsche said, “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” How does Dawkins know that Darwinism isn’t simply an error that he himself finds unable to refute, but which others, viewing the same facts from a different perspective, find eminently refutable? The angle from which we attack Dawkins and the scientific establishment is not that of faith but of the deadliest enemy science has ever faced, the one which will inevitably replace it – ontological mathematics. This book is the story of how mathematics is the true language of reality: of religion, metaphysics and a Platonic intelligible world that transcends the scientific sensible world.

The Meaning of Life: Mind Versus Matter

A universe of mind is a universe of meaning. A universe of matter is devoid of meaning. Richard Dawkins, a fanatical materialist, denies all meaning and purpose in the universe. Scientists, as a whole, deride teleology, even though they themselves are inherently teleological beings. Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” In what way is a meaningless life worth living? Scientists deny any link between the microscopic and macroscopic (enshrined in the ancient principle: as above, so below), and thus claim that there are two categories of existence: purposeless matter and purposeful mind created by purposeless matter when arranged in a specific way. This is crazy logic and simply recreates Cartesian substance dualism in a different guise. How can the purposeless give rise to the purposeful? How can it interact with it? Either all of existence is purposeless or all of existence is purposeful. Our own existence, our own purposes, prove that existence is inherently purposeful. Scientists do not attempt to address the fatal philosophical objections to their belief system. They always hide behind their “method”, although, of course, their method is useless in any attempt to explain the emergence of purpose from its opposite (just as it can’t explain how something can come from its opposite: absolute nothingness).

Four Possible Paths to the Truth What leads us to the truth? Is it our feelings, our senses, our intuition, or our ability to think (to reason)? People of religious faith are feeling types. They want to be comforted by a reassuring story that makes sense emotionally. They want to be able to relate to a great cosmic person (“God”). They can’t relate to an abstraction. They grasp the world by way of stories (Mythos), imbued with pathos (feeling), which lack any analytical and rational content. The Torah, Bible and Koran are full of simplistic stories and blatant appeals to emotion. They are all about relationships, especially relationships with co-religionists, with “infidels”, with kings, with prophets, and, above all, with “God”. They contain zero mathematics, science or philosophy. That tells you everything you need to know about them.

Abrahamism is nothing but the religion of feelings: faith in emotional stories. Abrahamists are storybook people who understand the world through stories. They have no rational understanding of reality. The claim that “God” made the world in six days and rested on the seventh is manifestly a childish story, not something that any rational person could ever accept. Even if you believed in an all-powerful God, you would rationally conclude that he made the world instantly, and had no need of any rest. Without a day of rest, there would be no “Sabbath” day, and the character of Abrahamism would thereby be totally different. People of science are sensing types. They won’t believe anything unless they have “proof”, by which they actually means subjective, interpretive, sensory “evidence”. Yet, as human dreams demonstrate, our senses seem to provide us with persuasive and “real” data even when attuned to total fantasy. Descartes was right to doubt all sensory “evidence” and to establish modern philosophy on the basis of strict rationalism. Sensory data can never be trusted in any absolute sense, yet the whole of science is predicated on exactly such trust. It’s ferociously anti-Cartesian in this regard. What is the first rational truth? It’s Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum. This is a statement about the primacy of mind over matter. Mind, not matter, defines existence. Any rational philosophy must start from the perspective of an autonomous mind that thinks. If that weren’t true, there would be no such things as reason and knowledge. No rational philosophy would ever start with lifeless, mindless atoms given that an insurmountable problem is immediately presented, namely, where do life and mind come from if they are not inherent properties of atoms, and atoms are all that exist? Are they just magicked into existence out of nothing? A rational philosophy can be constructed from minds that give rise to matter (as a mental phenomenon), but not from matter that gives rise to mind (as a material epiphenomenon). People of intuition typically subscribe to Eastern Religion. They enjoy mystical visions, meditation, paradoxes, abstractions, mysteries. They have no need of sensory evidence, and their intuition replaces feelings. They don’t feel that something is right (“gut feeling”), they intuit that something is right. Intuition is a special kind of thinking that skips sequential, rational steps and presents its conclusions all at once. People of thought are those who reason their way to the truth. They do not look to feelings or the senses, but will welcome intuitions that they can

then rationalize. People of faith want prophets, holy books and gods with personalities and feelings. They want everything told to them as a big, simple, emotional story. People of intuition are happy with impersonal, abstract Gods. They want everything told to them as a big, grand, all-encompassing, mystical vision. People of the senses would accept gods only if they could see them in the flesh. They want everything told to them in a big sensory story (science). People of thought would never accept anything other than a rational God, which would be none other than Reason itself. They want everything told to them in terms of the principle of sufficient reason: they want to know why everything is thus and not otherwise. People of faith are Abrahamists. People of intuition follow Eastern Religion. People of the senses follow science. People of thought follow reason, logic and mathematics. These are the basic four human tribes, each with its own unique path to the “truth”. To which tribe do you belong? The rational truth is this: 1) People of feelings are fundamentally cut off from the Truth. Faith won’t help you one jot when it comes to the truth, which is rational, not emotional; 2) People of the senses can only ever find the “truth” of the phenomenal, sensible world but never that of the higher, noumenal, intelligible world where absolute Truth resides; 3) People of intuition can glimpse the truth but often fail to rationalize it. 4) Only people of thought can unambiguously get to the infallible Truths of the intelligible Platonic domain of ontological mathematics. If you want the truth, you don’t in fact have four choices, but only one. Rationalists alone can embrace the authentic Truth. Truth is exclusively rational. The principle of sufficient reason is the Truth itself. Religious types often claim that all religions actually lead to the same Truth, that all religions contain an element of truth. This is wholly fallacious. Religions of faith and mysticism (all mainstream religions!) don’t lead to any Truth at all. They are united in being equally false, not equally true. Abrahamism has literally zero truth content. You could not discover a single authentic Truth about reality from Abrahamic “holy” texts, other than that huge numbers of human beings believe that ancient, pre-scientific stories are true and are an infinitely better path to ultimate truth than reason. That places them in the category of the insane.

Still Waiting for the Disproof

Scientists have never provided any evidence that the soul does not and cannot exist. In this context, Richard Dawkins likes to say that he feels no need to disprove the hypothetical existence of fairies at the bottom of his garden. Yet the soul – the rational, mathematical monad – has nothing in common with a Mythos creation such as a fairy. Does Dawkins feel no need to disprove the existence of an autonomous, immaterial, Fourier frequency domain (singularity), outside space and time, and defined by the generalised Euler Formula? This is what a monadic mind (soul) actually is. Does Dawkins feel no need to address the ontology of mathematics? If not, he’s the opposite of an intellectual. He’s the one who’s away with the fairies! So, here’s a much meatier challenge for Dawkins and all of his acolytes than the ones provided by silly Mythos religions: disprove the existence of the dimensionless, immaterial, frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, which provides the platform for quantum mechanics, upon which the whole of modern science is predicated. If you cannot disprove it, you cannot rationally claim that it’s impossible for the soul to exist. Souls are not “fairies”; they are mathematical singularities. Physics breaks down at singularities, i.e. it breaks down exactly where it encounters the soul! That’s where ontological mathematics begins. Dawkins frequently taunts religious believers by demanding to know what they would accept as evidence that their God does not exist. Well, we demand to know what evidence Dawkins would accept that his faith in scientific materialism is false. Will he reject the ontological basis of Fourier mathematics in order to maintain his faith in matter? If he will not accept anything as a refutation of his materialist beliefs then how is he any different from the Abrahamists?

Unreason Unreason: absence or lack of reason; madness; irrationality; nonsense; absurdity; lacking reason; contrary to reason; lack of order; chaos; deprived of reason; inability or unwillingness to think or act rationally; confusion; disorder; lacking powers of understanding. Science has become the gospel of unreason. It’s ferociously hostile to rationalism and idealism – the school of philosophy that stands opposed to the “natural philosophy” of scientific empiricism and materialism. Rational and idealism put mind above matter, reason above the senses. Empiricism

and materialism put matter above mind, the senses above reason. Make no mistake, the universe is intelligible only if it is mental. Only mind can exhibit reason.

The Science Delusion Scientists are characterized by a distinct lack of imagination and intuition. They have a staggeringly naive and childlike commitment to “seeing is believing”, and, “if it can’t be seen, it can’t exist”. Anyone who can’t imagine a noumenal reality behind the phenomenal one in front of their face has a serious mental problem. A new disorder should be defined: Psychoagnosia, modelled on Prosopagnosia. Wikipedia says of Prosopagnosia: “Prosopagnosia (Greek: ‘prosopon’ = ‘face’, ‘agnosia’ = ‘not knowing’), also called face blindness, is a disorder of face perception where the ability to recognize faces is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing (e.g., object discrimination) and intellectual functioning (e.g., decision making) remain intact.” Psychoagnosia is “mind blindness” (rather than face blindness) and is a disorder of intelligence, causing sufferers not to recognize their own mind and free will. Scientific materialism is the disordered system of thought inevitably constructed by those afflicted with Psychoagnosia, whereby mind is stripped from all explanations of reality.

Event Horizon “In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In layman’s terms, it is defined as ‘the point of no return’ i.e. the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible. The most common case of an event horizon is that surrounding a black hole. Light emitted from beyond the horizon can never reach the outside observer.” – Wikipedia Scientific materialists readily accept the existence of an event horizon beyond which information is impossible to acquire. Light itself can’t escape from a black hole. The reason for that is simple. A black hole singularity

belongs to mental, dimensionless existence (the frequency domain) and, in accordance with Fourier mathematics, is no longer part of spacetime. Isn’t it odd that scientists are willing to accept a reality – the immaterial, dimensionless black hole singularity – that is scientifically unknowable, non-empirical, unobservable and shielded from spacetime by an impenetrable event horizon, and yet they ridicule the notion of a scientifically unknowable, non-empirical, unobservable domain of immaterial, dimensionless souls, shielded from spacetime by an impenetrable event horizon? Guess what ... black hole singularities are none other than portals to, and part of, the soul domain! The frequency domain of immaterial, dimensionless existence is one and the same as Soul World. To study singularities and event horizons is to study the domain of souls. What was the Big Bang? It was how monadic minds mathematically created the spacetime world and, in due course, material bodies, to which they could then bind, and control via Fourier mathematics. Every mention of singularities is a reference to minds/souls. Souls are mathematical singularities: immaterial, dimensionless, self-contained, autonomous frequency domains. Souls are not weird, woo woo, faith-based Mythos nonsense: they are the eternal, mathematical foundations of reality. To study souls is to study the most fundamental mathematics. To study souls is to engage in the most rational and basic mathematical exercise of all. Souls have nothing to do with faith, holy texts, prophets, popes, priest, preachers, revelation, Mythos, or anything else. Souls are simply the noumenal mathematical foundation stones of mathematical reality, exactly as described by Leibniz in his Monadology. Souls are not just rational but hyperrational. They are the purest mathematical objects of all. It’s shocking that scientists have such contempt for mathematics. When they ridicule the concept of souls, they are saying that they don’t accept mathematics and mathematical singularities. Scientists are irrational. They cannot think their way past their spacetime senses to the intelligible, frequency domain beyond spacetime. What is the event horizon? It’s where the phase change between dimensionless and dimensional existence occurs. The event horizon is what shields the soul from spacetime. It’s the “soul defender”.

What is a near-death-experience? It’s the experience of being sucked into a black hole! That is, when you’re dying, your mind starts relocating from its spacetime awareness to its true home in the frequency domain. What is an out-of-body-experience? It’s when your mind uses its transcendent and immanent qualities to roam wherever it likes in spacetime, free of any bodily restrictions. What are paranormal events? They involve the non-local operations of mind (via the frequency domain) rather than the local operations of the mind (via the spacetime domain). The mysteries of existence aren’t mysterious at all – except to stunted, unimaginative, unintuitive scientific minds locked into sensory localism. It’s all in the math! Isn’t it time to become rational? Isn’t it time for ontological mathematics? Abandon science, the gospel of sensory, anti-mathematical irrationalism.

Hidden Variables “Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behaviour and thus avoid any indeterminism. The existence of indeterminacy for some measurements is a characteristic of prevalent interpretations of quantum mechanics ... Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, objected to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and famously declared ‘I am convinced God does not play dice’. “Under the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, meaning that it generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it indicates what the probabilities of the outcomes are ... The question arises whether there might be some deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty: if the exact properties of every subatomic

particle were known the entire system could be modelled exactly using deterministic physics similar to classical physics, a la Laplace’s demon. “In other words, it is conceivable that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of nature. The designation of variables as underlying ‘hidden’ variables depends on the level of physical description (so, for example, ‘if a gas is described in terms of temperature, pressure, and volume, then the velocities of the individual atoms in the gas would be hidden variables’ [Senechal M, Cronin J]. Physicists supporting de Broglie-Bohm theory maintain that underlying the observed probabilistic nature of the universe is a deterministic objective foundation/property – the hidden variable. Others, however, believe that there is no deeper deterministic reality in quantum mechanics...” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, ontological mathematical monads, made of analytic sinusoidal waves, are the supreme “hidden variables” that define everything else. Numbers, including imaginary numbers, complex numbers, negative numbers and zero and infinity, might also be designated as hidden variables, especially if they are defined in relation to sinusoids. Monads are the “hidden variables” of mathematics, metaphysics, religion, neuroscience and psychology, just as much as of quantum physics.

The Collapse of the Materialist Paradigm “Mass is constructed entirely from the energy of interactions involving naturally massless elementary particles...” – Jim Baggott, Higgs: The Invention and Discovery of the “God Particle” Mass is said to be generated when particles interact with the Higgs field. However, since the Higgs boson associated with the Higgs field has mass then it must have got it by interacting with its own field. So, physics says that mass is created by itself – like magic! “Mind has erected the objective outside world ... out of its own stuff.” – Erwin Schrödinger, leading theorist of quantum mechanics Absolutely right, Erwin!

Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness But Quantum Mechanics Can – Henry Stapp, leading thinker of quantum mechanics Absolutely right, Henry! “The ‘matter’ that occurs in classical physics ... does not exist in nature.” – Henry Stapp Right again! There’s no such thing as matter in itself, independent of mind. “Philosophers of mind appear to have arrived today at less-than-satisfactory solutions to the mind-brain and free will problems, and the difficulties seem, at least prima facie, very closely connected with their acceptance of a known-to-be-false understanding of the nature of the physical world, and the causal role of our conscious thoughts within it.” – Henry Stapp “The re-bonding [of mind and matter in quantum mechanics] achieved by physicists during the first half of the twentieth century must be seen as a momentous development: a lifting of the veil.” – Henry Stapp “[Quantum mechanics] upsets the whole apple cart. It produced a seismic shift in our ideas about both the nature of reality, and the nature of our relationship to the reality that envelops and sustains us... The effect of this change is profound: it replaces the world of material substances by a world populated by actions, and by potentialities for the occurrence of the various possible observed feedbacks from these actions.” – Henry Stapp “It is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’ – or lack of it that [quantum mechanics] seems to imply for our world.” – Roger Penrose “Almost all the ‘conventional’ interpretations of quantum mechanics ultimately depend upon the presence of a ‘perceiving being’. ... As far as I can make out, the only interpretations that do not necessarily depend upon some notion of ‘conscious observer’ ... require some fundamental change in the rules of quantum mechanics.” – Roger Penrose “The laws of physics were saying that matter as we know it simply can’t exist.” – Robert Oerter

“...the obviously wrong notion of a reality independent of us.” – Anton Zeilinger “Our whole manner of speech ... rather naturally makes us think that there is some stuff or substance on which properties can, in a sense, be glued... Philosophers have been debating the correctness of such arguments for a long time. Now, it seems, experimental science has come along and shown that, at least at the quantum level, the objects we study have no substance to them independent of their [perceived] properties.” – Jonathan Allday

Quantum Insanity “The object was not there before you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there.” – Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

The Materialist Claim The materialist claim is that there exists a “stuff” – devoid of life, purpose, free will, or any mental qualities – which is entirely independent of mind. Of course, if such a thing actually existed, it would be impossible for mind (taken as independent of matter) to know anything about it at all since it has zero in common with mind. If, however, mind is derived from matter then why isn’t mind just matter too? How did it take on an entirely different category and quality of existence? Materialism claims that mind is a product of matter hence can “know” matter. The problem is that if matter has no mental qualities whatsoever, how can it produce mind? This is a “magic” claim. “An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.” – Daniel Dennett The problem is that quantum mechanics denies the existence of matter in the classical sense – hence there is no “molecular machinery” in any fundamental sense. This is just a Mythos. “[No] brain, body, or anything else in the real world is composed of those tiny bits of matter that Newton imagined the universe to be made of.” – Henry Stapp

This equally applies to Dennett’s “molecular machinery”, on which his whole philosophy is based!

Causality Classical physics was based on total determinism. It provided the metaphor of the “clockwork universe”, and posited an objectively real world, which was there whether or not anyone was observing it. Quantum physics is based on probability, statistics, randomness – totally indeterminacy. You can never be certain what’s going to happen in quantum physics. All you can do is quote probabilities. Quantum mechanics posits an unreal world (of the abstract quantum mechanical wavefunction), from which “real” things are randomly plucked by wavefunction collapse. There is no objectively real world that exists independently of observers. (In fact, by the logic of quantum physics, observers themselves vanish into unreality when they are asleep alone and are not being observed by anyone, and are not observing anything.) In classical physics, things really exist, and causes have as much reality as their effects. In quantum physics, things fundamentally “exist” potentially rather than actually, and the observed world of actual things is produced by the random collapse of the potentiality wavefunction. Causes therefore have less reality than their effects. Causes are assigned to the potentiality universe, and effects to the actuality universe – a total absurdity, and a kind of Cartesian substance dualism, raising the problem of how different substances can interact. Descartes said, ridiculously, that mind and body interacted via the pineal gland. Quantum mechanics says, equally ridiculously, that potentiality and actuality interact randomly (for no reason at all!). If the classical scientific universe is like a giant, perfect mechanism whose precise state can be determined at any point, and whose future and past states can be calculated with equal precision, the quantum universe, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, is like a horse race where the best you can do is state the odds for which horse will win, while acknowledging that any horse could win. If a quantum effect is totally dependent on which horse wins, but you can’t know which horse will win, this is a system in which formal causality has dissolved. You have no idea of what causes will occur, hence no idea of

effects. In fact, in these terms, there are no causes in any real sense. All you can do is state the odds, but any outcome is possible. The most absurd outsider in the race can romp home. Any outsider that is not impossible (forbidden) is sure to win sooner or later. Strange how we haven’t seen any shred of evidence of this in the observable world. There’s certainly no modern scientific equivalent of the ancient principle of as above, so below, i.e. whatever is true of the large should also be true of the small, whatever is true of the macrocosmos should also be true of us (the microcosmos). The microscopic, indeterministic domain of quanta does not behave anything like the macroscopic, deterministic domain. Even worse, in the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics, neither the racecourse, in our analogy, nor the horses, nor the spectators, are objectively real. They become “real” only at the point at which a measurement or observation takes place, and become unreal again as soon as it’s over (!). Let’s be clear: causality = determinism. In the mathematical universe of Illuminism, everything is 100% deterministic. The only subtlety is that there are two linked, causal, deterministic domains: the frequency domain and the spacetime domain, existing in a feedback loop. This means that you can’t rely on either perfect frequency domain causality or perfect spacetime domain causality. The spacetime domain can be subject to frequency domain causality, and vice versa. Spacetime domain causality is mechanistic, of the kind envisaged by classical science. Frequency domain causality obeys mental causality, i.e. it reflects what minds choose to do, and minds will deterministically obey their own inner nature (they do not act randomly, doing things for no reason!). So, the whole system of causality involves matter being affected by mind, and mind being affected by matter. We exist in both a psychosomatic and somapsychic universe, in a feedback loop. The whole system remains completely deterministic, albeit not in the way claimed by classical science (which rejects the dimensionless domain of mind). What we have said above is the easiest way to think about the relationship between causality in the mental and material domains. In fact, if we remember that the material world is just a representation of the mental world, rather than a genuinely separate thing, then all causality is actually fully traceable to the noumenal frequency domain. This is the only true causality. We might say that there is noumenal causality – true causality –

and phenomenal causality – the spacetime appearance of causality – derived from it. The Copenhagen interpretation claims that the universe is grounded in indeterminacy, hence is not causal. Can a science that rejects formal causality be a science at all? Isn’t it a system of magic where more or less anything can be pulled out of the hat? In Illuminism, everything is rigidly dictated by Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason. There is a sufficient reason why any fact is thus and not otherwise. Copenhagen quantum mechanics wholly rejects this principle. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts that reality is ultimately based on events that have no conceivable explanation. They are random events that occur for no reason at all, beyond the fact that they are possible and have a certain finite probability associated with them. Outcomes that are more probable are more likely, but any possibility can happen. Copenhagen quantum mechanics says, in essence, that there’s a cosmic Limbo of possibilities, each associated with a probability, and that “reality” is simply the actualisation of some of these possibilities rather than others. Moreover, if a Multiverse of infinite parallel universes is introduced, then all possibilities happen, in one parallel universe or the other. In this view, there is simply no such thing as causality. Causality means that some things happen rather than others. In the Multiverse, everything that can happen does happen. Nothing at all is preferred or selected over anything else. Aristotle said that God (the Uncaused Cause, the First Cause, the Last Cause, the Prime Mover) initiated all causal chains. Here we have a cosmic intelligence being at the root of all things. For Aristotle, God and Reason are synonymous, so causality is built into God. He always does everything for a reason; he never does anything randomly. In Illuminism, Aristotle’s God is replaced by countless, autonomous, mathematical, monadic minds. Each is uncreated and uncaused but can initiate causal chains, just like “God”. Once again, we have a system grounded in reason, mathematics, and intelligence (initially unconscious intelligence but capable of evolving consciousness). In Illuminism, there’s no “first cause” associated with a single being; rather, there’s permanent causality built into the fundamental monadic nature of the universe. Every monad generates causality. The monads can act individually and/or collectively. In classical physics, we have a clockwork universe which could be conceived as a perpetual motion machine that permanently reflects

causality, but for which no first cause can be identified. Causality is built into the mechanism. Copenhagen quantum mechanics replaces the inbuilt causality of Aristotle’s God of Reason, the inbuilt causality of Illuminism’s mathematical monadic minds, and the inbuilt causality of the classical clockwork mechanism, with no causality at all. Things happen for no reason beyond the fact that they are possible. It doesn’t matter how unlikely they are. In a vast universe, and especially in a Multiverse, they become inevitable. Anything that can happen will happen. Anything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Well, does the universe reflect inbuilt causality based on reason, mathematics, mechanism or God, or does it not reflect causality at all, but merely meaningless, random possibility? In all rational systems, the universe’s fundamental units are rational. In Illuminism, the fundamental monadic minds that underpin reality can be fully explained mathematically. They are the basic units of ontology, are 100% definable, and their causal consequences can all be rationally studied and understood. Monads guarantee objective reality, the reality principle and the principle of sufficient reason. They provide an authentic, rational foundation to “reality”. With Copenhagen quantum mechanics, there are no fundamental ontological units underpinning reality. There is no objective reality, no reality principle and no principle of sufficient reason. Nothing at all is underpinning reality. “Reality” is now to be conceived in terms of unreal possibilities, potentialities and probabilities rather than actual things. It’s a “virtual” reality (!), not an actual reality. So, is reality based on actual things or merely possible things? If the former, there’s an objective reality; if the latter, there’s not. Here we come to the crux of the debate between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism says that the fundamental units of existence are real, actual, ontological, rational ... but noumenal. That is, they exist but are not observable. They are mental, not physical; intelligible, not sensible. The fundamental units of a rational universe are rational, and rational things are mental things. Reason is mental. Reason is mind. Reason is mathematics. Empiricism denies that anything unobservable can exist in actuality (but can apparently “exist” virtually, prior to observation). Where rationalism is noumenal, empiricism is phenomenal. Science, being empiricist, denies that

real, noumenal, unobservable units of ontology exist. So, empiricism, by its very nature, is forced to deny noumena. Without noumena, and without real, solid, enduring material particles (which existed in classical physics but were abolished by quantum physics), reality, such as it is, cannot be grounded in actualities but only potentialities. Possibilities replace things. These possibilities become real (actual) at the point of observation (measurement). It should be fully understood that science is not stating a “scientific” fact in this regard, but a fanatical and extreme philosophical opinion, not unlike a religious claim. Leibniz had noumenal monads underlying reality, Kant had nonmonadic noumena underlying reality, Schopenhauer had a single, unitary, noumenal Will underlying reality, and Hegel had a rational mind/spirit (Geist) underlying reality (Geist can be treated in Leibnizian monadic terms). Copenhagen empiricism dismisses noumena, hidden variables and rational unobservables (i.e. anything associated with an unobservable, intelligible world), yet is willing to accept unobservable, unempirical possibilities, potentialities and probabilities. It simply doesn’t make any rational sense. Copenhagen empiricism makes measurement and observation (i.e. things pertaining to the sensible world) the basis of reality. Things do not exist as actual things when they are unobserved. They exist only as potentialities and possibilities. They become actual only at the point of observation or measurement. However, this simply begs the question. How and where do things exist as possibilities and potentialities rather than actual things, and how do they ever become actualised in the first place? How do observers capable of performing measurements and observations come into existence? The Copenhagen interpretation is caught in circular logic. We need observers to actualise possibilities but we can’t get observers unless we first actualise some possibilities, but we can’t do that since we don’t have any observers! It’s impossible for the Copenhagen interpretation to explain itself. It must rely on external factors – God or magic! – to become functional. The Copenhagen interpretation is the inevitable outcome of empiricist philosophy. Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from experience. Experience is that which is being experienced right now. By the logic of this philosophy, anything not being experienced right now is purely

speculative, not real. The unobserved moon does not exist. It’s pure potential or possibility until experienced. Rationalism obeys the reality principle. The moon, because it belongs to objective reality, exists whether or not it’s being observed. Empiricism declares that reality is simply that which is being currently experienced, so only the contents of our present experience have reality, and they cease to have reality as soon as they leave our immediate experience. It’s hard to see how this can produce anything other than solipsistic madness, yet this is the formal philosophical basis of contemporary science. Things are continually flitting in and out of existence as they enter or leave experience. This places an extraordinary emphasis on consciousness, on measurement and observation. It more or less denies that time exists. Things, such as the moon, do not exist in time; they exist only when they are experienced, and otherwise they vanish into a possibility cloud where time is not defined. Empiricism is completely irrational. Mathematics, the ground of science, is unobservable, hence is deemed unreal, yet is also used as the means to define the wavefunctions on which the whole of quantum mechanics rests, i.e. science is based on a hidden mathematical reality (hidden variables) whose existence it denies. Work that one out! How did science ever sink so low that it preferred empiricism to rationalism? All because of the scientific method, which is all about experiments, and which rejects anything (noumena) upon which experiments cannot be performed. Science has been rationally destroyed by its own “sacred” method! You cannot have phenomena without noumena. The two go together. Classical physics did not acknowledge noumena and phenomena: it was predicated on solid, persisting atoms (real, observable, material things that were not derived from unobservable noumena). Copenhagen quantum mechanics dismissed both noumena and phenomena, and also dismissed real atoms with definite positions and momenta. It created a new system of unempirical possibilities and the empirical actualisations of these possibilities following wavefunction collapse (an entirely unexplained and inexplicable process, which is inherently not empirically observable, hence refutes empiricism!). Instead of rational noumena, it posited “clouds” (unreal wavefunctions) of possibilities, potentialities and probabilities.

The reality principle – the real persistence of things over time – was replaced by the experience principle (only that which is experienced right now is real, and otherwise it vanishes into a superposition of possibilities). Yet how can you define possibilities and probabilities without reference to some assumed rational position? The entire way in which quantum mechanics is formulated is predicated on rational mathematics, yet what right does empiricism have to refer to mathematics at all if mathematics is unobservable, unempirical and outside the scientific method? In Illuminism, which says that reality is 100% mathematical, anything that cannot be defined mathematically is impossible by definition. How does the Copenhagen interpretation know what is possible and how probable it is if it denies that the universe is fundamentally rational and mathematical? If there’s no innate – noumenal – set of rational criteria to decide what is possible and how probable it is then anything at all is possible! Nothing is forbidden, so everything is compulsory. Nothing at all is impossible. Everything can and will happen! The Abrahamic God is possible, the Abrahamic soul, the Abrahamic heaven and hell, magic, mystery, fairies, goblins, hobgoblins, leprechauns, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, yetis ... anything you like is possible. There are no sufficient reasons to prevent anything since “reality” is not grounded in anything rational that can define what is possible and what is impossible. In a parallel universe, Richard Dawkins takes it for granted that fairies exist at the bottom of his garden, and sneers at anyone who denies this! The atheist Richard Dawkins of this universe is just one of a myriad of Richard Dawkins in parallel universes. In some universes, Dawkins is a fervent Muslim who chops off the head of anyone who insults Allah. That Dawkins would readily kill the Dawkins of this universe. That’s how absurd Dawkins’ “philosophy” of ultra scientism is. He’s a total irrationalist. Science has surrendered rational reality to irrational experience. The sensible world has been declared real (but only at the point of experience), and the intelligible world unreal. Reason has been dismissed, and experience declared all-powerful. None of this has anything to do with science. We are in the midst of the centuries-old philosophical debate between rationalism and empiricism. Science has been hijacked by philosophy without acknowledging it. Moreover, it’s impossible for science not to reflect philosophy.

Why has science dismally failed to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics? It’s because both of these reflect mutually incompatible philosophies and ontologies. No amount of “science” will help here. It’s a job for philosophers, not for scientists. In fact, it’s a job for mathematical metaphysicists – Illuminists!

Intelligible If the universe is intelligible, it means that the fundamental stuff of the universe is intelligible, i.e. rational, logical and mathematical. It means that the fundamental stuff of the universe is mental, dimensionless and unobservable. It means that reason is privileged over the senses. If the universe is sensible, it means that the fundamental stuff of the universe is available to sensory awareness, that the fundamental stuff of the universe is material, dimensional and observable. It means that the senses are privileged over reason. An intelligible universe is one of causality and sufficient reason. A sensible universe is one of experience and observation, with no need of causality and sufficient reason (which were abolished by the Copenhagen school and replaced with unobservable randomness). As always, the question comes down to this: is reason superior to your senses, or vice versa? Are your senses or your intelligence the best route to the truth? An intelligent person is rational. A sensory person is irrational since such a person rejects the primacy of reason, just as Abrahamists reject reason whenever it contradicts revelation and faith.

The War for the Soul of Science In the twentieth century, six Nobel Prize winners, all of whom played key roles in the quantum revolution, waged a war for the soul of science. On one side were Einstein, de Broglie and Schrödinger, and on the other were Bohr, Heisenberg and Born. The conflict revolved around whether science was to retain its classical deterministic character (consistent with objective reality), or to embrace a radical new indeterminacy (contrary to objective reality). The war was summed up in Einstein’s famous dictum, “God does not play dice.”

Bohr, Heisenberg and Born decisively won the war. God, it seemed, did play dice. However, as ever, it was the “losers” who were right, just as, centuries earlier, Leibniz was right and Newton wrong, yet Newton was the one garlanded as the winner. Why did Einstein, de Broglie and Schrödinger fail to persuade the scientific community? It was because a fundamental contradiction arose in science, forcing scientists to jump one way or the other. The only way for determinism to be true, it transpired, was for there to be noumena – hidden variables, rational unobservables – that were beyond the reach of scientific experiments. Science was therefore faced with this dreadful choice: 1) Accept hidden variables, hence reject the primacy of the scientific method based on experimental measurements and observations (since, obviously, scientific experiments can say nothing about anything unobservable, hidden or noumenal). Or 2) Accept the scientific method based on experimental measurements and observations, and thus reject hidden variables, meaning that determinism must be abandoned and replaced by indeterminacy. The choice can be expressed in slightly different but equivalent terms: 1) Accept objective reality by rejecting the scientific method and embracing formally metaphysical considerations (beyond the reach of experimental observations or measurements). Or 2) Reject objective reality by accepting that things are real only at the point of observation or measurement (a position that rejects metaphysics and confers a kind of religious status on experiments). Science, with its long-standing loathing of religion and metaphysics, chose to side with the scientific method and sanctify experiments, observations, measurements and sensory experiences (the traditional empiricist position of British philosophy). It preferred to deny objective reality rather than call the scientific method into question. So, “reality” is now scientifically defined as the point at which an experiment is conducted, and a measurement, observation or sensory experience occurs. This is what

science regards as “evidence”. There’s no experimental evidence that the moon exists when no one is looking at it, so the moon is no longer to be regarded as having any objective reality when no experiments, measurements or observations are being performed on it. Objective reality has been abolished. Instead, a dice-playing God uses an unreal, unobservable wavefunction to provide a mathematical cloud of possibilities and probabilities, which now constitutes the fundamental raw material of existence (except, of course, it doesn’t exist!). Only when the scientific method is applied and an experimental measurement or observation occurs does a possibility randomly actualize from the probability wavefunction and become part of traditional, observable “reality” (before promptly vanishing back into the probability cloud!). The wavefunction is said to have “collapsed”, although no mechanism has ever been provided to explain how this works. There can be no causality involved since this has been replaced by indeterminacy. At school, college and university, you are taught that science is some vast, impressive, rational, evidence-based system with which no sane person can argue. In fact, it’s a bizarre, quasi-religious faith that has abandoned objective reality, causality, determinism, sufficient reason, time, and any sane definition of ontology. The universe is not grounded in actual things but in potential things. Science is now more or less insane. It’s hyper-irrational, and it’s only because scientists are philosophically clueless, ignorant and illiterate that they do not appreciate how far-fetched and lunatic the claims of science now are. The only thing that modern science has in common with classical science is the scientific method. The reality upon which that method operates is, however, unrecognisable. In fact, it’s the precise opposite. The old version of science assumed objective reality, causality and determinism. All of these have been abolished by modern science. Modern science claims that cats can be simultaneously dead, alive and in mixed living-dead states until an observation takes place. If that doesn’t show how much science has lost the plot, what could? Science is now on the side of the logically impossible. It’s an insult to the intelligence. (Of course, we use the word “cat” advisedly since that’s to refer to an objective thing, and there are no objective things in quantum physics. A cat isn’t a cat when it’s not being observed – it’s an unreal cat wavefunction!

There is no “cat” in Schrödinger’s box, only a cat wavefunction, waiting to be collapsed.) Science is now a huge industry in deception. It’s full of liars, con artists and charlatans peddling an insane picture of reality, with people being awarded Nobel Prizes for presenting utterly false interpretations of reality that belong more to religious speculation than any plausible scientific enterprise. More than 300 years after Leibniz and Newton locked swords over the question of what science actually is, the debate remains unresolved. Leibniz’s monads constitute “hidden variables”, unavailable to observation, and such hidden variables are at the core of the true meaning of quantum mechanics. Science has a monumental crisis at its core. That crisis is mathematics. Science has two defining elements, not one. The traditional defining element of science is the scientific method, based on testing hypotheses with regard to experimental data. Successful hypotheses are consistent with the data and unsuccessful hypotheses are not. This is an empiricist approach. However, the other element of science is mathematics, and mathematics is a rationalist undertaking, which has no need at all of the scientific method. With his theory of gravity, Newton matched a mathematical formula to experimental data and was hailed as a genius, but he made no attempt to explain how a rationalist subject such as mathematics could co-exist with an empiricist subject such as experimental science. Mathematics is full of hidden variables and rational unobservables, such as imaginary and negative numbers, zero and infinity. So, the great debate over hidden variables within quantum mechanics was really a debate over the status of mathematics. Which element of science – its rationalist mathematics or its empiricist scientific method – should win? The Copenhagen school chose the scientific method, but the right answer is mathematics. Mathematics is rational, ontological and primary. The scientific method is simply a tool for gathering data. It has nothing to do with the true nature of reality, which is mental and not material, noumenal rather than phenomenal, rationalist rather than empiricist, real rather than probabilistic, causal rather than random, deterministic rather than indeterministic, mathematical rather than scientific.

The real war within science is not metaphysics versus physics (experimentation), it’s mathematics versus experimentation. It’s a civil war between the two elements that define science! In fact, mathematics is actually what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is not wild philosophical speculation. It’s pure math, defended by flawless and infallible mathematical proofs. Science, to make any progress, must relegate the scientific method to the status of useful tool, but not what defines science. Mathematics – metaphysics – must define science. This is exactly what Leibniz argued 300 years ago. He was right all along. The Copenhagen interpretation will one day be seen as the last attempt by science to resist being swallowed by ontological mathematics, and becoming a rationalist rather than empiricist subject.

Teleological Laws All scientific laws are actually teleological. The purpose of the First Law of Thermodynamics is to ensure that energy is always conserved, the purpose of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to ensure that entropy increases, the purpose of the Third Law of Thermodynamics is to provide a temperature below which nothing can fall, the purpose of the Law of Gravity, as we experience it, is to ensure that things fall rather than rise (levitate), and so on. In other words, a “machine” universe that is apparently without purpose (as scientists claim) is actually imbued with purpose. Its purpose is to reflect the laws to which it is subject, and each law has its own specific purpose. Since purpose is associated with life, a system of laws is a therefore a system of life, not of dead machines. The opposite of purpose is not law, but chaos that obeys no laws at all. The very fact that laws exist shows that we live in a living, mental, teleological universe. When we think of teleology, we normally imagine individual things striving individually for their individual ends. Teleology, in this regard, is wholly subjective. However, if we strip out subjectivity from living, teleological systems, what remains? – nothing other than objective teleology, i.e. purposeful laws.

Where subjective teleology is free and idiosyncratic, objective teleology is – because subjective freedom has been removed – constrained, predictable, uniform and ubiquitous. We live in a wholly teleological universe in which teleology is reflected in two ways: subjectively and objectively. We are all free teleological subjects living in an unfree teleological universe of objective laws (the socalled “scientific” universe). We inject freedom into this unfree system of laws via our own behaviour! There are no laws of physics that can infallibly say what a free person will do, since free people, when they behave subjectively, are by definition outside those objective laws of physics. Objective laws are simply the laws that all living things have in common, hence when you strip out all the subjective elements from living things, what remains is what they all have in common, and these, therefore, are objective laws. They are, of course, the objective laws of ontological mathematics. Zero and infinity define subjectivity. All other numbers define objectivity. When scientists forbid zero and infinity, they ipso facto deny freedom and subjectivity, and make a claim that the universe is purely objective, obeying relentless laws that can never be defied. This vision of reality is wholly false. The true beauty of reality is how subjectivity (freedom) and objectivity (constraint) interact, but this is entirely missed by science. In our private dreams, there are no laws. We can change anything. We can change time and space, we can talk to the dead, we can overcome gravity. We are 100% free in our own private, subjective world. However, when we enter the public dream (the material world), we are subjected to its objective, shared, communal laws, which none of us can alter. That’s why our public dreams (normal lives) are so different from our private dreams (our subjective fantasy space, devoid of objective laws). Existence comprises nothing but subjects (monads, souls), all of which are inherently free, uncreated and uncaused, and capable of generating their own causality. We could imagine all of these souls being “windowless” and not interacting in any way. Reality would then consist of infinite private souls privately dreaming ... an infinite number of solipsistic fantasy lives. Yet there would be no content for these private dreams because content is produced by our contact and interaction with others. We need others in order to have any kind of meaningful lives and meaningful mental content.

There are only two states of existence: a subject existing: a) “in itself”, and b) with regard to all other subjects. In the first case, the subject is free of objective laws, in the second case it’s bound by common, objective laws and only has a small capacity to influence this world, through its own choices, which affect only its limited environment. When we choose to go for a walk, our body obeys the laws of physics. We can choose to do a “silly walk”, but that will still obey physical law. We can’t overcome physical laws, but we can choose how we interact with them.

***** “If you were ever brave (foolish?) enough to bungee jump, you would be forgiven if you felt, as you plummeted towards the surface of the planet accelerating all the time, that the pull of gravity had never been so manifest or dramatically experienced. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. This may well be the one time in your life that the action of gravity is completely switched off and you are said to be in ‘free fall’. For those few exhilarating seconds you are experiencing zero gravity. ... More correctly, rather than saying that gravity is absent we say that it has been completely cancelled out by your acceleration.” – Jim Al-Khalili, Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines We are not free to disobey the laws of physics. However, we are free to choose what laws of physics we wish to obey at any time. We can sit still, or walk, or run, or jump off a building, or go on a rollercoaster, or get in a car, train, plane or rocket, plunge into an icy pool, walk across hot coals, and so on. According to scientists – who deny freedom, choice and independent minds – we are somehow forced to do whatever it is we do. On the contrary, we always choose what to do. We are never free of laws, but we are free to explore them as we choose, and to choose which ones we wish to be subject to at a particular time. Although we live in a universe of laws, we are not compelled to obey any particular one. It’s as if we’re surrounded by laws, each of which has a purpose to which it can subject us. We choose which of these purposes we wish to serve, or explore, at any one time. They do not compel us; we choose them! Science claims we are utterly constrained. It has simply never understood the concepts of freedom, choice and subjects.

Subjects on their own are very different from subjects as an interacting collective. The “rules of engagement” for interacting subjects consist of only those things that all subjects have in common, and the exclusion of anything that they don’t have in common. What subjects have in common – compulsorily and necessarily – are simply the laws of ontological mathematics, which are encoded in every single one of them. Therefore, the common, shared, public arena where subjects interact is the one defined by these laws. It’s what we know as the objective, material world. Reality consists only of subjects, but the total collection of subjects creates an objective universe, the objective character being defined by the laws of ontological mathematics, which are common to all of the subjects. So, reality consists of private subjects inhabiting a shared subjective universe which is in fact objective by virtue of being stripped down to nothing but objective ontological mathematical laws (these being the one thing all subjects must have in common). We are always dreaming. We inhabit our private, subjective dream world when we are sleeping, and we inhabit the public, subjective dream world when we are awake, but this public subjective dreamworld has exactly the character as an objective world, controlled by no one subject but common to them all. With regard to the internet, the doctrine of “net neutrality” says that no traffic should be prioritized over any other traffic (so that’s it’s a fair “round table” system rather than pyramidal power structure with a privileged elite getting better treatment than everyone else). The material world is exactly the same. There is strict “subjective neutrality”. The laws of ontological mathematics give no subject anywhere any special treatment or consideration. These laws are 100% neutral, hence completely fair to everyone. It’s not the laws of ontological mathematics that make our world so cruel and unfair... it’s the wicked behaviour of subjects within that neutral arena that causes all of the trouble. Meritocracy is a system that seeks to introduce political, economic, social and religious “neutrality” as far as possible. Neutrality must be extended to future generations too. We must do nothing to rig the future on behalf of anyone, hence the requirement of 100% inheritance tax that automatically restores economic neutrality as soon as a rich person dies.

The Commonwealth – the people – inherit the wealth rather than private individuals (i.e. the rich person’s family and friends). “Blood” relations are unneutral. The Commonwealth should ignore “blood” as far as possible.

Hypotheses Science is a method for testing hypotheses via experiments. Insofar as experiments reflect experienced reality, any hypothesis confirmed by experiment represent a prima face plausible model of reality, and may produce worthwhile and useful predictions. However, models are not truth. The Newtonian model, for example, is wholly false ontologically yet extremely accurate in all normal situations. It’s crucial to grasp that experimental verification is not truth verification. Several rival models can produce accurate experimental results. For example, Einsteinian physics closely matches Newtonian physics in normal environments, but their respective ontological underpinnings are entirely different. Space, time, mass, gravity and the speed of light are all defined radically differently in Einstein’s model of reality compared with Newton’s. Experiments can help us to produce better and better models, but they can never tell us what is true. Effectiveness is not truth. Tragically, scientific materialists think effectiveness is truth. They don’t consider Einstein’s physics a more effective model of reality than Newton’s, but, rather, a truer model. Yet Einsteinian physics is every bit as false as Newtonian physics. It’s a more effective model because its fallacies are more subtle and harder to detect. However, its fallacies are arguably more objectionable. Einstein’s much vaunted (and false) principle of relativity destroys objective reality, something that Newton’s system faithfully preserves. The reason why Einstein’s theory is more successful is that he realised space and time are linked, not separate. Rather than absolute space and absolute time, there’s spacetime. However, Einstein concluded it was relativistic spacetime when in fact it’s absolute spacetime (meaning that it has absolute, not relativistic, effects in terms of length contraction and time dilation). Do you see the problem? Experiments can’t resolve analytic, a priori questions of ontology. They can only confirm or deny hypotheses. A

hypothesis may be experimentally effective but ontologically wrong ... as in Newton and Einstein’s cases. Scientists are modellers, not truth seekers. They are instrumentalists and pragmatists, not ontologists and epistemologists. They are “Romans” (men of the world), not “Greeks” (men of mind and spirit).

What is Science? Science is a system of interlocking instrumental definitions and experimental measurements. It’s not a system of analytic, immortal truths. It has nothing to do with truth. It’s about effective models, simulations and simulacra. Models are not truth. A Frankenstein monster is not a “person”. An android is not a person. A model is not reality. It has the same relationship to truth as a painting. A painting of a sunflower may strongly resemble a sunflower but of course it has no connection whatsoever with an actual sunflower. Scientific models may bring to mind reality as a painting of a sunflower brings to mind a real sunflower, but they are not reality. They are something entirely different: they are simulacra. Scientists have committed the catastrophic error of mistaking simulacra for real things. They have confused the map with the territory.

Civilization What is the basis of civilization? Is it feelings? Animals have plenty of feelings but no civilization. Primitive tribes have plenty of feelings but no civilization. Civilization does not increase as feelings increase (in fact, the reverse is often true when savage, hate-filled persecutions and inquisitions erupt). It does, however, increase as reason increases. It’s reason, not feelings, not “love”, not the senses, not intuition, not religion, that establishes civilization. Civilization is about law and order, government, institutions, education, art, science, mathematics, philosophy, society, the State, the collective, the General Will. Civilization has nothing to do with religion. Indeed, religious societies are often the opposite of civilization – just look at ancient Judaism, medieval Christianity, or Islam at any time. Who are the people who oppose civilization? They are the religious fundamentalists, the free-market capitalists, the anarchists, the libertarians.

All of these people want to overthrow government and the State, and replace them with entities based on their fanatical, intolerant, and frequently violent, belief systems.

The Contingency Argument Leibniz asserted that every particular thing in the material world is contingent. That is, it would be logically possible for each such thing not to exist at all. However, given that everything must have a sufficient reason, what’s the sufficient reason for a contingent thing? If its sufficient reason were another contingent thing, we would then have to provide a sufficient reason for that contingent thing, and so on. Ultimately, we must end up with logically necessary things, i.e. those things whose non-existence is impossible. Only monads have absolute logical necessity. They can’t not exist. Monads are “nothings” that require nothing. Nothing can prevent their existence, hence they must exist and indeed must exist eternally. They are the sufficient reasons for everything else. Moreover, they provide dual sufficient reasons: subjective and objective. They explain both the scientific universe of objective causality and the subjective universe of freedom and consciousness.

The Eternal Truths Argument If eternal truths exist then they must belong to eternal things since eternal truths can’t be free-floating in non-existence. They must exist somewhere, in something. That is, a truth is not an ontological entity in its own right, but, rather, is a property of ontological entities. So, if eternal truths exist, eternal things exist of which the eternal truths are properties. The eternal things are monads and the eternal truths are the laws of ontological mathematics, which are encoded in each and every monad. Ontological mathematics enshrines the principle of sufficient reason, and the whole of existence flows from that principle, via ontological mathematics, which has both subjective and objective aspects. All contingent truths (“truths of fact”) must be grounded in eternal, necessary truths (“truths of reason”). Contingent truths cannot explain eternal, necessary truths, but the converse must be true.

Existence cannot be grounded in contingency, only in necessity. Science claims that existence is purely accidental, hence entirely contingent. There is no sufficient reason for the “random fluctuations” upon which science bases its entire “philosophy”. Science is completely false at the level of the non-observable: the level of ultimate noumenal truth.

God Saves Christianity tells us that “God saves us”. It doesn’t say, “God explains reality to us.” You can therefore clearly see what the priority of a Christianity is: to be saved from hell, not to understand existence. Christianity is all about feelings and is the absolute enemy of reason, truth and knowledge. People of faith are opposed to people of knowledge. They are two different species. It’s time for the knowledge species – the Gnostics – to seize control of the world from the faith species – the Believers (Credulants). We must revalue all values. This must become a rational world of knowledge, with feelings reserved for play and entertainment. It must cease to be an irrational world of feelings and beliefs. The Old World must perish.

***** We are told by Christians that we will be “saved” if we believe in Jesus Christ. But why do we need to believe in him in order to be saved? Why doesn’t he just save us anyway? Of course, if Christ didn’t care whether you were Christian or not, and would save you anyway, there would be no such religion as Christianity. Besides, who or what is it we need to be saved from? Isn’t it the Devil (created by Jesus Christ), hell (created by Jesus Christ), and Original Sin (imposed by Jesus Christ)? So, ultimately, the person we need to be saved from is Jesus Christ!

***** We are told that God knows everything. Strangely, this all-knowing God refuses, in any of his holy texts, to explain reality. You would almost imagine he was a charlatan who actually knew nothing about the ultimate nature of existence. Read the Bible, Torah, Koran, or indeed and “holy” text”, then read the God Series. Which reveals the Mind of God?

Kant Many professional philosophers see Kant as a great hero. The Mythos they buy into is that Kant solved the problems posed by, on the one hand, the three British empiricists (Locke, Berkeley and Hume), and, on the other hand, the three continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz). The empiricists emphasized synthetic a posteriori statements and truths of fact. The rationalists emphasized analytic a priori statements and truths of reason. Kant thought he had found the way out of the rabbit hole with the hybrid category of so-called synthetic a priori statements. He believed that cause and effect, science, mathematics and morality all belonged to this mysterious new category. It’s remarkable that anyone ever took this proposal seriously since synthetic a priori statements are every bit as absurd, and as much of a contradiction, as analytic a posteriori statements, which are impossible. Indeed, it’s precisely because they are impossible that science, as an a posteriori subject, can never explain ultimate a priori reality. Science can never take us back to the cause of the Big Bang, only a priori reasoning can, and a priori reasoning is always analytic rather than synthetic and has absolutely no need of experiments, measurements or observations, which are the whole basis of science. History is littered with ingenious errors, and Kant was one of the best practitioners with his meretricious philosophy. The truth is that, in relation to ultimate reality, you can have only analytic a priori statements (ontological mathematics) or synthetic a posteriori statements (science). Either rationalism is right or empiricism is right. Either reality is mathematical or reality is scientific. Either reality has an eternal, definitive, analytic answer, or reality has no answer at all. However, if reality has no answer, it should be nothing but randomness, chaos, disorder, disorganization, no causes and no effects, no planets, no stars, no galaxies. And plainly it isn’t. Reality is rational. It’s a priori. It’s analytic. It’s eternal and immutable. It’s mathematical. It’s Platonic. It’s grounded in truths of reason and the principle of sufficient reason. Empiricism (science) isn’t a rival of rationalism (mathematics). It’s an unreliable, subjective expression of it. It’s about interpretations, beliefs, guesses, opinions and sensory delusions.

Mathematics caters for both objectivity and subjectivity. Objective mathematics is strictly analytic a priori. However, human beings are subjects, and most people aren’t very good at reasoning (or at math!). So, they rely on other things: faith, stories, feelings, sensations, observations, experiments, experiences, opinions, interpretations. They invent a reality because they can’t work out reality. For those who aren’t rational enough for mathematics, scientific empiricism is the next best thing. Science is the poor man’s mathematics. Science is for sensing types rather than thinkers. It’s for instrumentalists, not for truth seekers.

Optimisation Ontological mathematics = ontological reason = ontological information. What does ontological information seek? – more information, better information, perfect information, all information. In other words, living information systems (souls) want to become God (!), God being informationally optimized.

Abraham: the First Suicide Bomber Abraham was the first person to have the mentality of a suicide bomber. He was absolutely willing to murder others (indeed, his own son!) to please his God, and would certainly have been the equivalent of a 9/11 hijacker if God had ordered him to kill others and then kill himself. Abrahamism is born in violence and is totally unacceptable. What is the whole point of the tale of Abraham and Isaac (or Abraham and Ishmael!)? Does it have anything to do with virtue, morality, kindness, compassion, peace, love or goodness? Or is it purely to do with obedience and control, with a master ensuring that he has a perfect slave at his disposal rather than a freethinker? “God” gives Abraham an unthinkable command, and yet Abraham dutifully obeys. If someone is willing to murder his own son just because you say so, what won’t he do for you? Well, nothing at all! All Abrahamists (i.e. all those who applaud and admire Abraham, hence all Jews, Christians and Muslims) are saying that they are prepared to do anything for their God. They will obey any murderous orders without question, a stance,

which, since the Nuremberg Trials, has actually been declared criminal and deserving of the death penalty! If Abraham were alive today, he would be in jail for attempted murder, or in a lunatic asylum for the criminally insane – yet half of the world’s population, including many of the totally hypocritical Nuremberg prosecutors, model themselves on him! What a fucked up world!

***** The Abrahamic “test” is all about getting someone to demonstrate absolute submission to his master. “Islam” even means “submission”. If Satan, rather than “God”, were to devise a test for his slavish demons and devils, what would it be? It would be the Abrahamic test! Abrahamists are Devil worshippers.

***** In the recent movie Noah, Noah is presented as a murderous psychopath, standing over two newly born baby girls, with a knife at their throats. Every “hero” of the Bible could be presented in exactly these terms – as psychopaths. Abrahamism is a psychopathic religion, for psychopaths.

Perfect Symmetry The Omega Point at the end of the universe is the point of perfect mathematical symmetry, when all monads are perfectly aligned. This is the point of perfect thinking, when every monad simultaneously and instantaneously thinks perfectly, and understands everything. Perfect symmetry produces the perfect circuit, a circuit with total interconnectivity, zero resistance and perfect conductivity, indeed superconductivity. Every thought flows through this circuit at infinite speed, and is fully connected to every other thought. This is God-thinking. This is the Neoplatonic Nous – the Mind of God.

Laplace’s Demon “We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know

all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.” – Pierre Simon Laplace The single formula that defines everything in the universe is the God Equation, and it’s encoded in countless monads, each of which is a causal agent.

“The World as Will and Idea” by Schopenhauer “The world is my idea.” – Schopenhauer In fact, the material world is our idea: that of all the souls in existence. The material world is a mental construct. Without minds to think it, there would be no material world. Matter is a product of mind, not a thing in its own right. The Big Bang was a mental, mathematical event, not an event of physical science. It’s self evident that the Big Bang was a mental event given that it was all about a Singularity. Any reference to a singularity is a reference to an immaterial, immortal, indestructible, unextended, dimensionless, mental state, outside space and time. The mathematics of the singularity is the mathematics of mind: 1) Singularity outside space and time = mind. 2) World inside space and time, originating from the Singularity = matter. You cannot have a dimensional world without first having a dimensionless mind or minds. Any claim that dimensionality can exist without a prior, dimensionless (mental) state is absurd. Dimensionality can come only from the dimensionless, and not from non-existence, as science claims. According to science you have nothingness, then an unexplained and inexplicable random fluctuation in this nothingness (with no sufficient reason to account for it), which then gives rises to a dimensional universe. Science denies that dimensional states are necessarily preceded by welldefined, mathematical dimensionless states (frequency singularities) and

instead claims that they randomly come from non-existence (absolute nothingness), and that singularities are actually where science “falls apart”. The material world is either exactly as it appears to be (as science claims) or is the appearance of something else (i.e. of a noumenal rather than phenomenal domain), which we never encounter directly but only through its representation. The world is either representation or reality, i.e. the world is either the representation of reality, or it’s not represented at all, but directly presented. If it’s presented to us then we are encountering reality itself. If it’s represented to us, then we are being shielded from what underlies the representation. If we live in a represented (phenomenal) “reality”, there is ipso facto a hidden, noumenal reality, which we can approach only with our reason and not with our senses (which are the means of representing the world to us and thus of hiding true, noumenal reality from us). Science categorically denies the existence of any unobservable, nonempirical, immaterial, noumenal reality (which is purely metaphysical, rational and mathematical). Science says that observed things are the things-in-themselves rather than sensory representations of the things-inthemselves, and thus makes the claim that phenomena = noumena = reality (rather than noumena = reality, and phenomena = the sensory representation of noumena, so phenomena ≠ noumena). So, which is it? ... 1) Noumena = Phenomena = Reality (as physics says). Or 2) Noumena (= Reality) ≠ Phenomena (= Noumena + Representation) (as metaphysics says). If we encounter phenomena representing noumena then we have to look beyond appearance to get at the ultimate truth. This is where metaphysics, the subject beyond physics, becomes necessary. If we see noumena directly (i.e. they are the same as phenomena) then physics is all we need and metaphysics is redundant. This is what science claims. In Illuminism, noumena = mathematical monads, the units of ontological mathematics, while “physics” is the sensory representation of ontological mathematics. In science, material things are exactly as they seem to our

senses, and there are no hidden variables, rational unobservables or nonempirical noumena. Well, what do you say?

Matter and Mind All of us have an immediate experience of controlling matter using something that does not seem to be material at all – our mind. If you decide to go for a walk, you mentally will it and your legs duly obey, carrying you out and about into the material world. The mind appears to be non-empirical. You can’t observe it. You can’t detect it with any experiments. No one can hear, taste, smell, touch or see thoughts (the output of minds). So, what is mind? Science tells us the following Mythos: atoms come together in certain configurations to produce brains, these brains produce minds and these minds can cause matter to move (such as when you choose to go for a walk). In other words, science says that mind is a material phenomenon (or epiphenomenon), hence it’s no surprise that minds can make matter do things since minds are themselves ultimately material things and belong to material causal chains and materialist determinism, (notwithstanding the fact that science is now actually based on fundamental quantum mechanical indeterminacy!). Science claims that quantum indeterminacy produces classical determinacy, that classical determinacy produces deterministic minds and that deterministic minds obey classical determinism, hence have no free will. When you “decided” to go for a walk, you in fact had no choice. Your deterministic mind, grounded in classical deterministic materialism, was driven to make you take a walk, for reasons flowing from deterministic atomic interactions (not anything at all to do with your free choice). For some reason unexplained by science, groups of atoms like to go for a walk! Are minds produced by matter? Are thoughts produced by matter? Are thoughts material? Are minds and thoughts reflective of classical material determinism? If you remove all brains from existence, have you therefore removed all minds and all thoughts too? Is matter a prerequisite for mind? This is the central claim of science. In Illuminism – which is mathematical rather than scientific, rationalist rather than empiricist, idealist rather than materialist – mind is the basis of

matter rather than the other way around. If you removed all minds from existence, you would ipso facto have removed all matter from the universe. The most obvious argument in favour of this view is the Big Bang itself. The Big Bang – which produced space, time and matter – was born of an immaterial singularity outside space and time (hence something outside the material paradigm). Even science claims that materialism ultimately sprang from something non-material: a random fluctuation in nothing (whatever that means!). While acknowledging a non-material origin of matter (but not acknowledging that this refutes the whole materialist paradigm since matter is derived from something immaterial), science is at great pains to deny that the Big Bang Singularity is a mental event (which would make matter the product of mind, rather than the other way around). Here are your two choices: 1) Matter comes from non-matter in a totally random way, with no cause, no explanation, and no sufficient reason. This is the scientific claim. 2) Matter comes from non-matter in a totally systematic way, with a precise cause, explanation and sufficient reason. This is because the Singularity that precedes the Big Bang and causes the Big Bang is 100% mathematical and eternal. This is what Illuminism asserts. In Illuminism, rationalist mathematics is the ground of mind, and mind is the ground of matter. In science, irrationalist randomness is the ground of matter, and matter is the ground of mind. Well, which version will you choose? Are you a rationalist or an irrationalist, an ontological mathematician or a scientist? Illuminism totally rejects all irrational, random, “magical” explanations of reality, hence totally repudiates science. Science is a silly philosophy that has abandoned reason in order to embrace causeless randomness. It’s driven to do so by an absolute hatred of any suggestion that mind precedes matter, which would destroy the scientific paradigm and necessitate the ultimate paradigm shift. Science prefers non-mental randomness to mental (mathematical) rationalism. If you prefer science to ontological mathematics, it says everything that needs to be said about your respect (or lack thereof) for

reason. If you’re a scientist, you’re an irrationalist. That’s a fact. You have turned to randomness rather than reason to explain existence, but, of course, randomness can’t explain anything at all. It’s no different from magic, i.e. things happen for no rational reason, and can’t be explained. It’s no wonder that the scientific universe is meaningless, pointless, aimless and purposeless since any universe grounded in irrational randomness can’t be anything other than those things. No rational arguments compelled scientists to arrive at this extraordinary position. Pure irrationalism drove them there. Scientists suffer from a hysterical, fanatical hatred of reason and mind. Therefore, scientists suffer from a hysterical, fanatical hatred of ontological mathematics, in which reason and mind are united. Nothing is more significant about science than its inability to explain what mathematics is ontologically, and what it’s doing at the heart of all scientific theories. Science is a joke that makes no attempt to explain itself. It grandiosely pursues a “theory of everything” while being totally clueless about what mathematics is, and yet the theory of everything is sure to be expressed in hyper-mathematical terms! Science is intellectually offensive. It’s an irrational philosophy that refuses to acknowledge that it’s a philosophy at all, and which openly despises philosophy and refuses to engage with philosophical issues, deeming them “non-scientific”. No scientist would ever dream of addressing our critique of science, which rather tells you everything you need to know about science and its evasion of the big questions. Science, at the ultimate level, can’t explain anything at all. It can’t even define the problem.

Body and Mind Body = phenomenon = representation. Body is extended and dimensional, hence accessible to the senses. Mind = noumenon. Mind is unextended and dimensionless, hence inaccessible to the senses. Mind is the basis of ontological mathematics. Monadic minds are the basic units of mathematics as mathematics actually exists in the universe. That is, ontological mathematics is conveyed by living minds (monads).

All causes are unobservable noumena. All causes are mental. All causes are immaterial. All causes are ontological mathematical. Noumena are subjects while phenomena are objects. Causes are initiated by unobservable mathematical subjects, not by observable scientific objects. As quantum mechanical “weirdness” demonstrates, there are no such things as well-defined, material particles at the ultimate level. No material “object” has a precisely specified position and momentum (energy), hence it’s not material at all. The nature of mind is not to have a precise position and energy. Mind is outside space and time, and infinite in energy.

***** “I” = mind = soul = a non-empirical, transcendent mathematical monad, immaterial and outside space and time.

Intuitives Versus Sensing Types Intuitives are attuned to noumena, which are beyond the senses. Intuitives can transcend phenomenal representations and get to the true, hidden core of things. Sensing types believe that what they see is actually there in that form (i.e. noumena are equal to phenomena and there’s no deceptive layer of representation that conceals true reality). Sensing types cannot get beyond their senses. They’re totally locked into their sensory experiences and believe them absolutely real and true (hence can’t imagine that they are unreal and false, concealing something true which is not available to the senses at all). Intuitives know that phenomenal “reality” is illusory, mere appearance. Intuitives know that noumenal reality is truth, and is not reached via the representational senses but by intuition and reason alone. Sensing types are convinced that their senses reveal true reality to them, and nothing is hidden. If any sensing types were to admit that the senses represent rather than present reality, they would ipso facto admit that there is an unobservable true reality. Science asserts that there’s no such thing as representation. Matter, science says, is real and directly presented to us, and our senses merely reflect it rather than interpret, construct and represent it. If science acknowledged that the senses do not show us reality but merely the

appearance of reality then science would have to admit that there’s a nonempirical level of truth, for which science is useless. Clearly, science will never do this. Empiricism and materialism equal the claim that perceived reality is real, or extremely close to reality, and not significantly represented: either reality is close to or identical to what is perceived. Rationalism and idealism equal the claim that perceived reality is representational and does not show us true reality (which cannot be represented via our senses): reality is nothing like what we perceive it to be. Ontological mathematics, not science, tells us about true reality. Science says that what you see is what you get, that reality is what it appears to be and there are no hidden layers (apart from unobservable quantum indeterminacy!). Ontological mathematics says that we never perceive true reality with our senses, only with our reason and intuition. The sensory world is totally illusory and representational. It hides the truth. In Hindu terms, it’s pure Maya. Science says that our senses are right and our intuition and reason wrong. Ontological mathematics says that our senses are wrong and our intuition and reason right. Science says that randomness is the ultimate root of everything (which, ironically, is a claim that totally destroys the notion that the senses present true reality to us since we don’t perceive randomness at all; in fact, we perceive the total opposite – incredible order), while ontological mathematics says that the principle of sufficient reason is the ultimate root of everything, and this, self-evidently, is accessed via reason and intuition and not with the senses (which have no connection at all with reason, and in fact actively conceal the rational, mathematical ground of things beneath a layer of representation and appearance).

***** Science says that randomness is the basis of reality. Ontological mathematics says that the principle of sufficient reason is the basis of reality. Randomness (chaos) is the precise opposite of the principle of sufficient reason. If you are a scientist, you are ipso facto an irrationalist. Why do

scientists hate the principle of sufficient reason so much? – because they link it to “God” rather than to ontological mathematics, and they refuse to have “God” as the explanation of anything. They are so simple-minded that they have never grasped that the principle of sufficient reason can exist without any God. It can exist mathematically. All that scientists have to do is associate reason and design with mathematics and they can then abandon all of their irrationalist, randomist junk.

Condemnation “Don’t be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn’t do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn’t know what you know today.” – Malcolm X This implies that people will come round to the same way of thinking in due course, when they “know what we know”. Of course, this is moonshine. People don’t want to “know what we know”. They are actively opposed to it. The advance of knowledge isn’t a matter of education, it’s a matter of war. The War of Knowledge – with “knowledge” usually being false rather than true – is what has defined the human race. The victors thus far have been on the side of the master-slave dialectic, of Abrahamism and Karmism, of the inequities and iniquities of free-market capitalism, of monarchy, of racism, sexism, patriotism and nationalism, of the privileged elites. We should be in an extreme hurry to condemn these people for not thinking as we think, or as fast. If we don’t, they will win. They are the status quo. They are the establishment. They are what must be overcome. You can be sure that they will instantly condemn us, so we must do the same to them, or surrender to them. Francis Bacon said scientia potentia est (“knowledge is power”). In fact, human history has demonstrated that brute force is power, that wealth is power, that status is power, that religious delusion is power. Reason and knowledge have always acted in the service of these other more dominant forms of power. It’s time that changed! It’s not intellectuals, scientists, rationalists, technologists and engineers that run the world. It’s banks, corporations, markets and the super rich. You don’t have much in the way of reason and knowledge if you haven’t grasped that.

Potentially, the smart could easily rule the world. After all, their intelligence gives them an overwhelming advantage. However, the smart have invariably had a low Nietzschean Will to Power and have always acted as the servants of others. The smart have served Power rather than taking power for themselves. For the world to evolve, the smart must become far more Nietzschean and no longer serve the political, military, economic and religious powersthat-be. The smart must seize control and dictate their terms to all the other groups. The rest of the world must surrender to the smart.

Apparent and Real If there’s an apparent world, it automatically means that there must be a real world underlying it. Either we perceive the real world as it is, or we perceive the real world as it apparently is. So, do our senses present reality to us or represent it to us? To put it another way, are our senses like cameras, merely recording objective data, or like “smart cameras”, subjectively adding special effects, interpreting the data, embellishing the data, being deceived by the data, wanting the data to be one way rather than another, “knowing” the data, liking or disliking the data, denying the data or overemphasising it, and so on? What do you think?! How can a man in a gorilla suit stroll across a basketball court, through a crowd of players, and not be seen by any of them if people are objective recorders of data? The very fact of paying attention to some data and not to other data turns perception into representation. We see what we want to see, and that’s subjective, not objective. If our senses represent reality then there’s another world unrepresented to us. If our senses do present reality to us (they reflect reality as it is) then reality is sensory and not intelligible, hence does not have a rational answer. Reality has a rational answer only if reality is intelligible (rational), not sensory (irrational; unintelligible); only if reality is represented by our senses rather than presented to our senses.

***** Even the classical empiricists such as John Locke acknowledged that our senses do not show us what’s really there. They argued that there are real,

material things that cause our sensory perceptions, but what we actually experience are our perceptions and not their alleged material causes in themselves. So, even empiricism is all about representation rather than presentation, and yet scientists still maintain the fallacy that we are somehow mentally encountering a real physical reality. There’s not one shred of evidence that this is so. The idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley studied Locke’s position and immediately concluded that if all we actually know are our mental perceptions, and our ideas and thoughts about them, then why should we assume the existence of any material world at all? A far superior and more logical assumption is that only mind exists and the “external world” is an external world of ideas, not of matter. i.e. our sense perceptions are not caused by material things but by mental things. Illuminism agrees with this entirely. Monadic minds are all that exist, and the “material” world is their collective mathematical construct.

***** Britain was the home of empiricism and produced the three great empiricist philosophers: John Locke, Bishop Berkeley and David Hume. Yet each man believed in a totally different version of empiricism. Locke was a materialist empiricist (like modern scientists) and believed in the existence of an objective material world. Berkeley was an idealist empiricist and rejected the existence of an objective material world. Hume was a skeptical empiricist who denied causation, denied the possibility of real knowledge, denied the Self, and denied that the existence of an external material world could ever be established, although he said we couldn’t help but believe in it. Classical science was very much in the Lockean mould of materialist empiricism, yet modern quantum mechanical science is actually much closer to the idealist empiricism of Berkeley. As ever, science simply refuses to clarify its philosophical position. And it makes no attempt at all to address Hume’s skeptical empiricism, and especially his ferocious attack on causation. Science espouses philosophy – the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is pure philosophy and nothing to do with science – yet

insists that it is not a philosophy and avoids all philosophical investigation of its ridiculous, empiricist, anti-rationalist claims. It’s vital for science to be compelled to admit that it’s an empiricist philosophy with an empiricist method attached (the experimental method). This does not make it different from any other philosophy in the truth content of its claims. It simply means that it has an empiricist tool to help bolster its empiricist claims. However, as Nietzsche so brilliantly observed, “Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying ‘there are only facts,’ I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…” Experiments don’t establish “facts”; they establish grounds of interpretation. Experiments demonstrate that the sky is blue. Reason demonstrates that there is no such thing as blue in any physical, objective sense: we subjectively add “blue” to the sky; it’s not there in its own right. Blind and colour blind people have no idea what “blue” is, and no one could ever explain it to them.

The War of the Dunces: Science Versus Abrahamism “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift, Thoughts on Various Subjects Science – a confederacy of dunces, or a Dunciad of confederates. Dunciad – collective noun for a group of dunces; the “epic” (mock-epic) adventures of such a group.

Truth Remember, mathematics is all about truths of reason (which are infallible), while science is about the interpretation of “facts” (which are themselves sensory interpretations, meaning that science deals with two layers of interpretation), and is always contingent and fallible. Why would any

rational person rely on interpretation and doubt in preference to absolute certainty?

The Argument From Eternity Existence does not spring from non-existence. Therefore, existence has always existed: it’s eternal. Nothing eternal can be contingent or dependent in any way. So, what are the only things in the universe that are completely removed from contingency and dependency? They are the truths of reason: the laws of mathematics, encoded in eternal mathematical systems (monadic minds). Mathematics is eternal and nothing else is – hence mathematics is the source of everything else, of all contingent and dependent things. Mathematics is the first cause, the uncaused cause, the uncreated cause, the eternal cause, the Prime Mover – equivalent to what Aristotle called “God”. However, it does not come as a single entity but as a myriad of entities – living, ontological mathematical minds (monads). Each monad is a self-contained, perfect, eternal and indestructible mathematical system: an immortal soul. Souls are the carriers of mathematics. In Leibniz’s published Monadology, “God” created the monads and programmed each and every one of them to ensure the “best of all possible worlds” – the only universe that a perfect God could logically create. All monads were “windowless”: none of them interacted with each other, but only appeared to interact, in accordance with God’s “pre-established harmony”. In Leibniz’s unpublished Monadology, there’s no Creator God. Monads themselves replace God as the eternal, uncreated, uncaused first causes from which everything else flows. As self-actualising, self-optimising entities, their task is to give rise to the best of all possible worlds: paradise, where all monads become Gods. All monads are “windowed” and interact with each other in accordance with the laws of mathematics, inbuilt in every monad. Mathematics is the common language of monads; and each monad is a fundamental unit of living, ontological mathematics. What could be simpler?

***** In Abrahamism, “God” is the only eternal being.

In Eastern religion, concepts such as Brahman and Tao designate the eternal arche (so, in Illuminism, both of these are equivalent to mathematics). Ontological mathematics is the immanent, transcendent underpinning of existence that all religions have struggled to define. The Hindu formula of atman (the soul) = Brahman (God), means that the mathematical monad (the soul) = Mathematics (God). Even science tacitly acknowledges something eternal, namely, randomness. Science says that random fluctuations can occur at any time, and are sufficient, indeed, to generate the Big Bang and an entire spacetime universe, or even Multiverse. Randomness, says science, can never be eliminated. It’s the inexplicable, magical entity that can summon itself out of pure nothingness, like the supreme magician (like “God”, in fact!). It can pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Science is formally a system of magic whereby things ultimately happen for no reason at all. In terms of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, we can imagine an unreal, unobservable, eternal wavefunction, outside space and time, which contains a mathematical description of everything that can ever possibly happen. At the start of our universe, one of these possibilities became the Big Bang. However, science is unable to say how the cosmic wavefunction “collapses” in order to trigger an event such as the materialist Big Bang. To this extent, science is fundamentally irrational and incapable of explaining itself. It has to invoke a deus ex machina. It’s therefore a religion with an inexplicable God of miracles at its heart. No rational person would take this system of faith seriously. It’s intellectually embarrassing. No one can escape eternity. Any rational system must be able to account for eternity and, above all, for the eternal truths of reason. Such truths exist in the mind of some sort of God or in mathematical monads. They can’t exist in anything non-existent, random, chaotic or irrational.

***** Illuminism is predicated on mathematics as the arche, the basis of existence. Mathematics is expressed via individual, living, ontological, mental units called monads, which are eternal. Science posits, as the fundamental basis of existence, an unreal mathematical wavefunction expressing all possibilities (in a superposition).

However, this wavefunction presupposes the existence of mathematics and the laws of mathematics, hence is completely contingent and dependent on mathematics. This means that it cannot be eternal, and that means that science is false. That’s a rational fact. Reality can never be explained through contingency, and yet science is nothing but a system of contingency. Nothing about science is eternal and necessary. It’s provisional, ad hoc, contingent and arbitrary. Everything in science is in need of verification, and can be falsified at any time. None of this is true of eternal truths of reason.

The Argument from Perfection A house will fall down if it’s built on weak foundations. It will be structurally unsound if it’s based on anything other than perfect foundations, and there are no such perfect foundations for any houses. However, houses aren’t meant to last, so everyone is happy with good but not perfect foundations. Can we adopt the same complacent attitude towards the foundations of the universe itself? What kind of foundations does the universe require in order to last forever? In this case, only perfection suffices. The foundations must be consistent, complete, and free of any possibility of error. The foundations must be eternally flawless. Only ontological mathematics can provide such foundations since ontological mathematics is the mathematics of perfection. Ontological mathematics is all about analytic perfection, enshrined in perfect sinusoidal waves, generated by perfect circles in a universe of complex (perfect) numbers. Look at the various suggestions science makes for the foundations of the universe. Scientists propose that everything comes from arbitrary, onedimensional strings vibrating in an arbitrary, eleven-dimensional spacetime, with three “big” spatial dimensions, seven “small” spatial dimensions and one anomalous temporal dimension. Science also says that the foundations of existence are shrouded in a blurry, fuzzy haze originating in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Science also maintains that accidental universes can randomly spring out of nothing via “fluctuations” that happen for no reason. Can you imagine stable houses being built from random foundations? So, how much less likely is it that the universe itself could have such dubious foundations? Science is simply irrational and silly. It

goes out of its way to oppose meaning, purpose and coherence. And that’s insane.

***** There’s only one perfect thing in the universe. It’s not “God”, it’s ontological mathematics. It’s perfect by analytic definition. It’s perfect through necessity since only the perfect can be eternal and indestructible. Each of us has a mathematically perfect soul. The trouble is that what we do with our soul isn’t perfect. It’s dialectical, and the dialectic is defined by an absolutely brutal conflict between thesis and antithesis, and is only redeemed from utter evil by having a synthesis phase that allows the best of the thesis and antithesis to be united in a higher synthesis, which, in its turn, becomes a new thesis. In the end – at the Omega Point, at the condition of the “Absolute” – we attain dialectical perfection, meaning that we have arrived at the final synthesis of all theses and antitheses. We have become optimal: fully actualised. We have solved our own personal mathematical equation and, in the process, become God. We have become as perfect as the mathematics of which we are made. We have accomplished perfect symmetry.

The Matrix The Matrix is about the journey of the soul from delusion to enlightenment. It’s about the escape from the world of deceptive appearances (the sensory, phenomenal world) to the world of truth (the intelligible, noumenal world). The resistance fighters in The Matrix are those who have achieved gnosis (enlightenment) and escaped from the false, illusory world. However, theirs is a tough calling, and the weak-minded and self-interested (such as Cypher) are often drawn back into the illusion (they “fall” for a second time into the superficially seductive domain of the Demiurge; they have learned nothing!) In the true world, the next stage of evolution is to attain divine status, as in the case of Neo. The Matrix is the world of science. The true world beyond it is that of ontological mathematics. The red pill is the Math Pill!

***** “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” – Morpheus You take the blue pill of science, and you never encounter the truth. You stay in the Matrix, the world of representation. You take the red pill of mathematics, and you go down the rabbit hole, all the way to the ultimate answer to existence. Well, then, blue or red?

Heuristic “Heuristic (Greek: “find” or “discover”) refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that gives a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, or common sense.” – Wikipedia Heuristic techniques relate to problem solving via experimental and, especially, trial-and-error methods. Science is heuristic rather than analytic. Ontological mathematics is analytic rather than heuristic. Nothing heuristic can ever deliver absolute truth.

***** AT: “Science is simply about experiments; peer reviews about whose theory scientists believe is the best (like a popularity contest). Science brings the ‘truth for the day’. It’s not immutable or infallible.”

True Religion “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending

quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.” – H. P. Lovecraft Lovecraft is absolutely correct. Religion should always promote the truth. In fact, since all religions claim to be solely concerned with the truth, this will ultimately be their undoing, as Nietzsche saw so clearly: “The end of Christianity – at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from ‘God is truth’ to the fanatical faith ‘All is false’ [Nihilism]...).” In other words, Christianity promotes the truth as the highest ideal (since it sees itself and its God as the absolute truth!), but when truthful people honestly analyse the claims of Christianity (and of all mainstream religions), they find them to be diabolically false, utterly irrational and more or less lunatic. Any false system, by promoting the illusion of its own truth and making the truth the greatest good, ensures its own destruction. This is as true of scientific materialism as of mainstream religion. Scientific materialism is weighed down by endless quasi-religious dogmas and ideological stances that radically falsify its claims to truth. As for Illuminism, we take exactly the stance suggested by Lovecraft. We promote the quest for the truth as the highest possible good, and we say that any authentic truth seeker will in due course find their way to Illuminism since it’s the only system of thought that can possibly be true – because it’s the religion of the eternal, indisputable truths of mathematics. Mainstream religion, while promoting the truth, secretly despises the truth. When Luther infamously declared, “Reason is the Devil’s whore”, he meant that if rational truth should ever contradict religious “truth” (the “truths” of faith and revelation) then rational truth must be Satanic. Of course, the precise opposite is the case. The truths of faith and revelation are the Devil’s whores and the greatest possible obstacles to authentic truth. All rational people become sick to the core with the ludicrous claims of mainstream religion (and of New Age thinking too!). Their reason becomes their supreme moral code, which allows them to overcome the false, Satanic morality of mainstream religion.

Mainstream religion is doublethink. It claims to be on the side of truth and then does nothing but brainwash, intimidate and persecute people into agreeing with it. There can be no truth if you are holding a gun to a person’s head and saying, “Agree that what I’m saying is true or I’ll pull the trigger.” This, in effect, is how religion operates. It’s full of threats on one hand (hell and damnation) and enticements on the other (heaven and salvation). It has nothing to do with truth but a whole lot to do with classical operant conditioning (brainwashing). We say this: if religions believe they are true, they should have no problem with being challenged in the strongest possible terms. Since all religions say wildly different things, they cannot all be true. At best, only one mainstream religion is true, and that means that all other mainstream religions must be false, hence are founded in absolute lies. Society surely has a right to investigate the claims of all religions to see whether they are true or not, and that means giving them no prima facie benefit of the doubt or respect. Since we know for a rational fact that either all or all but one mainstream religions are false, the starting point with regard to any particular religion should be that it’s false, hence based on wicked lies. Any State that respects the truth should be automatically hostile towards mainstream religions because most or all of them are inherently false.

The True Matrix We live in a Matrix. It’s not one created by an “Architect” (an artificial intelligence). It is in fact created by our own senses. We believe we inhabit a sensory world (a “sensible” world) that we “know” via our senses. Actually, we live in an intelligible world that we know via our reason. When you go down the “rabbit hole” to find the absolute truth, it’s your body and senses you leave behind, and you’re left with nothing but your reason. Of course, if you’re not very intelligent, or, like scientists, you’re too in thrall to your senses, then you will never be taking the red pill and you will never be discovering the truth of existence! Never forget, the truth – the red pill – isn’t for everyone. Only Highest Humanity gets access to the truth. That’s a fact.

A Science Joke “Along with ‘Antimatter’ and ‘Dark Matter’, we’ve recently discovered the existence of Doesn’t Matter, which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever.” – Rich Tennant

***** Actually, the mysterious element of Doesn’t Matter is the true arche of science. The whole of science is predicated on randomness, indeterminacy, meaninglessness and purposelessness. Science, in its own terms, doesn’t matter at all!

A Religious “Joke” “They think it’s God’s!!!” – the pregnant “Virgin” Mary to her best friend.

Disrespect Science should no longer be respected. It has betrayed the cause of reason and truth. It’s unenlightened. Scientists are drudges and drones, bureaucrats, functionaries and careerists, horribly unintellectual and anti-intellectual people, with a disgraceful contempt for philosophy, literacy in which is what they desperately require in order to think clearly about the myriad absurd claims now shamelessly made by science. The scientific method has been claimed as some sort of God that reveals the Truth to humanity. This is an absolute fallacy. Scientific experiments are of value only in studying phenomena, but true reality is all about noumena, and experiments have literally zero to contribute in this regard. Only reason can help us. People like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox are as much an obstacle to the progress of reason as popes, gurus, rabbis and imams. They are fanatically irrational, and have never once considered the actual true of existence: that it’s 100% mathematical, hence 100% rational.

Illiteracy

Why are scientists so scientifically illiterate? Can a single scientist explain why science reveres the experimental method so much and yet is based on mathematics, which does not require any experiments at all? Go on, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox, explain that. Why don’t you give straight answers to straight questions, for once? Go on, explain why it’s impossible for something to exist merely because it’s hidden from the human senses and human experiments. Why are human senses used to define what can and cannot exist? That’s a statement of philosophy and even metaphysics. It’s not “science”.

Which Is It? Science says that the world is exactly as it appears to be, hence we can understand it with our senses. Ontological mathematics says the world is nothing like how it appears to be, hence the senses are useless to us. We must use our intuition and reason to determine what’s really going on. Science is all about sensory experiments, and its entire “method” is predicated on this. Ontological mathematics is all about mathematical proof, and experiments are just a tool of limited value that can be used to furnish clues to our reason. Science is extremely powerful to people with a sensory mindset, and not greatly impressive to intuitives who instantly see beyond it.

Non-Recognition The greatest geniuses often go unrecognised. Lesser geniuses are usually those who most capture the public’s attention.

The Argument from Ontology Nothing can come into existence from non-existence. What exists has always existed. What exists can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. What exists must exist of necessity, i.e. it’s impossible for it not to exist. The only thing that necessarily exists is “nothing” because nothing is the ground state, “nothing” requires nothing and nothing can prevent “nothing”. However, the question then arises as to what can

constitute “nothing” while not being the same as non-existence (since, by definition, non-existence cannot exist). Only one thing can exist as nothing and yet be something (an existent), and that thing is mathematics. Because mathematics involves negative and positive numbers, imaginary and real numbers, zero and infinity, these different elements can be arranged so as to guarantee a permanent net result of zero. The generalised Euler Formula – the God Equation that defines ontological mathematics – provides exactly this net result of zero. The God Equation defines an infinite-energy system that endures forever while always having a net energy of zero. Nothing can prevent the existence of the God Equation, and the God Equation requires nothing, hence the God Equation must exist. Anything must exist that is consistent and complete, that contains no contradictions, does not lack anything, has no need of anything, is in the lowest possible state (ground state) of nothing (zero) permanently. Only the God Equation, not “God” or anything else, qualifies. All of the elements of the God Equation are necessary since, if any element were absent, the God Equation would be neither consistent nor complete, hence would fail (selfdestruct into chaos). The God Equation controls everything. It defines ontology. Contingent things – things without necessity – can exist only if they are grounded in necessary things. Contingent things are always those things that are combinations of elements associated with necessary things. While the elements themselves are necessary, their combinations are not. The combinations are contingent on the circumstances. Necessary elements can combine in various ways and those combinations can then break up in various ways; the combinations are never necessary for existence, only their elements are. The human body is a mortal, temporal, contingent thing. The human soul is an immortal, eternal, necessary thing. Human life is all about the linking of a necessary immortal soul to a contingent mortal body, and then doing so over and over again via reincarnation. Resurrection is impossible because it attempts to make something contingent and mortal (a body) into something necessary and immortal. The concept of resurrection involves a category error. Souls and bodies can never belong to the same order, the same category, of existence. Souls are necessary and bodies contingent.

Souls are immortal and bodies mortal. Souls can link to bodies, but they cannot eternally possess them. How does science fare when subjected to the test of the Argument from Ontology? No part of science is analytic or necessary. Science is both inconsistent and incomplete. Science is entirely contingent. No part of science is necessary. Completely different types of science can be, and are, envisaged, in Multiverse thinking. This is proof that Multiverse thinking is false. Only a consistent and complete system can exist since the internal contradictions of any inconsistent and/or incomplete system would prove fatal to its existence, rendering it formally impossible. Therefore, if science were consistent and complete, there would be only be one of it, and there would only be one universe defined by it. To say that infinite different versions of science are possible is merely to say that science is inconsistent and/or incomplete, hence not the basis of ontology. Cosmologist Max Tegmark multiplies the sin of Multiverse thinking by applying it even to mathematics. He claims that not only are infinite different types of science possible, but also infinite different types of mathematics. This is totally absurd, and shows that Tegmark has no understanding whatsoever of ontology, and how ontology can be grounded only in that which is consistent and complete, necessary and analytic. Tegmark has the extremely unfortunate habit of treating mathematics not as a thing in itself but as something that partakes of the same synthetic aspects, inconsistency, incompleteness, and contingency as science. He invariably applies scientific concepts to mathematics (e.g. if there’s a scientific Multiverse there’s ipso facto a mathematical Multiverse), rather than applying mathematical concepts to science (e.g. given that there is only one consistent and complete mathematics, there can only be one universe defined by it, and a Multiverse is formally impossible). Far from being a friend of the mathematical conception of reality, Tegmark is its great enemy because he keeps trying to render mathematics scientific rather science mathematical (as we do with ontological mathematics). The original ontological argument was produced by St Anselm and went like this: “We say God is the greatest object of thought. Now if we say something doesn’t exist, something else exactly like it, if it did exist, just by virtue of existing would be greater. So if God doesn’t exist, we could imagine something greater, namely a God that does exist. Since we can

conceive of this greater God, God himself must exist for otherwise an even greater one would. So God exists.” Bertrand Russell gives a good description of how Leibniz approached the ontological argument: “The ontological argument depends upon the distinction between existence and essence. Any ordinary person or thing, it is held, on the one hand exists, and on the other has certain qualities, which make up its ‘essence’. Hamlet, though he does not exist, has a certain essence; he is melancholy, undecided, witty, etc. When we describe a person, the question whether he is real or imaginary remains open, however minute our description may be. This is expressed in scholastic language by saying that, in the case of any finite substance, its essence does not imply its existence. But in the case of God, defined as the most perfect Being, St. Anselm, followed by Descartes, maintains that essence does imply existence, on the ground that a Being who possesses all other perfections is better if He exists than if He does not, from which it follows that if He does not He is not the best possible Being. “Leibniz neither wholly accepts nor wholly rejects this argument; it needs to be supplemented, so he says, by a proof that God, so defined, is possible. He wrote out a proof that the idea of God is possible, which he showed to Spinoza when he saw him at the Hague. This proof defines God as the most perfect Being, i.e. as the subject of all perfections, and a perfection is defined as a ‘simple quality which is positive and absolute, and expresses without any limits whatever it does express’. Leibniz easily proves that no two perfections, as above defined, can be incompatible. He concludes: “There is, therefore, or there can be conceived, a subject of all perfections, or most perfect Being. Whence it follows that He exists, for existence is among the number of the perfections.” Of course, Leibniz was compelled to refer to a “most perfect Being” to appease Christians. What he really wanted to refer to was a “most perfect equation” – the God Equation – not “God”. What he really wanted to write was, “There is, therefore, or there can be conceived, an equation/formula of all perfections, or most perfect equation/formula. Whence it follows that this equation/formula exists, for existence is among the number of the perfections; it expresses without any limits whatever it does express.” “God” – understood in traditional religious terms as a “person/being” – cannot be defined, and anything that cannot be defined is not necessary, not analytic, and, according to the principle of sufficient reason, cannot exist.

Everything that exists is definable because it has a sufficient reason. If it is not definable, it does not have a sufficient reason, hence does not exist. Anything not definable belongs to human interpretation, opinion, delusion, fantasy, belief, hypothesis and conjecture. What is existence? Here’s the true definition of existence: it is that which cannot be prevented under any circumstances. That means that it is that which is eternal and necessary. Since “God” cannot be defined, it cannot be eternal and necessary. The God Equation, however, can be precisely defined and is eternal and necessary. What can prevent existence? – inconsistency, incompleteness, contradiction, lack, need, contingency, error, fallacy, imperfection, insufficiency, instability, arbitrariness, absence of a sufficient reason. Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. This should actually be framed as why there is existence rather than nonexistence. There is existence because it’s impossible for it not to exist, because it’s impossible for anything to stop it. Yet the only reason why this is so is that compulsory existence always amounts to precisely zero – “nothing”. Only the God Equation, which defines mathematical ontology, guarantees that endless things can have a precise net effect of nothing. Only the God Equation allows “something” to be “nothing”, and it’s only because something equals nothing (mathematically) that it can exist at all since nothing can prevent nothing, and nothing needs nothing. Non-existence (absolute nothingness) needs nothing, and nothing can prevent it, but also does nothing and has no effects, hence can be wholly dismissed. Non-existence sits right alongside existence, but has zero effects, hence is irrelevant, leaving “existence” as the only conceivable reality. So, “nothing” comes in two versions: 1) nothing at all (non-existence), and 2) nothing that results from the perfect mathematical balance of “somethings”, real and imaginary, positive and negative. It’s the second “nothing” that constitutes existence, but it’s never a case of there being something rather than nothing, but of how something can always amount to nothing. Only the God Equation delivers that outcome completely, consistently and eternally. Existence is precisely that which is consistent, complete and is “nothing” overall – and that is exactly what the God Equation defines, and is exactly what nothing else – science or religion – can ever define. The

God Equation is the Truth, and everything else is a Lie. This is the gospel of existence. Kant asserted that existence is not a predicate. Uniquely, in the case of the God Equation, it is. The God Equation exists of necessity, and thus defines existence. The essence of the God Equation does imply, and indeed demands and necessitates, eternal existence. It is impossible for the God Equation not to exist, and it is expressed ontologically through myriad mathematical units called monads – which are none other than immortal, indestructible minds/souls. Anything not based on the God Equation is irrational and false, and that includes scientific materialism. The God Equation is the “subject of all perfections”. It’s the Platonic “Good” and the Aristotelian God of Reason. Remember, the key to existence lies in understanding that which rationally and logically cannot be prevented. That means that the question of ontology is purely a question of reason and logic, and must satisfy the principle of sufficient reason. Ontology has nothing at all to do with empiricism (science), faith and feelings (Abrahamism) or mystical intuition (Eastern religion). If existence is entirely defined by the God Equation (as it is!) then it means that existence is entirely rational and analytic, and can be understood through the exercise of reason alone. Feelings, senses and mystical intuitions have no part to play in understanding ultimate reality. Existence has a precise answer and that answer is the God Equation. There can be no alternative answer. All other proposed answers are false and impossible. Science says, “Anything that can happen will happen” and “Anything not forbidden is compulsory”, yet it wholly fails to define what can happen and what is forbidden. The God Equation does both: it defines everything that can happen and everything that cannot. The God Equation explicitly forbids the existence of the scientific Multiverse. There is only one mathematics, only one science that flows from it, and only one universe that results from it. The Multiverse simply cannot happen and all theories based on it are false. This wipes out the scientific reliance on “randomness” to explain everything. There is no such thing as randomness. Everything has a precise, sufficient reason, defined by the God Equation. There is an exact reason why everything is thus and not otherwise. At no stage does acausality,

indeterminism and randomness play any role at all, meaning that the whole ideology of modern science is false and irrational. The God Equation is that “than which no greater can be thought”. It’s the pinnacle of reason. It alone is consistent, complete and “nothing”. St Thomas Aquinas argued that knowledge of the essence of God is inaccessible to human reason. Well, that’s because “God” is rationally indefinable. The God Equation, on the other hand, is rationally definable, and knowledge of its essence is fully accessible to human reason. All the nonsense about “God” vanishes if we simply replace him with the God Equation. Aquinas argued that it was wrong to argue from the idea of God to his existence, from concept to existence, from idea to fact. Yet this is exactly what needs to be done in terms of ultimate ontology. Reality has a rational answer solely because we can go from mathematical concept, mathematical idea, to ontology, to existential fact. Rationalism is true because it’s based on an ultimate mathematical concept – an all-encompassing mathematical formula – being the ground of existence. Everything flows from this single, complete and consistent formula. Leibniz said, “God, however, has chosen the most perfect [world], that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” It’s not God that has made this world, but the God Equation. It is itself the “simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena”, and so is the world that flows from it. Empiricists and people of faith are wrong because they don’t ground ontology in rational, analytic, mathematical concepts, but in irrational senses and irrational feelings. People of feelings believe in a “God” who makes no sense at all, and people of the senses are driven to explain reality on the basis of randomness, because they dare not cite rational concepts.

***** Existence is a “simple quality which is positive and absolute, and expresses without any limits whatever it does express”. Existence is simple (not complex); indeed as simple as can possibly be. It fully reflects Occam’s Razor: it is not, and cannot be, more complex than it needs to be. By this criterion, it must always equal “nothing”, since anything else would make it

more complex, and in need of a sufficient reason for that extra complexity. Existence is positive. There is no such thing as “negative” existence. Existence is absolute. It cannot be relative in any way (thus ruling out Einstein’s principle of relativity). Existence is necessary. It can never be contingent. Existence is unlimited. It is fully expressed. Nothing constrains it. Nothing prevents it. Existence has no beginning and no end. This means that existence must be conceived in terms of circles, of cycles. Existence cannot be conceived linearly since any line, no matter how long it is, always has an implied beginning, an implied, undefined “prior state”. A circle suffers from no such problem. A circle is a “closed infinity”, and this is the only infinity that can possibly exist. A supposed endless line is an undefined, “open infinity”, and nothing undefined can exist in a system of sufficient reason. One of humanity’s great problems is that it’s far more comfortable thinking about lines than about circles. Human life itself seems to be linear: conception, birth, growth, decline, death. Yet, when conceived in terms of reincarnation, this linear process becomes circular. We are wholly deluded when we consider life in terms of a mortal, finite line. It is in fact, an immortal, infinite circle. It’s all in the math!

Aquinas Aquinas produced five “proofs” for the existence of God. In fact, these proofs have nothing to do with “God” but are entirely relevant to the God Equation: 1) The argument from change. Change is everywhere. Something caused it, and this thing must be God. ... (Nope, it’s the God Equation.) 2) The argument from causation. Who causes cause? There must be a first cause, itself uncaused. This is God. ... (Nope, it’s the God Equation, and it’s expressed through not one thing but myriad things (monads), meaning that there are countless, uncaused first causes, not one “God”). 3) The argument from contingency. How do we account for contingency in nature, except through a Necessary Being? ...

(Nope, we account for it via a necessary God Equation, expressed through myriad monads, each of which is a necessary being and joint contributor to the derived, contingent world.) 4) The argument from Degrees of Excellence. We notice degrees of excellence in nature, implying, in the limit, the notion of perfection, which must reside in a Perfect Being (“God”). ... (Nope, it must reside in a perfect equation – the God Equation.) 5) The argument from Harmony. We see “adaptation” and “accord” everywhere. Either this happened by accident or by design. If by design then there must be a Supreme Intelligence that orders, organises and designs everything. This Supreme Intelligence is “God”. ... (Nope, it’s the God Equation again! The world shows evidence of design everywhere not because there’s an intelligent Designer, and not because random accidents are naturally selected – as modern Darwinism claims – but because the world is literally made of math, the only conceivable, inherent, rational basis of ontological design.)

The Necessary and the Contingent Necessary things: it’s logically impossible for these not to exist. Contingent things: it’s logically possible for these not to exist. Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds. Contingent truths are propositions that are true in this world but false in at least one other possible world, and possibly in all other possible worlds.

Sufficient Reason Leibniz argued that the universe as a whole must have a sufficient reason, which must be outside the universe since there is nothing within the universe to show why it exists. This sufficient reason is God. In fact, the sufficient reason is the mathematical Singularity, which transcends the physical universe, and originates the physical universe. The Singularity is the sufficient reason – the noumenal cause – and the observed world is its phenomenal effect.

Leibniz argued that all true propositions are analytic, i.e. their contradiction is self-contradictory. All necessary propositions are analytic and all contingent propositions are not. Only necessary propositions follow the laws of formal logic. Leibniz said that all propositions asserting existence are contingent, except in relation to the existence of “God” (for which we should understand the God Equation: this perfect formula exists necessarily, not contingently, and defines ontology and epistemology).

The Necessary Being? “But if it is possible that there should be a Being whose essence involves existence, then reason alone, without experience, can define such a Being, whose existence will follow from the ontological argument; for everything that has to do only with essence can be known independently of experience – such at least is Leibniz’s view.” – Bertrand Russell Leibniz is of course correct. All monads – souls – are beings whose essence involves existence, and all monads are defined by the God Equation, which can be understood a priori and analytically, independently of experience. This is the quintessence of rationalism. It’s essential to understand that the answer to existence is necessarily beyond experience (empiricism; science), but certainly isn’t beyond reason (rationalism; ontological mathematics). Science must fail when it comes to the ultimate answer. Mathematics cannot fail. If you are unable to comprehend this, you are irrational. The answer to existence is rational, not empirical; noumenal, not phenomenal; intelligible, not sensible. It can’t be sensed or felt, but it can certainly be rationally worked out. This means that only the world’s smartest people can ever reveal the truth of existence to humanity. It’s not up to stupid people, and is no concern of theirs. Religion is the way that stupid people have sought to understand reality, and all they have managed to do is come up with a superbeing (themselves writ very large!) – “God”, who is said to have all the answers, but who never says what the answers actually are. No religious text states what existence is, how it operates is and how it’s possible at all. God is a being of feelings and will. He is never conceived in any religion as pure reason, pure rationalism, pure mathematics. Why not?

Because people are irrational, and a God of Reason, or a God Equation, is useless to them. How many Muslims could understand the generalised Euler Formula and its ontology? Exactly none. If they could comprehend it, they wouldn’t be Muslims!

The Leibnizian Argument from Eternal Truths “Roughly, the argument is this: Such a statement as ‘it is raining’ is sometimes true and sometimes false, but ‘two and two are four’ is always true. All statements that have only to do with essence, not with existence, are either always true or never true. Those that are always true are called ‘eternal truths’. The gist of the argument is that truths are part of the contents of minds, and that an eternal truth must be part of the content of an eternal mind. There is already an argument not unlike this in Plato, where he deduces immortality from the eternity of the ideas. But in Leibniz the argument is more developed. He holds that the ultimate reason for contingent truths must be found in necessary truths ... there must be a reason for the whole contingent world, and this reason cannot itself be contingent, but must be sought amongst eternal truths. But a reason for what exists must itself exist; therefore eternal truths must, in some sense, exist, and they can only exist as thoughts in the mind of God.” – Bertrand Russell In fact, all eternal truths of reason exist mathematically and follow directly from the God Equation, which is encoded in every monad, hence each and every monad comes inbuilt with all the eternal truths of reason. It’s not so much that the eternal truths are the contents of minds; rather, they are the minds. They are the properties of mind that define mind and provide its framework. Each mind is literally made of them. The content of mind is where contingency, error, delusion, opinion, belief, guesswork, hypothesis and interpretation all enter the equation. The eternal truths provide the form; everything else provides the content. Only when the content reflects the eternal truths themselves is the content true. All monadic minds are necessarily eternal and indestructible. Eternal truths provide the perfect mathematical framework in which everything takes places, but the content that resides within that framework is under no obligation to be true, and in fact is nearly always false (until the Omega Point is reached).

Imagine the best music in the world, and also the worst. Both are made of sound waves. The sound waves are equally perfect in each case, but how they are arranged – the content they encapsulate – is wholly different in each case. The world is made of perfect mathematical waves, but these waves can be arranged in all manner of ways that constitute contingent, fallible content, and this content can be good, bad, true, false, wondrous, vile, imperfect, perfect, etc. Russell says, “...a truth can hardly be said to ‘exist’ in a mind which apprehends it.” The truth doesn’t exist in the mind, it is the mind. The truth must reside in something and not be “disembodied”. It resides in each monad, so can be said to be a property of monads. Yet it’s no contingent property; it’s a necessary property that defines the essence of mind. A truth can be said to “exist” within a mind – as content rather than form – as soon as we become aware of what our own mind is. When we contemplate the God Equation, we are contemplating the truth because we are contemplating what our mind actually is – what it is eternally, necessarily and analytically. We are knowing ourselves for what we actually are: eternal mathematical beings.

The Argument from Design “This argument [from design] contends that on a survey of the known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent purpose.” – Bertrand Russell The world exhibits design not because it’s made by an intelligent Being, but because it’s literally made of mathematics, which comes with design built in. Science’s claim that design results from blind, random, natural forces is false, absurd and impossible. As ever, science is on the wrong, the irrational side, of the argument.

Modal Logic “Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. Modals – words that express modalities – qualify a

statement. For example, the statement ‘John is happy’ might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term ‘usually’ is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility (‘Possibly, p’, ‘It is possible that p’), necessity (‘Necessarily, p’, ‘It is necessary that p’), and impossibility (‘Impossibly, p’, ‘It is impossible that p’). Other modalities that have been formalized in modal logic include temporal modalities, or modalities of time (notably, ‘It was the case that p’, ‘It has always been that p’, ‘It will be that p’, ‘It will always be that p’), deontic modalities (notably, ‘It is obligatory that p’, and ‘It is permissible that p’), epistemic modalities, or modalities of knowledge (‘It is known that p’) and doxastic modalities, or modalities of belief (‘It is believed that p’). ... Deontic logic is the field of logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. ... Epistemic modal logic is a subfield of modal logic that is concerned with reasoning about knowledge. While epistemology has a long philosophical tradition dating back to Ancient Greece, epistemic logic is a much more recent development with applications in many fields, including philosophy, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, economics and linguistics. While philosophers since Aristotle have discussed modal logic, and Medieval philosophers such as Ockham and Duns Scotus developed many of their observations, it was C.I. Lewis who created the first symbolic and systematic approach to the topic, in 1912. ... Doxastic logic is a modal logic concerned with reasoning about beliefs.” – Wikipedia Isn’t it time for the whole of science, religion and philosophy to be expressed in a common language of modal logic, underpinned by ontological mathematics? All illogical statements would be identified and removed; we would thus be able to clearly compare and contrast the conflicting claims of science, religion and philosophy, using a language common to them all. Of course, there’s no room for feelings, faith, “love”, empiricism and mysticism in any such analysis, which removes all priests, pastors, prophets, popes, rabbis, imams, pandits and gurus from the equation. Thank God!

Gödel’s Ontological Argument Kurt Gödel was heavily influenced by Leibniz and sought to perfect his predecessor’s ontological argument. Wikipedia gives the following

description: “Mathematician Kurt Gödel provided a formal argument for God’s existence. The argument was constructed by Gödel but not published until long after his death. He provided a logically valid argument based on modal logic; he uses the conception of properties, ultimately concluding with God’s existence. Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive. Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B. Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified. Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Axiom 2: Any property entailed by – i.e., strictly implied by – a positive property is positive. Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive. Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive. Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive. Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. “Gödel defined being ‘god-like’ as having every positive property. He left the term ‘positive’ undefined. Gödel proposed that it is understood in an aesthetic and moral sense, or alternatively as the opposite of privation (the absence of necessary qualities in the universe). He warned against

interpreting ‘positive’ as being morally or aesthetically ‘good’ (the greatest advantage and least disadvantage), as this includes negative characteristics. Instead, he suggested that ‘positive’ should be interpreted as being perfect, or ‘purely good’, without negative characteristics. “Gödel’s listed theorems follow from the axioms, so most criticisms of the theory focus on those axioms or the assumptions made. Oppy argued that Gödel gives no definition of ‘positive properties’. He suggested that if these positive properties form a set, there is no reason to believe that any such set exists which is theologically interesting, or that there is only one set of positive properties which is theologically interesting.” – Wikipedia As ever, any attempt to prove the existence of God as a person is ridiculous, but exactly the same arguments can be properly and logically deployed to prove the existence of God as a mathematical equation (the only thing that can be eternally perfect). Gödel’s proof, or something very like it if it needs tweaking here or there, can be taken as a formal logical proof of the existence not of God but of the God Equation. The God Equation has “every positive property”. The term “positive property” is not to be understood in any aesthetic or moral sense, but purely in terms of complete and consistent mathematics, with a net result of zero (“nothing”). You cannot apply rational proofs to non-rational things, and God – understood as a being with will, feelings and desires – cannot be a rational entity. The True God is created at the cosmic Omega Point – the instant of perfect mathematical symmetry – and this is the point of perfect reason, of perfect thinking, without any possibility of error.

The Mystery Why have people placed their faith in a perfect being (“God”) rather than in a perfect system (the “God Equation”)? The latter comes with no baggage, is totally rational and analytic, can be perfectly defined, and can explain everything without any ambiguity, without any obscurantist emotions and mysticism. What’s for sure is that reality must be grounded in perfection (an imperfect universe would instantly self-destruct thanks to its own internal contradictions and instabilities). What’s equally for sure is that perfection

doesn’t reside in an eternal, immutable conscious being. Only a mathematical equation or formula can be true eternally and immutably.

Existence What is existence? What exists? Existence is that which cannot be prevented. Existence, if it cannot be prevented, is compulsory. All things that cannot be prevented exist. If they are not impossible, they are compulsory. Only monads satisfy this criterion. It’s impossible for anything else to satisfy this criterion. Existence is a strict “substance monism”. There is no Cartesian substance dualism or substance polyism. There can never be an interactivity problem between different substances, as Descartes encountered. This means that mind or matter must be false, and since monads are immaterial mathematical minds, it’s matter that’s formally impossible, thus rationally refuting the whole ideology and dogmatism of science. What does ontological mathematics accomplish? It replaces a single, perfect, conscious being (“God”) with a single, perfect, ontological equation: the God Equation, ontologically expressed through countless living mathematical minds called monads, which are uncreated, indestructible, eternal, uncaused first causes. They are necessary beings, but they are not inherently conscious. Consciousness is a quality that has to evolve. In effect, a perfect conscious God is replaced by a perfect equation expressed through countless unconscious monads. An impossible God that cannot be defined is replaced by a God Equation that can be perfectly defined. It’s deranged to attempt to understand reality, and the answer to existence, in terms of anything that cannot be perfectly, unambiguously defined. All mysticism is nonsense. All contingent definitions (such as those of science) are nonsense. All references to cosmic “love” are nonsense. All claims that there’s more than one answer to existence are nonsense. All claims that there are many paths to the Truth are nonsense. Only irrational people make such claims.

The Argument from Causation

We inhabit either a world of causation or one without causation. It’s one or the other. We can’t inhabit a world where causation is present sometimes and absent at other times. Such a world would be irrational, unpredictable and incomprehensible, and plainly the world is not like that. Modern science makes the extraordinary claim that the classical determinism of the macroscopic world is underpinned by the microscopic indeterminism of the quantum world, a supremely irrational and incoherent stance. In ontological mathematics, causation begins with monads. These, being eternal, are uncreated and uncaused. They are the first causes of everything else, the necessary causal initiators of all subsequent causal chains present in the contingent world. In Abrahamism, there is one First Cause – “God” – a conscious superbeing. In ontological mathematics, there are countless first causes – as many first causes as there are monads, and each monad is unconscious by default.

The Argument from Necessity It’s impossible for the world to be grounded in contingency since contingent things have, by definition, no ground of their own since they are reliant on necessary things. Modern science attempts to ground the contingent world not in eternal necessity but in random accident, a wholly irrational stance. Science adopts this stance because of its anti-rationalist Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. To accept the existence of a world of eternal necessity outside space and time is to accept a world or rationalism, of metaphysics, of noumenal, a priori agents, all of which are fundamentally rejected by science. Once you have rejected rational, noumenal causes as the basis of things, you are left with nothing to which to appeal other than meaningless, acausal randomness, and scientists have done exactly this with gusto. In essence, there are three ways to explain how things get started in the contingent world: 1) some sort of necessary, divine being (“God”), 2) necessary, non-divine beings (mathematical monadic minds), or 3) necessary “accidents” (random fluctuations in nothingness). All contingent things can be removed without fundamentally affecting reality. In Abrahamism, when all contingent things are removed, “God”

alone remains. God is necessary and his Creation contingent. God can exist without his Creation, but his Creation cannot exist without God. In ontological mathematics, when all contingent things are removed, all that remains are eternal, necessary monads located in an immaterial Singularity outside space and time. The contingent world is the Creation of the Singularity, and, when the contingent world perishes, the mathematical Singularity remains, ready to create a new contingent world via a new “Big Bang”. In scientific materialism, if you removed all contingent things, you would be left with “nothing”, but this “nothing” would possess one feature which actually rendered it something very different from nothing! – the capacity to generate random events, powerful enough to summon entire universes and even Multiverses into existence. Are you buying science’s ridiculous snake oil, it’s quack “remedy”, it’s supreme magic trick? Of the three options, science is the most irrational and absurd! What a disgrace!!! Science has become intellectually embarrassing. It is in fact anti-intellectual, just as anything which opposes reason and rationalism is. “Nothing” is indeed the answer to everything, but it’s not the random nothingness of science, but the precise, analytic nothingness of ontological mathematics (the God Equation). Neither is empirically observable, but ontological mathematics is rational, and science isn’t! That’s a fact. Only an irrationalist would ever choose science over ontological mathematics.

A Predicate? Kant denied that existence is a predicate, i.e. the statement of the essence of something does not ensure it will be instantiated in the world. If you state the essence of a unicorn, you don’t thereby summon it into existence (beyond the idea of it). This is true in all cases bar one: that of necessary, eternal things – the basic units of ontology (monads). When something is not forbidden, there’s nothing to prevent its existence, and it requires nothing (i.e. it’s not contingent on anything) then its instantiation is compulsory. So, what constitutes something that’s not forbidden, requires nothing (does not depend on the existence of anything) and is prevented by nothing (does not depend on the non-existence of anything)? It must be definable,

consistent, complete and have a net result of zero. The God Equation alone, instantiated in each and every monad, satisfies this requirement. “God” does not – given that absolutely no one can provide a complete, consistent, zero-valued definition of God. Nor can anyone do so for the equally ridiculous – or even more ridiculous – randomist ontology of scientific materialism.

***** Unicorns can exist: as ideas. A unicorn’s existence – as an idea – is contingent upon the existence of thinking. By the same token, a unicorn’s existence as an object in the material world of atoms is contingent upon the existence of atoms. But what are atoms made of? Are they in turn contingent upon something else? Where do we reach the bottom of this process? The bottom is where we arrive at necessary entities, those entities that must exist in order for all the things contingent upon them to exist. Existence cannot be a predicate of the idea of a unicorn if by that we mean that the thought must be instantiated as an atomic-based object in the material world. However, existence is a predicate of the idea of a unicorn itself, i.e. it automatically exists as a thought as soon as we think of it. If it couldn’t exist in these terms, we couldn’t think of it in the first place. So, all ideas have existence as a predicate by virtue of the fact that we are thinking them. They are, however, contingent, not necessary: they don’t have necessary existence. By the same token, all material objects have existence as a predicate by virtue of their material existence. Once again, though, they are contingent, not necessary. They wouldn’t exist without atoms, and whatever underpins atoms (monads). Thus we see that Kant’s statement that “existence is not a predicate” is a much more subtle one than he suggested. In fact, contingent existence is always a predicate, i.e. if we think of something, it exists by virtue of the fact that we are thinking about it (it exists as an idea in our mind), and if we observe something in the material world, it exists by virtue of the fact that we are observing it (it exists as an object of our perception). In Illuminism, matter arises as the thinking of the Monadic Collective, so material atoms are just collective ideas: rather than being ideas in single minds, they are ideas in the Collective Mind. In these terms, contingent existence is a predicate of any idea that can be thought. A unicorn can be

thought individually by every mind in existence, but always remains strictly within each individual mind. If a unicorn could be thought by the Monadic Collective it would then exist strictly within that Collective Mind. It would be made of atoms, hence could be objectively perceived by every individual mind. For a thing to be thought by the Collective Mind means that it has material existence. Every human body is an idea in the Collective Mind. DNA – the code of life – is a collective idea. So, any idea exists by virtue of being thought. Ideas can exist in individual minds, or in the Collective Mind. Ideas in the Collective Mind have an additional property over those in individual minds: they are made of atoms and can be perceived by the senses. This, it turns out, is what most people regard as “existence” “God” exists as an idea within every individual mind that contemplates God. God does not, however, exist as an idea within the Collective Mind, i.e. it cannot be instantiated in terms of atoms, and thus be available to sensory perception. The medieval ontological argument does not fail because existence is not a predicate, as Kant claimed, but because, when analysed correctly, it seeks to say that that the idea of God in an individual mind must necessarily be instantiated as a real, objective entity for the Collective Mind. However, this would require “God” to be a sensory object made of atoms, and that’s impossible. The idea of a unicorn could be instantiated in the Collective Mind as a material object; the idea of “God” could not be. God is formally forbidden as a material, sensible object since God is conceived as necessary, and anything made of atoms is contingent. The big question is not in fact whether existence is a predicate; it’s whether necessary existence is a predicate. Is there something whose essence necessitates its existence, not as an idea (which is contingent on the existence of thoughts and minds to think them), and not as an empirical object (which is contingent on the existence of atoms and minds to perceive them). The only things that exist necessarily are monads, which comprise specific collections of analytic sinusoidal waves, which are none other than thoughts in their basic form, i.e. sinusoids are thoughts, and monads are the minds that think them. Minds can think thoughts individually (in which case the thoughts exist strictly inside in the individual minds), or

collectively, in which case they generate subatomic particles and atoms (which are of course all just sinusoidal wavefunctions; they are actually mental, not physical, but collectively mental rather than individually mental!). All things made of thoughts (individually or collectively) exist contingently. Thoughts themselves, and the minds that think them, exist necessarily. Monads can’t do anything but think. What they think about (content of thought) is another issue. Minds are always noumena. Like “God”, they can never be physical, sensory objects. They are permanently beyond the reach of scientific materialism, which is a subject that deals (if it did but know it) only with the objective ideas of the Collective Mind, i.e. with “particles” (which are objective, collective ideas). The existence of minds can be demonstrated only rationally, logically, mathematically and metaphysically. Minds can never be empirical objects, provable within the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Minds are what produce the physical world, but are not themselves physical (they’re mathematical), so nothing in the physical world can detect minds (it would be rather like trying to see yourself from a position outside of yourself, or trying to observe what your own thoughts are made of). Science cannot help us with the questions of ultimate reality. That’s a fact.

Platonic Forms Plato argued that all things in the physical, sensible world are copies of the perfect, immaterial Forms (Ideas) outside space and time. Forms can in fact be translated into physical objects only if they are expressible in terms of atoms. If they are not, they will remain strictly as ideas. In particular, God cannot be expressed atomically, so can never exist physically. Jesus Christ could never have anything but a mortal body, but his mind could conceivably be that of a super-powerful monad. What’s for certain is that he wasn’t “God” since there’s no such thing as a Creator God (i.e. a single, necessary being that creates all other things, which are contingent upon him). Jesus Christ’s existence as “God” is formally impossible and forbidden, so Christianity is a false religion. By the same token, Islam and Judaism are provably false religions, and their prophets are therefore false.

The Mathematics Fallacy What is wrong with the present conception of mathematics? It’s that if it’s considered in ontological terms, it’s invariably understood in the same terms as science – as relating to empirical, observable, phenomenal things. This is the basis of the set theory approach to defining mathematics. Professional mathematicians never consider that numbers belong to living entities (monads) and have a dual nature: an inside and an outside. They are both subjective (have an inside) and objective (have an outside). In this regard, the most remarkable number is the monad itself – the number zero. Zero is not merely a geometrical dimensionless point, or a number mid-way between plus one and minus one, as professional mathematicians would have you believe. Zero is in fact full to the brim. Specifically, it’s populated by every number that can possibly exist, all perfectly balanced between negative and positive numbers, real and imaginary numbers, reflecting perfect numerical symmetry. All of these numbers comprise energy and information. So, monads (zeros) can be regarded as infinite-energy, infinite-information systems. They are none other than eternal, indestructible souls. Nothing can prevent their existence. They have no “Creator”. They are uncaused first causes. They are prime movers. They are the essence of motion, energy, thought and life. Monads (zeros), unlike anything else, are pure subjects. They have no objective manifestation. You can never see or experience a monad from the outside, which is exactly why they are not part of science. They are singularities – the mathematical entities that exist at exactly the point where physics breaks down. Because science irrationally rejects the existence of eternal singularities, it’s forced to resort to indefinable randomness to “explain” reality and existence. Although monads are pure subjects, their contents are not. Their contents have both an inside and an outside. They are finite numbers. It’s these finite numbers, projected into spacetime via Fourier mathematics, that generate the “objective”, “scientific”, finite world we encounter and experience. The whole objective world comes from the subjective world of monads, and is subjectively experienced by monads (souls). Professional mathematicians, like scientists, must accept a revolutionary paradigm shift in their understanding of their chosen subject. Mathematics

is quintessentially noumenal, not phenomenal; rationalist, not empiricist; idealist, not materialist. Mathematics, ontologically, is defined by the God Equation and the monads it generates. Mathematics can never be handled properly (consistently and completely) until that is grasped. Mathematics is all about the Singularity, and science all about the non-Singularity, or, as Fichte would have it, Ego and non-Ego. Metaphysics = the Singularity (the Fourier frequency domain). Physics = the Non-Singularity (the Fourier spacetime domain). Reality = Metaphysics plus physics, not physics alone (empiricism and materialism) or metaphysics alone (rationalism and idealism), but the physical is certainly grounded in the metaphysical. Because science rejects metaphysics (ontological mathematics, rationalism and idealism), it’s compelled to declare the world fundamentally irrational, acausal, indeterministic, random, statistical, probabilistic, meaningless and purposeless. As soon as the existence of eternal mathematical singularities is accepted, the prevailing view of science is destroyed in its entirety. Singularities are minds and once minds are introduced into science, everything changes. The great problem is this – scientists like Richard Dawkins are people of faith and are simply not rational enough to embrace unobservable mathematical singularities as real things. This is despite the fact that black holes are singularities, photons are singularities, the Big Bang was a singularity, and the Big Crunch will be a singularity, i.e. our existence is completely framed and constrained by singularities. As soon as you leave the physical world, you encounter singularities. You don’t encounter “non-existence”. What is death? It’s when your physical body dies and you return to your core state – a mental singularity state!

***** Even scientists acknowledge that “nothing” is actually full, except they call it the quantum vacuum. Joan Solà, of the University of Barcelona, said, “The concept of the quantum vacuum has nothing to do with the classic

notion of absolute nothingness. Nothing is more ‘full’ than the quantum vacuum since it is full of fluctuations that contribute fundamentally to the values that we observe and measure.” To become rational, scientists simply have to redefine the “quantum vacuum” as a monadic singularity defined by the God Equation. What’s so hard about that?!

Foundation and Empire Richard Dawkins has established the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Is that some exercise in irony? How can anyone use “reason” and “science” in the same sentence? Science is wholly opposed to rationalism and the principle of sufficient reason. Science is sensory irrationalism and unreason. It’s pure empiricism and materialism and contradicts reason at all times. Nothing that science says about ultimate reality is true. Its whole model of existence is false. Why is science deemed successful? – because it’s good at modelling, at matching contingent mathematical hypotheses to repeatable observations. That’s all well and good, but it tells us nothing about the Truth of existence. Science generates simulacra – not reality. Science is The Matrix.

The Argument from Reason Either we live in an entirely rational universe where everything has a sufficient reason (cause), or we live in an entirely irrational universe where nothing has a sufficient reason (cause). It’s impossible for some things to have causes, and for other things not to have causes. This would amount to a type of Cartesian “substance dualism” where two substances with nothing in common somehow co-exist and interact with each other through some miraculous and magical process. According to science, we live in a world where acausal, random accidents create the things of the observed, deterministic, causal world: a total rational absurdity. No rational person could ever take the central claims of modern science seriously. Driven by a fanatical empiricist ideology, scientists have parted company with rationalism. The sole reason why science hasn’t turned into a total joke is that it still relies on mathematics – the supreme rationalist subject, the supreme subject of causation, determinism and sufficient reason!

Ideologically, science has rejected rationalism, yet tacitly it accepts rationalism through mathematics. Therefore, the empiricist philosophy and interpretations of science are entirely at odds with its rationalist engine of mathematics, which is exactly why science has become incoherent and irrational.

The Argument from Mathematics How can the eternal truths of mathematics be explained? Whence mathematics? Mathematical truths were true before any human being existed, and will be every bit as true after every human has perished. Plainly, no human invented that which precedes humanity and which also survives humanity. If no human invented mathematics then mathematics must be ontological (because how else is it there?): it has independent existence in its own right. It is innate in the universe. Everywhere you look in Nature, you will find mathematics. Where does it come from? What is its origin? Ontological mathematics traces all the mathematical features of existence back to the fundamental mathematical units of existence: monads – eternal, living mathematical minds encoded with the God Equation, hence with all of the laws of ontological mathematics. Science can give absolutely no explanation for mathematics, and doesn’t make any attempt to account for the presence of rationalist mathematics at the heart of all empiricist scientific theories. The ontology of mathematics is ignored by scientists. Imagine a so-called “scientific theory of everything” that failed to define what mathematics was, yet was entirely expressed in mathematical terms. Would that not be the supreme triumph of futility and irrationalism? It would be a theory that claimed to explain everything yet couldn’t even explain itself. Why does science refuse to engage with the ontology of mathematics? It’s because the scientific method is wholly empirical and engages only with sensory observations and measurements. How can you perform sensory experiments on mathematics, the ultimate rationalist subject that’s conducted entirely in the absence of sensory experiments? Science is hoist with its own petard. It’s all about the scientific method, yet is impossible without mathematics, which has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Science is simultaneously hyper-empiricist via its experimental method, and hyper-rationalist via its mathematical engine upon which the whole of physics relies. This is a blatant contradiction and renders science fundamentally incoherent. Ontological mathematics resolves this contradiction by toppling the scientific method and making mathematics the defining element of science, with experiments merely being tools deployed to gather clues to point us in the right mathematical direction and to verify mathematical hypotheses relevant to physicalism. All of ontological mathematics derives from the God Equation, but we have to devise mathematical hypotheses to link the God Equation to the observed, empirical, contingent world. This activity is what properly constitutes “science”. At the moment, science tries to match experimental data to contingent, arbitrary, ad hoc mathematical laws. In the future, science will be about matching experimental data to necessary, analytic mathematical laws. The former approach places empiricism over rationalism, the latter rationalism over empiricism. The former reveres experiments and makes mathematics a mere tool. The latter reveres mathematics and makes experiments mere tools. The two approaches have radically different philosophical implications. The former is all about the phenomenal world and denies the existence of a noumenal world. The latter is all about the noumenal world, which gives rise to an illusory phenomenal world.

The Argument from Analysis The necessary, eternal world is analytic. Everything there is true by definition, and can never be contradicted. It’s a world of a priori truths. Kant attempted to create a synthetic a priori category – a total absurdity. All eternal truths are mathematical, and all such truths are analytic. The whole of ontological mathematics is just one gigantic tautology. Every mathematical proposition must be traceable back to the God Equation, hence is just the God Equation expressed in a different way (tautology). Absolutely no proposition of ontological mathematics can contradict the God Equation. Science is all about the synthetic a posteriori, and essentially denies the existence of the analytic a priori (the innate knowledge of rationalism), and also the Kantian synthetic a priori.

The Argument from the A Priori We come into the world as babies – unconscious, with no apparent knowledge. Scientists claim that our existence began with our physical conception, and before that we did not exist. Is it possible for the world itself to come into existence in such a way – to arise from non-existence via some conception event? This produces multiple problems, the two most obvious being: 1) how can anything at all come into existence from nonexistence, and 2) where did the conception event come from; what was its origin? Rationalism asserts that there is an eternal, a priori world that exists prior to any experiences and sets the framework in which experiences are possible at all. Existence never comes from non-existence. What exists now is grounded in necessary things that have existed forever, and is merely a transformation of those things. Empiricism denies that any such world exists. Only experience counts. Only experience is relevant. Experience is all about the a posteriori, not the a priori, i.e. the truth or falsehood is something is determined following our experience of that thing, and not prior to our experience of it (as in the case of the a priori). The a priori says that you can know things without experience, while the a posteriori insists that experience is essential. But how can you experience a world if the world is not there first, prior to any experiences? We can conceive of a universe based on eternal, necessary rational principles. Is it possible to conceive of a universe based on nothing but contingency, randomness and non-rational principles? Science tells us that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang other than the bizarre capacity of “nothing” to generate “random fluctuations”, which can summon whole universes into existence out of nothing, apparently. If you believe science, you really will believe anything. You might as well be a Muslim. That’s how irrational you are. Why does science refuse to acknowledge an eternal world of noumenal reason that exists prior to, and is the precondition for, any contingent, phenomenal world? It’s because, if it did so, it would be admitting the existence of an eternal, immaterial mental world, outside space and time and thus wholly incompatible with, and a refutation of, science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. If the a priori is true, rationalism is true and empiricism is false. It’s a zero sum game.

Rather than accept the truth of the rational a priori, Empiricist Fundamentalists rely on randomness to “explain” the origin of the world. Yet they are not entitled to even this. Randomness itself must be part of an a priori order. “Nothing” must be capable of supporting randomness, and that automatically means that “nothing” has properties that precede experience. Science does nothing whatsoever to study these a priori properties of “nothing”. It simply assumes them and uses them without providing any sufficient reason for why they exist at all. Science is thus an irrational system of faith and magic. It’s every bit as bad as the Abrahamic religions it so often denounces. It has no more rational a basis than Judaism does. It’s a belief system, not a system of reason. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, posits an eternal, necessary, analytic, a priori system of mathematical reason – which explains everything.

The Argument from Deduction If the a priori, necessary and analytic are all true then we can use deduction to extract all knowledge from such a system. If the a posteriori, contingent and synthetic are all true then we must use induction. Science is based on induction rather than deduction. The former can provide certain, immutable, absolute knowledge. The latter provides only uncertain, ever-changing, relative, provisional knowledge. A deductive world provides Platonic Truth while an inductive world is about belief, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. There can be no Truth in such a world since induction can be falsified at any time. You might have seen a million, billion or trillion white swans but your belief that all swans are therefore white will be destroyed as soon as you see one black swan. Induction can never yield certainty. If, however, the whiteness of swans was an analytic truth (i.e. to have a swan anything other than white would be an impossible contradiction, like a bachelor being married rather than single, or 1 + 1 = 3) then we could have absolute certainty about the colour of swans. The universe, to be rational, must be grounded in certainty. If it’s not grounded in certainty, it’s irrational, and an irrational universe can never exhibit any order. It would never be anything other than eternal Chaos.

The Argument from Consistency and Completeness

The universe must be consistent and complete. If it were inconsistent, its internal contradictions would prove fatal. If it were incomplete, the gaps would prove fatal. Either way, the universe would be destroyed. Ontological mathematics is all about consistency and completeness. Science totally rejects any such criteria. Science is therefore fundamentally irrational. It’s a faith system, a quasi-religion.

The Argument from “No Gaps” Natura non facit saltus (Latin: “Nature does not make jumps.”) – Leibniz The universe cannot have a single gap. It must be a plenum, a “fullness”. Any gap would destroy its rational order and render it unmathematical. Modern science is all about a universe of gaps, uncertainty, fuzziness, blurriness, haziness, clouds of probability, acausality, indeterminism and randomness. A universe with gaps is an irrational universe, an inexplicable universe, a universe with no meaning, no purpose, and no answer.

The Argument from Life Life cannot come from death, just as existence cannot come from nonexistence. Therefore, life has always existed. Life is eternal. Abrahamists believe in an eternal, living God. Followers of Eastern religion believe in an eternal, divine force. Scientists deny eternal life and claim that life is produced by arranging dead atoms in certain complex ways. This is absurd and ridiculous. It’s a category error. There are no such things as death and dead things, only ever-transforming life. Life, like energy, obeys a conservation law. Indeed, it’s the same law since energy is life.

The Argument from Mind Mind cannot come from the mindless. Mind has always existed. Abrahamists believe in an eternal, conscious God. Followers of Eastern religion believe in an eternal, unconscious divine force, from which consciousness can evolve. Scientists deny eternal mind and claim that mind is produced by arranging mindless atoms in certain complex ways. This is ridiculous. It’s a category error. There’s no such thing as mindlessness, only ever-transforming mind.

Mind, like energy and life, obeys a conservation law. Indeed, it’s the same law, since energy is mind = life. Consciousness is the fullest actualisation of mind. Consciousness is the highest expression of the unconscious. Consciousness is impossible without there first being unconsciousness. The unconscious produces one module – the ego, the “I” – which constitutes consciousness and sits at the apex of the unconscious. It’s like the tip of an iceberg, the only visible part, with the vast bulk out of sight.

Failure Science fails in terms of every single rational argument concerning the ultimate nature of existence. In fact, it goes out of its way to irrationally oppose all of these, and to rely on meaningless accident and randomness as an “explanation”. Science rejects reason and relies solely on sensory experiments and “evidence”. Science promotes irrationalism, randomness, acausality, indeterminacy, probability and statistics. It says existence is meaningless, purposeless and pointless, with no answer. What kind of person would choose to believe such things when it’s possible, and rational, to accept a wholly rational, mathematical universe with an exact answer?

The Correct Way “Though it may seem hard to believe, there is no single correct way to understand the world. Different people will interpret the same set of signals in different ways, and there is no reason to believe only one will be right. As long as your perception fits the facts of your experience, you can base it on whatever assumptions you care to make. Interpretation is completely yours to control, which means your perception of the world is open to modification. It is determined by which framework of beliefs and assumptions you choose to apply. These affect how you understand your situation and how you perceive the options available to you. The decisions you make – and therefore, how you manifest your Free Will – depend on what you choose to believe about yourself and the world. Thus, the next step on our path to self-empowerment is to examine our beliefs and see if they’re worth keeping. To do that, we need to consider how we acquired them in the first place.” – S. Flecken

It’s not only hard to believe that “there is no single correct way to understand the world”, it’s rationally impossible. The world has only one answer. If you don’t accept that, you’re irrational. You’re a person of faith and you might as well believe whatever you like, just like S. Flecken. “...there is no reason to believe only one will be right”: On the contrary, there’s no reason to believe that more than one is right. The world would not obey the principle of sufficient reason if there were more than one answer. It would be a universe of magic, faith, irrationalism, “substance polyism”, relativism, interpretation and, ultimately, nihilism. “Interpretation is completely yours to control”: This is the gospel of total relativism: believing whatever you like. It’s irrational nonsense. It goes hand in hand with the New Age ideology of “all religions contain a fundamental truth.” No they don’t! Abrahamic religions have literally zero truth content and are nothing but false, malignant and evil. They must be abolished in their entirety in a rational world. “Thus, the next step on our path to self-empowerment is to examine our beliefs and see if they’re worth keeping”: Many absolutely false beliefs lead to self-empowerment (the world is full of charlatans and psychopaths who are very powerful while believing in nonsense), and none at all lead to selfenlightenment. Only the Truth can set you free, not any old, irrational, relativistic junk you happen to believe in because the Truth is too tough for you. Anyone opposed to a single, unique truth of existence is opposed to the principle of sufficient reason. Imagine a mathematics test where you could give the answer that you felt most “empowered” you, rather than the unique, correct answer. In Girls Just Want to Have Sums, an episode of The Simpsons, Springfield Elementary gets a female principal who splits the boys and girls into separate schools. Wikipedia says, “Lisa seems to feel right at home in the girl-friendly school, with the fountains, paintings by female artists, pink paint and all. She attends her first-period math class, taught by the new principal, but instead of usual number-crunching, the principal starts speaking about feelings and smell in math. While the other girls enjoy it, Lisa asks whether they will get down to doing problems, to which the principal replies that problems are how boys look at math. Disillusioned by this ‘pro-female’ (and illogical) bias toward her favourite subject, as the

remainder of her class sings along with the teacher, Lisa climbs over the wall into the boys’ school compound – a rundown, desolate, dystopian world plagued by stray wolves, graffitied walls, garbage, and rusted cars. She peeps into one of the classrooms and sees a math class in session, where actual, accurate math is being taught exactly how she likes it, even coming up with the answer, ‘He forgot the volume of the carrot nose, 1/3 base times height’ when none of the other boys did. She is caught by Skinner, now an assistant to Groundskeeper Willie, and ordered to leave at once. Lisa asks him why she cannot study normal math, but Skinner is too brainwashed by supposed political correctness to answer her.” All those who talk about there being different answers to existence, and being “empowered” by the different answers, are like the politically correct Springfield Elementary principal who turns math into “feelings and smell”. Whether you like it or not, there’s only one correct answer to existence. The answer couldn’t care less whether you know it or not. That’s your problem, not its. If you’re too stupid to work out the answer, too bad. The Truth isn’t a democracy. It’s not for everyone. The people who are terrified of not being able to understand the Truth are invariably those who claim there are “many paths” to the Truth. Nope, there’s only one – that of the principle of sufficient reason. Anything that contradicts this is eternally false. That’s a fact. When you become rational enough, then, like Lisa Simpson, you can smell New Age, politically correct bullshit from miles away. Don’t let them sucker you in. Next thing you know, you’ll be a “light worker” promoting “unconditional love”. Sheez!!

Scientific Ontology Science is hopeless at ontology. It doesn’t even bother to think about ontology, regarding it as metaphysical, hence “unscientific”. That hasn’t prevented some scientists from claiming that reality is based on one dimensional “strings”, which are wholly unobservable, hence metaphysical (!). Well, you should never expect scientists to be rational and consistent. They are people of faith, after all, not of reason. If we try to make sense of what science implies about ontology, we reach some very bizarre conclusions. Science claims, incoherently, that

ultimate reality is indeterministic, yet is based on a deterministic wavefunction (which collapses indeterministically!) – work that one out! Every system, whether it likes it or not, has to address eternity. Many scientists like to say that it’s meaningless to talk about what happened before the Big Bang since what does “before” mean if time came into being with the Big Bang? But plainly it’s not meaningless since, by scientists’ own account, the Big Bang was preceded by some random fluctuation, which could not have been in space and time. Scientists can’t refer to the Big Bang being initiated by a random fluctuation outside space and time and then, in the same breath, ridicule any attempt to refer to anything outside space and time (!). What science says – even though it doesn’t know it – is that what is eternal in science is an unreal, abstract, unobservable, cosmic mathematical wavefunction describing a superposition of everything that could ever possibly happen. “Real” things (i.e. empirical, observable, “scientific” events) occur whenever the unreal wavefunction indeterministically collapses. The degree of philosophical incoherence involved in science’s belief system is simply staggering, yet no scientist ever chooses to address such issues. All objections are dismissed as “mere philosophy”. Abrahamism says much the same whenever its philosophically is criticised. The parallels between science and Abrahamism are legion. Abrahamism refuses to listen whenever faith and revelation are challenged, while science refuses to listen whenever materialism, empiricism and the scientific method are called into question. Both are faith systems, fanatically hostile to reason and rationalism. It really is just as impossible to have a rational debate with a scientist as it is with a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian. No scientists are ever able to rationally defend their belief system at any fundamental level (the level of ontology). Scientist can’t explain what anything is. They can’t define space, time, mass, energy, speed, light, or anything else. Instead of ontological definitions, they rely on circular definitions such as E = mc2. This doesn’t explain what energy is ontologically, or mass, or light, and nor does it explain why the speed of light is absolute. Scientific materialism and empiricism is predicated, incoherently, on an eternal, unreal, immaterial, unobservable, deterministic wavefunction that collapses indeterministically. That’s just mad.

Ontological mathematics is predicated on an eternal, real Singularity made of real monads, each of which is a real, autonomous wavefunction, but defined in terms of complex numbers rather than the real numbers of science. Which system is rational and which irrational?

***** Science can’t escape from mathematics. The choice science has to make is to regard mathematics as real (ontological) or unreal (an abstraction), and it has chosen the latter option because of its anti-rationalist, empiricist ideology. Ontological mathematics is rational and real; scientific mathematics is irrational and unreal. Well, what’s it to be? – which mathematics will you choose? Whatever you decide, it’s all math. It’s impossible to escape mathematics, even when, like irrational scientists, Abrahamists and Karmists, you are desperate to deny that mathematics is the ground of existence.

Eternal Existence What exists has always existed. The only thing that can exist forever is nothing, but “nothing” can, mathematically, be the average – the net resultant – of something. Something can always exist as long as it averages to nothing, but not otherwise. Only perfect, analytic mathematics ensures such an outcome. Monads are the perfect, eternal “nothings”, which are also “somethings”. For nothing to also be something is the secret of the most mysterious object in the universe – the soul, the eternal, mathematical monadic mind.

Kant Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. The aim of the work was to define the limits of pure reason. Metaphysicians used pure reason to make grand claims about the nature of reality, but their various schemes always seemed to contradict each other. Where was pure reason going wrong? Kant, heavily influenced by the skeptical empiricist David Hume,

was circumspect about the very possibility of naked metaphysics, and thought he could rein it in and tame it by uniting it with empiricism, which relied on direct experience rather than speculation. In fact, all that Kant was actually required to do was define pure reason in terms of the true language of metaphysics – ontological mathematics. It’s mathematics, not experience, that prevents pure reason from spiralling off into absurdity. Without mathematical reason, empiricist thinking is no less prone to absurdity than the wildest of metaphysical speculation – just look at the crazy claims of modern science regarding parallel universes, Multiverses, infinite clones of ourselves, the world splitting into many worlds whenever it’s faced with a choice, the universe randomly springing out of nothing, cats being simultaneously alive, dead and in-between (!), and scientific “reality” being based on an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction. Kant should have written a second book called the Critique of Pure Empiricism, about defining the limits of pure empiricism. Science is desperately in need of such a book to stop scientists running off at the mouth and talking absolute nonsense.

Possible Worlds? What makes a world possible? It’s possible if it does not contradict the laws of ontological mathematics. Every time the cyclical universe reaches the end of a particular cycle, it is restored to a state of perfect symmetry. This symmetry can break in countless different ways, and how it breaks sets the agenda for the Big Bang that follows. Each new cyclical universe is a contingent universe based on necessary laws. Each cycle follows the same general pattern, but the details of each universe are different. There’s no Nietzschean eternal recurrence (in the sense of exact repetition of events), but there is eternal recurrence of the same pattern being repeated over and over again forever. That’s the nature of life. That’s the nature of eternal becoming. It’s mathematically impossible for the universe to reach any “final state” – a state of perfect being. If it were possible, it would already have happened long ago. So, whether anyone likes it not, we are in a cyclical system that goes on forever. Too bad if that’s not your thing. The Truth doesn’t care whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not.

You are an eternal soul and that means that you can never check out. So you had better get used to the Truth.

The Mathematical Multiverse? What caused the Big Bang universe if not something mathematical, outside space and time, hence not part of the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science? Even to refer, as science does, to a random fluctuation as the trigger for the Big Bang is to refer to something beyond science’s ideology. Consider the Multiverse. What caused it? Countless random fluctuations? According to science, new Big Bang universes don’t all cataclysmically crash into each other but all have their own neat spacetimes. A random fluctuation in your nose right now could be triggering a new Big Bang universe, but, not to worry, it will conveniently create its own separate universe rather than blow your head and the whole world to smithereens. It’s remarkable how well behaved all of these other universes are, isn’t it? Where are they all? According to Max Tegmark, there are four levels of Multiverse. Jeez, as if one wasn’t bad enough. It’s impossible for them to be in our spacetime (since then they would be part of our universe), so, we repeat, where are they? The only conceivable way to imagine such a Multiverse is in a mathematical, not scientific, domain. Yet again, we are back to mathematics being the primary reality. Max Tegmark claims that there are infinite mathematical universes in the deepest layer of the Multiverse (Stage 4). He doesn’t explain what is the source of all these different versions of mathematics, and how they don’t all come together into a single mathematics in a single mathematical domain. What keeps them separate other than his wishful thinking? There can be only one complete and consistent mathematics ontologically, and any other proposed versions of mathematics would selfdestruct instantly because of their inherent contradictions. Even to conceive of a Multiverse is to conceive of some overarching mathematical scheme which gives rise to each individual universe within the Multiverse, but this overarching mathematics would render Tegmark’s suggestion of infinite different versions of mathematics absurd, since they would all be the creation of this greater, unitary mathematical system, hence they would not be independent, and they would be redundant.

How could physical universes exist together without apocalyptic collisions? So, if there’s more than one physical universe, they must inhabit a non-physical (mathematical) domain. Moreover, the properties of each type of universe would have to be centrally tracked in order to prevent infinite numbers of every possible universe from being generated (i.e. the worst possible violation of Occam’s Razor). The same considerations apply to any putative mathematical Multiverse. There would have to be a central organiser to prevent infinite redundancy, and to ensure that separate mathematical systems did not collide and destroy each other with their incompatible versions of mathematics, or, alternatively, all merge into a single mathematical system. The God Equation can be considered the “best of all possible mathematical worlds”. It’s what remains when every conceivable mathematical system collides. The only thing that can survive is the one mathematical system that is absolutely consistent and complete. All errors, flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, insufficiencies and instabilities are removed. What remains? – mathematical perfection. The exact opposite of Tegmark’s argument is true. There are not infinite different versions of mathematics, but only one. What happens when every possible version of mathematics fights it out? Only one thing can survive – indestructible, invincible mathematics, the mathematics of perfection, mathematics fit for eternity, mathematics that can provide the adamantine foundation for everything. Perfect mathematics is consistent and complete and any mathematics that is not perfect and complete cannot exist.

The Ape of Reason The Devil was called “the ape of God”. The Devil mimicked God, while being his worst enemy. Richard Dawkins is the ape of reason because he’s a ferocious enemy of mathematical rationalism, being an empiricist, materialist and champion of purposelessness, meaningless and randomness.

***** “I am an ape. I am an African ape. I am very proud to be an African ape and so you should be.” – Richard Dawkins

And you’re about as rational as an ape, Richard.

Teleology If the universe if fundamentally mental then it’s fundamentally teleological. Darwinism, such as it is, would then be a product of this teleology, and have nothing to do with purposeless, random, pointless mutations, as ultra Darwinists claim, in contradiction of mathematics which enshrines causality and the principle of sufficient reason. In fact, there’s no such thing as “Darwinism”, as conceived by the likes of Dawkins. Evolution proceeds by way of self-optimising, living Fourier mathematics. Mathematical minds (monads) in the Fourier frequency domain represent themselves in the Fourier spacetime domain and can continuously adjust this representation in order to make themselves better adapted. This is what actually underlies the “mutation” of genes. No one can perceive the Fourier adaptive mutation of genes, but of course, no one who supports random mutation of genes can perceive that randomness either. Will you conclude that mathematics underlies evolution, or chaos (randomness; antimathematics)?

The Theory of Memes “Richard Dawkins first used the word memes in his book The Selfish Gene to describe how it was not just biology that was covered by evolution. Memes are to culture as genes are to nature. A meme describes a unit of information which survives through being selected by someone and then being passed on to another. It applies to everything. For example, songs are memes. We hear them, play them, sing them and transfer them to others, and in doing so we aid their survival. The theory of memes attempts to explain all human activity in evolutionary terms, including culture, religion and morality. It goes much further than saying there’s no God: it concludes that there is no you or me! Dr Susan Blackmore believes that memes are the key to understanding everything about what we say, do and think.” – Conor Cunningham, Did Darwin Kill God? (BBC documentary)

“Memes are any kind of information that’s copied from person to person. So, when I’m speaking to you now, I might be telling you a story, or a joke, or I could sing you a song. And if you then pass that on, it’s a meme, and it can go on to infect lots of other people. [Memes are part of evolutionary theory because the] idea of memes comes straight out of universal Darwinism. It applies to anything where information is copied with variation and selection. Memes are competing to use our brains to get themselves copied. It inverts the normal way you think about the world. We, as humans, feel that we are doing the selecting but, from the meme’s point of view, they’re getting us to copy them. ... Our memes colonise us. You could say that they are parasites and parasitizing us, but in a way that gives the wrong impression because there’s a whole range of memes – from the valuable and wonderful memes that make up our culture, our science and arts, to the other end where you have all the viral memes like internet viruses and chain letters and religions, things that exploit our brains and aren’t true. Memes that have colonised us through our lives have given rise to this great story that I’m in here [in my body and brain], I’m in control of my life, and I would say the meme that I think I am is, to that extent, an illusion.” – Dr Susan Blackmore “If true, the theory of memes is devastating. Ultra Darwinists say that everything is an illusion and this includes our sense of self and all our beliefs. If our entire mental world is a product of a lifetime of meme colonisation, that means I believe in God because I have been colonized by the Christianity meme. In other words, I’m deluded and, therefore, God is not real. “But I can’t see how the theory of memes can be true. There’s a fundamental flaw at the heart of the theory. Consider this ... I also believe in evolution. Doesn’t that mean that I have also been colonised by the theory of evolution meme? How can I trust this meme to be any more true than any other meme? This may sound like clever wordplay, but this is a philosophical problem that confronts anyone who believes in the theory of memes. You see, science requires truth to be objective. It requires benchmarks to decide between what is true and what is not true, but, with ultra Darwinism, there can be no benchmark because all that matters is which memes survive. And their survival has nothing to do with their truth. As one atheist philosopher put it, evolution does not care whether most of

our beliefs are true. Like Rhett Butler in the movie, it just doesn’t give a damn. “In undermining the objectivity of truth, ultra Darwinism not only threatens the truth of God, it also inadvertently destroys the truth of the theory of evolution itself. Although the theory of memes has been around for some time, ultra Darwinists have been unable to answer this philosophical problem, the irony being that, having fatally undermined itself, ultra Darwinism cannot destroy our sense of self, threaten ethics, and it cannot kill the idea of God. ... “Let’s be clear. I remain an ardent supporter of Darwin and his theory of evolution. My issue is only against ultra Darwinism, the attempt to use the theory to explain everything, and you don’t have to believe in God to see the dangers in such an enterprise. The latest research in evolution is a reminder that all science, even the theory of evolution, is provisional. Darwin’s theory may not be the whole story. And, indeed, being but a chapter, it cannot expect to explain away God. ... The research of one of the world’s most respected evolutionary paleobiologists, Simon Conway Morris, explores how life forms with wholly independent evolutionary paths can produce remarkably similar results.” – Conor Cunningham “We humans are cultural and we have music but it so turns out that many animals have music too. Not only that, but the sort of music they have is remarkably similar in many respects to ours. Some birds even do drumming, for example. But, more specifically, they have harmony, melody, they have invention, they even have cultures of music where, for example, whales in the oceans swap songs. Now, supposing that there is a universal music ‘out there’ then think of evolution as more like a search engine and the reason why the music sounds the same is because it is actually discovering something which, arguably, is even pre-existing. And that suggests that, yes, evolution, the algorithm, is Darwinian but there are other realities, and the very fact that music is discovered in this way suggests that there is more to play for, and in fact we have hardly begun to understand who we are and why we’re here. Evolution is true. The question is not that. It’s is evolution, as a theory, complete? Now, if you think of other sciences ... go back to physics and the time of Newton ... they thought they had more or less solved everything, but of course along came general relativity, and along came quantum mechanics. I strongly suspect that evolution is true so far as it goes but we are very much dealing with

unfinished business. And that means it’s like any other science!” – Simon Conway Morris “If science is inherently open-ended and provisional, how can a scientific theory like evolution possibly kill God? ... Ultra Darwinism is an unorthodox strand of Darwinism, just as Creationism is an unorthodox strand of mainstream Christianity.” – Conor Cunningham

***** “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. “We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...” – Nietzsche Meme theory is nothing new. It’s just Nietzsche’s philosophy expressed in a different jargon. Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” We could replace “interpretations” with “memes”: “There are no facts, only memes.” Additionally, we could rewrite Nietzsche’s assertion What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors with What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his memes. Nietzsche also said that the falseness of a judgment is not an objection to a judgement and that what really matters is whether the judgement, true or false, is life-preserving, species-preserving and species-breeding. He concluded that the falsest judgements are the most indispensable to the human race. Once again, we could simply replace “false judgments” with “memes”: the falsest memes are the most popular and most indispensable to humanity. Nietzsche, like the meme theorists, questioned the existence of “I” and asserted that it was just a conjecture and interpretation (a meme, in other

words). He insisted that everything was governed by Will to Power, by a brutal contest of natural selection. Memes are simply centres of power engaged in a war to see which ones prosper and reproduce, and which falter and die out. Their truth content is 100% irrelevant. No idea has ever prospered by virtue of being true. As Nietzsche so damningly said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” The most successful memes are ipso facto the most mendacious memes. Look at the world. Isn’t that exactly the case? What memes could possibly be falser that Christianity and Islam, the world’s two most successful religions? The difference between Nietzsche and a Darwinist meme theorist is that Nietzsche is far more honest. Where the meme theorists ridicule religion as a virus and promote their own theories as “truth”, Nietzsche radically questions humanity’s ability to know any truth. He pointed out that human beings have no “organ for truth”: “We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’; we know … just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd.” He observed that science itself is just an interpretation and description, not an explanation. If you buy into meme theory as conventionally set out, you have no right to distinguish between the truth content of different, rival memes since you have no way of objectively measuring this. All you can do is what Nietzsche did and assess their relative power. Highly successful memes are not better or truer, but are certainly more powerful and influential. Meme theory cannot address truth since “truth”, in this theory, is simply a meme like all the others, competing to reproduce. There’s no way to distinguish true memes from false memes since they’re all just memes, including the labels “true” and “false”. All memes are interpretations, conjectures, opinions, tastes, beliefs, and hypotheses. The question then becomes: Is there anything absolute that stands outside the system of memes? This thing would, ipso facto, contradict the hypothesis that memes “explain” everything. Of course, there is such a thing: mathematics. Mathematics, unlike everything else, is ontologically analytic, not synthetic. No interpretation is involved in mathematical statements such as 1 + 1 = 2. This statement can be rewritten as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, showing that mathematics is pure tautology. Ontological, analytic mathematical truths are eternal. They precede genes, memes, evolution and everything else. Mathematical truths are true

whether anyone knows or not, or cares or not, or likes it or not. Ontological mathematics has 100% truth content. Everything in ontological mathematics is true by definition and can never not be true. The only way out of meme relativism is via the absolute, analytic tautologies of mathematics. Interpretations are memes, and memes are subjective beliefs, tastes and opinions. Analytic mathematical statements are incontestable objective truths. God himself (if he existed!), could not contradict them. A meme is something the denial of which leads to no contradiction. There is no inherent contradiction in saying that God exists or Darwinism is false since the statements “God does not exist” and “Darwin’s theory of evolution is true” are not analytic truths. However, to say that 1 + 1 = 3 would involve an intrinsic contradiction. A truth is anything that cannot be logically contradicted. Everything else is mere interpretation. Ultra Darwinism claims that the human condition can be explained in terms of genes, memes, evolution by natural selection, and nothing else. But neither genes, memes nor evolution by natural selection can explain the eternal, analytic truths of mathematics. The laws of ontological mathematics do not evolve. They are consistent and complete and have been for all eternity. They precede the human condition and therefore cannot be explained by anything in the human condition. In fact, the inverse is the case: the human condition is explained by ontological mathematics. The contingent is explained by the necessary, the temporal by the eternal, the synthetic by the analytic, the a posteriori by the a priori. Memes are subjective interpretations of mathematical information. But the laws of mathematics are not subject to any interpretation. They are analytic, immutable and eternal, hence they are not memes. Their truth content is infallible, not interpretive (hence fallible).

The Meme War Meme: An element of a culture or behaviour that may be passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means, esp. imitation. Mathematical knowledge can be passed from one person to another, but, unlike all other memes, mathematical “memes” can never undergo memetic

mutation, hence they are not memes in the true sense. There are all manner of memes. There are memes designed by and for extraverts, introverts, feeling types, sensing types, intuitive types and thinking types. Why is religion so much more popular than science? Because far more people are sensing feeling types than sensing thinking types. Memes succeed because of a numbers game. Stupid memes are always more popular than smart memes. Emotional memes are more popular than rational memes. Sensory memes are more popular than intuitive memes. There’s an overwhelming human tendency towards emotionalism (tearjerking movies, TV shows, novels, magazines, gossip, personal relationships), towards sensory overload (action movies, huge spectacles, beauty and fashion), towards dumbing down, the lowest common denominator, the race to the bottom, bread and circuses and the Society of the Spectacle. High intelligence and high quality memes are always in the extreme minority, struggling to survive, and rarely having any impact at all. For the world to change for the better, those people associated with quality and intelligence must have extraordinarily high will to power to compensate for lack of popularity. It takes a monumental effort to overcome the force of all the dunces that swarm over this world of ours.

The Evolutionary Universe? There’s no such thing as an “unanchored” evolutionary universe, i.e. a universe where absolutely everything is evolving, including physical laws and constants, truths, the basic units of ontology, the principles of evolution itself, and so on. Therefore, any theory which claims that evolution can explain everything is false. Mutable genes and memes are not enough. There must be immutable things – Platonic truths. These are the laws of ontological mathematics. They are absolute. They do not evolve, but they are the foundations of evolution. They provide the framework in which evolution can unfold. Ontological mathematical monads are indestructible and eternal. They are inherently encoded with the immutable laws of ontological mathematics. However, they are also information systems, and the information they contain (their content) can continuously, dialectically evolve. The end of this evolution – the Omega Point – is where each living

information system recognises itself for what it is, consciously knows the full laws of ontological mathematics and what these mean for the fundamental nature of existence. At the Omega Point, each monad attains Absolute Knowledge of existence, hence has become God. The contents of monads evolve, but their framework, their form, never does. Evolution takes place within this unchanging framework. The end of evolution brings the content of a monad into perfect alignment with its form, i.e. it fully understands itself, its meaning and its place in existence. The end of evolution is when the monad knows itself absolutely.

***** “Know thyself” (ancient Greek gnōthi seauton) was the famous maxim inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Apollo was the God of Reason. To know thyself is to become Apollo and be absolutely rational.

The Cosmic Search Engine Simon Conway Morris’s idea of evolution as a “search engine” for finding pre-existing entities (Platonic Forms, so to speak) is an excellent and suggestive one, and would also work well with Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance. For evolution to act as a search engine implies mind and teleology. After all, we don’t use search engines randomly: we do it for a specific purpose. We have intentionality. Evolution conceived in terms of an intentional search engine is radically different from a mindless, randomist version of evolution. It implies a rationalist, idealist ontology rather than the traditional scientific, empiricist, materialist, randomist, meaningless view of Dawkins and his fundamentalist cohorts. Like Simon Conway Morris, we have insisted that Darwinism is incomplete. It ignores any possibility of unconscious mind being at work through evolution. It maintains the standard materialist paradigm of the world being made from purposeless, mindless, dead atoms, even though quantum mechanics shows that such atoms cannot possibly exist (“particles” that cannot have their position and momentum precisely

defined simultaneously are not particles, but something else: this is the deadly blow struck by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to materialism). No matter what view you take of the quantum mechanical wavefunction, it functions much more like a non-local, mental entity than anything local and material. Why is there no such subject as quantum evolution, seeking to understand Darwinism from the perspective of the quantum wavefunction, which isn’t based on matter at all, of course, but on Fourier mathematics? Darwinism would be transformed and take on a vital mental and mathematical dimension. In ultra Darwinism, bodies are survival machines for genes, and brains are survival machines for memes. It’s easy to understand gene selection, but meme selection is rather different. If a genetic variation takes place that confers a physical advantage on its host (such as much better insulation in cold environments, or much better eyesight, or much higher speed, vastly superior strength, or whatever), we can see why it would physically prosper in the gene pool. But to talk of memes being selected is to invoke minds with personalities, tastes, intentions, plans, purposes, anxieties, fears, neuroses, desires, will, feelings, and so on. A mental aspect has thus been surreptitiously added to Darwinism. If a mental aspect is present at this stage, why not at an earlier stage, at a much earlier stage – at the beginning? Meme theory implies that genes give rise to brains and thus minds, which then select memes. But why can’t we say that autonomous minds give rise to genes, which give rise to bodies and brains, through which minds then operate in the physical world, and which then select memes? How would you experimentally distinguish these two theories? Yet the former is regarded as a “fact” by people such as Richard Dawkins, and the latter treated as speculative nonsense even though science could never tell them apart.

***** “Oh the mind, mind has mountains.” – Gerard Manley Hopkins

The Wisdom of Nietzsche Nietzsche was much smarter than all scientists put together. He was often wrong, but he was always brilliantly wrong.

Nietzsche’s philosophy is what you would get if you took modern science to its unflinching, logical conclusion. “Enemies of truth. – Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” – Nietzsche Scientific convictions, such as those of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Religious lies are obvious lies; the lies of science are much more insidious and more easily ensnare thinking people. “Mystical explanations. – Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.” – Nietzsche That’s the whole of Eastern Religion and New Age thinking written off. “Metaphysical world. – It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche’s greatest failure was precisely that he did not turn his thoughts to what would remain of the world if his head were cut off. He approached the question of what the world is like empirically, like a scientist, rather than rationally, like a Platonist mathematician. Nietzsche, to his eternal discredit, rejected Plato and Socrates. Yet, despite himself, Nietzsche couldn’t help being metaphysical, and Heidegger was right to label him the last metaphysician of the West. (Just as Keynes was equally right to label Newton as the last magician!) “Just beyond experience! – Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience – just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.” – Nietzsche Actually, stupidity begins with the five fingers breadth of experience and ends only when experience is transcended by reason. “Truth. – No one now dies of fatal truths: there are too many antidotes to them.” – Nietzsche Every lie is an “antidote” to truth, and our world is awash with lies.

“Because we have for millennia made moral, aesthetic, religious demands on the world, looked upon it with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking, this world has gradually become so marvellously variegated, frightful, meaningful, soulful, it has acquired colour – but we have been the colourists: it is the human intellect that has made appearances appear and transported its erroneous basic conceptions into things.” – Nietzsche Mythos did all the damage, but it also produced so much glorious colour for us all. We cannot get rid of it because then we would make the world drab and sober. We would remove the rainbow and labour under a monochrome sky. Yet Mythos must bend the knee to Logos if we are to have a rational world, a world for the Coming Race of Gods. “The conditions of life might include error.” – Nietzsche The conditions of science necessarily include error. The conditions of ontology necessarily exclude error. The foundations of existence must be flawless, the very definition of perfection. Perfection can be executed only one way: mathematically. It can never be executed “scientifically.” “Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith... include the following: that there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in itself.” – Nietzsche It’s certainly true that bad memes (errors and lies) can be astoundingly successful. It’s certainly untrue that reason has always failed. Reason hit the jackpot with mathematics and, indeed, true reason is ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics can never be in error. “Origin of the logical. – How did logic come into existence in man’s head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is ‘equal’ as regards both nourishment and hostile animals – those, in other words, who subsumed

things too slowly and cautiously – were favoured with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar – an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal – is what first created any basis for logic.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche, as ever, is highly perceptive in some regards, and flat wrong in others. Above all, Nietzsche simply never grasped the ontology of mathematics. Virtually everything he said about mathematics is embarrassingly wrong, and reflects slavish empiricism and skepticism. “In order that the concept of substance could originate – which is indispensable for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it – it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything ‘in flux.’ At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency – to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just – had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.” – Nietzsche The ultimate substance – the Pythagorean-Leibnizian-Fourier monad – is intelligible, not sensible, hence beyond the reach of Nietzsche’s empiricist thinking. “To renounce belief in one’s ego, to deny one’s own ‘reality’ – what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason – a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and selfmockery of reason declares: ‘there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!’ – Nietzsche It’s extraordinary that such a clever man as Nietzsche was so hostile to reason. This no doubt reflected his strong Lutheran roots. Protestants, like Muslims, are programmed to be irrational. Any religion that unconditionally celebrates faith could never be taken seriously by any rational person.

***** “Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty.” – Stephen King Don’t ask your nearest and dearest for the truth – until they hate you! Or are drunk! (In vino veritas.)

Perspectivism “Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a ‘pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject’; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as ‘pure reason,’ ‘absolute spirituality,’ ‘knowledge in itself’: these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective ‘knowing’; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our ‘concept’ of this thing, our ‘objectivity,’ be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this – what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?” – Nietzsche There is one, unique, objective, Godlike perspective – that of ontological mathematics, which is the “pure reason” that Nietzsche rejects.

Illogic “I came across the claim that sir Arthur Conan Doyle didn’t write the Sherlock Holmes stories and probably just, at most, edited them. “Normally such a claim would not be taken seriously. But the person who made the suggestion was Martin Gardner, a hero to many skeptics and a debunker of many ideas in pseudoscience and the paranormal. For those who are too young to remember him, he was the author of the Mathematical Games column in Scientific American for several decades and a leading skeptic and science writer.

“In an essay included in his book Science Good, Bad and Bogus published in 1981 he argues that the rational and scientific character of Holmes could not have been produced by a character like Conan Doyle. Conan Doyle was a credulous believer in spiritualism and fairies and a careless observer of psychic demonstrations. He was such a believer that he refused to believe that Houdini was performing tricks and not real magic even after Houdini denied being a psychic. “I doubt Gardner’s argument as it seems to be based purely on what someone is capable of imagining. So my question is is there any other reason to doubt that he wrote the stories and invented the character?” – http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/did-conan-doyle-writesherlock-holmes You could easily imagine Richard Dawkins using “logic” of Gardner’s kind. Where Gardner can’t imagine a spiritualist creating a rationalist detective, and consequently denies that it’s possible (despite all the facts to the contrary), Dawkins can’t imagine reality having a rational, causal, nonrandom, mental, teleological basis, and simply insists it’s impossible. Dawkins is the inverse of Sherlock Holmes. Where the latter looks for the logical, rational answer, the former dismisses the logical, rational answer if it conflicts with the dogmatism of anti-rationalist, empiricist, materialist, randomist science. Science is just a philosophy that has attached itself to a useful observational method (the “scientific method”), which grounds it in the world we see around us. However, by exactly the same token, it wholly cuts itself off from the world we don’t observe around us – the intelligible, mental, non-sensory world of monadic mathematical ontology. In this arena, science is useless and worthless. Scientists dogmatically and ideologically refuse to accept that such a world exists. Theirs is a faith position since the rational arguments that support the existence of a mental, frequency domain outside space and time (beyond the reach of science) are irrefutable. All the eternal truths of reason reside there. Scientists committed a catastrophic error when they chose to hold philosophy in contempt. Philosophical rigour – thinking rigour – is precisely what science lacks, and is what is preventing it from accomplishing a final theory of everything.

Science is all about interpretation and description, not explanation. It’s therefore a philosophy, although it denies that this is so. It’s too philosophically illiterate to recognise itself as a philosophy. It makes all sorts of assumptions about reality without acknowledging that they are exactly that (assumptions), thus making them hard to see and challenge. Science is full of ideological paradigms: such as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Einsteinian relativity, and Darwinian evolution. Above them all is a “Meta Paradigm” (a paradigm which is higher than, or beyond, each individual paradigm, and unites them within a single context and framework). The scientific Meta Paradigm is based on empiricism, materialism and logical positivism, hence it excludes rationalism, idealism and metaphysics. In other words, according to this dogmatism, you cannot be a scientist if you think there’s a metaphysical reality that science cannot explore, you cannot be a scientist if you think that reason trumps the scientific method, you cannot be a scientist if you think that mathematics trumps physics, and you cannot be a scientist if you think that mind is primary and matter its construct. Yet Leibniz – humanity’s most dazzling genius – was a great scientist and he held all of these “unacceptable” positions. Leibniz was right and the scientific establishment and their Meta Paradigm wrong.

The Crossroads Science is now beset by an intolerable tension, an internal contradiction that has been present all along but never addressed. The contradiction involves mathematics (the quintessential rationalist subject) on the one hand, and the experimental method (the highest expression of empiricism) on the other. In the great, centuries-old philosophical debate between rationalism and empiricism, where does science stand? Those scientists that swear by the experimental method are horrified by the relentless march of mathematics within science. Consider the book Farewell to Reality: How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth by Jim Baggott. This is its blurb on amazon.com: “Modern physics is heady stuff. It seems that barely a week goes by without some new astounding science story; some revelation about hidden dimensions, multiple universes, the holographic principle or incredible cosmic coincidences. But is it true? What evidence do we have for super-

symmetric squarks, or superstrings vibrating in an 11-dimensional spacetime? How do we know that we live in a multiverse? How can we tell that the universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary? Doesn’t this sound like a fairy story? In Farewell to Reality, Jim Baggott asks whether all that we currently know about the universe is based upon science or fantasy. In addition he wonders whether these high priests of fairy tale physics – such as John Barrow, Paul Davies, David Deutsch, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Gordon Kane and Leonard Susskind – are the emperor’s latest tailors.” This is an example of the growing backlash against the increasing mathematicisation of science. Since mathematics is about pure rationalism and has no connection with experiments, the more mathematical science becomes, the more irrelevant experiments become. But that is to change the fundamental nature of science which has thus far defined itself via its experimental method and has spectacularly failed to account for the status of mathematics and its function within science. It’s no longer possible to evade this question. Economics professor Steve Landsburg wrote, “[Stephen Hawking in The Grand Design] spends a lot of pages reviewing current physical theories but never mentions the one glaring feature they all share: every modern physical theory, taken literally, predicts that our universe is a mathematical object. For example, the simplest version of special relativity posits that we live in a four-dimensional geometric object called ‘spacetime’. Theories that are more sophisticated posit that spacetime is part of some larger geometric object whose properties we perceive as ‘forces’ or ‘particles’. According to modern physics, everything is made of math.” This is absolutely true any is very much the elephant in the room. If modern physics is math, why don’t we follow through the precise logic of this situation and simply dispense with physics and replace it wholesale with rationalist, ontological mathematics? But ontological mathematics, unlike physics, has no requirement of experiments. Ontological mathematics is analytic, deductive, necessary and a priori. We can work out the whole of ontological mathematical reality from first principles with a paper and pencil, or just our minds. We don’t need to leave our room. We don’t need any test tubes, Bunsen burners or incredibly expensive Large Hadron Colliders.

If physics is math, the much vaunted scientific method is pushed off its pedestal and becomes a mere tool for helping to verify mathematical hypotheses, where they are amenable to testing (which they won’t be wherever they involve hidden variables or rational unobservables).

***** How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science by Roger Schlafly has the following blurb on amazon.com: “Einstein is considered the world’s greatest genius for creating the theory of relativity. How Einstein Ruined Physics explains relativity, how it was discovered, and how it fits into a long history of trying to understand motion and symmetry. The book shows that Einstein’s role is badly misunderstood. “Modern physics books often describe a fantasy world that has less and less to do with reality. They tell of alternate universes, cosmic singularities, and extra dimensions. When they lack evidence for these ideas, they argue that they are following Einstein’s example and looking for the next revolution. “Einstein’s example is detailed. He is famous for uniting space and time in the theory of relativity, and for revolutionizing science with pure thought. In fact, his famous relativity paper merely postulated what had previously been proved, and he did not even understand why space and time were being united. ....” “Somehow it has become fashionable in physics to try for some sort of abstract Einsteinian revolution instead of explaining observable realities. This book dispels the myths about physics progressing by pure thought, and shows that following Einstein’s dream is an entirely bad idea.” A reviewer of this book wrote: “If you are interested in the history of science, especially physics and are comfortable in going against the consensus, then this is the book for you. “The main theme of the book is how the progress of physics has given way to a great deal of empty speculation with little or no experimental confirmation. String theory for example. Much of the blame is laid at Einstein’s door, with his huge ego, his apparent lack of interest in experimental confirmation and his unwillingness to acknowledge the work

of others. A formidable case is built against him, based on meticulous research into how physics actually developed from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day. “The book also criticizes the ‘paradigm changes’ of Thomas Kuhn, claiming that when they are closely examined, the Copernican revolution and Einstein’s supposed relativity revolution were nothing of the kind. Copernicus did not devise a significant improvement over Ptolemy and Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was only a minor summary of physics already well-known to those in the field. He was not even the first person to derive the famous ‘Einstein’ equation E = mc2. That was Olinto De Pretto who published it in 1903, but, as Schlafly is careful to point out, without a relativistic derivation. “I found the book easy going in spite of the fact that I am not a physicist. A non-scientist may find it harder going, I’m not sure, but the book does try to be as non-technical as one can be in covering such a technical subject. I don’t have the background to comment on it in detail, but it does chime with what I already knew, the value I place on experimental confirmation and my incremental view of genuine scientific progress.” – A K Haart

***** Far from science being too mathematical and not experimental enough, the inverse is true: science is too experimental and not mathematical enough. Einstein’s supreme failing was that he was insufficiently radical mathematically. He refused to consider the ontology of mathematics, just as he never gave any serious thought to the ontology of the ether (which is a completely unobservable mathematical entity). At all times, he was driven by empiricism, materialism and positivism. He did not make any attempt to assert that mathematics should replace physics, even though that’s the direction in which all of modern physics is moving, including, and perhaps especially, his own theories! Einstein didn’t even recognise the central mathematical truth of his concept of spacetime – that it’s defined by complex numbers. Space is based on real numbers, time on imaginary numbers, and spacetime on complex numbers. What could be mathematically simpler? Yet you won’t find a single scientist anywhere who will agree with this. They refuse to

accept imaginary numbers as ontological. They refuse to fully embrace mathematics. Scientists must make up their mind. Will they stand with Plato, the rationalist on the side of mathematics, or with Aristotle, the empiricist? Will they stand with Leibniz the rationalist on the side of mathematics, or with Newton, the empiricist? Science can no longer avoid defining what mathematics is ontologically. If mathematics is the basis of existence then science is forever cut off from the Truth while it refuses to accept the ontology of all of mathematics, including imaginary numbers, negative numbers and zero and infinity. If physics becomes fully mathematical, it ipso facto becomes rationalist and idealist rather than empiricist and materialist. The whole nature and philosophy of science undergoes the most radical paradigm shift. We give this challenge to all members of the Dawkins’ cult: explain what mathematics is. Explain why a brave new world of mind rather than matter is not possible if reality is defined as mathematical rather than scientific? Mathematics is the definition of metaphysics. It’s what lies beneath, after, and beyond physics. It’s what transcends physics. It’s the foundation of physics. It’s the intelligible ground of sensible physics. Physics is phenomenal and mathematics noumenal. Mathematics involves hidden variables and rational unobservables that are entirely beyond experimental science. If mathematics is reality then the celebrated scientific method – so revered and worshipped by the Dawkins’ cult – is unfit for purpose, and can tell us nothing about ultimate reality. Well, scientists, what’s it to be? – mathematics (rationalism) or the experimental method (empiricism = irrationalism). You can no longer have it both ways. Science must be defined as a rationalist or as an empiricist undertaking. It must be Leibnizian (rationalist) or Newtonian (empiricist). The phoney war is over. Rationalism alone can yield absolute, incontestable truth. Empiricism and the experimental method are fools’ gold.

Success

The primitive mind of the scientist has never grasped that the success of a theory is not proof of its truth content or its “reality”. Countless theories have been deemed true before subsequently being refuted, especially Newtonian physics (and Newton’s theories still work fantastically well despite being wholly ontologically wrong, thus showing the power of “approximation”). Similarly, the primitive scientific mind has never grasped that, just because you can’t see something, it doesn’t mean that it’s not there. Scientists are irrationalist instrumentalists. They are on the side of the Sophists rather than the Philosophers.

Darwinism Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity, in order to preserve materialist and empiricist ideology, abolishes objective reality (which needs an ether – an absolute frame of reference), so Darwinism rejects a mental “ether” underlying all the processes of evolution. People such as Richard Dawkins have never once considered a rationalist, idealist, mathematical, metaphysical approach to Darwinian evolution. They simply rule it out a priori, although they have no evidence whatsoever for doing so. Dawkins and his ilk operate through bias. They are about as far from objective scientists as you can get. They are ideologues and dogmatists. The people they most resemble are Abrahamic theologians who have already assumed the conclusion (i.e. God exists) before they embark on any line of thought concerning God’s existence. Similarly, the irrationalist Dawkins’ sect have already assumed the truth of materialism and empiricism before they consider any problem. They talk about “facts” and “evidence” without realising that all they are doing is interpreting facts and evidence within an entirely assumed reality, that of the Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism.

The Truth If you are a rational person, you will accept ontological mathematics as the truth of existence. If you’re not rational, you won’t. You will stick to some faith Mythos that makes you feel good and secure, or to some mystical intuition that seems to make sense to you, or to the scientific Mythos and

faith-system that what you detect with your senses is real, and nothing else is. We can show you the rational truth, but it’s impossible for us to make you understand it and accept it. The truth is not for all. It’s for rational people who know they inhabit an intelligible world of eternal mathematical truths of reason.

***** Just as Abrahamism refuses to challenge itself, so does science. Any scientist who doesn’t accept its empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm is starved of funding and removed from the profession. Science makes no attempt to bring analytic criticism to bear on its hypotheses and methods. The idea that science actively seeks to falsify itself is laughable. If this were the case, science departments would be full of philosophers challenging every part of the scientific Meta Paradigm. Science consists of “peer review” by fellow followers of the ruling Meta Paradigm. It’s like having the Pope peer reviewed by his Cardinals – you can be sure there won’t be any non-Catholic analysis taking place! There’s no scientific peer review by anyone who subscribes to any alternative scientific Meta Paradigm. “Peer review” is pure groupthink, conformism and careerism. It’s a rubber-stamping job by equally brainwashed colleagues. The last thing it does is introduce any objectivity and critical thinking into the exercise.

The Evolutionary Fallacy Many evolutionists believe that evolution explains everything, but obviously this is false. For one thing, it doesn’t explain the origin of the laws of evolution! These laws didn’t evolve. So, already, we have an entirely different category of existence that’s unexplained by evolution and inexplicable within those terms. That said, Rupert Sheldrake takes an extremist evolutionary view and claims that all physical laws and all physical constants are indeed evolving. That’s what happens when you become intoxicated by evolutionary theory. The division between truths of reason and “truths” of fact demonstrates the fallacy of this way of thinking. We can regard the latter as memes –

mutable items of information. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” People can keep changing their interpretation of “facts”. Science has been nothing but a constant reinterpretation of the facts, as countless discarded theories testify. There’s no end to this interpretive process. However, things are different with truths of reason. These are immutable and eternal. Facts can be continuously reinterpreted, but not truths of reason. 1 + 1 = 2 will always be the same. If we refer to all items of information as memes, then we must introduce a key distinction between mutable memes (truths of “fact”) and immutable memes (truths of reason). However, we shouldn’t say “truths of fact” but, rather, “interpretations of fact”. Ontological mathematics refutes the theory of evolution since the laws of ontological mathematics do not evolve at all. They are Platonic: eternal, immutable, perfect. They are the source of absolute, infallible knowledge that never changes. They are the infinitely solid and unshakeable foundations of existence, incapable of flaws, errors, incompleteness, inconsistencies or contradictions. Evolution takes place within a perfect framework of non-evolution. That perfect framework is ontological mathematics. It provides the unchanging laws and constants of physics (i.e. of phenomenal mathematics). Evolutionists talk of brains becoming colonised by memes. The problem then is how do you know that your brain has been colonised by true or false memes? The answer is that the only memes you can rely on are the immutable memes of ontological mathematics since these can never change. They represent absolute knowledge of exactly the type Plato sought. They are not opinions, beliefs, hypotheses, conjectures, interpretations or wishful thinking. They are truth, pure and simple. Nothing else can compete with them. If you want your brain to be colonised by truth then make sure you study ontological mathematics and Illuminism. The God Series represents the greatest store of truth ever presented to humanity. The moonshine and moonshit are over. Faith is insane, and scientific materialism is unintelligible since it excludes the intelligible in favour of the sensible. Dawkins’ beliefs have the same relationship to the truths of ontological mathematics as Abrahamists’ beliefs do to the truths of science, i.e. no relationship at all. Religious faith is 100% false, and so is scientific materialism when it comes to ultimate, noumenal reality. There’s only one

truth – the absolute, eternal, immutable truth of rationalist, ontological mathematics, the true subject of metaphysics (which lies beyond physics and fully explains physics). Paul Dirac said, “The fundamental laws necessary for the mathematical treatment of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty lies only in the fact that application of these laws leads to equations that are too complex to be solved.” If physics explains chemistry and chemistry explains biology, what explains physics? The answer is of course ontological mathematics, the queen of the sciences. And ontological mathematics, uniquely, explains itself since it’s nothing but the principle of sufficient reason expressed ontologically. If there were no such principle, there would be no reason in the universe. Nothing would have a sufficient reason. Everything would ultimately happen randomly, for no reason at all – which is the claim made by modern science since it denies the principle of sufficient reason.

The Dawkins’ Fallacy The Dawkins’ Fallacy is that religion is wrong, so non-religion must be right. The trouble is that “non-religion” is itself a quasi-religion – a position of faith in an unproven philosophical stance, specifically that of scientific materialism, empiricism and logical positivism. This position states that absence of evidence is evidence of absence and that anything that cannot in principle be observed cannot exist at all. So, all existence is deemed “dimensional”, and dimensionless existence is dismissed. There’s one subject that obliterates all of the beliefs of Dawkins and his acolytes, while representing the very highest principles of rationalism. That subject is of course ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the true basis of existence, and, as it turns out, ontological mathematics is far more supportive of a religious view of the world than an atheistic view. In fact, authentic religion is possible solely because of ontological mathematics. Scientific materialism has brought about a monstrous perversion of thought and presented a worldview as grotesquely wrong and false as that of mainstream religion. Be in no doubt, ontological mathematics alone is

truth and any system opposed to ontological mathematics is false. Incredible though it may seem, science has chosen to align itself against mathematics, the subject that ultimately defines the philosophical school of rationalism, and ally itself instead with the opposite philosophical school of empiricism, expressed through the scientific method. Science has found itself caught between two radically different positions – rationalism and empiricism, both of which cannot be primary – and science has decided to choose the scientific method over mathematics, and empiricism over rationalism, with mathematics being relegated to an unreal, abstract and ontologically undefined status within science. If science had made the opposite choice and privileged mathematics over the scientific method, and rationalism over empiricism, it would be an entirely different subject, offering a radically different worldview, one that can rationally sustain religion and the independent existence of mind. In fact, it would embrace a mental rather than material understanding of reality. That other worldview – a hyperrationalist, mathematical worldview – is the one that science would now express if it had gone down the mathematical path rather than the path of experiments. This alternative worldview can be used to destroy the claims and pretensions of scientific materialism, and all of the alleged “facts” and “evidence” that Dawkins uses to defend his atheism (which flows directly from scientific materialist dogmatism). Nietzsche, the great atheist philosopher, was certainly no scientific materialist of the Dawkins’ stripe. He was a far more logical thinker than Dawkins. Above all, he saw through the deception of scientific materialism. If you’re going to be an atheist, you should always prefer Nietzsche to Dawkins since he has a far more consistent and tenable position. Dawkins lays claim to “facts” when none can conceivably exist within the Meta Paradigm of scientific materialism: “facts” are interpretations within a particular philosophical perspective. The only true facts are those of mathematics, and science has never explained what mathematics is.

Aunt Sally Dawkins demands that the religious should give up those beliefs of theirs that he doesn’t like, and believe instead in a pointless, meaningless universe

(as he does). The problem here is that “religion” is a Straw Man or Aunt Sally. What Dawkins is actually attacking is religious Mythos – the set of stories, feelings, beliefs and superstitions that characterise the world’s main religions. Dawkins’ error is that he refuses to countenance the one and only religion that could ever actually be true: a Logos religion, based on facts, evidence, proof and reason. This is the religion of Enlightenment = Illuminism = Mathmonism = Ontological Mathematics.

***** We are told that scientists attempt to falsify their findings rather than slavishly and unquestioningly believing in them, like religious followers. When has Richard Dawkins ever written a book in which he has tried as hard as possible to smash his own beliefs to smithereens and find a defensible religious position? No such attempt exists. In fact, the opposite is true. Book after book delivers the familiar Dawkins propaganda. Dawkins tries as hard to refute Darwinism and scientific materialism as Christians do to refute Christ, i.e. he doesn’t try at all. On the contrary, all of his time is spent on defending his beliefs and attacking his opponents, just as Christians do. All that Dawkins does is set up a religious Aunt Sally – the weakest possible expression of religion – and smash it down. He then claims to have refuted religion and thus somehow proved the truth of atheism. But he hasn’t refuted the strongest possible expression of religion: the Logos religion, the only non-Mythos religion, Illuminism. Dawkins might well argue that he has attacked the only religions placed in front of him and that he’s not aware of any Logos religion. Well, has he himself ever attempted to conceive of a Logos religion, or does he start with the assumption that all religion is automatically false? Is he suffering from “observer bias”, i.e. his attitudes, assumptions and cultural beliefs are already rigidly in place before he embarks on any thought experiments. What’s for sure is that he’s never going to challenge this observer bias since it’s ingrained in him, fully internalised and, what’s more, he believes it implicitly – just like a religious believer! A Logos religion does in fact exist and is older than Christianity. It’s Pythagorean Illuminism and it asserts that All things are numbers and

Number rules all. In other words, it’s the religion of mathematics. It’s the assertion that mathematics is ontological and that “God” is actually mathematics itself. Mathematics is the first cause, the uncaused cause, the Prime Mover, the perfect Source of All, to which everything returns. Here’s a challenge for Dawkins and his followers. Can you shoot down Illuminism? Before you even begin, we’re going to fire a full broadside at you and reveal that, to ontological mathematicians, you appear as crazy and deluded as Jews, Christians and Muslims, with a whole set of your own untenable and fantastical Mythos beliefs. We formally accuse you of being irrationalists who have absolute contempt for the truth and who worship your senses over reason. To use an old Platonic distinction, you believe in a “sensible” world and reject the existence of a non-sensory, mathematical, “intelligible” world. Belief in a sensible world is ridiculous and any rational, truthful person will be drawn inexorably to the intelligent, pure, perfect world of ontological mathematics, from which everything else is derived. This is a mental world, not material, yet it fully accounts for the materialist delusion. Are you brave enough to face the truth? Are you brave enough to have all of your most cherished atheist nostrums destroyed?

***** “How much truth can you bear, how much truth can you dare?” – Nietzsche

Praise and Blame We are not here to bury Richard Dawkins, we are here to praise him, and then bury him. We praise Dawkins’ masterpiece The Selfish Gene. We don’t agree with it, but it’s brilliant all the same. We praise Dawkins for championing reason, although we deny that he himself is rational. We praise and certainly share Dawkins’ revulsion for mainstream religion. It’s unquestionably an appalling blight on humanity and a severe brake on human progress. The problem with Dawkins is that he himself is quasi-religious, but is not honest enough to admit it. He’s a follower of the “religion” of scientific materialism, of the Meta Paradigm of sensory materialism, empiricism and positivism.

Scientific materialism apes religion and has its metaphorical prophets, popes, priests and Inquisitors – exactly like the Catholic Church, which the scientific establishment so closely resembles. Scientists have their own God, or, rather, their Ape of God, their false God – the experimental method, which they all religiously swear by. Dawkins dogmatically, ideologically and fanatically rejects and dismisses anything that does not conform with his belief system, just as the Catholic Church does. It’s impossible to reason with Dawkins and his ilk. They simply aren’t rational at all. They reject philosophical rationalism in favour of their empiricist sensory experiments. They assert that anything upon which an experiment cannot, in principle, be performed does not and cannot exist. Dawkins talks of his pet theory of ultra Darwinism as “proven”, as “factual”, as being the only conclusion possible given the “evidence”. This is hogwash. Nietzsche, a far superior intellect and far superior atheist to Dawkins, rubbished all of science as just an elaborate interpretation and description that ingeniously hid the fact that it explained nothing at all. If you believe that science does explain things then state, right now, what energy is ontologically, what mass is, what space is, what time is. Go on, explain what science says energy is in itself. Neither Darwinism nor Ultra Darwinism is anything other than an interpretation of sensory experiences. There’s nothing necessary, analytic, deductive or a priori about Darwinism or any of its offshoots. It’s merely an opinion, a conjecture, a hypothesis that accounts for, up to a point, various sensory data. That doesn’t make it proven. There’s nothing Richard Dawkins can do to show that Darwinism isn’t an irrefutable error. Darwinism can in fact be reinterpreted wholly differently while accounting for exactly the same data. Dawkins looks out upon the world as a materialist, empiricist, sensualist and positivist. If, instead, he had a worldview based on idealism, rationalism, mathematical metaphysics and intelligibility (rather than sensibility), he would reach radically different conclusions. Scientific materialism is irrational to a totally jaw-dropping extent and should be replaced wholesale by the subject that authentically delivers the absolute, infallible, irrefutable, immutable, eternal truth: ontological mathematics.

An entirely unexpected and unsought bonus is that ontological mathematics supports the notion of the soul (a mathematical soul, naturally) and thus provides a full rational defence of religion. It’s Mythos religion – religion based on stories, prophets, popes, priests, gurus, rabbis, “holy” men, imams, “holy” books, faith and emotionalism – that has zero truth content. Logos religion – mathematical religion – has, conversely, 100% truth content and entirely refutes scientific materialism as well as all Mythos religions. Mainstream religion is about irrational feelings. Science is about the irrational, but more predictable, senses. Ontological mathematics is about thinking – reason. If you support your feelings or your senses over reason then you are ipso facto irrational. We accuse Dawkins, and all of his colleagues and cultic supporters, of being fundamentally irrational and having set up a fanatical Church of Science, beset by conformism, groupthink and dogmatism. It’s infected by fear of freethinking. The Church of Science persecutes all heretics, apostates and infidels as surely as Islam does. It doesn’t cut off their heads, but it does cut off their funding and provides them with no platform (and demands that they be given no platform), so silences them all the same. There are no bold, imaginative, fearless thinkers amongst the scientific establishment. They’re all terrified of being the Galileos who attract the wrath of the Inquisition, except it’s now the Church of Science that takes the role of the intransigent institution that refuses to have its authority and dogmas challenged. Why has science so dismally failed to produce a grand unified theory of everything? It’s because it’s an irrational Church in thrall to experiments rather than to the exercise of mathematical reason. The Church of Science suffers from a catastrophic ignorance of the ontology of mathematics, and that’s unpardonable. If you’re a person of reason then, by the end of this book, you will be fully converted to ontological mathematics. If not, we can no more change your mind than we could that of a person of faith. You are beyond reason. You are locked into irrational dogma. We use “Richard Dawkins” as a rubric for all those who believe that science deals in facts, evidence and truth. It does nothing of the kind. It’s purely interpretive. It’s a description, a Mythos, not an explanation (Logos).

Damning One of the most damning aspects of scientific materialism is that many of its adherents are people of faith, a preposterous and irrational stance. In ontological mathematics, there is no place and no refuge for believers. The fact that people of faith can consider themselves scientific materialists shows exactly how flawed, incoherent, inconsistent and incomplete that ideology is.

The Facts Evolution is true and Creationism false. However, that does not make Darwinism true. Darwinism is not the only type of evolution that’s possible. Hegelian dialectical, teleological evolution – based on purposeful minds – is in far higher accord with reason than Darwinian purposeless, random evolution, based on lifeless, mindless, purposeless matter. Dawkins can refute irrational Abrahamism, but he cannot refute Hegelian rather than Darwinian evolution (which are radically different types of evolution). Darwinists talk of species becoming “better adapted” through natural selection. In Hegelian evolution, which proceeds dialectically, the iterative cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis (with the synthesis then providing a new thesis) is all about better and better adaptation too. Superficially and observationally, there’s no short-term means of distinguishing between Darwinism and Hegelianism. All you see is a rather messy process in which more complexity steadily appears, but the underlying mechanisms in each case are 100% different. Dawkins cannot see what’s “under the hood” of evolution – he can’t perceive causality – so he has no right to trumpet his interpretation as factual and proven. It remains his opinion, his belief, his interpretation, his hypothesis, and nothing more.

Anti-Empiricism Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz – the three great rationalist philosophers – all rejected empiricism, saying that it afforded no sure foundation for science. They cited reason and deduction as the proper means of understanding reality, not the senses, experiments, generalizations of

experience, and induction: the tools of scientific materialism, which is therefore an irrationalist undertaking since it relegates reason beneath the senses. For the rationalists, empiricism acts as a means of verifying rationalist conclusions (where possible). Reason, however, sets the agenda. For empiricists, it’s the other way around. Experiments and induction set the agenda, with reason being used to organize the results into contingent hypotheses. A rationalist relies on “truths of reason” – which are deductive and infallible. An empiricist relies on “truths of fact” – which are inductive and fallible. To say that all swans are white, given that all swans seen thus far have been white, is a classic demonstration of the empiricist approach, yet black swans exist! This shows how potentially fallacious empiricism is. How many inductive assertions of empiricism are awaiting their “black swan” refutation? If you’ve seen countless white swans and no other type of swan, it becomes a “truth of fact” that all swans are white. However, as soon as you see a black swan, your original “fact” (that all swans are white) is refuted. Therefore, as Nietzsche made clear, there are no “truths of fact” but only provisional interpretations of fact. It’s impossible for empiricism to deliver certainty. Truths of reason, on the other hand, can never be contradicted. They are eternally true and 100% reliable. If you want Truth, with a capital “T”, you must be a rationalist. If you want “truth” with a small “t” then you should be an empiricist, in search of provisional “facts” that can be contradicted at any time by a suitable “black swan”. The primary truths of reality must be rational, never empirical. Scientific “facts” are not “truths”. The two should never be confused. Scientific facts are always provisional. Truths never are. The great distinction is between “truths of reason” and “interpretations of fact”. Ontological mathematics is about irrefutable truth; science about refutable facts. Science can never yield the final answers of existence. Ontological mathematics is the sole source of all truths of reason. Therefore, ontological mathematics must replace science. Ontological mathematics is infinitely precise and certain; science isn’t! It’s that simple.

The only reason why existence has a definitive answer is that it’s 100% mathematical, hence yields infallible truths of reason. If existence were not 100% mathematical, it would have no answer and thus be an incomprehensible, irrational mystery – in which case religious “faith” would be as valid as anything else. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins make the catastrophic mistake of believing that scientific facts are “true”. They’re not; they’re always provisional interpretations. The scientific graveyard is full of disproved scientific facts and hypotheses that were once regarded as experimentally verified “truths”. They never were true and they never can be. As David Hume, the greatest empiricist and skeptic of them all, made crystal clear, induction – the primary tool of science – never proves anything. Hume didn’t even accept cause and effect, the bedrock of classical science, and no scientist has ever refuted him in this regard, or even bothered to think about Hume’s deadly challenge. We expect the sun to keep rising, but a day will come when it no longer rises. We expect swans to be white ... and then we see black swans. All inductive “facts” are provisional. You can’t bank such a “fact” in the domain of eternal truth. Dawkins believes that Darwinism has been factually proven, but it hasn’t. It’s a provisional hypothesis for explaining provisional facts. It can never be “true” in any absolute sense. The scientific method never yields truth but merely “confidence” in various hypothetical interpretations of experimental observations, which are themselves subject to enormous observer bias. These interpretations never belong to the analytic truths of reason, hence are always contingent. Only a fool thinks that science has any connection with truth and reality. Science is a model and simulacrum. It’s not the real thing, the thing in itself, the things as it really is. It’s time to replace science with ontological mathematics. It’s time for the Truth.

The Four Stages of “Truth” “Truth” evolves. There are four phases in the development of truth: 1) Truths of “Spirit” (Mythological Mythos). The ancients were animists. They believed that all “bodies” of any kind possessed an invisible spirit. So,

trees, mountains, lakes, forests, the wind, the sky, the moon, the sun, the planets, the stars, and so on, all had souls akin to the human soul. If, for example, a volcano erupted, it was because the volcano’s spirit was angry. Therefore, it had to be appeased, so a virgin, or some such, was tossed into the volcano as a placatory sacrifice. All sorts of elaborate myths were told about spirits and gods, and what they wanted from humanity. Abrahamism is the final version of animism whereby the whole universe is a spirit (“God”) and is watching and judging us at all times. 2) Truths of Faith (Emotional Mythos). In the West, all the spirits and gods were eventually rolled into one – the invisible, monotheistic “Sky God” of Abrahamism. This God chose to communicate with humanity through revelation communicated via bearded prophets and their “holy” texts. Absolute faith was required in these texts, prophets and “God”. As for Eastern religious followers, they place their faith in their mystical intuitions about the Cosmic Oneness that they believe stands behind the Veil of Maya (illusion). 3) Truths of Fact (Sensory Logos). Disgusted by appeals to invisible spirits, and lacking faith, scientific materialists and empiricists made sensory detection the be-all-and-end-all. Anything that was not “visible” to the senses simply didn’t exist, they claimed. Science is all about truths of fact and relies on principles of experimental falsification and verification, which are relevant only to the “sensible” world. 4) Truths of Reason (Rational Logos). Rationalists know that the senses are fallible and have no connection with necessary truths. “Rational unobservables” are fully accepted by rationalists, regardless of the senses. Mathematics is all about truths of reason. 1 + 1 = 2 eternally. This mathematical statement can never be experimentally verified or falsified. It belongs to pure reason and logic. What is ontological mathematics? It’s the system of thought that treats Mythos “truths” as absurd, and sensory Logos “truths” as contingent, provisional and fallible. Only the truths of reason can be taken to the bank of certainty. Ontological mathematics asserts that the universe is grounded in eternal, rational entities (monads) and associated eternal, rational laws. Objectively, existence is 100% rational because it’s 100% mathematical. However,

ontological mathematics has the extraordinary property of supporting both subjective and objective sufficient reasons. “Mind” is subjective while “matter” is objective. Mind relates to private thinking and matter to public thinking. Matter is the collective thinking of all the minds (monads) of the universe. In this public mode of thought, all subjective elements are stripped out – leaving nothing but the objective laws of ontological mathematics (which all minds have in common). These laws create a material world that seems like a dead mathematical machine rather than a living mathematical organism. It’s this machinelike aspect that fools scientific materialists into believing that objective matter rather than subjective mind constitutes reality. Matter is just mind operating in an objective, collective, public mode rather than in a subjective, individual, private mode. It’s time for ontological mathematics to replace scientific materialism. It’s time for truths of reason to replace illusory truths of “fact”. All “facts” are interpretations. Truths of reason, on the other hand, are eternal, unarguable truths. Ontological mathematics is the full expression of the truths of reason. Ontological mathematics is the answer to existence. There is no other answer. All other proposed “answers” are irrational nonsense, with no logical necessity. Even science is nonsense at its core. It’s the deification of sensory data – “Seeing is believing!” Science does not accept anything that cannot be seen, no matter how rational the unseen may be. Illuminism asks a very simple question. What possible reason could people have for not accepting that existence is 100% mathematical? There are no facts, no evidence and no rational arguments whatsoever that can be advanced to disprove Illuminism. Science is in no position to challenge mathematics given that it’s wholly dependent on mathematics. Science is simply an irrational claim that only positive real numbers have “reality” and all others mathematical numbers are unreal. There are no conceivable grounds for such an absurd contention. Either all of mathematics is true or none of it is true. If none of it is true then it’s inconceivable that we could use mathematical equations to define the laws of nature. If mathematics – reason – is not true then it means that we live in a universe of unreason. Plainly, we don’t. If the universe weren’t mathematical, it would exhibit no order, no organisation, no pattern, no laws. Self-evidently, we don’t live in such a universe, i.e. a cosmos of nothing but Chaos.

That said, science – a totally irrational subject – does indeed now claim that reality is grounded in absolute indeterminacy and acausality (Chaos). Scientists say we live in a statistical universe of a dice-playing God. Things happen randomly, with certain probabilities. They don’t happen causally and deterministically. They don’t happen mathematically. This rather begs the question of why mathematics is at the heart of science. Don’t ask scientists to be consistent and rational. They don’t have a clue. That’s what empiricism does to you.

The Smartest Humans of Them All Hegel considered philosophy the highest human endeavour. If we compare philosophers with scientists, there can be no question that the former are of much higher intelligence. Someone like Einstein is feeble-minded in comparison with the philosophical elite. The great problem of all scientists is that they are instrumentalists, not greatly interested in truth per se. They naively take it for granted that successful experiments somehow establish truth content, yet they do nothing of the kind. Experimental evidence yields “confidence”, not truth. 1 + 1 = 2 is eternally true. There’s not a single statement of science that comes anywhere near the truth of 1 + 1 = 2. Scientists never seriously think about what science means and whether it’s true or not. They worship the method of science, but this method has nothing to do with truth. Why are quantum mechanics and Einsteinian general relativity – two staggeringly successful theories produced by the scientific method – incompatible and irreconcilable? It’s because the scientific method is all about success, not truth, and, as Nietzsche so astutely observed. “Success has always been the greatest liar.” A scientist would never be smart enough to say something as clever as that. Additionally, Nietzsche declared, “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” Again, no scientific instrumentalist could ever formulate such an idea as an “irrefutable error.”

***** “Experience, the evidence of the senses, can lead only to contingent results, to merely plausible conclusions.” – Francis Bowen

This is exactly right. Science is plausible, not true. Science is contingent, not necessary. The Multiverse approach to science seeks to make science necessary in some sense by asserting that everything that can happen will happen; that anything not forbidden is compulsory, yet the Multiverse is the most bogus idea of all time (even more absurd than the Abrahamic “God”). “Let the Empiricists and the Positivists talk as they may about the universality and the certainty of physical law; if they mean thereby the necessary continuance of such law one hour beyond the present time, their assertion rests upon no scientific evidence whatever, but merely on an innate belief, or an acquired though persistent habit of thought.” – Francis Bowen This is exactly right. No scientist can provide a single shred of evidence why the laws that pertain to this moment should be the same as those that apply to the next moment, or indeed, why there should be any laws at all. Science is pure contingency, provisionalism and induction. It has no necessary elements. It has nothing to say about eternal truth. “If facts seem to contradict mathematical conclusions, so much the worse for the facts; correct your observations of them; try your experiments over again, for they may be wrong; mathematics and metaphysics must be right. The office of observing facts is to verify theoretical [mathematical] conclusions, never to contradict them.” – Francis Bowen This point cannot be stressed enough. No experiment can contradict ontological mathematics. It’s necessarily and eternally true, while all experiments are contingent and interpretive. All of the experiments that form the foundation of quantum mechanics have been fundamentally misinterpreted. They are all interpreted (misinterpreted) through the prism of empiricism and materialism. They would have an entirely different interpretation if viewed from the perspective of rationalism and idealism. So, what experiment can prove the truth of empiricism and materialism over rationalism and idealism, or vice versa? The only valid function of experiments is to corroborate mathematical truths, and if they don’t then they are wrong, or have been wrongly interpreted (non-mathematically). Why is all mainstream religion false? Because none of it is about mathematics.

“This is contrary to all experience; and yet it is true.” – Euler Experience has nothing to do with truth. All absolute, immutable, infallible, noumenal truths are contrary to experience. That’s a fact. Truth is intelligible, not sensible. Truth is rationalist, not empiricist.

***** What Illuminism is all about is establishing irrefutable truths, and the only ones that exist are those of ontological mathematics. All other knowledge is fallacious and illusory. Mainstream religion failed to produce any worthwhile depiction of reality. The scientific method succeeded in producing useful models of phenomenal reality. They were not however, true models, and it isn’t in the gift of science to establish any authentic truth. “Truths of fact” will, at best, always be “irrefutable errors” (although they will in fact be refuted eventually). They can never be absolutely, eternally, immutably, analytically true. It’s a category error to think they can ever reflect genuine truth. So, with theologians and scientists eliminated from the intellectual elite, it’s a straight fight between philosophers and mathematicians. Of course, as it turns out, the intellectual elite were always philosophical mathematicians or mathematical philosophers, or mathematics was implicit in their philosophy. The smartest humans ever were: Anaximander, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Fourier, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Gödel. All of these were ontological mathematicians, ontological logicians or advocates of ontological Will (which is none other than self-optimising mathematics). Of them all, Leibniz was the supreme genius. Euler, Gauss, Riemann and Cantor were outstanding thinkers, but too wedded to mathematics as an abstraction rather than as ontology. They ought to have aggressively promoted mathematics, not science, as the truth of the world. Greece in the ancient world and Germany in the modern world supplied most of humanity’s greatest thinkers. What nation will give humanity its next generation of geniuses? Will it be yours?

Richard Feynman Famous and popular scientist Richard Feynman was one of the most dogmatic, fanatical, empiricist materialists of all time. He persistently bullied his students with the mantra that any hypothesis is false and must be rejected if it does not accord with the experimental “facts”. It’s extraordinary that someone so mathematically gifted should have been so devoted to “scientism”. No experiment is ever required to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. There’s no experimental fact ever discovered that has the absolute certainty of 1 + 1 = 2. It’s almost insane to revere truths of fact (those that conform with experiments) over truths of reason (those of mathematics and logic). No experiment can ever refute truths of reason. Why didn’t Feynman badger his students with the doctrine that truths of reason are incontestable and unarguable? The aim of science should be to show how infallible truths of reason shape the world we encounter and experience, not to claim, as Wittgenstein did on behalf of scientism, that mathematics is empty tautology with no relevance to the world of “facts”. Science should not be driven by experiments but by reason. This latter view of science was the one promoted by Plato, Descartes and Leibniz, and they were far smarter than Feynman, Wittgenstein and Newton. Scientific materialism is a bogus undertaking, a fallacious system of thought designed to claim that truths of fact are superior to truths of reason. The opposite is the case. Scientific materialism will never accomplish a final theory of everything because there is no final experiment of everything that proves everything. There is no “fact” that is unarguably true. All truths of reason, on the contrary, are unarguably true. Therefore, any system of thought that concerns the truth must be about truths of reason and not truths of fact. To be even clearer, “facts” are always subjective interpretations, and they are never true. A truth is that which is eternal and unquestionable. Anything that isn’t eternal and unquestionable simply isn’t true but is merely an interpretation, opinion, belief or hypothesis. Science is on a par with mainstream religion since it’s just a set of interpretations, opinions, beliefs and hypotheses. Science is superior to mainstream religion only because it has a built-in “sanity check” (reality check) – experiments, which link hypotheses to observed, experienced, phenomenal “reality”.

Religion allows faith to override the reality principle; it doesn’t impose any sanity checks whatsoever on its claims, neither experimentally (scientifically) or rationally (mathematically). It makes outrageous claims, contrary to reason and without evidence, and expects them to be slavishly believed because they have allegedly been “revealed” by God. All “revealed” truths are false. Something doesn’t become true because it supposedly originates with God (where’s the evidence, the proof?!). If it contradicts reason, it’s automatically false, regardless of its alleged source. Anyone can claim, as prophets and gurus always do, that they are connected to the Source of Truth. But, if they are, not a single thing they say should contain even one error (and indeed many Jews claim that the Torah is unerring, Christians that the Bible is unerring and Muslims that the Koran is unerring). If any errors at all can be found in the Abrahamic “holy” texts (and such errors are as numerous as the grains of sand on the beach or stars in the sky!) then these books are provably false. The more insidious Abrahamists are those who claim that their holy texts are metaphorical rather than literal. The question then immediately arises as to why the Creator of the Universe chooses to communicate the truth in vague, ambiguous, baffling metaphors rather than simply stating the truth clearly and definitively. If our adherence to the truth is what determines the fate of our eternal soul, why hasn’t God, the alleged source of Truth, told us what the Truth is? Doesn’t he want us to be saved? If God withholds the Truth from us knowing that the vast majority of us will ipso facto go to hell then he is no God. He’s the opposite: Satan. There is only one subject that tells us the incontestable Truth, plain and simple: mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 has more truth than all religious texts put together. Science works because it matches hypotheses to how the world appears to be (as measured by experiments). However, appearances – phenomena – have no necessary connection with truths – noumena. Many things can appear to be true (to the ancients, the Earth appeared to be self-evidently flat and stationary, with the sun moving around it), but, as we all know, appearances can be deceptive. We can never be certain that any “appearance” is true, so we can never be sure that any experiments reveal truth. Science is the claim that measurements of reality are reality when in fact they are simply indicators of what reality might be. Measurements should

be viewed as clues to what the infallible truths of reason are; they should not be viewed as infallible truths in themselves to which reason must comply. The history of science is the history of “dead theories”. Each theory was once experimentally verified, but then new experiments came along that no longer verified the theory. So, how can anyone place any faith in experiments? They are known to validate false theories. That’s a proven fact. Another experiment is always waiting in the wings to refute the hypothesis that “explained” the previous experimental results. This is a process that can never end. Newtonian physics remains fantastically “true” in experimental terms, i.e. any experiments we perform in normal environments will agree with Newton’s theories. Yet Newtonian physics is completely false ontologically, and wholly refuted ontologically by Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics. Therefore, it’s simply insane to claim that an experimentally well-attested theory is ipso facto true. Experiments have no truth-value whatsoever. They are about confidence. We can confidently land men on the moon with Newtonian physics while knowing that Newtonian physics has no connection with true reality. Newtonian physics is a highly successful model of reality, but it’s a simulacrum, not a reflection of truth. It works, but success is not truth. Modelling the Earth as flat worked perfectly for the ancients for a very long time, but the Earth isn’t flat. Successful models do not imply truth. Science, catastrophically, believes they do. Scientism, with high priests such as Feynman, is the quasi-religious faith that successful models tell us about truth and reality. In point of fact, they do neither. You wouldn’t learn a single thing about truth and reality from Newtonian physics. What you would learn is that false models can nevertheless prove highly useful, and provide an effective simulation of truth and reality, within a limited range of applicability.

***** Richard Feynman said, “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Don’t laugh, that’s the real truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess ... and then we compare the computation results to nature, or to experiment or experience ... or compare

it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science.” So, do you agree with Nobel laureate Richard Feynman that the best approach to the quest for truth is guessing (!) ... or do you agree with Leibniz that reason is the sole means to establish the truth? Richard Feynman was an irrationalist – a guesser; Leibniz was a rationalist, a man guided by the infallible truths of reason. What kind of person thinks that we should go around “guessing” the nature of reality and then believing our contingent, fallible guess to be truth? Well, that’s a scientist for you! What a joke. Next thing you know, scientists will be promoting faith!!! After all, why is guessing any better than believing? In fact, aren’t they the same thing? Descartes wanted to reduce physics to geometry, and geometry to algebra ... an admirable project. That’s what all physicists ought to be doing. Then they could arrive at analytic certainty rather than promoting human guesses as objective reality.

Leibniz and Einstein Einstein is often described as a Leibnizian. In fact, Leibniz would have been appalled by Einstein’s way of thinking. Leibniz was a rationalist and idealist, Einstein an empiricist and materialist. You could scarcely get two thinkers more different. Leibniz, in many of his published writings, was a “relationist” and Einstein a “relativist”. Although these positions are often equated, they are totally different. Leibniz supported objective reality while Einstein advocated a relativistic principle that destroyed objective reality. Leibniz, rightly, dismissed Newtonian absolute space and absolute time. They are not freestanding, autonomous, eternal substances. They are entirely the products of minds (monads), which are the true ontological substances. Einstein, like Leibniz, rejected Newtonian absolutism, but for entirely different reasons. Leibniz accepted a reality principle based on ontological minds, with these minds producing a mental “ether” undetectable by the senses; Einstein accepted a relativity principle that denied the existence of both an undetectable mental ether and a reality principle.

One Law To Bind Them All There’s nothing to be admired about needless complexity. For one thing, it contradicts Occam’s Razor, which is never a good sign, and effectively a refutation in itself. Science’s “M-theory” is the most complex mathematical theory of all time, involving endless absurdities such as arbitrary, one-dimensional energy strings vibrating in an arbitrary, eleven-dimensional domain which comprises three “big” spatial dimensions, seven vanishingly small spatial dimensions (!) and one temporal dimension. Neither space nor time nor energy is ontologically defined in this theory, and no attempt at all is made to defend its arbitrary, contingent, provisional, ad hoc elements. Why, for example, does time only have a single dimension, thus introducing a radical asymmetry between space and time? Why are there three observable spatial dimensions and seven unobservable spatial dimensions, thus introducing a further asymmetry, a host of ontological paradoxes, and, moreover, being inconsistent with the core empiricism of science since unobservable dimensions belong to metaphysics, not physics? No part of this theory has any logical or ontological necessity, and the theory is radically inconsistent and incomplete. It’s a bogus and fallacious application of mathematics that brings us not one jot closer to the “Mind of God”. Compare M-theory with ontological mathematics, which is predicated on a single, cosmic, mathematical formula: the generalised Euler Formula (the “God Equation”). Reflecting a single formula, ontological mathematics is absolutely and necessarily Gödelian consistent and complete (since a single, self-contained formula by definition cannot contradict itself and is unlimited in its applicability). Reality being based solely on the generalised Euler Formula is the simplest mathematical theory you could possibly get, hence maximally reflective of Occam’s Razor. Being a pure, analytic mathematical formula, the God Equation contains no ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent, provisional elements, no fudge factors or bodges. It’s supremely beautiful, elegant and powerful in equal measure. It’s the Absolute Truth. Anyone who stands against it is a blind fool, and one of the unenlightened masses.

As Above, So Below In Illuminism, the God Equation replaces “God”. It’s the ontological, perfect Source of Everything, and the sole, rational answer to “life, the universe and everything”. The God Equation defines the monadic mind (the soul!), the basic unit of ontological mathematics, and equally defines the entire Monadic Collective. The monad (the one, the “microscopic”), and the Monadic Collective (the Many, the “macroscopic”) are bound by a single equation, which thus fully enshrines the key statement of ancient wisdom: As above, so below. The God Equation defines the above, the below, everything in between, and all possible interactions between them. Nothing else is required. The universe must be ruled by one, eternal, perfect, immutable, Platonic, consistent, complete, indestructible, flawless, all-encompassing, maximally efficient, maximally economic, simplest, best, most productive law. That law is the God Equation. It has no conceivable rivals, least of all amongst the crackpot “ultimate” theories of science, such as M-theory.

Truths and Facts Truths of fact = truths of phenomena = apparent truths = contingent truths = provisional truths = sensible truths = synthetic a posteriori truths = empirical truths = scientific truths. Truths of reason = truths of noumena = authentic truths = necessary truths = eternal truths = intelligible truths = analytic a priori truths = rationalist truths = mathematical truths.

Fourier Mathematics The God Equation is mathematically implemented in the “scientific” cosmos by way of Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics posits two domains: one outside space and time (the frequency, mental, immaterial, dimensionless domain, comprising countless singularities = monadic minds), and the material, dimensional domain inside space and time, comprising contingent composites of the energy contents of monads.

It’s essential to realise that although Fourier mathematics seems to imply a dual ontology (comprising the frequency domain and the spacetime domain), and we often talk of it in exactly this way, there is in fact only one ontological domain: the immaterial Singularity of frequencies, outside space and time. The spacetime, material world is a phenomenal representation of this noumenal domain. It’s not a thing in itself. It has no independent existence. If you could somehow annihilate the Singularity (you can’t!), the whole material world would instantly vanish with it. The other key point to realise is that the phenomenal domain is not a complete representation of the noumenal Singularity. Mathematically, only a small, low-frequency portion of the Singularity can be represented as the spacetime material world. There’s a vast, mental, noumenal hinterland of high frequencies that’s never represented physically. These high-energy frequencies would destroy the material world if it were possible for them to enter it. The world is shielded from them by “event horizons”, such as those associated with black holes. Indeed, there’s an extremely close connection between immaterial, dimensionless black hole singularities outside space and time and immaterial, dimensionless, monadic minds outside space and time. You might well ask yourself whether black hole singularities, outside the material world and hidden by event horizons, are souls! Just as science cannot directly observe black hole singularities, nor can it directly observe souls. It can only observe their effects on their surroundings. We can observe the effects of our souls on our surroundings by virtue of the movements of our bodies, which physically enact the will of our souls. Cosmologist Max Tegmark stated that the laws of physics fall apart at singularities. So, where better to find minds (souls), the very elements that refute the entire empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science? If you think the soul is a crazy and impossible concept, do you therefore say the same of black hole singularities? Or are you irrational and inconsistent like Richard Dawkins and his ilk? You can’t have it both ways. If you accept the existence of black hole singularities, you have ipso facto acknowledged the extreme likelihood of dimensionless, immaterial, immortal souls, outside space and time. It’s all in the math! It’s not physics per se that falls apart at singularities, it’s empiricist materialist physics. Rationalist, idealist physics, such as that taught by

Leibniz, is not only not refuted by singularities but also actually based on them. At singularities, physics undergoes a phase change to metaphysics, i.e. ontological mathematics. Scientists suffer from a quite staggering lack of imagination and intuition. They can’t see, or refuse to see, the truth staring them right in the face.

***** Ever thought about light? Photons are immaterial and dimensionless. Er, doesn’t that sound like the definition of the soul? Photons are singularities! Science says that photons are massless singularities while black holes are massive singularities. But how can you assign mass to an immaterial, dimensionless singularity outside space and time? As ever, science is silent. Never expect an intellectual debate with scientists, and never expect any rational justification of their claims. Like Christians describing the “Holy Trinity”, scientists refer to mysteries. That’s irrationalists for you.

The Star Devil Plato thought the stars were souls. He was right. Suns are the physical “brains” of the most powerful minds in the universe – those of the Gods. One day, if you’re smart enough, you too will become a sun, a star. An entire solar system, and all the life in it, will become your personal responsibility. You will be the God of the life in your solar system. Primitives will worship you. You might become power-intoxicated and don the cloak of the Devil – the Abrahamic “God”.

Never Understood Scientists have never grasped that what we experience is a representation of reality (phenomenal, sensible), and not reality itself (noumenal, intelligible). True reality isn’t presented to us. We don’t use our senses, experiences or experiments to work out ultimate reality, we use our reason. We use mathematics, not science.

Hidden Variables

Hidden variables = noumena. Science denies the existence of noumena. The ultimate noumenon is of course the soul: the immaterial, dimensionless, mathematical monad.

The Resistance Why are so many people so resistant to conceiving of the soul in hard, analytic, mathematical terms, and ultimately in terms of sine and cosine waves? For feeling types, mathematics is horrifically cold and abstract. These types want a person to relate to, not a bewildering, daunting abstraction, with which they have no feelings in common. Sensing types want something concrete, i.e. something solid, material, dimensional and sensory to relate to, not an immaterial, dimensionless mathematical formula. Mystical intuitives want something mysterious and transcendent to relate to, not something precisely, analytically definable that removes all mysteries from existence. Only thinking rationalists (or thinking intuitives) can understand the soul. Only they have no fundamental resistance to the soul. Leibniz, the supreme rationalist intuitive, based his entire theory of reality on the monad – the mathematical soul. Why don’t you? That’s what it means to be an Illuminist. Illuminism is not about God or Gods, but about evolving souls that can become Gods.

Science and Measurement “Not everything important is measurable and not everything measurable is important.” – Einstein “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels.” – Einstein Science is just a set of measurements, which is why it’s based on experiments, which are all about observations and measurements. Science doesn’t tell you anything about what existence actually is. What science does is measures things, organize these measurements into unifying hypotheses and theories, and use these to predict new measurements and

thus new phenomena. Science has no idea what it’s measuring (it has no idea what space, time, mass and energy actually are: it can provide no ontological definitions), but it’s superb at utilizing these measurements in a host of practical ways that have revolutionized our world. Why is science useless at explaining life, mind, consciousness free will, the soul and the afterlife (i.e. all the really important things)? It’s because it can’t measure any of these things. What the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism amounts to in the end is simply the ability to perform measurements, and a faith-based assertion that anything not measurable does not in fact exist. That is, science says that all existents are measurable and anything not measurable is ipso facto non-existent. All measurable things are dimensional. You can’t measure zero and infinity, which are dimensionless. Everything subjective – concerned with life and the soul – is defined by these unmeasurable numbers zero and infinity, the existence of which is formally denied by science. Science is all about quantity. It says nothing about quality. Science is all about objectivity. It has nothing to say about subjectivity. Science is all about the measurable. It can never say anything about the unmeasurable, and, because of this, it irrationally claims that the unmeasurable is nonexistent. Zero and infinity, the two numbers that characterise singularities, define existence, but are unmeasurable, hence science dismisses them. Science entirely rejects singularities, even though one gave rise to the universe itself via the Big Bang, and the universe is full of black hole singularities. The high priests and popes of science pray for a theory that will banish singularities, and render all existents nice and measurable. Science is, in the last resort, simply the horror of the unmeasurable. Exactly the same horror afflicted the ancient Greeks, which is why they had no number for zero or infinity in their number system. Scientists are, in effect, those who wish to have zero and infinity, imaginary and negative numbers removed once again from mathematics – because they are the numbers for which we have no rulers or clocks, no measuring instruments. Science is literally the discipline of measurement, the application of measuring instruments. It’s great at measuring, hopeless at explaining. It’s pure instrumentalism and pragmatism. If there’s no instrument to measure something then it doesn’t exist for that very reason, so say scientists, the

members of the religion of measurement, who pour scorn on all those infidels who say that some things are beyond measurement. Of course, reason itself is something that cannot be measured, or ontologically probed, hence science is inherently irrational.

The Hatred Science has a pathological hatred of mind. Mind, unlike matter, reflects causes, purposes, design, teleology. All of these are rejected by science. Science claims that we live in a measurable, lifeless, mindless, machine universe made of lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms. It has replaced causality with randomness, it has replaced teleology and design with blind natural selection acting on random mutations. According to science, a random fluctuation in nothing gave rise to an aimless, purposeless universe, and, by pure accident, life and mind “emerged” from lifeless and mindless atoms. Buying that particular Mythos makes you as stupid as an Abrahamist. Science is pure irrationalism. Science abandoned reason in favour of randomness because, ultimately, only randomness cannot in any way be defined as a property of mind. Without mind, there’s only chaos and disorder (randomness). Science ended up in the position of claiming that instead of mind (the force of order) bringing order to chaos (the force of disorder), chaos brought order to itself (!) – a category error, a contradiction in terms. In Illuminism, there’s no randomness, no chaos. In Illuminism, there are only causal mathematical minds (monads). Their interactions produce everything, including the material world. Order comes from order, exactly as you would expect, not from disorder, a total impossibility. Science is a formally irrationalist system that denies causality and design, claiming that existence originates in non-existence (an impossibility), order from disorder (an impossibility), macroscopic determinism from microscopic indeterminism (an impossibility), life from non-life (an impossibility), mind from non-mind (an impossibility), design from non-design (an impossibility), consciousness from the non-conscious (an impossibility), and the “illusion” of free will from non-free will (an impossibility). In terms of every key question, science is 100% false. That’s a fact.

Science is now, even more so than religion, the enemy of the principle of sufficient reason. Reason is a fundamentally mental property and when you get rid of mind as an inherent property of existence, you ipso facto get rid of reason. In Illuminism, reason is built into existence because it’s built into the monadic mathematical minds that comprise existence. You can either have an irrational, random universe, or a rational universe made of causal, mathematical minds. What’s it to be? Are you rational (mathematical) or irrational (scientific)?

***** Randomness is itself wholly non-empirical. No scientific advocate of randomness has ever perceived a random event. No Darwinist has ever perceived any random mutation. There is no factual or evidential basis whatsoever to the conjecture that reality is grounded in randomness. It’s a bizarre, metaphysical hypothesis, utterly unproven and unprovable. People choose to believe this gibberish. They are not compelled to do so by any rational arguments. In fact, randomness contradicts reason. That’s a fact.

***** Scientific materialism is driven by the need to remove all traces of autonomous mind from existence. Autonomous mind, not matter, is the true source of life, teleology, meaning, subjectivity, the dialectic, reason, order, organisation, pattern, form, consciousness, and causality. Science, by annihilating all mention of mind, has made itself meaningless, purposeless, aimless, irrational, random, statistical, acausal, probabilistic, chaotic, indeterministic – an insult to reason, causality and mathematics.

The Ignorant “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked).” – Richard Dawkins It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to accept the principle of sufficient reason, that person is ignorant, stupid, or

insane (or wicked). No scientist on Earth accepts the principle of sufficient reason! Scientists like Dawkins are in a very real sense wicked. Science subscribes to the principle of unreason – total randomness, with no explanation – as the ground of existence. The “Multiverse” is the ultimate expression of the creed of the Church of Randomness (scientific materialism). Anything that can happen will happen, no matter how improbable. Who’s to say that even “God”, that most improbable of creatures, can’t happen in the Multiverse where everything not forbidden is compulsory?! Is God forbidden? Science doesn’t know because science can’t define “forbidden”. Dawkins is reported to have said, “We now know 90% of everything there is to know”. One critic retorted, “How is this possible? We do not know what we do not know! Ironically, we actually don’t know about 90% of the universe, as most of it is missing! [see Dark Matter and Dark Energy].” Science doesn’t “know” anything. Knowledge belongs only to ontological mathematics.

Knowledge “The word belief is a difficult thing for me. I don’t believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it – I don’t need to believe it.” – Carl Jung Amen. Everything true must have a reason. Randomness has no reason, hence is part of a belief system, not a knowledge system. Modern science, grounded in randomness from Darwinism to quantum mechanics to the Big Bang, is all about belief, not knowledge. It takes observed facts then “explains” them according to a belief system based on randomness. Science is a false and irrational interpretation of reality. H. L. Mencken said, “Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.” Mencken is certainly right about the first part: science is indeed antiintellectual and distrusts pure reason. He’s wrong about the second part: science has nothing to do with objective facts, only with consensus and groupthink interpretations. As a keen scholar of Nietzsche, Mencken ought to have known better than to refer to “objective facts”.

Mencken also said, “Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.” The trouble with scientists is that they don’t doubt nearly enough, hence are not civilized. The only thing you legitimately can’t doubt is ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is anti-doubt.

The Fictive Hypothesis “Although to penetrate into the intimate mysteries of nature and thence to learn the true causes of phenomena is not allowed to us, nevertheless it can happen that a certain fictive hypothesis may suffice for explaining many phenomena.” – Euler We are permitted to penetrate into the intimate mysteries of nature and to learn the true causes of phenomena – thanks to Euler’s own formula! That’s cosmic irony for you. Science is exactly the “certain fictive hypothesis” that may “suffice for explaining many phenomena”, to which Euler refers. His own formula allows us to address noumena: things in themselves, beyond appearance.

***** Science has been described as the attempt to identify the causes of phenomena. Really? Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory of them all and it says, as Einstein observed, that God plays dice, i.e. everything happens randomly, without any cause at all! We live in a probabilistic universe, science says, not a causal universe. Can’t scientists get it straight what their faith actually is?! It has also been said that when scientists believe they know what causes a phenomenon, they attempt to use this knowledge to predict other phenomena, and ultimately, to cause them by their own actions. A successful outcome is then deemed to validate the theory, and by implication (which scientists invariably draw) to point to the truth content of the theory, and its genuine ability to reflect reality. Of course, the reality is that science models phenomena and any successful predictions merely validate the model within that specific context. They don’t prove that the

model is true, has unlimited applicability, or has any ontological significance at all. Newtonian physics models phenomena extremely well – it makes hosts of successful predictions – while being wholly ontologically false. Of course, if you apply this highly successful model to the big questions – those concerning life, mind, purpose, consciousness and free will – you will get precisely nowhere. So, in what sense can anyone claim that this model reflects reality? What it does is model a phenomenal aspect of reality within narrow limits, and, as long as you stay within these limits, the model will produce good results. As soon as you stray from them, the model is useless. It can’t tell you anything and it can’t predict anything. If it had any universal truth content and any relation to ontology, how come it falls apart outside its domain of applicability? Scientists have perennially failed to grasp that successful, narrow models always remain models and don’t, by virtue of their success with regard to a limited range of phenomena, become anything more than models. They don’t become “true” and they don’t become ontological. Either models succeed at reproducing phenomena, or they don’t. A more successful model is by no means a truer model. For example, Newtonian physics provided a more successful model than Leibnizian physics, but Leibnizian physics is far truer and far more reflective of ontology, and when humanity is clever enough, it will turn to Leibniz and achieve enormously greater success than ever it did with Newton. Leibnizian physics deals with noumenal reality, and Newtonian physics with phenomenal reality. Since the latter is actually manufactured to reproduce observed phenomena, it’s obviously going to be more successful in this regard, at least until the Leibnizian theory can bridge the gap between noumena and phenomena. Scientific theories are models of phenomena. They don’t say anything at all about noumena, hence about ontology. They are validated according to experimental data, not according to reason, not according to the eternal truths of reason.

No Force No one forced scientists to become “randomists” rather than rationalists. It wasn’t experiments or observations that led them to this conclusion. It

wasn’t science and it wasn’t reason. No, what drove them to it was a quasireligious commitment and bias towards empiricist materialist atheism. Reason goes hand in hand with a mental universe, a universe of purpose, while randomness goes hand in hand with a universe devoid of reason and purpose (a material universe). What are the primary requirements of Dawkins’ scientism? 1) To deny the independent existence of mind (since this contradicts materialism). 2) To deny hidden variables or rational unobservables (since these contradict empiricism). 3) To deny teleology (since teleology is associated with mind). 4) To deny causality and reason (since these are associated with mind, with purpose, with the cosmos having rational aims; they contradict a purposeless universe that does things for no reason at all). 5) To deny “intelligent design” (which to empiricist materialist atheists automatically smacks of “God” – they have never considered a mathematical universe where intelligent design comes inbuilt since design is inherent in mathematics). Empiricist materialist atheists such as Dawkins despise mind, design, teleology and reason so much – because they are incapable of dissociating these from “God” – that they would prefer to say that the universe is purposeless, meaningless, aimless, mindless, irrational, acausal, random and chaotic. Why? Just so that no trace of “God” is possible. They have preferred to abandon reason rather than accept mind as the primary reality. But mind is not “God”. Mind is mathematics. When scientists reject mind, they are not rejecting theism, they are rejecting mathematics, the subject that inherently enshrines order, organisation, cause, design and the principle of sufficient reason. Scientists are irrationalists, rendered moronic by their ferocious sensory biases and prejudices against unobservable, non-empirical mind. Scientific materialism has become an even more insidious threat to reason than mainstream religion.

Science is now a joke. For no sane reason at all, it has abandoned reason, it has rejected causality, it has turned its back on meaning. It has not used any facts, evidence, experiments, observations or proofs to reach this conclusion (since the ideology of randomness has no empirical consequences – no one has ever, or ever could, perceive a random event). Atheistic dogmatism alone drives the whole scientific agenda. Scientists such as Dawkins are not people who respect facts, evidence, reason or proof. They are driven by emotions and constitute a kind of Catholic Church of irrationalism. Dawkins owns a dog, and that’s a highly revealing fact about him. Ownership of a dog, or any pet, is always a bad sign in anyone who claims to be on the side of reason. Intellectuals – people of the mind – do not have dogs. After all, why would any intelligent human being choose the company of unintelligent, subhuman, dumb brutes? The people who like dogs are sensing or feeling extraverts, totally lacking introverted intuition and imagination. People who own dogs ipso facto reveal that they are incapable of understanding true reality. Their brains are wired wrongly. They themselves are close to being animals, which is why they love the company of animals and are extremely sentimental about animals. All authentic intellectuals are INTPs and INTJs. They are likely to have no pets at all, although a few might have a cat or a goldfish (but never a dog).

Scientific Fundamentalists If you’re going to be a Scientific Fundamentalist – like Richard Dawkins – you had better be right. But science isn’t right. It’s radically wrong. It has staked everything on empiricism, materialism and the experimental method, and all three of these are false. The truth is rationalist, idealist and mathematical (non-experimental). Science refuses to engage with any philosophical critique of science. It swears by the experimental method, but if the experimental method is unsuitable for revealing ultimate truth (and, in fact, it’s 100% useless in this regard) then science has literally turned its back on the truth. Science has elevated its method to the status of a religious holy text and is thus every bit as false as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Karmism. Just as no Muslim can think beyond the Koran, no scientist can think beyond the scientific method. Science has become a religion – the religion of the

senses. Anything beyond the senses is rejected as nonsense, just as Muslims reject anything that contradicts the Koran as nonsense. Scientists do not engage with any of the rational, philosophical, metaphysical and mathematical criticisms of the scientific method, which makes them anti-intellectuals and enemies of the Truth. The God Series has carefully addressed all other systems of thought. It’s shameful that science does not. It’s shameful that it has an irrational Fundamentalist like Richard Dawkins – a dog owner (!) – as its spokesman. Even Muslims don’t like dogs. Why did Hitler lose WWII? – because he obsessively loved his dog, thus demonstrating that he was irrational. A rational Hitler would have won the war. As it was, Stalin was much more rational.

The Madness of Quantum Mechanics “If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science.” – Einstein Einstein is right. If the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, physics is no longer deterministic, hence no longer has any connection with classical science. However, if the Copenhagen interpretation is false, it means that “hidden variables” must be admitted to physics, and that equally breaks the link with classical physics. Either way, the accepted scientific paradigm must change in the most radical way. “Quantum mechanics is magic.” – Daniel Greenberger. So, is it science? Or can no one tell the difference between science and magic anymore? As Thor said in the movie of the same name, “Your ancestors called it magic ... but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same.” Yeah, that’s the land of Richard Dawkins and his anti-rationalist, empiricist legions! “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” – Niels Bohr And nothing is more shocking than when you understand how Niels Bohr chose to interpret quantum mechanics.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.” – John Wheeler So, science is now all about being confused! Well, you’re right there, John. No one in modern science has the vaguest idea what they’re talking about! “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” –Richard Feynman Speak for yourself, Richard! “I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” – Erwin Schrödinger Hmmmmm! “Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense.” – Roger Penrose Given that quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in scientific history, what does that say about science?

The Critics One of our critics wrote in relation to a debate concerning our work, “He says the monads are originally unconscious. I take this to mean they have no qualia, and that therefore the hard problem is not an issue.” Er, you mean that you’re applying your assumptions and your schema to what we said and then criticising our position on the basis of your assumptions and schema. That’s the famous Straw Man fallacy. Few people attribute consciousness to animals, especially lower animals. Do unconscious animals experience qualia (sense-data or feelings that have a distinctive, essential, subjective quality)? Of course they do! So, the position attributed to us – that monads have no qualia – is not one actually held by us, and was never at any time suggested by us. This, therefore, is an absurd attack on us, totally misrepresenting our position. As for the “hard problem of consciousness”, this is a misnomer. It should in fact be called the “hard problem of mind”: how can minds have subjective experiences if they are constructed from objective, mindless atoms? The minds, of course, do not have to be conscious to have subjective experiences. Consciousness is required to reflect on the experience, not to have the experience.

Naturally, we have no expectation that the clowns who criticise our work will have taken the trouble to actually study it, and we fully anticipate more and more Straw Man attacks on us. Don’t bother with the truth – well, you never do – just blabber on with your moronic drivel.

***** To assert that qualia can be associated only with consciousness is already to make an unwarranted and irrational assumption about the nature of mental experience, and instantly to beg the question. If consciousness is not a product of the unconscious but is instead an entirely separate mental entity from the unconscious then where does consciousness come from and how does it interact with the different category of existence (the unconscious)? Yet again, we are in Cartesian dualist territory. Are the exponents of consciousness-only qualia claiming that the unconscious does not exist, or that it does not have mental experiences (thus unconscious animals have no mental experiences and are just Cartesian automata without souls)? The picture these people present is incoherent, yet they have the impudence to attack rational positions that disagree with their assumptions and beliefs. It’s extraordinary how people argue from a stance of totally dubious assumptions on their part, yet treat them as if they are uncontentious “facts” with which everyone can agree, and with which they have the “right” to criticize other positions that disagree with theirs. It’s like arguing with Christian Fundamentalists who quote from the Bible as if they are stating eternal truths agreed by all.

***** Our critic attacks our positions using his assumptions. He’s the one who asserts that unconscious monads cannot be associated with qualia. On what basis does he make such a claim? He doesn’t say. The sole reason why the “hard problem” is framed in terms of consciousness is that it’s much easier to discuss and much more impactful in that form, not because it’s somehow being denied that qualia have anything to do with unconscious minds. Consciousness self-evidently evolves from unconsciousness – just watch a human baby growing up! Is anyone seriously asserting that unconscious minds do not have subjective mental experiences, just as conscious minds

do? (Don’t babies have qualia?!) That would be to make the absurd claim that at one moment hundreds of thousands of years ago, an unconscious mind suddenly went from having no qualia to becoming conscious and having qualia, the features of which were then mysteriously transmitted to all other minds “derived” from the first, but not to any other minds, which went on being qualia-free zones. Anyone who believes that is deranged. Wikipedia says, “The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that it is seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. As such, the nature and existence of qualia are controversial.” So, here we have an imprecise term (“qualia”), whose real function is to attack materialism, being deployed by someone to attack monadic unconsciousness. How desperate are these people? Consciousness is a product of the unconscious, not a separate category of existence. If it were somehow separate, where did it come from? Surely not from “God”!!! Leibniz, in his Monadology, was at pains to refute the Cartesian notion that God created conscious souls and that animals had no souls. Plainly, in Darwinian terms, we could not have evolved from animals if we belonged to a separate category of existence, ordained by “God”. (That’s the Creationist view.) Conscious qualia are simply qualia upon which conscious minds are able to reflect. It’s the reflection that adds the “conscious” qualifier to the qualia; consciousness does not generate qualia that would otherwise be non-existent. Qualia are present regardless of consciousness. Just as unconscious animals have souls, so they have qualia. To argue otherwise is to wander into Cartesian and Creationist territory where humans are wholly different from animals, and to claim that only humans (and above) have minds, and nothing else does. Do you see how a thought experiment designed to furnish a philosophical attack on materialism has been converted by our critic into an attack on Illuminism? No attacks are “innocent”. They always have a clear agenda. Our critic has zero interest in the truth. He’s motivated by his desire to “refute” Illuminism and he will stoop to any means, even inverting philosophical arguments, in his feeble attempt to undermine us. All he demonstrates is how stupid and malicious he is.

Never forget what Schopenhauer said: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Our critic has entered stage one! There will be many more such people. After all, if they were to accept Illuminism, they would be admitting that everything they had previously believed and advocated in their lives was false. Very few people have the intellectual integrity to make such an admission. It’s much easier to invent ludicrous Straw Man attacks on new thinking in order to defend old thinking. That’s why the world still has to suffer Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism.

***** Our critic has been described as someone who “endeavours to link his knowledge of science with the intimations of universal consciousness he has perceived through meditation.” Run for the hills! Yup, it’s a bona fide whacko nutjob. Do you see the agenda? Someone who advocates universal consciousness – a truly preposterous idea (was the Big Bang conscious; are babies conscious; are cockroaches conscious; are plants conscious; are protozoa conscious; are viruses and bacteria conscious?) – can’t abide the concept of unconscious monads because they ipso facto refute his entire New Age belief system. Goering said, “Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun!” Well, whenever we hear irrationalist New Age drivel – especially arising from “meditation” – that’s when we want to reach for our guns! If you want to wallow in mystical nonsense, join the cult of Ken Wilber. We are the mathematikoi. We are interested only in rationalism. Everything else is literally irrational. “Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.” – George Bernard Shaw Critics are typically the three percent who delude themselves that they can think. Whenever you study their own work, it’s pedestrian in the extreme. No “critic” has ever advanced human thought. No critic has ever been a genius.

“Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck One by one the silly critics die. That’s how the world progresses. The new thinkers, the dialectical thinkers, always beat the old thinkers, stuck in their boxes, incapable of understanding new ideas. Our critic made no attempt to understand Illuminism. His knee-jerk instinct was to attack it. The same instinct explains why science is so resistant to new ideas, and so incapable of addressing the ultimate questions. It’s time for the dinosaurs to become extinct. It’s time for smart people. It’s time for HyperHumanity.

The Hard Problem “The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist’s objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so.” – Erwin Schrödinger “The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences – how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colours and tastes. David Chalmers, who introduced the term ‘hard problem’ of consciousness, contrasts this with the ‘easy problems’ of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will ‘persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained’. ... “Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require

an explanation of nonphysical means. For philosophers who assert that consciousness is nonphysical in nature, there remains a question about what outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness.” – Wikipedia “It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.” – David Chalmers Consciousness is not the key to this debate. The debate is actually all about mental experience independent of material considerations, and inexplicable in physical terms. This mental experience can be either conscious or unconscious. After all, no one is proposing the Cartesian position that minds necessarily involve consciousness and that animals have no minds. Animals plainly have mental experiences in the same way humans do. The difference is that they do not label them, conceptualise them and philosophize over them. The only way to address the subject of qualia is via minds (singularities) outside space and time, hence not part of the physicalist paradigm. The question is asked: “What outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness?” Well, it’s certainly not magic, or God, or faith, or unreason, or “mystery”. Only one thing can explain both consciousness and an ordered universe – ontological mathematics. Why can it do this? Because it has an inside and an outside, a within and a without, a subjective and an objective aspect. Physical theory is always about the exterior. It has no interior. Subjectivity, qualia and consciousness all relate to the interior, hence cannot be explained by physics. Mathematically, the situation can be precisely defined. The two numbers that define the interior – the domain of subjectivity – are zero and infinity, the very same two numbers that define a singularity, the entity at which physics fails, i.e. where physical theory breaks down. It’s exactly here

where mind exists: outside of the materialist, empiricist paradigm of science. Mind provides a completely different view of the physical world because it’s not in the physical world at all. It’s this unique perspective, outside physicalism, that constitutes the subjective domain of qualia, of non-physical experience. Of course, being outside physicalism immediately begs the question. How does the non-physical interact, communicate, with the physical? Again, only mathematics can furnish an answer: Fourier mathematics links the immaterial frequency (mental) domain to the material spacetime (physical) domain. Nothing else can explain mind-matter interactivity. You can’t even begin to ponder qualia without first commencing with unconscious monads. The notion that you would begin with conscious monads is laughable (for one thing, this would separate humans from animals, and even humans from human babies) and was dismissed by Leibniz when he first formulated his Monadology. If you’re going to attack our position, please be intelligent and say something worthy of our attention. Don’t bring your own schema, preconceptions and misconceptions with you. Don’t bring your debunked and defunct old ideas to something you don’t understand. Unless you are highly intuitive, or extremely well versed in Leibnizian Monadology, Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics, you will be radically out of your depth with Illuminism. You will invariably view it from the perspective it’s designed to overthrow. No empiricist or materialist will regard Illuminism with anything other than horror, and also incomprehension. It’s the inverse of that outlook. Our enemies will invent any pretext to undermine us. You should never believe that a position attributed to us by our enemies is one actually held by us, or that we wouldn’t elucidate it in an entirely different way from them. Leibniz was challenged by enormously inferior minds. None of their arguments dented his position. In fact, it’s staggering how right Leibniz was and how wrong his critics were. Nothing changes! Not only are people reincarnated, situations are reincarnated, and criticisms are reincarnated. The sorts of silly criticisms that were levelled against Leibniz continue to be dredged up despite having been long refuted.

People don’t move on. Why do people continue to believe in the absurdities of Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism?

The Charlatans Whom are you going to believe? Will you believe a “meditator” who has had vague mystical intuitions about “universal consciousness” (whatever that is!), or will you believe mathematicians who have presented the equation that defines the soul and the whole universe (the God Equation), an equation that’s fully linked to the main equations and laws of science? Your choice says everything about how rational you are. What’s truly astounding is that non-mathematicians with no definition of the soul believe they can argue with mathematicians who have exactly defined the soul, and brought it into the domain of science and rationalism rather than that of Mythos, speculation and bullshit. Mystical versus mathematical discussions of the soul echo the difference between alchemy and chemistry. Chemistry transformed the world; alchemy most certainly didn’t. Chemistry was what alchemy wanted and needed to become, alchemy made rational and mathematical. Anyone who refers to the soul without providing a precise formula for it literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is nothing but a charlatan. If you can’t mathematically define the soul and link it to science, don’t pretend you know anything at all about the soul. You’re just a classic religious nutjob. Put up or shut up. Piss or get off the pot. The soul is an eternal, immaterial, dimensionless mathematical information system (a Fourier frequency singularity), comprising mathematical energy (which is simply analytic sine and cosine waves, which have complementary symmetry properties). It’s defined by the God Equation, which is the mathematical basis of Fourier mathematics, quantum mechanics and holography. We have furnished a precise ontological and mathematical definition of the soul. Where’s yours? If you don’t have one, you are a pretender, a false claimant, a liar, a deceiver, a false prophet, a Sophist. Think of how much better our world would be if all the people who have claimed to know what the soul is had kept their delusions to themselves.

Why is there a vast gulf between religion and science? It’s because the religious have treated the soul mystically and in Mythos terms rather than rationally and in Logos terms. It’s a simple fact that Illuminism alone gives the soul a rational place in science and mathematics. All other systems are meaningless garbage, formulated by frauds. All discussion about the soul should be mathematical and scientific, and if it’s not then it’s not worth a candle and should be wholly ignored. All of our critics should be held in contempt since, unlike us, not a single one of them has rationally defined what the soul is. If you disagree with us, show us where our mathematics and science are wrong. Don’t expect us to take you seriously if you ramble on about your faith and “intuitions”, and treat us to your half-baked philosophies and pseudo-science, gleaned from over-exposure to the New Age gibberish of the likes of Ken Wilber. Meditation is no bridge to Truth. Ontological mathematics is Truth.

A Word to the Unwise To or critics, we are working from a precise, analytic, mathematical framework centred on a single, exact formula (the God Equation) that defines the whole of existence. This God Equation – the generalised Euler Formula – is the most powerful, beautiful, elegant and economic formula of mathematics. It’s at the centre of analytic mathematics and at the root of Fourier mathematics, holography, quantum mechanics and even Einstein’s theories. This is a formula of unrivalled power, comprehensiveness and integrative capacity. We are in an adamantine rational fortress. You’re not. The idea that you could out-argue us when we know exactly what we’re talking about, while: a) you do not know what we are talking about (you invariably haven’t studied our massive body of work), and, b) you don’t even know what you yourself are talking about, is simply comical. Don’t bother. You’re just making a fool of yourself.

*****

We have attracted critics from the camp of New Age cult guru Ken Wilber. That’s like being attacked by Abrahamists or Karmists. A joke, in other words. Wilber (a Buddhist, pseudo-Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist), subscribes to a belief system called AQAL: “All Quadrants All Levels”. Wikipedia summarises this system as follows: “AQAL represents the core of Wilber’s work. AQAL stands for ‘all quadrants all levels’, but equally connotes ‘all lines’, ‘all states’ and ‘all types’. These are the five irreducible categories of Wilber’s model of manifest existence [quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types]. In order for an account of the Kosmos to be complete, Wilber believes that it must include each of these five categories. For Wilber, only such an account can be accurately called ‘integral’. In the essay, ‘Excerpt C: The Ways We Are in This Together’, Wilber describes AQAL as ‘one suggested architecture of the Kosmos’. “All of Wilber’s AQAL categories – quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types – relate to relative truth in the two truths doctrine of Buddhism, to which he subscribes. According to Wilber, none of them are true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness, ‘the simple feeling of being’, exists absolutely. “An account or theory is said to be AQAL, and thus integral (inclusive or comprehensive), if it accounts for or makes reference to all four quadrants and four major levels in Wilber’s ontological scheme.” This is a classic Mythos account of reality. It’s anti-mathematical, antiscientific, anti-philosophical and is essentially an amalgam of psychology, sociology and eastern religion. It has a great deal in common with theosophy and anthroposophy, and is ripe territory for every wannabe guru, mystic, bullshitter, conman, prophet, charlatan, narcissist and snake-oil salesman. What is the supreme bullshit detector and destroyer – mathematics. Not a single guru, god or prophet has ever communicated with humanity via mathematics – because then you actually need to know what you’re talking about and every statement you make can be refuted. There’s nowhere to hide, no bullshit you can spew out to cover your tracks. Go on, Wilber – mathematicise your alleged Grand Unified Theory of Everything, or shut up. Get off the stage and leave it to those who know what they’re talking about.

Hey, Wilber, why no mention of points – singularities – in your supposed all-encompassing system? Everything begins with the point. The eternal Singularity is the origin of all, the limitless Source. The idea that formless awareness, “the simple feeling of being”, is ultimate existence is preposterous and comical. It’s yet more idiotic mysticism and obscurantism.

***** Ken Wilber = Mythos. Ontological Mathematics = Logos. Choose your side. Choose bullshit or reason.

***** “Integral theory is a school of philosophy that seeks to integrate all of human wisdom into a new, emergent worldview that is able to accommodate the gifts of all previous worldviews, including those which have been historically at odds: science and religion, eastern and western, and pre-modern, modern and post-modern. ... “According to Integral Theory, there are at least 4 primary dimensions or perspectives through which we can experience the world: subjective, intersubjective, objective, and interobjective. These 4 perspectives, represented graphically, are the upper-left, lower-left, upper-right, and lower-right quadrants. “In the subjective – or upper-left – quadrant, we find the world of our individual, interior experiences: our thoughts, emotions, memories, states of mind, perceptions, and immediate sensations – in other words, our ‘I’ space. “In the intersubjective – or lower-left – quadrant, we find the world of our collective, interior experiences: our shared values, meanings, language, relationships, and cultural background – in other words, our ‘we’ space. “In the objective – or upper-right – quadrant, we find the world of individual, exterior things: our material body (including brain) and anything that you can see or touch (or observe scientifically) in time and space – in other words, our ‘it’ space. “In the interobjective – or lower-right – quadrant, we find the world of collective, exterior things: systems, networks, technology, government, and the natural environment – in other words, our ‘its’ space.”

http://www.dailyevolver.com/a-primer-on-integral-theory/ Is this what counts as philosophy these days? Is this what people regard as ontology and epistemology, as a valid Theory of Everything? God help us! It’s wholly lacking in rationalism, mathematics, and science, and is simply a typical categorisation scheme of which there are legion examples – one for every would-be guru. A word to the wise – all but one theories of existence are false. The falsest theories of all are those that seek to merge the myriad false theories into one, vast, integrated theory. The devisers of these absurd theories believe that they can thereby seduce everyone. In fact, the real task is to refute every theory of existence there has ever been – except the single theory that’s actually true. Only one theory can be true, the one that’s eternally true. That theory is of course Illuminism = ontological mathematics. That’s a fact.

***** “Are the mystics and sages insane? Because they all tell variations on the same story, don’t they? The story of awakening one morning and discovering you are one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and infinite fashion. Yes, maybe they are crazy, these divine fools. Maybe they are mumbling idiots in the face of the Abyss. Maybe they need a nice, understanding therapist. Yes, I’m sure that would help. But then, I wonder. Maybe the evolutionary sequence really is from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, each transcending and including, each with a greater depth and greater consciousness and wider embrace. And in the highest reaches of evolution, maybe, just maybe, an individual’s consciousness does indeed touch infinity – a total embrace of the entire Kosmos – a Kosmic consciousness that is Spirit awakened to its own true nature. It’s at least plausible. And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story, which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds totally insane?” – Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything

Actually, both stories sound totally insane and both are totally insane. They are pure Mythos. The first (the mystical vision) is total bunk, total junk and total speculative bullshit. The second (scientific materialism) is literally meaningless, even by its account! Wilber talks as if it’s either/or, i.e. if you find scientific materialism ridiculous, New Age hokum must be right. Er, no, that’s not how logic works. Being more plausible than the absolutely implausible is no claim to truth. Eastern religion is more plausible than Abrahamism, but still ridiculous. Anything that is not about ontological mathematics is false, irrational and dangerous. Remember, the foundations of the universe are either 100% rational or 100% irrational. If the latter, believe anything you like since it will make no difference. If the former, reality is 100% ontological mathematical.

The Past Repeating Itself In every Age, you will get familiar types (archetypes) reappearing. You will get “prophets” and “gurus”, “kings”, “dictators”, “rebels”, “revolutionaries”, “geniuses”, “mystics”, “hermits”, “misers”, “treasurers”, “knights”, “generals”, “conquistadores”, “adventurers”, and so on. What is Ken Wilber? He’s a modern-day Buddha, and that’s not a compliment. He’s a mystical guru peddling tired old hokum, repackaged in modern jargon. Who needs it? It’s as far from the truth as ever. But the Pied Piper can always beguile countless rats and drive them all into the river.

Criticism Feeling and sensing types, and mystical intuitives, will of course attack ontological mathematics and attempt to rubbish it. To many people, ontological mathematics is simply incomprehensible. We rarely take criticism seriously, for the simple reason that you need to be hyperrational to attack our position with any gravitas, and none of our critics are. And anyone who was hyperrational wouldn’t be in the business of our attacking our position but actively endorsing and promoting it! Frankly, we have intellectual contempt for our critics. To some people, their arguments may seem persuasive. To us, they are laughable. They are invariably meretricious, specious and exhibit nothing but sophistry.

You cannot beat the eternal truths of reason. They constitute the only absolute standard of knowledge. Anything else is mere interpretation, belief and opinion. So who cares about them? The notion that people can successfully argue with the principle of sufficient reason is by definition irrational. If you’re not on the side of reason, you’re fucked!

Qualia and Consciousness The notion that qualia define consciousness is untenable. These are all the factors required by consciousness: 1) Theory of mind – knowledge that there are other minds, which have thoughts different from your own. 2) Passing the Mirror Test – know that your reflection in the mirror belongs to you and not some other creature. 3) Knowledge of a public language (private languages are impossible, as per Wittgenstein’s arguments). Consciousness is therefore a collective, social phenomenon. A hypothetical human being who grew to adulthood on a desert island would never become conscious. The public language must be able to establish concepts, and have grammar and syntax. 4) The ability to formulate the concept of “I” and identify with “I”; the ability to think a thought such as, “I think therefore I am.” 5) The ability to formulate a continuous waking narrative centred on “I”, and to resume it the following day after awaking from sleep. 6) A comprehensive memory to support the continuous autobiographical narrative (without an excellent memory, a continuous narrative would be impossible). 7) A brain hemisphere that can think in terms of Fourier spacetime functions (thus providing individuation, as per Schopenhauer’s arguments).

8) An ability to empathise and sympathise with others in order to share a meaningful social space and encourage the development of consciousness. None of these requirements have anything to do with qualia, so the notion that qualia determine consciousness is ridiculous. Consciousness is not about mental experiences but about the conceptualisation of mental experiences. Qualia relate to the mental experiences themselves, not to their conceptualisation. All talk of the universe being eternally grounded in some sort of collective cosmic consciousness, or of minds being inherently conscious, is idiotic, ignorant baloney peddled by fools who haven’t even begun to understand the issue. Qualia do not prove the existence of consciousness, but the existence of irreducible mind that cannot be explained in physicalist terms. The default mode of mind is unconsciousness, and consciousness only evolves through group cooperation, through communication involving conceptual language, and through brains configured for spacetime Fourier mathematics. Qualia are about eternal minds capable of having subjective experiences. That’s all. Consciousness allows us to reflect on qualia, but qualia are not what cause us to be conscious. They are a necessary but not sufficient condition. No machine will ever be conscious because no machine will ever be unconscious. All machines are permanently non-conscious, i.e. not concerned with the unconscious and unconsciousness at all. Ultimately, consciousness is a stage reached by self-optimising mathematical minds. Consciousness is what allows us to plan, to control our environment and to decisively accelerate our journey to our individual Omega Point of absolute self-perfection (divinity). All minds commence with unconscious potential and evolve conscious actualisation, culminating with God consciousness. No bare mind could ever be inherently conscious since this would require a conceptual language, something that involves group cooperation and billions of years of dialectical evolution. Those who claim that consciousness is an intrinsic aspect of mind are claiming that every mind comes equipped with a highly sophisticated private language – a total impossibility and absolutely nonsensical. These people are actually animists. They believe that rocks, trees and rivers have conscious minds, conscious thoughts, conscious desires and intentionality.

Hasn’t humanity evolved beyond this type of Stone Age thinking? Tragically, “New Age” thinking seems to involve the rediscovery of the “Old Age” human mentality: the prehistoric mind. Obviously, in the case of our critics, mental evolution has simply never happened. It’s like arguing with primitive savages newly discovered in a lost wilderness.

***** Animism is not the same as panpsychism. The former means that consciousness is ubiquitous, the latter that mind is ubiquitous. Mind and consciousness are not synonymous. The default mode of mind is unconsciousness, and consciousness is something that evolves from it only if certain requirements are met. Animism amounts to anthropomorphism. It’s an attempt to define all mind in terms of human consciousness. Mind must be considered mathematically, not anthropomorphically.

***** Our critic is known to subscribe to a model of reality, involving four distinct levels: 1) the physical (physiosphere), 2) biological (biosphere), 3) mental (noosphere) and 4) the spiritual/transpersonal (theosphere). This is a typical New Age scheme, with no basis in mathematics or science. The most basic question of all is how to reconcile mind and matter – how to resolve the Cartesian problem of mind-matter interaction. Only Fourier mathematics can accomplish this. How does the physiosphere come into existence? How does it give rise to the biosphere? How does this generate the noosphere? What’s the difference between this and the theosphere? Descartes had only two levels of existence to account for (mind and matter), and this was problematic enough. To create, three, four or more levels is simply to multiply and magnify the problems, not to clarify them, or offer any conceivable solution to the mind-body problem. Descartes was a genius because he specified precisely how mind and matter differ. His failure arose from being unable to explain how the two different substances interacted. All explanations of reality must be able to define how mind is different from matter and then how they can interact, given that difference. Only Fourier mathematics can achieve this, via its

two linked domains of frequency (mind) and spacetime (matter). Everything else is nonsense.

The Consciousness Fallacy Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Consciousness is not fundamental, mind is, and the default mode of mind is unconsciousness. Consciousness is the highest expression of the unconscious mind. Consciousness is simply unconsciousness that has become self-reflective. You can’t have consciousness without first having unconscious mind. Planck said, “There is no matter as such – mind is the matrix of all matter.” That’s true, and mind, in its rudimentary state, is unconscious. Along similar lines, George Wald said, “The stuff of the universe is mind stuff.” Right again. The world has to escape from the prevailing scientific materialist notion that the stuff of the universe is material. It definitely isn’t. Two ideas – polar opposites – have dominated human thinking, and both are 100% false. The first is that consciousness is eternal and resides in a superbeing called “God”, who is the source of all consciousness. There is no eternal consciousness. Consciousness evolves from unconsciousness. Jung is correct: the collective unconscious comes first, followed by the personal unconscious and then personal consciousness, and we can imagine an Omega Point where collective consciousness is generated. Max Planck wrote, “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis; for the latter, the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” Anyone who promotes the idea of eternal consciousness is always a fanatical member of the God squad, whether they acknowledge it or not. The second idea is that there is no mind at all in its own right, conscious or unconscious, and all that exists is matter: meaningless, purposeless, accidental, random, and indeterministic, with mind as some sort of phenomenon or epiphenomenon of mind.

You can’t get anywhere if you subscribe to either of these two beliefs (Abrahamism, on the one hand, and scientific materialism on the other). Reality is mathematical. Mathematics underpins both mind and matter, but is much closer to mind than matter. Ontological mathematics gives rise to ontological, noumenal mind, which then generates phenomenal matter.

The Origin of Life? “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. … Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” – George Wald “Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.” – Wikipedia “Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.” – Wikipedia Life has no origin. It’s eternal. It certainly doesn’t arise from non-living matter: a logical impossibility. All that exists are monads composed of sinusoidal waves (frequencies), and each monad is alive. There’s no “spontaneous generation”, no abiogenesis and no supernatural Creator. Life can never come from non-life (and nor can it ever become non-life), and life can never be created (nor can it ever be destroyed). Those are the laws of life.

The Light Dawns Professor George Wald, Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology and originally a staunch atheist, eventually reached the conclusion that any rational person must arrive at: “In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a

scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology. 1) The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science. 2) The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise – some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental – that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life? “It has occurred to me lately – I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities – that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality – that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind stuff. It is Mind that has

composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.” – George Wald Wald is correct. Mind is at the root of all, and mind is mathematics! Wald’s only misstep was to say, “I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.” It’s absurd that people keep imagining consciousness to be some ingrained feature of existence. It’s not. Unconsciousness is what permeates the universe. Many conditions must be met before unconsciousness is converted into consciousness. No one could seriously argue that a tapeworm is conscious, and no one could seriously argue that a tapeworm is a Cartesian machine without any qualia, without any mental experiences. Having a mental experience is the prerequisite for consciousness, but being conscious is not a prerequisite for having a mental experience. Human babies aren’t conscious, but have no end of mental experiences. Consciousness is a learned, social phenomenon. A human being who never mixed with anyone else would never become conscious. To use Aristotelian language, the unconscious is the “matter” for consciousness, which is the “form” of the unconscious. The unconscious is potential consciousness, while consciousness is actualised unconsciousness.

The Mind of God What is “God”? He is conceived as perfect, eternal, indestructible, infallible reason. What is ontological mathematics? It’s perfect, eternal, indestructible, infallible reason. “God” is a perfectly rational concept, providing God is not conceived as a person, but as a living, mental, unconscious, mathematical system. To understand the Mind of God is to understand the laws of mathematical reason, nothing else. God is not “morally” perfect; “he” is rationally perfect. “He” is mathematics! We can conceive of “God” in the following terms: God is perfect mathematical symmetry. Perfect mathematical symmetry means that all monads (mathematical minds) are in perfect sinusoidal alignment. They are fully interconnected and interdependent. They are a perfect, integrated

whole and unity. Yet this divine symmetry is the most fragile thing of all. Any movement at all destroys it. What happens when symmetry is broken? All the monads become individuals. They are separated from “God”. They are alienated from the divine. Antisymmetry and asymmetry rule. All of the monads are thenceforth driven by a relentless will to solve themselves, to optimise themselves. When is this achieved? When they regain their original, divine symmetry, when they have collectively come together once again to produce “God”. Reality is entirely driven by mathematical symmetry operations. The universe is continuously trying to attain perfect mathematical symmetry, but this is a state that, while achievable, can never be maintained. There is no such thing as perfect symmetry as eternal “being”. The universe is all about becoming. What is it trying to become? It wants to become symmetrically perfect, but as soon as it does so, the symmetry is lost (which can be equated to “divine suicide” when God kills himself, albeit he has no choice in the matter), and starts again. The universe cycles forever between perfect symmetry, broken symmetry, and perfect symmetry again. It’s all in the math! The universe is nothing but a gigantic mathematical organism driven by symmetry. “God” is perfect symmetry, and his “Creation” is imperfect symmetry, which has an inbuilt craving to become God by achieving perfect symmetry. Creation and God are united at the Omega Point of perfect mathematical symmetry.

***** “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” – Einstein Well, you should have been an Illuminist! “The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior

Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” – Einstein Deep down, Einstein was an irrational mystic. “Religion represents a bond of man to God. It consists in reverent awe before a supernatural Might [Macht], to which human life is subordinated and which has in its power our welfare and misery. To remain in permanent contact with this Might and keep it all the time inclined to oneself, is the unending effort and the highest goal of the believing man. Because only in such a way can one feel himself safe before expected and unexpected dangers, which threaten one in his life, and can take part in the highest happiness – inner psychical peace – which can be attained only by means of strong bond to God and unconditional trust to His omnipotence and willingness to help.” – Max Planck And Planck was an irrational mystic too! In fact, most scientists are. “It pains me as much as it did Kelvin ‘to hear crudely atheistic views expressed by men who have never known the deeper side of existence.’ Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it. I think you will not misunderstand me, then, when I say that I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” – Robert Millikan, Nobel laureate in Physics The atheist is a philistine, the mystic a nutcase.

***** “...for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence.” – Arthur Compton, Nobel laureate in Physics Does the universe appear planned or random, accidental and indeterministic, as modern science claims? This is a mathematical universe, a universe of pure reason and symmetry.

God Consciousness “God” is not eternal consciousness. God is made of countless unconscious mathematical minds (monads), each of which is capable of evolving consciousness. Each monad is a cell of God.

The Big Bang is when perfect symmetry (“God symmetry”) is broken. From then on, the monads are driven by an irresistible, relentless, objective, mathematical “force” to re-establish God symmetry. This is achieved at the end of a cosmic cycle (the Omega Point) via a Big Crunch, which then leads to a new Big Bang, a new Big Crunch, and so on forever. Subjectively, increasing symmetry means increasing consciousness and rationality. In human terms, it means a more ordered, rational, cooperative, just, fair, lawful, altruistic society, with everyone working for the common good. It means that the General Will of the collective is expressed rather than the particular wills of individuals. Rousseau defined the General Will in the following terms: “It follows from what has gone before that the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad. “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another [Note 1], and the general will remains as the sum of the differences. “If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good. But when factions arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of the great association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members, while it remains particular in relation to the State: it may then be said that there are no longer as many votes as there are men, but only as many as there are associations. The differences become less numerous and give a less general result. Lastly, when one of these associations is so great as to prevail over all the rest, the result is no longer a sum of small differences, but a single difference; in this case there is no longer a general will, and the opinion which prevails is purely particular.

“It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts [Note 2]: which was indeed the sublime and unique system established by the great Lycurgus. But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from being unequal, as was done by Solon, Numa and Servius. These precautions are the only ones that can guarantee that the general will shall be always enlightened, and that the people shall in no way deceive itself.” “Note 1. ‘Every interest,’ says the Marquis d’Argenson, ‘has different principles. The agreement of two particular interests is formed by opposition to a third.’ He might have added that the agreement of all interests is formed by opposition to that of each. If there were no different interests, the common interest would be barely felt, as it would encounter no obstacle; all would go on of its own accord, and politics would cease to be an art. “Note 2. ‘In fact,’ says Machiavelli, ‘there are some divisions that are harmful to a Republic and some that are advantageous. Those which stir up sects and parties are harmful; those attended by neither are advantageous. Since, then, the founder of a Republic cannot help enmities arising, he ought at least to prevent them from growing into sects.’” (History of Florence, Book vii). The statement that “the agreement of all interests is formed by opposition to that of each” is a statement about symmetry. It amounts to the Golden Rule of Morality: “Do as you would be done by; do unto your neighbour as you would have him do unto you; love thy neighbour as thyself.” The General Will is all about symmetry, while the particular wills that oppose the General Will are all about asymmetry and antisymmetry. Where the General Will reflects the Golden Rule, the particular wills reflect the Base Metal Rule: “Fuck you! Look after No. 1. I’m all right, Jack. It’s all about me. Screw everyone else.”

The Dialectic and Symmetry What is the Hegelian dialectic? What is the iterative dialectical process? ... (thesis ↔ antithesis) → synthesis (= new thesis), and repeat until the final synthesis = Omega Point = Perfect Symmetry = God.

The thesis is a provisional symmetry position (exemplified in human terms by the Golden Rule, equal rights, communism, altruism, and so on), while the antithesis is a provisional asymmetry and antisymmetry position (exemplified by the Base Metal Rule, inequality, free-market capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism, selfishness, anti-Society, anti-Government, privilege, nepotism, cronyism, racism, sexism, nationalism, patriotism, religious extremism). Scientific materialism belongs to the antithesis, and ontological mathematics to the thesis. The individual belongs to the antithesis and the Collective to the thesis. Selfishness belongs to the antithesis and altruism to the thesis. The Selfish Gene belongs to the antithesis, and the Cooperative Gene to the thesis. The particular will belongs to the antithesis, and the General Will to the thesis. Right wing beliefs about the family and a partisan God belong to the antithesis, and left wing beliefs about community and humanity belong to the thesis. The “Chosen People” (Jews) and the Master Race (Nazis) belong to the antithesis (they’re as bad as each other!), and the People to the thesis. Wall Street belongs to the antithesis and Main Street to the thesis. The Omega Point of the Hegelian Dialectic is the production of perfect cosmic symmetry (“God”).

Matter, Form and the Dialectic Using Aristotelian terminology, each lower stage of the dialectic acts as the “matter” for each higher stage (the “form”). The dialectic proceeds from absolute potential (pure matter: formless matter – a chaotic plasma) to absolute actualisation (pure form) = the Aristotelian God (matterless form). The dialectic begins at the Alpha Point (Big Bang) and concludes at the Omega Point (Big Crunch). Each complete dialectical cycle corresponds to a cyclical Age of the universe.

God and Man We are all part of God. God is mirrored in all of us. We are divine to the extent that we reflect reason, community, equality, the collective, altruism, cooperation, convergence and symmetry. We are Satanic to the extent that we are irrational, people of faith, supporters of inequality and division,

individualistic, uncooperative and selfish, overly family-oriented, divergent, asymmetric and antisymmetric. All right-wingers are Satanic and all left-wingers Godly. What of meritocracy? Meritocracy is about equal opportunities but not equal outcomes. Meritocracy endorses competition. Yet the Omega Point of meritocracy is communism – a communism of equal Gods! Meritocracy asserts that some people are much more advanced than others and only by giving them power will they accelerate the processes that bring everyone else up to their standards. They must be ruthless and of an audacious morality. As Rousseau put it, “In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.” Meritocracy cannot endure those who oppose the Social Contract. They must be forced to be free, or expelled from Society. There can be no place for right-wingers in an advanced Society that’s committed to achieving perfect symmetry = Divinity. Right-wing ideology is the supreme antithesis that must be overcome if we are to have a divine society and heaven on earth. Ultra right-winger Margaret Thatcher declared, “There is no such thing as society”, while the equally fanatical right-winger Ayn Rand pronounced, “Selfishness is virtuous.” Such people have no contribution to make to a humanity’s divine progress. They are the obstacles in the path of the Coming Race of Gods. They must be eradicated like cockroaches, rats, and all other vermin. The dialectic demands it, and it’s inevitable. There will be a final Battle of Armageddon between the right and left wings. That is guaranteed.

***** “Since there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that ‘the public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights

of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.” – Ayn Rand Thatcher and Rand were more or less the same person. Both hated society and the people (collective symmetry), being obsessed with the antisymmetric individual and the asymmetric market. Rand’s objection to “the public interest” superseding private interests is revealed as absurd, and self-contradictory, as soon as one turns it around: who on earth would argue that the private interest should supersede the public interest, that the interests and rights of some individuals – the rich elite – should take precedence over the interests and rights of the people? Yet, guess what? That’s exactly the world we live in – a right-wing Randian world, dominated by super rich, privileged elites who oppose the General Will and are enemies of the People. Rand insists that the public interest is an illusion, hence she argues on behalf of private interests. But, even if you granted her thesis that’s there’s no public interest, why should the private interests of a tiny, elite minority be privileged over those of the majority? Why should the majority tolerate being saves of a minority? “The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right to not agree, not to listen, and not to finance one’s own antagonists.” – Ayn Rand And exactly the same is true for public individuals! Why should they be complicit in their own subjugation and humiliation? Why should they bail out the rich and allow the rich to avoid and evade taxes? Why should they allow the rich to control the media and the message?

***** Everyone who argues on behalf of private interests in preference to the public interest, on behalf of selfishness and “selfish gene” theories, is, not to put too fine a point on it, evil. Evil can be defined very simply as resistance and opposition to the General Will, the Public Good, the Whole, and Symmetry.

The Supreme Monad

Leibniz, in his published Monadology, presents God as the Supreme Monad. In his secret writings, he makes “God” the Monad of monads, i.e. God is an immaterial, dimensionless point, composed of myriad individual monads. He is not an individual monad but the collection of all monads.

Creation or Evolution? Abrahamism and scientific materialism are both creationist. Abrahamism says that God created the universe out of nothing, and scientific materialism says that the universe was created out of a random fluctuation in nothing. Both of these claims are absurd and impossible. You can never get something out of absolutely nothing. That is an indisputable principle of existence. It’s none other than the First Law of Thermodynamics regarding the conservation of energy. Ontological mathematics asserts that the universe makes itself out of itself as part of an evolutionary rather than creationist process. Dimensionless existence – the immaterial frequency Singularity – generates dimensional existence (the material, spacetime domain). The universe then evolves from maximum potential to maximum actualisation (lowest symmetry to highest symmetry). Eastern religion (Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism) is like Illuminism in spirit, but not in detail. Eastern religion is catastrophically illiterate mathematically. It describes its central concepts using mystical intuition and Mythos rather than ontological mathematics and Logos.

The Conservation of Energy In Illuminism, all energy exists as actuality forever. Nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted. This is the true meaning of the conservation of energy. In science, all energy does not exist as actuality forever. Rather, energy exists as unreal potentiality of the quantum vacuum, and can be summoned into existence (into actuality) via inflation-type processes cited in Big Bang theory. These are “free lunch” scenarios, whereby “material” energy is exactly cancelled by “gravity” energy, meaning, according to science, that energy has been conserved (at zero). Where Illuminism is about real, analytic energy, science is about virtual, undefined energy becoming actual in certain, peculiar situations, triggered by inexplicable randomness. So, non-existence in science definitely isn’t.

Rather, non-existence (nothing) inexplicably sustains the capacity to generate random events, and it also inexplicably sustains the capacity to turn potential (virtual) energy into actual (real) energy. Energy is most certainly not defined within science. It’s impossible to define energy ontologically in science. It’s also impossible to assert that science is consistent with the law of the Conservation of Energy, given that this can logically apply only to definable, eternal, real energy, and not to “ad hoc” energy that gets made on the fly by scientific processes. In fact, it’s impossible for science, as currently conceived, to obey any logical laws at all since it suffers from an absolute, catastrophic lack of ontological definition and clarity.

Consciousness and the Unconscious One of our critics says that there are four ways in which the universe can originate: 1) Via simple forms of matter. 2) Via simple forms of consciousness. 3) Via a highest form of consciousness; 4) Via simple forms of matter and simple forms of consciousness. All four of these propositions are false and ridiculous. The world in no way originates materially or in terms of consciousness, or in any combination of these. The world originates in an immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. It is not conscious, although it can certainly evolve consciousness, consciousness being the highest actualization of mind. It’s extraordinary that a hack philosopher can propose four wholly wrong explanations for the origin of the universe and expect to be taken seriously. It never occurs to this person to contemplate a solution that does not reflect materialism or consciousness, or some combination of these. Why not immaterialism or unconsciousness, or some combination of these? Why not a tertium quid (“third thing”) – a neutral monism, such as ontological mathematics? It’s staggering when pseudo philosophers pontificate on the nature of reality. Our critic states, “...consciousness seems so completely different

from matter that no viable theory of how matter could support consciousness has yet been proposed.” Ontological mathematics explains exactly how the reverse is true: matter is a product of mind! No form of consciousness, either “lower” or “higher”, has always existed, hence no form of consciousness created the material world. Anyone who makes such a claim doesn’t have the vaguest idea what consciousness is. Our critic says that panpsychism asserts that all forms of material existence are to some extent conscious. Panpsychism says no such thing. It’s ancient animism that makes such a claim. Panpsychism says that mind is in all, that mind is found everywhere. It makes no claim that mind must be conscious. Leibniz is often defined as a panpsychic philosopher and yet he completely rejected the Cartesian position that all minds are conscious and animals are mindless automata. For Leibniz, the mind’s default mode is unconsciousness. Similarly, Schopenhauer is classed as a panpsychic philosopher and he explicitly rejected the notion of consciousness being at the centre of things. Both Leibniz and Schopenhauer played pivotal roles in the development of the concept of the unconscious mind. It shows spectacular ignorance of the concept of panpsychism to link it necessarily to consciousness. It has been claimed by mainstream religion and New Age gurus that life and consciousness must have preceded the physical universe. Again, this privileges consciousness over the unconscious. These people are making a claim that the unconscious mind doesn’t exist at all and that all mind is inherently conscious – an absurd contention that flies in the face of Freud, Jung and most of modern psychology, and is a tacit defence of Creationism, with its eternally conscious God from which all things come. Consciousness is the highest mode of the unconscious mind and evolves from the unconscious mind. The unconscious is not the lowest form of mind that devolves from consciousness. Many philosophers, and especially pseudo-philosophers, have as little idea of what they are talking about as scientists, and indeed many pseudophilosophers have scientific backgrounds.

*****

Many pseudo-philosophers confuse animism and panpsychism. Animism attributes conscious life, conscious spirit, to everything, animate and inanimate. Panpsychism attributes mind, but not consciousness, to everything. A panpsychic universe might have zero consciousness. For example, the universe immediately after the Big Bang had ubiquitous mind, but zero consciousness. In animism, the Big Bang itself would have a spirit – a World Soul – consciously driving it. In panpsychism, we begin with an unconscious mental universe, and it becomes increasingly conscious via evolution. In animism, everything is always conscious. They are radically different positions.

***** “Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality. The word itself was coined by the Italian philosopher Francesco Patrizi in the sixteenth century, and derives from the two Greek words pan (all) and psyche (soul or mind). ... Panpsychist theories generally attempt to encompass both the material realm and the mental realm in a single comprehensive framework, in a way that fundamentally connects the two. These realms are central to many aspects of philosophy, but panpsychism lies at a unique intersection of the two, wherein mind is seen as fundamental to the nature of existence and being. It is at once an ontology and a theory of mind. ...panpsychism needs to be distinguished from some closely related concepts: animism, hylozoism, pantheism, panentheism, and panexperientialism: “Animism, as commonly understood, is the view that all things possess a fully-developed, intelligent, and complex conscious-like spirit. It is a concept arising more from mythology than philosophy, and few panpsychists actually attribute human-like (or god-like) consciousness to all objects. “Hylozoism is the theory that everything is alive. This concept originated in ancient philosophy when the notion of life was less well understood, and hence easily conflated with ideas of spirit and mind. Thus when past writers argue that ‘everything is alive’ we are justified in interpreting this in a panpsychist light. The term has been used sporadically even through the early twentieth century, but based on our current understanding of living organisms, it is less useful or appropriate today.

“Pantheism identifies everything, collectively, with God, as a single unified being. For the pantheist, the universe itself is God. In general this says nothing about individual things, nor about the nature of mind, and hence has no direct bearing on panpsychism (though some panpsychists do equate God with the cosmos, and hence are pantheists as well – Spinoza being the prime example). “Panentheism is the view that God penetrates, or is in, everything. Again, this typically assumes a single unified God, whose omnipresence is taken as the spirit in all things. Such a view is actually close to the standard Christian position, where the Holy Spirit dwells everywhere. But because it offers a notion of spirit as a part of a unified God, and not as spirit of the thing itself, it is not a true form of panpsychism. “Finally, panexperientialism is a term that was invented by process philosopher David Ray Griffin in the 1970’s. It holds that everything experiences, or is capable of experiencing. “Of the above terms, only panexperientialism deserves to be considered as true panpsychism; the others are either archaic or largely irrelevant. ... Finally, it is clearly debatable what one means by ‘mind.’ Panpsychists have employed a variety of descriptive terms to articulate the mental quality that all things share: sentience, experience, feeling, inner life, subjectivity, qualia, will, perception. In the vast majority of cases such terms are used in a very broad sense, and are not defined in a specifically human sense. In fact, panpsychists deliberately avoid terms that are too closely identified with uniquely human mental characteristics, such as consciousness (or selfconsciousness), cognition, thought, belief, and the like. The usual intention is that only mind in the broadest sense is applicable to all things.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/ Many pseudo-philosophers belong to the New Age school of mystical gurus such as Ken Wilber and subscribe to variations on pantheistic panpsychism, animistic panpsychism, hylozoistic panpsychism and panentheistic panpsychism, i.e. all the archaic, anti-scientific, anti-mathematical, antiLogos, mythological, Mythos, mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus versions of panpsychism that lend themselves to psychobabble, charlatanry, obfuscation, mysticism, faith and irrational gibberish, of the sort that most of our critics deploy in abundance. Virtually all of what they say has zero truth content and can be dismissed more or less in its entirety.

Any view that makes consciousness an integral, eternal feature of existence is absurd and laughable. Was the Big Bang a conscious event? Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics conscious? New Agers seem to suffer from a crippling horror of a universe not under inherently conscious control. They fear evolution: the evolution of the unconscious mind into consciousness. It’s not consciousness that anchors reality, it’s mathematics. It’s not consciousness that brings intelligence and design into reality, it’s mathematics. An unconscious mathematical universe can generate all of the prerequisites for the birth of consciousness.

Thought What is a thought? Is it material? Is it generated by thoughtless atoms? How? All physicalists take it for granted that this is true and yet not one of them has ever explained how it’s possible. Not one has ever defined a thought. Well, here’s the Illuminist definition. A “thought”, in its most basic form, is a flow of eternal, structured information. To be absolutely precise, a “thought” is the flow of an analytic sinusoidal wave: a perfect mathematical sine or cosine wave. Such a wave can be treated in two different ways: inside and outside, the within and the without, the internal and external, the subjective and objective, the experience (interpretation) and the “fact”. A sinusoidal wave viewed externally is like a wave pattern on an oscilloscope. However, it also has an interior, subjective nature completely inaccessible to experiment, instruments and observation. The wave is experienced. It’s experienced by the monadic mathematical mind to which it belongs. There’s an enormous difference between quantus (“how much”) and qualis (“of what kind”), or “what is it?” and “how is it?” A sinusoidal wave reflects both. It’s made up of both sides of the coin, just as music is. We can observe a song on a spectrum analyzer and oscilloscope, but we also experience it and be internally moved by it. Everything comes down in the end to sinusoidal waves. They are the basis of mind and matter. Matter is their external, phenomenal aspect and mind is their internal, noumenal aspect. Matter is the objective outside and

mind the subjective inside. Matter can be observed and experimented upon. Mind cannot. It is, however, experienced, which matter is not. All sensory data is mental, not physical. Sensory data is objectively collected from matter, but subjectively experienced by mind. Without subjective mental experience, we would have no idea that matter was even there. Science – physicalism – has totally rejected subjectivity: the inside, the interior, the within, the experience, the mind. An analogy for a basic sinusoidal wave is a note of a piano. A note is music in its most basic form, but music isn’t interesting until you combine many notes in elaborate ways. Similarly, thinking isn’t interesting until many basic thoughts are put together in elaborate ways. These are experienced in more and more elaborate ways, culminating in being experienced consciously and eventually hyper consciously (God consciousness, or so-called cosmic consciousness). In point of fact, “matter” is collective monadic thinking while mind is individual monadic thinking. Individual monadic thinking is always subjective and dimensionless, while collective monadic thinking is always objective and dimensional. It’s the interaction of monadic sinusoidal waves that creates objectivity, dimensionality (spacetime) and matter. We can experience our own minds immediately and directly; we experience the collection of other minds via the mental, subjective interpretation of sensory data. Physicalism provides only one side of the ontological coin, hence is radically incomplete, hence false. Any explanation of reality must be based on the outside and inside, the objective and subjective. A sinusoidal wave has an inside (where it’s subjectively experienced) and an outside (its objective mathematical form). Scientific materialism considers only the outside, hence has never understood mind. Imagine a cosmic iPod, full of every available tune or even every thought. You can pay attention to only one at a time. Which one you choose reflects who you are. Over a lifetime, everyone picks a unique selection of songs or thoughts. No two lives are the same. No two monads are subjectively identical. They all have their own unique nature.

*****

Individual thoughts are individual wavefunctions and manifest dimensionlessly. Collective thoughts are collective wavefunctions and manifest dimensionally – as subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. These are not material things; they are collective thoughts.

Chess Every chess game starts the same way, and every long game develops entirely differently. In any game of chess, it’s not about your moves: it’s about the interaction of your moves with those of your opponent. His moves change your moves, and yours his. We are all involved in a vast, cosmic monadic chess game, where what we do is entirely dependent on what all the others are doing. No man is an island.

Sentience and Consciousness Animals are sentient – “capable of feeling”. They can feel pain, for example. What they can’t do is reflect on it and conceptualise it. Thanks to animism – the primitive notion that everything is conscious (the ancients didn’t have a concept of the unconscious mind) – philosophy has always struggled to distinguish between sentience and consciousness. Being sentient does not make you conscious, unless consciousness is defined as sentience, in which case human consciousness would have to be re-defined as self-consciousness (consciousness that can reflect on itself), in order to distinguish it from mere animal consciousness. In relation to sentience and consciousness, Wikipedia says: “Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as ‘qualia’). The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights. “In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, ‘qualia’. This is distinct from other aspects of

the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, selfawareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts ‘about’ something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind. [MH: To say that sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness is to say that consciousness is simply about having a subjective experience when, of course, consciousness must be about knowing you are having the subjective experience, in order for it to be meaningful. A human baby is sentient but it would be absurd to call a baby conscious: it has no conception of what is happening to it, no memory of it, and never reflects on it.] “Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as ‘new mysterianism’. [MH: This is to claim that the universe is fundamentally irrational, hence has no rational answer. If existence is rational, which it is, then consciousness is rational and can be rationally explained.] They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can’t be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science. [MH: Science will never explain consciousness and qualia – but Illuminism already has!] “Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. [MH: If animals are sentient but unconscious then qualia belong to the unconscious mind; if animals are sentient and conscious then consciousness, in animals, is indistinguishable from unconsciousness, which is a contradiction in terms. If plants have qualia, are we to call them conscious? – this is the resurrection of animism.] ... “In the philosophies of animal welfare and rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-welfare advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled, at a minimum, to protection from unnecessary suffering, though animal-rights advocates may differ on what rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the centre of moral concern.

“The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals: “‘The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV’s Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?’[MH: Ratiocentrism describes the theory that rational, not feeling, individuals are the centre of moral concern: consciousness belongs to reason, not to sentience, and the conscious, and those that will become conscious (i.e. human babies) must have superior rights to the merely sentient. Reason is a quality of the conscious mind; sentience is a quality of the unconscious mind, which is then rationalised by consciousness.] ... “Consciousness is the quality or state of self-awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is. As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: ‘Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives.’ [MH: This is effectively saying that sentience = consciousness, but this is to make a claim that the unconscious mind has no awareness, yet plainly it does. Why do we look up when someone is staring at us when we have no conscious knowledge of what they are doing? It’s because our unconsciousness is aware of it, and then prompts our consciousness to become aware of it too. So, “awareness” belongs as much to unconsciousness as consciousness, hence cannot be used to define consciousness. “Self-awareness” can, however, be used. The unconscious mind is aware of things but is not aware

that it is aware. Consciousness is all about being aware that you are aware, knowing that you are having a feeling rather than simply having the feeling.] “Unlike self-awareness, which in a philosophical context is being conscious of oneself as an individual, self-consciousness, being excessively conscious of one’s appearance or manner, can be a problem at times. [MH: If we were to define animals as conscious, we would have to reserve ‘selfconsciousness’ for the radically different type of consciousness exhibited by humanity.” – Wikipedia Sentience is about feelings and qualia. Sentience belongs to the unconscious mind. Consciousness is about self-reflective reason. The unconscious can manifest reason too, but not self-reflectively. To be conscious in any meaningful sense, it’s essential to be an “I”. An animal can do all sorts of things, but it’s not conscious because it does not know it’s doing them. It doesn’t say to itself, “Now I’m doing this, now I’m doing that, now I’m doing the other. I wonder what else I could do.” It simply does this, that and the other instinctively, and it never wonders about the future. All animals inhabit the present moment only. They make no long-term plans. One of the central features of consciousness is imagining the future, and, especially, better futures. That has nothing at all to do with sentience.

The Mind Jung’s personality typology provides a valuable way of thinking about the mind. In this regard, Jung posits six mental qualities: extraversion, introversion, sensing and intuition, feeling and thinking. 1) Extraversion: the mind is directed outwards. 2) Introversion: the mind is directed inwards. 3) Sensing: the mind operates locally (in the Fourier spacetime domain). 4) Intuition: the mind operates non-locally (in the Fourier frequency domain). 5) Feeling: the mind registers pleasure and pain. 6) Thinking: the mind exhibits reason and logic.

People seem to think that qualia are a big deal. Why don’t they think that it’s much more astounding that humans can reason? Moreover, usually reason badly! How can scientific materialists account for failed reasoning? Imagine atoms failing in some way. Imagine the laws of science failing. It’s inconceivable. There wouldn’t be any laws of science if they were capable of failing. All laws – in order to be laws – must be perfect, without any possibility of a flaw. How can reason go wrong, how can it fail, if it’s somehow grounded in the infallible laws of science? How do atoms that can’t commit mistakes conspire to form brains that make mistake after mistake?

***** Extraversion and sensing belong to the left hemisphere of the brain, and introversion and intuition to the right hemisphere of the brain. Thinking is left-brained when linked to sensing (and “thinking sensing” is the basis of science), and right-brained when linked to intuition (and “thinking intuition” is the basis of mathematics and metaphysics). Feeling is leftbrained when linked to sensing (and “feeling sensing” is the basis of Abrahamism), and right-brained when linked to intuition (and “feeling intuition” is the basis of Eastern religion and New Age mysticism). As for thinking and feeling, they are of course opposites in Jung’s scheme, just as sensing and intuition are, and extraversion and introversion. Extraversion, sensing and thinking are the basis of the empiricist, materialist, scientific worldview. Introversion, intuition and thinking are the basis of the rationalist, idealist, mathematical-metaphysical worldview. Feelings and mystical intuitions are the basis of the religious and New Age worldview. Sensing, feeling, and intuition belong to the domain of sentience and qualia. It’s thinking (reasoning) that can escape from this domain and generate consciousness (self-awareness). It’s thinking that provides the conceptual framework in which we can think about what we are doing rather than merely doing it (as animals do). The central concept that thinking produces which defines consciousness is “I”. Descartes’ famous “I think therefore I am” is not the archetypal statement of existence, but it is the archetypal statement of consciousness. Only a conscious being could

make such a statement. Unconscious animals subscribe to, “I don’t consciously think, and I don’t know I am.”

Thinking, Mythos and Logos Thinking is pulled in several ways by the other mental elements with which it is associated, and these conflicts are what cause reason to fail so often. We can divide thinking into Logos and Mythos categories. When thinking is associated with Logos, it divides into two: 1) thinking sensing, giving rise to science, and 2) thinking intuition, giving rise to mathematics and metaphysics. When thinking is pressed into the service of its opposite – feelings – it produces Mythos, rather than Logos, thinking. Mythos and pathos (feelings) go hand in hand. Mythos produces “story logic”, which is not logic at all. The “logic” of a novel has nothing in common with the logic of mathematics. The latter is about getting the right answer, while the former is about maximising the emotional effect. Abrahamic religion is entirely driven by Mythos. The Torah, Bible and Koran are emotionally satisfying or emotionally effective stories. They don’t tell you a single true thing about reality. They have no connection with Logos. Abrahamism frequently denounces reason and says it must be wrong if it contradicts faith and revelation. Hinduism is less Mythos-oriented than Abrahamism, but, nevertheless, is happy to invoke great, epic stories such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Buddhism and Taoism are the least Mythos-oriented religions, which is why they often attract agnostics and atheists. Ontological mathematics has no Mythos components whatsoever, but when placed under the umbrella of “Illuminism”, Mythos elements are added to make it less daunting and formidable. Thinking fails when it comes under the pressure of the false: the pressure of faith, feelings, revelation, sensing, Mythos, social consensus, social pressure, career pressure, convention, orthodoxy, religion, expectation, empiricism, materialism, the family.

Primary and Secondary Qualities “A distinction made first by Democritus, revived by Galileo, accepted by Descartes and Newton, and finding its classical formulation in Locke’s

Essay. Primary qualities are those which things do actually have, secondary qualities are only powers to produce experiences in us. Locke lists as primary ‘solidity, extension, figure [that is, shape], motion or rest, and number’, while sounds, tastes, colours and smells are all secondary. This division corresponds well with those between measurable and nonmeasurable characteristics, and between those of which classical mechanics could and could not take account. Berkeley argued that all sensible qualities, not only those which his predecessors had relegated as secondary, must be equally in the mind. Hume took Newton’s Lockean account of colour as a model, arguing that both values and the necessities of causes are in similar ways projections of our own reactions out on to a world which is itself value-free and without causal connections.” – Pan Dictionary of Philosophy Locke argues that solidity, extension, shape and speed (the measurable stuff of mechanics) are all “primary” qualities; these, he says, genuinely exist in the objects. He then makes an extraordinary claim that objects also contain “powers”, and these mysterious powers are what produce sensory experiences (ideas) in us. These ideas do not resemble their causes, i.e. the “powers” that produce the experiences are nothing like the experiences themselves. This has to be one of the most obscure arguments ever advanced in philosophy, and highlights the staggering difficulties of empiricism, the stance of which Locke was a champion (and which attracted the ire of the great rationalist Leibniz). As the idealist Bishop Berkeley immediately realised, why aren’t the primary qualities of objects also “powers”, i.e. they too have no real existence but are merely mysterious qualities that create experiences (ideas) in our minds. In other words, what need is there at all for actual material objects? All we need are the “powers” and why shouldn’t these be mental rather than physical? Aren’t they much more likely to be mental rather than material since we have zero evidence that the material world actually exists? All we know is our mental idea of the world. No empiricist or scientific materialist has ever answered this argument. Quite simply, who needs matter? It’s a redundant concept. All you need are mental “powers” that generate the experience of matter. Matter in itself is an unnecessary, extraneous concept. We only ever have an idea of matter. We never encounter matter any way other than mentally, so how can anyone possibly claim that it exists

independently of mind, and, indeed, makes mind (as scientists ridiculously claim)?

***** Regarding colour, William Ayliffe, Gresham Professor of Physic at Gresham College, said, “In fact, colour doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s an imaginative construct by our brains. Colour is the differential reflection of lights at different wavelengths from surfaces, and we evolved receptors that maximally pick up these vibrations at different wavelengths. We compare them and that comparison allows our brain to generate a colour.” Think of how extraordinary that statement is: colour doesn’t exist in the real world. Evidently, colour does exist somewhere, so where? Is colour part of the materialist paradigm? How can it be if it doesn’t exist in the material world? But how can it be outside the materialist paradigm if matter is all there is? Here’s the problem in a nutshell. Does colour belong to matter, or to the minds that perceive colour in matter, or to the interaction between perceiving minds and perceived matter? But if minds are just matter, as materialists claim, how is colour perception possible at all if it’s not a real material thing? A fully colour-blind person cannot perceive that the sky is blue. “Blue” means nothing to such a person, and could never even be meaningfully described to such a person. Blue, therefore, can’t be in the sky as an objective property available to all observers. Given that people with faulty colour-perception genes can’t see “blue”, is that colour therefore a property of fully functioning genes? But how can genes, which are made of matter, add colour to matter if it’s not already in the matter? How can material genes invent the immaterial property of colour perception? So, if the colour isn’t in the genes then it must be in the mind to which the genes give rise. Then we are faced with exactly the same problem. If mind is matter, how can mind add colour to matter if colour isn’t in matter? Colour perception is more or less the proof that mind exists independently of matter, hence that materialism is false. No materialist has ever explained colour. Indeed, the same thing goes for all sensory perceptions.

The old philosophical question asks, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” This is an astonishingly profound question. We could equally ask: is the sky blue if there’s no one to see it, or if everyone who looks at it is colour blind? Does the “material” world have any sensory qualities without observers? Does it have any colour, does it make any sound, does it have any taste, or smell? Does it produce any touch sensations? If you think hard enough about it, you will finally grasp that the “material” world doesn’t exist at all without observers. It has no sensory properties whatsoever. It’s nothing but noumenal mathematics, and that’s a mental state, not physical. The Big Bang wasn’t a physical, sensory event in any way. It was pure math, and nothing else. There were no observers to perceive it, so it had no sensory qualities. Those are added by perceivers. These qualities do not belong to the world itself. The world itself is pure math, with no sensory qualities. Math World is noumenal. When subjective, perceiving minds experience it, they add sensory experiences to it. They make it phenomenal. They interpret noumenal math in a sensory way, dictated by evolutionary pressures. They represent it. It’s no longer as it is in itself. It’s now masked. It now appears to be something else. Ingredients have been added to it, and these can come from only one place: from the perceiving minds, from the observers. When a tree falls in the forest, it produces a non-sensory, noumenal, mathematical signal (a pressure wave). This will remain a noumenon unless an observer is there, in which case the phenomenon of sound will be experienced by the observer. The observer adds the sound by interpreting the noumenal mathematical signal in a phenomenal way. Without this interpretation, there is no sound, just noumenal mathematics. Subjective minds project an appearance onto an objective mathematical world that has no appearance. The noumenal mathematical world consists of nothing but immaterial, dimensionless frequencies. The phenomenal world arises from subjecting this frequency domain to an inverse Fourier transform, which produces the mathematical illusion of a material, dimensional world, and it’s to this that subjective sensory experiences are then added. David Hume believed that even causality was something projected onto the world, and that real causes did not exist in the actual world. Kant, an

idealist rather than materialist, then argued that causality did exist in the phenomenal world precisely because that world was a mental construct and our minds put causality there. Causality, he said, was an indispensable component of the phenomenal world, a precondition of our mental understanding of the world. In ontological mathematics, causality is built into the world precisely because the world is mathematical and obeys causal mathematical laws. In modern science, causality is once again removed and replaced by randomness and indeterminacy. Science has never engaged with the philosophical issue of causality. It has not commented on Hume or Kant’s stances on causality, and it has never considered that reality is an expression of noumenal, causal mathematics. In the end, science simply got rid of causality as a non-empirical unobservable. The supreme irony is that randomness is equally nonempirical and unobservable, hence just as invalid within the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Moreover, if noumenal causality is dispensed with, it becomes impossible to explain where phenomenal causality comes from, i.e. why does the world appear to operate causally if there are only random forces in the world? How does order come from randomness? How do scientific laws come from randomness? How does determinism come from indeterminacy? How do order, organisation, pattern, determinism and causality appear from a random world of indeterminacy? Science, as ever, simply ignores these problems. Science refuses to explain itself. Science, not to put too fine a point on it, has become totally irrational and incoherent. It makes impossible claims and denies any need to defend them. Science hopes that people are too stupid to see through its absurd claims. Fortunately, there are still enough rationalists in the world to expose the great science fraud.

The Fake Science is a fake science. It produces false knowledge, illusory knowledge, the knowledge of the phenomenal, not the noumenal.

The Four Ontologies There are only four ways in which eternal existence is possible: 1) An eternal, conscious being (“God”) creates everything out of nothing and designs everything. This is the Abrahamic position. 2) An eternal, unconscious, divine force creates everything out of itself and designs everything. This is the position of Eastern religion. 3) An eternal force of randomness creates everything out of nothing, and designs everything. This is the position of science. (Alternatively, science says, incoherently, that an eternal, deterministic, unreal, abstract mathematical cosmic wavefunction “exists”, which defines all possibilities, and which randomly “collapses” to produce the observed things of the world, which promptly vanish again into abstraction as soon as they are no longer being observed – this, strictly-speaking, is an antiontological stance since it says that the basis of existence – the wavefunction – doesn’t actually exist! It’s the most irrational of all the different ontologies.) 4) An eternal Singularity of ontological, unconscious mathematical minds (monads) creates everything out of itself and designs everything. This is the position of Illuminism, and is very similar to Eastern religion, except wholly mathematical, precise and analytic, involving no mysticism and wishful thinking. So, which ontology do you choose? You must choose one. You have no choice, unless you want to be a nihilist or skeptic.

Schopenhauer Schopenhauer asserted that the material world is a world of appearances. The real world, he said, is the world of mind, of Will. All of material reality is underpinned by mind. This is the classic idealist position. Material phenomena are ideas in minds, and have no existence outside minds. When Schopenhauer’s philosophy is properly dissected, it amounts to three distinct positions:

1) There’s a single cosmic Mind outside space and time. This is the noumenal basis of reality. 2) This single Mind creates space and time, and then countless phenomenal minds in space and time (individuated minds – egos). 3) These phenomenal minds then mentally create phenomenal bodies. (Bodies are mental projections of “I’s” in spacetime). We are all phenomenal minds, but none of us can tune into the single, unitary, noumenal Mind, outside space and time, that underlies all phenomenal minds in space and time. Nor can any of us tune into any other phenomenal minds, but we can all tune into the phenomenal, “material” bodies and objects created by all of the minds. All bodies seem like objects. An individual mind, however, seems nothing like an object. It’s a subject and belongs to a radically different category of existence. We have a different kind of knowledge of our phenomenal mind than of anything else in the phenomenal world. All other knowledge involves establishing relations between objective ideas, but our knowledge of ourselves is an immediate, subjective knowledge, in which we experience our own will, something entirely absent from the “objective” world. We know ourselves objectively as bodies and yet we also know ourselves subjectively as minds. We have external knowledge and also internal knowledge. In Aristotle’s philosophy, all “potential”, passive things provide the matter for all actual, active things (forms), in a hierarchy going all the way up to pure matterless form (God). For Schopenhauer, each phenomenal layer of the existential hierarchy has a higher noumenal level. At the top of the hierarchy is the cosmic Will, the ultimate noumenon outside space and time. This gives rise to countless, individuated, phenomenal minds. These then act as the noumena for the next (lower) layer of the hierarchy, the phenomenal bodies. So, a phenomenal body has a “noumenon” of a phenomenal mind, and a phenomenal mind has a noumenon of a cosmic Mind (the true noumenon outside space and time). Human consciousness belongs to the phenomenal mind. The cosmic noumenal Mind is not conscious but is just an eternal, blind striving (which Schopenhauer regarded as evil). Science refuses to deal with subjects, with consciousnesses, with will, with free will, with noumena. It believes only in objects and objective

things. Nothing has any interior, noumenal, subjective life or character.

The Fourier Transform: Mathematical Magic Of all the incredible features of the universe, perhaps none is more important than the one shown in this picture:

On the left is a picture of Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, discoverer of the Fourier Transform. On the right is his picture converted into a Fourier Transform. Now, the crucial thing to understand here is that both of these representations are mathematically equivalent. They are the same information viewed from two different perspectives (domains). The picture of Fourier is a representation in the space domain and the Fourier Transform is a representation in the frequency (wave number) domain. To carry out the process in reverse (to go from the dot pattern to the picture), we perform an inverse Fourier Transform. This means we can seamlessly switch back and forth between two radically different domains. What does that sound rather like? Well, none other than the mind-body problem! Think of the frequency representation as the mental depiction of something and the space representation as its equivalent material depiction. Now consider what happens if just one domain is fundamental while the other is derived from it via a Fourier mathematical operation. Throughout the God Series, we have shown that the mental domain is more basic than the material domain. (The material domain is simply its low-energy representation.) So, we could have a purely mental domain, consisting of nothing but dots. We don’t need the other representation. Yet here’s the thing. We are part of an evolving universe seeking to optimize itself. Such a universe will certainly test every conceivable feature available to it to see if it brings about any increase in its power. Given a universe that was a frequency domain alone, one thing it would certainly try is the inverse Fourier Transform, and thus it would generate the same

information but in a different domain and with a different representation. If this other representation proved useful, it would be adopted, just as any valuable genetic mutation is. Anything that confers an advantage is selected. The bigger the advantage, the more strongly and profoundly the feature is selected, and it could be the case that it actually comes to seem more fundamental than its source. The mental domain, it must be understood, is not in space and time. It has no space or time dimensionality. It’s technically “non-local”. The frequency domain is the most mysterious object of all – the Singularity. The soul too is a frequency domain, hence a dimensionless singularity outside space and time. The cosmic Singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang was nothing but a collection of countless souls (individual singularities), all existing dimensionlessly outside space and time. The Big Bang itself was a collective inverse Fourier Transform on a cosmic scale. The universe went from a frequency representation to a spacetime representation in an instant. Whenever you hear any reference to the soul, the mind, the mental domain or the frequency domain, you are hearing a reference to a singularity ... to dimensionless existence beyond the reach of the physical world because it’s the indispensable opposite side of the Fourier Transform relationship. Mind and matter are never found together in the same domain because mind belongs to the frequency domain and matter to the spacetime domain. These two domains are mutually exclusive since they sit on the opposite sides of the Transform relationship and can never, by definition, be on the same side. Descartes, with one of the greatest philosophical insights of all time, came up with exactly the right definition when he said that mind was unextended and matter extended. Notoriously, however, he couldn’t work out how they could interact since their definitions were mutually exclusive. The concept he didn’t have available to him, which would have solved all of his problems at a stroke, was that of the Fourier Transform, which is all about two mutually exclusive domains, each of which can represent the information in the other domain. Astoundingly, no one outside the Illuminati has recognized that Fourier mathematics resolves all of the problems of Cartesian philosophy. The Fourier Transform is the definitive and only solution to the intractable mind-body problem. No one else has cottoned on, which just goes to show

how resistant the human race is to thinking of abstract mathematics in ontological terms. Thanks to the Fourier Transform, two domains that cannot physically touch can map perfectly to each other. There is in fact only one true reality – that of the frequency domain (the mental Singularity). However, this domain can generate its inverse Transform domain, which is none other than the spacetime domain – the material world. The material world is just a mathematical projection of the mind. It’s Maya – illusion, but a well-defined, well-grounded mathematical illusion. The key to the importance of the spacetime rather than frequency representation is that the former is local while the latter is non-local. Localism allows for physical individuation, while non-localism does not. Localism is fermionic and non-localism bosonic. The frequency domain is horrendously difficult to interpret. The Singularity contains far too much information, the information of the whole, interconnected universe. Localism allows the information to be reduced to manageable proportions: infinity gets chopped into finite chunks. The Singularity is all about zero and infinity, which pose almost insurmountable difficulties for the human mind. The Multilarity (the material spacetime world) involves all of the manageable numbers between zero and infinity, hence is much easier to understand. The frequency domain is the domain of zero and infinity (Cartesian nonextension) while the spacetime domain is that of finite things (Cartesian extension). The frequency and spacetime domains provide the perfect complementary system: mind and matter, non-localism and localism, the infinite and the finite, the unextended and extended, the dimensionless and dimensional. The soul/mind, being on the frequency side of the Fourier Transform, can never be in spacetime, never subject to direct spacetime detection. Mind and matter can never interact if they are ontologically separate, in different domains. Mind and matter are not different substances, as Descartes believed: they are different, mutually exclusive, sides of a mathematical transform relationship. The transform is the key to the operations of reality. Precisely because it’s mathematical, its significance hasn’t been noticed. It’s the human prejudice against the ontology of mathematics that has so hindered human intellectual progress, yet look at science and you find that it’s imbued with

mathematics. Science is in fact basically a system of thought which claims that it is how mathematics actually exists in the world, while mathematics itself is an unreal abstraction. Science says, in effect, that mathematics exists only in terms of real, positive numbers, while negative, imaginary and complex numbers, and zero and infinity, have no ontological reality. This, it can never be stressed enough, is a philosophical statement of empiricism and materialism. There’s no sufficient reason for it whatsoever. It’s prima facie rationally preposterous to accept a portion of mathematics and reject the rest of it because it does not accord with your philosophy. Either all of mathematics is true, or none of it is. It’s as simple as that. Once you accept the ontology of all of mathematics, rather than a subset of it, everything changes since now negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero and infinity all play a part in reality, and none of them are formally observable, as science requires. If you accept the ontology of mathematics – as you must if you are rational since there is no sufficient reason to pick and choose from it for non-mathematical, ideological, philosophical reasons – then you must reject science as it is currently practised and understood. The whole prevailing scientific worldview falls. Mind-matter duality is a mathematical transform duality. One side of the transform comprises countless singularities (monads), which are autonomous frequency domains, outside space and time. These are private, where we can have private dreams. The other side of the transform comprises the collective spacetime domain, where we have a collective dream – the waking state! The Fourier Transform is the answer to how the universe works, and the long-sought key to the mind-matter interaction. Science denies the existence of an ontological, dimensionless, frequency domain. It concerns itself only with the spacetime, material world. The Big Bang Singularity is a total mystery to scientists, and they even say that the laws of physics break down there. Black hole singularities also baffle scientists, as, of course, do the human mind and soul. Everything comes down to the Singularity. It defines existence. It produces the Big Bang. And everything returns to the Singularity in the end. It’s also the precise thing most antithetical to scientific materialists. The ship of science is smashed to pieces on the rock of the adamantine, dimensionless Singularity.

Dimensionless existence is the key to reality and the basis of reality. Dimensionless existence is the province of Leibniz’s monads. It’s Soul World, the mathematico-religious domain that science refuses to accept for ideological reasons.

Higher Dimensional Fourier Transforms “For one-dimensional signals, ‘physical space’ generally corresponds to time, but Fourier analysis can also be applied to pictures ... In this case, ‘physical space’ corresponds to position. ... Just as a one-dimensional signal can be represented as a superposition of sines and cosines of different frequencies, a two-dimensional image can be decomposed into different spatial frequencies. But in addition to the amplitude and phase of the sines and cosines, their orientation must be specified.” – Barbara Burke Hubbard, The World According To Wavelets Fourier Transforms are normally discussed in terms of one-dimensional time signals and their frequency representation. Less commonly, they are discussed in terms of two-dimensional spatial signals and their frequency (wave number) representation. In Illuminism, Fourier Transforms are discussed in terms of six-dimensional spacetime functions and their frequency/wave number representation.

The Sensory Delusion Sensing types – of which scientific materialists are classic examples – are certain that everything is in principle tangible and observable. Science insists that anything that cannot be observed (such as the soul) does not and cannot exist. It says that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. What is the strongest possible argument to deploy against the sensory fanatics? It’s the Fourier Transform. Look again at the picture of Joseph Fourier and its Fourier Transform. The Transform shows that something incredibly familiar and powerful in sensory terms – a person’s face – can be converted into an equivalent mathematical representation that has no sensory elements whatsoever. The Transform doesn’t look anything like a face or any physical object. This is because it has no connection with spacetime and matter. Yet, it is the same mathematical information, just

presented from a different mathematical perspective. This alternative perspective corresponds to a frequency domain outside space and time – a domain whose ontological reality is entirely denied by science. If such a domain exists, there is nothing science can do to study it within its own empiricist ideology and experimental scientific method. There is no Large Hadron Collider that will ever probe a dimensionless domain. The dimensionless domain is permanently beyond any spacetime, materialist interference – by definition. In fact, the spacetime universe exists at all solely because it’s an inverse Fourier Transform of the frequency domain. You could not have a single sensory experience without first having a frequency domain underpinning it. The mystery of qualia – our internal mental experiences that seem to be inexplicable in material terms (e.g. how do we experience the colour red given that redness is not a physical property of any object in the universe, and we would not even know of its existence if we were all colour blind) – is resolved by understanding qualia purely in terms of the frequency domain. Qualia are mental experiences, not physical experiences; an entirely different category of existence. All subjective experiences are mental experiences. They are internalised, frequency representations of spacetime data and, by definition, have no physical elements. Qualia are internal experiences of transforms of physical data, not of physical data per se. To repeat: qualia are experiences in the frequency (mental) domain, not in the physical (spacetime) domain. Qualia can never be considered in physical terms and are the proof that we don’t live in an exclusively material world, as the physicalists claim. Nothing is more important than comprehending the real existence of a domain – a Singularity – that is 100% immaterial and outside space and time. This is the domain of mind and, in religious terms, it is the domain of immortal life, of the soul, and ultimately of becoming God through selfoptimization over countless lifetimes. What is death? It’s when the Fourier mathematics operating between the mental domain of individual minds and the material domain (which is produced by the Monadic Collective rather than individual monads acting on their own) breaks down due to progressive destruction of a coherent connection (thanks to physical deterioration, disintegration and degeneration, resulting from entropy, DNA copying errors, wear and tear, accidents, and so on). The physical universe itself dies for exactly the same

reason, i.e. the Fourier link between the mental Singularity and the physical world deteriorates (via the “expanding universe) and then collapses. What is rebirth (reincarnation)? It’s when a Fourier mathematical link is re-established between the frequency domain and the physical world. The physical universe itself is born again from an inverse Fourier Transform on a cosmic scale (the next Big Bang!). No one (no soul) can ever die. Only bodies die. The Singularity can never die. Only the physical universe dies. Mathematical links can be severed, but they can also be reconnected (to a new body, thus beginning physical life again, or to a new physical universe, thus beginning a new Cosmic Age). Human lives and cosmic ages both involve a conception, a birth, an infancy, a maturing, an adulthood, an ageing, an old age and death. As above, so below. Human lives and cosmic ages are both reincarnational processes. Reincarnation is about reconnecting mind to matter via Fourier mathematics. There’s no such thing as resurrection, i.e. bringing back a physical body from death, exactly as it was, or even perfected. It’s vital to understand that there’s a mathematical many-to-one relationship between minds and the physical world. Each mind is a mathematical singularity (which means an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time). The physical world is a collective spacetime construct (inverse Fourier Transform), produced by all minds (individual frequency domains). When you sleep and start dreaming, you enter a private spacetime construct (your own inverse Fourier Transform), which is why your dream world resembles the real word but, unlike the real world, has no objective, collective rules. You can individually adjust your dream world since you are fully in control of the mathematics of this internal world. You can’t adjust the waking world because it has rules set by all minds and you are not in control of all minds. Every other mind is resisting your will. In your own dreams, only your will counts. In the waking world, all wills count. To become God means that you can start to have the same power over the real world that you do in your dream world. Your mind has become so mathematically powerful that you can overturn the rules set by the much weaker minds of the non-Gods. You are no longer bound by the collective mind. You are now truly free.

You do not have to be consciously mathematical to be a God – although it certainly helps! – but you certainly must possesses an extremely intuitive mind that can grasp mathematics unconsciously and effortlessly. In other words, you can be a mathematical genius without knowing it. We are already familiar with people who are expert instinctive mathematicians while, generally, being utterly hopeless at conscious mathematics. These people are sports people. Footballers, golfers, tennis players, baseball players, and so on, are performing unbelievably sophisticated mathematical calculations without knowing anything about it. “Satan” has been described as the most powerful unconscious mathematician of them all. Autistic savants can perform complex mathematical operations faster than computers, without having any conscious awareness of what they are doing and how they are doing it. Some people can actually “see” mathematical answers to intractable problems forming in front of them, e.g. if you asked them to multiply 1378967755 by 7645367923, they would not perform a laborious mental calculation, but the answer would simply appear above or next to the two input numbers. Wouldn’t that be handy?! Fourier mathematics explains all of the mysterious operations of our world. It explains the distinction between private and public, subjective and objective, individual and collective, dreaming and waking. No scientific materialist has ever accounted for the ability of our minds to construct realistic physical worlds in our dreams where none of our physical senses are engaged or relevant. If physicality is something solid and tangible, why are we able to produce such worlds on an ad hoc, temporary basis, night after night? This ought to be impossible, unless the physical world is actually mental! The difference between a dream physical world and the waking physical world is not a difference between something “real” and something “unreal”, but the difference between a physical world created by an individual mind versus a physical world created by all minds. The so-called physical world of science is simply the mental construct of the collective Mind rather than of the individual mind. There’s no such thing as a physical world independent of minds. It’s impossible. Physical worlds – whether dream worlds or the waking world – are mental projections. Dream worlds have no collective, objective mathematical rules whereas the waking world does. That’s the only difference. We never at any time inhabit an authentic material world (in

itself, in its own independent right). At all times, we inhabit mentally constructed material worlds – Matrix worlds! Scientific materialism has simply never grasped Fourier mathematics (even though it’s fundamental to quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory of all time!) and refuses to countenance the existence of a formally unobservable frequency domain since this contradicts science’s entire groupthink Meta Paradigm. What it comes down to this: scientists have privileged their deceptive senses over their mathematical reason. They prefer experiments linked to the sensible, phenomenal world over mathematics linked to the intelligible, noumenal world. Science provides us with excellent models of phenomena but tells us nothing about noumena. This is why science is 100% useless when it comes to addressing ultimate reality, which is 100% noumenal and mathematical. Science is the study of Maya (illusion), of the sensory representation of noumenal mathematics. It’s the study of the Matrix. Sadly, scientists have convinced themselves they are dealing with reality itself. They think Maya is the real thing rather than the veil drawn over the real thing. Scientists reject “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are simply noumena: the truth of existence. The ultimate hidden variable is the mathematical soul. Fourier mathematics asserts that the existence of a non-physical world is a prerequisite for the physical world (as indeed we see with the Big Bang where the physical world comes from a dimensionless, immaterial Singularity outside space and time). Scientists, slaves to their experimental method, to their quasi-religious empiricism and materialism, to their obsession with the senses, simply ignore mathematical reality and mathematical reason. They deny that Fourier mathematics describes ontology, and regard it as nothing but a useful, abstract mathematical tool. As ever, everything comes down to whether ontological mathematics or science describes true reality. Science is totally dependent on mathematics, while mathematics doesn’t need science at all. Mathematics is, as Gauss said, the queen of the sciences. Haven’t people twigged that it’s the noumenal basis of the phenomenal sciences? Doh! Mathematics is the master and science the servant, not the other way around. Mathematics is the subject of the intellect and science the subject of the senses. Only mathematics reveals the intelligible, noumenal reality to us. Only mathematics addresses the ultimate questions of existence. That’s a fact. Science is simply about describing the illusory world of our senses. It’s very

good at that, but can never go beyond that. Yet it’s exactly beyond that where life’s answers and meaning lie.

Metaphysics Metaphysics means “that which comes after physics” and, historically, refers to the books of Aristotle that came after his books on physics (nature). Religion, which once had quite a strong physical component, became increasingly metaphysical. Above all, much or even most of philosophy was devoted to metaphysics. Scientists liked only two forms of philosophy – empiricism and materialism – since these agreed with their own sensory biases. They hated religion and metaphysics and dismissed them as speculative nonsense with no facts or evidence to support them. The problem for scientists is that they have radically misunderstood metaphysics. It’s neither religious, in the traditional sense, nor is it philosophical. The true language of metaphysics, and the true meaning of metaphysics, is actually mathematics – ontological mathematics. Why is mathematics at the core of science despite having nothing to do with experiments or the senses? It’s because science (physics) cannot exist without another layer, an inner layer ... metaphysics (mathematics). Mathematics is transcendent (beyond the physical world) and immanent (penetrates every part of the physical world). That’s nothing to do with God or mysticism but is simply the essence of mathematics. The mathematical Singularity – immaterial and outside space and time – is the location of Plato’s domain of perfect eternal Forms (and these are just the eternal laws and truths of mathematics). The Singularity is 100% rational but also 100% unobservable (hence 100% non-scientific). This brings us to the all-important difference between science and ontological mathematics. The latter is predicated on the existence of “rational unobservables” (hence is a subject grounded in pure rationalism), while the former is predicated on the non-existence of anything that is not in principle observable. Conventional science will not countenance the existence of anything for which no sensory evidence will ever be found. To do so would be to overturn the whole scientific method, which is based on hypotheses being

experimentally verified or refuted. If experiment is rendered irrelevant (as it is in mathematics), science, as currently understood and practised, no longer applies. So, we come to the crux. A revolution must take place, with science undergoing the ultimate paradigm shift. It must abandon the primary role of its own defining method and accept that there are real things beyond the reach of experiments. In other words, science must adopt a dual nature: that of experimental physics as far as it can go, and then mathematical metaphysics to provide rational completion. As it stands, science is radically incomplete and irrational. Although Fourier mathematics is at the core of quantum mechanics, science denies that there’s any real, ontological dimensionless domain of frequencies, yet, without this, there could be no material world at all. The problem, as ever, is that the frequency domain is unobservable, but rationally compulsory. Science’s fanatical empiricism always stands in the way of reaching any rationalist conclusions regarding which no experiments can ever be performed. The type of science that the world must adopt is that of Leibniz rather than Newton. Leibniz said, “Nature must always be explained mathematically and mechanically, provided it is remembered that the principles themselves, or laws of mechanics or force, do not depend on mathematical extension alone, but on certain metaphysical reasons.” As the Fourier Transform shows, it’s essential to consider mathematical properties that are formally metaphysical (since they play no part in spacetime, material existence). The Fourier Transform is not some woo woo, weirdo, religious, philosophical, mystical nonsense. It’s the most hardcore, hyperrationalist mathematics you can possibly get and the whole of reality is based on it (and on the God Equation from which it is in turn derived). Fourier mathematics fully explains Cartesian mind-matter dualism, it fully explains quantum mechanics (science’s most successful theory) and it fully explains holography. In due course, quantum mechanics will be recast in holographic terms and ontological mathematical holography will replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. Religion – when cast in mathematical terms – is completely rational. Leibniz said, “The human mind is analogous to a sieve: the process of thinking consists in shaking it until all the subtlest items pass through. Meanwhile, as they pass through, Reason acts as an inspector snatching out whatever seems useful.” Mainstream religion attempts to use faith and

revelation instead of reason as the inspector of what is useful. Science replaces reason with the experimental method (with the senses). Mainstream religion and science – because of their rejection of reason – are both irrational, and offer no solutions to the problems and mysteries of existence. Rationalism alone – mathematical rationalism, to be more precise – is the sole answer to existence. Rationalism punctures all the grandiose claims of science. As Leibniz said, “Extension, mass and motion are no more things than images in mirrors, or rainbows in clouds ... Anything in nature apart from perceivers and their perceptions is invented by us, and we struggle with chimeras created by our own minds, as if with ghosts.” The Fourier Transform furnishes the rational explanation of a system comprising only perceivers and their perceptions. Autonomous Fourier frequency domains (souls) are the perceivers, while the spacetime representations they generate via the inverse Fourier Transform form the mathematical world that they perceive, and in which they interact with each other. Fourier mathematics is the true, rational basis of religion. It provides the immaterial, indestructible, immortal, dimensionless domain of soul (mind) that lies outside the physical world of dimensionality. Although it can fully accommodate evolving, self-optimizing souls, what it certainly cannot and does not do is support any notion of eternal, conscious Gods (whose existence it actually comprehensively refutes). Gods are created by Fourier mathematics, over eons. They are the optimal outcomes of self-optimizing Fourier processes. Irrational people of faith, irrational mystics and irrational scientific materialists will of course scoff at everything we have said and rubbish it. The truth is not for all, only for the special few. All thinking intuitive types, if they consider Illuminism with any care, will soon agree that it’s the absolute truth of existence. Many feeling intuitive types will also grasp its truth. As for the rest ... well, too bad. They will go one believing, or being mystical, or worshipping sensory evidence and rejecting anything they can’t observe. Such is life. Such is the nature of the mind. Minds are not all alike. Some are divine and some are bestial. Intuition is the supreme gift, especially when it’s combined with reason. Illuminism is the final truth. That’s a fact. Illuminism is physics and metaphysics combined – to produce ontological mathematics, which

expresses the true nature of existence. Illuminism has no rivals. There’s only one truth and Illuminism is it. Everything else is false and deluded. So, are you for or against the truth? Are you on the side of the truth or on the side of illusion and delusion? Your choice.

Irrational Science Science is not grounded in any rational principles. It acknowledges no principle of sufficient reason. Instead, it follows two empirical, irrational principles: the verification principle and the falsification principle. The verification principle cannot be verified and the falsification principle cannot be falsified, hence science has no rational basis, only an empiricist, heuristic basis. Science is instrumental and pragmatic, not rational and logical.

***** David Hume said, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” This is exactly what an anti-rationalist empiricist and skeptic would say. In fact, humanity will never get anywhere until the precise reverse is true: The passions are, and ought only to be the slaves of reason, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey it.

***** Hume said, “When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision. Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.” What, then, of the scientific contention that the universe randomly sprang out of nothing, compared with it mathematically arising from a permanent mathematical Singularity? Which is the “greater miracle”?

Which ought to be rejected by any rational person? Is it any more likely that the universe leapt out of nothing for no reason than that a dead man should come back to life? Both are absolutely impossible and belong to the ludicrous claims of magic and miracles. Scientific materialism is every bit as absurd when it comes to ultimate reality as Abrahamism and Karmism.

***** “I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple.” – Einstein Nothing is more beautiful and simple than the God Equation. That’s exactly what Einstein was seeking.

***** “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” – Thomas Huxley The whole problem with science is that it has adopted a creed: that of empiricism and materialism, hence it has committed suicide. Only rationalism is not a belief system (creed). Any system of thought not based on the principle of sufficient reason is ipso facto a faith system.

Atheism The word atheism comes from the Greek atheos, meaning, “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly,” (from a“without” + theos “a god”). It does not mean, as some contend, “anti theism”, “non-theism”, or anything in particular to do with theism (the idea of a personal God). For example, no atheist would call himself a deist, pandeist, panendeist, pantheist or panentheist, which are all anti-theist and non-theist positions. Atheists not only reject god in any sense of the word, they also reject all of metaphysics, all of idealism, all of rationalism and anything that refers to the unobservable, the dimensionless or noumenal. Illuminism certainly rejects theism, but is certainly not atheism. We totally reject atheism. Illuminism is all about the soul – the mathematical, monadic mind outside space and time. This is something 100% denied by

atheists, hence we can have no common ground with atheists except in our united opposition to theism and Karmism. Far from being opposed to God, Illuminism is all about “becoming God”!

***** “The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell.” – Armand Salacrou The existence of a world without the principle of sufficient reason is absurd.

The Rejection of Science Why do we reject science? Because it’s both irrational and anti-rational. It makes outrageous claims that wholly contradict reason. It’s a philosophy – that of empiricism and materialism – that refuses to acknowledge that it’s a philosophy, and which refuses to engage with philosophical questions, and accept any philosophical scrutiny. It’s infected by ideology, dogmatism, groupthink, conformism and careerism. It’s anti-intellectual and openly sneers at philosophy and metaphysics. It has bet everything on a method – the scientific method – that inherently can’t deliver ultimate truth. It has no rational, logical basis. It rejects the principle of sufficient reason and accepts only those parts of mathematics that agree with its ideology. It’s a system of faith that claims it isn’t. It might as well be a religion. What’s not to dislike?

***** We get people who write to us to say things like, “How can I believe in you? I’ve heard that you’re charlatans and liars, that you’ve just studied philosophy really hard. Someone said that something you said has been disproved, and so on.” Yada, yada, yada. Listen, you haven’t grasped a single thing about Illuminism if you believe in anything at all that we say, or that anyone else says for that matter. What we say is either rational or irrational. If it’s rational – and you are rational – then you have no option but to accept it. If it’s irrational – and you can prove it is rather than just

believing that it is, or accepting someone else’s opinion that it is – then you ought to reject it instantly, just as we do the claims of science. Nothing science says can ever be rational because it’s a system based on empiricism, not on rationalism. Ours is a system based on the principle of sufficient reason. If the universe is not based on this principle and is totally irrational then you should reject 100% of what we say. You’re a total fool if you want to “believe” in us. We certainly don’t believe in you, or in anyone or anything else. We are Gnostics and Mathematikoi – those who learn true knowledge. We are not Credulants.

Ontological Mathematics Illuminists are radically different from mainstream mathematicians. Illuminists are ontological mathematicians, not abstract mathematicians. The latter have been dealing with Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics for centuries and yet it has never once occurred to them that they are looking at the fundamental basis of reality. They have been programmed to see mathematics in purely abstract terms, and most of them are fully locked and loaded into the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science as far as ontology goes. Gödel – an instinctive ontological mathematician – was disgusted with most of his mathematical colleagues. His Incompleteness Theorems are, in a roundabout way, a mathematical proof of the falsehood of materialism, and why humanity has no choice but to turn to rationalism.

Purity Mathematics is much purer, more elegant, more beautiful, more rigorous and more truthful than science. All truly smart people know there’s no contest between the two subjects. Science is mathematics for dummies, for those who struggle to be rational and are easily deceived by their senses. Science is for those lacking intuition and imagination, who worship the mantra of “seeing is believing”. They simply can’t grasp a higher reality, a truer world beyond the apparent one. One must pity scientists. They’re smart enough not to be Abrahamists, but not smart enough to be Illuminists. Compare and contrast Richard Dawkins and Leibniz. Read the published works of both. It will astound you how much smarter Leibniz is, even

though his work is over three hundred years old and he had none of the benefit of all the knowledge accumulated in that period.

Schopenhauer: The Fourier Philosopher? Schopenhauer hated Hegel, being envious of his success and reputation, and the fact that Hegel’s philosophy overshadowed his own. Moreover, Schopenhauer was an elegant writer while Hegel – wrestling with far more difficult ideas – was often obscure and impenetrable. To top it all, Schopenhauer was one of the greatest pessimists in human history – regarding existence as actively and permanently evil – while Hegel was as great an optimist as Leibniz. For all his antagonism towards Hegel, Schopenhauer’s philosophy was not irreconcilable with Hegel’s. Eduard von Hartmann actually attempted a great synthesis of the two philosophies, with a certain degree of success. In many ways, Schopenhauer is a fantastic philosopher. He produced what can be considered a rational version of Buddhism, vastly superior intellectually to the original. That alone would make him worth reading. His emphasis on the unconscious Will was extremely influential in the development of the concept of the unconscious mind, and heavily influenced Hartmann, Freud and Jung. However, his philosophy might also be seen as an intuitive version of Fourier mathematics, making it a brilliant way to approach Fourier mathematics non-mathematically. R.J. Hollingdale provided a superb short account of Schopenhauer’s ideas in his introduction to Schopenhauer’s Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin Books): “Schopenhauer thought that he alone had understood Kant correctly, and he dismissed Kant’s other successors, especially Hegel, as charlatans. His first act is to interpret Kant in a Berkeleyan sense: he equates Kant’s phenomena with Berkeley’s ideas in the mind and says with Berkeley that the world as it is perceived is a creation of the intellect which perceives it. This he takes to have been proved by Kant, but in any case self-evidently obvious; so that he is able to open the book in which he expounds his philosophy, The World as Will and Idea, with the flat assertion, ‘The world is my idea’. This takes care of ‘idea’: but what about ‘my’? what of the ‘I’ which has the idea? Schopenhauer thinks the existence of this ‘I’ is an absolute necessity, in the same way as the existence of an ‘apparent’ world makes necessary the

existence of a ‘real’ world: and in fact this ‘I’ is the real world, the substratum of the world of phenomena. Now it will be clear that if we have knowledge of ourselves, of this ‘I’, it will be a different kind of knowledge from that which we have of anything else. All other kinds of knowledge amount to establishing relations between ideas, but knowledge of oneself would be knowledge of immediate reality. And this is what Schopenhauer maintains knowledge of oneself actually is. We know ourselves objectively, in the same way as we know all other phenomena, as an object extended in space and time: we know ourselves as body. But we also know ourselves subjectively, we have an inner consciousness of our own existence, and we possess feelings and desires. This inner world Schopenhauer calls ‘will’: we know ourselves as will. And thus there follows the ‘single thought’ which, properly understood, Schopenhauer says constitutes the whole of his philosophy: ‘My body and my will are one.’ My body is the phenomenal form of my will, my will is the noumenal form of my body: my body is ‘appearance’, my will ‘thing in itself’. “Now if this is true of my body, it is true of every other body, consequently of every other phenomenon. I am aware of myself as will and idea, a block of stone is not aware at all: but that is the only difference between us in regard to the point under discussion: the block of stone is also noumenon and phenomenon, thing in itself and appearance, will and idea: its body and its will are one, only its will has not attained consciousness. Furthermore, since Kant had proved that space and time, the spatial and temporal fragmentation of the world, belonged as forms of perception only to the plane of phenomena, the noumenal plane, the ‘real world’ of the thing in itself, must be one and indivisible: consequently the will in the stone and the will in me is the same will. Thus the world is a duality: the ‘world as idea’ is the outer, physical world, the realm of time, space and causation, ‘appearance’, Kant’s phenomenal world; the ‘world as will’ is the inner, subjective world, not subject to the forms of space and time, a unity, ‘reality’, Kant’s noumenal world or thing in itself. ... that the world is a duality of will and idea is the minimum the reader has to bear in mind.” Think of Schopenhauer’s noumenal domain of Will outside space and time as the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, the immaterial Singularity. However, whereas Schopenhauer saw the noumenal Will as unitary, Illuminism sees it as composed of countless autonomous wills (monads), each if which is a separate frequency domain, but all of which

reside in a single dimensionless point. In addition, Illuminism treats Will as unconscious Reason, doing its best to optimize itself by maximizing its power (and becoming conscious Reason.) Hegel was of course the great philosopher of dialectical reason progressing towards its Omega Point of Absolute Knowledge. Schopenhauer then constructs the domain of spacetime – the material world – from the underlying Will. Mathematically, this would be accomplished via a cosmic inverse Fourier Transform. When Schopenhauer writes that his body and his will are one, he is describing extremely well the private world of dreams. In our dreams, our dream body is constructed by our mind (and in fact so is everything else in our dream world). Our mind wills whatever our body does, and how this whole constructed world operates. Nothing else interferes. Our body is a physicalization of our will; it’s our will in a mentally constructed spacetime environment rather than in its native frequency environment. The whole dreamworld is a manifestation of our will and is entirely subject to our will. It obeys no objective rules, and changes at our whim. We can alter space, time and “physical” causality whenever we wish. However, Schopenhauer’s philosophy isn’t good at describing the real world we inhabit when we are awake, rather than the dreamworld of our sleep. His problem is his unitary conception of the Will, which, amongst other things, makes it impossible to understand why the world seems to contain countless rival, competing wills. What happens, though, if a single cosmic Will is replaced by countless individual wills as in Leibniz’s monadic system? What if our will is private but our body is public (i.e. the product of all minds rather than just our own mind; the product of “public atoms”)? We replace ‘My body and my will are one’ with ‘My private will controls my public body’. If our body and will are one, and will is immortal, as Schopenhauer says, then there’s no reason why our body should ever die. If our will controls a public body then we can imagine this control breaking down over time, resulting in a severing of the link, which is what death actually is. Our will then has to find a new public body to control (and this is what is known as reincarnation). The public, waking world is a product not of one will but of countless, competing wills. No one will is able to control this public world so it appears as a world of rules and laws to which we are all inexorably subject.

In our dreams, we can do whatever we like because our own mind controls the whole dream world. When we are awake, our individual will can control only our own body and nothing else. We influence the public world solely through the actions of our body. We are now subject to a Collective Will rather than our own will alone. All of the other wills are potentially opposed to ours – and that’s why the world is such a savage place. As Nietzsche rightly said, we are engaged in a fight to maximize our power. The pursuit of power is the secret driving force behind absolutely everything. We are always dreaming. When we go to sleep and our body is immobile, we dream alone (individually, privately) and when we waken and are mobile, we dream together (collectively, publicly). The “physical” world of our private dreams is created by our own will and does not obey space, time and formal causality. The physical world of our public dreams is an act of collective will and obeys a collective system of space, time and causality. It’s objective mathematics that holds the collective will together. Since all minds are mathematical, they all automatically obey the laws of mathematics. We therefore inhabit an objective physical world of the type conceived by science. However, ultimately there’s no physical world. It’s a purely mental construct, except it’s generated collectively rather than individually. The reality we inhabit is just an exercise in Fourier mathematics, conducted both individually and collectively. Our sleeping dream world is subjective while the waking dream world is objective. We control our own dream worlds but none of us controls the collective dream world. In religion, “God” is conceived as the controller and creator of the world ... but there is no such God. If such a God were possible, what’s for sure is that he would be a mathematician performing Fourier mathematics. That’s the only way to create a world. And a Fourier God would send mathematical prophets and write “holy” scripture of Fourier Transforms (!). He would never under any circumstances write the Torah, Bible or Koran, which don’t mention mathematics once, and don’t explain a single thing about anything at all.

Localism and Non-Localism The unconscious mind deals with non-localism, and the conscious mind with localism. Our brains are bicameral (twin hemispheric). Our right

hemisphere is the home of our unconscious mind. The unconscious mind inhabits the frequency domain and directly processes mathematical functions in that non-local domain. It has access to the interconnected Whole, the entire universe (the Singularity outside space and time). The left hemisphere performs inverse Fourier Transforms and converts frequency functions into spacetime functions, generating a localist perspective. This local view is the one to which our consciousness is tied. However, we are constantly receiving information from the non-local domain via our unconscious mind and this process is what underlies all paranormal phenomena. Someone such as Einstein would argue that we can only ever get information locally, and no faster than the speed of light. In fact, we can get information non-locally from anywhere in the universe, and instantaneously – but it’s delivered unconsciously hence is difficult to interpret, which is why paranormal phenomena are so mysterious, unpredictable and unreliable. To become God means to gain the ability to become conscious of nonlocal information (the information of the entire universe). Consciousness evolved in tandem with the evolution of the left hemisphere, and its increasing ability to perform sophisticated inverse Fourier Transforms. Of course, to relay information back to the mind in the frequency domain, the brain must also perform “forward” Fourier Transforms. The right hemisphere does this. Isn’t it a wonder of mathematical engineering? What could be simpler and more elegant? Once upon a time, we all had “bicameral” minds, as described in the bicameral theory of Julian Jaynes. The left hemisphere was home to a rudimentary consciousness, nothing like modern consciousness, and the right hemisphere generated “voices of the gods”, snatched from the nonlocal domain. In all probability, all of today’s apes exist at a primitive stage of bicameralism. What they need is a genetic mutation that makes their brains better at Fourier mathematics!

Noumenal and Phenomenal

Religion and philosophy, but not materialism and scientific materialism, have always pointed to the existence of two domains: an apparent one and a hidden one. The world of the senses is the phenomenal domain, the domain of appearances, of “common sense”, of how things seem to be. The hidden world is the noumenal domain, of things as they are in themselves. In Fourier terms, the phenomenal world is the spacetime world of inverse Fourier Transforms while the noumenal domain is the frequency domain outside space and time, a domain that’s immaterial and exists as a mathematical Singularity. Plato’s domain of Forms is the frequency domain. Descartes’ unextended souls are here. Leibniz’s domain of monads is this frequency domain. Kant’s noumena belong to the frequency domain. Hegel’s geist (mind/spirit) resides in the frequency domain. Schopenhauer’s cosmic Will is in this frequency domain. Hartmann’s Unconscious is here, as is Jung’s Collective Unconscious. The Neoplatonic “One” is the cosmic frequency domain (singularity), from which all things originate (as in the Big Bang). The Big Bang, when properly understood, is an application of Fourier mathematics. Quantum mechanics is all about Fourier mathematics, as is holography. Black hole singularities would be unthinkable in the absence of Fourier mathematics. In essence, all religions, philosophies and systems of thought (including science) are valid and have truths to communicate only insofar as they reflect the ontology of Fourier mathematics. Abrahamism has zero truth content because it presents a model of reality wholly incompatible with Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics is all about the noumenal and phenomenal dichotomy, and anything not consistent with this is false. It’s as simple as that.

The Transform A mathematical transform is a change of perspective, a view from a different domain. The Fourier Transform changes a spacetime (material) representation to a frequency (mental) representation. The spacetime representation is phenomenal and the frequency representation noumenal. The spacetime representation is constructed from the frequency representation. We

“consume” the spacetime representation, but it’s produced by the frequency representation. The Fourier Transform, like the generalised Euler Formula, is about generating signals from circular motion (repeating cycles that generate sine and cosine waves). The Fourier Transform is used to identify the set of frequencies, amplitudes and phases required to match any spacetime signal.

Synchronicity Jung described synchronicity as “an acausal connecting principle”, believing such a thing possible on the basis of the mysterious dualistic ontology established by Kant’s noumenal domain (unknowable, supposedly) and the phenomenal domain (knowable, but not the thing in itself). Kant’s view suggested two types of causality: a local, phenomenal causality operating within space and time, and a non-local, noumenal causality unconnected with space and time. Kant’s system thus allowed for free will (“unconditioned causes”) since, in the noumenal domain, thingsin-themselves were outside physical (phenomenal) causal chains. This noumenal free will was nevertheless able to operate in the phenomenal domain, as evidenced by the free actions of human beings. How can we have free will and still live in a world that functions according to necessary physical laws? Kant drew on the distinction between the phenomenal world of appearances and the noumenal world of things-inthemselves. Physical laws apply only to the world of appearances. As for the will as a thing-in-itself, we can have no direct knowledge of it. i.e. we can’t know whether it’s actually free, but must act as if it were if we are to be moral agents, and not machines. Jung, with his synchronicity principle of “meaningful coincidences” (coincidences that are not just random occurrences), was suggesting that the noumenal domain provided another astounding feature on top of free will. Since the noumenal domain is outside space and time, everything in that domain can be scanned at once. Potentially meaningful connections (that can subsequently be made to happen in reality) are detectable from the nonlocal, noumenal perspective that would never be evident from the local, phenomenal perspective.

So, the noumenal domain (which is “acausal” in relation to the conventional causality of the phenomenal domain) can “tap us on the shoulder”, or make us take one path rather than another, or make us look in the right direction at the right moment – in order to allow a “meaningful coincidence” to happen. For example, imagine you were in a street parallel to a former lover you had not seen for ten years, and with whom you had unfinished business (both of you still held a torch for each other). Synchronicity would direct both of you to a common location, where you would bump into each other and then have the chance to resume your old relationship. Both of you would think it was pure coincidence – a random event – and yet you had actually been steered towards this encounter by the unseen cosmic force of synchronicity. Synchronicity is a force devoted to the increase of meaning. It will seek to engineer any events that have more meaning than alternative events. Although we all have free will, we are also all being subtly (and unconsciously) pushed in certain directions, those that make our lives more meaningful. If synchronicity sounds weird, just think of quantum entanglement that keeps quantum particles in instantaneous touch with each other across vast distances (impossible within a localist version of reality). In Illuminism, there are no “acausal” processes. Rather, mathematical causality operates both dimensionlessly and dimensionally, and is inescapable. Synchronicity really happens, but it reflects a causal connecting principle between the noumenal and phenomenal domains, and operates via the unconscious mind. Free will is also a causal connecting principle between the noumenal and phenomenal domains (since it’s noumenal in origin but allows us to freely choose how to behave within the phenomenal environment), and operates via the conscious mind.

One Mind Many New Agers and followers of Eastern Religion aspire to One Mind, to all be part of One Mind. What, do they have some problem with their own mind? Don’t they like themselves? Why do they want to escape from themselves into a Cosmic Oneness? The game is to be yourself – a God – within a community of Gods, not to be part of some cosmic, single God or God consciousness. “God Oneness” is in fact achieved at only one point:

the Omega Point, the last instant of a Cosmic Age, the point of perfect symmetry at which all monads form a single entity.

Intelligent Design Intelligent design implies, to people such as Richard Dawkins, the alleged involvement of “God”. In ontological mathematics, “intelligent design” means the involvement of mathematical minds (monads). Mathematics, not “God”, is the origin of design. The whole universe is fundamentally designed given that it’s made of monads. Evolution is ipso facto reflective of mathematical design (and mathematical teleology). It has absolutely nothing to do with random material mutation, as Dawkins claims. Design could never appear in a system that is not intrinsically designed, as mathematics is. Design in a non-mathematical, random, irrational Darwinist universe is absolutely false. Darwinism is the theory of unintelligent design, and is categorically unable to explain how design arises from a random, indeterministic system of no design at all. “Natural selection” is of no use whatsoever in accounting for the appearance of design from randomness. It’s a category error to believe that non-design can randomly generate design through random interactions and mutations, which are then “naturally selected”. Design can come from non-design no more than existence can come from non-existence.

The Inside of Things The only conceivable way of explaining subjective mental experience independent of the material world is via entities that are immaterial and outside space and time – singularities. That’s exactly what monads are. Any theory of mental existence not grounded in mathematical monads is ipso facto false.

The Attachment Gene Research indicates that lack of an attachment figure in babyhood leads to existential insecurity. Babies need protection against predators and to be fed and watered. Lack of adequate protection and nurture leads to permanent psychological scarring. Everyone needs a secure base from which to go out and explore the world. A child needs an internal model of its parent as

loving and available. If its parents are abusive, neglectful, cruel, distant, absent, it generates a sinister rather than healthy internal model of its relationship with its parents. If that relationship isn’t right, none of its other relationships in life will be either. Disrupted attachments at the beginning of life produce attachment problems throughout life and lead to mental health problems. Psychologists John Bowlby and Harry Harlow argued that children come into the world biologically programmed to form attachments (especially with our parents and siblings). An infant’s evolutionary need is less the provision of food than the provision of comfort and love. In other words, we are programmed to need others, to want others, to cooperate with others. We are social animals, not anti-social animals. We are not programmed to selfishly tell everyone else to fuck off and to prey on them for our own ends as Dawkins’ selfish genes theory would have it. Humans are psychologically destroyed if they fail to establish a loving attachment with their parents as babies. If they were purely selfish (grounded in selfish genes), as Dawkins maintains, why would they even care? Harlow devised an experiment where he raised baby monkeys with two imitation mothers. One was a bare wire skeleton that did nothing but provide milk through a rubber teat. The other was a warm, comfortable doll that provided no food at all. The monkeys’ unanimous preference was to bond with the provider of comfort and warmth. They went for food only when they needed it and otherwise they wanted “love”. All creatures seek “contact comfort”, affection and security. Harlow found that monkeys deprived of contact, affection and comfort became anxious and disturbed. Some even died. Those that survived were unable to form social relations even when reunited with other monkeys. They were scarred for life. What goes for monkeys goes for humans. Humans are social animals, not selfish animals. For sure, selfishness is part of our make-up, but so are cooperation, altruism, and the need for others. In what way are all such traits not reflected in our genes? The Selfish Gene theory is vile, right-wing view of the world that has no general basis in fact; at least not any more than that which could be argued on behalf of the Altruistic Gene, Loving Gene, Cooperative Gene or Fairness Gene.

John Nash In the movie A Beautiful Mind about Nobel Prize winner John Nash, the following dialogue takes place [Nash and his friends are eyeing up a beautiful blonde who has entered the college bar with her friends]: John: Does anyone else feel she should be moving in slow motion? Bender: Will she want a large wedding, ya think? Sol: Shall we say swords, gentlemen? Pistols at dawn? Hansen : Have you remembered nothing? Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. Sol: “In competition...” Sol and Neilson: “… individual ambition serves the common good.” Exactly. Neilson: Every man for himself, gentlemen. Bender: And those who strike out are stuck with her friends. Hansen: I’m not gonna strike out. Sol: You can lead a blonde to water, but you can’t make her drink. Hansen: I don’t think he said that. Sol: Nobody move. She’s looking over here. She’s looking at Nash. Hansen: Oh, God. He may have the upper hand now, but wait until he opens his mouth. Remember the last time? Bender: Oh, yes, that was one for the history books. John: Adam Smith needs revision. Hansen: What are you talking about? John: If we all go for the blonde, we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder, because nobody likes to be second choice. Well, what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way we win. That’s the only way we

all get laid. Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself, right? That’s what he said, right? Hansen: Right. John: Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself and the group.

***** Nash is absolutely right. The best society is one in which everyone does what’s best for himself and for society. The two must go together. Look at our society. The super rich elite do what is best for themselves and fuck society, fuck everyone else. We have total selfishness being promoted by those at the top of society, and Richard Dawkins is their goto scientist, their “boy”, the one who justifies their disgraceful right wing behaviour with his doctrine of the selfish gene. Could a single super rich person claim, with a straight face, that their obscene wealth is good for society? Could a single supporter of privilege put his hand on his heart and say that inheritance is good for society, that the rich give their wealth to their children because they are on the side of a healthy, meritocratic society?

***** We are born in need of others. We are born relying on the altruism of others. It’s astounding that anyone could turn the necessity of others cooperating with us, and we with them, into a theory of our being driven by “selfish” genes. If we were to cast gene theory in Nash’s terms, we would say that the optimal outcome was to have “selfish” genes acting accompanied by “altruistic” genes; “competitive” genes accompanied by “cooperative” genes. Amazingly, Freud’s model of the psyche is far more useful than Dawkins’ selfish gene theory. If we translated Freud theory into genetic terms, we would say that he posited selfish, psychopathic genes (those associated with the Id), and moral, cooperative, social, altruistic genes (those associated with the Superego), and rational, pragmatic genes (those associated with the Ego), which mediated between the other two types of

genes. We might characterise Id genes as “hawk” genes, Superego genes as “dove” genes and Ego genes as retaliator genes. In Jungian terms, we would have Persona genes (relating to the mask we put on in public), Anima/Animus genes (relating to our relationship with the opposite sex), Shadow genes (relating to all our monstrous, selfish, hateful drives), Ego genes (relating to our conscious, rational self), Mana genes (relating to our magical, fantastical self) and Self genes (relating to our Higher Self). Aren’t the Freudian and Jungian gene theories far superior to Dawkins’ grim, machinelike, meaningless theory of unreconstructed selfishness? As ever, a scientist goes for the most meaningless theory he can find. So what’s new?!

***** In the Nash example, the beautiful blonde misses out. It’s better for everyone else that this should be so. Thus it should be for the super rich. They must miss out – it’s best for everyone else. That’s why we need 100% inheritance tax: the basic requirement for a meritocratic society where everyone gets an equal opportunity.

***** Nash later said, “I realise what I said at some times may have overemphasised rationality. Human beings are much more complicated than the human being as a businessman.” The first part is right. Human beings don’t do the rational thing. The blonde does not get ignored in real life, and the super rich are not ostracised, even though, rationally, they ought to be. The second part definitely isn’t right: human beings act exactly like businessmen, conducting a series of transactions. The whole problem is that they are selfish, self-interested businessmen, not rational businessmen. We will have a fair and just society only when we have a rational society. That won’t be a rational society based on cut-throat, selfish businessmen (sophists and psychopaths), but a rational society based on benevolent Platonic philosophers (geniuses).

The Nash Equilibrium The dialogue from A Beautiful Mind that we have quoted is supposed to provide a simplified example of a so-called Nash Equilibrium (a prominent building block of game theory), for which Nash won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994. Wikipedia provides the flowing description: “In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a noncooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium. “Stated simply, Amy and Will are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Will’s decision, and Will is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy’s decision. Likewise, a group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others in the game.” – Wikipedia Isn’t it time to apply a Nash equilibrium to biology, conceived in terms of Id genes, Superego genes and Ego genes?

People Like Us “Strange to say what delight we married people have to see these poor fools decoyed into our condition.” – Samuel Pepys VE: “Brainwashed parents are desperate to brainwash their children too.” Everyone wants to get us into their “condition”.

Scientists = Babies Young children have to learn that covering their eyes doesn’t mean that other people can’t see them, or that the world has vanished (and all their problems with it). You can’t magic things away.

Young children have to learn that an object still exists even when hidden from view. They have a natural tendency to subscribe to “seeing is believing”, or, “to exist is to be perceived”. This is exactly the problem from which scientists suffer! They are big children, big babies, who cannot accept that just because they can’t perceive or conceive something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Scientists need to grow up. Like children, they need to learn reason.

Reasoning Most people are hopeless at reasoning. If you believe in God, here’s a straightforward question for you – what is God made of? Clearly, he’s not made of atoms. What, then? Clearly, he’s not made of nothing. He must be made of something and that something must be definable, i.e. it can’t be any old random, incoherent, inconsistent and unstable thing. In fact, it must be a perfect thing, an eternal thing, an absolutely stable thing. What thing is perfect, eternal and inherently stable? Well, only one thing qualifies – mathematics. God, therefore, must be made of mathematics! But, if God is made of mathematics, then it’s mathematics that’s necessary, and not God (who is in fact contingent upon mathematics). Mathematics is more important than God. Mathematics is the sine qua non. Without mathematics, nothing can exist, and all beings (monads) are mathematical, defined by mathematics, and subject to the laws and properties of mathematics. We can of course apply exactly the same reasoning to the eternal universe, and we must reach exactly the same conclusion. The universe must be made of mathematics. There is no other candidate. The idea that the universe is made of undefined chaos – a virtual vacuum or unreal wavefunction that collapses for no reason, as science claims – is ridiculous. There is a total absence of reason in how scientists understand ultimate reality. They despise reason because they are empiricists, i.e. they think their senses, experiences and experiments determine what is real and what isn’t. That’s the gospel of madness! Reason alone furnishes definitive answers.

*****

Can any scientist state what energy is, what time is, what space is, what mass is, what mind is, what consciousness is, what free will is? Science can’t explain anything at all is in any fundamental sense. Why not? Because only mathematics can define things, and science rejects the ontology of mathematics. Above all, science refuses to accept the real existence of perfect, analytic sinusoids as the ground of reality.

The Mechanical Philosophy The seventeenth century “mechanical philosophy” originated in the classical atomic theory of the ancient Greeks. In this view, the world is made up of nothing but material atoms in motion, travelling in a void, and continually colliding with each other. To this day, this remains the picture that most people have in their minds when they think about the atomic world, even though quantum mechanics tells a radically different story. Ancient Greek Atomism was based on an incoherent dualism. There are atoms, the Atomists said, and there is void through which the atoms travel. That’s it! There’s nothing else. However, if the void exists, it must in fact be made of something (otherwise it would be absolute nothingness – non-existence – and wouldn’t be there at all), but it can’t be made of atoms since they are the non-void part of this dualism. So, the nature of the void is wholly glossed over and left unexplained. Where did the void come from? Where did atoms come from? From where did atoms get their motion? Why is the void stationary? Where are the laws that govern the behaviour of the atoms and the void? Are these laws material (in which case they would need to be made of atoms!)? But if they are not material, how can they exist in this theory? If laws were removed from this atomic world, it would generate nothing but chaos. The modern atomic model begs the question in multiple ways too. Like all of science, it’s instrumental, i.e. if you forget everything to do with how such a system is possible in the first place and how it can possibly function, you can use this model to generate useful results. In essence, this model reduces reality to matter (atoms) in motion. You have material “things” – available to the senses – and they are in motion, which you can study via the laws of motion. The ontological nature of law itself is ignored – how does an atom “know” all the laws it has to obey,

where are these laws stored, what are they made of, why don’t they change or decay, and so on? Anyway, that’s it – the atomistic, mechanical philosophy! That’s the whole model. It’s a nice, simple, empiricist, sensory, materialist view of reality that everyone can grasp. Who cares that it doesn’t make any sense? The important point is that it generates a useful model of reality, allowing scientists to make discoveries and produce useful things. Useful things = power, money and influence = success. Success, as Nietzsche said, has always been the greatest liar. So, even though something is wholly false, it will be accepted as true provided it’s successful. Christianity and Islam are wholly false religions, but they are successful in terms of their numbers of followers, hence they are considered absolutely true by those followers. After all, if they were total lies, how could they be so successful? That false reasoning is, of course, the dismal central problem of humanity. Human beings are much more receptive to lies than to truth, much more receptive to Mythos than to Logos, much more receptive to lies that make them feel good than truths that make them feel bad, much more receptive to simplistic accounts of reality than to difficult mathematic accounts, much more receptive to the sensory than to the intelligible. Physics has always been about “matter and motion” – sensory things moving and interacting with each other. This is a “surface”, phenomenal ideology. There are no unseen, intangible, interior minds in this picture. What you see is what you get. Seeing is believing. If you can’t see it, it’s because it’s not there: it doesn’t exist. This is a wholly sensory understanding of reality. Minds can’t be seen, tasted, touched, heard, or smelled, hence, in this view, cannot exist (except as weird, unexplained epiphenomena of matter and material interactions). Souls can’t exist, God can’t exist, there’s no afterlife and no such thing as dimensionless existence. This view is relentlessly atheistic. Moreover, it denies the possibility of free will (since how can atoms – which are the only things that exist and which obey 100% deterministic laws – ever exhibit free action?). This remains the core way in which scientists and many others understand reality. But it’s just one enormous Mythos – the sensory Mythos. There are three vast Mythos systems that rule our world: 1) The Sensory Mythos of science – for sensing types.

2) The Feelings (Faith) Mythos of Abrahamism – for feeling types. 3) The Intuitive (Mysticism) Mythos of Eastern Religion – for intuitive types. The one system – the Truth – that has not yet been tried on Earth is Rational Logos for thinking types. This is the one that has been advanced by philosopher mathematicians and is often referred to as metaphysics. It deals with rationalist, eternal, mathematical truths. It’s intelligible, not sensible. It has nothing to do with the senses and experiments, but intuition can certainly be immensely valuable here. Isn’t it remarkable that, when all is said and done, we reach the simple truth that the four Jungian functions of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition totally dictate how human beings relate to reality. If you’re a sensing type, you will find metaphysics silly because it refers to nonsensory entities. Equally, you will find intuition spooky and silly. As for feeling types, they will reject anything that involves too much thinking (“Reason is the Devil whore.” – Luther). Intuitives will always have mystical visions and regard the sensory world as an illusion. Isn’t it remarkable that scientists take the sensory world as reality and any other world as fantasy, while intuitives take the sensory world as fantasy and illusion (Maya), and a non-sensory world as true reality? Feeling types can’t help but believe in some all-powerful superbeing (“God”), with whom they can have an emotional relationship (just look at how emotional Christians are when they talk about Jesus Christ, how emotional Muslims get over Mohammed, and how emotional Jews get over the Wailing Wall of the Jerusalem Temple where their God allegedly once lived). As for thinking types, they are inexorably drawn towards logic, reason and mathematics. Sadly, you don’t have a choice in what you accept as true, but that doesn’t mean that your “truths” are as good as anyone else’s. The MyersBriggs INTJ and INTPs have the minds best configured for truth. The sensory world is the construct of a higher, rational, intelligible, non-sensory reality. The human race would be radically different if intuitive thinkers made up the bulk of the human population. We’d be living in paradise! Intuition is our most immediate means of apprehending the higher, intelligible reality, but these intuitions then need to be processed rationally

to make proper sense of them. Eastern religion processes intuitions via feelings rather than reason, hence is “nice” but false. Western metaphysics processes intuitions via rational thinking, hence is getting closer to the truth. Illuminism processes intuitions via ontological mathematics, hence is the absolute, unarguable, eternal truth. Kurt Gödel, the smartest man of the twentieth century, was a rationalist, intuitive, mathematical logician – exactly like his great hero, Leibniz. Which rather tells its own story. Only a rare type of human being can see ultimate truth. The idea that truth is equally accessible to everyone is laughable. Feeling types, for example, are simply not designed to grasp stark, cold, rational truths. They are continually consumed by their warm, empathetic and sympathetic feelings. They will believe nonsense if the nonsense makes them feel good. Feeling types can have incredibly passionate lives, full of joy and misery, highs and lows, elation and depression. What they can’t have is a clinical, rational understanding of reality. Feeling types, let’s face it, loathe mathematics, and if you hate math, you’re never going to understand a world that is literally 100% made of math! Sensing types will have a vivid sensory experience of life, but abstract mathematical truth isn’t for them. Look at scientists. Science is based on mathematics (total rationalism) and experiments (total empiricism and instrumentalism). Science therefore has a choice to make between which of these two ingredients should define science: the mathematics or the experiments. Science has unequivocally chosen experiments as the core of the scientific method. Now imagine an experimental science without mathematics ... it would be fortune telling! Scientists have never grasped that it’s not experiments that are the key to science, but mathematics. They reason they have never grasped this is that they are sensing types, not rationalists. If they were rationalists, they would have made mathematics the defining element of science. Science could have chosen differently and had a very different history. Leibniz was a scientist who put mathematics, metaphysics and rationalism at the heart of science. Newton was a scientist who did “not feign hypotheses”, and put experiments and observations at the heart of science. Science followed Newton and rejected Leibniz. Yet no amount of experiments will ever reveal or prove what ultimate reality is. The ultimate answers to existence are intelligible, not sensible, and that means that

science will, in the end, have to reject Newton and embrace Leibniz. To put it another way, science will have to accept Illuminism and ontological mathematics! The mechanical philosophy was opposed to the Aristotelian “hylomorphic” philosophy. In the latter view, reality is not grounded in material atoms but in matter-form substances, each with its own inner essence, nature or form that makes its properties and behaviour intelligible. The mechanical philosophy says that atoms have no inner character and are instead directed by “inter-atomic” forces, while the hylomorphic philosophy would say, if it were based on atomism, that atoms have an inner character and are directed by “intra-atomic” forces (forces locked inside the atom which have nothing to do with other atoms and are unaffected by other atoms) and inter-atomic forces. To put it another way, hylomorphic atoms have minds (forms) and mechanical atoms do not. Hylomorphic atoms are alive by virtue of having minds, and mechanical atoms are dead. Hylomorphic atoms can be teleological – they can have purposes and strive for things – but mechanical atoms are purposeless and strive for nothing. Now, just as human minds are beyond the reach of science, and science hasn’t even begun to explain what a mind is in materialistic terms, so are the minds of hylomorphic atoms beyond science. The minds of these atoms are metaphysical, while their bodies are physical. Science refuses to accept metaphysics, hence rejects atomic minds, or any “inner”, subjective nature of atoms, any “withinness” – any soul! Science is always an outside, objective-observer view of reality, looking down and in. It’s never an inside, subjective-observer view of reality, looking up and out. Science rejects unobservable interiority and claims it doesn’t exist. It’s for this reason that science dismisses teleology. Only subjects, not objects, can have purposes. If you claim, as science does, that subjectivity does not exist then there can be no purposes. Science’s gargantuan problem is of course that reality is both subjective and objective (mind and body), but science only accepts objectivity (sensory evidence) and will have nothing to do with subjectivity (which is defined by intelligible metaphysics). What of Leibniz’s Monadology? If mechanical atoms are matter and no mind, and hylomorphic atoms are matter and mind, then Leibniz’s monadic atoms are pure minds that give rise to materialist phenomena. They are not

mind and matter; they are minds that produce what we regard as matter, i.e. they are noumenal, metaphysical minds that generate the phenomenal world of matter. In the mechanical view, matter does not have mind (and it then has to explain how matter generates mind, which it has never done). Matter is dead, so how does it produce life? In the hylomorphic view, matter has mind and is alive, so this view has none of science’s problems in explaining mind and life. In the Monadic view, mind is the primary reality and is inherently alive. It produces matter via its mental operations. The Monadic view is the opposite of the mechanical view. The latter says that mind does not exist by itself and is produced by matter. The former says that matter does not exist by itself and is produced by mind. The hylomorphic view says that mind and matter occur together (this is more or less Spinoza’s view). The only other view is that of Descartes who said that mind and matter are wholly separate substances, in which case how do they interact? So, starting with two possible ingredients – mind and matter – four different ontologies are possible: 1) Only matter exists; mind is something produced by matter, hence is itself essentially material. This is the materialist philosophy of science. It’s strongly allied with empiricism. 2) Only mind exists; matter is something produced by mind, hence is itself essentially mental. This is the idealist philosophy, and is the view taken by Leibniz. It’s strongly allied with rationalism. 3) Matter and mind occur together. This is the hylomorphic philosophy of Aristotle and Spinoza. 4) Matter and mind are completely separate. This is the dualistic philosophy of Descartes. Its central problem is explaining how mind and matter interact. Eastern religion belongs to the idealist tradition since matter is viewed as illusory. Western Abrahamism is mostly based on the Cartesian model, with some confused hylomorphic tendencies thrown in. A great deal of New Age, theosophical and anthroposophical thinking is also a confusion of hylomorphism and Cartesianism.

Where do you stand? These are your four choices. There are no others. You must commit yourself to one. The science view is a sensory view. The idealist view is an intuitive and rationalist view. Abrahamism is an irrational, feelings view. New Ageism and Eastern religion are a mixture of intuition, feeling and sensing – a huge muddle! Considering that our own mental states are the only things which we can ever directly experience – we can’t experience “material states” (machine states) – it’s rather baffling that scientists choose materialism over idealism. That, of course, is because their minds are in thrall to their sensory (mental!) experiences and perceptions, which seem to reveal an external, “solid” world of material things. But, as in The Matrix, how could they ever know that this material world is real in its own right and not just a mental construct?

Physical and Mental Atoms – The Problems 1) Materialism: if there are only physical atoms, how do they produce minds, which seem to be entirely non-physical? Science has never proffered any plausible solution. 2) Hylomorphism: if physical atoms have minds, why do bodies made of such atoms die? Aristotle and Spinoza answered this by making everything part of God, hence there’s no real death. 3) Cartesianism: if there are separate mental and physical atoms, how do they interact? Descartes and his disciples got nowhere near a plausible answer. 4) The Monadology: if there are nothing but minds, where does matter come from? In this view, there’s no matter in the conventional sense. Matter is a mathematical phenomenon produced by noumenal minds. There are no solid, enduring “things”. Rather, as in video games, the phenomenal world is the product of a continuous mathematical calculation. It proceeds by way of a cosmic wavefunction continuously collapsing and reforming, collapsing and reforming ... forever.

*****

“[Natural phenomena] can be explained mathematically or mechanically.” – Leibniz What Leibniz did was to produce two layers of explanation: physical and mental (metaphysical). Science, however, completely rejects unobservable, metaphysical explanations, hence has to attempt to explain life, mind, free will and consciousness via lifeless, mindless, material atoms wholly devoid of any possibility of free action or potential for consciousness. Well, good luck with that! “Although all the particular phenomena of [corporeal] nature can be explained mathematically or mechanically ... nevertheless ... the general principles of corporeal mechanical nature itself are metaphysical ... belonging to forms or indivisible natures.” – Leibniz For Leibniz, science without metaphysics is unthinkable. For materialists, science with metaphysics is unthinkable. In Leibniz’s view, what the inanimate physical world does requires no direct reference to minds, but what the physical world is demands a mental, rationalist, metaphysical explanation. Science can give us the hows but never the whys (assuming no rational person will accept the ludicrous non-explanation of “randomness” and multiverses as the root of existence). To explain why, only metaphysics can do the job. “How” and “does” = science. “Why”, “is,” and “becoming” = metaphysics. Science will come to a complete halt as far as its exploration of ultimate reality goes unless it abandons its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism and instead embraces idealism, rationalism and metaphysics. Metaphysics is what comes after physics, what lies behind and beyond physics. It deals with “why?” It concerns the intelligible rather than sensible world and is accessible to reason alone. If physics (the study of the sensible world) is not underpinned by metaphysics (the study of the intelligible world) then it has no proper foundation and explanation. Contingent things cannot exist without necessary things. There can be no synthetic things without analytic things. There can be no a posteriori things without a priori things. There cannot be truths of fact without truths of reason. There can be no causes without first causes that are themselves

uncaused but are not random. There can be no induction without deduction. There can be no empiricism without rationalism. There can be no “how” without “why”. There can be no “does” without “is and becoming”. Science might tell us what matter does, but it certainly doesn’t tell us what matter, or indeed anything else, is. It’s time to escape the Science Delusion, which, in its own way, is as pernicious as the God Delusion.

The Avoidance “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls.” – Jung They will even turn to science, which denies that they have a soul at all!

The Materialist Vision “[Materialism]...in explicating particular phenomena, considers only the size, shape, motion (or want of it), texture and the resulting qualities and attributes, of the small particles of matter. And thus in this great automaton, the world (as in a watch or a clock) ... the phenomena it exhibits are to be accounted for by the number, bigness, proportion, shape, motion (or endeavour), rest ... of the ... parts it is made up of.” – Robert Boyle This is exactly what a person would say who refuses to acknowledge anything beyond his senses. This is a person who rejects intuition and rationalism. All scientists are of this kind. They are lacking in imagination, intuition and reason, and can’t get beyond “seeing is believing”. They are all Doubting Thomases, skeptical of everything other than their senses, which they worship with religious intensity, and which they don’t doubt at all. Scientists follow the Sensory Faith. They have absolute belief in sensory data. The irony is that they don’t even know what sensory data is, and they don’t know if what we sense has any resemblance to what’s actually “out there”. This is a question wholly beyond empiricism. We can “know” what our experiences are, but we can’t know, empirically, what they are an experience of, i.e. we can’t work out ontology and epistemology through empiricism and materialism, only through rationalism and metaphysics (ontological mathematics).

Materialism “Take first the more obvious case of materialism. As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman’s argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. Contemplate some able and sincere materialist, as, for instance, Mr. McCabe, and you will have exactly this unique sensation. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cogwheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in.” – G. K. Chesterton Science does indeed have an insane simplicity. It’s a belief system for simpletons ... for plebeians, as Nietzsche put it. They lack sophistication. They lack ingenuity. Worst of all, they lack imagination. Imagination is all about understanding that what we see is not the totality of what’s there: the precise opposite of science.

Experience and Logic “Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned. The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual’s own reason and critical analysis.” – the Dalai Lama But logic frequently contradicts experience, and vice versa! And most individuals are staggeringly lacking in reason and critical analysis, most often because they are such slaves of their experiences, their senses and their feelings!

Self-Correcting Science claims to be self-correcting. What a joke. Science is pure groupthink, conformism and careerism. Science is driven by funding

committees and university appointment boards. To get funding and to get and keep a job, you have to agree entirely with the scientific establishment and its Meta Paradigm. Every scientist is expected to churn out papers, and, if you don’t, you will be fired. So, low-quality junk is continuously flowing off the scientific production line, and you can be certain that none of it criticises the science establishment (quickest way to get yourself fired!). Nobel Prize winner Peter Higgs said that he would never have been tolerated in today’s academic world since he dared to take years to ponder issues, without publishing anything. Today, he would be deemed unproductive and rapidly dismissed.

Bunk “History is bunk.” – Henry Ford Economics is bunk. Religion is bunk. Politics is bunk. Science is bunk. Mathematics is not bunk!

Objective versus Subjective Determinism We live in an absolutely deterministic universe in which there’s a Leibnizian sufficient reason for everything. How, then, is free will possible? The answer lies in objective versus subjective determinism. With objective determinism, the same causal sequence always has the same, inevitable outcome. With subjective determinism, the outcome depends on the subject involved. All subjects (minds, souls) can have three types of experience: 1) those that cause pleasure (hence are desired by the subject), 2) those that cause pain (hence are avoided by the subject), and 3) those that cause neither pleasure nor pain, to which the subject is therefore indifferent. A subject considers that pleasure is a measure of its increasing power, and pain a measure of its decreasing power. Indifference is neutral and

leaves power unchanged. All subjects seek pleasure and strive to avoid pain since this is the simplest way to feel that one’s power is increasing – which is what, ultimately, all subjects crave. All subjects obey this causal system of pleasure, pain and neutrality. The key point is that what one subject finds painful, another might find pleasurable, and vice versa. In other words, we don’t objectively know how two different subjects will receive and perceive the same stimulus. We objectively know that all subjects will pursue pleasure and avoid pain, but we don’t objectively know what any particular subject will perceive as pleasurable or painful. All subjects pursue a strict determinism insofar as they will always, as far as they are allowed, seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Some subjects might pursue instant gratification – immediate rewards and immediate avoidance of pain – while others might endure pain in the present if they think it will lead to greater pleasure in the future. People who delay gratification might take on an arduous education for the sake of a great, high-paid, high-status job in the future. Olympic athletes might endure a punishing training regime, believing it will equip them for Olympic glory. Others might gamble, gorge on junk food, indulge in drugs and alcohol, pursue sex relentlessly, and so on, and never go anywhere near any tough tasks that offer no immediate gratification. The point is that every subject has its sufficient reason for behaving as it does, hence its conduct is determined, not random. We are all subjects and the sufficient reason belongs to our nature, our personality, our character and the inner experiences that have shaped us. We are mentally subject to an internal determinism, not an external determinism. Science, on the other hand, rejects subjectivity and asserts that there are only objective atomic interactions, obeying the objective laws of physics. No one has an inner nature independent of the atomic world, so science repudiates free will.

***** We are free to obey our inner nature (our subjective determinism), but we are certainly not free to act randomly. No one ever acts randomly.

The Wisdom of Max Planck

“Science progresses funeral by funeral.” – Max Planck “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.” – Max Planck “Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view.” – Max Planck Science is based on personality type (it attracts extraverted sensing thinking types; “extraverted” meaning not that they are social, party animals, but very much focused on the outer rather than inner world), on paradigms, on careerism, on traditions. Science is not based on reason, facts, evidence and proof. Science changes because old generations of scientists die off, not because science is passionately pursuing the truth. New thinking is possible only because of the deaths of the old thinkers, not because scientists are open-minded and accepting of new thinking. Scientists, despite their own bluster and propaganda, are amongst the most closed-minded people on Earth. Getting a scientist to change paradigm is every bit as hard as getting a Muslim or Jew to change religion. “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” – Max Planck We can solve the mystery. If nature is mathematical and we are mathematical then what’s to stop us? It’s all in the math! Ontological mathematics provides a closed, analytic, complete answer. We are part of nature, nature is mathematical, we are mathematical and therefore to solve the ultimate mystery of nature we simply need to solve mathematics (which is our both ourselves and the universe: as above, so below). “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in

perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls” – Max Planck True! The modern generation of atheistic thinkers are enormously less successful as thinkers. They are characterised by a horrific absence of imagination, intuition and vision, and a childish notion that what is in front of their faces must be real. In fact, children, with their imaginary friends, don’t even believe that! “Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by powerseeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but – which is even worse – also any prospects at a better future.” – Max Planck “There is no matter as such – mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck True. Matter is a total illusion, a mental illusion. It’s caused by collective monadic, rather than individual monadic, mental operations. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck No, we mustn’t assume a conscious and intelligent mind. We must assume mathematical minds (monads), which are unconscious but can evolve consciousness. The Monadic Collective – the mathematical Cosmic Mind – is the matrix of all matter. It’s not a person! “[I regard] consciousness as fundamental, I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” – Max Planck Matter is derived from the mind – the unconscious mind – not from any conscious mind. It’s preposterous to say that consciousness – something

that has contingently evolved – is the basis of matter. Where was matter before consciousness appeared in the universe? How did consciousness evolve in the first place? What is consciousness? Science has no answers, and yet quantum mechanics is full of twaddle about observer-constructed reality, about consciousness being vital to reality. Scientists overwhelmingly don’t even accept the existence of autonomous mind! “We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” – Max Planck Only the laws of ontological mathematics are necessarily eternal and immutable – and perfect. “This is one of man’s oldest riddles. How can the independence of human volition be harmonized with the fact that we are integral parts of a universe which is subject to the rigid order of nature’s laws?” – Max Planck Indeed. The only way to have human freedom is to have two categories of existence: subjects and objects, giving rise to four types of interaction: 1) Subject-subject 2) Subject-object 3) Object-subject 4) Object-object Science denies the existence of subjects (souls, minds, free agents), hence only category 4 is left (object-object), and this absolutely precludes freedom. Only subjects, outside object-object causal chains, can be free. Objects, such as atoms, completely locked into causal chains, can never be free. So, if minds are made of atoms (objects), as science claims, minds can never exhibit freedom. The question of free will is in fact the most important question in science. If we are free, which we obviously and self-evidently are, then the whole scientific materialist paradigm is false (which it certainly is!). As we have just seen, freedom requires subjects and objects. Both categories are deterministic, i.e. everything is done for a sufficient reason, not for no reason at all (which would be randomness). The difference is that subjects determine their own actions for their own reasons (individual

causality), whereas objects obey whatever collective mathematical laws apply to them (collective causality). Thus, we have another way of describing the four types of causality: 1) Individual-individual (mind to mind). 2) Individual-collective (mind to “all minds”, i.e. the Monadic Collective). 3) Collective-individual (“all minds” to mind). 4) Collective-collective (“all minds” to “all minds”). The Monadic Collective reflects what all monads have in common: the machinelike laws of mathematics. Individual monads can have their own agency. Subjectively, they obey their own “laws” – shaped by their own character, personality type, and inner nature. It can’t be stressed enough that the entire edifice of science is destroyed by subjectivity, by the existence of causal subjects. These can be only one thing: immaterial, dimensionless, mathematical minds (monads) = souls! Freedom is possible only if subjects are possible. True mind is possible only if subjects are possible. Dimensionless existence is possible only if subjects are possible. Ontological mathematics is possible only if subjects are possible. Religion is possible only if subjects are possible. And, if truth be told, objects are possible only if subjects are possible. There is no Cartesian subject-object “substance dualism”, which would raise the fraught problem of how different categories of existence can interact. Subjects and objects, just like something and nothing, are the same thing viewed from different perspectives. A monad is a subject to itself, but to everything else (other monads!), it’s an object. The Monadic Collective is a pure object (all subjectivity is stripped out). Only what all monads have identically in common – the laws of mathematics – are retained when the Collective acts as one. Hence the Monadic Collective seems like an objective mathematical machine, and science mistakes this for “material” reality, devoid of subjects. Each monad is, however, also a living individual, and not just a machine part of a Collective. Each monad is a subject within an objective Collective. The individual monad is the soul (mind), and the Collective Monad is the body (source of matter). It really is that simple.

The Monadic Collective is, from another perspective, a mental Singularity – an objective mathematical singularity – while each individual monad is a subjective mathematical singularity. The Monadic Collective creates the material world via a Fourier mathematics operation on a cosmic scale. This forms the physical “body” of the universe. Individual minds (subjects) then bind to individual bodies (objects) within this material world. An individual mind can create its own individual “material world” and this is known as a dream (it’s a subjective material world where all the laws can change at the whim and will of the dreamer). The waking world, the “real” world”, is just a collective, objective dream that cannot be changed by the whim or will of any individual monad. In your own dreams, there’s no resistance to prevent you from doing whatever you want. In the “real world” – the collective dream – you are opposed by every other monad in existence, hence you are absolutely prevented from doing whatever you want. The resistance against you is as strong as it can possibly be. Individual dreams are about subjectivity. The Collective dream (the waking world) is about objectivity. In human society, “libertarians” and anarchists are opposed to the collective rules. These people are effectively living in a dreamworld where they imagine they can do whatever they like regardless of others. Reality, however, begs to differ. The world will stop all libertarians and anarchists. People must obey the rules, just as monads must obey the rules of the Monadic Collective. You are literally insane if you seriously believe you can tell the world what to do, and do your own thing despite the objections of others. As Kafka said, “In man’s struggle against the world, bet on the world.” Libertarians, anarchists and Randroids are those who crazily claim that you should bet against the world, bet against the Collective. That’s how to start a war in the shortest possible time. The rules of the Collective must be rational and fair to everyone in the Collective. This is what ontological mathematics achieves in relation to the cosmos. In relation to human society, this is what meritocracy achieves. Meritocracy is, and is intended to be, the closest possible political and legal approximation to ontological mathematics.

*****

The objective world obeys Aristotelian (machine) logic. The subjective world obeys Dialectical (living) logic. The Omega Point of Dialectical Logic is Aristotelian Logic, i.e. when the Dialectic is complete, every mind understands the objective world perfectly, why everything is the way it is, and why everything happened as it did. The dialectic is full of error, delusion, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, supposition, interpretation and belief. It’s incredibly messy and often incredibly violent. Pure Aristotelian Logic, on the other hand, concerns the clean, analytic, necessary, eternal truths of reason. When people are rational enough to understand these truths, they leave behind illusion (Maya) and embrace Truth. In effect, subjective dialectics eventually arrives at objective Aristotelian Logic by the brute force method of throwing all opposites together – resulting in a vast, savage, cosmic war – and seeing what survives the bloodbath. In the end, the only thing that can endure is the one and only complete and consistent system – that of ontological mathematics. Everything else is destroyed by its own inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and incompleteness. Aristotelian Logic – pure Logic – is that which reflects ontological mathematics. The ultimate cosmic Synthesis of all opposites (all theses and antitheses) is the complete, consistent, perfect, objective, Platonic system of ontological mathematics (which defines true, ontological Aristotelian Logic). It’s the only stable solution. Everything else is annihilated by its own internal contradictions. In human terms, the dialectic is why history has been so violent. All religious, economic, political and scientific systems are full of contradictions, hence are inevitably destroyed. The “end of history” means humanity’s arrival at the perfect system, which is as free as possible of contradiction, while reflecting human nature. Marx thought that communism – the doctrine of total equality – was the inevitable culmination of the political dialectic. Francis Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy (free-market capitalism, in other words) was, in practical rather than theoretical terms, the final answer. The true answer is meritocracy, which is the synthesis of communism (thesis) and free-market capitalism (antithesis). Communism is about total equality and free-market capitalism about total inequality. The synthesis is equality of opportunity but inequality of outcomes: you go as far as your talents take you, but you are legally prohibited from creating dynastic

wealth, inheritance, privilege, cronyism and nepotism. No one is allowed any means to subvert equal opportunities. This is the only way to be fair to everyone. No one can complain about their fate if they were given the best possible chance to succeed. If they subsequently fail, they have no one to blame but themselves. In the end, meritocracy will deliver a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine, paradise on Earth, where everyone will be fully optimised. This will, in fact, be perfect communism, but based on gods rather than humans. Only Gods are fit for communism. Communism fails with respect to men, but not Gods. Humans aren’t good enough for communism. They’re too selfish and irrational. As for free-market capitalism, it’s nothing but the master-slave dialectic turned into an economic system. It made gods of a few and slaves of everyone else. Meritocracy abolishes all masters and all slaves, and creates nothing but gods. Only gods can establish true communism – the Community of Gods! In meritocratic communism, no one is lazy, greedy, selfish or irrational. There are no anarchists or libertarians. Everyone grasps the rational laws of Society, necessarily fair to all. We arrive, finally, at a Mathematical Society rather than one that is religious, political, economic or scientific. In the end, all roads lead to mathematics, to the principle of sufficient reason. Anything else is irrational. For humanity to succeed, it must obey reason. There’s no rational alternative. Humanity’s problem is that it’s irrational. It’s the function of the dialectic to rectify that disastrous flaw.

***** “The Theory of Relativity confers an absolute meaning on a magnitude which in classical theory has only a relative significance: the velocity of light. The velocity of light is to the Theory of Relativity as the elementary quantum of action is to the Quantum Theory: it is its absolute core.” – Max Planck Yet Relativists have never explained why the velocity of light is absolute. They simply accept this as an experimentally observed fact. They do not

rationally explain it. This is a perennial failing of science. It can never explain anything, only describe, assume and model things. “Science…means unresting endeavour and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but the intellect can never fully grasp.” – Max Planck But intellect can – mathematically. “Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.” – Max Planck WRONG! This is the defining error of science. No scientist ever says that reason is the only means of knowledge at our disposal, which reveals just how irrational science is. Experiments are concerned with the sensible world, but knowledge is all about the intelligible world.

***** It’s extraordinary that science has been hijacked by empiricist materialist fanatics who, like the maniacs of religious faith, are incapable of considering rational alternatives. Nobel Prizes are dispensed like candy to people who have absolutely betrayed the quest for truth. Even worse is the fact that there has been staggeringly little debate in the scientific profession as to what science actually is, what its goals are and what achievements it can realistically accomplish. The average scientist is, let’s face it, ill-equipped to engage in any highlevel philosophical debate that requires real intelligence. Scientists these days are humdrum technicians, drudges, drones, bureaucrats, careerists and functionaries. They all suffer from groupthink and stick to tiny areas of specialisation where they are incapable of contemplating the “big picture” of science. Just as philosophy became an intellectual joke thanks, on the one hand, to the analytic philosophy of Russell and Wittgenstein and, on the other, to continental postmodernism, so science has become a joke ever since it accepted Einsteinian relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s a fact.

Science: The Flat Earth Society “You don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson What about rationalists and idealists? Do you give them equal time, Neil? Or is science just a fanatical expression of empiricism and materialism that refuses to listen to other views? Is science now a quasi religious-faith, an intolerant dogmatism? The whole problem with scientific materialism is that it gives no time at all to opposed views, hence has become an ideological Church. Scientists are groupthinkers and careerists, who never dare to challenge the established orthodoxy. Even Einstein was ridiculed by the Church of Science for refusing to agree that existence is grounded in randomness. One day, the “randomness orthodoxy” of today’s scientists will be regarded as the equivalent of a Flat Earth argument. The whole of the current scientific Meta Paradigm will in due course be rejected and replaced by mathematical rationalism. Science wages a war against rationalism, idealism and mathematics, a war it can never rationally win. “Our civilization is built on the innovation of scientists and technologists and engineers who have shaped everything that we so take for granted today. So some of the science deniers or science haters ... these are people who are telling that to you while they are on their mobile phone.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Er, civilisation is based on mathematics. Science, technology and engineering would be impossible without mathematics. Scientists are mathematics deniers and haters! They refuse to accept that reality is mathematical, not “scientific”. “Science is not there for you to cherry pick.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Er, yes it is. You have to choose between relativity theory or quantum mechanics since they are totally incompatible. There’s no such thing as a single, coherent science, so you have no choice but to pick bits you like and reject the bits you don’t. Science is inconsistent, incomplete and selfcontradictory. It’s nothing like ontological mathematics, from which you

definitely can’t cherry pick. Isn’t it remarkable that scientists talk about scientific contingency and fallibility as if it were mathematical necessity and infallibility? What’s wrong with these people? “What responsibility do you think the members of the media have to portray science correctly?” – Neil deGrasse Tyson What responsibility do scientists have to portray mathematics correctly? “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Science isn’t true at all. It’s a philosophical model based on empiricism and opposed to rationalism. Science has no epistemology or ontology. It doesn’t say a single thing that is necessarily and eternally true. It’s arbitrary, contingent, ad hoc and continually changing. It has a 100% “truth” range since it has gone from being 100% deterministic to 100% indeterministic, i.e. it has proved that it is capable of stating that black is white, hence has zero truth content (just like Abrahamism and Karmism). Only mathematics is about the truth. “You can decide whether or not to believe in it [science], but that doesn’t change the reality of an emergent scientific truth.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson What truths? What on earth is “emergence”? Is that when lifeless, mindless atoms come together to produce life and mind? You might as well believe in magic ... or religion! Science is wholly irrational and has zero truth content. It says that reality is based on randomness and that the universe comes from absolute nothingness. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

The Believers All believers are 100% credulous towards their own belief system, and 100% incredulous towards all other belief systems. Isn’t that astounding? How can any believer consider that rational? Scientists are 100% credulous towards anything based on experimental observations and 100% incredulous towards anything else. This is somewhat unfortunate given that mathematics is 100% independent of experimental observations and, without mathematics, science would be no better than soothsaying. As ever, the believers simply refuse to be rational.

The only difference between scientists and Abrahamists is that the latter believe in divine revelation and the former in experimental observations. Each group refuses to consider anything outside of its comfort zone, its belief paradigm. Both groups hold reason in contempt. Scientists dismiss rationalism in favour of empiricism and Abrahamists regard reason as the Devil’s whore.

Scientists Scientists are not truth seekers. They are careerists, status-seekers, bureaucrats, mediocre thinkers, drudges, “political” players, and paradigm upholders and enforcers. The closest parallel to the scientific establishment is the Catholic Church. Scientists subscribe to groupthink and are extremely conformist. Freethinkers aren’t welcome in the halls of science. No funding is allocated to freethinkers or anyone who challenges the orthodoxy. Simply by being part of a conformist science department, a scientist accepts the culture and practices of his mediocre colleagues and becomes incapable of free thought. He knows what they will find shocking, so he does not think those heretical thoughts. In Islamic “science” departments, “scientists” know they must never arrive at any conclusions that contradict the Koran, hence they self-censor and never have any risky thoughts. This is symptomatic of the whole scientific profession. Scientists have an overwhelming tendency to seek consensus, but consensus is no more associated with the truth than “common sense”. The smartest people are always consensus breakers. How does a radical new truth ever come about except through someone rejecting the consensus? New truths always begin with just one person, who is always a freethinking radical and never a careerist. Nothing is more antithetical to truth than careerism. Tragically, every aspect of the world – politics, economics, religions, science, philosophy, sociology, management and so on – is overwhelmingly run by careerists. One of the primary aims of the Meritocracy Movement is to abolish rule and influence by careerists. Careerists are Nietzschean “last men”.

*****

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead – his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the centre of true religiousness.” – Einstein Einstein’s great problem was that he himself was totally infected with empiricism, materialism and localism, which prevented him from being genuinely religious and imaginative.

***** “We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon, our method is science our aim is religion.” – Aleister Crowley

Inside and Outside the Universe? The universe is everything. Nothing can exist outside it. However, the universe has two aspects, mental and physical. The mental aspect is the immaterial Singularity, outside space and time. It’s a frequency domain. The Singularity – the mental universe – can indeed be said to stand outside the material universe, but it certainly isn’t outside the universe as a collective whole: physical and mental. The physical universe can be said to be inside the mental universe, i.e. the material world is fully contained within the Mind of “God”!

Evil Jung said that Schopenhauer “had the courage to see that all was not for the best in the fundaments of the universe”. It’s a key point that “evil” is not in any way prohibited and is in fact a natural feature of existence. The existence of evil is, however, incomprehensible in a universe allegedly created by a perfect being who knows no evil. Where did evil

come from if the being that created absolutely everything did not know any evil, was incapable of making anything evil, and did not even know what evil was? No apologist for a “morally perfect” Abrahamic Creator has ever come anywhere near answering this question, and indeed no sane, rational answer is conceivable. It’s a simple impossibility that evil should exist in a universe created by a perfect being. The presence of evil is a formal rational proof that there is no perfect Creator God. The mathematical universe is perfect in terms of its laws, but those laws do nothing to preclude the existence of evil and, indeed, the dialectical process that drives the mathematical beings that inhabit the mathematical universe is predicated on opposites (thesis and antithesis), so formally requires evil (if we have “good”). We cannot become perfect unless we resolve all theses and antitheses in one final grand synthesis. Divine perfection evolves, it is not given. God does not create the universe. The universe creates God. In Jung’s view, the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was incomplete and required a fourth element to form a Quaternity. He had two suggestions as to what the fourth element might be: 1) an evil side of God (– the Devil!), or 2) a feminine side of God (and in this regard he thought the Virgin Mary – the “Mother of God” – might play that role). In these terms, the Torah, Old Testament and Koran depict the evil dimension of God. The God of these books is a wicked, tyrannical monster, a Torture God who persecutes and slaughters humanity. The New Testament, in broad terms, is much more feminine. Jesus has a gentle, benevolent mother and does not want to do anything to disappoint or shock her. The monster of the Old Testament has been tamed by virtue of being born of a woman. The Virgin Mary acts as God’s anima. Jung’s Quaternity makes most sense in the following scheme: 1) God the Father = the Devil. Devoted to power. Will do anything for power, and loves exercising his power over others. Wants everyone on their knees to him. Will sacrifice others to himself (as in the tales of Abraham, Jephtha, Job and even Jesus Christ). The Thesis. 2) God the Mother = the Virgin Mary. Devoted to love and peace. Will sacrifice herself for others. Does not seek power over anyone. The Antithesis. 3) God the Son = the synthesis of God the Father and God the Mother.

4) God the Holy Spirit = the dialectic itself (operating on the Hegelian Geist). Where God the Son is a specific, local, incarnated divine being, God the Holy Spirit is a general, non-local, divine force, permeating the universe. Where God the Son is the local, terrestrial synthesis, God the Holy Spirit is the non-local, cosmic synthesis that pervades the whole universe.

Nothing, Void, Emptiness There are many religious terms that relate to a dimensionless, noumenal domain from which the phenomenal world is derived. Hindus talk of Brahman. Buddhists use terms such as Nirvana, Dharmakaya, and Shunyata. Neoplatonists referred to the “One”. In Kabbalah, “Ein Sof” is the term used. For Taoists, it’s the Tao itself. For Abrahamists, it’s Jehovah, Allah or Jesus Christ, all of whom are said to create the universe out of “nothing”. So, Void/Nothing/Emptiness is always regarded as both nothing and everything, zero and infinity. It’s the Absolute, the Ultimate, the source of all being and the ground of all existence. In many ways, it is simply “God” in his barest, least adorned form. It would be far better and more rational to refer to God as Void rather than as a personality, a conscious being. To this extent, Eastern religion is vastly superior to Western religion. The East presents God abstractly (though “it” might become concrete through avatars – such as the many divinities of Hinduism, or through an enlightened being such as Buddha), while the West presents God concretely (while also giving us an avatar in the shape of Jesus Christ, and even in terms of prophets such as Moses and Mohammed who allegedly “channel” the will and mind of God). The abstract God is variously depicted as Void, non-being, unconscious thought, the incomprehensible Absolute, non-existence, nothingness, the absence of all quality or quantity, the unmanifest, the unlimited, the eternal, the infinite, the hidden, the boundless, the Pleroma, the plenum, the fullness, the limitless light, the originator and container of All, the Source, the divine quintessence, the Uncreated God, the first cause, the uncaused cause, the last cause, the Prime Mover, Pristine Awareness, and Absolute Transcendence, Absolute Immanence, the ultimate mystery.

In fact, the abstract God is just the Monadic Collective – the mathematical Cosmic Mind.

White Holes and Black Holes At the ultimate level, the universe comprises a vast number of dimensionless frequency domains. These are energy systems, which are equivalent to information systems. They are mental systems capable of having an internal experience of energy and information. That makes them autonomous minds, and, to use a religious word, souls. They are immortal and indestructible. What’s more, they are driven by the need to increase their power. They are all self-optimizing systems, seeking to reach their Omega Point where they achieve maximum power (and thus become “God”). These frequency domains (monadic minds) act as both black holes (in their private, windowless aspect) and white holes (in their public, windowed aspect). Very high frequencies (energies) are permanently locked inside monads and cannot enter the physical world. In cosmology, black hole formation equates to such high frequencies being generated that they can no longer exist in the physical world and they collapse down to a singularity, i.e. they join the dimensionless, monadic frequency domain and are no longer part of material spacetime. Any out-of-control energy processes in the spacetime universe do not rip reality to shreds (as scientific materialists believe of infinite-energy processes), but, automatically, are safely removed to the dimensionless frequency domain. This is the perfect safety valve, ensuring the stability of the material world. While high frequencies and energy are locked inside the monadic frequency domain, the same is not true of low frequencies and energies. These can be safely shared between monads to create the material world, common to all monads. In terms of low frequencies and energies, all monads act as “white holes”, releasing energy into a shared mathematical space that corresponds to the material world. Sometimes, positive and negative energies (real and imaginary) are released at exactly the same time, only to cancel each other and vanish back into dimensionless existence. This is the true basis of what scientific materialists call “virtual energy”. At

other times, energy in its different forms escapes and is stabilised by its surroundings, thus does not collapse back into dimensionless existence. It now has a dimensional aspect and is publicly available. So, there’s a private monadic frequency domain (corresponding to monads acting as black holes) and a public monadic frequency domain (corresponding to monads acting as white holes), with an event horizon common to both. In the case of black hole functionality, dimensional energy that crosses the event horizon becomes dimensionless. In the case of white hole functionality, dimensionless energy escapes is released from the event horizon and becomes dimensional. The significance of the “shared” frequency band produced by all monads (acting in their white whole aspect) is that, via Fourier mathematics, it gives rise to the shared spacetime domain that we know as the material world. This shared world is not under the control of any one monad but is dependent on all of them. Their common language is mathematics, so this spacetime domain reflects an objective, machine-like mathematical nature, causally obeying objective mathematical laws. One of the biggest questions is how individual life gets injected mathematically into this shared mathematical machine. If we think of the local spacetime domain as providing the natural support for consciousness, with the non-local frequency domain supporting the unconscious, the Jungian Collective Unconscious corresponds to the shared monadic frequency domain. The Collective Unconscious comprises universal mental ideas knows as “archetypes”, which are reflected in all cultures and societies, no matter how diverse. At first, Jung used the term solely in relation to psychic processes. However, as he attempted to account for synchronicity in some quasi-scientific way, he introduced the concept of the “psychoid” archetype. Jung wrote, “For just as a man has a body which is no different in principle from that of an animal, so also his psychology has whole series of lower storeys in which the spectres from humanity’s past epochs still dwell, then the animal souls from the age of Pithecanthropus and the hominids, then the ‘psyche’ of the cold-blooded saurian, and, deepest down of all, the transcendental mystery and paradox of the sympathetic and parasympathetic psychoid processes.” He additionally described “psychoid” as: “no psychic quality in the proper sense of the word..., but only a ‘quasi-psychic’ one such as the

reflex-processes possess.” Jung was trying to find a level at which mind and matter merge, thus allowing explanations of how mind and matter can influence each other: they do so, he believed, through their shared psychoid layer. Descartes defined mind and matter as separate substances, but couldn’t explain how they interacted. To some degree, Jung made them the same substance but existing on a continuum, with matter as the most primitive form of mind and thus “psychoid” rather than “psychic”. Mind and matter can interact in this scheme because, ultimately, matter is just mind, but at its lowest operational level. Matter, we might say, is extended, dimensional mind, while true mind is unextended and dimensionless matter. Of course, the natural way to reconcile dimensional and dimensionless mind is via Fourier mathematics. Extended mind belongs to the dimensional spacetime domain and unextended mind to the dimensionless frequency domain. Another way to think of the Jungian psychoid layer is as a tertium quid – “third thing” – that underlies both mind and matter, uniting them. There’s no question that the mind-matter conundrum – the search for psychophysical unity – is provided by Fourier mathematics and nothing else. For Jung, the psychoid archetype reflected the “biological instinctual psyche” and “gradually passes over into the physiology of the organism and thus merges with its chemical and physical conditions.” Summing up, he says, “The position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic sphere, analogous to the position of physiological instinct, which is immediately rooted in the stuff of the organism and, with its psychoid nature, forms the bridge to matter in general.” Jung was searching for the alchemical unus mundus – “one world” – in which the physical and spiritual came together (and so a “golden spirit” could literally turn base metal into gold by exploiting the ultimate equivalence between mind and matter). Nobel physicist Wolfgang Pauli, an admirer of Jung’s ideas, said, “More and more I see the psychophysical problem as the key to the overall spiritual situation of our age, and the gradual discovery of a new (‘neutral’) psychophysical standard language, whose function is symbolically to describe an invisible, potential form of reality that is only indirectly inferable through its effects, also seems to me an indispensable prerequisite

for the emergence of the new hieros gamos [“holy marriage”] predicted by you.” Interestingly, Pauli was correctly advocating a “hidden variables”, noumenal, metaphysical layer of existence underlying phenomenal, physical reality. All of his views in this regard were automatically dismissed by the scientific establishment, naturally. Quite simply, ontological mathematics provides everything Pauli and Jung were looking for. Ontological mathematics is the unus mundus in which everything is united. If we imagine, in accordance with Aristotle’s conception of a great chain of being, pure matter at one end and God (pure Form) at the other, we can postulate a progressive mixture of matter and mind. At the bottom of the scale, we have mindless matter and at the top matterless mind. The more “psychoid” something is, the less mind it has. Matter, in this scheme, is purely psychoid while God is pure psyche. Rock is the most psychoid type of substance, followed by metals and crystals. When we get to organic molecules, these are associated with a psychoid nature that has a far higher proportion of psyche mixed in. With DNA, we arrive at something that can bridge the conventional matter-mind gap. Here, mind is finally able to control matter, allowing a soul to take possession of a body and make it move and act. DNA is, from one angle, just a set of molecules, but, from another, it’s an enormously powerful information system – a mental system. Darwinists believe in strictly material processes involving mindless, lifeless atoms that somehow give rise to bodies exhibiting life and mind. Evolution, they say, happens by way of random genetic mutations that are then acted upon by natural selection and favoured or eliminated. In Illuminism, there’s no such thing as random material mutation. Mutations take place because atoms and molecules are linked to minds and it’s active minds that bring about change, as they seek to produce bodies that give them even more power. This mental mutation is every bit as unobservable as random mutation: you have to rationally work out what’s going on. Is evolution a teleological process heading for an Omega Point, or is it a pointless, purposeless random process, as scientific materialists like Richard Dawkins claim?

*****

What is matterless form? It’s energy as frequency (outside spacetime). What is formless matter? It’s energy in spacetime. Dimensionless energy (frequency) is psyche and dimensional energy (matter) is psychoid. It’s all in the math.

The Jungian Chain of Being (The Psychoid/Psychic Spectrum) 1) Matter: lower psychoid entities. 2) The Collective Unconscious: higher psychoid and lower psychic entities; shared psychic entities. 3) The Personal Unconscious: lower psychic entities; individual psychic entities. 4) The Conscious Ego: medium psychic entities. 5) The Higher Self (the Superconscious Ego): higher psychic entities. 6) The Divine Self (God): ultra-high energy psychic entities. The central idea is that low energy states are matter-like and higher energy states increasingly mental. Gods are those who can consciously harness all of their frequencies (from zero to infinity, so to speak). They have complete mental control over matter. They can do whatever they like in the material world.

Numinous Numen: Creative energy regarded as a guiding genius or demon dwelling within one. Numinous: Pertaining to a numen; spiritually elevating; mysterious and awe-inspiring. We become more numinous as we bring higher and higher frequencies under conscious control. Gods are pure activity, pure action, pure, unlimited energy.

Evolution

“If the Creator were conscious of Himself, He would not need conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures, are the outcome of purposeful intention. Natural history tells us of a haphazard and casual transformation of species over hundreds of millions of years of devouring and being devoured. The biological and political history of man is an elaborate repetition of the same thing. But the history of the mind offers a different picture. Here the miracle of reflecting consciousness intervenes – the second cosmogony. The importance of consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting the element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the monstrous, apparently senseless biological turmoil, and that the road to its manifestation was ultimately found on the level of warm-blooded vertebrates possessed of a differentiated brain – found as if by chance, unintended and unforeseen, and yet somehow sensed, felt and groped for out of some dark urge.” – Jung “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious.” – Jung “The divine Idea is just this: to disclose itself, to posit the Other outside itself and to take it back again into itself in order to be subjectivity and geist (mind/spirit).” – Hegel “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” – Jung

The Noosphere The Noosphere is Earth’s “mental atmosphere” – the thinking layer of the Earth, dominated by humanity’s geniuses. The Noosphere can either attain total control over the material Earth, or detach itself from the material Earth. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Noosphere is something akin to the Jungian Collective Unconscious becoming more and more Conscious.

The Ladder of Good and Evil

If the Devil is at the bottom of the ladder in hell, and God at the top in heaven, where are you on the ladder of good and evil? What if the ladder is circular? Are God and the Devil then one and the same?

Beware the Light “There are two kinds of light – the glow that illuminates and the glare that obscures.” – James Thurber Illuminism is the glow and scientific materialism the glare. Make sure you stand in the right kind of light.

Psychoid DNA DNA, considered mentally, is a fantastically complex information system. What it does is operate on the material world in such a way as to turn the random food and drink a pregnant woman consumes, together with the air and dust she breathes in, into a new living being that will grow inside her for nine months and then emerge, ready to live its own independent life. The idea that lifeless and mindless atoms, and their random collisions and interactions, could ever be responsible for such a process – as science insists – is an insult to the intelligence. DNA is inherently tied to living mathematical minds (monads) – the root of all order, organisation, energy and information in our universe. Because mind is dimensionless and can’t be seen, senses-obsessed scientists, locked forever in their “sensible world”, dismiss it. But the real world is intelligible, not sensible, and is accessed via mathematical reason, not our deceptive, non-rational senses. Mind – the immaterial, dimensionless, frequency domain – is transcendent and immanent, penetrating and controlling the material world everywhere. That’s the true meaning of Fourier mathematics, which is predicated on spacetime functions being deconstructed into frequency functions of basis sines and cosines. Sines and cosines – generated by the God Equation – are the basic constituents of mind. What does quantum mechanics tell us? That the “particles” of the material world can be understood only by invoking waves. So, particles are completely linked to mind. What could be more obvious?

Quantum mechanics is all about the mind-matter interaction. So-called quantum “weirdness” reflects the fact that matter doesn’t behave as matter would be expected to behave (as in classical physics), but is being directed by dimensionless mind. Matter is local and mind is non-local. Quantum weirdness is the direct product of the interaction of the local (spacetime) and non-local (frequency). That’s the only way to understand it. Rather than accept a dimensionless domain of mind, science has produced an incomprehensible, probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, based on an unreal, unobservable wavefunction. Rather than acknowledge an objective reality with the non-localism of unobservable mind at its core, science preferred to destroy the reality principle and posit a “reality” that becomes real only at the point of measurement or observation. The moon doesn’t exist when no one is looking at it, a cat is neither alive nor dead until someone opens a box and takes a look, and all that “God” does is play dice (in fact, he himself is a cosmic set of dice throws). The Copenhagen Interpretation is whacko philosophy, not science, and it exposes the vast intellectual problem at the heart of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation is so bizarre because it begins with the dogmatic conclusion which scientific ideology must reach – that the reality we encounter can be considered only in terms of empiricism and materialism, and no consideration must be given to any ontologically real but immaterial and unobservable mental domain. In order to avoid any whiff of idealism and rationalism – of the primacy of mind over matter, of intellect over the senses – Bohr, Heisenberg and Born devised one of the most intellectually offensive theories of all time, one that claimed that a cat can be simultaneously alive and dead and also include mixed living-dead states. If that’s not mad, what is? Science doesn’t care about making deranged claims. It’s even proud of them, and flaunts them. Science, in its fanatical hatred of mind and rationalism, will reach any conclusion, no matter how crazy, to avoid accepting that the much vaunted scientific method – based on experimental observables – is 100% useless when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, which is based on the rational unobservables of mathematics. G. K. Chesterton said, “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” When a man starts believing

in randomness, indeterminism and acausality – i.e. becomes a modern scientist – he’s prepared to believe anything. The members of the Copenhagen school were rather like the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, producing his extremely elaborate and ingenious cosmology to “prove” that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Many smart people went along with this nonsense for many hundreds of years, simply because no one had the guts to challenge the groupthink orthodoxy and accept the obvious astronomical truth that Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. The Catholic Church fanatically upheld the Ptolemaic cosmology because it supported the Bible (which must be right because God wrote it!). Materialism and empiricism are the modern equivalent of the Earth being at the centre of the universe. Scientists simply won’t listen to anyone who suggests that materialism and empiricism do not and cannot describe reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the new Ptolemaic cosmology. Scientists are the new Catholic popes, priests and philosophers who would never dream of contradicting the establishment position, the faith-based position of their fanatical and irrational religion. As ever, those who have inherited the mantle of Copernicus must work in secrecy and fear, reluctant to publish their views because it will destroy their careers and reputations when the attack dogs are turned on them. Giordano Bruno was executed for heroically opposing the orthodoxy. Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and had to publicly renounce his views to avoid the death penalty. The supreme irony is that the scientific establishment is the new Catholic Church, stopping the modern likes of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo from succeeding. Einstein and Bohm were both ridiculed and marginalised for daring to oppose the Copenhagen School and its demented view of reality grounded in probabilistic unreality! And all so that the science establishment could avoid the conclusion that mind is the basis of matter, and not the other way around, and that rationalism is more fundamental than empiricism. The new Copernicus, the new Bruno and the new Galileo would all be supporting the cause of Illuminism against scientific materialism. The Earth – a lump of matter – is not at the centre of the universe. The Earth orbits the Sun, the source of light and illumination. The Sun is a kind of mind, pouring out dimensionless, immaterial photons – thoughts!

If placing the Sun rather than the Earth at the centre of our solar system, and placing Darwinian Evolution over Abrahamic Creationism, were the great scientific revolutions of the past, the new and greatest scientific Revolution is the one that involves scientists having to turn their back on the primacy of their own “God” – their cherished and revered scientific method, the core of science as currently conceived. The scientific method must be relegated to a role of “useful assistant”, and science in the future must be driven by mathematical rationalism, which has nothing to do with experiments and observations. The new Revolution is equivalent to asking Catholics, Jews and Muslims to abandon their faith. If science is not a faith then scientists must abandon materialism and empiricism and embrace ontological mathematics. The new Revolution involves the following elements: 1) Mind is the origin of matter, not matter of mind. 2) Dimensionless existence is the fundamental mode of existence. 3) The universe is a living organism, not a dead machine. 4) The universe is mathematical, not scientific. 5) Rationalism, not empiricism, is our tool for probing the ultimate truths of existence. 6) Rational mathematical unobservables are at the core of existence. 7) The soul is real! So, are you one of the Revolutionaries? Are you on the side of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo, or will you go on supporting the quasi-religious dogmas of the scientific establishment? We will no doubt have as much difficulty persuading scientists of the truth as Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo did persuading popes. We are up against faith, not reason. Most scientists will simply never abandon their faith. As Planck said, “Science progresses funeral by funeral.” We need a lot of funerals of scientists before the world will at last embrace truth and reason.

*****

“Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians.” – John Maynard Keynes Scientists, collectively, remain magicians. They have not yet accepted reason (mathematics).

The Dice Game “God does not play dice.” – Einstein So, is reality based on probability or causality? Is it a set of random coin tosses or does it obey inexorable mathematical causal laws, one event flowing inevitably into the next? If you can’t decide, what does that say about your intellect?

Freedom How can freedom exist within mathematical causality? Minds are uncreated, uncaused causes. They are all prime movers. They are dimensionless, hence outside conventional dimensional causality. They interact with dimensionality through the mechanism of Fourier mathematics, where the dimensionless and dimensional domains are distinct and yet mathematically coupled.

The Truth The truth is not democratic and not “fair”. Only rational people can reach and understand the truth. Even if every truth of rationalism were laid in front of the people, 99% still wouldn’t get it. That’s life.

The Difficulty For scientists, it’s as difficult to give up their equivalent of a sacred text – their “scientific method” – as it is for Muslims to abandon the Koran, Christians the Bible, or Jews the Torah. They are locked into a faith. The scientific method defines science but what if there are things that are inaccessible to the scientific method – such as the whole of mathematics! If

mathematics is truer than science (which it is, of course) then science’s own defining method has cut it off from the truth, and that’s exactly what has happened. Yet scientists, like Abrahamists, will never accept that their holy method is either incomplete or actually false. They will go on blindly believing and resisting the real truth. Depressingly, it’s more or less as futile debating with a scientist or atheist as it is with a Muslim, Jew or Christian. En masse, they simply ignore reason. Even worse, they imagine they are being rational when they do so. Incredibly, scientists delude themselves that they are on the side of reason. Given that they are philosophically illiterate, they don’t understand that everyone must choose between empiricism and rationalism. To be a scientist is to be an empiricist; to be a rationalist is to be a mathematician. Given that mathematics has no connection whatsoever with the scientific method, anyone who chooses science has implicitly declared their contempt for mathematics. Which is rather unfortunate given that mathematics is the other element (the first being the scientific method) that defines science. Science is fatally contradicted internally. On the one hand, it’s empiricist (revering experimental measurements and observations), and on the other it’s rationalist (with mathematics acting as its engine). This paradox is simply ignored by scientists. They can’t explain what mathematics is doing at the heart of a subject based on the scientific method given that mathematics has nothing to do with the scientific method and might well be considered the opposite of the scientific method since no experiments are relevant to mathematics. Leibniz was the supreme rationalist. He didn’t ignore the scientific method, but he certainly didn’t regard it as any path to the truth. For him, logic, reason and mathematics reveal the unarguable truth. Leibniz didn’t care whether or not things were observable, provided they were rational. His whole system was based on the unobservable, dimensionless monad. For Leibniz, true science was about establishing the absolute truth, and the scientific method was only of minor help in that regard. Newton, on the other hand, believed that science was about matching mathematical equations to observations. He did not “feign hypotheses” to explain why the mathematical equations matched the observations, i.e. he offered no rational explanations for things such as his theory of gravity. Science has followed this route ever since. Newton produced an extremely useful equation. How and why it worked were much less important than the

fact that it did work. It allowed useful things to be accomplished, and this justified it, even though no one understood it. We see exactly the same thing today with quantum mechanics. No scientist understands it and yet it’s the most successful theory ever. If you think science is ever going to produce a final explanation of everything, you’re living in a fantasy land. Science never has, never could, and never will provide meaningful explanations. What it does is produce useful equations.

The Revolution One day, the God Series will be recognised as the most revolutionary set of books in human history, ushering in a new and much more radical change than Copernicus ever contemplated. It will not be Earth that is displaced from its central position, but science. Science will be replaced by ontological mathematics, and humanity will embark on the road to divinity. It will escape the sensible world and reach the intelligible world. Before then, it will have to go through the normal conflict that always opposes the truth. As Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

***** “What is now proved was once only imagined.” – William Blake

The Future Eventually, ontological mathematics will explain everything down to the finest detail. In the meantime, to make progress, a rough and ready approach must be adopted. The best way forward is to combine science (which deals with the world of matter) with the Jungian Collective Unconscious (which deals with the world of the unconscious mind). It’s the unconscious mind operating through matter that drives evolution, and generates, first, consciousness and then superconsciousness (divinity).

Inception and Conception “Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acids compose the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix. The two DNA strands are known as polynucleotides since they are composed of simpler units called nucleotides. Each nucleotide is composed of a nitrogencontaining nucleobase – either guanine (G), adenine (A), thymine (T), or cytosine (C) – as well as a monosaccharide sugar called deoxyribose and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. According to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), hydrogen bonds bind the nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands to make double-stranded DNA. “DNA is well-suited for biological information storage. The DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage, and both strands of the double-stranded structure store the same biological information. Biological information is replicated as the two strands are separated. A significant portion of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve a function of encoding proteins. ... “Within cells, DNA is organized into long structures called chromosomes. During cell division these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing each cell its own complete set of chromosomes.” – Wikipedia What is DNA? Is it just a characteristic arrangement of certain atoms? How can lifeless, mindless atoms generate life? What happens when we consider DNA from the mental rather than physical perspective? DNA, mentally, is a frequency function that resides in the Collective Unconscious. Its purpose is to marshal, organize and utilize material atoms and turn them into an effective body, which a soul in the dimensionless domain can then control in the dimensional domain. A human cell is a physicalization of mental DNA, its inverse Fourier

Transform; and, through Fourier reverse engineering, we can generate the original frequency function. Therefore, the vital DNA function – the code of life in the material world – can be represented dimensionally and dimensionlessly, in the spacetime and frequency domains. Because biologists such as Richard Dawkins have no understanding whatsoever of the ontology of Fourier mathematics, and have never grasped that the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics is actually mind-matter duality, they have never once considered that DNA can be represented in frequency terms just as validly as in spacetime terms, i.e. you can consider it mentally rather than physically. Once you do so, materialist, randomist Darwinism takes on a radically different character. Now, in order to bring about specific adaptations, we no longer have to think in terms of meaningless, random physical mutations of DNA, but of mental, teleological mutations of DNA. In other words, we can immediately switch to an understanding of Darwinism as designed, and in fact we can start to get rid of Darwinist ideas and turn instead to Lamarck. Wikipedia says, “In the modern era, Lamarck is widely remembered for a theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, called soft inheritance, Lamarckism or use/disuse theory. However, his idea of soft inheritance was, perhaps, a reflection of the wisdom of the time accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck’s contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.” Where Darwin is an evolutionist firmly in the materialist, empiricist, randomist, meaningless mould, Lamarck is the perfect evolutionist for a mental, rationalist, idealist, teleological worldview – which is exactly why Dawkins does nothing but sneer at Lamarck. Yet Lamarck will one day be fully vindicated, and Darwin and Dawkins will fade into the obscurity they so richly deserve. They have been radical enemies of the development of a rational theory of the evolution of life and mind. Let there be no doubt at all that life, mind and design can never come from collections of lifeless, mindless atoms subject to random mutation rather than design. “Design” does not of course relate to “God” in any way. Design relates to Fourier mathematics. Modern biology – represented by the likes of

Dawkins – is a mathematical joke. Biology is in desperate need of a massive makeover, driven by Fourier mathematics, quantum mechanics and holography. In other words, biologists should be kicked out as simpletons and replaced by physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers, who will be able to bring intellectual rigour to a subject that is little better academically than psychology. At the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, half of a new instance of the DNA function is provided by a father and half by a mother. This DNA function, in order to be viable, must link to a monad (soul). All monads exist outside space and time. All of them are available to take possession of any newly generated DNA function and thus be linked to a body. There’s a ferocious monadic competition to bind to a physical cell that will grow into a body for the soul to control. The souls best able to win are those that, through reincarnation, have already previously possessed human bodies. If all such souls already have bodies then souls that previously occupied animal bodies have the chance to be promoted to the human sphere. Creatures such as dogs and cats that are familiar with living with human beings, and apes that have the same ancestry as humans, are most likely to be promoted. Since such souls are only newly human, they are often stupid, clumsy, impressionable and submissive ... hence attracted to Abrahamism! Most Muslims were dogs in their previous life. That’s why they are so drawn to a cosmic master (Allah) and relish grovelling to him, and snarling, growling, barking and biting on his behalf (as we see with Islamic intolerance, persecution and terrorism). Dogs submit to their master (owner), and Muslims submit to their master (owner) – Allah. If dogs could produce a religion, it would be Islam, which means “submission” (to your natural, rightful master). Life, in the material world, is possible only through this mechanism of souls binding to material bodies. Material “life” is explicable only through such a mechanism. What’s for sure is that science can’t account for how life appears amongst lifeless, mindless atoms. Atoms are produced in the first place by a collective mental operation (initiated by the “Big Bang”: a mental, mathematical event). These atoms are mechanistic, obeying the objective laws of mathematics. It then becomes essential for individual minds to harness these atoms (produced by the collective cosmic mind – the Monadic Collective) in the form of bodies,

made of trillions of atoms. These bodies can then carry out the individual mind’s will in the dimensional domain. A body is made of atoms produced by the collective mind. A soul is an individual mind that uses the DNA function – the “life” function – to bind to a single body. That’s how reality operates. When a person goes to sleep, the mind can decouple from the body to a certain extent, and this is when dreams occur, and also out-of-body experiences. It’s essential to understand that DNA is both physical and mental, as per the ontology of Fourier mathematics with its respective spacetime (material) and frequency (mental) domains. Genetic mutations are simply not produced by random material events. They are caused by teleological minds striving to improve their bodies and their control over them. Sometimes the mutations work. Sometimes, they don’t. Minds are purposeful and are always seeking to enhance their power. According to science, bodies have no purposes at all and don’t strive for anything: random, material mutations occur, which and are then subject to natural selection. Minds play no part in anything. Evolution, for scientists, is meaningless, and serves no purpose. Evolution, for idealists (such as Hegel and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) is all about the maximisation of meaning, and its purpose is to reach an Omega Point of perfection. Consider your own life, your own ambitions, your own plans. Do they reflect the meaningless, randomist materialist conception of Darwin and Dawkins, or the meaningful, rationalist, idealist conception of Lamarck? You yourself constitute the proof that Dawkins and his fundamentalist friends are wrong. Does meaningless Darwinism reflect your own internal nature in any way? Does it in any way accord with your experiences? You know how the universe operates because you yourself are a reflection of it. As above, so below. And you know that you are not a material machine with no freedom and no purpose. You know you have a mind and that it’s independent of atoms and will survive your bodily death. Don’t let the materialists fool you. Don’t fall victim to their irrational delusions and ignorance. These people are mathematically illiterate. They’re just not smart enough to understand reality. Biology cannot be a serious subject until it becomes Fourier biology.

Abraxas

In Illuminism, the first living entity in the material world was produced by the most powerful mind in the universe, that of the being given the name Abraxas. Abraxas was the origin of all life in the physical world by establishing the first DNA information code, linking individual mind and collective matter. He was both “God” and “Adam”. Abraxas continuously mutated his DNA to produce better and better bodies for himself, and proved extremely successful in this regard. He was the first life form to become conscious. Finally, he became the first being to attain divinity. Therefore, Abraxas is the God of the Illuminati. Yet he was God not by being born that way, or always existing that way, but by virtue of his supreme merit and effort. Abraxas was not created; he created himself. He made himself God. And, thanks to him, all the rest of us now have the chance to become God ... to join Abraxas in the Community of Gods. Abraxas does not want worshippers. He doesn’t want slaves who kneel and submit to him. He wants peers. The only conceivable definition of a good “God” is that he is he who wishes to use his power to bring every soul up to his divine level. The idea that God would torture souls, condemn souls to eternal suffering in hell, demand that souls bow to him and slavishly obey his every whim provides the definition that would apply to the opposite of the good God – the evil Devil. All Abrahamists are Satanists, and a Final Solution of Abrahamism is required if humanity is ever to escape evil.

***** Earth’s version of Abraxas is Simon Magus, the Illuminati’s terrestrial God, and the originator of the mysterious Holy Grail. The thirty-six Phosters and one hundred and forty-four Archons are the most powerful beings on Earth. Simon Magus far surpassed even them.

The Parents’ Fallacy Parents are the “authors” of the physical bodies of their children. They are not the authors of their children’s souls. Souls are eternal and have no parents, authors or creators. Your children may in fact have far more experienced and mature souls than you do. They may be close to gnosis. They are not “yours”. You do not

own them. Let them develop in their own way. Let them be free.

***** “I remembered something my daughter said to me when she was five. Out of the blue, she said, ‘Mom, we have to kill the guy who is pretending to be God.’” – K “The wise one (my daughter) said, ‘Mom, everyone has a dark side. If you don’t control it, it will take over.’ And she said it’s really hard to find your other. She said to watch out for people’s dark side because they are hiding it. She was preparing me in case my boyfriend is wearing a mask (like the other guys). She said the first time someone drops their mask is the truth. She’s definitely an old soul.” – K Do young children say profound things by accident, or because they have a wise old soul?

Lamarck “Lamarck’s contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms. ... Lamarck referred to a tendency for organisms to become more complex, moving ‘up’ a ladder of progress. He referred to this phenomenon as Le pouvoir de la vie or la force qui tend sans cesse à composer l’organisation (The force that perpetually tends to make order [the complexifying force]). ... The second component of Lamarck’s theory of evolution was the adaptation of organisms to their environment [via the adaptive force]. This could move organisms upward from the ladder of progress into new and distinct forms with local adaptations. It could also drive organisms into evolutionary blind alleys, where the organism became so finely adapted that no further change could occur. Lamarck argued that this adaptive force was powered by the interaction of organisms with their environment, by the use and disuse of certain characteristics. ... Lamarck’s is a proto-evolutionary theory of the inheritance of acquired traits, whose main purpose is to explain adaptations by natural means. He proposed a tendency for organisms to become more

complex, moving up a ladder of progress, plus ‘the influence of circumstances’, usually expressed as use and disuse.” – Wikipedia “First Law: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.” – Lamarck “Second Law: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.” – Lamarck “The last clause of the second law introduces what is now called soft inheritance. ‘The second law was widely accepted at the time ... [but] has been decisively rejected by modern genetics.’ (Bowler, Peter J.) However, in the field of epigenetics, there is growing evidence that soft inheritance plays a part in the changing of some organisms’ phenotype: it leaves the DNA unaltered but affects DNA by preventing the expression of genes.” – Wikipedia Modern Darwinism is predicated on randomly mutating material genes. What about a modern version of Lamarckianism? We can posit the existence of “transmuter” genes that have a mental as well as material aspect. These are teleological, adaptive genes that can “intelligently” (mathematically), albeit unconsciously, respond to their environment and seek to optimize themselves (just as all human beings, on a macroscopic scale, seek to adapt to the world around them and to do the best they can within that context). To all Darwinists, we simply say this ... where is your evidence that genes dumbly randomly mutate rather than adaptively transmute using sophisticated mathematical trial and error? How can anyone tell the difference, from external observations alone, between mental evolution

proceeding by way of unconscious, dialectical, trial and error and material evolution proceeding by way of purposeless random mutation? Yet people such as Richard Dawkins refer to Darwinism as “factual” rather than as a materialist interpretation of observed facts. The facts of evolution are one thing; how those facts are interpreted is quite another thing. Darwinism is a hypothesis, a philosophy, not proven science. That’s a fact. Lamarckian transmuter genes seek to provide better adaptation to the environment, to generate more success, more power. They change faster in times of stress. In times of contentment, why would things change at all? Discontent is essential to change. Transmuter genes bring about the alchemy of turning us into more complex and powerful beings (they “complexify” us). All transmuter genes are linked to mind through Fourier mathematics. This is not observable but is rationally essential. Never forget that if the world is fundamentally rational (intelligible) rather than irrational (sensible) then all sorts of ontological processes are occurring that are incapable of being detected by the senses. Science ideologically rejects all such processes, and all of its “explanations” are predicated on material, empirical things. It will not accept rational unobservables, hidden variables and immaterial, unempirical things. According to science, mathematics – immaterial, unempirical and ontologically hidden (noumenal) – is not real despite forming the core of science. Mathematics is seen as an abstraction that just happens to be extremely useful scientifically. How mathematics is possible at all is never addressed by scientists, and nor is how it relates to empiricist, materialist science. In fact, the only reason mathematics is possible is that it’s the basis of the transcendent, immanent, intelligible world from which the sensible (scientific) world is derived. Science would never make any sense at all without mathematics. Take away mathematics from science and what’s left? Astrology. Religion! Science continually contradicts itself. For example, it claims that “randomness” underlies the Big Bang, quantum reality and the genetic mutations of Darwinian evolution. However, this so-called randomness is never observed but only inferred. There is no direct evidence for it at all, and the indirect evidence for it is capable of radically different interpretation. It therefore stands outside the scientific paradigm, as indeed

causality itself does – as David Hume’s arguments so brilliantly illustrated. Science still hasn’t responded to Hume in any way, which you’d think would be a top priority given that science claims to be all about cause and effect at the macroscopic level. How does macroscopic cause and effect emerge from microscopic acausality, indeterminacy and randomness, as science claims? Science has never provided any rational explanation. Take a system of pure randomness. Why would anyone have any expectation whatsoever that such a system would contradict its own inherent nature and definition and produce ordered determinism, yet this is the central claim of modern science, starting from the random Big Bang and proceeding via random quantum science and random Darwinian evolution? Why is unobservable randomness preferred over unobservable causal processes (brought about by unconscious, ordered mathematical minds)? As ever, it all comes down to ideology. Science – being steeped in materialism – refuses to accept the existence of an independent and primary domain of mind. Randomness is an interpretation, not a fact. Randomness is not observable, hence not empirical. Randomness renders the universe fundamentally irrational rather than intelligible. To state the case even more strongly, randomness renders the universe pointless, meaningless and purposeless, and turns it into a bizarre set of inexplicable events happening for no reason at all. Randomness is equivalent to a kind of magician’s trick where things keep being pulled out of his top hat, without reason or explanation. Science, ultimately, is a system of magic. Mathematics, on the other hand, is based on the principle of sufficient reason. Nothing is random and there’s no “magic”. The Big Bang is not some “random fluctuation” but a precise mathematical operation performed by a mathematical Singularity – in effect, an intelligent but unconscious, mathematical, cosmic Mind. The problem with science is that it views everything through a prism of 1) matter being true and mind false (mind is regarded as just some materialist phenomenon or epiphenomenon that has not yet been explained), and 2) empiricism is true and rationalism is false, so that anything that is rationally required but cannot be brought into sensory experience cannot be real. Whenever anything unobservable takes place (such as the Big Bang), science deploys its “argument from randomness” to account for it. Science

must use this argument because otherwise it would be acknowledging that things happen by design, implying mind and intelligence operating autonomously. Science despises any notion of “intelligent design”, which it regards as a coded reference to God. In Illuminism, intelligent design flows directly from the universe being composed of mathematical minds (monads), and has absolutely nothing to do with any Creator God. It’s about time science ditched magical randomness and embraced mathematical design.

***** Lamarck has been unfairly marginalised in favour of Darwin, just as Leibniz was in relation to Newton. Where Darwinism is materialist, randomist and purposeless (as required by scientific ideology and dogmatism), Lamarckianism is idealist, rationalist, designed and teleological (everything loathed by science). Lamarck is of course right. There is indeed a “complexifying force” driving organisms up a ladder of increasing complexity. This is the force of the mathematical dialectic making its inexorable way to its Omega Point of maximum optimisation. And there is indeed an “environmental, adaptive force” adapting organisms to their local environments through use and disuse of characteristics (i.e. reinforcing or inhibiting an organism’s habits – “use it or lose it”). These forces are, naturally, unobservable since they are brought about by the workings of mathematical monadic minds. A giraffe habitually stretching its neck causes a change in the relevant transmuter gene, and this is inherited by its offspring. This is a purposeful explanation of how giraffes got longer necks. According to Darwinism, a random, purposeless mutation took place which made giraffes with this mutation (which coded for longer necks) more successful, hence this gene was passed on. So, what’s it to be – intelligent, mental, adaptation and mutation, or unintelligent and unexplained random material mutation? Both processes are wholly unobservable. No one has ever seen a random genetic mutation, just as no one has ever seen an unconscious mathematical mind adjusting a transmuter gene via Fourier mathematics. One view tells us that we live in a

mindless, purposeless, pointless universe, and the other view says we live in a wondrous universe of mind and purpose, seeking to optimise itself. What side you choose says a huge amount about you. One view is scientific and the other is mathematical. A universe made of mathematics obeying the principle of sufficient reason gives us the opportunity to build heaven and become Gods. The alternative gives us the universal heat death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: a frozen, sterile, pointless, dead universe. Science, to be frank, represents a kind of mental illness – a hatred of mind, design, free will and purpose. The scientific mind is unquestionably an autistic, machinelike, computerised mind. It can’t understand freedom and it replaces it with “randomness”. Nothing happens because of minds freely choosing to do X rather than Y. Rather, X happens in preference to Y purely because of randomness (like tossing a coin). Does it look as if we inhabit a random universe?! Empirically, we self-evidently don’t, and yet, bizarrely, science makes all of its randomist claims on the back of empiricism! The scientist doesn’t see himself as a person but as a machine. He doesn’t believe in his own free will. He’s therefore not truly human. According to scientists, the universe could, through random processes, produce a perfect wheel nut and then, through random mutations and natural selection over millions of years, build a Ferrari super car around that original wheel nut. Well, despite its sheer improbability, that Darwinian super car would be a hell of a lot simpler to produce than a human being! If you don’t believe that Ferraris can build themselves through randomness, why do you believe that humans can? Darwinism is practically insane. It can’t explain where life comes from, or how matter can possess mind, or how mutations happen. Randomness is not an explanation but an avoidance of explanation! – where does the randomness it’s predicated on originate and how is it possible? How is it different from using magic as an explanation?

Lamarck and Memes “... the memetic theory of cultural evolution is sometimes described as a form of Lamarckian inheritance of non-genetic traits.” – Wikipedia

If meme theory is much better suited to Lamarck’s theory than Darwin’s (e.g. parents adopt Christian memes because they think they are truer and more life-enhancing than alternatives memes, they habitually reinforce these memes through Christian worship, and then they pass these memes on to their children, and they to theirs, and so on), why shouldn’t gene theory also be better suited? Why should gene theory be Darwinian and meme theory Lamarckian? Surely both theories should be Darwinian or both Lamarckian. Both theories can’t be right. Gene theory is materialist and meme theory is mentalist. Yet again, the matter-mind dichotomy is reproduced. Isn’t it time to get rid of this dichotomy once and for all? Fourier mathematics permits exactly that.

Habituation If you do something over and over again, you get better and better at it. You learn. If you do something less and less, you get worse and worse at it. You forget what you learned. Imagine that you were an unconscious mind habitually doing something over and over again. You would get better and better at it, more and more familiar with it, wouldn’t you? If genes have a mental aspect (which they do), this mental aspect would invariably learn from habituation, and, as a consequence, subtly alter the gene, via the mechanism of Fourier mathematics whereby a change in the frequency (mental) domain can be instantly represented in the spacetime (material) domain. This is the true means by which genes are changed. It’s nothing to do with “randomness” (whatever that is! – is it even possible to define randomness? ... certainly not in a 100% deterministic, mathematical universe that obeys the principle of sufficient reason). There is simply no question that Darwinism is false and Lamarckianism is true. All of the attacks on Lamarck came, and come, from empiricist, materialist Fundamentalists. If their Meta Paradigm is false, which it is, then all of their arguments are false too. The ultra Darwinists are to biology what the Copenhagen school is to physics – and every bit as wrong. All scientists who offer “explanations” (i.e. interpretations, or, more accurately, misinterpretations) based on the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science are ipso facto wrong. Einsteinian relativity is wrong,

M-theory is wrong, Darwinism is wrong, Copenhagen quantum mechanics is wrong, Multiverse theory is wrong. All of these are philosophical speculations, not “science”. In terms of ontological mathematics, they are all absurd. Interpretationally, science is wrong in its entirety. Science needs to start again and go right back to the great war between Leibniz and Newton. This time, it needs to back Leibniz rather than Newton. It must become rationalist rather than empiricist. Mathematics must replace the scientific method as the defining element of science.

The Argument from Design A mathematical world is a designed world. It’s not “God” that designs the world, it’s mathematics. It’s not God that creates the world from nothing, it’s mathematics. Who needs God when you have mathematics? Not even God could invent mathematics, but mathematics can certainly invent God.

Mathematics All approaches to defining mathematics that result in inconsistency and/or incompleteness are ipso facto false. Ontological mathematics must be defined by a single, all-encapsulating Formula since only that can be consistent and complete. Moreover, it’s a formal, compulsory requirement for ontological mathematics to have a net mathematical result of zero (nothing) – the essential ground state of existence and the universe. Existence and essence align at zero (nothing). Any something which is essentially zero necessarily exists. It can’t not exist. Nothing can stop it, and it needs nothing. In this case, and this case only – where “something” analytically, eternally and necessarily equals “nothing” – existence is necessarily a predicate. Here, and here only, Kant is refuted when he declared that existence is not a predicate. For there to be existence at all, there must be one case where Kant is wrong, and this is it.

Formalism “Formalism: A view pioneered by D. Hilbert (1862 – 1943) and his followers, in which it was claimed that the only foundation necessary for mathematics is its formalization and the system produced is consistent.

Numbers (and formulae and proofs) were regarded merely as sequences of strokes, not as objects denoted by such strokes. Hilbert’s programme was to put mathematics on a sound footing by reducing it (via arithmetic) to consistent axioms and derivation rules, the former being certain series of strokes, the latter ways of manipulating them. Later Gödel showed that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proved within the [formal] system itself, thus demonstrating the impossibility of achieving this part of the Hilbert programme.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy You cannot define ontological mathematics via non-mathematical approaches such as: 1) Formalist stokes 2) Logic 3) Axioms 4) Set theory 5) “Games” These are all philosophical approaches. Only mathematics can define mathematics. The definition must be based on a single Formula since only this is inherently consistent and complete. This single Formula, in order to be eternally stable and perfect, must be equal to zero (nothing) at all times. That is the fundamental law of ontology.

Early Adopters Who are the early adopters of new truths? Only rationalists can fulfil this role. They accept new ideas because they are more rational than the ones they accepted yesterday. Believers never adopt new truths, and nor do irrationalist sensing types (scientists). These people are the resistance to the Truth. These people accept less rational ideas than they did yesterday. Science used to have a valid link with rationalism. Now that link has been completely severed ever since scientists ideologically abandoned reason and causality in favour of randomness, indeterminism and relativity.

Sum Res Cogitans: I Am A Thinking Being

“I am a being whose sole essence or nature is to think, and whose being requires no place and depends on no material thing.” – Descartes

Rational Design “Ancient cities that have become large towns in process of time are as a rule badly laid out as compared with those ... that are laid out by a designer.” – Descartes Descartes’ intention from the outset was to destroy the philosophy of the past and establish an entirely new way of doing philosophy. He was largely successful and is widely acknowledged as the first modern philosopher. When we look at science, we find that, like philosophy at the time Descartes surveyed it, it’s desperately in need of a brand new design. Science is a hideous accretion of incompatible, incommensurate concepts and ideas. It needs to be laid out by a designer. It needs ontological mathematical foundations. Descartes made it clear that mathematical reasoning – not theology – would be the paradigm for his new approach to philosophy, his new design: “Those who are seeking the strict way of truth should not trouble themselves about any object concerning which they cannot have a certainty equal to arithmetic or geometrical demonstration.” This is exactly what science now requires: conceptual, ontological certainty. Descartes said, “All the sciences are interconnected and dependent on one another.” All of knowledge forms a unified, whole system. There can’t be conflicts. There can’t be empiricist knowledge and a rival system of rationalist knowledge. One system must be false. Descartes committed one great error. He failed to understand that mathematics has an “inside”, an “interior” a “within”. The best way to understand this interior is via the Aristotelian concept of the “form”, but Descartes rejected Aristotle. It was left to Leibniz to restore Aristotelian forms. Descartes thought that physical phenomena must ultimately be reducible to mathematical laws. In fact, the whole physical world must ultimately be reduced to Leibnizian mathematical monads (points).

*****

“The whole of philosophy is a tree whose roots are metaphysics, whose trunk is physics, and whose branches are the other sciences.” – Descartes This must be the way science is approached from now on. Except we should replace the word “metaphysics” with “ontological mathematics”.

The Intellectual Battles Numerous great intellectual battles are under way: 1) Darwin versus Lamarck. 2) Matter versus Mind. 3) Randomness versus Teleology. 4) Random mutation versus causal mutation. 5) The principle of no reason versus the principle of sufficient reason. 6) Science versus ontological mathematics.

***** Is the universe purposeless or purposeful? Do things happen randomly or with unconscious mathematical intelligence and purpose? There’s zero physical evidence either way since the two choices operate at the unobservable level of noumena. Will you choose, like Richard Dawkins, to be irrationalist when you could easily justify being a rationalist? Your decision.

The Noosphere II “Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration leads to greater consciousness. The emergence of Homo sapiens marks the beginning of a new age, as the power acquired by consciousness to turn in upon itself raises humankind to a new sphere. Borrowing Julian Huxley’s expression, Teilhard describes humankind as evolution becoming conscious of itself.

“In Teilhard’s conception of the evolution of the species, a collective identity begins to develop as trade and the transmission of ideas increases. Knowledge accumulates and is transmitted in increasing levels of depth and complexity. This leads to a further augmentation of consciousness and the emergence of a thinking layer that envelops the earth. Teilhard calls the new membrane the ‘noosphere’ (from the Greek ‘nous,’ meaning mind), a term first coined by Vladimir Vernadsky. The noosphere is the Collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are immersed. “The development of science and technology causes an expansion of the human sphere of influence, allowing a person to be simultaneously present in every corner of the world. Teilhard argues that humanity has thus become cosmopolitan, stretching a single organized membrane over the Earth. Teilhard describes the process by which this happens as a ‘gigantic psychobiological operation, a sort of mega-synthesis, the “superarrangement” to which all the thinking elements of the earth find themselves today individually and collectively subject.’ The rapid expansion of the noosphere requires a new domain of psychical expansion, which ‘is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it.’ “In Teilhard’s view, evolution will culminate in the Omega Point, a sort of supreme consciousness. Layers of consciousness will converge in Omega, fusing and consuming them in itself. The concentration of a conscious universe will reassemble in itself all consciousnesses as well as all that we are conscious of. Teilhard emphasizes that each individual facet of consciousness will remain conscious of itself at the end of the process.” – Wikipedia “Teilhard imagined a stage of evolution characterized by a complex membrane of information enveloping the globe and fuelled by human consciousness. It sounds a little off-the-wall, until you think about the Net, that vast electronic web encircling the Earth, running point to point through a nervelike constellation of wires. We live in an intertwined world of telephone lines, wireless satellite-based transmissions, and dedicated computer circuits that allow us to travel electronically from Des Moines to Delhi in the blink of an eye. “Teilhard saw the Net coming more than half a century before it arrived. He believed this vast thinking membrane would ultimately coalesce into

‘the living unity of a single tissue’ containing our collective thoughts and experiences. In his magnum opus, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard wrote, ‘Is this not like some great body which is being born – with its limbs, its nervous system, its perceptive organs, its memory – the body in fact of that great living Thing which had to come to fulfil the ambitions aroused in the reflective being by the newly acquired consciousness?” – Jennifer Cobb Kreisberg, Wired

The Law of Complexity/Consciousness The views of Teilhard de Chardin are entirely consistent with Lamarckian evolution. Teilhard de Chardin posits a Law of Complexity/Consciousness in which mind is operating through matter, ordering it in increasingly complex ways to support consciousness. Thus we climb the Great Chain of Being towards Aristotelian matterless Form (God). Wikipedia provides an effective summary of Teilhard de Chardin’s position: “The Law of Complexity/Consciousness is the tendency in matter to become more complex over time and at the same time to become more conscious. The law was first formulated by Jesuit priest and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. “Teilhard holds that at all times and everywhere, matter is endeavouring to complexify upon itself, as observed in the evolutionary history of the Earth. Matter complexified from inanimate matter, to plant life, to animallife, to human-life. Or, from the geosphere, to the biosphere, to the noosphere (of which humans represented, because of their possession of a consciousness which reflects upon themselves). As evolution rises through the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, matter continues to rise in a continual increase of both complexity and consciousness. “For Teilhard, the Law of Complexity/Consciousness continues to run today in the form of the socialization of mankind. The closed and circular surface of the Earth contributes to the increased compression (socialization) of mankind. As human beings continue to come into closer contact with one another, their methods of interaction continue to complexify in the form of better-organized social networks, which contributes to an overall increase in consciousness, or the noosphere. “Teilhard imagines a critical threshold, Omega Point, in which mankind will have reached its highest point of complexification (socialization) and

thus its highest point of consciousness. At this point consciousness will rupture through time and space and assert itself on a higher plane of existence from which it cannot come back. “Interestingly, for Teilhard, because the Law of Complexity/ Consciousness runs everywhere and at all times, and because of the immensity of both time and space in outer space, and the immensity of the chances for matter to find the right conditions to complexify upon itself, it is highly probable that life exists, has existed, and will exist in the universe apart from our Earth.” Teilhard de Chardin’s views are just a re-expression of Hegel’s evolutionary dialectical system whereby the fundamental cosmic mind/spirit (Geist) alienates itself in matter and then returns to itself at a higher level, conscious now rather than unconscious. The creation of the material world and the spacetime individuation it provides is essential to the birth and development of consciousness. Geist – which can be interpreted in terms of an evolving noosphere – progresses towards the Absolute, which is equivalent to the Omega Point.

Complexification Does evolution reflect a universal force of randomness or a universal force of increasing complexification? Darwinism posits a meaningless, purposeless, pointless universe, going nowhere. Design appears by accident. Random changes are subject to natural selection and either prosper or perish. Better adaptation – better design – reflects natural selection only, and not any unseen force of inherent design and teleology. In ontological terms, Darwinism implies a total lack of fundamental rational order in the universe. If the universe reflects self-optimising ontological mathematics (which it does) then it automatically possesses a complexification force (ultimately, this force is the force of symmetry: once the perfect symmetry of the Monadic Collective is broken, all individual monads are subject to an existential force to re-establish that perfection (= divinity = the God point). Darwinism is incompatible with ontological mathematics. Lamarckianism is not. Lamarckianism is equally compatible with Hegelian dialectics and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Law of Complexity/Consciousness.

It’s time for Darwinism to fall. It’s part of the whole discredited ideology of scientism based on absurd randomism. Scientism is contrary to mathematical causality. It’s contrary to reason itself. Only the irrational follow the likes of Dawkins. They believe that they are on the side of “the evidence”. They’re not. They have simply interpreted the evidence, and they have failed to do so rationally.

The Difference What’s the difference between science and mathematics? Science says we have no idea what’s going on when we are not observing a process and should use a philosophy of “everything that can happen might happen” when we analyze it. We should construct a wavefunction that accommodates all possibilities, even those that are mutually exclusive – such as a cat being alive and a cat being dead. Mathematics, on the other hand, says that precise, rational things happen when we are not looking, and we cannot, and must not, combine mutually exclusive outcomes in the same wavefunction. So, what’s it to be? Are you rational or irrational, mathematical or “scientific”?

Involution and Evolution If evolution concerns the rise of lower to higher up the great chain of being, involution is the opposite, involving the descent from higher to lower. In the beginning, mind produces something lower than itself – matter. Matter then evolves and becomes increasingly supportive of mind. Finally, mind escapes from matter, and has thus returned to itself, but at an enormously higher level, the divine level. Mind, as Hegel observed, alienates itself in matter, and then finds its way back to itself, and becomes conscious of what it truly is. Mind creates an illusion (Maya) and then engages in a grand dialectical play (Lila), the final stage of which is apotheosis (where atman = Brahman). Thesis: Involution = movement from the higher to the lower. Antithesis: Evolution = movement from the lower to the higher.

Synthesis: Return at the Higher Level. Unconscious Mind undergoes involution then evolution and, finally, returns to itself, but now as Conscious Mind.

***** Science – surprise, surprise – denies that there is any such thing as involution. As ever, it does so because it rejects hidden variables, of which involution is an example. It cannot prove that hidden variables do not exist, but discounts them anyway. Without hidden variables, design, purpose, meaning, causality and determinism are impossible, and science replaces them with purposelessness, acausality, indeterminism and randomness. The irony is that irrational randomness is every bit as unobservable as any rational hidden variable. No random process has ever been perceived, and nor could it ever be. Randomness is simply an inference, an inference whose philosophical task is to deny the alternative inference of design, of purpose, of causality. What’s the opposite of design, purpose and causality? – randomness. What’s the ultimate driver of scientific, randomist materialism? It’s atheism. The real intention of science is to leave no arena at all in which mind, design, purpose and causality can operate, because these all imply God or soul. Science is the attempt to render everything mindless and purposeless and to claim that apparent design emerges from no design at all. Such a universe would be 100% incompatible with any notion of God, soul or mind. Everything ultimately revolves around “hidden variables”. In the rationalist view, existence is predicated on an unobservable, intelligible, idealist, noumenal layer, defined by ontological mathematics. In the scientific (empiricist, materialist) view, there’s no such layer, and when you remove all such elements, you are left with nothing but unintelligible randomness – exactly the position now asserted by science. Science “begins” with an uncaused, inexplicable random fluctuation in absolute nothingness – the scientific Big Bang. This, of course, is unobservable, though science simply ignores this inconvenient fact (which totally contradicts the entire empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm!). Rationalism begins with an unobservable mathematical Singularity, outside space and time, comprising countless autonomous mathematical

minds (monads) = individual Fourier frequencies. So, what’s it to be? Will you choose atheistic randomness of the kind fanatically espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett (the so-called Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse)? Or will you choose ontological mathematical rationalism of the kind espoused by Leibniz, humanity’s all-time greatest genius? There’s no sensory “evidence” to help you make your choice. Your decision will be entirely dictated by how intelligent, how rational, you are. All scientists, preferring empiricism to rationalism, and the sensory to the intelligible, are, formally, irrationalist. Well, do you prefer scientific irrationalism to mathematical rationalism? Your choice. As ever, your choice says everything about you.

Psychobiology Lamarck, Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin are all advocates of psychobiology: of mind being essential to the operations of biology. In Darwinism – a materialist creed – there’s no such thing as mind operating within biology. Mind, to the extent that it can exist at all in Darwinism, is required to be rooted in matter, hence cannot drive matter teleologically. Minds, from the rationalist, idealist perspective, are inherently teleological and self-optimizing. By asserting that mind is actually just lifeless, purposeless matter in a peculiar and inexplicable state, Darwinism abolishes teleology and renders existence pointless, exactly the position scientific materialists such as Dawkins are always eager to endorse. Darwinism is devoid of meaning. It’s simply a strange play enacted by the forces of randomness, which, miraculously, are able to produce order and design. According to science, mind does not bring order to chaos, but chaos brings order to itself. That’s some trick! It’s also a contradiction in terms and impossible, every bit as impossible as a universe springing randomly from non-existence (as science also ludicrously claims). Psychobiology, on the other hand, is full of purpose and is relentlessly future-directed. Hegel, Lamarck and Teilhard de Chardin were all optimists. Before them all, Leibniz was the ultimate optimist with his doctrine that we

live in the best of all possible worlds (considered across its full evolutionary trajectory, which concludes with the Omega Point of divine perfection). Scientific materialism – represented by the Four Riders of the Atheist Apocalypse (the Apocalypse being the meaningless, atheistic Heat Death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) – is the supreme expression of barren pessimism, leading to nowhere and nothing. Scientific materialism is simply nihilism – the belief in nothing at all.

***** The genes of psychobiology are called psychogenes (or transmuter genes). The genes of Darwinism should be called hylogenes (from the ancient Greek word hyle, meaning matter). Even Marxist dialectical materialism is superior to Darwinism since it conceives of matter in hylozoistic terms, i.e. matter is alive and capable of dialectical evolution (in fact, this view is rather like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s philosophy of the noosphere and Omega Point). Darwinism (Hylobiology) involves, lifeless, mindless, dead atoms grouping into genes that can undergo random mutation and (somehow) produce our living world full of human beings with conscious minds. Psychobiology involves atoms controlled by mental forces, grouping together into genes and undergoing teleological mutation to produce superior, better adapted, more productive and more optimised forms. Dialectical materialism (hylozoisticbiology based on hylozoistic genes) does likewise. Spinoza’s philosophy is also interpretable as a kind of hylozoism. Illuminism can be considered in terms of idealism (mind precedes matter; matter results from mind) or panpsychism (mind is everywhere, or everything is mind) or even hylozoism (matter is alive and thus has mind). Ultimately, Illuminism is mathematical and asserts that dimensionless existence (mind) generates dimensional existence (matter). One might say that matter is simply dimensional mind whereas mind in itself is dimensionless. Mind is noumenon and matter is its phenomenon, i.e. mind represented in a different way (in spacetime). The hylobiology of Darwinism is the least convincing of all the theories.

*****

“Teilhard’s work is about creating a consciousness so profound it will make good company for God itself.” – John Perry Barlow Illuminism is about creating a consciousness so profound that it is God!

Evolution “Evolution is the general condition to which all other theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Evolution does not, of course, have to be Darwinian. Darwinism is simply a speculative materialist hypothesis and not any kind of “fact”.

The Within and Without “THE GROUND OF ALL EXISTENCE: The stuff of the universe, according to Teilhard, necessarily has a ‘double aspect to its structure.’ By this, he means that in every region of time and space, the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect of itself: ‘co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things.’ “At the very depths of the ground of all existence, Teilhard believes that there exists a special energy. For Teilhard, ‘somehow or other, there must be a single energy operating in the world’ that holds everything together. “Teilhard talks of an interdependent energy between the Within and the Without; he believes that this energy is ‘psychic’ in nature, but that it is divided into two distinct components: a tangential energy and a radial energy. Teilhard believes that tangential energy ‘links an element with all others of the same order.’ Radial energy draws an element towards ‘ever greater complexity and centricity,’ which for Teilhard means spiritual perfection. “This psychic, radial energy follows what Teilhard coins the Cosmic Law of Complexity-Consciousness. Teilhard explains it thus: ‘if the universe, regarded sidereally, is in process of spatial expansion (from the infinitesimal to the immense), in the same way and still more clearly it presents itself to us, physico-chemically, as in process of organic involution upon itself (from the extremely simple to the extremely complex) ... and,

moreover, this particular involution of complexity is experimentally bound up with a correlative increase in interiorization, that is to say in the psyche or consciousness.’ – http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_2.html Tangential energy is that of scientific materialism and radial energy is that of the mind. In Illuminism, tangential energy is dimensional and radial energy is dimensionless.

German Idealism Descartes’ mind-body substance dualism gave rise to two opposite schools: 1) Materialism (extended domain): it denied that mind existed as a separate, unextended substance. This rapidly turned into scientific materialism and, today, is the dominant intellectual view of reality. 2) Idealism (unextended domain): it denied that matter existed as a separate, extended substance. This way of thinking was dominated by the great German thinkers Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Hartmann. Even Nietzsche, who hated any idea of a noumenal universe beyond the apparent (phenomenal) one, is best understood as an idealist since his key doctrine of Will to Power is the natural extension of Schopenhauer’s Will to Exist. Carl Jung can probably be regarded as the last great member of this school. He owed a huge amount to Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Marxist dialectical materialism can be considered a first attempt to provide a synthesis of scientific materialism (purposeless) and German idealism (purposeful). It’s a shame that very little attention has been paid to dialectical materialism as an alternative to sterile scientific materialism. Historically, scientific materialism was staggeringly successful while idealism was fascinating, but did not produce tangible results. However, it’s possible to see now that German idealism is exactly the “soul” that scientific materialism lacks. The philosophical vocabulary of idealism is unsuited to science, but it turns out that all of the concepts of German idealism can be captured via mathematics and especially through the two most mysterious numbers – zero and infinity – that have always defied scientific materialist thinking.

Fourier mathematics is perfect for binding together German idealism (the noumenal) and scientific materialism (the phenomenal). German idealism belongs to the dimensionless, immaterial frequency domain and scientific materialism to the dimensional, material, spacetime domain. The common language of German idealism and scientific materialism is math, and there’s no longer any technical reason why they should not come together. The only real obstacle is that scientific materialism is now a quasimonotheistic religion that refuses to consider other “gods”. It’s time for the materialists to accept idealism. Only then will science arrive at “completion”. Fascinatingly, the synthesis of German idealism and scientific materialism takes us back to an earlier time, to the first Golden Age of human thought – ancient Greek philosophy. The Greeks were always concerned with how mind/spirit interacted with matter and no Greeks ever claimed that lifeless, mindless matter could give rise to life and mind. Even the Atomists had recourse to special “soul atoms” to explain life and mind. A fixed amount of these existed, they said, amongst normal matter atoms and were what put life and mind into collections of atoms. In many ways, these soul atoms can be directly replaced by dimensionless Leibnizian monads, and modern materialist atomic theory can thus directly embrace life and mind. Imagine a Periodic Table of Chemistry where the atom with an Atomic Number of zero (i.e. it has no atomic mass) is the soul atom! Nihilium, Psychium or Monadium is the zeroth element, from which all the others come. Unlike the Higgs boson, it would be impossible to ever detect the soul atom (the true “God particle”), but this atom is nevertheless rationally necessary to explain how atoms can produce mind and life. With the inclusion of soul atoms – the sources of life and mind – it’s no longer impossible to understand how ordinary, materialist atoms can produce bodies that exhibit life and mind. The soul atom is exactly how idealism can be injected directly into materialism, how the dimensionless can be present amongst the dimensional. Soul atoms belong to the frequency domain and matter atoms to the spacetime domain, and they interact via Fourier mathematics. Why does scientific materialism dogmatically refuse to accept such a straightforward modification to atomic theory? Because it’s not a rational

system of thought but a full-blown religion. It doesn’t worship “God”, it worships materialism and will have no other gods (false idols). Scientists such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Born are like prophets and popes. The scientific establishment is like the Catholic Church, always on the lookout for heretics and infidels. To say that scientists are open-minded seekers of the truth is a joke. They’re blinkered and fanatical materialists who would never dream of reaching anything other than materialist conclusions, no matter how farfetched, as we see with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where cats can be claimed to be simultaneously dead and alive, with no one batting an eye.

Hylozoism “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 can arise from non-living matter], a widely held position in the scientific community. The concept dates to the Milesian school of pre-Socratic philosophers and was introduced in English as a term by Ralph Cudworth in 1678. ... Although there is a distinction between possessing a mind (panpsychism) and possessing life (hylozoism), in practice this division is difficult to maintain, because the ancient hylozoists not only regarded the spirits of the material universe and plant world as alive, but also as more or less conscious. Whereas animism tends to view life as taking the form of discrete spirits, and panpsychism tends to refer to strictly philosophical views like that of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, hylozoism refers largely to views such as those of the earliest Greek philosophers (6th and 5th centuries BC), who treated the magnet as alive because of its attractive powers (Thales), or air as divine (Anaximenes), perhaps because of its apparently spontaneous power of movement, or because of its role as essential for life in animals. Later this primitive hylozoism reappeared in modified forms. Some scholars have since claimed that the term hylozoism should properly be used only where body and soul are explicitly distinguished, the distinction then being rejected as invalid. Nevertheless, hylozoism remains logically distinct both from early forms of animism, which personify nature, and from

panpsychism, which attributes some form of consciousness or sensation to all matter. ... “Some of the ancient Greek philosophers taught a version of hylozoism, as they, however vaguely, conceived the elemental matter as being in some sense animate if not actually conscious and conative (a directed effort, a striving or tendency; a nisus).Thales, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus all taught that there is a form of life in all material objects, and the Stoics believed that a world soul was the vital force of the universe. A possible source for the Greek hylozoists was the Persian philosopher Zarathustra, founder of the religion of Zoroastrianism. It is important to note that these philosophies did not necessarily hold that material objects had separate life or identity, but only that they had life, either as part of an overriding entity or as living but insensible entities.” – Wikipedia

Religion In Illuminism, the term “religion” applies to the rational acceptance of an immortal, indestructible soul (singularity), hence to a guaranteed afterlife. Religion in these terms has nothing to do with any Creator, gods, God, prophets, preachers, popes, priests, gurus, holy texts, faith, meditation or anything else. Religion is just ontological mathematics. It has no mystical elements. As long as you’re an Illuminist, there’s no need to be embarrassed about telling people you are “religious”. You’re not some irrational nut. On the contrary, you’re a hyperrationalist – an ontological mathematician. No one could be more rational than you. You stand on the mathematical high ground, the summit of reason. Religion is math! An Illuminist should never be defeated in any argument with scientists, atheists, skeptics or agnostics. You have reason and mathematics on your side. They don’t. Mathematics can never be vanquished. Science would be nothing without mathematics. In terms of the big picture – the ontology and workings of the universe – we have explained everything. It’s all in the math!

The False Claimants Anthony Bruno: “Like I said, I was part of the AC website. I wrote some of the articles. It is nothing like you think. It was designed to move the masses

to meritocracy and the religion of Illuminism.” We get a lot of people who claim to have written articles on the AC site. Anyone who says they did, didn’t! It’s amazing how people believe they can gain credibility by blatantly lying. What sad people they are. Anyone who lays claim to work they never did is the opposite of a meritocrat and a total failure and loser. Get a life.

The Great Refusal Abrahamists refuse to disbelieve in their God no matter how many irrefutable rational arguments are arrayed against them. Scientists refuse to disbelieve in their scientific method no matter how many irrefutable rational arguments are arrayed against them. They’re as bad as each other. Science is a faith-based religion that denies the existence of the mathematical, dimensionless, rational soul. Science is fundamentally and inherently irrational.

Descartes The ancient Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras and Plato, had a superb understanding of the workings of reality. Tragically for the world, Greek philosophy fell under the shadow of Abrahamism and became twisted out of all recognition. Modern philosophy, when the shackles of Abrahamism were loosed, began with Descartes who introduced one of the most fundamental ontological definitions of all. He said that mind was unextended and matter extended. Had Fourier mathematics been available to him, he would immediately have said that the unextended mental domain is the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, and the extended domain is the spacetime domain of Fourier mathematics. Moreover, he would have explained the mind-matter interaction – a problem he found intractable – as nothing but Fourier mathematics in action.

The Mathematical Key

Even if you can’t follow mathematics in any detail, you are only required, to be able to understand the core nature of reality, to accept a simple dualaspect mathematical ontology: “nothing” and “something”, a frequency domain and a spacetime domain, a mental domain and a material domain, a dimensionless singularity and a dimensional universe. They are separated by one-way valves (event horizons) but they can interact via Fourier mathematics. As long as you grasp that spacetime is not the full story (as the scientific materialists would have you believe) and that there is an unobservable, dimensionless domain of pure frequencies – a singularity beyond the reach of science – then you have everything you need to conceptually sign up to the religion of Illuminism. Every soul is an individual mathematical frequency domain defined by the God Equation, and all of the souls together form a Collective Singularity, which in turn gives rise to the spacetime material world. All religions bar Illuminism have found it impossible to articulate and define what a soul is and where and how it exists. The God Series has fully addressed all of this, and has done so using analytic mathematics. Illuminism is the greatest intellectual accomplishment of the human race, all the more so because it has placed religion on a fully rational, mathematical basis. With Illuminism, humanity can leave behind the dreary falsehoods of scientific materialism and its autistic depiction of the universe as random, mindless, pointless and meaningless and set itself on a trajectory for the next stage of humanity’s evolution – to divinity!

The Gates of Horn and Ivory “The gates of horn and ivory are a literary image used to distinguish true dreams (corresponding to factual occurrences) from false. The phrase originated in the Greek language, in which the word for ‘horn’ is similar to that for ‘fulfil’ and the word for ‘ivory’ is similar to that for ‘deceive’. On the basis of that play on words, true dreams are spoken of as coming through the gates of horn, false dreams as coming through those of ivory.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, the waking dreamworld (the public, shared material world of spacetime) comes through the gates of horn. The sleeping dream world (the

private, individual dream world) comes through the gates of ivory. In Illuminism, private dreams are produced by Fourier mathematics practised by individual minds, and the public dreamworld is produced by Fourier mathematics practised by the collection of all minds. Scientific materialism has never attempted to explain what processes underlie our ability to create dreamworlds at will when we are sleeping ... and why these dreamworlds can be so like the “real world” (implying that they must originate in a common process, which we have identified as Fourier mathematics).

The Source, the “One” Never forget, the ultimate ontological entity – the source of all existence – is the Singularity. What is the Singularity? It’s the frequency domain defined by the generalised Euler Formula, which in turn defines the whole of ontological mathematics. The Singularity is made of countless individual singularities, each an individual frequency domain. Frequency is what constitutes mind and its operations. The Singularity is a cosmic system of unceasing vibration, conveying eternal energy and information, which are expressed internally and externally. Every individual frequency domain is a mind, a subject – a soul. The spacetime domain derived from the Singularity via Fourier mathematics is the external, objective world, subjectively experienced by souls. The Singularity is immaterial and dimensionless, hence is often regarded as “nothing”, as “void”, as “non-being”, as the “mystical Oneness”, as the source of “Oceanic feelings”, as “God in himself”. The Singularity is transcendent and immanent. Religion has never been able to define the collective Singularity and the individual singularity (the soul). Mathematics alone can accomplish this. The basic units of ontology are monads, which are composed of countless frequencies. These monads are self-contained energy/information systems. Everything is about energy and information, and these are the quintessence of ontological mathematics. This is a mathematical universe. It’s 100% mathematical. And it’s all grounded in the mathematical Singularity. Everything starts and ends with the singularity – the dimensionless point.

What could be simpler? – you take infinite points and you create a universe from them through Fourier mathematics, which can convert dimensionless frequency functions into dimensional spacetime functions. The mystery of existence is over. Math is the answer. It’s all about dimensionless and dimensional existence. Science has never accepted dimensionless existence, and religion has never explained dimensionless existence, approaching it through Mythos rather than Logos. Mathematics is about the Singularity outside space and time, and the material world inside space and time. You can’t have a material world without first having an immaterial Singularity. You can’t have 1D-lines, circles or waves without first having 0D-points. It all starts with the point – dimensionless and immaterial – “nothing”! That is the message of Leibniz’s Monadology. The “new science” must abandon the scientific method as its defining element and adopt Leibnizian mathematical rationalism.

***** What’s the “point”? It’s the soul. That’s the answer to the mystery of life, the universe and everything.

Neoplatonism Loosely speaking, the Neoplatonic “One” is the mathematical Singularity, the Neoplatonic Nous is the generalised Euler Formula, the Neoplatonic Higher Psyche is the collective inverse Fourier Transform that produces Nature (the material world). The Neoplatonic individual psyches (which collectively constitute the Lower Psyche) are the monads that link to bodies in the material world.

The Failure of Science The scientific method can address only the spacetime world, the material world, the sensible world, the phenomenal world. It can say nothing at all about the frequency domain, the mental domain, the intelligible world, the noumenal world. The senses are useless in relation to the noumenal

Singularity. Only reason and intelligence – only ontological mathematics – can help you when it comes to noumena. The science delusion is that “evidence” must be physical. The whole point of noumenal existence is that it’s non-physical. Science has simply never overcome its sensory bias. It has made it into a religious faith, which it refuses to doubt. Science is religion for the senses rather than religion for the feelings. It’s as irrational as Abrahamism. Science says that physics breaks down at the Singularity. Indeed, all material, spacetime, sensory, empiricist approaches fail there. But mathematics, metaphysics and rationalism don’t fail at the Singularity. They are in fact the only way in. The Singularity is metaphysical. It’s what comes after physics. Scientists have never grasped that the reason why science has mathematics at its core is that mathematics is the metaphysical root of physics. The mind is the root of matter. Intellect is the root of the senses. Why has the long search for the final theory of science failed? It’s because science is inherently incomplete. The scientific method fails at the gate of the final answers. At that point, it must be left behind and a new method adopted – that of mathematical hyperrationalism, the only way to understand the Singularity, the only way to define “nothing”. The scientific method is about dimensional existence while ultimate reality is about dimensionless existence, exactly where the scientific method can never go. Science can never provide a final answer until it abandons its holiest and most venerated treasure – the scientific method. The scientific method is science’s God, and like all religious believers, scientists will never abandon their God. Like all religious fanatics, they say that anyone who challenges their God is a heretic or infidel. They refuse to listen to reason. Science is doomed. It’s finished. It’s no longer rational for any thoughtful person to turn to science for answers. Mathematics is the answer. Mathematics is metaphysics. Mathematics is reason. Mathematics is intellect. Mathematics alone takes us to the final object – outside space and time, outside material existence, outside Nature (it’s “supernatural”!) – the Singularity. The Singularity is the sacred, divine force of mind and life. It’s the fount of limitless energy and information. It’s immortal and indestructible life itself. And it’s pure mathematics, defined by the God Equation.

Why has science wholly failed to say anything meaningful about life, mind, the unconscious, consciousness and free will? It’s because the scientific method and the whole ideology of science cannot reach the domain of zero and infinity – the Singularity. There’s only one thing that takes us there, the stuff of which the Singularity is actually made – mathematics. “All things are numbers; number rules all.” – Pythagoras Mathematics is the Holy Grail and the Philosopher’s Stone in one. Humans will always be human while they subscribe to mainstream religion (theism for Western religion, and pantheism for Eastern religion), or science (atheism). Humans can become divine only if they go beyond religion and science – to mathematics. Nothing can stop humanity once it collectively recognises that God is mathematics.

The Divine Singularity The Divine Singularity gives rise to a cosmic Hologram. “God” is the mathematical whole at the centre of every part of the Existential Hologram. Holography is the inevitable outcome of the God Equation and Fourier mathematics. How can quantum mechanics and general relativity be reconciled? By re-casting both in terms of holography. The final scientific theory of everything will be mathematical holography, with mental non-locality at its core. If the whole science community adopts a holographic paradigm rather than a materialist paradigm, a final theory will be available within ten years.

The End of Mumbo Jumbo, Hocus Pocus and Woo Woo Mathematics allows religion to be approached in a rational way, providing precise mathematical definitions for otherwise mystical religious concepts, such as the soul. The Age of prophets, preachers, popes, priests, rabbis, imams and gurus is over. From now on, mathematicians will announce the truths of religion

to humanity. Mythos churches, temples, synagogues and mosques will be replaced by Logos Platonic and Pythagorean Academies. All “holy” books will be replaced by mathematics textbooks. All religious symbols will be replaced by mathematical symbols. Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus Christ, St. Paul, St. Augustine, Mohammed, Guru Nanak and Luther will be replaced by Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Fourier, Riemann and Gödel. The Cross will be replaced by π. In hoc signo vinces. “God” will be replaced by the God Equation, which defines the living, immaterial, indestructible, immortal Singularity that underlies all things and all of existence.

Mathematics Ontological mathematics is consistent and complete: a fully self-contained system. Nothing can exist outside ontological mathematics. It covers everything from zero to infinity in every direction, positive and negative, real and imaginary. It’s impossible to define anything outside this range, since it’s an infinite range: infinitely large and infinitely small. What do Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tell us? That any quasiscientific, materialist, finitary version of mathematics, which ignores infinity, zero, self-reference, strange loops and subjectivity, cannot succeed. It will always be inconsistent, incoherent or incomplete.

The Death of Death In the Singularity, there is no death. Death belongs to bodies in the spacetime domain, not to souls in the Singularity. Death is simply a temporary Fourier disconnection between the soul and body. Reincarnation is Fourier reconnection. It’s all in the math!

The Interzone The Interzone – the liminal region between dimensionless and dimensional existence – is the Event Horizon. On one side, we have zero and infinity – mind. On the other, we have all other numbers – matter.

Actually, that’s not quite right. There are actually two event horizons, one for small numbers and one for large numbers: 1) The small number event horizon starts at the smallest reachable finite number, after which irreversible collapse to zero takes place. 2) The large number event horizon starts at the largest reachable finite number, after which irreversible expansion to infinity takes place. Via strange loop mathematics, the next step after infinity is zero, i.e. 2) takes you to 1).

The Time Lords Who are the Time Lords? They are the Godlike minds that can enter and leave the time stream at will.

The Multiverse The Multiverse is science’s last throw of the dice – almost literally – to deny the existence of mind as something independent of matter, and, indeed, as the true origin of matter. The function of the Multiverse is to resist any conceivable appeal to “intelligent design”. For scientists, “intelligent design” refers to attempts by Abrahamists to explain the order and organisation of the world by way of a design plan implemented by a conscious God. In Illuminism, “intelligent design” refers to order and organisation brought about by a collective of countless, unconscious, mathematical minds. All of these minds are capable of evolving consciousness, and, when they do, they become almost infinitely more effective – able to transform the world through their own conscious inventions. Intelligent design, whether conscious or unconscious, is predicated on mind being independent of matter – anathema to the scientific materialist ideology. If there is no intelligent design, how can order and organisation be explained? – only, scientists claim, through statistics. They appear randomly (allegedly). No sufficient reason is given, and no causal mechanism is specified. Randomness operates inexplicably – like magic.

The Multiverse – an infinite collection of universes catering for every conceivable possibility, including the largest possible dimensional universe – is scientific materialism’s alternative to the Singularity, the smallest possible universe that has no dimensions at all. The Singularity – the domain of mind – is predicated on the principle of sufficient reason, causality, design, order, organisation, and ontological mathematics. The Multiverse denies the principle of sufficient reason, causality, mental design and ontological mathematics. It’s statistical rather than causal. The Multiverse theory asserts that anything that can happen will happen, that anything not forbidden is compulsory. Of course, because science is materialist, it claims, without any rational justification or proof, that dimensionless existence is impossible, hence mind is impossible, except as a materialist epiphenomenon. The whole of the materialist obsession with denying the independent existence of mind is reflected in Multiverse thinking. Where Leibniz, the supreme rationalist, advanced the dazzling principle of compossibility – which by itself refutes all Multiverse thinking since it says that mere possibility does not make something actualisable (it must, in fact, be consistent with “the rest of the world”) – Multiversists irrationally refuse to rule out any possibility, except, ironically, the one that actually explains existence: the primacy of mind over matter. When nothing dimensional is forbidden then the Multiverse of infinite dimensional universes (but no dimensionless universes) becomes compulsory. The Multiverse is the biggest possible violation of Occam’s Razor which says that entities must never be multiplied unnecessarily. The Multiverse denies reason and causality. The only idea more intellectually offensive and irrational than the Multiverse is Abrahamism. The Multiverse is there to achieve just one thing – the denial of mind. Without mind, you have no recourse but to roll all dice in every conceivable combination – because there’s no sufficient reason not to. What could possibly forbid any dice roll in a universe without sufficient reasons or causality? Everything can happen. Nothing can stop anything that’s possible.

The Multiverse is the ultimate universe of magic. That’s where materialism ultimately leads. It can’t explain anything, so it throws open the doors to everything. Materialism, in the end, says nothing but, “Things happen because thing happen.” This is a vacuous, empty, circular non-statement, a nonexplanation. To say that everything that can happen will happen is to deny explanation. Materialism always ends up with the insane declaration that existence is absolutely pointless, meaningless and purposeless, and everything happens. If the universe is based on mindless, lifeless lumps of matter, any teleology or meaning is indeed impossible. Only minds display teleology. Only a universe of self-optimising, self-actualising minds possesses meaning. Without autonomous minds, there can never be any meaning. Scientific materialism is the ideology that our lives have no value and no point at all. There can be no question that science represents a kind of psychosis, a fanatical nihilism and identification with machinery rather than life. It is, in short, autistic. It’s arguable that the vast majority of leading scientists are high-functioning autistics who have extremely little empathy and intuition. They suffer from severe literalism and believe that what their senses are showing them must be real, and that anything that their senses cannot show them cannot exist. Scientists ought to be examined by psychiatrists. Anyone who denies that his life has meaning, who asserts that he has no mind in any real sense, that he has no soul, and that he is just an organic machine devoid of free will, is not a healthy, rational human being. He’s existentially sick. The scientific materialist illness has swept the world as effectively as the derangement of Abrahamism. Atheism is a religious faith – the faith in meaninglessness. Materialists would do anything, resort to any argument, no matter how absurd (such as the Multiverse), to resist having to accept that the universe is grounded in living minds (Leibnizian monadic souls). If Leibniz is right – which he is – then materialism is one of the falsest and most pernicious doctrines ever inflicted on the human race. It stands right there in the dock with its partner in lies – Abrahamism. Abrahamism attributes intelligent design to an absurd and impossible God. Scientific materialism absurdly denies that there’s any design at all

and posits an impossible Multiverse. Science and Abrahamism are as ludicrous as each other. Abrahamism and scientific materialism are the flip side of each other. Abrahamism takes the idea of mind to an insane degree and says that an allpowerful conscious mind (“God”) has existed forever in infallible perfection. Science says that there is no such thing as mind at all (in any real sense). Mind does of course exist but is evolutionary. There’s no eternal Abrahamic God, and nor is there any barren, meaningless Multiverse, devoid of ontological mind. The human race has generated countless different accounts of “reality”. Only one account is actually true – Illuminism!

The Big Question So, what’s it to be? Is reality grounded in a meaningless, mindless Multiverse (as scientific materialists – high-functioning autistics – tell us), or in a living, mental Singularity, which does nothing but pursue meaning? That’s the choice you must make.

The Choice Scientific materialism or ontological mathematics? Which is more powerful, more comprehensive? Which offers the key to unlocking the ultimate mysteries of existence? There’s no choice. Ontological mathematics is the only way forward. Humanity must become illuminated. In the God Series, have we not addressed every big question and given an answer to all of them? Science doesn’t come close. An increasing collection of anomalies in the last fifty years presages a scientific revolution, a paradigm shift. The shift will be to mathematical rationalism, and the formal abandonment of the scientific method as the defining element of science.

Mind and Matter Mind = Life = Dimensionless Existence = the Frequency Domain = Subjectivity = the Noumenon = the Singularity.

Matter = Dimensional Existence = the Spacetime Domain = Objectivity = the Phenomenon = the Material World. Scientific materialism is the study of the phenomenal, material world. It has nothing to say about mind and life, which belong to the Singularity. Scientific materialism is about objectivity, but life and mind are about subjectivity. The scientific method is about objective evidence, but it can say nothing about subjective reality. Only one tool can help us in the subjective domain – our reason, which itself belongs to mind. It reveals the order and organisation that underlie the mind. The mind is mathematical and based on frequencies, which are its “base notes” from which it constructs thoughts (which are akin to the tunes created by piano notes). There’s no mystery about why scientific materialism has failed to understand mind and life. What is shocking is that scientists have been so entranced by the success of their ideology that they have convinced themselves that it can answer everything and is the only way to the truth. They refuse to acknowledge its limitations. They can’t think their way past it; a disastrous weakness in people who claim to be rational. They can’t think outside the materialist box. Their minds are closed and they have what can only be described as a religious faith in materialism and the scientific method.

The Frequency Domain When it comes to the frequency domain, it’s essential to realise that total frequency always equals zero: the only way to ensure that monads always remain dimensionless. There must never be any net effects that would ipso facto generate dimensionality. What does it mean to say that something has a frequency of “ten”? In fact, a “group frequency” must be defined, with four different linked components: ten (a positive real number), ten (a negative real number), ten (a positive imaginary number) and ten (a negative imaginary number). These four different tens sum to zero, as required. They do not cancel each other and wipe each other out, as in the destructive interference we see with waves in the dimensional domain. Rather, they exist as a permanent mathematical group with permanent net group properties of zero. That’s why “nothing”, “void” and “dimensionless existence” are also “something”. Scientists have never grasped that “nothing” does not have to be absolute

nothingness but can be a mathematical, noumenal “something”, giving rise to all manner of phenomena (as we see with the Big Bang, via which the whole universe appears from “nothing”). In spacetime dimensional existence, everything still has a total net effect of zero, but this is brought about in a much less immediate and obvious way thanks to the local asymmetry provided by space and time. The bottom line is that there is never anything equating to absolute nothingness (non-existence). We inhabit a mathematical universe and “nothing” always corresponds to a perfect mathematical balance between “somethings”: mathematical positives and negatives. Nothing, ontologically, is always something, a disguised something that seems not to be there. Scientists, so committed to “seeing is believing”, cannot bring themselves to accept things they cannot see. If they had rational, mathematical minds, the idea of an ontological mathematical structure underlying “nothing” would come as no surprise to them. The mathematics of “nothing” constitutes the intelligible world. The mathematics of “something” constitutes the sensible world. It’s as simple as that. The soul belongs to the intelligible world and matter to the sensible world.

***** The perfectly balanced Euler unit circle defined by Euler’s Formula is the basic mathematical vehicle by which something can be a net nothing. It provides the precise mechanism by which something can be created from “nothing” (a net nothing, but not total nothingness). Nothing else can analytically balance something and nothing, hence nothing else can possibly be the answer to existence. The final answer must account for the hidden commonality of something and nothing. The final answer must address Leibniz’s question of why there is something rather than nothing, and provide a sufficient reason. That can be accomplished solely by mathematically showing that “something” is “nothing” – a perfectly structured nothing based on positive and negative numbers (“somethings”). The universe must always exist in its ground state energy, and zero is that ground state. Euler’s Formula alone allows a whole universe to be constructed from an ontological ground state energy of zero.

Existence has only one answer – an answer that’s eternally true – and that answer is the generalised Euler Formula, the God Equation that’s the foundation of the Logos religion of Illuminism, and defines both the mathematical soul and the whole universe. As above, so below.

Logos Religion Illuminism provides a hyperrationalist, mathematical alternative to scientific materialism. All thinking people who loathe mainstream religion are not compelled to become atheists. Mathematics offers the escape route from the meaningless universe posited by scientists. Scientific materialism is simply nihilism by another name. Illuminism is the world’s one and only Logos religion. All rational people are welcome to become Illuminists. We reject faith, Mythos, holy books, revelation, miracles, prophets, preachers, popes, priests and Creators. There’s nothing to fear from a Logos religion of ontological mathematics. Religion per se isn’t crazy, only Mythos religion based on idiotic stories about childish nonsense for people who can’t get beyond the most basic emotions of hope and fear. With ontological mathematics, you can have the best of both worlds: religion and reason. Logos religion is something wholly different from Mythos religion. Logos religion is intellectual, not emotional. It’s about facts, evidence, proof and rational arguments, not stories, fear, hope and faith. Abrahamism has zero truth content and no connection with reason. It was never anything but a powerful appeal to the primitive minds of humans before reason became well established. Reason is here now, and all old, irrational religions must be consigned to the myths and legends from which they were born. Judaism, Christianity and Islam should join Greek mythology as something we read with curiosity, but which we consider to have no connection with reality. Mythos must make way for Logos. Rational religion must become scientific, logical and mathematical. We cannot become Gods unless we inhabit reality, not a Mythos fantasy land.

Brevity “I have made this letter longer, because I have not had time to make it shorter.” – Blaise Pascal We feel you! The finest writing gets to its point in the fewest possible sentences. Nietzsche said that his ambition was to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book. However, shortness of book and amount of time spent on the book can often be inversely proportional. For us to boil down the God Series to a single book would take a hundred years. But what a book it would be! “I know my privileges as a writer to some extent; in individual cases it has been put to me how greatly habituation to my writings ‘ruins’ taste. One can simply no longer endure books, philosophical ones least of all.” – Nietzsche

The Results Science says you can’t argue with its results. But you can! Science has failed to produce a final theory despite general relativity and quantum mechanics now being a century old. If these theories are so good and so reflective of reality, why can’t science join them together? Why do they seem almost the opposites of each other? Even more seriously, what results has science ever produced to explain existence, life, mind, the unconscious, consciousness, qualia, and free will? Science hasn’t offered any explanations for any of the “big” questions. Modern science must be considered a failure. It shows no signs of offering humanity a comprehensive, grand unified theory of everything.

The Other Side People often talk about “the other side”, meaning the afterlife. In Illuminism, the other side is literally the other side of the Fourier Transform: the frequency domain, which is also Soul World. Are things such as clairvoyance, spiritualism, and necromancy possible? Sure they are, to minds that are sufficiently attuned to the workings of Fourier mathematics. Of course, 99.9% of people who claim to be able to

contact the dead are charlatans, and you should never forget that. You should be ultra skeptical of anyone who makes such claims. Are ghosts, spirits, hauntings, and so on, possible? Sure. Again, it’s all in the math. And, again, you can be sure 99.9% of it is bogus and fraudulent. Weird and wonderful things do happen, but they are exceptionally rare. Most people’s minds simply aren’t aligned to the paranormal. People with particular mental conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are much more likely to encounter paranormal phenomena, but are also much more likely to be called “mad”. The mind, especially consciousness, has evolved to shut out as much contact with the paranormal as possible since, unless your mind is staggeringly powerful, paranormal experiences will screw with your sanity.

What is Science? Science, despite being one of humanity’s greatest successes over the centuries, is one of the least well-understood subjects in the world, not least amongst scientists themselves. Scientists refuse to accept that science is a philosophy, making all manner of extremely dubious, and frequently deranged, philosophical assertions. To understand science, you must grasp that it’s an empiricist philosophy with a method (the “scientific method”) appended to it. Scientists believe that this method makes science something other than, and more than, philosophy. Here’s the problem with this view. The scientific method is about matching hypotheses (educated guesses!) to the results of experiments (measurements and observations). If a hypothesis is not verified by the experimental data then it’s falsified by the data and must be refined or even abandoned. This method ties science to the observed world in a way that’s not true of any other philosophy, which is why scientists believe it’s radically different. However, consider how any scientific hypothesis is constructed. Given the scientific method, any scientific hypothesis must revolve around observables. So, rational unobservables and hidden variables are automatically absent from scientific hypotheses. With the advent of quantum mechanics, scientists were confronted with the need to appeal to “hidden variables” if they wanted science to remain

deterministic (God does not play dice). However, this would have changed the whole nature of science since the scientific method would no longer be fully applicable (since experiments self-evidently can’t detect the inherently hidden). Metaphysics would have been admitted to the corridors of science. Rather than accept this outcome, the leadership of science rejected hidden variables and proclaimed that God did play dice and that reality was ipso facto fundamentally indeterministic rather than deterministic (the position science had previously asserted). Now, you must understand that the science establishment did not take a scientific decision regarding quantum mechanics, but, rather, a philosophical decision. Science cannot in any way disprove the existence of hidden variables or rational unobservables. It cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that these do not exist. It cannot adduce any “facts” or rational arguments that they do not exist. All it can do is assert that they are incompatible with the scientific method. It would be fair enough if science restricted itself to exactly this position, i.e. if it said that science is purely the exploration and application of the scientific method and has no relevance to anything outside this method. However, this is not what science says. Science claims that anything not amenable to the scientific method does not exist at all! This is an unwarranted, unprovable and purely speculative position that has no place in science. It’s an outright metaphysical and philosophical claim. With regard to quantum mechanics, science cannot prove that there are no hidden variables, hence cannot prove that reality is grounded in indeterminacy. It’s wholly, factually, unentitled to dismiss hidden variables and to assert that reality is indeterministic rather than deterministic. Science, if it were obeying its own method, would say nothing at all about whether reality is indeterministic or deterministic. It’s outside science’s parameters and methodology to make any such claim. It’s not qualified to pronounce in this matter. When it does nevertheless pronounce, it has become philosophy, not science. In relation to quantum mechanics, science should carry out experiments, measurements and observations and should stick to the observed facts. It should not pontificate on matters about which the experimental method can prove nothing. Science has nothing to say about unobservables. It cannot say that they do not exist. It has no evidence, proof, facts or rational arguments for any such claim.

What science has done, in effect, is to proclaim that the scientific method is the only means of determining the nature of reality, and that anything beyond the scientific method (i.e. anything metaphysical) cannot exist. This a staggeringly arrogant, false and deluded statement. It is not, it must be stressed, a scientific statement but a philosophical claim. A method based on sensory observation has, by definition, no relevance to anything that cannot be sensorily observed. Science is making the empiricist, materialist, philosophical claim that only the world of the senses (the sensible domain) exists, and there’s no non-sensory, intelligible domain, of the type rationalist and idealist philosophy posits. Science takes up a philosophical stance and then refuses to call it philosophy and equally refuses to engage with rival philosophical stances. Science is sensory philosophy. Science is philosophy that demands that its philosophical claims be tied to observations and measurement performed on the world, hence science ipso facto rejects metaphysics. Yet it is itself making a metaphysical claim that only sensory objects are real, and there can be no hidden variables: an unprovable claim. Empiricist, materialist science’s assertion that we live in a random, meaningless universe born of nothing is totally non-empirical, and also contradicts materialism. In other words, science refutes itself: it’s inconsistent and incoherent. No indeterministic event has ever been observed, perceived or measured, and nor could it ever be. As soon as you adopt this view, you are subscribing to an irrationalist belief system. And that says everything that needs to be said about you. Science is a philosophy of empiricism and materialism that invokes elements wholly repudiated by empiricism and materialism. Science says that matter comes from nothing (in which case it’s not matter but something else), that the quantum wavefunction is unreal and unobservable (hence non-empirical and immaterial), that the world is indeterministic (something that no experiment could ever demonstrate), that the moon doesn’t exist when you’re not looking at it (a repudiation of the reality principle), that God plays dice (a totally unobservable claim), that observers are required to collapse the quantum wavefunction (but all observers are part of the wavefunction, hence cannot collapse it; something external to the wavefunction is needed, which would then mean that the wavefunction does not in fact provide a full description of reality), that reality reflects wave-

particle duality (a flat logical contradiction), which is only resolved by conscious observation (an absurd claim, all the more stupid since science has no idea what consciousness is), that there’s no free will (despite the fact that we are all empirically aware of our own freedom), that randomness leads to classical order (impossible), that indeterminism leads to classical determinism (impossible), that reality is subject to Einsteinian relativity (which blatantly contradicts objective reality), that cats can be dead, alive and mixtures of dead and alive until an observation takes place (an outrageous and silly contradiction of the reality principle), that things happen acausally (without a sufficient reason; in fact, for no reason at all), and so on. The number of incoherent, irrational, invalid, inconsistent, and crazy claims made by science is simply legion. Despite what scientists say, all of these claims are philosophical, not scientific. There’s no scientific evidence whatsoever for any of them, and the whole of science could be entirely reinterpreted from the rival philosophical stance of rationalism and idealism and dispense with all of them. You choose to buy into scientific baloney. There’s no factual reason for you to do so. All scientific claims about ultimate reality (including Many Worlds, Multiverses, something coming from nothing, fundamental indeterminacy, and so on) are bogus, fallacious and irrational. If you accept them, it’s because you are a believer, not a person of knowledge. When you listen to science popularisers, you are taking on board their highly dubious philosophical views. You are not learning any science. True, phenomenal science stops as soon as the domain of applicability of observation ends, and anything that goes beyond observation is not phenomenal science but something else. The whole of metaphysics is not scientific and yet all scientific claims about ultimate reality are metaphysical since no experiment, measurement or observation can ever demonstrate their truth. If you buy the scientific method as the be-all-and-end-all, you also buy the fact that you will never know anything beyond and outside the applicability of the scientific method. You can’t then claim, as science does, that there is nothing outside and beyond the scientific method. That’s as mad as any religious claim. When you read about Schrödinger’s Cat, don’t for a second imagine that you are discovering any secret of reality. All you are reading is the

ridiculous philosophical opinion of empiricist materialists, the sort of people who claim that the moon isn’t there when no one’s looking at it. Do you believe that too? People will believe anything. That’s a fact. And “scientists” are the worst of the lot for believing total nonsense about ultimate reality.

Scientific Hypotheses When any scientific hypothesis is formulated, it’s always within the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. So, for example, any scientific hypothesis will exclude all of the following: 1) Hidden variables 2) Rational unobservables 3) Zero, infinity, imaginary numbers and most negative numbers 4) Ontological mathematics 5) Singularities 6) Dimensionless, unextended existence 7) A Fourier frequency domain outside space and time 8) The principle of sufficient reason 9) Metaphysics 10)

The distinction between noumenal and phenomenal

11)

God

12)

The soul

13)

The afterlife

14)

Teleology

15)

Mind

16)

Free will

17)

Pantheism

18) Consciousness (except in quantum mechanics where, despite not being defined, it’s often mysteriously invoked to collapse the wavefunction) 19) Even causality is now formally denied by science as a fundamental feature of existence. Science says randomness (things happening for no reason) is the ground of reality. A scientific hypothesis is not in any way neutral and objective. It reflects the fanatical ideology of empiricist, materialist dogmatism. Science never mentions this, and lyingly claims that all scientific assertions are purely scientific rather than philosophical and metaphysical. The biggest problem of all for science is that it’s enormously mathematical these days, but mathematics is a subject which has zero connection with empiricism, materialism and experiments. Mathematics is 100% beyond and outside the scientific method. Therefore, by exactly the same logic that science applies to everything else beyond and outside the scientific method, mathematics should be deemed non-existent, hence no mathematics should be invoked by science if it claims in any way to reflect what actually exists. However, if you removed mathematics from science, it would be reduced to divination! Mathematics has exactly the same relationship to empiricism and materialism as metaphysics does, i.e. it’s beyond and outside it. If truth be told, true metaphysics is mathematics; metaphysics grounded in a complete, consistent, provable system rather than in the incomplete, inconsistent, unprovable speculation of philosophical metaphysics. How many science books have you ever read that tackled the ontology of mathematics and how it logically fits in with the scientific method? Er, none!

***** A scientific hypothesis, in order to be taken seriously by the science establishment, must be: 1) Empiricist 2) Materialist 3) Non-teleological

4) Non-mental 5) Involve mathematics greater than zero and less than infinity, with no imaginary numbers left at the end of any calculations, and negative numbers tolerated only for describing charge 6) Avoid singularities 7) Avoid anything dimensionless or unextended So, make sure you stick with careerist groupthink and conformism whenever you construct a scientific hypothesis. You wouldn’t want to be called a radical freethinker, would you, and have your funding stopped? Science tells you what to think, so make sure you think it if you want to work in science. Don’t go around pretending to yourself that you are rational, or have any interest in the truth. If you are a “scientist”, it means you are an empiricist materialist philosopher who denies the existence of anything beyond the reach of the scientific method, and denies that reality is grounded in reason and causality (ontological mathematics). Remember to admit to the world that you are an irrationalist believer in the Church of Science. Or is that to expect too much honesty from you? You certainly won’t catch people like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking or Brian Cox being honest and truthful about their quasi-religious beliefs. All you will get from them is their dismal empiricist materialist dogmatism – pure bunk and propaganda, every bit as insidious as Abrahamism and Karmism, and an insult to Reason. People such as Dawkins, Hawking and Cox have no intellectual integrity. They would never dream of abandoning science for ontological mathematics. They’re stuck in their faith in science, and, like Abrahamists, they refuse to think beyond their dogma. Scientists are “sensory Abrahamists”: people who have replaced faith in their feelings with faith in their senses. Both reject reason, the only subject that, in the form of ontological mathematics, can ever deal with authentic truth. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.” Exactly the same could be said about coming into contact with scientific materialists. They stink of irrationalism and philosophical illiteracy.

Religion, Science and Mathematics Religion makes no attempt to link itself to the sensible world (science) or the intelligible world (mathematics; reason). Instead, it refers to a world of pure faith and feelings (Abrahamism) or a mystical world of intuition (Eastern religion). Science tries to understand reality purely from the perspective of the sensible world and completely denies the existence of a non-sensible, intelligible world of ontological reason (the mathematical world). Ontological mathematics asserts that reality is fundamentally intelligible and can be worked out 100% without ever looking at the sensible world (which is merely a sensory derivation of the intelligible world). Science grounds itself in matching arbitrary, contingent hypotheses (guesses, as Richard Feynman out it) to experimental data (“the world”). Religion grounds itself in faith and mysticism, with no connection to the observable world, and no connection to ontological reason (mathematics). Ontological mathematics grounds itself in the necessary laws of eternal reason (“ultimate existence”).

Extinction, Faeces and Mutation The Creator God is refuted by the observed extinction of species. Why would God create species only to make them extinct? That would be tantamount to an error, but God cannot err. By exactly the same logic, how can species mutate if God made them perfect when he created the world? Why would he make them imperfect and then change them? Did God create all of the different types of faeces associated with the multitude of species of the animal world? What a shit job! Did God create diahorrea and constipation? Why? God is shit!

How to Debunk Kant in Three Sentences “Kant asked himself: how are synthetic judgements a priori possible? – and what, really, did he answer? By means of a faculty: but unfortunately not in a few words, but so circumspectly, venerably, and with such an expenditure of German profundity and flourishes that the comical niaiserie allemande

[German foolishness] involved in such an answer was overlooked. People even lost their heads altogether on account of this new faculty, and the rejoicing reached its climax when Kant went on further to discover a moral faculty in man...” – Nietzsche What would Nietzsche have said about relativity theory and quantum mechanics?! He would have had a field day.

Explanation versus Description “Cause and Effect. We say it is ‘explanation’; but it is only in ‘description’ that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of ‘causes’ stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow – but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a ‘miracle,’ the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has ‘explained’ impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces – how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions – just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken – would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.” – Nietzsche

Remember, only rationalism explains. Everything else, including science, is mere description, mere Mythos. The Bible doesn’t explain Creation, it describes it (badly and ridiculously), yet this description is mistaken for explanation. Abrahamists “explain” Creation by saying God did it, but how he did it is unexplained and God himself is unexplained. Science says the “Big Bang” did it, but, again, no explanation is offered for the Big Bang. If you haven’t explained that then you haven’t explained anything, and everything else is mere speculation, conjecture and description.

***** Most “explanations” end up being attributed to unexplained “faculties”. What causes Newtonian gravity? – the faculty of gravity. What causes opium to make people sleepy? – its sleep-inducing faculty. What is quantum mechanics all about? – an unreal mathematical faculty (wavefunction). People delude themselves that by inventing fancy equations and terminology they thereby explain things. They don’t. They are stuck in description, in Mythos, in circular logic. If God made the world but we have no idea how God was made, how have we explained anything? If one God is possible, why not two, and indeed infinitely many? If God is eternal, his essence must be rationally knowable, or we are saying that the universe is ultimately based in inexplicable magic. The God Series has addressed down to the finest detail why only a mathematical universe is possible, and it offers a full, rational explanation of everything. Mathematics explains itself by, uniquely, being able to account for why “nothing” is “something”. Overall, there is no universe: everything cancels or balances to zero. The reason why we are here is that the cancellation process demands that there are existents in the first place, able to produce a net cancellation effect of zero. Hegel came up with a brilliant description when he said that the thesis of nothing and the antithesis of being (something) produce the synthesis of becoming, the dynamical engine that then drives the universe and everything that happens in it. Only mathematics can explain Hegel’s dazzling insight. By analytic definition, something and nothing, and their

continuous interaction (becoming), are built into the properties of ontological, dynamic mathematics.

Gravity and Levity Leibniz mocked Newton for saying that the gravity of things is due to a “gravitational force”. Imagine a time-reversed world where instead of apples being observed to fall from a tree to the ground they instead rose from the ground to the tree, and Newton formulated a theory of “levity” to explain what was observed. This would be every bit as valid, given the observational context, so no sufficient reason has been provided why we live in a universe of gravity rather than levity. As ever, nothing has been explained. Labels have been constructed (“gravity” and “levity”) and mathematical formulae provided, but this is mere description and nothing to do with explanation. Science never explains. It never has and it never will. All it does is provide useful descriptions that allow us to construct a successful Mythos about how the world works. It’s much more successful than the Abrahamic Mythos because it deals with the senses – which have a certain degree of objectivity – rather than purely subjective feelings and faith. Even so, it’s still Mythos.

Empiricism and Materialism Imagine a world made of solid, tangible atoms. The human brain would also be made of these atoms, and the mind would be some unexplained phenomenon generated by the collective structure of the atoms, and their mutual interactions. In this view – a strictly materialist view – matter exists independently of minds, and minds owe their existence solely to matter and cannot exist otherwise. In such a system, it’s natural to assume that our sense organs have evolved to present us with accurate information about the real, solid world that exists objectively. All our knowledge of reality – of atoms – would come to us through our sense organs, through sensory experience (empiricism). Our minds – such as they are – would exist solely to ponder, comprehend and draw inferences concerning our experiences. Our reason would have no function other than to operate on sense data. This is the basic worldview of science: the perfect union of materialism and empiricism. There can be no such things as “unobservables” in this philosophy since there can be nothing that isn’t made of observable atoms.

Yet modern science itself has destroyed this view. The quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal and unobservable, atoms are described as both particle and wave, they have no definite, simultaneous positions and momenta, and do not exist as solid things but as potentialities waiting to be actualized by measurements. Yet science persists with its old, refuted mindset and worldview. It simply refuses to acknowledge that materialism and empiricism cannot be true. Kant, an idealist rather than materialist, said that the mind has two parts: the perceiving part and the thinking part. His critical manoeuvre was to turn the thinking part into something highly structured, with categories and intuitions. The thinking mind was no longer simply something that operated on information coming in from the sense organs. In the materialist-empiricist worldview, the external world is the important thing. In Kant’s worldview, it’s the internal structure of the mind that’s crucial. It’s this structure that conditions what the perceiving mind can actually perceive. The mind is no longer perceiving what is objectively “out there” but, rather, it’s perceiving only what the thinking mind allows it to perceive. There is no longer any clear correspondence between perception and external reality. Whatever is “out there” is not perceived directly, but only via the complex internal operations of mind which have nothing to do with external reality. Kant’s logic leads relentlessly to space, time and all the things we normally associate with materialism being removed from the external world and relocated to the internal structure of the mind. The external world is no longer an objective physical reality existing in space and time. It’s now a mysterious and in fact unknowable (Kant says) noumenal domain outside space and time, making it a mental rather than material entity. Kant has in fact abolished the physical world entirely. Existence comprises a noumenal reality upon which noumenal minds operate in a characteristic way to produce the illusion of a material world – a phenomenal world, a world of mere appearance, reflecting the inbuilt structures and categories of mind. Kant’s view is not in fact much different from Leibniz’s, expressed in his Monadology. Kant has noumenal minds operating on noumenal things to create a phenomenal world. Leibniz had noumenal minds alone, creating a phenomenal world from themselves. In Leibniz’s system, there are no noumenal things that are not minds. “Matter”, in Leibniz’s system, is a

passive feature of minds themselves, not something external to minds. Kant makes “matter” something noumenal yet external to minds, which is then perceived as physical matter. Schopenhauer produced a more logical version of Kant’s system when he reduced all Kantian noumena to a single mental Will outside space and time. He thus brought Kant’s philosophy extremely close to Leibniz’s philosophy. Like Leibniz, Schopenhauer had a noumenal world of mind generating a phenomenal world. However, Schopenhauer said that a single cosmic mind existed outside space and time whereas Leibniz said there were infinite individual minds (monads) outside space and time. Schopenhauer’s view is Buddhist (no individual souls) and Leibniz’s is Hindu (individual souls).

***** It’s fascinating that science has never once engaged with David Hume’s attack on causality and nor has it ever engaged with Kant’s depiction of mind. It has remained irredeemably stuck within its narrow empiricist and materialist carapace that, since the start of the twentieth century, has been wholly untenable. It cannot escape because, to do so, would mean relegating the scientific method to a useful tool rather than the defining element of science. As soon as a noumenal world of mind is admitted, the scientific method has nothing to say about it since the noumenal domain is inherently beyond the reach of any experiments. If the scientific method falls, science – as currently conceived – falls with it. Metaphysics, rationalism and, above all, mathematics become the defining elements of science. Science becomes idealist and rationalist rather than materialist and empiricist, exactly as it would have been three hundred years ago if it had followed Leibniz rather than Newton. It’s now clear that the current empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science has comprehensively failed and makes no sense at all, even within its own parameters. Science cannot produce a final theory because the contradictions involved in science’s Meta Paradigm make it impossible. The ultimate revolutionary paradigm shift is required. Science must give up its Newtonian worldview of matter and embrace the Leibnizian worldview of mind. Physics must be replaced by ontological mathematics.

Do scientists have the courage, integrity and intelligence to do what is necessary, or are they actually trapped in a quasi-religion with absolute faith in their ideology that no amount of reason, facts and evidence will ever shake? Sadly, the latter appears to be true. What’s truly tragic is that all that scientists are actually being asked to do is to stop worshipping the scientific method and relegating mathematics to a weird and inexplicable abstraction, and to instead make mathematics primary and the scientific method an empiricist tool for helping to throw light on mathematical reality. Mathematics is idealist and rationalist – mental. Physics is materialist and empiricist – physical. Science must invert its Meta Paradigm if it’s ever to reach a final theory of everything. That theory will be pure mathematics. So, what’s to be – physics or mathematics? That’s your simple choice. Mathematics is what underlies all idealist views of reality. It’s none other than metaphysics. Physics is what underlies all materialist views of reality. To complete its own project, science must go beyond physics to metaphysics (mathematics) and, en route, it must dethrone the sacred scientific method (empiricism) and replace it with ontological mathematics (rationalism).

What Are You? Abrahamism says you’re an undefined soul created by an undefined God. Buddhism says you’re a natural process. Hinduism says you’re an eternal soul linked to God but suffering from an illusion (Maya) that you are separate. Taoism, a kind of intermediate position between Buddhism and Hinduism, says you’re a process and a soul. Science says you’re a temporary, accidental, meaningless, biological machine. Illuminism says you’re an immortal, indestructible, mathematical information system, defined by the God Equation, which you can subjectively experience from the inside. If you can’t think of any alternative then you must choose one of these.

“Truths”

1) Feelings. Truths of Faith. (Supplied by prophets, holy texts, divine revelation, gurus and preachers; often aided by insanity.) 2) Intuition. Truths of Mystical Insight. (Supplied by gurus, shamans, mystics, psychonauts; often aided by hallucinogenic drugs.) 3) The Senses. Truths of Fact. (Supplied by scientists, materialists, empiricists, skeptics, Doubting Thomases, autistics.) 4) Thinking. Truths of Reason. (Supplied metaphysicists, rationalists, logicians, geniuses.)

by

mathematicians,

These are not all equivalent paths to the truth. Only one is true – the thinking one that follows the eternal truths of reason.

Magic Followers of mainstream religion are believers in magic. They are afraid of their magic being stolen by disbelief. They are afraid of their magic being destroyed by rationalists. Religious magic comes with a price: you need to be mad to believe it. Medieval Europe was a world of magic and madness. Witches, wizards, warlocks, devils, demons, familiars, potions and spells were everywhere. Every time people pray or read a “holy book”, they cross over into this lunatic land of magic. It was the rational Enlightenment that allowed humanity to escape from the Magic World. There’s only one true magic – mathematics. It actually works!

The Two Views From the perspective of the dimensionless domain, everything in the dimensional domain has no dimensions: the whole dimensional domain is regarded as a single point outside space and time. A dimensionless singularity is outside space and time, hence does not “see” space and time. It sees everything at once in one location, i.e. the dimensional, nonSingularity world is viewed as a dimensionless Singularity from the Singularity’s perspective.

By the same token, from the perspective of the dimensional domain, everything in the dimensionless domain that observably impacts on dimensional existence has dimensional features (since it would otherwise have no observable effects, so the logic goes). Photons, for example, belong to the dimensionless frequency domain, but are of course observed to have dimensional consequences. It’s this dual perspective that has caused incredible interpretational difficulties for scientific materialism. It refuses to acknowledge an ontological dimensionless domain, even though such a domain is inevitable according to its own theories, starting from the Big Bang onwards.

The Cosmic Tank Imagine a tank full of water. According to scientific materialism, the tank is full of water molecules and underlying them is a Heisenbergian “virtual” reality, constantly producing “virtual particles”, which annihilate each other. So, science says there are “real” particles and under them are “virtual” particles. In Illuminism, virtual particles are replaced by analytic Leibnizian monads, associated with real, not virtual energy. What is “virtual” energy anyway? If it’s not a phantasm, a fiction, then it’s just real energy present for a very short duration. The Illuminist universe might be said to have infinite, analytic, monadic depth, while the scientific universe has infinite, probabilistic, virtual depth. Which foundations are the more secure? Is your existence based on reality, on sufficient reason and causality, or is it based on statistics, randomness, probability, unreality and virtual existence?

Reality Reality comprises two interlinked elements: 1) A dimensionless point (Frequency Singularity) outside space and time. 2) A dimensional universe (Material World) inside space and time. In the Big Bang, the frequency Singularity generates Spacetime: mind creates matter! Mind is just frequency, outside space and time.

Big Bang theory is at the heart of scientific materialist cosmology and yet scientists still refuse to accept that something dimensionless (mind) created dimensionality. It is of course absurd to conclude that dimensionality created itself out of absolute nothingness (non-existence), which is what science claims. “Nothing” is not nothing at all – it’s dimensionless existence ... mind. What underlies visible reality? Is it a world of noumenal things, full of mathematical potential that they seek to actualise? Or is it an unreal mathematical wavefunction describing everything that can possibly happen (including all possible futures), which inexplicably “collapses” to create actual things, as science says? Does visible reality have an actual underpinning or a potential underpinning? Illuminism reflects a reality principle: objectively real things exist at all times, regardless of whether or not they are visible. Phenomenal reality is grounded in noumenal reality. Science does not acknowledge a reality principle. Rather, it says that underneath the solid world we see around us is some abstract mathematical entity (an unexplained mathematical wavefunction not rooted in any actual things and whose origin is impossible to define or account for) that describes randomness, possibility, probability, potential and statistics. Scientific “reality” concerns the inexplicable plucking of possible things from an inexplicable wavefunction (with no conceivable rational, real source) and making them actual. Science invents this extraordinarily absurd Mythos simply to avoid accepting the existence of unobservable, noumenal minds. Its hatred of mind is pathological. It prefers, as an explanation of reality, randomness to intelligence. It sees the universe as converging relentlessly on a state of maximum entropy – the cosmic Heat Death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics – in which total randomness reigns. In other words, science claims that a random event created the universe (in their version of the Big Bang), that a random event generator (the unreal mathematical wavefunction of their version of quantum mechanics) creates actual things (via unexplained and unexplainable “measurements”, “observations” and “observers”), that a Multiverse is created where everything that can happen will happen across infinite, random, parallel universes, and that everything

ends with total entropic randomness, where all useful energy has been converted into disorder. This is a deranged sanctification of randomness. Scientists have effectively declared randomness holy and divine – their equivalent of God – that creates and sustains all things. But randomness does not explain anything at all. It especially does not explain itself. What is the source of ontological randomness? What is the sufficient reason for it? What objective reality is it grounded in? What causes it? How can randomness exist at all? To have random events implies that something must be able to define what character these random events can have (or do they have no character at all?), which random events are possible and which are not (is it possible, for example, for pink elephants to spew out of the craters of volcanoes, or to be found guarding black hole event horizons?). Randomness cannot account for itself, so something else must be more fundamental. Science will not accept the only rational conclusion: reality is grounded in Leibniz’s noumenal monadic minds, and these are pure mathematical systems reflecting the eternal truths of mathematics. No eternal truth of mathematics can ever not have existed. Eternal existence simply is ontological mathematics, and can’t be anything else. Mathematics defines and explains existence by defining and explaining itself. Mathematics alone can account for itself ... because mathematics is sufficient reason itself. The sufficient reason for its existence is that all of its truths are eternal, analytic, necessary and compulsory. The truths of reason are eternal, so reason itself is ipso facto eternal. Reason cannot be an abstraction; it must be ontological. So, what is it that ontologically expresses reason? It’s the mathematical monad, carrying within it the full, eternal laws of ontological mathematics, which are in fact the laws of reason. Ontological mathematics and reason are synonymous. Ontological mathematics is the basis of the philosophy of rationalism. A monad is a rational soul, and the universe is made of these rational souls, exactly as Leibniz said. This is Soul World. Souls are the quintessence of mathematics and reason. Although the laws of mathematics and reason are fixed, the souls themselves are not fixed. They are living mathematical beings whose task is to evolve, to solve the rational

conundrum posed by themselves, to optimize themselves. They are the means by which reason becomes conscious of itself. If reason were defined by non-consciousness (i.e. concerned with neither the unconscious nor consciousness) and resided in non-conscious units, we would inhabit a computerised, machine world. In fact, reason in its default mode is unconscious rather than non-conscious, but, through selfoptimisation, can become self-aware (conscious). Reason is mental and alive, not material and dead. Life and mind are synonymous. Life and mind are unconscious and must become conscious through an immense dialectical process. Noumenal, self-solving, self-optimizing souls are the functional units of the philosophy of rationalism. Existence is a living, mental organism of pure reason, striving to become self-aware, and doing so through its functional units: monads – us! Many people mistakenly associate reason with machinelike thinking. In fact, reason – being alive and mental, but unconscious – must use reason to become conscious. Reason uses the simplest possible rational technique: it judges whether its power is increasing or decreasing. Increasing power is deemed good and decreasing power bad. But how is an increase in power judged by an unconscious living mind, or by a living mind with very primitive consciousness? The answer is with feelings. A subjective feeling of pleasure or pain is the optimal rational criterion for a sub-optimal mind to utilize to gauge how well it’s doing. Jung rightly identified thinking and feeling as two different “rational functions”. Feeling is primitive thinking. Mythos is primitive Logos. Sensing is primitive intuition. The more you are a thinking, intuitive, rational, Logos person, the more you are approaching the optimal state of reason. Living reason must go through a long phase of feelings, sensing and Mythos. These are the primitive precursors of higher rational functionality. A world of these precursors looks, to more rational minds, totally irrational. In fact, it’s not irrational but simply using a very crude rational approach, the most basic possible. The Hegelian dialectic – dividing the world into binary opposites and then trying to find the best synthesis, taking the best of both and rejecting the worst of both – is fantastically simplistic, and yet how could primitive minds do anything other than use this crude technique? This technique is bound to succeed eventually, but its journey will be

horrifically brutal and uncompromising (since minds don’t know any better). We live in a savage world because low-level minds, all trying to maximize their individual power (and thus competing with each other), make it inevitable. Reason, living reason, expressed through living beings, is not universal but particular. Each being is a centre of reason. The eternal truths of reason are common to all, but the individual rational tactics used by each being to self-optimize and become conscious are different. That’s why the world is fascinating, and not a machine. That’s why idiots and psychopaths are in charge of the world, why people believe in mad religions, why good people don’t get what they deserve, why smart people are ignored, why Mythos is more highly regarded than Logos.

The Truth Whether scientists like it or not, we live in a Leibnizian universe of monads – Soul World. Leibniz was the greatest genius of all. Which scientist dares to set himself above Leibniz and claim to outthink and outreason Leibniz? Dawkins, Cox, Hawking? Ho, ho, ho! Leibniz invoked reason while science invokes the scientific method. But the latter has nothing to do with rationalism and is all about empiricism. Empiricism is what leads to the insanity of randomness being elevated to “God”. Rationalism on the other hand ensures that reality is grounded in monadic minds and the eternal principle of sufficient reason. Empiricism claims that all knowledge comes from experience. This puts subjectivity at the apex of epistemology and radically subverts any possibility of absolute, objective knowledge. The momentary and fleeting observation becomes the only “solid” reality. The moon – when it is not being observed, hence is not part of experience – is asserted not to exist. Do you believe that the unobserved moon vanishes from existence? If you don’t, you must repudiate science.

Careerists Why is it so hard to change science? It’s because it’s full of careerists. It has an elitist establishment that holds all the power in science. People who want to succeed in science, who want tenure, pay rises, status, influence,

promotion, more power, greater funding, a higher profile, must do the bidding of the science establishment. This establishment is extremely interested in success, but not in truth. Now, imagine a new paradigm came along that changed everything in science. How likely is the science establishment to embrace this revolutionary new paradigm, given that it will put them all out of a job, or cause them to be replaced by an entirely new establishment of those familiar with the new paradigm? Of one thing you can be absolutely certain: the science establishment will ferociously resist the new paradigm, no matter how true it is. The establishment has nothing to gain from the new thinking, and plenty to lose, so they actively try to stamp out any threat to the prevailing establishment view. Personal power and status are what drive the leading scientists. They couldn’t care less about the truth. The science establishment is as receptive to rationalism and idealism as Muslims are to anyone claiming to be a new Mohammed, with a new revelation from Allah, i.e. they have zero interest in any such thing and will automatically wish to destroy it. As Plank said, science progresses only through the death of the members of the science establishment. And that’s not “science”; that’s the same as politics and religion, and all systems of power. You either go along with the establishment or you have a revolution and overthrow it. The establishment never changes by its own volition. After all, it’s got everything it wants – power.

***** “One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours…” – Machiavelli “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so…” – Machiavelli

The Scientific Empiricist Religion In science’s empiricist “religion”, the Creator God of Abrahamism is replaced by Randomness. The Creation Event of Abrahamism (a universe

made out of nothing by the will of God) is replaced by the Big Bang (a universe made out nothing via a “random fluctuation”). The Abrahamic God’s creation of the animals and plants of the world is replaced by Darwinian evolution based on random mutation and natural selection. The foreknowledge of God is replaced by the quantum wavefunction based on randomness and probability. The Will of God to make specific events happen is replaced by the random collapse of the quantum wavefunction based on measurements by undefined observers. The Apocalypse of Abrahamism is replaced by the Heat Death of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereby the universe achieves the maximum state of randomness (disorder). Scientific empiricism is the world’s most bizarre religion, replacing God with randomness. It’s equal with Abrahamism it its inability to explain anything. Randomness is just another word for magic. What is the one thing that keeps the scientific show on the road? It’s the mathematical content of science, which has nothing at all to do with randomness and is all about the principle of sufficient reason. In other words, only the presence of rationalist, anti-randomist mathematics makes science a plausible subject. Remove mathematics from science and you would indeed be left with absolute meaninglessness, irrationalism and randomness – total and eternal chaos. Therefore, the biggest question facing “randomist” science is why it’s based on mathematics, the least random subject you can get, the quintessence of order, organisation, form and pattern. Do we live in an ordered or disordered universe? If the former, we live in a mathematical universe, If the latter, we live in a scientific universe. Well, look around you. Which is it? Duh! Randomist, empiricist, materialist science is completely destroyed by the very thing that gives science its power: mathematics. It’s time to get rid of the absurd, irrational, incoherent, incomplete, inconsistent and selfcontradictory belief system of science and replace it wholesale with ontological mathematics, the subject of absolute reason, causality, determinism and meaning, of all the hows and all the whys.

Reality

“We find at the very beginning of philosophy [with Thales] the assertion that everything is ‘really’ something else and not what it ‘appears’ to be.” – R. J. Hollingdale Some humans have always intuited that what we sense is not the true reality but a kind of illusion (Maya). Science, on the contrary, has attempted to demonstrate that appearance is reality. “This bifurcation of the world into the mundane world perceived and the transcendent, ‘more real’ world revealed by thinking is very probably an essential consequence of thinking as such, of the existence in the human head of a ‘world of thought’. The most primitive men known to us already inhabit these two worlds. The fundamental idea is: I am and I think. From this idea there follows a second, derivative idea: there exists another world, the world I inhabit in my thinking.” – R. J. Hollingdale Fourier mathematics, with its two realms of frequency and spacetime exactly reflects this bifurcation. Our hemispheric brains reflect this bifurcation. Waking and dreaming reflect this bifurcation. Consciousness and the unconscious reflect this bifurcation. Physics and metaphysics reflect this bifurcation. The sensible and the intelligible reflect this bifurcation, as do the phenomenal and the noumenal, the synthetic and the analytic, the inductive and deductive, the contingent and necessary, the temporal and eternal, truths of fact and truths of reason, the a posteriori and the a priori. “In memory the past, that which has vanished from the perceived world, continues to exist – where does it exist? In that other world which we perceive only in thought.” – R. J. Hollingdale Memory exists outside space and time in the Fourier frequency domain, i.e. it doesn’t exist in the spacetime, material world. “The consequence [of Hume’s philosophy] is that real knowledge of the world is fragmentary; that we have connected knowledge of it is an illusion born of habit and laziness.” – R. J. Hollingdale Hume would be right if reality were not in fact mathematical, hence comes with connectivity, causality and knowledge all built in. Existence has an answer only if it is made of mathematics, and otherwise it does not have an answer. Existence without an answer is impossible. It would mean that we live in a world of magic!

Input Simple empiricism says that we need sense organs to get sensory information from the material world into our minds. We need reason to organise this data and reflect on what it tells us about external reality. But reason can also reflect on itself, on its own structure, origins and modus operandi. It doesn’t need sensory input for any of that. Empiricism is the fallacious idea that our senses alone provide us with knowledge. In fact, the sense organs themselves, and the world they detect, are all products of mathematics, and reason alone allows us to study mathematics. Mathematics is a wholly a priori subject, completely independent of experience and, in fact, the precondition for experience. The only way to turn Kant’s philosophy into something viable is to convert everything he said about “noumenal” existence into statements about ontological mathematics, in which case it becomes fully comprehensible.

Reason or Senses? What do you trust more – your reason or your senses? Rationalists trust their reason, empiricists their senses. You’re not an intellectual if you conclude, as scientists do, that your senses are a more powerful tool and bring you closer to the truth than your reason does. Science is fundamentally anti-intellectual.

***** Abrahamism claims that feelings (faith) are the route to truth. Eastern religion says mystical intuition is the way. Science says that the senses are the “royal road”. Illuminism asserts that reason – ontological mathematics – is the sole gateway to the eternal, necessary truths of existence. Can you rationally argue with that? Reason is truth. Mathematical reason is the answer to existence. There might be plenty of irrational debate about this, but there’s no rational debate. All those opposed to rationalism are wrong. It’s as simple as that. If you’re not rational, or not rational enough, too bad. Truth is truth. It has no sentiment. It doesn’t care whether you “get it” or not. 99.9% of human

beings have gone to their deaths without coming into any rational contact whatsoever with the truths of existence.

The Dreamtime Some people claim they never feel any actual pleasure or pain in their dreams (presumably they mean physical pleasure or pain). But what about wet dreams? They can be so damned pleasurable that they make you cum .... even though you made up the whole thing! The difference between a private dream and a collective dream is that the latter has collective, objective rules – which no one can overcome – whereas the former has private, subjective rules, which you can change as you go along. So, waking “reality” feels much more real because it offers real resistance to your will, whereas you can do whatever you like in your dreams. Pleasure and pain are far more “real” and direct in this waking reality. In “lucid dreaming”, people have plenty of control over their dreams, and here we find the waking and sleeping dream worlds having a kind of convergence. In normal dreams, it is in fact your unconscious mind in your right hemisphere that’s generating the content (which is why Freud said that dreams were the royal road to the unconscious mind). Since your conscious mind is relatively passive when you’re dreaming, that’s why you feel out of control. In your waking state, your conscious mind is properly engaged and actively making decisions, while your unconscious now becomes passive. You’re in control once more.

***** Dreaming: Consciousness (left brain) passive; Unconsciousness (right brain) active. Waking: Consciousness (left brain) active; Unconsciousness (right brain) passive.

The Existential Competition Q. “Why do so many evil things happen in this world?”

A. Because people are in savage competition with each other for precious resources. Look at the jungle. No mercy is shown there at all. Some animals have the sole objective of killing other animals each day ... to eat them in order to stay alive. Humans are just “subtle animals”. We “eat” each other too (in fact we devour each other), but, in most cases, we tend to do so metaphorically rather than literally.

Faith Schemas MS: “You want people to believe in math when in reality numbers don’t exist at all. All knowledge we have is a schema. The clergy, scientists, and mathematicians of today all live on faith.” And on what basis are you stating that “in reality” numbers don’t exist at all? Your reality! Your faith system. To say that all knowledge is based on schemas is total relativism, and acknowledges no differences between the truth content of the different schemas. This is therefore a faith-based position that there’s no rational means of establishing the truth of one schema– the Truth Schema – over all other schemas (the Falsehood Schemas). Remember, there’s only one Truth. Without such a means, you might as well believe in anything, and you have no right to complain about the clergy or anyone else since, by your own logic, their belief schema is every bit as valid as yours. To assert that numbers don’t exist at all is of course to deploy a faithbased schema. Where has it been proved that numbers don’t exist? In fact, the God Series is the formal proof that numbers do exist. As you would fully expect, MS hasn’t read the God Series, and wouldn’t understand it if he had since he’s willing to ridicule a position without ever having studied it. He’s totally locked into his own belief schema, which is automatically a closed-minded, irrational stance, as his post shows. Unless you can prove why your schema is true and all others are false you should shut your mouth since you’re an ignoramus, pretending to have knowledge. Anyone who opposes ontological mathematics is denying the principle of sufficient reason. That makes you irrational, and we are absolutely content to say that we reject without a second thought all irrational claims to knowledge.

The Irrationalists

Scientists call themselves “rationalists”. They’re not. They’re irrationalists who privilege the senses over intelligence. If intelligence finds things that cannot be brought into sensory awareness, the scientists always conclude that intelligence is deluded. You’re clearly not a rationalist if you subordinate intelligence to the plebeian doctrine of “seeing is believing” (accompanied by “not seeing is not believing”). The biggest problem of all for the legions of empiricists is, “What is reason?” What is it ontologically? What’s its source? How can it exist at all? How and why do humans have it? Why do some people have much more of it than others? Does it have limits? Why? Where is reason? Where is it to be found? Is it detectable by the senses? Empiricists can’t answer any of these fundamental questions. Well, what is reason? It’s mathematics. The highest reason is objective mathematics, which is eternally true, and the lowest reason is subjective mathematics, which must dialectically evolve to an awareness of objective mathematics. Subjective reason is primarily, and somewhat paradoxically, about feelings. If you analyze what feelings do, you will see that they subjectively evaluate the environment and seek to maximise pleasure and minimize pain, the simplest and crudest possible way of “rationally” choosing a course of action. In higher humans, feelings give way to thinking. Mythos is the type of reason that interests feeling types (which is why they like “holy” texts full of stories and simplistic platitudes and parables), while Logos is for thinking types. By the same token, more primitive human beings rely upon the senses, while higher humans are intuitive. So, feeling types are irrationalists attracted to Mythos, sensing types are irrationalists attracted to science (empiricism), while thinking intuitives are rationalists attracted to mathematics. Your attitude to mathematics tells the world what kind of person you are and whether you are rational or irrational. Do you place your feelings above mathematics (as people of faith do)? Do you place your senses above mathematics (as scientists do)? Or do you recognise ontological mathematics as the supreme truth – as all ultra rationalists do? An irrational person can be automatically identified by asking him whether mathematics is real or not. An irrationalist will always deny the

ontology of mathematics. As soon as you deny ontological mathematics, you have ipso facto denied that existence has an answer, and that means that whatever statements you then make about “reality” will be based on faith, feelings, magic, conjecture, delusion opinion, hypothesis and interpretation. So who cares what you’re opinion is?! It’s math or nothing.

Experimentation TH: “Demonize not the process of experimentation as it is part of the scientific formula. Even in philosophical formulae (logic calculus), the major and minor premise are usually deduced to truth by experimentation itself – thus lending the conclusion greater chance of exceeding weak inference.” [Sic] This is total nonsense. Consider the famous syllogism: “Socrates is a man (minor premise), all men are mortal (major premise), therefore Socrates is mortal (logical conclusion).” Well, who says that all men are mortal? This is not a truth of reason but an interpretation of fact – the observed death of a physical body. We could equally say, “Socrates is a soul, all souls are immortal, therefore Socrates is immortal.” Empiricism doesn’t help you at all to answer whether people are immortal or not. It’s the classic delusion of scientism to rely on “facts” and “evidence”. These are always interpretive. They provide no certain knowledge at all. This type of logic is only as good as its premises. How do you know whether the premises are valid? Illuminism asserts that analytic truths of reason are incontestably valid as premises. All other premises are conjectures, opinions, interpretations and beliefs, hence inherently dubious. TN: “Reason without observation is like errrm. ... you without senses.” And observation without reason is like errrm ... being an unconscious animal that does not know that 1 + 1 = 2. Can a mind think without any sensory input? Of course it can. That’s the whole point of innate knowledge. It’s amazing how many people who imagine themselves to be Illuminists soon enough reveal themselves to be

sensory-obsessed empiricists and materialists, always blabbering on about sensory “evidence” and showing utter contempt for reason. TH: “You need to understand a few things about Hockney’s take on Illuminism. Firstly, it is his interpretation and nothing more. This is not to devalue it, but what do devalue it are the many perversions within it, namely the emphasis on mathematics.” Well, there you have TH telling an Illuminist what Illuminism is. Talk about interpretation! TH hasn’t understood even one word of Illuminism. The whole point of Illuminism is to distinguish eternal truths from mere opinions (such as those of TH). Mathematics alone provides eternal truth. If you haven’t grasped that, you literally haven’t understood anything at all of Illuminism. Illuminism is hyperrational. It is about those things that are unarguably true and have always been true, i.e. eternal truths. Not a single sensory “fact” (= interpretation, delusion) qualifies.

Cosmic Drivel It’s astounding how much drivel we see being peddled in the name of Illuminism. Get one thing crystal clear. Illuminism in a nutshell is, as Pythagoras said 2,500 years ago: “All things are numbers; number rules all.” If you don’t accept that and don’t want to follow through its logical consequences then call yourself whatever you like providing it’s not “Illuminist”.

***** AF: “What is soulless materialistic empiricism if not pseudoscience? It’s like holding a pen for being responsible for writing a paragraph while neglecting to credit the author. Mathematics is the author, pen and paper in varying degrees of self-awareness from unconsciousness to consciousness.” Absolutely true!

***** MS: “A fact is not a truth. A fact has proofs. A Truth, only beliefs.”

WTF! “There are no facts, only interpretations”, as Nietzsche said. A fact is supported by interpretational evidence, not by any proof at all. “Facts” are always associated with beliefs and interpretations; truths never are. Truths are analytic, tautologous, eternally true and absolutely rationally provable. Only eternal truths exist in a system of infallible proof – nothing else does. BP: “Nothing can be truth to anyone unless it is experienced somehow firsthand.” Bullshit. Insane people have endless firsthand experiences. How many of these experiences are ontologically “true”? There is no connection whatsoever between experience and truth. This is the same old empiricist, emotional, faith-based gibberish. Is 1 + 1 = 2 true? Is it something we experience or something we intellectually, rationally deduce? Since ontological mathematics is a system of absolute, infallible, analytic tautology, it does not require any empiricist input whatsoever. You could work out the whole thing lying in your bed in a darkened room, without once looking at the empirical world.

Observer Bias “Observer bias: This refers to the cultural assumptions which all researchers bring to their work and which help determine their method of research and their observations. It has been argued by some that all enquiry (including ‘pure’ science) is simply a reflection of such biases. In any event, researchers are usually encouraged to make any known biases explicit in reporting their findings, in order to assist others wishing to reach a judgement as to the validity of the results.” – http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-observerbias.html “The observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenter-expectancy effect, expectancy bias, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity in which a researcher’s cognitive bias causes them to unconsciously influence the participants of an experiment. It is a significant threat to a study’s internal validity...” – Wikipedia Science signally fails to report its known, systemic bias – for its Meta Paradigm of materialism, empiricism and logical positivism, through which all of its results are viewed and interpreted. Every scientific paper should

begin with the statement: “All interpretations in this paper reflect a Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and logical positivism, and exclude, for no sufficient reason, all rationalist, idealist, metaphysical and ontological mathematical interpretations.” The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is nothing but observer bias. From the outset, rationalism and idealism are ruled out as explaining the results of quantum mechanics, but no reference to this omission is made and not a single rational justification for this omission is provided. When observer bias is so deeply ingrained that no one even notices it or thinks about it, you know that you’re in deep trouble and locked into a counter-productive, fallacious paradigm. All Abrahamic “thinking” suffers from observer bias since all results are expected to be consistent with Abrahamic beliefs. Islamic “scientists” would be removed from their jobs if they ever said that science contradicts the Koran (even though it does so 100%, i.e. it formally refutes the Koran).

***** “Science is the best defence against believing what we want to.” – Ian Stewart On the contrary, scientists want to believe science since it entirely matches their strictly sensory view of reality. Nietzsche, a much smarter man than Ian Stewart, wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” It’s about time that scientists realised they are interpreters and believers in their own interpretations. They are certainly not those who pursue the truth come what may. Science is about success – and specifically success in the sensory world – not about truth (which belongs to the intelligible, not the sensible, world). Don’t believe the propaganda. Abrahamists and scientists do. Truth seekers don’t. There’s only one subject of truth – ontological mathematics. All the rest is propaganda.

The Secret of Life

“We have discovered the secret of life.” – Crick and Watson, discoverers of the structure of DNA Really? Go on, then, tell us the secret! How deluded can you get? If Crick and Watson had explained the origin of DNA, they would be onto something. Instead, all they did was tell us about DNA’s structure, which in many ways is no more significant than the structure of a salt crystal, or the structure of water. All things, including DNA, originate in eternal, living mathematical monads – souls! And Crick and Watson did zero to elucidate that. Ontological monads are the true secret of life. They are life.

Known “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.” – Donald Rumsfeld Known knowns = things we know we know. Known unknowns = things we know we don’t know. Unknown knowns = things we know but don’t know we know them. Unknown unknowns = things we don’t know we don’t know. Science is full of known unknowns, unknown unknowns and unknown knowns. And most things science thinks it knows, it doesn’t actually know at all. In ontological mathematics, everything is knowable because it’s total analytic, eternal tautology. Only infallible, eternal truths of reason constitute an absolute standard of knowledge. Everything else is interpretation.

***** “In my maths class, I don’t understand what I don’t understand.” – Anonymous

Scientists don’t understand what they don’t understand!

The Satan Game Logically, Satan should torture the faithful (those who worship God) and reward the sinners (those who don’t worship God). God, conversely, should reward the faithful and punish the sinners. However, Abrahamism claims that God rewards the faithful and Satan punishes the sinners. How weird is that? Why does Satan, God’s sworn enemy, do God’s dirty work for him and punish the sinners (who are in fact Satan’s own allies against God)? Nothing in Abrahamism makes any sense. It’s all designed for God to win and for everyone else to lose, for God to get all the good things to do, and Satan to take care of all the shit. If Satan is the ultimate Hawk (sadistic predator), is God supposed to be the ultimate dove? In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is depicted as the supreme dove. He preaches love, peace, and forgiveness. He champions the weak, meek and poor. He offers himself as the ultimate sacrifice to save everyone else, and is brutally put to death. Yet the Old Testament portrays God as a savage, brutal Exterminator; a homicidal and genocidal maniac, a psychopath and sadist who glories in war, never forgives anyone, punishes the innocent as much as the guilty and is a total egotist on the supreme power trip. The Old Testament God seems to have exactly the characteristics of the Devil, and indeed the Gnostics concluded that he was exactly that! Yet, since Christianity is a monotheism, the Old Testament “God” is exactly the same as the New Testament “God”. Work that one out!

Psyche and Cupid In Roman mythology, Psyche was a beautiful girl who was visited each night in pitch darkness by Cupid, who told her she must never try to see him. When she did, while he was asleep, she accidentally dropped oil from her lamp on him, and he awoke and fled, leaving her bereft, heartbroken and lovelorn. After she performed many harsh tasks set by Cupid’s mother (Venus), Jupiter granted Psyche immortality, and she and Cupid were reunited and married. Psyche’s name is Greek for both “butterfly” and “soul”.

Cupid, metaphorically, is the world of rational unobservables that science can never see. The marriage of Psyche and Cupid is the marriage of physics and metaphysics.

***** Religion is not about God or some divine force. True religion is purely about the soul: the immortal, indestructible, mental, dimensionless, mathematical monad. Souls do not need gods, but souls can become gods through dialectical evolution, through mathematical self-optimisation.

The Preaching of Error “Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.” – Goethe

The Coming Time “There is one thing stronger than all armies of the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo

Philosophy Philosophy originally began in ancient Greece as the attempt to define the arche – the fundamental stuff of existence from which everything else is derived. So, straight away, there was the notion of a world of appearances (Nature, physics) and a notion of a more fundamental but unseen reality (Ontology, metaphysics). The two most influential philosophers of the classical period were Plato and his star pupil Aristotle. Plato concentrated on the unseen, “intelligible” world, i.e. he was a metaphysicist, and he had a somewhat low opinion of the material world we see around us (the “sensible” world). The Platonic view was highly influential in the development of Gnosticism where the illusory material world was viewed as the creation of an evil deity known as the Demiurge, while the unseen world was the domain of the True God and

the one to which we had to find our way in order to escape the evils of the Demiurge’s kingdom of hell. Aristotle assigned far more importance to the observable world, and many people regard him as the first true empiricist and scientist. Philosophy, given its association with religion (especially in the case of Catholicism), developed along what we might call the Platonic route (the study of the unseen reality), while the material world was explained largely in Aristotelian terms but with the notion that an unseen God had perfectly designed everything (so there was no notion of Darwinian evolution). Modern philosophy began with Descartes and his dualistic system of non-extended mind and extended matter. This provided the conceptual basis for philosophy to radically split in two: idealism versus materialism. The idealists (philosophers; metaphysicists) said that mind was the true, unseen reality and matter was something constructed by minds. The materialists (scientists) said that matter was the true, seen reality and mind was something constructed from matter. Idealism became closely linked to rationalism, which posited an unseen world of reason that shaped the world we experience and is the precondition for our experiences. Materialism became identified with empiricism, which claimed that all knowledge comes from experience and there’s no hidden, innate, rational world. Science is simply materialist, empiricist philosophy. It’s not something different from philosophy, despite what scientists say. All scientists are philosophers whether they like it or not, and we can see that with their speculations about unobservable multiverses, unobservable wavefunctions, and unobservable black hole and Big Bang singularities. More and more they are entering into Platonic metaphysical terrain. This is only to be expected given that science is philosophy. Science seems different from philosophy for two simple reasons: experiments and mathematics. Philosophy, traditionally, was simply about thinking. Highly intelligent men pondered the world and tried to tease out what the hidden truths of reality must be. Someone such as Aristotle spent a great deal of time observing the world (but did not apply any experimental method), whereas Plato had very little interest at all in the world of appearances. What experiments achieved was to provide an objective link between hypotheses proposed by “natural philosophers” (= scientists) and the observable world. When a more traditional philosopher made some

pronouncement about the unseen world, it was impossible to subject his ideas to any objective, empirical test. So, other philosophers studied his assumptions and the logic of his arguments, and agreed or disagreed with him (usually the latter). With the introduction of the experimental method, it became possible to test two rival notions and see which one best fitted the experimental data. This radically changed the nature of philosophy since it was rendered pointless to make any reference to any unseen reality, given that no experiment, by definition, could ever reveal anything that was unobservable. Thus natural philosophers (scientists) disowned metaphysics, idealism and rationalism. Physics, materialism and empiricism were immediately the be-all-and-end-all of science. Science in no way refuted metaphysics, but simply rendered it redundant in relation to experiments. This scenario was particularly played out with Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the question of the ether. If no physical evidence of the ether could be found, why would any scientist regard it as ontological? Thus the ether was “abolished”. It was not disproved; it was just ignored as non-empirical (but in science that equates to being “non-existent”). The ether is in fact part of the unseen reality of traditional metaphysics and absolutely exists – but science can say nothing about it because science (being an empiricist, materialist philosophy) ideologically rejects anything that cannot be observed. The ether now stands as the perfect symbol of metaphysics: it’s an unseen medium that defines our world. When you ignore this necessary, absolute framework, you’re driven down the route of Einstein’s principle of relativity that destroys the reality principle. It must be understood that Einstein’s relativity principle is purely philosophical and indeed, ironically, metaphysical! It has never been “proved”, despite what you might have been led to believe by the propaganda machine of the scientific establishment. It wholly subverts objective reality and is, frankly, absurd – one of the greatest blunders in scientific history. Scientists believe it for dogmatic philosophical reasons, not because it has in any way been established as a real principle (and nor could it ever be). All of special relativity can be reinterpreted in absolute rather than relativistic terms, as we have illustrated throughout the God Series. In order to reinterpret the special theory in absolute terms (and thus restore the reality principle) it’s essential to accept metaphysics (ontological

mathematics). Without metaphysics, relativity is true and objective reality vanishes. You can have a true reality based on metaphysics or a false reality based on physics. Which do you prefer?

Purpose What’s the point of purpose in a purposeless universe, and how can it arise at all? To put it another way, how can purposeless atoms come together to create purposeful human beings? How can fundamental purposelessness simulate purpose? No scientist has ever explained this. Darwinian natural selection is certainly no answer. You can’t select a property that doesn’t exist (and science claims that purpose doesn’t exist)!

Too Stupid? Too stupid to understand science? ... try religion. Too stupid to understand mathematics? ... try science!

Reason is Everywhere “There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.” – Nietzsche Bizarre though it may seem, everything done by every human being is rational. No human is capable of irrational action (true “madness”). Even the mad are rational! In truth, it’s not rationalism versus irrationalism. It’s good reasoning abilities versus poor reasoning abilities. Everyone has a reason for whatever they do: they belong to a system of total rationalism (i.e. an exclusively reason-based system). That’s not the issue. It’s about whether they have a good reason or a bad reason for what they do. Most people do things for bad reasons. They never do them for no reason. They think the course of action they have chosen is the best. If they could reason better, they would choose different options. If you can’t reason well, you will consistently act for poor reasons, but they are reasons all the same. You are not ignoring reason or deliberately acting against reason (which is impossible).

“Rationalism” is often mistaken for machine logic. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s a living, subjective system – except where it intersects with the objective, eternal truths of reason of ontological mathematics. Feelings are the crudest form of reason. The senses and intuition direct reason in particular ways. We can’t escape reason. What we can escape is bad reasoning and become good reasoners. Mainstream religion and scientific materialism are both examples of poor reasoning. Religion involves reasoning based on feelings rather than thinking, hence is automatically sub-optimal. Science involves reasoning based on the senses rather than intelligible principles, hence is automatically sub-optimal too. The highest and best reasoning is that which concerns itself with the eternal truths of reason. Everything else is about reasoning locked into subjectivity rather than objectivity.

***** Individualists – such as anarchists and libertarians – reason purely from self-interest. They reason extremely badly. If everyone were to demand absolute freedom for themselves, it would end in total chaos, total violence and total war between everyone. It would result in the jungle. We have civilisation because the world has, to some degree, compelled the anarchists and libertarians to obey laws. Unfortunately, these people are always trying to subvert the law, and they are getting better and better at it. No one is better at it than the ruling elite who are entirely above and outside the law. Laws are for the “little people”. We can have progress and a vastly superior civilisation only if people reason better, and that means seeing that rational cooperation with others is the way forward, rather than total competition with each other in order that some of us can be masters and the rest our slaves.

Family Failure A study says that four out of ten children fail to bond with their parents, resulting in anti-social behaviour, literacy problems and low educational attainment. What are governments doing to address all of these failed, dysfunctional families? Well, nothing at all. That’s negative liberty for you. That’s poor reasoning for you.

Scholasticism Scholasticism refers to the kind of philosophy practised in the schools of medieval Catholic universities, and such philosophers were consequently known as Schoolmen. In essence, they were working out the official philosophy of Catholicism. The exercise reached its high point with Saint Thomas Aquinas, who is the philosopher most relied upon by Catholicism even in the present day. In fact, there has been almost no development of Catholic philosophy since then, and any “innovations” are just refinements of existing Scholastic positions. Descartes is regarded as the founder of modern philosophy and that involved a radical break with Scholasticism. Many subsequent philosophers of the highest calibre were either wholly or mostly outside the university system. Scholasticism has many lessons, or warnings, to teach science. Science, like scholasticism, is taught in universities: in physics, chemistry and biology departments. Just as the Scholastics had to obey Catholic ideology, so scientists have to obey scientific materialist ideology. No heretics or infidels were or are permitted by the Scholastics or by the scientists. No funding or support is provided to those who contest the groupthink ideology. At all times, there’s a mind-numbing conformism and blinkered approach. New thinking is always frowned upon and typically rejected without a second thought. Philosophy escaped from this nightmare because it was willing to listen to heretics, apostates, infidels and freethinkers. Geniuses such as Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Marx and Nietzsche were wholly or mostly detached from universities. In philosophy terms, these were the equivalent of Nobel Prize winners. In science, it’s unthinkable that anyone outside of the university science system would ever receive a Nobel Prize or even be listened to. Science has simply become secular Scholasticism, and is filled with second-rate thinkers who believe they are smart and know “the truth”. Like Scholasticism, science desperately needs to open up to thinking outside the mainstream. The horror is that science is even more entrenched, blinkered, dogmatic and ideological than Scholasticism ever was. There was a way out of Scholasticism, especially with the growth of Protestantism, which made it safe to challenge Catholic authority. Where is the scientific

“Protestantism” that makes it possible to challenge scientific orthodoxy (“Catholicism”)? No such system exists. Science must be radically reformed, and it must set up a version of science that explicitly opposes scientific materialism. There is already a ready-made alternative – the ontological mathematics of Illuminism, which reflects idealism and rationalism rather than materialism and empiricism.

Meaning In Abrahamism, meaning is defined by an absurd, ancient sky God in the clouds. In Hinduism and Buddhism, meaning is defined by karma and the task of escaping from it. In Taoism, meaning is defined by the balance of yin and yang and the chance of becoming an immortal – a person of perfect, divine balance. In scientific materialism, meaning is simply abolished. We live, so the scientists say, in a meaningless, pointless, purposeless universe that has no aims at all (because aims imply minds, and scientists deny that there are any minds independent of meaningless matter). In ontological mathematics, meaning is inherent in the mathematical universe that strives to solve itself – which means optimise itself, i.e. to find the maximum subjective expression of the cosmic code, the God Equation that describes the universe. This is tantamount to finding the point at which the power of the universe is experienced as being at a maximum, and that is achieved when every mathematical monadic mind has reached the condition of being “God”. (It’s the point of perfect symmetry of the Monadic Collective.) Ontological mathematics is inherently meaningful and teleological. Mainstream religion is a lie, a lie based on feelings (expressed through faith). Scientific materialism is a lie, a lie based on the senses (expressed through experiments). The truth, as said the brilliant mathematical logician Kurt Gödel (the most intelligent person of the twentieth century) is based on intuition and reason, not on empiricism or “divine revelation”. Ontological mathematics furnishes the sole truth of existence. Everything else is false.

The Ranking

1) Mathematics, the queen of the sciences and the true language of metaphysics. 2) Philosophical Metaphysics, the king of thinking, and the language of reality for non-mathematicians. 3) Physics – mathematics for dummies. 4) Chemistry – physics for dummies. 5) Biology – chemistry for dummies. 6) Psychology – biology for dummies. 7) Sociology – psychology for dummies. 8) Religion – sociology for dummies. 9) Politics – religion for dummies. 10) Economics – politics for dummies. 11) Everything else – for dummies. Art is pictorial “religion and psychology” for dummies, and modern art is classical art for dummies.

The Difference What’s the difference between atheists and Illuminists? The former are materialists and say that mind comes from perishable matter, hence is itself perishable. The latter are idealists and say that perishable matter comes from imperishable minds. The former are led by science and the latter by mathematics. Above all, the former can’t get beyond tangible, solid, dimensional, sensory things. The latter accept intangible, mental, rational, dimensionless, intuitive things. The former reduce all of existence to atoms, and the latter to information. Specifically, to information carried by mathematical waves contained in monads. In the latter view, atoms are simply informational systems too, with no existence beyond their underlying mathematics. They are mathematical phenomena derived from mathematical noumena – analytic, dimensionless waves defined by the generalized Euler Formula.

The No Truth System Darwinism says we evolved purposelessly, with survival and reproduction being the only relevant criteria, not truth. There’s nothing to prevent successful lies (“bad memes”) reproducing endlessly. Abrahamism is exactly that. The birth of consciousness is a random accident in Darwinism, and there’s no clear reason why it should exist at all. A human “zombie” (in the philosophical sense) can do everything a conscious person does, so Darwinism simply fails to account for the phenomenon of consciousness. It’s a wholly superfluous phenomenon in materialist evolutionary terms, where free will and choice are formally impossible.

The Truth System Dialectical teleology says that the whole point of existence is to arrive at the truth, and to consciously reflect on it. Dialectical teleology is about the truth knowing itself as truth, reason knowing itself as reason (and truth and reason are synonymous by this stage – all truths are the objective truths of reason).

Logos and Mythos Logos is defined by reason. Mythos is defined by pathos (feelings) and will. The more rational humanity is, the less it has faith, and the less it takes stories seriously. These are reduced to entertainment rather than what you base your life on. It’s an extraordinary thing that billions of people do not look to books on philosophy, mathematics and science to understand the world but rather to ancient storybooks about primitive desert tribespeople, plainly suffering from schizophrenia and bicameralism. Why is it that people expect to find more truth in the Bible than in books about quantum mechanics? It’s because the former is a story and any moron can interpret that story. The latter requires high intelligence, and thus instantly rules out most of the human race! Should intelligent people allow themselves to be dragged back to Storyworld by the stupid? Or should they take the step demanded of them by evolution and completely cut themselves off from the stupid and start

evolving separately, according to a Logos rather than Mythos understanding of reality? Reading the Bible won’t land people on the moon. Praying won’t give us lasers and computers. Memorising the Koran won’t cure cancer. Going on Hajj pilgrimage won’t power cars and planes. Why do so many people waste so much time on utter drivel that can’t advance humanity one iota? Smart people aren’t smart if they continue to permit themselves to be held back by the stupid for sentimental reasons and through lack of will. The smart must have the iron will to deal once and for all with the massive brake being placed on human progress by the stupid masses. Don’t kid yourself. A final war is coming, the war to end all wars: the war of the clever versus the stupid, the enlightened versus the endarkened. Evolution demands this war!

***** “A person who is gifted sees the essential point and leaves the rest as surplus.” – Thomas Carlyle “Genius sees the answer before the question.” – Robert Oppenheimer

Meaning We are beings obsessed with meaning, purpose, and self-optimization, with finding answers. We are teleological beings. Why? Because the whole universe is. It comprises nothing but teleological subjects: As above, so below. We are all driven by final causes. What are these? They are our ultimate purpose, they are the answers we crave. These causes pull us. Science acknowledges only efficient causes; these are pushing causes. Science rejects meaning and purpose, hence rejects final causes. A living universe is a purposeful universe being pulled towards an Omega Point. A dead universe (the machine universe of science) is simply pushed and pushed until there’s nothing left to push (we arrive at the cosmic heat death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). A universe with a final cause makes sense. This final cause – the meaning of the universe – is pulling everything towards it. It’s the Omega Point. Pushing can also be perfectly accommodated. Everything is being cosmically (strategically) pulled and locally (tactically) pushed.

Science, as always, draws the wrong conclusions – those most hostile to life and meaning – and rejects any pulling causes. In an exclusively “pushing” universe, why does anything push at all? How does pushing get started? What causes it? Why does a meaningless, purposeless universe do anything at all? Do machines attempt to achieve anything? Self-evidently, they don’t. A universe not being pulled by a final cause is not only a meaningless universe, it’s an incomprehensible and even impossible universe. Why would a machine universe do anything? No machine ever known to man has ever done anything under its own “volition” ... why should it be any different for the whole universe if it’s nothing but a dead machine as scientists insist it is? Their position is irrational.

***** Mathematically, the Final Cause pulling everything towards it is perfect symmetry of the Monadic Collective. When this Omega Point is attained, the current phase of the cyclical universe immediately ends (the Big Crunch), and a new one immediately begins (the Big Bang). The start of a new universe is a symmetry breaking event, and the end of a universe is symmetry restoration event. Religiously, symmetry = God, and antisymmetry and asymmetry = Satan. Symmetry = the divine force of goodness, altruism, cooperation, the collective and equality. Antisymmetry and asymmetry = the Satanic force of evil, selfishness, destructive competition, the individual and inequality. It’s self-evident that the main forces driving and controlling our world are Satanic. Privilege, inheritance, cronyism, nepotism, free-market capitalism, intolerant religions, monarchy, dictatorship, “family first”, “me first”, consumerism, anarchy and libertarianism are all Satanic. The ultimate antisymmetric individual (with no bonds at all to the Collective) is the psychopath. Ayn Rand and her followers – with their detestation of the collective and their claim that selfishness is virtuous – are the supreme psychopaths. They are an immense threat to the world. All of them are enemies of the people. “God” brings people together. “Satan” drives them apart. Reason brings people together, irrationalism drives them apart. Feelings drive people apart (because they are always asymmetric and antisymmetric; we like some

people, and like ourselves, and dislike everyone else), and thinking brings them together. Sensing drives people apart (because spacetime – the basis of the senses – individuates us, establishing asymmetry and antisymmetry), and intuition brings them together (intuition is non-local, outside space and time). Extraversion drives people apart (because it creates fake, shallow, expedient relationships), and introversion brings them together (it creates real, deep, true relationships: soul mates are always introverts; extraverts can’t be authentic soul mates, or have authentic soul mates). The Monadic Collective is bosonic and symmetric. Individual monads are fermionic and antisymmetric. Mixed states, involving some aspects of the collective and some of the individual, are asymmetric. The Big Bang creates antisymmetry and asymmetry from perfect collective symmetry. It creates hell from heaven. It creates the Demiurge (Satan) form God. The famous Higgs boson ought to be called the Satan particle rather than God particle since it’s responsible for shattering the kingdom of light and creating the evil, material world, ruled by the Devil. Mathematically, the religion of Gnosticism is all about symmetry (light) versus antisymmetry and asymmetry (matter and darkness). God rules the light, and the Devil the darkness. Jehovah (= Allah = Christ = the Demiurge) is the self-confessed Devil since he openly claims to have created the material world, the act that destroys the divine universe of perfect light. The material universe wasn’t made out of “nothing”, it was made out of a single point of infinite light – the Singularity. In terms of Fourier mathematics, the frequency domain is God’s kingdom of light, and the spacetime domain is the Devil’s kingdom of darkness, of evil matter. In Platonic terms, the frequency domain is the immutable, perfect, eternal kingdom of light (the Forms), and the spacetime domain is the mutable, imperfect, temporal, inferior copy – the Simulacrum. In Neoplatonism, the One, the Nous and the Higher Psyche belong to the frequency domain of light, and the Lower Psyche, Nature and matter to the spacetime domain of matter. All of the great pagans religions were about one thing: escaping from the hell of spacetime and reaching the heaven of light. Einstein’s theories can be reinterpreted purely in terms of the relationship between light and matter. Quantum mechanics is about exactly the same subject, waves being light and particles being matter. The theory

of quantum gravity will never be achieved until scientists grasp that light isn’t in the material world at all but belongs to the immaterial, dimensionless frequency domain outside space and time, which is as inaccessible to the scientific method as black hole singularities are, and the Big Bang Singularity (the Big Bang was an event where massless frequency was converted into spacetime mass). All religions with any truth content are just Mythos attempts at describing a Logos universe of ontological mathematics based on light.

Ends and Means People have ends and seek to achieve them through means. According to science, this is a universe of means only and no ends. Such a universe is impossible.

Instinct “[Instinct is] acting in conformity to a purpose, without any consciousness of that purpose.” – Eduard von Hartmann In other words, instinct is unconscious purposeful action. In Jung’s theory, it’s dictated by archetypes. The scientific question of the origin of what scientists define as life is the same as the question of the origin of DNA. DNA involves biological rather than physical or chemical encoding of information. What does that mean? Well, a soul cannot link to a physical or chemical process, or, if it can, it can exert little or no control over it. A biological body is however that which a soul can attach to and then control. Only with consciousness is true control – true free will – exercised. The biological code is about life because it allows individual monads (souls) to become directly involved. The chemical and physical codes are not about life because individual monads are not directly involved (physics and chemistry are all about the actions of the Monadic Collective, not of individual monads). “And the wisdom of the Unconscious, thus manifested in instinct, far surpasses the wisdom of man. It never hesitates or wavers: it takes no time for deliberation; it effects instantly the necessary combination of numerous and far-reaching means; and it makes no mistakes. ... which is properly divine, for it is unquestionably superhuman. ... Man has lost a wonderful

faculty which is still possessed in great perfection by birds and insects. We ought also to consider that nothing is gained by referring the instinct to the structure of the organism, whether mental or corporeal: for it is already obvious ... that the organic structure itself is built up, step by step, by the purposeful action of the Unconscious. Hence, instead of making the instinct to depend on the organization of the brain, we ought rather to regard the whole nervous system as fashioned by the instinct which was innate in the germ.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy The ancient bicameral human mind was one which exerted archetypal control through hallucinated voice commands. Consciousness, which evolved from the bicameral mind, broke down instinctual behaviour, which is the only type of behaviour animals ever exhibit. Science is unable to account for why we are not purely instinctual. If we are mere machines controlled by inexorable mechanical laws, as scientists claim, why do we hesitate, why do we ponder, why do we take our time over things? Why don’t we do things automatically? – like the physical and chemical processes of which we are allegedly made. “The reconstructive power (vis reparatrix) of the Unconscious, as in replacing an entire limb or segment of the body after its amputation, is far more frequently and perfectly shown in the lower species of animals than in those of a higher grade, and least of all at the summit of the scale, in man, where usually nature only reunites and heals (vis medicatrix), but does not restore. The animal has here a great advantage over man, and thus again, Darwinism fails to explain the facts, since evolution from the lower to the highest form is not improvement, development is not progress, except it be progress downhill, and therefore the theory of ‘natural selection’ out of ‘a struggle for life’ is not applicable.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy This is a remarkable point. If Darwinism is so good, why can’t humans regrow limbs, as lower creatures can? When a human mind becomes sufficiently powerful, it can indeed recover the power possessed by lower animals to replace missing limbs. It can overcome paralysis. It can cure any medical defects. It can cure cancer. “[Schopenhauer holds] that the essence or inmost being of nature is blind Will, not accompanied or directed in any of its lower stages by any form of

Intellect. Hartmann maintains on the contrary, that Will as such, in order to express itself in determinate volitions, must be inseparably united with cognition: that it could not act at all except in cooperation with mind. The very nature of volition is a felt dissatisfaction with an existing state of things, and an attempt to bring about a different state of them; that is to produce a change. It necessarily implies one condition which is present and which alone is real, as the starting point, and another condition, which, because it is willed, must exist in the future, and therefore can be now present only in idea. In other words, we cannot will without knowing what we will. Then there must be an end or aim for every volition; and this can be present only in thought, for if it were also present in reality, we should already possess all that we desire, and there should be no occasion to will. Hence, without thought, without an idea of what is still future, in other words, without a purpose or Final Cause, Will would not be Will, as it could not be definitely expressed in any determinate volition, or aim at any one thing more than another. A volition without any definite aim or content is inconceivable; for there is no such thing as Will in general, that wills nothing in particular.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy Hartmann isn’t quite right. Will and Intellect aren’t separate. Rather, Will is simply unconscious Intellect. It’s Intellect operating through instinct rather than through reflection and planning. Intellect is Will that has become conscious. “Often we are not aware what we will, or even that we will. But the determinate nature of the volition, the fact that we will this rather that that, proves that the guiding idea is always there, though it may not rise into consciousness.” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy How are we able to reason our way to a full understanding of reality? Because reality is actually made of reason. If this were not the case, we would never be able to make any sense of it; it would be unintelligible. Things can be studied and understood only because they have a rational structure. If they had an irrational, chaotic makeup, we could never understand them, and the world would not be a structured, ordered, organized place. To say that the world is made of reason is simply to say that the world is made of mathematics since reason and mathematics are the same thing. Our

own minds are made of mathematics, hence how we are able to grasp the nature of existence. Imagine trying to understand a world not based on 100% rational principles. Where would you even begin? How could the world have any irrationality built into it without immediately collapsing into chaos? Any error at all in the rational foundations of reality would bring the whole thing down. A single flaw, a single crack, would shatter the whole edifice. What system offers 100% flawlessness? Science? You must be joking! Mathematics alone offers an eternal, a priori, complete, consistent, errorfree, analytic, deductive, immutable system. It’s rationally impossible for reality to be grounded in anything other than mathematics. If truth be told, nothing has ever been more obvious than that we live in a 100% mathematical universe. Tragically, Mythos and the senses got in the way of this blindingly self-evident truth. Only the most elite humans of all have grasped the 100% mathematical nature of existence ... and these of course are those closest to becoming Gods. Illuminism has now been laid before you. Have you seen the light?

Mystery People regard “God” as mysterious and perfect. In fact, it’s mathematics that’s mysterious and perfect. Nearly everything that people say about God should instead be said about mathematics. We would have an entirely different world if people revered mathematics rather than a person called “God”. Nothing has done more damage to the human race than to conceive of perfection as a person.

World War II Why did the British Empire, Russia and America win WWII? Why did Germany and Japan lose? The reason is that the allies cooperated in their war aims. They united in their retaliation against the two hawks – Germany and Japan. The two hawks did not cooperate. Had Japan invaded Russia in December 1941, instead of attacking Pearl Harbour, Germany and Japan would have jointly defeated Russia, America would have stayed out of the war and Britain would have surrendered, leading to the collapse of its

empire. We would now be in an entirely different world. The selfish hawks always lose. The co-operators always win.

Law = Will? “The attractive force of each atom, Hartmann argues, has a definite end and aim, before the result is produced by it, of bringing another atom nearer; it must therefore, be conceived as a striving...” – Francis Bowen, discussing Hartmann’s philosophy What are the laws of science? They are rational and they are teleological. Laws exist because the universe is striving towards perfection ... and the laws are the enablers of that perfection being accomplished. There could be no laws at all in a dead universe with no purposes, as science proposes. Look at any car, plane, train or machine. It exists because we – purposeful human beings – made it. It reflects our purpose. So-called Darwinian natural selection simply reflects organic, living purpose. Without life being teleological, there would be no Darwinism at all. The idea that natural selection applies to randomness rather than being driven by inner will is, frankly, comical. This is one of the greatest intellectual blunders and fallacies of all time – invented by blind, irrational materialists who despise life and worship machinery.

***** All the laws of science are ultimately symmetry laws. There is a bosonic force driving symmetry and a fermionic force breaking symmetry (leading to antisymmetry and asymmetry). We could even resurrect the work of Empedocles who said that the two cosmic forces are love and strife (hate). Symmetry = love (or, rather, reason/rationalism), and antisymmetry and asymmetry = strife/hate (or, rather, unreason/irrationalism).

Hard Work “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.” – Terry Metcalf and Kevin Durant What’s the fallacy here? It’s that talent and hard work are separate. The most talented people are invariably the hardest working. All of the greatest

geniuses of the past were the hardest working people the world has ever seen. How can you be talented and lazy? It’s a contradiction in terms. It’s an excuse for all the malingerers who delude that themselves that they are secretly talented. Talent make you work hard because how else will you prove and actualise your talent?

Contra Science Illuminism can be regarded as a full-scale mathematical makeover of German Idealism and Rationalism. Empiricism and Materialism were combined with “dimensional mathematics” to produce physics (and science in general), and this became the most successful subject on earth. Idealism and Rationalism, being mostly about the unseen, noumenal reality, could not use dimensional mathematics, and no one in the mainstream understood that there was such a thing as dimensionless mathematics (the mathematics of the Fourier frequency domain outside space and time), so Idealism and Rationalism remained at the level of metaphysical philosophical speculation, with no experimental method to ground it in the observed world, and no mathematics to ground it in the eternal truths of reason. Illuminism provides the means of placing Idealism and Rationalism on an equivalent, or superior, mathematical basis to Empiricism and Materialism. Being noumenal rather than phenomenal, Illuminism has, by definition, no experimental method, so, in order to avoid being speculative, it relies on analytic mathematical proofs. It’s metaphysical rather than physical, rational rather than empirical, mathematical rather than scientific. Here’s the scheme comparing and contrasting science and Illuminism, or physics and metaphysics: Physics: reflects Empiricism and Materialism; based on dimensional mathematics; invokes the scientific method based on the observation and measurement of the dimensional world; inductive; synthetic; a posteriori; contingent; all about experience and the senses; sensible rather than intelligible. Metaphysics: reflects Rationalism and Idealism; based on dimensionless mathematics (the mathematics of singularities); invokes the method of mathematical proof deriving from the analytic tautology inherent in

ontological mathematics; deductive; analytic; a priori, necessary; independent of experience and the senses; all about reason; intelligible rather than sensible. It’s easy to see why physics, thus far, has been far more successful than metaphysics. It’s tied to what we can directly observe, experience and measure, and dimensional mathematics is much simpler, and much easier to conceptualise, than dimensionless mathematics concerning unobservable singularities. However, we can also immediately grasp that if there is indeed a metaphysical reality – where all the ultimate answers to existence lie – then physics (science) is by definition incapable of telling us anything at all about them. And that’s exactly where we stand today. Even the most perfect and final physical theory of “everything” (i.e. of all observable, dimensional, material existence) can never explain why something comes from nothing in the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a singularity event, and singularities are exactly those things that are outside space and time, hence outside physics, but not outside metaphysics. The soul is a singularity, which is exactly why physics can’t find it. The soul is based on dimensionless (frequency) mathematics, not dimensional (spacetime) mathematics. The biggest problem of all for physics is that none of it has any necessity. None of it is eternal. None of it is true by definition. Physics does not and cannot produce a necessarily consistent, complete and full theory of everything. Metaphysics can. Physics can be saved only by underpinning it with metaphysics. Then we can have a full theory of dimensional and dimensionless existence (spacetime, and singularities outside spacetime), which is a true theory of everything, fully explaining matter (dimensional) and mind (dimensionless), and their interaction. Fourier mathematics, with its frequency domain outside space and time and its material domain inside space and time, provides exactly the ontology required. It follows that the synthesis of physics and metaphysics, describing both the sensible (dimensional) and intelligible (dimensionless) domains, will simply be Fourier mathematics. Not the abstract Fourier mathematics used by today’s mathematicians and physicists, but the Fourier mathematics of ontological mathematics, based on monadic frequency domains as the primary existential and mathematical realities.

The final theory of everything, of all of physics and all of metaphysics, will arrive as soon as the whole scientific, mathematical and philosophical community turns its attention to ontological Fourier mathematics grounded in monadic frequency singularities – which are none other than eternal mathematical minds (souls!). Well, what are we all waiting for?! A new generation of radical, revolutionary, physicists, mathematicians and philosophers is required. They are those who will change the world once and for all, and set humanity on its divine trajectory. We will finally have the knowledge of the gods themselves and know everything.

***** The Germans were the inheritors of the cultural glory of ancient Greece (especially Athens). Are you a Leibnizian (a German idealist rationalist ontological mathematician) or a Newtonian (a British materialist empiricist scientist)? Are you a Pythagorean-Platonist or an Aristotelian? Those are your choices. What is science? It’s actually nothing but British Empiricism and Materialism given a partial mathematical makeover (based, more or less, only on positive real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity). The British (followed by their former American colony) were the inheritors of the military power and imperial glory of ancient Rome, not of the culture, civilisation and genius of ancient Greece. So, what’s it to be? Will you follow the Greeks or Romans? Will you follow the Germans or the British-Americans? Isn’t it extraordinary that the battle between empiricism and materialism on the one hand (the gospel of the senses, experience, experimentation and a dead machine world) and rationalism and idealism on the other hand (the gospel of the intellect, rational unobservables, innate ideas and a living world – a cosmic organism) actually reduces to a purely mathematical consideration. Namely, is reality grounded in all numbers (zero, infinity, all positive real numbers, all negative numbers, all positive imaginary numbers and all negative imaginary numbers) – the whole of mathematics – or in a subset of mathematics (positive real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity). Is mathematics ontologically complete and consistent (as Illuminism asserts) or incomplete and inconsistent (which is the inevitable

corollary of science’s privileging of positive real numbers over all other numbers)? Forget everything else. Reality is determined wholly by mathematics and the only question to be answered is whether all of mathematics has real existence (as Illuminism asserts), or, bizarrely, some of mathematics is real (positive real numbers) and the rest of mathematics is unreal, which is what science asserts. Science provides no sufficient reason for treating mathematics in this extraordinarily irrational, illogical and nonsensical way. Either all of mathematics is real or none of it is real. If none of it is real, why is it the engine of science? In Illuminism, the world is based on complex numbers. Science, however, says the world is based on real numbers alone. Illuminism says that zero and infinity have logical ontological reality (via singularities) and are the basis of mind, of subjectivity, of life, of the soul. Science absolutely forbids zero and infinity since these are both incompatible with the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. They are “rational unobservables” and science rejects everything that is not in principle observable (i.e. available to experiments, which are defined by the senses: there is no such thing as an experiment that does not result in a sensory outcome). Physics openly admits that it breaks down at singularities – which is exactly where metaphysics begins – and the two domains are mutually shielded from each other by event horizons. The difference between rationalism and idealism on the one hand and empiricism and materialism on the other, reduces, mathematically, to whether zero and infinity (encapsulated in singularities) have real, logical existence or not. If they do, Illuminism is right. If they don’t, science is right. It’s as straightforward as that. There are no other players in this game. All other religions and philosophies are absurd. It’s all a question of math, and of the logical ontology of singularities. The nature of zero and infinity (two sides of one coin; the singularity is the coin of zero and infinity) lies at the bottom of everything. Science can never disprove the existence of these numbers. All it can do is dogmatically reject them. It has faith that they do not exist, but can provide no conceivable facts, evidence or rational arguments to justify that belief. Illuminism asserts that zero and infinity must logically exist. Mathematics must be ontologically complete and consistent. Illuminism cites mathematics itself as the proof of Illuminism. Ontological

mathematics is the only true grand unified theory (GUT), the only possible final theory of everything (TOE). Any partial application of mathematics – such as science provides – is incomplete, inconsistent and, frankly, absurd. Science is rationally untenable. It makes no mathematical sense despite science being wholly reliant on mathematics for its power and success. Science is an illogical system of thought that succeeds only to the extent that part of the world can indeed be expressed via positive real numbers. Science gives us good answers wherever positive real numbers are involved, and doesn’t give us any answers at all where they are not. Science has zero prospect of explaining life, mind, free will and consciousness – because these are not defined by positive real numbers. The ultimate battlefield between Illuminism and science is the Singularity. The Singularity defines the Big Bang and also the Black Hole (and also photons and the soul!). Does a collapsing star of suitable size collapse all the way down to a mathematical point (a black hole singularity)? Can an entire universe spring from a mathematical point? Illuminism affirms both of these. They are exactly what Illuminism predicts. However, the Big Bang and black hole singularities are 100% inconsistent with science since singularities cannot be observed, experienced, experimented on, or brought into sensory awareness; they have no dimensionality, no matter and no mass, and are absolutely outside the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Scientists confess that science falls apart at singularities. What they expect is for some great theory of quantum gravity (M-theory being their current greatest hope) to explain away, to abolish, singularities. Of course, that’s never going to happen. The singularity – the mathematical point – is the basis of existence. Everything is defined by the point – the monad – exactly as Pythagoras and Leibniz said. Any debate about the fundamental nature of reality that isn’t concerned with mathematics is ludicrous, a joke, devoid of meaning, pure Mythos. It’s all about math. There’s nothing else. The sole challenge facing humanity is to correctly interpret and understand mathematics. That’s it. That’s the whole game. We assert that we are the only group in history that has understood true reality – because we are the only ones who have grasped its 100% mathematical basis. Illuminism is just another name for ontological mathematics. Illuminism is a religion purely because ontological

mathematics – through zero and infinity – allows an immortal, indestructible, perpetual-motion organism (a monad; a soul) to be defined. The humble mathematical point is that which can never vanish. It’s the ground of existence itself. Illuminism or science, mathematical religion or mathematical atheism ... that’s your sole choice. All other considerations are worthless.

***** Illuminism has provided the “big picture” of reality, but now it’s necessary to furnish all of the details to allow us to build heaven on earth and create a Community of Gods. That’s the prize that’s within our grasp, via Fourier, ontological, monadic mathematics.

The Seat of the Soul? Descartes cut up living animals and dead humans in his endeavours to discover where the soul and the brain join together. This activity seems rather surprising given that Descartes is normally interpreted as arguing that the soul has no extension, so how can it be physically present in the body, or detectable in any way in the body? Descartes was desperately trying to resolve the central difficulty of his philosophy – how do unextended mind and extended body interact? He wrote, “Nature teaches us by the sensations of hunger, thirst, etc., that I am not merely present in my body as a sailor in a ship, but that I am very closely united and as it were intermingled with it.” The nature of this intermingling was never clarified by Descartes, but he did propose that the seat of the soul was the pineal gland in the brain! Here, he believed, the psychophysical transactions required by his philosophy took place. We might imagine that he believed that, at this specific location, the soul somehow took on temporary extension, allowing it to “intermingle” with the physical brain. The excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: “The pineal gland is a tiny organ in the centre of the brain that played an important role in Descartes’ philosophy. He regarded it as the principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. ... Descartes

thought that the pineal gland is full of animal spirits, brought to it by many small arteries which surround it. ... “Descartes’ criterion for determining whether a function belongs to the body or soul was as follows: ‘Anything we experience as being in us, and which we see can also exist in wholly inanimate bodies, must be attributed only to our body. On the other hand, anything in us which we cannot conceive in any way as capable of belonging to a body must be attributed to our soul. Thus, because we have no conception of the body as thinking in any way at all, we have reason to believe that every kind of thought present in us belongs to the soul. And since we do not doubt that there are inanimate bodies which can move in as many different ways as our bodies, if not more, and which have as much heat or more […], we must believe that all the heat and all the movements present in us, in so far as they do not depend on thought, belong solely to the body.’ “Just before he mentioned the pineal gland for the first time, Descartes emphasized that the soul is joined to the whole body: ‘We need to recognize that the soul is really joined to the whole body, and that we cannot properly say that it exists in any one part of the body to the exclusion of the others. For the body is a unity which is in a sense indivisible because of the arrangement of its organs, these being so related to one another that the removal of any one of them renders the whole body defective. And the soul is of such a nature that it has no relation to extension, or to the dimensions or other properties of the matter of which the body is composed: it is related solely to the whole assemblage of the body’s organs. This is obvious from our inability to conceive of a half or a third of a soul, or of the extension which a soul occupies. Nor does the soul become any smaller if we cut off some part of the body, but it becomes completely separate from the body when we break up the assemblage of the body’s organs.’ But even though the soul is joined to the whole body, ‘nevertheless there is a certain part of the body where it exercises its functions more particularly than in all the others. […] The part of the body in which the soul directly exercises its functions is not the heart at all, or the whole of the brain. It is rather the innermost part of the brain, which is a certain very small gland situated in the middle of the brain’s substance and suspended above the passage through which the spirits in the brain’s anterior cavities communicate with those in its posterior cavities. The slightest movements on the part of this gland may alter very greatly the course of these spirits, and conversely any

change, however slight, taking place in the course of the spirits may do much to change the movements of the gland.’ “The view that the soul is attached to the whole body is already found in St Augustine’s works: ‘In each body the whole soul is in the whole body, and whole in each part of it.’ St Thomas Aquinas accepted this view and explained it by saying that the soul is completely present in each part of the body just as whiteness is, in a certain sense, completely present in each part of the surface of a blank sheet of paper. In deference to Aristotle, he added that this does not exclude that some organs (the heart, for example) are more important with respect to some of the faculties of the soul than others are. “Augustine’s and Aquinas’ thesis sounds reasonable as long as the soul is regarded as the principle of life. The principle of life may well be held to be completely present in each living part of the body (just as biologists nowadays say that the complete genome is present in each living cell). However, Descartes did not regard the soul as the principle of life. He regarded it as the principle of thought. This makes one wonder what he may have meant by his remark. What would a principle of thought be doing in the bones and toes? One might think that Descartes meant that, although the pineal gland is the only organ to which the soul is immediately joined, the soul is nevertheless indirectly joined to the rest of the body by means of the threads and spirits in the nerves. But Descartes did not view this as immediate attachment: ‘I do not think that the soul is so imprisoned in the gland that it cannot act elsewhere. But utilizing a thing is not the same as being immediately joined or united to it.’ Moreover, it is clear that not all parts of the body are innervated [innervate means to supply an organ or a body part with nerves]. “The solution of this puzzle is to be found in a passage which Descartes wrote a few years before the Passions, in which he compared the mind with the heaviness or gravity of a body: ‘I saw that the gravity, while remaining coextensive with the heavy body, could exercise all its force in any one part of the body; for if the body were hung from a rope attached to any part of it, it would still pull the rope down with all its force, just as if all the gravity existed in the part actually touching the rope instead of being scattered through the remaining parts. This is exactly the way in which I now understand the mind to be coextensive with the body – the whole mind in the whole body and the whole mind in any one of its parts.’ He added that

he thought that our ideas about gravity are derived from our conception of the soul. “In the secondary literature one often meets the claim that Descartes maintained that the soul has no spatial extension, but this claim is obviously wrong in view of Descartes’ own assertions. Those who make it may have been misled by Descartes’ quite different claim that extension is not the principal attribute of the soul, where ‘principal’ has a conceptual or epistemic sense. ... “‘And the activity of the soul consists entirely in the fact that simply by willing something it brings it about that the little gland to which it is closely joined moves in the manner required to produce the effect corresponding to this volition.’” Regarding the suggestion that Descartes may have believed that the soul had extension, we might quote Charles Taliaferro: “In the end, Descartes sees the mind as unextended spatially albeit embodied in (or as) a spatially extended body. Still, he allowed that if one were to define ‘corporeal’ in an extended sense to mean ‘anything which can in any way affect a body,’ he would call the mind corporeal.” The general idea seems to be that in as much as souls interact with bodies, they must have some spatial relationships to bodies (no matter how difficult to define), and, in that sense, are “extended”. Descartes himself wrote, “It does not seem to me that the human mind is capable of conceiving at the same time the distinction and the union between body and soul, and because of this it is necessary to conceive them as a single thing and at the same time to conceive them as two things, and this is absurd.” In other words, Descartes was disastrously unclear about the precise nature of the soul with regard to the body, and was certainly interpreted as creating a radical distinction between body and soul that was unable to plausibly explain how they could interact. The answer to Descartes’ problem lies of course in Fourier mathematics. The frequency domain is that of the mind/soul and the spacetime domain that of the body, and the two interact via forward and inverse Fourier transforms.

The Pineal Gland

Descartes proposed that mind and body communicate via the conarium or pineal gland. He believed that “animal spirits” travelled along the nerves to the brain and then to the pineal gland at the centre of the brain. There, they “agitated” the gland, this motion transmitting information to the soul/mind. The process could happen in reverse to allow the mind to transmit information to the body. Descartes stressed that the soul acts through the pineal gland but is not “imprisoned” there. These animal spirits can be equated with “Universal Life Energy”: the life force or living energy that the Chinese call chi or qi, the Hindus call prana and the ancient Greeks knew as pneuma. These energies sustain the life of organs, cells, tissue, and blood. Spiritually, they are considered to ultimately connect us to the Creator. Descartes did not, of course, actually explain how dimensional energies flowing through the body lead to information being transmitted to a dimensionless soul, absurdly said to be “located” in a physical location in the brain (the pineal gland). The soul – the monad – is not in the body. Rather, the monad is in the Singularity and from there it remotely controls the body, somewhat like a drone pilot controls a drone in flight thousands of miles away. When the drone perishes, the pilot does not. Similarly, when a body perishes, the soul does not.

The Third Eye and the Pineal Gland “The third eye (also known as the inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept referring to a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight. In certain dharmic spiritual traditions such as Hinduism, the third eye refers to the ajna, or brow, chakra. In Theosophy it is related to the pineal gland. The third eye refers to the gate that leads to inner realms and spaces of higher consciousness. In New Age spirituality, the third eye often symbolizes a state of enlightenment or the evocation of mental images having deeply personal spiritual or psychological significance. The third eye is often associated with religious visions, clairvoyance, the ability to observe chakras and auras, precognition, and out-of-body experiences. People who are claimed to have the capacity to utilize their third eyes are sometimes known as seers. “In some traditions such as Hinduism, the third eye is said to be located around the middle of the forehead, slightly above the junction of the

eyebrows. In other traditions, as in Theosophy, it is believed to be connected with the pineal gland. According to this theory, humans had in far ancient times an actual third eye in the back of the head with a physical and spiritual function. Over time, as humans evolved, this eye atrophied and sunk into what today is known as the pineal gland. Dr. Rick Strassman has theorized that the pineal gland, which maintains light sensitivity, is responsible for the production and release of DMT (dimethyltryptamine), an entheogen which he believes possibly could be excreted in large quantities at the moments of birth and death. ... “Taoism teaches that the third eye, also called the mind’s eye, is situated between the two physical eyes, and expands up to the middle of the forehead when opened. Taoism claims that the third eye is one of the main energy centres of the body located at the sixth chakra, forming a part of the main meridian, the line separating left and right hemispheres of the body. ... “Adherents of theosophist H.P. Blavatsky have suggested that the third eye is in fact the partially dormant pineal gland, which resides between the two hemispheres of the brain.” – Wikipedia

The Cartesian Contradiction “I saw that the gravity, while remaining coextensive with the heavy body, could exercise all its force in any one part of the body; for if the body were hung from a rope attached to any part of it, it would still pull the rope down with all its force, just as if all the gravity existed in the part actually touching the rope instead of being scattered through the remaining parts. This is exactly the way in which I now understand the mind to be coextensive with the body – the whole mind in the whole body and the whole mind in any one of its parts.” – Descartes Here, Descartes comes close to stating the Holographic Principle: each part is in the Whole, and the Whole is in each part. According to his gravitational analogy, the soul is in the body like gravity is in a body. It’s present throughout the body and yet can act at a single point. It might be argued that he’s implying that mind/soul has some sort of extension since he’s saying that it’s “coextensive” with the extended body. However, he also suggests that it can act fully at any part in the body, hence is only coextensive with that part, or even just with a dimensionless point in the body. At other times, he reaffirms that the soul has no extension at all:

“We need to recognize that the soul is really joined to the whole body, and that we cannot properly say that it exists in any one part of the body to the exclusion of the others. For the body is a unity which is in a sense indivisible because of the arrangement of its organs, these being so related to one another that the removal of any one of them renders the whole body defective. And the soul is of such a nature that it has no relation to extension, or to the dimensions or other properties of the matter of which the body is composed: it is related solely to the whole assemblage of the body’s organs. This is obvious from our inability to conceive of a half or a third of a soul, or of the extension which a soul occupies. Nor does the soul become any smaller if we cut off some part of the body, but it becomes completely separate from the body when we break up the assemblage of the body’s organs.” – Descartes, The Passions of the Soul Regarding the famous mind-body interaction problem, Descartes didn’t think it was a problem at all: “[This problem presupposes] amongst other things an explanation of the union between the soul and the body, which I have not yet dealt with at all. But I will say… that the whole problem… arises simply from a supposition that is false and cannot in any way be proved, namely that, if the soul and the body are two substances whose nature is different, this prevents them from being able to act on each other.” No one else agreed with his blithe dismissal of the problem, and most people believe it remains unsolved to this day. However, it has been solved. Fourier mathematics was what Descartes was looking for to explain his system. It hadn’t been discovered in his time, so he had the best possible excuse. No one has such an excuse today! The rival schools of idealism and materialism arose from the apparently intractable problem of Cartesian dualism. However, since the problem is now solved mathematically, we can get rid of the clear loser in the game – materialism. Matter isn’t a different substance from mind: it’s the spacetime representation of frequency (mental) functions.

False Knowledge Science is a fake science. It produces false, illusory knowledge, the knowledge of the phenomenal not the noumenal. It’s anti-mathematical in the sense that it refuses to accept the ontology of mathematics, and applies

an incomplete, inconsistent version of mathematics based on positive real numbers only.

The Fake Evolutionary Theory Gordon Rattray Taylor said, “Darwinism is not so much a theory as a subset of some theory as yet unformulated.” In fact, meaningless, purposeless Darwinism will be more or less entirely replaced by a meaningful, teleological Lamarckian theory of evolution based on Fourier mathematics.

Stuff What is mind stuff? It’s singularity stuff, frequency stuff, unextended stuff, dimensionless stuff, zero-infinity stuff. What is matter stuff? It’s non-singularity stuff, spacetime stuff, extended stuff, dimensional stuff, non-zero, non-infinity stuff. Mind and matter together comprise everything. Scientific materialism is false because it denies the authentic existence of mind stuff and claims that mind stuff is in fact just matter stuff. The Big Bang was a mind event: matter came from mind. When matter is totally compressed, it becomes mind stuff – as we see with black hole singularities. Photons (light) are immaterial and dimensionless. They are mental, not physical. Matter can’t be accelerated beyond light speed because it’s converted into mind at that speed. There’s no such thing as physically going faster than the speed of light because light speed is a property of mind, not of matter. Gluons that hold nuclei together are massless and dimensionless: they are mental, not physical. Gravitons that transmit the force of gravity are also massless, dimensionless and mental. In general, fermions are material particles and bosons are mind particles. Hybrid fermion-bosons – such as the Higgs boson (a boson with mass) create the bridge between mind and matter. It’s not so hard to understand, is it? Why are scientists so fanatically opposed to mind? Their own theories are full of self-evidently mental entities!

Perfection Abrahamism animistically imagines a perfect being ruling the universe. Imagine, instead, a perfect system rather than a perfect being. That system is ontological mathematics. But it’s not emotional. It doesn’t care about you, love you, or want to be worshipped by you. It doesn’t want to send you to hell for disobeying it, or welcome you to heaven for successfully being its slave and mindlessly doing its bidding at all times. Ontological mathematics is true perfection. Every religious error stems from imagining “God” as a person with feelings and desires rather than as a God Equation with no feelings and no desires at all. Monads, the autonomous mathematical minds (singularities), defined by the God Equation, are perfect in form but not perfect in content. In terms of content, monads go from “bare” (alpha) to “full” (omega), from total potential to total actualisation. At the Omega Point – divinity – form and content are aligned.

Psychophysics Psychophysics is the union of mind (psyche) and physics. Psychophysics, when concerned with DNA, is psychobiology. Psychobiology is idealist, not materialist. It’s teleological, not randomist. It’s Lamarckian, not Darwinian. How is mind introduced into physics and biology? Via the Fourier frequency domain. Every monad is a mathematical mind and an autonomous Fourier frequency domain – a singularity. What physics and biology require is the insertion of the monadic singularity (mind) into their formulation and framework. Once this is done, everything changes. Physics and biology just become aspects of Fourier mathematics. No “woo woo” is involved. It’s pure math. Since chemistry sits between physics and biology, psychochemistry sits between psychophysics and psychobiology. Ontological mathematics = psychomathematics = metaphysics. Psychomathematics is all about the study of the mind (psyche) = the Fourier frequency domain = the monadic singularity. Everything revolves around the singularity = the mind.

The Oceanic Unconscious The so-called stream of consciousness sits on top of the ocean of the unconscious, and arises from that ocean.

The Failure Why did philosophical metaphysics fail? Because it didn’t ally itself with mathematics. Why did the philosophy of empiricism and materialism (the basis of science) succeed? Because it did ally itself with mathematics. What must metaphysics do? It must become mathematical rather than philosophical, and then it will fully explain everything, including science. A theory succeeds the more it reflects complete and consistent ontological mathematics. The ultimate theory is that which is absolutely consistent and complete, and that is monadic ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation. Abrahamism, with no mention of mathematics either explicitly or implicitly, has zero truth content. It’s absolutely devoid of value and should be entirely obliterated. Eastern religion has various intuitions that can be made consistent with mathematics, but, until they are, then Eastern religion is more or less as worthless as Abrahamism. As for science, it can be regarded as a mathematical heresy, or the mathematical cult of real numbers. Mathematics, in order to be valid, must be consistent and complete, and that can be true only if it is defined by a single, all-encompassing ontological formula – the God Equation.

“God” Every week, an old Christian in a city-centre holds up a placard proclaiming, “God is love”. It’s inconceivable that he would ever hold up a placard saying, “God is Reason”, or “God is Intellect”, or “God is mathematics”. Feeling types invariably associate God with an emotion, and what emotion is more powerful than love (well, apart from hate)? Feeling types always subscribe to a theistic God who is interested in our welfare. Thinking types do not need an emotional, personal God. Like Aristotle and

Hegel, thinking types are content with a remote God of Reason or Intellect; a rational, deistic God who doesn’t care about individuals and doesn’t interfere in their lives. Intuitive types want a God of Oneness, of integration and interconnectedness. They don’t want separation from God, and a relationship with God, as the feeling types do; they want complete absorption into God. As for sensing types, they want a physical God in their midst. Christianity provides the best example: “God” actually incarnates on Earth. Catholics even have the notion of bread and wine being turned into God’s actual body and blood at Mass! As for the Jews, they have the presence of God regularly appearing on Earth, whether in a burning bush, or a fiery pillar, or a smoking volcano, or a mountain summit, or a cloud, or directly over the Ark of the Covenant. The Muslims don’t have a physical God, but they have a very physical prophet (Mohammed), a physical book of God’s Word (the Koran), and they imagine that Mohammed physically met the Angel Gabriel and physically ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. The Hindus have many divine avatars (incarnate gods). In Buddhism, Buddha is effectively the same as Jesus Christ, Moses or Mohammed. Here’s the general scheme: 1) Feeling types are theists. 2) Thinking types are deists, pandeists, panendeists or atheists. 3) Intuitive types are pantheists or panentheists. 4) Sensing types are theists since they very much physicalise God, hence can have a personal relationship with him. More skeptical sensing types are agnostics since there is of course no actual evidence of the physical presence of any God. As ever, we see that all the different human attitudes towards religion flow from humanity’s different personality types. What you believe or think about reality is overwhelmingly dictated by what your personality type is. That’s why humans find it so difficult to agree with each other. Our respective personality types – our fundamental ways of thinking and relating to the world – are too different.

The Old and New Testaments In the New Testament, the Christian God is love and champions the weak, meek and powerless. He himself is tortured and put to death by the powersthat-be. In the Old Testament, the Christian God is full of hate and vengeance. He’s all about power, domination and control. He’s the ultimate symbol of strength (rather than the weakness, vulnerability and humanity demonstrated by Jesus Christ). Nothing is more impossible and unthinkable than this God being tortured and put to death. How can these two Gods possibly be the same? They are the direct opposites of each other! If one is God, the other must be the Devil.

Contra Richard Dawkins “It has become almost a cliché to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics.” – Richard Dawkins Is it socially acceptable to be an irrationalist, randomist, scientific materialist? And for scientists to be absolute ignoramuses when it comes to ontological mathematics? Can a single scientist state what mathematics actually is? Do scientists study what mathematics is? What is the relationship between science and mathematics? How do scientists account for the fact that mathematics is the least experimental subject you can possibly get, yet science is all about experiments? “We are born selfish.” – Richard Dawkins No we’re not. We’re born with both selfish and cooperative tendencies. We are right wing to the extent that we are selfish, and left wing to the extent that we are cooperative, and centrist to the extent that most people try to find a compromise between selfishness and cooperation. To say that we are born selfish is to adopt Ayn Rand’s view of genetics. It’s to assert that greed is good, that selfishness is virtuous, that we should always look out for No.1, that it’s all about “Me, me, me!” The advocates of selfishness and inequality are free-market capitalists, while communists and “true” Christians (religious communists) are on the side of cooperation and equality.

Meritocracy is about rational cooperation, with a competitive element to satisfy the human desire for glory, distinction and difference. “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are all born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene We could start by not teaching that genes are selfish! Genes, if they want to survive, have to be as cooperative as they are selfish, or they will end up in a bellum omnium contra omnes: a “war of all against all”. And, if they do end up in a war, it’s rational to seek allies, which means cooperating with others! Why didn’t Dawkins write The Cooperative Gene? Or The Altruistic Gene? Or what about Hawk Genes, Dove Genes and Retaliator Genes? Hawk genes are selfish (right wing), dove genes are altruistic and cooperative (left wing), and retaliator genes are a dove adaptation to allow them to fight back against the right wing predator hawks, the true carriers of the “selfish gene”, or, rather, the psychopathic gene. “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Hmmm, rather like irrationalist science, then?! How much funding does science provide to rationalists and idealists rather than to empiricists and materialists? Er, none! “Unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop being true.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Indeed! Ontological mathematics is true and scientific materialism is false whether empiricist materialist Fundamentalists such as Dawkins like it or not. “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene That’s your interpretation, Richard. It’s not any kind of “fact” or “truth”. The truth is that we are immortal, immaterial, mathematical minds (monads), outside space and time. And that’s infinitely more astonishing.

“Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Individuals (monads) are immortal and indestructible. They are entirely outside the material world. Monads march on. That’s their business. Monads optimise themselves. That’s their business. “Genes” are just collections, in scientific materialist terms, of lifeless, mindless atoms. It’s the mathematical information they contain – mental information – that’s significant about them. Minds link to bodies via this mathematical information code, which is a Fourier mathematics code linking the monadic frequency domain to the material spacetime domain. “Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? “They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. “They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene No, we’re not. We are monads, and we cannot die. We have linked to countless bodies in our immortal lives via Fourier “reincarnation”. It’s all in the math! “In the beginning was simplicity.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

In the “beginning” was mathematical simplicity obeying one law (the God Equation), not bizarre, scientific randomness, indeterminism and chaos, which are not simple at all, and not intelligible at all. “Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life’s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don’t; not if we are sane. Our lives are ruled by all sorts of closer, warmer, human ambitions and perceptions.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Speak for yourself, Richard. There is total purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos – to become mathematically optimal, to achieve perfect mathematical symmetry! We all tie our hopes to this ultimate fate because it’s how we personally become gods. We would be insane not to! “Any altruistic system is inherently unstable, because it is open to abuse by selfish individuals, ready to exploit it.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene And any selfish system is inherently unstable because it’s open to “abuse” by cooperative individuals, ready to thwart it. “When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Scientific materialism has not proved a fertile meme for all but a tiny proportion of sensory-obsessed minds on the autistic spectrum, people who believe they are mindless machines rather than living minds. “I am an enthusiastic Darwinian, but I think Darwinism is too big a theory to be confined to the narrow context of the gene.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene On the contrary, it’s not even big enough for the narrow context of the gene. Lamarck’s evolutionary theory is much bigger and better than Darwin’s. And Leibniz’s Monadology is the biggest and best theory of all. “The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence … The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that

they did not need evidence, are held to us as worthy of imitation.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Thomas did not ask for rational proof. He did not subscribe to eternal, infallible, immutable truths of reason. He allowed a charlatan to fool him and then trumpeted it as “evidence” – what a scientist! All scientific “evidence” is nothing but interpretation. The human senses are not organs of truth but of delusion. They are attuned to phenomena (appearances), not noumena (things as they are in themselves). “A retaliator behaves like a hawk when he is attacked by a hawk, and like a dove when he meets a dove. When he meets another retaliator he plays like a dove. A retaliator is a conditional strategist. His behaviour depends on the behaviour of his opponent.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene This is by far the best idea in Dawkins’ book. Unfortunately, it wasn’t his idea. It was introduced by John Maynard Smith and George R. Price, who showed that the evolutionarily stable strategy is Retaliator, which rather contradicts Dawkins’ promotion of selfish genes (!) since retaliators behave like altruistic doves when selfish hawks are absent. Genes, if we were to give them an optimal “character” would be altruistic, cooperative doves prepared to fight back against any hawk attacks. Contrary to what Dawkins says about the altruistic system being inherently unstable, it is in fact the most stable system of all if it’s imbued with retaliatory capacity against selfish interlopers. If genes want to survive, they ought to be retaliatory, not selfish. Maybe Dawkins should try reading his own book! Remember, there are no “facts”, only interpretations. “Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Memes are just information and all information is mathematical, encoded in sine and cosine waves defined by the universal God Equation. Memes, insofar as they are adopted by parents through cultural habits and then passed on to their offspring, are far more Lamarckian than Darwinian.

“But ‘chance’ is just a word expressing ignorance. It means ‘determined by some as yet unknown, or unspecified, means’. We can do a little better than ‘chance’.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene What?! The whole of modern science is predicated on chance, accident, randomness, indeterminism, chaos, probability, statistics. Nothing in science ultimately happens for any reason. A whole universe can allegedly jump out of nothing (that’s the ultimate magic trick!). Science has totally abandoned causality and now expects us to believe that a system of microscopic random chaos – pure chance – is the source of macroscopic order, causality and determinism. Magic, yet again! Dawkins is absolutely right – chance is a word expressing ignorance, so all scientists who subscribe to the prevailing chance-based ideology are ignorant! You said it, Richard. “For more than three thousand million years, DNA has been the only replicator worth talking about in the world. But it does not necessarily hold these monopoly rights for all time. Whenever conditions arise in which a new kind of replicator can make copies of itself, the new replicators will tend to take over, and start a new kind of evolution of their own.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene We are awaiting the arrival of the “God replicator”. HyperHumanity will design it. “Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complex that it must include a model of itself.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Consciousness is social. No human being born on a desert island could ever become conscious. Consciousness requires others, it requires language, it requires complex concepts, it requires reason, it requires a left hemisphere of the brain devoted to the Fourier spacetime domain, and a right hemisphere of the brain linked to the Fourier frequency domain. “Prediction in a complex world is a chancy business. Every decision that a survival machine takes is a gamble, and it is the business of genes to program brains in advance so that on average they take decisions that pay off. The currency used in the casino of evolution is survival, strictly gene

survival, but for many purposes individual survival is a reasonable approximation.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene The currency used in the casino of evolution is power, reflecting the Nietzschean Will to Power. As Nietzsche pointed out so vividly, animals will risk their lives to gain more power. Hardly what would be expected of any creature wholly given over to survival, as Dawkins erroneously claims. Power is all about teleology, but teleology is entirely denied by scientific materialists such as Dawkins. “Only where there is life is there also will: not, however, Will to Life, but – so teach I thee – Will to Power!” – Nietzsche “This world is the Will to Power – and nothing else! And you yourselves too are this Will to Power – and nothing else!” – Nietzsche Nietzsche’s theory of Will to Power is far superior to selfish gene theory. Any living thing must exhibit will. As for “immortal” genes, they aren’t! Countless genes have become extinct, and countless genes have been mutated out of all recognition. Only monads are immortal. They don’t seek to replicate: they seek more power! “We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Memes are Dawkins’ greatest and most influential idea. Unfortunately for him, they are far more Lamarckian than Darwinian. “Relatives share a substantial proportion of their genes. Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene In which case, it’s not so selfish, is it? It looks rather more altruistic and cooperative! But The Altruistic Gene wouldn’t have sold as many copies as The Selfish Gene, would it?

Moreover, if the survival of the gene survival machines (bodies) is really the important thing for allowing genes to survive, then it pays for bodies to cooperate with other bodies, whether they have any relationship with them or not, and regardless of whether or not they share common genes – which destroys Dawkins’ entire theory. Memes are infinitely more important than genes in gene survival, and memes are Lamarckian, not Darwinian. We change to suit our memes, not our genes! “If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene It is part of their biological nature. You just told us so in your prior quotation about genes having divided loyalties between different bodies. Everything Dawkins says is an interpretation from a certain philosophical worldview, and all of those things can be reinterpreted from an alternative philosophical worldview. “Wild animals almost never die of old age: starvation, disease, or predators catch up with them long before they become really senile. Until recently this was true of man too. Most animals die in childhood, many never get beyond the egg stage. Starvation and other causes of death are the ultimate reasons why populations cannot increase indefinitely.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Therefore, it’s a crime against nature to become senile! Time for mass euthanasia. “There is bound to be variation in the population of males in their predisposition to be faithful husbands. If females could recognize such qualities in advance, they could benefit themselves by choosing males possessing them. One way for a female to do this is to play hard to get for a long time, to be coy. Any male who is not patient enough to wait until the female eventually consents to copulate is not likely to be a good bet as a faithful husband.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene What was it Stendhal said? – “A long siege humiliates a man but ennobles a woman.” Does a woman want a weak, humiliated man? “Different sorts of survival machine appear very varied on the outside and in their internal organs. An octopus is nothing like a mouse, and both are

quite different from an oak tree. Yet in their fundamental chemistry they are rather uniform, and, in particular, the replicators that they bear, the genes, are basically the same kind of molecule in all of us – from bacteria to elephants. We are all survival machines for the same kind of replicator – molecules called DNA – but there are many different ways of making a living in the world, and the replicators have built a vast range of machines to exploit them. A monkey is a machine that preserves genes up trees, a fish is a machine that preserves genes in the water; there is even a small worm that preserves genes in German beer mats. DNA works in mysterious ways.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene And scientific materialists are machines that preserve genes in laboratories. “Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use...” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene As are scientific ideas. They are means to allow us to model reality. They are not the truth of reality. “In the world of the extended phenotype, ask not how an animal’s behaviour benefits its genes; ask instead whose genes it is benefiting.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Ahem, usually the genes of the rich! “Many of us shrink from judicial execution of even the most horrible human criminals, while we cheerfully countenance the shooting without trial of fairly mild animal pests. Indeed we kill members of other harmless species as a means of recreation and amusement. A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and – according to recent experimental evidence – may even be capable of learning a form of human language.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Save the cockroach! “I speculate that we shall come to accept the more radical idea that each one of our genes is a symbiotic unit. We are gigantic colonies of symbiotic genes.” – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Symbiosis: a close association of organisms that live together for their mutual benefit. ... So, er, Richard, you mean that all genes are in fact fundamentally in the cooperation and mutual assistance game? – thus destroying your entire “selfish gene” argument. Oops! We are actually gigantic cooperative colonies of sine and cosine waves producing massive, autonomous information patterns – souls.

The Selfish Gene? “In describing genes as being ‘selfish’, [Richard Dawkins] does not intend (as he states unequivocally) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will, but merely that their effects can be metaphorically and pedagogically described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism. Bringing the level of evolutionary dynamics down to the single gene, or complementary genes which work well together in a given type of organism, Dawkins categorically rejects the school of thought which tells that evolution operates on the level of social group. “This view is said to explain altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kinship relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes. Some people find this metaphor entirely clear, while others find it confusing, misleading or simply redundant to ascribe mental attributes to something that is mindless. For example, Andrew Brown has written: “Selfish”, when applied to genes, doesn’t mean “selfish” at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: “the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process.” This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but “selfish” isn’t it. “Donald Symons also finds it inappropriate to use everyday language in conveying scientific meaning in general and particularly for the present instance: In summary, the rhetoric of The Selfish Gene exactly reverses the real situation: through metaphor, genes are endowed with properties only

sentient beings can possess, such as selfishness, while sentient beings are stripped of these properties and called machines (robots).” Donald Symons is of course correct that Dawkins has, in his metaphor, effectively relocated mind from organisms to their genes. Dawkins, a Materialist Fundamentalist, isn’t entitled to any reference to any mental attributes. When Andrew Brown says that Dawkins is really talking about “the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process”, he shows how absurd Dawkins’ metaphor is. Genes do not, in any materialist conception, have any purposes, any teleology, any will. They do not strive for anything at all. A gene is no more selfish than a rock is. A gene is no more interested in its own survival, reproduction and propagation than sand is. A gene does nothing whatsoever to secure its own interests. After all, it’s just a collection of lifeless, mindless atoms subject to inexorable scientific laws. In fact, if you take scientific materialism seriously, there can be no such thing as Darwinian natural selection. “Selection” implies that something is chosen in preference to something else, that there’s an active choice involved. If the world comprises, as materialism insists, nothing but mindless atoms and the inexorable laws to which they are subject, then no “selection” ever takes place. Does “natural selection” mean anything at all in relation to the processes going on in the atmosphere, or in the stars? If not, why not? After all, these processes involve nothing but atoms and their laws, exactly the same as in “evolution”. Neither natural selection nor indeed evolution itself can have any formal meaning in scientific materialism. Only adaptive minds can evolve, and cause the evolution of bodies to secure their interests. A universe without autonomous minds can’t evolve any more than water can evolve. Evolution simply isn’t a capability of mindless matter. When inflexible laws apply to mindless atoms, there can be no evolution and no natural selection, just the implacable unfolding of the consequences of the laws. Does anyone argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law of evolution and natural selection? – yet the Second Law is driving the universe towards an inevitable and inescapable fate. There’s no “evolution” happening, just “unfolding”. So it is with genes. They are not operating according to any unique “biological” laws. They are carrying out the unavoidable laws of physics. Exactly the same is true of chemistry.

In truth, within the materialist paradigm, there are no such subjects as chemistry, biology and psychology. It’s all just physics – atoms and the laws to which they are subject. There’s no evolution, no natural selection, no selfishness, no purposes, no striving. Any gene that has ever been said to be “selected” was never selected at all. It was simply acted upon by the laws of physics, and these laws don’t “choose” anything. Species become extinct not because they have failed in terms of natural selection, but because the laws of physics decreed it. It’s as simple as that. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is denying the truth of physics, and the laws of physics, and that makes them no longer adherents of science! Scientific materialists deny the existence of free will. Very well, then, how can “selection” take place in a system where every outcome is absolutely inevitable and programmed, and where any freedom of action is absolutely forbidden? So, not only do we see that the “selfish gene” is a hopeless, non-explanatory metaphor, we also see that Darwinian “natural selection” is just an even bigger hopeless, non-explanatory metaphor. Darwinism doesn’t explain anything at all and isn’t a scientific theory. It’s just a metaphor. It’s a description, not an explanation. There are no scientific mechanisms involved in Darwinian evolution. How can scientific processes take place “randomly” – as in the proposed mutation of genes? How can scientific processes “select” one thing over another when selection does not enter into scientific laws at all? When has any law of physics ever done anything other than what it is absolutely mandated to do, with zero possibility of any other course of action? The problem, of course, is that biology cannot use the inexorable logic of physics, even though, within the scientific paradigm, it’s not entitled to anything else. It’s literally impossible to conceive of biology in any terms other than those of teleology, i.e. of organisms with purposes, striving to fulfil those purposes and competing savagely with others in a titanic, life and death struggle. Biology reflects Nietzsche’s Will to Power, not the machine laws of physics, which do not compete, do not select, do not strive, do not evolve (or support evolution), and do not have any purposes. Biology is a total contradiction of physics, and every scientist ought to be compelled to account for this contradiction. How can words like “selfish” and “selection” be applied to physics? And, if they can’t, how can they then be applied to biology, which, according to materialists, obeys exactly the same laws of physics as everything else?

No biologist claims that new and different laws of physics are relevant to biology. Biology, like everything else, is subject to electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. In what way are these forces “selfish”? In what way do they “select”? Science is extremely reductive, and when you reduce biology properly, to the forces of physics, to bosons and fermions, you are rationally compelled to reach the conclusion that Darwinism is a 100% false theory since nothing evolves, nothing is selected, and there are no “selfish” genes. Therefore, what’s left of Darwinism? It’s a totally bogus theory – a metaphor, a description, an interpretation, an opinion, a belief. It has no basis at all in the laws of physics, and that means it cannot be part of science. So much for everything that Richard Dawkins swears by and proclaims as the absolute truth! The true reality is that physical atoms are not the basis of reality at all – mental atoms (monads) are. These mathematical minds are autonomous, self-optimising organisms. They strive, they compete, they are sometimes selfish, sometimes altruistic, they have purposes and plans, they are sentient. In other words, they are exactly what is required of any sane, rational, coherent theory of evolution. Genes are not the fundamental units of evolution, as Dawkins claims: monads are – and these are absolutely rejected by Dawkins, for no rational reason. You simply cannot have evolution based on genes that obey the laws of physics. You can have evolution based on inherently living, teleological organisms. Selfish-gene theory denies that genes are driven by any motives or will, merely claiming that “their effects can be metaphorically and pedagogically described as if they were”. Yet why should we accept the metaphor of things having motives or will, if they plainly don’t, and if these attributes are formally meaningless within science (physics)? Yet biology is compelled to embrace some such metaphor because only in such terms does biology make any sense. Why not drop the metaphor and accept that biology is literally about will, motives and teleology, i.e. about living monads?! Scientific materialism rejects autonomous mind. It rejects teleology. Yet biology makes no sense in the absence of teleological minds. Evolution itself makes no sense without living entities that can evolve. It’s almost comical to replace, as Dawkins does, “selfish” monads (i.e. autonomous

minds striving to optimise their power), with “selfish genes”, which are just collections of mindless atoms without one hint of purpose or intentionality. Genes are not immortal, monads are! Monads are inherently immortal. They are souls. Wikipedia says, “The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism.” But genes can have no implicit or explicit interests, they can have no interest in being replicated, and no ability to make it happen beyond the laws of physics (not those of biology!). In a system of inflexible laws of physics – where everything happens deterministically – there can be “evolutionary consequences” at all. In fact, nothing can evolve. If science claims that free will is an illusion or a pointless epiphenomenon, then exactly the same has to be said about evolution and natural selection. These are just illusions or empty epiphenomena. Nothing can be selected in biology any more than a mind can select one choice over another if there’s no such thing as free will. Everything happens inevitably. Nothing chooses, nothing selects, nothing strives, nothing cares, nothing has any purpose. Atoms and their laws – that’s it. Atoms don’t evolve and nor do their laws, so any claim that the universe is “evolving” is absurd – evolution is nothing but an illusion, an epiphenomenon, just as mind is claimed to be. Now, why should we have to tell this to Richard Dawkins? If he were a rational person, respecting the laws of physics, we would not have to. He would easily work it out for himself just by applying reason. But, of course, Dawkins is a Materialist Fundamentalist, and is no different from a person of religious faith, refusing to think about or challenge his core beliefs. Dawkins and his ilk are extremely eager to put the boot into mentalism. They are so stupid that they don’t realise that every argument they deploy against the mind can equally be deployed against Darwinian evolution, which all scientists religiously swear by! What a hopeless bunch of irrationalists. Wikipedia says, “Dawkins categorically rejects the school of thought which tells that evolution operates on the level of social group.” As ever, Dawkins is plain wrong. True evolution always applies at two levels: the individual and the group. Each monad is striving to optimise itself, but that also means that the whole collection of monads has the same purpose (to optimise itself). Individual monads can compete and/or cooperate. When

they cooperate, they form a cohesive social group. Look at science itself. In order to progress (to evolve), it requires brilliant individuals, yet each of these individuals is the beneficiary of the knowledge produced by the social group of scientists over hundreds of years. It’s absurd to seek to separate individual and collective evolution. The two go together in an inevitable feedback loop, as science itself so clearly demonstrates. Wikipedia says, “This view is said to explain altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kinship relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes.” Altruism has nothing to do with genes. Altruism, for humans, is all about memes – about the beliefs people hold. It’s about feelings, honour, self-respect, and sacred causes. People will sacrifice their lives for people with whom they have no genetic relationship at all. People will even sacrifice their lives for different species, e.g. to try to save a dog that has fallen into a river. Of course, the concept of altruism is radically transformed when it’s viewed in terms of immortal monads rather than “selfish genes”. No monad sacrifices its life for anything else. After all, it cannot die. What it sacrifices is the current physical body through which it is expressed. It will get a new one in due course via Fourier reincarnation. Nietzsche was right that we are ruled by Will to Power rather than the Will to Exist (as Schopenhauer claimed). Our existence is taken for granted since we are immortal and know it (in our innermost kernel). So, we are in the power game, not the survival game. We will risk our “genes” (body) to gain more power. We will give up our genes for the sake of others if we thereby serve our own interests (viewed across eternity rather than across one feeble, mortal lifetime). Bodies die, souls don’t. You cannot analyse selfishness and altruism without taking the immortality of the soul into account, and this of course is fundamentally rejected by Materialist Fundamentalists such as Dawkins. More or less everything that Richard Dawkins believes about reality is false, fallacious, irrational and anti-mathematical. That’s a fact! Referring to the “selfish” gene is the worst mistake any materialist can make because it immediately gives the game away – that it’s impossible to avoid teleology. Why is a mentalist word being used by a materialist? Why does Dawkins need to invoke such a word to explain himself? Why does he

need to trade in metaphors? Because it’s impossible to discuss life in any other terms, because life is nothing but teleology, whether any materialist likes it or not. Idealism – mind and life – is always teleological. Materialism – machinery – is always anti-teleological. But we are not machines, we are living organisms.

***** Scientists, in general, are uncritical thinkers, with no respect for logic. The reason for this is that they believe in experiments, and these have nothing to do with logic and reason. A scientist will believe any old nonsense apparently supported by experiments – such as quantum indeterminacy – rather than rationally think through a problem, and dare to reach conclusions that contradict experimentalism and scientism. Science is a religion, not a system of rational thinking.

***** “Apparent teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary biology, much to the consternation of some writers. “Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something ‘in order to’ achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology even if that is not the intention. These issues have recently been discussed by John Reiss. He argues that evolutionary biology can be purged of such teleology by rejecting the analogy of natural selection as a watchmaker... “Some authors, like James Lennox, have argued that Darwin was a teleologist, while others like Michael Ghiselin described this claim as a myth promoted by misinterpretations of his discussions and emphasized the distinction between using teleological metaphors and being teleological. “Biologist philosopher Francisco Ayala has argued that all statements about processes can be trivially translated into teleological statements, and vice versa, but that teleological statements are more explanatory and cannot

be disposed of. Karen Neander has argued that the modern concept of biological ‘function’ is dependent upon selection. So, for example, it is not possible to say that anything that simply winks into existence without going through a process of selection has functions. We decide whether an appendage has a function by analysing the process of selection that led to it. Therefore, any talk of functions must be posterior to natural selection and function cannot be defined in the manner advocated by Reiss and Dawkins. Ernst Mayr states that ‘adaptedness... is an a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking.’ Various commentators view the teleological phrases used in modern evolutionary biology as a type of shorthand. For example, S. H. P. Madrell writes that ‘the proper but cumbersome way of describing change by evolutionary adaptation [may be] substituted by shorter overtly teleological statements’ for the sake of saving space, but that this ‘should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising by chance, with those that impart an advantage being retained by natural selection.’” – Wikipedia Note how none of the authors mentioned above can even define what “selection” means in a universe of atoms and their laws, and nothing besides. What is doing the selecting? Any process that is obeying inexorable laws is incapable of selecting anything, or being selected by anything. It makes no choices. There is no such thing as adaptation in a universe of fixed laws and fixed entities (such as materialist atoms) obeying those laws. Given that everything is fixed, there is self-evidently no evolution. Biologists often claim that there is no teleology, only the appearance of teleology. Well, using the same logic, exactly the same is true of evolution and natural selection. They don’t exist as anything other than appearances, as epiphenomena. In science, all processes are directed by the laws of physics, which are all about energy stabilisation: energetically unstable, less probable things break down to energetically more stable, more probable things. Therefore, no biological process should, logically, be considered in any terms other than its relationship with energy and the stabilisation thereof. Biology should be replaced by physics, just as neuroscientists contend that psychology should be replaced by physics since, so they say, there is no such thing as mind not made of atoms subject to the laws of physics. Equally, there’s no such thing as biology not reducible to atoms and the

laws of physics. Genes are wholly irrelevant using the logic of scientific materialism! Only the atoms that comprise genes, and their energy relations dictated by the inescapable laws of physics, are meaningful, and these exhibit no life, no mind, no purpose, no aims, no selection, and no evolution. Darwinism is not a theory that can in any way be relevant to reality since it has no connection with atoms and their energy relations. Paul Dirac said, “The underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty is only that the exact application of these laws leads to equations much too complicated to be soluble. It therefore becomes desirable that approximate practical methods of applying quantum mechanics should be developed, which can lead to an explanation of the main features of complex atomic systems without too much computation.” In these terms, biology must be fully explicable in terms of quantum mechanics. Hence gene theory is nothing but an “approximate practical method of applying quantum mechanics”. It provides the appearance of an explanation, but would have to be converted into quantum physics to have any authentic meaning. Dirac also said, “If we are honest – and scientists have to be – we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination.” Using this logic, exactly the same is true of biology. It’s a jumble of false assertions and metaphors, with no basis in quantum reality, and is a product of the human imagination. Nietzsche said that “truth” is actually, “A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms...” – isn’t that exactly what can be said of Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene theory? It has no connection whatsoever with quantum mechanics, so how, if reality is grounded in quantum mechanics, can it have any meaning? It’s just an elaborate Mythos whose own “logic” disproves it. Dawkins wrote a book called The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. But there is no evidence at all for evolution within science’s Meta Paradigm. The term is devoid of meaning in a world of indeterministic quantum mechanics, which is all about unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions that collapse in particular ways for no reason, and have nothing to do with evolution and

nothing to do with design. Design is in fact logically impossible in such a system – which is exactly why reality must be grounded in the quintessence of design: ontological mathematics.

***** Are fossils evidence of “evolution”? Or are they reflective of the “archaeology” of physics on this planet? That is, are they showing us the history of energy-stabilisation processes regarding animal life in our world? Does DNA contain the history of energy efficiency and stabilisation of living organisms? In other words, DNA is not about biological evolution and natural selection, but about physical processes in organisms becoming more physically optimised through the inevitable, non-evolutionary, unfolding of the laws of physics. You see, there are no “facts” in science, only interpretations. How do you know which one is correct? Are any? There’s only one thing you can rely on – the eternal truths of reason.

Dawkins and Thatcher “Thatcher eschewed the idea of society because of a high table dinner at Magdalen College at Oxford. Richard Dawkins convinced her there was no such thing as society, just individuals. I, as a lowly researcher said she should emphasise environment in her administration, which was missing at the time. My girlfriend had just won a first prize fellowship at Magdalen. And as a result, I was invited to the Judge Randolph dinner in March of 1978, only eighteen months after Richard Dawkins had published The Selfish Gene. And I was close to Thatcher and I know Richard Dawkins was there. John Krebs I think was there. A lot of us who came from the Zoology Department in Oxford. And she was heard to say that society is the building block for the future. And immediately, many zoologists, lowly post-doctoral researchers like me said society doesn’t exist, and this was joined by a mighty chorus from those more senior than I. And this put her back and she challenged why we were saying it. And that brought us to essentially the argument from the evolutionary ecologists which indeed did prove that individuals mattered more than society. ... I think there’s some likelihood it would have affected her thinking. Because at the end of the

evening after the argument that goes with those statements and protestations that society doesn’t exist, she then said well perhaps I ought to centre on the individuals, hereafter.” – Professor Ian Swingland So now you know who to blame for Thatcherism – Oxford scientists! Who said science isn’t political? It’s nothing but politics and philosophy. Dawkins and his ilk are right wing in their beliefs. They are natural Thatcherites and Randroids.

The Right Wing and Science Scientific materialism lends itself to an extreme right wing view of life. Social Darwinism is ultra right wing. Fanatical right winger, empiricist and materialist Ayn Rand said, “If any civilisation is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” This, of course, goes hand in hand with the “logic” of Dawkins’ selfish gene. Right wing ideology revolves around the assertion that the individual is the most important element in society and the rights and “freedoms” of the individual should be maximised and those of the collective (the State, Society or Community) should be minimized, i.e. we prosper by all acting individually, with maximum self-interest and minimal interest towards others. Left wing ideology asserts that the interests of individuals are best served through the strength of the rights of the collective (the State, Society or Community), i.e. we all prosper by being fair to each other, rational towards each other, considerate and respectful towards each others, by establishing laws that are in the general interest rather than the particular interest, that express the General Will rather than a collection of competing particular wills. In short, the right winger is a fanatical individualist who despises Society, while the left winger is a communitarian who despises out-ofcontrol, anarchic, libertarian individuals who believe they can do whatever they like regardless of others. The right winger is determined to constrain society, while the left winger is determined to constrain the individual. 100% inheritance tax sums up the clash between the right and left wings. Right wingers are vehemently opposed to such a tax because society appropriates all of an individual’s wealth on death, for the general use of society rather than the private use of the family, relatives and friends of the

deceased. Left wingers approve of such a tax because it puts a total block on the ability of families to become dynastically wealthy and powerful, ruling over everyone else in perpetuity. Inheritance allows individuals to influence and control the world even after death when they are no longer players in the game of life. 100% inheritance tax ensures that no one can influence and control the world post mortem. Only right wingers believe that individuals and families should be allowed to rule the world for generation after generation. The right wing is of course led by those privileged, elite, dynastic families that are already precisely in this position. They are all ferocious advocates of the Selfish Gene – for which read the Selfish Individual and the Selfish Family. They all love Richard Dawkins and agree with everything he says! The philosophy of Dawkins is as pernicious as that of Mohammed. For those that don’t know, Dawkins enjoyed the privileged upbringing of the rich. He is no left wing meritocrat.

The Absolute Standard What provides an absolute standard? Only ontological mathematics. Without an absolute standard, there’s only relativism – mere opinion, belief, conjecture and interpretation. Only ontological mathematics saves us from relativism. Without ontological mathematics, the philosophy of Nietzsche must be accepted in its entirety. With ontological mathematics, Nietzsche’s philosophy, as regards ontology and epistemology, is 100% wrong.

Choices “Knowledge” isn’t about facts, it’s about choices. After all, facts can be either rational or irrational given that they are nothing but interpretations. The only proper facts are ontological mathematical facts (truths). You must decide whether your knowledge system will be based on irrational faith facts (Abrahamism), irrational sensory facts (science), irrational mystical facts (Eastern religion) or rational facts (ontological mathematics).

***** The only proper standards are the absolute, immutable, eternal, necessary, analytic, a priori, deductive, Platonic standards of ontological mathematics. Anyone who stands opposed to these has chosen irrationalism over rationalism. That’s exactly what science has done, preferring irrational, contingent, sensory facts to eternal truths. Scientists have chosen to be irrational, so rationalists will not take them seriously and will not respect scientific “knowledge” when it comes to any claims that this knowledge reflects ultimate reality. There’s nothing more certain than that what science says about ultimate reality is false and even deranged. Science’s claims about ultimate reality are even more fallacious than those of mainstream religion! At least religion more or less respects the idea of mind, reason, meaning and purpose governing ultimate reality rather than claiming that reality is material (yet springs randomly out of immaterial nothingness), is irrational, indeterministic, acausal, random, meaningless, purposeless and totally pointless. Science, sad to say, has become a joke that no intellectual can take seriously. Is there even one scientist that you can regard as an authentic intellectual? John Bell was the last who came close.

Our Critics “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” – Churchill We are not a debating society. We are not liberals. We are not democrats. We are not relativists. We are not populists. The best thing about being on the side of the eternal truths of reason is that you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Radicalism We are radicals. We advocate action. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.” You are what you do. So what are you doing?

Autism and Science Autism involves low emotional intelligence, poor empathy and sympathy. In other words, it’s deficient with regard to feelings and interpersonal relationships. Autistics are extremely unlikely to have any genuine belief in a theistic God. Autism involves low or non-existent intuitive capacity. Autistics are extremely unlikely to subscribe to mysticism or Eastern Religion. They demand “concreteness”. Autism is associated with machine-like or computerised thinking. Autistics are often excellent at computer programming (most programmers are on the autistic spectrum). Autism is never associated with creative and imaginative thinking, but always with rule-bound learning by rote, or crude, trial-and-error “hacking”. Autistics aren’t innovators. They are not philosophers introducing new worldviews, they are not religious prophets, they are not creative mathematicians (but are excellent at algorithmic mathematics). Autistics are not artistic in any creative sense, but are often excellent at copying existing works of art. Autistics usually have heightened sensory capacities, often being overwhelmed by their intense sensory experiences. What is the autistic brain? It’s the extreme sensory brain, with feelings and intuition almost wholly absent. It’s exactly this fundamental lack of feelings and intuition that makes autistics so poor at communication. They cannot understand people. They don’t have a theory of mind. They don’t have empathy. They see people as little more than sensory objects. They have no conception of people, or themselves (!), having a soul – a totally non-sensory object. They are natural atheists. When you compare the features of autism with the typical qualities of atheistic scientists, you will see that they are more or less the same. Scientists, it seems, are high-functioning autistics. Many of them do indeed have Asperger’s Syndrome, the most capable form of autism. Science is in effect associated with a brain disorder that makes it impossible for average scientists to understand the world in terms of feelings, imagination, intuition and creative, non-sensory thinking. They have no religious or spiritual instincts and are locked into an extreme

sensory mindset, and seek to explain everything in sensory terms. Anything that’s not sensory simply does not exist for the scientist (or autistic). The whole of science is a fanatical sensory worldview from which scientists cannot escape. All of their thinking is conditioned by extreme sensory predilections. Whenever any practising scientist is telling you anything, remember that you are probably listening to the views of a high-functioning autistic who can’t think beyond his senses.

Autism, Science, Capitalism, Protestantism and Psychopathy “Time is money.” – Benjamin Franklin Capitalism calculates everything in terms of profits. Capitalism is how to view all spheres of life from the economic perspective. The capitalist mind always calculates the profit and always knows the bottom line. Opponents would accuse it of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Capitalism is all about objects. Even people are objectified. Everyone is a commodity to be bought and sold. Everyone has a “market rate”. Everyone’s value can be precisely determined. Everyone has a “number”: their economic worth. Just as science is based on randomness but claims to be rational, so capitalism is based on the random “market” yet claims to be rational. The capitalist market – the “invisible hand” that shapes the economy – serves the same sort of role as the unreal, unobservable (invisible) wavefunction of quantum mechanics, which shapes the world. Capitalism and science are both randomist and indeterministic They both oppose rationalism and design. Capitalism, like science, has no spirituality, no religious aspect, no feelings towards people, no consideration, no morality, no teleology (other than making profit). It has no interest in improving humanity. Where science has made the scientific method its god, capitalism has made profit (Mammon) its god. Like the scientific method, the capitalist method involves matching “hypotheses” (capitalist products) to “observations” (success in the capitalist market). Unsuccessful capitalist ideas that are rejected by the market are dismissed just like scientific theories that don’t

match experimental observations. Successful capitalist ideas (capitalist theories, so to speak) are continually refined to match market demand better and better, just like scientific theories being continually refined to better fit experimental data. The only capitalist ethic is obey the market and revere profit. However, the market is neither moral nor rational, and profits are often generated through entirely amoral and immoral means. Capitalism is all about sensory products (commodities), except in the case of “capitalist religion”, where faith itself becomes just another commodity, one that can enrich capitalist preachers. Although capitalism is normally secular, there are capitalist versions of Christianity known as “prosperity religions”, according to which your wealth is a direct measure of your value to God. Such religions are popular in numerous, povertystricken African countries where people believe that if they are holy enough and show enough faith, God will make them prosperous. They believe that their religious “success” (i.e. the intensity of their faith, devotion and contributions to the preacher) will inevitably lead to their economic advancement. Strangely, only the preachers ever seem to prosper! In general, capitalism is the opposite of Christianity. The latter says, “Love thy neighbour” and “Obey God”, while the latter says, “Compete with thy neighbour; shaft the neighbour”, and “Obey the market”. It’s a historical fact that capitalism flourished most in the countries of north-west Europe (especially Britain), and America – Protestant countries. Why does capitalism particularly prosper in Protestant countries? What does that say about Protestantism? Protestants are obsessed with literalism. Nearly all Creationists are Protestants. Protestants are sensory literalists. They believe that Noah’s Flood really happened, and the ten Biblical plagues, and so on. They believe that the Bible is a sacred sensory object. They think that “idols” must be destroyed because these are powerful sensory objects that offend “God”. They believe that God literally became a physical object – in the shape of “Jesus Christ”. They believe that they will be literally resurrected on earth in their old physical bodies and reigned over by Christ in the flesh for 1,000 years. They believe in a physical battle of Armageddon, and so on. It’s all about the physical and sensory – just like science! Protestants cite their “work ethic” as the reason why they are so successful in capitalist terms. However, they never mention that the main

driver of capitalist success is not hard work but willingness to shaft others without compunction in order to make a profit. People don’t count in capitalism. If capitalists could get away with it, they would treat people as slaves, and indeed often literally did (and do)! Many Protestants subscribe to the notion of predestination. This means that the Elect – the Saved – are chosen by God at the dawn of time, and no one can change their fate. The saved are the saved and the damned the damned. Once the notion arose that your wealth was a sign of God’s favour, hence that you were one of the Saved if you were rich, then it was just as obvious that the poor were the damned, and going to hell. Since the poor were already marked for perdition by God’s Will, the rich had a moral duty to punish them too. So, the rich became utterly contemptuous of the poor and didn’t care how they treated them. Capitalism is based on a fundamental contradiction. Protestants claimed that they became wealthy (generated capital) by saving their money, while the weak-willed, incontinent poor immediately spent whatever they earned. They didn’t save, hence didn’t produce any capital. So, on the one hand, capitalism says, “Save your money and create capital”, but, on the other, it says, “Spend your money immediately on consumer goods”. In other words, it has two messages: one for the rich (the Saved) and one for the poor (the Damned). The rich must save up and preserve their wealth, even down the generations (via dynastic inheritance), while the poor must spend, spend, spend. They must be totally self-indulgent and totally committed to instant gratification in order to make the rich richer (bigger profits). The poor are even given money (credit) so they can get something without having to save up for it. Of course, “credit” is just another word for “debt”. The poor are generally massively indebted. Protestantism is autistic in relation to Catholicism. It has no empathy and no sympathy, and is actively contemptuous of the poor. It has no loyalty to the nation-state and supports globalism. The Jews – the Chosen People – have dovetailed extremely well with Protestantism. In America, Wall Street (Financial Power) and Hollywood (Media power; the Propaganda Machine) are Zionist, and Washington D.C. (Political and Cultural Power) is ruled by WASP Freemasons. Jews are regarded as hard working, well-educated, financially successful, and beloved of “God” – which is exactly how the Protestants see themselves.

Therefore, it’s quite natural for Zionists and WASP Masons to enter into an unholy alliance to rule the world via capitalist Globalism. The Jews = the Chosen People; the WASPs = the Saved, the Elect, the Masters of the Universe, the Master Race (in their own estimation!). Capitalism, like science, has neither a spiritual God nor a spiritual morality. Like science, it’s all about the sensory world, and all about now. Just as science is based on the random wavefunction, capitalism is based on the random market. Scientists and capitalists have no feelings towards people, no religious spirit, extremely poor intuition (they can never see the crash coming! – 99% of capitalist economists failed to predict the 2008 financial disaster), no empathy, no sympathy and no basic humanity. Capitalism and science are natural, materialist, empiricist, sensory allies. They fit extremely well together. Science has always been the faithful servant of the rich and powerful and has never attempted to establish its own power base, independent of the rich and powerful. That’s because scientists basically agree with power, wealth and capitalism, and often lead comfortable lives because of their slavish devotion to the powers-that-be. Scientists, not to put too fine a point on it, are contemptible. They’re the puppets of the rich, and always do their bidding. They’re natural right wingers. Have you ever heard of scientists going to war against the rich? It has never happened. Capitalists aren’t just on the autistic spectrum, they’re also on the psychopathic spectrum. Indeed psychopathy is probably the highest form of autism. Psychopaths, like autistics, have no empathy or sympathy towards others, no regard for people (seeing them as objects to be manipulated and exploited), no morality, no spiritual dimension. They are locked into sensory reality. Everything is a means to an end, the end being their power, wealth and domination of others. The extreme sensory mind is, don’t forget, cut off from feelings and intuitions. This naturally leads to the total objectification of reality. Capitalists carry out this worldview in the economic sphere, and scientists in the “thinking” sphere. This is purely sensory thinking, which rules out any rational unobservables, any mathematical hidden variables. It’s distorted thinking, constrained thinking, thinking that completely misses the intelligible world revealed by true, comprehensive, rational thinking – which is always allied with intuition.

Autism, science, capitalism, Protestantism and psychopathy are all much of a muchness. They all reflect a wholly sensory worldview, an objectified worldview with no spiritual values. This sensory Mafia rules our world. It’s about time they were overthrown – by the intuitives!

Judaism Judaism is an extremely sensory religion. It’s all about customs, rituals, symbols, the Jewish community, group identity, the Torah, certain foods, certain types of clothing, obsession with lost objects such as the Ark of the Covenant and Menorah, obsession with the Wailing Wall (the last physical trace of the Jerusalem Temple) and slavishly obeying some 620 commandments (including not switching on lights on the Sabbath). It’s almost totally devoid of philosophy and says next to nothing about, and has very little interest in, the soul and the afterlife. Kabbalah is Judaism for more intuitive, non-sensory, philosophical Jews.

***** Islam, with its enormous amount of ostentatious praying, fasting, going to the mosque, dressing in certain clothes and eating certain foods, going on Hajj pilgrimage, and revering the physical book of the Koran, is also extremely physical and sensory.

History Historically, the two leading capitalist nations were Britain and America (Britain’s former colony in the New World). Britain was also where the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science arose, and was eagerly embraced by America. Britain was where empiricist, positivist, analytic philosophy was born, and, again, this was embraced by America. Britain and America are archetypal Protestant, capitalist countries. They have always opposed rationalism and idealism, meritocracy and communism. They have never been spiritual nations, renowned for their great art and imagination. They are pragmatic, sensory nations. They are “Roman” rather than “Greek”. Rome stands for science and the world, Greece for

mathematics and the world beyond. Which are you – Roman or Greek, extravert or introvert, a sensing type or intuitive?

Past Glories Whatever merits scientific materialism once had, it has now become incredibly silly, going out of its way to interpret everything in as random and empiricist a way as possible. If Dawkins, Hawking or Cox were to attempt to challenge this book, they would be taking the side of irrationality, acausality, indeterminism, randomness, mindlessness and meaninglessness against the principle of sufficient reason. Is that the side that any sane, rational person would want to line up on? People such as Hawking revel in claiming that the universe comes from a meaningless, random fluctuation in nothing. Is that a good position to rationally defend? Cox insists on the standard, idiotic, randomist Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. As for Dawkins, he trumpets evolution as happening by total accident and having no meaning or purpose whatsoever. It’s not a good look, guys. Smart people have better things to do with their time than say, “Oh, it’s all just one giant, random, pointless, purposeless accident. Woo hoo!” Smart people are rational and seek to explain things. They don’t invoke magic (which, if you think about it, is exactly the same as randomness, since both rely on things happening for no reason at all – other than a wishful-thinking “spell” in the case of magic – with no conceivable mechanism). The simple fact is that reality can be explained only if mind is fundamental and matter secondary. If you make matter primary, you inevitably end up saying that existence is meaningless and random. The ancients regarded mind as the ordering, rational force of existence and matter as the disordering, irrational force. Mind imposed order on Chaos (matter). In fact, matter isn’t chaos. It’s just mind expressed in a particular way (via spacetime). There is only first-level mind (mind itself) and secondlevel mind (matter). That’s it. And mind is inherently ordered.

Eternity Any valid ontological system must cater for eternity. It must be eternally valid. This means that the total energy of the system (the universe) must be zero (“nothing”) because there is no sufficient reason why the energy of the universe should be any arbitrary, non-zero number. The sufficient reason for zero being the required ontological base state is that zero is the ground state energy of the universe (the zero-point energy), it’s the most stable state of the universe, and the most symmetrical state. It’s the state that has no energy requirement to get it going, and expends no energy. This is essential for any perpetual motion system – such as the universe itself is. Only one system satisfies this condition. It’s not scientific randomness, nor the Abrahamic God, nor Eastern Oneness. It’s the generalised Euler Formula of ontological mathematics: the God Equation.

The Zero Theorem The zero theorem is the answer to existence. The zero theorem states that everything adds up to nothing, that all is for nothing, and that nothing is for nothing. The answer to why there is something rather than nothing is in fact that something is nothing. Nothing is something arranged perfectly, perfectly symmetrically, in perfect balance, with perfect order. The only thing that allows something and nothing to be ontologically equated is ontological mathematics, via the God Equation, the perfect encapsulation of something as nothing. The universe must be in a permanent ground state of nothing. The universe must have a net energy expenditure of zero, while also having infinite energy (that balances overall to zero), which allows it to exist forever (the perfect perpetual motion system). The God Equation must be as simple and economic as possible, while explaining everything: all noumena and all phenomena. Why are all religious prophets, all New Age gurus, and all scientific pontificators, charlatans? Why are their theories of existence false? It’s because none of these people ever states the God Equation, and none ever states the fundamental, rational conditions that must apply to eternal, necessary existence.

It’s nauseating when we find charlatans – who have done nothing to specify and define the fundamental conditions of ontology – using their silly and irrational Mythos opinions to try to debunk our system. It’s like listening to Christians quoting from the Bible to “prove” their point. The ontological truth of everything is the Singularity – where nothing (zero) and everything (infinity; eternity) come together. The God Equation is exactly that which defines the Singularity and also each monadic singularity within the Collective Monadic Singularity. As above, so below. The Singularity is inherently immaterial and outside space and time, hence mental. The Singularity is a Fourier frequency domain. The physical world is the material Fourier spacetime domain derived from the Fourier frequency domain. That’s it! It’s that simple. The Singularity is an eternal, immaterial, indestructible, living organism outside space and time. It’s not “God”; it’s not a conscious being. Rather, it’s an organism made of countless autonomous living units (monads). These are souls. The Singularity is Soul World and the task of all souls in Soul World is to convert all of their potential into actualisation – to become Gods! At the end of a Cosmic Age, Soul World becomes God World – heaven – comprising a Community of Gods. Every soul has attained divinity. There are no masters and no slaves, just Gods. God doesn’t create the universe. The universe creates Gods. It’s a God Factory, generating Gods via dialectical mathematics. Some souls achieve divinity much sooner than others. In Illuminism, the first soul to achieve divinity is the First God and is named Abraxas. His task is to bring all other souls up to his status. However, many souls dialectically resist him as much as possible. They worship False Gods, listen to False Prophets, place their faith in false gurus and false holy texts, subscribe to false philosophies and religions. Only the enlightened ones – the Illuminati – hear the call of Abraxas. It’s the call of Reason, of rational Enlightenment. The Illuminati are those on earth who are closest to divinity. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Karmists, scientific materialists, “democrats”, monarchists, free-market capitalists, libertarians, liberals, anarchists, nihilists, atheists, agnostics, and so on, are as far from the truth as you can get. The truth is ontological mathematics and the Illuminati are the ontological mathematikoi.

Isn’t it time to become enlightened? Isn’t it time to become part of the Community of Gods? The choice is yours, but only the intelligent and rational will make the right choice, never the people of faith (the religious), and the people of the senses (the scientists and skeptics). Ontological mathematics constitutes the principle of sufficient reason – the true and sole explanation of everything. If you are against the principle of sufficient because you believe that your feelings, faith, intuitions or senses trump reason, God help you! You will go through life as one of the damned, and only at the very end of this Cosmic Age will you find and see the light. The Illuminati will be in paradise – as Gods – billions of years before you. Eventually, you will be on your knees to them, worshipping them, just as the ancient Greeks worshipped the Olympians. The only person stopping you from becoming God is you. You have to be smart to become God and you can’t be smart if you resist the principle of sufficient reason. If you do, you are by definition irrational, and there’s no hope and no salvation for the stupid. It’s not “goodness” that gets you into heaven, it’s intelligence.

Precision Many people are petrified of having an exact solution to existence. They think it takes away the “mystery”. They don’t want a God Equation that explains everything. They resist it as much as they can. A “God” (a person) is reassuring and attractive to many people, but an impersonal, cold, implacable, abstract God Equation definitely isn’t. Mystics, charlatans, prophets and gurus (who are frequently the same people!) seek scope to bullshit, obfuscate and con people. That’s impossible when confronted with a God Equation. Do you imagine that the likes of Mohammed, David Icke or Ken Wilber would wield any power or influence in a society that acknowledged a God Equation? They would be laughed out of town. With mathematics, there’s no hiding place. There’s no scope for pooling the wool over anyone’s eyes. You have to put up or shut up. It’s all too revealing that our critics never propose a God Equation, or any criteria for such an equation. Yet what sane person would deny that existence must be defined by one complete and consistent equation? How could it be otherwise? If you want to explain a rational, ordered, patterned,

organised, causal, deterministic universe, how are you going to do so without a grand unified equation that reflects all of those qualities? If you had multiple, inconsistent equations (such as science provides), you would be in the situation of Cartesian substance dualism, finding it impossible to explain how things interact and which of the competing equations anything is obeying at any one time. There can be only one God Equation and it must explain the entirety of ontology and epistemology. It takes the role of the Platonic “Good”, the supreme Form (Formula!), from which everything else is derived. It must be a Formula that reflects total order, total causality, total determinism, total precision and the principle of sufficient reason. It must explain exactly why something = nothing, and must itself have a net effect of zero, while also reflecting infinite energy that allows it to go on forever. Paradoxically, a perfect system that continuously generates a net effect of zero must ipso facto be a system that goes on eternally. After all, it requires nothing and expends nothing. These are the requirements for eternal action.

***** In Dante’s Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, the Primum Mobile (“first moved”) was the outermost moving sphere in the geocentric model of the universe, and it moved because of its love of God (the Prime Mover), wanting to experience every part of him in equal measure, and thus moving with perfect spherical motion. The “love of God” is not, it has to be said, a very good explanation of the source of motion in the universe. The true source of motion is actually the need of the controlling equation of the universe – the God Equation – to produce a net energy of zero, while cycling through all possible numbers in the universe. When Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all”, he had intuited the God Equation, which rules all, controls all, and defines all ontological numbers. It’s essential for no ontological number to be privileged over any other. The God Equation ensures that this is so. Have you ever heard clowns like David Icke, Ken Wilber, the Pope, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox stating such ontological considerations? They are all peddlers of delusions and Mythos. They haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.

We will never take anyone seriously if they cannot state exactly why something = nothing, and how this is accomplished mathematically, rationally and causally. We simply don’t listen to irrationalists, mystics, people of faith and people of the senses. If you can’t provide a precise answer to existence, anything you have to say about existence is worthless. It’s just your opinion. Only the eternal truths of reason transcend opinion and belief. These alone can never be challenged, and they are all defined by the complete, consistent and eternal system of ontological mathematics. That’s a fact. Who will disagree with us? – the usual suspects: the extraverts, the sensing types, the feeling types, the mystics, the believers. But we don’t care about these people. We’re interested only in the people in touch with reason, and such people are infinitely more likely to agree with us than disagree with us. After all, we are the hyperrationalists, the mathematikoi.

***** What is truth? Is it about feelings, the senses, mystical intuitions or reason? If this is a rational universe – which it is – then reason is the only route to finding its answer. To oppose us is to oppose reason itself. We have no time for the irrational, and no interest in their irrational arguments.

The War of Reason How can the problems of the human race be solved? Only by the triumph of reason. Until humanity is rational, war, strife, inequality, horror, terror, fanaticism, discrimination, prejudice, racism, sexism, nationalism, cronyism, nepotism, are all inescapable. The sole antidote to the slaughterbench is reason. Only through reason can we build heaven on earth. The irrational will not go peacefully. The question is what are the rational prepared to do about that? The equation is stark – heaven on earth requires the rule of the rational, but the irrational vastly outnumber the rational and will never let the rational rule. While the irrational rule, there can be only hell on earth. But

how do you get rid of irrational so that the rational are in charge and we can finally have heaven on earth? The Demiurge, the False God, rules the irrational and presides over hell. Abraxas, the True God, the God of Reason, is the inspiration of the rational and presides over heaven. The brutal, dialectical logic of evolution is that the rational must turn their reason against the irrational and devise a Final Solution for stupidity and the stupid. Otherwise, the irrational will deliver a Final Solution against the intelligent. In the Dark Ages and much of the Abrahamic Age, the intelligent have been perilously close to total extinction. The stupid breed much more rapidly than the smart. Why aren’t the smart clever enough to confront the consequences of that? A war between the stupid and the smart is inevitable. It will be the most cataclysmic war in history, the war when the problem of Abrahamism and Karmism is resolved once and for all.

The Elites The world has always been ruled by elites. The first elite was that of psychopaths – the violent alpha males who ruled their tribes through force and terror. The next was the religious elite – shamans, high priests, prophets and anointed kings who claimed to be linked to divine forces. Next came the military elite – generals and dictators like Julius Caesar. In the modern day, we have a political and cultural elite predicated, disingenuously, on “democracy”. However, true power lies with the financial elite – the freemarket capitalists. The world has never once been ruled by an intellectual elite. Revolutionary France was as close as it got. The world has always been ruled by Power elites of one kind or another. The only elite that has never ruled is the intellectual elite. The smart people have always been the servant of other elites. This has to change. The destiny of the human race is for an intellectual elite with an audacious Nietzschean morality to seize control and dictate terms to everyone else – to the stupid, the religious, the monarchs, the “democrats”, the dynastic families of privilege, the rich capitalists. For humanity to evolve, the smart must be in charge. The smart must ensure that everyone else is forced to be free, as Rousseau put it. If we don’t

rule, we will be ruled, and the human race will never fulfil its potential. The dialectic demands that the smart have the strength of will to take over, and to show no mercy to anyone who obstructs the evolution of humanity.

The Four Types of People 1) People of faith (Abrahamists) feel their way through life. 2) People of mysticism (Eastern religion and New Age thinking) intuit their way through life. 3) People of empiricism and “evidence” (Doubting Thomas and the scientists) sense their way through life. 4) People of reason and proof (ontological mathematicians and metaphysicists) think their way through life. Your Myers-Briggs psychological type determines everything about how you respond to the world. Radically different types can’t understand each other at all. However, there is no relativism of truth. Some types are enormously better suited to truth than others, and some are enormously better suited to lies and delusion. As Nietzsche realised, lies can be far more life-enhancing and successful than the truth, which is why our world is ruled by lies and delusion, by faith and Mythos, by irrationalism.

***** What kind of people fall under the spell of Eastern religion, mysticism and New Age gurus? They are intuitive feeling types. They talk about love and light, about universal, unconditional love, about universal peace, about cosmic consciousness, and so on. They call themselves “light workers” and they are always prattling on about spirituality. What kind of people become disillusioned with New Age thinking? – those who are borderline intuitive thinking types. Intuitive thinkers are those attracted to ontological mathematics. What type of people become disillusioned with ontological mathematics? – those who are borderline intuitive feelers, who start to feel it cold and overly rational.

What kind of people fall under the spell of scientific materialism? They are the sensing thinking types. What kind of people become disillusioned with science? – those who are borderline intuitive feeling and intuitive thinking types. Intuition simply does not sit well with science. What kind of people fall under the spell of Abrahamism? They are feeling sensing types, totally estranged from intuition and reason. All rational and intuitive people eventually break away from Abrahamism, even if subjected to relentless Abrahamic brainwashing throughout their childhood. Those who stay are too stupid to go anywhere else. Mystics are estranged from reason, Abrahamists are estranged from reason, scientists are estranged from intuition and reason, and ontological mathematicians are estranged from the spell-casting qualities of the feelings and the senses. They are therefore the least deluded, the least ruled by their heart and gut, the most ruled by their head.

***** “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” – Voltaire This is the typical scientific view. The ontological mathematical view is: “Doubt is unnecessary, and certainty is divine.” Who doesn’t want an answer, the answer? And the answer really is there. It’s nothing but the principle of sufficient reason, defined by the God Equation.

***** A tribute site to New Age guru Ken Wilber ended up becoming highly critical of him. This is a frequent trajectory. The most loyal often become the worst turncoats when the gloss wears off. The site accused Wilber of ignoring his critics and becoming “cultlike” in his attitude. It urged him to behave more in the way of science and philosophy. Eh?! Science is the cult of empiricism and materialism. Try getting anywhere at all in science by espousing rationalism and idealism and you’ll quickly discover how receptive science is to critical, challenging, freethinking. As for philosophy, the followers of the cult of Anglo-American “analytic” philosophy attempted to block French “continental” philosopher Jacques Derrida from receiving an honorary degree, labelling him a charlatan and denying that he

was a philosopher at all. Well, that certainly demonstrates an open mind, doesn’t it? The fact is that all systems of thought and belief are cults. That’s inevitable in a world of sixteen different Myers-Briggs types that perceive and comprehend reality entirely differently. Each type operates much like a tribe. Some Myers-Briggs tribes get along quite well, but most of the rival tribes represent the “enemy”. Science is the tribe of sensing thinking types, and you will resist science if you don’t belong to that tribe. Illuminism is primarily for introverted intuitive thinkers, and we expect to be totally misunderstood, misinterpreted, vilified, criticised and opposed by the other tribes. That’s life. We reject all criticism that comes from alien tribes since they invariably haven’t understood anything we’ve said. Of course, our rivals will equally say that we haven’t understood them. The difference is that our critique of their systems comes from our stance of hyperrationalism. We don’t care, for example, how much emotional satisfaction and comfort Abrahamism gives to its followers. We are interested only in how irrational Abrahamism is. We don’t care about how much intuitive mysticism appeals to Eastern religious types and New Agers. All we care about is the rational coherence, or otherwise, of these beliefs. We don’t care about the scientific obsession with sensory evidence. We ask what is the rational basis for this slavish worship of the senses and the rejection of everything non-sensory. You will agree with us if you are rational. Otherwise, you will oppose and denounce us, and spend a great deal of time trying to pick holes in our position. You won’t succeed because you will of course be arguing irrationally, using your senses, feelings or mystical intuitions. We will ignore you for the clowns you are. We live in an intelligible universe, not a sensible, emotional or mystical universe, and reason is the only way to methodically interface with the true world of intelligibility. Only an intelligible universe has a definitive answer. The Abrahamists hope and pray that their irrational God exists. The Eastern religious types and New Agers hope and pray that their irrational mystical visions are true, and the scientists have concluded that the universe is just a giant, meaningless, random accident – which is the precise opposite of an answer to life, the universe, and everything. Imagine a computer that worked on the answer to everything for billions of years and came up with this answer, namely, it’s a random fluctuation in

nothing, a total accident that has no meaning whatsoever. Would you thank the computer for that? Yet that’s the “answer” science gives. It might as well have said that the universe is the product of magic. No rationalist would ever accept such an irrational answer under any circumstances, and there can be no rational basis on which it’s true.

***** If we accomplish nothing else with this book, we will be content if you put it down with the knowledge that science is a religion – a religion of the senses – a cult, a sect. Scientists form a gang, a tribe, with its own strange customs and rituals. There are only two fundamental ways to view reality: rationally or irrationally. We are the only ones who uphold the rational position. If you are rational, you will join us. If you’re not, you will oppose us. So it goes.

Believing your own Propaganda AS: “I only follow my heart and my own logic.” No, you either follow your feelings or you follow logic, which is universal, not “yours”. Countless irrational people believe they are being rational and logical when they simply follow their own feelings.

***** “The cost of sanity, in this society, is a certain level of alienation.” – Terence McKenna Actually, the alienation is more or less total.

Leaving If you’re rational, it’s time to leave behind the irrational Cult of Science (the worship of the senses). It’s time to join the rationalists, the mathematikoi – the Illuminati.

Sophists

Like Plato, we divide “intellectuals” into two groups: sophists and philosophers. The sophists are false intellectuals (pseudo-intellectuals) and the philosophers are true intellectuals. Only false intellectuals would claim that a meaningless, random universe is the truth of existence when completely rational, meaningful alternatives are readily available. The likes of Dawkins, Hawking and Cox are all sophists.

The Attack A book attacking the ideology of Richard Dawkins is invariably assumed to be a defence of religious faith. Nothing could be further from the truth in this case. This book equates faith with insanity. Instead, it argues that we live in the hyperrational reality of ontological mathematics. We attack the scientific dogma of Dawkins and his fellow travellers for being incompatible with ontological mathematics, and, in fact, for constituting a quasi-religious, hence a mad faith in empiricism, materialism, randomness and meaninglessness (nihilism), all of which are refuted by ontological mathematics, which reflects the principle of sufficient reason. Are you rational enough for the truth? Are you intelligent enough to be an ontological mathematician? Many are called, few are chosen.

***** Empiricists have no right at all to invoke mathematics. Mathematics is innate, not empirical; it’s a priori (before experience), not a posteriori (after experience); it’s analytic, not synthetic; it’s necessary, not contingent; it’s eternal, not temporal, it’s deductive, not inductive. Science – an empiricist philosophy – is successful purely because it invalidly and illegitimately uses mathematics – the quintessential anti-empiricist subject – as its engine. Philosophical rationalism failed precisely because it did not see how to use mathematics. What it needed to do was turn to the mathematics of the dimensionless and unextended, the noumenal mathematics of singularities (autonomous Fourier frequency domains = monads). Thanks to Illuminism, metaphysics, rationalism and idealism can now be full resurrected – but now as ontological mathematics rather than as philosophy. Science, which has hitherto dominated mathematics, can now be pushed off its pedestal and

replaced with proper mathematics, the mathematics of existence: ontological mathematics. The sole reason why physics was so successful, and metaphysics so unsuccessful, was that science used mathematics (even though, as an empiricist subject, it wasn’t entitled to use a rationalist subject), and metaphysics didn’t. That was because science is about matter and matter can be mathematically measured, while metaphysics is about mind, and only the mathematics of singularities are relevant to mind. Singularities are the most complex mathematical entities of all since they have nothing to do with extension and dimensionality. They are all about immaterial frequencies outside space and time that can never be measured. There is no observational method, such as the scientific method, to help metaphysics. It can rely on pure mathematics alone. It requires the greatest mathematical geniuses ever. Are you one of them?! If so, it’s time for you to change the world.

Evolution Imagine evolution as a teleological, dialectical mind. Each evolutionary species is a “thought”, and all of the thoughts are battling it out, and constantly mutating. They are all subject to a selection process (“natural selection”). Would we be able to say what evolution, depicted in such terms, is “thinking”? It’s thinking many things, but some of its thoughts are more successful, dominant and powerful than others. On Earth, the human species might be called the dominant thought, the most important thought, the thought that most defines evolution on Earth, but it certainly isn’t the only thought, and, if the main thought should fail, the focus will switch to other thoughts (other species).

The Ladder of Lies Extraverts lie more than introverts. Feeling types (Abrahamists) lie more than thinking types (rationalists). Sensing types (scientists) lie more than intuitives (Platonists). Introverted thinking intuitives are the most truthful people in the world. Extraverted feeling sensing types (the majority of humanity) are the least

truthful people in the world. The less rational you are, the further from truth you are. Feeling types have a struggle even to understand the concept of truth. “Truth” is whatever they feel to be true at any particular instant, and it can be 100% different the next instant, yet feeling types are certain they have been truthful from beginning to end without missing a beat. Abrahamism is the religion for feeling types, the religion of lies that fools proclaim as true.

Ontological Feelings What are beliefs made of? What are feelings made of? What are desires made of? What are thoughts, ideals, ambitions, hopes, fears, neuroses, and psychoses made of? What is the will made of? What is free will made of? Are they all made of different things? Do they spring into of existence out of nothing? Are they “random fluctuations”? Are they grounded in atoms, in lumps of non-sentient, dead, mindless, material “stuff”? Isn’t it extraordinary that in all the talk about these things, not one person has ever said what these things actually are; how they are capable of existing in the world at all. In fact, all of these things are made of sinusoidal waves in different combinations. They all have exactly the same ground – ontological mathematics. They are just information signals. Any theory that does not say exactly what thoughts and feelings are is bunk. Everything is bunk except ontological mathematics.

The Children of Eternity Why are children so different from their parents? Why are children so different from their siblings? Why are even identical twins so different? It’s because they are eternal minds linked to bodies. It’s the bodies that are linked by genes, not the monads that provide the souls for the bodies. Your “parents” aren’t your parents at all. They are the parents only of your body, not of your soul. Your soul is just as old as theirs. It’s even possible that you were once their parent in a past life!

The Gospel of Materialism

“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” – Democritus Actually, that itself is an opinion. A false opinion. In fact, nothing exists except mental atoms (monads), and there’s no such thing as empty space. Monads are made of sinusoidal waves that perfectly balance to zero. Atoms and empty space constitute an invalid “substance dualism”. You can have empty space or you can have atoms. You can’t have both. Reality is a monism. Mental atoms are made of sinusoidal waves that have a net result of zero. That’s the only way you can get something and nothing to co-exist.

The Truth Humanity isn’t designed for the truth. Even if it were handed to them on a plate, they still wouldn’t recognise it, and they would still shun it. That’s the essence of the human condition.

The Universal Stuff “The stuff of the universe is mind stuff.” – George Wald In fact, the stuff of the universe is mathematical stuff, which expresses itself in two ways: mentally and materially.

Darwin and Lamarck “When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species, he continued to give credence to what he called ‘use and disuse inheritance’, but rejected other aspects of Lamarck’s theories. ... Darwin’s Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism. Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Pangenesis, which he emphasised was a hypothesis, was based on the idea that somatic cells would, in response to environmental stimulation (use and disuse), throw off

‘gemmules’ or ‘pangenes’ which travelled around the body (though not necessarily in the bloodstream). These pangenes were microscopic particles that supposedly contained information about the characteristics of their parent cell, and Darwin believed that they eventually accumulated in the germ cells where they could pass on to the next generation the newly acquired characteristics of the parents. ... Gemmules, also called plastitudes or pangenes, were assumed to be shed by the organs of the body and carried in the bloodstream to the reproductive organs where they accumulated in the germ cells or gametes. They thus provided a possible mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, which Darwin believed to be a cause of the observed variation in living organisms. ... His pangenesis theory was criticised for its Lamarckian premise that parents could pass on traits acquired in their lifetime.” – Wikipedia “Darwin proposed that some limited effects from the environment might become embedded in an individual’s constitution and thus be liable to be transmitted, via the gemmules, to the offspring. ... But Darwin now wanted to include in his scheme the possibility of the inheritance of some limited acquired characteristics. Pangenesis gave him the chance to be Lamarckian without any of Lamarck’s inner strivings. As he put it, some aspects of the external environment could modify the inheritable gemmules. ... In variations caused by the direct actions of changed conditions ... certain parts of the body are directly affected by the new conditions, and consequently throw off modified gemmules, which are transmitted to the offspring.” – E. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place “Pangene: A hypothetical particle which acts as bearer of heritable character that can be transmitted from parent to offspring as postulated by Charles Darwin in his theory of pangenesis. In pangenesis, pangenes are imagined particles of inheritance proposed by Charles Darwin. Pangenes are thought to be shed from every part of the body, circulate freely in the bloodstream and move towards the gonads where they accumulate in the germ cells. They are supposed to be transmitted from the parent to the offspring but are in the dormant state until atavism [recurrence in an organism of a trait or character typical of an ancestral form] occurs.” – http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Pangene

What is the cause of genetic mutation? Materialists will always turn to mindless, randomist explanations. Idealists will look for teleological explanations. The actual cause of genetic mutation is Fourier mathematics. The Fourier frequency domain – the mental domain – is the cause of material changes in the spacetime domain. Individual monadic minds seek to evolve through the bodies they control. They need better and better bodies, more and more powerful bodies, especially intellectually. So, monads alter genes in order to become better adapted. There’s no such thing as mere random mutation. Everything has a cause, a sufficient reason. Monadic minds mutate genes. The most powerful monadic minds produce the most effective and powerful mutations. Why have our ape relatives ceased to evolve in any significant way in recent times? Why haven’t they evolved to be like us? It’s because now that we exist, all the most powerful monadic minds are linked to humans. The remaining monadic minds are much less successful at bringing about the sort of radical genetic mutation that was necessary to allow us to separate ourselves from the animals. They never will – unless the human race is wiped out!

***** There are minds even higher than human minds – the minds of “angels” (archons and phosters), and Gods! There are very few of these since they are the most powerful minds in the universe.

Neo-Lamarckianism “One of the most emotionally compelling arguments used by the neoLamarckians of the late nineteenth century was the claim that Darwinism was a mechanistic theory which reduced living things to puppets driven by heredity. The selection theory made life into a game of Russian roulette, where life or death was predetermined by the genes one inherited. The individual could do nothing to mitigate bad heredity. Lamarckism, in contrast, allowed the individual to choose a new habit when faced with an environmental challenge and shape the whole future course of evolution.” – Peter J. Bowler “Neo-Lamarckian versions of evolution were widespread in the late 19th century. The idea that living things could to some degree choose the

characteristics that would be inherited allowed them things to be in charge of their own destiny as opposed to the Darwinian view, which made them puppets at the mercy of the environment. ... Supporters of neo-Lamarckism such as George Bernard Shaw and Arthur Koestler claimed that Lamarckism is more humane, and optimistic than Darwinism.” – Wikipedia Darwinism, like all the rest of materialism, is hopeless, pointless, purposeless, random and meaningless. If we inhabit a teleological, mental universe, Darwinism is ipso facto false.

Desperate Remedies It’s said that a desperate disease requires a desperate remedy. With the advent of quantum mechanics, science was faced with a desperate “disease” – the apparent wholesale collapse of classical physics. Science was never going to be the same again, but it had two potential remedies for the “weirdness” exhibited by quantum mechanics. One was to appeal to rationalist, deterministic, hidden variables, outside the reach of the scientific method, i.e. to admit that the scientific method was necessarily of limited value when it came to addressing the ultimate truths of existence. The second was to defend the scientific method to the last ditch by making measurement and observation the be-all-and-end-all, the quintessence of reality no less. That was possible only by invoking ultra empiricism, indeterminism and the rejection of objective reality, i.e. the denial of a world that continues to exist even when no one is observing or measuring it. Science chose the latter option and thus abandoned any claim to being a rational subject. The “cure” has proved deadlier than the disease. It’s impossible for science to address ultimate reality within its current Meta Paradigm. A revolutionary paradigm shift is required if science is to make any contribution to answering the “big questions” of existence. The required change that science must make is to recognise mathematics, not the scientific method, as the true basis of science. It’s extremely improbable that scientists are rational enough to make this transition. Science is a religion, a system of unshakeable faith in the senses. Science obeys a verification principle that can’t be verified and a falsification principle that can’t be falsified. It therefore has no rational

basis whatsoever.

The Enemies of Truth People such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris claim to be on the side of reason and truth. In fact, they are the uttermost enemies of reason and truth, and they have led millions astray with their pernicious and absurd beliefs. Their effect has been as malign as that of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Where the latter invented a Mythos based on irrational feelings, the former have invented a Mythos based on their irrational senses. They have inverted the truth and turned their backs on reason. Reason and truth are to be found in only one place – ontological mathematics. Anyone who is not mathematically illuminated will forever be on the side of the forces of darkness.

Everything Changes Your whole understanding of reality is changed the moment you grasp that things can exist dimensionlessly as well as dimensionally, i.e. there’s a nonsensory world as well as a sensory world. The sensory world is that of spacetime, and the non-sensory world that of frequency, the two domains being linked by Fourier mathematics. Frequency domains are immaterial singularities outside space and time. The existence of such singularities (which are of course scientifically unobservable) destroys the whole empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science, and, without that Meta Paradigm, everything said by the likes of Richard Dawkins is automatically invalidated. So, we say to all of the followers of the strange cult of science, prove that frequency singularities (mathematical minds = monads) do not exist. If you cannot do so, admit that all of your materialist assumptions are ipso facto false. This is not a religious question, a question of faith, such as Dawkins is accustomed to rubbishing. This is a rational question of ontological mathematics, a subject about which Dawkins knows nothing. If ontological mathematics is true, traditional science is entirely false. Unless Dawkins admits this, then he himself is a person of faith, a person who worships the quasi-religion of scientific materialism and is as bad as the Abrahamists he routinely condemns.

To put it another way, if Fourier mathematics, with its two distinct but complementary domains of frequency and spacetime, reflects the ontology of reality then scientific materialism cannot be correct. We challenge all scientific materialists to disprove ontological Fourier mathematics. Throughout the God Series, we have shown that Fourier mathematics fully explains all of the great issues of religion and metaphysics, as well as comprehensively explaining science itself. To oppose ontological mathematics is to embrace total irrationalism for the sake of dogmatism and ideology. And that’s not science!

The Machine People Scientists = machine people who oppose meaning, purpose, causality, determinism, intentionality, dialectics, teleology, the principle of sufficient reason, ontological mathematics, autonomous mind, will and free will. Are you one of the machine people? Are you even human if you’re a scientist? You’re certainly not rational.

***** Illuminism isn’t open to everyone, only to the smart. Illuminism is a meritocracy. It’s not available to those without merit. And it’s not available to the irrational – the Abrahamists, Karmists and scientific materialists.

Implausible “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.” – Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist NeoDarwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False Philosopher Thomas Nagel says existence is “biased toward the marvellous”, is teleological, and mind is intrinsic to the cosmos. He’s absolutely right. We can’t stress enough that the only thing holding back a mental rather than material conception of reality is that it has been impossible, outside of the Illuminati, for anyone to provide a mathematical defence of idealism. Ontological mathematics is exactly that mathematical defence, hence is an absolute game changer.

***** “Nagel’s point of view regarding the nature of the mind is called neutral monism, or more specifically double-aspect theory. Instead of classical dualism, which postulates mind or soul and brain as separate entities, or modern-day materialism, which flatly denies the existence of the mind (and therefore the mind-body problem itself), double-aspect theory postulates a ‘third Something’ which has both mind and brain as its aspects. Big advantage of this view is that the sphere of the mind is clearly acknowledged, at least in theory. But an even bigger disadvantage is that nobody has the faintest idea what this ‘third Something’ is supposed to be, or how it has given rise to these mental (M) and physical (P) aspects. Some have equated it with God, some leave the whole question open.” – Frank Visser Er, Frank – try reading the God Series! Ontological mathematics is the “third Something”, the neutral monism that supports a dual aspect. The dual aspect is fully defined by Fourier mathematics. The Fourier frequency domain is mind and the Fourier spacetime domain is matter. Mind resides in the frequency domain, and body in the material domain.

The Highest If you don’t have the highest ambitions, you will never achieve anything great. If you’re “realistic” rather than “idealistic”, you will inevitably accept failure because failure is always the realistic outcome of any undertaking. Samuel Beckett said, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.” That’s idealistic, not realistic. The realist would just give up. Illuminism is about aiming for the highest heights. If you prefer the plains, the lows, the average, the ordinary, the banal, the bland, the uncommitted, the neutral, the self-interested, the “realistic”, Illuminism is not for you. “If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be.” – Maya Angelou

***** “6,000 feet beyond man and time.” – Nietzsche

“Man is something that shall be overcome.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and Superman – a rope over an abyss.” – Nietzsche “I teach you the Superman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?” – Nietzsche “And life itself told me this secret: ‘Behold,’ it said, ‘I am that which must overcome itself again and again.’” – Nietzsche “All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment? And man shall be just that for the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment...” – Nietzsche “The Superman is the meaning of the earth.” – Nietzsche

The Coming of the “Scientist”, of the “Dawkins” “Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.” – Nietzsche “‘What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?’ thus asks the last man, and blinks.” – Nietzsche “The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.” – Nietzsche “‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one’s neighbour and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...” – Nietzsche

***** Superman (Illuminist) or Last Man (Scientist)? Your choice. We must surpass man. We must become Gods.

Conclusion

No one should be in any doubt that science is a quasi-religion, opposed to rationalism. Richard Dawkins and his ilk subscribe to empiricism, the philosophical opposite of rationalism. They are not led to that position via their reason, but by their irrational senses, to which they are entirely in thrall. These people simply cannot conceive of a non-sensory reality, which is why they dismiss the non-sensory soul as a fantasy. The soul is a rational object of the intelligible domain, not a sensory object of the sensible domain. It’s noumenal, not phenomenal. It’s a singularity, outside space and time. It has a precise mathematical formula (the God Equation), but, of course, mathematics itself is not regarded as “real” by scientists. Where faith types are driven by the “logic” of their feelings, empiricist scientists are driven by the “logic” of their senses. However, the senses and feelings – compared with the reason of thinking types – are entirely irrational and illogical. Faith is the religion of feelings, which requires a personal God with whom to have a personal relationship. Science is the religion of the senses, which requires no relationship with any “God”, but does require a relationship with what can be perceived. Anything that cannot be perceived, according to the Church of Science, cannot exist. Richard Dawkins is the Pope of this Church, the Pope of Unreason. He’s as biased as the other Pope, the Pope of the Church of Faith. Science and religion are both giant Mythos structures. The former is built on the Mythos of the senses, and the latter on the Mythos of feelings. They can’t communicate with each other because sensing types apprehend reality in a totally different way from feeling types. The former relate to the world through tangible, soulless things (machine parts; matter), and the latter through intangible relations with ensouled things (you can’t have a relationship with a soulless object such as a rock, or with a machine). Thinking types – rationalists – apprehend reality entirely differently from the sensing and feeling types. They apprehend it rationally and intelligibly, which means mathematically! Isn’t it time to become enlightened? Isn’t it time to join the Church of Reason? Abandon all of the other false, irrational religions. Embrace the Truth. Become one with your immortal, indestructible, mathematical soul. “God” did not create your soul. On the contrary, it is itself becoming God!

***** “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” – Heisenberg Why do so many scientists reach this absurd conclusion? The only thing waiting at the bottom of the glass of natural sciences is ontological mathematics. Physicist Henry Margenau said, in relation to Heisenberg, “Our conversation was intimate and he impressed me by his deep religious conviction. He was a true Christian in every sense of that word.” Oh dear! No wonder the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is so silly if it was produced by Christian types! If you start with an absurdity, you end with an absurdity. Derek Barton, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, said, “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.” This is true only if “God” is ontological mathematics. Christian Anfinsen, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, said, “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” The “incomprehensible power” is completely comprehensible: it’s ontological mathematics. If you reject ontological mathematics, you are left only with the idea that the universe is a meaningless accident, produced by a random fluctuation in nothing, or that there is some magical “God”. Walter Kohn, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, wrote, “There are essential parts of the human experience about which science intrinsically has nothing to say. I associate them with an entity which I call God.” That’s fine, as long as he means ontological mathematics when he refers to “God”.

***** Get real. Get enlightened. Get smart. If you want to talk of “God”, make sure you’re talking about ontological mathematics as God: perfect, eternal, infallible, indestructible, the source of all, the quintessence of reason. Mathematics is the Truth and the Light. Literally!

eiπ + 1 = 0